I have developed an interest in health and longevity and I read this book.
Full of many interesting ideas, but I was left a bit lost.
I'm going to try his Occam mass gaining protocol, which is entirely taken from Doug McGuff 'Body by Science'.
I'm still a bit skeptical because I think that if something really works,sooner or later it will be adopted by the professional in the field.
But bodybuilder (even natural ones) are still trainig in the classical way...
I played chess a lot in my teenage years and I was very good.
Italian Champion under 12, under 18 and under 20, fide master with 2 international master norms.
Then I decided to quit.
It was incredibly fun, but also a lot of work which is not going to pay off unless you become a very strong grandmaster.
I'm still thinking what a loss it was not to spend that "teenage energy" into doing something more profitable.
But it was so fun that I'm thinking about a comeback :)
Yes, it's quite ironic. I'm not saying Austrian Economics is wrong, I don't know enough to make such a claim.
I'm just saying that for a complete beginner it's better to start with what is believed to be correct by most professionals in the field.
Then of course it's great to study Austrian Economics.
I think that starting with the general consensus among professionals is the way to go in any subject.
I know economics is heavily politcs influenced and politics can trump over truth, but still...
To think different first you have to know mainstream and if you see something wrong in it you can criticize.
Everybody is suggesting some Austrian Economics books.
I don't think it's a good idea to start with something which is not mainstream in the academic world.
I've read something about austrian economic, and it sounded good to me, but I know it's so easy to foolish a layman in any field with almost anything.
If most academics today at top univesities and most nobel prize are not followers of the austrian school there may be good reasons.
Better to start with the current state of the art and then read about less popular schools.
Well, for the academic insuccess of men I have an easy explanation: nurture.
Look at any movie, telefilm, sit-com ecc where the main character is a youg boy.
He's always a good-looking,athletic, funny,street-smart guy. And at school sucks.
The smart guys are always nerds, losers.
The girls are always pretty, shy, serious and very good at school.
I think that for a school boy there is a lot of social pressure to be good in sports, get many girls and be the leader of your class.
They can't afford to lose time studying.
For the "good" girls there is social pressure to be more serious and academically good.
Well, she's young but living in Silicon Valley, with a rich venture capitalist father who can provide her money, advice and contacts in the business world.
You can't consider her a normal 18-year old.
I'm 27 but I live in Italy, with blue collars parents. I discovered the startup world and began thinking it can be done only recently.
I'm still a bit skeptical because I think that if something really works,sooner or later it will be adopted by the professional in the field.
But bodybuilder (even natural ones) are still trainig in the classical way...