MetabolicTrash
Member
So it seems some here have attacked Peat's general ideologies in respect to "muscle gainz" in a way -- i.e. some here discredit him because "his diet" doesn't necessarily encourage significant muscle growth in all (although I'd say here that almost no "diet" per se does this magically for everyone, nothing else considered).
I have seen some positive statements from Peat regarding muscle mass and some benefits, although overall I've never heard him associate any specific significance in carrying large, supraphysiological amounts of muscle as beneficial, as many bodybuilders or similar enthusiasts would pursue or expect. For example it probably makes no sense for many -- especially those with a specific, extreme image in mind -- that just merely "eating Peat" or such would grant you big muscles.
I think the real question comes down to, "Does having large muscles mean one is more likely to be healthier?" In my view I'd personally say no, although it would appear that those packing lots of muscle and leaner appear stronger. Also, should we conflate some "extreme benefits" traded off for some health as good?
I mean some -- even those I've seen posting here -- have discredited Peat because he himself is not some juiced out, muscly old guy with a six-pack who is pushing heavy iron with a square jaw and rugged voice, as many people might immediately take physical characteristics as a measure of health, right or wrong. For example people might more so ascribe health to someone taller and more muscular, but can't say for sure that such an embodiment necessitates "health" just because it might look good to us in some way.
Also, this correlative approach to health vs. appearance even crosses the idea of genetics as some believe "better genes" make more desirable characteristics such that someone taller, built, lean or able to push big weights or run really fast is "healthier" than someone who is more sedentary. We sometimes might have to be cautious in assuming anything that looks bigger or larger or faster is healthier or "better" overall. Lots of those big, muscular bodybuilding competitors have short-lived careers -- in fact for many I see more long-term disadvantage some they use unsaturated, aromatizeable compounds more than anything, along with the endotoxin burden on these huge folks who need excessive eating and heavily forced inflammation to get so big probably.
I think it's a bit absurd to think that big, abnormally muscular (as in impossible size to reach without loads of unsaturated compounds like test/other derivatives, including insulin and GH analogues) is something of an image for health. Peat mentioned that farm animals were treated similarly -- make them grow as big/fast/lean as possible in such a way that enhanced, quick growth spells out largeness/bulk which then supposedly convinces us of the "health" in doing such as if our health or prowess comes down to how quickly and how big/large we can get in the shortest amount of time.
I think there's a fairly reasonable extent through which one can expect muscle and size when healthy and eating right, but find it a bit insane to think that one isn't as healthy because they aren't as big, thus using the image of bodybuilders, fitness models and etc. as examples of "superior health" just because they have surprisingly large and lean bodies, which in the same breath are exclaimed to be "unnatural" but somehow "superior" in relation to us "fitness normie"/non-muscled/shredded folks.
Perhaps we mistakenly think these larger people are healthier because smallness is correlated with catabolism, while excessive largeness is seen as anabolism -- the thing is that it isn't a perfect binary though (i.e. "bigness" isn't always good even if it's anti-catabolic in ways -- and some "smallness" is fine if the individual can at least maintain itself from excessive catabolism to the point of bigger health trouble).
In reality I think it's a weak argument to base health on how big and muscled you are because although there can be healthier people with more muscle, it's very easy to be under the false impression that people with surreal looking physical demeanor or prowess/looks must be of superior mark in some attributable way.
I think it's similar to ascribing "better genetics" if one states that the reason to mate with, for example, better looking individuals is for offspring "genetic advantage" even though nothing stops a good looking person from bearing sick children though depending on a massive pool of negatives that may be stirring around their physiology outside of just the extent of their prettiness. I mean ultimately I think many are fooled by appearance and believe that someone of 'X' particular appeal must be carrying the best genes, whereas it's shown through before/afters that even more conventionally unattractive people (which is often ascribed to genetics to add) can get cosmetics/surgeries/etc. and look more "genetically attractive" then which again rounds up amounting to nothing of serious gains because we presume "better begets better" without any point of diminishing returns or false fronts on what we deem "healthy" as.
I mean I could add that I have nothing against people who try and build muscle and such, but I'd like to know the facts on the process more so than just being misled that the image of some bodybuilder is like a "pinnacle" of health because they have 'X' certain size, body/insertion shapes/points or etc. It's obviously true that some cases of lots of strength, muscle/size and etc. can actually be signals of lack of health since extreme cases in some stress-related environments can of course lead to certain hormonal/physiological outcomes and factors that beget more physical prowess by way of how stress/estrogen/hormetic effects can create seemingly "good" conditions like muscle size, strength and so on, while other drawbacks of such might be "hidden" more since they are under the surface where we cannot see them specifically, like with lots of GH, estrogen, cells, tryptophan and etc. in toxic loads can make one possibly stronger and more "bulkier" looking while catabolic and sickly at the same time, as I've seen myself some with big biceps who also had diabetes, cancer, hypothyroidism, depression, severe bloat, etc.
I have seen some positive statements from Peat regarding muscle mass and some benefits, although overall I've never heard him associate any specific significance in carrying large, supraphysiological amounts of muscle as beneficial, as many bodybuilders or similar enthusiasts would pursue or expect. For example it probably makes no sense for many -- especially those with a specific, extreme image in mind -- that just merely "eating Peat" or such would grant you big muscles.
I think the real question comes down to, "Does having large muscles mean one is more likely to be healthier?" In my view I'd personally say no, although it would appear that those packing lots of muscle and leaner appear stronger. Also, should we conflate some "extreme benefits" traded off for some health as good?
I mean some -- even those I've seen posting here -- have discredited Peat because he himself is not some juiced out, muscly old guy with a six-pack who is pushing heavy iron with a square jaw and rugged voice, as many people might immediately take physical characteristics as a measure of health, right or wrong. For example people might more so ascribe health to someone taller and more muscular, but can't say for sure that such an embodiment necessitates "health" just because it might look good to us in some way.
Also, this correlative approach to health vs. appearance even crosses the idea of genetics as some believe "better genes" make more desirable characteristics such that someone taller, built, lean or able to push big weights or run really fast is "healthier" than someone who is more sedentary. We sometimes might have to be cautious in assuming anything that looks bigger or larger or faster is healthier or "better" overall. Lots of those big, muscular bodybuilding competitors have short-lived careers -- in fact for many I see more long-term disadvantage some they use unsaturated, aromatizeable compounds more than anything, along with the endotoxin burden on these huge folks who need excessive eating and heavily forced inflammation to get so big probably.
I think it's a bit absurd to think that big, abnormally muscular (as in impossible size to reach without loads of unsaturated compounds like test/other derivatives, including insulin and GH analogues) is something of an image for health. Peat mentioned that farm animals were treated similarly -- make them grow as big/fast/lean as possible in such a way that enhanced, quick growth spells out largeness/bulk which then supposedly convinces us of the "health" in doing such as if our health or prowess comes down to how quickly and how big/large we can get in the shortest amount of time.
I think there's a fairly reasonable extent through which one can expect muscle and size when healthy and eating right, but find it a bit insane to think that one isn't as healthy because they aren't as big, thus using the image of bodybuilders, fitness models and etc. as examples of "superior health" just because they have surprisingly large and lean bodies, which in the same breath are exclaimed to be "unnatural" but somehow "superior" in relation to us "fitness normie"/non-muscled/shredded folks.
Perhaps we mistakenly think these larger people are healthier because smallness is correlated with catabolism, while excessive largeness is seen as anabolism -- the thing is that it isn't a perfect binary though (i.e. "bigness" isn't always good even if it's anti-catabolic in ways -- and some "smallness" is fine if the individual can at least maintain itself from excessive catabolism to the point of bigger health trouble).
In reality I think it's a weak argument to base health on how big and muscled you are because although there can be healthier people with more muscle, it's very easy to be under the false impression that people with surreal looking physical demeanor or prowess/looks must be of superior mark in some attributable way.
I think it's similar to ascribing "better genetics" if one states that the reason to mate with, for example, better looking individuals is for offspring "genetic advantage" even though nothing stops a good looking person from bearing sick children though depending on a massive pool of negatives that may be stirring around their physiology outside of just the extent of their prettiness. I mean ultimately I think many are fooled by appearance and believe that someone of 'X' particular appeal must be carrying the best genes, whereas it's shown through before/afters that even more conventionally unattractive people (which is often ascribed to genetics to add) can get cosmetics/surgeries/etc. and look more "genetically attractive" then which again rounds up amounting to nothing of serious gains because we presume "better begets better" without any point of diminishing returns or false fronts on what we deem "healthy" as.
I mean I could add that I have nothing against people who try and build muscle and such, but I'd like to know the facts on the process more so than just being misled that the image of some bodybuilder is like a "pinnacle" of health because they have 'X' certain size, body/insertion shapes/points or etc. It's obviously true that some cases of lots of strength, muscle/size and etc. can actually be signals of lack of health since extreme cases in some stress-related environments can of course lead to certain hormonal/physiological outcomes and factors that beget more physical prowess by way of how stress/estrogen/hormetic effects can create seemingly "good" conditions like muscle size, strength and so on, while other drawbacks of such might be "hidden" more since they are under the surface where we cannot see them specifically, like with lots of GH, estrogen, cells, tryptophan and etc. in toxic loads can make one possibly stronger and more "bulkier" looking while catabolic and sickly at the same time, as I've seen myself some with big biceps who also had diabetes, cancer, hypothyroidism, depression, severe bloat, etc.
