What can you achieve with fame that you cannot achieve with money alone? What is this need for wanting others to know that you exist at all?
Jobs that demand "fame" of some sorts will always take an emotional toll on personalities that are never comfortable with fame, limelight and podiums.
I have been an introvert my whole life but only recently realised this about myself at the tender age of 40! It was a cold slap for me to accept it. I have always imagined myself gregarious and outgoing and friendly - wanting to speak to strangers, breaking silence in a lift - but these have never really sat comfortably with me afterwards. I'll be chewing and ruminating about the imagined mistimed comments or miscued lines for ages. I have bruised myself emotionally believing that I needed to be an extrovert to be successful when in fact I was only demanding too much of myself. Fame, and outrageous fame will likely kill me too.
I made lots of money but always felt rejected/ignored by society. So I ended up lonely.
I was sold a dream that become financially well off and affluent and women will flock to you - it never happened!
I stayed a non smoker, non drinker because I consider these uncessary risks. I don't see any upside
Aced the classes, did good in sports but still become Mr. Noone.
But lately, I got into body building and started using steroids (I know they are harmful) but I've decided that with all the money - I don't wanna live a long life, just wanna be famous and be desired by opposite sex and if it comes at a price of dying after few years - it meets my risk profile.
So, yes validation, being desired and getting sexual opportunities and so people feel intimidated in my presence is all I want.
Money helps you buy expert supervision, time and quality drugs and outfits and also being able to afford a nice car all helps. But money can't directly help you buy the attraction.
I've been getting lots of attention lately from opposite sex since I've got Greek physique dialed in, so anyone who thinks it doesn't matter and all you need is money - I am just a millionaire, there are many like me. I don't want to become a huge man, I just do minimum required to build a physique that opposite sex finds attractive.
I never said I am after bodybuilder physique, I mentioned I am after "fight club" look only but little more defined I'd say. (think Henry Cavil in superman)
I've done enough research to know women find huge body a turn off.
I trained 6 years in a local gym without ever achieving that fight club look and within 3 months after steroid use, I reached there and surpassed my expectations.
When I started - I had patchy beard and face with no well defined jaw. After steroid use - I've now full beard and square jaw (I chew chewing in gym which I copied from Arnold) but not sure if chewing made my jaw bigger or steroid.
Achieving low body fat without losing your muscle on calorie restricted diet is hard as you end up losing some muscles and some fat - steroid makes it easier to put on muscles and get low body fat.
Ofc, there are side effects but imho they are worth it for me.
My HDL levels went down and LDL went up and arterial plaque might build up and I might die from stroke. My heart might become large and weak. But there is also a chance that I might not have any problem at all - here I am gambling with my life. Skin have got thinner but no difference in hair, not gone bald so far others might not be this lucky but who knows.
Also, there are things I am curious about, if you guys know please answer:
If steroid mimicks testosterone. How is using steroid different than a man having naturally high testosterone level which produces androgenic and anabolic effects?
So I started doing Karate since 5 years ago. Before that I was not chubby but not fit either. I have cheek fat and my arms, chest and belly have some fat as well.
I started doing Karate and my weight went down quick and I notice my face gets leaner and now I have a defined jaw line. I’m not sure maybe just my genetics but maybe you got your jawline from losing weight.
3 years ago met a girl online, dated her and she is my wife now. When saw my previous photos she was quite shocked at the difference.
Fast forward now, I don’t have a body builder physique or male mode physique but I do have physique that most contact martial artist have, still have some belly fat but my chest, arm, thigh and belly muscles are thicker without using steroids.
I’m 33 now so I already past my growth rate as a man even 5 years ago, but still managed to change drastically.
>I started doing Karate and my weight went down quick and I notice my face gets leaner and now I have a defined jaw line. I’m not sure maybe just my genetics but maybe you got your jawline from losing weight.
I was skinny and atheletic type with super low body fat then I didn't have visible square jaw.
After that I started eating lot more and training hard, so I did gain some muscle (early newbie gains) but gained fat also. So now my muscles while I could feel them, got burried under layer of fat.
People in my tribe don't have strong jaw. It's hard to find them even in the village I hail from, you can find strong built bulky men and women but no strong jaws.
