Less of a Physique?

Mr_Walkway · December 10, 2012, 4:41am

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]fr0gger666 wrote:
of course the natural is more impressive

if you use steroids you should have significantly more muscle than is possible to build naturally, for it to be as impressive

and i disagree with the people who act like the steroid users would have been able to build muscle without taking the steroids. obviously it is harder to build muscle w/o steroids, a lot of them would’ve quit when they didn’t get their instant gratification
[/quote]

lol just no. your talking shit about something you clearly dont know much about. you dont know peoples reasons for using. did you know that after your first 2-3 years of proper training natty your gains slow down dramatically. if someone chooses to use does that mean there impatient or lazy… no it doesnt, for most it means achieving what can not be done natty.[/quote]

hey brobro if you need help designing your cycle send me a pm

ryan_b_96 · December 10, 2012, 4:55am

[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]fr0gger666 wrote:
of course the natural is more impressive

if you use steroids you should have significantly more muscle than is possible to build naturally, for it to be as impressive

and i disagree with the people who act like the steroid users would have been able to build muscle without taking the steroids. obviously it is harder to build muscle w/o steroids, a lot of them would’ve quit when they didn’t get their instant gratification
[/quote]

lol just no. your talking shit about something you clearly dont know much about. you dont know peoples reasons for using. did you know that after your first 2-3 years of proper training natty your gains slow down dramatically. if someone chooses to use does that mean there impatient or lazy… no it doesnt, for most it means achieving what can not be done natty.[/quote]

hey brobro if you need help designing your cycle send me a pm[/quote]

yer i might do that sometime.

fr0gger666 · December 10, 2012, 6:19am

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]fr0gger666 wrote:
of course the natural is more impressive

if you use steroids you should have significantly more muscle than is possible to build naturally, for it to be as impressive

and i disagree with the people who act like the steroid users would have been able to build muscle without taking the steroids. obviously it is harder to build muscle w/o steroids, a lot of them would’ve quit when they didn’t get their instant gratification
[/quote]

lol just no. your talking shit about something you clearly dont know much about. you dont know peoples reasons for using. did you know that after your first 2-3 years of proper training natty your gains slow down dramatically. if someone chooses to use does that mean there impatient or lazy… no it doesnt, for most it means achieving what can not be done natty.[/quote]

i seriously doubt most steroid users have “peaked” as naturals, or that they have 2-3 years of training experience

IFlashBack · December 10, 2012, 7:01am

[quote]giograves wrote:
Would Barry Bonds 71 be MORE impressive if he wasn’t Balco’s premiere customer?

Point is unless everyone’s doing it, its not a level playing field. As level as it can be by chance genetics that is.

Natural bodies are more impressive anyway.

[/quote]

I can’t speak to the steroid part, as I have next to no clue how they work.

However, how is making everyone doing it making a level playing field? What about the kid in Florida who can play baseball year round in nice weather, vs. the kid who only gets a few months in Northern Canada? What about the guy with access to the elite coaches vs. the guy who uses an egg carton as his glove? The “level playing field” argument is not valid.

Apoklyps · December 10, 2012, 7:07am

[quote]ronald1919 wrote:

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:

[quote]ronald1919 wrote:
people talk about genetics too much on here
yes it determines factors like bone structure muscle shape…ect
but all of these things pale when you have someone walking around with 10x your test level
there is no way genetics trump drugs I dont care if u were made from the semen of arnold and coleman combined

what about guys who just respond amazingly well to drugs ? no side effects + amazing gains. They can start out with the shittiest genetics possible but they blow up faster than anyone else on drugs
[/quote]

Seriously??? Let’s look at some genetic extremes here and see if you can still make that statement. Have you ever seen that little boy in Germany with a genetic myostatin deficiency? Or Belgian Blue cattle? Let’s compare that to someone with a genetic muscle wasting disorder like Duchenne muscular dystrophy (who are often prescribed AAS as treatment to delay the inevitable).

While these extreme examples may not be of much relevance to us ordinary folk, the potential impact that genetics can have is undeniable. I don’t like the vibe I get from your post. It seems to say, “drugs can make up for bad genetics”. We must all strive to look at our genetic potential in an unbiased (that’s the hard part) way, in order to accurately gauge our strengths and weaknesses and adjust training accordingly. And NOT MAKING EXCUSES.

Also, differences in drug response is determined to a large extent by variations in individual biochemistry, which is largely (though not exclusively) determined by genetic factors. Factors such as receptor affinity, rate of drug metabolism, endogenous hormone balance, efficiency of nutrient absorption from food, and many more can all have a large effect on drug response and all have a significant genetic component. If you use, drug response throws additional genetic factors into the mix as a requirement for success at a high level.

