18-04-2012, 13:56
Sorry your link does not support your beliefs, and if you are relying on gym rats for your information, you will be severely misinformed more often than not. (As a point of reference so that you know the knowledge base I am approaching this from, my educational background includes a Doctorate in Physical Therapy which includes among other topics dedicated course work in anatomy, physiology, pathology, nutrition and pharmacology.)
But, since you find those folks reputable, try this link which completely contradicts your assertions: http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/reform8.htm
DHT is much too quickly metabolized to a completely ineffective (as far as producing increased muscle mass) by product in muscle. It could have a weak effect were it not for this. See the article above.
Here are yet more muscle heads/gym rats discussing DHT and its LACK of an anabolic effect (certainly not an authoritative source in my opinion, but here it is anyway):
http://www.musclechatroom.com/forum/showthread.php?4914-DHT-Muscle
Here's a study illustrating that differing DHT levels had NO effect on lean body mass (muscle), while testosterone levels DID affect muscle mass:
http://www.musclechatroom.com/forum/showthread.php?4914-DHT-Muscle
Let's see some evidence backing up your assertions.
Lowering protein intake is WAY different than protein deprivation to the point proteolysis. Lowering protein intake to the point of protein catabolism is most definitely dangerous, and severely unhealthy for multiple body systems. You originally suggested using severe protein deprivation as a way to reduce muscle mass, which it most certainly will do, but at what cost?
The human body is amazing in it's ability to adapt to so many adverse situations, including chronic malnutrition. Just because it is possible, doesn't make it desirable. Just because ONE Chinese man, who was probably malnourished his entire life, can survive that way, does NOT make it a desirable thing to do, especially if one of your goals is to maintain optimum health. Do you think it is merely coincidence that people in developed countries with access to adequate/optimal nutrition and clean water also are healthier and literally larger and live longer than they did a hundred years ago? Even if millions of people don't get adequate protein their entire lives and survive, is that what you are striving for? Just survival? Do you think that's what they would choose if given the choice? Just survival? The absurdity of your assertion is astounding and truly 'gibberish.'
But, since you find those folks reputable, try this link which completely contradicts your assertions: http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/reform8.htm
DHT is much too quickly metabolized to a completely ineffective (as far as producing increased muscle mass) by product in muscle. It could have a weak effect were it not for this. See the article above.
Here are yet more muscle heads/gym rats discussing DHT and its LACK of an anabolic effect (certainly not an authoritative source in my opinion, but here it is anyway):
http://www.musclechatroom.com/forum/showthread.php?4914-DHT-Muscle
Here's a study illustrating that differing DHT levels had NO effect on lean body mass (muscle), while testosterone levels DID affect muscle mass:
http://www.musclechatroom.com/forum/showthread.php?4914-DHT-Muscle
Let's see some evidence backing up your assertions.
Lowering protein intake is WAY different than protein deprivation to the point proteolysis. Lowering protein intake to the point of protein catabolism is most definitely dangerous, and severely unhealthy for multiple body systems. You originally suggested using severe protein deprivation as a way to reduce muscle mass, which it most certainly will do, but at what cost?
The human body is amazing in it's ability to adapt to so many adverse situations, including chronic malnutrition. Just because it is possible, doesn't make it desirable. Just because ONE Chinese man, who was probably malnourished his entire life, can survive that way, does NOT make it a desirable thing to do, especially if one of your goals is to maintain optimum health. Do you think it is merely coincidence that people in developed countries with access to adequate/optimal nutrition and clean water also are healthier and literally larger and live longer than they did a hundred years ago? Even if millions of people don't get adequate protein their entire lives and survive, is that what you are striving for? Just survival? Do you think that's what they would choose if given the choice? Just survival? The absurdity of your assertion is astounding and truly 'gibberish.'