I see. So do you think steroids contribute to it? It is amazing how hormones can actually change your physical appearance drastically even after someone is past beyond their growth phase.
You mentioned chewing gum. I saw these videos about mewing but don’t actually believe that would work.
There are so many desirable and wonderful women in the world who don't care about any of this. I've had women I consider hot, intelligent, and kind tell me that they prefer a little bit of a gut because it's comfy. Might be partially about age group. More mature women (and people, in general) tend to grow out of a lot of the teen to thirties BS and illusions.
> If steroid mimicks testosterone. How is using steroid different than a man having naturally high testosterone level?
If your body perceives that there is too much testosterone, it stops producing its own testosterone. Your testicles will shrink. It may not take a very high dosage for this to start to happen. That won't be happening in a man with naturally high T who isn't supplementing.
By the way, how are your estrogen levels? Be sure that your doctor is keeping an eye on that. A number of things can cause your body to convert testosterone into estrogen, and you don't want high estrogen (for reasons of appearance as well as behavior). Conversely, there was at least one study some years ago which linked an increased risk of heart disease to men with both high testosterone and low estrogen. After supplementing with testosterone for about seven weeks or so, make sure your ratio of testosterone to estrogen is in check.
Another difference might be in how well you mimic the body's natural daily cycle of testosterone. A male's testosterone level is usually highest around 8am, declining throughout the day and at its lowest just before bedtime. (As it turns out, low levels of testosterone will help you fall asleep faster and sleep more soundly. Never supplement right before bedtime.) Those with low-T using patches, gels, and creams will generally apply them each morning and that does a great job of replicating the natural cycle. Additionally, their testosterone peak and lows are going to be more stable from day-to-day. That's exactly how it should be for a man with naturally high testosterone.
My understanding is that injections will give you a quick initial peak that will steadily decline (and when you're about ready to take your next injection, your testosterone levels may have fallen even further below what you started with). I don't believe that injections will preserve the natural daily cycle of testosterone (high in the morning, low at bedtime). I'm also wondering if the ratio between testosterone and estrogen remains stable throughout the peak and the decline. (My strong assumption: no.) If you're injecting, you'll want to research that and/or check with an expert. If you're already injecting, find an outside resource to confirm what the risks are and what your level of concern should be.
You didn't sound like you're cycling on/off your testosterone. But if you were, that would be another huge difference between yourself and a naturally high-T male.
I'm sure you're already aware that in both cases, high testosterone can have other unwanted effects like back hair, baldness / receding hairline, increased risk (or growth) of prostate cancer, increased anger, etc. You're likely to see at least one or more side-effect, especially when matching the level of a high-T male. Do not rely entirely on your own observations and opinions when monitoring for behavioral changes. Your best choice will be to rely on someone who you spend time with on a regular basis.
You seem to be aware that supplementation for low-T by a primary care physician is going to be substantially different than supplementing for bodybuilding. If you're going to a male health-and-wellness facility which intentionally tries to bring you to a high-T level, the advice which best applies to you is going to be somewhere in the middle of the other two groups. For more answers, you might want to find yourself a good subreddit. You'd be surprised by some of the high-quality answers you're going to be able to get over there. Still, I hope that all of this helps you in some way.
Disclaimer: I and most people here are not medical doctors, but I'm sure you knew that.
If you wear anything more than a t-shirt nobody would even suspect that you have a sixpack. Unless you're actually big, even a basic button-down shirt hides all your gains. How many and how often do other people see you shirtless?
I've been lean 165lbs / 5'10" (75kg, 178cm) since 15 till like 21. I've had a sixpack, but nobody knew about it because I don't usually go to the high school and university shirtless. When I got to 187lbs (85kg) I actually started to look like I lift even when dressed. At 200-210lbs (90-95kg) I actually look strong even in sweater. At my height to get the grotesque "bodybuilding big" I'd have to weigh ~120kg (260lbs).
Getting big has had a dramatic positive effect on my attractiveness.
Please don't think that. Pitt was underweight when playing that role, and he's a Hollywood superstar with the best personal trainers and nutritionists and chefs at his beck and call. That is not realistic for the majority of people.