Genetics are what differentiates you from a fruit fly. I’d say that’s a hell of a lot more powerful than any needle.[/quote]

nice, resorting to extreme examples to make your argument
comparing humans to flys also is very relevant
as far as I know elite bber arent suffering from myostatin deficiency
at best their genetics are slight outliners to your average guy
it is still a factor but when you throw in test, gh, insulin ect your ability to add muscle increases drastically (assuming proper nutrition, training obv) . Genetics will determine how your muscle shape thats it[/quote]

Am I just resorting to extreme examples? How prevalent do you think genetic diseases (or diseases with a genetic component) that will have an impact on training are? When you consider nutrient absorption problems, mental illness, cancer, hormone problems, and MUCH MUCH more, all of a sudden the outliers outweigh the normal. Significant outliers are also quite prevalent in the highest echelons of athletic competition, as well. If you disagree, please explain how Michael Phelps can eat 12,000 calories of crap daily and Lance Armstrong’s monster heart. I have no doubt that this applies to the top tiers of bodybuilding too. Elite bodybuilders should have favourable genetics in terms of insertions, muscle bellies, bone structure, drug response, muscle-fiber type, metabolism, general aesthetic, etc. That’s a lot of outliers.

Also, bodybuilding also isn’t just about size, it’s about aesthetics and illusion, of which genetics play an even bigger role. All the test and tren in the world won’t give you Flex Wheeler’s lines.

In fact, I would dare to posit that genetics is what bodybuilding is all about. Variance in individual genetic makeup leads to variance in individual biochemistry. Though we can (mostly) agree on some fundamentals, as our biochemistry is more similar than different, even the most learned individuals will agree to disagree on much of exercise science. Why do you think there is no canon most effective training method/drug/diet/supplement regime for everyone? This is what makes bodybuilding what it is: a journey of self-discovery where you find what works for you (and especially what doesn’t) over time. It’d be pretty boring if we had such similar genetics that there was one best routine for everybody and we all got the same results from it. Wouldn’t be much of a competition.

anthropocentric · December 10, 2012, 7:12am

I think it comes down to a matter of respect.

If people train hard and make progress, most of us can respect that. At that point it doesn’t really matter if he’s using or not.

The main problem with AAS is that many people ruin their proportions and end up looking silly/huge.

Thats how you can tell a guy who knows what he’s doing. Their knowledge of proportions and training will play a huge role in how their body shape develops.

Big guy who obviously roids and has an awesome physique… congrats to him. Naturally he’d look good too.

All the other guys who use AAS and have major asymmetrical flaws… everyone is quietly pointing and laughing at you.

ryan_b_96 · December 10, 2012, 7:43am

[quote]fr0gger666 wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]fr0gger666 wrote:
of course the natural is more impressive

if you use steroids you should have significantly more muscle than is possible to build naturally, for it to be as impressive

and i disagree with the people who act like the steroid users would have been able to build muscle without taking the steroids. obviously it is harder to build muscle w/o steroids, a lot of them would’ve quit when they didn’t get their instant gratification
[/quote]

lol just no. your talking shit about something you clearly dont know much about. you dont know peoples reasons for using. did you know that after your first 2-3 years of proper training natty your gains slow down dramatically. if someone chooses to use does that mean there impatient or lazy… no it doesnt, for most it means achieving what can not be done natty.[/quote]

i seriously doubt most steroid users have “peaked” as naturals, or that they have 2-3 years of training experience
[/quote]

like i said why would i bother “peaking” as a natty. which take over a decade when i could get the same results in less than half that time.

Iron_Made · December 10, 2012, 9:17am

[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]fr0gger666 wrote:
of course the natural is more impressive

if you use steroids you should have significantly more muscle than is possible to build naturally, for it to be as impressive

and i disagree with the people who act like the steroid users would have been able to build muscle without taking the steroids. obviously it is harder to build muscle w/o steroids, a lot of them would’ve quit when they didn’t get their instant gratification
[/quote]

lol just no. your talking shit about something you clearly dont know much about. you dont know peoples reasons for using. did you know that after your first 2-3 years of proper training natty your gains slow down dramatically. if someone chooses to use does that mean there impatient or lazy… no it doesnt, for most it means achieving what can not be done natty.[/quote]

hey brobro if you need help designing your cycle send me a pm[/quote]

His hub says he is 18. I don’t know much about AAS but isn’t it generally recommended to not take a cycle at 18?

infinite_shore · December 10, 2012, 10:10am

[quote]Gmoore17 wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
I find it funny that there seem to be 2 types of people with equally short-sighted viewpoints on this issue:

1.) Those people who seem to believe that AAS/PEDs will be like magic no matter what you do (diet, training, consistency etc.).

2.) Those people who never really acknowledge that AAS/PEDs can be like magic IF some BASIC conditions are met (diet, training, consistency etc.).

It seems there are a lot of people of the second type on here. The evidence that there are a lot of fuckwits using AAS and never get anywhere (see the AAS subforum), is NOT worth a whole lot.

OP: Surely AAS/PED use should be factored in when giving somebody honest props for their achievements. The natty guy should get more props than the assisted guy for the same achievements, ceteris paribus.[/quote]

Have to say I pretty much agree with this.

However, the one thing that really throws the wrench into the equation, is genetics. Take two people who have similarly impressive levels of musculature and leanness, one of them who has taken steroids and one who is completely natural. You would want to give way more “props” to the natural guy, because you would assume he has worked much much harder to achieve that (although they have both obviously worked hard). However, if the natural guy was genetically elite and the assisted guy had shit genetics, that could be just as much of an advantage. Maybe the genetically gifted guy has actually worked harder than the natural guy, even with taking steroids, to achieve the same level.

The point is, there are so many variables that it’s hard to judge. However, of course drugs are a huge advantage, and I do think it’s silly to discount that (and disrespectful to natties like Stu who’ve built amazing physiques without such an advantage).
[/quote]

But IMO the whole genetics thing is thrown around too quickly and easily. I bet that in almost all cases the lack of development/progress with or without AAS use can be explained by other, simpler factors such as suboptimal training, diet, consistency, etc.

infinite_shore · December 10, 2012, 10:29am

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
I find it funny that there seem to be 2 types of people with equally short-sighted viewpoints on this issue:

1.) Those people who seem to believe that AAS/PEDs will be like magic no matter what you do (diet, training, consistency etc.).

2.) Those people who never really acknowledge that AAS/PEDs can be like magic IF some BASIC conditions are met (diet, training, consistency etc.).
[/quote]

I don’t think anyone is disputing point number 2. I mean obviously you’ll get badass results adding gear to good diet, training and consistency. Where has anyone said different?[/quote]

Are you sure? Whenever someone posts progress pictures and it is obvious that the person used AAS, there are always those that go out of their way to say that he “obviously” put so much HARD work into it, as if the effects of the “hard work” would trump the effects of the AAS use.

Just look at this one guy who posted on here some time ago, who went from skinny kid to BB pro (monster status) in a matter of a FEW years. His transformation was indeed amazing but I don’t believe it was mainly the product of his “hard work” (or genetics) but due to his well thought-out chemical assistance program.

My point basically is that some people on here way overstate the “hard work” part and understate the “chemical” part.

Btw, a good example for this is IMO the Zraw thread.

niksamaras · December 10, 2012, 11:07am

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
I find it funny that there seem to be 2 types of people with equally short-sighted viewpoints on this issue:

1.) Those people who seem to believe that AAS/PEDs will be like magic no matter what you do (diet, training, consistency etc.).

2.) Those people who never really acknowledge that AAS/PEDs can be like magic IF some BASIC conditions are met (diet, training, consistency etc.).
[/quote]

I don’t think anyone is disputing point number 2. I mean obviously you’ll get badass results adding gear to good diet, training and consistency. Where has anyone said different?[/quote]

Are you sure? Whenever someone posts progress pictures and it is obvious that the person used AAS, there are always those that go out of their way to say that he “obviously” put so much HARD work into it, as if the effects of the “hard work” would trump the effects of the AAS use.

Just look at this one guy who posted on here some time ago, who went from skinny kid to BB pro (monster status) in a matter of a FEW years. His transformation was indeed amazing but I don’t believe it was mainly the product of his “hard work” (or genetics) but due to his well thought-out chemical assistance program.

My point basically is that some people on here way overstate the “hard work” part and understate the “chemical” part.

Btw, a good example for this is IMO the Zraw thread.[/quote]

So, you are telling me, that zraw transformated so well because of the drugs? Are you serious? He took drugs before too, the difference was his thought out training plan and most important, his nutrition. Do you make a dozen tupperwares in the morning, before you go to work, so you ahve all your meals ready? I didn’t think so, neither do I. That is the difference. Yes, drugs help, but if your nutrition is crap, you are going to look like crap. The perfect example for what I am saying is the dozens and dozens of guys on this site who use AAS. How many of them turned pro? Only one. For fuck’s sake, he must have done something better, A LOT better actually, than the rest of us.

yolo84 · December 10, 2012, 11:41am

[quote]niksamaras wrote:
The perfect example for what I am saying is the dozens and dozens of guys on this site who use AAS. How many of them turned pro? Only one.
[/quote]

VERY few people who take drugs want to turn pro and out of those who do a VERY small percentage manage it as it is extremely fucking difficult for many reasons.

drugs matter to an absolutely HUGE degree in BB at all levels of the sport.

people who downplay this while taking them are a joke imo.

as long as you are not a moron and know how to eat and train for your goals they will make a monumental difference.

simply compare top natty and assisted comps

genetics check training check consistency check you name it they are all very very similar

add in drugs oh shit now compare their pics lol one guy string bean 5’8 175 other guy tank 5’8 225 (or fucking 265 at the very top level)

people need to get real

infinite_shore · December 10, 2012, 12:46pm

[quote]niksamaras wrote: