Starving Gets You More Girls Than Lifting Weights

| by Truth Seeker |

We’ve already determined that a man’s primary motivation to lift weights is the acquisition of extra attractiveness burdened with the task to trigger a very specific hormonal response within the female body. That applies to married [taken] men too regardless of what they say.

A long time ago, when my sets were hard enough to demand breaks, I overheard the conversation of a dude with his wife while I was bench pressing.

They were talking about a concert or some other live event. After hanging up, the guy proceeded to train his hamstrings in the corner with all the leg machines. A young female in her 20s was already there. She was ugly but had makeup and was a woman and that made her beautiful.

To this day, I can feel the sexual tension between them. The guy was constantly searching for her thighs wrapped in tight yoga pants.

His arms were his best body part. He began flexing them in front of the mirror even though he was training his legs – I don’t think that was a coincidence and neither should you.

When she sat on the adductor machine and commenced to open her legs rhythmically, almost as if she was inviting him to visit her temple, the guy had to force himself really hard to look away. Now, you are probably wondering why I remember this story with such great detail, but that’s a conversation for another post. Just don’t forget that all people want to be admired. I can prove it.

You’ve probably heard of the book Robinson Crusoe written by Daniel Defoe. I think I read it when I was a kid, but even if I haven’t, it’s all good. I don’t need fresh memories to tell you that Crusoe didn’t care about his deadlift max. I assure you. Google it. [ I did…or did I?]

Why wasn’t Crusoe lifting? It’s really simple. Because bodybuilding is the last thing that a man on a deserted island would do. And if you were in his position, alone with the ghosts, you wouldn’t perform planned deadlifts and squats either.

Why? Because people behave vastly differently when no one is watching.


One of the absolute worst things that you can do to become more good-looking is to lift heavy and “bulk up”. By stuffing yourself with calories and attempting to break your joints with the help of a barbell, you are setting yourself for a failure of the highest order because your actions do not have the causality that you expect of them. The only substance that you will gain is fat, lots of it.

Back in my permabulking days, when my heart was speeding after missing a meal, I was in my ugliest form. I was fat, watery and bloated. One time, a girl touched her chin while gazing at me; she was probably scared and checking whether she had the same lard-induced deformity.

As a fat man, I had great strength, although it feels weird to call myself strong. As we all know, everyone on the Internet is benching 225lbs like it’s a feather after 3 months of doing Ice Cream 5×5 or PopTard 3×7, but I guess I am part of the suckers. Yet I managed to deadlift over 200kg in my fat state. Today, just thinking about putting that many plates on a barbell makes me sleepy and eager to power on Battlefield 1.

Somewhat ironically, my most attractive shape was the result of prolonged and planned starvation or a “diet” if you want to use politically correct words. The plan was simple. I was eating only once a day. I did that for 10 weeks. I still lifted but didn’t invest a lot of effort into the fight against gravity.

The severe caloric restriction elicited a noticeable upgrade – my face became more attractive as my chin and hamster cheeks evaporated. My gut went away too. Sure, I was a lot weaker but nobody besides my dying permabulking soul seemed to care.

The experience taught me a great lesson:

Do what works rather than what you think you should.

[don’t tweet that]

Yet natties don’t listen. They continue to occupy the squat racks and even activate a cheat code by wrapping their fat guts with ultra-thick leather belts approved by some guru who has a fetish for hairy powerlifters.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be a permabulker ever gain.

Controlled starvation has given me way better results than eating “like a real man”.

And no, I don’t care about losing muscle mass because I know the secret – you can’t gain much of it as a natural with imperfect genetics for muscle construction…such as mine.

But that’s fine. Why? I’ll tell you later. Actually, I won’t…because you already know.

No spam. Unsubscribe at any time.


  1. Shane Mercer

    @Truth Seeker : you’re God’s messenger to all of us straight men of the 21st century . Keep at it . You might finally help us ( and yourself ) attain true spiritual happiness (which society conditions us to believe right from high school, that it only resides in a women’s body ) .