If you're not in your very early 20s, that level of lean ripped-ness is not sustainable 12 months of the year.
Also, the entire point of the Tyler Durden character is that he's a subversive but idealised projection of the Narrator's imagination. He looks that way because he's not real.
Depends on how far you go. From all I've read, steroids do help you achieve your fitness-based aesthetic goals with less effort (or at all). Including the Fight Club look.
> From all I've read, steroids do help you achieve your fitness-based aesthetic goals with less effort (or at all).
That isn't how steroids work. In fact, it's almost the opposite - they optimize the body's natural process of repairing muscles. They also reduce inflammation, which allows you to train more with less recovery time. The idea that taking steroids automatically gives you muscles is false. You still have to work out hard and often.
The "Fight Club" physique is attainable mostly by cutting body fat (and of course with working out.) Pitt's BF was 8%, which is really low compared to the average fit person.
The group that took testosterone without exercise gained just as much, if not more, muscle mass than the people taking a placebo and actually working out.
Keep in mind, the dose for this study was 600mg/week of testosterone with nothing else added in. This wasn’t a several-grams-per-week pro bodybuilder steroid stack. This was a fairly low dose that might represent someone sticking their pinky toe into the world of steroids.
So for people who say, “oh, steroids don’t make you bigger and stronger. They just let you work harder,” I’m sad to inform you that such a statement is patently false. They may help with recovery and let you work harder, but I guarantee you that you could stick with the exact training routine you have now, start taking steroids, and gain more size and strength from it – no extra work required. And an untrained person might (would probably) gain more muscle from just taking steroids than they would if they actually worked out.
In any case, whatever your desired physique, even if it is the one without too much muscle mass but with very low fat, steroids will make it easier to get there.
Interesting read, thanks for the link. It's a pretty complex post and with some unconventional conclusions. Especially about the power of placebos. It still seems suspect to me, though, as there is virtually zero discussion on the negative aspects of steroid use. The post is entitled The Science of Steroids: The Physiology and Psychology of How Steroids Make You Stronger.
In any case, I was more referring to the common perception that taking steroids will make you jacked without doing anything.
I was saying that most physiques are easier to reach with steroids; and some are only achievable with steroids, ie achievable at all.
(The 'at all' wasn't about effort, but achievability.)
For an untrained person, getting to the Fight Club look takes quite a bit of training, and then cutting. Just cutting without any muscles won't give you that look.
> I was saying that most physiques are easier to reach with steroids;
Sure, this is somewhat true, but the difference isn't enough to be worth the side effects, unless you're going for the huge bodybuilder physique. Diet, exercise and time will get you results that 99% of people find impressive.
> and some are only achievable with steroids, ie achievable at all.
True, but these sort of physiques are definitely not the kind that are perceived as desirable. So, if your reason for working out is to attract the opposite sex (which is a bad reason IMO, but that's a different discussion), steroids are absolutely not worth the side effects - especially if you're a millionaire and can afford a personal trainer and meal-planner.
>especially if you're a millionaire and can afford a personal trainer and meal-planner.
Born to immigrant parents I was always taught to work hard so I ended up with good work ethics and strong willpower - I never skipped training and I was mostly self driven, do not need external encouragement to walk towards my goal.
Yes, now people ask how did you achieve this physique? I never tell them it's steroid because who would give any respect to a guy who just injects some drug? Who will desire him?
I just tell them it's genetics and I spend 2 hours in gym. They look at my well built parents and they believe it. Actually I only spend less than 40 minutes 3 days a week.
>Diet, exercise and time will get you results that 99% of people find impressive.
If many men aren't using steroid to look good, where is all that steroid in the world going? Why is so much steroid caught by Scandinavia customs every year? Specially when Scandinavia is seen as "good genetic stock" and "healthy population" in all metrics.
If other guys around you set expectations of physique not naturally achievable there is not much you can do.
> If other guys around you set expectations of physique not naturally achievable there is not much you can do.
I find this thread fascinating because it's almost common knowledge that this is true for women in contemporary society. It should come as no surprise that this is also the case for men. The looks arms race continues.
