Even JP not going to failure anymore...

[kadafi2]

Can someone clue me into what this indicates? Using Lat machine as an example 3 sets X 5 X 5 X 5 reps? I'm used to seeing sets X reps and somehow there are two other numerical variables in there? If this rep speed or cadence or time between reps? Also some exercises have only 1 extra variable (rear delt cable for instance) versus 2?

I think, it simply looks like the number of repetitions in a given set.

For example: 5x5x5 is 3 sets of 5 repetitions each.
6x4x5x7 is 4 sets, one with 6 repetitions, the other with 4 repetitions, etc.

He has some way of strictly sticking to the specified low number of repetitions. We'll see how it goes.

As for the rest of what you wrote, I'll add, as a curiosity, that I once saw a Russian program in which the author claimed that 3 reps were enough to stimulate hypertrophy. Interesting theory.

 

[luki7788]

He shares all his workouts on IG, so you just have to watch it to see what he's talking about. Does no one here actually have IG?

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[kadafi2]

He shares all his workouts on IG, so you just have to watch it to see what he's talking about. Does no one here actually have IG?

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

I don't have a Ferrari, a Rolex, a house with a pool, and I can't make coffee with a heart in it, so I wouldn't have anything to post on Instagram lol. Seriously, I do have an account set up for future promotional purposes, but I'm not using it to follow anyone right now.

 

[Mufasa123]

I think, it simply looks like the number of repetitions in a given set.

For example: 5x5x5 is 3 sets of 5 repetitions each.
6x4x5x7 is 4 sets, one with 6 repetitions, the other with 4 repetitions, etc.

He has some way of strictly sticking to the specified low number of repetitions. We'll see how it goes.

As for the rest of what you wrote, I'll add, as a curiosity, that I once saw a Russian program in which the author claimed that 3 reps were enough to stimulate hypertrophy. Interesting theory.

Now I see it. He has number of sets and then lists his reps in each of those sets that he does. I've actually never seen it except in a log book. Usually there's be a weight in each or all sets too if that's what he's going for. Appreciate it as I was mystified.

I expounded a bit as you seem interested and this will explain the Russian take on things as they total understood this:

On the reps, it's all about balance (total reps and weight on bar for them). Even one rep can stimulate hypertrophy...just not a lot of mechanical work so total stimulus of a single as an entire workout blows. If you think about it, you walk every day with tons of reps and it doesn't make you big/strong as there's no significant load. Look at a 100m sprinter vs a marathon runner. One is a stud the other "isn't" at least by our standards. Notice how not far out from 100m these guys start looking more and more like the marathon runner. 800m and 1500m guys are looking pretty marathony and it's no where close to being the same distance. Point being, strength/hypertrophy needs to be real close to maximum effort. You get out to a weight you can do 25+ times and you might as well be walking and doing 1000 reps (or close enough to prove a point - though sometimes a one-off shock can work like a long set of breathing squats where you suck are and take time before each of those final reps).

Understanding that, we come to total work:

Work = Force X Distance
Work = (Mass X Acceleration) X Distance

This is why partial reps don't do a whole lot directly as distance is a multiplier so it matters. Extreme range of motion reps add a tiny bit distance BUT you sacrifice a lot of load/weight. Also why weight on bar matters, and to some degree bar speed though it tends not to vary a whole lot unless someone is an extreme nutcase - this is why TUT (time under tension) doesn't actually matter. TUT tends to be correlated with mechanical workload (takes more time to do more work) otherwise a single heavy rep performed over 1 minute would be very stimulative BUT it's not. Weight used and number of reps (total distance weight being moved) matters.

Anyway, when we talk about stimulation of any single rep just look at the equation. The heavier the load, the more work, and more stimulative each rep is. Your 1RM is the most stimulative rep you can do. Just can't do a lot of them so total work is forced low at that load. Training real heavy for volume (say squatting 30 reps at 85% 1RM in a session), you can't train that frequently so that's another impediment and factor as total work, not just in one session, but over a period matters (it's one of the reasons why we lift consistently and not 3x a year).

Basically you need a weight that's heavy enough to be stimulative and a number of reps with it that is also stimulative. Think about common rep schemes 2x15, 3x10, 3x8, 5x5, 6x3. Total reps are 30, 30, 24, 25, 18. Only the extreme ends are far apart and the trend is less total reps as load increases (assuming an appropriate load at each weight and not doing 10x3, but that works, it just doesn't illustrate the relationship that total reps TEND to decrease as load increases when most lay out training programs).