  2. Shane Mercer

    @TruthSeeker –
    Brother , considering the fact that you’ve read and comprehended the censored document that I sent you , could you create an educational column for the rest of the fraternity , enlightening the ones unaware about the overwhelming venomous might of that shadowy colossal monstrosity that we term as ” Female Power ” ? That’s a dire necessity of the moment . Women ( and their faithful guardian the corporate-state nexus ) seem to have developed a vicious agenda to mass slaughter middle class and working class males ( through war or labor ) .
    Thanks again for your compassion and hard work for us men .

  3. CJ

    imperfect genetics? All natties have “imperfect genetics” man. Yeah, some are SLIGHTLY more muscular/structured than others and these are the true “genetic freaks” but you already know this. In other words, you’re way too informed and too late in the game to make such a statement- i’m sure you look good, outside of the roid/media matrix.

  4. Grinch

    Reduced eating only works or a while. Why? The metabolism slows. Especially read the Minnesota Starvation Experiment by Ancel Keys. Or long term results of The Biggest Loser. This is not saying bulking is good.

    The key to long term weight loss is to increase metabolism, while maintaining adequate calories and nutrition. There are women on the internet eating less than 1000 calories a day, and they are stalled, they cannot reach their ideal weight.

    1. Dave

      Is it possible reach natural genetic potential without bulking and always eat at maintenance?
      Probably not.. maybe a small surplus every day(+200-250) or a more aggressive cyclical bulk (+1000 kcals on training day, deficit on rest days.. especially for enjoy lifestyle)..

      Most important thing is always have visible abs.. not going too far from the ripped condition

      1. Grinch

        I agree it it not realistically possible to lose fat and gain muscle at the same time. To hit our full muscle mass potential, we have to be eating in calorie surplus. When we cut, we will lose some muscle. Body builders bulk and cut because they have to, to be competitive, not because they want to. If someone prefers to be at a lower weight, they can sacrifice some muscle. Sumo wrestlers are powerfully strong and fast, I saw my first live match last year at the Arnold Classic. Most of us prefer to be slimmer than a sumo wrestler, even if we are not as strong.

      2. impatient_undertaker


        Why not? To build muscles you need water, protein, energy and stimulus, all of it is available at maintenance. How much calories do you think you need to build muscles? You can’t really count your calories so meticulously anyway, so don’t overthink that. Also, about cycling calories – body isn’t really that sensitive to respond drastically to daily changes in calories if at the end of the day (or two days) energy intake is the same.

    2. impatient_undertaker

      What does it mean that it only works “for a while”? That the fat loss won’t occur or you will start gaining fat even while starving? That’s impossible and Minnesota Starvation Experiment didn’t show anything of the like. Yeah, your metabolism slows if you starve, but not to a degree to halt fat loss. Women who claim that they eat less than 1000 kcal and gain weight lie or they are shitty at counting calories in food they eat.

          1. Matt Hawkins

            You are an idiot whatever name you post under. Saying these women are lying or can’t count calories is stupid and arrogant. It also proves you dot not take part on the weight loss forums. Most people who lose weight from restricted eating, lose weight but not enough to hit their target weight. Their ability to have continued weight loss from restricted eating is lost at some point. And eventually most of them regain weight over time. Take the Biggest Loser. A study of the former contestants showed all of them, except one woman, regained all their lost weight over time, or even ended up heavier than when they started. They had permanently slowed their metabolism. They were eating fewer calories after the show, to maintain the same weight they had prior to the show. You can find this study online.

          2. Matt Hawkins

            See my further comments regarding The Biggest Loser and Minnesota Starvation Experiment at the bottom of the page.

          3. Matt Hawkins

            Not only are there women eating less than 1000 calories a day, many women target 1200 calories a day. Many men target 1000-1600. Many, many people lose weight for a period of time, and then it stalls, never getting to their target weight, as their metabolism slows. Most people regain their lost weight over time, although some people retain their weight loss. The type of diet does not matter, low carb, high carb, or whatever.

          4. impatient_undertaker

            @Matt Hawkins

            I post under the same nickname I use on the forum you disrespectful bastard.
            There are no controlled trials that show that you can eat in deficit and not lose weight. 0. The Biggest Loser participants experience typical yo-yo effect. They lost too much weight too fast with too hard exercise regimen. Such a lifestyle is unsustainable longterm due to building up fatigue and stress so eventually they give up and revert to old eating habits, only now they are in a worse mental state so of course they overeat. There is no “metabolic damage” or any other nonsense of this kind. Their energy requirements drop proportionally to their weight loss and a little more because of fatigue they have lower NEAT – they move less overall outside whatever exercise they do.

            If what you say was the case, then we would see fat people in death camps (no, they all were skeletons after a coupke of months and eventually dies from starvation or infection). They aforementioned Minnesota Starvation Experiment showed exactly that – all participants’ body fat levels dropped to 4% after 6 months, no exceptions. Bringing this study up as an evidence of fat loss halting metabolic damage is pure nonsense and an evidence for the lack of reading comprehension skills, nothing more.

          5. Matt Hawkins

            Ah the mentally ill Joker, the butt hurt soyboy replies. Why do you think your butt hurts?
            The Minnesota Starvation Experiment proved peoples metabolism slowed when they diet, even eating a rather generous, by modern diet standards, 1560 calories a day. It also proved their metabolism did not return to normal by eating a normal amount of calories, they had to eat in large excess. The biggest loser proves people permanently damage their metabolism from excessive calorie restriction. Many, many (most people) on diet forums stall out as their metabolism slows. If they have a goal of a 100 lb weight loss, they may lose 50, but can’t lose more. Or if they lose 100, it creeps back up 50 lbs, or even eventually 100 or more. Human’s physiology makes permanent weight loss hard, or there would be no obesity epidemic. As the Harvard Medical study I linked so clearly states. Of course someone could be starved to death, but that would not be a healthy diet. organ failure would occur, people start eating more before this occurs.

            But as the saying goes, you can’t fix stupid, and you are stupid. I would say bite me, but you would enjoy that too much. So foff, Joker.

          6. Matt Hawkins

            Calorie deficit at the start of a diet is not a constant. It reduces with a slowing metabolism as the diet progresses. A good way to check metabolism is to measure body temperature upon waking in the morning. The lower the temperature, the more metabolism has slowed. 96F is far worse than 98.6F. (35.5C is worse than 37C). For people who struggle with losing weight, it is a good idea to have a thyroid panel. The foods we eat can increase metabolism. Good: caffeine, aspirin, a moderate amount of sugar either fruit or any other source, salt, dark chocolate, eat extra protein. Bad: soy is the worst, broccoli and cauliflower should be steamed and not eaten raw, and polyunsaturated fats.

          7. impatient_undertaker

            @Matt Hawkins
            Oh, it’s you Grinch, poor sap 😀 So it was a projection after all, you accuse me of using multiple accounts, but it’s actually you who practice it. Shame on you.
            Nothing you say is true here. All participants in Minnesota Starvation Experiment lost as much weight as it is possible and had ~4% of bodyfat at the end of the starvation phase. If you have weight loss goals beyond that then they are silly and not realistic but it’s not the case for vast majority of people.
            And no, there was no permanent “metabolic damage”. Metabolism goes back to normal once some of the weight is regained.

          8. Matt Hawkins

            “Over the following six years, the combined effects of these hormonal changes conspired to make the contestants regain much, if not all, of the weight they’d lost. But the truly shocking part was that their leptin and metabolism levels never rebounded to what they had been before the show. In fact, the more weight a contestant lost, the worse his or her slow metabolism became. This explains why weight regain was inevitable, even though they were eating less food than ever.”


            “But the truly shocking part was that their leptin and metabolism levels never rebounded to what they had been before the show. ”

            Joker, you can’t read or comprehend, but I cut you slack because of your mental condition, and your being gay and all. I know you disagree with Harvard. Why don’t you tell us some of your funny jokes to cheer yourself up.

          9. impatient_undertaker

            @Matt Hawkins (Grinch 🙂 )

            They didn’t rebound to baseline because on average they kept some of their weight off (they ended up 17 kg slimmer after 6 years in comparison with the before the show baseline). Their leptin didn’t rebound and it’s good thing because before it was way too high (41.14 ng/dL on average) and 6 years after it was 27.68 (still to high but better). Looking at leptin it’s not even damage, but healing, lol. Sometimes even reports from Harvard are wrong, you have to check the source. Clearly you didn’t do it and you spread sensationalist nonsense.

          10. Matt Hawkins

            I’ve seen behind the curtain where the phony wizard hides
            Now I’m going through the looking glass in search of paradise
            I know there’s more than meets the eye, ’cause I’ve seen it in my dreams
            I’m livin’ in a world of make believe

            Just for you Joker. Yes you know more than Harvard Medical.

          11. Matt Hawkins

            If you contact Harvard Medical and point out their mistakes, I am sure they will correct their website. People will be so grateful to you, you probably will invited to be a guest on your favorite talk show.

          12. impatient_undertaker

            @Matt Hawkins (Grinch 🙂 )

            You seem to be a guy that really likes the sound of his voice and laughs from his own jokes when no one does. The study is available for all to see, anyone can check the values I cited, so I will leave it here. As always, it was not a pleasure to speak with you.

          13. Matt Hawkins

            Joker, so I guess you won’t contact Harvard Medical to tell them of their errors, that only you with your mighty intellect could find.
            Always a pleasure talking to you.

          14. impatient_undertaker

            @Matt Hawkins (poor sap Grinch)

            I know you need to rely on authorities and news outlets to streamline things for you, otherwise you get confused. Not all people have this issue though, and it doesn’t take a “mighty” intellect to read things for yourself, although it may seem like it from your perspective.
            Anyway, it’s an old news and no one cares at this point. The sciences (don’t confuse with regurgitated reporting of science) agrees that there is no such a thing as metabolic damage, it only exists as an excuse or a factoid that is repeated by dishonest or mislead people like you.

  5. Sol Roth

    I agree with the general idea, but you have to do both the bulk and cut. With the cut portion that makes you more attractive. You need to build enough muscle, then when you starve away all the fat, you’re not invisble and look like a twig. Women can be incredibly cruel and insulting. Even if you’re stronger than the average guy, if you are not super pretty and look tiny, they’ll say horrible emasculating things to you (Do you need help lifting that? Don’t hurt yourself? Why are you so skinny?) and much worse stuff than that. Don’t permabulk, but make sure you got enough muscle to not look like you came from a concentration camp when you cut.

    1. Shane Mercer

      @Sol Roth – hey bro . I see that you’ve mentioned women . And after all considering how much a woman’s validation is subconsciously appreciated by all of us ( even if we tell ourselves we don’t care ) , I would like you to read this hyper-censored educational document. It will shatter the Matrix. Permanently.

  6. Eduardo

    Te felicito. El mejor blog que he leido por lejos. Me ha ayudado mucho a abrir mi mente.

  7. Gq

    Lol. I can see we are on the same path. Mondays to Fridays I eat once a week. Sometimes Saturdays too. Sundays are my chest days. Once you get used to eat you won’t even feel hungry or deprived. You’ll realise that as an adult with an office job, you really don’t need that much calories.

  8. mattsk1

    Nice, I got tired of squat cage and bench. I went cave man old school. First off all my training is outside. I carry stuff and walk with it, I lift stuff over my head, and I sprint. I don’t do reps or sets in the traditional sense. I think of it as down and back, rest and repeat. Every time I train Its full body. My Grip, back, shoulders, core and legs are loving it. I have gained some size in my traps, shoulders and arms and leaned up a bit too since changing from traditional weight training. I do use a barbell and farmer bars for my carries. Down side is if it is cold, raining, hot, snowing, whatever, I will be out their training. It is fun and feel like a kid doing this!

  9. Motasem

    Exactly what I’ve been doing for one and half a year. I am always on one meal a day with a tight eating window of 1-2 hours timed carefully in the morning. I eat around 2000 calories in one sitting.

    Most of the time I eat meat, nuts, cheese, cucumbers, fruits, and milk.

    I am at 9% BF – 6’2 feet tall – decent muscle mass.

    All the nations should follow this starvation diet 🙂 not only for weight loss but for health and longevity reasons.

    I can’t stop talking about my improved cognitive function, productivity, creativity, skin clarity, mental health and time management.

  10. William T. Landis

    This guy. Who the fuck is ‘we’? “We” haven’t determined shit. This is just you, your crippling Asperger’s like social anxiety disorder, and a bunch of ebooks. WHOOPS. Forgot about the crucial block of stunted English speaking Slavic fucks and pasty white boys that form the brain trust for this outfit. You and your fucking stories. You were in the weight room watching some guy curl while some broad was spreading her legs. Some girl stared at you and pondered the nature of your existence like Rodan’s fucking Blumpkin. Come to think of it, that’s a general theme with you. Always lurking about the edges like some molesting panhandler, cutting in occasionally to make some wit remark or god forbid making one of those abortive attempts at human interaction that fail and morph into feed for the trough around here. (Well, imagined interaction. One would think you’d at the least not flog yourself horribly in your fantasies but I digress.) Read the tales, kids. They follow the same ponderous pattern. I don’t know if you were fat, I imagine you were, and this culture absolutely does not reward obesity (black people think they got it bad, try being a fat fuck). So, some sympathy there.

    I’ll give you credit “Truth Seeker”: you pay for this website, and you’ve poured ten of thousands of words into it. You probably augment your tile carrying nicely. Or at least a steak dinner. You’ve formed a small Loser’s Club of sorts (check out the fucker who sent a damned near grad level thesis, if you pass over the psychosis)

    SIDEBAR: Shane Mercer, Ellis wrote American Psycho as a gaffe, not an ethos, chief. Moral of that fractured fairy tale: Don’t become the fucking punchline to the joke you’re trying to tell.

    In a way, it negates everything you try to point out is stacked against you. Imagine if you reallocated your resources. Then again, I imagine it’s nice to have an stable and stationary adversary relatively unaware of your presence and effect. Happy Chemtrails.

    1. Truth Seeker Post author

      Thank you for the support.

  11. Matt Hawkins

    The “biggest loser” study:
    ” By the final weigh-in, contestants’ leptin levels had plummeted, so that they had very little of the hormone, rendering them constantly hungry. They also had a slow metabolism. In other words, their thyroid function—which governs metabolism and many other bodily functions—had slowed.

    “Over the following six years, the combined effects of these hormonal changes conspired to make the contestants regain much, if not all, of the weight they’d lost. But the truly shocking part was that their leptin and metabolism levels never rebounded to what they had been before the show. In fact, the more weight a contestant lost, the worse his or her slow metabolism became. This explains why weight regain was inevitable, even though they were eating less food than ever.

    “So far, the strongest evidence is for weight-loss surgery, which can change the “set point” of weight and metabolism that your body strives to maintain. But not everyone is a candidate for weight-loss surgery. Talk to your doctor to find out if it’s right for you.

  12. Matt Hawkins

    The Minnesota Starvation Experiment

    In 1944-1945, Ancel Keys studied 36 men. They were studied eating 3200 calories a day, which then was reduced to 1560 a day. Keys built mathematical models of weight vs calories, and found weight loss is non-linear, because metabolism slowed. When the mens diet was slowly returned to normal, their metabolism did not recover. Then when allowed unrestricted eating, their metabolism returned to normal. Problems were found with restricted eating:

    “Among the conclusions from the study was the confirmation that prolonged semi-starvation produces significant increases in depression, hysteria and hypochondriasis as measured using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Indeed, most of the subjects experienced periods of severe emotional distress and depression.[1]:161 There were extreme reactions to the psychological effects during the experiment including self-mutilation (one subject amputated three fingers of his hand with an axe, though the subject was unsure if he had done so intentionally or accidentally).[6] Participants exhibited a preoccupation with food, both during the starvation period and the rehabilitation phase. Sexual interest was drastically reduced, and the volunteers showed signs of social withdrawal and isolation.” “There were marked declines in physiological processes indicative of decreases in each subject’s basal metabolic rate (the energy required by the body in a state of rest), reflected in reduced body temperature, respiration and heart rate. ”
    ” the physical effects of the induced semi-starvation during the study closely approximate the conditions experienced by people with a range of eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa. As a result of the study it has been postulated that many of the profound social and psychological effects of these disorders may result from undernutrition, and recovery depends on physical re-nourishment as well as psychological treatment.”

