site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   1864 thread views

Wellness Wednesday for October 25, 2023

The Wednesday Wellness threads are meant to encourage users to ask for and provide advice and motivation to improve their lives. It isn't intended as a 'containment thread' and any content which could go here could instead be posted in its own thread. You could post:

  • Requests for advice and / or encouragement. On basically any topic and for any scale of problem.

  • Updates to let us know how you are doing. This provides valuable feedback on past advice / encouragement and will hopefully make people feel a little more motivated to follow through. If you want to be reminded to post your update, see the post titled 'update reminders', below.

  • Advice. This can be in response to a request for advice or just something that you think could be generally useful for many people here.

  • Encouragement. Probably best directed at specific users, but if you feel like just encouraging people in general I don't think anyone is going to object. I don't think I really need to say this, but just to be clear; encouragement should have a generally positive tone and not shame people (if people feel that shame might be an effective tool for motivating people, please discuss this so we can form a group consensus on how to use it rather than just trying it).

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

To further the whiplash from my last comment, anyone here have any experience with tren?

If you're not willing to discuss it in public, feel free to DM. I have internalized LBBTQIA+^2 philosophies and my own transhumanism to the extent that I wish to transition from male to MALE.

Jokes aside, I'm just curious, and it seems trivially easy to get it here if I cared to do so.

Moreplatesmoredates would be the place to start researching it.

If looking ripped is the goal, then eat a shit ton and lift weights. Then go on Ozempic and get that 5% body fat. Will get you ripped without hair loss and acne.

Ozempic is ridiculously expensive here, but that's certainly a stretch goal!

The risks seem pretty high unless you have nothing to lose. But from my understanding you have a good career (and are moving to the UK and then maybe onward for further training/career stuff), a happy relationship with a girl that is (I think I remember) headed toward marriage, a book you’re writing etc.

The bad case (not worst, obviously, but we assume the worst is unlikely) for tren seems to be ending up as a bald musclehead with a bloated face and a worse psychological state, possibly with some long term medical issues. The best case is that you end up as a more muscular version of yourself, which I guess is better but doesn’t necessarily seem like it would improve your current life by that much.

Another comment lost to the sands of time an untimely refresh. But I like/respect you enough to write it from memory one more time:

You're correct in that the upside is limited, the question is how bad is the downside, because it's the delta between those two that should inform one's decision, with an appropriate amount of caution and epistemic humility.

As with most drugs, the side effects of tren can be mitigated by a low dose (of course the benefits go down too, yet it's not a linear tradeoff). I'm not aspiring to be the next Schwarzenegger, so a modest amount that's (maybe) unlikely to leave me a roid-raging maniac will more than do.

The thing is, there are other factors at play-

Being muscular is inherently good for you, muscle mass/proportion is one of the strongest negative predictors for all-cause mortality! I'd be lying if I said this was my primary motivation, especially given that I expect to either have been swiftly and unceremoniously killed by something else or just be outright biologically immortal by the time that's a real concern, but it's still a real and tangible benefit.

You have to consider the potential damage to your cardiovascular system from anabolic steroids, but if it's not obvious, it's not an obviously terrible tradeoff in a sensible regime.

The bad case (not worst, obviously, but we assume the worst is unlikely) for tren seems to be ending up as a bald musclehead with a bloated face and a worse psychological state, possibly with some long term medical issues. The best case is that you end up as a more muscular version of yourself, which I guess is better but doesn’t necessarily seem like it would improve your current life by that much.

It's the distribution between the two extremes that's provoking this discussion isn't it?

As with most illegal-ish substances, you're unlikely to notice the people who are using them judiciously. For every teeth grinding Adderall user stimming out, there's a dozen bored accountants or programmers using it to achieve incredible productivity. Similarly, for every roid rager out there, there's an unknown number of people who achieve a very respectable physique and keep it with relative ease, instead of becoming so grotesque or doing it on such rapid timescales that people notice and call them out. I'm confident the benefits grossly outweigh the costs for ADHD meds, especially since I take them myself, but I'm here to find out about the latter.

But from my understanding you have a good career (and are moving to the UK and then maybe onward for further training/career stuff), a happy relationship with a girl that is (I think I remember) headed toward marriage, a book you’re writing etc.

