[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
But I’ve never known of any inmates with an “addiction” for steriods that supersedes wanting meth,cocaine,weed…and pussy…which they still get…but thats an another wonderful story itself. [/quote]
You can’t just leave us hanging like that, what’s the story? I’ve been trying to work it out and the only thing I can come up with that isn’t hilarious and cartoonish is bribing an officer, but it seems to me like there are logistical issues depending on the prison’s layout.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
If skin color truly was directly linked to sun exposure and proximity to the equator, then why does this happen?[/quote]
Some thoughts:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/01/why-red-indians-arent-white.php
It’s not a peer-reviewed paper, just a well-read guy reviewing what we know and throwing one new idea out there.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
LOL. And what would that be, to eliminate “racism”, prejudice, classism, and other forms of repression? Damn, let’s hope that agenda never comes to fruition. :P[/quote]
You said it, brother. Then half the people in this country would have nothing to bitch about.
[quote]
Yes, both are albinos. My point was simply that they had “white” skin. If someone were trying to say that they’ve never seen two parents with dark skin who gave birth to a child of “white” skin, then those two pictures would still be examples of just that happening.[/quote]
Okay. So?
What constitutes a human being? For practically every attribute you may mention, I can give you an example of a genetic mutation for which that attribute doesn’t exist. Does that mean the person with that mutation is any less human? I’m sure you make a very good point, but I just can’t see its relevance.
You’re probably too young to remember, but we used to use the words “negroid,” “caucasoid,” and “mongoloid” to classify the human species into races. Naturally, we don’t use these words anymore, because sensitive types are offended by them. But they implied a set of physical characteristic that reached far beyond skin color. An albino Japanese would still have been considered “mongoloid”, regardless of the color of his skin.
[quote]Though I have read some interesting alternative reasoning that suggests that skin color might not actually be a survival adaptation to sun exposure or heat. Aborigines would actually be a good example of this, as Australia is further from the equator than Vietnam or Thailand, yet Aborigines have considerably darker skin than Vietnamese or Thai native peoples.
If skin color truly was directly linked to sun exposure and proximity to the equator, then why does this happen?[/quote]
What you have to understand about genetic melanin increase as a function of sun exposure is that it has to be complete exposure for more than two generations. Vietnamese and Thais are not known for going around naked in the sun, while a Masai tribesman might be prone to.
But if that Masai tribe adopted a number of blonde Norwegian babies, and if those babies managed to avoid malignant melanoma and cataracts, survive to adulthood and breed–only with each other, mind you-- their great-grandchildren would all be “black.” They would have dark hair, dark eyes, and dark skin. While all still being caucasoid, of course.
Notice also that in Thailand, as in India or Indonesia, traditionally skin color correlates closely to class and economic station. The darker your skin, the poorer and lesser of a person you are assumed to be.
The reason for this should be obvious. An educated man can afford to stay indoors, while a poor laborer has to work in the sun.
Ironic that in the West the opposite has become true: the poor drones are the ones who have to stay inside, the melanin in their skin gradually leached away by cathode ray tubes, plasma screens and fluorescent lights, while the rich can afford to play outside and get suntans.
So while Western poseurs get artificial tans in UV booths in order to look like the idle rich, people in Southeast Asia scrupulously avoid getting any color to their skin at all, for precisely the same reason.
Drink one gallon of whole milk mixed with protein powder (Biotest is best)per day.
Eat one whole chicken or 2 lbs of red meat per day. Salmon and tuna are okay.
Lift 6 days per week: squats, deads, power cleans, ch
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Okay. So?
What constitutes a human being? For practically every attribute you may mention, I can give you an example of a genetic mutation for which that attribute doesn’t exist. Does that mean the person with that mutation is any less human? I’m sure you make a very good point, but I just can’t see its relevance.
[/quote]
Of course it doesn’t make then any less human. I was never trying to suggest anything of the sort. My point was once again purely that they have white skin. So, if you were to classify people based on skin color (which is just one of many traits that make up a human), then you would have to classify them as being “white” and would be in the same “race” as other “white” skinned peoples (Russians, Swiss, Dutch. etc…).
Yet, if you were to classify them according to another trait (say, hair texture), then you would get completely different “races”. In this case you might group them with other course haired peoples (Nigerians, Pakistanis, etc…).
I know those words, and they aren’t used not because they aren’t PC, but because science has pretty much concluded that they are a bunch of rubbish. They’re based on all types of physical characteristics like nose shape, hair shape, skull proportions, etc…
The problem with these categories is once again, that they simply don’t work. You cannot accurately predict the skin color of a person based purely on their hair shape. Just like you cannot accurately predict a person’s skull proportions based on the shape of their nose.
Well, even if that were true (interesting bit of info there btw), then why wouldn’t the opposite be true? How many African Americans walk around naked on a daily basis? Yet, how many of the descendants of Africans who were brought here as slaves are now white due to the lack of doing this?
Also, why would they all have dark hair? Melanesians sometimes have blonde hair. Wouldn’t that be impossible by your line of reasoning?
[quote]
Notice also that in Thailand, as in India or Indonesia, traditionally skin color correlates closely to class and economic station. The darker your skin, the poorer and lesser of a person you are assumed to be.
The reason for this should be obvious. An educated man can afford to stay indoors, while a poor laborer has to work in the sun.
Ironic that in the West the opposite has become true: the poor drones are the ones who have to stay inside, the melanin in their skin gradually leached away by cathode ray tubes, plasma screens and fluorescent lights, while the rich can afford to play outside and get suntans.
So while Western poseurs get artificial tans in UV booths in order to look like the idle rich, people in Southeast Asia scrupulously avoid getting any color to their skin at all, for precisely the same reason.[/quote]
Once again, interesting info.
but, what about khosians? They are “African” in that they reside on the continent of Africa, and have done so for quite a few generations. Yet, they have as light (or even lighter in some cases) skin than “Indian” people (those living in India, especially Dravidians), or those residing in the south Pacific aka Melanesians.
Also, why don’t the native peoples of South America’s jungles have as dark skin as those of Africa’s jungles?
I’m asking these questions to offer a different theory on skin color. And that is, that while I once again don’t completely discount the survival theory, I think that sexual selection (cultural preferences and other social factors) may also have something to do with it. If the cultural ideal of beauty is dark skin, dark hair and dark eyes, then those individuals are much more likely to reproduce and pass their traits on to the next generation. If it’s light skin, light hair and light eyes, then those people are more likely to reproduce.
As you stated, ideals vary from culture to culture and thus it would make sense that you would get variations in general appearance due to this. It doesn’t mean that all individuals in such populations will look like carbon copies of each other, but it does mean that you’d get more frequent expressions of certain traits, and less frequent expressions of others. Much like DsSmolken illustrated with that paper he linked to earlier.
So, I don’t discount genetics, as Ovalpline suggested I was doing, in determining things like athletic traits, intelligence, and other traits. I actually completely agree with him that the truth is a combination of “nature” and “nurture”. I just don’t think that has anything to do with “race”.
From what I understand so far, prisoners spend, 5-10,15 years training. One example was the guy who was in jail for 5 years and trained. Well shit of course he’s gonna grow. Wendler and basically everyone else was saying, keep lifting, you’ll get big eventually.
If you train long enough for size or strength, and eat enough. Why wouldn’t you grow?
[quote]HotCarl28 wrote:
i only read some of this as i found the format to be annoying, so maybe you could help answer my question… did they look at epigenetic differences?[/quote]
lol
They are motivated by the fact that being too small would result in becoming somebody’s bitch and being forced to take it up the ass on a nightly basis.
Hell, that would do it for most people!
I would say a high percentage are on drugs, its not impossible to get them into a prison.
Other than that, they are sitting beside all this weight training equipment all day, if you did heavy dips all day everyday in between meals or when you are bored you would be huge too. We train for 40 minutes these guys might train for 3 hours over the course of a day.
You know I woke up this morning and thought to myself, “I really hope one of those Lifting In Prison threads gets bumped.”
I’m sure this has been said, but if I were in jail, I’d be trying to get huge as fast as possible to protect myself from the worst of the worst!
[quote]TermInNate wrote:
You know I woke up this morning and thought to myself, “I really hope one of those Lifting In Prison threads gets bumped.”[/quote]
Prison inNate
Wow, way off topic now…
To answer the OP’s question:
EFFORT AND MOTIVATION:
You will deliver a great amount of effort in your training because you are motivated to protect your cornhole. Duh.
By doing what most trainees don’t. Focused on what makes muscles grow. Lifting heavy weights. No powder, supp, or anything can replace that. Kinda proves that alot that garbage is, well…garbage. Maybe if gyms got rid of mirrors,juice bars and water fountains people on the outside would get the “prison build”
OK. Whoever thinks eveyrone gets big in jail has clearly never been there, much less spent a few years in there.
There’s a ton of skinny white dudes in there (usually they join one of the aryan brotherhoods) even among those who lift (which is mostly everyone). Most of those who’re not in some group or the other NEED to bulk up quickly.
You find a “guru” who’ll show you the ropes, let you in on training “secrets”, how to get extra meat/vegs/starch or whatever in your meal…and even introduce you to the guys running the juice.
Lifting usually allows people to form their own groups which works out just fine outside. While everyone lifts to get bigger (and not cut up for the summer) that allows them to focus on getting bigger and stronger, and if everything aligns in your favor…you can add thirty pounds or so in a couple of months.
They organize lifting comps for the inmates and those who lift regularly are actually more well-behaved outside. And there isn;t much to do inside tof the big house so you sleep as much as you can.
You’ll be surprised how much you can achieve when youre left to your own means and don;t give a rats ass about the world outisde oif ya. There are guys who get degrees and shit inside the clink.
Anyway…as far as lifting, a typical cross section inside the prison will show a “bigger and stronger” set of people than your 24 hour fitness…simply because theyre trying to get BIG in there.
But ther’s stilla wide spectrum (the biggest guys look like elite powerlifters, the smallest guys ar estill usually better than the male cardio bunny in a public gym.
I have a few more visits to the big house in the next year or so. Will be happy to show you fellas around the next time I’m there.
bingo.
[quote]The Greek wrote:
They are motivated by the fact that being too small would result in becoming somebody’s bitch and being forced to take it up the ass on a nightly basis.
Hell, that would do it for most people![/quote]
[quote]crod266 wrote:
some people might think this is a dum question, but this is something ive been wondering for a while. Everyone talks about nutrtition, even I do. what I want to know is how are people in jail so big. NOw obviously thats not evryone, but ive seen some guys who came from jail and followed no nutrtion and all there used in jail was like a dip bar, chin-up bar, and bench.
How does that happen. Its not only them, there are lots of teens and average people also that are big and yet they do nothing to help there diets? I mean the average people might not be huge but they are a decent size.[/quote]
I think that they are consistent, and besides, beeing big is a matter of survival. They eat on time and diet is made by a nutriotinist.
New research on people entering prison says that most are in pretty good shape when they arrive, at least according to the NYT’s commentary. Here’s the abstract:
[quote]toki123 wrote:
There is a search bar at the top of every page. Learn to use it. [/quote]
If everyone did this forum activity would cease (probably for the better, it would get people off the computer and into the gym).
Sometimes when I hit the gym I get extra motivated if I try and imagine I am actually in prison lifting to save my life.
Stuff like sticking a cucumber up my ass before a workout to cultivate the ‘I’ve been raped’ mentality goes a long way in upping the intensity.