Strength and Conditioning Department

[evo]

McGuane's calves are skinnier than my 9 year old sons.

 

[Ghost of 29]

McGuane's calves are skinnier than my 9 year old sons.

Has legs like a horse. However, he is quick and can jump.

Is there a "getting the ball and disposing it effectively" test?

yeah..every game of footy they play in the 2 yrs prior to being drafted

 

[Dyer Disciple]

Interestingly, Geelong put an ex rugby league fitness guy in charge, and this coincided with many of there players becoming much bigger and more physical. Once again, comes down to each person thoughts on fitness.

No offense, but I don't find this interesting at all. In fact I have worked and trained with a lot of rugby players, and know one ex-international test player who now works in elite sports performance and am very disappointed with his work.


One of his clients was one of my closest friends who was a police officer and was obsessed with bulk, to the point of wanting to nearly be a body builder. I was trying to talk him into a new program and he was highly resistant for months, but I knew his goals and a few months down the track he agreed to give it a try. At first he was alarmed at how much weight he was loosing, when he thought he needed weight/size. By the time I had him at his goal he was amazed, he looked a lot healthier and was amazed he was able to life weights he never could lift previously, despite dropping in size and weight, he was stronger.

As someone earlier in thiread suggested, there is no need to study the Mum & Dad, any fitness expert or team worth their salt can soon assess someone's capacity to put on weight/bulk up. There is no definitive evaluation when you are talking about the human body's performance/potential of course, but there are close to near probables that can be ascertained.

The problem in the past was Recruiters often didn't have the Fitness/Conditioning expertise to assess young candidates properly. This is why we have things like the Draft Camp since recruiting has become more of a science, where comprehensive data and measurements are taken on candidates and passed on to club club medical/fitness staff so they can work with recruiters.

As far as assessing muscle mass and size, there are a lot of myths. One of the biggest is that the size of a muscle is related to it's strength. This is not necessarily true.

This is what Wallace would be looking for with Thursfield, I would hazard a educated guess Thursfield is stronger in slow twitch than fast twitch muscle fibres, there is research that indicates slow twitch fibres respond less to weight training/stimulation than fast twitch fibres.

Point being, don't be deceived by size. Mass in football helps but extreme mass often detracts as much as it offers, the body is about 40% muscle, if that is highly conditioned you will be solid enough, rest assured. Especially if your core strength is trained as well and the supporting systems properly looked after (joints / tissue / skeletal).

All that said physics come into play also and you have to take into consideration mass and velocity, which is a big part of football as it is a factor aside from individual strength. So it all becomes quite complicated that the less experienced or educated cannot differentiate from.

I've seen people knock Thursfield for being a stick and yet a) I thought he put on considerable muscle mass and core strength this year and b) this is not his style of game. Silvagni was never that big either muscle mass wise and before people say well he was "the octopus", look a bit more closely, Thursfield plays exactly the same way. They both merely play as the rules/scrutiny in their era allow. I've been a big wrap for Thursfield since day one, both as Greg was considering him over Kirby (I think from memory) and right up to this year when he has copped a bit from some supporters on here.

 

[ZeroGame]

No offense, but I don't find this interesting at all. In fact I have worked and trained with a lot of rugby players, and know one ex-international test player who now works in elite sports performance and am very disappointed with his work.


One of his clients was one of my closest friends who was a police officer and was obsessed with bulk, to the point of wanting to nearly be a body builder. I was trying to talk him into a new program and he was highly resistant for months, but I knew his goals and a few months down the track he agreed to give it a try. At first he was alarmed at how much weight he was loosing, when he thought he needed weight/size. By the time I had him at his goal he was amazed, he looked a lot healthier and was amazed he was able to life weights he never could lift previously, despite dropping in size and weight, he was stronger.

As someone earlier in thiread suggested, there is no need to study the Mum & Dad, any fitness expert or team worth their salt can soon assess someone's capacity to put on weight/bulk up. There is no definitive evaluation when you are talking about the human body's performance/potential of course, but there are close to near probables that can be ascertained.

The problem in the past was Recruiters often didn't have the Fitness/Conditioning expertise to assess young candidates properly. This is why we have things like the Draft Camp since recruiting has become more of a science, where comprehensive data and measurements are taken on candidates and passed on to club club medical/fitness staff so they can work with recruiters.

As far as assessing muscle mass and size, there are a lot of myths. One of the biggest is that the size of a muscle is related to it's strength. This is not necessarily true.

This is what Wallace would be looking for with Thursfield, I would hazard a educated guess Thursfield is stronger in slow twitch than fast twitch muscle fibres, there is research that indicates slow twitch fibres respond less to weight training/stimulation than fast twitch fibres.

Point being, don't be deceived by size. Mass in football helps but extreme mass often detracts as much as it offers, the body is about 40% muscle, if that is highly conditioned you will be solid enough, rest assured. Especially if your core strength is trained as well and the supporting systems properly looked after (joints / tissue / skeletal).

All that said physics come into play also and you have to take into consideration mass and velocity, which is a big part of football as it is a factor aside from individual strength. So it all becomes quite complicated that the less experienced or educated cannot differentiate from.

I've seen people knock Thursfield for being a stick and yet a) I thought he put on considerable muscle mass and core strength this year and b) this is not his style of game. Silvagni was never that big either muscle mass wise and before people say well he was "the octopus", look a bit more closely, Thursfield plays exactly the same way. They both merely play as the rules/scrutiny in their era allow. I've been a big wrap for Thursfield since day one, both as Greg was considering him over Kirby (I think from memory) and right up to this year when he has copped a bit from some supporters on here.

Great post yet again :clap :clap

 

[IrockZ]

Thursfield could still get bigger, he is still being pushed around by most forwards and its no surprise the much stronger Moore was given the tougher roles this season because of it

 

[Jake]

Getting these young kids such as Edwards to bulk up to quickly will be very counter productive to their football development. It has to be a 3-4yr process where they are built up about 2-4kgs a preseason.

Personally I reckon most of the young kids are developing pretty well, although I would hope that Edwards and McGuane can make some progress this summer.

But it does seem we are all focusing on muscle size, when a better stat to see would be tan times, beep test, verticle jump test..basically the athletic based tests.

Edwards should put a photo of Darren Milburn on the front of this locker over the summer.

 

[seven]

No offense, but I don't find this interesting at all. In fact I have worked and trained with a lot of rugby players, and know one ex-international test player who now works in elite sports performance and am very disappointed with his work.


One of his clients was one of my closest friends who was a police officer and was obsessed with bulk, to the point of wanting to nearly be a body builder. I was trying to talk him into a new program and he was highly resistant for months, but I knew his goals and a few months down the track he agreed to give it a try. At first he was alarmed at how much weight he was loosing, when he thought he needed weight/size. By the time I had him at his goal he was amazed, he looked a lot healthier and was amazed he was able to life weights he never could lift previously, despite dropping in size and weight, he was stronger.

As someone earlier in thiread suggested, there is no need to study the Mum & Dad, any fitness expert or team worth their salt can soon assess someone's capacity to put on weight/bulk up. There is no definitive evaluation when you are talking about the human body's performance/potential of course, but there are close to near probables that can be ascertained.

The problem in the past was Recruiters often didn't have the Fitness/Conditioning expertise to assess young candidates properly. This is why we have things like the Draft Camp since recruiting has become more of a science, where comprehensive data and measurements are taken on candidates and passed on to club club medical/fitness staff so they can work with recruiters.

As far as assessing muscle mass and size, there are a lot of myths. One of the biggest is that the size of a muscle is related to it's strength. This is not necessarily true.

This is what Wallace would be looking for with Thursfield, I would hazard a educated guess Thursfield is stronger in slow twitch than fast twitch muscle fibres, there is research that indicates slow twitch fibres respond less to weight training/stimulation than fast twitch fibres.

Point being, don't be deceived by size. Mass in football helps but extreme mass often detracts as much as it offers, the body is about 40% muscle, if that is highly conditioned you will be solid enough, rest assured. Especially if your core strength is trained as well and the supporting systems properly looked after (joints / tissue / skeletal).

All that said physics come into play also and you have to take into consideration mass and velocity, which is a big part of football as it is a factor aside from individual strength. So it all becomes quite complicated that the less experienced or educated cannot differentiate from.

I've seen people knock Thursfield for being a stick and yet a) I thought he put on considerable muscle mass and core strength this year and b) this is not his style of game. Silvagni was never that big either muscle mass wise and before people say well he was "the octopus", look a bit more closely, Thursfield plays exactly the same way. They both merely play as the rules/scrutiny in their era allow. I've been a big wrap for Thursfield since day one, both as Greg was considering him over Kirby (I think from memory) and right up to this year when he has copped a bit from some supporters on here.

Great post - thanks for the insight of body strength vs body size.

ok, so tell me the new program you put your friend on. I'm intrigued.

 

[Ocker]

No offense, but I don't find this interesting at all. In fact I have worked and trained with a lot of rugby players, and know one ex-international test player who now works in elite sports performance and am very disappointed with his work.


One of his clients was one of my closest friends who was a police officer and was obsessed with bulk, to the point of wanting to nearly be a body builder. I was trying to talk him into a new program and he was highly resistant for months, but I knew his goals and a few months down the track he agreed to give it a try. At first he was alarmed at how much weight he was loosing, when he thought he needed weight/size. By the time I had him at his goal he was amazed, he looked a lot healthier and was amazed he was able to life weights he never could lift previously, despite dropping in size and weight, he was stronger.

As someone earlier in thiread suggested, there is no need to study the Mum & Dad, any fitness expert or team worth their salt can soon assess someone's capacity to put on weight/bulk up. There is no definitive evaluation when you are talking about the human body's performance/potential of course, but there are close to near probables that can be ascertained.

The problem in the past was Recruiters often didn't have the Fitness/Conditioning expertise to assess young candidates properly. This is why we have things like the Draft Camp since recruiting has become more of a science, where comprehensive data and measurements are taken on candidates and passed on to club club medical/fitness staff so they can work with recruiters.

As far as assessing muscle mass and size, there are a lot of myths. One of the biggest is that the size of a muscle is related to it's strength. This is not necessarily true.

This is what Wallace would be looking for with Thursfield, I would hazard a educated guess Thursfield is stronger in slow twitch than fast twitch muscle fibres, there is research that indicates slow twitch fibres respond less to weight training/stimulation than fast twitch fibres.

Point being, don't be deceived by size. Mass in football helps but extreme mass often detracts as much as it offers, the body is about 40% muscle, if that is highly conditioned you will be solid enough, rest assured. Especially if your core strength is trained as well and the supporting systems properly looked after (joints / tissue / skeletal).

All that said physics come into play also and you have to take into consideration mass and velocity, which is a big part of football as it is a factor aside from individual strength. So it all becomes quite complicated that the less experienced or educated cannot differentiate from.

I've seen people knock Thursfield for being a stick and yet a) I thought he put on considerable muscle mass and core strength this year and b) this is not his style of game. Silvagni was never that big either muscle mass wise and before people say well he was "the octopus", look a bit more closely, Thursfield plays exactly the same way. They both merely play as the rules/scrutiny in their era allow. I've been a big wrap for Thursfield since day one, both as Greg was considering him over Kirby (I think from memory) and right up to this year when he has copped a bit from some supporters on here.

I agree with most of what you're saying here - apart from the comment regarding genetics.
This is the underlying basis of the kenetic chain and you cannot change this no matter what you do.
Sure you can analyze and program for specific outcomes - and get improvements, but only up to where your biological make-up will allow.
Somebody mentioned McGuane's skinny calves - not matter how many calf raises he did he will struggle to put bulk on this area - genetics AND you've got to understand, if he did manage to actually bulk his calves this would most likely have a detrimental effect on his performance (leap & burst etc.).

 

[Ghost of 29]

DD,

My "interestingly" point was having listened to Chris Bradshaw talk about the new fitness guy and referring to the new power training he had implemented at geelong.

But you did illustrate my point, in that fitness training is subjective, much like a persons choice of beer or red wine.

Also, you did highlight a good point about size v strength. It makes sense that it is harder to move 100kg than 80kgs, and 100kgs will hit with a lot more force than 80kgs, but just being 100kgs is not a great indication that a person is stronger than a person weighing 80kgs.

Many years ago when I was running around being a try hard athlete in a water based sport, one guy I spoke to who was an ex national champion, advocated free body excercises as he felt that it built strength but not size as he always felt that big bulky guys were at a disadvantage.

Finally, I have always been of the thought that the human body will only build what it can carry. McGuane could push weights till he falls asleep and he will still remain basically what you see today. I know myself, i went a bit silly on the weights and got up to 85kgs. When the competitive season ended I had a month off, and within 2 weeks had gone back to 80kgs, which to this day I still remain. Point being that my body is only designed to carry 80kgs so I base all my training around that.