    1. impatient_undertaker

      Congratulations, you can’t even put your responses under the relevant post. Now your nonsense is all over the place 🙂
      So, where is the proof in that study that the metabolism can slow so much that people can’t reach their fatloss goals? I will help – there can’t be because it’s impossible. If you starve then the fat (and muscle too) is one of the first tissues to be lost. Then your organs shrink and then you die. You chose to cite some paragraphs from Wikipedia on that experiment, let’s see what you purposefully missed because it disproves what you claim:

      “The study was divided into three phases: (…) a 24 week starvation phase in which the caloric intake of each subject was drastically reduced – causing each participant to lose an average of 25% of their prestarvation bodyweight”

      Do you think that loosing 25% of the initial bodyweight left anyone in the study with spare fat? No, they all ended up with ~4% bf. You try to mislead people you dishonest bastard. That study is an evidence to the opposite – starving yourself will get you to whatever bodyfat level you want to achieve, though it may not be pleasant.

  13. Jim

    Some strange peoole here.
    You have to lose mass if you are on a calory deficit…no way around that fact. End of move on.

    You say “starve”. That is not the case. We eat far too much. Learning to eat only what we need is very difficult. Most overwright westerners feel like they are starving on less than 2,000 calories.

    1. Matt Hawkins

      The calorie deficit disappears as a persons diet continues. So move on. A person eating 2500 calories a day, going on 2000 a day diet, will hit a new equilibrium with zero calorie deficit at that weight. Their weight will not go to zero over time. The Minnesota Starvation Experiment proved men lost weight but it stabilized, at 1560 calories a day. And their metabolism slowed. The experiment was not true starvation. Overweight westerners? Obesity is spreading globally. You can offer a stupid recommendation to eat less, but that has failed, it only works for a given time period, before most dieters regain weight. Speak for yourself when you say we eat far too much. Obesity may be a reaction to illness, not the cause of it – even this has not been determined. Working on increasing metabolism is a better approach, than telling people they should eat less than 2000 calories a day. And ask yourself, why does bariatric surgery instantly cure type 2 diabetes, even for the most severely overweight?

      1. impatient_undertaker

        @Matt Hawkins (Grinch)

        Well, the less fat you are the less calorie you burn, duh. That’s why dieting people should approximate their maintenance at the goal weight and substract a couple 100s of calories to get there in a finite time frame and then switch to maintenance. Boom, done easily.

        And yes, people overeat. Only between 85’and 00′ Americans increased energy intake by 12% which is enough to make normal people overweight. It becomes a global problem because more and more countries become wealthy enough so that eating high calorie dense foods is not a problem anymore. So they overeat too.

        Subjects in the Minnesota Starvation Experiment “stabilized” at 4% body fat and started losing organ weight. Is that what you call stabilization? Lol. Any reasonable diet would be tweaked to maintenance long before that.

    2. Matt Hawkins

      Yes you are strange. This is USA recommended daily calories:

      moderately active male 28 years old 2800
      moderately active female 25 years old 2200

      People could be locked in a cage, given only water, yes they lose weight but they end up dead, their health was damaged. What calories do people have to eat to stay healthy in the long term? Dieting is stressful – stress hormones are released, which are catabolic – muscle is stripped from the body. Diet enough, and the heart, which is muscle, can be damaged. Go to quora, do a search on people living on 1000 calories a day or less. Karen Carpenter, the singer, died in the 1970s. She was anorexic. What killed her, she increased her calories too quickly, and the resulting stress caused heart failure. Read about how little food she was consuming.

    3. Matt Hawkins

      A calorie deficit is better created by increasing metabolism. A standard blood test is TSH. The lower the TSH, the better, faster metabolism. For many years, the medical establishment has been lowering the recommended TSH range. For many, this means going on thyroid medication.

      Excess cortisol = bad; why many weightlifters limit the length of their workout. Excessive cortisol removes muscle, but muscle increases metabolism. Having some sugar at the end of a workout reduces cortisol.

      Building muscle = good; long cardio = bad

      diet – avoid goitrogenic foods, websearch online for these; caffeine, sugar, salt, saturated fat, and especially protein are good. Too little protein slows metabolism. Vitamin D increases testosterone = good.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *