there are two types of muscle
-
natural muscle.
-
steroid muscle.
just depends on which ‘look’ you prefer. you cheat if you compete with naturals after using juice.
Do you have a test or objective means of any sort by which you can determine – other than your guesswork as to whether the individual could have achieved the size naturally or could not have – what “type” a muscle is of these two types you claim to exist?
Also, just as a thought experiment, if one assumes skinfold determination of bodyfat to be accurate (I don’t) then in my own case ablout 132 lb LBM was the starting point, upon which I gained about 27 lb LBM naturally – thus giving 159 lb LBM after natural training – and another 32 lb LBM on the juice. So really only about 17% of the LBM is muscle weight gained from steroids.
So is some fraction of each of my muscles detectably of the natural type and another fraction detectably of the steroid type? Is a high percentage still the natural type? Or did it all convert to the steroid type would you say?
This idea seems to have problems.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Do you have a test of any sort by which you can determine – other than your guesswork as to whether the individual could have achieved the size naturally or could not have – what “sort” a muscle is of these two types you claim to exist?[/quote]
i like to ask.
Oops, I added a little more to the post since you replied. (Just so readers will know you did not intentionally skip over anything.)
Well, if you have to ask to determine the muscle type, is it really a different type? I would think if it were really different there would be some objective way to detect it.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Also, just as a thought experiment, if one assumes skinfold determination of bodyfat to be accurate (I don’t) then in my own case ablout 132 lb LBM was the starting point, upon which I gained about 27 lb LBM naturally – thus giving 159 lb LBM after natural training – and another 32 lb LBM on the juice. So really only about 17% of the LBM is muscle weight gained from steroids.
So is some fraction of each of my muscles detectably of the natural type and another fraction detectably of the steroid type? Is 73% still the natural type? Or did it all convert to the steroid type would you say?
This idea seems to have problems.[/quote]
interesting. i was more referring to the appearance of a bodybuilder who lifts and uses AAS vs the appearance of a bodybuilder who gains his muscle without AAS.
you cannot acheive steroid-like musclularity without steroids. it annoys me when natural gym-rats strive to look like someone who is on gear. If you are natural, set jim cordova as your target not jay cutler.
I have only dabbled slightly with anabolics (as my dp will testify) but i still have mates who i train with who say things like “of course your bigger than me, you cheated”.
the point i make is that ‘Natural Big’ is not the same as ‘Steroid Big’ and if we are talking about men who lift recreationaly and/or who compete in untested bodybuilding… steroid use is not cheating. If you’re natural do your self a favour and dont make unhealthy comparisons.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Oops, I added a little more to the post since you replied. (Just so readers will know you did not intentionally skip over anything.)
Well, if you have to ask to determine the muscle type, is it really a different type? I would think if it were really different there would be some objective way to detect it.
[/quote]
its cool.
i know you are a smart guy, obviously im not saying your muscles change to steroid-muscles or something. but i am referring to asthetics only, steroid users are more vascular, often leaner, definitely bigger than naturals.
in summary what im getting at is that, there comes a crossroads for every gym-junkie where he must decide whether he gains naturally or on steroids, each path yields different results. Choose. Neither is cheating.
[quote]The Manthony wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Also, just as a thought experiment, if one assumes skinfold determination of bodyfat to be accurate (I don’t) then in my own case ablout 132 lb LBM was the starting point, upon which I gained about 27 lb LBM naturally – thus giving 159 lb LBM after natural training – and another 32 lb LBM on the juice. So really only about 17% of the LBM is muscle weight gained from steroids.
So is some fraction of each of my muscles detectably of the natural type and another fraction detectably of the steroid type? Is 73% still the natural type? Or did it all convert to the steroid type would you say?
This idea seems to have problems.
interesting. i was more referring to the appearance of a bodybuilder who lifts and uses AAS vs the appearance of a bodybuilder who gains his muscle without AAS.
you cannot acheive steroid-like musclularity without steroids. it annoys me when natural gym-rats strive to look like someone who is on gear. If you are natural, set jim cordova as your target not jay cutler.
I have only dabbled slightly with anabolics (as my dp will testify) but i still have mates who i train with who say things like “of course your bigger than me, you cheated”. the point i make is that ‘Natural Big’ is not the same as ‘Steroid Big’ and if we are talking about men who lift recreationaly and/or who compete in untested bodybuilding… steroid use is not cheating. If you’re natural do your self a favour and dont make unhealthy comparisons.[/quote]
First off you are comparing average guys to guys with world class genetics for bodybuilding when you talk about using cutler and cordova as role models.
What about the guys that use AAS that have no idea what they are doing and look like shit? There are definately natural guys that look better than a lot of people who use AAS. I think using ‘looks’ is too inaccurate to when determining whether or not someone uses.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
First off you are comparing average guys to guys with world class genetics for bodybuilding when you talk about using cutler and cordova as role models.
What about the guys that use AAS that have no idea what they are doing and look like shit? There are definately natural guys that look better than a lot of people who use AAS. I think using ‘looks’ is too inaccurate to when determining whether or not someone uses. [/quote]
would you prefer… layne norton?
good point. like i said, i ask people. i don’t just categorize bb’ers based on appearance. obviously i cant ask pro’s though.
[quote]The Manthony wrote:
BONEZ217 wrote:
First off you are comparing average guys to guys with world class genetics for bodybuilding when you talk about using cutler and cordova as role models.
What about the guys that use AAS that have no idea what they are doing and look like shit? There are definately natural guys that look better than a lot of people who use AAS. I think using ‘looks’ is too inaccurate to when determining whether or not someone uses.
would you prefer… layne norton?
good point. like i said, i ask people. i don’t just categorize bb’ers based on appearance. obviously i cant ask pro’s though.[/quote]
So you don’t believe there is a visible difference between “steroid” muscles and “natural” muscle?
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
So you don’t believe there is a visible difference between “steroid” muscles and “natural” muscle?[/quote]
right so you are just being argumentative for the sake of it?
obviously i think there is a visible difference and i tend to generalize. i shall cover my ass by saying that i cannot be certain and as you said some naturals look better than some steroid users.
back to my original point… GENERALLY, you have the natural look and you have the steroid look.
eg. compare the IFBB Olympia line-up to the WNFB Universe line-up.
boom shakalaka. the end.
[quote]The Manthony wrote:
BONEZ217 wrote:
back to my original point… GENERALLY, you have the natural look and you have the steroid look.
[/quote]
I don’t agree.
[quote]The Manthony wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Also, just as a thought experiment, if one assumes skinfold determination of bodyfat to be accurate (I don’t) then in my own case ablout 132 lb LBM was the starting point, upon which I gained about 27 lb LBM naturally – thus giving 159 lb LBM after natural training – and another 32 lb LBM on the juice. So really only about 17% of the LBM is muscle weight gained from steroids.
So is some fraction of each of my muscles detectably of the natural type and another fraction detectably of the steroid type? Is 73% still the natural type? Or did it all convert to the steroid type would you say?
This idea seems to have problems.
interesting. i was more referring to the appearance of a bodybuilder who lifts and uses AAS vs the appearance of a bodybuilder who gains his muscle without AAS.
you cannot acheive steroid-like musclularity without steroids. it annoys me when natural gym-rats strive to look like someone who is on gear. If you are natural, set jim cordova as your target not jay cutler.
I have only dabbled slightly with anabolics (as my dp will testify) but i still have mates who i train with who say things like “of course your bigger than me, you cheated”.
the point i make is that ‘Natural Big’ is not the same as ‘Steroid Big’ and if we are talking about men who lift recreationaly and/or who compete in untested bodybuilding… steroid use is not cheating. If you’re natural do your self a favour and dont make unhealthy comparisons.[/quote]
interesting that this is the way the public thinks isnt it.
ROID RAGE!! AAARRRRGGGHHHHH
[quote]The Manthony wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Also, just as a thought experiment, if one assumes skinfold determination of bodyfat to be accurate (I don’t) then in my own case ablout 132 lb LBM was the starting point, upon which I gained about 27 lb LBM naturally – thus giving 159 lb LBM after natural training – and another 32 lb LBM on the juice. So really only about 17% of the LBM is muscle weight gained from steroids.
So is some fraction of each of my muscles detectably of the natural type and another fraction detectably of the steroid type? Is 73% still the natural type? Or did it all convert to the steroid type would you say?
