Hacker News Reader

Comment by pdog | Hacker News Reader

No offense, but Julian after three months isn't even as big as most guys you'd find at a local gym. Why would you take this guy's advice, "science-based" or not?

Addendum: I understand if you're still making progress, but maybe give it more than a few months before you start publishing advice on how to gain 20 pounds of muscle?

View on HN

This guide is about where you're starting from and how efficiently you can get bigger. Not about becoming massive (which is in large part a function of your genetics).

Can you please release "fat loss" program for free and inversely, charge for info on getting bigger? I mean, how would one notice an actual growth behind his varying fat levels?

isn't "fat loss" just: eat less, do more cardio?

Like everything you can do it in good way, bad way or very bad way.

Why is it worth ten bucks then?

why are snake oil so expensive then?

For the most part no, as that would propel postal workers and warehouse employees to the fitness levels comparable only to Olympic athletes. Fat acquisition, absorption, retention and burn is a functional of the endocrine system (hormones) rather than cardiological system (heart and blood vessels). Gary Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories" as well as his numerous articles is probably a good start.

didn't know that; always thought it's just calorie in < calorie out. will check out that book, thanks!

I think his size is enough for many people. It's not about looking big, it's about looking healthy and doing a minimum of training. I think the results are great

It depends on (a) genetics, and (b) hormone supplements. Natural body building is therefore more dependent on genetic variation and slower.

There was a recent 'study' (most research in this area is pretty bad, small sample sizes, low powered studies) that showed muscle/size improvements: hormones + exercise > hormones > exercise > neither.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com