13-year-old girl becomes record-setting weight lifter (and she loves bacon !!!)

Muxel said:
I charted my problem out:
bitterness/snarkiness > dissatisfaction with the Matrix > self-importance
...
Um, that's not it. I've always been physically weak, so 70% of the girls I meet are stronger than me. (Here in America I would say 85%, although I may be confusing carb-guzzling sumo girls who jog on the sidewalks with strength.) If I ever had a physical-dominance-complex program, I would have been disillusioned by age 7. I detect some sort of vindictive feminism with you though. Not surprising, considering that we're ruled with psychopathic left-brained macho, but I do object to being used for target practice.

Muxel, considering that the government and corporations actively promulgate disinformation about what healthy eating really is, such that finding out what a healthy diet really is is incredibly difficult (along with other challenges in following such a diet), are the "carb-guzzling sumo girls" really the problem, or are they victims?

As well, and I could be reading wrong, but the line you quoted from Guardian sounded mostly like a joke (I imagine that Guardian hasn't determined in real life whether or not the weight-lifting girl could actually throw you around like a sack of potatoes), but seemed to strongly affect your self-importance. In the same posting, you say that you charted out your problem, but then demonstrate the continuation of your own feelings of self-importance and mechanized responses based on them.

I think your chart isn't quite right--it really sounds like you still have a feeling of self-dissatisfaction (vs matrix dissatisfaction), which generally rings throughout the paragraph I quoted. I've generally found in myself that every time I've looked into how I was "dissatisfied with the matrix", one might say, what I was really dissatisfied with was my "performance" in it. This may also tie into why you say that you disdain obyvatel pursuits. Weak or strong doesn't matter, whether you're "cool with the ladies" doesn't matter--why are you letting these programs affect you and turn into vitriol against others, especially the victims of the psychopathic elite?
 
Muxel said:
I charted my problem out:
bitterness/snarkiness > dissatisfaction with the Matrix > self-importance

Applying that pattern here, I was being (rebelliously) critical of anything media-related. So I tried to find fault with this news, and picked on the fact that she's not doing the Work, even though it made no sense to do so.

It also explains my disdain for obyvatel pursuits. Like I just threw all credibility of obyvateling out the window upon "waking up", to use the term loosely. I mean, I knew at least two guys who were into bodybuilding, and they were among the most decent guys I ever met. I'm surprised at having to remind myself that souls, not containers, matter. I thought I knew it all along.

Muxel, what is the above really supposed to mean? It reads like an intellectual excuse, meaning you've intellectualized your behavior, thus you think it's okay. As long as there is no change in your behavior (and judging from how you ended this post, there is no change in your behavior) then it's not okay.


m said:
Um, that's not it. I've always been physically weak, so 70% of the girls I meet are stronger than me. (Here in America I would say 85%, although I may be confusing carb-guzzling sumo girls who jog on the sidewalks with strength.) If I ever had a physical-dominance-complex program, I would have been disillusioned by age 7. I detect some sort of vindictive feminism with you though. Not surprising, considering that we're ruled with psychopathic left-brained macho, but I do object to being used for target practice.

I think you're projecting. The only vindictiveness coming through in this thread is from you. You also appear to have an issue with women, if this post is any indication at all, so you might want to deeply understand that if you do have an issue with women, you need to solve it, because it won't fly here.
 
dannybananny said:
recommended age for lifting heavy weights is 18 years.

Recommended by who? Some skinny little government bureaucrat that kid could probably bench press by the time she was 10?
 
Guardian said:
395943_2849467248634_1618070801_2519581_2019974626_n.jpg

The difference in expressions between the single woman lifting the giant log vs the 5+ military men is great! :lol:
 
Foxx said:
(I imagine that Guardian hasn't determined in real life whether or not the weight-lifting girl could actually throw you around like a sack of potatoes)

Well I hadn't before his last post.
 
Foxx said:
The difference in expressions between the single woman lifting the giant log vs the 5+ military men is great! :lol:

Yeah :lol: The woman's expression looks like "Hmmm, now where am I going to put this light-pole? Maybe over there by the "Slippery when Wet" and "Stop" signs?"
 
Guardian said:
dannybananny said:
recommended age for lifting heavy weights is 18 years.

