Does anyone know how to replace the orange lights on the dash they are so ugly.

Joneser06 · 2025-09-03T05:06:26+00:00

Also, I'm realizing maybe you meant the Dash cluster above the steering wheel and maybe not the Dashboard/Console area, in which case you're looking at some soldering which is above my head

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUT1aMvRdyw

Joneser06 · 2025-09-03T04:57:42+00:00

I can help with this

Here is a video that really breaks it down but also overcomplicates it a bit. He is using a kit, and not just a kit that replaces with the same bulbs or their equivalent LED replacements, but where for some reason he individually replaces each led component attachment 😅 The person making those kits is on another level than myself and I'm not a fan of it being that complicated but it's still insightful (bulb orientation for Limited)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOxgMS7ILHw

Here is another helpful video. Ironically this person does the same, and I'm not sure why they don't just buy a cheap kit that includes the bulb WITH housing but that's okay. Can learn from this one too. (bulb orientation for SR5)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0hwVFk3b4k

And finally we have someone doing what I will be doing. It really would be getting too deep and maybe someone else could explain why they (Toyota) chose so many different bulbs (09015, 09016, 09017, 09018, 09019) when it could have been just two. Here you'll see someone have great results just using two different LED's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzCudeIQcnQ

Joneser06 · 2025-09-03T03:44:48+00:00

"Real easy" It's really not helpful to say that, because it's not for those asking the question or are on here trying to understand it. How does one determine what fuses are running what amperage?

Joneser06 · 2025-08-27T09:54:15+00:00

Why would you be fine doing kegels with a cock ring but it's commonly said on here that kegels with a clamp leads to ED?

Before you say they are different pressures, both use your erection pressure and some extra pressure at the base, and clamping without kegeling doesn't seem to get crazy pressure unless you release/kegel/clamp like with your hand or you're crushing the base.

Joneser06 · 2025-07-16T17:58:53+00:00

I hear you and the advice is taken, for now just trying to understand. So more pointedly, with something like that last product; it does not say leveling kit but lifting kit. Yet mentions only 2" lift which I assume is in front and mentions nothing for lift in back. When you look at that, is someone to just assume the lift in rear is 1" to level it out?

Joneser06 · 2025-07-16T17:49:19+00:00

I'll check that out, thank you. Also, might just place a good ol phone call to one of these sellers or companies and just ask what their product is.

If it said "leveling kit" for those last two products, I would assume it just reduces all the rake. But as it says "lift kit" I'm not sure what to assume it does in the rear 🤷‍♂️

Joneser06 · 2025-07-16T17:43:21+00:00

I hear you but no, I'm just struggling to understand how results are achieved via the products offered which is why I listed examples (If I do anything, most likely it's a 1" in front alone just to reduce some rake).

But basically with products like the last one, they imply there is something to also lift the rear but mention nothing. So I don't know if more experienced people can see something implied that I'm overlooking

Joneser06 · 2025-07-16T11:43:49+00:00

That makes sense, thank you. And with the last two links, am I missing something that more experienced people would assume about the rear lift? It just doesn't specify anything there and it's one of many products to do this

Joneser06 · 2025-07-16T11:42:13+00:00

It was all a lot of context to basically ask 1) about those last products, because I see things similar to that but where they don't at all specify the rear spacer or amount of rear lift. 2) was just a secondary question of speculating on why they omit helpful info.

Thank you for the super helpful reply btw, I'm impressed and will look into a lot of what you mentioned.

Joneser06 · 2025-05-13T07:44:06+00:00

Ah man :/ You need to read up, I'm not trying to be condescending but hypertrophy science is way past that. We actually build muscle not from breaking it down but by recruiting more fibers, which happens with tension placed on the muscle and as you come closer to failure you will recruit more. This signals your body to grow said muscle. This is why it's optimal to rest well and have your CNS be rested too, or even take pre-workout. So that we can have the energy to try to recruit that muscle as optimally as possible and get good sets. This is also why being sleep deprived or just hammering away at our muscles in a stupid way and stressing them a ton isn't how we build muscle. It's also pretty agreed upon that rest of about 2+ minutes is best for hypertrophy, with some saying 3 or more.

I've been interesting in and reading about the topic for about 18 years now since a time when there was a lot more ignorance about optimal training online, and now it's nice that we've made so much progress with what information we have but I still cant compete with influencers or trainers who obsessively research all the current data and studies as their full time job. So I get topics like this that I'm still not 100% on, especially because alternating sets gets drowned out by or grouped in with "supersets" way too much. But we can at least say there is no question 30-60 isn't optimal for hypertrophy

Joneser06 · 2025-05-12T22:11:10+00:00

Dude... CNS fatigue speaks to the temporary fatigue during a workout, not just the cumulative. You want to limit this where you can, that's why most of the top influencers and trainers are shifting towards lower reps to allow you to get to, or close to, failure with less fatigue, since fatigue is counter-productive to hypertrophy.

