Scams/delusions are based on a special form of makeup known as correlation, or the idea that when two elements are present together, they are driven by each other.
In the world of lifting, we see correlations everywhere.
If you watch videos of guys doing “calisthenics” (a weird term for low-level gymnastics), they’re all fairly lean.
So, one may conclude wrongfully that bodyweight stuff makes you lose body fat.
The reality is that the only driving factor behind being lean is nutrition. Bodyweight training incentivizes you to get lean, but it doesn’t cause it.
I remember doing weighted pull-ups even when I was a fatso carrying probably 30% body fat (by the new standards).
Of course, there are a lot more of those:
Hard on the CNS =/ Better Stimulus
The difficulty of performing barbell squats is often attributed to a higher-than-normal muscular stimulus.
Heavy squats (e.g., going for a set of 5 and barely getting the first 4 reps) are scary and hard on the CNS.
Nonetheless, they don’t really stimulate more growth than training in an easier manner or doing other exercises for the same body parts.
But because the perceived difficulty is so great, people brainwash themselves into thinking that squats raise their test and GH to some steroidesque levels.
Nice Pump/ Different Feeling =/ Progress
Imagine this. You do basic back training (pull-ups, DB rows, etc.) at home. You get some back.
One day, you “accidentally” end up in one of the highly equipped gyms with scientific back machines.
You test them. You get a sick, nasty pump that wakes up those “virgin” fibers that your home arsenal couldn’t reach.
You conclude that your back will be bigger thanks to the said machines. You up the volume.
You train there for 6 months – your back looks slightly better (or so you think). You conclude it was the machine.
But was it really? Or maybe it’s the added volume…or maybe it’s simply a hallucination.
Powerlifter “BIG”
5×5 routines sold the idea that you can get big like those pure powerlifters training for strength rather than vanity (as if barbell strength isn’t vain in and of itself), like those homoerotic bodybuilders
People concluded that powerlifters are thicker because they do mythical low rep routines.
Reality? The bulk of the muscle comes from roids once again (ditto for the bbers) rather than some manly barbells.
The Shredded Guy Selling Weird Products (and plans)
As discussed, shreddedness is the result of brutal dieting (and in some cases, drugs).
But once a dude gets shredded (even better if TRT is in the mix), he can be used to sell a range of products from weird ab stuff (think the 70s and 80s machines on TV) to “ultra-custom”, brutally effective training and eating plans.
The caloric deficit does the heavy lifting, but the user may conclude that those weird programs are behind the leanness effect.
Dating
Correlation is also heavily observed in hell…I mean modern dating.
It’s literally everywhere, which is why I prefer to give basic examples:
1/ Some dude is a bad texter and never uses emojis but gets girls.
“Professors” conclude that his texting game is the secret and copy it, but fail.
Why? The original guy is 6’3″, has blue eyes, and is in finance.
The copycat is well…not that.
2/ Some dude gets approached by a girl on his way to the supermarket. People conclude this guy must have some sick skills.
Reality? The girl has been stalking him for months and lives nearby. She’d seen his new car and had just recently found out that her ex has a hotter girl than her = motivation.
3/ A short bald dude gets a cute girlfriend.
Watchers conclude that “looks don’t matter”. Reality? The girl has some daddy issues and, for some Freudian reason, goes for guys like that. But 99% of her friends do not.
4/ Another really good example in the same tone would be Tony Soprano, whom everyone glorifies.
He was a fat balding guy who had never done a single pull-up in his life, and yet everyone saw him as a total alpha, while many regular fatsos are ridiculed and advised to lose weight.
Why?
Aura, money, power, and context.
Tony Soprano is a fictional character existing in a fictitious world that constantly portrays him as an alpha.
He is rich (has a nice house, servants, etc.) and mysterious (gangster).
Therefore, he is considered a catch. And his “I don’t give a phuck” attitude complements his physique.
In other words, the total package works.
BUT!
You can take that same guy – replace him with someone skinnier (think DeNiro in Taxi Driver), give him the same power and context, and voila – a totally different look is now the boss.
Or in other words, Soprano was respected not because he was a fatso swine, but for his aura (also part of looks) influence, money, and manliness (that only existed in a very tight and controlled circle).
Nice Guy, Bad Guy = A Lie?
90% of the bad guy/nice guy rhetoric is also based on the correlation/causation error.
Usually, a nice guy is returned not so much for being nice but due to his overall aura.
Meanwhile, a bad guy is accepted not so much because he likes to slap women but for his presence/vibe/energy/je-ne-sais-pas-quoi.
But people like to overcomplicate things. One of the common theories is that women can “sense” that a nice guy is “fake” and doing it to please her, while the “bad boy” is authentic…etc.
It’s all nonsense. At the end of the day, it’s always about appearance (presence) and/or money, social status.
Survivorship Bias Filtering
Action analysis is often based on selective outcomes. Thus, it’s flawed.
You win = you did well; you lost = you did poorly (even if you did the same thing as the winner)
After something happens, the mind becomes a storyteller.
It looks backward and builds a clear path, as if every step was leading to that moment.
We tell ourselves that the signs were always there and that the ending could have been known.
The result is often unproven, biased, and sometimes blatantly low-intelligence conclusions.
You’ve probably experienced the following: thinking of someone, and that same day, they text or call you.
Some people think this proves “telepathy”.
I don’t know if telepathy exists or not. It probably does under some form.
But here’s the thing – just today, you and I have thought of a dozen or more people who haven’t called or texted us. Tomorrow will be the same way…etc.
And if we focus on the one time this event occurs (biased filtering), are we really proving anything or simply being erroneously selective?
If something works 1 out of 10k, does it really work, or is it simply a random occurrence that we glorify?
That same schema transposes itself practically everywhere.
The Anti-dote (proper analysis)
The only way to accurately determine whether we are talking about causation is to seek a systematic solution.
The method that we are using to “cause” something has to consistently produce the desired outcome. Not necessarily 100% of the time, but pretty often.
If that condition is not met, we don’t have causation but randomness.
Example:
Muscle growth has three pillars -> training -> nutrition -> drugs
People like to play with the first two because the drugs have harsher side effects, but we all know that they produce results that can’t be touched, regardless of what training you do.
We know that we can take an average woman, put her on steroids, and essentially make her bigger than the biggest natural man of the same height (and leaner, too).
This is how powerful drugs are. And they produce that result consistently. Therefore, they are a cause.
Remove drugs, and bodybuilding goes back to Eugene Sandow, regardless of nutrition, gym equipment, or programming.
And by the way, his stats are often faked. The guy looked good for a natty, but mostly in photos by himself.
Money: Entrepreneurship doesn’t equal money
You’ve heard the story of Gates, Jobs, Dell, and others – a million times – college dropouts start massive businesses..blah blah blah.
One can mistakenly conclude that copying those guys will lead to big results and thus drop out of school (just lol).
Reality? Their success was due to a million factors, and the lack of a college degree wasn’t one of them.
Quite the opposite.
If quitting school and starting a business were the key to money, most people would be rich.
There are two ways to amass wealth systematically:
- Use a semi or fully illegal leverage (often ends badly for normies) E.g., Insider trading.
- Develop a skill that the average consumer is willing to pay more for (e.g., dentistry)
The reality is that most people are neither built for the first nor have the connections to pull it off safely.
So?
In the end, your greatest chances of obtaining a good income are to get the right education and career.
I remember back in 2005 i was at my friends wedding. At the reception people sat down and ate and afterwards there was a dance. I remember the dj calling couples up on to the dance floor and i was shocked y the amount of out of shape not particularly attractive men that had good looking female partners. There was a table where the single guys and women went to sit as this was happening and as i looked around at them and the people on the dance floor it became glaring obvious as to why the people were where they all were. The men on the dance floor despite appearance were all tall the men seated at the table without partners were all considerably below average height (my area 6 foot flat is average) and the women who were single were obese!. As Occams razor would clearly state the most obvious answer to this situation is that women are not attracted to short men and men are not attracted to overweight women. Also women will forgive negative traits such as obesity/unattractiveness if the men are tall enough to compensate for their lack of looks elsewhere. The common denial response from people when you highlight a situation like this is to make absurd claims such as ‘its confidence that attracts women’ or ‘The short guys probably have negative attitudes and exude no confidence thats why they are single’ this is in a roundabout way victim blaming! Its the same when someone has a huge physique and someone points out steroid use the denialists will start going on about proper nutrition and training whilst disregarding or seriously downplaying steroids effects ie your doctor Mikey Israetels of the world!
I just recently discovered Mikey Israetel. His face seemed to be on my YouTube feed often. Kind of ashamed to say that because that tells something about my preferences. But anyway, I just last week watched his video for a first time. He was talking about how he is a bigger and a better bodybuilder than Mentzer was. But man, Mikey Israetel has the craziest preggo stomach ever, I just can’t get over that. Dude is always pregnant, you can even see it when he has a sweater or some fucking overalls on.
Hes an absolute clown! Hes deluded if he even thinks hes close to Mike Mentzer. Cont how many times in every video he says the word ‘stretch’ it soon becomes irritating!. His training system is a joke as are half his form recommendations on exercises. He criticises others for doing things he does himself! Ie no control on the eccentric part. Watch how mr ‘perfect form’ does his pull ups he pulls himself half way up then stretches his neck to look over the bar on the last part.
An interesting way to summarize leverage (https://nattyornot.com/leverage-is-the-key-to-power-success-winning-control/) and also the ideas of the labyrinth:
Having privileged knowledge.
Having and knowing beforehand.
Having, knowing, and doing beforehand.
Not being just another NPC/Normie (See the threads to put it in an understandable way).
Good points as always. I remember well when I switched to bodyweight only training that one of the claims everywhere was that your body fat levels will go down because when you lift your own body it somehow magically calibrates like that. Although I never have used external weights, I still experienced the exact same effect that you did with weighted pull-ups. When I was at the peak of my powers, in other words when I was able to do the hardest progressions and I felt the strongest, I was 30 pounds heavier than what I am now. And believe me, it was not all muscle mass. Now that I’m leaner and meaner, I still can’t do it any better than what I did back then. I also have injuries that might affect but not that much.
One thing I still like to always add up when it comes to adding wealth, is simple investing. If you are young and you have any money at all that you can automatically invest from your salary to a fund that invests your money into stocks, then I highly recommend doing that. I’ve never made much money, but if I would’ve done that early enough, I would be in a much better place at the moment. Just make sure to pick up a fund that really invests only in the stock market, and pick up a one that spreads globally, and is an index fund that only follows an index and no one is doing any active thinking or decisions behind it. And it has to be with a very low cost. Then just invest that small amount ideally every month or so and don’t touch the money. In the long run the shit that happens all around the world will even up and you will have more money. The amount depends on how early you can start and of course how much you can invest, but this is a fool proof system. And the earlier you start the less you have to invest altogether. I rarely play if / thens, but this is one of those.