Carl-Richard

I generally don't do it. It just happens. OBEs was just meditation, but really mild (only floating 10 cm above my head).

Three first yes.

Bro I literally cannot understand what you're saying. Work on grammar please. What if having a scientist count all your reps, or decide which exercises you should do, or how often you should train, reduces your gains? This is not an unreasonable assumption. It's an ubiquitous fact of psychology (and biology) that externally dictated behavior is less motivating than internally dictated behavior. How can you properly compare high-intensity low-volume training with low-intensity high-volume training if all your research subjects are untrained (as they often are), not motivated to train (they only participated because they are taking an exercise science class in college and their professors gave them course credits for participating), and you have no way of objectively measuring intensity/effort? Of course the results will favor low-intensity high-volume, because unmotivated individuals naturally do not push themselves hard. And intensity is anyway hard to measure and hard to control, in stark contrast to volume, so even with motivated individuals, you actually do not know whether they did push themselves hard or not.

@Schizophonia the dude to prank people in public by making fake AI videos of them doing illegal stuff.

That happens to me too, but I don't think about it when it's not there.

He said there is a two-way relationship between those sperm parameters and testosterone, and also too hot nuts is associated with low testosterone. Regardless, I posted this because of the environmental toxins, not the sperm health.

I've been doing sauna since forever. Lately I thought about the icing nuts thing, and my water bottle is stainless steel, and I figured just placing it in the vicinity of my crotch actually makes a difference. You don't want them to be too cold either am I right? That's just American Psycho Bryan on it again.

Yeah. The "this is the optimal way" virus extends to all spheres: diet, health, aesthetics. The difference is that exercise science is such a low quality version of that, it borders actual crystal healing in its scientific rigor (that said, I'm all for studying both exercise and crystal healing; just do it right). As long as the rigor is low (and even if it's not, you still have the generalization / individual differences issue), then people like Bryan Johnson who espouse "experiment and measurement for your own self" is actually the "most optimal" way.

Sauna: http://youtube.com/post/UgkxM5TS27Ryy5UT7f57MwWHy8CEwAO1eKKq?si=6n1tdiSf5PW2JMWT @Ramasta9 Bryan would probably experiment with long-term fasting at some point.

No, just a 👺🥖 (it's a baguette).

She will now never speak to you again.

Punishment time.

Here is the one true answer to your problem: stop trying to relax, stop trying not to relax, stop trying to stay conscious, stop trying to not stay conscious, stop trying to do the right thing, stop trying to not do the right thing, stop trying, stop not trying, stop trying not to try, stop trying not to not to try. Now you're relaxed. As for real-world practical things, whenever I sit in my office chair, I'm relaxed. I sit in such a way that I'm resting even if I'm working (left foot under butt, like a kind of half-lotus, with right foot touching the ground, arms resting parallel to the arm rests and in flush with the table). And when I get tired and need to take a break, I only switch focus to something else, e.g. YouTube or the forum (sometimes I change posture to a more lying down posture with my feet up on the heater on the wall under the table, all after what is comfortable).

The problem is never conformism or not conformism. It's always retardation. (@integral made this point I believe, I'm not calling him retarded).

Every time you make a response to me it feels like gaslighting.

Saying "not viewing the globe upside down" when you mean "not making globes upside down", that's an example of not conforming.

If you use AI to solve practical problems or do work, AI makes you less procedurally adept and more verbally adept, because you have to describe to it what type of procedure you want. And then also more verbally adept people become disproportionally more effective AI users that can benefit from AI more. So if you're verbally adept and you find a way to leverage AI for work, you'll strengthen your strengths and get ahead. AI is simply a medium for applying your intelligence, just like Google Search, or the internet. If you always try your best to apply your intelligence, then AI can enhance it. If you don't apply your intelligence, then AI will take it.

If you have a literal globe on your desk where Europe is on top and the text and labels are aligned for reading it that way, then turning the globe upside down is retarded.

Some aspects of science-based lifting might work perfectly for some people. I like the deep stretch microreps/pause at the end of some sets. And this is reflected in how in virtually any measurement in an exercise science study, you have big variation among individuals. That's another point Lyle makes, that the modelled group means belie that individual variation (and we know mathematically that different measures of central tendency treat individual variation differently). So unless you find a study where you believe your particular individual sensitivities are adequately represented (and you believe the methods are not completely flawed), science can only serve as a probability space and a range of suggestions.

It's like some of us are hitting the Piñata of Truth and sometimes we hit each other in the head at the same time.

This is just the beginning 🫣

Mine are too after sneezing and realizing I caught my third virus in 3-4 weeks (yes, I also got sick before the flu virus one but comparatively less). This vessel lacks immunological conformity.

Ok. There is conformity and then there is retardation.

I consider myself very open for what you can use science for (and that you can use science meaningfully; I'm not someone who has "deconstructed science" and thrown it all in the garbage). For example, I think studying psychic phenomena and far-out there stuff like breatharianism are legitimate areas for science. However, curiously, these two examples are currently in the stage of merely proving that the phenomena is possible. The buck is set much lower here in terms of straightforwardness compared to comparing very minute differences in exercise volume or movement patterns (e.g. full stretch, slowed eccentric, etc.) or level of intensity and determining which configuration of those factors is best. It's an entirely different level of investigation that science might not be well-equipped for in any situation, and certainly way less in the current situation where we are essentially using bananas to measure acorns. Randomized control trials are not well-suited for exercise science. The ecological validity is just way too problematic, the lack of blinding of participants and scientists is problematic, the timespan (usually 8 weeks) is problematic, the study population (usually untrained individuals) is problematic, the list goes on. Once ESM for exercise science and objective measures of workout intensity are established, then we're approaching the level of research in other behavioral sciences, but we'll still be stuck with the "minute difference" problem. And there are other things worth looking into, like flow states and how to measure these objectively in an RCT (let alone acquiring participants that regularly enter flow). I believe flow is the number 1 metric for performance in terms of hypertrophy training, as it is in strength training, as it is in general athletic performance. But this is 40 years too early.