My career is doomed. So is yours, of course, but the number of years I expect to call myself a highly respectable and productive member of society are ticking down. Fast.

I expect doctors to be superannuated before I finish my training and become a Consultant like my family. I expect my job security to look increasingly tenuous in the 6 or 7 years of time it takes to get citizenship in the UK.

Worst of all, I don't even particularly want to go to the UK anymore. I still will, it's better than India, but my life there looks to be a struggle, and I'll consistently be looking longingly at the States, in case I'm still locked out for good. The very idea fills me with existential dread. Less dread and despair than the counterfactual case where I continue living the next few predictable years of my life in this blighted and benighted country, but an impoverished life nonetheless by the standards I had once held for myself.

I could have left ages ago, six or seven months if I hadn't procrastinated going through the motions before settling for giving yet more exams so I can start training as a psychiatrist instead of working as a humble Simia wardensis in a different country.

I am depressed, far from happy or even content. I should be stridently fighting with my med school and the ECFMG to get that bullshit sorted so I can fuck off to the US instead, or at least Australia/NZ, but I'm just so goddamn tired of it all. I'll do my best to try something next week, but I'm overwhelmed with bureaucratic bullshit from that same organization.

What's a book worth? It's a hobby, a more socially respectable one, that can maybe pay for a few beers, but it's more of a way to scream at the onrushing Machine God and tell the world that yes, this man of meat and flesh could write worth a damn while that meant something.

What elevates it from, say, just playing more video games? Believe it or not, people offered me money to do so, my storytelling skills and ability to be a close analogue to a DnD DM were worth something.

I'm still in that relationship, but as you can see, we have some serious, potentially irreconcilable differences when it comes to where we'd like to live. I'm quite confident you've read my AAQC essay, but if not, I'll link if you ask. It's a moot point right now, because I can't go to the nation I dream of even if I wanted to, not as a doctor at least, and even my attempts at learning to program ended when I realized just how fucked the average Indian programmer is when it comes to escaping abroad, and I simply lack the runway for that to be a reasonable aim any more.

A man goes to a doctor—that’s how the story always begins. “Doctor, I’m depressed,” the man says; life is harsh, unforgiving, cruel. The doctor lights up. The treatment, after all, is simple. “The great clown Sisyphus is in town tonight,” the doctor says, “Go and see him! That should sort you out.” The man bursts into tears. “But doctor,” he says, “I am Sisyphus, and I am fucking sick of my gains plateauing even after I roll that fucking rock while LARPing as a dung-beetle. Just give me some fucking tren would you? It isn't like you've got to worry about it making me depressed!"

In this case, I am both Sisyphus and the Doctor, the beetle forced to eat shit because it beats starving.

Don't worry, I'm not descending into utter nihilism or insanity like our buddy Skook, I pride myself on being fundamentally sane if nothing else. But yes, I think I'd like to look in the mirror and see some actual muscle before I turn to metal, be it as a paperclip or otherwise.

Will I make that tradeoff? Well, consider everything I've said and tell me it'll be the first; I walk into the unknown, yawning abyss to either side and a fraying rope to hold on to. That's life, and mine is still better than most even if I see great risk of that changing for the worst.

I have a better idea. Why don't you migrate to Chile? Serious question.

First off, doctors in the UK are middle class at best. You could go to Chile, work as a doctor, and easily be upper class or at worst upper middle class. You could live a far more prosperous life than in the UK. I am not joking. Doctors here are over-payed asf.

Not to mention, immigrating here should be much easier to achieve. The top universities here are desperate to take students from abroad to prop up their world rankings. I know an indian girl who is doing a phd program here.

And Chile is not a shithole, make no mistake. There is not other country I would move to, barring perhaps the US or Switzerland.

I mean, I've literally never considered the option, the closest I've even thought about in passing was Argentina, and that's got plenty of its own issues.

I would strongly prefer to live in an English-speaking country, do doctors there speak in English in your experience, or is it all Latin languages?

The top universities here are desperate to take students from abroad to prop up their world rankings. I know an indian girl who is doing a phd program here

Unless further education nets me an enormous increase in salary, I feel deeply uncomfortable about taking time out from the short period of time I consider myself productively employed before AI takes my job or at least stops prospective employers from hiring more. Best guess for that is like 5 to 10 years, including lag time for people to wisen up.

Don't worry, I'm not descending into utter nihilism or insanity like our buddy Skook

I guess I've been summoned: would you say that I am insane, or just nihilistic as all hell? Like, the basic premise of the Hock cashes out to "if you're an unattractive person/dude, whether it's because fugly or autistic or physically disabled or whatever, your partners are probably gonna find you disgusting. So you're asking for an awful lot there from your partner, arguably for no good goddamn reason. You kind of suck and are hypocritical if you're not down to freely choose to suffer like a motherfucker for no good reason - you're asking the same of your partner."

Maybe the Hock doesn't make you some kind of Chad, but surviving it sure as hell freezes some of certain kinds of hypocrisy off of you, as well as being a test of physical and mental fortitude. The Hock, like shit like climbing Everest or Navy SEAL Hell Week, seems to be most heavily loaded for high conscientiousness and low neuroticism.

freezes some of certain kinds of hypocrisy off of you

Does it? The hypocritical (and nihilistic) interpretation, "I'm suffering and risking my life recklessly because I don't care about it, but I'd really like to find a partner who does care about me", seems like the generous one here. "Love someone who doesn't love himself" can be a bigger ask than "love someone fugly or" etc, but it's at least still a reasonable thing that can happen. Love is magic.

The alternative interpretation, "I do care about myself, this is just the level of risk and suffering that I consider appropriate for people I love", on the other hand, should make any prospective applicant for the position of "someone you love" (or worse, mother-to-your-loved-ones!) flee. There's magic and then there's foolishness.

There's a chance this will lead to self-improvement, I admit. I'm reminded of the stories of suicidal bridge jumpers who report thinking, on the way down, "all the problems that led me here really could have been solved, except for this last one". But presumably for every story from one such who got rescued there are more similar stories we'll never hear because the storyteller never made it. There's a thin line between "terrifying enough to reboot your brain" and "not terrifying enough to actually be lethal". If your brain has any reset button with a larger therapeutic index, I'd look into that one instead.

Does it? The hypocritical (and nihilistic) interpretation, "I'm suffering and risking my life recklessly because I don't care about it, but I'd really like to find a partner who does care about me", seems like the generous one here. "Love someone who doesn't love himself" can be a bigger ask than "love someone fugly or" etc, but it's at least still a reasonable thing that can happen. Love is magic.

Is it not hypocritical to ask someone else to voluntarily subject herself to serious suffering, if you are not willing to voluntarily subject yourself to comparable suffering in turn?

Basically: the Hock is a homebrew form of psychological chemo in your view. Its aim is to kill the neurosis or other bullshit before it kills the host as well.

You're not certifiably insane, just crazy.

I recently discovered you and your Hock are a meme on the ACX discord, my man, it you end up as a lolcow on a rat-adjacent forum, you're doing something very wrong.

I have nothing new to say to your approach to your problems that hasn't been said before by me and others. Just workout and go camping, no need to risk death.

What do people there think about my plan to attempt this Hock?

You're a meme and it's a stupid idea. I can't say I disagree on the latter.

Anyone got an over/under on my odds of surviving this shit?

The odds aren't good, but the goods are odd indeed.

Being muscular is inherently good for you, muscle mass/proportion is one of the strongest negative predictors for all-cause mortality

I'd imagine the association between muscle mass and health is caused by a combination of 1) being unhealthy for other reasons causes you to exercise less and your metabolism to function less well, leading to lower muscle mass. 2) people who routinely exercise are more likely to be smart and upper-class and as a result take actions (eating well, seeing the doctor, hundreds of things) that lead to more health than the dumb and poor and 3) bridging the evolutionary mismatch between active hunter gatherer and sedentary modern. I don't think going from 'natty fit' to 'roided fit' will help with any of those!

A way to operationalize this: I'd be surprised if all cause mortality is significantly lower among people who specialize in strength/having big muscles than people who put a similar amount of effort into competitive sports. I'm not sure what all cause mortality looks like for people who are fit and exercise regularly vs people who are very fit and do competitive sports.

I agree that it's difficult to disentangle all the relevant confounders, especially since I haven't delved into the methodology of the studies myself.

I don't think going from 'natty fit' to 'roided fit' will help with any of those!

But that's not the relevant comparison is it? In my case, it's going from "natty" chubby, to low-dose tren fit. I'm not aiming for delts as big as a coconut, far from it.

Hmm. Intuitively, I do not think that'll get you much of the health benefits of frequent exercise. No straining muscles, no increased heart rate, no natural stresses on bones and connective tissue, etc. Just a guess.

It seems that you seem particularly concerned that India is doomed and will become hellish very soon due to mass automation and there’s nothing you can do other than escape, which you are unsure if you can (at least to the US) “in time” before this apocalypse occurs. I suppose I’m just not sure that hell awaits all Indians as a result of mass automation, and I’m even less sure that people of your class are going to pay the price if that hell awaits any large percentage of them. Certain doom for India isn’t guaranteed, I think, or necessarily even very likely. You and your girlfriend can live a very decent life in most of the UK as two doctors, even by middle class American standards. And mass automation, if it upends social systems, will upend many classes of worker before doctors, so whatever ultimate solution emerges will likely exist before your profession ceases to.

Perhaps your depression stems from another source than this supposedly inevitable AI-driven doom cycle?

I am concerned about near-term collapse in India, but it's by no means the only reason I'd be unhappy living here. While my family is now quite well off, we're far from the fuck you money needed to ensure stability if everything else falls apart around you. But I simply dislike living here, for what that's worth.

You and your girlfriend can live a very decent life in most of the UK as two doctors, even by middle class American standards. And mass automation, if it upends social systems, will upend many classes of worker before doctors, so whatever ultimate solution emerges will likely exist before your profession ceases to.

It isn't just the money, practising medicine in the UK has plenty of other issues. I strongly suggest you visit /r/DoctorsUK and sort by top for a year, it's deeply atypical for the majority of doctors to be that deeply unhappy/pissed, certainly when they're regularly striking over the course of a year.

i'm still going there, it's an improvement, if not a Pareto one, I just deeply wish I had better options already in hand. Let's see how it shakes out, as much as I might kvetch, I'm still committed to trying.

Perhaps your depression stems from another source than this supposedly inevitable AI-driven doom cycle?

Almost certainly, I've been depressed for what, 7 or 8 years now? Well before AI risk was more than a theoretical concern. It's a bitter cycle of me having plenty of real reasons to feel sad/unhappy/frustrated, and the pre-existing depression only saps me of the will to do much about it. Worse, some issues like the one preventing me from currently giving the USMLE were unknown unknowns, I had no idea at the time that what I thought was a relatively inconsequential decision in terms of my med school would cause this much suffering, since I expected that despite it being mediocre at best I could just apply myself harder and get something better as a postgraduate trainee.

Oh well, I'm not dead yet, and I'm still rolling.

Doing tren just for the hell of it would be profoundly stupid, it would shut off your own test production, make you (even more?) depressed, possibly turn you gay, irritable, frustrated for no reasons whatsoever, possibly give you life-altering acne, hair loss, increased fluid retention in the face, and then of course there is the systemic organ damage that it would cause. Literally the only positive effect would be that you'd have increased muscle growth, but from what I've gathered of your comments you haven't exactly optimised protein intake, sleep and workouts, so you have plenty of low-hanging gains to be had.

So hypothetically, if you're gay, depressed and balding already...

It could turn you straight! Bad outcomes abound.

I am under the impression that most of the side effects can be minimized, if not avoided, by a sensible regime and cycling.

I'm idly curious, I'd like to be better informed before trying it, since I'm well aware of the risks involved.

what I've gathered of your comments you haven't exactly optimised protein intake, sleep and workouts

Undoubtedly, but you try managing the last two while working as a doctor! About the only muscles that get a good workout are my glutes from running up and down the stairs. There are Ortho bros who manage to stay shredded, but I'm not them. I've heard that someone who doesn't even lift yet takes tren gains more muscle over a period of time than a natty person working out.

only positive effect would be that you'd have increased muscle growth

And what do muscles entail? Attractiveness? Higher social standing? Luck with the ladies? I'm not in it for the sake of being a beefcake.

At any rate, I have tried working out consistently for about 6 months when I was in college. Sure, I lost weight and became more toned, but I certainly didn't look very muscular. I am aware I probably did a pretty bad job of it, especially when it came to nutrition, but it's not like I've never hit the gym. I find it boring and painful, and in this case I see a tempting shortcut and only wish to know what are the odds of their being a bear trap under the leaves (for certain definitions of bear).

I've heard that someone who doesn't even lift yet takes tren gains more muscle over a period of time than a natty person working out.

This is bullshit.

Could you elaborate? I've also called that bullshit in the past, but no longer remember why.

@MollieTheMare actually covered it here: https://www.themotte.org/post/730/wellness-wednesday-for-october-25-2023/153185?context=8#context

I will add the caveat that it was in the context of two absolute beginners. I'm not putting much faith in it either way.

It's bullshit even in this context.

I guess your word is as good as that of a random forum denizen's claims I half remember from years ago.

The study you are thinking of is probably this one. I would highly recommend against interpenetrating this as all the benefits of strength training with just some side effects.

(1) They measured fat-free mass not muscle mass. Steroids like Tren make you uptake water in the muscles, you get "fullness" in the form of water when taking anabolics, but the study wasn't long enough to measure real substantial muscle growth. This also explains the cross-sectional area measurement. The water thing is just like a turbo version of what happens with creatine.

(2) The strength increase in the training non-steriod group was greater than the steroid only group. The additional strength in the steroid group is probably largely attributable to two factors

  • Slight increase in neural drive from steroids, this is nothing compared to long term strength training.
  • Better leverages from being bigger. Your muscles are class 3 levers, just being bigger means you can lift more weight. Getting stronger in this way is not necessarily good for you, you can achieve the same thing by getting supper fat.

This study does come up all the time, but it was wayyyy to short to conclude that you will gain more actual muscle not training on gear than resistant training. If you talk to any experienced bodybuilder who is open about steroids they all think training is still important. If you don't stimulate your body for specific muscle protein synthesis all you will do is end up looking freakish and ogre like, not jacked and fit looking.

The side-effects are also no joke, even if you don't care about potentially nuking your nuts, Tren in particular can absolutely make your mood terrible.

Finally, I have to say I'm skeptical you've tried enough actual resistance training to dismiss it as a better primary option. Six months is barely long enough to try one training method. Can you really say you've given your full effort to trying: traditional bro split style stuff, calisthenics, pure strength training, crossift style stuff, and circuit training? I saw below you are already talking about training twice a week. Starting strength can be done in three 60 minute sessions a week (if you can superset your warmups for upcoming exercises between working sets). Is that really too much to ask? If you eat enough the gains will be obvious. You could easily put 100 pounds on a novice squat in 6 months. Faster progress than that, aided by steroids, is enough to tear tendons off the bone.

I highly appreciate you tracking down the study, far more reliable than my hazy memories of someone making claims on Reddit!

When I considered that taking tren might beat working out, I wasn't actually implying my plan was to take it and sit on my ass, I'd do my best to augment it with strength training, even if I would strongly prefer to get better results with less work.

So it's not like I'm under the impression that I can or should go that route, the only way I know of to become permabuff without exercise is to be born with a myostatin knockout mutation, like some lucky people or Highland cattle haha.

Six months is barely long enough to try one training method. Can you really say you've given your full effort to trying: traditional bro split style stuff, calisthenics, pure strength training, crossift style stuff, and circuit training?

I was aiming for pure strength training at the time and working out about 3-4 times a week and targeting different muscle groups as I went. I won't claim it was a perfect showing, but I do hate cardio (I ran HIIT for 6 months, and I hated it!).

Either way, I appreciate your input, and thank you for clearing things up!

I've heard that someone who doesn't even lift yet takes tren gains more muscle over a period of time than a natty person working out.

That statement is a little bit suspect, I think. I don't think I really believe it myself. I've yet to meet a really big, muscular guy who didn't go to the gym, or at least train calisthenics hard,

I'm not claiming it as gospel truth, but steroids are a helluva drug. The comparison in question isn't a super buff guy, that almost certainly takes serious effort regardless of PED, but a comparison between two beginners, one simply using tren and not working out versus one remaining natty and hitting the gym.

I'd believe it. You're getting pushback but it's all in the form of "trust me bro".