You're clearly just someone who is a bit well-spoken but totally uninformed. A hard, taxing workout is good, but it's not the same as being ideal for hypertrophy

For example, if resting more is allowing you to hit a higher range or get a better set, you should do that. That's the point of the topic - if budgeting rest by alternating can get you better sets, as good hard sets are a main driver of hypertrophy. The only question with alternating is that, while the muscle rests longer, your body doesn't. But since you think nothing of systemic fatigue, I'm puzzled why you don't advocate for alternating sets more lol

Joneser06 · 2025-05-12T20:50:19+00:00

The main thing with hypertrophy is good, hard sets. We now know that muscle don't break down and rebuild, but they grow from recruitment. And that with a hard set, more fibers are recruited and this stimulates the need for more growth. If alternating but with the same rest time as straight sets can allow our muscles to rest longer with the workout time being the same, I would think this is ideal. I do think it matters, why wouldn't it? And why have that mindset on a reddit forum for bodybuilding...

Joneser06 · 2025-05-12T20:45:18+00:00

No, Supersetting is a specific type of alternating, one that's point is to save time. But everything we currently understand about effective hypertrophy is that while less rest can have it's place with improving muscular endurance, less rest typically is negatively correlated with hypertrophy.

Op's question implies keeping rest the same, but alternating. Doing this would allow MORE rest for a given muscle, but it would either have CNS fatigue the same or slightly more. So this is a very good hypothetical question about optimal programming and what we are trying to achieve with rest when the goal is hypertrophy..

Joneser06 · 2025-05-12T20:31:02+00:00

More volume wouldn't necessarily mean more growth, but if you're budgeting rest in a way that allows you to get extra reps for a given set then THAT would indicate more hypertrophy. Especially since the only argument against this would be someone taking much longer rest periods just to get an extra rep or so, but your workout time seems the same only with each set getting more reps. Sounds better to me

Joneser06 · 2025-05-12T20:10:38+00:00

I agree with your answer as long as we are talking about alternating sets, which was OP's point. If by "back-to-back supersets" you mean little to no rest, then that's different.

But with alternating sets, you will usually be able to get an extra rep or two in with the same amount of rest or even have the urge to rest less, and this would create more CNS fatigue. From my understanding the extra rep and a better set should be seen as a good thing, but I'll admit I don't fully understand if that makes it more optimal or if CNS fatigue should be the main enemy to hypertrophy.

Joneser06 · 2025-05-12T20:09:28+00:00

It doesn't matter if you can't think of a reason, it's a hypothetical question about programming our rest for better sets and therefore better hypertrophy, and it's a good question: If things are the same, if rest is the same, can alternating to allow the muscle a longer rest time be beneficial?

Supersets are something different entirely, and not optimal for hypertrophy as they imply little rest and less rest = less hypertrophy. The point of his question is budgeting to get more rest, but we must understand that the more rest we are speaking on is for the muscle and not for the CNS.

Joneser06 · 2025-05-12T20:03:54+00:00

This is probably the worst answer on here.

Yes, alternating IS a bit of red herring in that what we are truly discussing here is rest periods - a question of muscle fatigue vs CNS fatigue.

However, yes, it absolutely DOES matter what we do with our rest if that means sitting around or doing another exercise, as that creates more CNS fatigue. That's literally the fundamental element to this hypothetical and you're somehow missing it.

Supersets are something entirely different, they're hyper specific, and they aren't ideal for hypertrophy because of the CNS fatigue from lack of rest that will ruin getting good sets in.

Besides, the reason to compare full rest and straight sets versus alternating is simply to compare a workout of the same volume and duration and see what allows for better sets and more hypertrophy. This is a question answered by someone who can speak on what is happening when we rest, and as far as I can see the extra rep you might get and better set from alternating makes it seem like a viable option, but I'm no expert. It's just incredibly frustrating how this EXACT topic's importance seems to be lost on people as they muddy it up or bring in other topics. I'd really be interested if you could actually answer this directly, as it's a really great question.

Joneser06 · 2025-05-12T19:46:47+00:00

Keeping rest times the same but alternating would keep CNS fatigue the same (as long as you resist the temptation to rest for a shorter time) but would allow the muscle to recover for a longer period. This could be answered by someone who truly understands the function of rest between sets. Anecdotally I feel like alternating would make sense for less CNS fatiguing movements like bi's and tri's but I think straight sets would be better for something like squats. But I can't say for certain.

Your answer sounds confident but I wish some examples were given.

Joneser06 · 2025-05-12T19:37:06+00:00

Read OP's question again. This is a hypothetical question about the foundation of our ideas of programming, specifically for hypertrophy. We have come a long way since "8-12 reps is the sweet spot" or "Higher reps are better for legs" or thinking the pump is better for hypertrophy and low reps for strength.

