Okay, but it’s a pretty strong assumption,[/quote]
Correction. It is a very common belief and rumor…because most of the country thinks steroids turn you into He-man. They ignore that MOST of the famous people who have used them are NOT built.
[quote]
and I think we’d agree the vast majority of those who take steroids, make more muscular progress on cycle than off. The reason it could be considered pseudoscience and not actual science is that they won’t do studies on weight training + steroids/HGH/insulin supplementation vs weight training alone, as the drugs are banned.[/quote]
Uh, no, the reason it is pseudoscience is that you are making up results. You are ASSUMING THEM. That is why it won’t work in a room with real educated people.[/quote]
We’ve had a pretty good discussion here so far, so I’m going to not take that personally and switch to personal attacks like you seem to be baiting me to do. For the record, I do have two degrees, in Kinesiology and Education, so I’m not uneducated, nor did I at any point say anything along the lines of taking steroids turns you into He-Man.
But are you really going to make this argument now into the fact that I “assumed” the “pseudoscience” that, in addition to weight training and attention to diet, taking such drugs as steroids, HGH, and insulin, help a trainee add muscle? You think if I went to a University and said that, all the educated scientists would say “well that’s pseudoscience bullshit, prove it!”
“Bullshit. You are saying NO assisted lifter has problems with fat loss”
do you realise the difference between cutting natty and with gear. on gear you can maintain alot more muscle while dieting down, and in some casses even gain more muscle.
“No, I saw your post as feeding into the concept that somehow you need to train in some specific way because you are natural. The approach is THE SAME.”
im not 100% sure what you mean by this but are you saying that a natural should train in the same way as someone on gear? because if so that is laughable.
“Actually, once again you are assuming things. Everyone on steroids does NOT gain more muscle. The use of them does not promise success with them. Once again, the ASSUMPTION is where you go wrong…and that my friend is psuedoscience.”
anyone on a well planned cycle with their nutrition and training on point, will gain far more muscle than someone natty in the same amount of time.
now could you try and keep this civil and not go onto one of your rants.
[quote]ty_ty13 wrote:
my last 1.5 years have been the most productive based on the fact of understanding my body and my lifting strategies and cardio.
and i’ve lifted (or so i thought) since i was 14, now 26. ive made more gains in the last 1.5 years than all the other years added up. and it all came down to diet and a few training changes.[/quote]
I share your same thoughts on how my body also responds to diet.
I think I’m following the discussion thus far – so let’s say we have an intermediate lifter who is 2-3 years past his beginner gains and has put on quite a substantial amount of mass. He diets down and in a few years looks “swole” (having an above average [impressive] combination of mass and bodyfat). What does this guy do now in terms of dieting/nutrition and training (although I fathom the former would be more important to his future progress)?
But are you really going to make this argument now into the fact that I “assumed” the “pseudoscience” that, in addition to weight training and attention to diet, taking such drugs as steroids, HGH, and insulin, help a trainee add muscle? You think if I went to a University and said that, all the educated scientists would say “well that’s pseudoscience bullshit, prove it!”
[/quote]
No, I am clearly making the argument that you base what you do in the gym and in the klitchen on what results you actually get…NOT theory about what “might” or “should” happen.
Pseduscience is claiming or even implying that “natties” should train in any specific different way just because they are “nattie”.
But are you really going to make this argument now into the fact that I “assumed” the “pseudoscience” that, in addition to weight training and attention to diet, taking such drugs as steroids, HGH, and insulin, help a trainee add muscle? You think if I went to a University and said that, all the educated scientists would say “well that’s pseudoscience bullshit, prove it!”
[/quote]
No, I am clearly making the argument that you base what you do in the gym and in the klitchen on what results you actually get…NOT theory about what “might” or “should” happen.
Pseduscience is claiming or even implying that “natties” should train in any specific different way just because they are “nattie”.[/quote]
thanks for typing the libel about me then not responding dude
anyways, next question: speaking of “nattie” training, there seems to be a lot of fat collecting at the top whenever I get this pb. The pb itself is getting hard to stir, so does that mean I need to hold the weight for a while (there’s real science behind that I think) or skim off the fat? again, I don’t want to lose muscle
so I guess I should rephrase my question to everyone: do successful natural bodybuilders veer far (> ~20 lbs I guess) off their competition weight? and if so what’s the general range that you guys see?[/quote]
Successful bodybuilders of any sort wouldn’t base their progress on a “assumed” competition weight". If you have competed before and plan to stay close to that weight, then that makes sense. Otherwise, the premise of your question is flawed. If you gained muscle, then your competition weight changed.
thanks for typing the libel about me then not responding dude
anyways, next question: speaking of “nattie” training, there seems to be a lot of fat collecting at the top whenever I get this pb. The pb itself is getting hard to stir, so does that mean I need to hold the weight for a while (there’s real science behind that I think) or skim off the fat? again, I don’t want to lose muscle[/quote]
Honestly, I am thinking you are like 17 at this point.
so I guess I should rephrase my question to everyone: do successful natural bodybuilders veer far (> ~20 lbs I guess) off their competition weight? and if so what’s the general range that you guys see?[/quote]
Successful bodybuilders of any sort wouldn’t base their progress on a “assumed” competition weight". If you have competed before and plan to stay close to that weight, then that makes sense. Otherwise, the premise of your question is flawed. If you gained muscle, then your competition weight changed.[/quote]
yeah, successful bodybuilders of any sort would have competed before, so they could base their progress on their previous contest weight. I’m sure they have a rough idea visually and numerically how much weight they should and shouldn’t get gaining in the offseasons. I don’t think you’re the one to answer this question to I’ll leave it out to others if they want to chime in.
so I guess I should rephrase my question to everyone: do successful natural bodybuilders veer far (> ~20 lbs I guess) off their competition weight? and if so what’s the general range that you guys see?[/quote]
Successful bodybuilders of any sort wouldn’t base their progress on a “assumed” competition weight". If you have competed before and plan to stay close to that weight, then that makes sense. Otherwise, the premise of your question is flawed. If you gained muscle, then your competition weight changed.[/quote]
yeah, successful bodybuilders of any sort would have competed before, so they could base their progress on their previous contest weight. I’m sure they have a rough idea visually and numerically how much weight they should and shouldn’t get gaining in the offseasons. I don’t think you’re the one to answer this question to I’ll leave it out to others if they want to chime in.[/quote]
Well, I actually grew up around competitive bodybuilders and many stay within 25-50lbs of contest weight.
Yes, it can range that much and more.
Any more questions? I wouldn’t have to compete to know that. No one would have to compete themselves to know that…because it involves what is seen MOST, not individually.
so I guess I should rephrase my question to everyone: do successful natural bodybuilders veer far (> ~20 lbs I guess) off their competition weight? and if so what’s the general range that you guys see?[/quote]
Successful bodybuilders of any sort wouldn’t base their progress on a “assumed” competition weight". If you have competed before and plan to stay close to that weight, then that makes sense. Otherwise, the premise of your question is flawed. If you gained muscle, then your competition weight changed.[/quote]
yeah, successful bodybuilders of any sort would have competed before, so they could base their progress on their previous contest weight. I’m sure they have a rough idea visually and numerically how much weight they should and shouldn’t get gaining in the offseasons. I don’t think you’re the one to answer this question to I’ll leave it out to others if they want to chime in.[/quote]
Well, I actually grew up around competitive bodybuilders and many stay within 25-50lbs of contest weight.
Yes, it can range that much and more.
Any more questions? I wouldn’t have to compete to know that. No one would have to compete themselves to know that…because it involves what is seen MOST, not individually.[/quote]
I grew up around huge bodybuilders but im not big myself… am I allowed to answer qyestions how to get big?
so I guess I should rephrase my question to everyone: do successful natural bodybuilders veer far (> ~20 lbs I guess) off their competition weight? and if so what’s the general range that you guys see?[/quote]
Successful bodybuilders of any sort wouldn’t base their progress on a “assumed” competition weight". If you have competed before and plan to stay close to that weight, then that makes sense. Otherwise, the premise of your question is flawed. If you gained muscle, then your competition weight changed.[/quote]
yeah, successful bodybuilders of any sort would have competed before, so they could base their progress on their previous contest weight. I’m sure they have a rough idea visually and numerically how much weight they should and shouldn’t get gaining in the offseasons. I don’t think you’re the one to answer this question to I’ll leave it out to others if they want to chime in.[/quote]
Well, I actually grew up around competitive bodybuilders and many stay within 25-50lbs of contest weight.
Yes, it can range that much and more.
Any more questions? I wouldn’t have to compete to know that. No one would have to compete themselves to know that…because it involves what is seen MOST, not individually.[/quote]
I grew up around huge bodybuilders but im not big myself… am I allowed to answer qyestions how to get big?[/quote]
Knowing general competition weight is not the same as “being big”…so your question seems odd and under-thought.
Many personal trainers are NOT big…so what is your point?
Bullshit. You are saying NO assisted lifter has problems with fat loss"
do you realise the difference between cutting natty and with gear. on gear you can maintain alot more muscle while dieting down, and in some casses even gain more muscle.
“No, I saw your post as feeding into the concept that somehow you need to train in some specific way because you are natural. The approach is THE SAME.”
im not 100% sure what you mean by this but are you saying that a natural should train in the same way as someone on gear? because if so that is laughable.
“Actually, once again you are assuming things. Everyone on steroids does NOT gain more muscle. The use of them does not promise success with them. Once again, the ASSUMPTION is where you go wrong…and that my friend is psuedoscience.”
anyone on a well planned cycle with their nutrition and training on point, will gain far more muscle than someone natty in the same amount of time.
now could you try and keep this civil and not go onto one of your rants.
do you realise the difference between cutting natty and with gear. on gear you can maintain alot more muscle while dieting down, and in some casses even gain more muscle. [/quote]
Gee, you CAN…and MAY in SOME CASES. That doesn’t mean you WILL.
[quote]
“No, I saw your post as feeding into the concept that somehow you need to train in some specific way because you are natural. The approach is THE SAME.”
im not 100% sure what you mean by this but are you saying that a natural should train in the same way as someone on gear? because if so that is laughable. [/quote]
It is laughable that a person should train according the results seen and NOT whether they are natural or not?
What is so different about HOW someone should train based on steroid use alone?
To even make that statement means you somehow know exactly what someone should need to do based on ONE factor alone.
[quote]
anyone on a well planned cycle with their nutrition and training on point, will gain far more muscle than someone natty in the same amount of time. [/quote]
??? So genetics mean nothing now? There are TONS of people on steroids who gain LESS muscle than naturals with better genetics. What are you talking about?
Rants? Dude, you don’t have the education to debate this. All you do is show how much you don’t really know and that you gained most of your knowledge from websites.