Recommended by who? Some skinny little government bureaucrat that kid could probably bench press by the time she was 10?

The coach brings this up in the video, that most people think it will affect a child's development if they do weight training before 18, but that this thinking is false. As long as they use the proper form and don't over due it, it's very good for young adults.
 
anart said:
The coach brings this up in the video, that most people think it will affect a child's development if they do weight training before 18, but that this thinking is false. As long as they use the proper form and don't over due it, it's very good for young adults.

Yeah, he did mention that...I suppose I should have said "Where do "most people" get what they "think" from..some skinny little government bureaucrat that kid could probably bench press by the time she was 10?" ;)
 
Hang on—that part about "sumo girls" was meant jokingly! Yes, I was alluding to how pathological diets made Americans fat. And I was strictly talking containers!

anart said:
Muxel, what is the above really supposed to mean? It reads like an intellectual excuse, meaning you've intellectualized your behavior, thus you think it's okay. As long as there is no change in your behavior (and judging from how you ended this post, there is no change in your behavior) then it's not okay.
I don't think it's okay. I know it's a problem. I intellectualized it so everybody could read what (I assumed) my problem was. I thought about it yesterday, and went off to do some reading, and today I decided to put it in words for my post.

BTW, I do not have "an issue with women"!

Foxx said:
I think your chart isn't quite right--it really sounds like you still have a feeling of self-dissatisfaction (vs matrix dissatisfaction), which generally rings throughout the paragraph I quoted. I've generally found in myself that every time I've looked into how I was "dissatisfied with the matrix", one might say, what I was really dissatisfied with was my "performance" in it. This may also tie into why you say that you disdain obyvatel pursuits.
There were times when I was dissatisfied with myself, or my "performance". Sometimes I'd feel confident, sometimes I'd feel extremely lacking. Sure. But my problem here is me being angry at the Matrix for not conforming to my expectations, which I realized is absurd of me.

Guardian said:
Seriously though, I thought we were just chatting about out reactions to stuff...which is kinda the point of the forum?
I'm sorry I overreacted to your last comment. I was just taken aback that you'd suggest I'm intimidated by a strong girl, like anart's suggestion that I have an issue with women.

truth seeker said:
I know it's difficult to feel as if you've been singled out. We've all been there at one time or another but perhaps you may want to take this opportunity to look a bit deeper?
Thanks truth seeker, I'll take this opportunity for more self-examination. I think I also need to develop my external considering. But if I see one more "Muxel hates women" comment... :headbash:
 
Muxel said:
But if I see one more "Muxel hates women" comment... :headbash:

Who said you "hate women?" I said I thought you might be intimidated by strong women. Maybe have a little Napoleonic thing going on, something like that...basically 'cause that's how you appear to be reacting to me? I could be wrong, it certainly happens, but you come across like little big man to me.
 
Muxel said:
But if I see one more "Muxel hates women" comment... :headbash:

I've also not seen anyone suggest you hate women Muxel...

[quote="Muxel" said:
I'm 5' 11". I often wish I were shorter, so I'd blend in and not be so awkward.

I'm 6'4" and remember feeling pretty awkward about this at times. Eventually I realized that it was something I had no control over (aside from exercises to increase coordination), and stopped worrying about it - it's not like we have the power to change our height.
 
SeekinTruth said:
I've been wondering about the dietary changes lately. If a top athlete were to have this diet, would it dramatically improve their performance? I tend to think it would, especially in terms of strength but probably in terms of endurance, as well.

Seems that is actually the case :)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576327624238594818.html

And thats old news form the last year. He is even better this year.

Here is very interesting text:

http://refusetoregain.com/refusetoregain/2011/08/novak-djokovic-the-diet-that-conquered-tennis.html

Novak Djokovic: The Diet That Conquered Tennis

by Barbara Berkeley, MD

For those of you who don't spend your days watching Tennis Channel, let me bring you up to date.