This idea seems to have problems.
interesting. i was more referring to the appearance of a bodybuilder who lifts and uses AAS vs the appearance of a bodybuilder who gains his muscle without AAS.
you cannot acheive steroid-like musclularity without steroids. it annoys me when natural gym-rats strive to look like someone who is on gear. If you are natural, set jim cordova as your target not jay cutler.
I have only dabbled slightly with anabolics (as my dp will testify) but i still have mates who i train with who say things like “of course your bigger than me, you cheated”.
the point i make is that ‘Natural Big’ is not the same as ‘Steroid Big’ and if we are talking about men who lift recreationaly and/or who compete in untested bodybuilding… steroid use is not cheating. If you’re natural do your self a favour and dont make unhealthy comparisons.[/quote]
Some physical differences that give a whole round different appearance are larger pores in the skin of AAS users, this is a very common side of AAS use and is common in the skin of long term high dose bodybuilders. Their skin is much more “grainy” than a natural of the same maturity in and out of the gym.
Also the size - however, this is only after a certain point… for example ALL top level pro’s in the US are larger than any natural on the planet… however not all AAS using amateurs are larger than all naturals on the planet.
You could mention a oil on the skin but this is often never seen in photos or the like so is not an issue whatsoever.
Thats about it AFAIK… the ACTUAL muscle, the fibres and tissue itself is identical. Maybe more water retained if is using certain compounds but the tissue itself is not changed. As far as i know at least.
Brook
Even though i wouldn’t take them, i don’t think their cheating. To each their own.
There is a lot of hypocrisy, look at Arnie-he took Steroids and now he he’s publicly stated he’s against them(all be it in a shady way).
The world isn’t perfect either as i’m sure you know.
I remember reading a Mens Health article a couple years back and there was this 50 yr old power lifter who is quite accomplished in a few international competitions and he commented on how he thinks eating lots of protein is cheating!
This chap actually ate only a bowl of cornflakes before attempting a lift in a competition.
Cornflakes are actually really good before a meet - as long as you skip the dairy and use cheque drops instead.
Followed by a methyltest and halo smoothie.
[quote] Brook wrote:
Cornflakes are actually really good before a meet - as long as you skip the dairy and use cheque drops instead.
Followed by a methyltest and halo smoothie.[/quote]
What are cheque drops, methyltest and halo smoothie?
Pardon my ignorance 
I believe you’re coming to a wrong conclusion based on inadequate and tilted data.
If the only information available is pictures or experience with competitive bodybuilders, here’s the problem: These (if they are in fact competitive) are individuals with quite unusual gifts for the acquisition of muscle. If they were not, they wouldn’t be competitive, so this is simply one of those things that is the way that it is.
When you take an individual capable of quite surprising and impressive muscle mass without steroids, as these bodybuilders are, and now add in steroids, you do get something pretty amazing and obviously unnatural. Simply because the amount of muscle mass for the height is beyond what the eye accepts as being probable naturally.
It is not that it is a different “type” of muscle.
Now if the only examples someone can work from from steroid use are these, then this sort of conclusion you are making may appear to make sense.
If however one has worked with a lot of athletes (as well as really non-athletes, just guys who like to lift and improve their physiques and have no unusual gifts) then one will see that it’s extremely common for steroid use to result simply in what appears a mesomorphic individual with better but still entirely plausible natural gifts. There is no “steroid” appearance whatsoever.
You are confusing, IMO, the un-natural appearance caused by simply an un-natural amount of muscle with thinking that the means of attaining it, rather than the simple fact of the amount, causes the appearance.
For the same amount of muscle for height, I guarantee you that you cannot tell from looking or any other test whether the muscle is the product of natural training or training with steroids. There are not two types of muscle depending on whether anabolic steroids were used or not.
I do not condone or promote the use of steriods. They are bad and cheaters never win.
[quote]xXDevilDogXx wrote:
I do not condone or promote the use of steriods. They are bad and cheaters never win.
[/quote]
Wait, so nobody ever wins a professional bodybuilding contest??? I wonder where all the prize money is actually going?
Your statement is FAR too black and white for the shades of gray world that the rest of us live in. Good try though!