LOL @ Gregron, champion of discussing this shit at all time.
People are getting pissed because the guys asking are not really into bodybuilding it seems. They just like discussing steroids. It isn’t like they are asking HOW to use them. No, it does not need to be discussed this much by people who are not that serious. Ryan does not look like a serious bodybuilder…so why is he so concerned with this topic?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
LOL @ Gregron, champion of discussing this shit at all time.
[/quote]
LOL @ that comment coming from you. You’ve engaged in this topic of discussion more than anyone on this site. Talk about the Pot calling the Kettle black.
Your recent obsession with me and my posts is strange. If you don’t want to discuss it then don’t comment. It’s that simple.
I’ve said it before and will say it again: please do not address my points or quote me since you do not have a genuine interest in a real discussion and just like to not pick my quotes. Please just ignore my posts.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
LOL @ Gregron, champion of discussing this shit at all time.
[/quote]
LOL @ that comment coming from you. You’ve engaged in this topic of discussion more than anyone on this site. Talk about the Pot calling the Kettle black.
Your recent obsession with me and my posts is strange. If you don’t want to discuss it then don’t comment. It’s that simple.
I’ve said it before and will say it again: please do not address my points or quote me since you do not have a genuine interest in a real discussion and just like to not pick my quotes. Please just ignore my posts.[/quote]
Obsession? Dude, I laugh when you post. Get over yourself. No one is following you or cares to.
Yes, you see me engaging in shooting down the same 3 guys bringing it up constantly.
It isn’t like anyone else is doing it.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
T Nation/Mods: Can we just have a ‘Natty BB’ and an ‘Open BB’ Forum and just be done with the shenanigans?[/quote]
That wouldn’t change anything. The topic would still come up because weather people want to admit it or not it is a very large factor.
The natty section would talk about naturals and the open section would obviously be for users so it would potentially be brought up even more lol.
…
/rant which is not directed at you specifically Steely. BTW, do you have any recent pics? I remember you lookin like a boss in your last avi IIRC.[/quote]
Oh, I know it wouldn’t change anything. It’s just sad that the topic has to even be interjected as an aspersion to someone’s progress on a BB forum.
re: pic – Thanks for the words. Yeah, that pic was with Joe D’Angelis.
I posted a couple pics in the T-Cell “before/after”. I didn’t put much thought into them-- front shot on back day and back shot on leg day LMAO.
I should do some beginning of the year pics. May will be 5 years of ‘getting bigger’. Did a few ‘recomps/put-the-breaks-on’, but this year I would like to lean out (which I’ve started). It will be slow. I definitely made progress (I was surprised putting the before and the current back pic together).
I made 5 years of progress in my late 30s-now-40s, so you young dudes have zero excuses. I don’t mind holding a little more fat than a lot of people, but I’m OK with the longer approach and the ends justifying the means and I train more mix of ‘powerlifty’ and ‘bodybuildy’ because I do meets, so the bench number is more important than the abs.
Oh, back on topic— eat just a little less, do a bit more…
If you ignored those same same 3 posters they wouldn’t have anyone to keep responding to and it would die out.
For future reference could you please try to avoid accidentally hitting the “QUOTE” button and then accidentally hitting all of the necessary keys that form sentences when you are struck another uncontrollable laughing fit while reading my posts. Thanks.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
T Nation/Mods: Can we just have a ‘Natty BB’ and an ‘Open BB’ Forum and just be done with the shenanigans?[/quote]
That wouldn’t change anything. The topic would still come up because weather people want to admit it or not it is a very large factor.
The natty section would talk about naturals and the open section would obviously be for users so it would potentially be brought up even more lol.
…
/rant which is not directed at you specifically Steely. BTW, do you have any recent pics? I remember you lookin like a boss in your last avi IIRC.[/quote]
Oh, I know it wouldn’t change anything. It’s just sad that the topic has to even be interjected as an aspersion to someone’s progress on a BB forum.
re: pic – Thanks for the words. Yeah, that pic was with Joe D’Angelis.