Since the current professional men's season began last year, Serbian tennis phenom Novak Djokovic has dominated his sport in a way that is nothing short of astounding. He has won 64 matches (including last week's U.S. Open) and lost only 2 and has ascended to the number one spot in the world (view Djokovic's website here) What makes this so incredible? He's done it in the very midst of the dominant era of unbeatable superstars Rafa Nadal and Roger Federer. Federer and Nadal have controlled the two top rankings in tennis since 2005 and, until recently, Rafa appeared poised to claim his spot as one of the greatest ever as he took over from a slightly slower 30 year old Federer.

Before this season began, Djokovic sat in the number three spot. His tennis was strong and sharp, but he often struggled with breathing problems, what seemed to be an episodic de-conditioning, and a mental attitude that made him prone to frustration and breaking things.

That Djokovic could so completely turn things around in one short season is mind-blowing. Sports writers chalk this up to a new confidence, a stronger serve, and a better mental game. Less frequently discussed is another intriguing factor: before this season began, Novak Djokovic gave up carbohydrates.

A piece written in May for the Wall Street Journal (see previous link) mentioned the diet change in its title, but gave it short shrift when discussing possible reasons for Djokovic’s near-miraculous improvement. Surely the change must have occurred because he gained confidence. Surely the dietary contribution is nothing more than a placebo.

The article quotes David Levinksy, a nutrition professor from Cornell:

Levitsky said a gluten-free diet might have benefits for those with mild allergies, or even no allergy at all. "The other part of the story is, if you believe in a cause of your disorder, it becomes the cause," he said. "We see this in many different studies. If you believe it, you change your behavior in the direction of being cured."

This explanation seems odd, considering that it appears in an article entitled, “Starch Madness: Novak Djokovic’s Domination of the Sport Has Coincided with His Gluten-Free Turn”. It’s as if the writer posed the question, but didn’t dare go after the answer. Is it possible that, in fact, cutting out carbohydrates made Djokovic into a better athlete? Is it possible that everything we've believed about the importance of loading our muscles with tons of starches is untrue? Is it possible that we can play endlessly taxing endurance sports without jamming ourselves full of pasta and potatoes? And is it possible that we might be better off for it?

It seems that world number 4 Andy Murray thought so. He has adopted the Djokovic diet. How much do you want to bet that others follow. By the way, Murray just became the second person to beat Djokovic this year (although Djokovic did have a shoulder injury and was forced to withdraw after a set). Commentators for the match remarked repeatedly about Murray’s fitness and ability to move around the court. Coincidence?

I have held a consistent view on diet and it is a view that I believe holds up when one examines Djokovic’s transformation. Rather than worry about individual dietary elements, we should attempt to eat foods that are most like the ones are bodies understand genetically. Since our genes are thousands of generations old, we need to look at the foods that were prevalent in those times: lean proteins, fats that come from natural sources (and thus have higher omega 3-6 ratios), vegetable and fruit matter, seafood, nuts and other naturally occurring plant foods. Sugars and starches (including grain) were not a part of that original diet and are processed poorly or even cause overt harm in those of us who are more “original” genetically. In addition, our body has certain fuel expectations. Large amounts of carbohydrates as fuel seem to me to be inconsistent with what our body was fine-tuned to expect.

In my own practice I treat many tennis players and runners who are significantly overweight despite many hours of intense exercise. When they change their diet to one that is primarily Primarian, they not only lose weight but they become more efficient at their sports. For those who are interested in pursuing very taxing endurance exercise like triathalons or marathons, I suggest reading the book Paleo Diet for Athletes by Loren Cordain and Joe Friel. This addresses the particular needs of those who require some additional carbohydrate when training for specific endurance events.

In my own life, I attribute the ability of my 63 year old body to run a 5K, play hours of tennis, and do aerobic exercise at high capacity to the right mix of fuels. I have no doubt in my mind that it is Primarian eating, and not placebo, that has kept me lean and strong.

Dietary beliefs die hard and unfortunately, our unwillingness to give up the conventional wisdom leads to real death, the death of those who develop diabetes, heart disease and cancer as a result of the profligate consumption of insulin stimulating carbohydrates.

Is the Djokovic diet phenomenon real? You bet it is.
 
