One's goose being cooked is an idiom from at least 200 years ago. The transfer of that meaning to generally being a single adjective rather than a full phrase is probably at least 100 years old.
And as more evidence, here's an issue of Boys Life magazine, from August 1938, that uses the phrase "he's cooked" to describe someone who is going to lose a sporting event. So it's at least 87 years old, maybe older.
Ok, so I'm switching over to a 5/3/1 program, and I've tried to digest all the information from Jim Wendler and a few others, tailored towards my own things.
I'm choosing a 3 day split, based around bench, deadlift, and squat. I have a previous neck injury that results in painful muscle spasms if I overtrain on any movements pushing or pulling above my head, so I don't train OHP to failure. As a result, it seems like specifically treating OHP as its own primary lift isn't something that I want to do, or need to do.
I'm setting my training max at my 5 rep max at each lift (180 lb bench, 335 lb squat, 385 lb deadlift). There are some formulas for estimating your 1 rep max from 5 reps, and Wendler recommends a training max set at 90% or 85% of the 1 rep max, and I think these two calculations seem to mostly cancel each other out (I've seen some say 4rm is a good number, but also some saying that it doesn't hurt to go with a lower training max anyway).
So with accessories, I'm just going to do some pushing with my bench day (OHP, incline bench, push ups, dips), some pulling with my deadlift day (rows, pull ups, clean and jerks), and some leg stuff with my squat day (front squat, lunges, calf raises). Any issues I should be aware of on this approach? I'm open to other approaches, but can't really do gym sessions longer than an hour, and going more than 3 times a week is gonna be difficult.
So here's what I'm looking at, in terms of actual details:
Week 1: 5-rep sets of 65%/75%/85% (last set AMRAP)
Week 2: 3-rep sets of 70%/80%/90% (last set AMRAP)
Week 3: 5 x 75%, 3 x 85%, 1 x 95% (last set AMRAP)
Week 4: 5-rep sets of 40%/50%/60%
Then I increase my training max. I'll be back here asking whether I should be doing more than the 10 lbs/5 lbs based on my actual performance on the AMRAP sets.
Anything else I should think about?
If you take 100 joules of electrical or chemical energy, and then direct them to a heater in a house, it'll create about 100 joules of heat. That's 100% efficiency.
But if you use the 100 joules of energy to run a heat pump, it might bring in 300 joules of heat into the house. That's 300% efficiency, when measured locally at the place you actually care about (inside the house). Zoom out and laws of thermodynamics still make it impossible to create more energy than was put in, but if you look at just the part you care about, it's possible locally.
start supporting serious nuclear energy to drive down electric costs
Eh, I can see a resilience based argument for why we need nuclear, but building new nuclear is never going to be cheaper than solar or wind.
Why no, I am not a vampire
Oh and you probably don't want us driving wooden stakes through your heart either, huh?
Yeah but if some direct combustion of a fossil fuel is cheaper than electricity, then the actual dollars per unit heat will be cheaper with a fossil fuel source.
Yes, but that's why heat pumps in this country are typically paired with auxiliary electric heat.
Yes, and although it's not very efficient to have auxiliary electrical heat, that's a small percent of the overall year.
If you live in a home that hits -20C for 20 days per year, that's really cold! But you'll probably need the heater on for about 180 days per year at that point. Putting up with less efficiency for 20-30 days per year is still a net gain if the other 150 days of heating makes up for it.
Probably where AI learned that sheen from.
I'm saying that whatever it was your grandparents had 50 years ago, the costs (including opportunity costs) are totally different.
I can work an hour at McDonald's, for $18, and earn enough to buy 10 pounds of tomatoes at $1.80/lb. Growing 10 pounds of tomatoes is gonna take me a lot more than an hour of work, even if the land is free. The tradeoffs for me in this moment are going to be different from what your grandparents faced in the 70's.
Either way, whether it's worth the effort to drive for Uber depends on whether you already own a car. Whether you can publish a cheap indie game on the app store or steam depends on whether you already own a laptop. And whether it's cost effective to grow your own food depends on whether you have access to land, sun, soil, and water.
Also economies of scale is a poor argument when it comes to farming
For small scale food gardening it absolutely matters. Picking berries, planting seedlings, spreading compost, getting rid of pests (either through pesticides or things like ladybugs), productivity per worker hour depends a lot on the scale. It's really, really hard to be cost competitive with the grocery store in just pure worker hours, even if your own time is worth less than $5/hour.
What's the charge? Eating a meal? A succulent meal of loaves and fishes?
very very poor
had an acre
Sounds like they already had something that dramatically changes the cost/benefit analysis, compared to someone considering gardening from scratch.
Someone with a few raised beds isn't going to be able to compete with the economies of scale of a full acre of farmland.
The "mental illness" and "plumber" categories can actually add up to be more than 100%.