Audio Grab Bag; Your Questions
Added 2024-06-15 21:01:11 +0000 UTCGang back.
Comments
Sure! Like I said, you can get really quite far if you focus on learning and progressing compound lifts like the squat, deadlift, overhead press, and bench press. These are all some of the most well studied, most utilized lifts out there. Here are some YouTube vids I can vouch for that teach you how to do them. Squat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs_Ej32IYgo Deadlift: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYREQkVtvEc Bench: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYKScL2sgCs Overhead Press: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wol7Hko8RhY To get the most out of these lifts, it's recommended to use a "program." That just means a protocol you follow to know, when you're going to the gym, how many repetitions (reps) of an exercise you should do. Following an established program is awesome because you don't have to do any research or thinking when you go to the gym. You just show up and the program tells you what to do. I can personally vouch for this one: https://thefitness.wiki/routines/gzclp/. I did this program pretty much word for word the first nine months I started weightlifting and saw really great results. Dead simple. Only six lifts. You can be in and out of the gym in like 30-40 mins most days. A word on nutrition: obviously, I don't know you or what your situation is, but if you take the nutrition part seriously you will be well rewarded with faster gains. If you're starting skinny, you will probably have to eat more than you ever have before. Probably a daily goal of about 3000-4000 calories a day with 0.7-1g of protein per lb of bodyweight. For reference, I started skinnier (150lb at 6ft) and I drank a half gallon of whole milk every day (including days when I wasn't working out) when I first started. If you're starting bigger, then it's best when you're getting started to just maintain your current calorie intake while eating way more protein (here, 0.7-1g of protein per lb of *goal* bodyweight). These are the pretty standard nutritional recs that you'll find most everywhere. That's about the high and low of it! It honestly is about that simple. If you ever have small questions, the subreddit /r/fitness is honestly quite helpful and has a daily questions thread. You will probably get a solid answer there. Good luck!
Kevin C
2024-07-15 21:24:33 +0000 UTCHey there, I'm looking to get into shape but I'm scared off from the sheer amount of huckstery out there. Have any links to help?
Barca206
2024-07-12 23:49:55 +0000 UTCTotally agree with Matt that getting jacked, especially as a beginner, is actually dead simple. You can get pretty damn far with like six lifts, if you focus on compound movements, eat enough (probably more than you think) and progressively overload. If any Bruhead wants resources, I can point you in the right directions. I think some confusion is caused by fitness influencers who are constantly having to put out new content and this need to push the “one new hack!” narrative that can muddy the waters. In reality, a handful of lifts, executed well, are all you really need for your first like year of training. After that you’ll have enough experience to decide your own direction.
Kevin C
2024-07-02 15:48:17 +0000 UTCJoe mazzula is famous in sports circles for having at least a touch of the tism. Y'all need to have him on to the top touch of the tism pod!
Aaron Cohen
2024-06-21 13:08:29 +0000 UTCIME, men who ask the body count question are fishing for something to hold over you. There is no number you could give them they won't be weird about. The only way to win is not to play.
KMB24
2024-06-19 22:02:28 +0000 UTCThank you for answering my question.
Andrea
2024-06-18 22:07:39 +0000 UTCDISCLAIMER: The following is an insanely long polemic screed against the pro-choice and pro-life arguments on the topic of abortion. If you are unfortunate enough to read all of this and not find any value in these sentences, then I am deeply sorry and I apologize in advance. To begin, I suppose what frustrates me the most about the abortion debate is that both the pro-life and pro-choice positions are logically flawed and incoherent in different ways but neither side readily acknowledges this. If we start with the pro-choice position, the most glaring inconsistency has to be the life status of the unborn child being completely dependent on the state of mind of the pregnant mother carrying it. If it is an unwanted baby, then the unborn child becomes a “fetus” that the pro-choice mother can terminate if she wishes to do so. But if the pro-choice mother wants to have a baby and decides to keep the fetus, she will then refer to the fetus as her “baby” throughout the course of her pregnancy. You could argue that in both scenarios the unborn child is always a fetus and therefore the pro-choice position is not unintelligible, but that argument is fundamentally dishonest in my opinion. That is not how pro-choice mothers regard their unborn children when they want to keep them, not in the real world. Why else would it be emotionally and psychologically traumatizing for pro-choice mothers to have miscarriages or stillborns if nothing was lost? With pro-life mothers you don’t have this cognitive dissonance because the unborn child is always a baby throughout all stages of gestation. Another problem with the pro-choice position is how they insist on making elective abortions available to all women, except when they get very uncomfortable over certain elective abortions that are done for ignoble reasons. Sex-selective abortions