Why Bones and Muscle Insertions Are More Important For Natural Growth Than Natural Testosterone Levels

| by Truth Seeker |

Many professors say that testosterone is the King of Muscle growth, the Catalyzer of Muscular Insanity, the Godfather of Muscle Mass. For that reason, the natural lifestyle is built around testosterone boosting. “Get those test levels high, brah!”

Yet within the natty context testosterone is not nearly as strong as the legend says. As I told you in the previous post, boosting your test naturally does not have a profound effect on your muscle mass. Going from the low end of the spectrum to the high will not trigger nearly as much muscle synthesis as you may think. There will be a positive result if your testosterone levels are incredibly low, but you will certainly not experience a steroid-like effect or close to it.

The “nasty” transformations stimulated by testosterone increase take place once supraphisiological heights are reached.

There are two other metrics that have a superior effect on the natural dream. Those would be – bones & muscle insertions.

via wikipedia.org | Steve Reeves had a supreme bone structure.


Bones are underrated. They are the hero operating in the shadows. Yet they decide so much – maybe our whole lives.

The difference between a beautiful person and an ugly one is bones. People like to talk about eye color, skin and smiles, but the skeletal structure of an individual is the frame supporting it all. The attractive humans have a bone assembly stimulating the human receptors for beauty.

Long fingers, wide shoulders, pronounced jaws, height… are all features decided by one’s bone structure. You can add natural muscle size to the list too.

As I told you in the book Potential: How Big Can You Get Naturally (use: code word natty for a 35% discount), the thicker the bone, the bigger the muscle attached to it by default. This is the case regardless of testosterone levels.

Imagine the following scenario. One man has low test and 8-inch wrists while another one has high test and 6-inch wrists. The guy with the bigger wrists will more than likely have bigger forearms than the thin wrists dude. This happens because the healthy human body follows certain proportions. Bigger bones need larger muscles and tendons to operate properly.

Muscle insertions

Your insertions decide the length of your tendons and muscles. For bodybuilding purposes, it’s best to have the longest muscles possible. The longer the muscle, the more fibers there are to grow.

The musculature of the lower leg serves as a perfect example. There are women with calves bigger than those of elite bodybuilders with high calf insertions. Obviously, testosterone is not the deciding factor here. Some pros are injecting an enormous amount of drugs while still having lagging calves and forearms.

Steroids amplify the muscle mass of the user but do not change the shape of the muscle. They are incapable of causing architectural restructuring.

Your Frame Determines Your Width

You can spend all your life on lateral raises, lat exercises and Vince Gironda’s special widening programs, but if your skeletal structure is narrow, it will remain such.

via reddit.com | Mr. Olympia Phil Heath

Even Mr. Olympia Phil Heath suffers from that effect. Structurally, he does not have wide shoulders and even the five trucks of muscle mass covering his skeleton cannot hide his proportions.

The men with the widest shoulders are always individuals with extreme clavicles. It’s not about exercises regimes and other forms of hyper-intellectualized voodoo. It’s all about bones.

Width and Height Are Not Always Related

Many people think that height equals width by default, but this would be incorrect. There are many high altitude brahs with narrow shoulders. The reason why most tall men are perceived as wide is that wide shoulders on a tall man look more intimidating and noticeable.

The Biggest Natural Bodybuilders Have Thick Bones

The naive mind may conclude that anyone can build huge muscle naturally regardless of his bone structure, but that just doesn’t happen to the average person.

The natties with the biggest musculatures have robust frames and bigger muscles by default without even training. Not all of them have superior hypertrophy boosting systems, however. They just have a higher base than the thin dudes.

Nonetheless, the natties with thick skeletons share the destiny of the average natural bodybuilder too. Eventually, even in their case, natural hypertrophy becomes an illusion past the initial gains.

Preselection Based on Frame

Many athletes are selected for their frame at an early age. Coaches and scouts with experience in a sport know what to look for. Individuals with a favorable structure are chosen over others. For instance, gymnastics and weightlifting favor men with short limbs whereas swimming and basketball benefit from extra length.

source: https://pixabay.com/en/romance-love-couple-heart-design-2258599

Women Select Men According to Their Bones Too

Once I heard a woman in a movie say “you have perfect bones” to a man in an attempt to compliment his appearance. I didn’t quite understand what the screenwriter meant by that, but today, it makes perfect sense – women value facial aesthetics, height and frame a lot.

Do you know the most asked question by women on dating apps?

It’s “How tall are you?”

When I was trying online dating (I don’t recommend it), a woman asked me how tall I am since I hadn’t specified. I told her. We were the same height, but it wasn’t enough because “what if I wear heels”. I was like – go date your heels, woman.

Of course, you can’t expect from women to admit to superficiality. They would tell you that men are the superficial sex forcing them to put on make-up. This is not true. Most men detest facial painting and see it as a legal scam. It has its use but not on a global scale. Women’s make-up addiction is a result of brainwashing and obsession with appearance.

Somewhat ironically, when men try to boost their attractive factors, they are ridiculed. For instance, the community mocks short men who wear shoes with heels to artificially increase their height. Yet women get away with all their bag of tricks.

She Ghosted You Because You Don’t Have The Right Bones

Many men overthink why interactions with women fail.

“Maybe I should have waited 30 more minutes before texting her?”

“Maybe I shouldn’t have sent her an emoji?”

“Maybe I had to sent her an emoji?”

Similar hyper-analyzing shows damaged neurons. None of that matters. You can never please them. The more you try, the more you lose.

Ultimately, they ghost you because they are still “finding themselves” or simply not attracted to your bone structure rather than the structure of your text messages.

Does Love Based On Actions Even Exist?

Love” has become a hunt for money and superior genes – women want a man with specific genetics which he will later transmit to his offspring. Naturally, men do that as well. We search for females of a certain heritage. The difference is that women’s requirements have gotten out of hand.

Honestly, love based on actions is present in such small quantities that you may just as well report it dead.

Coming to terms with the fact that you are not perfect = Freedom

The more you try to satisfy people, the tighter the chains become. There comes a time when you have to accept yourself. It’s harder to do that during your younger years because the youth values strongly external opinion.

When you get older, things will change. This is especially true for males because men are more likely to resent conformism. It’s almost an automatic process. One day you just stop carrying as much.

It’s a great feeling and the only way to liberate yourself from constant judgment. Nothing drives the bullies crazier than seeing you above your shortcomings. That way your enemies become powerless.

P.S. Potential: How Big Can You Get Naturally is out.

Use code word “natty” for a 35% discount. (weekend offer)

No spam. Unsubscribe at any time.


  1. Jorge Mario Montes

    excelent post !!!!! I have two questions

    1. I have 6.5 inches wrists , I am hecto ?

    2. a guy with 8.5 inches wrists really exists ? 8 inches is for a dinosaur not for a human , is to much

    1. Truth Seeker Post author

      8.5 are very rare, but 8 are more common. Ed Coan has 8-inch wrists according to the legends.

      With a 6.5-inch wrist you are probably an ecto. I have 6.25-inch wrists.

      1. ian roberts

        i have a 8 : wrist iam 5 : 11.5 in height and a naturally over 200lb dude i walk at 218lbs 10 percent bodyfat would i be a endo mesa type? i am short armed barrel chested type build i gain muscle easy and look lean but iam a large boned person

    2. joesantus

      Yep, a few anomalies do exist, and the national and world-class physique and strength champions and contenders often are among them; notice the four Mr Americas with 8″ wrists in this chart:


      Also notice the ANKLE measurements of these champions — proportionate ankle, wrist, and clavicle-width/pelvis width to height are necessary for an overall proportionate set of bones, so for a balanced frame on which to build muscle.

      I own small 6.625″ wrists but cartoonishly tiny 7.875 ankles at my 5’8″ height — together with my too-long tendons (meaning, inferior insertions), that leaves me with calves tinier than some children’s despite having worked them harder than any other muscle group for the forty-six years (yes 46 years) I’ve been bodybuilding since age sixteen…so, I know personally how under-proportioned bones prevent developing an aesthetically-proportioned physique.

  2. Jeff

    I wonder what role ligament strength might play in natty potential?
    Sometimes after a long plateau at a fixed weight, occasionally there is a spurt of (modest) strength (ie a few more lbs on the bar).
    Might it be that the ligaments were slowly getting stronger and able to support a bit more growth (or the CNS sensed it could loosen the brakes a bit more)?

    1. Truth Seeker Post author

      Strong connective tissues allow you to lift heavier, do harder workouts and reduce the chance of injury (although the heavy weight increases it). This can in return stimulate more growth.

  3. Raven Starre

    Fuck you masoginistic CUNT. Woman have been oppressed by men FOREVER and that’s why mlm is helping woman win BIG! If any woman are reading this then join my mlm coaching reality tv show set to launch in December

    1. Harold

      calm down you feminist bitch, we dont give a fuck about your show about bitchy women
      who will never get a man.

      1. jim

        dirty slut**

        women are interested in:
        size of man’s wallet and cock.In that order

    2. You're Welcome

      Women will be women. Men will be men.

    3. alphonse

      what’s MLM? multi-level marketing? hahaha fuck if that’s the case I must be speaking to a genius, another millionaire mind. Look, MLM are a fucking scam, dont waste your time following pipe dreams, try to make a family, you know a fucking tribe that will care about you, the one thing that sociologists and philosophers have known that is the single most important determinant for human happiness. MLM logic explains why bitcoin price got out of hand. “I dont want to work, but I dont want to accept that I dont want to become rich the hard way, because thats shameful, therefore I entered a pyramidal scheme in which all I have to do is wait for other guys to transfer their money to me, what can possible go wrong?”. This guy is right, in the dating scene there’s is a double standard, women are equally, if not more superficial, than males. I hate make up, I have told that to all the girls I dated, some take it too personal. On the other hand, I dont see equivalent standarats for girls like hormone inyections, or a big income figure.

  4. Jorge Mario Montes

    one question more

    was steve revees natty or not?

    1. Truth Seeker Post author

      Drugs were available during his era. Of course, they were not nearly as diverse as today. I would not be surprised if he tried something.

      1. Nick

        I still live in the hope he was natty !

      2. jim

        i hear not…..ho does’t look it.

    2. Daniel

      It has been reported that Steeve Reeves took D-Bol.

      1. Oz

        Wasn’t Steve Reeves the original “fake natty”? As in claiming to be natural and bagging steroid users.

      2. joesantus

        D-Bol (Dianabol) was developed by CIBA in 1955, and marketed by CIBA beginning in 1958.
        Reeves’ last contest was in 1950, when he won that year’s NABBA Mr Universe. He’d won the AAU Mr America in 1947.

        Meaning, those “reports” about him taking D-Bol during his competitive years are laughable.

        1. Truth Seeker Post author

          Drugs were available far earlier than that – the 40s.

          1. joesantus

            “Testosterone being synthesized in injectable and oral forms and used experimentally by doctors and scientists to treat androgenic dysfunctions in men, mostly aged men, pre-1950” and “being commonly available and/or commonly known to produce substantial muscle increase in healthy under-age-40 men, pre-1950” aren’t synonymous, however.

            You and I need to discuss the pre-1950 situation long and deeply, lol But I DO agree that any physique post-1950 is suspect of steroid use, by the way.

            I’ll leave you with these two of many points…

            1) I corresponded with John Hoberman, author of “Testosterone Dreams” (which I own a copy of): Hoberman is no advocate of steroids. Nonetheless, he stated this in my correspondence with him:

            “Dr. Hoberman,
            Your much-appreciated , “Testosterone Dreams: Rejuvenation, Aphrodisia, Doping,” raised a question I hope you might answer.
            In your research of the history of testosterone, did you discover any direct or indirect evidence of testosterone (e.g. methyl testosterone, which you discussed being used primarily for androgenic effects) being administered or utilized for primarily ANABOLIC (muscle-building) purposes prior to 1950?
            My question arises due to “Testosterone Dreams:” being referenced by at least one online article (sincerely well-intentioned, to its writer credit) as reason to suspect even pre-1950 bodybuilders such as Steve Reeves and John Grimek of having resorted to manufactured testosterone for muscle-mass-building purposes. I found no evidence in your book to support that suspicion; however, I wonder if your research has discovered any actual evidence of such anabolic use of manufactured testosterone pre-1950.
            Any reply you might provide will be kept in confidentiality and for my personal edification, unless you expressly permit otherwise.
            Thank you for your time,
            Joe S”

            “Mr. S,
            Thank you for your kind words and your interesting inquiry.
            You have correctly concluded that the book makes no
            claim about pre-1950 muscle-building testosterone use.
            I wish I knew, but I don’t. I was looking but didn’t find it.
            One might expect it on the beaches of Southern California,
            but that is only speculation as far as I know.
            We should also keep in mind that even if Steve Reeves or
            John Grimek did use testosterone, they would not necessarily
            have felt it was inappropriate. I point out in the book that
            testosterone had a benign medical image at that time.
            Best regards,
            John Hoberman
            Sent from my iPad
            On Dec 1, 2015, at 7:40 PM”

            2) Note what Paul de Kruif ALSO stated in his oft-cited-from-page-223 book, “The Male Hormone” (1945/1947reprint) on pages 108 and 109 (I own this book too):
            “Nobody could object to this magic new life for the almost-men and the resurrection of those castrates whose lives had been broken. But, looked at in the broadest moral sense, when this new testosterone got into real mass production (it was still rare and expensive) wouldn’t it then be dangerous, be dynamite to turn loose on humanity?…What about testosterone’s possible effect upon our young men who were already too, too sexual and wanted to be more so?…A reassuring answer came from Doctors Vest and Howard. They had put this to strict experiment. They had got volunteers among ‘normal’ husky young fellows and had given them double-sized injections of testosterone; and upon none of these ‘normal’ young men had there been any sexual effect at all. This seemed clear: it’s only when you lack natural male hormone that testosterone shows its magic power, and it can’t make you any more manly than manly….”

            They were wrong, obviously, because enough exogenous testosterone certainly does affect libido — but, point here is, at that time in science and medicine, the thinking was that T was effective only for helping UNhealthy or aged men, as a therapy or restorative. As late as 1947, most scientists and doctors mistakenly believed it was ineffective for healthy males.

            And that “professional” group de Kruif mentions on p. 223? Read from the last paragraph on p.221 (“under-par men patients past fifty”) to get the full context for that oft-quoted bit on p.223. De Kruif isn’t talking about giving testosterone to professional ATHLETES — rather he’s making a parallel between how vitamins (he believed) had “supercharged” young pro athletes and how methyl testosterone pills taken by AGED WORKMEN might similarly supercharge the output of an “industry or professional group” by restoring them to the capabilities they had when they were younger.
            So, sure, de Kruif was wronggggggggggg about the effects of testosterone on healthy young athletes — but what he says evidences that as late as his 1947 reprint edition, it was not commonly known that T was effective for anything except its androgenic restorative to aging and hypogonadal men.

  5. Joe

    Graet article, and i agree that of course the woman judge more to the Men than Men to women, i have found my men “friends” look at my and say me some good about my body, but next a stupid facebook/Netflix girl (group integrate for 99% of the women) look at me and just says some like, you are so skinny, i have a friends that look best than you, you don’t look like the model of latest movie and that kind of comments came from average or worst woman

  6. boi

    ““Love” has become a hunt for money and superior genes – women want a man with specific genetics which he will later transmit to his offspring.”

