The Difference Between Power Liting and Bodybuilding

Like bodybuilding, power lifting is no longer a rare sport like it was a decade ago. As a sport, power lifting has survived an era of misunderstanding and biased under – appreciation, to become a popular sport. But most people cannot differentiate between bodybuilding and power lifting. Power lifting is as ancient as it is unique.

While bodybuilding is not yet a recognized sport, power lifting was incorporated in the inaugural Olympic Games in 1896. Bodybuilding is simply put, not a sport. Power lifting was and has remained the only Olympic sporting event that involves as part of the sport, heavy weights. At a time when most people did not understand or appreciate the sport, power lifting was given a slot in the Olympics. This led to it being commonly referred to as the Olympic Power lifting or quite simply Olympic Lifting.

Today most people no longer regard bodybuilding and power lifting in ignorance. It’s a common understanding that power lifting is a modern sport exhibiting the world’s strongest and most powerful men and lately women, competing to lift unbelievable weight sizes.

Weightlifters are therefore the Body building on the other hand is a modern quest exhibiting men and women with unbelievably large and well defined strongest and often those with the most powerful muscles from all over the world while bodybuilders posses the largest muscles toned to perfection. Both body builders and weight lifters learn their art and build their muscles through hard and specialized training. Training for power lifting involves developing enormous body strength packed in compact body frames not in bulk frames possessed by bodybuilders.

Bodybuilders are extremely dedicated and disciplined athletes who in most times are quite strong. But these can not compare in strength with the best weightlifters. Actually a difference between the two sports is that body builder’s well formed muscles whether possessing strength or not, compete solely based on their appearance. Yet weight lifters develop muscles purely for strength. In most instances, muscle size does not correlate highly with strength.

We have four broad categories in which we can classify those athletes who train with weights. These include weight trainers, weight lifters, power lifters and bodybuilders. Though these sports use weights as their training tools, they are distinct and much specialised sports.

There are those individuals who train and practice with weights for purposes of their general fitness, or to as an effort to improve their performance in some other sport, are basically called weight trainers. Those athletes with smaller and often less visible muscles may out-lift bodybuilders with voluminous muscles. The athletes who train with weights purely to build strength participate in the sport called power lifting. On their part, body builders do not train with weights primarily for strength but to form large and well defined muscles. Power lifters are extremely strong athletes with a level of competition beyond that of weigh lifters.

Power lifting is primarily a test of body strength and power while body building is a show of developed and well defined body muscles. In power lifting, body power is a crucial factor because the ability to move with speed and balance ultra heavy weight barbells is relatively as important as pure strength itself. In body building, the ability to identify and develop the volume of each body ligament and fibre to solid distinct muscle packs is determined not only by conscious effort but by persistent application of pressure.

The Mystery Of The Missing Magnetic Monopoles

The night sky above Earth blazes with the distant fierce fires of countless stars, and when we stare up at this magnificent spectacle of stellar fireworks, we cannot help but wonder how this show came to be. What scientists know now, or at least what they think they now know, is that the Universe was born about 13,800,000,000 years ago in the Big Bang, when it began as an exquisitely small Patch, much smaller than an elementary particle, and then–in the tiniest fraction of a second–expanded exponentially to reach macroscopic size. Something–we do not know what–made that tiny Patch experience this bizarre runaway inflation. Mysteries are enticing, singing a haunting sirens’ song to those who care to listen to its captivating melody. One of the best-kept secrets of the Cosmos involves a weird hypothetical elementary particle called a magnetic monopole. According to theory, these exotic magnetic monopoles should exist somewhere in the Universe–and yet not one solitary magnetic monopole has ever been found lurking anywhere in Spacetime.

If a bar magnet is cut in half, the outcome is a duo of smaller bar magnets–and each magnet sports its own south pole and north pole. But hypothetical magnetic monopoles–if they really are out there somewhere–travel to the beat of a different drummer. These exotic elementary particles that clearly “do their own thing” can have either a south pole, or a north pole, but not both.

Alas, for the past 70 years, physicists have hunted for these exotic particles that should have been born in abundance in the Big Bang, only to come up empty-handed. A monopole is defined as a magnetic version of a charged particle, such as a negatively charged electron, or a positively charged proton. Because in particle physics a monopole is an isolated magnet with only one magnetic pole (a north without a south pole, or vice versa), a magnetic monopole would have a net magnetic charge.

Electric monopoles exist as particles that sport either a positive or negative electric charge. Magnetism, of course, seems somewhat analogous to electricity. This is because there exists in nature a magnetic field that possesses a direction that is defined as running from north to south. However, the analogy breaks down in scientific attempts to detect the magnetic counterpart of the electric charge. Even though we can find electric monopoles in the form of charged particles, scientists have never been able to observe a magnetic monopole.

The only magnets that we know of are all dipoles–with north and south ends. When a bar magnet is split into two pieces, you do not get either a north or south pole–both separated pieces still possess both poles. The two new dipole magnets are simply identical, smaller versions of the original dipole magnet. No matter how many times the magnets are split into individual particles, all that will emerge are increasingly more numerous, smaller dipole progeny.

