A random photo taken at the gym which I have gone
to for the past 4.5 years (captured in July 2005)

ODAY at the health club, I finally received some more results from the Mr. Fitness competition. I did very well at the fourth stage (among ten) compared to the other nine contestants. I shoulder-pressed 110 kilograms (1 repetition maximum, on a Scott Machine), giving me 2ⁿ place and leaving me in joint in 1^st overall, on par with another competitor. This weight happens to be precisely 150% of what I was able to benchpress, excluding the weight of the bar.

The sounds of a high-pitch whisper

F you have a minute to spare, have a look at this on-line high-frequency hearing test. I cannot sense 18,000 Hz, but I’m fine at 17,000.

This test reminds me of yet another test, which I took a long time ago: a geekery test.

Update: In a different test, if I set the volume at maximum, I can hear 21 KHz, so I very much doubt the results of my previous test. At moderate volume levels, I can still cope with 19 KHz and maybe even 20 KHz. I am not sure what the baseline is, so I have not calibrated the volume on my headset.

My days of innocence

have never, in my entire life, not even after 10+ years of persistent training, attempted to find out how much weight I can benchpress. I am referring to a proper trial under good conditions and just one repetition, at maximum capacity. Perhaps I feared find this outing because of the possibility of injuries (particularly if the spine is permitted to bend). And yet, the curse has just been lifted, so to speak.

Today at the Health Club we undertook the second stage of the Mr. Fitness contest (I fortunately won the first stage). This time, for a change, the task was to benchpress the most weight just once, on a Scott Machine. Arms had to hover over the chest and the grip could be relatively wide if necessary. The back needed to stay tight on the bench. I started by securing a weight of 150KG (we get 3 attempts/goals in total), plus the bar which weighs about 5 KG. I then attempted 160KG successfully and finally I did 165KG, at which point it became hard. I could probably benchpress more, but I ran out of attempts (the third must be last). I later tried 170KG (175 including the bar, which bent under the heavy load), but I mistakenly allowed my arms go too low (below 90 degrees on the elbow), which botched it. I am still extremely pleased with this achievement.

Picture from the BBC

XCITING news (for me at least) came out yesterday afternoon. I won the rowing competition (first stage among 10) with the time of 10:43.5 for 3000 meters. The second among the 10 contestants was almost 1 minute behind me, which considering my neglected endurance, makes this a high achievement.

Related items on exercise:

• Rowing Ahead
• Decade of Exercise
• Mr. Fitness

A rare and important story such as this cannot and should not be ignored. An intersting scientific discovery has just come to my attention.

It turns out that nature’s own chemicals are more able to fight bacteria than one of man’s most significant developments: the invention of penicillin. And get this: a compound in wallaby milk is said to be 100 time more effective. Will humans start breeding wallabies? Or is the statement made in the article an exaggeration that will sooner or later be balanced?

Scientists have discovered a bacteria-fighting compound 100 times more effective than penicillin - in wallaby milk.

Researchers found the highly-potent compound, tagged AGG01, was active against a wide variety of fungi and bacteria including antibiotic-resistant superbugs.

I am not too happy to have read the following:

Caffeine boosts risk of heart attacks in the genetically susceptible.

People carrying a common variation in a certain gene could be worsening their risk of a heart attack simply by drinking several cups of coffee per day.

Daily count of coffee mugs: 6 so far.

More ‘coffee items’:

• Coffee Leads to Stress
• Mister Coffee
• Coffee Beer
• Concentrated Coffee
• Coffee in a Can

Shut your ears, stop the radiation and avoid the fumes

O this date, I loathe the prevalence of high-intensity antennas, particularly those that serve mobile communication. These are often installed on the top of roofs of businesses, which in turn get paid (bribed) to tolerate consequent inconveniences. It was only last month that I came to discover one such controversy. This happened at a hotel I used to go to, where demonstrations by local residents were sparked by a decision to install monstrous antennas.

I still refuse to embrace telephony (alluded to in this previous essay) unless it is vital. I am aware of the ‘radiative implications’ of cellular phones, especially when they are active, i.e. on call. Vis-a-vis, my father encouraged my older sister to always use headphones and a microphone with her cellular phone, if not limit its use altogether. The issue of radiation lingers on and exacerbates as time goes. The reason: wireless communication rises owing to customer demand and bandwidth greed.

To digress, then comes the issue of wireless Internet networking, which I have always been wondering about with health complications/implications in mind. Whether commonplace Wireless or even Bluetooth, such radio frequencies of strong magnitude increase the risk level or rate of tumour growth and development. Turning over to some recent news, you can finally find a University where wireless access has been limited due to health concerns.

Criticism of wireless network is somewhat of a taboo, still. You cannot comfortably point this out among your surrounding colleagues and friends. The crushing majority does not care and does not want to know about the long-term consequences, which are yet to affect the young(er) generation most prominently.

While on the subject of self-damaging habits amongst society, choice of headphones should be yet another important matter. Many choose in-ear headphone and listen to loud music. Some of the local clubs would leave my ears ringing for 2 days afterwards, so no doubt damage is being done.

Lastly, my last health concern is related to smoking. Fortunately here in Britain, nightclubs and pubs were very recently requested to inherit and embrace the “No Smoking” policy, thereby joining other venues like the workplaces. Surely enough, some of us could abstain from going to smoky places, but what about the staff — those who do not necessarily smoke? The smoke-free workplace arguments collide. Some employees at the pubs, such as bartenders, may spend dozens of hours per week passively exposed to constant inhalation of damaging smoke. It clogs up the lungs, ruins the voice, and makes the clothes reek. That is not a matter of choice, but a way of making ends meet.