OVERSIMPLIFICATION

This is going to be a wild departure from what I typically write about, because for once, instead of making things too complicated, folks are making things too simple and it’s preventing them from learning REAL lessons about training.  Specifically, individuals are observing processes and from the process attempting to discern the motive and from that arrive at a conclusion.   And already I’ve made things too complicated in my attempt to explain how people are oversimplifying, so we see what sort of headspins this is about to cause.  I’m going to talk about me for a second, because I get to do that when I write the blog, and talk about 2 specific cases I constantly experience regarding oversimplification: how I eat and why I train. 

Proof that no one cares how much you train legs

How I eat has become especially relevant as of recently due to my release of “the” nutritional post, which, if you haven’t poured over that tome, basically describes how I gain and lose weight without counting calories.  I employ what most would consider a VERY regimented approach to nutrition, eating the same or similar meals daily, making small adjustments based on goals, eating at the same time each day, etc.  However, I’ve had multiple people since tell me that they WISH they could eat intuitively “like me”.  Huh?  Nothing about how I eat is intuitive.  If I ate intuitively, I’d be MASSIVELY fat, as I have a voracious appetite and very much enjoy decadent and calorically dense foods (any fan of the blog knows my penchant for nachos). I’d NEVER eat a vegetable if I ate intuitively, my portion sizes for meats would be completely absurd, and I’d most likely have diabetes.  But people hear “doesn’t count calories” and immediately oversimplify that to mean that it’s intuitive eating.  The notion that it could actually be a complex, well thought out and multi-faceted approach is too much to undertake.

My training receives similar oversimplification.  People hear that I engage in long, grueling, strenuous sessions, that I use no fans during the hottest days of summer in my garage and no heat in the winter, that I train outside during the hottest parts of the day, that I will lie on the floor between sets before getting back up and knocking things out again, etc etc, and I keep hearing the same thing: “you’re a masochist”.  Once again: huh?  Being a masochist would completely defeat the purpose of the training here, as I’m training to make myself BETTER, and giving in to my desires would be the opposite of getting better: that would be satisfying perversions (in the case of a masochist).  I DON’T like pain, I don’t like discomfort, I don’t like exerting myself, and that’s WHY I do it: because being miserable builds character (which is a quote from Bill Waterson via his creation Calvin).  The oversimplification results in missing the point: the training isn’t an instance of someone doing something they like, it’s someone doing something they DON’T like because exposure to that misery results in self-improvement.

He's not wrong...

These oversimplifications are honestly a means of combating cognitive dissonance, because both are approaching an idea that people don’t WANT to hear: that the process of physical transformation is going to result in discomfort.  People would much rather believe that those that achieve their physical goals are simply blessed in all aspects of transformation, with genetics being the obvious cop out, but here we observe individuals assuming some sort of X-men like mutant ability contributing to the success of the trainee.  They assume someone not counting calories must just somehow, through the powers of sorcery, crave EXACTLY the amount of food needed as it corresponds to their goals of fat loss or weight gain, to include the right types of food to support that training and zero inclination to eat anything that would derail them from their plans.  That person is blessed that they don’t STRUGGLE with the sensation of unnecessary hunger: they simply eat when they are hungry and then they aren’t hungry anymore.  And the person that trains hard? Why, it’s because they are suffering from some sort of mild psychosis that makes them WANT to train hard. That person doesn’t get how HARD it is for us mere mortals that DON’T like training.

And we’re all guilty of this.  People see high level competitors doing something “off script” by using bizarre technique, weird eating habits, insane programming, etc etc, and it’s always “oh, well they can GET AWAY with that because of XYZ.”  That’s oversimplifying it dude.  Why don’t we actually take some time to examine it, deconstruct it, and see if maybe we can figure out WHY they do what they do.  But here’s the mistake trainees make: once you (maybe) figure out why, that DOESN’T mean that YOU immediately need to go try that thing out and implement it.  Put that information away for now, keep it safeguarded, be willing to come back to it when the time is right, but don’t let it take you off the current path of success you’re on.  We tell new trainees not to worry about what the pros are doing because beginners tend to immediately try to COPY said pros, but to hand-wave the reason away as simply being something pros can do because they’re pros is being disingenuous and wasting a potential learning opportunity. 