Muxel said:
Hang on—that part about "sumo girls" was meant jokingly! Yes, I was alluding to how pathological diets made Americans fat. And I was strictly talking containers!
I really don't think you're being honest with yourself here because the joke wasn't funny, but cruel, and did not lean towards correctly placing the blame on the promulgators of bad information. Remember, they are victims of psychopathic disinformation--imagine if you were chronically inflamed and visually so, knowing that society has created an image in the minds of millions, if not billions, of people that your body type and disease are disgusting and likely trying desperately to change that about yourself, all the while hating yourself due to a pathologically created ideal image and the depression that results from said inflammation--now, if that were you, how funny would it be to hear the description "carb-guzzling sumo girls who jog on sidewalks"?

Muxel said:
anart said:
Muxel, what is the above really supposed to mean? It reads like an intellectual excuse, meaning you've intellectualized your behavior, thus you think it's okay. As long as there is no change in your behavior (and judging from how you ended this post, there is no change in your behavior) then it's not okay.
I don't think it's okay. I know it's a problem. I intellectualized it so everybody could read what (I assumed) my problem was. I thought about it yesterday, and went off to do some reading, and today I decided to put it in words for my post.

BTW, I do not have "an issue with women"!
The issue here is that you intellectualized it in yourself, rather than taking it as a moment of self-reflection, seeking through your emotions, and verbalizing the results. Do you really not have any negative feelings or unhealed past traumas about women? Why not say some "carb-guzzling sumo dudes"?

Muxel said:
Foxx said:
I think your chart isn't quite right--it really sounds like you still have a feeling of self-dissatisfaction (vs matrix dissatisfaction), which generally rings throughout the paragraph I quoted. I've generally found in myself that every time I've looked into how I was "dissatisfied with the matrix", one might say, what I was really dissatisfied with was my "performance" in it. This may also tie into why you say that you disdain obyvatel pursuits.
There were times when I was dissatisfied with myself, or my "performance". Sometimes I'd feel confident, sometimes I'd feel extremely lacking. Sure. But my problem here is me being angry at the Matrix for not conforming to my expectations, which I realized is absurd of me.
To me, even this still sounds like the problem is external in your feelings of where it is. I'm not sure you've actually identified where the "problem" is. I think it's emotional, but that you're looking for it in your intellectual center. You may "think" it's absurd, but "feel" that you're right.

Muxel said:
Guardian said:
Seriously though, I thought we were just chatting about out reactions to stuff...which is kinda the point of the forum?
I'm sorry I overreacted to your last comment. I was just taken aback that you'd suggest I'm intimidated by a strong girl, like anart's suggestion that I have an issue with women.
Again, if it weren't an issue for you, you likely would have interpreted it differently and not have been "taken aback".

Muxel said:
truth seeker said:
I know it's difficult to feel as if you've been singled out. We've all been there at one time or another but perhaps you may want to take this opportunity to look a bit deeper?
Thanks truth seeker, I'll take this opportunity for more self-examination. I think I also need to develop my external considering. But if I see one more "Muxel hates women" comment... :headbash:
If you had absolutely no issues in this regard, you wouldn't be concerned about seeing any more "Muxel hates women" comments, especially when there hasn't even yet been such a comment!

Muxel said:
I'm 5' 11". I often wish I were shorter, so I'd blend in and not be so awkward.
Remember what I said about feelings of self-dissatisfaction?

I'm not saying that you hate women--what I think from a limited observation is that you have unhealed past trauma with one or more women--my guess is probably rejection of one form or another--and it's still playing out and you're not being honest with yourself about the emotional nature of this trauma while trying to cover over it with intellectualization.

I really genuinely think that you're trying to gain some ground in The Work and, from my perspective, it sounds like you're still lying to yourself with some regularity, which is why I'm giving you this reflection :)
 
Muxel said:
I'm 5' 11". I often wish I were shorter, so I'd blend in and not be so awkward.

OK, now I'm confused? Why do you feel "awkard?" 5'9-10", 180 lbs, is average for a man in the US, and it really doesn't fit with the prior impression you gave:

"Um, that's not it. I've always been physically weak, so 70% of the girls I meet are stronger than me. (Here in America I would say 85%,"

The average woman in the US is 5'3-4" tall, and weighs about 150 lbs. Size is usually directly related to physical strength, so unless you are extremely thin and underdeveloped muscularly, I really don't see how 85% of American women can be stronger than you if you're 5'11"...unless there is a disability involved?
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom