# hardgainer? bullshit



## gamingcrook (Feb 8, 2018)

I wanted to put this here mostly to share my own progress, but to also share my beliefs that 'hardgainer' is just a myth, I actually went all the way down to 64kg in august and I never went past 70-71kg in my life, until i made changes to my diet, my habits, and my physical activities

LEFT picture is just less than a year ago

Right is TODAY, not sure why the height was different, perhaps my posture improved


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Yep, no such thing, only an under-eater. I was always one of those "I'm a hardgainer and I have a fast metabolism, I eat loads!" types, but when I started lifting I was thin as a rake and I started on 2500 calories a day, which I really struggled with at times. I'd always be hungry eating that much now :lol:


----------



## orangeandpears (Dec 16, 2017)

Use to think i was a hard gainer as a teenager too, i struggle to not get fat now i know how to eat, bloody pizza and ice cream cravings!


----------



## gamingcrook (Feb 8, 2018)

i was exactly the same telling friends i eat enough blah blah , processed food and s**t barely hitting 2000 calories a day its actually amazing to look back and see how much i didnt eat  I eat around 3500 calories now, good calories, and still get hungry as f**k i know i could plow down 4k but i don't wanna overdo it 

HARDGAINER TO EASYGAINER


----------



## AestheticManlet (Jun 12, 2012)

It's a myth to an extent. But someone can bulk on 2000 calories (poor cvnts) and people like me need 4000+ just to see the scales move half a pound a week.

So in a sense the amount of effort eating calories yes it's harder for some than others.

But then people who need more calories to bulk are more likely to keep a better body composition and cutting is piss easy.

The people who can bulk on 2k cals etc are never going to have a good body composition without a load of drugs.

IMO anyway


----------



## gamingcrook (Feb 8, 2018)

I'm bulking atm with 3400 calories, only problem is my belly's bulking with that 

I was just getting at the fact that when i used to claim that i ate enough

i was genuinely eating s**t meals, processed foods, skipping breakfast most days


----------



## 72670 (Sep 17, 2016)

gamingcrook said:


> I wanted to put this here mostly to share my own progress, but to also share my beliefs that 'hardgainer' is just a myth, I actually went all the way down to 64kg in august and I never went past 70-71kg in my life, until i made changes to my diet, my habits, and my physical activities
> 
> LEFT picture is just less than a year ago
> 
> ...


 Care to share these changes? any pics


----------



## gamingcrook (Feb 8, 2018)

hi i have a couple pictures up in member journals not great pics though im no good at posing but you can defo see the before and after results.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Internet forums are full of people proclaiming themselves to be hardgainers, but in most cases people who think of themselves as hard gainers are in fact either under eating or not training properly. Or usually both.

However, just like a tiny percentage of the population are genetic elites, there is also an equally sized group of genuine hard gainers at the opposite end of the spectrum. They do exist. In their case it's not the 'fast metabolism' myth - variation in metabolism between healthy individuals (once activity levels and body comp is accounted for) isn't anything like as wide as most people believe. More to the point it's usually androgen insensitivity and poor numbers of muscle fibers that makes a hard gainer struggle.

Mostly though the population can be graphed as a bell curve with steep sides - most people are 'average gainers' in the middle, with a few 'above averages', a few 'below averages' and tiny numbers of elite and genuine hard gainers at either end.So, if you are struggling, before labeling yourself as a hardgainer the first step should be to objectively assess diet and training and then fix what's broken - because usually at least one thing is.


----------



## gamingcrook (Feb 8, 2018)

dtlv said:


> Internet forums are full of people proclaiming themselves to be hardgainers, but in most cases people who think of themselves as hard gainers are in fact either under eating or not training properly. Or usually both.
> 
> However, just like a tiny percentage of the population are genetic elites, there is also an equally sized group of genuine hard gainers at the opposite end of the spectrum. They do exist. In their case it's not the 'fast metabolism' myth - variation in metabolism between healthy individuals (once activity levels and body comp is accounted for) isn't anything like as wide as most people believe. More to the point it's usually androgen insensitivity and poor numbers of muscle fibers that makes a hard gainer struggle.
> 
> Mostly though the population can be graphed as a bell curve with steep sides - most people are 'average gainers' in the middle, with a few 'above averages', a few 'below averages' and tiny numbers of elite and genuine hard gainers at either end.So, if you are struggling, before labeling yourself as a hardgainer the first step should be to objectively assess diet and training and then fix what's broken - because usually at least one thing is.


 nice input Mr! this time last year i was doing the whole blame my metabolism, etc i did have quite an active/stress job at the time, but i know now that i did not eat enough , i was always googling and youtube them hardgainer vids, now I'm actually worrying about how much size im gaining so fast! guna have to cut my diet pretty soon


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

gamingcrook said:


> nice input Mr! this time last year i was doing the whole blame my metabolism, etc i did have quite an active/stress job at the time, but i know now that i did not eat enough , i was always googling and youtube them hardgainer vids, now I'm actually worrying about how much size im gaining so fast! guna have to cut my diet pretty soon


 I used to blame my metabolism and was convinced I was a hard gainer for the first couple of years that I trained. Turned out I just didn't know what I was doing, had a sh!t diet and didn't train properly, lol

Truth is getting everything right can be a slow process, especially if you don't have any guidance - or get lost in all the conflicting info available online. I don't think people who label themselves as hard gainers are silly, just that usually need more help getting the basics right than they realize. I know, I was there when I started out.