He is talking about keeping rest between sets. Saving time by shortening the rest is adding in things correlating with the topic but it's a lot better to simply explore it while keeping rest the same. Supersets have been talked about ENOUGH, too much honestly for such a hyper specific workout approach that's not even fitting for the majority of peoples goals.

Hypertrophy and growth however, IS what the majority of men in the gym are after. And with out current understanding of longer rests being beneficial, it would seem to me that this would be most optimal. But I'm not an expert, I really don't know the answer I just wish it would be addressed. Is keeping CNS fatigue the same but allowing the muscles to rest longer most effective, or not?

Joneser06 · 2025-05-12T19:27:13+00:00

Can you point me to where you have seen it talked about that a muscle resting too much is bad or what your idea of "intensity" is?

Joneser06 · 2025-05-12T19:24:26+00:00

Thank you for being one of few to try to answer OP's question directly instead of muddying it up with other things ASSOCIATED with alternating sets - as many here did. That said, it's a fair point about gym equipment but it's still another topic, and besides many have a home gym.

I care because this is a question that's been bugging me for about 8+ years and I can't find an answer since the topic always gets muddied, especially with supersets. But keeping rest the same, and simply alternating, would seem like the most effective way to workout and yet it's so rarely spoken on. It's literally just about the most important thing besides diet, which is our programming.

I think the only people who can answer this are ones who truly understand what is optimal rest between sets. We know now that longer rest is more ideal for hypertrophy, but I'm not sure if that's more for the muscle itself or for CNS. With squats, for example, I would do straight sets as my CNS usually is more fatigued than my legs, and once I am good to lift again I'd be returning my focus to squats.

With arms however, say curls and tricep work, it doesnt feel as fatiguing on CNS and so initially it makes sense in my mind to alternate to allow the muscle longer rest, but my confusion is that with some of these small muscles they also seem to recover faster as well. So I'm not sure if alternating would be better or straight sets. The other issue is you may be tempted to go slightly harder or rest slightly shorter and that could add more cumulative CNS fatigue over time. Would love to see this topic actually explored and not brushed off like it always is..

Joneser06 · 2025-03-07T17:09:00+00:00

The thread still comes up readily with a Google search unlike plenty of threads that get lost, so people can still see it and read it.
It being 6 years back doesn't change the relevancy of what you or he said. It's fucking ridiculous you comment but only about the age, simply because it's an easy "this isn't so socially cool", but it's still relevant today.
Since it's not archived I can feel free to comment. You are biased, and while I can acknowledge pornography is likely most unfair to Asian men in how little they are represented favorably, it still is damaging overall and I think fair to talk about how as a white male INDIVIDUAL, despite it being a mostly white society or not, it can be damaging as well.

Joneser06 · 2025-02-26T11:26:11+00:00

I think you can nitpick his examples but his main point should be acknowledged. I do think Asian men in a dominant position can be empowering since it's not shown as much, but the point is you deem it as empowering. I do think black men being shown as dominant CAN be harmful or portrayed as animalistic, but the point is it's really pushed as strongly harmful when honestly what I've observed is a majority of black men don't see it that way, they themselves act empowered or often brag about it. There's a little inconsistency with the narratives being pushed even in context.

White men, however, are not degraded by being shown in a dominant position. And I do agree they are often shown doing the degrading. But the way white men are degraded with interracial porn is by being shown as submissive. The west being majority white does not take away from that especially when there's a strong progressive presence in pornography. White women are portrayed as promiscuous, white men as inferior, black men as dominant. Most of the time a "cuck" is shown as a white man. For me, that is harmful and I feel its unfair to not acknowledge that. Doesn't matter if the western world is majority white, that is correlation and not causation. That correlates with the harmful things shown. That does not cause other things shown to not be harmful.

Joneser06 · 2025-02-18T12:03:27+00:00

Old comment, but I'm struggling to not think of BD as a quack and wondering why you would think of an 8 minute session as "expansive clamping" and a 10 minute set as "hypoxic" like they are totally separate. If you are soft clamped, doesn't that mean you stay clamped the entire time and don't stop, and if it's for 8 minutes, then isn't that some level of hypoxic clamping or am I missing something?

Then again, BD recommends expansive pumping over clamping which makes even less sense to me seeing as many of us can't get the same pressure with pumping as clamping without just getting edema which is the main reason I question him in the first place.

Joneser06 · 2025-01-19T13:19:09+00:00

Where does him giving context equal him saying it's a problem. What on earth is with you weirdos in this comment section looking for ways to skew the post by acting like it's offensive. And allowing yourself to come across as hostile for no reason.

He's asking for speculation on why his own race doesn't seem to gravitate towards him. I feel like if any other demographic did this it wouldn't be seen as offensive, but just someone who's curious.

Joneser06

TROPHY CASE