Optimization is overrated and gay, if you are making gains and having fun, you are lifting right.

And if you're not making gains you need to optimize

>>76409909 (OP)
I'm on a cut, so I'm cranky 24/7

>>76409913
Wrong, you just need to lift more.

>>76409935
Sounds like optimization to me, that's not fun, I just wanted to lift whatever

>>76409941
If "lift more" is optimization, then I think your problem is that you don't lift.

>>76409947
The only problem here is that you're too retarded to understand that lift more is optimization

>>76409950
No, optimization is efficiency, lift more is about quantity.

>>76409909 (OP)
but what if I like to optimize my fun?

Cutting stinks, but it's hard because it's worth it, and the further you go the more proud of yourself you become.

>>76409909 (OP)
why not both?

>>76409909 (OP)
>>76409913
>>76409935
>>76409941
>>76409947
>>76409950
>>76409959
This conversation is a classic example of a semantic argument fueled by differing definitions ("optimization"), escalating into personal insults. While touching on a legitimate debate in fitness (simplicity/effort vs. analysis/adaptation), the discussion is rendered entirely unproductive by:

Deeply offensive language used by both participants.

Fundamental refusal to understand or engage with the other's perspective or definition.

Complete lack of nuance regarding the multifaceted nature of training progress.

Rapid escalation into hostility, shutting down any chance of resolution or learning.

The core disagreement about whether "lifting more" constitutes optimization remains unresolved because the participants are arguing from incompatible definitions and prioritize attacking each other over finding common ground or clarifying terms. This conversation serves more as a warning about poor communication than a useful exploration of training methodology.

>>76409989
I really wish you aifaggots would collectively die scraming

>>76409989
based
I can't wait until our AI overlords completely eradicate our inefficient human race