When we study the way magnetism works in the world that we are familiar with, what we see is consistent with Maxwell’s equations. Maxwell’s equations describe the unification of electric and magnetic field theory in respect to one of the four known fundamental forces of nature: the electromagnetic force. The other three known forces of nature are the strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and gravity.

Maxwell’s equations were first published by the Scottish mathematical physicist James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) between 1861 and 1862, and they demonstrate that we could swap electric for magnetic fields and not observe any appreciable difference. This means that the two are symmetrical. Even today Maxwell’s equations are still used on a practical level in telecommunications, engineering, and medical applications–to list only a few. However, one of these equations–Gauss’s law for magnetism–indicates that there are no magnetic monopoles in the Universe. Nevertheless, many physicists think that there is good reason to suspect that these elusive elementary particles are really there. This is because their existence in nature would explain why the electric charge is quantized–that is, why it always appears to come in integer multiples of the charge of an electron, rather than in a continuous array of values. Indeed, the French physicist Pierre Curie (1859-1906), as far back as 1894, pointed out–in contrast to Maxwell’s Gauss’s law–that magnetic monopoles could really exist in nature, despite the fact that none had been detected.

The quantum theory of magnetic charge began with a paper by the English theoretical physicist Paul A.M. Dirac (1902-1984) in 1931. In this paper, Dirac demonstrated that if any magnetic monopoles exist in the Cosmos, then all electric charge in the Cosmos must be quantized. Since Dirac’s paper, several systematic hunts for the elusive magnetic monopoles have been conducted. Alas, not one has found a single magnetic monopole anywhere in the Universe.

Historically, many researchers attributed the magnetism of lodestones to two different “magnetic fluids” (“effluvia”). These early scientists proposed that there existed a north-pole “fluid” at one end and a south-pole fluid at the other, which attracted and repelled each other in a way similar to positive and negative electric charges.

However, an improved understanding of electromagnetism in the 19th-century indicated that the magnetism of lodestones was better explained by Ampere’s circuital law, rather than “fluids”. Andre-Marie Ampere (1775-1836) was a French physicist and mathematician who was one of the founders of classical electromagnetism. Ampere’s circuital law relates the integrated magnetic field around a closed loop to the electric current flowing through the loop. However, it was actually James Clerk Maxwell (not Ampere) who derived it using hydrodynamics in his 1861 paper.

The magnetism that we see today can be attributed entirely to the movement of electric charges. Indeed, the equations describing electricity and magnetism are “mirror images” of one another. However, there is one important difference between the two. Protons and electrons carry electric charges, but there is no known particle that carries a magnetic charge. A magnetic monopole would be the first to carry a charge, and if one were ever detected, electricity and magnetism would finally be equal. If even one solitary magnetic monopole were found inhabiting the Universe, this important discovery would profoundly effect the foundations of physics.

Society’s Shift From Free Play to Sports

Most of us have seen the movie “The Sandlot” and remember growing up with summers filled with adventure and freedom. I think we all believe that there has been a severe shift from free play to organized sport. Many of us believe that the one of the problems is technology and another is the two extremes of parent involvement (either too involved or lack of involvement). I think that they are not only part of the problem but have a symbiotic relationship in the drive of kids from free play to organized sport or no sport. In fact, I believe that this technophile generation’s technology addiction is a symptom of the lack of parent involvement.

One of the theories of sport sociology is that sport is a reflection of society. We also can agree that sport teaches many things including cultural values, coordination, fitness, competition, how to follow rules, and at times, nationalism and reinforces them through play. As a brief look through the sports sociological portion of the sociocultural domain of sport sciences, I believe that the shift from free play to organized sport is a reflection of our current society and its drive toward the future.

Just as with much of our current condition, we must look back to key points in history that have had immeasurable influence on today. In our time, the two major events is often the Industrial Revolution beginning in 1760 and the Great Depression from October 29, 1929 to the beginning of World War II. The industrial revolution brought about many great achievements to society, which resulted in more jobs. These new jobs allowed individuals to work towards success and truly embody the American Dream of the ability to achieve one’s dreams. From 1840 to the 1920’s, society became technologically advanced and the world became more prosperous than ever before in such a short time. This time period saw the invention and proliferation of the radio and the popularization of organized sport. Professional sports could now be brought into the home. However, with the stock market crash in October of 1929, many businesses failed and many individuals lost their family’s earned savings. People now had to work harder for less. Kids during this time had to make do with what they had and often it was simple. Kids saw their parents work hard and hope for the future. Kids were left to dream and imagine. This resulted in much free play with simple sports equipment like sticks and sandlots and whatever could be scrounged. Kids dreamed of playing “the big leagues” while they worked to help supplement family income. Free play at this time was king as it was simple and could be made up with what was at hand.

