Carl-Richard

Where were you before you were born, and where will you go after you die?

Yellow would ask: What does Pyrrhonism serve? What goals and values do you have and is it compatible with those goals and values?

The way they double the arpeggioed tritone chord with just a halfstep is so evil and brilliantly executed in this shot (and the rest of the song is just masterfully done): 17:10 (the video starts a little earlier for context)

They say that good music keeps you at the edge between familiarity and surprise. Too familiar becomes boring, and too surprising becomes hard to follow. Musical improvisation is the manifestation of this in real time, and you can usually notice when the player is engaging in well-established/familiar patterns ("licks") and when the player is creating something completely original. I'm used to improvising a lot on guitar, and I've noticed that I'm able to imagine impossibly intricate and original lines of improvisation in my head, but I'm in no way technically advanced enough to manifest that through my instrument. When I listen to the most complete virtuostic improvisational players out there, even though they can come very close many times, I always feel a tension between boredom and impenetrability. Of course, this desire I have of hearing the most hyper-creative lines of notes that I can possibly imagine is impossible to fulfill. It's completely relative to my unique conception of music, and I would probably never in a million years get to hear somebody produce even 10 seconds of those exact notes (which would be absolutely transcendentally orgasmic if it happened). Nevertheless, I know two players who come extremely close, and I'll try to weigh to which extent they're too "boring" ("musically conventional" is a better word) or too impenetrable (too melodically or harmonically complex) relative to my impossible standard of imaginative perfection. Guthrie Govan (obviously). It's tricky, because he is so versatile that he often fluctuates between too conventional (like bluesy bendy stuff) and too complex (like jazzy shredding stuff). I'll give an example for each player: Allan Holdsworth is notoriously known for being impossible to imitate by other players. For reference, Guthrie Govan can imitate virtually anyone but him. He often becomes too complex. I sometimes have to listen to his songs 30 times to understand what he is doing (like the run at 1:28 in the video below). (Btw things become more interesting around 0:40).

"Science-based lifting" is to use scientific studies to conclude which ways to train are the most optimal. It's a term primarily used in a setting of hypertrophy/bodybuilding training, and it's here it is often the most problematic. Why it is problematic can be boiled down to essentially one phrase: "moving your body is not like swallowing a pill". People tend to point to the scientific rigor of so called "high quality research designs" like randomized controlled trials by saying that is how we develop drugs and medical treatments, and these have been shown to demonstrate real effects that map on to the world accurately. Well, firstly, let's explore even that for a minute: SSRIs have been shown to be only 2% more effective than placebo. And that's assuming that the study design is accurate and can tell us something true about those effects, which can also be questioned. After all, who are the studies conducted on? Are those people's characteristics always applicable to any given scenario? Are they always relevant for you and your bodily functioning? Maybe not. That aside, you also have the problem of the replication crisis which affects all of behavioral science, not just psychology or the "softer" social science disciplines like it is often portrayed as, but it affects medicine, biology, biotechnology, pharmacology. And why that is the case could boil down to simply "humans are complicated". And what is even more complicated than humans popping a pill? That is humans moving their bodies, and maybe especially lifting weights for hypertrophy. Lifting weights is not just lifting weights. It's every cell in your body coordinating to produce complex movement patterns. To even conceive of this theoretically, forget about the empirical problems for a moment, is a wild assertion of confidence. You would essentially be claiming omniscience like a God. And that's what science-based lifters have essentially done to their analytical mind and by an even more painfully wild and confident extension their empirical capability, not just in interpreting science but in claiming to have produced valuable and truth-uncovering research designs. And this ties into the second but related problem of ecological validity and external validity. Lifting weights is not just lifting weights yes in this sense that that phrase belies an immense world of complexity that is generally not appreciated for what it is, but it's also in the sense that the weights and the movement patterns are not the only thing that is part of your training. It's the gym, the surroundings, the people, the knowledge of the person lifting the weights, the motivation and rigor of the person lifting the weights, the shape and size of the body of the person lifting the weights, the length and width of the limbs; any characteristic that you could describe as merely tangentially related, is deeply intertwined in the outcomes of training. And this is where the "soccer moms in an 8-week study" critique comes in, and it's not a trivial or merely funny or facetious critique. Do you honestly think it is a good idea to base your idea of what is "optimal lifting" on people who are on average and certainly compared to the average hyper-obsessed gym bro 1. not at all knowledgeable in lifting, 2. not at all motivated to lift (at any considerable level of intensity or rigor), 3. not the same size or shape as you, and 4. maybe most importantly generally lifting in a controlled and alien setting where a scientist is standing behind you shouting "start", "stop", "start", "stop", at every rep, where some designs use absolutely unheard of training setups like using one technique with one arm and another technique with the other arm for those 8 weeks, where even quantifying states like "true failure" vs "3 reps in reserve" is mere hocus-pocus philosophical conjecture? And you then compile various of different kinds of studies like this that mostly contradict each other in terms of the overall conclusions and you end up with a marginal number of "51% in favor of this training method over this". And this is what is "most optimal". It is an absolute charade, a circus, pure pseudo-intellectual masturbatory, below AI-slop levels of investigation and conclusion. It's not to say that all of exercise science is pseudoscience. There are valueable studies on e.g. best ways to improve VO2 max which are much more similar to a physiological "pill-taking" mechanism where dose and response are much more simply controlled. But movement patterns, hypertrophy training, based on female mid-40s RCTs, compiled into a sludge of marginally favored conclusions, and then presented as "the most optimal way to train", is not as much a pseudoscience as it is a failure of analytical thinking and logical inference. Science-based lifting is not really as much a science as it is a kind of metaphysics, a theological doctrine, that more interprets and concludes based on a set of assumptions rather than based on the actual observations. That is why "The Church of Science-Based Lifting" is a fitting and ironic name. Because that is also the kind of thinking that is associated with it: "what does the science say?" "what does the book say?" "what is the most optimal way?" "what is the answer?" "what is the thing we should follow, the one true way, the path, the one espoused by the Churchmen with the P and the H and the Ds?" It's ironic that the more "science-based", the less thinking you seem to have to do, the more you just have to listen, deny criticism, bow to authority. What is the true and honest way to train, is philosophy-based lifting; being aware of the assumptions underlying your thinking, not making poorly justified conclusions based on observation, and simply working with what you have, which in the case of hypertrophy is mainly yourself and your own experience, your sense, your own body and mind.

You're making it seem like the fatigue is for nothing. But even if it was the case that the 1 RM set itself was sub-optimally hypertrophic, you could imagine that becoming adapted to the immense fatigue could convert to hypertrophic work in other sets. You have to look at the bigger picture. It's like how in nutrition, it's not only the three standard macronutrients and essential micronutrients that affect nutrition and how these nutrients work. Other things you consume also effect it, but not just things you consume. The body is after all an interconnected whole. I don't believe "slow and controlled" as distinct from "flow in control" (another word for the "entire set is one rep" cue) is intuitive. I've seen how Mike trains, how he makes people train, and I've trained that way myself for about a year. It does have a kind of intellectual appeal, and it seems "smart" in kind of an engineering sense and it might even feel kind of satisfying, but then I have to return to the example of teenage noobs who have to be literally held back from instantly injurying themselves just from the sheer power that exists there intuitively. The fact of the matter is that intuitive is intense, but of course that is not to say inexperienced teen lifters embody what is a reasonable, cultivated lifting style. The answer lies somewhere in the middle.

The effective reps are condensed into one rep. And if the worry is that it's hard to know if you could have gone harder for that one rep, if you progressively creep up towards a 1 RM through progressive overload with more than one rep, or you always attempt more than one rep even if you'll most likely fail, that problem doesn't arise. I've done 1 RM maxes like this and it made me sore as hell the next day: If you intuitively aim at your goal, I believe so. You can lift in a "hypertrophic maximizing way" that is in flow and has high intensity and it could look different from merely throwing the weight up. For example, when I do tricep pulldowns, I don't usually try to yank the rope down like I'm trying to destroy the machine. I rather try to make the burn as severe as possible. Triceps pulldowns is actually one exercise that is particularly good for the "your entire set is one rep" cue, and it is generally not a "move weight" kind of movement but rather a quite constricted and firm movement pattern.

Have you tried working in a windowless room full of mirrors? That's what Mike Israetel does and he used to struggle with ADHD.

When you're stuck making Blue comments.

Well yeah. It's interesting that when cutting like 10-20% of your calories but you keep training the same, suddenly you're in danger of losing muscle, meanwhile cutting 88% of your training volume putatively leads to zero muscle loss. In WSM 2025, 40% of the final events were max weight events. They usually sit at around 15% though in the last 20 years. But you generally have to be well-rounded to be the very best. Mariusz Pudzianowski was an anomaly. Yep. Bodybuilders are sometimes told by their coaches to cut mass to fit into a weight class that is the most aesthetically appealing for their frame. Yeah, well, that's not on me, but on the "science-based" lifters. They are the ones doing the unusual thing. Very rarely if ever in a scientific study do you see a claim at the end that says "this is the most optimal method that exists". What you usually get is just "here are the results, here are the limitations, here are some careful conclusions and future directions". For example, you might have a study that suggests that a treatment method is efficacious for treating a certain illness. Or that a drug showed an effect on x variable. But the claim "most optimal compared to everything else", is scientifically radioactive. It's ironically pre-rational. The rational position is to present the results that were actually discovered. To then later gather a bunch of studies with generally entirely different methodologies, with statistically patchy results, and then creating a combined summary that modestly hints in one direction, and then claim "this is the most optimal method", that is also scientifically radioactive. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews also have Limitations sections. Rarely do they ever make sweeping claims across entire fields. That's what expert talking heads do based on their feel. And even if they are very humble and transparent in the way they do it, if the entire field is essentially in a crisis (which is basically my claim), that humility and transparency doesn't mean much. It only reveals exactly the flaws of the field. It will lead to whatever you feel like doing. But it will generally lead you away from "slow and controlled" and more towards "flow and intensity". Whether that means high weight low reps or low weight high reps is probably neither here nor there. You could definitely train in a way that is relatively more characterized by flow and intensity with both high reps and low reps. But I personally find myself drawn to not necessarily 1 RM (I've actually never trained in a way to specifically maximize 1 RM) but lower rep ranges (12-15), which some may not consider low, but it is lower than doing for example 30 pushups. I had an argument with a friend around 6 years ago about whether a gym membership is worth it and if bodyweight exercises are all you need. Even then, I pointed to "there is just something special about doing really heavy squats, the rush you feel, the feeling of intensity".

GPT that too. My impression is that the top bodybuilders and top strongmen share FFM both in hypothetical on and off season, I don't see why the strongmen would have a harder time in principle keeping muscle were they to slim down. Interestingly, sumo wrestlers have been measured at a similar FFM. That further underscores my point: being the top in anything mass-related, tends to produce same levels of mass. And they also do 1 RM yet same mass. I'll say my spiel again for SBL: if you want to conclude what is "optimal" for hypertrophy, basically all studies that exist are bullshit.

GPT their FFM. Is spending 3 hours in the gym grinding ungodly volume more efficient than 1 hour horsing loads? Shit studies + variable methodology = mega shit "consensus". I watched a video of Elliot Hulse 6-7 years ago about working out every other day, putting all your soul into that workout day and then resting the next day, is the way to go. I've stuck with it since (of course adding some sprint/4x4 days on top of that, now currently just one sprint/4x4 day a week). I was afraid I was not doing enough volume. And now I look at people who train only twice a week and look jacked and I'm like "maybe not". I still prefer training every other day, because it keeps my well-being and cognitive functioning on top.

Interesting. 3x10 is 30 reps total, 7x3 is 21 reps total. So 30% fewer reps for the same hypertrophy. Measure it in a study (I already addressed this; high weight low reps could create more fatigue but also more hypertrophy). If all the studies are shit and the entire field is shit, you can disregard it. That's close to where I'm at with hypertrophy science. You don't have to be strong to get big. But getting strong gets you big. Or else how do you explain Eddie and Shaw being as massive as Greg Kovac? Is it just a coincidence that when you maximize strength, you also maximize muscle? The studies only run for a few weeks (and even then show mixed results), and with the absolutely horrendous statistical power of most exercise science studies, you would expect them to not be able to pick up very real changes (they always rely on "statistical significance" which depends on sample size, power). Something tells me homeostasis would eventually catch up and bring you to a stable level. Even if there is an evolutionary pressure for maintaining muscle, that there would be zero change for perpetuity when dropping 88% of volume, I would have to see impossible studies for that (N = 500, 3-year studies).

I have heard about it. But again, you're dealing in hypotheses/conjecture. There seem to be no studies measuring CNS fatigue for high weight low reps vs low weight high reps and using it to explain differential effects on hypertrophy. And even if there is more CNS fatigue for high weight low reps, it doesn't matter if there is also more hypertrophy stimulus. And again, these things have to be measured specifically before you can make the leap from hypothesis to conclusion. And you can measure these things by proxy, but of course the proxies are sometimes really bad (slowing reps = stimulus...?), so that's again another brilliant feature of sports science.

The comment section, absolutely disgusting levels of cope. "W33d doesn't do that". Peak levels of ignorance. Read one statistic on weed 5150s.

Your alternative scenarioes are abstractions and likely not existentially coherent. The thing about God's creation is it's coherent all the way down, to all ends of the universe, at every scale. Every part of reality is deeply connected to everything else. It's a marvelous coordinated clockwork.

It also produces CO2 and H2O and other compounds.

I tried it today and I've never been this knocked out before in terms of low energy and weird hyper-serotonergic state. "Normal" magnesium (oxide and citrate) doesn't do this to me. Could it be the glycine? I took 360 mg (pure mineral weight), which adds up to over 2g of glycine. I was debating whether to only take 240mg because the improved absorption makes it roughly equal to the 350mg of oxide and citrate I was taking. So maybe it's also excess magnesium, but again, this does not feel the same as just magnesium. I'm asking because it wasn't the only new thing I took (I also had more E vitamin than usual and a different fish oil supplement), but it feels like it could be the culprit.

Another time, later. I said I misremembered and it was actually Jeff Neeples. So Mr. Mike gimpsuit technique, I see. So lifting heavy shit is good? Nope. Never had that. Always done deadlifts, and it is fatiguing yes, but not "CNS fatiguing" (whatever that is) and I continue with the rest of the workout until I'm truly fatigued. This honestly sounds like some hallucination or fantasy you've cooked up. Regardless, this is conjecture, and I'm being deliberate in word choice here. If you have a way to measure CNS fatigue and you have demonstrated a difference for high weight low reps vs low weight high reps, that's science. If you explain behavior or results in other variables by pointing to a theoretical concept of CNS fatigue, that's something else; it's conjecture. Conjecture doesn't mean always bullshit, but if you have no way of measuring it, it can very much be bullshit.

The video said Eddie's bench max was 496 lbs without mentioning reps, meanwhile: Eddie Hall Bench Presses 496 Pounds for 10 Reps https://barbend.com/eddie-hall-bench-496-pounds/ 10 fucking reps. 🥲 Fuck AI

My guy, 3 - 5 reps was me sloppily saying the "range" for the lowest amount of reps, not the range for all reps. And I don't give a fuck about Dr. Mike. Jeff Shniples said it. I think the entire "science" is unclear. That's "science-based lifting" for you. But an appeal to laziness is not an argument: ask ChatGPT for studies showing 3 reps = anything above. Nothing longevity about doing 5 billion sets per muscle per week or whatever insane number is "optimal" in Dr. Mikensteins book. What's your take on grip strength = longevity? 1. He is not almost as strong. That AI slop video you posted compared sometimes random training videos rather than competition numbers and sometimes different rep ranges (wtf); anyways, Eddie 3x-8xed the reps for all those cases (and what's the point of comparing a 900 lb 1 RM with a 761 lb 8 rep set?). As for the one rep maxes, with the exception of bench (which I doubt even the accuracy of considering the AI slop-level production but which Eddie still won), Eddie always dwarfed Larry, especially the deadlift: 425kg vs 500kg, that's a 15% difference. And 500kg is not even the world record anymore. All in all, Larry always lost where the comparisons made sense, and generally with great to epic margins. 2. You're just vibing these descriptions ("almost as muscular", "almost as strong"), nothing objective about them. I need a citation for this because it sounds like bullshit conjecture. How do you measure "CNS fatigue"? I've heard "CNS fatigue" being used for inhuman levels of volume (not citing a study here).

Because being yourself means being in tune with your capacities. Being in conflict with your capacities leads to lower functioning and inner turmoil and a non-attractive state. Effort to unfold it in a world that is different from the self. It can be simpler in some ways to cower to the outside world. But that simplicity again has to face the complexity of the world, and you need functionality to face that. And people may underestimate inauthenticity in the long-term, so when they have experienced it for long, they might realize that it doesn't work, while in the short term it's often easier. But some may manage to bury it so deep (especially men) that they forget even the concept, through blindness of emotional state (alexithymia) or general dissociation. And they end up cold, stunted, blunt, surface layer.

Because you're a sample of one and you're almost certainly making post-hoc hypotheses instead of confirming prespecified hypotheses / predictions (which both tend to be statistically problematic). The hypotheses are also probably not very specific either, so the statistical problems only compound. And even if you make a prediction that is specific and use a large sample and you find a statistical pattern, you ideally would want to explain why that pattern exists, which is what the theoretical rationale is for.

I'm sorry, I misremembered; that was Jeff Nippster: Showcasing yet another case of "consensus" among reviewers of "the science". So disregarding the "general pointers" (which people disagree about) doesn't make you pre-rational like you suggested. It's not as much "arguing" (in terms of analytical argument) as being a religious scholar citing scripture (and their own interpretation). But why? Why this autistic focus on hypertrophy? That's the 80/20 rule. To get to the very top requires disproportional amounts of whatever is required. And again, at the very top, strength or muscle, Eddie Hall / Brian Shaw vs Greg Kovac, there is no reasonable muscle gap. What is hypertrophy training really if 3 reps is considered legitimate for hypertrophy and doing a one rep max even as a powerlifter is generally only something you do either once or a few times at the end of a workout or week? See how insignificant these terms are? The fact of the matter is if you aim to be best in either powerlifting/strongman or bodybuilding with whatever rep range you prefer, you will have statistically reasonably the same muscle mass. The real distinction between a powerlifter/strongman and bodybuilder is the fat percentage at competition, muscle distribution, aesthetics; generally how the muscle is "used" during competition. The autistic focus on "optimal rep range" is a social media phenomena, it's a religious meme in the "science-based lifting" theological tradition. You will not have heard of a single person who started training with fewer reps (keeping overall intensity and volume the same) who noticed they lost muscle.