This post is meant to do some serious bashing. If you're the kind of guy who doesn't like to be criticized, please don't read. I have a quiz tomorrow and yet I write this today. I always wanted to say this, but since there are just too many people around me who don't like the idea, I abandoned the thought. Today, one of our professors talked about what the so-called 'Engineers' in the country do and put his opinions on it and since they support mine, I publish this post.
You see many guys moving around with an ID card on their chest that has the name of some MNC, a job that pays a 6 digit salary and these guys go around saying 'I am God'. Fact, most guys never do anything really productive. Our prof put an example. A lot of guys are asked to do some simulations (say, in ANSYS). They're asked to do all the menial and time consuming tasks like creating a mesh and making an analysis when he has absolutely no clue of what it is about. He thinks the salary he gets is GOD-LEVEL.
I know two seniors who've app-ed (i.e. doing MS or PhD in a foreign university). One of them gets a 2.1k USD fellowship (during his PhD) and the other gets 1k euros (MS). So that's quite a lot- about 10 lacs and 7 lacs, when they're doing research as students under some professor. And how much might this professor get paid for that? Definitely a lot....
Our prof said this - "I've known people in Switzerland, France, Germany, etc... They never stick with these companies for very long. Maximum for three years and then they quit and start working on something more interesting and something that has true engineering rather than just using a calculator or a computer to make some manipulation. They have a lot more self respect than us." If you want to know what I mean, look at any forum or blog on some engineering subject, say building aircrafts. You'll probably find more amateurs from US than proper employees in our country.
Next, about 'INNOVATION'- probably the most overrated thing these days. Everyone wants to innovate, but no one's interested in inventing. Especially in the last few years, you can see a lot of start-ups coming up. Some have really good objectives, while some just want to hang around doing nothing good. 'This month you have a black colored cell phone with a screen on the top, next month you make a phone with the screen on the bottom, after that the screen goes on the back of the phone and maybe then it goes to the side of the phone.' Where's the engineering in this?
Everyone talks about i-pod as a great technology and all. MP3 players existed before that, and so did USB. Without either of them, the i-pod is just crap. Ask any 'innovator' to build the i-pod without that.
Our prof claimed he got to read the policies of certain European countries on technology (and I believe he did, he's definitely a hi-funda guy). Most countries have two key words that take priority- DISCOVERY and INVENTION. These are the things that really stand out in the long term. Innovation doesn't really bother them. Say computers. 'Real' institutes care probably only about creating memory on smaller chips and maybe creating maximum cache, processing, very low cost LCDs,etc.. but they are really not interested in working on which color the screen should be, where the mousepad should be and so on... And once again, the 'Indian Engineer' comes into the picture. For this useless salary, he's dragged into the job that is absolutely shit.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Caste System in India, continued......
My last post was about how the system originated and why it was actually favorable for the system to exist. A guy can know more about what his dad does than what someone else's dad does. And I have talked about 4 professions- Farming, breeding cattle, priesthood and ruling. Hindu society is divided into 4 varnas- Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Sudra.
Before I proceed further, I'd first bash all the people who say this division is God's decision and that some class of people are just more privelaged than others and so on... In other words, who maintain that this division is a real genetic thing rather than just a classification based on profession. I'm talking about two different things- 1. People of one profession are grouped as one class and 2. People are divided into classes based on their parents' class and they have to stick to their profession. The first one has no discrimination at all, you choose your profession and then they call you by that name, like if I do a PhD, I'm called a doctor and if I failed in tenth exams, I maybe called a cupper. The second one is what I'm talking against.
If this division into varnas was done by the so-called 'God', why doesn't it exist anywhere else except in Hindu community? Muslims don't have this. In ancient Europe, there were just two classes, the commons and the nobles (and maybe another class of wealthy people) but nothing like what we have. There are a lot of tribal people living in forests and mountains, and they don't have any of these divisions. All they have is a ruler and other common people.
