[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
I’ve read some good stuff on this site over the years and I’ve read utter garbage that just puts the author’s name out there or keeps it relevant.
[/quote]
Umm…Welcome back?
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
I’ve read some good stuff on this site over the years and I’ve read utter garbage that just puts the author’s name out there or keeps it relevant.
[/quote]
Umm…Welcome back?[/quote]
Lol. Been reading the articles for a while now. When I saw that Predator Diet moron thread, I just had to create an account and give my 2 cents. Then just started posting on other matters. Got some excellent movie tips in my GAL thread and Shadow Pro gave me some great insight on what female figure competitors inject.
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
I’ve read some good stuff on this site over the years and I’ve read utter garbage that just puts the author’s name out there or keeps it relevant.
[/quote]
Umm…Welcome back?[/quote]
Lol. Been reading the articles for a while now. When I saw that Predator Diet moron thread, I just had to create an account and give my 2 cents. Then just started posting on other matters. Got some excellent movie tips in my GAL thread and Shadow Pro gave me some great insight on what female figure competitors inject. [/quote]
Of course. It’s not like you’re the movie critic that T-Nation deserves…
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
I’ve read some good stuff on this site over the years and I’ve read utter garbage that just puts the author’s name out there or keeps it relevant.
[/quote]
Umm…Welcome back?[/quote]
Lol. Been reading the articles for a while now. When I saw that Predator Diet moron thread, I just had to create an account and give my 2 cents. Then just started posting on other matters. Got some excellent movie tips in my GAL thread and Shadow Pro gave me some great insight on what female figure competitors inject. [/quote]
Of course. It’s not like you’re the movie critic that T-Nation deserves…[/quote]
Not sure what you’re getting at. If you don’t like the movies discussed in my thread, no one’s pointing a gun at your head, bro.
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
I’ve read some good stuff on this site over the years and I’ve read utter garbage that just puts the author’s name out there or keeps it relevant.
[/quote]
Umm…Welcome back?[/quote]
Lol. Been reading the articles for a while now. When I saw that Predator Diet moron thread, I just had to create an account and give my 2 cents. Then just started posting on other matters. Got some excellent movie tips in my GAL thread and Shadow Pro gave me some great insight on what female figure competitors inject. [/quote]
Of course. It’s not like you’re the movie critic that T-Nation deserves…[/quote]
Not sure what you’re getting at. If you don’t like the movies discussed in my thread, no one’s pointing a gun at your head, bro. [/quote]
Didn’t post on your thread, bro.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
I’ve read some good stuff on this site over the years and I’ve read utter garbage that just puts the author’s name out there or keeps it relevant.
[/quote]
Umm…Welcome back?[/quote]
Lol. Been reading the articles for a while now. When I saw that Predator Diet moron thread, I just had to create an account and give my 2 cents. Then just started posting on other matters. Got some excellent movie tips in my GAL thread and Shadow Pro gave me some great insight on what female figure competitors inject. [/quote]
Of course. It’s not like you’re the movie critic that T-Nation deserves…[/quote]
Not sure what you’re getting at. If you don’t like the movies discussed in my thread, no one’s pointing a gun at your head, bro. [/quote]
Didn’t post on your thread, bro.
[/quote]
And I won’t lose any sleep over that. The last I checked, this thread wasn’t started by you. You did just coincidentally pop in to try and talk me down. Now why is that…?
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
I’ve read some good stuff on this site over the years and I’ve read utter garbage that just puts the author’s name out there or keeps it relevant.
[/quote]
Umm…Welcome back?[/quote]
Lol. Been reading the articles for a while now. When I saw that Predator Diet moron thread, I just had to create an account and give my 2 cents. Then just started posting on other matters. Got some excellent movie tips in my GAL thread and Shadow Pro gave me some great insight on what female figure competitors inject. [/quote]
Of course. It’s not like you’re the movie critic that T-Nation deserves…[/quote]
Not sure what you’re getting at. If you don’t like the movies discussed in my thread, no one’s pointing a gun at your head, bro. [/quote]
Didn’t post on your thread, bro.
[/quote]
And I won’t lose any sleep over that. The last I checked, this thread wasn’t started by you. You did just coincidentally pop in to try and talk me down. Now why is that…?[/quote]
No attempts to talk you down - you’re just very cocksure for a lurker.
[quote]Yogi wrote:
[quote]monatu wrote:
Im gonna have to agree here.
I did 4-5 cycles over about a 2.5 year period.
Im currently eating identical calories/training program to when I was on 1g test/wk about a year ago. I am 8kg’s (thats about 17 pounds) lighter, and significantly weaker. Nothing else in my life has changed.
No, taking steroids do not make you look like Ronnie Coleman. But if you have 5+ years experience, and understand training and nutrition then the version of you ON steroids .v. the version of you OFF steroids will be light and day different.
Stop lying to yourselves.[/quote]
what an absolute donkey. Steroids make you stronger? Really? OH MY GOD!!![/quote]
Wow. Next he’ll tell us the sky is blue.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
I’ve read some good stuff on this site over the years and I’ve read utter garbage that just puts the author’s name out there or keeps it relevant.
[/quote]
Umm…Welcome back?[/quote]
Lol. Been reading the articles for a while now. When I saw that Predator Diet moron thread, I just had to create an account and give my 2 cents. Then just started posting on other matters. Got some excellent movie tips in my GAL thread and Shadow Pro gave me some great insight on what female figure competitors inject. [/quote]
Of course. It’s not like you’re the movie critic that T-Nation deserves…[/quote]
Not sure what you’re getting at. If you don’t like the movies discussed in my thread, no one’s pointing a gun at your head, bro. [/quote]
Didn’t post on your thread, bro.
[/quote]
And I won’t lose any sleep over that. The last I checked, this thread wasn’t started by you. You did just coincidentally pop in to try and talk me down. Now why is that…?[/quote]
No attempts to talk you down - you’re just very cocksure for a lurker. [/quote]
I don’t claim to be an expert on everything and anything. But I do have strong opinions on the subjects I discuss. If people don’t see eye to eye, then they’re welcome to tell me.
Used to mountain bike religiously and graduated from the school of hard knocks on the mtb forums. So I may be new to T-Nation forum but I’m not new to forums in general.
It’s all good.
[quote]Waylon wrote:
I think part of the problem here is the word “elite.” In powerlifting a certain total at a certain body weight qualifies one as “elite,” even though they may not be elite by the common definition of the word.[/quote]
The problem is that people don’t understand how rare it is to total elite in powerlifting if raw and natural. By way of example, there was only one guy in the USA Powerlifting Federation to hit 1607 in the 242 pound category in 2007 and 2006. www.usapowerlifting.com/newsletter/ranking/rankings.html
If you are hitting elite numbers raw and natural, you are a beast, period. But for some reason, powerlifting is one of those sports that some people think you can excel in as long as you try hard enough. No one ever thinks that about, say, sprinting. Most people will acknowledge you can’t just take some guy off the street and have him run a sub 11-second 100 yard dash even with the best training in the world. Or baseball – most people acknowledge that you have to have quite a bit of natural talent to make a AAA ball club.
[quote]Waylon wrote:
I have long used the idea of 2xBW squat, 1.5xBW bench, and 2.5xBW pull to define the very bottom of what I would call strong in the world of serious lifters, even if this is far from strong in the world of powerlifting. Brets numbers are right around here, as are mine. Bret has more formal education than I and has worked with a decent number of reasonably successful figure athletes. When Bret wrote a book about the research he conducted on glutes, I didn’t bat an eye. When Bret wrote a book with programming aimed at physique improvements for women, I thought it was perfectly acceptable.
When Bret wrote a book on getting strong as fuck on the powerlifts, or articles on this site where he talks about how to get really strong, I balk. Bret, and many others, are writing articles and books about subjects they are not experts on. If Bret wants to explain strength training principles to, and put a general fitness client on 2x4, I have no problem. When someone starts using their internet presence to market things that are out of their realm of expertise, I have a problem.[/quote]
I see your point, I’m just not sure that you have to be an great powerlifter to have knowledge that will be useful for someone aspiring to be better at powerlifting. Mike Zourdos, despite not having elite numbers (although much more respectable than Contreras’s numbers), for example.
[quote]Pantherhare wrote:
I see your point, I’m just not sure that you have to be an great powerlifter to have knowledge that will be useful for someone aspiring to be better at powerlifting. Mike Zourdos, despite not having elite numbers (although much more respectable than Contreras’s numbers), for example.
[/quote]
Sure, there are examples in sports where a successful coach was a mediocre player. Maybe Bret should’ve developed a resume of success stories before announcing himself as a guru in powerlifting.
And that’s why some here are skeptical. If people start hitting impressive numbers using his methods, then he has something to talk about.
Right now, you can’t blame others for taking a “wait and see” attitude with anything he says about powerlifting.
There are just too many proven ways from people who’ve done impressive things on the platform or coached many others to be successful on the platform. And those who’ve been around the block are too jaded IMO to take things on face value - especially if they have to fork out money for it.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Paul Carter’s response…
Hey Bret, you’re just a little off here…
I happened across this article from booty guy Bret Contreras this morning, and while interesting and informative, is also just a little bit off in some regards…
First off, I want to say I agree with Bret on a few things.
Namely, I don’t think it’s cool for anyone to look down on another lifter who is natural if he is enhanced.
Hell, I will take that one step further. I don’t think we as lifters should be looking down on each other at all, thought it does happen at times, and even I have been guilty of this. But it’s a bad habit and all of us need to do a better job of offering up the minimum amount of respect to each other for simply putting in the work, and being brothers in iron.
With that said, I want to go over some things Bret wrote in this piece…
Anabolic steroids make the average lifter WAY stronger and more muscular. When steroids are added to the mix, it changes the rules.
This is more or less a half truth.
Some guys respond really well to drugs, and some guys get very little. All the studies in the world don’t back up all the years and years of anecdotal evidence behind what I am saying here.
Some guys can take a little, and get a lot out of it. And some guys can take a lot, and get very little.
Taking anabolics will make you stronger and more muscular, but the degree to which it will varies greatly from person to person. So my gripe here is using the words “WAY stronger”.
One thing missed in this is that some guys can’t take a large enough dose to get “WAY stronger” because they end up with side effects so great that “upping the dose” isn’t possible for them.
Regardless of what guys read on the internet, or what studies read, each individual will respond quite differently to different drugs. I know guys that flat out cannot take tren because of the side effects they get from it. And I know guys that can run a gram a week with virtually no side effects at all. There is no “one size fits all” model here.
I also know guys that can run tren, and get almost superhuman strong on it, and I’ve had other guys tell me they got very little from it. So if you’re using the phrase “way stronger” or “more muscular” then I guess we’ll play semantic games. Some guys get “way stronger” from the same compounds that another guy does not get “way stronger” from. The same rule applies to the “more muscular” quote. That is a pretty ambiguous term, to say the least. I’ve known guys that got “more muscular” from cycles but not to the degree you would expect, given their overall dose.
So this is a fairly broad stroked phrase.
Steroids don?t do the work for you, sure they help you recover faster but you still have to put in the work,? and, ?Natural lifters love to play the steroid card, but 90% of it is hard work, nutrition, and consistency.?
I have to agree with the guys that said this.
Regardless of how much a guys drug cycle is doing for him, if his training and diet are not dialed in, then just like a natural trainer, his results are going to be sub-optimal. Now will those sub-optimal results still be greater than what he would get if he weren’t on cycle? Of course. But training and diet are still going to be the corner stone of efficient and optimal results.
In other words, both the drug user and natural guy can’t take advantage of their “environment”, i.e. a highly advanced anabolic state/natural genetics unless he makes training and diet the most important parts of his program. Otherwise they both end up with the short end of the stick. Again, this doesn’t mean the drug users short end isn’t longer than it would be if he were natural, but the drug user is doing himself a massive disservice if he isn’t programming and eating in the most efficient manner as possible.
In my experience, many steroid-users grossly underestimate the role that steroids play in their strength development. I?d have a lot more respect for the lifter who admitted that without steroids, he?d be pretty ordinary in terms of strength and physique.
That completely depends on when the guy started using anabolics, and what he accomplished naturally. Ronnie Coleman became an IFBB pro completely natural, I do believe. Now he didn’t start winning Mr. O titles until he found the “holy grail” however there are LOTS of guys out there that have built impressive strength and physiques without playing the drug card. I myself managed to work my way up to 250 pounds without being a total fat ass before I ever took a single thing, and was accused on being “on” quite often.
I could name off about two dozen guys that are incredibly impressive as natural strength athletes. So I feel that your broad stroke here is again unwarranted. SOME guys might be unimpressive completely natural, but this doesn’t apply to everyone. Genetic ability ranges greatly from world class sprinters and powerlifters to dudes that can’t get off the couch without tripping over their Xbox controller while covered in Cheesy Puffs crumbs.
Many steroid-using powerlifters don?t have a good grip on what transfers best for the natural lifter, and they don?t optimally understand program design for the natural lifter. Why? Because many of them have never controlled variables. Fluctuating drug cycles confound training/nutrition cycles. Because when the going got tough, many of them simply took more steroids. Many figure out quickly that taking another gram of testosterone or adding in trenbolone transferred very well to strength and got them through their training ruts. Because it came too easy for many of them. Most never spent 8 months hammering the bench press, only to gain a meager 10 lbs of strength. Many never took the time to learn the effects of different protocols. When they were stagnating, many simply took more juice.
Eh, this is misinformed at best.
I know of at least one guy that literally got worse, or at least he didn’t get any better, over a 4 year span despite virtually doubling his dose in that time.
It’s not as simple as “taking more drugs” for every guy out there. Yes, that works for some guys, and doesn’t work for others. There will always be a point of diminishing returns when it comes to “doses”.
Not only that, I know lots of guys that use and work their asses off for very little in the way of returns. I know guys that spent a year working the shit out of their bench or squat to add that extra 10-15 pounds on it. There comes a point when even with drugs, you start to reach your genetic ceiling and no amount of drugs can push you past it without an incredible amount of hard work. In that regard, the user is no different than the natural trainer. When both of them get close to the ceiling of what their environment is allowing, then it’s going to take a metric fuckton of hard work to inch upwards even in the smallest of increments.
As a consequence, I?ve found that many training programs written by steroid users are too harsh for natural lifters; some of these programs contain excessive volume which the average natural lifter could not recover from.
I used to believe this too. However what I’ve really figured out is, that it’s not the recovery factor that comes into play. It’s that the drug user tends to see results faster than the natural dude. I’ve never had to adjust for a guy being on or not. Some may find that hard to believe, but it’s true. And I’ve never had a client that didn’t see extraordinary results. In fact, I’ve had some guys that were on drugs, that actually needed MORE recovery time than guys that were natural. It came back to things like age, and injury history as being the reasons why. So once again, there are too many factors here at play than JUST drugs in that regard.
In your last segment you go into the drug cycles as listed by Ryan Kennelly, and basically paint the picture that Ryan’s drug cycle was the primary reason for his enormous strength.
And that’s where a lot of guys using get sort of irritated.
There are LOTS of guys using similar stacks to what Ryan listed, and will never ever be as strong as him, or anywhere close. And that’s where the argument of “steroids don’t do the work” come into play. All the drugs in the world won’t turn anyone into a 700 raw bencher if mom and dad didn’t give them all the things they needed in order to achieve that.
I know you understand this, but the article more or less paints a picture of a guy that simply took more drugs to get where he was, and as I’ve stated before my guess is Ryan would out bench most everyone else by a wide margin if drugs never existed. In other words, even if you took all of the drugs away MOST of the same guys would probably still be at the top. Sure, it would cancel out some guys, but the NFL isn’t filled with awesome athletes because of drugs. It’s filled with awesome athletes because of genetics and personal interest in a sport by the individual.
I don’t think strength sports would be much different. If you removed all the drugs, genetics and personal interest in strength sports would still probably produce the same world record holders that you see now because they were “made” to be world record holders.
Steroids are powerful, and without a doubt will make some better than what they would be if they didn’t take them, however they won’t turn you into a world beater if all of the other variables don’t co-exist along with them.
In closing, I do agree that there’s no reason for a guy that is using to look down on a guy that is natural, and there’s no reason for the natural guy to scream out that the drug user is only where he is because of some injections and orals. Every guy is going to decide what path he takes on his strength journey and be responsible for the choices he makes. As lifters we should simply respect each guys person choice one way or the other, and no look down on someone for using or not using. [/quote]
Ronnie was not a natty as an IFBB pro. Period.
Kenelly wasn’t THAT strong without roids. According to his interview, the best he could do without them was in the 500s.[/quote]
Also, this made me laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh.
A 500 anything bench for a natural guy is ridiculous.
A 500 bench for a guy “on” is still strong as balls.
And I do believe that Ronnie was natural when he turned pro. This was confirmed through Flex Wheeler I believe, in an interview he did when they were on the Grand Prix tour and Flex opened up to him about all the shit he was taking. You can find out later that Flex introduced him to Chad Nichols. Well what do you think Chad Nichols does???
A 500 bench isn’t that strong…I mean come on guys.
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
[quote]Waylon wrote:
I think part of the problem here is the word “elite.” In powerlifting a certain total at a certain body weight qualifies one as “elite,” even though they may not be elite by the common definition of the word.
I have long used the idea of 2xBW squat, 1.5xBW bench, and 2.5xBW pull to define the very bottom of what I would call strong in the world of serious lifters, even if this is far from strong in the world of powerlifting. Brets numbers are right around here, as are mine. Bret has more formal education than I and has worked with a decent number of reasonably successful figure athletes. When Bret wrote a book about the research he conducted on glutes, I didn’t bat an eye. When Bret wrote a book with programming aimed at physique improvements for women, I thought it was perfectly acceptable.
When Bret wrote a book on getting strong as fuck on the powerlifts, or articles on this site where he talks about how to get really strong, I balk. Bret, and many others, are writing articles and books about subjects they are not experts on. If Bret wants to explain strength training principles to, and put a general fitness client on 2x4, I have no problem. When someone starts using their internet presence to market things that are out of their realm of expertise, I have a problem.[/quote]
QFT
On another note, props to Paul Carter for defending some comments directed his way. I don’t have a dog in that particular fight but when celebrities join in the discussion, I think it’s better all around. It keeps the ad hominem attacks from forum regulars to a minimum AND it also tells celebrities that their writings and actions should be held accountable.
So when I read some author spew things like “I’m above all that forum trash talk” I can’t help but wonder if he’s just using this as an excuse. I’ve read some good stuff on this site over the years and I’ve read utter garbage that just puts the author’s name out there or keeps it relevant.
If someone writes an article or publishes a book that claims he built a better mousetrap, he’d god damn better be willing and able to defend why.
[/quote]
FTR in no way were my comments made about Carter a personal attack or an attack at all, I dont believe you were stating that, but just to make sure I dont know Carter’s character so I wouldnt attack it.
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
[quote]Waylon wrote:
I think part of the problem here is the word “elite.” In powerlifting a certain total at a certain body weight qualifies one as “elite,” even though they may not be elite by the common definition of the word.
I have long used the idea of 2xBW squat, 1.5xBW bench, and 2.5xBW pull to define the very bottom of what I would call strong in the world of serious lifters, even if this is far from strong in the world of powerlifting. Brets numbers are right around here, as are mine. Bret has more formal education than I and has worked with a decent number of reasonably successful figure athletes. When Bret wrote a book about the research he conducted on glutes, I didn’t bat an eye. When Bret wrote a book with programming aimed at physique improvements for women, I thought it was perfectly acceptable.
When Bret wrote a book on getting strong as fuck on the powerlifts, or articles on this site where he talks about how to get really strong, I balk. Bret, and many others, are writing articles and books about subjects they are not experts on. If Bret wants to explain strength training principles to, and put a general fitness client on 2x4, I have no problem. When someone starts using their internet presence to market things that are out of their realm of expertise, I have a problem.[/quote]
QFT
On another note, props to Paul Carter for defending some comments directed his way. I don’t have a dog in that particular fight but when celebrities join in the discussion, I think it’s better all around. It keeps the ad hominem attacks from forum regulars to a minimum AND it also tells celebrities that their writings and actions should be held accountable.
So when I read some author spew things like “I’m above all that forum trash talk” I can’t help but wonder if he’s just using this as an excuse. I’ve read some good stuff on this site over the years and I’ve read utter garbage that just puts the author’s name out there or keeps it relevant.
If someone writes an article or publishes a book that claims he built a better mousetrap, he’d god damn better be willing and able to defend why.
[/quote]
FTR in no way were my comments made about Carter a personal attack or an attack at all, I dont believe you were stating that, but just to make sure I dont know Carter’s character so I wouldnt attack it.
[/quote]
Well I appreciate that, Matty.
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
[quote]Pantherhare wrote:
I see your point, I’m just not sure that you have to be an great powerlifter to have knowledge that will be useful for someone aspiring to be better at powerlifting. Mike Zourdos, despite not having elite numbers (although much more respectable than Contreras’s numbers), for example.
[/quote]
Sure, there are examples in sports where a successful coach was a mediocre player. Maybe Bret should’ve developed a resume of success stories before announcing himself as a guru in powerlifting.
And that’s why some here are skeptical. If people start hitting impressive numbers using his methods, then he has something to talk about.
Right now, you can’t blame others for taking a “wait and see” attitude with anything he says about powerlifting.
There are just too many proven ways from people who’ve done impressive things on the platform or coached many others to be successful on the platform. And those who’ve been around the block are too jaded IMO to take things on face value - especially if they have to fork out money for it. [/quote]
These are definitely legit points. The irony being that Contreras has in the past took a certain disdain towards online gurus.
I just took issue with people calling Bret weak and then using that to smear his work (either implicitly or explicitly). His work is not perfect or immune from criticism. But that’s the thing, criticize his work if you think it’s flawed, criticize him if you think he’s annoying, or even criticize his views on steroids in the original post.
But the guy has the balls to enter a powerlifting competition and post his results out in the open. I think that deserves a certain amount of respect. And for what it’s worth, to those who said he’s weak either in general or for a powerlifter, his numbers would have ranked him number 6 in the raw 242 class in the USA Powerlifting Federation in 2007. http://www.usapowerlifting.com/newsletter/ranking/2007/men_open_raw.pdf
[quote]Pantherhare wrote:
to those who said he’s weak either in general or for a powerlifter, his numbers would have ranked him number 6 in the raw 242 class in the USA Powerlifting Federation in 2007. http://www.usapowerlifting.com/newsletter/ranking/2007/men_open_raw.pdf
[/quote]
Part of that would be because not many people were competing raw in 2007. It’s honestly an odd metric to use. Using more current numbers shines more light on things.
[quote]Paul Carter wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Paul Carter’s response…
Hey Bret, you’re just a little off here…
I happened across this article from booty guy Bret Contreras this morning, and while interesting and informative, is also just a little bit off in some regards…
First off, I want to say I agree with Bret on a few things.
Namely, I don’t think it’s cool for anyone to look down on another lifter who is natural if he is enhanced.
Hell, I will take that one step further. I don’t think we as lifters should be looking down on each other at all, thought it does happen at times, and even I have been guilty of this. But it’s a bad habit and all of us need to do a better job of offering up the minimum amount of respect to each other for simply putting in the work, and being brothers in iron.
With that said, I want to go over some things Bret wrote in this piece…
Anabolic steroids make the average lifter WAY stronger and more muscular. When steroids are added to the mix, it changes the rules.
This is more or less a half truth.
Some guys respond really well to drugs, and some guys get very little. All the studies in the world don’t back up all the years and years of anecdotal evidence behind what I am saying here.
Some guys can take a little, and get a lot out of it. And some guys can take a lot, and get very little.
Taking anabolics will make you stronger and more muscular, but the degree to which it will varies greatly from person to person. So my gripe here is using the words “WAY stronger”.
One thing missed in this is that some guys can’t take a large enough dose to get “WAY stronger” because they end up with side effects so great that “upping the dose” isn’t possible for them.
Regardless of what guys read on the internet, or what studies read, each individual will respond quite differently to different drugs. I know guys that flat out cannot take tren because of the side effects they get from it. And I know guys that can run a gram a week with virtually no side effects at all. There is no “one size fits all” model here.
I also know guys that can run tren, and get almost superhuman strong on it, and I’ve had other guys tell me they got very little from it. So if you’re using the phrase “way stronger” or “more muscular” then I guess we’ll play semantic games. Some guys get “way stronger” from the same compounds that another guy does not get “way stronger” from. The same rule applies to the “more muscular” quote. That is a pretty ambiguous term, to say the least. I’ve known guys that got “more muscular” from cycles but not to the degree you would expect, given their overall dose.
So this is a fairly broad stroked phrase.
Steroids don?t do the work for you, sure they help you recover faster but you still have to put in the work,? and, ?Natural lifters love to play the steroid card, but 90% of it is hard work, nutrition, and consistency.?
I have to agree with the guys that said this.
Regardless of how much a guys drug cycle is doing for him, if his training and diet are not dialed in, then just like a natural trainer, his results are going to be sub-optimal. Now will those sub-optimal results still be greater than what he would get if he weren’t on cycle? Of course. But training and diet are still going to be the corner stone of efficient and optimal results.
In other words, both the drug user and natural guy can’t take advantage of their “environment”, i.e. a highly advanced anabolic state/natural genetics unless he makes training and diet the most important parts of his program. Otherwise they both end up with the short end of the stick. Again, this doesn’t mean the drug users short end isn’t longer than it would be if he were natural, but the drug user is doing himself a massive disservice if he isn’t programming and eating in the most efficient manner as possible.
In my experience, many steroid-users grossly underestimate the role that steroids play in their strength development. I?d have a lot more respect for the lifter who admitted that without steroids, he?d be pretty ordinary in terms of strength and physique.
That completely depends on when the guy started using anabolics, and what he accomplished naturally. Ronnie Coleman became an IFBB pro completely natural, I do believe. Now he didn’t start winning Mr. O titles until he found the “holy grail” however there are LOTS of guys out there that have built impressive strength and physiques without playing the drug card. I myself managed to work my way up to 250 pounds without being a total fat ass before I ever took a single thing, and was accused on being “on” quite often.
I could name off about two dozen guys that are incredibly impressive as natural strength athletes. So I feel that your broad stroke here is again unwarranted. SOME guys might be unimpressive completely natural, but this doesn’t apply to everyone. Genetic ability ranges greatly from world class sprinters and powerlifters to dudes that can’t get off the couch without tripping over their Xbox controller while covered in Cheesy Puffs crumbs.
