Jannes

Asked in my Discord RV group if someone can view a target for me. Lets see how it goes. You always have options..

I need to completle regain trust in RV. First step is showing that it actually works. The best way is to ask other remote viewers to view something for me.

I just honestly explained my RV situation to someone else which actually helps a lot and gives an extra reality check. I contemplated with GPT about the possibility of it being a fraud. I thought it would be possibly that they would give me advice even after receiving all this payment so that it doesnt seem like a fraud and they keep their reputation but the advice so far seemed so authentic and the video calls as well, I couldnt imagine someone that heartless, he would need to be a complete sociopath. However I can ask him or professional remote viewer to view a target I have of course!! That would explain at least make the part clear if remote viewing is real or not. Then it can still be a fraud but it would be less likely.

Its possible. Depends on the case. I dont think its possible in your case though, you seem so invested. You need to be emotionally over her for it to work.

Interesting how non professional actor act differently All of those people make it very clear that they are looking at something, while Kai Greene just looks at something.

The most cis men humor I heard in a long time.

They would have a harder time to keep the muscle while loosing the fat if it turns out that higher rep training is more hypertrophic then strength training, but thats the basis of our discussion I believe. Well a mix of strength training and hypertrophy and constant "bear mode" will get you far ofc. Btw. Eddie Hall and Brian Shaw are strongmen though. In strongmen events you do mostly exercises where you need strength endurance. 1 rep maxes dont train that optimally. They likely train mostly in the hypertrophy range anyway. I dont think Olympian BB are always the pinnacle of maximum muscle development when I think about it, some symmetrie and proportion is important. Greg Kovac, despite being arguably the biggest BB ever never placed highly because of it. A big gut often carries with it more muscle, but its unaesthetic. Well that makes a basis for argumentation pretty small. Btw. do you think that all intuitive training will lead to strength based training? What do you think about the Golden Age bodybuilder who did lots of sets. They didnt have the science so they trained in a way that intuitively felt good. And then Mike Mentzer the science guy came along with his one set high intensity style lol. There is a calisthenics icon which I cant find anymore unfortunately. He collabed with Jeff Nippard and I believe Frank Yang at some point. He does his own intuitive training style and does unholy amounts of volume every day. 2020 pull ups to new year and stuff like that. What do you make of that?

They are great for travelling especially. But sometimes they are a bit too great, didnt hear the ringing at my door when my chimney sweeper came.

Queen is worth about 9 Rook 5 Bishop 3 Knight 3 Pawn 1 Obviously in regular chess the King has maximum value. But its also obvious that this is quite a reductionistic estimation as the Kings movement options can be compared to the other pieces. The Kings movement is above that of a Pawn and below that of a Queen. So I always wondered how much value the King has based on its movement options. But because the King cant be used in a regular combative sense as he needs to play in a way to always be preserved and also cant stay in checks its playstyle is quite limited. And you also cant really turn chess into a pure combat game as a thought experiment where the goal is to defeat all your enemies pieces to estimate how strong the King is because in chess you win by defeating the King which can be done in a more elegant and effective way then smashing all your enemies pieces before they smash yours. Obviously smash value will collerate strongly with regular value but I think some pieces are better for checkmating then for smashing. For example I think a Bishop is better for checkmates then a Knight who is better for smashing pieces. Depending on the context of course. If you ask the question how much value a piece has for checkmating the opposing King then I think you can get to the value of the King. This would be my formula: The value of the King for checkmating the opposing King - The material and opportunity cost to defend the King = The value of the King In the early game this will likely be negative value and in the late game the value can become positive. What do you think is the smash value of the King btw. as I think this is still an important pointer?

Ah okay, I couldnt picture much beyond groping in my head. This makes more sense.

Holy shit thats a lot. Well with this much practice you can just seem like a natural. Ofc you could also be one.

I love this stupid acting. Timestamped

I get the feeling you are a natural.

I guess in loud night clubs? Everywhere else that would be inappropriate. How does it look like? How do you improve at it?

They never lean down for a bodybuilding show though. They would loose a lot of muscle. And generally Powerlifter and Strongmen will have phases or asseccory work of hypertrophy training. You usually need more time to for rest to refocus in between sets if you use very heavy loads and lighter loads also seem to be about twice as hypertrophic per set if you can trust the study that Jeff Nippard mentioned in that video you posted. So lighter loads should be much quicker for a good hypertrophy stimulus. I really noticed the cognitive benefit of lifting when I was gaming. Even when I was tired of the workout my mind and reflexes were refreshed after working out, it felt so healthy and magical. I dont want to miss that but I just dont like lifting anymore. Maybe there are other fun sports out there with similar benefits.

WTF!? I assume weight was adjusted for. Can you find the whole video for checking the study? this one is cruical I find it hard to tell how big Eddie Hall and Brain Shaw really are. Of course they are very big but there is so much fat on them its hard to tell. Of course getting strong gets you big but probably not in the most efficient way possible if hypertrophy is what your after. I think this is consensus on many studies that you can maintain muscle with incredible low volumes. I actually had the same feeling about it that the body would eventually learn and drop muscle when the maintenance volume would stay that low. Well for me homeostasis did kick in in my behaviour eventually and I went to the gym less then once a week. I have my maintenance approach for so long now, I could at least make an anecdotal claim about it if I strictly kept my routine damnit.