The beginning of World War II saw many of these kids being drawn into the conflict in Europe and the Pacific. This was the end of the Great Depression as the world’s industries turned toward national pride and began to support the war efforts against a common goal. Families began to recover from the Depression and began to become affluent again. As time moved on through the war and further into the 20th Century, families realized that another time of hardship could happen and resolved to make sure their children did not have to suffer at the same level again. Thus began the push to develop and train children from an early age to go to college, gain a trade or succeed in sports. At first, the push was simple. However, as time progressed, each child was pushed harder to gain the competitive edge over their peers. Parents were the driving force through their determination to help their children succeed. School became a time consumer that involved time at the school itself and at home with homework. As the competition increased, sport also became part of that edge. Interestingly enough, during this time the world saw the proliferation of the television in homes. Families became affluent, enable them to purchase these luxury items. Sports was now in the home through both mediums of television and radio. This timeframe brought legendary sports heroes like Pele, Muhammed Ali, and Joe Dimaggio into the homes and imagination of the world. The heroes were compared to their predecessors like Babe Ruth and kids began to aspire to be like them.

Jump ahead to the 1980’s and beyond and you will find the beginning of the computer age. Information began to flow into the homes and hands of every individual with a computer, phone and tablet. The world found itself in a new high of affluence. The children who grew up during and shortly after the Great Depression were now the parents. They wanted to be able to give their children what they were unable to have. Often this meant both parents were working outside the home. These working parents now had to find a safe place for their children to be after school until they got home from work. Coupled with the drive for kid’s success, kids were placed in sports programs at school or through an after-school program.

When children were home, it was after a long day at school and afterschool. The parents were too tired to engage with their children and often turned to television to decompress from work. Kids now did not have the time or energy to play outside. When they had time, they would be told to either do homework or practice. When not preparing to succeed in the classroom or field, kids were plied with technology and mimicked their parents by soaking themselves in technology and information exchange.

With the rise of organized sport and affluence, there rose a new industry of sports products to support the highly specialized sports kids were playing. No longer could a kid be cool with a “hand-me-down” glove from dad or brother. Commercialism has now brought forth a drive for only having the newest and the best. The specialization of sports meant that specialized equipment and facilities made it difficult for children to play on their own the sports that they were once playing with a stick and an imaginary field.

So how does all of this tie together? Parents are less involved in their children’s lives as they are too busy trying to be successful. As part of the parent’s success, they want their kids to be successful. This is due to the new world view of what qualifies as success and happiness. At the beginning of the industrial revolution, these success and happiness were defines by relationships and family. Now, success is tied into money and position, and happiness is tied into materialism.

Our society is moving toward more regulation and less freedom. It is also moving toward more oversight in every part of our lives. Sports is a microcosm of that. Play has moved into more organized sports as a reflection of society’s move towards more regulation, oversight and the shift in what defines success and happiness.

This is a brief overview of how history has affected sports and has shaped sports as a study of the current sociology. In no way am I saying there should not be organized sport, as it is a very valuable tool in society for many reasons. However, the underlying principles in the shift from free play to sport must be addressed.

Gwen Stefani Dives Into the World of Fragrance

Gwen Stefani has clearly defined herself by her unique talent and abilities on the music charts. She has also managed to translate her unique sense of style into her own clothing line called L.A.M.B which is an acronym she created that stands for Love, Angel, Music, Baby (she incorporates this into her song lyrics which helps solidify her brand as well). What else would possibly come next, but a new fragrance? Following in the footsteps of many other celebrity endorsed product brands including Jennifer Lopez, Stephani has made the jump into the cosmetics industry with the introduction of her new fragrance called “L”. It is suspected that this will be followed up with the other letters A, M and B, but at this point that remains to be seen.

What does the new fragrance smell like?

Apparently, Gwen wanted to create a very light, clean, refreshing green fragrance that could be worn by just about anyone. The scent may remind you of the first day of spring with just a slight hint of sexy. The top notes include: leafy water hyacinth, sparkling green freshness, violet leaves, fresh pear and white freesia. The heart or middle notes are: rose, jasmine petals, brush stroke of orange blossom, sweet pea and muget. The base or final notes come from: sensual musk, heliotrope flower, peach skin and frangipani blossom. The scent is subtle and not overpowering. It is more of a clean smell and less like wearing your grandmother’s perfume, which for most young people today is a good thing.

What forms of the product are available?

Gwen Stefani’s “L” from the L.A.M.B line includes several forms including a .11 oz solid perfume compact, three sizes of eau de parfum sprays: 1 oz, 1.7 oz and 3.4 oz as well as a shower gel and body lotion. Fragrance professionals usually recommend layering the product by using all of the various forms in order to create the most lasting effect.

The presentation and packaging

The packaging appears to have somewhat of a uni-sex appearance with an elegant rectangular shaped top that is engraved with line that steps over and drops down from the center and rainbow colored translucent glass bottle. The “L” appears engraved with an old English style. The shower gel and lotion come in turquoise colored tubes with a gold “L” on them and the solid parfum compact is very elegant in all gold. Overall, the look is very elegant, maybe even indulgent and very upscale. The print ads are nothing short of glamorous with Gwen sporting a Marilyn Monroe look and plenty of glitz and shine.

Conclusion

Some reviewers have claimed that Gwen Stefani’s new L.A.M.B fragrance “L” is not as unique and original as the singer herself is, but she has attained her goal of a fresh, subtle, green scent. Her packaging and presentation are beautifully elegant and the print ads are extremely glamorous with Stefani channeling Marilyn Monroe.