16 ms·

Here is a fact: If you do not have a proper hormonal background, you will not grow. I do not care what you eat, what you do to train, etc. Take a 6 year old gir

by yakster 10y ago

Here is a fact: If you do not have a proper hormonal background, you will not grow. I do not care what you eat, what you do to train, etc. Take a 6 year old girl, give her best workout routine, best nutrition, etc. And take a 16 year old man-youth. I guarantee you that he will grow muscle even if he eats mulch all day. Why? Hormonal background. > Actually, testosterone in males is regulated by the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. Mood can affect it, but not by very much. What is mood?

jacques_chester 10y ago
I can repurpose your argument to point out that it is unnecessarily reductive. Two subjects, one eats grass, one eats meat. Who grows more? Two subjects, one trains, one doesn't train. Who grows more? Two subjects, one is hormonally-responsive, one isn't. Who grows more? Two subjects, one is 8, one is 88. Who grows more? Two subjects, one starts with very many myofibrils, one doesn't. Who grows more? Two subjects, one is tall, the other is short. Who grows more? etc etc
- yakster 10y ago
  > Two subjects, one eats grass, one eats meat. Who grows more? Once again it depends on the hormonal background. I only eat raw fruits and vegetables. I assure you that I have plenty of muscle, endurance and strength. All of these were built on this diet. > Two subjects, one trains, one doesn't train. Who grows more? All things held equal and constant, the one who trains. You are missing my point. If hormones are there, you will literally build muscles from raising a coffee cup a few times. > Two subjects, one is hormonally-responsive, one isn't. Who grows more? This misses the point. We are no discussing how to get hormones to change from one state to another. We are discussing two different stationary hormonal backgrounds. > Two subjects, one is 8, one is 88. Who grows more? Once again, hormonal background. 8 year old will not grow muscle. He will have more growth hormone, but not testosterone. The former is responsible for growth but in a different sense which is akin to restoration. > Two subjects, one is tall, the other is short. Who grows more? Completely irrelevant.
  - jacques_chester 10y ago
    > You are missing my point. My point is ceteris paribus. Yours seems to be "only hormones matter". I would think that the observable differences in response to exogenous hormones would be a pretty big clue that it's not all about hormones.

by yakster 10y ago

jacques_chester 10y ago

I can repurpose your argument to point out that it is unnecessarily reductive. Two subjects, one eats grass, one eats meat. Who grows more? Two subjects, one trains, one doesn't train. Who grows more? Two subjects, one is hormonally-responsive, one isn't. Who grows more? Two subjects, one is 8, one is 88. Who grows more? Two subjects, one starts with very many myofibrils, one doesn't. Who grows more? Two subjects, one is tall, the other is short. Who grows more? etc etc

yakster 10y ago
> Two subjects, one eats grass, one eats meat. Who grows more? Once again it depends on the hormonal background. I only eat raw fruits and vegetables. I assure you that I have plenty of muscle, endurance and strength. All of these were built on this diet. > Two subjects, one trains, one doesn't train. Who grows more? All things held equal and constant, the one who trains. You are missing my point. If hormones are there, you will literally build muscles from raising a coffee cup a few times. > Two subjects, one is hormonally-responsive, one isn't. Who grows more? This misses the point. We are no discussing how to get hormones to change from one state to another. We are discussing two different stationary hormonal backgrounds. > Two subjects, one is 8, one is 88. Who grows more? Once again, hormonal background. 8 year old will not grow muscle. He will have more growth hormone, but not testosterone. The former is responsible for growth but in a different sense which is akin to restoration. > Two subjects, one is tall, the other is short. Who grows more? Completely irrelevant.
- jacques_chester 10y ago
  > You are missing my point. My point is ceteris paribus. Yours seems to be "only hormones matter". I would think that the observable differences in response to exogenous hormones would be a pretty big clue that it's not all about hormones.