Carl-Richard

Moderator
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    16,219

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Carl-Richard

  2. Posted

    29 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

    I agree, but I'm mostly with Mike Mentzer on this.

    One set per exercise, machines only, maximum intensity, music blasting.

    I can just feel my nervous system getting flooded with - I don't even know what - but whatever it is, it feels damn good.

    One set per exercise, interesting. I've heard about Mike Mentzer's training approach but never tried it.

     

    29 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

    And to throw in some locker room talk: when I train like this, I fuck like a stallion. When I try that "slow and controlled high volume" stuff... yeah, not so much.

    There is a reason why Buges calls it "horsecocking some heavy ass loads" :ph34r:xD

  3. Posted

    1 hour ago, The Renaissance Man said:

    Not being reckless is enough injury prevention when you're beginner-intermediate. But when advanced, you're so strong that even perfect training, where you carefully warm up and everything, leads to injury. That's why top athletes still get injured despite all the attention they get from trainers. Because when you are very strong, and when you train a lot, you're stressing your body no matter what. So if there are ways to obtain the same gains without as much stress, that's a win. Again, this becomes more of a problem as you get advanced.

    Do you know of any athletes who train "slow and controlled"? Here are two who don't:
     

     

    1 hour ago, The Renaissance Man said:

    It's not about fear of injury, but about long-term optimization. When you get hurt, first, it fucking sucks because you have to stop training, and second, since you can't train, you are clearly not growing optimally. I'm not talking about absolute injury rates. So it's no use comparing the injury rates of other sports. I'm talking about relative injury rates within bodybuilding or strength training.

    You can lower your injury rate by not walking outside too. That doesn't mean it's necessarily a smart thing to do.

     

    1 hour ago, The Renaissance Man said:

    And I'm saying that training with lower weights for the same gains will lead to less injuries. That is not an opinion.

    *assumed same gains.

    Let's also not forget the myriad of methodological constraints of the actual studies that Mike Isratael cites for stitching together his training philosophy (e.g. using primarily inexperienced lifters, doing straight out dumb shit like training only one arm with one technique and then other arm with another technique, having a scientist stand over you and control every rep you do, etc.).

    It's also funny because I've heard critiques of Mike that his training philosophy is actually outside of his wheelhouse. He is a PhD in sports science, which when you are an undergrad, you learn a bit of everything, but when you go for a PhD, you have to specialize yourself in something, and allegedly, he decided to go the exercise physiology route rather than the kinesiology route. So him trying to teach the world about how to move during a lift while waving his scientific credentials around is misleading at best and problematic at worst. And ironically, someone who has a degree in kinesiology is Eric Bugenhagen. He might actually be more formally qualified than Mike in this area.

     

    1 hour ago, The Renaissance Man said:

    By the way the injury rate in strongman is extremely high.

    But not higher than most other sports, so how high is it really?

     

    1 hour ago, The Renaissance Man said:

    Training like Mike Israetel is not at all easier by the way. It hurts like a motherfucker and requires more discipline, more "testosterone", not less. It's actually easier to push higher weights around with less control. More fun, less painful, more ego-stroking. That's why everybody does it that way. But it may be sub-optimal because you skip the time under tension of the eccentric, and there's a higher risk of getting hurt. 

    It's not easier, because it sucks. It's like role-playing an 80 year old grandma in the gym.

  5. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    50 minutes ago, zurew said:

    The idea would be that you can pass down your lived experience and not just your genes and some way its possible to tap into that. This hypothesis can be easily disproved, if its clear that the person in question can't be traced back in the family tree.

    In this case, that seems unlikely, because then when verifying the boys claims with the forensic veracity they did, digging back in old library archives to find information about the guy, they would have probably discovered he was in fact his grandfather (unless his grandmother secretely slept with the guy, who most likely lived in a different state, and the official grandfather raised a child that was not his).

  8. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    There have been many times where I have gotten the feeling that something happened and it was only the girls in the room that perceived what happened. They have such a strong ability to tune in to subtle emotional and social phenomena and read people. That's often why talking to girls can be intimidating because they can see things about you that you don't even see, and also if you are e.g. nervous, they will often mirror and amplify that feeling.

  9. Posted

    17 hours ago, AION said:

    I don't know my man. I hear people say I'm difficult to predict. It is not a pro or a con. I'm not involved with these social games anyway, my highest priority to individuate and become my ultimate self in this life span. At the end we are all tapped into something. But it shouldn't define you. I'm neurodivergent so my brain already works different than most people. I have learned to become socially successful and it is all about becoming predictable because for most people predictable means safe.

    This forum is a social game, and you are playing it well.

  11. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    36 minutes ago, integration journey said:

    Is that why when I take LSD I can hardly get any good sleep that day? 

    It's probably mostly because LSD lasts for a crazy amount of time. It literally gets stuck in the receptor in a way you wouldn't expect based on its purely chemical properties. And it gets stuck specifically in the serotonin 2a receptor, which would lead to effects like elevated cortisol for longer than the other effects. I wrote more about this here if you are especially interested:

     

  12. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    1 hour ago, Someone here said:

    Now come on ..you escape like a bit** now . JUST BECAUSE I HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE =/= YOURS IS CORRECT.  Let this sink in .

    Yes, again, that's true, but then why shrug it off? Is it not the best alternative we have at present, that we know about? And if it's not a good alternative, why? What makes you inclined to doubt it?

     

    1 hour ago, Someone here said:

    Aha ..Now we are talking . You see who gets to define what's "more likely "? If the apple falls on the ground because of gravity then why the hell does the moon not fall in the ground ? Especially that the moon is 10000000X heavier than an apple ?

    The moon is falling to the ground, it's just falling in a trajectory which we call "in orbit". But I don't see how this connects to what we're talking about.

     

    1 hour ago, Someone here said:

    There is an explanation that the boy's memories are genuine. And there is an explanation that those memories were snuck in his brain by some invisible ghost 👻..now pay attention: why is the first explanation more likely to be true?

    If the memories were snuck in by an invisible ghost and the memories are not reflective of reality, how did they manage to verify his memories fifty times?

  13. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    2 hours ago, Someone here said:

    "since you have no alternative explanation then my explanation is automatically correct " lol.

    No you absolute donkey xD It's just interesting that you would shrug off something when you have no alternative explanation.

     

    2 hours ago, Someone here said:

    There could be a " gazillion" other explanations..maybe some of those scientists work in illuminati and have literally " injected " false memories into the boy's brain to prove to the world that eastern religions like Buddism are correct because theyre satan worshipers ..see?

    Yeah, and how likely is that? Just give me one explanation that you think is more likely than him having true memories of the events.

     

    2 hours ago, Someone here said:

    And yes you must prove. unless you "prove "  your explanation to be correct without a shred of a doubt then you Can't claim its true automatically just because I have no alternative explanation. 

    This is donkey epistemology, because virtually no claim can be proven. It's not an interesting proposition in virtually all cases. It's about whether something is likely or not. How likely is it that an apparently authentic documentation of a boy who claims to have memories of certain events and that made 50 statements that were verified to be accurate, has actual memories of these events? And how likely are the alternative explanations?

  14. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    On 24.4.2025 at 8:02 PM, The Renaissance Man said:

    Maybe when we're talking about skill sports: basketball, football, golf. But lifting weights it's not about flow. It's about providing dumb, heavy-ass stimulus to your muscles.

    You can't claim that before it has been studied. Flow might be the optimal way to provide stimulus to your muscles, just like it provides optimal athletic performance. Generally, flow produces optimal results in everything, be it physical or mental endeavors.

     

    On 24.4.2025 at 8:02 PM, The Renaissance Man said:

    You've completely disregarded injuries. Maybe in your personal reality they're not much of a problem, but for advanced athletes they're the very thing that's stopping them from making progress. Because to make progress when you plateau you need, unsurprisingly, more training. But there's a limit to how much you can train before you get hurt. So if you can train without getting hurt, that's a competitive advantage.

    I trained the Mike Isratael way for maybe two years after an injury I got from playing volleyball, which is also when I decided to correct my muscle imbalances. It's helpful for that and for some niche exercises (e.g. light isolation exercises), but for the big compound movements, I think going all out and getting into that flow state will be the best thing you can do for hypertrophy, just like it is for strength gains (but within the 3-20ish rep range and generally full range of motion). I'm back to training that way on at least a few of my big exercises in each of my workout routines (I rotate between 4 different routines).

    I have become more aware of the risk of injury over time and that there are certain places I'm careful to enter, but even while being careful, there is a stark difference between training while optimizing for flow and training while optimizing for slow and controlled eccentric. And the times I optimize for flow, in my personal experience, I get much more out of the exercise every time (pump, soreness, the feeling of the muscle, etc.). That said, I do incorporate deep stretch and "myoreps" (microreps) at the end of some of my exercises. But the bulk of the exercise I try to do at high intensity (within the conditions of flow), because again, theoretically, flow is about optimal performance, and performance in bodybuilding is performance after all (but again, this should be studied empirically and put one-to-one with slow and controlled eccentric).

     

    On 24.4.2025 at 8:02 PM, The Renaissance Man said:

    This is just false by the way. Have you seen how strong jacked people are? Even the ones who control their repetitions (which at some point they must do otherwise they get injured 3/4 of the time).

    Both Mike and Jeff Nippard are EXTREMELY strong by the way. Like top 0.01%. The kind of guy that when walks in a gym he's the strongest by a long shot.

    Surely, you do know I said "weaker", not "weak"? Mike Isratael and Jeff Nippard are both weaker than Eric Bugenhagen.

     

    On 24.4.2025 at 8:02 PM, The Renaissance Man said:

    Which is what we're talking about. We're not talking about training philosophy. In the realm of training philosophy it's all subjective. If you like to do sets of 100 half-reps of inverted foot curls then go for it, as long as you're happy.

    That is of course what most people like to talk about with working out, but it should actually not be assumed that this is the number one goal for everyone who lifts (to build muscle). Why should it? For me, it was when I started, and it still is one of my goals, but honestly, my number one goal now is how it makes me feel on a bodily and mental level and also the cognitive benefits. And there, aiming for flow and intensity is without a doubt way above aiming for slow and controlled eccentric.
     

    On 24.4.2025 at 8:02 PM, The Renaissance Man said:

    I feel like you haven't listened to the other side of the argument with an open enough mind. If you try to make elite strength athletes or bodybuilders train like Bugenhagen 85% of them will be crippled with injuries. They might get stronger in the first 2 months, but then they get hurt and eventually get surpassed.

    Just like Mike Isratael writes off the injury risk of doing things like deep-stretch dips or curved-back deadlifts, I think the injury risk for lifting the "meathead way"/Bugenhagen way, or my way ("carefully with flow in mind"), excluding obvious recklessness, is overblown. You are much more likely to get injured playing sports, like, heh, volleyball, but there too, it depends on things like being familiar with the activity and the intensity levels (which I was not).

    It is a valid fear to have when starting out and when not being familiar with certain exercises that you can hurt yourself, but once you build yourself up gradually, carefully, and you get very familiar with the movement and the weight, it takes quite a lot to suddenly hurt yourself, even when lifting at higher intensities. Even strongman, probably the most unhinged strength sport, has fewer injuries than soccer and baseball; basketball has more than twice as many. The level of control you have in a gym with carefully measured weights and strictly defined movements that are repeated identically every single rep is in a different league than contact/limited-contact sports.

    When you see those videos of people getting hurt lifting, it's very often because they are doing something they are not familiar with. If you have never lifted deadlifts before and suddenly rip 225 lbs with no warm-up, you will definitely pull your back (a friend of mine did that). But if you lift deadlifts in a high rep range the same way every week and gradually increase the weight by 0.5% every week until you can only do one rep, given the same form (no breakdown of form at the end of a set), the risk for injury is low.

     

    On 24.4.2025 at 8:02 PM, The Renaissance Man said:

    I feel like you haven't listened to the other side of the argument with an open enough mind. If you try to make elite strength athletes or bodybuilders train like Bugenhagen 85% of them will be crippled with injuries. They might get stronger in the first 2 months, but then they get hurt and eventually get surpassed.

    It's quite funny, because the Bugenhagen way is actually the way most people train, even bodybuilders. It's a whole shtick with Mike Isratael and Jeff Nippard that they sometimes try to "coach" established bodybuilders and lifters with their "science-based lifting" approach. It's such a counterintuitive way to train, and maybe for a good reason. Slow controlled eccentric, deep stretch, pause at the bottom, take your time with each rep, is such a testosterone-draining way to train, you might as well get out the pegging equipment and get some reps in that way.

  16. Posted

    1 hour ago, Peo said:

    Is it just me or are psychedelics extremely similar to stimulants? 

    LSD has direct dopamine agonist activity, which makes it stimulating and wakefulness-promoting. Serotonin 2a activity is coupled to cortisol activity, one of the hormones that spike in the morning, and is one of the main targets for classical psychedelics like LSD and shrooms. Serotonin in general is the "wakefulness" chemical. So yes, it's not surprising that they are more like stimulants than anything else.

  17. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    1 hour ago, Daniel Balan said:

    Jocko Willink is the best masculie role model nowadays! If you lack blue and red, read his book discipline equals freedom! It is my favorite book all time!

    Meh. Bryan Johnson tries to beat death himself, and he doesn't tell you to sleep less and ruin your health xD

  20. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    40 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:

    The one thing I have to say about reincanation is that it is not a given that you will come back as a human! Or that you come back to earth! You could reincarnate as a fish on a planet made 100% of water in another galaxy! I'm 100% sure this would be the case if reîncarnation is indeed happening after death, because god doesn't have a favourite species! Also you could reincarnate as a plant! God is too infinite to only reincarnate himself only in one species like humans! God has no human bias or agenda!

    Sure. But it would make sense that you would tend to reincarnate as something similar or in a similar place from lifetime to lifetime. Maybe we have all reincarnated as plants at some point, but now we are testing the human experience.

    This is especially likely if you consider that there are people who report "choosing" their incarnation because it felt like the right one (and also others being quite deliberate about which womb they wanted to be born in). And their choice would be based on their previous lessons and experiences.

    But just purely naturalistically as well, irrespective of individual desires, if reincarnation does follow some pattern and is not purely random (which if you believe randomness is just an epistemic concept like me, nothing is), you could expect a similar trend (nature/reality has a habit of building on existing themes: e.g. phylogenetic evolution, ontogenetic development, fractals).

    I'm actually fascinated by the life cycles of leaves on trees. Right now, in the end of April in my country, the leaves on some of the trees make me think of (and bare with me for being creepy) fourteen year olds, i.e. silky smooth skin, like that of a young child, sort of small but definitely growing, and barely showing signs of maturity. I think you could map the life cycles of leaves onto the life cycle of humans and you could find interesting overlaps.

  23. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    30 minutes ago, Someone here said:

    Simple .a piece of cake : all of that Is happening in the present moment.  You can't take anything inside the present moment to prove a past ..to prove that the last second even existed .let alone... A " past life ".

    Google " LastThursdayism ".

    You didn't answer the question and now you seem to be talking about something else. At no point did I talk about "absolutely proving" anything. I asked you for an alternative explanation for what the boy said.

  24. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    1 hour ago, Someone here said:

    @Carl-Richard your epistemology sucks ass .let the whole dam world do all the science and philosophy and spirituality on me Trying convincing me of afterlife whether in the reincarnation sense or the day of judgment sense..and all of that doesn't worth a pinny .

    You only discover what death is when you die .

    The end .

    How would you explain some of the stories they tell in that discussion if not for past life memories being real? For example, the kid who was a background actor in Hollywood in a past life who was able to point his past self out on a picture, knew his last name and which state he lived in, the age he died, etc.?

  25. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    1 hour ago, Someone here said:

    Cool .then go watch it .you left out that possibility.  You used the holiday analogy but a better analogy is going to sleep and waking up .

    Going to sleep and waking up is not longer than a holiday 😂 The analogy isn't better, it only highlights a different aspect.

     

    1 hour ago, Someone here said:

    the conclusion then is you'd expect you will be born again .but how the hell do you know that ? Maybe ..just maybe ..when you're dead you're dead and that's it forever. 

    Very interesting discussion from scientists who have studied things like children making past life claims.