exasperation
Got me a new Lemmy account, now that lemm.ee is shutting down. But I'm @exasperation@lemm.ee, back with a 5/3/1 question.
As background, when I started this program 2 weeks ago my training maxes were set to:
Bench: 180 lbs
Squat: 335 lbs
Deadlift: 385 lbs
I'm going into my first 1+ week and I'm confident I'll be able to bust past 5-8 reps on most of the 1+/95% sets this week, based on my 10-rep sets at 90% this past week.
So I have to ask: what's the protocol for joker sets? I know Wendler kinda hates them, but I'm still kinda convinced I might have selected too low of a training max.
If I bang out 6-8 reps of my 95%, should I add 10% and attempt 1+ reps of 105%? What about 115%?
Or am I just getting ahead of myself, and shouldn't push those limits until I get comfortable with the program?
Late to this thread, but I've found that it goes well with fresh watermelon, muddled mint, and lime. Play around with the sugar/acid/alcohol ratios that you like, and find something that works. I usually do:
2 oz Singani
1 oz lime juice
4 oz watermelon juice
0.5 oz simple syrup
2 to 6 muddled mint leaves
I find that when I use fresh juice, I can get good texture if I shake it, even without egg white or other foaming agent.
I usually serve in a Collins glass with ice, but sometimes I'll serve up in a coupe or Nick and Nora glass.
Not if you want it to stay extra virgin
Shotgun gauge is wonky, so it's not a given that the number would just be a diameter in units they are familiar with.
Yeah, it's not intuitive that bigger gauge numbers = narrower diameter unless you've specifically worked with wire or shotguns before.
That still makes no sense. Is the commenter surprised to learn that a 0.223 inch caliber is approximately 0.223 inches? That a .45 inch caliber is about .45 inches? Yes, that's how units work.
Yeah, anyone who has biked in city streets will tell you that the buses are much wider than even the big SUVs.
Science is a process for learning knowledge, not a set of known facts (or theories/conjectures/hypotheses/etc.).
Phlogiston theory was science. But ultimately it fell apart when the observations made it untenable.
A belief in luminiferous aether was also science. It was disproved over time, and it took decades from the Michelson-Morley experiment to design robust enough studies and experiments to prove that the speed of light was the same regardless of Earth's relative velocity.
Plate tectonics wasn't widely accepted until we had the tools to measure continental drift.
So merely believing in something not provable doesn't make something not science. No, science has a bunch of unknowns at any given time, and testing different ideas can be difficult to actually do.
Hell, there are a lot of mathematical conjectures that are believed to be true but not proven. Might never be proven, either. But mathematics is still a rational, scientific discipline.