Being open about being LGBT on campus is not as difficult as you might expect. There's, I personally have experienced fairly little bullying and harassment, but it's sort of a don't ask, don't tell situation. I don't announce it, but if somebody does ask, I'll be truthful. And frankly, I'm just tired of hearing the phrase, that's so gay. What can my school do to create a safer atmosphere? I feel that holding a series of basically like assemblies or seminars, I guess you could call them, on bullying would be a good decision. Give examples of cases in which it happens that were sort of extreme but fairly common. And then just to, I think like posters and speakers would be a step in the right direction. I first began to realize my career identity around I believe halfway or so through seventh grade. I think I was 12, maybe 13 years old. It wasn't too long ago, but since then I've been very passionate about establishing civil rights. My favorite movie is really Scott's Prometheus because of, it's very hard to understand it and it's very complicated and it's very sort of artistic. My favorite color has to be either like black or purple. Purple because it presents sort of like a, it's not traditional for like a man to wear pink or purple, but still it's what I sort of would like to wear.


What's better for gains, training harder, but less frequently or training more frequently, but less hard. Watch this. Our next caller is Ian from North Carolina. What's up Ian? How can we help you? Hey there. Very nice to meet you guys. I wanted to say two quick things. First, I wanted to say a huge thank you from all the people that you are impacting their lives in a positive way for which you should all be very proud. Thank you. Thank you. We're super proud of ourselves. Stop it. Rune it, Sal. Yeah. And the second is I listened to you guys at like two X speed on the podcast.  Well, to speed it up for you. No problem. All right. There you go. My question is I need to map run maps performance three times. And should I do it phase one three times, then phase two, or should I go through the whole thing and just start over? Yeah, that's actually a very easy one to answer. But can I ask you what's with the three times? Is there a reason why? Well, why ask this question? Well, I guess you should step back a little bit. I started listening to you guys, I don't know, about three years ago. And if you came to me and you said you're working out 10 times too much. And while you're working out, you're resting 100 times too little. And you're also eating half as much as you should. I would have thought you guys are out of your minds. But that's pretty much true across every point. I was doing everything wrong. So I listened a while and I got anabolic and I started following it. But I was still doing too much. I was doing too much trigger. I was doing too often and I was getting results, but not great results. And I think I was listening to one of the podcasts and listening to the one where you're talking about the five by five. So I decided to try it.  And I did just at 125 reps. And for whatever reason, I was only hitting workouts every fifth day. And I just saw like a light switch just went off. And I finally got to the adaptive stage. So it finally started to make sense. So even in anabolic, I did the preface for like three months. You guys say three weeks. But I mean, I'm learning these exercises, even though I've been an athlete my whole life. All of this stuff is new. So now I'm going into performance and this stuff is all so new. For instance, when I did a Turkish get up the first first rep, I had to take a nap because it was just so so new. So that's why that's kind of why I'm asking, should I really focus on perfecting the movements and getting through each phase correctly and right, or should I just go through the whole thing? That's a really cool. OK, now, this is a cool question. I like that. I like the mentality. I do like the mentality, too. That makes a lot more sense now why you would even want to do something like that. And I think that's great advice for a lot of people listening, because I think sometimes people just move from, you know, program hop, you know, all the time and they don't ever spend enough time getting good at some of the movements. And that's where the gains and the results really start to pile on as you get better at it. Now, that being said, you'd be better off just running through it and then starting over and running through it. And you'll get the same benefits of getting better at it and practice it. Plus, you're not getting stuck in the same rep range in phase for too long to where you see diminishing results. I think there's a little bit of a misconception that you think that phase one is easier than phase two and phase three. That's progressing you from less hard to more hard or less challenging and more challenging. That's not how the phases work. They're just different forms of adaptation. Different proceeds. Maps and Ebola is different because prephase is literally designed to get people ready to do maps and Ebola. And I did that because that was the first maps program. We didn't have maps starter. We didn't have maps resistance back then. It was just maps and Ebola. And I said, well, you know, somebody goes right into phase one, but they haven't been, you know, lifting weights. Like they need to practice some of these lifts for a little while first. And that's why I created prephase. But with mass performance, it's not like that phase one, two, three, four. They're all different. They're all good. They're all different. You're not necessary. You're not progressing in the sense that, you know, you're going from easier to harder. They're just totally different. So I would go through it as it's laid out and then go through it again as it's laid out. Now, one thing you're going to find is a lot of similar movements in each of the phases. So you're going to be practicing some of the most important, you know, movements throughout the whole program. So don't worry about, you know, the lack of practice type of deal. And then the last thing I'd like to ask is has to do with your diet and sleep.  So there's something something's going on here, or you worked out once every five days and you got good results. That tells me that your recovery isn't super great. And that might have to do with other factors like stress or sleep or hormones or something like that. Am I ringing some bells here? Maybe I think it was, you know, really, I was just doing too much. I mean, when I was training to put in perspective, I was doing, I was running, I guess, the equivalent of running one to two marathons a day, five times a week and then racing on the weekends. Oh, I mean, it was just, yeah, way, way too much. Wow. So now are you doing anything like that now while you're following mass performance?  I mean, it was really when I went to the fifth every fifth day that I allowed my bad body to adapt. That's when I saw, I mean, and the thing that like triggered is my appetite just went through the roof. How long, how long were you doing that crazy regime for of the running a marathon every day? Well, that was at the height of it. So, I mean, I was doing triathlons after I finished. I was originally a swimmer and I did swimming in college and all of that. And then, as you would call it, I did, you know, weightlifting with aerobics or speed weightlifting. Yeah, yeah. So strength training is like a completely new shock to the system. Yeah. And it sounds like, yeah.  Yes, I think it really took my body time to recover and kind of say, my body was basically saying, oh, really, you're going to let us, you know, recover and actually adapt. And it wasn't until it actually just like, OK, we'll let you do it. Oh, well, excellent. Well, you're in a great place now. This is exciting. Yeah, it is.  I think that's the best way to do it. OK, so you think that even though I'm going like every four or five days that they'll be able to really learn the exercises and not necessarily because you guys talk about the CNS connection and sort of learning the movement. OK, so I'm going to give you some other advice and try this instead of going once every five days. And you're not doing an additional workouts, right? You said you're just walking. Walking and trigger or, you know, just the minor. Got it. Actually, I do mobility stuff on the other days. OK, so instead of once every five days doing a foundational workout, do them Monday, Wednesday, Friday and reduce the intensity. OK, just reduce the intensity a lot. That way you could do the frequency of the workouts. So that's and that will probably feel better on your body than keeping high intensity with less frequency. And you already have the right mindset and thought process of like, you know, you want to get good at these movements. So just think that way as you're going to back off the intensity so much. Don't worry about it. If it's not super heavy or really hard, that's OK. You you're trying to practice. You want to get good at the movements. I think if you you scale way back on the intensity, yeah, you could easily do three times a week and not be anywhere near overtaxing your body. And you're going to get you're going to get better at the movements a lot faster. I think I think you'll see some great results from that. I would love in. Are you on Facebook by chance? Not much, but you have heard about your form. Yeah. Well, I'm going to have Doug get you in there. So we'll add you for free so we could. And I'd love to kind of hear your process as you're going through that way you can reach out to us and let us know what you're noticing. Or if you have any questions along the way, I'll have Doug give you free access to that. And then if you could try and stay in touch with us, maybe every couple of weeks or whatever, just let us know how you're doing and what's going on. And if we need to make any sort of subtle tweaks, we can along the way. Sure. That sounds great. Thank you very much for the advice. Thanks for calling in. All right, Ian. Thank you. All the best. Yeah, I think I think he went from. Yeah, crazy training, resistance training. And the reason why he started responding after training once every five days, he finally gave his body time to recover from what he was doing. Well, it's funny, like the Turkish get up, it doesn't like look that crazy in terms of like, but it just requires so much focus. And I could see how that would be like, you know, a real shock to the body, to where it fatigue you. Oh, yeah, especially if you've never done it. I mean, shit, I've said this before in the podcast that there'd be times when that would be my workout. I just practiced, I do five sets of practicing the Turkish get up. It really involves like everything.  So, but I love, you know, you got to love hearing that about somebody who is running triathlons and marathons and kind of hammering his body, come into the realization that he's probably way over training, scaling all the way back to where he's only training once every five days and boom, all of a sudden the body responds.  And then the path that he's on, the direction he's going and the thought process of I want to get good at these movements and having that attitude going into this routine. Very excited to see where this guy is at in six months to a year. But I would say if you're over training, the first thing to reduce his intensity would be the first place I would look. Then you can look at volume and then frequency. No, that's good. Because like he said, like you want to get good at it. So you want to keep repeating the movements, but just bring the intensity down and allows you to do that and get good. And people don't realize that the workout can still be very effective.  So no, great. That was great advice. Yeah, totally.


t means is that it is making people sick. Those are two levers that we would immediately need to have back in order to build and recognise the pressure on the health service. The answer to the West Lothian question for me will always be independence. Of course, there is no sense to MPs from Scotland going to Westminster to vote on the English education service or the English health service. Why would they do that? However, there is no other way around that. I think that Westminster now will turn itself inside out and in knots trying to see how that might happen, but there is only one answer. The one answer to all of that, to our health, to our wellbeing, to the discovery of our country, to really allowing people to take part in all of that. It does not mean that they will not care about people in Liverpool. I am so sick of an argument that talks about universal socialism as though we cannot. The answer is that we should not ever govern Scotland. It is a nonsense. We can share unions work across the world. As a country, we have done that ourselves, and I care as much for somebody in Liverpool as I do in Bonn or Gaza or anywhere else where there is real concern for a fellow human being. However, the answer for us in order to do best by our country will always be that we absolutely govern it. My dedication to an independent Scotland will not be diminished by the outcome last Friday morning. I suggest that it is only the start of a long road or a short road, not the end of one. Thank you. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and for your own words and opening time for reflection this afternoon. I begin, perhaps unusually, but not in precedence, and I hope not for the last time by agreeing with Annabelle Ewing. It is a privilege for all of us to take part in this debate today, just as it has been a privilege to be part of the historic discussions that we have had in the chamber and, indeed, outside of the chamber over the past two or so, or perhaps three years. The votes now, all of them, are counted and the result is known. The people have had their say. Before this afternoon's debate began, one might have asked what was there for politicians to add when the people have spoken so decisively. Unsurprisingly, we have managed to fill the time, but beyond our anecdotes from the campaign trailer, our next task will be to meet the hopes of those that we represent. When we last met members on this side, we were clear that whatever the result, we would, of course, accept it. There was much talk about self-determination, and it was pointed out then that self-determination would be the result whatever the outcome of last week's vote. The people of Scotland have, by a margin of 10 points, exercised their right to self-determination in favour of union with the rest of Britain and Northern Ireland. I appreciate that those in this country and, most obviously, in this chamber who are grieving as a result of their side losing this argument with the people of Scotland. Indeed, in the public debates that I took part in over the past few weeks, I am certain. I thank the member for taking intervention and absolutely agree with him regarding respect in the will of the people. Will he respect the will of the people of Glasgow, who overwhelmingly voted yes? Of course. The question that was asked was a question of national self-determination is what I would say to Sandra White, and I believe that it was national self-determination that Sandra White has campaigned for, so I hope that we will respect that. In the public debates that I took part in over the past few weeks, I said at the vote that, if it had been for breaking up the United Kingdom, I would accept it, but I would also deeply regret it. I am happy that the positive case for partnership has won out over the case for independence. That means that, although I accept that the grief—indeed, I have to say unfortunately, Presiding Officer, this afternoon, the bitterness that we have heard from Christine Grahame and Christina McKelvie—is genuine grief, and I respect that, but I also say that we cannot allow grief to be transformed yet again into grievance. The vote was a decisive endorsement of our place in the United Kingdom and of this Parliament's permanent place in the governance of that kingdom. We argued that Scotland could vote for the best of both worlds last Thursday, and that is what it did. A strong Scottish Parliament within the UK is not in opposition to it. That is now the duty of all of us, of all of us in this place, in this generation, who have determined our future. This Parliament has come of age, and now it will be strengthened. Those who continue to believe that nationhood can only be demonstrated by statehood may see more powers as some kind of consolation in their defeat, but I do not believe that devolution is a consolation prize. It is a prize worth taking on its own terms. This Parliament has always had real power, even if it has not always had the unity of national purpose to exercise it. Big decisions lie ahead in the days in which we are now agreed in the years to come. The first decision facing all of us is whether we have the courage to accept the result and to choose to make this place work in the way that campaigners and leaders who founded it wished it to do. The referendum campaign had good and bad points—we have heard that this afternoon—but it is a truth acknowledged by us all that the energy and ideas that have dominated the last period were not just about which country we will be, but about what kind of country we choose to be. I often felt that many on the yes side were asking the right questions about our politics and our future, but I was never convinced that their answer was the right one. The people of Scotland have come to that decision for themselves, too. Those