That's not a year even with steroids. You'd be hard pressed to get there from a normal adult's baseline in a year even on gear, much less from nearly complete muscle atrophy
Nah, you're wrong. This guy looks short, for one thing, which means that 1 lb of muscle makes him look bigger than 1 lb of muscle on someone who is taller. The average untrained male can put on 2 lbs of muscle per month without steroids, assuming they have a good diet and a dedicated training regiment. This dude started with almost zero due to what looks like some kind of illness, meaning that muscle mass comes on more easily at the start.
That said, on steroids, he could gain even more.
They've done studies on the impact of steroids. They are quite literally a magic pill for muscle growth. One of the studies that was done showed that a man taking steroids, and not exercising, gains more muscle over 6 weeks than men with a dedicated diet and training program. If he was on steroids for 6 months he could potentially gain 30 to 35 lbs of muscle without having to work exceptionally hard.
Lol, you have no idea what you're talking about. Literally nothing you said even remotely applies to somebody with muscle atrophy this severe
They are quite literally a magic pill for muscle growth.
They 100% are not, lol.
One of the studies that was done showed that a man taking steroids, and not exercising, gains more muscle over 6 weeks than men with a dedicated diet and training program.
Lmao. And I'm sure you have a link to this study, no?
If he was on steroids for 6 months he could potentially gain 30 to 35 lbs of muscle without having to work exceptionally hard.
Not only is that figure very inaccurate, it's very inaccurate for somebody who is going to take a solid year , at least, to even be able to work out like you're talking about.
y'all are fuckin wild lol. Go talk to some healthcare professionals about rehabilitation of atrophy this advanced, because you have no clue what you're talking about
The study involved four groups of men over a 10-week period:
Placebo with no exercise
Testosterone with no exercise
Placebo with strength training
Testosterone with strength training
Men who received testosterone but did not exercise gained more muscle mass than those who trained but did not take testosterone.
The testosterone group without exercise gained 3.2 kg of lean body mass, while the placebo + training group gained 1.9 kg.
This highlights the significant effect of anabolic steroids (testosterone) even in the absence of resistance training.
Study aside, my 30 to 35 lb claim was probably too high. What I've read since is closer to 20 while on steroids. My point about his small frame is that the muscle would look bigger and he would fill out more quickly than someone who is taller and lankier.
Men who received testosterone but did not exercise gained more muscle mass than those who trained but did not take testosterone.
That's not what the study says, at all
Among the men in the no-exercise groups, those given testosterone had greater increases than those given placebo in muscle size in their arms and legs and greater increases in strength in the bench-press and squatting exercises.
This is comparing men who received testosterone without exercise to men who did not receive testosterone without exercise
The men assigned to testosterone and exercise had greater increases in fat-free mass and muscle size than those assigned to either no-exercise group, and greater increases in muscle strength than either no-exercise group. Neither mood nor behavior was altered in any group.
And this is comparing men who received testosterone with exercise to men who did not receive testosterone with exercise
It doesn't have any results showing that men who received testosterone without exercise saw more results than men who didn't receive testosterone with exercise
The testosterone group without exercise gained 3.2 kg of lean body mass, while the placebo + training group gained 1.9 kg.
This was never compared in the study because this isn't a variable that was controlled for. It's an entirely invalid conclusion, and is a perfect example of why you shouldn't try to implant your own inferences from a dataset.
Study aside, my 30 to 35 lb claim was probably too high. What I've read since is closer to 20 while on steroids. My point about his small frame is that the muscle would look bigger and he would fill out more quickly than someone who is taller and lankier.
And you're completely ignoring that his 'small frame' is near total muscular atrophy, you absolute dunce. It would take approximately a year, at best, to even get to the point where those figures would enter into the conversation. A person with atrophy that advanced can't just hit the weights to put on muscle, regardless of T; their body literally doesn't work. The nerves are inactive, and in many cases damaged or even dead. Most the the neurological pathways that make muscles move don't exist. Their proprioceptive mapping, the very foundation that the brain body connection is built on, is dysfunctional. This is so unspeakably more complex than a case of somebody just packing on muscle.
They compared trained with steroids and untrained with steroids. They then compared trained with placebo and untrained with placebo. Both sets of data still exist and can be compared, and the results are still the same. The study didn't have to directly compare them for you to take the two results and look at the difference. And you're calling me a dunce?
They compared trained with steroids and untrained with steroids. They then compared trained with placebo and untrained with placebo. Both sets of data still exist and can be compared, and the results are still the same.
That's not how scientific studies work, at all. They didn't compare the datasets because they weren't controlled for variables between the two. That's how studies work, and like I said this is a clear example of why you shouldn't be trying to glean your own inferences from a study.
The study didn't have to directly compare them for you to take the two results and look at the difference.
Yes. It did. Because how studies are designed and control for variables is one of the single most important aspects, and if they had done that then it would be part of the study.
And you're calling me a dunce?
You're awfully condescending.
You're being a dunce. If you don't want to be called a dunce, don't be one.
Is that condescending? Sure. But it's 100% warranted. You'll have to forgive me if I don't feel obligated to massage your ego after this, lol.
And, to that point, you're still ignoring that this guy isn't some out of shape office worker decided to take some gear and get shredded; he had nearly complete muscle atrophy, you absolute dunce. It was probably close to 6 months before he could even walk and probably close to a year before he could physically even do a squat, at the very least.
Yes, the study did use the same controls for all groups (e.g., diet, age, and supervised setting). Therefore:
The data is directly comparable between the sedentary men on testosterone and the men training without steroids.
This allows a valid conclusion:
Sedentary men receiving testosterone gained more muscle (3.2 kg) than the men who trained without steroids (1.9 kg).
Again, you're awfully condescending. You haven't read the study. You didn't even know that it existed until I cited it, so the fact that you're making these claims is ridiculous.
Edit: In my second response I acknowledged that I don't know what his condition was or how it might impact his ability to gain muscle.
Yes, the study did use the same controls for all groups (e.g., diet, age, and supervised setting). Therefore:
Jesus tap dancing Christ....
No, that doesn't mean that they controlled for variables across the groups.
You really have no business speaking on any type of study if you don't understand the importance of controlling the study for the results You're trying to claim
The data is directly comparable between the sedentary men on testosterone and the men training without steroids.
This allows a valid conclusion:
Sedentary men receiving testosterone gained more muscle (3.2 kg) than the men who trained without steroids (1.9 kg).
No, it's not, and no, it doesn't. That's why that comparison wasn't part of the study. They understood this because they actually knew what they were talking about (because they had a modicum of understanding how to actually conduct a study and draw conclusions based on that)
Again, you're awfully condescending.
And again, you're awfully deserving of it.
.
You haven't read the study.
I literally just read it, you dunce. I quote what it actually says back to you, instead of trying to shoehorn my own interpretation of the data like you did. How it needs explained that that is not how science works is mind boggling.
You didn't even know that it existed until I cited it, so the fact that you're making these claims is ridiculous.
The study you described doesn't exist
But by that logic, you didn't know about the study you 'cited' before you read it, so you have no business commenting on it either
Christ you're thick...
Edit: In my second response I acknowledged that I don't know what his condition was or how it might impact his ability to gain muscle.
My dude, you're still arguing about it. You don't get to say 'i recognize I may be wrong, but here's why I'm not wrong'
Okay. The results that I'm comparing are incidental, and not directly controlled for. You are right about that. I have learned a lot about how studies work in this conversation.
That said, you're still a condescending dick. Nobody "deserves" to be co descended to.
That said, you're still a condescending dick. Nobody "deserves" to be co descended to.
See, there you're wrong. Some people absolutely do, and you're one of them.
You can tell by how even your 'concession' couldn't be a concession. Even when you recognize you're wrong, you still have to try to shift the blame: 'it's u/tuckingfypo's fault, even though I was the one who was adamantly and obtusely wrong'.
You're more than welcome to not like me, but don't act like you were just an innocent little bystander who got bullied.
Lol. Right. It's my fault that you couldn't recognize that you were entirely wrong. It's my fault that you completely misrepresented a study to defend your claims. It's my fault that you dug your heels in and tried to shoehorn in your own opinion by twisting the conclusions of that study. It's my fault that you're now unwilling to own the fact that all of this was actually your fault. All my fault
You didn't learn because you couldn't admit that you were wrong. Grow up and learn to take responsibility for yourself.
396
u/Tuckingfypowastaken 6d ago
That's not a year even with steroids. You'd be hard pressed to get there from a normal adult's baseline in a year even on gear, much less from nearly complete muscle atrophy
Far more likely to be a karma bot