[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[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]
i think we sort of agree.
i get muscle do not break down only training them once a week, lots of people get great gains training muscles once a week. i was just simply stating what science considers to be optimal.
