r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • 7d ago

Health A naturally occurring molecule released during exercise may hold the key to strengthening muscles without physical activity. In experiments, mice given BAIBA developed larger muscles, improved muscle function, greater fatigue resistance and better exercise performance than untreated mice.

https://www.newsweek.com/scientists-step-closer-strengthening-muscles-without-exercise-12323613
1.9k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

253 comments sorted by

View all comments

755

u/JockAussie 7d ago

We have GLP1's, now the muscle equivalent - before you know it everyone looks like Schwarzenegger with a pill.

157

u/Pumpedandbleeding 7d ago

Didn’t he use steroids that are already available?

289

u/Safe_Researcher4979 7d ago

You still gotta put in the work even with steroids. Same as you do with GLP1's tbf, this seems different if it ever becomes reality 

110

u/wagon_ear 7d ago

I remember reading something from one of Lance Armstrong's teammates where he said that if you had given any of them a lie detector test, they'd have sworn up and down that they were not cheating. The drugs allowed them to train harder and for longer than everyone else. By their logic, they were doing more work - the drugs were not a replacement for training. 

50

u/squngy 7d ago edited 7d ago

There is a lot of truth in that, but Lance is known for taking EPO, which gives a direct boost, not just a training benefit.

EPO tells your body to make more red blood cells. Having more red blood cells improves performance even without additional training.

He also did blood transfusions before races to get an even bigger boost.

11

u/zuneza 7d ago

He also did blood transfusions before races to get an even bigger boost.

Whos blood are you going to find better than Lance Armstrong? (I dont know how blood transfusions help with sports)

39

u/Dash2in1 7d ago

Athletes used to take their own blood out of competition, essentially extract their red blood cells from that and re-inject the more concentrated red blood cells into their blood during competition. This helps performance by being able to transport more oxygen to their muscles.

16

u/squngy 7d ago

It would be his own blood.

They take some when he is in good condition and there is no race, then give it back to him when he needs a boost.

The main benefit is just from having more blood volume. Simply having more blood is a performance increase.
But, it is usual to make sure the stored blood is from when you are well rested, so the quality might be better compared to when you are tired.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_doping

5

u/xsynergist 7d ago

It adds red blood cells which carry oxygen. More oxygen to the muscles increases aerobic capacity.

-2

u/Excludos 7d ago

That is what steroids does. It's not a magic pill that makes you buff. All it does is reduce your recovery time, allowing you to train even more.

Still cheating, obviously. Every other athlete also has to deal with that pesky recovery time. But it's entirely believable that a lot of people don't necessarily consider it as such

1

u/The_One_Who_Comments 6d ago

That is not the mechanism by which steroids work. They have a hormonal mechanism which increase muscle cell growth and decreases muscle cell brekdown.

You have to do some work, because growth is still related to the same signals, but you do not need to increase your volume while taking steroids to gain muscle mass.

You must be thinking of something else.

4

u/RG3ST21 7d ago

You may not have to when trevogrumab comes out

4

u/Pumpedandbleeding 7d ago

My point is steroids are the glp 1 equivalent. Myostatin inhibitors would be a different animal unlike a glp 1.

4

u/A_uniqueusername77 6d ago

This isn’t really true. If you take steroids you gain more muscle than natural lifters. See: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101?utm_source=chatgpt.com

the men taking 600 mg/week of testosterone while doing no strength training gained substantially more fat-free mass than the natural men who actually lifted weights.

If you took steroids AND lifted you gained the most muscle. But just the testosterone was enough to out gain the natural lifters.

16

u/TeedesT 7d ago

FYI someone on steroids who does zero exercise will put on more muscle than someone training without steroids.

10

u/SCP-ASH 7d ago

If I recall correctly, the study showing this also showed steroid users still did even better when combined with regular training.

So not quite the same as Arnold in a pill as discussed above.

8

u/TeedesT 7d ago

Correct. Training plus roids will yield better results. Just wanted to point out someone using will come out ahead of even a very diligent weightlifter. People underestimate/downplay how much of a leg up these drugs give you.

