This Ones For All The People That Ride Mathew Mchonahey's Nuts. Never Had A Hair Transplant

[Crystalclear12]

The phenomenon of nonresponders is well described in the medical literature.

This is layman's article on the phenomenon and some basics about how it comes about:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/11/could-you-be-immune-to-the-gym/

At this point, Crystal, I have to get back to work, so I'll leave you to spout broscience about how "everyone can gain HARD if they eat HARD, lift HARD". Most gym guys believe that, but unfortunately we know from the actual science it's not medically accurate.

I find it hilarious that you feel so adamant about your knowledge and it's very clear to anyone in the industry just from the articles you chose to use to back your info that you don't know legit anything on the subject.

 

[JeanLucBB]

6kg of LEAN MUSCLE!!!!!!!!!!!! No one said you turn into ronnie Coleman!!!! It would take you a year to gain half that muscle mass naturally. We aren't talking about 6kg of dry weight we're talking about muscle mass. Again, you don't know what you're talking about!!

I hate to agree with you seeing as you're the dumbest f*** on the forum, but IdealForeskin doesn't know what the f*** he's talking about.

Anyone on 400mg test who can't get gains and looks like sh*t is a f*****g retard of the highest order. Studies show that someone eating cheatos and NEVER working out gains faster than a natty who trains perfectly.

Also 6kg lean muscle in 10 weeks is more than most natties get in 2 years.

Seriously IdleForeskin give it up you are talking sh*t.

 

[JeanLucBB]

The phenomenon of nonresponders is well described in the medical literature.

This is layman's article on the phenomenon and some basics about how it comes about:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/11/could-you-be-immune-to-the-gym/

At this point, Crystal, I have to get back to work, so I'll leave you to spout broscience about how "everyone can gain HARD if they eat HARD, lift HARD". Most gym guys believe that, but unfortunately we know from the actual science it's not medically accurate.

:"During the course of his research, Dr Timmons has developed a genetic diagnostic test (called XRPredict, £199), which reveals which category you fall into."

You've been conned by a salesman trying to make you feel better about yourself you dumb f***

 

[IdealForehead]

:"During the course of his research, Dr Timmons has developed a genetic diagnostic test (called XRPredict, £199), which reveals which category you fall into."

You've been conned by a salesman trying to make you feel better about yourself you dumb f***

The phenomenon has been documented in numerous studies not run by this guy.

Plenty has been written about it in peer reviewed medical journald.

But if you'd rather have broscience over actual science that's your right.

 

[IdealForehead]

6kg of LEAN MUSCLE!!!!!!!!!!!! No one said you turn into ronnie Coleman!!!! It would take you a year to gain half that muscle mass naturally. We aren't talking about 6kg of dry weight we're talking about muscle mass. Again, you don't know what you're talking about!!

That's exactly why guys in Hollywood use it. But are you telling me if a guy goes from 130 lb at 15% bf to 142 lb at 14% bf over 10 weeks from gaining 6 kg of muscle you can look at them and call them a steroid user?

Because that's what you've claimed you can do.

You have said you can look at anyone and know if they're a steroid user and that's how you know who is or isn't using.

As I've explained and provided clear numbers on that's absolute bullshit. Plenty of guys are using test and not looking like Zac Efron from it. They're just using it for a quicker easier result.

 

[IdealForehead]

I hate to agree with you seeing as you're the dumbest f*** on the forum, but IdealForeskin doesn't know what the f*** he's talking about.

Anyone on 400mg test who can't get gains and looks like sh*t is a f*****g retard of the highest order. Studies show that someone eating cheatos and NEVER working out gains faster than a natty who trains perfectly.

Also 6kg lean muscle in 10 weeks is more than most natties get in 2 years.

Seriously IdleForeskin give it up you are talking sh*t.

Thanks for all the insults and zero actual information about how someone can look at anyone off the street and KNOW if they've injected test.

I'd love to have this ability. Sounds like you could replace drug testing in sports too just with your eyes.

Maybe you and crystal should start a service.

 

[JeanLucBB]

Thanks for all the insults and zero actual information about how someone can look at anyone off the street and KNOW if they've injected test.

I'd love to have this ability. Sounds like you could replace drug testing in sports too just with your eyes.

I agree it isn't possible in all cases, but suggesting mconahey is on steroids is so absurd particularly because his body is achievable but eating reasonable well and noob gains that can be reached in 6 months with proper training.

There are plenty of studies showing that steroid users who don't work out gain more than natties who do as well.

I insulted only because it's obvious you're talking sh*t all throughout this entire thread, refuse to admit you're wrong and you didn't provide any reasonable counter arguments to the hairpiece issue either.

 

[JeanLucBB]

Thanks for all the insults and zero actual information about how someone can look at anyone off the street and KNOW if they've injected test.

