AI gives its thoughts on muscle women and growth trajectory

The other day I was using AI for a project I was working on and figured it would be fun to see what it thinks of muscular females (the popular ones often mentioned on GWM and just juiced fitfluencers in general). Here are the results.

Emma Hartley stats

• I started asking for an estimate of Emma Hartley's bicep size in 2025 and it very confidently answered 15 inches/38cm.
• It correctly found "In 2016, Emma Hartley's arms were measured at 13.8 inches and were noted to look significantly smaller than her current appearance, indicating notable muscle growth by 2025"

• It made the estimate based on "online posts and comments which align with visual impressions shared in mid-2025"

• I then asked it to give me Emma's height and weight, to which it provided 5'7"/170cm and 60kg/133lbs. AI definitely uses caption data for videos since it's been able to 'search' Youtube videos, and I'm also sure it analyzes images to some extent, but it's not very consistent. Emma has declared herself to be 63kg before but AI didn't pick that up.

Vladdislava Galagan stats

• Moving on from Emma, I asked AI to compare Vladislava Galagan vs an athletic male and it responded her height and weight combo "matches or surpasses many advanced male athletes".
• It was able to accurately find her measurements, citing "her biceps (38 cm/15 inches) and chest (107 cm/42 inches) place her on par with male fitness models and amateur bodybuilders of comparable build. Male athletes at her height and weight often have biceps between 14–16 inches and chest measurements around 40–43 inches"
• And that her "broad shoulders, narrow waist (64 cm/25 inches), and large muscular limbs are traits common among male sprinters, MMA fighters, and fitness competitors"
• I asked it to compare her (Vladi) to the typical athletic 5'6" or 5'7" female, where it found that her "heavy dumbbell rows and shoulder presses (~70 lbs for reps) exceed the average upper body strength seen in athletic females". It also estimates Vladi is "at least 2-3X stronger than the average athletic female" in both upper and lower body strength.

Vladi wrestling 2 girls

Vladi wrestling 2 of such women (5'6"-5'7" and athletic) at the same time: it cites that Vladislava would be "very likely to win" due to superior size and reach, strength and training alone.

Huge 19 year olds

• Chloe Shull and Savannah Noelle's height and weight. It was able to quickly come up with stats for Chloe "5'6" to 5'7" and 150 to 158 lbs (68 to 72 kg)" but struggled for Savannah, ultimately stating she's "5 feet 7 inches (170 cm) and 58 kg (128 lbs)" -It estimated that 6-7 years, Chloe "could weigh 75-85 kg (165-187 lbs)" while Savannah "may grow to around 65-75 kg (143-165 lbs)" if they followed a similar growth trajectory as what we saw with girls like Vladislava and Auxane.
• After giving it a stats sample of popular muscular women on this site over the last 10 years (e.g. Emma to Bakhar to Auxane to Daria Shuer), it estimates that the average muscular 19 year old in 2032 would still be "70-75 kg" but will peak at much higher "around 85-90 kg by mid-20s".

Roids and increasing peak size of girls

Asked how/why girls have kept getting bigger, heavier, stronger in the past decade and AI refused to credit steroids. The first several responses centered around idiotic normie beliefs surrounding "lifestyle differences, improved nutrition and reduced stigma surrounding female physiques". The closest it got was "advances in recovery and supplementation" LOL.

Anyway I moved on to asking it to estimate the strength gains of juiced girls peaking around 70-75kg in 2015 to now peaking at 85kg in 2025 and it cited "a 20-30% or greater increase in absolute strength. This increase would manifest in substantially heavier lifts and greater athletic performance overall"

Natty vs juice strength

Natty vs juiced girls in 2025: "A 5'7" enhanced female could easily outperform a natural counterpart by 20-40% or more in maximal strength due to larger muscle volume and steroid-facilitated recovery and neuromuscular efficiency"

Predictions on girls of the future

1. Natty vs juiced: "By 2035, the gap in size and strength between enhanced and natural 5'7" female athletes will likely widen further, with enhanced athletes achieving 50-60% greater lean mass and 50-75% higher maximal strength"
2. Juiced 2035 girl vs juiced 2015 girl: "A 2035 enhanced 5'7" female athlete would be roughly 30-35% larger and nearly twice as strong as her 2015 counterpart of the same age"
3. Juiced 2035 girl vs athletic natty male: It estimates the average juiced girl with 2-4 years of training will be able to match a fit natty man with 8-10 years of lifting in lower body lifts, and come close in bench. This is already somewhat the case in 2025 but only for girls who are at elite powerlifting levels. If the trajectory we've seen continues, soon that level of strength will be accessible to any "IG/Tiktok muscle girl" on roids.

My thoughts

1. For most part I agree with the assertions above though with the gaps/difficulty in retrieving height/weight numbers for certain people with clearly public data (e.g. couldn't get Savannah Noelle's stats, got Daria Shuer's weight in 2025 completely wrong - said she was 70kg when she's 85, etc) and refusal to acknowledge PED/roids until I force fed it to think along that line, make me second guess the accuracy of its analysis/predictions in the sense that I think they're largely right but how much of it was getting lucky and kissing ass (though I tried phrasing questions neutrally, fully knowing about how AI likes being a yes man) vs actual research and logic.
2. Shit doesn't tell me anything that I didn't already know or could have predicted myself. Most helpful is probably the overall % increases in size and strength, which could be worked out in an Excel table but getting it to spit out summaries is easier.

AI is so whack bro

Ai is usually made to tell the user what they want to hear not the truth. sometimes it seems like it doesn't because the Ai doesn't know what you want or it assumes you want the truth. but when it knows you are a shmoe it will just say yea of course she can lift 10 ton overhead and can defeat a large group of male mma fighters. because a lot of people just use ai for erotic rp with fictional characters

Ai is usually made to tell the user what they want to hear not the truth. sometimes it seems like it doesn't because the Ai doesn't know what you want or it assumes you want the truth. but when it knows you are a shmoe it will just say yea of course she can lift 10 ton overhead and can defeat a large group of male mma fighters. because a lot of people just use ai for erotic rp with fictional characters

A lot of truth in this. It's like Google on steroids. it is very good at writing code.

AI is so whack bro

I don't know, AI did suggest that I eat a rock a day to stay healthy! https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd11gzejgz4o

Ai is usually made to tell the user what they want to hear not the truth. sometimes it seems like it doesn't because the Ai doesn't know what you want or it assumes you want the truth. but when it knows you are a shmoe it will just say yea of course she can lift 10 ton overhead and can defeat a large group of male mma fighters. because a lot of people just use ai for erotic rp with fictional characters

I'm well aware AI frequently behaves like an asskissing yesman which is why I asked it questions with a blank slate and no login. So no prior questions (this would have been the first time I used it for this topic anyway), no browsing history, zero hints.

Of course, it might have sourced those responses from what other users have asked and content searched for generating the responses.

Nevertheless I thought it was an interesting experiment.

AI doesn’t have thoughts. It cobbles together a response that is most likely to be the one you’re looking for from the information it has been trained on.