The reason behind the division into varnas is, there were these powerful guys, the rulers, who wanted their sons to be the next ruler. And all people around him had to support his son in order to impress the king and the son was obviously more qualified due to his exposure and hence he became the next king, and so on for all other castes. What is not very obvious is the fourth varna, called the Sudra.
Again, long long back, this division called 'Sudra' was just a class based on profession until the generations after those just kept doing the same jobs and it became hereditary and after a sufficient period of time, people were forced to believe that a guy had to do only what his ancestors did. But anyways, how did 'Sudra' varna come into existence? Why would any guy want to be serving others instead of doing something that can give him a respectable position?
Consider the way Shaastra or Saarang work- there are cores, coords and vols and gen insti junta who are not any of the three. Cores are like the best in the profession... like kings and emperors as opposed to local officers, wealthy men among merchants, 'Rajaguru's among priests, Court musicians and poets among artists and so on.. Then there are the coords, who are responsible for work. Like the general farmers, priests, potters, sculptors, etc... Then there are the volunteers, who couldn't get a coordship for themselves because they didn't qualify. There were people in the society who really couldn't do anything by themselves because they weren't talented enough or they didn't have the facilities, like land for a farmer. Volunteers have to work 'under' the coords, do whatever work coords ask them to do, to get their grub coupons and t-shirts. If you can't be a coord and you are not a vol, you just can't get coupons and t-shirts. If a man couldn't be employed himself, he had to serve someone to survive. Hence, there was a class of people working for someone else. This class was never allowed to do something more useful, because no one would teach his profession to his servant's son. And so we have this 'Sudra' class.
When the only way to learn was from a guy's parents, the caste system made sense. But now, how many guys really know what his/her dad/mom do? In villages, maybe there's some exposure, but in cities, a clerk's kid knows nothing about that. A police's daughter can't just be a police. Most of what a person learns is from some public school, along with a lot of other people. Hence the basic concept of caste system doesn't even hold. But thanks to all the political leaders who keep talking shit about castes and thanks to the government that makes no move to eradicate this system, we still have people 'belonging' to a caste.
Hoping that was a little enlightening. Comments are welcome. If someone wants to defend the caste system, I'm ready for a debate.. post your comment.
Next post will be on some Brahmin traditions, not what an arbit priest follows, but the original things that were started by those 'real' sages who existed long back.
Before I proceed further, I'd first bash all the people who say this division is God's decision and that some class of people are just more privelaged than others and so on... In other words, who maintain that this division is a real genetic thing rather than just a classification based on profession. I'm talking about two different things- 1. People of one profession are grouped as one class and 2. People are divided into classes based on their parents' class and they have to stick to their profession. The first one has no discrimination at all, you choose your profession and then they call you by that name, like if I do a PhD, I'm called a doctor and if I failed in tenth exams, I maybe called a cupper. The second one is what I'm talking against.
If this division into varnas was done by the so-called 'God', why doesn't it exist anywhere else except in Hindu community? Muslims don't have this. In ancient Europe, there were just two classes, the commons and the nobles (and maybe another class of wealthy people) but nothing like what we have. There are a lot of tribal people living in forests and mountains, and they don't have any of these divisions. All they have is a ruler and other common people.
The reason behind the division into varnas is, there were these powerful guys, the rulers, who wanted their sons to be the next ruler. And all people around him had to support his son in order to impress the king and the son was obviously more qualified due to his exposure and hence he became the next king, and so on for all other castes. What is not very obvious is the fourth varna, called the Sudra.
Again, long long back, this division called 'Sudra' was just a class based on profession until the generations after those just kept doing the same jobs and it became hereditary and after a sufficient period of time, people were forced to believe that a guy had to do only what his ancestors did. But anyways, how did 'Sudra' varna come into existence? Why would any guy want to be serving others instead of doing something that can give him a respectable position?
Consider the way Shaastra or Saarang work- there are cores, coords and vols and gen insti junta who are not any of the three. Cores are like the best in the profession... like kings and emperors as opposed to local officers, wealthy men among merchants, 'Rajaguru's among priests, Court musicians and poets among artists and so on.. Then there are the coords, who are responsible for work. Like the general farmers, priests, potters, sculptors, etc... Then there are the volunteers, who couldn't get a coordship for themselves because they didn't qualify. There were people in the society who really couldn't do anything by themselves because they weren't talented enough or they didn't have the facilities, like land for a farmer. Volunteers have to work 'under' the coords, do whatever work coords ask them to do, to get their grub coupons and t-shirts. If you can't be a coord and you are not a vol, you just can't get coupons and t-shirts. If a man couldn't be employed himself, he had to serve someone to survive. Hence, there was a class of people working for someone else. This class was never allowed to do something more useful, because no one would teach his profession to his servant's son. And so we have this 'Sudra' class.
When the only way to learn was from a guy's parents, the caste system made sense. But now, how many guys really know what his/her dad/mom do? In villages, maybe there's some exposure, but in cities, a clerk's kid knows nothing about that. A police's daughter can't just be a police. Most of what a person learns is from some public school, along with a lot of other people. Hence the basic concept of caste system doesn't even hold. But thanks to all the political leaders who keep talking shit about castes and thanks to the government that makes no move to eradicate this system, we still have people 'belonging' to a caste.
Hoping that was a little enlightening. Comments are welcome. If someone wants to defend the caste system, I'm ready for a debate.. post your comment.
Next post will be on some Brahmin traditions, not what an arbit priest follows, but the original things that were started by those 'real' sages who existed long back.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Caste System in India
Just a short note on the origin of caste. There was no inspiration for writing this post, was just thinking about castes and then I realized I actually had an opinion on the origin of castes. Religions have always had fine distinctions- different religions coming from different places or being formed when a teacher or a preacher does a lot of philosophical and spiritual preaching. But castes are always totally mixed up in the society. Here's my explanation to the origin of castes.
Long long back, before kingdoms and kings existed, just when caveman started to know things like agriculture, cattle raising, using metals and stuff.... There were these dominant guys who could control people with force or influence and they were obvious rulers. Go to any remote village and even this day you'll find they have village heads who are not elected, but are so because they're more influential in that part. Then there are the farmers who have agricultural land and who grow crops. And the milkmen who have cattle. And there were also wise men who were educated (not math and science and stuff, but in general about ways of life and how you can go around if u have a hard situation).
Now there's the next generation. The farmer's son knows everything about farming since he'd been working with his dad since he was a kid and the milkman's son knows everything about cattle. The farmer's kid can't raise cattle, nor can the milkman's son plough lands. It is only fair that the farmer's son becomes a farmer and the milkman's son becomes a milkman. Another reason is, the farmer won't give away his land and belongings to some other guys son, the farmer's son owns all that and he knows how to plough, sow and reap. Hence, professions were hereditary and it is only just for it to remain that way. It must be noted that in those days a farmer and a milkman was equally, if not more, important to the society as was the ruler.
The ruler's son had always enjoyed the privelage and support from people around him because his dad was powerful. He had probably also learnt to deal with people and he's the guy to rule next. You can see this now too. Look at the congress party- Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi and now Rahul Gandhi... heads of Congress party.... Not because they're the best, but because since the time they entered into politics, all of the members supported them in order to make a good impression at the current head. Naturally, the ruler's son has a huge advantage against all others to become the next ruler.
Then comes the brahmins. I'd mention two kinds- The sages and the priests. The sages are those who just lived their life preaching and living on fruits and vegetables they pluck from trees, or by begging. They were only teaching. The priests were practitioners and made a living by using whatever they knew about philosophical or spiritual things. And these priests found they enjoyed a good status in society and hence they had no reason to teach what they know to everyone else. If they do that, they're not superior anymore and they'll be useless. Just like senior-junior in insti. The senior's God only because he knows more about insti and he has more fundaes on some stuff. If the freshie knows more than the senior, he won't bother about taking fundaes.