 

[kadafi2]

@Mufasa123
Yes, you're right, I love EVERYTHING about training, and I enjoy reading about it the most, out of all aspects of bodybuilding. We've actually exchanged private messages about it before, but they were quite difficult topics even for someone fluent in English, and I translate most of them using a translator.

Thank you for writing so much. However, what really caught my attention was what you wrote about time under tension. Damn, Nick Walker has grown significantly lately (it's ruined his physique, in my opinion, but that's a separate topic) by doing very slow, controlled reps with light weights. Do you have any ideas why that happened?

 

[Flex500]

@Mufasa123
Yes, you're right, I love EVERYTHING about training, and I enjoy reading about it the most, out of all aspects of bodybuilding. We've actually exchanged private messages about it before, but they were quite difficult topics even for someone fluent in English, and I translate most of them using a translator.

Thank you for writing so much. However, what really caught my attention was what you wrote about time under tension. Damn, Nick Walker has grown significantly lately (it's ruined his physique, in my opinion, but that's a separate topic) by doing very slow, controlled reps with light weights. Do you have any ideas why that happened?

@Mufasa123 , first off, great freaking posts. There’s a lot I agree with and I appreciate the way you wrote all that.

I don’t want to speak for you, so I’m curious how you think about this, but here’s how I interpret the TUT part. I don’t think the point is that time under tension doesn’t matter at all. Obviously if there’s no tension for any time, nothing happens. I think it’s more a reaction to how TUT became the main thing and people were doing super slow reps with loads so light that the actual tension was pretty low. Long sets, big burn late, but not a lot of real mechanical tension, kind of like the endurance examples you mentioned earlier.

When you look at someone like Nick, or even Jordan at times, the reps are slower and very deliberate, but the difference is the tension. The loads are still heavy, transitions are controlled/slower, explosiveness is taken out, and I think a big part of that is injury prevention. But the focus isn’t just being under tension for time’s sake. It’s keeping tension very high the entire rep.

So for me it’s less about whether TUT matters and more about time VERSUS tension. Slow reps with low tension are very different from controlled reps under heavy load and high mechanical tension. Curious on mufasa resposne though. Good discussion.

 

[M@NU]

not sure what you both are debating on.
you wont grow with a specific TUT, tension profile or whatever.
You grow if you progress over time. it doesnt matter if you add reps, weight, better technique, slower movement etc. Progress in one of the existing variables and you will grow.
and no - you wont progress every single session. But there has to be a trend. if you dont progress on an excersise anymore due to stability, pain or whatever switch to the next one and start progress again

 

[Mufasa123]

@Mufasa123
Yes, you're right, I love EVERYTHING about training, and I enjoy reading about it the most, out of all aspects of bodybuilding. We've actually exchanged private messages about it before, but they were quite difficult topics even for someone fluent in English, and I translate most of them using a translator.

Thank you for writing so much. However, what really caught my attention was what you wrote about time under tension. Damn, Nick Walker has grown significantly lately (it's ruined his physique, in my opinion, but that's a separate topic) by doing very slow, controlled reps with light weights. Do you have any ideas why that happened?

@Mufasa123 , first off, great freaking posts. There’s a lot I agree with and I appreciate the way you wrote all that.

I don’t want to speak for you, so I’m curious how you think about this, but here’s how I interpret the TUT part. I don’t think the point is that time under tension doesn’t matter at all. Obviously if there’s no tension for any time, nothing happens. I think it’s more a reaction to how TUT became the main thing and people were doing super slow reps with loads so light that the actual tension was pretty low. Long sets, big burn late, but not a lot of real mechanical tension, kind of like the endurance examples you mentioned earlier.

When you look at someone like Nick, or even Jordan at times, the reps are slower and very deliberate, but the difference is the tension. The loads are still heavy, transitions are controlled/slower, explosiveness is taken out, and I think a big part of that is injury prevention. But the focus isn’t just being under tension for time’s sake. It’s keeping tension very high the entire rep.

So for me it’s less about whether TUT matters and more about time VERSUS tension. Slow reps with low tension are very different from controlled reps under heavy load and high mechanical tension. Curious on mufasa resposne though. Good discussion.

