Shit DYELs say
>calories in, calories out
>rest days
>the big 4
>>40556187
who makes these autistic edition pepes?
>>40556187
>keto
>>40556187
>natty
>>40556187
>implying calories in, calories out is a meme
As long as you don't eat like shit this is basically the foundation of everything m8
No surplus = no gainz and no energy
>squats are important
>deadlifts are important
>i dont lift 4 girls
>anabolic window bro
>1g protein per 1lb bodyweight
>im not gay
>>40556196
we do
>>40556455
clearly a meme thread cmon man
>>40556187
>we're all gonna make it
>>40556187
>manlets
height literally doesn't matter
>>40556187
>I lift
Fucking gymcels. when will they learn that if you're not naturally muscular, you're doomed from the start.
>>40556196
Finnish people on ylilauta
>>40556678
t.manlet
>>40556455
You're talking macros more or less and watching what's IN the calories you eat
>>40556196
Hacker group anomylous
>>40556187
>i've read the sticky, and it said...
>>40556187
>strength training makes you fat
>training for aesthetics is better
>training for aesthetics is a achievable without roids
>squats aren't important
>"workout"
>anything related to YouTube "fitness" channels
>>40558078
>that if
Stop doing this.
>>40560586
Explain to me pls I'm not a native speaker
Not samefag tho
>>40560671
I'm a native speaker and I don't see a problem with it
he's probably just a butthurt English teacher
>time under tension
>>40560681
Thx man
no homo
>>40560586
>>40560671
>>40560681
Not him but I think the correct wording would be "that unless"
>>40560694
Yeah I guess that makes sense
>>40560671
It should be
>when will they learn that you're doomed from the start if you're not naturally muscular.
Because "if" refers to the condition (being naturally muscular) and "that" refers to the statement (you're doomed from the start). When you say "that if you're not naturally muscular, you're doomed from the start." you start with the first part of the statement, then you go to the condition and then you're suddenly going back to the statement again, it just doesn't make any sense.
>>40560681
>I'm a native speaker and I don't see a problem with it
Just because it sounds correct to you, doesn't mean it's actually correct.
>>40560782
Thanks man
>>40559793
>training for aesthetics is achievable without roids
But thats true.. Technically even just jogging is "training for aesthetics" and you dont need roids for that lol. Step out of your moms basement once in a while
>>40559793
Why the fuck would you need to roid for hypertrophy training? Steroids basically just enhance/boost what you are/what you are doing. They don't create X from literally thin air.
Of course roids are going to blow your hypertrophy gains compared to natty but with the same logic why do you do strength training when with roids you would lift million times more??
>>40556187
I'm pretty big and I train just 3 days the week since 5 years. According to science even one day would be enough.
>>40560782
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/321945/is-the-use-of-that-if-discouraged
surely there's no problem with saying "if X, [then] Y"
and surely there's no problem with saying "when will you learn that Z", where Z is some declarative statement
so, there should be no problem with saying "when will you learn that (if X, [then] Y)"
>>40556678
to some girls it does, because some groups of girls have that one friend with the boyfriend who is 6'2" or taller and they all want to be like her so they also go after taller dudes
However, I'm 25 y/o 5'9", just got back into uni this semester and am of quite average height compared to the other dudes here. Everyday, I see a few guys who are like 5'4"-5'6" and think to myself, "Fuck, man, now THAT would suck"
I actually enjoy being relatively short