I recently watched one of Jeff Nippard's weight training videos on YouTube. In the video, he critiques bodybuilder Sam Sulek's form. Sulek has gone viral and there's little doubt that he's on PEDs. Nippard's analysis and conclusion is so relevant to cold approach that I couldn't help but write about the parallels.

Nippard points out that Sam Sulek's form is, technically, pretty poor. The tempo of each rep is usually rushed, according to Nippard. This decreases time under tension, which is usually sub-optimal for maximum muscle growth. Also, the range of motion of each movement is too limited to achieve optimum stretch and muscle contraction.

What does any of this have to do with cold approach, you may wonder. Well, the major takeaway is that, despite Sulek's imperfect form, his RESULTS are FANTASTIC. Sulek's goal is to put on as much muscle size as possible. Based on this metric for success, he's a successful, mutant freak. Regardless of whether he's taking PEDs (I'd say yes he is), you can't argue with the results.

When it comes to cold approach, you should always try to see the forest for the trees. An imperfect interaction, in which you make a few technical 'errors,' is in order of magnitude better than NO interaction. Right?

Nippard points out that Sulek's consistency and dedication carry him a really long way. And here's the kicker: Nippard points out that it's obvious to him that Sulek has A LOT OF FUN when he works out. So, the fact that Sulek's workouts aren't perfect is counteracted by his LOVE and PASSION for working out. You don't see him missing training sessions because his 'energy isn't quite optimal,' 'the gym will probably be too busy,' or 'the dog ate the homework and training must be skipped.' NO. He gets shit done! Consistently.

Sulek has found his own unique ways of enjoying his training. This might be a controversial statement, but I think this is the best way to operate. Provided that you get the results that you want. Forcing yourself to do things the exact way someone else advises isn't always the answer – certainly not at a certain level. You'll face daily internal resistance. You'll get less done, and you'll slack off and lose motivation. You'll be the guy who resigns himself to critiquing others' infields, and lambasting people for not doing everything the 'correct' way, 'by the book.'

I have huge respect for Nippard because he chose to look at the Sulek phenomena from a different perspective. It must have been highly counter-intuitive for Nippard, since he himself is a stickler for small details. I'm sure some people in the fitness industry would go so far as to say he is anal about minor details sometimes. As men, we should look at results as they occur in the real world. Based on the result, we must acknowledge whether our preconceived notions (often untested IRL by the critic) disprove anything.

As a thought experiment, lets just look at how the FUN FACTOR could in fact be the X-factor in cold approach. Having fun means that your vibe will be more likely to be good. You should reach a higher peak vibe, the more fun that you're having (common sense, I would have thought).

I remember reading a post on X where an anon guy presented a laundry list checklist of things he tries to remember to do during every interaction with a woman. The list dealt with micro details. He expressed frustration that the last woman he'd spoken to hadn't given him her number, despite his 'meticulousness' in laboriously, mechanically doing everything on the checklist. There was, however, one little thing that was missing from the list. This was pointed out in the comments by someone who wrote: the thing you forgot to do is to have fun.

I recall Erik von Markovich (Mystery Method) saying, 'there's a laughter track throughout every good interaction.' I cosign this wholeheartedly. The energy, enthusiasm and fun part of the interaction is what makes you stand out to a woman (listen to my podcast episode on energy here). It's what adds human warmth and true charisma to an interaction. It's one big demonstration of higher value in itself. It says so much about you, as a man.

On the meta level, I would go so far as to say you will never reach your true potential unless you can become really good at having fun when flirting. Note that I haven't claimed that 'good form' isn't useful or beneficial (of course it is, duh).

In cold approach, your aim should be to create a good vibe with a woman. From there, you can see if there's enough chemistry for you both to want to take things further (it's not just about you seeing her as a means to your end). Flirting is not about trying to get a perfect gymnastics score (you know, where imaginary judges all hold score cards with 10 written on them). No, no, no. No, ask yourself a simple question: did the input create the desired output? If the output was success, then whether you got a few minor details 'wrong' is utterly inconsequential.

Being a 'perfectionist' is not something you'll necessarily get rewarded for (as the laundry list guy example makes clear). If anything, in terms of cold approach, striving for 'perfection' may do more harm than good, overall. When you reach a certain level, your inner game will be so strong that you can make 'chodey mistakes' on purpose as a form of self amusement – and get away with it. Women have great social acuity. They know if you're a high value man or not. Therefore, 'sub-optimal' parody chode behavior wouldn't ruin an interaction. If anything, it may bring more fun X-factor and peak vibe. On a meta level, the woman would be thrown off balance in a way that heightens the flirtation. It takes a certain kind of man to be able to fuck with her in this way. I'm sure a lot of this will go above some armchair critics' heads...

One example of a technical 'error' that I made in an infield is that I laughed at my own joke at one point. Sure, it was a technical 'error.' Firstly, was it the end of the world? No. At least the emotions of happiness, joy and fun were communicated (remember the laughter track). Secondly, on a meta level, I laughed at a tease I delivered. It was playful, but my laughter accentuated my making fun of her. Is that such a bad thing? Not really... Ultimately, I did better than a lot of guys would have done, standing face-to-face with a blonde, Finnish beauty.

The bar for what is 'good game' is not as high as you think. It's not about being perfect. I don't claim to be perfect. I don't need to be perfect. However, I did go on a date with the woman in my infield demo... and I kissed her... Did the input create the desired output?