I'd love to have this ability. Sounds like you could replace drug testing in sports too just with your eyes.

Maybe you and crystal should start a service.

There are also telltale signs related to leanness, size, vasculariry and explosive growth in certain muscle groups like traps and lats that give away steroid use often. Typically these are visible and indentifiable for long time users.

 

[JeanLucBB]

The phenomenon has been documented in numerous studies not run by this guy.

Plenty has been written about it in peer reviewed medical journald.

But if you'd rather have broscience over actual science that's your right.

Keep reading illigitemate studies by salesmen that appeal to your idiotic worldview then fuckwit.

 

[IdealForehead]

I agree it isn't possible in all cases, but suggesting mconahey is on steroids is so absurd particularly because his body is achievable but eating reasonable well and noob gains that can be reached in 6 months with proper training.

There are plenty of studies showing that steroid users who don't work out gain more than natties who do as well.

I insulted only because it's obvious you're talking sh*t all throughout this entire thread, refuse to admit you're wrong and you didn't provide any reasonable counter arguments to the hairpiece issue either.

I don't think I should have to argue about hairpieces. I have owned them and I know how obvious they look under aggressive lighting and high res photos. Celebs who wear them are universally caught doing it at some point. Please explain to me what I'm supposed to rebut here.

What have I been wrong about on the steroid issue?

I never said his body required test. I said a lot of guys in Hollywood use it so they can coast more easily and if he did cycle it would explain a worsening and then recovering hairline over time.

I said you cannot look at someone and know if they use steroids because many are just casual and lazy users with outcomes easily matched by hard training guys with good genetics.

I said science has documented a wide variety of genetic responses to exercise and that a class of "nonresponders" which are likely around 3% of the population are well known to exist.

This is all fact. What am I supposed to argue about?

 

[IdealForehead]

There are also telltale signs related to leanness, size, vasculariry and explosive growth in certain muscle groups like traps and lats that give away steroid use often. Typically these are visible and indentifiable for long time users.

Only if they're good at it. I once met a guy who used heavy roids for years and just looked like a fat average dude from it.

 

[JeanLucBB]

I read science in medical journals. I posted a simple article to summarize the issue because crystal did not want to read a scientific article earlier. Do you?

Are you really stupid enough to believe everything coming out of medical journals is gospel? I've read studies saying the complete opposite and that less than 1% of the population won't make gains, so which appeal to authority is to be believed? Are they both right? If you cared about science you wouldn't have sent an article written by marketers.

 

[IdealForehead]

Are you really stupid enough to believe everything coming out of medical journals is gospel? I've read studies saying the complete opposite and that less than 1% of the population won't make gains, so which appeal to authority is to be believed? Are they both right? If you cared about science you wouldn't have sent an article written by marketers.

The exact incidence and definition of a "nonresponder" is not precisely important, as that is just semantics. The point is there are people with very poor genetic responses to exercise who won't look much different or develop significantly increased strength even with rigorous supervised training and controlled diets.

Just as there are men who will gain enormous amounts of muscle very easily (eg. The Ronnie Coleman types, who would be "big" though obviously not as big as they are, even on a very casual regimen).

This has been studied extensively and the mechanisms have been at least partially elucidated.

If you'd like, you can read this study on the subject for more information:

http://jap.physiology.org/content/110/2/309.long

 

[Crystalclear12]

That's exactly why guys in Hollywood use it. But are you telling me if a guy goes from 130 lb at 15% bf to 142 lb at 14% bf over 10 weeks from gaining 6 kg of muscle you can look at them and call them a steroid user?

Because that's what you've claimed you can do.

You have said you can look at anyone and know if they're a steroid user and that's how you know who is or isn't using.

As I've explained and provided clear numbers on that's absolute bullshit. Plenty of guys are using test and not looking like Zac Efron from it. They're just using it for a quicker easier result.

You're a special type of fuckin retarded bro. I told you that some celebrities take steroids, never disagreed with that. Yes. I can look at anyone while they are on cycle and tell if they are on steroids. It's not about the size, it's about how the muscle looks/ proportion. It's funny because this is very common among bodybuilders to pin point users, the fact that you're arguing against it just shows you 1. Lack knowledge on the subject which is very clear and 2 you're a skinny fat f***** that likes to argue. You legit argue against anything

 

[Crystalclear12]

I've posted more science on this site than probably anyone in the past month. You're welcome to read the following as examples:

https://www.hairlosstalk.com/intera...y-is-getting-on-it.109158/page-3#post-1564128
https://www.hairlosstalk.com/intera...conversion-of-ru58841-to-darolutamide.109065/

The exact incidence and definition of a "nonresponder" is not precisely important, as that is just semantics. The point is there are people with very poor genetic responses to exercise who won't look much different or develop significantly increased strength even with rigorous supervised training and controlled diets.

Just as there are men who will gain enormous amounts of muscle very easily (eg. The Ronnie Coleman types, who would be "big" though obviously not as big as they are, even on a very casual regimen).

This has been studied extensively and the mechanisms have been at least partially elucidated.

If you'd like, you can read this study on the subject for more information:

http://jap.physiology.org/content/110/2/309.long

View attachment 67242

Hahahah wow you're a dumb f*** huh. Did you read that study. You're what I call a selective source provider, you create the argument first, then try to find random bullshjt to back up your point. That study is NOT ON STEROIDS (obviously what we're talking about here). Everyone knows that muscle growth varies among individuals lmao what does that have anything to do with what we're talking about. Those subjects never workout out then did a 12 week pt routine that mainly included push ups and sit-ups, averaging less than 2 days a week of weight training LMAOOOO. Do you know the number of individuals that don't respond to steroids? I'll tell you, it's 0.000% if you're quadrupling your natural testosterone, every single person will respond. Steroids aren't finasteride lmao, there aren't responders then non responders. Just because someone doesn't genetically look appealing on steroids with symmetrical sculpted arms etc doesn't mean they don't respond you dumb f***. People on steroids can get bigger and still have relatively straight arms with no striatuons simply because of genetics no ones arguing that. No one saying you take steroids then can be as big as ronnie Coleman either. But 99.9999999% of the time if you're on steriouds depending on your stack, you'll be bigger than you would be naturally. I highly doubt you took steroids, highly. I'm telling you I know my sh*t here and you still just don't get it. Posting an unrelated source hoping I didn't read it shows the holes in your retarded arguement.

 

[IdealForehead]

Hahahah wow you're a dumb f*** huh. Did you read that study. You're what I call a selective source provider, you create the argument first, then try to find random bullshjt to back up your point. That study is NOT ON STEROIDS (obviously what we're talking about here). Everyone knows that muscle growth varies among individuals lmao what does that have anything to do with what we're talking about. Those subjects never workout out then did a 12 week pt routine that mainly included push ups and sit-ups, averaging less than 2 days a week of weight training LMAOOOO. Do you know the number of individuals that don't respond to steroids? I'll tell you, it's 0.000% if you're quadrupling your natural testosterone, every single person will respond. Steroids aren't finasteride lmao, there aren't responders then non responders. Just because someone doesn't genetically look appealing on steroids with symmetrical sculpted arms etc doesn't mean they don't respond you dumb f***. People on steroids can get bigger and still have relatively straight arms with no striatuons simply because of genetics no ones arguing that. No one saying you take steroids then can be as big as ronnie Coleman either. But 99.9999999% of the time if you're on steriouds depending on your stack, you'll be bigger than you would be naturally. I highly doubt you took steroids, highly. I'm telling you I know my sh*t here and you still just don't get it. Posting an unrelated source hoping I didn't read it shows the holes in your retarded arguement.

What argument are you arguing against here? Just to be clear, what do you think I've said that is so false?

Do you think I said "steroids don't cause you to gain muscle"? Because I never said that. Do you think I said "Matthew McConaughey MUST be using steroids to get his physique?" Because I never said that.

I said people have genetically different responses to exercise. Steroids can amplify your genetic potential. But many people who use steroids use them very casually with very mediocre training and genetics and do not look remarkable because of it.

You seem to be trying to argue just for the sake of arguing.

I have proven a 10 week steroid cycle of 600 mg test/week with weight training can make you on average gain about 6 kg of muscle, eg. going from 130 lb 15% body fat to 143 lb 14% body fat. This type of muscle gain would not make anyone obviously look at a guy and say "THAT'S A STEROID USER". That would be impossible. As I have said, this is typically how steroids are used in Hollywood, in short cycles to help guys get in shape faster for roles when they are coming up quickly or need to go from "skinny" to "built" quickly.

I have proven that some people are comparatively very unresponsive to weight training, while others respond very easily, and this is due to genetic differences in how their muscles respond to resistance training. The same is true of endurance training and there are plenty of studies showing that as well.

Those were the only points I have made regarding anything to do with muscles or steroids, and I don't think any of it should be controversial. I have made my point. The science has made my point. I have nothing further to say. If you want to keep pretending I have said something different or posting rambling insults, be my guest.

Please at least try to read what I've said and make sure what you're replying is not just a reflex need to insult someone because they have challenged your "expertise" or ego. It's a waste of everyone's time.

Good luck.

 

[Crystalclear12]

What argument are you arguing against here? Just to be clear, what do you think I've said that is so false?

Do you think I said "steroids don't cause you to gain muscle"? Because I never said that. Do you think I said "Matthew McConaughey MUST be using steroids to get his physique?" Because I never said that.

I said people have genetically different responses to exercise. Steroids can amplify your genetic potential. But many people who use steroids use them very casually with very mediocre training and genetics and do not look remarkable because of it.