So, everything is hereditary because they have a good reason to be so. The problem was that some professions were exploited by others. In those old times, hereditary stuff had a meaning. But now when we have public schools, it makes absolutely no sense and there's no point in even saying you're of a particular caste.
Will write more on this topic soon, have to sign off now.
Long long back, before kingdoms and kings existed, just when caveman started to know things like agriculture, cattle raising, using metals and stuff.... There were these dominant guys who could control people with force or influence and they were obvious rulers. Go to any remote village and even this day you'll find they have village heads who are not elected, but are so because they're more influential in that part. Then there are the farmers who have agricultural land and who grow crops. And the milkmen who have cattle. And there were also wise men who were educated (not math and science and stuff, but in general about ways of life and how you can go around if u have a hard situation).
Now there's the next generation. The farmer's son knows everything about farming since he'd been working with his dad since he was a kid and the milkman's son knows everything about cattle. The farmer's kid can't raise cattle, nor can the milkman's son plough lands. It is only fair that the farmer's son becomes a farmer and the milkman's son becomes a milkman. Another reason is, the farmer won't give away his land and belongings to some other guys son, the farmer's son owns all that and he knows how to plough, sow and reap. Hence, professions were hereditary and it is only just for it to remain that way. It must be noted that in those days a farmer and a milkman was equally, if not more, important to the society as was the ruler.
The ruler's son had always enjoyed the privelage and support from people around him because his dad was powerful. He had probably also learnt to deal with people and he's the guy to rule next. You can see this now too. Look at the congress party- Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi and now Rahul Gandhi... heads of Congress party.... Not because they're the best, but because since the time they entered into politics, all of the members supported them in order to make a good impression at the current head. Naturally, the ruler's son has a huge advantage against all others to become the next ruler.
Then comes the brahmins. I'd mention two kinds- The sages and the priests. The sages are those who just lived their life preaching and living on fruits and vegetables they pluck from trees, or by begging. They were only teaching. The priests were practitioners and made a living by using whatever they knew about philosophical or spiritual things. And these priests found they enjoyed a good status in society and hence they had no reason to teach what they know to everyone else. If they do that, they're not superior anymore and they'll be useless. Just like senior-junior in insti. The senior's God only because he knows more about insti and he has more fundaes on some stuff. If the freshie knows more than the senior, he won't bother about taking fundaes.
So, everything is hereditary because they have a good reason to be so. The problem was that some professions were exploited by others. In those old times, hereditary stuff had a meaning. But now when we have public schools, it makes absolutely no sense and there's no point in even saying you're of a particular caste.
Will write more on this topic soon, have to sign off now.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Independence day
And I start getting msgs saying "Advanced Happy Independence Day". Something urges me to publish this one before 15 August. The first thing that comes to my mind when junta start talking about our "Independence day" is, how many people really appreciate the position we currently enjoy. Some say we live in the best country, some say the government's too bad and corrupt and some don't really care.
What does independence and a democratic government mean to someone like me, an middle class student? Maybe right to education in any institute in the country, if I am eligible. Or maybe I can get some kind of scholarship. And I can vote and contest in elections and all similar things. Is that all? What if the country isn't independent or what if the government wasn't so good? One thing is there'll be some class of people who get things they don't deserve. And people without influence will have a really tough time. Maybe you'll have to pay more taxes. The last thing a normal person may think of is discrimination based on caste and religion and the most extreme thing may be riots.
Somethings I've recently realized. I'd suggest some movies that must be watched before you can think of "independence".
1. "Hotel Rwanda": This shows a civil war and how bad it can get. People get shot just because they don't belong to a certain class. And class isn't like our caste. People of the same race, religion, everything, just divided into two groups based on how they look and work. For absolutely no reason, children and women got shot.
2. "Schindler's list" and "The Pianist": If you haven't heard of the holocaust, look up in wiki. Jews in and around Germany were killed for just one reason- being Jews..
3. Crash: A movie that shows (or may be exaggerates, I’m not sure about how it is in there, I can only guess) how some African-Americans are treated in the United States. Not just African-Americans, just any guy from a foreign country.
4. Blood diamond: Another movie showing a civil war and how people with power exploit those without. There are lots of such movies.. Even Rambo 4 is like that...
The world war II happened when no person in Europe could ever believe he’d be safe. There were places where people were just too happy to survive just another day. Civil wars happened in Africa where people of the same country hated each other. There are countries in Africa that are struggling to survive. Even today, in Pakistan there’s a bombing once every month or two. Yet, in our country, a bandh happens and the bus service is suspended or maybe a guy’s bike gets damaged and we blame the government and say this is like hell.
The United States was too damn proud of its ideals and principles. It was believed to be the country built on freedom and rights and equality. Yet you see this country going for the Vietnam war. We, with all our strength and military, have not even thought of attacking weak countries around us, like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar, etc.... We value the freedom of not just our country, but of our neighbors too. And how often do we even see the military interfering in state affairs? How often do we have a riot or how many times does the government turn against people forcing unease in the country?
Independence doesn’t just mean to fly the flag and then eat a sweet or greet someone. Think of this. If there was no government and no law, and you are going along with your girlfriend or your sister and a bunch of guys come and kick ur a** and rob you and harass her, what can you do? If you believe you can walk in the streets without being robbed or beaten up, that’s independence. That’s freedom and law and everything. How many times were you denied the right to board into a bus or were locked up for no reason or not allowed to sit with other people? We live in a country that’s probably the best in the world. Proud to be an Indian.
In a country where you’re free all the time, especially living in a place where I’m free to do everything I can (or almost everything), saying “Happy Independence Day” doesn't make a lot of sense to me, especially when you say that to show off you're the first guy to remember that the country got freedom on a particular day in August or do it just because that's just another occasion to send a msg or a mail.... I belong to a free country and I know that all the time, right from the time I walk on the streets to the time I have a laptop with an internet connection and I don't think anyone needs to be reminded that he lives in an independent India.
And I don't really feel I have to end all such posts with a "Jai Hind" in the end.. NO! I have respect for my country and I do follow most of the rules, atleast a lot more than most of the nation.
And I don't really feel I have to end all such posts with a "Jai Hind" in the end.. NO! I have respect for my country and I do follow most of the rules, atleast a lot more than most of the nation.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
How to 'clear IIT'
An "IIT- aspirant", a +1 student: Hey, you're an IITian right....
Insti 3rd year gult guy: Yeah dude.
aspirant: Hii. I need some help from you. I'm "doing IIT" at Sri Chaitanya. I want to "clear IIT".
Insti guy: (crap. I need to tell about all those books again) sure. What do you want to know?
Aspirant: What pen did u use in the exam? What color?
Insti guy: (wtf??) I don't remember exactly, but I had the habit of using black technotip pens.. Why do you want to know that da?
Aspirant: My lecturers asked me to know everything that you guys did and follow you. I want to have perfect info... Anyways, what was ur supper when you were preparing for IIT?
Insti guy: (!!!!???) Rice, curry, dal and curd... occasionally rotis? How would it matter?
Aspirant: I want to have full info... And what kind of clothes did u wear for the exam? What color?
Insti guy: (this guy's a retard) I went in some casuals dude.. now cut the crap and ask what you want to know dude...
Aspirant: I want to know a lot more about your preparation.. like how you went home- in a bus or on a cycle or on foot, how many times you ate every day, how many pockets your trousers had, how.......
Insti guy: (shit.. now he'll ask me what color my undee is. Or maybe how many times I used to **** per day... he's such a ****head) (reaching to his cell n putting it to his ear) yeah dude.. oh.. k. I'll be there. (to this 'aspirant')Hey, sorry kid. I got to go now....
and disappears from there in seconds....
If anyone reading this post really tried asking your seniors such questions..., I'm sorry, no offense intended.
Insti 3rd year gult guy: Yeah dude.
aspirant: Hii. I need some help from you. I'm "doing IIT" at Sri Chaitanya. I want to "clear IIT".
Insti guy: (crap. I need to tell about all those books again) sure. What do you want to know?
Aspirant: What pen did u use in the exam? What color?
Insti guy: (wtf??) I don't remember exactly, but I had the habit of using black technotip pens.. Why do you want to know that da?
Aspirant: My lecturers asked me to know everything that you guys did and follow you. I want to have perfect info... Anyways, what was ur supper when you were preparing for IIT?
Insti guy: (!!!!???) Rice, curry, dal and curd... occasionally rotis? How would it matter?
Aspirant: I want to have full info... And what kind of clothes did u wear for the exam? What color?
Insti guy: (this guy's a retard) I went in some casuals dude.. now cut the crap and ask what you want to know dude...
Aspirant: I want to know a lot more about your preparation.. like how you went home- in a bus or on a cycle or on foot, how many times you ate every day, how many pockets your trousers had, how.......
Insti guy: (shit.. now he'll ask me what color my undee is. Or maybe how many times I used to **** per day... he's such a ****head) (reaching to his cell n putting it to his ear) yeah dude.. oh.. k. I'll be there. (to this 'aspirant')Hey, sorry kid. I got to go now....
and disappears from there in seconds....
If anyone reading this post really tried asking your seniors such questions..., I'm sorry, no offense intended.
Friday, July 30, 2010
My weight loss
Just a casual post. Nothing really important. Since I keep updating my routines and my lifts, I thought I'd put this too. I'm in the insti olympic weightlifting team and we have the Inter IIT happening every year. I'm supposed to be in the under 62kg weight class, i.e. my weight has to be less than 62 kg. On July 10, I weighed 67.2kg- a lot of weight.
There are different kinds of people, genetically. People are usually recognized as ectomorphic (slim, can't gain or lose fat/muscle quickly), endomorphic (big, gain or lose fat/muscle quickly, esp fat) and mesomorphic (muscular, gain muscle quickly but not fat). I'm an ectomorph, a hardgainer- cannot gain fat or muscle quickly. This was my genetic thingy but after lifting for 2 years, I've put on a lot of fat. I definitely had to worry about my weight and so decided to go on a cut, to get down to about 63kg or so by mid September. Generally lifters go on bulking(gaining muscle and fat) and cutting(losing fat primarily) phases but I never went for a cut till last month. So this was my first cut ever, aimed at losing weight at the rate of 0.5kg per week.
First I'll tell the result. I started my cut on July 14 and on July 27 I weighed 64kg. Lost 2.5kg in 2 weeks, which is rather unhealthy. But this morning I checked my weight and I'm at 64.8 kg. So the 64kg was only a temporary one. I've probably lost around 2kg in 2 weeks, which is still a little too much for my body. But anyways, I'm quite happy with my weight now.
The diet I was on was a little tough. I was at home, still had to eat only small meals. The part wasn't about the small meals, but about being at home. With all the delicious food at home, I had a really hard time resisting the temptation to eat. I planned on going for 5 meals a day, with 4 eggs in a morning meal and soya chunks (some call it meal maker) in my last meal at night. But I ended up with only 3 small meals a day, and 2 eggs in the morning, and not even any juices. I'd snacked on a couple of biscuits sometime but that was all, nothing else. And on 25, 26 and 27 I ate even less- only 1 proper meal, in the afternoon, and 5 eggs . In the last 3 days, I've been having a better diet- a small meal in the afternoon, 2 chapatis in the night and 4 eggs, a glass of milk and 3 fruit juices per day. This has looked pretty good till now.
Other than the diet, I did a lot of very low intensity cardio- walking. When at home (from 17th to 25th), I'd eat a couple of boiled egg whites and walk some 6km early in the morning. Again, in the evening, a 4km walk (but no eggs before this). Back in insti, I've been doing some olympic lifting and also some high intensity strength training.