questions of social justice and of democracy were the same ones that led to this Parliament's creation at the end of the last century. They must now lead our approach to the future of devolution, which is, as others have said, the settled will of the Scottish people. In two referendums over my lifetime, the people of Scotland have affirmed the place of this Parliament, and now the people of Scotland have affirmed the place of Scotland within a union with our closest neighbours and friends. It falls to us to reach out to one another whether we are cheered by the result or depressed by it, to pick up the baton which campaigners on all sides and which the people of Scotland have carried to the final result. The result of this vote is more than a rumour—it is the settled will of the Scottish people. The nation as a whole has determined it, and no one in this place or elsewhere has the right to ignore that. On this side, we relish the task that lies ahead of us as members of a great and proud Labour movement to reconnect and to articulate the concerns of real people in this Parliament, just as you asked all members to do, Presiding Officer. To do the job on our side that Labour has always strived to do, to rebalance power in our society in favour of people. Whether or not the hand of reconciliation is accepted by the other side, there can be no doubt that it has been extended today. What happens next will be the ultimate test of positivity. I hope that those who have lost their argument have the courage to accept that hand in the spirit in which it is offered. No one side of this binary debate has demonstrated that they have all the answers, and we are now a country blessed with a national ambition for change. Whether on the question of powers or on the purpose for which they are exercised or on the coast that the people have set, partnership, not partisanship, let us have the ambition and the determination to deliver the better Scotland, the better Britain that our people have instructed us to bring about. Finally, Presiding Officer, since you have generously given me the time, one example that I used in the campaign was the one million children lifted out of poverty by the last Labour Government, 800,000 across the UK, 200,000 here in Scotland. I was a no-voter because I am just as proud of that achievement, of that change in the rest of the UK as I am of any change that we have made here in Scotland. That is the bigger idea and the ideal that people voted no for on Thursday last week, Presiding Officer, to make change here and to be part of change with all of our neighbours and friends in our United Kingdom. Thank you, Mr Smith. I now call the First Minister to close the debate. First Minister, I'd be obliged if you would continue until five o'clock. In that case, I shall obey your strictures, Presiding Officer. Can I start by apologising to the chamber that I won't be at the debate tomorrow? I've got an unavoidable First Ministerial appointment to keep. I'm excited to sum up today so that you can get two for the price of one on the first day of the debate. I actually think that it's been a rather good debate because I just heard Drew Smith talk about bitterness. I actually think that there's been surprisingly little bitterness in this debate unless he's been hearing a different one from me. I think that the contributions on all sides have been very interesting. I've listened to every single one of them and I'm going to go through them to demonstrate that I have done so. I'm also going to turn to the free unionist parties and say a bit about the future. First, Kevin Stewart and Christine Graham talked about fear, particularly about fear among older people about their pension. I think that they have a substantial point in pointing that out. There is no credit, incidentally, in making older people afraid of things. It's a pretty low campaigning tactic. Neil Findlay and Jackie Baillie asked me if I was going to declare UDI. I have no intention of a unilateral declaration of independence. Only get that if you read the Daily Mail. If you read the Daily Mail, you get into a spiral of delusion that can spread throughout the body politic. I believe in referendum. I know incidentally that only 30 of the 142 countries have joined the United Nations since the second world actually had a democratic referendum. However, I think that in Scotland, in particular, referendums are really important because it applies to the key constitutional requirement and the history of Scotland that's the sovereignty of the people. That's why I've advocated it and continue to advocate it. If you read very closely my interview on Sunday, you'll see exactly that was the point that I was making. Annabelle Ewing spoke movingly about 60 and 17-year-olds coming to vote. Stuart Stevenson claimed that campaign reform in the 1970s. I deny that. I think that it was the 1980s or the 1990s. Mark McDonald spoke movingly about Brian Adam and how proud he would be of Northfield and its participation in this referendum. I absolutely agree with that. Annabelle Goldie, I hope that she's here. Yes, she is. Fantastic. You should know better, Annabelle. Never when you were questioning me across the floor there would you have suggested that the Scottish National Party would plan a £450 million cut in the health service budget. The health service budget will be increasing, Annabelle. The pressures on the health services budget are caused by two things in the main. One is pensions and the other is withdrawal of the national insurance rebate. Interestingly enough, two pressures on our budget are directed by Westminster, which is exactly why we want to control the finances as well as the administration of the health service budget. Alex Rowley made an excellent point about that. When we talk about participation, we shouldn't talk about the £1.6 million or the £2 million. We should talk about the £3.6 million people who participated. I thought that that was a first-class point. Roderick Campbell forensically analysed in a way that only an advocate of his experience could. The offerings of the Unionist parties—I thought that that was an object lesson on how to apply logic to some of the logical aspects of their proposition. John Finnie put the whole matter into its democratic context and did it extremely well. Mark Ebbiasio spoke without notes spontaneously, and I think that his speech was all the better for that. I think that you should remember that the Campbell commission advocated the ending of the Barnett formula in what it did. Therefore, there has been an adjustment in your position. I would never insult people of my generation in any observation because I would be insulting myself. Ken Macintosh said that he was naive and hopeful once upon a time.  Gertrina McElvie uttered the words, I am sure that no Labour member in this chamber will utter for some kind to come, the words child benefit. I think that it will be some time before we hear that expressed by the Labour Party. Murdo Fraser, can I congratulate Murdo Fraser in overcoming his crushing disappointment that fiscal federalism is not the policy of his party, something that he has long advocated? I thought that Jeane Orkut very movingly put the issue about how you continue with an aim while accepting the will of the people, a very substantial point. As I said, I did not recognise the true Smith designation of this debate as in any way better. If I could turn to the propositions that were put in the debate by the free Eunice in a second, let me turn to those propositions first. Johann Lamont said that she agreed with Graham Smith for the SDUC. I was struck by that because what Graham Smith for the SDUC said was the vast civic movement for meaningful and progressive chains that has built up in the last two years is impatient for change and will not accept minimalist proposals developed to the pre-referendum context, handed down and take them and leave them basis. If Johann Lamont agrees with that, I think that she should say so, because I think that he put his finger absolutely on the mood of Scotland at the present moment. The Labour Party are in a position where, at least Gordon Brown has talked about home rule or something just short of federalism, but actually the Labour Party's offering is the most modest of all of the Unionist parties, offering a control of some one-fifth of this Parliament's and this country's revenue. I have pointed out that the Liberal Democrats are rather encumbered by the fact that their offering, which they claim is the most radical, actually wanted to get rid of the Barnett formula, which they are now defending, as far as I can make out. I give way to Willie Rennie. If he checks the actual report, which I am sure he has read, it does say nothing of the kind. It talks about the continuation of the Barnett formula. That has been confirmed by Danny Alexander. It has been confirmed by the three UK party leaders. The Barnett formula is remaining. When you wanted to replace it with a needs-based formula, that is what you have been arguing for in 2010. We have come to the Conservatives, who, of course, I spoke to the Prime Minister on Friday morning, and at no time when I spoke to him did he tell me a few minutes later that he was going to utter the words about the general debate in England, Wales and Northern Ireland that they should be able to vote on those issues. That all must take place in tandem with and at the same pace as the settlement in Scotland. Not only I, but others across the political spectrum, low, even unto Danny Alexander, detected in that a suggestion that was not made during the campaign that, at the same pace as and in tandem with, went what it said by the Prime Minister on Friday morning and would result in that. Excellent, please. Does the First Minister recognise that you can have concurrent activity without one being contingent on the other? The problem is that your concurrent activity, as far as the Labour Party is concerned, is a non-starter. I am sure that I do not have to explain this to Ruth Davidson. The Prime Minister was laying a trap for the Labour Party. The Prime Minister wants to have a situation where the Labour Party loses a majority over English business. Ed Miliband does not want that position. That is why I suggest that, in tandem and at the same pace as, given that you cannot agree on the English situation, it would result in a bare betraying and breaking your promises in terms of the Scottish situation. Therefore, I think that we are absolutely entitled to make the point that the guardians of this process should be those politically active people in Scotland who have moved into this marvellous, wonderful, energetic political debate. It was said a number of places across this chamber that we should be grieving on this side of the debate. We are actually in a very enthusiastic position in Nain, not just because of the participation. Because of the 51,284 members of the Scottish National Party, people who have been encouraged to join us, the Greens and the other yes forces, because that political awakening of Scotland will take us forward. That is why we look forward to the next few months and years of Scottish politics. Thank you. The debate on the First Minister's statement will continue tomorrow afternoon. Can I gently remind the First Minister that we should be using full names in the chamber, not first names? We now move to decision time. There are no decisions to be taken as a result of today's business, so we now move to members' business. Members who leave the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.