I posted a couple pics in the T-Cell “before/after”. I didn’t put much thought into them-- front shot on back day and back shot on leg day LMAO.
I should do some beginning of the year pics. May will be 5 years of ‘getting bigger’. Did a few ‘recomps/put-the-breaks-on’, but this year I would like to lean out (which I’ve started). It will be slow. I definitely made progress (I was surprised putting the before and the current back pic together).
I made 5 years of progress in my late 30s-now-40s, so you young dudes have zero excuses. I don’t mind holding a little more fat than a lot of people, but I’m OK with the longer approach and the ends justifying the means.
Oh, back on topic— eat just a little less, do a bit more…
[/quote]
That would be cool. A little photo montage of your journey would be cool and inspiring. You should also revive your old recipes thread. I picked up some good tips from that thing.
What kind of “leaning out” did you have in mind? Get down to/near contest level leanness, down to 10% range or just lean up to be a little less soft with not a specific BF in mind? Are you going to hire someone to help out with the cut?
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
T Nation/Mods: Can we just have a ‘Natty BB’ and an ‘Open BB’ Forum and just be done with the shenanigans?[/quote]
That wouldn’t change anything. The topic would still come up because weather people want to admit it or not it is a very large factor.
The natty section would talk about naturals and the open section would obviously be for users so it would potentially be brought up even more lol.
…
/rant which is not directed at you specifically Steely. BTW, do you have any recent pics? I remember you lookin like a boss in your last avi IIRC.[/quote]
Oh, I know it wouldn’t change anything. It’s just sad that the topic has to even be interjected as an aspersion to someone’s progress on a BB forum.
re: pic – Thanks for the words. Yeah, that pic was with Joe D’Angelis.
I posted a couple pics in the T-Cell “before/after”. I didn’t put much thought into them-- front shot on back day and back shot on leg day LMAO.
I should do some beginning of the year pics. May will be 5 years of ‘getting bigger’. Did a few ‘recomps/put-the-breaks-on’, but this year I would like to lean out (which I’ve started). It will be slow. I definitely made progress (I was surprised putting the before and the current back pic together).
I made 5 years of progress in my late 30s-now-40s, so you young dudes have zero excuses. I don’t mind holding a little more fat than a lot of people, but I’m OK with the longer approach and the ends justifying the means.
Oh, back on topic— eat just a little less, do a bit more…
[/quote]
That would be cool. A little photo montage of your journey would be cool and inspiring. You should also revive your old recipes thread. I picked up some good tips from that thing.
What kind of “leaning out” did you have in mind? Get down to/near contest level leanness, down to 10% range or just lean up to be a little less soft with not a specific BF in mind? Are you going to hire someone to help out with the cut?[/quote]
I have no desire to get to ‘contest shape’ unless I’m actually going to compete in BB, which I don’t see happening anytime soon. I don’t know what I look like at any particular BF%, so that’s kind of meaningless to me. I’ll know when I get there.
I wonder if Lance Armstrong ate a lot
I feel like this is relevant
[quote]IFlashBack wrote:
I have no real advice to give but I thought this video was relevant and cool if you have 30 mins to kill
Cool video. Reminds me of my coaches method in helping me cut over the past year. And he has also made it pretty clear that adding calories in will also be a very slow process. [maybe he just wants to get money out of me for a really long time 
]
But either way I’m getting results and this video makes me feel pretty good about the method I’m using going about getting leaner although it is taking FOREVERRRRRR.
but a positive is that I’m 11 months into cutting and still eating barely just under 13 x my bodyweight in food.
[quote]zraw wrote:
I wonder if Lance Armstrong ate a lot
I feel like this is relevant[/quote]
Doesn’t matter he was doing steroids.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
I have no desire to get to ‘contest shape’ unless I’m actually going to compete in BB, which I don’t see happening anytime soon. I don’t know what I look like at any particular BF%, so that’s kind of meaningless to me. I’ll know when I get there.
[/quote]
More so just going for a certain look and even you get there you’ll know? Cool.
[quote]zraw wrote:
I wonder if Lance Armstrong ate a lot
I feel like this is relevant[/quote]
I would think that he had to have been eating a high caloric diet to keep up with his training demands but, if I am correctly guessing where you are going with this, 100’s of miles a week spent endurance racing doesn’t exactly build a large amount of mass.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]zraw wrote:
I wonder if Lance Armstrong ate a lot
I feel like this is relevant[/quote]
I would think that he had to have been eating a high caloric diet to keep up with his training demands but, if I am correctly guessing where you are going with this, 100’s of miles a week spent endurance racing doesn’t exactly build a large amount of mass.[/quote]
The fact that he didn’t shrivel up implies he knew how to throw down in the kitchen.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]zraw wrote:
I wonder if Lance Armstrong ate a lot
I feel like this is relevant[/quote]
I would think that he had to have been eating a high caloric diet to keep up with his training demands but, if I am correctly guessing where you are going with this, 100’s of miles a week spent endurance racing doesn’t exactly build a large amount of mass.[/quote]
The fact that he didn’t shrivel up implies he knew how to throw down in the kitchen.[/quote]
Oh definitely but I’m sure that he dieting pretty strictly based on his obsessive personality when it comes to training/competing and the fact that he needed to maintain a certain body weight in order to preform optimally and not lose speed.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]zraw wrote:
I wonder if Lance Armstrong ate a lot
I feel like this is relevant[/quote]
I would think that he had to have been eating a high caloric diet to keep up with his training demands but, if I am correctly guessing where you are going with this, 100’s of miles a week spent endurance racing doesn’t exactly build a large amount of mass.[/quote]
The fact that he didn’t shrivel up implies he knew how to throw down in the kitchen.[/quote]
Oh definitely but I’m sure that he dieting pretty strictly based on his obsessive personality when it comes to training/competing and the fact that he needed to maintain a certain body weight in order to preform optimally and not lose speed.[/quote]
Completely off topic but my favorite Sportcenter commercial is still Lance Armstrong powering the ESPN building from his bike in the janitors closet. “Hey lance, need anything? powerbar?” “Nah, I’m good”.
Related (only marginally), I don’t give a flying fuck that he used. Everybody else in the top 12 was using and he still dominated. So essentially he dominated a (re)leveled playing field. It is a shame he is being crucified in public for it, even though I understand it was in fact cheating the rules. I still feel like it was a witch hunt.
ON TOPIC–My preferred method of manipulating bodyfat is generally a manipulation of volume and sprinting within the training program. Obviously it has to end sometime if you’re going on stage and you have to drop calories, but i’ve gotten a lot of mileage out of a small amount of daily sprints and doing a more “volume” based program.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]paulieserafini wrote:
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
[quote]paulieserafini wrote:
Why are drugs even apart of this thread?
Shut your mouths.[/quote]
lol how are drugs not relevant to this thread. for a forum that considers itself hardcore about bodybuilding the hate towards any kind of drug talk is ridiculous.[/quote]
It seems like every thread ends up talking about drugs.
and it’s always the exact same conversation on repeat it’s not like anything even semi new is said about drugs vs natural.
I’m over it, talk about drugs in every single thread if you will.[/quote]
Exactly…and I swear it is always the same 2 or 3 people who bring it up.
My guess is, ryan does not look like he uses at all…and that is a shame.[/quote]
haha… your so up yourself its not even funny.
what the fuck is wrong with discussing steroids on a damn bodybuilding forum, please tell me?
whats even more funny is all this hate of drug talk and discussion coming from X (someone who isnt natural)
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]zraw wrote:
I wonder if Lance Armstrong ate a lot
I feel like this is relevant[/quote]
I would think that he had to have been eating a high caloric diet to keep up with his training demands but, if I am correctly guessing where you are going with this, 100’s of miles a week spent endurance racing doesn’t exactly build a large amount of mass.[/quote]
The fact that he didn’t shrivel up implies he knew how to throw down in the kitchen.[/quote]
Oh definitely but I’m sure that he dieting pretty strictly based on his obsessive personality when it comes to training/competing and the fact that he needed to maintain a certain body weight in order to preform optimally and not lose speed.[/quote]
Related (only marginally), I don’t give a flying fuck that he used. Everybody else in the top 12 was using and he still dominated. So essentially he dominated a (re)leveled playing field. It is a shame he is being crucified in public for it, even though I understand it was in fact cheating the rules. I still feel like it was a witch hunt.