For instance, I've posted this photo for years and STILL have no idea what's going on

There’s no need to overcomplicate your own training.  If something is stupid and it works, it’s not stupid.  If you’re in doubt, follow someone else’s plan, so long as that person has demonstrated a way to produce results.  The 3 keys to success are effort, consistency and time.  Etc etc.  None of these things are wrong.  BUT, when observing others, allow yourself the ability to dig a little deeper, ask yourself some questions, engage your curiosity and do some thinking.  And this doesn’t mean you need to rush out and find studies that confirm your findings: go ahead and try to understand it under the frame of your own paradigm, and if THAT doesn’t fit, be willing to shift your paradigm for the sake of understanding the approach.  You may walk away with something valuable.

ALWAYS PICK THE HALF-ORC

(For the purist out there, I’m going to be shamelessly blending systems together here, but I grew up playing 3rd edition and AD&D, so that’s where this is coming from)

I’ve had more requests for more Dungeons and Dragons inspired posts, and luckily for those readers something came along and struck me.  I’m going to do my best to explain myself, for those of you that grew up actually having a real social life, so that you too can fully speak nerd.  In DnD, players pick two things that define their character right off the bat: their class (what the character does, such as a thief, fighter, wizard, etc) and their race (not as in color of skin, but as in human, elf, gnome, etc).  I’ve discussed class in many blog posts before (summary: the Barbarian is always the best), but today I intend to discuss race and, specifically, why one should always pick the Half-Orc.  I’ll start first with a photo of all the races, which should already make the choice obvious.

So of course, with the name “half-orc” we have to wonder what the 2 halves are at play here.  One half is human, and the other half is orc.  What the hell is an orc?  Assuming you never watched the Lord of the Rings movies, they’re big, strong, brutish monsters and typically the enemy of all the other “civilized” races.  I won’t explain the rest of the fantasy creatures, as most people, even without nerdy interests, are most likely familiar with them.

Why does one select a race in DnD?  Because each race has their own unique advantages and drawbacks.  The Elf, for example, gets a bonus to how dexterous they are, they only need to sleep 4 hours a day, they get natural bonuses to resisting certain types of magic, they start off naturally skilled with the longsword and longbow, and they make excellent wizards, but they are frail and take a penalty to their constitution score.  The dwarf is the opposite: a hardy race with a bonus to constitution, heavy natural magical resistances, bonuses against certain monster types, they don’t move slower in even the heaviest armor, can see the in the dark, etc, but they are dour and take a penalty to charisma.  Pretty much every single race gets a bonus to one stat (the stats being strength, constitution, dexterity, wisdom, intelligence and charisma), a penalty to one, and a slew of magical resistances, bonuses to certain skills, perhaps some sort of natural magical ability, a bonus language to speak, etc.  All except the Half-orc: all the Half-orc gets is a bonus to strength.

But sometimes that's all you need to be a hero

That’s it.  Ok, he also can see in the dark, but that’s it.  OH, and also, he takes a penalty to intelligence AND charisma.  In addition, the only classes he can play are fighter, thief, barbarian and cleric (priest/healer): he is allowed no offensive magical ability.  So doesn’t this mean that the Half-Orc is the worst race to pick?  No: quite the opposite.  What this means is that a bonus to strength is SO ridiculous of a gift to get in this game that the ONLY way to possibly balance it out is to penalize the player in TWO different stats (whereas one typically understands balance to be 1 for 1), give them NO additional bonuses to magical resistance, skills, talents, etc, and forbid them from ever learning any sort of magic. 

Stop and marinade on that for a second there: in a game where MAGIC is real, the creators of the game admit that being physically stronger is so much more significant an advantage than having magical ability that the only way to balance it was to give the magic casters a whole slew of other bonuses (to include one of them only needing to sleep for 4 hours) while double penalizing the guy with the strength bonus.  In fact, the Half-Orc’s advantages are so immense that he was REMOVED from several editions of Dungeons and Dragons (specifically the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons variant) and only begrudgingly brought back in 3rd edition.  You even see this reflected in the video game variant, where he’s absent from the first Baldur’s Gate but present in the second.  And if you play the revised first edition of the game where he IS present, you see why he’s removed: you can TERRORIZE the game at early levels with his advantages in strength.

This is pretty much how every fight goes down in that game if you're a Half-Orc

This is because strength is its OWN magic.  One can accomplish phenomenal feats with an abundance of raw physical strength that can only possibly be matched through mythical arcane ability through pacts with diabolic creatures, demons in one’s bloodline or decades of studying musty tomes and growing long white beards.  And there’s no limited spell slots to deal with, no need to rest to restore spells, no eye of newt or elaborate rituals to contend with: the magic is always there, ready to go.  It is honestly, blatantly, totally and completely unfair to have a bonus to strength.

And if this holds true in a world with magic, just imagine what this means in our far more mundane world.  You make yourself a different species when you pursue and obtain raw physical strength.  You grant yourself advantages that are going to appear magical to those that are without them.  You’ll possess the ability to achieve ridiculous accomplishments through sheer strength alone, and your magic will always be there, ready to go, limited only by your energy and any injuries you may have accumulated along the way.  And Hell: even WHILE fatigued and injured, you will still possess more “magic” than many who are lacking in said physical strength.  This is why we pursue getting bigger and stronger: it’s the closest to magic we will ever come in our mundane life.

Although I'll admit I have NO idea how he's doing this

When picking your race: always pick the half-orc.  Unless you can pick the full orc.  Or the ogre.  And be a barbarian.   

THE NUTRITION POST: WEIGHT GAIN, LOSS, TRAINING, AND AN ARGUMENT AGAINST LEAN BULKING

I’ve once again accomplished what the internet deems impossible: getting lean without counting calories or macros. 

More specifically, I got lean and added 4lbs of bodyweight, with a good amount going to the shoulders, trap and lats based off that photo.  And I’m under no delusion that I’m bodybuilder lean, and, in fact, I’m most likely bodybuilder fat, but given how many times my photos end up on nattyorjuice whenever I get down to this level of leanness, it’s enough for this discussion.

EDIT: I've since dropped 19lbs since those photos, using the methods outlined further down and have gotten to what I imagine anyone would call lean.

Nutrition, as it relates to the pursuit of getting bigger and stronger, remains a topic that blows my mind when I see it discussed online.  I am willing to cop to the idea that it can get complicated in terms of health and human longevity, but as far as getting big and strong goes, it’s just so stupidly simple to me, yet dudes screw it up ALL the time.  I’m hoping to just write a definitive “THE” nutrition post here as it relates to how I specifically employ it, and with that those who want to emulate my approach have the tools to use it.  I’m going to break down the sections and give headers and stuff to make it easier to navigate, as I anticipate this will be a long post.

BACKGROUND/ABOUT ME

If you ever want inspiration to get bigger, hang out with pro-strongman

When I started training 20 years ago, the only people that counted calories were either bodybuilders in competition prep or people suffering from obsessive compulsive/eating disorders.  The notion of counting calories and macronutrients was laughable, and employed as a joke when you wanted to razz your training buddies.  Atkins became popular around that time (no, not keto [even though it is a ketogenic diet]: actual Atkins diet) and we all became aware that carbs were a thing, and at that point there were some folks that experienced some paradigm shifts away from high carb/low fat forward high fat/low carb, but protein was always understood to be important.  I was definitely among those that gravitated toward high fat/low carb, because it made sense back then, and still makes sense to me to this day.  Keep in mind: I still have never counted macros, hence I’ve never (to my knowledge) been in Ketosis: I’ve just aimed to keep carbs low day to day.  The only time I eat carbs are around training, which seems to coincide with the majority opinion on the matter.

The other thing to know about me is that I don’t care about variety and I like saving time with decisions.  I’ve had the same haircut since 2004, and it’s one that requires no comb.  I’ve driven the same car since 2008.  If I find a piece of clothing I like, I tend to buy a few copies of it so that deciding on what to wear in the morning is simple.  And the same relates to food.  I can eat the same thing at the same time every day and have no issue with that.  I ate the exact same lunch everyday of high school: 2 PBJs, a tin of fruit, a protein bar and a bottle of water.  I don’t care how most food tastes, and will often throw a bunch of food together to save space.

Ground beef mixed with riced cauliflower and a can of tomatoes

2 chicken breasts, cauliflower, an avocado and some greek yogurt

9 whole eggs, bacon, an avocado, cheese, sour cream and a can of tomatoes.  And to clarify, this is ONE meal

This “high speed/low drag” approach suits me.  If it doesn’t suit you, my methods probably won’t work.

BASELINE DIET

Not a bad approach honestly

With the “about me” above established, the basis of my diet is meat and vegetables.  There are other ways to get proteins and fats, but that works for me.  Most nuts tend to upset my digestion, so I keep away from them, and I’ve never cared to experiment with non-meat protein sources, aside from protein supplements.

I keep to the traditional 3 meals a day, with a post dinner snack that is typically protein rich (these days it’s a quest bar or similar low carb protein bar, but cottage cheese can work).  On lifting days, I will eat a small pre-training snack with some simple carbs in it (1 cup of breakfast cereal with some milk for example) and post lifting I’ll have a protein shake of 2 scoops of protein, a protein scooper full of PB fit, 1 cup-ish of Fairlife skim milk and some whipped cream.  I don’t eat anything extra for conditioning/cardio days.

Since I don’t weigh my food, I simply have an eyeball idea of what “enough” meat is at a meal, and I don’t limit myself on vegetables.  I don’t try to kid myself on vegetables either.  Corn isn’t a vegetable, neither are potatoes (sweet or regular), carrots, peas, etc.  If in doubt, stick with non-iceberg lettuce, cabbage, kale, cauliflower, broccoli, etc.  In fact, download the Jon Andersen “Deep Water” ebook and look at the Deep Water approved foodlist.   Jon’s approach to nutrition is almost exactly what I do.  If you can’t eyeball a serving of meat, I genuinely don’t understand you, but you could also use a trick Jim Wendler talks about in “5/3/1 Forever” where you can use your hand to measure foot.  Palm sized servings, fist sized servings, finger sized servings, etc. 

I never drink alcohol.  It’s not good for you.

GAINING WEIGHT


Learn from the greats

 I always endeavor to phase in small changes to get results, whether it’s training or nutrition, gaining or losing weight.  So when it comes to gaining, since I’m not counting calories or macros, rather than try to eat more at eat meal, I simply try to eat more MEALS.  You can call them snacks if that makes it easier, but either way, the point is to eat food more often than when you’re maintaining weight.  Typically the first place I add a meal is between breakfast and lunch.  From there, just keep finding places between meals to add food.  Since you’re keeping your 3 meals the same, this makes measuring effectiveness super simple.  If you’re not gaining weight, add another meal.

Eventually, this DOES get unsustainable, as you can only add so many meals until you’re just eating all the time, so when that happens, it’s again not a question of eating more OF the food you have at meals (increasing portion sizes), but, instead, adding MORE food TO the meals.  The most immediate place to do this is the pre and post training meals.  I’ll give an example with my post training meal.

My day to day post workout shake is already somewhat elaborate, but that’s because it gives me things to TAKE AWAY when fat loss comes (will discuss later).  But let’s take it for what it is: 1 cup of milk, 2 scoops of protein, 1 scoop of PB fit and some whipped cream.  Now that I want to add weight, instead of putting that in a shaker, I put it in a bowl and I mix it with 1 cup of breakfast cereal.  I’ll eat that until I stop gaining weight with it, at which point I’ll now throw in 1 cup of oatmeal.  Eat that until I don’t gain weight with it, and now I add honey.  Etc etc.  For the pre-workout meal, you can do the exact same thing.  Add some honey toast on top of your cereal and milk, or go super dirty and go for Pop-tarts.

For your meals that you’re already eating, you can start adding to them too as the need arises.  And again: you don’t have to mess with portion sizes at all: just add different foods.  I am a big fan of different meat protein sources in a meal, having a meal of steak and ribs, beef and chicken, pork and turkey, etc etc.  Additionally, this could be a time to introduce some less strict protein/fat sources.  Add cheese or sour cream, add half an avocado, mix some PB fit onto the food, etc etc.  Once again, stupidly simple: we’re not changing portion sizes, we’re adding more food period.

TRAINING FOR WEIGHT GAIN


A library of classics

The big thing to keep in mind with how I eat is that eating is ALWAYS there to support training: not the other way around.  This means, I don’t chase scale weight and I don’t aim to always gain weight each week: I train VERY hard when I want to gain weight, and then I eat the way I described above in order to recover from that training.  This allows for muscular growth, rather than the infamous “dreamer bulk”, where all that was gained is fat.  If you’re not training hard enough to grow and you’re eating like you are, you simply get fat.

So how do we ensure we’re training hard enough?  When you gain weight, you have to make your body fit the program, whereas when you lose weight you make the program fit your body.  That means that, when we lose weight, we use autoregulation (will discuss specifically in that section), but for weight gain I like programs with fixed percentages, sets and reps.  Specifically programs that have all of that and are TOUGH.  The one I always advocate is Jon Andersen’s Deep Water program, which I have written of extensively in the past, and that I still maintain to this day as the most effective program I’ve ever run.  I’ve also seen it transform other lifters, so I know it’s not a fluke.  The percentage, sets and reps are all fixed on the program, and it’s a total ball buster.  The ONLY way you will get through it is if you eat big enough to recover from the workouts, and when you do that, you gain muscle.  Jim Wendler’s 5/3/1 Building the Monolith is another fantastic example.  There are very few AMRAP sets in the program, everything else is fixed, and if you work at the top end of all the assistance work, it’s a brutal program where, once again, you must eat to recover.  Super Squats is yet another fine example of a program where YOU have to change yourself in order to survive the program.  I’ve never run Smolov, but from the people I’ve heard that actually made it all the way through, eating like it was a job was critical to the success of that.

The point here is: don’t wing it, and don’t run a program that allows you to slack off.  PHUL, PHAT, PPL, etc, are all super popular and yet I see a bunch of kids failing to gain muscle on them, and it’s most likely because there’s too much room to slack off on them if you’re so inclined.  Those will be effective choices to come down from weight gain and maintain, but when you want to gain muscle, you need something where there’s a definite number that MUST be reached and the only way to do it is by eating big enough to recover and get there.  It’s also worth appreciating that the 4 programs I mentioned (DW, BtM, SS and Smolov) all BUILD to something at the end and have fixed lengths, vs something to be run indefinitely.  Having that sort of vector will guide weight gain well.

IF, for some reason, you’re simply not going to do that, then the approach with diet ALSO works with training: add stuff.  Take your root/base program and add in another day of activity (ideally conditioning, but lifting can also work).  Once you can recover from that, start adding in the “snacks” by getting some exercises BETWEEN your exercises.  This is a great time to bring in super/giant sets if you’re not already doing them, as it allows you to add in more work without adding in a whole bunch of time.  Going with the whole “snacks” thing, I tend to keep these movements on the smaller side, going for assistance work rather than adding in heavy compound work.  And you can keep adding on and on to giant sets.  I was running a 4 movement giant set on my press days of some sort of press, bodyweight dips, DB lateral raises and face pulls.  A lotta small movements will add up.

If you do this right, it’s never going to be a question of “am I gaining too much fat”, but “am I not eating enough to recover from my training.”  That’s a GOOD position to be in.

AN ARGUMENT AGAINST LEAN BULKING

Fat loss remains the easiest goal to achieve.  For proof of concept, think about how many people brag about losing absurd amounts of weight and contrast that with the amount of people that can brag about building large amounts of muscle. The fact remains that fat is far easier to lose than muscle is to gain.  I’ll discuss the easy way to lose fat when I discuss fat loss in general, but once we embrace this idea, it demonstrates why the goal of lean bulking is pretty goofy.  Endeavoring to remain lean at ALL times is purely some Instagram famous silliness with trainees thinking they need to be photoshoot ready at all times.  The truth is, so long as you don’t let yourself get wildly out of control with fat growth (which, if you use the above, you will not be able to do), getting to “lean enough for the summer” shape takes weeks rather than months.

But beyond that, lean bulking fails because it INHIBITS the trainee from being able to pursue training related goals and, in turn, substantial physical improvement.  As I wrote above: nutrition supports training, not the other way around.  So when trainees try to take on the approach of lean bulking by only having a small caloric surplus, they grant themselves the ability to only train slightly above their normal ability, if at all.  Substantial physical growth comes about as a result of substantial training phases, and without the recovery fuel necessary to pursue these phases, the growth simply isn’t going to happen.  It means that attempts to lean bulk are attempts at mediocrity, POSSIBLY adding some insignificant amount of muscle by training exactly as hard as one had before and adding a handful of calories on top of it.  But you’re also going to most likely add a small amount of fat too with that surplus, especially with such lack of training intensity: you’re just experiencing such small growth on BOTH ends that you’re not observing any real change in either direction.

Instead, when one trains hard enough to require a significant surplus to recover, one gets significant results in muscular growth, and can quickly trim away any excess fat before pursuing more growth.  Because, in truth, fat loss phases are like a vacation from weight gain phases, for fat loss is FAR easier.  I’ll explain in that section.

LOSING WEIGHT


Let's talk portion sizes

I have upset a LOT of people with the sentiment I’m about to share, but it’s the honest truth: fat loss is easy.  The reason being is that fat loss is about INactivity.  To GAIN weight, we had to keep doing.  We had to cook all the meals, EAT all the meals, typically clean up after the meals, do a LOT of training, etc etc.  It’s a very busy time.  For fat loss, what we do is…nothing.  It’s true: when you do nothing, you lose fat.  The real word for that is “starve”, but the point remains.  To lose fat, all we have to do is NOT eat.

What if you get hungry?  That’s fine: be hungry. 

Much like with weight gain, it’s about phasing things.  You don’t want to just suddenly cut out EVERYTHING you were doing when you were gaining weight, because what the hell are you going to do when weight loss stalls?  Instead, start bringing out the things that you brought in.  I do tend to cut the carbs out of the pre/post training meals first, just because they’re a quick kill and now I’ve greatly reduced carbs.  After that, you can either eliminate extra meals or the extra food at your meals, but either way it remains the same: phase things out AS NEEDED.  If you’re losing weight, keep doing what you’re doing until it doesn’t work, and then try to take away something else.  I keep protein high through the process, and will cut fats before I cut protein.  Look at leaner protein sources as needed and cut out the stuff that has extra junk associated with it.

It's simply a game of patience at this point.  The weight comes off as long as you’re consistent.  It IS worth noting that, for the first couple of weeks, you’re actually going to look worse than you were when you started.  When you’re at the peak of your weight gain, your muscles are full of glycogen and water and look very full.  When you start cutting that stuff away, your muscles are going to fall flat yet you won’t have lost enough actual weight to see any impact on your midsection of muscular definition, so you’re now just a smaller chubby dude, which is a bad look.  HOWEVER, if you stay the course, that sorts itself out.  Just quit looking at yourself in the mirror so much.

TRAINING WHILE LOSING WEIGHT


You are bound to find SOMETHING useful in this book

As I wrote in the section on weight gain, with fat loss, we have to make the training match US.  It’s no secret that food is anabolic and a source of energy, and that when we have a lot of it we can accomplish great things.  HOWEVER, we can STILL do great things in a caloric deficit: we just have to be ready to adapt to the days when our energy is low.  That means that programs that employ some manner of auto-regulation are key here, while those that employ fixed sets and reps based off percentages aren’t going to be idea.  5/3/1 does a fantastic job of accounting for this, either by using anchor programs that allow for AMRAP sets (so it’s up to you on that particular day to determine how hard you push) OR programs wherein you can select your training max at the start based off how you are performing.  Brian Alsruhe’s “Darkhorse Program” has the trainee work up to a max for THAT DAY and then uses that max to determine percentage work.  Westside Barbell for Skinny Bastards, despite the name, is about working up to maxes for the day on both the max effort and repetition effort day.  The advanced program in Deep Water is perfectly suited for this. There are other programs out there like that as well: seek them out and use them intelligently.  The point is, whereas with weight gain we were training to build ourselves up, here we train to express all that strength we build. 

And as before with weight gain training, things get taken out during weight loss training.  We have less calories, so we have less recovery, so we can’t do as much.  Conditioning workouts can get reduced in terms of intensity, volume, or frequency.  Assistance exercises can be trimmed away.  Extra training days can vanish, etc.  Wait until you need to reduce training before you do: ride it out for as long as you can, but don’t hold on longer than you should, as  that’s going to cause you to burnout.  Thankfully, fat loss is a quick process, and once you are where you want to be you can either ride that out or immediately transition back to gaining weight again.

