Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reasons not to become famous

tim.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 428 posts

Re: Reasons not to become famous

#61

Post by eru »

keiferski wrote: post #60
eru wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Sorry, I wasn't expressing myself very clearly.

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.

Re: Reasons not to become famous

#62

Post by gherkinnn »

I never wanted to be famous. Now I feel confirmed. Jesus. There’s liberty in being a nobody.

> Suffice to say, I didn’t realize that this type of thing was part of the Faustian fame-seeking bargain.

Again, reading classics holds more weight than 90% of current self help and motivational books. Goethe was on point.

After having mastered all the sciences and still unfulfilled, Faust seeks Mephisto to know “was die Welt in ihrem Innersten zusammen hält” (What binds the essence of the world). And enters a pact with the Devil. Of course it all goes to shit.

Re: Reasons not to become famous

#63

Post by keiferski »

eru wrote: post #61
keiferski wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

Sorry, I wasn't expressing myself very clearly. 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.

Re: Reasons not to become famous

#64

Post by majos »

z3t4 wrote: post #15

Just assume that whatever you say to anyone will end up in the news next morning.

But this is a terrible way to live. You’ll never be vulnerable with anybody, and vulnerability is a big component of close relationships.

Re: Reasons not to become famous

#65

Post by CM30 »

amelius wrote: post #5

I think it highly depends on the kind of fame. If you connect emotionally with your audience, then sure. But if, say, you are a famous researcher then I suspect you are facing far less of these problems.

Yeah, it's very dependent on the kind of fame, as well as the field you're in. A major kpop star/Japanese idol is probably going to have all the problems in the blog article, perhaps magnified by ten. Their fanbase tend to be... a tad less on the sane side, and there are a fair few of them who are absolutely obssessed with their idols and will resort to stalking and harassment.

But at the same time, there are plenty of fields and claims to fame that won't get this. Researchers will get less of it. Someone who doesn't show their face online will seemingly have less of these issues (though people might get obssessed with finding out who they are, ala Satoshi Nakamoto and Banksy). And those focused on more technical/specialist fields may have less issues. Your average popular YouTube glitch hunter or speedrunner will have less problems than a popular YouTube political pundit.

Re: Reasons not to become famous

#66

Post by balfirevic »

keiferski wrote: post #60
eru wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> The idea that taking steroids automatically gives you muscles is false. You still have to work out hard and often.

No, that is incorrect: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101

A relevant quote from here (which examines the above study): https://www.strongerbyscience.com/the-science-of-steroids/

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.

Re: Reasons not to become famous

#67

Post by eru »

keiferski wrote: post #63
eru wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I wasn't expressing myself very clearly. 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 th…

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.

Re: Reasons not to become famous

#68

Post by eru »

balfirevic wrote: post #66
keiferski wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

> The idea that taking steroids automatically gives you muscles is false. You still have to work out hard and often. No, that is incorrect: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101 A relevant quote from here (which examines the above study): https://www.strongerbyscience.com/the-science-of-steroids/ The group that took testosterone without exercise gained just as much, if not more, muscle mass than t…

Thanks for weighting in!

Re: Reasons not to become famous

#69

Post by balfirevic »

keiferski wrote: post #63
eru wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I wasn't expressing myself very clearly. 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 th…

> True, but these sort of physiques are definitely not the kind that are perceived as desirable.

Do you mean physiques like those of Chris Hemsworth, Dwayne Johnson, Henry Cavill, Jason Momoa?

Re: Reasons not to become famous

#70

Post by varjag »

speedgoose wrote: post #52
balfirevic wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once you have enough money to have a great quality of life without stress, having more money isn't improving much your happiness. If you mean without having to continue working, that is indeed what many would consider being rich.

No, a normal job is enough to be happy in most societies in my humble opinion.

You can lose a job, and it can play out pretty bad. That's a persistent background dread in most people lives.
Post reply on HN