🇮🇹 Italian PT Expert · Dubai 🇦🇪 · Coaching men to transform body, hormones, recovery & mindset · You leave with a method you own · Limited spots · Apply
↓
We don't judge choices. We monitor data and protect biology. If you are ready to stop guessing and enter a data-driven protocol, apply for a consulting spot.
🔗 https://t.co/i1syu2Ae4L
dips are elite for chest, the loaded stretch at the bottom is exactly what drives growth and bench doesn't hit that the same way. but "better" depends which chest, dips smoke the lower and outer pec, bench and incline own the upper. and "not strong enough" is only half it, the other half is people's shoulders hate that bottom position. run both, stop picking teams.
There's no way to target it, lower belly is just the last place most guys lose it. Those lower ab and love handle fat cells have more of the receptors that resist fat release and less blood flow, so they hang on until you're already pretty lean. So the real answer is boring, overall deficit, high protein, train hard, and that spot goes last whether you like it or not. If it's bloat sitting low rather than actual fat, that's a different fix, sleep, alcohol and how you eat move that more than any amount of ab work.
@alexaaronlab You'll get reasons, just none that outweigh it. Muscle and bone loss? Prevented with protein and lifting. Regain if you stop? True of any chronic-disease med, like BP pills. And SELECT showed about 20% fewer heart attacks and strokes in this exact group. No reason beats that
Half agree. For leg size, a lot of people grow more on machines, because they can push the quads near failure without their lower back giving out first. That's the real ceiling on squats, systemic fatigue, not the quads. Squats aren't the problem though, treating them as the only tool is. Use both.
Exactly, and most people burn less than they think and end up eating it back anyway. Worth adding though, don't drop training while cutting. Its job in a deficit isn't to create the gap, it's to keep your muscle so you lose fat and not size. Diet sets the deficit, lifting decides what you lose.
Yes, depending who. Newer lifters, people coming back from a break, and anyone with extra body fat to run on can build in a deficit with high protein and hard training. Lean advanced lifters are the exception, they need a surplus. Protein on point is necessary, just not the whole story.
Real food part, right. Conclusion, backwards. Whole foods work because they're hard to overeat, so you eat fewer calories without tracking. Great grandparents weren't beating thermodynamics, their environment kept intake low. Counting didn't make anyone fat, eating more than you burn did.
The pump and vascularity are just the visible part. The underrated bit is that low daily tadalafil genuinely improves endothelial function, real vascular health, not just looks. Long half life is why a small daily dose holds steady. It's even approved for prostate symptoms. Never mix it with nitrates though.
Half right. Adding testosterone does lower SHBG and raise free T. But "lowers estradiol" is backwards, more aromatizable T usually raises E2. And exogenous T suppresses your own LH and FSH, the whole reason people run enclomiphene in the first place. So "most should combine" undercuts the point.
@Devsthetix Because being big and knowing how to build big are two different jobs 😂 the coach reads the labs, runs the program, and sees what you can't see on yourself. Half the skill is staying buried in studies, not in the mirror. Though I hold my own too, so maybe I'm the exception 😄
@Emmachuuks Semplicemente non è vero, e ci sono dati. Uno studio JAMA del 1990 mise novantenni fragili a 8 settimane di pesi: forza +174%, muscolo coscia +9%, senza integratori. È l'allenamento a costruire muscolo a ogni età. Gli integratori sono comodità, non un obbligo.
@realpeptides Makes sense from the mechanism. The glucagon arm is reta's difference: it drives liver fat loss, energy expenditure and lipolysis directly, not just appetite. So the lipid and waist numbers ride on that plus the weight loss. Still investigational though, worth the full paper.
@DorianB112 Depends what you're chasing. For muscle and general health, a great program does a lot even on okay food, training is that strong a signal. For fat loss, no. Diet sets the calorie ceiling and you can't out-train it, most people burn far less in a session than they think.
@kharma_7 Most would, yeah. But the real lever is weekly volume, not frequency itself. Twice a week just lets you spread the sets so neither session ends in junk reps. Muscle protein synthesis also fades after a day or two, so hitting it twice keeps it switched on more often.
@Kxngstn_ Barely. Protein is permissive, not the driver. It's the bricks, but training is what tells the body to build. Train like garbage and there's no signal, so the extra protein mostly just leaves you well fed. Past roughly 1.6g/kg it stops adding muscle anyway.
Elevated RHR is a GLP-1 class effect. GLP-1 receptors in the sinoatrial node are chronotropic, you see it with semaglutide too. Reta adds glucagon, also chronotropic. The result is a bigger HR increase than typical. It's not unique to the triple agonist, it's the stacked mechanisms.
@FitnessEmpiree They get strong with a small engine. Lifting trains force production. Cardio trains delivery: aerobic capacity, mitochondrial density, cardiac output. Without both, you're training half the system.