if he used natural means, it would've taken him 50 or 60 years to have gained so much muscle.

[Tony_M]

Hello.

A: Do you follow any professional bodybuilders on Instagram?
B: Yes, I follow Big Ramy. He's huge. His off-season weight is around 160 kilos.
A: He's a freak. People like freaks. Little do they understand that if he used natural means, it would've taken him 50 or 60 years to have gained so much muscle.

Is the part in bold correct?

I think it has to be a mixed conditional sentence:

"if he used natural means" - this part has to denote a hypothetical present situation; Big Ramy is a professional athlete who probably uses performance-enhancing drugs every day.
"it would've taken him 50 or 60 years" - an unreal timeless situation; Big Ramy's already gained too much muscle mass.
"to have gained" - it feels like this part has to be a completed action; only by the time the mentioned period of time had elapsed would he have gained that amount of muscle mass.

Thank you.

 

[5jj]

Please always tell us the source of any words you quote.

 

[Tony_M]

Please always tell us the source of any words you quote.

I wrote the dialogue.

 

[5jj]

Then please tell us this in the first post in future.

 

[emsr2d2]

A: Do you follow any professional bodybuilders on Instagram?
B: Yes, I follow Big Ramy. He's huge. His off-season weight is around 160 kilos.
A: He's a freak. People like freaks. Little do they understand that if he used natural means, it would've taken him 50 or 60 years to have gained so much muscle.

I don't like the mixture. I would use one of the following:

1. ... if he had used natural methods, it would have taken him 50 or 60 years to gain so much muscle.
2. ... if he used natural methods, it would take him 50 or 60 years to gain so much muscle.

However, since he's clearly already extremely muscular, only the first one makes sense. It's saying he didn't use "natural methods" (whatever that means) yet he still gained a lot of muscle.

 

[Tony_M]

1. ... if he had used natural methods, it would have taken him 50 or 60 years to gain so much muscle.

The idea is different in your sentence.

 

[Tarheel]

As I understand it, the point is that he had not used natural means. (He used performance-enhancing drugs.) If he had used natural means it would have taken him 50 to 60 years to gain so much muscle mass, which means that without the performance-enhancing drugs it wouldn't have happened.

 

[Tony_M]

Why can't I say this one?

- If he didn't use performance-enhancing drugs every day, it would've taken him 50 years to have gained so much muscle mass.

 

[Tarheel]

Why can't I say this one?

- If he HADN'T useD performance-enhancing drugs every day, it would've taken him 50 years to have gained so much muscle mass.

You can use that.

 

[Tony_M]

You can use that.

Okay, what's the difference between these?
...it would've taken him 50 years to have gained so much muscle mass.
...it would've taken him 50 years to gain so much muscle mass.

 

[Tarheel]

There are more words in the first one (#10).

 

[Tony_M]

There are more words in the first one (#10).

Okay, that helps.

 

[5jj]

Why can't I say this one?

- If he didn't use performance-enhancing drugs every day, it would've taken him 50 years to have gained so much muscle mass.

You can.

 

[5jj]

Okay, what's the difference between these?
...it would've taken him 50 years to have gained so much muscle mass.
...it would've taken him 50 years to gain so much muscle mass.

Effectively none.

 

[Tony_M]

Thank you. One person's saying one thing; another person's saying another thing.

 

[5jj]

That is not unusual in a forum.

 

[Tarheel]

Where is the disagreement? @5jj and I said essentially the same thing using different words.

 

[Tony_M]

Where is the disagreement? @5jj and I said essentially the same thing using different words.

Well, there is no disagreement at all, except for the fact that you said "had used" and @5jj said that I could use the version with the simple past.

 

[Rover_KE]

Both versions are acceptable.

Thread closed.