But DD, I did enjoy reading your post and it reminded of previous PE studies in Yr 11 and Yr 12. By far the most interesting topic of all subjects.

 

[Dyer Disciple]

Great post - thanks for the insight of body strength vs body size.

ok, so tell me the new program you put your friend on. I'm intrigued.

Thanks Seven.

It would irresponsible of me to reccomend any program to someone I didn't know, But I'm happy to discuss the principles/basics/methodology of the program. He also has some bad training and diet practices so it's very much on a individual basis, though that said, it's amazing how many people make the same mistakes.

Feel free to PM me if you wish to discuss a little more (bit off topic for this thread).

 

[Dyer Disciple]

DD,

My "interestingly" point was having listened to Chris Bradshaw talk about the new fitness guy and referring to the new power training he had implemented at geelong.

But you did illustrate my point, in that fitness training is subjective, much like a persons choice of beer or red wine.

Also, you did highlight a good point about size v strength. It makes sense that it is harder to move 100kg than 80kgs, and 100kgs will hit with a lot more force than 80kgs, but just being 100kgs is not a great indication that a person is stronger than a person weighing 80kgs.

Many years ago when I was running around being a try hard athlete in a water based sport, one guy I spoke to who was an ex national champion, advocated free body excercises as he felt that it built strength but not size as he always felt that big bulky guys were at a disadvantage.

Finally, I have always been of the thought that the human body will only build what it can carry. McGuane could push weights till he falls asleep and he will still remain basically what you see today. I know myself, i went a bit silly on the weights and got up to 85kgs. When the competitive season ended I had a month off, and within 2 weeks had gone back to 80kgs, which to this day I still remain. Point being that my body is only designed to carry 80kgs so I base all my training around that.

But DD, I did enjoy reading your post and it reminded of previous PE studies in Yr 11 and Yr 12. By far the most interesting topic of all subjects.

I hope I didn't come across as disrespectful when I said I don't find this interesting at all, apologies if I came across that way. I had a long day yesterday, had a rare day off and was dealing with tradesmen all day supervising some extensive renovations for a friend while they are away and having work done (brave huh?)...

So I was beat last night and worded my post too bluntly, what I meant to say is the fact they were ex-rugby didn't particularly qualify them in my eyes. I find all posts/knowledge/opionins/insights people share on this topic interesting.

I'm sure that person is highly qualified to be working at the Cats and would be a fantastic person to hear more about, it's amazing how many people in the general fitness industry are ex rugby or bodybuilders and think that qualifies them as conditioning experts, likewise aerobics instructors and boxers thinking they are fitness experts. It's just a pet hate is all, but not really related to your post so apologies again if I came across as having a dig at you.

Someone in charge at any AFL club would be highly credentialled of course.

I'm not sure I agree with your theory, given time the body has a amazing ability to adapt to environment or work loads but I certainly agree in general with you. There is certainly a limit to how far each body can go which is determined by a myriad of individual factors. I don't think it's so much a case of what it can carry as it is factors like training methodologies, diet, lifestyle with of course genetics (muscle fibre types, metabolism etc) playing a large part.

I like your way of thinking and I generally agree with you, the body certainly does have a way of managing itself I have a lot of theories related to that myself, but just not specifically in the way you mentioned IMHO. Otherwise the body wouldn't let you put too much fat on where you are straining your body/organs or wouldn't allow people to go to ridiculous levels of isolation training.

I've seem some freakish examples of people overloading parts of their body and not developing key other areas which puts tremendous strain and risk of injury on specific parts of the body.

 

[Dyer Disciple]

Many years ago when I was running around being a try hard athlete in a water based sport, one guy I spoke to who was an ex national champion, advocated free body excercises as he felt that it built strength but not size as he always felt that big bulky guys were at a disadvantage.

The old freeweights vs machines in weight training is as heated as the best available or structure needs first debate in drafting.

I’m a big advocate of free weights, especially for athletes in say, football codes. That said a good program should include both, there is no reason you can’t incorporate exercises from both in your program.

My approach is that free weights are good “for real strength” and conditioning of the body overall. Machines are great for isolating specific muscles. It’s a bit hard to explain while I’m distracted at work as I imagine some people might say, “well don’t you target specific muscles in any weight exercise?”. Of course, you do, but take for instance a common exercise like a bench press.

On a machine the workload is primarily in your pectoral muscles. When you do a bench press with a free weight/dumbbell you have what are often termed “stablisers” being developed as well. People not used to working with free weights generally find they can lift less on free weights for this reason. Stablisers are all the connecting ligaments, tissues, joints that support muscles. It is because of them that often people “shake” or get wobbly arms on a bench press in free weights even though they might lift the weight comfortable on a machine. It’s for this reason also you employ other major muscles more on free weights, for instance arms, shoulders at different ranges of movements.

The whole point of machines is to take some of the workload/strain of you so you can isolate muscles and for some, lift heavier weights in doing so.

I always advocate people to be vary wary of just using machines, I have a theory that I have seen a lot of evidence support over years that suggests people who do that have the highest risk of injury in weight training. Wether that be in the gym or in their sport/on the field. My theory is based on people not having developed their stabilisers sufficient for the workload they are putting themselves through. A lot of bodybuilders with bad practices will work on developing really large biceps say, but not work/condition the supporting tissues/ligaments and then wonder why they tear biceps irregularly.This can apply to any part of the body.

I’m not against machines by any means, they can be highly effective used right, it’s just my opinion that a program that includes both is best rather using one or the other.

Talking very vaguely and generally here, obviously it depends on individual objectives/requirements.

 

[Ghost of 29]

I hope I didn't come across as disrespectful when I said I don't find this interesting at all, apologies if I came across that way. I had a long day yesterday, had a rare day off and was dealing with tradesmen all day supervising some extensive renovations for a friend while they are away and having work done (brave huh?)...

So I was beat last night and worded my post too bluntly, what I meant to say is the fact they were ex-rugby didn't particularly qualify them in my eyes. I find all posts/knowledge/opionins/insights people share on this topic interesting.

I'm sure that person is highly qualified to be working at the Cats and would be a fantastic person to hear more about, it's amazing how many people in the general fitness industry are ex rugby or bodybuilders and think that qualifies them as conditioning experts, likewise aerobics instructors and boxers thinking they are fitness experts. It's just a pet hate is all, but not really related to your post so apologies again if I came across as having a dig at you.

Someone in charge at any AFL club would be highly credentialled of course.

I'm not sure I agree with your theory, given time the body has a amazing ability to adapt to environment or work loads but I certainly agree in general with you. There is certainly a limit to how far each body can go which is determined by a myriad of individual factors. I don't think it's so much a case of what it can carry as it is factors like training methodologies, diet, lifestyle with of course genetics (muscle fibre types, metabolism etc) playing a large part.

I like your way of thinking and I generally agree with you, the body certainly does have a way of managing itself I have a lot of theories related to that myself, but just not specifically in the way you mentioned IMHO. Otherwise the body wouldn't let you put too much fat on where you are straining your body/organs or wouldn't allow people to go to ridiculous levels of isolation training.

I've seem some freakish examples of people overloading parts of their body and not developing key other areas which puts tremendous strain and risk of injury on specific parts of the body.

Hard to put down thoughts on this, but you covered off exactly what I was thinking but in much better way. People can get fat, real fat and still get around. I was referring to an athlete in training/competition and that there is a limit to how much they can carry and still be effective, and this is in relation to sports such as footy, running and my chosen sport kayaking.

Once I figured this out through trial and error, I stopped worrying about trying to become a "gym monster" and focused more on quality work that complemented the sport..funnily enough I improved out of sight after that.

But again, really enjoy reading your posts on this topic as you seem to have a pretty solid grasp of the topic.

 

[Ghost of 29]

The old freeweights vs machines in weight training is as heated as the best available or structure needs first debate in drafting.

I’m a big advocate of free weights, especially for athletes in say, football codes. That said a good program should include both, there is no reason you can’t incorporate exercises from both in your program.

My approach is that free weights are good “for real strength” and conditioning of the body overall. Machines are great for isolating specific muscles. It’s a bit hard to explain while I’m distracted at work as I imagine some people might say, “well don’t you target specific muscles in any weight exercise?”. Of course, you do, but take for instance a common exercise like a bench press.