Weight loss is almost always accompanied with strength loss, unless the weight loss is very slow and accompanied with a good diet. I havne't noticed significant loss in strength, but my endurance did suffer. While I'm used to lifting for about 70 min (my sessions were 100min long about an year back, but cut down to 50 min now), when I hit the gym for the first time on 27th, I was totally exhausted after 25 min. And I didn't even hit my maximum, was just doing a lot of reps. Just for info, I was doing snatch pulls, 8-10 reps in each set till 80kg and 6 reps each of 90kg and 100kg. My calorie intake was too low on 25 and 26 and that must have been the reason. Right now I feel a lot more energetic than I was 3 days back.
A little more info on losing weight. Cutting down on the calories is only one part of it, and you need to have good physical activity along with it. Also, cutting down too much is not good, it results in muscle loss and bone density loss. The cut should be gradual, not more than 0.5kg per week. I've crossed that limit though. When you go low on calories, your regular metabolism is slowed down, hence as you go through the cutting phase, your weight loss starts getting slower and slower. Say you started at 2800 calories per day and were losing 0.4kg per week, to continue losing at the same rate, after a couple of weeks, your calorie intake must be lesser than 2800, maybe 2600 or so.
Right now, I'm going to load up on calories for two days- will have a nice heavy meal in the afternoon and in the night. Then I'll go on another 4 week cut, with only rotis in lunch and dinner. Target now is to come down to 63kg by the end of August.
There are different kinds of people, genetically. People are usually recognized as ectomorphic (slim, can't gain or lose fat/muscle quickly), endomorphic (big, gain or lose fat/muscle quickly, esp fat) and mesomorphic (muscular, gain muscle quickly but not fat). I'm an ectomorph, a hardgainer- cannot gain fat or muscle quickly. This was my genetic thingy but after lifting for 2 years, I've put on a lot of fat. I definitely had to worry about my weight and so decided to go on a cut, to get down to about 63kg or so by mid September. Generally lifters go on bulking(gaining muscle and fat) and cutting(losing fat primarily) phases but I never went for a cut till last month. So this was my first cut ever, aimed at losing weight at the rate of 0.5kg per week.
First I'll tell the result. I started my cut on July 14 and on July 27 I weighed 64kg. Lost 2.5kg in 2 weeks, which is rather unhealthy. But this morning I checked my weight and I'm at 64.8 kg. So the 64kg was only a temporary one. I've probably lost around 2kg in 2 weeks, which is still a little too much for my body. But anyways, I'm quite happy with my weight now.
The diet I was on was a little tough. I was at home, still had to eat only small meals. The part wasn't about the small meals, but about being at home. With all the delicious food at home, I had a really hard time resisting the temptation to eat. I planned on going for 5 meals a day, with 4 eggs in a morning meal and soya chunks (some call it meal maker) in my last meal at night. But I ended up with only 3 small meals a day, and 2 eggs in the morning, and not even any juices. I'd snacked on a couple of biscuits sometime but that was all, nothing else. And on 25, 26 and 27 I ate even less- only 1 proper meal, in the afternoon, and 5 eggs . In the last 3 days, I've been having a better diet- a small meal in the afternoon, 2 chapatis in the night and 4 eggs, a glass of milk and 3 fruit juices per day. This has looked pretty good till now.
Other than the diet, I did a lot of very low intensity cardio- walking. When at home (from 17th to 25th), I'd eat a couple of boiled egg whites and walk some 6km early in the morning. Again, in the evening, a 4km walk (but no eggs before this). Back in insti, I've been doing some olympic lifting and also some high intensity strength training.
Weight loss is almost always accompanied with strength loss, unless the weight loss is very slow and accompanied with a good diet. I havne't noticed significant loss in strength, but my endurance did suffer. While I'm used to lifting for about 70 min (my sessions were 100min long about an year back, but cut down to 50 min now), when I hit the gym for the first time on 27th, I was totally exhausted after 25 min. And I didn't even hit my maximum, was just doing a lot of reps. Just for info, I was doing snatch pulls, 8-10 reps in each set till 80kg and 6 reps each of 90kg and 100kg. My calorie intake was too low on 25 and 26 and that must have been the reason. Right now I feel a lot more energetic than I was 3 days back.
A little more info on losing weight. Cutting down on the calories is only one part of it, and you need to have good physical activity along with it. Also, cutting down too much is not good, it results in muscle loss and bone density loss. The cut should be gradual, not more than 0.5kg per week. I've crossed that limit though. When you go low on calories, your regular metabolism is slowed down, hence as you go through the cutting phase, your weight loss starts getting slower and slower. Say you started at 2800 calories per day and were losing 0.4kg per week, to continue losing at the same rate, after a couple of weeks, your calorie intake must be lesser than 2800, maybe 2600 or so.
Right now, I'm going to load up on calories for two days- will have a nice heavy meal in the afternoon and in the night. Then I'll go on another 4 week cut, with only rotis in lunch and dinner. Target now is to come down to 63kg by the end of August.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Newton's "Laws" of motion
After a long time, I'm posting something that's a little different from weightlifting. For the last 4 years, I've been thinking that Newton's laws of motion should rather be Newton's theorems of motion.. Let me explain why...
I'm not sure if the concept of momentum existed in the time of Newton, but differential calculus was being developed in those days. Now, linear momentum is mv. According to all textbooks I've ever read (I don't care about the exact definition, this post is about how we use it), the first law states that a body tends to remain in a state of rest or uniform motion until acted upon by a force. Define force as the rate of change of momentum (as it is usually defined) and you have the first law here.... zero force implies a constant velocity vector and a constant velocity implies zero force.
The second law, that force is rate of change of momentum, or force is mass times acceleration, follows from the definition of force. For the first and second laws, all you need to do is to define a physical quantity called force and your job is done. Obviously, you cannot talk about force without defining it. Hence I find no point in calling these two laws laws... The second law should be called the definition of force, and the first law is a mere theorem.
The third law though, is supposed to be called so. Unless you go into that classical physics and all (I've read about this in PH101 or PH102, that the homogenity of space or something is responsible for this conservation of linear momentum), you need something to say that linear momentum is conserved... Even classical physics assumes homogenity of something and all, since there's an assumption, it doesn't follow from an existing thing and has to be considered an independent law.
Conclusion: Define force as rate of change of linear momentum and that's it, forget the first and second laws. The third law is really the most important law.
By the way, I don't mean any disrespect to anyone, just something I've been thinking. What still puzzles me is, how can we be taught about force and all the laws without defining it properly.. once it's defined, it's very obvious, isn't it?
That was my opinion on the laws. I'd love to have a discussion on these here....
I'm not sure if the concept of momentum existed in the time of Newton, but differential calculus was being developed in those days. Now, linear momentum is mv. According to all textbooks I've ever read (I don't care about the exact definition, this post is about how we use it), the first law states that a body tends to remain in a state of rest or uniform motion until acted upon by a force. Define force as the rate of change of momentum (as it is usually defined) and you have the first law here.... zero force implies a constant velocity vector and a constant velocity implies zero force.
The second law, that force is rate of change of momentum, or force is mass times acceleration, follows from the definition of force. For the first and second laws, all you need to do is to define a physical quantity called force and your job is done. Obviously, you cannot talk about force without defining it. Hence I find no point in calling these two laws laws... The second law should be called the definition of force, and the first law is a mere theorem.
The third law though, is supposed to be called so. Unless you go into that classical physics and all (I've read about this in PH101 or PH102, that the homogenity of space or something is responsible for this conservation of linear momentum), you need something to say that linear momentum is conserved... Even classical physics assumes homogenity of something and all, since there's an assumption, it doesn't follow from an existing thing and has to be considered an independent law.
Conclusion: Define force as rate of change of linear momentum and that's it, forget the first and second laws. The third law is really the most important law.
By the way, I don't mean any disrespect to anyone, just something I've been thinking. What still puzzles me is, how can we be taught about force and all the laws without defining it properly.. once it's defined, it's very obvious, isn't it?
That was my opinion on the laws. I'd love to have a discussion on these here....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
