PsychedelicEagle

Maintain a disciplined, tight eating schedule, and slowly increase carbs from whole foods. Your body will get used to that. Discipline will also help you build confidence in other life areas. This assumes you're already eating an optimal amount of protein (>=1.6g per kg of bodyweight) and fats (at least 20% of total calories). The reason is that carbs release more insulin, which is more anabolic, so add calories from carbs.

That's why you only invest (in stocks) money you'll need in 10y or more. All-time highs are the norm, not an anomaly, because markets trend upward. Also, "Lose 80% in 1 month" massively overstates the tail risk of a diversified index. The fact that OP will be investing money throughout this year makes no difference VS an investor that has purchased stocks a decade ago and is holding their position. Do this mental exercise — flip the scenario: what would you do if you had purchased stocks 10y ago and still had your position? Sell everything, remaining with 0% equity? Do that at every peak and you're guaranteed to have mediocre results. The truth is that nobody knows whether we're in the bubble, and — most importantly — where in the bubble we are. The secret to long-term success with investing is to delineate a strategy and follow through with that. High PEs tell you essentially nothing about whether the next year will be good or bad. They do suggest the average annual return over the next decade will likely be more modest — a reason to calibrate expectations and allocation, not a signal to sit out completely.

Making these assumptions = timing the market. Which is fine, but then all the previous drawbacks I listed apply: cognitive biases, unexpected life events, attention burden. By continuing with your assumptions you are subscribing to these. Just pointing it out. Also, under your assumptions: when will you invest back? By feel? At what price will you de-concentrate your stock allocation from non-tech to a neutral one? These are questions you have to have answered now, if you want to avoid investing based on emotions, perceptions, and the subset of information that reaches you in the future.

Gold is a medium-to-high-volatility asset AFAIU. Hard to categorically say the risk is significantly lower than investing in a neutral, fully-diversified, global ETF. Again, gold has no cash flow, which — in addition to no compounding mechanism — means no mechanism pulling price back towards a fundamental value, so multi-decade dead periods can occur. For example, in the 1980–2000s, gold lost ~70% of its real purchasing power from 1980 and didn't recover for two decades. Stocks, on the other hand, are anchored to earnings: if the price falls while earnings hold, the earnings yield rises, and that higher yield mechanically attracts capital. It's a slow mechanism but at least it's there. Personally, I'd be very uncomfortable if most of my money would be invested in a single, non-productive asset with such characteristics. The solution to avoid timing the market is not to avoid the market altogether. That would leave substantial gains on the table. The solution is to consistently invest in equity without trying to time it. If you consistently invest in a neutral, fully-diversified, global ETF, you don't need to time it at all.

True for nominal values, but what about the opportunity cost? This statement assumes inflation-adjusted stock returns during money-printing periods are negative. I'm not sure that is true. The core question is whether to time the market — I'm clearly against it. Many reasons, but the ones that come to mind: It exposes you to your own cognitive biases. It exposes you to life circumstances that prevent optimal decisions. Attention tax: time and energy spent tracking short-term patterns, policies, and trends. That energy could go into yourself or your own projects — creating real value, which likely beats any risky margin from timing.

The key distinction here is productive vs non-productive assets. When you own a stock, you own a claim on a stream of future value creation. A company generates value by transforming inputs into outputs that are worth more than the inputs cost. Do that once, take the profits, reinvest. Do that multiple times, over years and decades, and your profits compound. Gold, on the other hand, sits stilll, doing nothing. It stores value but creates none, so any return depends purely on future demand for it.

PS: I have a job.

Btw, make sure these have low costs and replicate global, neutral allocation indexes, such as the VT ETF in the US or the VWRA ETF in Ireland. Otherwise, you will be concentrating on something, following the bias that the ETFs you invest in might have. In other words, scrutinize the ETFs you plan to invest in, otherwise t hey may not fully replicate the global, "neutral" average, which by definition is complete diversification — what we want long-term.

I would just buy and forget it. In fact that's what I do.

What you are asking for are ways to concentrate your allocation on non-tech stocks, relative to the market average. You can achieve that by purchasing a global, fully-diversified ETF (e.g., VT) as base and on top of it buying non-tech ETFs, such that the total allocation is then concentrated on non-tech stocks. A quick note: concentration assumes your understanding or information is more privileged than the capital-weighted average of the investors of the global stock market.

How can you not get recognized by the same person if you have approached her? 🤣 Plus, who cares if other people see me approaching someone. It's a natural part of the human experience. See a girl/guy, find them attractive, go talk to them.

Sorry, I could have been less sarcastic with my reply, my point is that the fact that epidemiology has its flaws does not make it completely invalid, hence I inverted your argument backwards. Personally I have my own reasons to avoid pork, as well as to avoid drinking blood, in addition to the heme iron story. But I appreciate you sharing a different perspective and something that you believe in.

In the overall picture here drinking the blood can be worse than the iron supplements, considering all the pros and cons and everything involved. But when people are stuck in denying the epistemology of epidemiology mechanistic logic then they could easily find themselves making suboptimal Health decisions on ghost fears.

@integral High heme iron intake correlates with elevated iron stores but also with cardiometabolic risk. There are many mechanisms that try to explain this correlation. Not saying you should never consume heme iron, but doing it too often is likely to be detrimental rather than beneficial, AFAIA, especially if one is not donating blood. The major benefit of supplementing with non-heme iron is that the bodily mechanisms controlling iron uptake are not hijacked by the porphyrin ring surrounding heme iron. Personally, I think it's healthier to have ferritin in the 30s ng/ml rather than in the >100s ng/ml, but I'm aiming for the 70ng/ml sweet spot.

Good to hear. Makes sense. Could it also be a drift off your individual's optimal dose, i.e., have you tried lowering or raising the dose, or cycling the medication? Anyway, I'm not a doctor, just reasoning around it from the little mechanistic understanding I have: briefly blocking receptors to create a compensatory upregulation. So each person should have their individual sweet spot between blocking too much or blocking too little, that can fluctuate over time.

+1

Interesting alternative indeed — I've heard of this protocol in the past. Have you had success using it yourself, @Leo Gura?

Pills. For me they seem to work OK. Every other day, I'm taking a 22.5mg elemental iron supplement with iron glycinate and lactate — it seems smoother on the digestive tract. But thanks for the tip — I hadn't considered liquid form — it could also be easier in not needing to time it with meals.

Haha funny to read this as someone not from Australia. Ok, got it, thanks for sharing. My ferritin is usually around 35 after becoming 99% vegan and performing several blood donations, from 130ng/ml+. I'm now adding Iron supplements to bump it up. 92 is within the optimal range

Yesterday I approach a hot chick and she was like "you have already approached me in the station" 😆 Who cares!

People like this are the reason why you usually want to deliberately space out dates, minimize contact on the phone, so you create the time and circumstances for her worst side to surface — catching it early on before emotional investment. These strategies are all laid out in "How to be a 3% man" from Corey Wayne.

Beware often PFAS-free only tests for a subset of PFAS; they replace banned PFAS with newer PFAS.

@Natasha Tori Maru, what are your ferritin levels, usually?

That is just one instance where he "lied" before. Another example: he always stated his GF was not his GF but a business partner, until revealing they were deeply in love for years. We should not humanize the Bryan that is filtered and showed to us through the camera. What we see of him is marketing 1:1, to push forward his goals and agenda. That said, the gradient of the changes his personal marketing pushes for is net positive in society nowadays, IMO. Awareness and long-term thinking is rare, especially with regards to personal health. He brought this discussion upfront by taking a leading role, he deserves credit for it. Also, the fact that he is doing something better than most billionaires do has merit in itself.