On a machine the workload is primarily in your pectoral muscles. When you do a bench press with a free weight/dumbbell you have what are often termed “stablisers” being developed as well. People not used to working with free weights generally find they can lift less on free weights for this reason. Stablisers are all the connecting ligaments, tissues, joints that support muscles. It is because of them that often people “shake” or get wobbly arms on a bench press in free weights even though they might lift the weight comfortable on a machine. It’s for this reason also you employ other major muscles more on free weights, for instance arms, shoulders at different ranges of movements.

The whole point of machines is to take some of the workload/strain of you so you can isolate muscles and for some, lift heavier weights in doing so.

I always advocate people to be vary wary of just using machines, I have a theory that I have seen a lot of evidence support over years that suggests people who do that have the highest risk of injury in weight training. Wether that be in the gym or in their sport/on the field. My theory is based on people not having developed their stabilisers sufficient for the workload they are putting themselves through. A lot of bodybuilders with bad practices will work on developing really large biceps say, but not work/condition the supporting tissues/ligaments and then wonder why they tear biceps irregularly.This can apply to any part of the body.

I’m not against machines by any means, they can be highly effective used right, it’s just my opinion that a program that includes both is best rather using one or the other.

Talking very vaguely and generally here, obviously it depends on individual objectives/requirements.

This guy gave me a list of about 10 excecises - well known ones in chin ups, dips, push ups and a bunch of obscure and obviously self invented excercises that aside from a chin up bar and dip bar, didn't require weights or equipment. In myself, I felt he was right in that I didn't put on much weight but didn't quite feel I got the strength gains so made so changes to the program. Once again horses for courses.

Fully agree on your theory on just using machine weights, and I think most in the fitness industry also agree.

 

[Ocker]

DD,

My "interestingly" point was having listened to Chris Bradshaw talk about the new fitness guy and referring to the new power training he had implemented at geelong.

But you did illustrate my point, in that fitness training is subjective, much like a persons choice of beer or red wine.

Also, you did highlight a good point about size v strength. It makes sense that it is harder to move 100kg than 80kgs, and 100kgs will hit with a lot more force than 80kgs, but just being 100kgs is not a great indication that a person is stronger than a person weighing 80kgs.

Many years ago when I was running around being a try hard athlete in a water based sport, one guy I spoke to who was an ex national champion, advocated free body excercises as he felt that it built strength but not size as he always felt that big bulky guys were at a disadvantage.

Finally, I have always been of the thought that the human body will only build what it can carry. McGuane could push weights till he falls asleep and he will still remain basically what you see today. I know myself, i went a bit silly on the weights and got up to 85kgs. When the competitive season ended I had a month off, and within 2 weeks had gone back to 80kgs, which to this day I still remain. Point being that my body is only designed to carry 80kgs so I base all my training around that.

But DD, I did enjoy reading your post and it reminded of previous PE studies in Yr 11 and Yr 12. By far the most interesting topic of all subjects.

Yes, this is exactly my point.
The outcome is almost pre-determined.
I too bulked up some time ago - 10kg in 6 months - tailored intense resistance program and eating like you wouldn't believe. Unfortunatley I also hit the wall - a symptom of over-training, and proceeded to lose 6 kg in 5 weeks.
With a new program (less training - less weight) I maintained my 'correct' weight with better fitness and as a result.

Many assiciated and clients profess the same theory.

 

[Ghost of 29]

I think between the three PRE fitness guru's in DD, Ocker and the Ghost, we have determined that the current fitness guys are actually doing a good job....better ring Gary March before he sacks the entire department, alternatively they coul simply hire us :hihi

 

[Dyer Disciple]

This guy gave me a list of about 10 excecises - well known ones in chin ups, dips, push ups and a bunch of obscure and obviously self invented excercises that aside from a chin up bar and dip bar, didn't require weights or equipment. In myself, I felt he was right in that I didn't put on much weight but didn't quite feel I got the strength gains so made so changes to the program. Once again horses for courses.

Ah, what that person was talking about then was intrinsic/resistance training and exercises. That's very different to free weights and yes, good way to develop strength without "bulking up". I'm a big fan of this training but once again as a component of a program rather than just purely any one thing (intrinsic, free weights, machines, circuit etc)

Great reading your posts Ghost, very interesting. You appear insightful and I always enjoy reading/hearing about peoples experiences in this topic.