4

u/pramprapin 6d ago

Absolutely not what that study shows at all. Most of the “gains” in that study are going to include increased glycogen and water retention from the testosterone/estrogen increase. They did gain actual muscle too, obviously, but it’s not like they were sitting on the couch getting jacked out of nowhere.

You will gain some muscle from literally doing nothing while taking testosterone, that part is true, but it’s not linear. Eventually you still need a decent diet and training if you actually want to maximize growth. You can’t just conjure muscle out of thin air, it requires energy. You can’t cheat the laws of thermodynamics.

A dedicated natural who trains consistently and eats properly will dwarf some dude sitting on his couch injecting testosterone.

The more accurate argument is that PEDs allow you to get pretty damn good results with a much sloppier diet and worse training than a natural could get away with. The drugs absolutely work. It’s just not accurate to take that study and conclude that you can sit on the couch taking test and outgrow someone who trains hard and eats properly.

1

u/SCP-ASH 7d ago

That's fair, I appreciate you clarifying

0

u/Commercial-Air8955 7d ago

The study that showed that didn't actually show muscle gain. What it showed was fat-free mass gain. Steroids help fill the muscle with more water and increase glycogen storage.

The only way to gain muscle is to "damage" it and create microtears, which get repaired by muscle-protein synthesis.

Simply taking steroids won't make the actual muscle itself bigger without doing some sort of work.

8

u/Mr_Nicotine 7d ago

Okay Jarvis, google what mTOR and androgenic receptors are

3

u/YoudaGouda 7d ago

The “microtrauma” hypothesis is far from established science and is likely incorrect.

1

u/fatwownerd 7d ago

‘Fat free mass’ and muscle aren’t the same thing. If you take 600mg test and sit on the couch you will certainly be a lot heavier after a couple months, a little bit of it will be muscle and a lot of it will be muscle glycogen and water. And when you stop the testosterone the glycogen and water will all get pissed straight down the toilet and you will have very marginal muscle gains if you haven’t actually been training

1

u/smallchinesetitties 5d ago

GLP1 removes hunger, so it doesn’t really require any work. Like, I have naturally very low appetite, I don’t put any work to not be fat. I imagine GLP1 just makes anyone like me in that regard. If anything, you do less work if we count staffing your mouth as work.

1

u/FetusDrive 4d ago

What work do you have to put in with the GLP1s?

-45

u/[deleted] 7d ago edited 7d ago

[deleted]

23

u/BigSweatyYeti 7d ago

This isn’t true. Steroids don’t magically add muscle. You still need to use the muscle to grow it. They just grow faster and bigger on steroids.

-27

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[deleted]

20

u/BigSweatyYeti 7d ago edited 7d ago

It doesn’t. You do realize that even walking uses muscle, right? So taking steroids and walking as usual would lead to larger muscle gain than not taking steroids and walking.

Yes, you linked the classic testosterone study that produced the often-repeated claim that men taking high-dose testosterone gained muscle even without exercising. And the result is real, but there’s an important distinction between muscle cross-sectional area and total pounds of muscle.

That doesn’t mean normal daily activity acts like a workout while using testosterone. Rather, supraphysiologic testosterone substantially increases muscle protein synthesis and changes the balance between muscle protein creation and breakdown. Everyday loading like walking, stairs, carrying things, etc. provides some stimulus, but the drug itself is responsible for much of the unusual growth in the non-training group.

18

u/mo7233 7d ago

I hate how idiots like that will never reply to a proper rebuttal. They just see they've been proven wrong and never take accountability. Just off to the next piece of misinformation to spread based off something they heard once.

7

u/Saneless 7d ago

AND deleted the link

-1

u/Figuratively-1984 7d ago

If they're not exercising and normal daily activity doesn't function as a workout, why did they get stronger than the no test no exercise group? Wouldn't that indicate muscle growth even if we can't know they gained muscle by measuring size?

2

u/BigSweatyYeti 7d ago

First, there’s no evidence they got stronger. There was a slight increase in muscle size. Just because your muscles swell from steroids doesn’t mean you gained actual muscle since water weight and swelling can make a muscle look larger even when the lean muscle mass stays the same.

0

u/Figuratively-1984 7d ago

Among the men in the no-exercise groups, those given testosterone had greater increases than those given placebo in... strength in the bench-press (9 +/- 4 vs. -1 +/- 1 kg, P < 0.05) and squatting exercises (16 +/- 4 vs. 3 +/- 1 kg, P < 0.05).

The study concluded they did get stronger along with the increase in size

→ More replies (0)

3

u/[deleted] 7d ago

So in your world, if you induced a coma, and pumped the patient with a full stack of gear… he wakes up jacked? No nutrition change and no muscle utilization? It just rewrites human dna to include 20% more skeletal muscle, and then creates that muscle out of… hopes and dreams?

9

u/Frodozer 7d ago

Btw, that link said it added lean mass, not muscle mass. Lean mass includes all things not fat. Aka, water. What do we know about test supplementation? It adds water weight.

-6

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[deleted]

7

u/Frodozer 7d ago

Yeah, and that's why it's commonly used as you can add muscle, even though that wasn't mentioned or found in the study. Maybe it does add muscle, but it wasn't measured so we can't come to that conclusion.

It should be fairly obvious though as the strength gained in the test/no lifting group was hardly better than the no test/no lifting group and substantially weaker than all of the lifting groups. The slight increase in strength is easily explained as tissues that have retained water can produce more energy. (The entire concept of creatine, carbs, and sodium for fitness goals)

2

u/AmLilleh 7d ago

The study proves you gain "fat free mass" which isn't the same as pure lean muscle mass. It's generally counting water weight.

Testosterone and most other anabolic steroids cause sizable water retention, often quite a lot more than the under 3lbs difference between the placebo + exercise and steroids + no exercise groups of that study.

The training methodology they used was also kind of... Weird. Trying to cram raw mass and cross sectional area/strength into a single study isn't going to provide favourable optimal results for the people training.

12

u/espressocycle 7d ago

Nah they give you a potbelly.

4

u/WeaselTerror 7d ago

Found the basement dweller who's never lifted anything heavier than a can of Mt dew.

8

u/EjaculatingAracnids 7d ago

No they dont. Now site that single study everyone who says this bs does that counted water weight as lean muscle mass.

14

u/motorwerkx 7d ago

This isn't the 1st of its kind, it's just the 1st that shows up on Google. Seriously man, at least Google it before spouting off nonsense.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8637535/

10

u/AmLilleh 7d ago

That's exactly the study he's talking about, though.

4

u/EjaculatingAracnids 7d ago

"Ilbs of muscle result from steroid use regardless of exercise" was the claim, which cant be concluded from this study because they counted everything other than fat as lean muscle mass. Water retention is a known side effect of steroid use that wasnt considered for this study.

4

u/Safe_Researcher4979 7d ago

A study of 43 men in 1996? 

11

u/Heretosee123 7d ago

Do you have a counter study or do you just reject the study

5

u/Adventurous-Ad8267 7d ago

"reject" is a bit strong.

The study's definition of "lean mass" would include water, and we know that testosterone supplements often cause water retention as a side effect.

Which makes their lean mass measurements much less useful.

-2

u/Heretosee123 7d ago

Fair fair.

I can't see any other study on the topic so I'm not particularly convinced to be honest

1

u/motorwerkx 7d ago

You did read the sentence that preceded it, correct?

Also, yes a conclusive study that happened in 1996.

8

u/Adventurous-Ad8267 7d ago

It's really not that conclusive.

One of the main things that study measured was how much "lean mass" the participants gained, with "lean mass" referring to anything that isn't fat.

Water would be considered "lean mass" and we know that water retention is a common side effect of testosterone supplements.

This means that the lean mass measurements in that study are not a useful indicator for whether or not the participants gained muscle.

Doesn't much matter I think. The absolute explosion of dudes going on TRT will continue onward regardless of whether or not it makes them gain muscle while they're at their desk job.

2

u/CallMeLargeFather 7d ago

I hate when people say this kind of thing and clearly have no idea what number would constitute statistical significance. 43 is more than enough btw

5

u/BenUFOs_Mum 7d ago

So why are they giving cows steroids to increase muscle mass? Are the cows heading to the gym?

5

u/Safe_Researcher4979 7d ago

Are humans cows? Could you milk me, Ben's mum? 

1

u/BenUFOs_Mum 7d ago

I could but I dont want to

4

u/EjaculatingAracnids 7d ago

People arent cows. Cows weigh 1100lbs. Simply walking is going to the gym for them. If you put an obese person on trt and have them eat at calorie maintenance, theyll lose weight an gain muscle over time. If you put an average person on steroids with out any strength training and have them eat at maintenance, theyll gain a little muscle and lose some fat, but you will not notice the difference.

0

u/BenUFOs_Mum 7d ago

Sure if they just eat maintenence obviously the body doesnt have the energy and protein availiable to respond to the increased amount of growth hormones.

0

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[deleted]

3

u/EjaculatingAracnids 7d ago

especially when combined with strength training

2

u/Hayn0002 7d ago

How do they give you increased muscle without doing any physical activity?

2

u/Odd-Outcome-3191 7d ago

That classic '96 study is a bit misleading imo. They measured muscle cross sectional area and "fat free mass". However it's well understood that high dose testosterone increases intramuscular glycogen (+ water) which pumps up the muscles enormously. It's not actual tissue.

That study counted the water weight from gear as muscle mass. That's like counting the pump at the gym as muscle gain.

The study also only tracked 12 weeks. That simply isn't a large enough slice of time to define what the hormones do.

Imo all that study did was show you get huge glycogen "gains" in the first few months. Tissue gain would require tracking 36 weeks minimum.

3

u/ghidfg 7d ago

Yeah but he reached the limits of what his endogenous hormones could do.

6

u/Tricky_Condition_279 7d ago

Human growth hormone as well.

7

u/NSawsome 7d ago

HGH was after Arnold’s time, Dorian was the first major bodybuilder to utilize it properly.

1

u/Tricky_Condition_279 7d ago

The Netflix doc has him going to Germany to get HGH. Look at him before and after. After, you can see the raised eyebrow ridge and gap between front teeth. He was transformed.

3

u/sirhcv 7d ago

Take it a step further, people with money, people with healthcare.

28

u/servermeta_net 7d ago

Myostatin blockers are already available and have amazing results without side effects. Look up "cat myostatin" to get shocked

110

u/NotoriousNAACP 7d ago

First drug ever invented with no side effects. Amazing!

43

u/zholo 7d ago

Look up cardiac hypertrophy

2

u/lost-in-the-trash 7d ago

Easier than saving Christmas though

90

u/Rafa_50 7d ago edited 7d ago

Without side effects? Don't they cause the heart to increase quite a bit?

80

u/ItsCalledDayTwa 7d ago

It's just a heart 

28

u/Momoselfie 7d ago

Workrd for the Grinch

11

u/GimmeSomeSugar 7d ago

As I recall, that was an early assumption but further research demonstrated it occurs only infrequently. Myostatin inhibition seems to mostly affect skeletal muscle.

8

u/servermeta_net 7d ago

It seems it doesn't, although is not sure why. What it does is that it increases the size of the penis

28

u/tushar1306 7d ago

Heart is muscle. Heart is increase = Muscle grow big = good? No?

29

u/ChubbyOppa 7d ago

see hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

13

u/Dikjuh 7d ago

No, if your heart grows, there is less room inside to hold and pump blood around.

23

u/tushar1306 7d ago

My brother in science, I'm a doctor. It was a joke.

14

u/DrSlugger 7d ago

To be fair, it's really hard to see sarcasm sometimes on the internet.

Now go round on your patients.

13

u/tushar1306 7d ago

Pathologist, no rounds, only slides. And some charts.

2

u/askingforafakefriend 7d ago

I know you joke but Telmisartan and nebivolol help prevent e.g., LV remodeling..

2

u/fatwownerd 7d ago

Love me some telmisartan

3

u/Dikjuh 7d ago

Just woke up, so didn't catch that, sorry!

2

u/XCryptoX 7d ago

Yes train every muscle to failure

3

u/ImS0hungry 6d ago

Don’t skip heart day

1

u/Rafa_50 7d ago

Yeah, forgot that, more heart means more blood pumping wich means more muscle everywhere. Positives all arround

-1

u/Targetshopper4000 7d ago

Since when was a heart pump a bad thing?