I was watching a Youtube video from Jeff Nippard yesterday. He said it's possible for an untrained person to gain 15 pounds of lean muscle mass in a single MONTH using steroids.

So it's clear that the results of using steroids are simply miles above what you can get naturally.

Many people with good genetics will have decent (not elite) strength without working out. Steroids could take this to an even higher level. Low confidence but I would bet on a steroids user with 1 workout per month outperforming a non-steroids user with 3 workouts a week.

I'd believe it. You're getting pushback but it's all in the form of "trust me bro".

I'd take it more seriously if the people in question had tried tren themselves and then asked me to reconsider, but so far nobody has copped to it in public or DMs.

I'm even more perplexed that people thought I was advocating that you just take steroids and sit around, come on people, there's a use-mention distinction to be made there.

Many people with good genetics will have decent (not elite) strength without working out.

And look at the lucky bastards with myostatin knockout mutations, they're maximally buff without lifting an ounce in their lives! In the ancestral environment, that would have been a bad idea with a BMR of like 4000 calories, but a shortage of calories is not what ails the majority of humanity.

Sadly, this is about the best that can be expected, epistemic around topics like these are dubious in general.

And look at the lucky bastards with myostatin knockout mutations

This cow has never lifted a single weight in its life.

Sadly, this is about the best that can be expected, epistemic around topics like these are dubious in general.

I really want to see data now. Steroids vs training, which works better? My money is on steroids, but low confidence. All the people saying that "steroids don't work unless you train" are just making assertions with zero data and can be ignored.

That link seems to be broken for me? But yeah, those cows can get beefy, pun intended.

More comments

Look in the other comments, someone linked a paper:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101

And indeed, steroids make you gain muscle without exercise, though you obviously make more when you combine the two.

I don't know how fruitful that comparison might be, but I do wonder if that would work at all. The effect of stimulus on muscle size and strength is really big. A totally immobilized muscle will lose size and strength at something like a rate of 1% per day (!!!). A guy sitting on the couch scratching his balls is not going to atrophy at that rate, but he will atrophy down to a fairly weak state. The role of stimulus in muscle development is really, really strong, in other words.

I think a more reasonable attempt to split the difference would be taking steroids and then just training moderately hard. Like, finding a simple 2x a week program, doing calisthenics, or even just doing some hard conditioning like WoDs or kettlebell complexes. Or if you don't want to do even that, look into just cruising on testosterone. Because I think that if you just took anabolics, you'd just be opening yourself up to very horrible side effects with very little prospect of any upside. And come on, you're supposed to be a doctor. You should know that even well-thought out attempts to control side effects don't always work. Sometimes it doesn't work, and sometimes you can end up playing whac-a-mole with using medication to control the side effects from the last medication you started. I'm interested in steroids, but I've been lifting for over five years, and I'm simply not satisfied with my results (which are very poor). And I wouldn't see them as a replacement for lifting.

I assure you I'm doing the sensible thing by asking here instead of immediately writing myself a prescription for tren, which no small number of reasonably legitimate pharmacies will fulfill.

My understanding of tren, from hanging around in places where it's occasionally discussed, is that the side effects take a while to kick in and can be ameliorated by cycling, or worst case, you taper off or stop. I have no intention of even getting to the point where my balls stop working, my hair falls out and I grow tits. I'm trying to consider the tradeoff as it ascertains to expected benefit and the dangers of side effects accounting for attempts to ameliorate them!

And I wouldn't see them as a replacement for lifting.

I appreciate your suggestions, which are to combine steroids with a reasonable intensity of exercise, my hypothetical comparison of a couch potato to a gym rat was just that, I'd certainly put in more than the bare minimum of effort, especially since the gains would be faster and more obvious. If it lets me get away with, say, two days at the gym instead of 4 or 5, then I'd see it as potentially worth it, after considering the associated risks of course!

At any rate, I have tried working out consistently for about 6 months when I was in college. Sure, I lost weight and became more toned, but I certainly didn't look very muscular. I am aware I probably did a pretty bad job of it, especially when it came to nutrition, but it's not like I've never hit the gym.

I'd guess that you did a pretty good job of it if you noticeably lost weight and became more toned after 6 months of consistent working out. Unless you're starting from a baseline of already being very fit and toned, becoming actually noticeably muscular by the standards of what counts as muscular for men with 6 months of consistent working out would require doing an outstanding job of it, not merely a good job.

I get that, and I was prioritizing losing weight over gaining muscle via my diet.

I still dislike hitting the gym, and after that 6 months of intense adherence, I've fallen off and spent who knows how much on lapsed gym membership cards.

I seek to actively tradeoff time spent in the gym for potential health hazards, but that depends on how severe and unmitigable said hazards are.

There's a probably a lot more meat on the bone to trade off workout efficiency vs optimization than there is for drugs.

I think that's highly unlikely. Given that you're in the gym, lifting hard, recovering adequately and hitting every muscle group reasonably often, I think there's very little to be gained in trying to 'optimize' your workout (even leaving aside that no two people can agree on what 'optimal' training looks like). People train and develop great physiques and strong lifts even under suboptimal conditions all the time.

Whereas taking steroids does seem to make a pretty big difference, especially coupled with that other 95% of training hard and frequently, eating and recovering well. Certainly, much more and much more easily than trying to live some kind of 100% optimal lifestyle that would probably require you to quit your job and never have kids.

My point was more that if the limiting factor is time/motivation, it's quite likely you'll get more out of using a workout plan based around efficient short "fun" workouts. For example if one just does front squat and bench press, three times a week, that is a small time commitment. The tradeoff being optimally targeting every muscle group for maximum growth, and some injury risk. But not, eg, shrinking your testicles.

Maybe. I've yet to see anyone testify on behalf of the drugs, which I suppose is weak Bayesian evidence on its own.

I am also interested in this subject.

I have never felt the emotions I had when I encountered a Buddhist monk roaming the halls of my hospital at 3 am while I'm utterly sleep deprived.

When I did my best to remedy the last, my mind buzzed with unanswered questions. Is he a monk, or just a dude bald from chemo in a red bathroom towel? Is he on retainer? Does he demand payment other than the right to guide people on the next cycle of reincarnation? Should I stop doing drugs? Should I start doing drugs?

The Buddha is calling out for you to follow the Dharma! Or something. My memories of Buddhism are a cannabis-addled haze, mostly.

Still training for the Hock. Becoming stronger physically. Also becoming less neurotic and more determined. More conscientious and more able to endure shit. People seem to be nicer and my friends seem to think I am not as visibly autistic. Contemplating the idea that you might be a frozen corpse in less than four months tends to put things into perspective. Also, losing some weight; started Vyvanse for ADHD. Switched to it from Adderall. Vyvanse is much smoother and also suppresses appetite. Silexan, or lavender oil, is also doing wonders for my anxiety/neuroticism. Also on 10mg fluoxetine, but adding the lavender oil really seems to have made a difference.

Am now 5'6" and 155 lbs; lost five pounds. Mostly fat, probably: lifts in weight room going up. Also more tired, but hey, that's part of training for something like the Hock.

Plan to make a blog or something describing my Hock prep efforts in a few days to a week; I have a little more than 100 days before I set out on the Hock. A hundred days (not much!) in which to get swole and build enough endurance for my journey through Hell, which I will hopefully survive.

All in all, things are going pretty well, and I'm happy about the changes I'm making. People are impressed by the Hock when I call it a "winter backpacking trip" and think it's badass. The Hock provideth.

Hey, long time no see! (I finally got around to making an account here.) It's nice to hear from you again. Wishing you well.

Note how you are getting all these positive things, while not yet having undergone The Hock. Maybe the real Hock is the changes you made along the way!

Post Hock, ergo propter Hock.

I would start camping training if I were you. Move out into your backyard, sleep in a bivvy and set it up every evening, cook on a portable stove or start a fire. Walk ten miles in your hiking boots every other day. Go on an actual winter camping trip and try doing the same in a real snow-blown forest. You don't want to end up like the dude in the picture.

/images/16983050287149382.webp

Please livestream whenever you set off on this endeavor, I'm following your career with great interest. You're welcome to switch it off when you're dying of hypothermia and then get miraculously saved my an Eskimo chick, or a St. Bernard with a cask of brandy.

On a somewhat unrelated note, assuming you survive this unforced error, which specialities appeal to you? Radio? Path? I think that's the stereotypical route for autistic doctors, but if you're a gym rat you can always rep short kings in Ortho!

If I marry an aspie woman, what are the odds that we get profoundly autistic kids? Does anyone have an intuition on this, or any data?

I was curious and did my best* to track that down, but only found tangentially related sources and then engaged in napkin math.

Something like 5x relative risk, and the probability of being on the spectrum being anywhere from 4.8% to 37%(!). Further figuring out the odds of them being low functioning is something I'm not going to try when it's so in the air. At any rate, you should consider factors such as maternal and paternal age too, since environmental conditions contribute quite strongly.

*The one citation I will provide is that this isn't true

At any rate, you should consider factors such as maternal and paternal age too, since environmental conditions contribute quite strongly.

Is it really environmental and not accumulation of mutations and genetic abnormalities?

You're correct, I misphrased that, I don't think general mutations in DNA should fall under the environment.

and the probability of being on the spectrum being anywhere from 4.8% to 37%(!)

This is a massive variation on rates, from basically "eh, it's a risk we're willing to take" to "sorry, but I don't to play 2x russian roulette with my mode of life every time we have a child". One would think we would have a more precise handle on this probability, because it's an important factor to look at when choosing your life partner.

I'll worry about the DSM-5 and the upcoming 6 when I'm a bonafide shrink instead of a LARPing one, ASD can be tricky to diagnose, and there has been sufficiently recent and sweeping changes to the criteria that barring flagrant cases, I don't aspire to more than "I know it when I see it".

I will point out that these are stupid figures derived from a few minutes of fucking about, season with salt appropriately, and environmental factors play a massive part. Further, that's about ~all reasonably diagnosable as ASD, covering high functioning and greentext material alike. Being a high functioning autistic isn't all that bad, especially if they have a knack for programming 🙏. Low functioning? Both they and their families are better off with them dead, I'm sorry to say.

If he's dating an aspie woman in their late 30s, well better keep a very close eye on the pediatric milestones. Either way, there's not much you can do about it when it comes to treatment or screening.

I remember someone posting a "how strong should you be" website where it showed lots of various physical exercises and how good you should be at them for you body weight, age and fitness level.

I cannot find it. I can find other similar websites, but they are much more basic.

https://symmetricstrength.com/ ?

Looks like the right one, thanks!

You don't mean strengthlevel.com?

For some reason, I remember it looking more like logicalincrements.com, but for exercises.

There are a number floating around, exrx.net, strength standards, symmetric strength and so on. More broadly, I would just go by bodyweight - an advanced level of strength being 1x, 1,5x, 2x, and 2.5x bodyweight in the press, bench, squat and deadlift. Cut 0.5 off all of those for a woman and do the opposite for an elite level of strength.

That seems totally arbitrary and nonsensical (as these standards inevitably are). Why should your bench be 0.5bw more than your press? Hitting a 1.5xbw bench was way easier for me than a bw press.

If you really care about something like this, you're better off using something like this for the power lifts.

Sure, it's pretty arbitrary and nonsensical, but then most standards are. So long as you're pulling numbers out of your ass, why not make them easy to remember? Personally I feel about as close to BW press as I am to 1.5BW bench.

That Greg Nuckols article is not actually correct that those tables are not based on actual data. ExRx and the derived symmetric strength standards have the note (emphasis mine): "Tables for the basic barbell exercises are based on nearly 70 years of accumulated performance data and are not predicted or regression derived." So the standards are arbitrary, but in my experience they are pretty accurate if you look around a normal commercial gym.

Using body weight ratios is nonsensical because strength potential scales allometicly, just like is says in the Nuckols article. This is why Wilks and Sinclair coefficients exist.

I also highly doubt 1.5xBW bench is as hard as 1xBW press for the average person. Walk into any commercial gym and you'll find 200ish pound dudes reping a 315# bench. I think I've seen an in-person 200# OHP in a normal gym maybe once.

People who have never hit a body-weight press are typically astonishingly poorly calibrated on how difficult it is to improve an already advanced press. Even advanced lifters can likely put 5-10#s on their bench with a dedicated cycle of Smolov JR. An additional 10# on an advanced level press can literally take years or never happen.

You're probably right about the pressing part, for myself even though my pressing is okay relative to my other lifts, it does feel strangely resistant to improvement.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats