Contreras on Assisted Lifters

Training
181

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:
Just because a guy like Lyle McDonald has a phd (I assume he does) means squat (heh). The fact is he has an agenda, which is far more relevant. I tried googling for this “study” but just found some comment from LM; but my google-fu is weak because I’m old so if someone can help an old man…
[/quote]

Thanks for the effort.

But I must be missing something in all this talk because that study has nothing to do with Lyle McDonald specifically (I keep reading about “Lyle McD’s study” like it was something he did); plus the results do not make a comparison between 'roids alone vs. no 'roids plus exercise (or did I stupidly miss something?) -I thought the whole “debate” here was 'roids + couch was better than no 'roids + exercise?

182

[quote]punnyguy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:
Just because a guy like Lyle McDonald has a phd (I assume he does) means squat (heh). The fact is he has an agenda, which is far more relevant. I tried googling for this “study” but just found some comment from LM; but my google-fu is weak because I’m old so if someone can help an old man…
[/quote]

Thanks for the effort.

But I must be missing something in all this talk because that study has nothing to do with Lyle McDonald specifically (I keep reading about “Lyle McD’s study” like it was something he did); plus the results do not make a comparison between 'roids alone vs. no 'roids plus exercise (or did I stupidly miss something?) -I thought the whole “debate” here was 'roids + couch was better than no 'roids + exercise?
[/quote]

Safe to say that anybody describing it as “Lyle’s study” haven’t read it.

Better link:

183

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:
Just because a guy like Lyle McDonald has a phd (I assume he does) means squat (heh). The fact is he has an agenda, which is far more relevant. I tried googling for this “study” but just found some comment from LM; but my google-fu is weak because I’m old so if someone can help an old man…
[/quote]

Thanks for the effort.

But I must be missing something in all this talk because that study has nothing to do with Lyle McDonald specifically (I keep reading about “Lyle McD’s study” like it was something he did); plus the results do not make a comparison between 'roids alone vs. no 'roids plus exercise (or did I stupidly miss something?) -I thought the whole “debate” here was 'roids + couch was better than no 'roids + exercise?
[/quote]

Safe to say that anybody describing it as “Lyle’s study” haven’t read it.

Better link:

That was much better, thanks man!

Absolutely nothing in there to warrant any sort of “gotcha” moments. LOL at all the hoopla and hollerin’…

Oh, and also LOLLLLL at “squatting strength” INCREASING for the no 'roids no exercise group! Although if my limited stat knowledge is right, the P value showed the “increase” was not statistically significant. Does prove that squat #s w/o video are always suspect Hah.

184

[quote]punnyguy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:
Just because a guy like Lyle McDonald has a phd (I assume he does) means squat (heh). The fact is he has an agenda, which is far more relevant. I tried googling for this “study” but just found some comment from LM; but my google-fu is weak because I’m old so if someone can help an old man…
[/quote]

Thanks for the effort.

But I must be missing something in all this talk because that study has nothing to do with Lyle McDonald specifically (I keep reading about “Lyle McD’s study” like it was something he did); plus the results do not make a comparison between 'roids alone vs. no 'roids plus exercise (or did I stupidly miss something?) -I thought the whole “debate” here was 'roids + couch was better than no 'roids + exercise?
[/quote]

Safe to say that anybody describing it as “Lyle’s study” haven’t read it.

Better link:

That was much better, thanks man!

Absolutely nothing in there to warrant any sort of “gotcha” moments. LOL at all the hoopla and hollerin’…

Oh, and also LOLLLLL at “squatting strength” INCREASING for the no 'roids no exercise group! Although if my limited stat knowledge is right, the P value showed the “increase” was not statistically significant. Does prove that squat #s w/o video are always suspect Hah.[/quote]

What are you talking about?

Table 4 and 5 didn’t even show a P Value for subject group no exercise placebo group - indicating that the difference was indeed negligible and therefore not significant…

185

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:
Just because a guy like Lyle McDonald has a phd (I assume he does) means squat (heh). The fact is he has an agenda, which is far more relevant. I tried googling for this “study” but just found some comment from LM; but my google-fu is weak because I’m old so if someone can help an old man…
[/quote]

Thanks for the effort.

But I must be missing something in all this talk because that study has nothing to do with Lyle McDonald specifically (I keep reading about “Lyle McD’s study” like it was something he did); plus the results do not make a comparison between 'roids alone vs. no 'roids plus exercise (or did I stupidly miss something?) -I thought the whole “debate” here was 'roids + couch was better than no 'roids + exercise?
[/quote]

Safe to say that anybody describing it as “Lyle’s study” haven’t read it.

Better link:

That was much better, thanks man!

Absolutely nothing in there to warrant any sort of “gotcha” moments. LOL at all the hoopla and hollerin’…

Oh, and also LOLLLLL at “squatting strength” INCREASING for the no 'roids no exercise group! Although if my limited stat knowledge is right, the P value showed the “increase” was not statistically significant. Does prove that squat #s w/o video are always suspect Hah.[/quote]

What are you talking about?

Table 4 and 5 didn’t even show a P Value for subject group no exercise placebo group - indicating that the difference was indeed negligible and therefore not significant…
[/quote]

Everybody in these threads always wants to argue…how is what you said statistically significant from what I said? I said I’m no expert didn’t I? Yeah, tongue in cheek there -please don’t “call me out” bro.

The key point is all this talk about 'roids + couch > no 'roids + exercise, which the study does not prove, at all. But does anybody who actually works out really believe that you can gain all kinds of muscle after a lousy 10 weeks of weight training, which was preceded by 4 weeks of no weight training at all?

I just pointed out the squat #s anomaly because it points out some of the pitfalls in all these studies that try to gauge Strenf, 'bro.

186

2267×970 106 KB

Chart from the study

187

[quote]punnyguy wrote:

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:
Just because a guy like Lyle McDonald has a phd (I assume he does) means squat (heh). The fact is he has an agenda, which is far more relevant. I tried googling for this “study” but just found some comment from LM; but my google-fu is weak because I’m old so if someone can help an old man…
[/quote]

Thanks for the effort.

But I must be missing something in all this talk because that study has nothing to do with Lyle McDonald specifically (I keep reading about “Lyle McD’s study” like it was something he did); plus the results do not make a comparison between 'roids alone vs. no 'roids plus exercise (or did I stupidly miss something?) -I thought the whole “debate” here was 'roids + couch was better than no 'roids + exercise?
[/quote]

Safe to say that anybody describing it as “Lyle’s study” haven’t read it.

Better link:

That was much better, thanks man!

Absolutely nothing in there to warrant any sort of “gotcha” moments. LOL at all the hoopla and hollerin’…

Oh, and also LOLLLLL at “squatting strength” INCREASING for the no 'roids no exercise group! Although if my limited stat knowledge is right, the P value showed the “increase” was not statistically significant. Does prove that squat #s w/o video are always suspect Hah.[/quote]

What are you talking about?

Table 4 and 5 didn’t even show a P Value for subject group no exercise placebo group - indicating that the difference was indeed negligible and therefore not significant…
[/quote]

Everybody in these threads always wants to argue…how is what you said statistically significant from what I said? I said I’m no expert didn’t I? Yeah, tongue in cheek there -please don’t “call me out” bro.

The key point is all this talk about 'roids + couch > no 'roids + exercise, which the study does not prove, at all. But does anybody who actually works out really believe that you can gain all kinds of muscle after a lousy 10 weeks of weight training, which was preceded by 4 weeks of no weight training at all?

I just pointed out the squat #s anomaly because it points out some of the pitfalls in all these studies that try to gauge Strenf, 'bro.[/quote]

I asked what you were talking about and stated what I observed - allowing you to aid me in seeing what I may have missed.

You said the squat strength increase for the non drug non exercise group had a P Value indicating that it had a statistically significant increase, I corrected you.

No need to let your ovaries explode, although you were indeed wrong.

188

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:
Just because a guy like Lyle McDonald has a phd (I assume he does) means squat (heh). The fact is he has an agenda, which is far more relevant. I tried googling for this “study” but just found some comment from LM; but my google-fu is weak because I’m old so if someone can help an old man…
[/quote]

Thanks for the effort.

But I must be missing something in all this talk because that study has nothing to do with Lyle McDonald specifically (I keep reading about “Lyle McD’s study” like it was something he did); plus the results do not make a comparison between 'roids alone vs. no 'roids plus exercise (or did I stupidly miss something?) -I thought the whole “debate” here was 'roids + couch was better than no 'roids + exercise?
[/quote]

Safe to say that anybody describing it as “Lyle’s study” haven’t read it.

Better link:

That was much better, thanks man!

Absolutely nothing in there to warrant any sort of “gotcha” moments. LOL at all the hoopla and hollerin’…

Oh, and also LOLLLLL at “squatting strength” INCREASING for the no 'roids no exercise group! Although if my limited stat knowledge is right, the P value showed the “increase” was not statistically significant. Does prove that squat #s w/o video are always suspect Hah.[/quote]

What are you talking about?

Table 4 and 5 didn’t even show a P Value for subject group no exercise placebo group - indicating that the difference was indeed negligible and therefore not significant…
[/quote]

Everybody in these threads always wants to argue…how is what you said statistically significant from what I said? I said I’m no expert didn’t I? Yeah, tongue in cheek there -please don’t “call me out” bro.

The key point is all this talk about 'roids + couch > no 'roids + exercise, which the study does not prove, at all. But does anybody who actually works out really believe that you can gain all kinds of muscle after a lousy 10 weeks of weight training, which was preceded by 4 weeks of no weight training at all?

I just pointed out the squat #s anomaly because it points out some of the pitfalls in all these studies that try to gauge Strenf, 'bro.[/quote]

I asked what you were talking about and stating what I observed - allowing you to aid me in seeing what I may have missed.

No need to let your ovaries explode, although you were indeed wrong.
[/quote]

Is this where I start using words like “vagisil” and terms like “'da ghey”? Followed by some cryptically arrogant flippant sentences to show that I know a lot more that I’m unwilling to share with the unwashed masses?

Amiright?

189

768×576 61.6 KB

[quote]punnyguy wrote:

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:
Just because a guy like Lyle McDonald has a phd (I assume he does) means squat (heh). The fact is he has an agenda, which is far more relevant. I tried googling for this “study” but just found some comment from LM; but my google-fu is weak because I’m old so if someone can help an old man…
[/quote]

Thanks for the effort.

But I must be missing something in all this talk because that study has nothing to do with Lyle McDonald specifically (I keep reading about “Lyle McD’s study” like it was something he did); plus the results do not make a comparison between 'roids alone vs. no 'roids plus exercise (or did I stupidly miss something?) -I thought the whole “debate” here was 'roids + couch was better than no 'roids + exercise?
[/quote]

Safe to say that anybody describing it as “Lyle’s study” haven’t read it.

Better link:

That was much better, thanks man!

Absolutely nothing in there to warrant any sort of “gotcha” moments. LOL at all the hoopla and hollerin’…

Oh, and also LOLLLLL at “squatting strength” INCREASING for the no 'roids no exercise group! Although if my limited stat knowledge is right, the P value showed the “increase” was not statistically significant. Does prove that squat #s w/o video are always suspect Hah.[/quote]

What are you talking about?

Table 4 and 5 didn’t even show a P Value for subject group no exercise placebo group - indicating that the difference was indeed negligible and therefore not significant…
[/quote]

Everybody in these threads always wants to argue…how is what you said statistically significant from what I said? I said I’m no expert didn’t I? Yeah, tongue in cheek there -please don’t “call me out” bro.

The key point is all this talk about 'roids + couch > no 'roids + exercise, which the study does not prove, at all. But does anybody who actually works out really believe that you can gain all kinds of muscle after a lousy 10 weeks of weight training, which was preceded by 4 weeks of no weight training at all?

I just pointed out the squat #s anomaly because it points out some of the pitfalls in all these studies that try to gauge Strenf, 'bro.[/quote]

I asked what you were talking about and stating what I observed - allowing you to aid me in seeing what I may have missed.

No need to let your ovaries explode, although you were indeed wrong.
[/quote]

Is this where I start using words like “vagisil” and terms like “'da ghey”? Followed by some cryptically arrogant flippant sentences to show that I know a lot more that I’m unwilling to share with the unwashed masses?

Amiright?
[/quote]

Got something for you.

190

I apologize to all adults for engaging in “discourse” with a 22 year old, thus subjecting one and all to the inevitable meme, the larger the better of course, because words are so yesterday.

Thanks again to Roybot for actually finding The Study that was argued about for so long with obviously not too many bothering to actually look at the damn thing lol. Out.

191

[quote]punnyguy wrote:
I apologize to all adults for engaging in “discourse” with a 22 year old, thus subjecting one and all to the inevitable meme, the larger the better of course, because words are so yesterday.

Thanks again to Roybot for actually finding The Study that was argued about for so long with obviously not too many bothering to actually look at the damn thing lol. Out.

[/quote]

Try to learn to read and understand a study before you discuss one next time :).

192

And this why i cant leave this site. Clearly person was wrong and called out even politely and butt hurt rages that the person who actually was more observant or smarter is a child. Tnation never fails to producs

193

[quote]punnyguy wrote:
I apologize to all adults for engaging in “discourse” with a 22 year old, thus subjecting one and all to the inevitable meme, the larger the better of course, because words are so yesterday.

Thanks again to Roybot for actually finding The Study that was argued about for so long with obviously not too many bothering to actually look at the damn thing lol. Out.

[/quote]

Actually i am almost postive ive said from the start people have not been reading the study

And yes thanks for posting it Roy. And also anyone who reads. Please actually read it. Scientific studies suck to read so do it multiple times before jumping to conclusions and read the middle of it too. Not just the start and end which is tempting

194

I’m sorry. As a young, innocent natty hopeful who believes in “stimulation not annihilation”, carb backloading, and "lean muscle gain with ZERO fat gain by focusing on “muscle stimulation without lifting heavy”, I refuse to believe that well-known and respected natty pros, some/most of whom hold respectable day jobs, have dabbled in prohormones in the past.

I demand proof!!!

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
I jsut use this for fun I have no bone to pick with anyone. Don’t give a shit one way or the other about any of this. But to keep poking the hornets nest your argument assumes the top of the natty world is natty and has been forever. Pretty much false logic [/quote]

195

The thing that I got from this study was that it was pretty slanted to make sure that steroids looked more helpful than they were. The Steroid and exercise group started the study averaging 167lbs and the placebo exercise group averaged 188lbs both around 15% bf.

Completely take steroids out of the picture and most of us could probably guess which one of those two groups is going to make the most significant improvements in physical size and ability. On average the 5’9" 167lb 15%bf guy probably has a little more room to grow than the 5’11" 188lb 15%bf guy. Not saying that steroids don’t make a difference but you can see the pieces being put into place to achieve the desirable outcome in that study.

Also, how many of you can do a solid 4x6 with 90% of your 1RM like they supposedly did as part of their workout?

196

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:
I apologize to all adults for engaging in “discourse” with a 22 year old, thus subjecting one and all to the inevitable meme, the larger the better of course, because words are so yesterday.

Thanks again to Roybot for actually finding The Study that was argued about for so long with obviously not too many bothering to actually look at the damn thing lol. Out.

[/quote]

Actually i am almost postive ive said from the start people have not been reading the study

And yes thanks for posting it Roy. And also anyone who reads. Please actually read it. Scientific studies suck to read so do it multiple times before jumping to conclusions and read the middle of it too. Not just the start and end which is tempting
[/quote]

I posted the study for two reasons: firstly, never use someone else’s opinion as a basis for your own, and secondly, exogenous hormones were created to maintain weight in sickly individuals. So, if they work for people who can’t train due to illness then they will work for healthy lazy bastards.

The screening process for trials is unbelievably slack. As a volunteer, I saw a guy get thrown off mid-trial for snorting coke on a weekend off, and another dude get a free pass for having too much blood in his alcohol. These were both open studies. I’m far too cynical to trust that out of 40 participants (three dropped out) all with previous weight training experience and ready to be injected with medical -grade test are going to do what they’re told.

197

[quote]TrevorLPT wrote:
What do you guys make of the argument that most AAS really just improve recovery capacity and allow people to trainer harder and more often. Therefore, AAS users actually work HARDER for their gains than their natty counterparts. I’ve been fed that line by several drug users and don’t buy it, but I have no personal experience with AAS so I guess I can’t know for sure. [/quote]

That is exactly what they are designed to do.

I am not saying that all “users” take advantage of this.

If you have a training partner, or someone on your team that is similar to you in strength, speed, conditioning, and work ethic. That has put in the same amount of time as you. Then you give them AAS, try to keep up naturally. It’s not going to happen…if they are a hard worker.