He goes to the gym but ruins all progress by drinking alcohol

Last week I drank so much I puked and passed out several times, so I guessed it was time for me to stop drinking. Im a new man now!

how does smoking being terrible for you make alcohol any less bad? do you have to choose between the two?

Smoking is a combo of nicotine damage and combustion consumption damage.

Alcohol wont damage your veins and artéries as fast as smoking.

The BIG problem of alcohol and gains is vasoconstriction and dehydratation.

Don't overdo it and you'll be fine.

yeah but literally nobody was advocating for smoking so I fail to see how it's in any way related to alcohol

i drink plenty and i gaurantee i am bigger than you and could beat the shit out of you with little effort you pathetic dyel

If i wasn't on probation i'd be shit hammered right now

Anecdotal but I know a lot of people Who can take in regular amounts of alcohol either daily or weekly or a few days a week and still make "gains"

Personally, even one night getting drunk a week fucks up my progress. Frustrating af haha

>goes to gym but ruin all progress by not sleeping properly

alcoholic triggered

1-4 drinks a night can reduce your chance of heart disease by over 50%. I think a couple of beers a day is worth the miniscule effect on your gains.

If I'm drinking once every few months or so, will my progress still be halted on that one night I drink?

This thread was just made by some "enlightened" individual who hates alcohol because drunk daddy kept hitting him

You can def drink a few beers without a problem

>1-4 drinks a night can reduce your chance of heart disease by over 50%
>the things alcoholics tell themselves to feel better
>projecting this hard

2 of my friends can squat 350+ and bench 250+ however the beer bellies are so fucking bad. So glad I don't drink, just pass the weed

Nerd

Real talk- if alcohol actually made you less muscular then all men for the past 10,000 years would have been weak pussies

You guys are just retarded

It's widely accepted and well documented that moderate drinking significantly reduces the chance of heart disease. That's not alcoholism, even if you irrationally hate alcohol because you can't handle it. Considering that heart disease is the biggest killer in the west, anybody concerned about their health would have a few drinks a night.

but all the men for the past 10,000 years were weak pussies with no definition on modern standards. you do realize "historical" tv shows and movies aren't actual footage from the time period? a 6'0" chubby guy was a huge feared warrior back then

WTF, you opened my eyes!

Thank you so much for this, kind sir.

af haha lit

Well, maybe, but at least I'm not as autistic as OP, so that's a plus

Tbqh I'd never drink again if I didn't have so many friends. A few drinks every weekend isn't that bad though I guess, would rather have a good social life than an amazing six pack or

This is so much worse than moderate drinking

>not refuting his point

I'm tall and have a decent BMR so I'm lucky to maintain fair leanness (14-15%) while still getting shithoused every weekend

I'm in college so it's unavoidable, I'm probably going to be drinking for morning to night on Saturday

I only get one more year of this so I'm not going to worry about some extra calories stopping me from being a lean freak

ahahahahahahahhaha

why do you have to pick either?

>I'm in college so it's unavoidable

Nice job continuing to not prove anything wrong, OP.

So you're telling me everyone was weak but knights just happened to be able to wear their hundred pound armor and carry around their 30 pound shields and swords just because?

Really, faggot?

>tfw alcoholic
>tfw two years of working out and shit progress
>tfw alcohol abuse is probably the main thing keeping my back injury from healing
I just finished a taper and have been sober a couple of days, but I've picked up smoking weed at night to help cope with cravings, insomnia, and nausea. Fuck alcohol, don't fall for the alcoholism meme anons.

you're aware that full body armor was just for show and ceremonies and the size of it exaggerated hugely in paintings and stories and thus in modern movies? full body armor on the battlefield was a terrible fucking idea because the guys could barely stay upright if they weren't mounted on a horse let alone fight anyone. most of the time actual soldiers wore thick leather and knee and elbow pads and occasionally something on their forearms but that's about it

Post body then big boy ;)

Total bullshit. Armour was designed to facilitate as much mobility as possible, and it only got more sophisticated as time went on.

I wish I could go back in time for this reason. Everyone would be dyel and I'd be swimming in ancient/medieval puss.

WRONG
our ancestors were stronger, more active, more physical and less mental.
We're the result of tens of thousands of years of decline

I drink every friday or saturday night.
A lot of booze too. No beer,but straight vodka or rum with coke zero.

It isn't that bad. I still get gains and I'm still losing weight.

rofl read just one history book, doesn't really even matter which, and you'll find out how wrong you are.

the romans were pretty much the only army that heavily relied on steel armor for regular soldiers and they wore thin steel plates that only covered the upper torso while the rest of their uniform was thin fabric and was only intended to block arrows and swiping strikes from a dagger or similiar small weapon, they did nothing to a full on sword or pike hit

more importantly the romans' strategy relied purely on staying in formation and slowly advancing. the soldiers weren't doing acrobatic feats with this gear on, they were walking forwards and striking from behind their shield shoulder to shoulder to friendlies. they weren't hopping around doing cool moves like in a movie.

the kind of armor you're thinking of was used
A. by leaders sitting on horses outside of actual battle
B. in parades
C. in jousting tournaments
D. when posing for a painting

if you're talking about the average person on the street. sure. people used to do manual labor almost exclusively and would have to actually fight for their survival. if you sit or lie down 24 hours a day your body is naturally weaker.

but if you're talking about someone who cares about their health and works out? it's not even close. the modern nutrition and medicine (advances in medicine doesn't only help the sick but also means you were probably born without any issues) alone makes us freakishly strong and tall compared to them
pretty much yea

People were smaller and lived shorter lives. I think you underestimate how far we've come in terms of nutrition and science user. Can't remember sauce but during the height of the roman empire, 5'7 was considered tall.

Wanna know how I know you're a high schooler?

Jousting armour is a specialised type that developed after plate armour had largely fallen out of use. Professional soldiers in the 15th and 16th centuries used full body armour as a matter of course. They stopped using it around that time because even very shitty muskets can penetrate it at long distance, but when you're fighting against other strong, heavily armed people with edged weapons on foot being covered head to toe in metal is actually quite a big advantage.

>doing farm labor or factory work 16 hours a day didn't build muscle in the 1950s

Yeah, no again you're full of shit and the whole "alcohol destroys all your muscles" would have made it completely impossible for anyone to have the strength to get any work done throughout history

I don't know shit about jousting, that's true. I was just trying to come up with any actual use for full body steel armor.
>15th and 16th centuries used full body armour
they used steel armor but it looked like pic related, not a knight who's covered in metal from head to toe.
even the guy in the pic related would've been a part of a wealthy army since they had money to supply a man with such gear and risk losing it. hiring more dudes was almost always the more cost effective solution.
who said anything about the 1950s? of course the effects of manual labor haven't disappeared. and thanks to modern nutrition a man working in manual labor in the 21st century is stronger than a man from 2000 years ago.
>destroys all your muscles
literally nobody said this

Oh and also: do you actually know how much a fully articulated suit of plate armour weighed? About the same as an empty barbell. Spread evenly across the entire body.

Although I'd expect a dyel to consider that too heavy to move in.

I don't agree with anons "alcohol destroys all your muscles" statement, but you're fucking retarded.

Third worlders and those in poverty work up to, or even more, than 16 hours a day yet look how small and malnourished they are.

>have no food
>clearly this means them having no musculature is because of alcohol use

newsflash people from thousands of years ago had "no food" on modern standards

Read up on the Hundred Years' War.

The guys using this stuff weren't being supplied by the army - they were self financed. Membership of the military class was more or less determined by your ability to afford the equipment, and has been for most of history outside of very recent (last 200 years) times and other anomalies like Imperial rome (and even in later periods Rome reverted to this model when the state could no longer afford to finance regular provisioning.)

I literally just said I disagree that alcohol affects the muscles you dumb fuck.

And you're even dumber if you think people back then could afford to be gluttonous. Back in those times even meat was rarity.

checked
a couple of points:
like I said the price of steel and the workmanship required was the primary reason for why armor was limited, not the weight.
a full body plate armor weighing 20-30kg spread across the body might sound light but it isn't. firstly it's not an exercise they're doing for a brief period. soldiers had to carry their gear on them or even wearing it for days on end often marching for extended durations. a 20+kg load on top of everything else they were carrying adds up. this would slow down armies and make them less mobile.
secondly they weren't just carrying it, they had to fight in it. while the romans used very strict and disciplined formations this wasn't the case for everyone. battles were often chaotic and moving around in a 20kg steel suit not only exhausted the soldier but made them much less agile. it's easy to find a weakness in an exhausted soldier even through armor and it meant the army didn't just lose a soldier but likely an expensive suit of armor as well. chainmail was more fitted for this style of fighting but it didn't eliminate the problem of cost.

there existed exclusive and very expensive squads of professional soldiers that wore full body plate armor but they were more like bodyguards than soldiers. they were well fed and spent their days training rather than working hard. they'd mostly stand around in settlements and keep peace or help defend it. they weren't regularly sent to march into battle or fight in the open. because full body plate armor is shit for that purpose and it was a waste of highly trained men.

>ingesting literally poison will hamper your gains

>hundred pound armor
>full body armor just for show

Both of you faggots are wrong.

youtube.com/watch?v=qzTwBQniLSc

Armor was relatively light (weight distributed across the entire body) and movement was hardly restricted.

>tfw drinking a bottle of wine every two weeks
>tfw never making it