The Renaissance Man

Why? Is it because of the Zuckerberg vibe or for some other reason?

The generalizing is totally unjustified. And this hatred and frustration can be smelled by women, even if not explicit. Look at the objective facts: this woman in particular behaved in this way. You didn't like it. You're not going to hang out with her anymore. That's it. No generalizations, no unnecessary misogyny. Probably you can think about a few signs of the kind of person she was from before you met. That would be a good lesson to better filter for mature women next time. Without adding extra layers of hatred.

@BlessedLion It's not like they were together or anything though. Having all those those red flags appear in 30 minutes... it seems like a good reason to dump her actually. And the 30 minute thing is clearly disrespectful and slimy, waiting for him to meet her to tell him.

@Sugarcoat I'm sure it gives him lots of meaning. That must be a big one. Maybe one day something will trigger in his mind and he'll step out of it, chill out and become a hippie lol. Maybe some mushrooms. Could happen

A big problem with this mindset is the constantly "you're a pussy" self-talk. That's not a happy mindset. It's quite repressed, often. But depending on the life phase you're at, it may be what digs you out the hole and makes you evolve.

@Carl-Richard Ok a couple points to clarify my perspective: Mike Israetel and Jeff Nippard explicitly teach in the context of maximizing hypertrophy, and not other training philosophies. It is NOT assumed that this is the number one goal of lifters. The two can easily coexist. By injury I mean injury prevention not rehab. I was not specific, my bad. A controlled eccentric enables you to prevent injuries more, by lowering the load you use, with seemingly the same level of gains. 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. 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. And I'm saying that training with lower weights for the same gains will lead to less injuries. That is not an opinion. By the way the injury rate in strongman is extremely high. And the injury rate at the pro/advanced level is also much, much higher than with beginners, so injury prevention needs to be taken a lot more seriously. But this is very apparent when you actually do become advanced, because you just keep getting hurt as soon as you push a bit if not extremely careful. 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.

This is awesome

@The Caretaker 1 heavy set can give you about 50% of what 4 sets could give you. So while it's true that there are diminishing returns the more sets you do, the difference between 1 set and 4-10 sets is not just 20%. The problem here is that you're taking this principle in isolation. You're not going to put on muscle with one set per week unless you're basically untrained. Even if it's heavy. There is a reason why pro athletes train tens of hours per week. It's because at a certain point you either train more, or you stop improving. So it depends. If you're untrained, then great. Or if you want to maintain a beginner-intermediate level of fitness. But if you want to improve, or maintain an advanced level, you're going to soon find that's not enough. Also, once you have warmed up for one set it doesn't take much longer to do two or three. So even in terms of time, it's much more efficient to do 2 sets of one exercise than to do 1 set of two exercises. As always, if it seems too good to be true, it's probably because it is.

He's clearly not natural but I don't see the problem with it. Unrelated to this thread too.

@Lyubov It seems like you have already made up your mind about Hormozi without giving him a fair shot. That's ok. But it was apparent to me (especially from his books) that his work is really special. It's in another category compared to any kind of business advice I've heard up to this point. It doesn't really take faith by the way. You just see it yourself. When I read the Offers book, for the first time in my life I thought: "holy shit, I would absolutely buy an offer like this one!". No need to persuade me. The logic of his understanding and models persuaded me. I can see with my own eyes how what he says is genius. Obviously, money is his religion so you may want to moderate his advice, especially if selling B2C. But as Leo said, conscious marketing is a luxury you have to earn.

That's not the point. The point is that you're delegating understanding to the AI. It's not the same. It doesn't lead to the same outcomes, especially in the long run. The development of critical thinking, of contemplation, of wrestling with concepts and confusion until you achieve understanding is the key skill here. AI is amazing as a tool to challenge you, or to look up information. But then it's you that needs to evaluate what's being said by the AI. If you copy-paste the AI's response it's the clearest sign of a lack of evaluation. Because there's no way the AI's response 100% reflects what you think. I'm not saying you're stupid or not serious or that you're clueless about Leo's work. I'm trying to show you the problem delegating reasoning to the AI. Here's the real question. When the answer becomes a firm YES, then you're closer to what we're trying to point to you: could you have come to the same conclusions/response as the AI with your own mind? And you can't just say yes by the way. Prove it in the next threads you post. Try to critique Leo's work with your own mind and contemplation. Try to deeply understand it, writing a simple summary is not enough. Coming up with your own examples and theories. All those questions point to an already familiar word by the way: contemplation. That's what it is!

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'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. 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. 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. 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.

@Carl-Richard The slow and controlled eccentric has some advantages though: Best way to maximize time under tension (a fast eccentric means skipping all of that juicy eccentric tension, because gravity does that for you, for a not-that-big decrease in load). So this should get you more growth not less. A slow concentric is problematic because load would drop too much, but Israetel doesn't advocate for that for that reason. It's A LOT SAFER. I guess this is less of a problem for beginners and intermediates, because they're "too weak to get hurt" pretty much. But when you become more advanced, and very strong, you're always threading the needle between volume and injury. Exercises that you could've half-assed before now become super dangerous, and as soon as you do one thing wrong (and very often even if you do everything right)... inflammation. Any time you can make the same gains for A LOT less risk it's a huge long-term win. Overall though, this is a nuance. Either training like Bugenhagen or slowing down the eccentric will lead to almost identical results (if you don't get injured). Because what counts is training hard, and training a lot. It must be that way. If you're recovering from an injury you need everything to be controlled, not just the eccentric. Avoiding rebounds, controlling everything, and keeping loads as low as possible, so staying in higher rep ranges (20+).

@Nilsi I'm reading the SD book right now, after your reply I'll for sure check out Clare Graves' work. It's a common pattern that when you go and look at the actual source you discover things were meant to be different (and very often better). What are the top books/works on developmental psychology in your opinion?

Mine: The Lord of the Rings - J.R.R. Tolkien (fantasy) Inheritance Cycle - Christopher Paolini (fantasy) Blindness - Jose Saramago (dystopian) I haven't read much fiction though, so this is very likely bound to change