Re:Ozempic reduced grocery spending by an average of 5.3% in...
by hare2eternity on Tuesday January 13, 2026 @06:42AM
(#46599769)
That position does not appear to be supported by clinical evidence. [This study](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dar.12433) references several studies that show that taking low (in the context of gym users) doses of steriods and not exercising is more effective at building muscle mass than strength training and not taking steroids.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Ozempic reduced grocery spending by an average of 5.3% in...
by roel_v on Tuesday January 13, 2026 @09:11AM
(#46601129)
Sounds like you've never taken steroids either brother LOL. You believe what you want, taking steroids and not exercising is not going to get you the results you're looking for...
Re:Ozempic reduced grocery spending by an average of 5.3% in...
by Der_Einzige on Tuesday January 13, 2026 @10:10AM
(#46601998)
Bro science bullshit doesn't belong here. I'd rather take roids and not lift than do SS+GOMAD and listen to /fit/ memes. Rich Piana and Zyzz are dead for a reason.
Re:Ozempic reduced grocery spending by an average of 5.3% in...
by cthalupa on Tuesday January 13, 2026 @10:22AM
(#46602153)
Steroids significantly increase glycogen/water retention in-muscle while on them and for a period of time while coming off of them. This would increase muscle size by the measures noted in Bhasin's study (the big one people reference here), but not increase the amount of actual contractile tissue. There's also a cap there - going up in dosage, going for longer, etc., is not going to continually increase overall muscle size at that rate because you've saturated the stores in the muscle for the glycogen and water.
You will gain some additional contractile tissue doing nothing on gear. The average person, if faced with the two options, will gain more actual contractile tissue opting to lift weights without gear.
You can find huge quantities of people in gyms that are on gear and look like they barely lift.