So in recent weeks we're had a few posts where the gains on cycle, even in the first few weeks, have been so amazing as to border on unbelievable. Twenty pounds in a few weeks in one case and 30lbs in another. In both cases they were first cycles. All things being equal these are amazing levels to gain. In fact, given the short time they were gained in it was thought by all concerned that the majority was water.
What was worse was the starting weights were low - real low. As in 130 or so pounds. One member was 5'9 and the other 5'8. Shorter than average maybe but not stupidly so. Both examples were of an age we like to see (so 25-plus) and with some training time experience under their belts pre-cycle. So questions were asked. What was interesting, hence the topic title, was their identical claims of 'eating like a horse'. Now, just a few weeks ago, I happened to read a health section of a national paper here in the UK which referenced so-called 'under reporting' of food intake.
Simply put not only do the underweight underestimate their intake by some margin even when asked to write it down (report it) they'd over estimate their intake. They say 'I ate breakfast every day' but forget the times they were late and missed ou. Or 'I eat dinner every night' but neglect to include the time they only ate half or substituted one for a sandwich. The same exact opposite is true of the overweight.
Not only have tightly controlled studies proved it - the kind where they're with you 24 hours a day - but the truth is there looking at you on those scales you used. Unless the underweight are feeding their pet tapeworm or have some sort of medical condition they aren't eating enough. Most of us, myself included when i was younger, have done a hard physical job and tried to train on the top of it. I'd eat breakfast at home, another at work, then lunch. If I worked over time I learned to keep snacks in my work locker and then I'd eat again when I got home. That's 5 meals and I just maintained.
What's also true of a LOT of new steroid taking users is they suddenly get real serious about every aspect. They become monk like in their devotion to every part of the program. That includes nutrition. They miss NO meals. NOT ONE. Out comes the gainer powder and there they are lining up their pills every morning (heck I do that on cycle lol). Sometimes they revert just as quickly after hence losing on their gains right after.
It's for these reasons we ask what you weigh, what you eat and it's why we know you wasn't, COULD NOT, have been eating enough. If, as per those studies, everything else stays the same (activity, gym, rest and recovery) then you MUST gain weight (even fat) if you eat more. I'll get into the training aspect and changing activity levels another time.
Before you start that sensible, EVO suggested beginners cycle, start by writing down EVERYTHING you eat. EVERYTHING. Do that and see what it amounts to. Now ate a balanced and healthy 400 kcals from protein, fat and carbs. Do that for two weeks and tell me about those GAINZ DUDE!
Thus endeth the lesson.
What was worse was the starting weights were low - real low. As in 130 or so pounds. One member was 5'9 and the other 5'8. Shorter than average maybe but not stupidly so. Both examples were of an age we like to see (so 25-plus) and with some training time experience under their belts pre-cycle. So questions were asked. What was interesting, hence the topic title, was their identical claims of 'eating like a horse'. Now, just a few weeks ago, I happened to read a health section of a national paper here in the UK which referenced so-called 'under reporting' of food intake.
Simply put not only do the underweight underestimate their intake by some margin even when asked to write it down (report it) they'd over estimate their intake. They say 'I ate breakfast every day' but forget the times they were late and missed ou. Or 'I eat dinner every night' but neglect to include the time they only ate half or substituted one for a sandwich. The same exact opposite is true of the overweight.
Not only have tightly controlled studies proved it - the kind where they're with you 24 hours a day - but the truth is there looking at you on those scales you used. Unless the underweight are feeding their pet tapeworm or have some sort of medical condition they aren't eating enough. Most of us, myself included when i was younger, have done a hard physical job and tried to train on the top of it. I'd eat breakfast at home, another at work, then lunch. If I worked over time I learned to keep snacks in my work locker and then I'd eat again when I got home. That's 5 meals and I just maintained.
What's also true of a LOT of new steroid taking users is they suddenly get real serious about every aspect. They become monk like in their devotion to every part of the program. That includes nutrition. They miss NO meals. NOT ONE. Out comes the gainer powder and there they are lining up their pills every morning (heck I do that on cycle lol). Sometimes they revert just as quickly after hence losing on their gains right after.
It's for these reasons we ask what you weigh, what you eat and it's why we know you wasn't, COULD NOT, have been eating enough. If, as per those studies, everything else stays the same (activity, gym, rest and recovery) then you MUST gain weight (even fat) if you eat more. I'll get into the training aspect and changing activity levels another time.
Before you start that sensible, EVO suggested beginners cycle, start by writing down EVERYTHING you eat. EVERYTHING. Do that and see what it amounts to. Now ate a balanced and healthy 400 kcals from protein, fat and carbs. Do that for two weeks and tell me about those GAINZ DUDE!
Thus endeth the lesson.
Last edited: