your genetic blueprint + prenatal and pubertal testosterone and testosterone to estrogen ratio determine your body composition (frame size; ribcage size, bildetoid width, shoulder to waist ratio) your wrist circumference is the biggest indicator of your frame and strength/muscle building potential
your hormonal profile determines your fat distribution & how you burn your fat is also heavily affected by your androgen receptors (hint some people have a lot more than others & some people's receptors just hold onto estrogen and shit) phenotypes are a real thing, Imagine some icelandic freak telling an emaciated ethiopian to just start lifting and eating 5k/day, they dont have the same bones, they dont have the same hormones or receptors
some people LITERALLY touch a fucking barbell and their body just explodes into it's genetic destiny in a year or two, benching 135 and OHPing nothing but they look aesthetic as FUARK because their joints are small and their muscle bellies are full and low making the look like some greek god or their bones are huge and they look like a fucking mountain in not a long time lifting
useless platitudes like "eat less" don't consider all of these variables when it comes to cutting and "eat more" when it comes to actually building muscle
yes, they're true, but not across the board
a 5'5" indian with bird bones, high inserts in every muscle group, chest gap, the hormonal profile of a 50 year old pregnant redditor with a thyroid problem, androgenic non-responder even with AAS
a 6'2" icelandic with 7.5 inch wrists, full inserts & synergistic muscle bellies, top percentile body frame measurements untrained with testosterone in a mid-high but human range, who's phenotype has androgen receptors which lap up test and had an ideal pubertal hormonal timed release
I'd love to live in the world where natty lifting with subpar genes was sustainable, but just because it works for bjorn, doesn't mean ranjeet and co. should just "eat more"