Carl-Richard

GPT that too. My impression is that the top bodybuilders and top strongmen share FFM both in hypothetical on and off season, I don't see why the strongmen would have a harder time in principle keeping muscle were they to slim down. Interestingly, sumo wrestlers have been measured at a similar FFM. That further underscores my point: being the top in anything mass-related, tends to produce same levels of mass. And they also do 1 RM yet same mass. I'll say my spiel again for SBL: if you want to conclude what is "optimal" for hypertrophy, basically all experimental studies that exist are bullshit.

"Science-based lifting" is to use scientific studies to conclude which ways to train are the most optimal. It's a term primarily used in a setting of hypertrophy/bodybuilding training, and it's here it is often the most problematic. Why it is problematic can be boiled down to essentially one phrase: "moving your body is not like swallowing a pill". People tend to point to the scientific rigor of so called "high quality research designs" like randomized controlled trials by saying that is how we develop drugs and medical treatments, and these have been shown to demonstrate real effects that map on to the world accurately. Well, firstly, let's explore even that for a minute: SSRIs have been shown to be only 2% more effective than placebo. And that's assuming that the study design is accurate and can tell us something true about those effects, which can also be questioned. After all, who are the studies conducted on? Are those people's characteristics always applicable to any given scenario? Are they always relevant for you and your bodily functioning? Maybe not. That aside, you also have the problem of the replication crisis which affects all of behavioral science, not just psychology or the "softer" social science disciplines like it is often portrayed as, but it affects medicine, biology, biotechnology, pharmacology. And why that is the case could boil down to simply "humans are complicated". And what is even more complicated than humans popping a pill? That is humans moving their bodies, and maybe especially lifting weights for hypertrophy. Lifting weights is not just lifting weights. It's every cell in your body coordinating to produce complex movement patterns. To even conceive of this theoretically, forget about the empirical problems for a moment, is a wild assertion of confidence. You would essentially be claiming omniscience like a God. And that's what science-based lifters have essentially done to their analytical mind and by an even more painfully wild and confident extension their empirical capability, not just in interpreting science but in claiming to have produced valuable and truth-uncovering research designs. And this ties into the second but related problem of ecological validity and external validity. Lifting weights is not just lifting weights yes in this sense that that phrase belies an immense world of complexity that is generally not appreciated for what it is, but it's also in the sense that the weights and the movement patterns are not the only thing that is part of your training. It's the gym, the surroundings, the people, the knowledge of the person lifting the weights, the motivation and rigor of the person lifting the weights, the shape and size of the body of the person lifting the weights, the length and width of the limbs; any characteristic that you could describe as merely tangentially related, is deeply intertwined in the outcomes of training. And this is where the "soccer moms in an 8-week study" critique comes in, and it's not a trivial or merely funny or facetious critique. Do you honestly think it is a good idea to base your idea of what is "optimal lifting" on people who are on average and certainly compared to the average hyper-obsessed gym bro 1. not at all knowledgeable in lifting, 2. not at all motivated to lift (at any considerable level of intensity or rigor), 3. not the same size or shape as you, and 4. maybe most importantly generally lifting in a controlled and alien setting where a scientist is standing behind you shouting "start", "stop", "start", "stop", at every rep, where some designs use absolutely unheard of training setups like using one technique with one arm and another technique with the other arm for those 8 weeks, where even quantifying states like "true failure" vs "3 reps in reserve" is mere hocus-pocus philosophical conjecture? And you then compile various of different kinds of studies like this that mostly contradict each other in terms of the overall conclusions and you end up with a marginal number of "51% in favor of this training method over this". And this is what is "most optimal". It is an absolute charade, a circus, pure pseudo-intellectual masturbatory, below AI-slop levels of investigation and conclusion. It's not to say that all of exercise science is pseudoscience. There are valueable studies on e.g. best ways to improve VO2 max which are much more similar to a physiological "pill-taking" mechanism where dose and response are much more simply controlled. But movement patterns, hypertrophy training, based on female mid-40s RCTs, compiled into a sludge of marginally favored conclusions, and then presented as "the most optimal way to train", is not as much a pseudoscience as it is a failure of analytical thinking and logical inference. Science-based lifting is not really as much a science as it is a kind of metaphysics, a theological doctrine, that more interprets and concludes based on a set of assumptions rather than based on the actual observations. That is why "The Church of Science-Based Lifting" is a fitting and ironic name. Because that is also the kind of thinking that is associated with it: "what does the science say?" "what does the book say?" "what is the most optimal way?" "what is the answer?" "what is the thing we should follow, the one true way, the path, the one espoused by the Churchmen with the P and the H and the Ds?" It's ironic that the more "science-based", the less thinking you seem to have to do, the more you just have to listen, deny criticism, bow to authority. What is the true and honest way to train, is philosophy-based lifting; being aware of the assumptions underlying your thinking, not making poorly justified conclusions based on observation, and simply working with what you have, which in the case of hypertrophy is mainly yourself and your own experience, your sense, your own body and mind.

GPT their FFM. Is spending 3 hours in the gym grinding ungodly volume more efficient than 1 hour horsing loads? Shit studies + variable methodology = mega shit "consensus". I watched a video of Elliot Hulse 6-7 years ago about working out every other day, putting all your soul into that workout day and then resting the next day, is the way to go. I've stuck with it since (of course adding some sprint/4x4 days on top of that, now currently just one sprint/4x4 day a week). I was afraid I was not doing enough volume. And now I look at people who train only twice a week and look jacked and I'm like "maybe not". I still prefer training every other day, because it keeps my well-being and cognitive functioning on top.

Interesting. 3x10 is 30 reps total, 7x3 is 21 reps total. So 30% fewer reps for the same hypertrophy. Measure it in a study (I already addressed this; high weight low reps could create more fatigue but also more hypertrophy). If all the studies are shit and the entire field is shit, you can disregard it. That's close to where I'm at with hypertrophy science. You don't have to be strong to get big. But getting strong gets you big. Or else how do you explain Eddie and Shaw being as massive as Greg Kovac? Is it just a coincidence that when you maximize strength, you also maximize muscle? The studies only run for a few weeks (and even then show mixed results), and with the absolutely horrendous statistical power of most exercise science studies, you would expect them to not be able to pick up very real changes (they always rely on "statistical significance" which depends on sample size, power). Something tells me homeostasis would eventually catch up and bring you to a stable level. Even if there is an evolutionary pressure for maintaining muscle, that there would be zero change for perpetuity when dropping 88% of volume, I would have to see impossible studies for that (N = 500, 3-year studies).

I have heard about it. But again, you're dealing in hypotheses/conjecture. There seem to be no studies measuring CNS fatigue for high weight low reps vs low weight high reps and using it to explain differential effects on hypertrophy. And even if there is more CNS fatigue for high weight low reps, it doesn't matter if there is also more hypertrophy stimulus. And again, these things have to be measured specifically before you can make the leap from hypothesis to conclusion. And you can measure these things by proxy, but of course the proxies are sometimes really bad (slowing reps = stimulus...?), so that's again another brilliant feature of sports science.

The comment section, absolutely disgusting levels of cope. "W33d doesn't do that". Peak levels of ignorance. Read one statistic on weed 5150s.

Your alternative scenarioes are abstractions and likely not existentially coherent. The thing about God's creation is it's coherent all the way down, to all ends of the universe, at every scale. Every part of reality is deeply connected to everything else. It's a marvelous coordinated clockwork.

It also produces CO2 and H2O and other compounds.

I tried it today and I've never been this knocked out before in terms of low energy and weird hyper-serotonergic state. "Normal" magnesium (oxide and citrate) doesn't do this to me. Could it be the glycine? I took 360 mg (pure mineral weight), which adds up to over 2g of glycine. I was debating whether to only take 240mg because the improved absorption makes it roughly equal to the 350mg of oxide and citrate I was taking. So maybe it's also excess magnesium, but again, this does not feel the same as just magnesium. I'm asking because it wasn't the only new thing I took (I also had more E vitamin than usual and a different fish oil supplement), but it feels like it could be the culprit.

Another time, later. I said I misremembered and it was actually Jeff Neeples. So Mr. Mike gimpsuit technique, I see. So lifting heavy shit is good? Nope. Never had that. Always done deadlifts, and it is fatiguing yes, but not "CNS fatiguing" (whatever that is) and I continue with the rest of the workout until I'm truly fatigued. This honestly sounds like some hallucination or fantasy you've cooked up. Regardless, this is conjecture, and I'm being deliberate in word choice here. If you have a way to measure CNS fatigue and you have demonstrated a difference for high weight low reps vs low weight high reps, that's science. If you explain behavior or results in other variables by pointing to a theoretical concept of CNS fatigue, that's something else; it's conjecture. Conjecture doesn't mean always bullshit, but if you have no way of measuring it, it can very much be bullshit.

The video said Eddie's bench max was 496 lbs without mentioning reps, meanwhile: Eddie Hall Bench Presses 496 Pounds for 10 Reps https://barbend.com/eddie-hall-bench-496-pounds/ 10 fucking reps. 🥲 Fuck AI

My guy, 3 - 5 reps was me sloppily saying the "range" for the lowest amount of reps, not the range for all reps. And I don't give a fuck about Dr. Mike. Jeff Shniples said it. I think the entire "science" is unclear. That's "science-based lifting" for you. But an appeal to laziness is not an argument: ask ChatGPT for studies showing 3 reps = anything above. Nothing longevity about doing 5 billion sets per muscle per week or whatever insane number is "optimal" in Dr. Mikensteins book. What's your take on grip strength = longevity? 1. He is not almost as strong. That AI slop video you posted compared sometimes random training videos rather than competition numbers and sometimes different rep ranges (wtf); anyways, Eddie 3x-8xed the reps for all those cases (and what's the point of comparing a 900 lb 1 RM with a 761 lb 8 rep set?). As for the one rep maxes, with the exception of bench (which I doubt even the accuracy of considering the AI slop-level production but which Eddie still won), Eddie always dwarfed Larry, especially the deadlift: 425kg vs 500kg, that's a 15% difference. And 500kg is not even the world record anymore. All in all, Larry always lost where the comparisons made sense, and generally with great to epic margins. 2. You're just vibing these descriptions ("almost as muscular", "almost as strong"), nothing objective about them. I need a citation for this because it sounds like bullshit conjecture. How do you measure "CNS fatigue"? I've heard "CNS fatigue" being used for inhuman levels of volume (not citing a study here).

Because being yourself means being in tune with your capacities. Being in conflict with your capacities leads to lower functioning and inner turmoil and a non-attractive state. Effort to unfold it in a world that is different from the self. It can be simpler in some ways to cower to the outside world. But that simplicity again has to face the complexity of the world, and you need functionality to face that. And people may underestimate inauthenticity in the long-term, so when they have experienced it for long, they might realize that it doesn't work, while in the short term it's often easier. But some may manage to bury it so deep (especially men) that they forget even the concept, through blindness of emotional state (alexithymia) or general dissociation. And they end up cold, stunted, blunt, surface layer.

Because you're a sample of one and you're almost certainly making post-hoc hypotheses instead of confirming prespecified hypotheses / predictions (which both tend to be statistically problematic). The hypotheses are also probably not very specific either, so the statistical problems only compound. And even if you make a prediction that is specific and use a large sample and you find a statistical pattern, you ideally would want to explain why that pattern exists, which is what the theoretical rationale is for.

I'm sorry, I misremembered; that was Jeff Nippster: Showcasing yet another case of "consensus" among reviewers of "the science". So disregarding the "general pointers" (which people disagree about) doesn't make you pre-rational like you suggested. It's not as much "arguing" (in terms of analytical argument) as being a religious scholar citing scripture (and their own interpretation). But why? Why this autistic focus on hypertrophy? That's the 80/20 rule. To get to the very top requires disproportional amounts of whatever is required. And again, at the very top, strength or muscle, Eddie Hall / Brian Shaw vs Greg Kovac, there is no reasonable muscle gap. What is hypertrophy training really if 3 reps is considered legitimate for hypertrophy and doing a one rep max even as a powerlifter is generally only something you do either once or a few times at the end of a workout or week? See how insignificant these terms are? The fact of the matter is if you aim to be best in either powerlifting/strongman or bodybuilding with whatever rep range you prefer, you will have statistically reasonably the same muscle mass. The real distinction between a powerlifter/strongman and bodybuilder is the fat percentage at competition, muscle distribution, aesthetics; generally how the muscle is "used" during competition. The autistic focus on "optimal rep range" is a social media phenomena, it's a religious meme in the "science-based lifting" theological tradition. You will not have heard of a single person who started training with fewer reps (keeping overall intensity and volume the same) who noticed they lost muscle.

Last I heard Mr. Mikeratel speak, it was 3-5 reps, so please be specific. Is he wrong? Regardless, is there a study showing the benefits (or lack of benefits) of doing a one-rep max at the very end (the last set) of say your otherwise high-rep deadlift sets? Is there a study showing the benefits of doing a one-rep max-oriented workout once week or twice a week instead of every single session? What if you feel like working out any of these ways because it feels good? Should you trust "the science" or your feeling? Is there a study quantifying exactly the workload per rep? Is every rep the same, for all people, for all situations, at all times, in all training phases, for all levels of fatigue, sleep deprivation, blood glucose levels? And what if you train the way I've suggested, treating every set like "one rep" (all reps are continuous with the next)? Does that give the same workload per rep as a "deep stretch" gimpsuit "I'm homosexual" certain specific Russian Jew rep? There are times where severe critiques of science are not pre-rational but indeed post-rational. Integrating scientific understanding does not entail taking disgustingly generalized estimates as gospel. And at the end of the day, it's down to your own results. If 1 rep maxing (in whatever frequency or form) makes you see some hypertrophy-related progress you otherwise didn't see, then "the science" is irrelevant. And if my experience is worth anything, the more I challenge "the science" — the more I listen to how I feel and follow my own intelligence rather than some statistically embarassing "work" funded by a lab from Soylent-whatever University with untrained college students as subjects — the more results I get. Besides I don't even train weights for hypertrophy mainly. It's like number 2-3 on the list of why I train weights. That autistic focus on hypertrophy itself muddies the entire discussion, but it's sufficient (and also more challenging) to counter "science-based lifting" simply on those terms (for other terms it's painfully obvious). He is also nowhere near the strongest in the world. You're comparing somebody who is not the best in something with somebody who is best in something. Again, peak Eddie Hall or Brian Shaw, they both have more or less the same muscle mass as Greg Kovac, the most massive bodybuilder in history. But also, bodybuilding is not even much about mass either, but aesthetics, muscle insertions, genetics, tan, dieting; targeting the right muscles in the right way, getting the proportions right. If your traps, neck and torso are huge but your arms and shoulders are relatively small, you're a strongman not a bodybuilder. The former muscle groups tend to respond to really heavy, really tough workouts, the latter tend to respond to more light, isolated, targeted workouts.

The answer is always do what feels best (unless you're an automatized measurement freak like Bryan Johnson). Whether it's lifting weights or not, see what makes you feel the best, whether it's bodily or mentally or spiritually. If you start feeling bad, it's either a lack of adaptive response (too little training) or a buildup of fatigue (too much training). Both have their own signatures of presence or lack of vitality, clarity. If you value functionality over longevity, then you might trade-off some increased adaptive response for some increased fatigue (like professional athletes do: when a competition comes up, they often take a rest day to lower the chronically elevated fatigue temporarily). But this is longevity through proxy. Feeling good isn't necessarily a straightforward line to longevity, but it's a very good proxy.

Says who? I suggest to drop all preconceived notions and workout like a mystic would meditate. The knowledge you get from directly knowing your own self is much higher detail, much more sophisticated and real than some retarded estimate (which assumes 100 billion things about what even counts as a rep or how to execute a reo) based on bullshit studies. "Science-based lifting" is a bit like thinking getting a degree means you're now somehow something. No, knowledge itself, acquaintance with the thing itself, is the thing. If you can pull an insane 1-rep max, you can pull insane 10-rep maxes, and it will be reflected in your muscles. The strongest men who have ever lived are also the most muscular men who have ever lived. Don't let bodybuilders with their visual appeal fool you. A 434 lb Eddie Hall is more muscular (has higher FFM) than any bodybuilder who has ever lived (except maybe Greg Kovacs who is 5 cm taller).

That's exactly not what I was looking for. Give me like a theoretical rationale for why astrology works (other than "environment goes through cycles, cycles affect the person").

Do what works for you. I only listen to music while playing video games (which is unfortunately almost never 😥), making dinner or working out (and while driving and commuting).

Why would he call the ambulance unless you're in immediate danger?

So why did you go to the psychiatrist?

As far as I know, HPPD specifically refers to small visual disturbances, notably the "visual snow" which is given an increased intensity and may involve colors. If you have fully formed object or auditory hallucinations, that's something else.

You have to be very careful about what you mean by "intense" here. Just theoretically a priori (and on the extremes), if you do very intense training (i.e. very high BPM) but very low volume, that's more conducive to longevity than very low BPM and very high volume (almost per definition, as the latter at the most extreme is not considered exercise). Higher intensity gives more adaptive response (makes you healthier) per unit of time, a shorter window of stress, and a longer window of rest and recovery. And in that window of rest and recovery, you will of course be resistant to stress because of the adapative response (hence the longevity effect). The problematic aspects (again theoretically a priori) is when you keep stacking on volume and time spent in a state of stress, shortening the recovery window, and lowering the adaptive response per unit of time. I think that is what you are referring to. I've heard somebody say that for example jogging (low bpm, low adaptive response, more conducive to higher volumes, etc.) does not make you live longer than the time you spend jogging. But if you like jogging and you feel better the hours and days after jogging, then it can still be a positive thing for your life. 1 hour every other day is nothing. You spend more scrolling TikTok accidentally. Besides, high intensity low volume training is hip now (30-45 minutes, 1-2 sets per exercise). I personally prefer 3 sets per exercise, even 4 for the beginning set, because I don't feel I get the neurophysiological fatigue response and serotonergic/endorphinergic "feelgood" response that last throughout the day and next days if I don't. But if you simply prefer staying active through other means, that's fine, but it's not clear whether that is better for longevity than short, focused and intense training sessions punctuated with long periods of genuine rest. Try "staying active" by e.g. moving houses with a deadline and see how wore down and exhausted you will be. You will be very active during that time, but you will tend to eschew rest and consequentially probably severely drain your longevity. Now you're adding many confounding factors. The comparison is between going to the gym and staying active through other means. Again, I think high intensity and high rest times has a strong theoretical basis for longevity. But that is not to say longevity cannot be relatively assured through other means. Oh yes for sure. Those high volume masochistic bodybuilding freaks are not doing it for longevity, just like the drugs they're taking.