[/quote]
You people got it right. Pro cyclist have to eat a lot (of carbs), especially during tour races. They burn around 5k-7k calories during a hard stage in the grand tours. As a matter of fact, getting enough carbs and fluids in before, DURING, and after the race is an essential skill for a cyclist. They are basically constantly eating and drinking during a race. Sometimes it is difficult to eat enough because people are attacking or they have to concentrate on the riding part (e.g., going downhill at very high speeds). Not eating enough carbs can have disastrous consequences since it happens even nowadays that riders bonk (blood sugar gone).
Regarding their diet in the off season, you people would be surprised how incompetent many approach it. Some of the stories I heard/read how pro riders would try to lose fat were ridiculous.
@Aragorn: Your argument “everyone used and Lance still dominated” is a pretty bad one and shows you don’t know much about the issue.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]zraw wrote:
I wonder if Lance Armstrong ate a lot
I feel like this is relevant[/quote]
I would think that he had to have been eating a high caloric diet to keep up with his training demands but, if I am correctly guessing where you are going with this, 100’s of miles a week spent endurance racing doesn’t exactly build a large amount of mass.[/quote]
The fact that he didn’t shrivel up implies he knew how to throw down in the kitchen.[/quote]
Oh definitely but I’m sure that he dieting pretty strictly based on his obsessive personality when it comes to training/competing and the fact that he needed to maintain a certain body weight in order to preform optimally and not lose speed.[/quote]
Completely off topic but my favorite Sportcenter commercial is still Lance Armstrong powering the ESPN building from his bike in the janitors closet. “Hey lance, need anything? powerbar?” “Nah, I’m good”.
Related (only marginally), I don’t give a flying fuck that he used. Everybody else in the top 12 was using and he still dominated. So essentially he dominated a (re)leveled playing field. It is a shame he is being crucified in public for it, even though I understand it was in fact cheating the rules. I still feel like it was a witch hunt.
ON TOPIC–My preferred method of manipulating bodyfat is generally a manipulation of volume and sprinting within the training program. Obviously it has to end sometime if you’re going on stage and you have to drop calories, but i’ve gotten a lot of mileage out of a small amount of daily sprints and doing a more “volume” based program.
[/quote]
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
[quote]red04 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
frequency and protein synthesis is one of the main differences between training natty and assisted. people on this forum really like to down play the effects of these substances.
[/quote]
The only reaspn we like to downplay the effects of those things is because too many people like making too many excuses and complaining too fucking much about why they can’t succeed/can’t work out harder than they already are/can’t eat enough to gain weight/have already hit their genetic peak at 17,19,22 years old and 180 lbs/can’t make time to go to the gym/how people lean over 200 lbs have to be on steroids etc etc etc. focusing on every damn thing except how it is ACTUALLY possible to succeed.
THATS why. Of course “those substances” are part of the scene for competitive bodybuilding at many levels, but it’s not like you can’t get jscked without them. So much fucking whining, thats why.[/quote]
For all the times I see this type of post, I actually don’t see a whole lot of non-troll(read: purposely saying that dumb shit to get people like you and X all riled up) posts containing really any of the above. I see far more posts like the one just a little above yours, that attempt to downplay the effects of steroids(“Yo bro I’m natty and I totally lift like Phil Heath, same volume and frequency and everything, in fact fuck it I’m on PLAZMA I do fuckin more than him bro”… oh darn, I’ve embellished).
The natural competitors on this board have time and again given their input on the subject and actually tend to side with the ‘defenders’ of assistance, assuring people that the way they have to go about things like contest prep and offseason are fundamentally different with regards to how much weight can be added/lost successfully, with very few exceptions.
I also rarely ever(and never from the ‘usual suspects’ like ryan, as silly as he can be sometimes) see posts that act as if non assisted lifters should just quit because they are doomed to a life of mediocrity and being small.
There have been multiple people on this forum(one who is unquestionably the most successful T-Nationer ever as far as bodybuilding goes, and others who are at the top of that crop) who have gone assisted because they made the realization that the goals they had set for themselves(ideal physiques, many of them non-pro) are just not possible without assistance or DECADES of work, the latter of which is impossible for someone in their 20s who perhaps has some vanity they wish to have that look for(god forbid).[/quote]
please don’t quote things I never said, its not a proper way to get your point across. If you read my posts, you can see that I wasn’t downplaying the fact that peds allow these guys to get far bigger and stronger, rather I was questioning the claims that training radically changes for natural vs assisted bodybuilders. I don’t think it does for bodybuilding; if you disagree, then a discussion with examples would be nice. I don’t see why you felt need to talk negatively about me or Biotest, especially considering the fact that you’re a level four poster.[/quote]
from a scientific standpoint for a natural unless you are very advanced, you should be training a muscle 2-3 times a week for optimal gains. protein synthesis in naturals only lasts 48-72 hours, meaning you only grow for 2-3 days after training a particular muscle. however if you are on as much gear as the pros you are able to elevate protein synthesis for a much longer time. in other words you can have a very high volume workout and dont have to worry about lack of frequency. [/quote]
Actually from a scientific standpoint it’s consumption of essential amino acids (protein) that stimulates protein synthesis, breaking down muscle tissue through resistance training can increase the demand (and to a degree focus where the synthesis occurs), but it’s the food intake that actually stimulates the synthesis; and the process is systemic, not isolated. So, as long as you are training multiple times a week (even if you only hit each muscle group directly once a week) and weren’t only actually training once a week (and eating big only once a week), then your body would still be in a state of increased protein synthesis throughout the entire week.
Not saying that working out a muscle 2-3 times a week is necessarily a bad thing, just to be careful about making such sweeping generalizations. There are plenty of natural bodybuilders who have built impressive physiques by training their muscle groups only once a week. And all the guys wearing white lab costs in the world do not outweigh thousands (if not even potentially hundreds of thousands or even millions) of actual flesh and blood examples. Science is great for telling us why what works works, but it’s usually the people in the trenches who actually figure out what works. And to fail to see them as scientists who have tested out hundreds of different hypothesis on their own bodies and/or their clients (experimentation) and found which of those hypothesis worked and which didn’t (proving or disproving of their initial hypothesis) would be a huge mistake and waste of very valuable knowledge/wisdom IMO.
[/quote]
i edited my original post caue i worded it poorly. That improved systematic protein synthesis is also often accompanied by fast protein degredation. Furthermore the growth numbers assume sufficient protein intake already. Overfeeding protein doesn’t stimulate new muscle growth… training does.
[/quote]
Actually over feeding protein does stimulate new muscle growth. Even in completely untrained individuals a surplus of protein intake will produce an increase in muscle mass; albeit a smaller percentage of weight gained than someone who is performing focused resistance training, but an increase nonetheless.
And I am not arguing that resistance training will not increase lean muscle mass to a greater extent than not resistance training, but this idea that if you don’t train a muscle more than once a week then you’ll be spinning your wheels or that your muscles will start breaking down before you train them again just doesn’t hold up in the real world. It’s a lot less black and white than you are making things out to be.
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
haha… your so up yourself its not even funny.
what the fuck is wrong with discussing steroids on a damn bodybuilding forum, please tell me?
whats even more funny is all this hate of drug talk and discussion coming from X (someone who isnt natural)
[/quote]
I think it is funny that you’re trying to trash talk to someone that’s been giving advice and engaging in discussions on this forum for more than half the amount of time that you’ve been alive on this Earth.