Many steroid-using powerlifters don?t have a good grip on what transfers best for the natural lifter, and they don?t optimally understand program design for the natural lifter. Why? Because many of them have never controlled variables. Fluctuating drug cycles confound training/nutrition cycles. Because when the going got tough, many of them simply took more steroids. Many figure out quickly that taking another gram of testosterone or adding in trenbolone transferred very well to strength and got them through their training ruts. Because it came too easy for many of them. Most never spent 8 months hammering the bench press, only to gain a meager 10 lbs of strength. Many never took the time to learn the effects of different protocols. When they were stagnating, many simply took more juice.
Eh, this is misinformed at best.
I know of at least one guy that literally got worse, or at least he didn’t get any better, over a 4 year span despite virtually doubling his dose in that time.
It’s not as simple as “taking more drugs” for every guy out there. Yes, that works for some guys, and doesn’t work for others. There will always be a point of diminishing returns when it comes to “doses”.
Not only that, I know lots of guys that use and work their asses off for very little in the way of returns. I know guys that spent a year working the shit out of their bench or squat to add that extra 10-15 pounds on it. There comes a point when even with drugs, you start to reach your genetic ceiling and no amount of drugs can push you past it without an incredible amount of hard work. In that regard, the user is no different than the natural trainer. When both of them get close to the ceiling of what their environment is allowing, then it’s going to take a metric fuckton of hard work to inch upwards even in the smallest of increments.
As a consequence, I?ve found that many training programs written by steroid users are too harsh for natural lifters; some of these programs contain excessive volume which the average natural lifter could not recover from.
I used to believe this too. However what I’ve really figured out is, that it’s not the recovery factor that comes into play. It’s that the drug user tends to see results faster than the natural dude. I’ve never had to adjust for a guy being on or not. Some may find that hard to believe, but it’s true. And I’ve never had a client that didn’t see extraordinary results. In fact, I’ve had some guys that were on drugs, that actually needed MORE recovery time than guys that were natural. It came back to things like age, and injury history as being the reasons why. So once again, there are too many factors here at play than JUST drugs in that regard.
In your last segment you go into the drug cycles as listed by Ryan Kennelly, and basically paint the picture that Ryan’s drug cycle was the primary reason for his enormous strength.
And that’s where a lot of guys using get sort of irritated.
There are LOTS of guys using similar stacks to what Ryan listed, and will never ever be as strong as him, or anywhere close. And that’s where the argument of “steroids don’t do the work” come into play. All the drugs in the world won’t turn anyone into a 700 raw bencher if mom and dad didn’t give them all the things they needed in order to achieve that.
I know you understand this, but the article more or less paints a picture of a guy that simply took more drugs to get where he was, and as I’ve stated before my guess is Ryan would out bench most everyone else by a wide margin if drugs never existed. In other words, even if you took all of the drugs away MOST of the same guys would probably still be at the top. Sure, it would cancel out some guys, but the NFL isn’t filled with awesome athletes because of drugs. It’s filled with awesome athletes because of genetics and personal interest in a sport by the individual.
I don’t think strength sports would be much different. If you removed all the drugs, genetics and personal interest in strength sports would still probably produce the same world record holders that you see now because they were “made” to be world record holders.
Steroids are powerful, and without a doubt will make some better than what they would be if they didn’t take them, however they won’t turn you into a world beater if all of the other variables don’t co-exist along with them.
In closing, I do agree that there’s no reason for a guy that is using to look down on a guy that is natural, and there’s no reason for the natural guy to scream out that the drug user is only where he is because of some injections and orals. Every guy is going to decide what path he takes on his strength journey and be responsible for the choices he makes. As lifters we should simply respect each guys person choice one way or the other, and no look down on someone for using or not using. [/quote]
Ronnie was not a natty as an IFBB pro. Period.
Kenelly wasn’t THAT strong without roids. According to his interview, the best he could do without them was in the 500s.[/quote]
Also, this made me laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh.
A 500 anything bench for a natural guy is ridiculous.
A 500 bench for a guy “on” is still strong as balls.
And I do believe that Ronnie was natural when he turned pro. This was confirmed through Flex Wheeler I believe, in an interview he did when they were on the Grand Prix tour and Flex opened up to him about all the shit he was taking. You can find out later that Flex introduced him to Chad Nichols. Well what do you think Chad Nichols does???
A 500 bench isn’t that strong…I mean come on guys. [/quote]
Flex Wheeler also claimed he beat up a group of nunchuk wielding ninjas that tried to carjack him. His credibility is pretty much nonexistent. Coleman wasn’t natural.
Agreed on the 500lb bench. There are a select few that have the genetics to pull that off, drugs or not.
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
[quote]Waylon wrote:
I think part of the problem here is the word “elite.” In powerlifting a certain total at a certain body weight qualifies one as “elite,” even though they may not be elite by the common definition of the word.
I have long used the idea of 2xBW squat, 1.5xBW bench, and 2.5xBW pull to define the very bottom of what I would call strong in the world of serious lifters, even if this is far from strong in the world of powerlifting. Brets numbers are right around here, as are mine. Bret has more formal education than I and has worked with a decent number of reasonably successful figure athletes. When Bret wrote a book about the research he conducted on glutes, I didn’t bat an eye. When Bret wrote a book with programming aimed at physique improvements for women, I thought it was perfectly acceptable.
