Contreras on Assisted Lifters

Training
161

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

Dunno how many users youve met but Ive met enough to know that the statment using makes gains better if you sit on a couch vs a training natty just plain stupid. Since 90% of the users i meet are DYEL. I would never guess they lift let alone juice. Please take your natty rage else where
[/quote]

How much? What kind? What quality? Fake?

Oh, right, you “know a guy” >> one of the few actual scientific studies done on larger than therapeutic doses of AAS.[/quote]
Are you really saying a guy can start taking AAS, sit on the couch, not workout at all and make better progress than guys who are in the gym training as naturals?[/quote]
Before we all get too carried away I think the issue is that no one ever said a guy on gear who does nothing could get bigger or stronger than a natural guy who trains. No one on either side of the “argument” believes that or ever said so. So I think there is some confusion using that as a counterpoint.

I’m not the best reader, but all I ever saw here was a few people saying that a guy on gear could train less seriously and less intelligently than a natural guy and often make more progress anyway. And I’m fairly certain that happens all the time. Self evident really. Just the way it is.[/quote]

Lets get back to the basic premise that seems to lay with most people that AAS will be the magic bullet that will take them from twig to stud and weak to strong without work. Sorry there is just way way way too many users that look as bad as any natty with 6 months lifting experience. And those users are lifting and not sitting on a couch and they still barely even break into the maybe they touched a weight looking catergory.

Now to stupid training approach guy above that used and his squat went up ect. He maxed out everyday. Sure it maybe stupid but that certainly isnt “easy” trainig like so many try and say users do. I just did a sting of maxing incline bench and squat every single week day plus back off sets plus some delts and lats each day then deadlift max on day 6 with a full pump workout for ever thing. Made great gains loved was awesome. Hard as fuck and felt like a train ran me over but i loved it. And yes trt natural range only for those who care

162

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]1000rippedbuff wrote:
That’s exactly it and I’ve seen this over and over myself over the years. A sure a guy who uses may still need to work hard, but I think he’s got a lot more room for error than someone who is natural. If Lyle’s study is true, then a guy who is on may not need to do anything correctly and look amazing. If he goes and tells a new kid who’s natural how to train he’ll likely get nothing out of it.
[/quote]

“may need to work hard”? “Guy who is on may not need to do anything correctly and look amazing”??

Buddy, you really have no clue.[/quote]

Dear jeezus please go actually look at the study. And not the abstract and not what someone else says is in it. Learn to read for yourself and form your own opinions…hopefully they will be better then juice and sitting on the couch is better than being a natty and training hard.

There are so many things wrong witht that I have no idea where to begin [/quote]

At the same time, you and Greg should actually read what that guy said before said statement (“a guy who uses may still need to work hard, but I think he’s got a lot more room for error than someone who is natural.”) which is right on the money.

Don’t be pedantic.[/quote]

Dunno how many users youve met but Ive met enough to know that the statment using makes gains better if you sit on a couch vs a training natty just plain stupid. Since 90% of the users i meet are DYEL. I would never guess they lift let alone juice. Please take your natty rage else where
[/quote]

Don’t be silly - you missed my point. Seems like a pattern with you. I hope it has to do with you reading and posting on your phone.[/quote]

I love how emotional you are :slight_smile: make sure to check your E levels next time at the doc.

163

I typed out a huge long reply with lots of examples of guys I know but what’s the point? There will be no convincing either side to change their views.

The fact is that both sides aren’t right.

For the most part, steroid users downplay the role drugs play because they want to believe it’s all hard work and dedication with a little boost (which isn’t entirely false)

Non users want to over exaggerate the role that drugs play to justify their lack of progress and say “if I was on drugs I’d: look like that too/made it to the pros/be as strong as so and so.”

It really is somewhere in the middle and depends on the person.

164

[quote]gregron wrote:
I typed out a huge long reply with lots of examples of guys I know but what’s the point? There will be no convincing either side to change their views.

The fact is that both sides aren’t right.

For the most part, steroid users downplay the role drugs play because they want to believe it’s all hard work and dedication with a little boost (which isn’t entirely false)

Non users want to over exaggerate the role that drugs play to justify their lack of progress and say “if I was on drugs I’d: look like that too/made it to the pros/be as strong as so and so.”

It really is somewhere in the middle and depends on the person.[/quote]

Curious if hard work and dedication dont paly a major part whats the difference between saw zraws 3rd cycle where he competed the first time and his results from his first where he got fat and almost gained nothing or statechamp who gained 20+lbs of lean mass vs the normal joe who does cycle and gains 20lb bloat and 2lbs muscle in the end?

Curious

165

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

Dunno how many users youve met but Ive met enough to know that the statment using makes gains better if you sit on a couch vs a training natty just plain stupid. Since 90% of the users i meet are DYEL. I would never guess they lift let alone juice. Please take your natty rage else where
[/quote]

How much? What kind? What quality? Fake?

Oh, right, you “know a guy” >> one of the few actual scientific studies done on larger than therapeutic doses of AAS.[/quote]
Are you really saying a guy can start taking AAS, sit on the couch, not workout at all and make better progress than guys who are in the gym training as naturals?[/quote]

To the extent of the study, for the protocol of the study, the study seems to indicate that, not me. Could the natty guys have trained way harder been more exacting with their diets and beaten the juicing couch potatoes? Maybe. They couch potatoes may even loose everything when they come off. Point is, yes, the couch potatoes on drugs did better in terms of lean body mass. And even more poignantly, more than half the gains of the guys who used were due to drugs when given the same training and everything else.

166

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

Dunno how many users youve met but Ive met enough to know that the statment using makes gains better if you sit on a couch vs a training natty just plain stupid. Since 90% of the users i meet are DYEL. I would never guess they lift let alone juice. Please take your natty rage else where
[/quote]

How much? What kind? What quality? Fake?

Oh, right, you “know a guy” >> one of the few actual scientific studies done on larger than therapeutic doses of AAS.[/quote]
Are you really saying a guy can start taking AAS, sit on the couch, not workout at all and make better progress than guys who are in the gym training as naturals?[/quote]

To the extent of the study, for the protocol of the study, the study seems to indicate that, not me. Could the natty guys have trained way harder been more exacting with their diets and beaten the juicing couch potatoes? Maybe. They couch potatoes may even loose everything when they come off. Point is, yes, the couch potatoes on drugs did better in terms of lean body mass. And even more poignantly, more than half the gains of the guys who used were due to drugs when given the same training and everything else.[/quote]

Lol amazing

167

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

Dunno how many users youve met but Ive met enough to know that the statment using makes gains better if you sit on a couch vs a training natty just plain stupid. Since 90% of the users i meet are DYEL. I would never guess they lift let alone juice. Please take your natty rage else where
[/quote]

How much? What kind? What quality? Fake?

Oh, right, you “know a guy” >> one of the few actual scientific studies done on larger than therapeutic doses of AAS.[/quote]
Are you really saying a guy can start taking AAS, sit on the couch, not workout at all and make better progress than guys who are in the gym training as naturals?[/quote]

To the extent of the study, for the protocol of the study, the study seems to indicate that, not me. Could the natty guys have trained way harder been more exacting with their diets and beaten the juicing couch potatoes? Maybe. They couch potatoes may even loose everything when they come off. Point is, yes, the couch potatoes on drugs did better in terms of lean body mass. And even more poignantly, more than half the gains of the guys who used were due to drugs when given the same training and everything else.[/quote]

Lol amazing [/quote]

I kinda thought so too. That is a nice, coherent, reasoned argument. Oh, but I forgot, you know a guy.

168

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
I typed out a huge long reply with lots of examples of guys I know but what’s the point? There will be no convincing either side to change their views.

The fact is that both sides aren’t right.

For the most part, steroid users downplay the role drugs play because they want to believe it’s all hard work and dedication with a little boost (which isn’t entirely false)

Non users want to over exaggerate the role that drugs play to justify their lack of progress and say “if I was on drugs I’d: look like that too/made it to the pros/be as strong as so and so.”

It really is somewhere in the middle and depends on the person.[/quote]

Curious if hard work and dedication dont paly a major part whats the difference between saw zraws 3rd cycle where he competed the first time and his results from his first where he got fat and almost gained nothing or statechamp who gained 20+lbs of lean mass vs the normal joe who does cycle and gains 20lb bloat and 2lbs muscle in the end?

Curious[/quote]

If we avoid this couch vs training bit for now(especially since in that specific area Gregorn agrees with you), I think we can stop this massive massive strawman that the people here arguing that SOME steroid users downplay the effect of the drugs all think that hard work and dedication are unimportant. Nobody has gone anywhere near that extreme.

Go reread the posts(again, disregarding the specific bs about couch vs training) talking about training with/without steroids. Even the one you initially blew up on, the ‘may’ quote was taken so far out of context it destroyed it. “A sure[sic] a guy who uses may still need to work hard…” That’s admitting that steroid users still work hard. The ‘natty ragers’ in this thread are actually tip toeing on fucking glass to appease your insecurity about how hard you work in the gym while on, and you still miss it.

It’s an insult to the guys at the top of the natty sport(well, the actual naturals in the natty sport), that the MAMMOTH gap between them and untested competitors, and the not so mammoth but still present gap between them and users who are just gym rats that love the gains, love the size, love the strength, whatever; is attributed to “hard work and dedication” and “maybe a little bit because I use drugs(but it’s only trt dosages so really those natties just need to step it up).”

What would Zraw have looked like if he lacked dedication and effort while NOT on steroids, if he got fat and bloated on them?

169

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
I typed out a huge long reply with lots of examples of guys I know but what’s the point? There will be no convincing either side to change their views.

The fact is that both sides aren’t right.

For the most part, steroid users downplay the role drugs play because they want to believe it’s all hard work and dedication with a little boost (which isn’t entirely false)

Non users want to over exaggerate the role that drugs play to justify their lack of progress and say “if I was on drugs I’d: look like that too/made it to the pros/be as strong as so and so.”

It really is somewhere in the middle and depends on the person.[/quote]

Curious if hard work and dedication dont paly a major part whats the difference between saw zraws 3rd cycle where he competed the first time and his results from his first where he got fat and almost gained nothing or statechamp who gained 20+lbs of lean mass vs the normal joe who does cycle and gains 20lb bloat and 2lbs muscle in the end?

Curious[/quote]

If we avoid this couch vs training bit for now(especially since in that specific area Gregorn agrees with you), I think we can stop this massive massive strawman that the people here arguing that SOME steroid users downplay the effect of the drugs all think that hard work and dedication are unimportant. Nobody has gone anywhere near that extreme.

Go reread the posts(again, disregarding the specific bs about couch vs training) talking about training with/without steroids. Even the one you initially blew up on, the ‘may’ quote was taken so far out of context it destroyed it. “A sure[sic] a guy who uses may still need to work hard…” That’s admitting that steroid users still work hard. The ‘natty ragers’ in this thread are actually tip toeing on fucking glass to appease your insecurity about how hard you work in the gym while on, and you still miss it.

It’s an insult to the guys at the top of the natty sport(well, the actual naturals in the natty sport), that the MAMMOTH gap between them and untested competitors, and the not so mammoth but still present gap between them and users who are just gym rats that love the gains, love the size, love the strength, whatever; is attributed to “hard work and dedication” and “maybe a little bit because I use drugs(but it’s only trt dosages so really those natties just need to step it up).”

What would Zraw have looked like if he lacked dedication and effort while NOT on steroids, if he got fat and bloated on them?[/quote]

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

170

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

Dunno how many users youve met but Ive met enough to know that the statment using makes gains better if you sit on a couch vs a training natty just plain stupid. Since 90% of the users i meet are DYEL. I would never guess they lift let alone juice. Please take your natty rage else where
[/quote]

How much? What kind? What quality? Fake?

Oh, right, you “know a guy” >> one of the few actual scientific studies done on larger than therapeutic doses of AAS.[/quote]
Are you really saying a guy can start taking AAS, sit on the couch, not workout at all and make better progress than guys who are in the gym training as naturals?[/quote]

To the extent of the study, for the protocol of the study, the study seems to indicate that, not me. Could the natty guys have trained way harder been more exacting with their diets and beaten the juicing couch potatoes? Maybe. They couch potatoes may even loose everything when they come off. Point is, yes, the couch potatoes on drugs did better in terms of lean body mass. And even more poignantly, more than half the gains of the guys who used were due to drugs when given the same training and everything else.[/quote]

Lol amazing [/quote]

I kinda thought so too. That is a nice, coherent, reasoned argument. Oh, but I forgot, you know a guy. [/quote]

But it’s not because you either didn’t read the full study or don’t comprehend it either way it’s not well reasoned and pretty sure in this game knowing the diff between science and reality is a big thing. On paper many things seem amazing. Real world not really. We lack way to much info to make the leap directly from science papers to real world application

171

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

Dunno how many users youve met but Ive met enough to know that the statment using makes gains better if you sit on a couch vs a training natty just plain stupid. Since 90% of the users i meet are DYEL. I would never guess they lift let alone juice. Please take your natty rage else where
[/quote]

How much? What kind? What quality? Fake?

Oh, right, you “know a guy” >> one of the few actual scientific studies done on larger than therapeutic doses of AAS.[/quote]
Are you really saying a guy can start taking AAS, sit on the couch, not workout at all and make better progress than guys who are in the gym training as naturals?[/quote]

To the extent of the study, for the protocol of the study, the study seems to indicate that, not me. Could the natty guys have trained way harder been more exacting with their diets and beaten the juicing couch potatoes? Maybe. They couch potatoes may even loose everything when they come off. Point is, yes, the couch potatoes on drugs did better in terms of lean body mass. And even more poignantly, more than half the gains of the guys who used were due to drugs when given the same training and everything else.[/quote]

Lol amazing [/quote]

I kinda thought so too. That is a nice, coherent, reasoned argument. Oh, but I forgot, you know a guy. [/quote]

But it’s not because you either didn’t read the full study or don’t comprehend it either way it’s not well reasoned and pretty sure in this game knowing the diff between science and reality is a big thing. On paper many things seem amazing. Real world not really. We lack way to much info to make the leap directly from science papers to real world application [/quote]

I agree it isn’t all conclusive. For me, it probably raises more questions than answers. I’m betting the limit is higher for the natty trainer than the couch user, that the gains are far more permanent and less likely to be things like fluid retention. BUT it’s far more powerful and solid than second hand anecdotal “evidence” of guys you know that claim to juice that might be taking real gear, who may or may not be serious about training, or nutrition, or even their drug use, for whom there is no control so they may in fact be far bigger, stronger and leaner than if they weren’t using but they say they use and still look like crap to you.

Can you swallow a pill and turn into Arnold, nope, or at least not yet. The question it seems to answer is, “can you just take shit, and add significant lean body mass without even training?” At least temporarily, the answer appears to be yes, absolutely you can. The drugs appear to do far more than just allow the person to work harder, they actually do a significant portion of the “work” on their own. They do work pretty well on bedridden patients after all.

172

I have never seen a guy taking roids and not doing jack shit actually grow at all. I find that exceptionally hard to believe. I have seen a guy languishing in mediocrity, not change a thing about diet or training, start taking roids and blow up to a very high gym rat level though.

Roids make a big difference. The amount of work you put in while on roids makes a difference in the results you get. All the same factors, diet, intelligence of programming, work ethic, lifestyle, play a role in what you get out of a cycle same as being a natty. The difference is the magnitude of what you get (natty vs assisted).

173

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
I typed out a huge long reply with lots of examples of guys I know but what’s the point? There will be no convincing either side to change their views.

The fact is that both sides aren’t right.

For the most part, steroid users downplay the role drugs play because they want to believe it’s all hard work and dedication with a little boost (which isn’t entirely false)

Non users want to over exaggerate the role that drugs play to justify their lack of progress and say “if I was on drugs I’d: look like that too/made it to the pros/be as strong as so and so.”

It really is somewhere in the middle and depends on the person.[/quote]

Curious if hard work and dedication dont paly a major part whats the difference between saw zraws 3rd cycle where he competed the first time and his results from his first where he got fat and almost gained nothing or statechamp who gained 20+lbs of lean mass vs the normal joe who does cycle and gains 20lb bloat and 2lbs muscle in the end?

Curious[/quote]

If we avoid this couch vs training bit for now(especially since in that specific area Gregorn agrees with you), I think we can stop this massive massive strawman that the people here arguing that SOME steroid users downplay the effect of the drugs all think that hard work and dedication are unimportant. Nobody has gone anywhere near that extreme.

Go reread the posts(again, disregarding the specific bs about couch vs training) talking about training with/without steroids. Even the one you initially blew up on, the ‘may’ quote was taken so far out of context it destroyed it. “A sure[sic] a guy who uses may still need to work hard…” That’s admitting that steroid users still work hard. The ‘natty ragers’ in this thread are actually tip toeing on fucking glass to appease your insecurity about how hard you work in the gym while on, and you still miss it.

It’s an insult to the guys at the top of the natty sport(well, the actual naturals in the natty sport), that the MAMMOTH gap between them and untested competitors, and the not so mammoth but still present gap between them and users who are just gym rats that love the gains, love the size, love the strength, whatever; is attributed to “hard work and dedication” and “maybe a little bit because I use drugs(but it’s only trt dosages so really those natties just need to step it up).”

What would Zraw have looked like if he lacked dedication and effort while NOT on steroids, if he got fat and bloated on them?[/quote]

This is a great post.

174

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.

175

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…

Even with the “hard” sciences, in top universities, legitimate researchers are always “coming to terms” with the data they get and the “results” that they plan to publish. Check this out if you think that having a phd means anything:
http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/09/20/specials/baltimore-scandal.html

Yeah, that guy had a Nobel. Yes, he’s an outlier, but still. You guys know that as long as one persists, one will ultimately always get their phd because at some point the department has to get rid of you right?

Not dissing anyone’s hard work and effort but just want to put some perspective on these gurus in this field who get too much of a free pass in my humble opinion for their degrees. Agendas, and let’s not forget a product to sell, means more imho.

176

Also, anyone who is interested in the topic should be reading the Shadow Pro threads. Fascinating stuff.

(answers your question I think TrevorLPT)

177

[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’s not how it works lol. That’s not how any of it works.

178

[quote]csulli wrote:

[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’s not how it works lol. That’s not how any of it works.[/quote]

I unfriend you.

179

[quote]csulli wrote:

[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’s not how it works lol. That’s not how any of it works.[/quote]

Yeah, thats sort of what my gut (and brain) were telling me. Thanks for confirming.

180

[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]