Is "natty limit" a meme? As long as you keep lifting

>>39270516

are u srs

>>39270516

>>39270539
it says (OP), not (You), so can maybe reply to this post instead?

>>39270521
dead srs

>>39270516
asking if something is a meme is a fucking meme, get off the computer and start squating

>>39270516
I don't know how it works but the body will at one point refuse to build muscle. MAYBE it is theoretically possible to go to infinity, but I think there is a sort of hard cap in your genes.

File: 1477550641245.png (535KB, 660x560px) Image search: [Google]

535KB, 660x560px

>>39270516
there are probably some hard physical limits for this sort of thing, like everything else.

>before the evolution of skeletons, all animals were comparatively small because they could not support their weight.

>after, the possible size of animals became larger. But still, there was a stricter limit on the size of land animals because of gravity, but certain sea species could evolve to be even larger.

there probably is a gene which allows men to be strong but was switched off / left out as a tradeoff for more brain capacity or less resource consumption. See primates, they are strong as fuck.

>>39270516
Dumbest thread of the day

>>39271094
similarly, the limit for jumping high can be shown to be in the same order of magnitude regardless of animal size using relatively elemental physical considerations, that's why elephants or even tigers can't jump much higher than fleas for example, even though they are a billion times larger.

>>39271125
>that's why elephants or even tigers can't jump much higher than fleas
Elephants can't jump at all.

>>39270516
It becomes real hard to keep adding weight
Even if you're at a surplus

>>39270516
yeah it's a meme as in there is not a point where your body says 'ok no more muscle that's enough', it's more that your rate of being able to add muscle slows down over time to a point where you lift for a year and only put on maybe 0.1lbs of muscle, so its not that there is a limit on the amount of muscle you can have as a natty it's just diminishing returns on the rate you can put it on

>>39270516
Like every natural phenomenon, muscle building answers to the rule of diminishing returns, aka logarithmic progression
It means that, in theory, it's not mathematically impossible to always be growing, it just means at some point, the progress becomes so insignificant compared to the effort required that it's just like you reached your limit
From a physiological approach, your body has feedback loops data to your brain, and your brain can decide to produce more muscle-growth stopping hormones if it feels you're getting too big (risk of endangering your organs or articulations, risk of not being able to irrigate everything...)

>>39271187
>diminishing returns, aka logarithmic progression
>mathematically impossible to always be growing
Jesus fuck how dumb are you?

>>39271201
What bothers you my friend ?

>>39270516
Maximum recovery is dictated by your endocrine profile once your maximum recovery potential is required just to retain your muscle mass. Steroids boost your recovery and performance so you can increase your workload and recovery and thus your muscle mass.

File: always increasing.png (40KB, 310x294px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 310x294px

>>39271221

>>39271246
I don't see the point you're trying to make

>>39271258
The point he's trying to make is that logarithmic functions are always increasing, so if there's logarithmic progression it is mathematically impossible NOT to always be growing.

>>39271286
>it's not mathematically impossible to always be growing

Learn to read, retard

>>39271286
Yeah, but that's exactly what I wrote in my post, the very post he quoted to say I'm fucking dumb

>>39270516
Imagine it like Zeno's paradox. The natty limit is reached at some point but nobody really knows when and with every step you take to get closer, you reduce your distance to it by half. You will never reach you full potential but you will never stop improving. There is a ceiling but there is not end to your improvement because your steps are too small.

>>39271286
No the ones you psoted obviusly approach an asymptote.

>>39271300
Nice

>>39271302
You don't know what an asymptote is if you think your reply was legitimate and clever.

>>39271291

Its a simple double negative. Hes saying that if you put in enough work theoretically you can get stronger. At one point it maybe just doing x everyday to get y and at some point it becomes 3x to get y and maybe at another point it becomes 10x to get y and at this point its just to expensive and time consuming to even imagine doing but if you did it then youd progress.

Look at rayy williams. Hes squatting 1000+ because hes super fat.

>>39270516
Your heart and organs will only process and sustain up to a certain amount. Your body will only absorb and process a limited amount of nutrients and basically shit out the rest. This isn't a muscular limit, it's just how the body functions under normal conditions.

>>39270516
you could eat as much as you want but your body couldn't process that shit efficiently enough.

Hormones brah

i doubt even olympic athletes have hit that limit and most of them have been training since they were kids or for at least 10+ years.

average joe does not need to worry about such things

You can theoretically make progress forever as a natural, it jusy gets harder and harder to do it as time goes on.

The asymptotic limit charts assume you have the personality and good fortune to get 15 years or so of relatively untroubled training that you progress sensibly to get fairly optimum gains.

At that point you'll likely struggle to add a few pounds to your lifts and a pound to yourself every year. But what's more likely to limit your potential at that point and at any point before it is the rest of life, rather than genetics.

Random injuries, illness (of you or a family member), late finishes at work, noisy neighbours keeping you up, and general everyday stress are going to present a much greater impedement to your progress over your entire life than the 'natty limit' ever will. Not to mention your own willpower and competing desires.

>>39271378
You can't theoretically make progress forever as a natural.
There's a limit to how much muscle mass your body can hold naturally, and it declines with age at a certain point.

>>39271258
>>39271286
>>39271302
Logarithmic progression actually implies the opposite, unbounded growth, since log(x) goes to infinity as x goes to infinity.
But also, you can have a function that's always growing and is bounded above though, e.g. -1/x. So it is possible that you can always improve and at the same time, have a limit to your potential.

>>39271593
>what is a double negative

>>39271359
>olympic athletes
>natty

>>39271258
X is time
Y is your gains

You'll never stop growing but eventually the differences that are occuring in your physique will so infinitely small you wont be able to notice them.

>>39271300
Literally a function approaching am asymptote.

This is bretty good

>>39271672
exept this doesn't happen

>>39271618
I didn't disagree with you.

>>39272625
Okay, sorry for misinterpreting.

>>39271094
We have a block mechanism that can be unlocked with adrenaline so we don't hurt ourselves, most other primates don't. A well built human is one of the strongest land animals (obviously behind bears and stuff like that)

>>39270516
diminishing returns

>>39272651
haha, no.
i don't think there's much difference in force output when an experienced does a lift in a meet or when he's injected with adrenaline.

humans are very weak compared to other primates, because our muscles and tendons insert so close to our joints.
this allows us accurate but weaker movement.