 

ON MISANTHROPY

This idea was pitched to me on reddit after I offered my perspective in light of recent events.  Particularly when people voiced concern on the fact it seemed like there were a LOT of terrible humans in the strength training world, as the accounts of popular athletes had become flooded with comments filled with racism, hatred, ignorance, etc etc.  The perspective I offered is that humanity, by and large, is awful, to the point that there are, in fact, MORE awful humans than non-awful humans.  This means that, whenever you take a sampling of humanity, you’re going to have a sampling of primarily awful people, to INCLUDE when you make that sampling by sub-dividing it by common interest.  There are a lot of awful people in the powerlifting community because it’s compose of humans, and humans are awful, there are a lot of awful people in the running community because it’s compose of humans, etc etc.  I’m definitely willing to admit that some activities attract even MORE awful people than others, but reality has to be understood that, in the majority of cases, you’re going to be surrounded by more awful people than not-awful people.  In addition, as an activity grows in popularity, it attracts more people, which means that even if the ratio of awful to not awful people remains the same, the sheer fact remains that there are now MORE unique awful people occupying the sphere of that activity, so the voices will grow in terms of diversity even if the message remains the same.  So what do we do with that information?

I just wanted to take a moment to point out that strongman became an awful sport to be a fan of once these two dudes brought in a lot more fans

For starters, let’s start talking about averages.  Products of the American education system have been sadly mislead on this concept as a result of our grading conventions.  From a very early age, we’re taught that 70% is average, which is, of course, insane.  Scoring in the top 70% of something is clearly ABOVE average, as average is what falls in the middle of a stratum: meaning it’s 50%.  This paradigm has given a false understanding of what it means to be average, with many feeling that the average are those that fall within the top 30%, when, in truth, the “average” human is a high F on the grading scale.  And from there, no human has better summed up the issue of averages than George Carlin, who said “think of how stupid the average person is, and realize that half of them are stupider than that.”  So again, when calibrating what you think to be an average person, realize you most likely need to dial it down 20%, and from THERE factor in that there’s significant amount of the population that exists below THAT.

This becomes relevant in the discussion of comparing oneself to the average.  It becomes all too easy to suddenly develop quite the ego when one compares themselves to the average and finds that they are excelling.  This is how you’ve got “fitness influencers” that have trained for 3 months selling diet and training programs, kids on reddit simultaneously answering AND asking questions in the “daily stupid question” thread, dudes disagreeing with elite level coaches, etc etc.  Once again, it gets interesting when you think about the numbers.  The average human is simply lazy, and does no exercise nor pays any mind to their nutrition (they have many other failings from laziness as well, to include academic rigor, political education, etc etc, but for this blog we focus on the physical).  If one were to simply exercise for 10 minutes a day, they create SIGNIFICANT distance between themselves and the average (50% and below) human.  The lesson to take from that ISN’T that one should be proud of exercising 10 minutes a day, but that, instead, one should take no pride in being simply better than the average.  The average is poor competition: one needs to stratify themselves amongst those that actually showed up to compete.

It's not a boxing match if the other guy doesn't know he's fighting

This becomes relevant in the discussion of standards.  Strength standards are the popular ones, but really any exercise standard applies.  People are quick to assert themselves as X class of lifter (almost always intermediate, but these days people are saying bizarre things like “advanced beginner” and “early intermediate” and it’s honestly blowing my f**kin mind) because they assert “Compared to the average person, I’m quite strong”.  As we understand, the average person ISN’T competition.  They’re not trying.  You compare yourself to the average person when you want to feel better about yourself: you compare yourself to the hard working people when you want to BE better.  And this isn’t about humility: if you are strong, be PROUD of being strong, don’t meekly hide behind some shield of “aw shucks”.  But also, be aware of yourself and understand that simply being above the average of humanity is an easy accomplishment: it’s being above the average OF the above average that is noteworthy.

For fundamentally, this has been the crux of my own misanthropy: failed realization of potential.  What makes humanity tragic is that it has SO much potential to live up to, and regularly fails to even realize it has said potential, let alone attempt to explore it. Laziness, ignorance, indifference, etc etc, the “sins of omission” of humanity, for they are sins of failing to act.  Hell, I’ll even admire hedonism, so long as it’s PURSUED with passion and in earnest by the hedonist: at least they dedicate themselves to realizing SOME of their potential as a human.  But to simply have the ability to, in some way, be better and not pursue it, and instead remain in that 50% or lower, is quite frankly a crime against humanity itself.  Many continue to actively set the standard of the denominator lower and lower to the point that the most paltry of accomplishments start to stand out as amazing, which allows for the potential for one to easily accomplish “super human” feats if they were so inclined.  This is “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” in reverse: the UNDERMAN is coming. 

Watch for the signs...

Strive to meet your own standards that completely exclude “the average” of humanity.  Don’t let the mere sharing of common species dictate your denominator: strive for accomplishment AMONG the accomplished.