    Its kinda weird that you used “has become” when your worldview is basically evolutionary psychology. Love was always a hunt for the best partner (for surival and procreation), there is no need to romanticize the old times.

    1. joesantus

      Exactly, BOI. What women instinctually desire is no different today than it was 2,000 years ago. Their biochemical wiring is the same it’s always been.

      Until about 1970 (I’m age 62, by the way), in the US, the economic environment made most women dependent upon men for financial support, especially if they wanted to have babies; that meant marriage in practical outworking. And, in order to gain financial security, a woman more often had to settle for marriage to and remaining married to a guy who was far less than what sexually attracted her.
      Not so today. Societal and economic changes now enable women to be more independent of men. Consequently, what women have actually instinctually desired all along is able to be expressed in a way it couldn’t before 1970.

      1. Fatman

        Not surprisingly, people today tend to marry later, have fewer children and stay married longer. Overall this is a significant improvement. Divorce rates among people who married in the 1960s and 1970s are unbelievable. Settling may seem like a solution at a certain point in time, but it doesn’t work long term.

  7. Brett

    Thick skeletal structure, long muscle bellies, and lots of muscle cells are what determine your muscle building potential, not so much your testosterone levels as a natural.

    Obviously the more muscle cells you have to thicken and hypertrophy the more progress to be made. Muscle cells differ from individual to individual.

    I also believed for these reasons the formula for how much muscle mass a natural can hold at ripped condition 6%(height in cm – 100) is almost inpossible to achieve.

    If you 6’1 (186 cm) – 100 = 86 kg at 6% bodyfat. This is extremely rare to see. A real natty with those stats would have to have lots of muscle cells and thick bones and even then their natty status would be suspect. I myself at 6’1 am 81 kg between 14-16% bodyfat and 6’7 inch wrists. So basically almost all natties with average bone structure (wrists less than 7 inches) will most likely not even achieve the natty table limits.

    If Eugene Sandow, a presumed natural bodybuilder who’s arms were officially measured at 16,5 inches with 7 inch wrists couldn’t even achieve the ‘rule’ of “your wrists in inches + 10 should be your arm measurement” then most likely most natties won’t either.

    PS is Raven Starr for real ??

    1. Truth Seeker Post author

      Yes. This formula is nonsense unless you have a godly frame. Average males won’t reach those stats.

      1. joesantus


        The dishonesty running alongside fake naturals — and which was running even before steroids became commonplace and widespread after about 1960 — has been that, “ANYONE can develop a build a national or world class physique!” Fitness and supplement marketeers such as Charles Atlas, Bob Hoffman, Joe Weider (and earlier) have utilized that lie to peddle their wares to average guys since Sandow (he sold light dumbbells to naive average guys, claiming they could develop a build like his by using them).

        Guys with average genetics (and obviously those with below-average genetics) can’t build the maximum proportionate muscle mass calculated by those formulas — those formulas are for what the ABOVE-average-gened guy — the rare guy with near-ideal skeletal frame, great insertions everyplace, T-level near the top-of-the-normal-physiological range, preponderance of Type II fibers, plenty of androgen receptors, better-than-average bodyfat distribution, among other genetic variables — can develop drug-free. That means, when undertaking drug-free muscle-building, any guy should assume he’s an “average” and expect lesser results, unless after a year or two of consistent progressive training, his progress has evidenced otherwise.

        Even in the days of Sandow or Bobby Pandour (I expect that at least they are not suspected of having used synthetic testosterone? cocaine and amphetamines ain’t anabolic, so whether they took those is meaningless for the mass they built), only a few, rare genetic outliers could build an outstanding proportionately-muscled physique..

        This doesn’t mean average guys should forget about drug-free bodybuilding. It means average guys need to have realistic goals about drug-free bodybuilding. As I’ve repeated ad nauseam in NATTY’s comment threads, I’ve been bodybuilding since age sixteen in 1972 (that was even before the public heard of Arnold Schwarzenegger); I’m age 62 now, and still bodybuilding. In 1972, the only info available for the majority of guys was via the marketeers’ dishonest magazines; hardly anyone told us then about the preeminence of genetics. I trained religiously on progressive programs of basic compound movements, ate correctly, rested, lived-n-breathed bodybuilding, for three years until I realized I don’t have the genetics for building an outstanding physique; actually I have BELOW-average muscle-building genes. But I realized then that a half a glass (or in my case, a third of a glass) of lean muscle looked better than NO muscle, even if it wasn’t the full glass I wanted. For the average guy, a half a glass is what he can expect — so, if he can be content with at least that much, drug-free bodybuilding is still beneficial.

    2. Fatman

      Barring severe starvation, a true natty will never get to 6% bodyfat to begin with, so the formula doesn’t make sense under any conditions.

      1. Fatman

        The “wrist size + 10” formula is more realistic for upper arm size, but at a normal bodyfat for a natty, e.g. 10-15%.

  8. Bruce

    Are you the same guy from “FaceandLMS”on YouTube? I keep reading you articles in his voice and I just realized how weird that is.

    1. Truth Seeker Post author

      I am not making YT videos. I plan to make a documentary about steroids but have no idea when that will happen.

  9. Inder

    If any woman is reading this, then stop wearing make up, so I can see what your skin really looks like… you hypocrites. Its bad enough that a man has to waste precious time removing your 50 psychological masks hiding your true personality. Only to discover at the end of it, that there’s nothing there of substance but a shallow ghost of a soul with an over inflated opinion of herself.

    1. Truth Seeker Post author

      Great comment.

  10. Mike

    This may be contributing to the obesity crisis in this country. Women selecting larger boned men for mates give rise to larger and bigger children. The women themselves have gotten bigger as a result. You see very few petite frames on women today which was common fifty years ago. Men did not have a big and tall section in department stores as of twenty years ago.

    1. alphonse

      naaah, its because of sugar dude, besides big is not the same as obesse, as many permabulkers pretend. Reminds me of a joke that appeared in Pinky and the Brain “Sumos are not fat pinky san, they have muscle fibers built by years of yoga exercises.” Also in our species, just like with chimps, size is not the biggest indicator of “alphaness”.

      1. joesantus

        …well, not sugar per se, but, too many calories, which, yes, in the form of sweetened so tastier foods are far easier to consume in excessive amounts day after day than are, say, steamed spinach and plain greek yogurt.

        And, yes, excessive sugar, with its roller-coaster effect on blood glucose, results in feeling hungrier so also contributes to people consuming excessive calories.
        But being hungry doesn’t itself force anyone to eat excessively, nor eat at all, so even the metabolic instability caused by too much sugar isn’t directly causing obesity. A person can choose to refuse to yield to hunger cravings (heck, I’ve done it successfully for the past twelve years for my three-week transition from my intentionally higher carbs/calories during Oct 1 until Jan 1 to my lower-carb bodyfat-loss eating designed for carrying 12% bodyfat from April through Oct 1, as part of my annual eating schedule).

        But, ultimately, its, ” the too fucking many calories!” causing obesity. Other variables — gut bacteria, fiber, hypothyroidism, etcetera ad nauseam might require that a particular person needs to reduce calories further than someone else to avoid or resolve obesity, but, ultimately it’s still about controlling calories.

  11. Lass

    I have super long calf tendons and I don’t waste time training them.

    1. Truth Seeker Post author


      You may consider training them to condition the joint for a sport or something but other than that you would be wasting your time.

  12. Riki Pianola

    I somehow think that even body frame is test dependent. People with high test naturally have thicker and wider frames. Doesn’t mean that the converse is true though. Also, the diagram suggests that people with small frames have bigger traps than their bigger frame counterparts. Is that true? Do you have big traps?

    1. Truth Seeker Post author

      I have a medium frame and my traps are proportional to the rest of my body. People with narrower shoulders appear to have bigger traps because there is less space to fill.

      1. jim

        what about a large cock on a small frame? Help or not?

    2. joesantus

      Not only what a man’s genetic, endogenous T level is, but, also the separate variable of how much naturally circulating exogenous testosterone he was exposed to, and how his receptors responded to it, while he was still in his mother’s womb, may be responsible for at least some skeletal characteristics.

  13. Swana

    First of All,
    I really love your site and your work.
    I have three of your books and will buy others.
    My programs are based on your understanding and I have made big progress since even if I’m not a newbie, but an essential thing to make progress is understand natty limits, natty workout, natty diet.

    I learnt 70% of it in this site.

    Sorry for my english, I’m born and raised in France.

    I have some questions please.
    I’m 1m84 81kg 15% BF 38cm flexed biceps with no vein.
    My wrists are 16cm. Even lil women have bigger wrists than mine. Yes, I looked. Long arms. Very lil hands, all of my friends have bigger hands, and and most women (I looked too). Lil arms but solid long pecs. Long biceps/quadriceps and long triceps bellies. Short calves cause i’m the tall black guy kind. Weak genetics… Was weighting 60kg for 1m84 at 20 years old you see…

    I have wide shoulders (not that wide but it’s ok).
    But most people say that I look athletic in fit clothes, and have big arms.
    One of my thick friends (1m75, 78kg 41cm arms, 15% bf) said that I look mesomorph for him. Some people say that I look strong etc.
    How comes???

    The next question is about my first bench press in my life (no machine) in may.
    I was following a weighted push ups program, based on yours. I was on 15kg added weight.
    My bodyweight was 82kg. I benched for the first time 80kg for 4 times, full amplitude (bar to chest, tensed arms etc). I was on a diet those days, a medium triceps pec workout yesterday, an heavy back workout on the morning, hunger… Honnestly I think that I could push 90kgx1 in better conditions.

    What do you think about my performance ? And how come some of my lil friends, 83kg only bench 120kg for one rep after more than 4 years of workout and me pushing all this weight for my first bench (and I’m pretty sure to bench 100kg after the two next months)?

    Thanks a lot for your training philosophy. I was adding only 10kg in may and will add 30kg next week (my deload is ending). I have a bit more muscle but I’m not that bigger.
    In my case, everytin’ about natty progress in this site is true.
    I make progress in the weights added even on a diet.
    Passed from 13 pull ups to 24 record in less than 6 month. From a very hhhhhard 30kg pull up to a 40kg easily.

    Thanks a lot.
    I have read nearly all of your articles too.

    1. Truth Seeker Post author

      Your are doing well. Your progress is good. Congratulations.

      I guess in your case weighted push-ups have a strong carryover to the bench.

      Thanks for stopping by.

      1. jim

        i can reckpull at…250kg….can’t go any higher as i can’t fit anymore weight on the bar….but shoulder press i struggle on..75KG Bodyweight of 77kg height 5ft 7″Shoulder press won’t go up…
        What does that say?

  14. Vin

    Hi Truth Seeker,

    I really enjoy your articles, they have taught me a lot about realistic gym goals.

    I just read your intermittent fasting post from a few years ago, have you experimented much with it since? I’ve read that it can boost T but probably not enough to increase muscle mass dramatically?

    I look forward to your next article! thanks

  15. Robert

    Fantastic ending! It’s so true, I turn 40 in a week & I’ve never felt more confident. I take care of my apperance & train for me & have peace of mind at last. Something that definitely comes with age.

  16. Julio

    Ok mate,
    I’ve read 10 or-so of your posts and this is the one where you objectively hit the nail on the head (without your common undertone of resentfulness that you aren’t a high responder).

    Frame is Indeed a major factor for both gains and sex appeal. After that harmony and soft tissue mostly determine your male looks.

    Are you sure your readership are ready for this level of red pill however…..?

  17. Stef

    Torpid metabolism is the cause of not burning enough calories to stay lean.

Leave a Reply

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