So first - obviously I love training and theory but let me say the reason that I occasionally post this stuff is mostly intellectual curiosity of others but also to show that the "science" reveals why the common stuff we see is effective and used. I'd note that you don't see me pitching some uber science revolutionary training that's hugely different and making all kinds of promises. That's sales bullshit and nearly always leads to disappointing results or people chasing their tails looking for the uber program only to realize that they remain small and weak years down the road. Good compound exercises (allows for loading the system/body through a fundamental and natural range of motion) with decent loads (heavy enough) and decent volume (enough work/total reps with said load) done semi frequently with the goal of progression (more volume/load stimulus to drive adaptation)...that's the ticket. What you do in the kitchen determines gain/cut and body composition. If it seems simple, it is.

So on TUT - it's correlated to other variables which are the real drivers. When it correlates you are actually using the real drivers and TUT just seems to work. If we get extreme and break TUT apart from the real drivers...TUT fails reliably. If we get extreme with the real drivers and dislodge TUT, they succeed reliably where TUT fails. So when TUT works, it's not TUT that's working, you are merely aligning TUT with the other drivers. Attributing it to TUT is a fallacy, it's the real drivers working. Kind of the way science works. Real drivers and programing factors are robust under all conditions - this is required for robust scientific theory. TUT fails under certain conditions particularly when you break correlation with the real drivers - it fails as scientific theory.


Given workload (adding all reps performed) is the stimulus:

WORK = (Mass X Acceleration) X Distance

High TUT and Low MASS (weight on bar) - insufficient stimulus as there's not enough weight on the bar. Also low acceleration of said mass as you are maximizing time so movement is slow. So light weight, slow movement. Just not enough mechanical work and fails on Force side even if we assume total reps are the same.

High TUT with Low DISTANCE (number of reps) - insufficient stimulus as you are doing very few reps albeit slow ones so we maximize TUT/time but not enough reps or distance moved. Mechanical work is lessened while TUT is maximized, TUT fails. Also, a static hold is tension but zero distance so just a single static hold for time also maximizes TUT but blows the fuck up on Work via zero distance. It's why partials fail regardless of TUT and why static holds fail regardless of TUT.

Low TUT but High MASS and SAME DISTANCE or number of reps done quickly or with High ACCELERATION - TUT would indicate this sucks and yet distance is high, mass is high, and acceleration is high SO....workload is high and it's effective. Think about speed work or band/chains for repeated effort volume originating at Westside.


We can go on and on but mechanical work is robust and TUT fails reliably when you break certain components. Now generally it SEEMS to work because we train at a decent load, and more TUT is more reps or you still try to get a standard amount of reps but lower the weight just a bit. So under reasonable workload conditions TUT will SEEM to work but it's not robust as a singular factor and will fail reliably once I disentangle it from Work which is the real driver.

Now I'm not saying that partials are never worthwhile. I'm not saying static holds are never worthwhile. I'm also not saying that very slow controlled reps at lower weights are never worthwhile either. Same with differing rep cadences. What I'm saying is that as a general paradigm for training exclusively over a long period of time, they dependably suck even though TUT may be high and indicate the opposite. However, workload matters and works under all conditions. TUT only seems to work when it's correlated directly with good workload, when I break it apart from workload TUT fails dependably. Workload is a valid robust theory. TUT is not. Fuck TUT and if you want to use rep cadences or bar speed/acceleration variation go ahead. It's another tool but not the primary driver which is what I'm discussing and isolating here.

 

[Josefein421]

Wait.. You opened this thread to applaude his "new way of training" without knowing how it looked like. And now you realized the way he trains is even worst than before... congrats

What are you talking about? I made the thread. And who is applauding anything? Congrats to you too though

 

[Massive G]

Here is JP’s workout from a couple days ago as an example. He bounces around a lot with his splits but currently doing upper / quads / hamstrings + glutes / rest then repeat

View attachment 245134

25 sets for back with forklift amount of plates. Would have a torn lat and bicep if I did that even in my prime. Dude is a superfreak.

