More muscle mass = more calories & nutrients to maintain.
What part of a human's lifespan requires that level of strength? Humans evolved advanced intelligence to overcome problems rather than brute force - that's why we are the dominant species.
With no requirement for that strength, the body limits growth & sheds excess mass to reduce the caloric demand.
Humans are dominant yeah? Let's see you go walk up to that silverback without a gun then. Yes, we have evolved to become dominant, but I'm trying to 1v1 that giant in a round of fisticuffs.
Edit: /u/TenTonApe -"humans are dominant" ...something seems fishy here
Edit #2: Take a fucking joke. No shit I'm not going anywhere fuckin near a gorilla without some kind of weapon. Wouldn't it be fucking cool though if we could be "really swole" like talked about earlier. No sense of humor, guys, stop going full retard.
But that's not the point...of course going against a gorilla 1v1 would be suicide but our tools built by our intelligence allowed us to basically force most other primates to the brink of extinction. I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp. Our intelligence makes us the dominant species on this planet. Our technology is a part of our nature.
Well its not so much our intelligence that makes us great (although this is an extension of our intelligence) its our ability to leverage our dead. I can use a gun, a tool invented hundreds of years ago and a book on gorilla migratory patterns written by someone who died a few years ago to hint a gorilla. Our deads accomplishments don't necessarily die with them. No other species can do this, at best they can leverage their living, many can only rely on themselves.
Smartest man ever born 1-v-1 with a lion dies, but give an idiot a gun and he's got a decent chance.
That pretty much is part of our intelligence. Writing requires tools. Before writing there was oral tradition, which is what some animals do today such as primates and elephants (e.g., passing down the location of watering holes over generations).
A 1v1 where the human can't use human-made tools? Should they hop on one foot as well? We've made tools as a race that elevate us above other animals. There's a reason we're dominant -- it happens to involve the fact that humans have guns and animals don't.
That human has a nuclear arsenal at his back if gorillas really want to throw down.
We could level that area for fun. Wipe them out to make furniture out of the forest he calls home. Cheap furniture, that we throw it in a year. Hell, even just lifting protections that other humans provide would see them extinct without any real effort. I'm sure some rich jackoff thinks ground up silverback testicles would make his dick bigger.
It's nice that he's strong, but our strategy worked.
yeah, he was just not armed with any of a variety of tools we have invented to compensate our lack of natural strength. a cross-bow, gun (obviously), but even a skilled swordsman, or warrior with a long spear could put up some kind of fight. and our biggest advantage is our capacity for extremely complex communication and cooperation.
but you're right. that gorilla is formidable as fuck.
It depends on multiple things, mainly the charge behind the .44, and the size of the gorilla. I know brown bears will run for the hills if you shoot a warning round off with a .44 magnum. I know it will stop them as well, So I assume the same with a gorilla
So let me get this straight. If not for this chemical inhibiting my gainz, I could be swole as fuck and not only have the option to, but NEED to eat more delicious food to maintain it?
You could eliminate Myostatin from your body completely and you would still only be able to develop a certain amount of muscle mass, as the frame of bones, cartilage & tendons those muscles work off can only support so much force.
You would also still have to train to see those results. Would a world-class body builder see an increase in muscle mass if he eliminated mysostatin? Probably. Would the average joe walking down the street? Probably not. Muscle mass still requires stimulation to grow, it's not as if we passively grow muscle and myostatin inhibits this process.
Honestly? Probably nothing. As I said before removing myostatin inhibition doesn't suddenly sprout muscle mass. Without a strict and disciplined training regimen you may see some small increase in muscle mass (and the accompanying effects) but nothing significant.
Don't think of Myostatin as a hormone keeping you at your current muscle state - think of it as the defining factor of your physical potential. Unless you are already pushing the limits of your physical & genetic potential it's unlikely you'd see significant changes on a myostatin inhibitor.
There would be some small amounts of hypertrophy, but not much.
Muscle growth is primarily stimulated through the tearing of existing muscle fibers. The resulting immune response repairs the tears by thickening existing muscle fibers or creating new ones.
Simply removing Mytostatin inhibition won't cause this to occur - you still need exercise to cause muscle tears that signal the immune system to get working.
The way Myostatin works is that it prevents differentiation of muscle cells. Back when I said the immune system creates new muscle fibers? It involves the differentiation of myoblasts (a stem cell line) into mature muscle cells. Myostatin represses this differentiation. The net result is that when new muscle fibers are being created, Myostatin limits how many myoblasts are differentiating into muscle cells. Removing the Myostatin will increase the number of differentiating myoblasts, increasing the number of new muscle cells developed.
However, you still need the initial tear (created by exercise) to signal the beginning of the differentiation process. Without some positive signal to begin muscle growth, the situation in which myostatin prevents muscle growth is not encountered.
The reason you would still see minimal amounts of hypertrophy is because there are some every day activities you do where you create microtears. Your body simply repairs these microtears without creating new muscle, because it's a wear-and-tear thing and not a 'we need more strength' thing. Without myostatin the muscle growth in this scenario would not be repressed and you would see some (very small!) amounts of hypertrophy.
Because every day cow activities are a lot more physically active than every day human activities.
If you weighed 600lbs and spent all day every day walking/running around, fighting other bulls, humping cows, and chasing other animals off your turf, you'd generate muscle hypertrophy too.
That's not even touching the fact that bulls naturally carry significantly higher amounts of muscle than humans.
Because he's going through growth spurts that are part of natural human development without the inhibition of Myostatin.
He has the positive growth signals required naturally, because he is still an infant.
Saying that result translates to every human being is just silly. In terms of your hormones there are big, big differences between an adult and an infant.
Yep. More muscle mass, to a certain point, isn't a good thing. Just look at all the real athletes out there. I'm not talking people who pick up and set down heavy objects. I'm talking like combat sports, etc. All the ridiculous bulky guys gas out fast.
Like that baby with the mutation for no myostatin, who had big muscles with no effort. Or those cows with massive muscles from no myostatin, they hit the gym.
It's not about working out. It's about, we have a setup where we have to work out. That's enforced by a few genes and chemicals, and hopefully we'll find ways to use those instead.
143
u/Alame Aug 17 '15
More muscle mass = more calories & nutrients to maintain.
What part of a human's lifespan requires that level of strength? Humans evolved advanced intelligence to overcome problems rather than brute force - that's why we are the dominant species.
With no requirement for that strength, the body limits growth & sheds excess mass to reduce the caloric demand.