----------



## Bull Terrier (May 14, 2012)

Some people are defined in science as being non-responders to resistance training. I'm not sure if it is exactly quite so extreme, but science is beginning to show us how gene expression varies between high-responders and low-responders.

Have a read:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21030674

An excellent and highly accessible resource on the role of genetics in sport is the following:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sports-Gene-Extraordinary-Athletic-Performance/dp/0606366695/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1521641805&sr=8-2&keywords=the+sports+gene&dpID=51P96s7gmeL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

Great athletes are essentially born. Even the desire to train has a very strong genetic component.


----------



## Pancake' (Aug 30, 2012)

dtlv said:


> I used to blame my metabolism and was convinced I was a hard gainer for the first couple of years that I trained. Turned out I just didn't know what I was doing, had a sh!t diet and didn't train properly, lol
> 
> Truth is getting everything right can be a slow process, especially if you don't have any guidance - or get lost in all the conflicting info available online. I don't think people who label themselves as hard gainers are silly, just that usually need more help getting the basics right than they realize. I know, I was there when I started out.


 I think it's ignorance for people to say, their is no such thing, only under eaters. I don't buy it.

2 individuals, both 70kilos in bodyweight, both similar activity levels.

A. can gain weight eating 2750kcals.

B. has to eat in excess of 4000kcals to gain weight.

The latter individual, their for, has a higher requirements and demand

overall ensuring a harder time gaining weight/muscle, due to this,

likely an impaired recovery too.

How can someone, who has to eat a greater quantity of food than another, not have a harder time, gaining mass?

I wish people would just get this, instead of being ignorant, but the demands are simply higher for some.


----------



## monkeybiker (Jul 21, 2010)

Bull Terrier said:


> Some people are defined in science as being non-responders to resistance training. I'm not sure if it is exactly quite so extreme, but science is beginning to show us how gene expression varies between high-responders and low-responders.


 This is also how I would define a hard gainer. The goal is to build muscle not put on weight in the form of fat. Saying someone is not a hardgainer they just need to eat more is stupid.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Bull Terrier said:


> Some people are defined in science as being non-responders to resistance training. I'm not sure if it is exactly quite so extreme, but science is beginning to show us how gene expression varies between high-responders and low-responders.
> 
> Have a read:
> 
> ...


 The genetically driven difference in miRNA of protein transcription between different individuals most definitely plays into it. Most of the studies I've seen on this focus on the function of these micro RNAs (which covers all aspects of exercise adaptation of course, not just muscle building) rather than the spread of difference over the population, but there is a study I think called the Heritage Exercise Study which does talk about that, and that puts the spread at roughly 5% super-responders, 5% clearly above average, 5% clearly below average, 5% very poor responders/non-responders, and 80% average. I'll try to find the study.


----------



## Bull Terrier (May 14, 2012)

@dtlv - I see more and more recent studies looking into micro RNA expression, and how it differs between hard/easy gainers etc. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an agreed upon consensus for measuring micro RNA and I believe that the measurement - however it's done - is quite difficult and not always totally reliable.

What I find super interesting however is that even though we cannot change our basic genetics, a few interventions appear to be able to influence micro RNA expression and potentially benefit hypertrophy-type adaptations. An example which has been studied is cardio performed before resistance exercise. They haven't yet studied micro RNA expression when performing blood-restriction flow training, but I'd be willing to bet that when they do they will find some interesting results on the micro RNA level. There are also natural substances which can alter micro RNA expression - I think that potentially the right cocktail could even be created in the future which could almost alter our genetics and turn us into easy gainers. Of course the complete map of micro RNAs is a LONG way off, but I'll go on a limb and say that the potential is there.


----------



## gamingcrook (Feb 8, 2018)

on cycle now but diet still plays a good part! 1 kg in over a week gained


----------



## Fadi (Dec 14, 2010)

gamingcrook said:


> *hardgainer? bullshit*


 I'd like to balance out what you have painted with your big and wide brush, with this fine and delicate brush of mine, as there's really room for both, just as there's a time for both ..., to work their magic through.

Hardgainer? Sure why not, especially when you are the one struggling to gain.

I call it "bullshit" man! Usually said by one who is not a hardgainer, or as you yourself have discovered, one who has found his "way" through to the world of gains.

I believe everyone of us (and I do mean every single one of us here) is or has been a hardgainer at one point or another, yet not all share the same degree of difficulties in gaining.

Why is that and where exactly am I going with this?

To an extent, make that a large and broad extent, you are correct in your assumption about one being a hardgainer. What I'd like to add here, is that it's not all about "eat more man", or "you've got to train smarter mate", or "how's your sleeping pattern going brother?" Though all of these are valid questions, there are times when there are underlying problems, problems that are deeper than what we're either discussing here, or what the hardgainer usually turns his attention to.

OK, like what mate?

Like for example, digestion issues, leading to assimilation or lack thereof. Mmm, is that such a big deal? Well it gets worse, much much worse than you can imagine, especially when people (in good faith), are advising the poor fellow to "man up man and start eating big if you wanna get big", blah blah blah. Apologies if my words are coming across like I'm making fun etc, I'm not. But can't you see how dangerous this (advice) can actually get if and when followed by the hardgainer. "Eat more"? Really! How can the man eat more if he's having a problem digesting what he's already eating.

Remember, I did say I'll be bringing out my fine bristle brush for points that are critically important.

So following someone's advice (because after all, who wants to feel like a wuss right!), the man begins to eat eat and eat some more. I'd leave the outcome of such behaviour to your imagination, but you can bet it won't be of the pretty kind.

I do realise that there are more (many more) than just the one factor that is not eating enough ... (like not sleeping properly, being involved in too many extracurricular activities, focusing on isolation exercises over compound ones and on and on), however I decided to focus mainly on this "you're not eating enough calories" factor above all the others, because it's always been the one played out first, by everyone. And it is *this* factor above all else, that we need to be most careful with, because it has a lot more to do with what we can *not* see than what we can see, and hence are quick to base our judgment upon, as has been the proof in this very thread Sir.

"Eat more", is not an advice I'd give out lightly, for more reasons than one ...

Cheers.


----------



## gamingcrook (Feb 8, 2018)

Fadi said:


> I'd like to balance out what you have painted with your big and wide brush, with this fine and delicate brush of mine, as there's really room for both, just as there's a time for both ..., to work their magic through.
> 
> Hardgainer? Sure why not, especially when you are the one struggling to gain.
> 
> ...


 quality input  I appreciate your views, but for the majority of 'hardgainers' they just s**t eaters, and i speak from experience  - all the wordplay


----------



## Fadi (Dec 14, 2010)

gamingcrook said:


> quality input  I appreciate your views, but for the majority of 'hardgainers' they just s**t eaters, and i speak from experience  - all the wordplay


 Maybe, just maybe, a chance that you may have misunderstood the thrust of my message, I shall reiterate it here.

I am *not* disagreeing with you, that for the majority of hardgainers they are "s**t" eaters as you've said. Have you asked them why?

What my message was (and still is), is that irrespective of what you eat and how much of it you do eat, at the end of the day what matters is what you digest, more so than what you ingest. In other words, gaining lies first and foremost in the digestion of the ingestion, and not the other way around. That's where I'd like to start and where I'd focus my attention on first. Why is that, or do I just wanna be difficult here? No, don't wish to be difficult. But I also do know (from experience), that we get encouraged by what works most for us, and discouraged by what doesn't work, or works the least. So by throwing focus on what *you* want for the hardgainer, instead of what the hardgainer needs, is to put the cart before the horse in my opinion.

Perhaps I'm more patient than some I'm not sure, but I find pleasure in getting deep down to the root of the problem, and tackling it from that end, instead of dealing with the obvious tip of the iceberg that everyone sees so clearly.

Looking beyond the very obvious at times, does have its place.

Please note: I find that when I give my opinion as I'm doing here by engaging in this discussions, some people mistake that for a debate of who's right and who's wrong. Please know, I'm not here to prove anything, let alone tell someone that their view is wrong or call them out for a debate. I'm simply here to share my point of view, and no more than that really mate.

Thanks.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Bull Terrier said:


> @dtlv - I see more and more recent studies looking into micro RNA expression, and how it differs between hard/easy gainers etc. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an agreed upon consensus for measuring micro RNA and I believe that the measurement - however it's done - is quite difficult and not always totally reliable.
> 
> What I find super interesting however is that even though we cannot change our basic genetics, a few interventions appear to be able to influence micro RNA expression and potentially benefit hypertrophy-type adaptations. An example which has been studied is cardio performed before resistance exercise. They haven't yet studied micro RNA expression when performing blood-restriction flow training, but I'd be willing to bet that when they do they will find some interesting results on the micro RNA level. There are also natural substances which can alter micro RNA expression - I think that potentially the right cocktail could even be created in the future which could almost alter our genetics and turn us into easy gainers. Of course the complete map of micro RNAs is a LONG way off, but I'll go on a limb and say that the potential is there.


 Genetic adaptation is a fascinating thing because everything we do repeatedly (not just as exercise - or lack of) causes some miRNA,associated with that behavior, to activate. Be a couch potato and you activate one set, walk a lot and another, resistance train and another again. Eat mostly carbs one set, ostly fats another. Persistent drug and alcohol use changes DNA expression. Chronically overeat or undereat - different genes become expressed. Sometimes expression can be 'switched back off' fully or partially, sometimes it might not. So while we are limited by our DNA, within that DNA there is flexibility to adapt to our environment. Gene don't determine usto be one fixed thing, but mostly one thing that has some wiggle room to adapt.

The next interesting thing about gene expression is the ultimate question as to whether the adaptations are always beneficial. In almost all cases they could be said to make the body 'more efficient' at doing whatever it's doing, but that's not always desirable overall. The adaptations that a chronic over-eater makes for example seem to make it easier to keep over-eating and store body fat super efficiently. A non exerciser becomes very comfortable not being active, but then is further away from the benefits of exercise. A drug or alcohol addict becomes physiologically more dependent on the substance of their addiction.

I think eventually (many generations away - and if we haven't killed ourselves by then and our AI overlords allow it, lol), when all is mapped, there will probably therapies to encourage some genes to express changes and others to remain firmly switched off. Then of course where there are genetic polymorphisms (different variations of the same gene that different people have) that are either good or bad, there'll probably be treatments to shut down the undesirable polymorphisms. Heck at that point we'll probably be routinely gene editing any way.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Fadi said:


> Maybe, just maybe, a chance that you may have misunderstood the thrust of my message, I shall reiterate it here.
> 
> I am *not* disagreeing with you, that for the majority of hardgainers they are "s**t" eaters as you've said. Have you asked them why?
> 
> ...


 You are absolutely right @Fadi - I was going to add a similar point to this thread today.

Three general, and extremely common solutions (or assumptions that one of these things is what you have to do) I see offered to individuals struggling to gain muscle are:



Eat more calories - usually a lot is recommended.


Train heavier, or 'you need to kill it every session and go into beast mode'.


Take more steroids.


While sometimes either one of those may indeed be exactly what is needed for that particular individual, almost always a better answer would be either:



Rather than eat a lot more, give your diet a through overhaul and vastly improve it's quality. How to do so will be extremely individual specific.


Train smarter. May involve one single change or any combination of a different routine, improvements in technique, different frequency or volume, introducing periodization, or better training psychology (learning to work through difficulty more, or to not go so 'balls to the wall' and stop overdoing it - or maybe simply you need to develop more realistic goals and what you are aiming at simply is impossible in the time frame you want it to be).


If choosing to be assisted and you cycle isn't delivering much, maybe the issues are the above ones (hint, they usually are), not with the cycle, or maybe you are overdoing it already and experiencing more sides than benefits. Maybe you aren't doing proper on-cycle support, maybe your dosing or schedule is wrong, or perhaps you are using incompatible compounds together. Maybe you've lost the illegal PED buying lottery and are using fakes.


Building muscle like a bodybuilder is a long, slow, difficult process. While in simple terms the instructions could be given as 'just eat more, train progressively and intensely and rest properly', there are a million ways to do each of those things wrong, even when you are doing them. And expectations are often way more ambitious than are realistic too. I'm convinced that unrealistic expectations is what leads so many people who simply aren't ready to steroids to go to them and then do an awful cycle - they haven't really got a grip on diet or training yet, but think they have. They also have listened too closely to fake natties and uninformative people on the internet, forums, and at their gym telling them things like "you need to be aiming to add a pound of muscle a week". They then find that of course to be impossible, so assume they have 'run dry' of natural training methods and therefore need steroids.

In my years I've seen way to many individual examples that fit the above description perfectly.

One final thing, again going back to a point of @Fadi's. It's semantics but it's true - whatever individual thing you struggle with and is hard, could be said to make you a hard gainer, because to gain as best as your individual body will allow you need to be able to do everything as right as is possible for you in your circumstances. To distinguish though, that is of course a different use of the label 'hard gainer' to the way I use it mostly - someone who, due to genetic limitations, will always gain at an inferior rate to most of the population even when doing everything as perfectly for themselves as is possible. I think, because of how easy it is to do so many things wrong or at least non-optimally, more people assume they belong to that group than actually do.


----------



## gamingcrook (Feb 8, 2018)

I came along way from 64kg and near serious illness even death last year, I also had severe problems digesting food and looking at how i was then vs how i am now, anything is possible if you put your mind to it


----------