When Bret wrote a book on getting strong as fuck on the powerlifts, or articles on this site where he talks about how to get really strong, I balk. Bret, and many others, are writing articles and books about subjects they are not experts on. If Bret wants to explain strength training principles to, and put a general fitness client on 2x4, I have no problem. When someone starts using their internet presence to market things that are out of their realm of expertise, I have a problem.[/quote]
QFT
On another note, props to Paul Carter for defending some comments directed his way. I don’t have a dog in that particular fight but when celebrities join in the discussion, I think it’s better all around. It keeps the ad hominem attacks from forum regulars to a minimum AND it also tells celebrities that their writings and actions should be held accountable.
So when I read some author spew things like “I’m above all that forum trash talk” I can’t help but wonder if he’s just using this as an excuse. I’ve read some good stuff on this site over the years and I’ve read utter garbage that just puts the author’s name out there or keeps it relevant.
If someone writes an article or publishes a book that claims he built a better mousetrap, he’d god damn better be willing and able to defend why.
[/quote]
FTR in no way were my comments made about Carter a personal attack or an attack at all, I dont believe you were stating that, but just to make sure I dont know Carter’s character so I wouldnt attack it.
[/quote]
10-4
And good to know you correctly interpreted what I wrote.
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
[quote]Pantherhare wrote:
to those who said he’s weak either in general or for a powerlifter, his numbers would have ranked him number 6 in the raw 242 class in the USA Powerlifting Federation in 2007. http://www.usapowerlifting.com/newsletter/ranking/2007/men_open_raw.pdf
[/quote]
Part of that would be because not many people were competing raw in 2007. It’s honestly an odd metric to use. Using more current numbers shines more light on things.
[/quote]
I used it because that was the latest year they had in an idiot-proof format. I figured out how to use their database and he would rank at 77 in 2014. That’s out of about 200 lifters (who have all 3 lifts) in his class.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]Paul Carter wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Paul Carter’s response…
Hey Bret, you’re just a little off here…
I happened across this article from booty guy Bret Contreras this morning, and while interesting and informative, is also just a little bit off in some regards…
First off, I want to say I agree with Bret on a few things.
Namely, I don’t think it’s cool for anyone to look down on another lifter who is natural if he is enhanced.
Hell, I will take that one step further. I don’t think we as lifters should be looking down on each other at all, thought it does happen at times, and even I have been guilty of this. But it’s a bad habit and all of us need to do a better job of offering up the minimum amount of respect to each other for simply putting in the work, and being brothers in iron.
With that said, I want to go over some things Bret wrote in this piece…
Anabolic steroids make the average lifter WAY stronger and more muscular. When steroids are added to the mix, it changes the rules.
This is more or less a half truth.
Some guys respond really well to drugs, and some guys get very little. All the studies in the world don’t back up all the years and years of anecdotal evidence behind what I am saying here.
Some guys can take a little, and get a lot out of it. And some guys can take a lot, and get very little.
Taking anabolics will make you stronger and more muscular, but the degree to which it will varies greatly from person to person. So my gripe here is using the words “WAY stronger”.
One thing missed in this is that some guys can’t take a large enough dose to get “WAY stronger” because they end up with side effects so great that “upping the dose” isn’t possible for them.
Regardless of what guys read on the internet, or what studies read, each individual will respond quite differently to different drugs. I know guys that flat out cannot take tren because of the side effects they get from it. And I know guys that can run a gram a week with virtually no side effects at all. There is no “one size fits all” model here.
I also know guys that can run tren, and get almost superhuman strong on it, and I’ve had other guys tell me they got very little from it. So if you’re using the phrase “way stronger” or “more muscular” then I guess we’ll play semantic games. Some guys get “way stronger” from the same compounds that another guy does not get “way stronger” from. The same rule applies to the “more muscular” quote. That is a pretty ambiguous term, to say the least. I’ve known guys that got “more muscular” from cycles but not to the degree you would expect, given their overall dose.
So this is a fairly broad stroked phrase.
Steroids don?t do the work for you, sure they help you recover faster but you still have to put in the work,? and, ?Natural lifters love to play the steroid card, but 90% of it is hard work, nutrition, and consistency.?
I have to agree with the guys that said this.
Regardless of how much a guys drug cycle is doing for him, if his training and diet are not dialed in, then just like a natural trainer, his results are going to be sub-optimal. Now will those sub-optimal results still be greater than what he would get if he weren’t on cycle? Of course. But training and diet are still going to be the corner stone of efficient and optimal results.
In other words, both the drug user and natural guy can’t take advantage of their “environment”, i.e. a highly advanced anabolic state/natural genetics unless he makes training and diet the most important parts of his program. Otherwise they both end up with the short end of the stick. Again, this doesn’t mean the drug users short end isn’t longer than it would be if he were natural, but the drug user is doing himself a massive disservice if he isn’t programming and eating in the most efficient manner as possible.
In my experience, many steroid-users grossly underestimate the role that steroids play in their strength development. I?d have a lot more respect for the lifter who admitted that without steroids, he?d be pretty ordinary in terms of strength and physique.
That completely depends on when the guy started using anabolics, and what he accomplished naturally. Ronnie Coleman became an IFBB pro completely natural, I do believe. Now he didn’t start winning Mr. O titles until he found the “holy grail” however there are LOTS of guys out there that have built impressive strength and physiques without playing the drug card. I myself managed to work my way up to 250 pounds without being a total fat ass before I ever took a single thing, and was accused on being “on” quite often.
I could name off about two dozen guys that are incredibly impressive as natural strength athletes. So I feel that your broad stroke here is again unwarranted. SOME guys might be unimpressive completely natural, but this doesn’t apply to everyone. Genetic ability ranges greatly from world class sprinters and powerlifters to dudes that can’t get off the couch without tripping over their Xbox controller while covered in Cheesy Puffs crumbs.
Many steroid-using powerlifters don?t have a good grip on what transfers best for the natural lifter, and they don?t optimally understand program design for the natural lifter. Why? Because many of them have never controlled variables. Fluctuating drug cycles confound training/nutrition cycles. Because when the going got tough, many of them simply took more steroids. Many figure out quickly that taking another gram of testosterone or adding in trenbolone transferred very well to strength and got them through their training ruts. Because it came too easy for many of them. Most never spent 8 months hammering the bench press, only to gain a meager 10 lbs of strength. Many never took the time to learn the effects of different protocols. When they were stagnating, many simply took more juice.
Eh, this is misinformed at best.
I know of at least one guy that literally got worse, or at least he didn’t get any better, over a 4 year span despite virtually doubling his dose in that time.
It’s not as simple as “taking more drugs” for every guy out there. Yes, that works for some guys, and doesn’t work for others. There will always be a point of diminishing returns when it comes to “doses”.
Not only that, I know lots of guys that use and work their asses off for very little in the way of returns. I know guys that spent a year working the shit out of their bench or squat to add that extra 10-15 pounds on it. There comes a point when even with drugs, you start to reach your genetic ceiling and no amount of drugs can push you past it without an incredible amount of hard work. In that regard, the user is no different than the natural trainer. When both of them get close to the ceiling of what their environment is allowing, then it’s going to take a metric fuckton of hard work to inch upwards even in the smallest of increments.
As a consequence, I?ve found that many training programs written by steroid users are too harsh for natural lifters; some of these programs contain excessive volume which the average natural lifter could not recover from.
I used to believe this too. However what I’ve really figured out is, that it’s not the recovery factor that comes into play. It’s that the drug user tends to see results faster than the natural dude. I’ve never had to adjust for a guy being on or not. Some may find that hard to believe, but it’s true. And I’ve never had a client that didn’t see extraordinary results. In fact, I’ve had some guys that were on drugs, that actually needed MORE recovery time than guys that were natural. It came back to things like age, and injury history as being the reasons why. So once again, there are too many factors here at play than JUST drugs in that regard.
In your last segment you go into the drug cycles as listed by Ryan Kennelly, and basically paint the picture that Ryan’s drug cycle was the primary reason for his enormous strength.
And that’s where a lot of guys using get sort of irritated.
There are LOTS of guys using similar stacks to what Ryan listed, and will never ever be as strong as him, or anywhere close. And that’s where the argument of “steroids don’t do the work” come into play. All the drugs in the world won’t turn anyone into a 700 raw bencher if mom and dad didn’t give them all the things they needed in order to achieve that.
I know you understand this, but the article more or less paints a picture of a guy that simply took more drugs to get where he was, and as I’ve stated before my guess is Ryan would out bench most everyone else by a wide margin if drugs never existed. In other words, even if you took all of the drugs away MOST of the same guys would probably still be at the top. Sure, it would cancel out some guys, but the NFL isn’t filled with awesome athletes because of drugs. It’s filled with awesome athletes because of genetics and personal interest in a sport by the individual.
I don’t think strength sports would be much different. If you removed all the drugs, genetics and personal interest in strength sports would still probably produce the same world record holders that you see now because they were “made” to be world record holders.
Steroids are powerful, and without a doubt will make some better than what they would be if they didn’t take them, however they won’t turn you into a world beater if all of the other variables don’t co-exist along with them.
In closing, I do agree that there’s no reason for a guy that is using to look down on a guy that is natural, and there’s no reason for the natural guy to scream out that the drug user is only where he is because of some injections and orals. Every guy is going to decide what path he takes on his strength journey and be responsible for the choices he makes. As lifters we should simply respect each guys person choice one way or the other, and no look down on someone for using or not using. [/quote]
Ronnie was not a natty as an IFBB pro. Period.
Kenelly wasn’t THAT strong without roids. According to his interview, the best he could do without them was in the 500s.[/quote]
Also, this made me laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh.
A 500 anything bench for a natural guy is ridiculous.
A 500 bench for a guy “on” is still strong as balls.
And I do believe that Ronnie was natural when he turned pro. This was confirmed through Flex Wheeler I believe, in an interview he did when they were on the Grand Prix tour and Flex opened up to him about all the shit he was taking. You can find out later that Flex introduced him to Chad Nichols. Well what do you think Chad Nichols does???
A 500 bench isn’t that strong…I mean come on guys. [/quote]
Flex Wheeler also claimed he beat up a group of nunchuk wielding ninjas that tried to carjack him. His credibility is pretty much nonexistent. Coleman wasn’t natural.
Agreed on the 500lb bench. There are a select few that have the genetics to pull that off, drugs or not.
[/quote]
I just know that Ronnie went from a guy that was like, last place at the Mr. O to winning it many times in a row in a few years. He literally put on something like 50 pounds of lean bodymass in a short period of time.
Can’t say for certain one way or the other. Either way, my point was simply that there are a wide range of genetics in terms of how people respond to drug use. Yes, that’s a very obvious statement but it’s still lost on people sometimes.