The irony is compounded by the number of times "Brad Pitt in Fight Club" has been mentioned in this thread. The whole film was a screed against this kind of arms-race thinking of "I need this, this and this, and then finally, I'll have ______".
Getting a personal trainer is indeed a great way to outsource the need for will-power. And you don't even need to be a millionaire for it.
Whether steroids are worth it is a question of trade-offs. I assume that the effects and side-effects vary with dosage. And most of the bad side-effects come at higher doses. So there's probably some low enough dose that's useful.
For attracting your desired sex: make sure you exercise not just the portions of the body that you can see in the mirror (for guys: arms, shoulders mostly), but your whole body, including your legs and butt.
Do also keep in mind that different people have different preferences; and some do like being huge or looking at huge people.
It's not about effort for serious bodybuilders using steroids, it's more about increasing the physical limits for how much muscle they can maintain/grow. Since steroids help bodybuilders recover better, it actually allows them to productively put in more effort in the gym
Brad Pitt in fight club is like the canonical example of non-bodybuilders talking about a good physique, but there are a lot of reasons it's not realistic.
He has a good face, and is famous, so that makes him look a lot better at a given size. The lighting is done to accentuate how big he is + he has some sort of film over his skin to make himself shinier. And he's also very lean which is not pleasant to maintain for long periods of time for most men. It's comparable to what a smaller person would look like if they were competing at a bodybuilding competition.
It seems odd to argue that Brad Pitt in Fight Club doesn't have a bodybuilder physique, just because he has slightly smaller biceps than a typical body builder.
Just looked it up, definitely not a body builder. Incredible physique? Yes. Bodybuilder? Not even close. I'd estimate he's around 175lbs there. He'd need almost another 80-100lbs of lean muscle mass to be considered a bodybuilder.
Feel free to use your own favorite definitions for words and call Brad Pitt whatever you want... he still spent a ton of time in the gym doing weight exercises, just like a bodybuilder does.
I think usually body builders are associated with insane size which mostly people don't think can be achieved naturally.
But I've had girls tell me that Arnold during his peak in bodybuilding was all natural and that he has superior genetics than everyone else on the planet which helped them achieve that size.
This seems like a very superficial way of attracting girls. From my experience if you want girls you need experience dating and having an attractive personality which isn't easy. It takes time to be comfortable being yourself around girls. And you don't wait for women to "flock to you". You have to pursue them by asking them on dates.
Reading what he's posted, it doesn't seem like he's interested in dating, but rather hooking up, and fast. Tinder is still the go-to for that, and it is by design a looks-centric platform.
Something I've come to realise is that being introverted isn't necessarily the same as being shy. I consider myself more introverted than extroverted (I'm happy with my own company) but over the years, I've learned to communicate confidently to individuals and groups.
A lot of the learning was due to the need to communicate at work (e.g. giving complex presentations / demonstrations to challenging audiences) and also exposure to life situations that helped me realise that a presentation going wrong really isn't the worst thing that could happen to you.
I’ve tried to express this a few times online and fallen foul of offended introverts - my observation is that some people like to use the label of being an introvert as a shield or justification of (their dissatisfaction with?) their shy or antisocial behavioural traits.
From my perspective (as an introvert) I would replace the "Introvert" line with:
* Introversion: I may or may not enjoy ice cream, but eating very much makes me exhausted. (Or "I feel full after eating just a bit".)
From my perspective, your analogy makes the very mistake that the grandparent comment brought up: conflating introversion with not liking social interaction.
Introversion is often confused with or confounded with other attributes. Sometimes when folks talk about introversion they are describing other things like social anxiety etc.
There’s nothing wrong with avoiding social relationships if that person so desires, if anything accusing said person of “antisocial behavioral traits” does more harm than good.
> There’s nothing wrong with avoiding social relationships if that person so desires
Well yes and no. Socially, that's nobody's business indeed. Professionally, that can be a problem or at the very least a weakness. Social relationship are a skill, being bad at it isn't neutral.
Sure you can be wanting to avoid social relationships while being good at it, but I doubt this is any sort of common.
> wanting to speak to strangers, breaking silence in a lift - but these have never really sat comfortably with me afterwards. I'll be chewing and ruminating about the imagined mistimed comments or miscued lines for ages.
This resonates very strongly with me. I will throw a party, have a great time, and then lay in bed replaying scenes and focusing on every slightly awkward thing I could have done differently.
> I have bruised myself emotionally believing that I needed to be an extrovert to be successful when in fact I was only demanding too much of myself.
For me, I think don't it is the extroversion part of the equation that's wrong, it's the negative obsessing afterwards. Sure, being less social avoids that, but it feels like a crutch and not a cure. The cure I am pursuing is learning to care for myself enough including all of my flaws such that I don't beat myself up afterwards for not having every social interaction go perfectly.
I think you could "generalize" any pyschological problem to that. Every psychological problem, by definition, means thinking things that are harmful. Thinking requires attention, and if you know they are harmful, presumably it is a lack of control that makes you think them.
But I don't think that's a particularly useful generalization in most cases. Unless a person has general problems controlling their attention, then the likely culprit for negative thoughts is not attention control in general, but something related to why those thoughts in particular are prevalent.
In other words, if you eat rocks, the most likely explanation is pica, not gluttony.
For one, if you’re any sort of “thinker” (i.e. an economist, philosopher, writer, etc.) that wants to spread your ideas, fame goes a lot further than money. Sure, you can buy a marketing budget and people to spread your message, but that has its limitations.
The Bloomberg candidacy will be an interesting test of this- he is emphatically not a charismatic personality, I’m curious to see how far his unlimited budget will carry him.
I'm still not convinced he's doing it to win - if he gets a few delegates he can then legitimately dump a load of money into whoever wins - if it's Bernie he's going to need it because it could end up being a referendum on socialism rather than trump and the economy is doing fairly well
> What can you achieve with fame that you cannot achieve with money alone?
You can use fame to get money. If you're poor and famous, you can become rich off of your fame. But obviously, if you're poor and not rich, you can't become rich by using the money you don't have.
> > What can you achieve with fame that you cannot achieve with money alone?
> Reaching a larger audience.
Money alone can do that; all fame does is make it more likely than someone else (or multiple people) substitutes their money so you don't need your own.
But then, money can also buy fame pretty easily, so if fame did allow something directly that money did not directly, money would still be sufficient.
We are currently witnessing this experiemnt play out in the real world. Let's see in how far Bloomberg is able to buy a larger audience for his campaign.
One of the odder experiences in my life was when I started a social meetup and suddenly became many times more attractive. Up until that point I was just another nice guy in the crowd but once I was the leader of something, even something as inconsequential as an after work drinking club, women who in the past would always forget my name suddenly were coming on to me, sometimes in obnoxiously aggressive ways. It was a nice ego boost for a very very short period of time but quickly became annoying and got in the way of the purpose of the meetup, which was for a group of similar people to have a relaxing way to end their work day.
Experiencing the dynamics of social proof was quite the eye opener.
Entirely different. Groupies aren't aiming to leave the encounter with anything material. They're after you. They desire you. A gold digger is financially motivated. They desire the money. If they could cut you out of the equation and just get the money they would. You're on the opposite side of the desired/desirer dynamic with gold diggers.
They don't know you, so they're actually after some imaginary you that's perfect for them. Combining desirable known properties of you with a truck load of imaginary properties that they think you have.
If they believe me to be extremely high status and I'm extremely high status, then that's knowing that I'm extremely high status. They know me to the extent that it matters.
You're talking about personality. That's one aspect of who you are. Hell, I'm a bit of a shithead. Anyone who likes me for my personality is wrong. I'm certainly not going to get caught up on needing people to like me for it.
Jobs that demand "fame" of some sorts will always take an emotional toll on personalities that are never comfortable with fame, limelight and podiums.
I have been an introvert my whole life but only recently realised this about myself at the tender age of 40! It was a cold slap for me to accept it. I have always imagined myself gregarious and outgoing and friendly - wanting to speak to strangers, breaking silence in a lift - but these have never really sat comfortably with me afterwards. I'll be chewing and ruminating about the imagined mistimed comments or miscued lines for ages. I have bruised myself emotionally believing that I needed to be an extrovert to be successful when in fact I was only demanding too much of myself. Fame, and outrageous fame will likely kill me too.