Adarq.org
Performance Area => Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion => Topic started by: Gary on June 28, 2011, 10:32:22 am
-
Kelly Baggett:
Manufactured Strength Vs Natural Strength
Before I get into it I'd like to point out that no supplemental training method is perfect and has a perfect transfer to sport. The practice of adding strength and size thru weight training in an attempt to apply the benefits of that strength and size to a sport is effective but it won't ever be perfect. You're basically manufacturing something that wasn't there to begin with - You're allowing your body to adapt to one stimulus and then applying those adaptations to another area. It really is cheating in a way. The only thing that isn't cheating would be actually playing the sport and letting your body adapt naturally. However, we know there are limits to that. But this is one reason why people that have "natural" strength, size, and power will generally have a "functional" strength advantage over those who have to manufacture it. Reggie White, Lawrence Taylor, and Mike Tyson rarely if ever lifted a weight. Compare them to muscled up guys like Frank Bruno, Tony Mandarich, and Vernon Gholston. Manufacturing size and strength isn't perfect regardless of how you acquire it, but it beats the alternative and can allow you to compete at a level you wouldn't have.
I'm not the first to bring this up, but I still don't see much distinction between barbell use and steroid use.
I know that steroids are currently considered cheating and that they're illegal, but neither makes much sense. Steroids help you get stronger, but so do barbells. Steroid use can result in long-term health complications, but again so can barbells as can sports in general, especially contact sports like boxing and American football.
Again, I know that steroids are against the rules. I just don't think it makes any sort of sense. It's like drug prohibition in general. Alcohol is more destructive than just about any other drug that you go to prison for possessing, yet it's perfectly legal; alcohol destroys health, induces aggression, impairs judgment (and leads to horrible life-wrecking outcomes), yet we can buy it and consume as much of it as we want...but can't smoke weed or snort cocaine because they're "bad" for us...
I digress, but I hope the digression underscores the point.
In my own case, I've more than doubled my strength levels from where they were in my early twenties, at least by a couple of measures. I'm far more athletic than I was 15 years ago when I was in my "prime" because of barbell use, particularly the almighty barbell back squat. I've gone from 130 lbs to 180 lbs by taking my unequipped full squat from ~150 to ~350. I've sort of wrecked my knees in the pursuit of squat strength, but I can still do every physical activity better than my 18-20-year-old self could; my knees just hurt a lot more when I do it.
There are those who would argue that I used my "natural" or inherent chemistry in building up my strength. But the fact is I used the assistance of a very unnatural artifact of industrial civilization--the rotating collar barbell--to alter the structure and functioning of my body. I built strength that did not come naturally by "unnatural" means. In the past only natural athletes, those who were big, strong and fast just because that's how they were, had a chance of competing at any meaningful level. Barbell training changed that and gave the naturally small, weak and slow a way to make themselves bigger, stronger and faster than they would have been otherwise, even with diligent participation in their sport. Serious athletes nowadays go outside their sport to acquire strength with barbells (and with steroids) and then apply that new strength in their sport.
I would not have become so much bigger, stronger and faster just by running, swinging from trees and lifting rocks. It took very detailed programming of the use of man-made objects to get me where I am. The man-made objects in my case were the barbell, weight plates and a squat rack. Would it have really been so bad if I added chemical supplementation to that to take me even further?
Our culture is one steeped in myths about the wickedness of drugs (except alcohol, at least these days). It's not unlike the American South where there are cultural fears that black men are ticking white-women-rape bombs. Steroids are like the lurking Negroes of the world of S&C lily white womanhood in the Old South. Those who would protect the virtue of the S&C world gotta string up them damn steroids every chance they get.
Also, there's this pride in building strength "naturally" that makes me chuckle. I'm a guy who cheered when he got his first 135-lb back squat because that was a hug accomplishment to me when I was a 120-lb adult. I built my strength "naturally" up to a 365-lb squat recently (using loose knee wraps; I'm getting old). But how "natural" was that strength really? "Natural" strength would be the 200-lb 15-year-old who squats 315 deep for a few reps the first time he walks into a gym (I believe Andy Bolton worked up to 405 his first time under the bar).
I'm not writing this to convince anyone. My mind's made up and I'm sure yours is too. I just know that while I acknowledge that steroid-use is cheating under almost all current rules (except untested powerlifting feds), I think that policy is the outcome of hysteria and something like superstition.
Thanks for reading.
-
If you were standing next to me, I swear I would kiss you.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Just because random person A and random person B came in to say "roids are illegal, I worked my butt out to be the best bodybuilder/athlete/powerlifter etc etc etc with barbells, that's the alpha way" and shit like this doesn't make that person GOD that decides what rules there should be applied to YOU. He's just a man like you are, shitting through the same shit hole (thought that would get a better picture of how similar we are).
So why not use roids vs other methods of increasing strength/lowering bodyfat? I see not reason why except health related which, done correctly, shouldn't be that bad. And like you said, same pretty much applies to barbell squats and any other high tension thing done on your body.
-
we already had this conversation
http://www.adarq.org/forum/call-em-out/kelly-baggett%27s-use-of-steroids-pro-hormones-hormones-and-other-drugs/ (http://www.adarq.org/forum/call-em-out/kelly-baggett%27s-use-of-steroids-pro-hormones-hormones-and-other-drugs/)
-
Gary, I'm not going to say that your argument is wrong, but I think the premises for your argument is wrong. I don't feel its justifiable to compare lifting weights to attain unnatural strength to taking steroids to attain the same end. Athletes have to dedicate much of their time and focus to weightlifting to get that strength whereas with steroids they simply inject and play their sport and see their performance improve. I just don't see how its fair to make that argument on this premise. You can't substitute weightlifting with taking steroids just because the strength achieved is unnatural in both cases. It just doesn't make sense.
With that said, I'm not saying that your conclusion is wrong at all. To some degree I do think that the policy is unfair and the result of mass hysteria. But I just don't agree with the argument you're using to get there.
-
Gary, I'm not going to say that your argument is wrong, but I think the premises for your argument is wrong. I don't feel its justifiable to compare lifting weights to attain unnatural strength to taking steroids to attain the same end. Athletes have to dedicate much of their time and focus to weightlifting to get that strength whereas with steroids they simply inject and play their sport and see their performance improve. I just don't see how its fair to make that argument on this premise. You can't substitute weightlifting with taking steroids just because the strength achieved is unnatural in both cases. It just doesn't make sense.
With that said, I'm not saying that your conclusion is wrong at all. To some degree I do think that the policy is unfair and the result of mass hysteria. But I just don't agree with the argument you're using to get there.
You basically said nothing.
-
Lol I'll be more clear. The topic statement, Barbells And Steroids: Equally Unfair, is simply wrong. They are not equally unfair because to get stronger by lifting weights you have to take time away from your sport and dedicate it to lifting. If you take steroids, you can play your sport and improve on the skills it demands but you're stronger from the steroids. In essence you're not giving anything up to become stronger. So I'm saying you cannot substitute one for the other to make a legitimate case for why steroids should be legal. All I was trying to say is that this premise for reaching the conclusion, steroids should be legal for anyone to use, is not applicable. You think I didn't say anything substantial because I didn't really voice my opinion. But it is simply as follows:
Should steroids be legalized in sports- Very Debatable
Should athletes take steroids while they are illegal- Not Debatable, they should all adhere to the rules because they apply to everyone equally. This isn't an argument in my opinion.
-
Well you just demonstrated why we all, as athletes or aspiring athletes, should be allowed to take them. We could focus more on the sport itself and get better at it and not waste time doing stupid repetitions with a barbell. That should be limited to people in that sport - powerlifting, Olympic lifting and so on.
The barbell should be the actual display of sport prowess (with the aid of roids) and not the means to get to that display.
Simply because it's much more inefficient.
If we want to be so "moral" (although I have no idea how that word applies here) we should throw our computers out the window since they are efficient and start working with stone and wood. Do all mathematical calculations on paper. Forget robots, do all work manually. Don't grow food by any means, walk around the planet in search of the proper foods etc etc etc. Endless examples.
It's just a matter of efficiency. Steroids are superior to pretty much anything => the logical way is to use them.
-
we already had this conversation
http://www.adarq.org/forum/call-em-out/kelly-baggett%27s-use-of-steroids-pro-hormones-hormones-and-other-drugs/ (http://www.adarq.org/forum/call-em-out/kelly-baggett%27s-use-of-steroids-pro-hormones-hormones-and-other-drugs/)
I'm new around here and haven't read every single thread yet. Besides, I'm just bored and want to stir the pot. No one's mind is going to be changed here. I just feel like arguing in circles today.
-
Ok, fair enough but then everyone else would be taking them too and you would be in the same position as you are now relative to everyone in your sport. You would have no option but to resort back to the dreaded barbell to find that extra edge. Say your ultimate goal is a 45" vertical knowing that the human limit is about 50", would you still have the same goal if people started jumping 60". Probably not, you'd say shit if they can jump 60" I know I can hit 50". Its our nature to never be satisfied, so as long as the competitive environment is equal for everyone, what's the difference? If steroids were legal and everyone took them, I'd definitely do the same but what difference would it really make. The people that were better than me before would still be better so nothing at all has changed.
What I really love and care about is the pain and suffering from working as hard as my body and mind can endure (while being smart about it of course). For some reason that suffering just gives me life and excites me more than anything. Then my satisfaction comes when I realize I'm stronger, faster, and more athletic from my training. Even if I take steroids and my performance jumps to another level, I'm still going to train to get the same feeling and to try to get even better. In essence, nothing would change. I really believe in the cliche, "its the journey that matters not the destination".
-
Well you just demonstrated why we all, as athletes or aspiring athletes, should be allowed to take them. We could focus more on the sport itself and get better at it and not waste time doing stupid repetitions with a barbell. That should be limited to people in that sport - powerlifting, Olympic lifting and so on.
The barbell should be the actual display of sport prowess (with the aid of roids) and not the means to get to that display.
Simply because it's much more inefficient.
If we want to be so "moral" (although I have no idea how that word applies here) we should throw our computers out the window since they are efficient and start working with stone and wood. Do all mathematical calculations on paper. Forget robots, do all work manually. Don't grow food by any means, walk around the planet in search of the proper foods etc etc etc. Endless examples.
It's just a matter of efficiency. Steroids are superior to pretty much anything => the logical way is to use them.
This a really good point. I was reading through all of Kelly's articles again and I was struck by the point about how strength training can impact athletic movement in a bad way. It's a line you have to walk carefully, something I learned the hard way. I'm not a professional athlete or close to it, but I lost a lot of fluidity and "pop" in just a couple of years of making powerlifting my chosen recreational sport. It's also why I get so annoyed at the Rippetards who tell newbs that just squatting will be enough to maintain and enhance balance and agility while the exact opposite is true.
In any case, I can't imagine why we think it makes sense to force athletes to improve baseline strength in the more inefficient way that could negatively impact sports training. Health risks? Ha! These guys sign on knowing that they're at risk for permanent brain and spinal damage and bad knees. Injecting steroids really would be the least of their health worries. This isn't a popular opinion, but there's a lot of mass hysteria that passes for good public policy. Examples: It's okay to own people of African descent and force them to work for below market wages; the violent black market that comes from prohibiting substances that people want to ingest is worth saving a small percentage of the population from wasting away from abusing those substances.
-
If you are debating whether or not steroids should be legalized, then you have some ground to stand on there, if you are comparing taking steroids to training with weights, its a silly comparison. You cant compare sticking a needle in your ass to spending years and years busting your ass under a barbell. Training with barbells is not illegal or against any rules, its an even playing field, but one that takes actual BALLS to do. The main reason taking steroids is an advantage in the first place is because not everyone is willing to break the rules and cheat, so the ones that do actually have an advantage.
The people who get affected by steroids in sports are the ATHLETES, that want to stay clean, but have to compete against cheaters who have a clear advantage in their training. If they are made legal then you have a level playing field, but many athletes dont want to literally be forced into taking drugs to play their sport and compete in their event, which is what that would entail. Its easy to look from the outside in like many do and say there is no problem with drugs, but when its your job to compete, and YOU ARE FOLLOWING THE RULES, and you get beat by someone who IS BREAKING THE RULES, then its a different story.
I dont agree with many of the drug policies regarding recreational drugs and the what Gary said about alcohol is very true, but two wrongs dont make a right. I dont like steroids in sports, it causes things like threads on starting strength about "why usa weightlifters arent strong", when some athletes have to stay cleaner than others, and the ones using get to come out looking like they are "better".
Bottom line is rules are rules, and if youre playing a sport that has rules, you should have enough dignity to stay within those boundaries or do something else. Most the people talking about steroids arent even anywhere close to a point that they couldnt make tons more progress if they knew how to train right or trained hard enough anyway.
-
Ok, fair enough but then everyone else would be taking them too and you would be in the same position as you are now relative to everyone in your sport. You would have no option but to resort back to the dreaded barbell to find that extra edge. Say your ultimate goal is a 45" vertical knowing that the human limit is about 50", would you still have the same goal if people started jumping 60". Probably not, you'd say shit if they can jump 60" I know I can hit 50". Its our nature to never be satisfied, so as long as the competitive environment is equal for everyone, what's the difference? If steroids were legal and everyone took them, I'd definitely do the same but what difference would it really make. The people that were better than me before would still be better so nothing at all has changed.
What I really love and care about is the pain and suffering from working as hard as my body and mind can endure (while being smart about it of course). For some reason that suffering just gives me life and excites me more than anything. Then my satisfaction comes when I realize I'm stronger, faster, and more athletic from my training. Even if I take steroids and my performance jumps to another level, I'm still going to train to get the same feeling and to try to get even better. In essence, nothing would change. I really believe in the cliche, "its the journey that matters not the destination".
Yeah I completely agree with this ^^^
But it shouldn't be "wrong" or "imorral" if people would take roids. They should be legalized.
The only thing about roids that is wrong is if an athlete signs that he doesn't take any and competes in a roid-free environment while taking them.
-
To be clear:
Cheating is cheating. If the rules say that doing something is grounds for disqualification, then that's all there is to it.
You don't get to pick up the golf ball and drop it in the hole. I don't get to wear boxer briefs in USAPL. That's all there is to that.
I just wish we would all rethink steroids. Their use seems to be getting the same negative propaganda that lots of things have gotten for no good reason. For example, we all laugh at "Reefer Madness" now, but that movie had a powerful effect. The sentiment that fueled and that was fueled by that movie is behind the ridiculous drug laws that have people doing hard time for being involved in the sale and distribution of marijuana.
Legality is a separate issue from acceptance in sports, but the two are tied at the hip. So I keep bringing it up. Sorry.
I want to be clear again: I will always abide by the rules. But I'm getting older and will be supplementing to keep my flagging testosterone levels up and will be thankful at that point that there are untested powerlifting federations. I will not hide my use from anyone and I will always abide by the rules of my voluntary associations.
-
If you are debating whether or not steroids should be legalized, then you have some ground to stand on there, if you are comparing taking steroids to training with weights, its a silly comparison. You cant compare sticking a needle in your ass to spending years and years busting your ass under a barbell.
I'm more scared of a needle and injection than of a barbell.
Training with barbells is not illegal or against any rules, its an even playing field, but one that takes actual BALLS to do.
Why?
The main reason taking steroids is an advantage in the first place is because not everyone is willing to break the rules and cheat, so the ones that do actually have an advantage.
You need BALLS to break the rules.
The people who get affected by steroids in sports are the ATHLETES, that want to stay clean, but have to compete against cheaters who have a clear advantage in their training. If they are made legal then you have a level playing field, but many athletes dont want to literally be forced into taking drugs to play their sport and compete in their event, which is what that would entail. Its easy to look from the outside in like many do and say there is no problem with drugs, but when its your job to compete, and YOU ARE FOLLOWING THE RULES, and you get beat by someone who IS BREAKING THE RULES, then its a different story.
Then do a drug-free athletic world and a drug-pro athletic world. I'd love to see a steroid-filled sprinter that runs 9.30. Even in the drug-free world, it's just a matter of not getting caught. There probably are compounds that just don't show up in the analysis. If you have the money, you have them and you're a gold medalist.
I dont agree with many of the drug policies regarding recreational drugs and the what Gary said about alcohol is very true, but two wrongs dont make a right. I dont like steroids in sports, it causes things like threads on starting strength about "why usa weightlifters arent strong", when some athletes have to stay cleaner than others, and the ones using get to come out looking like they are "better".
It's going to happen nonetheless ^^^
Bottom line is rules are rules, and if youre playing a sport that has rules, you should have enough dignity to stay within those boundaries or do something else. Most the people talking about steroids arent even anywhere close to a point that they couldnt make tons more progress if they knew how to train right or trained hard enough anyway.
Maybe I don't want to train and put my back, knees, bones, heck, even life to a risk under a heavy barbell. How about then? Or it's just about balls?
EDIT: I have a feeling Lance will take this message personally like he usually does when someone is contradicting his opinion, but... 8)
-
I'm more scared of a needle and injection than of a barbell.
^^ cool story bro. I saw an aardvark humping a turtle once . Just throwing out some more random stuff that has nothing to do with the posts.
Training with barbells is not illegal or against any rules, its an even playing field, but one that takes actual BALLS to do.
Why?
You cant seriously be this dumb. Why isnt it illegal to jump, or run, or fish? Youre seriously confused on the difference between performing athletic movements against resistance and shoving a 20 gauge needle filled with synthetic hormones into your glutes?
You need BALLS to break the rules.
cheating is COWARDLY, anyone who actually has BALLS already knows this.
Then do a drug-free athletic world and a drug-pro athletic world. I'd love to see a steroid-filled sprinter that runs 9.30. Even in the drug-free world, it's just a matter of not getting caught. There probably are compounds that just don't show up in the analysis. If you have the money, you have them and you're a gold medalist]
Right, so since YOU want to see it, lets not let the actual ATHLETES WHO HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION TO USE DRUGS have a say in it. Your entertainment is more important than what they wish to put in their body.
It's going to happen nonetheless ^^^
brilliant! Youre saying there are already athletes using drugs in sports illegally? HOLY SHIT, this is revolutionary!
Maybe I don't want to train and put my back, knees, bones, heck, even life to a risk under a heavy barbell. How about then? Or it's just about balls?
Then there are lots of other things you can do, get the fuck out of the athletic world or stop being a giant pussy. Problem solved.
EDIT: I have a feeling Lance will take this message personally like he usually does when someone is contradicting his opinion, but... 8)
nope. I agree with what garys last post said, I dont like cheaters, and I dont like athletes being forced into a situation to have to take any drug just to compete. We spend a ton of time learning how to train correctly so that we can do things and help and others do things beyond what was possible, without breaking any laws or rules.
Its also very funny how magic you think steroids are, you need to come to texas and see the 10,000 frat boys benching 185 that have been juicing for 5 plus years straight. There are a lot more weak as fuck, non athletic peons on steroids than there are elite athletes using them.
-
I am not going to argue pro or contra legalizing steroids or moral implications but tell you about what kind of people I witnessed personally. Whenever I go to the gym I see people who are or were on steroids. From some I know it for a fact because oddly enough they keep coming to me and brag about it. With others it is just plain obvious that they used them because there is no way, even with amazing genetic gifts, that the way they are training lead to any progress and certainly not those physiques.
Now, I am not going to condemn those people. As far as I am concerned there is nothing wrong with them taking roids for their selves without ever competing in anything, like it is the case for most of those individuals I am talking about here. But seriously, you can tell that the vast majority of those people have never been strong in their lives, with or without steroids. It is just plain obvious in the way they train and in the kinds of weights they are using. I remember one guy who I did not even think took steroids training the deadlift with me. It's not a secret that I am the worst deadlifter in the fucking universe, yet I could easily outlift the guy by several reps (probably making me only the second worst deadlifter of the universe). He later told me he took roids before and is planning to do so again since he is unable to make any kind of progress without it (I know that he did not make any progress for the few weeks we were training together and I can also tell that he trained like shit). The only thing he is waiting for is his wife to get pregnant, which it seems is not as easy anymore at this point in time....
I do not know about you guys, and again, I do not mean any offense to anyone but if I would still get out-lifted regularly by random drug-free guys in a random everybody's gym, I would consider myself a failure regardless if my goals were only physique oriented...
-
I'm seeing two different stories here...
a) Steroids make gains easy and just injecting them will make athletes better without any hard work on the part of the athlete. Just inject them and strength gains will come no matter what you do and help your athletic endeavors...
b) Steroids don't help if you don't include proper strength training in the mix, though it will enhance gains if training is done correctly...
I'm not being sarcastic here. I just want to know which it is.
-
I'm seeing two different stories here...
a) Steroids make gains easy and just injecting them will make athletes better without any hard work on the part of the athlete. Just inject them and strength gains will come no matter what you do and help your athletic endeavors...
b) Steroids don't help if you don't include proper strength training in the mix, though it will enhance gains if training is done correctly...
I'm not being sarcastic here. I just want to know which it is.
I am not an expert in steroids, so I will leave others answering this.
But you can observe plenty of people in gyms taking steroids who are weak. Some of them look huge and are weak, others are just weak and some are fairly strong (and usually look that way, too). What makes the difference? I don't know. But it seems to me that plenty of people can get away with shitty training and improve their physique with roids, but not make substantial gains in strength (meaning more gains than what would be possible with compliance to a solid training program alone).
-
I'm going to have an opinion against roids now, because I have such an opinion as well.
I think the most important thing is sports is to create/mold/strengthten the mentality to work to win. That is what you lose/don't obtain when you take roids. You take the easy way out and you don't have a winning mentality. When you work hard and fight to increase your strength, increase your performance through the "traditional methods" you gain that work hard mentality and you "expect" to win. You work hard and WANT to win because you worked so hard and failing to win after such a hard work SUCKS, and if you lose you come back again and again and FIGHT.
This is the whole idea with sports and training. And this is what roids will usually rob you of. That's why roid people usually are losers and weak.
But from a pure performance standpoint, roids are cool. However, since we don't live in a vacuum, that's hardly the case in realife: to split performance and mentality and other sports aspects into separate, living enthities.
That's my point of view to sports in general and just winning mentality.
So I definitely agree and believe and KNOW what Steven Miller is saying. Heck, I know a few guys like that. They just pretty much suck.
EDIT: These guys just look at me like "wtf" when I deadlift ~120 kg or squat 120kg, pretty much in shock. How lame is that?
-
I know both kinds of people. I've trained alongside people who are almost openly using and who work their asses off under weights that I will never, ever touch (partly because I'm not willing to get into the necessary supportive clothing and partly because I just am not that talented).
I also have met people who used and gained 10 lbs of bodyweight and maybe got their benches to 185-225. They are usually shocked to learn that I put on 20 lbs in a month as I added 80 lbs to my squat, just by drinking a shitload of whole milk (spell check didn't question "shitload").
So you have it both. People who use barbells+roids and bench 185 and people who use barbell+roids and set world records. Not sure any answers lie this way.
-
I know both kinds of people. I've trained alongside people who are almost openly using and who work their asses off under weights that I will never, ever touch (partly because I'm not willing to get into the necessary supportive clothing and partly because I just am not that talented).
I also have met people who used and gained 10 lbs of bodyweight and maybe got their benches to 185-225. They are usually shocked to learn that I put on 20 lbs in a month as I added 80 lbs to my squat, just by drinking a shitload of whole milk (spell check didn't question "shitload").
So you have it both. People who use barbells+roids and bench 185 and people who use barbell+roids and set world records. Not sure any answers lie this way.
No one argues that roids are a huge advantage. It's just that lots of people use them for very questionable reasons, primarily because they do not have the motivation to train smart and put tons of work in and are always looking for shortcuts.
-
I'm going to have an opinion against roids now, because I have such an opinion as well.
I think the most important thing is sports is to create/mold/strengthten the mentality to work to win. That is what you lose/don't obtain when you take roids. You take the easy way out and you don't have a winning mentality. When you work hard and fight to increase your strength, increase your performance through the "traditional methods" you gain that work hard mentality and you "expect" to win. You work hard and WANT to win because you worked so hard and failing to win after such a hard work SUCKS, and if you lose you come back again and again and FIGHT.
This is the whole idea with sports and training. And this is what roids will usually rob you of. That's why roid people usually are losers and weak.
But from a pure performance standpoint, roids are cool. However, since we don't live in a vacuum, that's hardly the case in realife: to split performance and mentality and other sports aspects into separate, living enthities.
That's my point of view to sports in general and just winning mentality.
So I definitely agree and believe and KNOW what Steven Miller is saying. Heck, I know a few guys like that. They just pretty much suck.
EDIT: These guys just look at me like "wtf" when I deadlift ~120 kg or squat 120kg, pretty much in shock. How lame is that?
How can you negatively rate this ^^^
It's the truth.
-
first off...whoever said that if you take steroids you only have to play your sport and not lift weights has no idea what they're talking about
second there are different types of drugs that have different out comes...so had size and weight almost regardless of how much more weight you put on the bar...and others are close to the opposite and add much more strength than size...most dudes in the gym are interested in looking big and not actually being strong...vanity guys vanity is what it is
-
About the "unnaturalness" of needles...
Needles deliver life-saving medicines and in emergency situations they even deliver nutrition.
If it weren't for needles, I wouldn't be able to remove the excess fluid from my knees and train at all.
Needles may not be "natural", but they are useful. The barbell isn't "natural" either. In fact some people go so far as to say training with anything but bodyweight isn't natural.
I'm trying to point out that where we stand on these things tends to be a matter of learned prejudices instead of consistent logic. We see needles as useful in some situations, but cheating in others. They can be used to save, but not improve.
I need needles to continue my training. Some would say that the fact that I have to drain my knees indicates that I ought to stop doing what I'm doing with barbells, but I refuse to listen. Maybe that's part of what makes me so open to using needles for improvement. I have to inject myself every day to keep training. I'm removing fluids instead of adding them, but like any steroid-user I am absolutely dependent on the injections to keep training.
-
a) Steroids make gains easy and just injecting them will make athletes better without any hard work on the part of the athlete. Just inject them and strength gains will come no matter what you do and help your athletic endeavors...
b) Steroids don't help if you don't include proper strength training in the mix, though it will enhance gains if training is done correctly...
I'm not being sarcastic here. I just want to know which it is.
FrOm the JAMA study back in '96:
Men were divided up into 3 large groups.
A: Group A was put on a supervised 8 week weight training program. Program was 4 days per week and hit the entire body.
B: Group B was put on the exact same 8 week training program with the addition of 600 mg Test enanthate per week
C: Group C was given 600 mg test enanthate per week, but absolutely no exercise of any kind
At the end of 8 weeks:
Group A gained 4 lbs of muscle
Group B gained 16 lbs of muscle
Group C gained 8 lbs of muscle
So the group that sat on their ass and took steroids made twice the gains the training group did. The training + test group made 4x the size and strength gains.
Do the math.
Granted, those were beginners without much in the way of training experience, but it still shows a significant difference. Also androgens have a much larger effect on pure mscular hypertrophy and strength than they do on speed-strength. Speed-strength/power is primarily determiend by nervos system sensitivity to varios stimulatory nerochemicals, including testosterone, and that is something you either have or you don't. Having said that, the difference between those groups hormonally is about as great as the difference between natral people at high normal T and those with low normal T. A competitor at 300 ng/dl testosteron has significant disadvantages against a competitor at 2000 ng/dl.
The only way to truly make things fair in sport would be to come up with more accurate testing procedures and normalize androgen/testosterone level at a given level IMO
-
The average bro from this forum could get on a cycle of test and experience almost nothing in the way of positive results outside some body comp changes and strength increases, but the drugs are very relevant to higher level speed-strength athletes. These athletes already have elite level nervous systems and transfer strength into power extremely effectively. They tend to border on overtraining to begin with, have little time to truly specialize on capacities like strength, and have only so much time to compete as far as their career goes. What drugs do is enable them to reach a high level strength potential much faster and from lower volumes of work. They also increase muscular recovery allowing them more sessions per week without interfering with extreme fast twitch characteristics, which tend to decline from large volumes of work. The difference between say a sprinter on drugs and sprinter not on drugs is relatively minor IMO - maybe 15% (compared to the ~100% difference in something like bodybuilding), but it's still relevant. So, say you have 10 identical twins all with the same genes, same training, etc. That 15% difference becomes extremely relevant on something like a 100 meter final when you're talking about a group of athletes who for the most part are the same physiologically, are mostly the same w.r.t. training etc.
-
Don't steroids help with joints as well? Aren't they prescribed after surgeries etc?
-
Kelly Baggett:
Manufactured Strength Vs Natural Strength
Before I get into it I'd like to point out that no supplemental training method is perfect and has a perfect transfer to sport. The practice of adding strength and size thru weight training in an attempt to apply the benefits of that strength and size to a sport is effective but it won't ever be perfect. You're basically manufacturing something that wasn't there to begin with - You're allowing your body to adapt to one stimulus and then applying those adaptations to another area. It really is cheating in a way. The only thing that isn't cheating would be actually playing the sport and letting your body adapt naturally. However, we know there are limits to that. But this is one reason why people that have "natural" strength, size, and power will generally have a "functional" strength advantage over those who have to manufacture it. Reggie White, Lawrence Taylor, and Mike Tyson rarely if ever lifted a weight. Compare them to muscled up guys like Frank Bruno, Tony Mandarich, and Vernon Gholston. Manufacturing size and strength isn't perfect regardless of how you acquire it, but it beats the alternative and can allow you to compete at a level you wouldn't have.
I'm not the first to bring this up, but I still don't see much distinction between barbell use and steroid use.
I know that steroids are currently considered cheating and that they're illegal, but neither makes much sense. Steroids help you get stronger, but so do barbells. Steroid use can result in long-term health complications, but again so can barbells as can sports in general, especially contact sports like boxing and American football.
well, you have to weigh the pros and cons of steroid vs barbell... each method can results in improvement, each method can result in injury/complications.. the injury/complications results amplify greatly with PED use, especially unsupervised or improper PED use.. then you have to understand how athletes will utilize something that works, to the fullest AND beyond, in order to gain and edge on their competition....
is this safer with barbells/performance training, or with PED usage?
it's obviously safer with barbells/performance training, athletes aren't going to simply run themselves completely into the ground leaving them unable to compete.... however, athletes will utilize more pharmaceuticals to try and gain an edge, of which can be very deadly.
so, it's not about being the "police", but, do you want your sport to end up like professional bodybuilding? insanely roided freaks who are bound to have some serious health issues... you can't compete on the pro level at all, unless you are a chemistry experiment.
by the same line of reasoning though, anything can be considered on the level of PED's... eating, water, sleep, etc, they all benefit performance and provide an advantage, but overdoing them cause an immediate drop in performance generally.. for example, taking in too much testosterone won't have that effect, it'll make you feel like a monster for the short term.
Again, I know that steroids are against the rules. I just don't think it makes any sort of sense. It's like drug prohibition in general. Alcohol is more destructive than just about any other drug that you go to prison for possessing, yet it's perfectly legal; alcohol destroys health, induces aggression, impairs judgment (and leads to horrible life-wrecking outcomes), yet we can buy it and consume as much of it as we want...but can't smoke weed or snort cocaine because they're "bad" for us...
right but alcohol in moderation can be beneficial, especially in the form of red wines etc... PED's in moderation could be beneficial also, of course, but, once everyone is allowed to utilize them and compete, the idea of moderation is thrown out of the window......... people will need MORE to compete at a high level, if a small portion of the athletic field starts to utilize them beyond moderation and experience gains in performance but possible detrimental effects on health or increased risk of injury.
I digress, but I hope the digression underscores the point.
In my own case, I've more than doubled my strength levels from where they were in my early twenties, at least by a couple of measures. I'm far more athletic than I was 15 years ago when I was in my "prime" because of barbell use, particularly the almighty barbell back squat. I've gone from 130 lbs to 180 lbs by taking my unequipped full squat from ~150 to ~350. I've sort of wrecked my knees in the pursuit of squat strength, but I can still do every physical activity better than my 18-20-year-old self could; my knees just hurt a lot more when I do it.
right, now imagine having lifted & utilized PED's.. you'd either be better off, or far worse.. without ped's, when you feel like shit & get that feeling to take a rest day, you rest, generally.. ped's can mask that inhibition, which adds up over time..
There are those who would argue that I used my "natural" or inherent chemistry in building up my strength. But the fact is I used the assistance of a very unnatural artifact of industrial civilization--the rotating collar barbell--to alter the structure and functioning of my body. I built strength that did not come naturally by "unnatural" means. In the past only natural athletes, those who were big, strong and fast just because that's how they were, had a chance of competing at any meaningful level. Barbell training changed that and gave the naturally small, weak and slow a way to make themselves bigger, stronger and faster than they would have been otherwise, even with diligent participation in their sport. Serious athletes nowadays go outside their sport to acquire strength with barbells (and with steroids) and then apply that new strength in their sport.
yup
I would not have become so much bigger, stronger and faster just by running, swinging from trees and lifting rocks. It took very detailed programming of the use of man-made objects to get me where I am. The man-made objects in my case were the barbell, weight plates and a squat rack. Would it have really been so bad if I added chemical supplementation to that to take me even further?
maybe, maybe not.. but just like if something works, for example, squatting, you want to do more of it.. ie, smolov... ped's will work, and perhaps you'll want to do more of them, but that's completely different when using them recreationally vs competitively... ped's in a competitive field would exceed moderation/safe levels very quickly.
Our culture is one steeped in myths about the wickedness of drugs (except alcohol, at least these days). It's not unlike the American South where there are cultural fears that black men are ticking white-women-rape bombs. Steroids are like the lurking Negroes of the world of S&C lily white womanhood in the Old South. Those who would protect the virtue of the S&C world gotta string up them damn steroids every chance they get.
lmfao!$!@
Also, there's this pride in building strength "naturally" that makes me chuckle. I'm a guy who cheered when he got his first 135-lb back squat because that was a hug accomplishment to me when I was a 120-lb adult. I built my strength "naturally" up to a 365-lb squat recently (using loose knee wraps; I'm getting old). But how "natural" was that strength really? "Natural" strength would be the 200-lb 15-year-old who squats 315 deep for a few reps the first time he walks into a gym (I believe Andy Bolton worked up to 405 his first time under the bar).
I'm not writing this to convince anyone. My mind's made up and I'm sure yours is too. I just know that while I acknowledge that steroid-use is cheating under almost all current rules (except untested powerlifting feds), I think that policy is the outcome of hysteria and something like superstition.
Thanks for reading.
well, like i've said in previous posts on this topic...... if you want to compete, you have to follow the regulations.. i have no problem with PED's for recreational use, people can put anything in their bodies as far as i'm concerned, absolutely anything... When it comes to competition in professional sport, the regulations are there to ensure a "fair" playing field... anyone in this field can lift weights, eat however they want, sleep however they want, etc, they will do so in a way that allows them to achieve their maximum potential. Perhaps it will carry health risks, but in my opinion, those health risks are far less than utilizing PED's in combination with today's methods to achieve maximal potential. Sometimes regulation is needed, for example an age limit on driving, an age limit on buying alcohol etc. That is simply where we are at with PED's in competitive sport: there is a limit to what we can ingest/intake in order to try and maintain a healthy & fair playing field.
so anyway, like i always say, if people want ped's allowed in sport, create untested leagues/associations... i'd rather watch clean, though i'd watch those freaks also, but they need to be separate just like drug free PL and untested PL.
pC
-
The average bro from this forum could get on a cycle of test and experience almost nothing in the way of positive results outside some body comp changes and strength increases, but the drugs are very relevant to higher level speed-strength athletes. These athletes already have elite level nervous systems and transfer strength into power extremely effectively. They tend to border on overtraining to begin with, have little time to truly specialize on capacities like strength, and have only so much time to compete as far as their career goes. What drugs do is enable them to reach a high level strength potential much faster and from lower volumes of work. They also increase muscular recovery allowing them more sessions per week without interfering with extreme fast twitch characteristics, which tend to decline from large volumes of work. The difference between say a sprinter on drugs and sprinter not on drugs is relatively minor IMO - maybe 15% (compared to the ~100% difference in something like bodybuilding), but it's still relevant. So, say you have 10 identical twins all with the same genes, same training, etc. That 15% difference becomes extremely relevant on something like a 100 meter final when you're talking about a group of athletes who for the most part are the same physiologically, are mostly the same w.r.t. training etc.
right but those improved muscular recovery abilities & ability to achieve strength much faster through CNS adaptations/hypertrophy can have detrimental effects on tendon/susceptibility to tendon injury, no?
pc
-
Depends on the compound really. Testosterone is naturally produced and in sane doses increases the synthesis and recovery of most structures, including tendons and ligaments. You're much more likely to have creaking joints etc with low test than high test. Where people get injured is mostly via the process of getting at the upper level of strength and power - Same reason you see more ACL tears & other injuries in college and pro football than you do pee wee football...lots more force and power involved. Youre more likely to get injured at the elite levels of anything than as a raw beginner. A guy like Gary at his age on a sane dosage of dr. prescribed test would probably actually find he handles smolof better and has less problems with his knees. Not recommending he do that just saying I wouldn't be surpised if that's the case.
On the other hand non aromatizing compounds are popular with athletes and can be hard on connective tissue becase they lack estrogen which helps with collagen synthesis. Winstrol is notorious for it. You take winstrol yor body will perceive it as testosterone and cut off natural testosterone production. You're replacing that production with a compound that doesn't aromatize and over time the tendons and connective tissue don't resynthesize at the same rate as the muscles and that can create problems. But a lot of athletes are using HGH in tandem which offsets that. I do know a strongman guy that did a cycle of winstrol and several months later tore his achilles tendon slipping while doing a tire flip Maybe he woulda tore it anyway who knows but it coulda been a factor...
-
600mg/week a LOT of testosterone. From what I understand 200mg of enanthate/cypionate will typically bring a mid 20s male into high-normal levels and 300mg is definitely supraphisological. In the SCU study (Performance enhancement and urinary detection after short-term testosterone enanthate use) the subjects had significant gains in lean mass on 3.5mg/kg.
Supraphisiological doses of testosterone may inhibit collagen synthesis or it might not. W're still really not sure on that one. The winstrol brittle tendon theory is complete broscience. It's entire basis comes from one unconfirmed study in rats. LanceSTS knows more about that particular bit of bullshit than I do.
The truly frightening thing about the SCU study is that half the participants still had a T/E ratio < 4:1 while taking 300mg/week i.e. did not fail the WADA drug testing standard while taking a significant PED.