I have a theory more of a ponderment if you like,
For this theory to work first of all it needs to be correct that naturally large/tall people produce higher doses of natural growth hormone and testosterone during their lives and particularly during adolescence. And thus shorter/smaller people will produce less HGH and test.
If this is correct then would a naturally short/small person who is fully grown (23yrs+) benefit more from AAS and HGH than a larger/taller counterpart as their bodies are less accustomed to HGH and testosterone?
I assume by this that you are saying people who are tall have been subjected to more hGH and therefore have built up some kind of resistance to it like insulin resistance.
The problem with that theory is that the only growth hormone ‘resistance’ in a healthy person is a short term thing that lasts aslong as the half-life of somatostatin and afaik there’s no equivalent to insulin resistance i.e. reduced receptors.
Having said that there are people who are insensitive to hGH. Not due to high serum concentrations but due to genetics or other complications.
Alternatively you might have meant that those subjected to less hGH had a lower ‘set point’/less muscle fibres therefore could benefit more. But then again i am under the impression that adults produce approximately equivalent endogeneous amounts regardless of height. Otherwise we’d be seeing short people deteriorate alot faster than tall people.
Don’t know much about test so i’ll leave that.