Decide when and where you’ll train.
Look at your schedule and ask, “When am I most likely to succeed?”
Mornings. Evenings. Lunches. Whatever’s best.
Work with your schedule, not against it.
Men, if you want a good physique, read this:
Decide when and where you’ll train.
Look at your schedule and ask, “When am I most likely to succeed?”
Mornings. Evenings. Lunches. Whatever’s best.
Work with your schedule, not against it.
You won’t always feel like training. But the truth is nobody does.
Motivation gets you started but it always runs out.
Never depend on it.
It doesn’t matter which. It’s easy to overplan.
But the truth is they all work. You just need to give one your focus.
• Squat
• Deadlift
• Flat + Incline Bench
• Overhead Press
• Pull Ups
80% of your results will come from these.
- Stop procrastinating
- Become a top 1% male
- Build unstoppable habits
- Gain top tier confidence
Read "Iron Clad Discipline" and become an unstoppable man.
Click here: https://t.co/mWjyFiLttX
Yes, this means don’t avoid legs.
And trust me, women like legs as much as they do biceps.
Take pride in building everything, not just what’s on show.
The goal isn’t to get ripped, it’s to become an athlete.
When you think of yourself as one, you don’t rely on motivation.
You know how to act because you know who you are.
When in doubt, just ask, “What would an athlete do?”
You’re not perfect. Workouts will be missed.
Most people beat themselves up about this, but instead accept you’ll miss one session here and there.
Missing one won’t make a huge impact.
Missing two sets up a pattern. Make a rule to never miss twice.
This account exists to help men:
• Build power
• Build strength
• Build masculinity
Have a good day!
More from All
You May Also Like
1/ Here’s a list of conversational frameworks I’ve picked up that have been helpful.
Please add your own.
2/ The Magic Question: "What would need to be true for you
3/ On evaluating where someone’s head is at regarding a topic they are being wishy-washy about or delaying.
“Gun to the head—what would you decide now?”
“Fast forward 6 months after your sabbatical--how would you decide: what criteria is most important to you?”
4/ Other Q’s re: decisions:
“Putting aside a list of pros/cons, what’s the *one* reason you’re doing this?” “Why is that the most important reason?”
“What’s end-game here?”
“What does success look like in a world where you pick that path?”
5/ When listening, after empathizing, and wanting to help them make their own decisions without imposing your world view:
“What would the best version of yourself do”?
Please add your own.
2/ The Magic Question: "What would need to be true for you
1/\u201cWhat would need to be true for you to\u2026.X\u201d
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) December 4, 2018
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody: https://t.co/Yo6jHbSit9
3/ On evaluating where someone’s head is at regarding a topic they are being wishy-washy about or delaying.
“Gun to the head—what would you decide now?”
“Fast forward 6 months after your sabbatical--how would you decide: what criteria is most important to you?”
4/ Other Q’s re: decisions:
“Putting aside a list of pros/cons, what’s the *one* reason you’re doing this?” “Why is that the most important reason?”
“What’s end-game here?”
“What does success look like in a world where you pick that path?”
5/ When listening, after empathizing, and wanting to help them make their own decisions without imposing your world view:
“What would the best version of yourself do”?
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?