Carl-Richard

What's next is keep entering that state. And maybe systematically let go of whatever you are clinging onto in your mind and in the world whenever you get the opportunity.

Please don't do this ridiculous stuff.

Guys guys guys this guy is 1000% more charismatic than Mike Israetel, the great lifting replacement is underway. Get in on the action while it's still rare: 0:55

There is intent as in having an aim (claimed or otherwise) and then there is intent as in knowingly taking actions that lead to said outcome. They are intentionally running a war which leads to those outcomes, and they are perfectly aware of the outcomes of their intentional actions. If you say you intend to kill the weeds in your garden using pesticides but you notice that "oops, now literally all my flowers are dying", and then you continue killing the weeds and all your flowers die. Did you intentionally kill all your flowers? Yes. Did you aim to kill your flowers? Maybe not, but you're surely stupid if your aim was not to kill the flowers.

I was talking about the extermination of Hamas. But reducing the city to rubble so it's unliveable, of course means that the people who live there, cannot live there.

When I typed myself with my ChatGPT-5 prompt, INTJ was among the top contenders. I generally land in INTP and INFP/ENFP land, which if you take them as a group and we're being reductionistic MBTI fiends, they do resemble INTJ in some places (Nx > Te, Fi). But really, all introverted intuitives can probably become very similar if they have similar interests (philosophy, science, spirituality), similiar background (e.g. some form of STEM) and similar experiences (meditation, health focus, meaning from work). I also thought maybe our work specifically can be a contributing factor (but I don't know how much): you're managing high-tech construction projects (often in the medical field), I'm managing "high-tech" behavioral science (using neuroscientific methods, which also overlaps with the medical field). You have to not just deal with technical challenges but also people. I had to recruit 77 participants all on my own and run mental health screening meetings, teach them how to use the behavioral interventions in the RCT, and then measure their brain before and after the study. So while we're working in quite different "fields", we're really working with the same things. We're kinda both in the "construction field", just slightly different things are being made 😆

I once held a presentation about a study I found that looked at people who had an addiction to cigarettes and happened to get brain damage and their addiction disappeared. The study collected a bunch of these people and determined which parts of the brain seemed to cause the remission of the addiction. Then they did follow-up studies testing out treatments using Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) to target those brain areas, aiming to decrease the activity of those areas and simulating the lesions of the brain damaged patients. I think that's pretty interesting. Also, I know people who have done research on music treating Parkinson's symptoms. There are many videos out there of Parkinson's patients trying to walk with music and without, and the difference is quite remarkable.

Meanwhile, those who ironically get accused of "ego lifting" and are critical of the "science-based" self-torture training Mike does (e.g. Sam Sulek and Eric Bugenhagen), say they love working out. And they don't exactly have worse physiques either. Funny how that works. What's more ego-based than "you gotta drop the weight bro, you just want to stimulate the muscle, that's how you get big, if you hurt yourself you lose muscle, it's not good for hypertrophy bro" vs "I just like lifting heavy ass weight"?

Man man, as if I should have written it myself. It's turning into a meme at this point, but I read that and I got that "ooh that's familiar" feeling again, because it's something I've thought about so much before and yes as if I should have written it myself. I can't remember this having happened before with other forum users My critique is from above, come at me brah. I'm Tier 2 in hypertrophy (I'm only half-joking): I'll stay with my earlier critiques of Mike Israetel and his ilk and say that the hard-hitting critiques of current sports science, and especially when trying to use it to claim "this is the optimal way to train", is not that it's substanceless bullshit, but that there is a severe lack of ecological validity in the research designs. Working out with one arm using one technique and the other arm using another technique, is absolutely a ridiculous basis for making claims for what is optimal training, because none of that is optimal. That's just one example. I could speak about it for days, faster and with more fervor than Mike talks about his totally non-ironic ironic homoerotic intrusive thoughts.

Firstly, what a shitshow. Secondly, "I responded too early, I did not double check". Sounds like it fits the bill. Now I guess we wait and see for the final version to be uploaded to the university websites?

Probably one of his "not so good" weekendly weed thoughts escaped the peer review of his sober mind 😆

I've made the case that if there are lot of formatting errors and statistical mistakes in the thesis document ("clerical mistakes"), that could indicate there could be a lot of mistakes in the preprocessing and data analysis, as that requires (often) arguably even more diligence to get right. So it's possible that the entire conclusion of his PhD is flawed (but maybe it's less likely if he simply did correlations of relatively minimally processed data). And then, how does that reflect on his reading of the scientific literature (which is his whole shtick)? What if he does that with the same rigor as his PhD, should we then take that as "good advice"?

But being (now very likely if not undoubtably) a malicious liar, is probably not so irrelevant: "I'm a perfectionist with a massive IQ who also lies and cuts corners and delivers sloppy work". Does this summarize Mike's legacy?

They claim it wasn't an edit but a software quirk when "comparing documents" (unsure what they are referring to). But it makes no sense to edit it and then post it online if you are going to get the university to confirm and upload the latest version themselves. That would be a very not-160 IQ move by Mike IsVerySmart. They probably posted it online, without editing it, to get it out as soon as possible to at least quell some suspicion. And then we can confirm later whether the one they posted and the one the university posted are identical. You can do better than simply feeding into the outrage. EDIT: Ok what the fuck: https://www.instagram.com/p/DPdoieaDZnh/?igsh=MWpudjl6ZjBzb2drYg== Well, considering I currently don't see how he now didn't just lie about the entire thing and edited the document while trying to pass it off as the real version, that's pretty- wow.

What if isolation isn't always a good thing? There is a point to be made that you're trying to strike the balance between "moving the weight" and stressing the muscle, and it might lead to a different outcome than simply moving the weight. But there is a way of doing that which is more informed by your own body, by what feels best, by what is conducive to flow, and then there is doing it in a way that is more inhibitory and mind-focused. The science is not out on which is best, but my intuition and general knowledge about lifting and sports tells me it's likely the former that wins out for a majority of exercises (probably especially compound movements). When did "isolation" become an axiom of bodybuilding? Bodybuilding is about building muscle, not isolating muscles during exercise. Isolation can be a tool for sculpting your physique and working on your weak spots and targeting muscles that are maybe harder to activate in compound movements, but that's about it. It's true a sprinter is not a bodybuilder, but I simply used it to make a point. I think you're possibly taking Mike's frankly very obscure ideology for granted.

There is a range of intensity within that, but the fact of the matter is the more restrictions you put on a movement, the more inhibited your movement will be. More inhibition, less power output, less muscle recruitment, less intensity. If you tell a sprinter to "deep stretch" and "pause at the bottom of the rep", they will have a horrible workout. A sprinter is taught techniques to remove inhibition of movement, to optimize the fluidity of the movement, to open up for the most efficient expenditure of energy. The same principle can be applied to weight training, and I believe it could easily be better for hypertrophy than simply grinding out lower intensity exercises. Please acknowledge that the types of techniques Mike has arrived at are the results of studies with FLAWED research designs for the claims he are trying to make; to say they're merely limited is an understatement. If you want to make statements about what is optimal training, make your study participants train under optimal conditions. It's that simple. Is it easy to execute such studies? Not necessarily. Are there trade-offs compared to other studies? Sure. But if you care about this very specific statement "optimal training for hypertrophy", at least get the "optimal training" part right for the study itself.

You essentially told all of philosophy "use your Fi, not your Ti", and "evolve", not "arrive there by logic". Not that it's wrong or anything, but it's like preaching spirituality to 2 year olds; sometimes you have to engage with the frame and do some rough-and-tumble play (And are you just waiting for them to evolve or do you have a solution for speeding it up?) It could be a mix of both. Because both were happening and it's not easy to dissociate them causally retrospectively.

And let's see what kind of intensity he is training at there. I'm not saying only training with super low rep ranges is necessarily what builds more muscles. I'm saying training with intensity, not the nerd shit Mike pushes, could very easily do that. I'm just pointing out that even when you focus on low rep ranges, and you don't try to fit a weight class and you try to become the strongest as possible, you also end up becoming some of the biggest human beings on the planet. Even in that "weaker" case, you see enormous effects on hypertrophy. So in the stronger case, as with Ronnie Coleman and the like (and really most top bodybuilders in history), you shouldn't be surprised if it's the best alternative.

Of course a junior will be smaller and will also lift 328kg and not 500kg. But do you think Eddie Hall did "hypertrophy phases"? He simply trained to become the strongest man, and consequentially, he became some of the biggest men to walk the Earth. Eddie Hall weighs 196.5kg in that picture. A huge chunk of that is muscle, he is actually rather lean in that picture. Ronnie Coleman, probably biggest bodybuilder to walk the Earth, insanely strong, trained extremely heavily. "But genes". Well, their training style apparently didn't stop them from becoming that big, and maybe, just maybe, it wasn't just a coincidence.

The world's strongest man is big:

Let's actually take Mike's PhD conclusions that more muscle leads to more strength. What about the other way around, more strength leads to more muscle? Surely the relationship is reasonably two-way. So then, shouldn't one try to become as strong as possible, lift as intensely as possible, such that one builds as most muscle as possible, not lift with this punctuated movement deep stretch bullshit? Or do we pick and choose which studies to trust, i.e. the ones with bad ecological validity where people lift in awkward ways that you would never lift in an actual gym session (one arm with one technique, other arm with another, researcher breathing down your neck and controlling every rep) vs those where the people actually try to lift at highest intensity and thus as close to their usual training as possible? Hmmmm.

@Xonas Pitfall This is what that "does your mom know you're gay" dude calls an exponible statement by the way (unless it only applies to propositions 🤓).

Nanananana. Na. 😂

🤔🧐🤔🧐🤔🧐 I used those words lately. Now it's when you tell us you did not read that comment prior and only picked it up associatively from the collective mindspace 🙂🙂👍👍