are already widespread in East Asia, particularly in China. These abortions are done for cultural reasons that favor families bearing male children. Countless millions of pregnancies have been terminated not because mothers were not ready to have children, or were too poor to afford them, or believed they would be unfit mothers, or didn’t have the father’s support in raising the children, but simply for the fact that the child was going to be born a girl. If that doesn’t give pause to pro-choice activists about unrestricted elective abortions, then nothing will. Are we comfortable with aborting fetuses that test for undesirable traits, like low IQ, height, and unattractive physical appearance? Again, pro-life mothers don’t have to this problem, because the babies’ status as a living being is never in question. Lastly, in my final negative critique of the pro-choice argument, I will delve into abortions that are the result of medically incorrect fetal diagnoses. According to Harvard Medical School, some 200,000 to 400,000 people die annually in the US due to medical errors (https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/medical-errors-honesty-is-the-best-policy-2016100310405#:~:text=Medical%20errors%20are%2C%20frankly%2C%20rampant,00%20lives%20lost%20per%20year.). Is it not conceivable, given this alarmingly high degree of institutional failure, that many hundreds, if not thousands of unborn children, are wrongfully aborted each year? What makes this utterly devastating is that these pro-choice mothers wanted to have these babies and they would have never aborted them if they knew their unborn children would survive. The tragedy is even more compounded when you take into account that if these mothers had been pro-life, then none of these children would have been terminated because pro-life mothers would have never considered an abortion in the first place. I acknowledge that it might be callous and unfeeling of me to highlight this problem, but I believe it is a legitimate and highly underreported criticism of the pro-choice movement that desperately needs to be addressed. Despite my misgivings towards the pro-choice position, I hope I don’t mistakenly impress upon the reader the inference that I might have any warm feelings towards the opposite movement. Let there be no confusion: the pro-life argument isn’t without its fatal flaws and logical inconsistencies, especially on the subject of abortion exemptions. This is particularly true with high risk pregnancies when the life of the mother is in jeopardy. In every conceivable life and death scenario you can think of where only one life can be saved and you must decide between saving the mother or her baby, the baby always, always has priority. So how can the “life of the mother” exemption make any sense whatsoever in the pro-life context? The fact that the baby is in the womb has no bearing on the sanctity of the babies’ life according to their worldview. This leads to what I believe is the one of greatest flaws in their argument. If pro-life proponents try to mitigate even some of the abhorrent consequences, the argument will completely unravel at the extremes. It has to be fundamentally absolutist in its formulation in order for it to make any rational sense. Therefore, if we follow this thesis to its logical end, then mothers can’t elect to have an abortion for any reason. Even when they do it to save themselves from dying due to severe birth complications. Unless the baby is already dead in the case of a stillborn, every effort must be made to save it, even if baby has a low probability of survival and the mother will most likely die. Because we know that in the real world some babies are needlessly aborted when the child would have survived, despite the odds, had the pregnancy been allowed to continue. This also includes mothers who have given birth to viable babies despite a dangerous high risk pregnancy after being told by their doctors that their baby would never live past infancy. In order for the pro-life position to be lucid, you have to abide by its most repugnant conclusion: all mothers must be prepared to die for their unborn children, even if the odds of the child surviving birth are unlikely in the extreme. Conversely, the issue becomes more thorny when you take into account the religious dimension of the pro-life movement. Because God knows the destinies of mother and child when both of their lives hang in the balance. If abortion is a mortal sin, then how is God supposed to judge the mother for terminating her pregnancy to save her own life, when God had originally predetermined both mother and child to die in childbirth, had it not been for the saving grace of a human medical intervention? It becomes even more complicated when you add a preexisting family to equation where, for example, the father succumbs to alcoholism after the mother dies and their sons commit numerous atrocities after turning to a life of crime, due the destruction of their childhoods. All of this being the catastrophic result of both mother and child dying in childbirth. Is abortion truly immoral in all circumstances when the life of the mother is in peril? Could it actually be a roll of the dice given the fact that God knows all possible futures and it is plausible that an abortion might be acceptable if both mother and child were destined to die? Or is it not immoral at all to have an abortion to save the life of mother because the unborn child merely has the “potential for life”, which was the judicial basis for American abortion policy before Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey were overturned. It is due to these complicating circumstances (along with many other reasons) that I believe abortions should be allowed, especially in these extreme cases. Additionally, as long as we’re on the subject of religion, if the widely held Christian belief that God is a perfect being is to be preserved, I also believe the “potential for life” doctrine must be standard. Unsurprisingly, this hypothesis will serve as the basis for my third and final criticism of the pro-life argument. In my estimation, when you account for miscarriages, stillborns and lethal birth defects, the “sanctity of life” argument easily becomes the most underdeveloped aspect of the pro-life position. In fact, it is the inclusion of lethal birth defects in mosaic of human suffering that shakes me to the very core of my being. Even my belief in God becomes tenuous when I contemplate the horror of lethal birth defects. At least with most tragedies you have causation to blame for your misery, meaning it was the decisions made from your own free will that lead you to your terrible fate. The remaining tragedies of life are genetic maladies and disorders, which are awful and wildly unfair in nature. The silver lining in this (if you can even call it a silver lining, to be honest) is that it is still feasible to eek out the tiniest shred of meaning out your life, even if your lifespan is severely curtailed by an unbelievably bad draw from the genetic lottery. This isn’t true with lethal birth defects. There is only agony and death. It is so upsetting for me to think about that I can’t even bring myself to describe the atrocity in minimal detail. It is absolutely unthinkable, satanic and evil. I refuse to believe that God would deliberately impose this on humanity as a consequence for original sin. I can never allow myself to think that these poor babies are actually ensouled only for them to experience the worst miserable nightmare in all of creation. The baby is totally helpless, the parents cannot consciously choose their own gametes and the doctor wasn’t given a comprehensive divine text to remedy this medical crisis. In the end, only God can answer for this. He has to ensoul only the babies he knows will survive long enough to experience self awareness, and therefore at least have the opportunity to derive some possible meaning from their lives. He has to. Otherwise my belief in God completely unravels because I cannot reconcile my faith with this unspeakable evil. It is impossible for me to do so. This is why I believe in the “potential for life” doctrine. The fact that the pro-life movement rejects this argument is clear evidence, in my view, that they neglect to think in any real depth on the topic of infant mortality. If they did, this doctrine would have a moderating effect on their “sanctity of life” ethos. It is true that human life is at its most delicate and vulnerable stages during formation in the womb. All of us must survive this ordeal in order to live. Therefore, there is merit in the belief that we should afford the highest protections humanity can possibly give to protect unborn. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise, and I refuse not to commend pro-life adherents for their desire to live up to this aspiration. However, all of this is completely subverted when you to take into account miscarriages, stillborns and lethal birth defects. These cruel inclusions are indiscriminate, random and utterly heartbreaking. Again, for the vast majority of these cases, the mother, father, doctor and child are blameless. How can anyone honestly believe in the “sanctity of life” when God has woven these bleak threads into the tapestry of human existence? This is why I believe the “sanctity of life” argument is a fallacy, because pro-life adherents, in what I believe to be their willful ignorance, refuse to grapple with the dark question of infant mortality in their belief structure. In conclusion, no matter what position you take or even if you’re totally uninterested bystander, all of us are stained by the issue of abortion. There is no perfectly clean argument to be made here. Everyone is guilty, everyone is complicit in the dissemination of suffering, no matter what position you decide to take. Please stop pretending your argument is unimpeachable, this is a complete fantasy and an utter delusion. The sooner we adopt the European consensus for abortion, as horribly flawed as it is, the sooner we can all move on from this never-ending culture war nightmare. Elective abortions being legal in the first trimester, with strict restrictions in the second and third trimesters, is the only way forward and the closest we will ever get to a working model that most people can agree on. Due to all these mitigating factors and all the other ones not included in this diatribe, I implore everyone to abandon dogmatism and take a more pragmatic approach to abortion. The world will be infinitely better if more people decide to do this. Thank you for reading all of this shit and I hope you have a nice day.
Michael Hoogenakker
2024-06-18 07:50:02 +0000 UTCPro lifers are not champing at the bit to enact free birth because most are conservatives who want poor babies and mothers to die
Justin Hubbard
2024-06-17 23:31:43 +0000 UTCSolar panel saga on turbo
KMB24
2024-06-17 20:04:24 +0000 UTCLiz, your dad's comments about circumcision remind me of Rod Dreher's insane column about this. Without bad mouthing your father, all I will say is - sus.
Christian Hunt
2024-06-17 19:48:31 +0000 UTCWhat food do you feed your cats? Interested now after hearing that they free feed with no issues. Are they fixed?
Monica
2024-06-17 13:04:24 +0000 UTCSurprised Matt didn't talk about regularly mixing up your exercises for each muscle group. I've found that to be pretty effective.
Richard
2024-06-16 16:48:02 +0000 UTCIt’s certainly the way I chose to reconcile that, but I was interested to see how someone who didn’t choose that path thinks about it. I wasn’t sure if it was heretical or something to say “who can say.” Thanks for clarifying lol
TL
2024-06-16 01:54:02 +0000 UTCon the reading question — i stumbled across an old blog from Liz called “how to read” which went over her process of reading for research and it systematized stuff i was already doing and introduced other elements. i think it was on medium? was v helpful in grad school
haz
2024-06-16 01:36:42 +0000 UTCTwo comments: I love when you guys feature Joe Mazzulla clips because he played at my alma mater, WVU, and helped take us to a Final Four in 2010. Tough, physical, unselfish player (allow me some talking-head platitudes here). Lunch pail guy. Enjoyed watching him play, and I now enjoy that he’s become one of those weirdo head coaches who nonetheless seems pretty effective. Also, when Liz says “this is Liz Bruenig, this is my husband Matt”: since she says it the same way for each, I imagine she’s a third person introducing “Liz Bruenig” and “my (the speaker’s) husband Matt.” Or, she’s introducing herself as two different people.
Joey Trimboli
2024-06-16 01:06:57 +0000 UTCI struggled with this as well and ended up joining an LGBTQ affirming mainline Protestant church. One could get along with saying "flawed institution of man" as I did for some time, but it didn't resolve the cognitive dissonance for me. I do deeply miss many aspects of Catholicism and pray for the day the Church changes on these matters. In the meantime, I'm much happier in an affirming community.
Nick Cee
2024-06-16 01:02:29 +0000 UTCBecause on an interpersonal level, if some guy said I was going to hell for being gay or what have you, and then my friend told me “Yeah, that guy is actually the best guy who has ever lived. Right about everything.” that would not sit well with me.
TL
2024-06-16 00:50:19 +0000 UTCI have a theological question related to one of Liz’s answers in this ep. It’s all well and good to not personally judge people, but does it not mean something to call merciful and benevolent a god who supposedly says your friends are going to hell because of who they are? How does one square that, other than to take the position that the Catholic Church is wrong about certain moral issues (if one doesn’t believe that LGBTQ people are sinners for loving who they love, for example)? This is something I struggle with, having been raised Catholic.
TL
2024-06-16 00:47:48 +0000 UTCThank you for explaining!
Marcy Snyder
2024-06-16 00:36:07 +0000 UTCPublic defender here. It's usually less a HIPAA concern than it is a security concern. My experience with local jails, at least, is that the jailers won't even tell the jailed when/where they're going for medical care so as to prevent, I guess, folks on the outside from initiating or assisting an escape attempt while outside the walls. It's all bad.
Brian
2024-06-16 00:27:57 +0000 UTCmurder-suicide incoming lol
The Bruenigs
2024-06-16 00:00:29 +0000 UTCI love when gang back
Corndog
2024-06-15 23:43:40 +0000 UTCThank you for answering my question👍🏾👍🏾
Azmarino
2024-06-15 23:16:54 +0000 UTCSeconded, I personally need this
KB Scott
2024-06-15 22:54:40 +0000 UTCI’m the med student and I should have clarified, the inmate was basically begging us to call his wife and tell her where he was. It was incredibly sad. The guards told us they would initiate some process to get a warden to call them but we couldn’t be involved in that. They said it’s because family members aren’t allowed to visit inmates in the hospital unless they are about to die. Which seems strange to me because we often can’t predict that and if you’re in the ICU, you’re generally at a high risk of dying. Anyway, thanks for taking the question! He was discharged before we could work out a better system to inform his wife.
Marcy Snyder
2024-06-15 22:52:21 +0000 UTCmatt cost hack kitchen reno could potentially be content goldmine
ja ak rtgr
2024-06-15 22:46:22 +0000 UTCextremely gang in the sense of backness
ja ak rtgr
2024-06-15 22:45:33 +0000 UTCVery excited for you guys to podcast your way through a kitchen reno
KB Scott
2024-06-15 21:58:35 +0000 UTCthe gang is reaching levels of back that shouldn't even be possible
TC
2024-06-15 21:08:26 +0000 UTC
