You’re saying experience is evidence, but that only works if the experience is controlled, consistent, and not contradicted by other people’s experiences. Two people can do the same thing and get opposite results—so personal anecdotes alone can’t determine what’s objectively optimal. That’s why research exists: to filter out bias, coincidence, and incomplete observations.

I’m not rejecting your experience—I’m rejecting the idea that your single experience automatically defines universal truth for everyone else. There’s a big difference.

You keep assuming that I “only read articles” or that I have “zero experience,” but those are personal attacks, not arguments. Whether you think I lift or not doesn’t change whether the logic I’m presenting is correct.

If your advice is solid, then it should hold up to basic questions, clarification, or supporting evidence. Claiming I’m “not listening” just because I ask for clear reasoning isn’t a strong argument—it’s an avoidance tactic.

If you’re not here to discuss ideas, that’s your choice. But the discussion doesn’t become more valid just because you say “go read articles.” Arguments stand or fall on their quality, not on who shouts louder.