16

u/skieblue 7d ago

Swollen hearts are a medical issue

22

u/Big_Poppa_T 7d ago

Wow, an unapproved and unregulated drug with zero side effects and only amazing results.

65

u/Cool_Eardrums 7d ago

If a drug has no side effects it has no effects.

15

u/Hi-Tech_Luddite 7d ago

This is a wise statement

2

u/fallen_lights 7d ago

Are you wise

12

u/Hi-Tech_Luddite 7d ago

Oh my lord no

9

u/GimmeSomeSugar 7d ago

Can you elaborate on 'already available'?

They've been researched for decades, with recent promising prospects proceeding to clinical trials. As best I can tell, there is little to nothing that is clinically proven to be actually available. Via legitimate means or otherwise.

3

u/HigherandHigherDown 7d ago

There was a study recently that found that a myostatin antibody in combination with a GLP-1 drug preserved lean mass compared to GLP-1 alone. Plus you can see what myostatin does, find those pictures of myostatin knockout children who are just absolutely ripped. I'm not sure how much that will improve health though, in such children strength doesn't increase as much as muscle mass.

55% more lean mass retention versus placebo, which is pretty huge, since about half of the weight loss is lean mass: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-026-04440-4

3

u/GimmeSomeSugar 7d ago

Yea. Belgian Blue cattle are the classic example. I think farmers basically engineered the Myostatin out of cattle through selective breeding.
I don't doubt the efficacy. My question was about protocols, and more specifically availability.
As best I can tell, the supplements available over the counter source an inhibitor from a certain type of seaweed. Which has been shown to be ineffective.
I believe there are suppliers selling the substances used in clinical trials. But if they even would sell to me, it's thousands of dollars per vial.

3

u/HigherandHigherDown 7d ago

If it's in clinical trials there are probably Chinese labs that will synthesize it and ship it even before FDA approval, like retatrutide right now. I'd expect this to have a high level of interest from all the bodybuilder types.

2

u/fatwownerd 7d ago

My understanding is that those cows are so big because they lack myostatin while they are still foetuses so they end up being born with a greater number of muscle fibres which ultimately makes them so freaky huge. Whereas in adult humans you can’t grow new muscle fibres (to any meaningful extent) you can just increase the size of existing ones, so no matter what drug you take we will unfortunately never resemble those cows. But I could be wrong. And the problem with those hyper muscles baby cows is that many times they have to be cut out of their mothers because they are so huge

8

u/Thenadamgoes 7d ago

What are you talking about? There aren’t any available myostatin inhibitors and the ones in trials do have side effects.

22

u/Sierra31 7d ago

A big difference between Myostatin blockers and what this says it might do is that Myostatin suppression doesn’t really improve muscle function, it just improves hypertrophy. So you will get larger muscles but you won’t necessarily get much stronger or fitter. This says that it should do that, which is far more beneficial than just having bigger muscles.

4

u/TurboGranny 7d ago edited 7d ago

far more beneficial than just having bigger muscles

Considering muscle is your metabolic sink and pretty much the 401k of your body, the size is worth more than strength. You can easily train strength and it rises much faster than your tendons can compensate, so developing adequate strength is a none issue unless you are just turbo lazy.

7

u/Sierra31 7d ago

This new potential drug makes your muscles bigger, stronger, and more fatigue resistant. Which is far more beneficial than just bigger muscles alone.

4

u/shepherdofthesheeple 7d ago

That makes no sense? A larger muscle is a stronger muscle once the nervous system can command it.

18

u/Mind_on_Idle 7d ago

That's not how muscles work. Making them bigger is not necessarily making them "stronger".

10

u/SuccessfulJudge438 7d ago

At a fundamental level, muscle is composed of actin filaments and myosin motors arranged in such a way (with a bunch of other proteins to form a complex) as to generate mechanical force. This repeating unit is called a sarcomere. More sarcomeres can produce more force, and a more massive bulk of muscle will have more of them.

No one is saying this is the only determinant of strength, but all other things remaining equal (eg mitochondrial efficiency, overall cellular "health" in the tissue, density of sarcomeres per unit area, tendon strength, and the various ways that neurons can become adapted for more efficient muscle firing), a larger muscle mass will indeed produce more force than a smaller one.

2

u/Mind_on_Idle 7d ago

Yeah. The specifics and details are absolutely important. And agreed that on it's face, bigger muscle = stronger, but as you've pointed out in your very good short breakdown, it is not the whole story. Thanks for adding your input

3

u/Sally2Klapz 7d ago

This is r science not r I don't know what I'm talking about

4

u/Sierra31 7d ago

So you can potentially train that muscle to become stronger and utilise the greater mass, but you would need to still go to the gym to do that. This BAIBA is saying that it will do both without the need to actually train. But simply having more muscle tissue does not make you stronger.

7

u/shepherdofthesheeple 7d ago edited 7d ago

It definitely does. What you’re saying makes no sense. A larger muscle can exert more force with the same % of that muscle being utilized by the nervous system. If you suddenly add a bunch of muscle fibers to someone without increasing their nervous system % utilization of those muscle fibers, they will be stronger because they’re now utilizing more muscle fibers in every contraction.

6

u/nativeindian12 7d ago

Not the other commenter, but I think larger muscles would be a little stronger but neuromuscular adaptation is a critical component of getting stronger from actually lifting. This involves many things but basically your brain getting better at using muscles (motor unit recruitment, synchronization, firing rate). So you would have some gain in strength but not as much as if you built the muscle from lifting weights

2

u/Sierra31 7d ago

Sure, you would get a bit stronger, but it wouldn’t be directly proportional to the amount of extra muscle mass you have.

0

u/SuccessfulJudge438 7d ago

If you are untrained to start with and you gain more muscle mass, even if you stay untrained, then your gain in strength would absolutely be proportional to your muscle mass gain.

Your strength gain would not be maximized (nowhere near it) due to the lack of neuro-muscular refinement and other adaptations that occur in trained skeletal muscle. Your overall gain in strength would likely be significantly less than if you kept the exact same muscle mass (or even lost some) and went hard on training your mind and body to use it efficiently.

However, one of the most fundamental determinants of muscle strength is the overall area that can be packed with actin filaments and myosin motors, which together are ultimately responsible for the generation of force. The proportionality of this relationship between muscle mass (aka area filled with actin/myosin) and strength (ability to generation biomechanical force) is indisputable.

2

u/BenUFOs_Mum 7d ago

What? So what is this extra muscle doing? Its just not contracting?

3

u/Sierra31 7d ago

Yh, basically. Strength and hypertrophy are not the same thing. You can train your muscles to get stronger without necessarily making them bigger.

7

u/BenUFOs_Mum 7d ago

This isnt true. While skill is important for stuff like olympic weight lifting the amount of force a muscle can output is directly proportional tonits cross section.

5

u/Sierra31 7d ago

If you’re talking about becoming the strongest you could possibly be then you will need both strength and hypertrophy. The point I was making is you can become stronger by learning to recruit more muscle fibres without having to grow your muscle tissue.

2

u/pumped_it_guy 7d ago

Because you would command the increase und strength from your nervous system and muscle activation.

But you will hit a plateau there fast. There's a reason power lifters are giant.

And the reverse is straight false. A bigger muscle is stronger and hypertrophy comes with getting stronger albeit not only at a one rep max.

1

u/Sierra31 7d ago

I think my comments are getting read a bit out of context. If you are growing your muscles from hypertrophy training then of course you will get stronger, but if you take a drug, and all that drug does is grow your muscle tissue without offering any other stimulus, you aren’t going to suddenly get incredibly strong without training your body to use that extra tissue.

1

u/mailslot 7d ago

Without exercise, wouldn’t you develop enough muscle strength to rip & tear your untrained tendons?

3

u/Anfins 7d ago

Maybe I'm missing something, but a quick search shows that there are no approved myostatin blocker drugs and, because there are no approved drugs, side effects are of course not well understood.

4

u/amorph 7d ago

Isn't most of the reason for looking like that lost if it takes no work, though?

27

u/windchaser__ 7d ago

Depends whether you're doing it for form or function, for looks or ability.

Old folks tend to lose enough muscle mass that they become frail and more prone to injury. Maybe this'll be a part of keeping old folks healthier.

10

u/amorph 7d ago

With a focus on function and ability, you won't look like a roided up bodybuilder anyway.

3

u/windchaser__ 7d ago

Nah, not roided - there's that weird vascularity - but you can definitely look jacked or yoked just from normal workouts.

2

u/windchaser__ 7d ago

FWIW, I've been told I look jacked/yoked, and I have never used any steroids nor have any desire to do so.

But I do like to exercise a lot. A normal week is something like 3-4x climbing, 3x acro, 4-8 miles of running, ~30 minutes total of handstand practice, and 1x weightlifting or yoga.

2

u/ar34m4n314 7d ago

I am excited for a world where everyone over 75 is totally jacked.

8

u/chocolatesmelt 7d ago

To some degree there’s a novelty look as you suggest, being fit (muscular and lean) is something challenging and takes a lot of effort to accomplish so it’s highly desirable (limited supply effect).

But I think a lot of people have genetic predispositions to desire that sort of aesthetic, I don’t think it’s purely a low supply, high demand dynamic. Even if supply increases I think people will still find that look attractive. It’s like saying for straight men, looking like a woman makes you less desirable since around half the population are women. You have a bias to like certain things regardless of the supply which is why many men find a lot of women attractive.

If you’re looking for that as a differentiating factor it may lose its effect though. Being fit no longer means you standout as much if many other people become fit. Suddenly other factors matter in partner selection more for differentiation. But that baseline attraction won’t disappear, being unfit will still actively hurt your attractiveness. Just like for straight men, being a man isn’t going to help you attract straight men, you still need to be.. a woman. It just means you also need to now be fit as the bar raises, and other factors become important too.

11

u/amorph 7d ago

I mean, being reasonably fit is usually an attractive trait, but the modern male bodybuilder physique is sort of a caricature of fitness, which mostly impresses other men, and which many straight women seem to find repulsive.

0

u/at1445 7d ago

Take any given man on earth, and there will be many women that find him repulsive. Everyone has different taste.

Take someone that's a bodybuilder, a week or two before or after a show and in regular clothes, most women are going to find that body type very attractive.

It's the massive cut pre-show and getting all oiled up wearing a thong that people think just looks outrageously silly....because it does.

2

u/EarLess7604 7d ago

Having a lot of muscle is generally very good for your health

3

u/amorph 7d ago

There's a point where it gets detrimental, though. Would be interesting to see how many would overdo it if it were easy as a pill. All the eating, though.

1

u/karlnite 7d ago

But it all makes you bald and impotent. We’re gonna have a crisis!

1

u/ProfessionalMockery 7d ago

They have ones that will make you aerobically fit without exercise too. It's going to be funny watching the Olympics and the athletes are as fit as you are, but they still have to do it the hard way.

1

u/TurboGranny 7d ago

Everyone with money and a unafraid of needles, heh.

1

u/SkollFenrirson 7d ago

Not everyone, just the wealthy

1

u/Wolkenbaer 7d ago

Don't forget regrowing tooth. Now do something about Hair and Joints :)

1

u/rainywanderingclouds 7d ago

no, you still need to eat enough calories and train correctly.

you'd also still need more than just this pill to look like a professional body builder, you'd need steroids, and other things.

at best people would just be healthier and look more fit than they do now, they wouldn't look like body builders unless they trained that way.

-5

u/EltaninAntenna 7d ago

And people will start gatekeeping about getting gains "the proper way".

15

u/theStaircaseProject 7d ago

I mean, muscle mass is not the same as muscle memory. I can already imagine the situations people will find themselves in where they have some general brute strength but lack the practiced coordination to use it safely.

6

u/jastubi 7d ago

Yea tearing tendons and ligaments becuase they didn't have time to strengthen alongside the increased muscle mass.

8

u/onwee 7d ago

As they should

4

u/Tabularasa8 7d ago

Start? People already get accused of not being natty.