Yes, I used test-e for 4 months. Yes, I had blood tests proving it was in my system. The 5-10 pounds I gained over this time period made me look no different than when I have gained 5-10 pounds naturally. No, I did not look particularly special or different because of it. You can believe me or not. It doesn't matter. I had to stop due to increased hair loss and will not be using them again, though I still have vials in my basement.

You seem to be trying to argue just for the sake of arguing.

I have proven a 10 week steroid cycle of 600 mg test/week with weight training can make you on average gain about 6 kg of muscle, eg. going from 130 lb 15% body fat to 143 lb 14% body fat. This type of muscle gain would not make anyone obviously look at a guy and say "THAT'S A STEROID USER". That would be impossible. As I have said, this is typically how steroids are used in Hollywood, in short cycles to help guys get in shape faster for roles when they are coming up quickly or need to go from "skinny" to "built" quickly.

I have proven that some people are comparatively very unresponsive to weight training, while others respond very easily, and this is due to genetic differences in how their muscles respond to resistance training. The same is true of endurance training and there are plenty of studies showing that as well.

Those were the only points I have made regarding anything to do with muscles or steroids, and I don't think any of it should be controversial. I have made my point. The science has made my point. I have nothing further to say. If you want to keep pretending I have said something different or posting rambling insults, be my guest.

Please at least try to read what I've said and make sure what you're replying is not just a reflex need to insult someone because they have challenged your "expertise" or ego. It's a waste of everyone's time.

Good luck.

Are you high? Re-read this thread lol you change your tune with the wind. This entire arguement is about whether or not I can tell if someone's on juice. I keep saying i can tell by the way their actual muscles look, not by the size, yet you keep going back to the size. No one said Hollywood actors don't use steroids. Do you think you uncovered some type of gen there? And they do 10 week cycles which is your standard steroid cycle. You did 4 months which is awesome if you want to destroy your bodies natural test levels. That right there kinda says a lot.

All I said was that I can tell who is on and who is not on, in relation to Mathew mcconaheys, where you ventured due to your burning desire to prove me wrong is another story. Muscles on steroids LOOK AND FEEL DIFFERENT. wnen someone's on cycle blood stays in the muscles making them look hard like they have a fresh pump 24/7. Get that through your head. It's not about how big they got, how much weight they gained, it's about the actual MUSCLES looking different on someone that's on cycle. Not a single thing you posted was relavent to this arguement, not sure if you get that.

 

[IdealForehead]

Are you high? Re-read this thread lol you change your tune with the wind. This entire arguement is about whether or not I can tell if someone's on juice. I keep saying i can tell by the way their actual muscles look, not by the size, yet you keep going back to the size. No one said Hollywood actors don't use steroids. Do you think you uncovered some type of gen there? And they do 10 week cycles which is your standard steroid cycle. You did 4 months which is awesome if you want to destroy your bodies natural test levels. That right there kinda says a lot.

All I said was that I can tell who is on and who is not on, in relation to Mathew mcconaheys, where you ventured due to your burning desire to prove me wrong is another story. Muscles on steroids LOOK AND FEEL DIFFERENT. wnen someone's on cycle blood stays in the muscles making them look hard like they have a fresh pump 24/7. Get that through your head. It's not about how big they got, how much weight they gained, it's about the actual MUSCLES looking different on someone that's on cycle. Not a single thing you posted was relavent to this arguement, not sure if you get that.

Again, impossible. You're talking about being able to identify guys who get AMAZING RESULTS on steroids, based on their vascularity, etc. which anyone can identify. eg. Zac Efron. But that is not all steroid users.

If you take a 130 lb 15% bf guy and put him on a 10 week cycle, we can say from the science he will end up on average at 143 lb 14% bf by the end. There is no way in hell you can look at a 143 lb 14% bf man and tell me if he's taking steroids or not. He will just look like a small, average man.

 

[Crystalclear12]

Again, impossible. You're talking about being able to identify guys who get AMAZING RESULTS on steroids, based on their vascularity, etc. which anyone can do. eg. Zac Efron. But that is not all steroid users.

If you take a 130 lb 15% bf guy and put him on a 10 week cycle, we can say from the science he will end up on average at 143 lb 14% bf by the end. There is no way in hell you can look at a 143 lb 14% bf man and tell me if he's taking steroids or not. He will just look like a small, average man.

No you're wrong. I will be able to tell when he is on his cycle, 5 weeks in.

 

[IdealForehead]

No you're wrong. I will be able to tell when he is on his cycle, 5 weeks in.

Okay man, you should work for the drug testing associations at the Olympics/NFL/NBA/MLB/UFC as well as every other professional sport, since you could just go to the sidelines and point out every steroid user by sight. They wouldn't even have to test their blood/urine.

You could revolutionize all these fields and really clean up the sports. I'm sure they'd pay a lot for your services.