Why women can gain as much muscle as men despite having 15x less testosterone
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 05. 2024
- Why having low T on paper may not be a problem.
More info & scientific references: The natural muscular potential of women - mennohenselmans.com/natural-m...
#testosterone #estrogen #mennohenselmans #personaltrainer #personaltrainers #personaltraining #personaltrainerlife #personaltraineronline #personaltraineronline - Věda a technologie
Similar rates of growth meaning they can both gain 2x the muscle they had previously. He’s not saying women gain as much muscle as a man would (I.e. having the same muscular build as one)
Exactly 10-15% increase in LBM for a 150 lb woman would be like 5-7 lbs. while a 10-15% increase for a 150lb man could be like 10-15 lbs.
No, its not. Your calculation is not right. A healthy men has about 45% muscle mass, a healthy woman about 36% (exactly the difference in bfp btw). So a 10-15% increase of 77.5 lbs for the men and a 10-15% increase of 54 lbs for women. You seem to have forgotten that women are an avarage about 13-14 cm shorter than men and weigh about 15 kg less.
Using precise language is important here. Everyone knows that men put on more lean mass more easily than women in a practical, real-world sense.
I think the initial statement is a bit poorly phrased.
Because similar grow rate (percentage) does not result in the same amount of muscle if you have vastly different starting points, so in the end men will end up with more muscle mass on average if you normalize all other factors, as there is a finite timeframe and of course the decrease in muscle grows (percentage) the longer you train / the closer you get to your genetic limit.
Or am I wrong?
No, you're not. I did a calculation.
Here's an example:
A man 1.78 m tall, weighs 70 kg. A woman 1.64 m tall, weighs 55 kg. Both will gain 20% in muscle mass. The man starts with 31.5 kg muscle mass (45% of 70 kg) and the woman starts with 19.8 kg of muscle mass (36% of 55 kg). The man will gain 6.3 kg muscle mass and the woman 3.96 kg. Relatively they have gained the same ammount of muscle mass (20%).
I do think that people underestimate the natural muscle building potential of a woman. I've never taking any ped's and I was able to put on a significant ammount of muscle mass in the past few years. I didn't expect these results, because of what is being said about women having 15 times lower testosterone. Although this is true women produce 3-4 times more growth hormone and the same ammount of IGF. Estrogen plays an important role too for muscle gains in women. I'm am muscular now compared to other women. Do I look like a man now, no of course not. Do I stand out in the gym, yes I do. I'm also lean and I've got a good ammount of muscle mass for a woman. It are mostly women (and some skinny dudes) who criticize my physique. According to them I am too wide and too muscular. Well I train my upperbody with the same frequency and intensity as my lower body and that is "unfeminine'. Nature gave both men and women an upper body. I'm proud of my strength and what my body is capable of and I stopped caring about people's opinions. I train for myself and I want to challenge myself. There's nothing unfeminine about a strong woman who gained her strength and muscles naturally in my opinion.
'Much' is commonly equated with amount, conflating the term with 'rate' can be nisleading.
The first question that comes in my mind is, what is the average starting point of men compared to women?
would this imply that women are more receptive to androgens or have increased androgen receptor density?
Unless you're in menopause, or post menopause. They don't do scientific research this cohort on strength training.
Similar does not equal Same.
So the original statement was correct
No, beacuse it´s not lower testosterone that slows down their gain rate, Which was the original statement.
This comments section seems to be mostly people who only care about science when it doesn't require they change their minds about anything.
Should of had, Iris Kyle doing the running man in the background..
Nice, so it's only a matter of time when we'll see a woman with Ronnie Coleman's measurements.
Calls it a "misconception," but then says it's similar "rates" of increase, relative to their starting point. Effectively demonstrating that the "misconception" is, in fact, true.
It's not, because a man and a woman with the same starting LBM gain the same absolute amount of muscle. So sex is not the issue. The starting point is. The starting point also varies widely among men.
@@menno.henselmansThat's fair. I understand your point. I would just push back a bit by highlighting a fact that you conceded in your video--specifically that women start off with less LBM, which effectively means they can't build as much muscle. Obviously, this isn't a universal truth; there will always be outliers. But if we created a Venn diagram of the starting LBM of the male and female populations, the overlap would be incredibly small (I understand that the overlap, while small, is significant from a scientific perspective). So if we say that women start with lower LBM than men, and that having a lower starting LBM means less total muscle can be built, aren't we effectively saying that women can't build as much muscle as men? At what point is correlation so strong that it crosses over into causation?
@@menno.henselmans "the starting point" and on average at any given point men are well beyond women for the "starting point" because of hormonal differences.
Just admit this was a dumb clickbait short for the algorithm/drumming up traffic. You're playing semantics and it's painfully obvious.
@@EndlessAlchemy The point is that their gain rate is not different than mens beacuse of sex difference. The misconception is that a man will gain more muscle than a woman with the same lbm starting point.
Bro NO ONE is talking about relative percentage increases here...going from 8lbs of muscle to 16lbs of muscle is NOT THE SAME as going from 80lbs of muscle to 160lbs of muscle. When people say men grow more muscle than women, none of them are thinking in terms of percentage increase to baseline.
Then THEN why isn't my girl who's been lifting for a few years now, ALREADY a muscle mommy?😢
because 90% of them don't train hard enough or eat properly
Genetics and macros still can affect outcomes. Including effort.
Just like some men train their calves a lot but still have thin calves. Genetics
Science somehow melted your brain my friend.
Killer chest hair, Menno!
The question is: when do I gonna see female strong girls competing with brian shaw, eddie hall and the rest?
0:00
I have never seen a natural female with a large amount of muscle.
Never
I've seen but they are extremely rare
@@liadhol1 Could you give me the name of one?
Have you ever been to the gym? I've seen some insane legs on women. You are probably looking at their upper body but most women don't train upper body nearly as much their legs.
You are missing the point! He said the starting point is different. RELATIVELY speaking they can gain the same as men. It's just a simple calculation. Also women are on avarage 13-14 cm shorter than men. So no a natural training woman will not be as muscular as a man. She can indeed become muscular compared to other women.
Women also produce 3-4 times more growth hormone than men.
I don’t understand the way you put it but practically women can’t gain as much muscle as men. I guess you said at similar rates or I’m confused man. I hardly see jacked natural females
Meno please elaborate on this. This will heavily discourage a lot of women from lifting weights.
Or encourage them 😁😁
Know the difference between muscle mass and muscle growth
It are mostly women who try to discourage women not to lift to heavy is my experience. He is not the one trying to discourage women to lift weights, quite the opposite I would say.
You start out smaller on average than men but can gain mass ar similar rates. He fails to explain how the initial large observable natural differences form to begin with but if you can gain at the same rate that's a good not a bad thing.
This is very misleading clickbait
Oh no, he's woke.
Oh no, you're too dumb to understand basic math.
He must be talking about women on growth hormones or steroids.
No he is not. He is talking about natural women. I recommend listening the video couple of times. There is nothing strange in what Meno is saying
No, he's not.
Here's an example:
A man 1.78 m tall, weighs 70 kg. A woman 1.64 m tall, weighs 55 kg. Both will gain 20% in muscle mass. The man starts with 31.5 kg muscle mass (45% of 70 kg) and the woman starts with 19.8 kg of muscle mass (36% of 55 kg). The man will gain 6.3 kg muscle mass and the woman 3.96 kg. Relatively they have gained the same ammount of muscle mass (20%).
@@adrianahaverhoek You should know I have over 15 years of NATURAL bodybuilding experience. I'm also predominantly fast-twitch muscle fiber. A gymnastics coach saw me train at camp and suggested I try out for the competitive gymnastics team he coached at. I ended up getting picked for the competitive team BECAUSE I was naturally strong... That's what the owners and the coaches told me at that time. I had beat out other girls who weren't as physically strong/powerful, but more flexible than me. The gymnastics coaches informed me that natural strength is easier to train.
What you just said is in no way an argument to the comment you're replying to.@@elisabeth4342
@@elisabeth4342 your last comment doesn't add anything. Seems like you still don't understand what relatively means. Btw I've been training naturally for years too and I did put on quite some muscle mass and I've gained strength. How do you measure progress? By looking at the starting point.
🧢
🧢 those studies lied.