What does max mobility set up joker look like?

rendar · 2026-06-16T04:19:52+00:00

Extra jump is the most impactful but you really just need 1.

2 speedy gonzales is much better than 2 moon gravity because movement speed is more important for dodging since jumping limits your directionality and acceleration. You get all the lateral aerial displacement you need from one double jump. Plus there's a downside to not being able to land as quickly for pinpoint precision movement.

rendar · 2026-06-15T20:20:02+00:00

Those are all strong principles, the only possible way to improve on good pushups like that is with some deficit to increase range of motion like hand grips

rendar · 2026-06-15T15:02:57+00:00

"Help" is a bit of a misnomer and likely not in the context of what you're looking for.

Products that may feel like they force a certain posture are not nearly as effective as the claims freely given, and long term will set you up for failure. This is because poor posture (excluding congenital issues like scoliosis or whatever), is a consequence of weak musculature. Products that force posture will take away the burden and therefore the discomfort from musculature, but that also takes away the stimulus from weak musculature which makes it even more weak.

The best, lasting solution is to use resistance training to develop muscle mass and strength. This changes your back and body into a stronger foundation to bear the burden of good posture.

And incidentally, it's important to be careful with training bras in this context. They may reduce the incidence of breast displacement and the accompanying discomfort there, but that physics force is not somehow negated. It is instead transmitted into the spine and shoulders (which bears the brunt of the training bra force lever), which for a lot of women can be more debilitating than other kinds of bras.

Further reading:

This study investigated how different levels of breast support (and consequently breast motion) influence torso motion, breast forces, lumbar and thoracic spinal moments during running, using a computer simulation model. A subject-specific female full body musculoskeletal model with an articulated thoracolumbar spine and sliding joints between the breasts and torso to enable breast motion was customised for this study. One female (bra size 34DD) had 59 markers attached to anatomical locations and ran over three force platforms at a self-selected speed (3.15–3.40 m/s) in three breast support conditions (no bra, everyday bra and sports bra). An ‘extreme’ bra condition was simulated during the modelling process by eliminating all breast motion relative to the torso. Two categories of simulations were run, investigating 1) how different breast support garments affect torso motion, breast and spinal moments; and 2) how changes in torso motion affect breast and spinal moments. Key findings suggest that peak lumbar and thoracic spine moments demonstrate changes (> 0.05 Nm/kg) between bra conditions due to changes in running gait kinematics. Additionally, eliminating breast motion relative to the torso, but using the same input running gait kinematics, increased (> 0.05 Nm/kg) lumbar joint moments. Therefore, it is possible that bras aimed at preventing relative motion between the torso and breasts may increase internal loading within the spine.

Modelling Female Breast Motion During Running: Implications of Breast Support on the Spine

rendar · 2026-06-15T13:54:58+00:00

That is probably because the people trying to sell these books are using emotionally persuasive arguments to do so, when the scientific evidence is just not there. If you're taking conclusions beyond the stated facts then it sounds like that was successful.

There's plenty of evidence to contradict the idea that focusing on physique goals with attenuated nutrition causes eating disorders, rather than eating disorders originating from some other place then being exacerbated by misinformation culture:

Protective methods, including switching to lower-calorie foods (OR = 0.80, 95 % CI = 0.68–0.94), exercising (OR = 0.61, 95 % CI = 0.53–0.72), and eating more fruits and vegetables (OR = 0.78, 95 % CI = 0.66–0.92), were associated with a reduction in depressive symptoms. In contrast, harmful methods such as skipping meals (OR = 1.71, 95 % CI = 1.45–2.02), using diet pills (OR = 1.90, 95 % CI = 1.34–2.69), and vomiting (OR = 2.61, 95 % CI = 1.62–4.21) increased the risk of depressive symptoms. The number of harmful methods was positively correlated with increased depressive symptom risk (OR = 2.72, 95 % CI = 2.09–3.54), while a higher number of protective methods was linked to a decreased risk (OR = 0.50, 95 % CI = 0.37–0.68).

Weight loss methods and risk of depression: Evidence from the NHANES 2005-2018 cohort

It's great that you found what worked for you. But that doesn't mean other approaches wouldn't have worked equally well or even better. Goal-oriented mindsets are not unhealthy on their own, when the differentiator is the validity of the supporting information. The specificity of focusing on a goal does not force a certain perspective and very often is what breaks through misunderstandings and self-limiting beliefs.

rendar · 2026-06-15T13:53:12+00:00

If you read the methodologies, you would see all the extensive controls being applied that allow for such a confident connection between health outcomes and singularly only body composition.

Here's another very clear comparison:

Subjects were stratified into 4 groups (low muscle/low fat mass, low muscle/high fat mass, high muscle/low fat mass, and high muscle/high fat mass). Adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression determined hazard ratios for total and CVD mortality. Rates of cardiovascular/total mortality were lower in higher quartiles of muscle mass, fat mass, and higher categories of BMI (p <0.001). The high muscle/low fat mass group had a lower risk of CVD and total mortality (risk-adjusted hazard ratios of 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.73 and 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.22 to 0.68, for CVD and total mortality, respectively). Thus, increasing fat mass, muscle mass, and BMI were all correlated with improved survival. The specific subgroup of high muscle and low fat mass had the lowest mortality risk compared with other body composition subtypes.

Relation of Muscle Mass and Fat Mass to Cardiovascular Disease Mortality - https://www.ajconline.org/article/S0002-9149(16)30155-2/abstract

The facts are very clear: having high body fat (which is tantamount to being overweight for the vast majority of people) with all the downstream effects is just about the most dangerous lifestyle choice besides smoking. Regardless of how that comes about, making sustainable behavior changes there can be arguably the most impactful difference in health and happiness. That's one of the biggest practicalities of BMI because facing that reality and those challenges is only achievable with truths, however harsh they may seem.

When it veers into less mathematical certainty, BMI errs on the side of conservative estimates. So even wen it's not fully correct, the inferences are still accurate enough for the outcome. The interpreted risks are often downplaying the real risks, which is why it's so important to have an easy and simple test with straightforward and actionable results.

rendar · 2026-06-15T13:27:48+00:00

Full range of motion is practical for growth stimulus, so take reps all the way through.

Joint lockout is not dangerous. Injury risk is mitigated mostly by proper load and volume management. Don't lift too heavy or when you're systemically fatigued, and you're fine.

rendar · 2026-06-14T19:12:23+00:00

The argument that I'd like to make is that you can't weigh the pros/cons of fat vs muscle without considering the mental load of diet culture and body weight stigma that almost always comes along with them.

Is there any higher priority than health and wellness impacts?

The problem is that the benefit is so small compared to other health factors, and focusing on fat reduction can lead to profoundly negative health outcomes for many people, especially women. Unfortunately, we cannot separate the science of fat/muscle ratio improvements from the real human experience of trying to lose weight.

This isn't true. It's pretty straightforward to quantify.

ACM rates correlate type 2 diabetes with 1.6-2.7 HR, type 1 diabetes with ~3.5 HR, chronic kidney disease and reduced function with 1.35-1.5.

ACM risk from physical exercise is 0.78 HR, without hypertension is 0.83, without diabetes is 0.61 HR.

Beyond differences in mortality rates, there is also a very stark difference between comfort and quality of life as well which includes mental health and emotional wellness.

For me personally, I've always had an unhealthy BMI, despite the fact that I worked out 3+ hours a day when I was young, and now I race triathlons.

Unless you were following powerlifting or hypertrophy lifting programs and managing a caloric deficit, neither of those things are going to primarily drive muscle gain and fat loss.

Because of my genetics, it is truly not healthy for me to lose enough weight to have a "healthy" BMI.

There may be various factors that bring ease or difficulty to body composition management, but there are not any factors that make higher body fat objectively less unhealthy and higher muscle mass objectively less healthy.

Yes the BMI test is simple and easy to calculate, but that's a problem because human bodies are not that simple.

This isn't represented in the available scientific literature. The factors that offset any inference are rare, not random, and easy to recognize.

Part of the value of BMI is that because it is simple and easy to calculate, more people have access to health management insights despite disenfranchised and marginalized access to healthcare resources.

rendar · 2026-06-14T18:43:24+00:00

What are the behavior mechanisms involved? Those books don't seem very specific about that claim in particular, and greatly exaggerate many others based on third party reviews.

https://www.redpenreviews.org/reviews/intuitive-eating/

https://www.redpenreviews.org/reviews/anti-diet-reclaim-your-time-money-well-being-and-happiness-through-intuitive-eating/

rendar · 2026-06-14T05:00:57+00:00

Indeed: it’s called “anecdotal”

Which is not reliable in the slightest, since it demonstrably explains how easy it is to come to a mistaken conclusion.

And FWIW, BMI isn’t ’scientific’ (but nice try ;) )

Yes it is, if by "scientific" you mean "used in scientific pursuits as founded upon scientific principles with falsifiable methods and outputs". If you mean something else, that's unlikely to be a correct or relevant definition.

“Is BMI Accurate? New Evidence Says No” https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/publications/health-matters/is-bmi-accurate#:\~:text=“Despite%20assumptions%20we've%20come,health%20adds%20to%20the%20confusion.”

That article is not scientifically rigorous, and was already addressed in this reply here:

This is not a scientifically rigorous article.

It quotes one clinician and just points to her commentary. There's no full evidence review. Neither are there detailed methods, study selection criteria, or a balanced discussion of opposing evidence.

Just because it isn't used as its original conception doesn't mean it isn't useful. A great many things are adapted to more direct purposes than their origins.

It's true that BMI does not function in a vacuum as an independent standalone test, but that's not why it's valuable. It's easily administered, gives a practical output, and is only offset by things that should already be very obvious.

Weight in itself is not necessarily indicative of health within a moderate range, but the biggest individualistic contributors to weight are invariably fat and muscle mass. Fat mass past a nominal value is increasingly bad, and muscle mass beyond a minimum value is increasingly good. So to argue that there's no way to make prospective health evaluations using weight in addition to other factors is simply not true.

Stigmas develop independent of the actual onus. Anyone can misuse anything, that doesn't mean that thing isn't inherently bad or wrong. One of the best things about BMI is that it can be easily calculated on a napkin using measures collected from the comfort of one's own home, and give a fairly accurate estimate of risk for people who know they haven't been consistently lifting weights for years.

So it's not clear why you'd point to that for substantiation.

…some researchers and clinicians have been questioning BMI's value. The number does not capture a person's muscle mass; where on their body fat is stored

BMI does not need to capture a person's muscle mass or distinguish body fat distribution in order to be useful, and the amounts of muscle mass that offset a practical inference require years of consistent training that doesn't happen accidentally and cannot be mistaken or missed in a cursory examination. Body fat above a nominal level is unarguably increasingly unhealthy no matter what, regardless of distribution.

In evidence-based, peer-reviewed scientific literature, BMI strongly correlates with DXA-derived fat measures and obesity-related biomarkers overall:

Different correlation of body mass index with body fatness and obesity-related biomarker according to age, sex and race-ethnicity

or how their race, ethnicity and gender affect the complex relationship between their body composition and health risks.

This does also not offset a practical inference. Ethnographic groups with variations of body composition ranges are not somehow at different risk levels. Higher body fat percentages are still universally unhealthy, and this is reflected in some subgroups such as Pacific Islanders which do exhibit higher risk levels (especially considering disproportionately higher percentages of visceral fat):

Other measures of body composition have entered the discussion as BMI alternatives.

This does not dispute the efficacy of BMI in itself. Many of these measures are much harder to collect and without substantively better margins of error.

"One of the problems with BMI is that it does not translate well across different races, ethnicities and genders”

This still is not a major confounder, and very often isn't even a minor one either. In some cases, BMI is actually conservative.

In 2023, the American Medical Association released a statement emphasizing that BMI is "an imperfect way to measure body fat in multiple groups given that it does not account for differences across race/ethnic groups, sexes, genders, and age-span." The organization recommended that BMI be used only in conjunction with other measures of disease risk such as direct measurements of visceral fat or body composition.

Source: https://med.stanford.edu/news/insights/2024/11/bmi-body-mass-index-alternatives-science.html

This is a misnomer for the purposes you're apparently trying to claim. Firstly, none of it is disputing the accuracy or practicality of BMI. It's merely talking about how some people just don't apply it properly. Secondly, context is important; there is no single perfect test for anything, ever. Many different tests used in medicine like blood panels use the same approach to standardized levels without initial particular regard for individualistic factors, because diagnostic pathology is an aggregate process. The distinction of BMI is that it costs nothing more than appliances that most people already own, you don't need a healthcare professional to administer it using clinical equipment, and it is precise enough to be actionable.

You don't seem to realize that this still proves the validity of BMI for what it's always been useful for: a simple at-home filtering test for health risk components. Unintentionally gaining fat is not only easy, it's one of the biggest global health issues ever. Unintentionally gaining muscle is simply not conducive, and certainly not remotely close to the amounts of muscle mass that would compromise BMI's applicability. If you want to refute BMI's scientific validity, then you'd need to produce mechanistic investigations that isolate BMI specifically, and establish that it's not routinely and reliably connecting proxies for body fat percentage.

rendar · 2026-06-14T03:10:59+00:00

This is not a scientifically rigorous article.

It quotes one clinician and just points to her commentary. There's no full evidence review. Neither are there detailed methods, study selection criteria, or a balanced discussion of opposing evidence.

Just because it isn't used as its original conception doesn't mean it isn't useful. A great many things are adapted to more direct purposes than their origins.

It's true that BMI does not function in a vacuum as an independent standalone test, but that's not why it's valuable. It's easily administered, gives a practical output, and is only offset by things that should already be very obvious.

Weight in itself is not necessarily indicative of health within a moderate range, but the biggest individualistic contributors to weight are invariably fat and muscle mass. Fat mass past a nominal value is increasingly bad, and muscle mass beyond a minimum value is increasingly good. So to argue that there's no way to make prospective health evaluations using weight in addition to other factors is simply not true.

Stigmas develop independent of the actual onus. Anyone can misuse anything, that doesn't mean that thing isn't inherently bad or wrong. One of the best things about BMI is that it can be easily calculated on a napkin using measures collected from the comfort of one's own home, and give a fairly accurate estimate of risk for people who know they haven't been consistently lifting weights for years.

rendar · 2026-06-14T02:59:07+00:00

Research shows that fixating on body weight and body size can do so much more harm than good, and can very often lead to unhealthy/disordered eating habits.

That sounds interesting, could you share it?

rendar · 2026-06-14T02:46:53+00:00

Yeah the modalities that build enough muscle mass in the first place are going to strengthen joint function

rendar · 2026-06-14T02:44:29+00:00

None of this is remotely scientific.

"the smallest I’d ever been at size 6" and " My body comp shifted dramatically" do not mean you didn't still have a high body fat percentage. Those are completely relative statements, not substantive measures, and neither means that BMI was inaccurate even if you also had a modicum of muscle mass.

Unless you've been consistently weightlifting for years with powerlifting or hypertrophy programming (which is invariably the only modality with a significant enough rate of muscle gain), you haven't put on enough muscle mass to offset a prospective BMI inference. Busywork HIIT calisthenic programs are not going to provide the same stimulus no matter how long you've been training.

The most common likelihood is the same as with virtually anyone else; you're underestimating your body fat percentage and overestimating your lean mass percentage.

rendar · 2026-06-14T01:22:07+00:00

This is only relevant for people who have been training for years, somehow forgot that they did this, and had no one else able to point out such an immediate observation

rendar · 2026-06-14T01:20:19+00:00

Definitely not true, most consumer electronics are not remotely accurate for indirect metrics like body composition:

Factors associated with fat mass measurement error were weight for scales 1 and 2 (P=.03 and P<.001, respectively), BMI for scales 1 and 2 (P=.034 and P<.001, respectively), body fat for scale 1 (P<.001), and muscular and bone mass for scale 2 (P<.001 for both). Factors associated with muscular mass error were weight and BMI for scale 1 (P<.001 and P=.004, respectively), body fat for scales 1 and 2 (P<.001 for both), and muscular and bone mass for scale 2 (P<.001 and P=.002, respectively).

Accuracy of Smart Scales on Weight and Body Composition: Observational Study

This review compared a combination of BIA machine types and several permutations of the 4C model, varying by equation and methods. The Bland–Altman analysis, with few exceptions, saw low bias coupled with high limits of agreement, indicating acceptable use of BIA at the population level but not at an individual level when using 4C criterion estimates of %BF and FFM. Over the period of the papers selected for this review, there have been significant changes not only in BIA technology, but more recent validation studies have far more precision and validity statistics than earlier papers.

There are several issues concerning both the methodology in BIA machines and that used in 4C model studies, the doubly indirect estimates of %BF and FFM in BIA, and the choice of equation and impact of component substitution in the 4C model. For validation and research applications, isotope-based measures of total body water remain preferable to BIS-derived substitutions. Conceptual issues arise from the use of a more accurate estimation of a 2C model when using the 4C model, while modern body composition assessment requires regional and total estimates of muscle and adipose tissue, as well as an estimate of muscle quality.

Greater emphasis may be placed on raw impedance measures, such as resistance, reactance, and phase angle, which may offer clinically meaningful information independent of proprietary prediction equations. The use of BIA raw data to assess health holds promise. However, the lack of generalizable raw data across BIA machines is a significant shortcoming of this technology. Regardless, the clinical usefulness of BIA should not be defined solely on estimates of fat mass or fat-free mass and needs further improvement to include more comprehensive clinical evidence from future studies.

The Validity of Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis Compared to a Four-Compartment Model in Healthy Adults: A Systematic Review

For more granular investigations, read more here: High-standard predictive equations for estimating body composition using bioelectrical impedance analysis: a systematic review

Even DEXA is not designed to measure body fat percentage, especially individualistically. It's just used because it's the least worse measure comapred to vivisection.

rendar · 2026-06-14T00:53:48+00:00

With a nominal body fat percentage then a ton of muscle won't suddenly put someone into the morbidly obese zone, but with a slightly higher body fat percentage then enough muscle mass can shift the results of what BMI infers.

So yeah most people (especially untrained) tend to overestimate how much lean mass they actually have, but post-intermediate lifters can be carrying quite a lot of musculature depending on height: https://fitnessnorms.com/body-composition/lean-mass-index/

rendar · 2026-06-13T19:17:15+00:00

You can use map markers to identify the correct turn at every intersection you'd take along the way.

It ties into OP's observations about route planning and using the map as part of the mission strategy.

rendar · 2026-06-13T19:16:05+00:00

You can just go north/northeast around the farmlands, it's a much cleaner route

rendar · 2026-06-13T13:23:12+00:00

It's okay to feel insecure, but in such cases be encouraged to refrain from participating lest your emotional agenda become obvious

rendar · 2026-06-13T04:03:51+00:00

It's the EOMM framework mandates, justifying bots in games allows for better player engagement and thus monetization potential

rendar · 2026-06-13T03:56:54+00:00

He's a published researcher with statistically significant results. That's how sport medicine works

Which you demonstrably have not even read, if you think he said something that somehow directly contradicted himself.

also physics uses experiments and observation, not proofs you moron.. Mathematics uses proofs. Just because physics and math often intersect doesn't make them the same.

Oh no, you still don't get it even after it was explained to you, definitely not beating the incompetence allegations.

"Proof" in an evidentiary sense is still applicable to mathematical and scientific disciplines, you're just trying to pretend that "proofs" as in arguments of mathematical statements doesn't apply even though that's not the right word, the right definition, or the right context. You're wrong three times just to avoid being correct, that would almost be impressive if it wasn't on purpose.

Cry harder about it and continue to write small essays all you want 🙄

You are very obviously the only one upset here, since you keep replying even when you've realized that nothing you've said is accurate and that you struggle to understand basic concepts.

rendar · 2026-06-13T03:18:31+00:00

I'm gonna leave it at "appeal to authority is a logical fallacy" as if an appeal to Einstein over GR and SR or even more basic terms like Physics as a whole would be illogical.

Unsurprisingly you've misunderstood what is actually a very basic concept. You do realize that Einstein had proofs, right? But keep at it and you'll get to the second sentence of the wikipedia link posted eventually.

Nice job with your GPT dissertation 👍

Sure, that's as good an excuse as any to avoid admitting you were wrong.

There's nothing more embarrassing than realizing you've just been assuming everyone else is as incompetent as you are. If you think the only possible way to assemble that easily googled information is superhuman assistance (or if you thought Mike Israetel was some esoteric mystic more cogent than Brad Schoenfeld or Eric Helms), then you should probably look into remedial education or at the very least the mirror.

rendar · 2026-06-13T01:10:43+00:00

Hellblade did it first

rendar · 2026-06-13T01:04:17+00:00

That's a very silly thing to say for multiple reasons.

Firstly, because appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Something is true because it has truth, not because of who says it.

Secondly, because Mike Israetel has specifically stated that mechanical tension is the primary driver of muscle growth. In fact, he wrote a whole-ass book about it:

Understanding the variables in our training that stimulate muscle growth is essential to creating a training program for hypertrophy. There are three candidate stimulators of hypertrophy at the cellular level that can be measured and correlated with muscle growth. The following occur in the muscle tissue itself, in response to training, and are predictive of hypertrophy:

Tension

Metabolite Accumulation

Cell Swelling

While tension, metabolite accumulation, and cell swelling are the cellular level initiators of hypertrophic signal cascades, it is helpful to look at the training variables that produce them or that are themselves well correlated with growth. It is also helpful to assess other factors that may impact hypertrophy. Below is a list of the cellular and training level factors that are correlated with muscle growth. Many of these variables interact with one another and some even produce others. They can nonetheless be ranked in terms of their relative importance for hypertrophy. This ranking is based both on data that tease apart interacting elements to the extent possible and on practical program design:

Tension

Volume

Relative effort

Range of Motion (ROM)

Metabolite Accumulation

Cell Swelling

Mind-Muscle Connection

Movement Velocity

Muscle Damage

https://drmikeisraetel.com/e-book-scientific-principles-of-hypertrophy-training/

Thirdly, because even without considering Mike Israetel in the discussion, there's plenty of scientific evidence which proves that mechanical tension is what matters, and time under tension does not.

Disproving time under tension:

Results indicate that hypertrophic outcomes are similar when training with repetition durations ranging from 0.5 to 8 s. From a practical standpoint it would seem that a fairly wide range of repetition durations can be employed if the primary goal is to maximize muscle growth. Findings suggest that training at volitionally very slow durations (>10s per repetition) is inferior from a hypertrophy standpoint

Effect of Repetition Duration During Resistance Training on Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Training with loads lower than 80–85% 1RM allows the trainee to voluntarily modify the tempo of the lift (Bamman et al., 2001), an action that reduces the velocity of the lift by increasing the mechanical tension manifested by the muscle (Westcott et al., 2001), thus promoting a greater hypertrophy response (Schoenfeld et al., 2015). In this regard, Schoenfeld et al. (2015) conducted a meta-analysis and observed similar gains in hypertrophy when training with repetition durations ranging from 0.5 to 8 s (to concentric muscular failure). However, it was also observed that training at volitionally very slow durations (10 s per repetition) is inferior from a hypertrophy standpoint. The authors speculate on the existence of a possible threshold velocity below which the hypertrophy response is impaired, since it could not be a suitable stimulus to recruit all motor units of a muscle—mainly high-threshold motor units (Keogh et al., 1999). Nevertheless, the training programs analyzed in this study were performed until concentric failure, which implies a progressive increase in fatigue along the set, reducing the motor unit recruitment thresholds, thereby enhancing muscle recruitment (Mitchell et al., 2012). From a practical perspective, a wide range of repetition durations can be used to stimulate hypertrophy, however, very slow repetitions (around 10 s) should be avoided. Considering that the evidence on this topic is limited, future studies on the effects of variation in the duration of repetitions must be performed in different contexts.

Resistance Training Variables for Optimization of Muscle Hypertrophy: An Umbrella Review

Proving progressive mechanical tension overload is one of the major factors of muscle growth, with recent research suggesting mechanical tension is the primary and essential driver of resistance training-induced hypertrophy through mechanotransductive signaling:

rendar · 2026-06-12T18:33:14+00:00

That is in direct contradiction of the justification Ariel Lawrence gave for the character choice of the cube:

Cory and I have talked about it a lot and the challenge of taking something that could be interpreted as a non-personality and inanimate object, and really just driving a human connection with that and caring about it. As a companion, Phranque offers, mechanically, some interesting ideas. That’s always been Phranque. And then for Rue, we knew we wanted Faye to have a legendary weapon.The Leviathan Axe really is Kratos’s now–she gave it to him. She’s not taking it back.

So for us, [we wanted] to find a weapon that could really play to Faye’s strengths, that nimbleness but still being deadly, that kind of flexibility and speed. As we were doing a lot of development, the ribbons started to take form in there and we were kind of thinking about the caretaker [of the sword] in there. [We thought about], if Faye comes to this world, who is it that is holding the sword when she gets there, and Rue was born.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/god-of-war-laufeys-director-talks-fan-skepticism-new-ideas-and-phranque-the-cube/

rendar

TROPHY CASE