WWE is impressive in its own way. Your cusscessful MMA fighter wont have the charisma and acting ability of a WWE superstar.

I would give the King about a 3 just for smash value.

Lol, call it what you want. I can call your approach the meathead approach. I like my approach because it doesnt kill me. There are many sports I would rather do then going to the gym but for hypertrophy nothing can beat the gym so I want to be in and out as soon as possible with the most amout of results for my efforts. There are many things which train your grip. You can do dead hangs which are also incredibly healthy for your back. I am surprised you never heard about. Its one of the earliest concepts I learned about. Not in detail becaue I dont study this field but enough to get the general gist of it. I am not sure if CNS fatigue can be measured. But its plausible that both exercises which involve many big muscles and heavy sets are especially demanding for the CNS. Because the CNS manages how many muscles are recruited and their coordination. The CNS literally limits your muscle activity so you dont hurt yourself, Powerlifter train their CNS so that it stops nerfing their muscle activity so they can get all of their muscle activated during a lift. If you look at a 1 RM deadlift I think it makes intuitive sense that the body needs to do a lot of calculation and that this will be fatiguing.

@Carl-Richard I edited my original comment so much could you please reply to that one? Sorry. I can answer parts of your answer though. Well you quoted Dr Mike directly. If you want to critique him in such a major way then it should be accurate. Well I dont train nowhere near whats optimal for hypertrophy, I train in a way thats optimal for hypertrophy but do a few sets. Well I heard somewhere that grip strength is incredibly important for longevity. Oftentimes you cant find perfect 1 to 1 comparisons. But alright I agree, Eddie is significantly stronger. You know when you hit a some heavy sets of deadlifts and you have zero interest in continuing the workout as you just feel washed. Your muscles could continue but your system just doenst want to go anymore? Thats what I mean. There are also more scientific explanations out there which I cant provide tbh

That study says that 3x10 is about as hypertophic as 7x3 Well that just proves my point that higher reps are better for hypertrophy. Each set for 3 reps will likely be even more fatiguing then the set for 10 reps while not even being half as hypertrophic. If the science is indeed unclear about it then no it isnt pre-rational. The science seems to be pretty clear about it though so I dont see good arguments how one could justify to disregard it. Its personally what I care about most. I want to look good and I want to built a functional body with lots of longevity. I dont care how much I deadlift if it doesnt help me with these things. The 80/20 rule could be true in that context, that you need the last 80 percent of muscle to get the last 20 percent of strength. But that would imply that strength and muscle arent strongly connected with each other as you can have lots of strength and very little muscle. The argumentation get strong to get big doenst really hit the nail then. By that standard Larry Wheels would be almost as muscular as "Eddie Hall / Brian Shaw / Greg Kovac" because he is almost as strong if strength is what makes you muscular. If you like strength and like to train with low reps and dont care about managing your ressources perfectly to optimize hypertrophy then there is nothing wrong with doing heavy sets. It will also be somewhat hypertrophic. I am simply arguing about what optimizes hypertrophy. Maintenence volume is very low. Studies show you can train with 1/9th of your muscle building volume and maintain all of your gains.

Wondering about that as well. His account isnt deleted. You know more? I know about his temperament.. and he was often in conflict with Leo. He had zero respect for Leo as an authority figure, sometimes his tone was disrespectful and sometimes he pointed out flaws in Leo. I feel like he wasnt an unhealthy presence but I would imagine that it would be hard for Leo to tolerate.

For hypertrophy the range is 5 - 30 reps. Dr. Mike would never say 3 - 5 reps in this context. No I assume there are no studies who look at exactly that. Studies just give general pointers into what you train with your rep ranges etc. Ofc a rep isnt perfectly defined but the pointer 5- 30 reps for hyperthrophy suggests that 1 rep or 100 reps if they arent performed in a very unusal way are likely not that effective for hypertrophy. Well I argue about whats best for hyperthrophy. Obviously if thats not the goal the optimal training must look very different. He isnt as strong as the strongest but the strength gap isnt huge while the muscle size grap is pretty massive. But even Eddie Hall will also have some hyperthorphy built into his training regiment as he needs the muscle size to use for strength later. I think we already argued about that and Eddie Hall in this context specifically.

Is it purely a hyperthrophy program or also about strength?

That like the most basic pointer of science. I see the point of going inwards and listening to your bodies signals and intelligence but if you keep science completly out of it, it becomes a mythical pre-rational not so sophisticated approach I feel like. Size and strengh arent antithetical to one another, you can certainly be very strong and also very muscular. Strength implies a certain degree of size and muscle a certain degree of strength. But look at Larry Wheels for example, he has a muscular built of cause but is nowhere near in size compared to Olympians out there who dont have the strength of him. Like Kai Greene: