4 ms·

It depends on the person, but many people’s bodies tend to be catabolic which makes gaining muscle hard - the so-called hard gainers. These males also tend to h

It depends on the person, but many people’s bodies tend to be catabolic which makes gaining muscle hard - the so-called hard gainers. These males also tend to have feminine qualities in facial structure. TRT will probably help those individuals more w.r.t to muscle gain than steroids. Or RHGH.

texasbigdata 7y ago
What? Assuming you live in America, "many" people's bodies are not catabolic for any meaningful portion of a given week. Not even close. You can force a catabolic state onto yourself...but how does TRT help? Note also that insulin levels associated with obesity also modulate that mechanism, in the opposite direction of your argument, but let's ignore that. Theoretically you prevent loss of lean muscle mass while in a calorie deficit while intermittent fasting, but that's an obscure edge case for someone looking to increase in size. Also, TRT is a steroid. At high enough doses. And, if that holds, how can it be less effective? Ignoring some of the biology itself. Sorry for the sharp rebuttal but what are you talking about. If you look at the research there's a very narrow band of philiosogic changes available to new and intermediate gym goers. The exact figures escape me, but if I recall with perfect nutrition and perfect gym adherence I believe I previously calculated for an average american male for that top end to be around 0.2 to 0.7 pounds of lean muscle mass additions per week. Based on an older paper. And that's the theoretical ceiling. But, the flip side was that even for "hard gainers" with "feminine qualities in facial structure" (for which I've never seen research for but will take you at face value on that, no pun intended) that also means that gradual incremental changes are probable and positive with enough adherence. Saying that a healthy strong body is not attainable without growth hormone or steroids seems like a cop out, when just sticking to it will (very very slowly) yield incremental progress.
dirtyid 7y ago
I think somatypes like hardgainers have been debunked, the explanation being that predominantly, these folks are habituated to not eating enough, GOMAD etc. There's edge cases of medical conditions or training non-responders though. My main point is that western aesthetic standard for muscular men is increasingly moving towards more mass to the point where most individuals are below the bell curve for what's attainable naturally even with consistent training. It's reaching a point where achieving these bodies require either both elite genetics and conscientiousness, or good genetics and conscientiousness and illegal drugs. It can't simply be bought by 30k worth of plastic surgeries. Theoretically most men can diet themselves down to Brad Pit fight club, there's an attainable amount of muscle mass, the trick is mostly diet and fat loss, which may still be prohibitive for some. But much less men can be Chris Evans Captain America, or more obviously the Rock. At some point drugs enter the picture. There's also VFX that adds muscularity in these productions, so we're also dealing with filters at the end of the day, but most people do not know that muscularity is just as easily edited in live action as facial features or de-aging.
- adrianN 7y ago
  Habitually not eating enough sounds like something that can be influenced by genetics.
  - dirtyid 7y ago
    Everything is, but in terms of factors, eating enough is more within control, i.e. the excessive GOMAD prescription, gallon of milk a day. Mostly diet genetics becomes an consideration when you're at the extreme ends of weight goals, like dietting down to unhealthy bodyfat levels or trying to cram 8,000 calories a day to maintain in the heavier weight classes (250lbs+). Compared to genetic propensity for gaining muscle or one's training response, conscientiousness to train consistently - eating habits for most "hard gainers" is current diet + a few spoonfuls of peanut butter a day.

texasbigdata 7y ago

What? Assuming you live in America, "many" people's bodies are not catabolic for any meaningful portion of a given week. Not even close. You can force a catabolic state onto yourself...but how does TRT help? Note also that insulin levels associated with obesity also modulate that mechanism, in the opposite direction of your argument, but let's ignore that. Theoretically you prevent loss of lean muscle mass while in a calorie deficit while intermittent fasting, but that's an obscure edge case for someone looking to increase in size. Also, TRT is a steroid. At high enough doses. And, if that holds, how can it be less effective? Ignoring some of the biology itself. Sorry for the sharp rebuttal but what are you talking about. If you look at the research there's a very narrow band of philiosogic changes available to new and intermediate gym goers. The exact figures escape me, but if I recall with perfect nutrition and perfect gym adherence I believe I previously calculated for an average american male for that top end to be around 0.2 to 0.7 pounds of lean muscle mass additions per week. Based on an older paper. And that's the theoretical ceiling. But, the flip side was that even for "hard gainers" with "feminine qualities in facial structure" (for which I've never seen research for but will take you at face value on that, no pun intended) that also means that gradual incremental changes are probable and positive with enough adherence. Saying that a healthy strong body is not attainable without growth hormone or steroids seems like a cop out, when just sticking to it will (very very slowly) yield incremental progress.

dirtyid 7y ago

I think somatypes like hardgainers have been debunked, the explanation being that predominantly, these folks are habituated to not eating enough, GOMAD etc. There's edge cases of medical conditions or training non-responders though. My main point is that western aesthetic standard for muscular men is increasingly moving towards more mass to the point where most individuals are below the bell curve for what's attainable naturally even with consistent training. It's reaching a point where achieving these bodies require either both elite genetics and conscientiousness, or good genetics and conscientiousness and illegal drugs. It can't simply be bought by 30k worth of plastic surgeries. Theoretically most men can diet themselves down to Brad Pit fight club, there's an attainable amount of muscle mass, the trick is mostly diet and fat loss, which may still be prohibitive for some. But much less men can be Chris Evans Captain America, or more obviously the Rock. At some point drugs enter the picture. There's also VFX that adds muscularity in these productions, so we're also dealing with filters at the end of the day, but most people do not know that muscularity is just as easily edited in live action as facial features or de-aging.

adrianN 7y ago
Habitually not eating enough sounds like something that can be influenced by genetics.
- dirtyid 7y ago
  Everything is, but in terms of factors, eating enough is more within control, i.e. the excessive GOMAD prescription, gallon of milk a day. Mostly diet genetics becomes an consideration when you're at the extreme ends of weight goals, like dietting down to unhealthy bodyfat levels or trying to cram 8,000 calories a day to maintain in the heavier weight classes (250lbs+). Compared to genetic propensity for gaining muscle or one's training response, conscientiousness to train consistently - eating habits for most "hard gainers" is current diet + a few spoonfuls of peanut butter a day.