 

[traininsane11]

So first - obviously I love training and theory but let me say the reason that I occasionally post this stuff is mostly intellectual curiosity of others but also to show that the "science" reveals why the common stuff we see is effective and used. I'd note that you don't see me pitching some uber science revolutionary training that's hugely different and making all kinds of promises. That's sales bullshit and nearly always leads to disappointing results or people chasing their tails looking for the uber program only to realize that they remain small and weak years down the road. Good compound exercises (allows for loading the system/body through a fundamental and natural range of motion) with decent loads (heavy enough) and decent volume (enough work/total reps with said load) done semi frequently with the goal of progression (more volume/load stimulus to drive adaptation)...that's the ticket. What you do in the kitchen determines gain/cut and body composition. If it seems simple, it is.

So on TUT - it's correlated to other variables which are the real drivers. When it correlates you are actually using the real drivers and TUT just seems to work. If we get extreme and break TUT apart from the real drivers...TUT fails reliably. If we get extreme with the real drivers and dislodge TUT, they succeed reliably where TUT fails. So when TUT works, it's not TUT that's working, you are merely aligning TUT with the other drivers. Attributing it to TUT is a fallacy, it's the real drivers working. Kind of the way science works. Real drivers and programing factors are robust under all conditions - this is required for robust scientific theory. TUT fails under certain conditions particularly when you break correlation with the real drivers - it fails as scientific theory.


Given workload (adding all reps performed) is the stimulus:

WORK = (Mass X Acceleration) X Distance

High TUT and Low MASS (weight on bar) - insufficient stimulus as there's not enough weight on the bar. Also low acceleration of said mass as you are maximizing time so movement is slow. So light weight, slow movement. Just not enough mechanical work and fails on Force side even if we assume total reps are the same.

High TUT with Low DISTANCE (number of reps) - insufficient stimulus as you are doing very few reps albeit slow ones so we maximize TUT/time but not enough reps or distance moved. Mechanical work is lessened while TUT is maximized, TUT fails. Also, a static hold is tension but zero distance so just a single static hold for time also maximizes TUT but blows the fuck up on Work via zero distance. It's why partials fail regardless of TUT and why static holds fail regardless of TUT.

Low TUT but High MASS and SAME DISTANCE or number of reps done quickly or with High ACCELERATION - TUT would indicate this sucks and yet distance is high, mass is high, and acceleration is high SO....workload is high and it's effective. Think about speed work or band/chains for repeated effort volume originating at Westside.


We can go on and on but mechanical work is robust and TUT fails reliably when you break certain components. Now generally it SEEMS to work because we train at a decent load, and more TUT is more reps or you still try to get a standard amount of reps but lower the weight just a bit. So under reasonable workload conditions TUT will SEEM to work but it's not robust as a singular factor and will fail reliably once I disentangle it from Work which is the real driver.

Now I'm not saying that partials are never worthwhile. I'm not saying static holds are never worthwhile. I'm also not saying that very slow controlled reps at lower weights are never worthwhile either. Same with differing rep cadences. What I'm saying is that as a general paradigm for training exclusively over a long period of time, they dependably suck even though TUT may be high and indicate the opposite. However, workload matters and works under all conditions. TUT only seems to work when it's correlated directly with good workload, when I break it apart from workload TUT fails dependably. Workload is a valid robust theory. TUT is not. Fuck TUT and if you want to use rep cadences or bar speed/acceleration variation go ahead. It's another tool but not the primary driver which is what I'm discussing and isolating here.

My man I enjoy training talk as much as the next but for this amount of in depth I hope you’re either 300lbs peeled or have clients turning pro left right and centre there’s a point wayyyyyy before this level of detail where paralysis by analysis takes over and it just becomes majoring in the minors

I say this with total respect from a fellow (working hard to eradicate it) over thinker

There’s also multiple other repeat offenders this applies to less think more lift bro’s

 

[luki7788]

So first - obviously I love training and theory but let me say the reason that I occasionally post this stuff is mostly intellectual curiosity of others but also to show that the "science" reveals why the common stuff we see is effective and used. I'd note that you don't see me pitching some uber science revolutionary training that's hugely different and making all kinds of promises. That's sales bullshit and nearly always leads to disappointing results or people chasing their tails looking for the uber program only to realize that they remain small and weak years down the road. Good compound exercises (allows for loading the system/body through a fundamental and natural range of motion) with decent loads (heavy enough) and decent volume (enough work/total reps with said load) done semi frequently with the goal of progression (more volume/load stimulus to drive adaptation)...that's the ticket. What you do in the kitchen determines gain/cut and body composition. If it seems simple, it is.

So on TUT - it's correlated to other variables which are the real drivers. When it correlates you are actually using the real drivers and TUT just seems to work. If we get extreme and break TUT apart from the real drivers...TUT fails reliably. If we get extreme with the real drivers and dislodge TUT, they succeed reliably where TUT fails. So when TUT works, it's not TUT that's working, you are merely aligning TUT with the other drivers. Attributing it to TUT is a fallacy, it's the real drivers working. Kind of the way science works. Real drivers and programing factors are robust under all conditions - this is required for robust scientific theory. TUT fails under certain conditions particularly when you break correlation with the real drivers - it fails as scientific theory.


Given workload (adding all reps performed) is the stimulus:

WORK = (Mass X Acceleration) X Distance

High TUT and Low MASS (weight on bar) - insufficient stimulus as there's not enough weight on the bar. Also low acceleration of said mass as you are maximizing time so movement is slow. So light weight, slow movement. Just not enough mechanical work and fails on Force side even if we assume total reps are the same.

High TUT with Low DISTANCE (number of reps) - insufficient stimulus as you are doing very few reps albeit slow ones so we maximize TUT/time but not enough reps or distance moved. Mechanical work is lessened while TUT is maximized, TUT fails. Also, a static hold is tension but zero distance so just a single static hold for time also maximizes TUT but blows the fuck up on Work via zero distance. It's why partials fail regardless of TUT and why static holds fail regardless of TUT.

Low TUT but High MASS and SAME DISTANCE or number of reps done quickly or with High ACCELERATION - TUT would indicate this sucks and yet distance is high, mass is high, and acceleration is high SO....workload is high and it's effective. Think about speed work or band/chains for repeated effort volume originating at Westside.


We can go on and on but mechanical work is robust and TUT fails reliably when you break certain components. Now generally it SEEMS to work because we train at a decent load, and more TUT is more reps or you still try to get a standard amount of reps but lower the weight just a bit. So under reasonable workload conditions TUT will SEEM to work but it's not robust as a singular factor and will fail reliably once I disentangle it from Work which is the real driver.

Now I'm not saying that partials are never worthwhile. I'm not saying static holds are never worthwhile. I'm also not saying that very slow controlled reps at lower weights are never worthwhile either. Same with differing rep cadences. What I'm saying is that as a general paradigm for training exclusively over a long period of time, they dependably suck even though TUT may be high and indicate the opposite. However, workload matters and works under all conditions. TUT only seems to work when it's correlated directly with good workload, when I break it apart from workload TUT fails dependably. Workload is a valid robust theory. TUT is not. Fuck TUT and if you want to use rep cadences or bar speed/acceleration variation go ahead. It's another tool but not the primary driver which is what I'm discussing and isolating here.

I agree with you, but for me it is too much overthinking. There is no need to make it so complicated. We all know how to train to grow. It was figured out long time ago.

Do around 10–20 hard working sets per week for each muscle group. Train that muscle 1 time or 2 times per week, or even more. This is mostly individual. It also depends on what split you like and what you can recover from.
Do your sets hard, usually in the 8–15 reps range, close to failure. And you will grow.

That’s it. No philosophy.

 

[Mufasa123]

Error

 

[Mufasa123]

I agree with you, but for me it is too much overthinking. There is no need to make it so complicated. We all know how to train to grow. It was figured out long time ago.

Do around 10–20 hard working sets per week for each muscle group. Train that muscle 1 time or 2 times per week, or even more. This is mostly individual. It also depends on what split you like and what you can recover from.
Do your sets hard, usually in the 8–15 reps range, close to failure. And you will grow.

That’s it. No philosophy.

I agree with you, but for me it is too much overthinking. There is no need to make it so complicated. We all know how to train to grow. It was figured out long time ago.

Do around 10–20 hard working sets per week for each muscle group. Train that muscle 1 time or 2 times per week, or even more. This is mostly individual. It also depends on what split you like and what you can recover from.
Do your sets hard, usually in the 8–15 reps range, close to failure. And you will grow.

That’s it. No philosophy.

First paragraph. Kiss principle. Detail is for others who wanted an answer to understand. None of this bogs me down. I lift. I feel good. That's it. Exactly as stated in first paragraph and the reason I wrote it so others don't get bogged down.

 

[Mufasa123]

My man I enjoy training talk as much as the next but for this amount of in depth I hope you’re either 300lbs peeled or have clients turning pro left right and centre there’s a point wayyyyyy before this level of detail where paralysis by analysis takes over and it just becomes majoring in the minors

I say this with total respect from a fellow (working hard to eradicate it) over thinker

There’s also multiple other repeat offenders this applies to less think more lift bro’s

Screwed up the multi quote. Same answer in previous post. Reread first paragraph you quoted.


Copied below

So first - obviously I love training and theory but let me say the reason that I occasionally post this stuff is mostly intellectual curiosity of others but also to show that the "science" reveals why the common stuff we see is effective and used. I'd note that you don't see me pitching some uber science revolutionary training that's hugely different and making all kinds of promises. That's sales bullshit and nearly always leads to disappointing results or people chasing their tails looking for the uber program only to realize that they remain small and weak years down the road. Good compound exercises (allows for loading the system/body through a fundamental and natural range of motion) with decent loads (heavy enough) and decent volume (enough work/total reps with said load) done semi frequently with the goal of progression (more volume/load stimulus to drive adaptation)...that's the ticket. What you do in the kitchen determines gain/cut and body composition. If it seems simple, it is.

 

[madg]

I agree with you, but for me it is too much overthinking. There is no need to make it so complicated. We all know how to train to grow. It was figured out long time ago.

Do around 10–20 hard working sets per week for each muscle group. Train that muscle 1 time or 2 times per week, or even more. This is mostly individual. It also depends on what split you like and what you can recover from.
Do your sets hard, usually in the 8–15 reps range, close to failure. And you will grow.

That’s it. No philosophy.

Amen

 

[Flocci]

@Mufasa123 , first off, great freaking posts. There’s a lot I agree with and I appreciate the way you wrote all that.

I don’t want to speak for you, so I’m curious how you think about this, but here’s how I interpret the TUT part. I don’t think the point is that time under tension doesn’t matter at all. Obviously if there’s no tension for any time, nothing happens. I think it’s more a reaction to how TUT became the main thing and people were doing super slow reps with loads so light that the actual tension was pretty low. Long sets, big burn late, but not a lot of real mechanical tension, kind of like the endurance examples you mentioned earlier.

When you look at someone like Nick, or even Jordan at times, the reps are slower and very deliberate, but the difference is the tension. The loads are still heavy, transitions are controlled/slower, explosiveness is taken out, and I think a big part of that is injury prevention. But the focus isn’t just being under tension for time’s sake. It’s keeping tension very high the entire rep.

So for me it’s less about whether TUT matters and more about time VERSUS tension. Slow reps with low tension are very different from controlled reps under heavy load and high mechanical tension. Curious on mufasa resposne though. Good discussion.

isnt it about the mechanical tension experienced by the muscle fibers?

afaik, TUT is pretty much irrelevant, what matters is a close proximity to failure and accumulating enough mechanical tensions to get a strong enough response.

If TUT was important for hypertrophy, wouldnt we see more hypertrophy from higher reps since theres more time under tension during 15-20 reps versus 5-10 reps?

 

[Cerberus777]

not sure what you both are debating on.
you wont grow with a specific TUT, tension profile or whatever.
You grow if you progress over time. it doesnt matter if you add reps, weight, better technique, slower movement etc. Progress in one of the existing variables and you will grow.
and no - you wont progress every single session. But there has to be a trend. if you dont progress on an excersise anymore due to stability, pain or whatever switch to the next one and start progress again

This. Progress on something!

 

[comedycentral]

JP pulled some straight bar deadlifts off the floor the other day. Stop everything in this thread. It’s all changed again.

 

[Samson250]

It’s in our nature. I never shy away from hard work, and going to failure is work. I just happen to love it. If I didn’t have a life I’d be in the gym all day until I dropped. Addiction? Possibly

Your already hopelessly “addicted” to the Iron BN.

I gave up my entire “life!” Sold the Car, the House and the Kid’s 3 just 3 months shy of 47 years young. I base my entire day around my workout (or rest day) and everything else just happens. Or it doesn’t I don’t really care! Haha

It’s bliss