Probably a stupid question, but what do some users mean when they say "you can gain in it if you eat enough"?

[Worldsfastestfatty]

Hey

Probably a really stupid question; stupid as I am asking what people who are most likely fools mean when they make a statement; when in reality I should probably be paying them no attention

So here's my question;

I read a lot of "compound experience" type threads/discussions across a few forums as I like to get a general consensus of how users respond to certain compounds/doses - accept my experiences will be individual to me but find user anecdotes somewhat helpful too.

One of the statements I hear come up fairly frequently in relation to some compounds (primo, mast, EQ jump to mind) is "you could use It to gain weight but you'd really need to eat a lot" or some variation on this theme.

I'm not sure what this means? To my understanding if you eat above maintenance you will gain weight - if your training is stimulating and you're using sufficient anabolics you will get LBM, if not you'll get fat mass. So surely if you're using a compound that's not providing enough anabolism you'll still gain weight, it'll just be flab?

I appreciate that AAS mildly raise metabolic rate - but it's not like there's people not eating enough whilst running primo and accidentally turning Ethiopian.

And as I type this out I realise you're going to tell me they are idiots who can't eat for mass gains nor train with sufficient intensity, but I'll post it all the same

 

[dimethyl11]

The three you mentioned are typically classified as mild because they don’t come with more obvious side effects like nandrolone or trenbolobe.

The three you mentioned also aren’t usually classified as PED’s that really change a physique for your average PED user.

Don’t get me wrong mast, primo and EQ are all great drugs they just may need more mg than others to really shine.

 

[Worldsfastestfatty]

The three you mentioned are typically classified as mild because they don’t come with more obvious side effects like nandrolone or trenbolobe.

The three you mentioned also aren’t usually classified as PED’s that really change a physique for your average PED user.

Don’t get me wrong mast, primo and EQ are all great drugs they just may need more mg than others to really shine.

Yeah I get that - but surely if you eat in a nominal surplus, say 500kcal you'll gain weight regardless of compound - all that would change is the ratio of LBM:fat?

 

[dimethyl11]

Yeah I get that - but surely if you eat in a nominal surplus, say 500kcal you'll gain weight regardless of compound - all that would change is the ratio of LBM:fat?

Absolutely

 

[nothuman]

You can't just over-eat your way to making better gains on lower doses. So to whoever is saying that, that's not how it works.

 

[Mufasa123]

Hey

Probably a really stupid question; stupid as I am asking what people who are most likely fools mean when they make a statement; when in reality I should probably be paying them no attention

So here's my question;

I read a lot of "compound experience" type threads/discussions across a few forums as I like to get a general consensus of how users respond to certain compounds/doses - accept my experiences will be individual to me but find user anecdotes somewhat helpful too.

One of the statements I hear come up fairly frequently in relation to some compounds (primo, mast, EQ jump to mind) is "you could use It to gain weight but you'd really need to eat a lot" or some variation on this theme.

I'm not sure what this means? To my understanding if you eat above maintenance you will gain weight - if your training is stimulating and you're using sufficient anabolics you will get LBM, if not you'll get fat mass. So surely if you're using a compound that's not providing enough anabolism you'll still gain weight, it'll just be flab?

I appreciate that AAS mildly raise metabolic rate - but it's not like there's people not eating enough whilst running primo and accidentally turning Ethiopian.

And as I type this out I realise you're going to tell me they are idiots who can't eat for mass gains nor train with sufficient intensity, but I'll post it all the same

Now you know how many fools are out there giving advice. Some 6' 175lbs 19 year old on his 3rd cycle most likely. We could get into glycogen storage or compounds that change metabolic rate a bit and try to assume that just maybe this is what they were really saying, but it's not. You have it right.

 

[aHarness]

I'm not sure what this means? To my understanding if you eat above maintenance you will gain weight - if your training is stimulating and you're using sufficient anabolics you will get LBM, if not you'll get fat mass.

It means nothing. You’re correct. Most people that say this kind of thing aren’t even sure how much they are eating on a day to day basis.

 

[SouthernMuscle]

Is this a statement you’ve seen on this forum

 

[bbxtreme]

The amount of food one eats determines weight gain. Not gear.

Whatever morons are making those statements… I’d probably not keep listening to them if you’re serious about bodybuilding.

 

[qbkilla]

Never understood anyone saying on AAS you can eat whatever you want and not get fat. How many AAS users are actually ripped? They may help your p ratio, they may raise your bmr some, but if your surplus is too big you absolutely will gain fat. Some people "bulk" and set calories higher to prioritize gaining muscle and worry about losing the fat later. Some prefer a smaller surplus because they want to gain muscle while limiting fat gain. IMO the best thing you can do is track your daily calories and weight, it won't be hard to figure what # calories is your maintenance.

To gain weight? Adjust up. To lose weight, adjust down. Just as if you were natural.

 

[danieltx]

Never understood anyone saying on AAS you can eat whatever you want and not get fat. How many AAS users are actually ripped? They may help your p ratio, they may raise your bmr some, but if your surplus is too big you absolutely will gain fat. Some people "bulk" and set calories higher to prioritize gaining muscle and worry about losing the fat later. Some prefer a smaller surplus because they want to gain muscle while limiting fat gain. IMO the best thing you can do is track your daily calories and weight, it won't be hard to figure what # calories is your maintenance.

To gain weight? Adjust up. To lose weight, adjust down. Just as if you were natural.

That's because you've never been shredded. If you get down to a true 6% you have to work really, really hard to get fat when you're using PEDs and training had.

It's the same reason you're saying most AAS users aren't actually ripped - the average gym goer using AAS doesn't realize they work best when you're ripped and end up spinning their wheels making negligible progress.

 

[KingOfSushi]

That's because you've never been shredded. If you get down to a true 6% you have to work really, really hard to get fat when you're using PEDs and training had.

It's the same reason you're saying most AAS users aren't actually ripped - the average gym goer using AAS doesn't realize they work best when you're ripped and end up spinning their wheels making negligible progress.

A couple of things I think too

Once you’re 250+ lean etc (not that I even am) I feel that even just your BMR from all that muscle is so high you’d really have to try to put on fat, then put on top of that hard training (especially high volume), gear and daily cardio… I think @TheOtherOne55 touched on this.

Then as well, anecdotally I’ve heard with GH too in high doses (10+ etc) added into this, the lypolsis effect is so strong it’s much harder to add fat when doing things correctly as I recall @luki7788 saying.

 

[Doitagain]

The amount of food one eats determines weight gain. Not gear.

True.
Yet, to a degree, gear determines the LBM/FAT ratio of said weight gain.
Holding other factors constant.
Am I stating the obvious? Sure. Just in case some folks start to believe that a 700cals surplus produces the same kind of results on 300mg of Primo or one gram of Test + 600mg Tren + 10iu HGH. You never know these days

 

[pesty4077]

The amount of food one eats determines weight gain. Not gear.

Whatever morons are making those statements… I’d probably not keep listening to them if you’re serious about bodybuilding.

I am actually eating less calories, put on 2 kg and leaner in less then 1 month. Figure that one out and yes I log my foods on myfitnesspal for years.

I do plan however to eat some more calories. Maybe we should say amount of quality food. That I do believe.

 

[bbxtreme]

I am actually eating less calories, put on 2 kg and leaner in less then 1 month. Figure that one out and yes I log my foods on myfitnesspal for years.

I do plan however to eat some more calories. Maybe we should say amount of quality food. That I do believe.

Sorry I was really just saying it comes down to CICO when it comes to gaining weight.

Grear, quality of food, diet, training and lifestyle determine what the weight “is”- lean tissue or fat for example. That’s body recomposition.

 

[bbxtreme]

True.
Yet, to a degree, gear determines the LBM/FAT ratio of said weight gain.
Holding other factors constant.
Am I stating the obvious? Sure. Just in case some folks start to believe that a 700cals surplus produces the same kind of results on 300mg of Primo or one gram of Test + 600mg Tren + 10iu HGH. You never know these days

I didn’t want to confuse the OP. But food determines the weight. Gear determines the “quality” of the weight.

 

[Worldsfastestfatty]

I didn’t want to confuse the OP. But food determines the weight. Gear determines the “quality” of the weight.

Yeah that's exactly what I thought. I should have known better than to think there was any sense behind what was being posted on other forums

 

[nothuman]

Could you imagine how huge we would all be if the key to getting massive was to simply eat an unlimited amount of food? By that logic, nobody would ever be fat when they ate 10,000 calories or more. It would just become muscle with no upper limit on gains.

Lol

 

[Doitagain]

I didn’t want to confuse the OP. But food determines the weight. Gear determines the “quality” of the weight.

Exactly what I meant. Too many people are still obsessed with scale weight and lose sight of its composition unfortunately.