11Science based lifters...
A brief comedic exchange where someone responds with exaggerated offense to being asked if they're a 'science-based lifter,' treating it as an insult.
Summary
This short transcript captures what appears to be a humorous or satirical conversation about fitness culture. When asked if he's a 'science-based lifter,' Mark responds with mock outrage, treating the question as a serious insult rather than a legitimate inquiry about his training approach. He escalates his reaction dramatically, threatening consequences if such an 'accusation' is made again and claiming to take the label very seriously. The response becomes increasingly aggressive and absurd, with Mark pointing to his physical attributes (specifically his trapezius muscles) as evidence of his capability for intimidation, and ending with crude threats. The exchange appears to be either genuine anger over fitness terminology or, more likely, a parody of how some people in fitness communities react to different training philosophies.
Key Insights
- Mark treats being called a 'science-based lifter' as a serious insult worthy of threatening consequences
- Mark claims his trapezius muscle development demonstrates his physical intimidation capabilities
- Mark suggests that questioning his training methodology crosses a line that could lead to physical confrontation
- Mark implies there are different categories of lifters and being labeled as 'science-based' is particularly offensive to him
- Mark escalates from mock offense to crude threats when discussing fitness training approaches
Topics
Transcript
[0:00] Mark, are you a science-based lifter? Listen, man. I'm going to let that one slide, but if you ever make another accusation like that again, we're going to have a problem. I take that very seriously. You would say something so insulting to me. That's not cool. Don't you see how big my traps are, man? I could [ __ ] you up. You watch your [ __ ] mouth, man.
Full transcript available for MurmurCast members
Sign Up to AccessMore from Mark Builds Brands
the ad styles that actually print
The speaker discusses which ad formats perform well across markets, highlighting native statics, AI animation, and UGC as generally effective options. However, success ultimately depends on testing and understanding your specific target demographic's native content consumption patterns.
how to make ads that actually print
The speaker identifies two critical mistakes in native static ad campaigns: treating ads like content and overestimating creative importance. For native statics, copy is the primary persuasion tool, and most advertisers fail by not testing enough variations and using poor funnel architecture.
How to structure your post purchase upsell
Effective post-purchase upsell (OTO) pages require connecting the main product to complementary products by addressing customer needs strategically. Two proven frameworks are offering more of the same product at a discount, or creating an OTO 1 that solves a new problem created by the front-end product.
how to turn 1 winning ad into 30 variations
The key to scaling ad creative isn't finding one winning ad, but rather identifying the winning sales message behind it and then transmuting that message across multiple formats and variations. A single winning VSL can generate 30+ testable ad variations by extracting core variables and adapting them across different creative formats.
ABO vs CBO for creative testing, which is better?
The speaker discusses CBO (Campaign Budget Optimization) challenges in creative testing, recommending a minimum allocation of $50 per day per ad to prevent budget spreading. They explain that budget must scale proportionally with new ad sets, and suggest moving to ABO (Ad Set Budget Optimization) if managing too many ads becomes problematic.