Pictures vs. Reality

Training Beginners
21

[quote]Aceo wrote:
I would like to see an article on human physique where the author investigates how much muscle it is possible to gain with perfect nutrition and how much muscle it is possible to maintain. I think many will be dissapointed if this article is strictly scientific.
[/quote]

Although everyone is different, I believe it is generally accepted that you really can’t expect to gain more than 2-3 pounds of lean muscle a month naturally. I don’t recall seeing an article on here that claimed you would achieve more.

[quote]Aceo wrote:
I also wanted to hear how my fellow beginners regarded the way information is being presented.
[/quote]

I lurked on this site since I was a beginner and only recently began posting. I can’t say I believed that I would look like some of the professionals in the photos within a short period of time (I really don’t intend to). You have to take what you are being told and ask yourself if it applies to your own goals. Advice for bodybuilding might not apply to wanting performance gains etc.

22

[quote]Aceo wrote:
“Go away” is not a fair answer and use the parts you find fits you is also a little questionable since it clashes with me not knowing which parts are based on steroid users experience and which are based on clean experinces.

The person who said he could’t find any juiced individuals in the store section of the site: I think it is wrong to distinguish between that and the articles. This site sells a dream or way of life and should be seen as a whole in my opinion.

And the person who argues that steriods only help to recover. Tomato tomato - please stay on subject :slight_smile:

In my country even pro hormones are regarded as illegal and I must admit I dont know how they are looked upon in the states. Maybe they can make a big difference?

The persons who are suggested by Elusive to be clean bodybuilder. I dont believe them. I would like to see an article on human physique where the author investigates how much muscle it is possible to gain with perfect nutrition and how much muscle it is possible to maintain. I think many will be dissapointed if this article is strictly scientific.

I want to question the integrity of the site and in doing so I also wanted to hear how my fellow beginners regarded the way information is being presented.

I will continue to read here since I find the articles interesting and entertaining. But every now and then it irritates me how much of the presented knowledge is not questioned.[/quote]

You have ignored several posts above which mention the fact that THE RULES DO NOT CHANGE whether you take steroids or not. To build muscle and strength you need to train HARD, eat LOTS, and do this OFTEN. Steroids simply amplify the training effect - but you do not make progress on steroids alone.

What exactly do you mean by this? That is what steroids essentially do. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me you have a warped idea of steroids and see them as some mysterious, devilish concoction that will add muscle and strength overnight and without any work.

How much actual muscle have you built? How many years have you trained and how much food have you shovelled into your mouth? Also, how strong are you? Your comments sound a lot like any small newbies cries when he sees everyone else make better gains than him, and screams “steroids!” to make himself feel better.

Until you have put down years of heavy training and hard eating, you simply have no knowledge of what kind of muscle you can build.

23

I think somebody needs a waaaaambulance.

Since you don’t approve of the way the articles are being presented, and “want to question the integrity of the site”, you could demand a refund… or you could just go away.

Yeah, you should go away.

24

[quote]blazindave wrote:
I understand what you mean and i somewhat agree.
What really bothers me is when they do blatant advertising of their biosurge whatever products.[/quote]

You do realize that Biotest owns and operates this FREE site, yes?

Just checking…

25

aallen85: and Der Candy: Scientifically youre body is only able to gain a certain amount of mass naturally. After training perfectly with perfect nutrition for an amount of time youre will simply not grow anymore since it wont be able to sustain more muscle (we are talking quite a few yers here and genetics play a big role). Only way to get bigger is enhancing its capabilities by taking drugs. This is a scientific fact for which I’m sure severeal people in here will be able to find documentation.

Liftsmart: Magnus Samuelson couldn’t be that big without using drugs. This is a great example of the rather twisted dream this site helps to promote.

doosl: thats no reason why we shouldn’t be critical of the content. Just that we should be even more cautios about the content. Again “go away” is not a legimate argument. Please don’t lower the debate level.

26

I don’t see why this post was made. The average newbie (like yourself) who looks at pictures of relatively muscular men thinks “STEROIDS” at first glance, do you honestly believe other normal people wouldn’t know that the pictures of elite bodybuilders aren’t on juice? The pictures are there to MOTIVATE people. It’s nice to know that somewhere out there there is a man who has 100 lbm more than me, it just makes me want to get bigger that much more.

Asking for articles which claim to know your true genetical potential is like asking for more excuses to limit your progress. There are plenty of “sciency” sites that already have your maximum body size calculated based on your wrist size and what not, you can go read about them and be happy weighing sub-200 lbs and having reached your “genetic potential”.

27

[quote]Aceo wrote:
aallen85: and Der Candy: Scientifically youre body is only able to gain a certain amount of mass naturally. After training perfectly with perfect nutrition for an amount of time youre will simply not grow anymore since it wont be able to sustain more muscle (we are talking quite a few yers here and genetics play a big role). Only way to get bigger is enhancing its capabilities by taking drugs. This is a scientific fact for which I’m sure severeal people in here will be able to find documentation.
[/quote]

So you’re saying if I were to eat 10,000 calories day after day, I wouldn’t be able to pack on more mass unless I were to use steroids? That’s pure bullshit. Go look at pictures of sumo wrestlers and tell me that science could have predicted that they could grow to be over 500 pounds.

28

A small thing that puzzles me. A lot of the response in this thread focuses on my lack of experience and at the same time the authors are being praised for being scientific researchers. Experience vs science is a big topic but please dont use conflicting arguments from both sides when telling me I have no case.

29

uahc: Alright, I change the statement so it only applies to people with a reasonable amout of bodyfat. I dont think sumo wrestlers have been part of those tests I have heard mentioned. So we keep our body fat below 20% and see how much muscle can be maintained.

It wasn’t my intention to make this purely theoretical but to find out what is realitic without steriods.

30

And again. Those Sumowrestlers of today probably use steriods.

31

[quote]Aceo wrote:
A great deal of the authors and almost all the males in the pictures of the articles are obviously on steroids.[/quote]

Which authors are “obviously on steriods”?

Dude, the pics are for MOTIVATION. You’re erroneously concluding that all the articles claim you’ll get as big as the guy in the pic by doing what the author says. You’re wrong.

[quote]Or am I wrong. Does the average beginner (I’m a beginner, but I know the basics of human physique) think it it’s possible and therefore it is good motivation - atleast for a couple of years. Personally it makes me question quite a few of the articles. Are they based on research subjects who are clean or on steroids?

And it’s nagging me that T-Nation is selling this mirage. Makes me think they are more about the money than the knowledge. To me it comes close to a lie when products from this site are sold in connection with articles that has pictures with people on roids.

And please dont start saying I cant tell if they are on drugs and its just because I’m a small nerd with no self esteem.[/quote]

It’s funny that you put that last little bit in there.

Could it be your subconscious mind saying that you don’t know that they’re on 'roids and you’re crying because you’re a small nerd with no self-esteem? You should’ve listened to it before you posted.

32

doosl: your disregard for my comments on debate level is disrespectful and I wont comment any further on your posts unless you stop being personal and solely focus on the topic.

33

[quote]Aceo wrote:
A small thing that puzzles me. A lot of the response in this thread focuses on my lack of experience and at the same time the authors are being praised for being scientific researchers. Experience vs science is a big topic but please dont use conflicting arguments from both sides when telling me I have no case.[/quote]

I don’t see anyone ‘praising the authors for being scientific researchers’. At least I don’t. The reason why people are pointing out your lack of experience is because only through your own personal experience can you determine your genetic potential and how much muscle you can build. That’s why people with a lot of experience don’t ask questions like this. We don’t all have the same genetic potential for muscle growth.

Now how about instead of crying about steroid use and demanding scientific studies that will do no good, you actually hit the gym for a good 10 years and see how far you get. You say that this website attempts to lie about it’s authors being clean, or what? If you think the authors’ articles disturb you then don’t read them. I honestly don’t really understand just what exactly you are complaining about.

This website does not cater or attempt to cater strictly to the chemically enhanced audience. It sells supplements and publishes articles on training and nutrition.

Again, I don’t quite get what you arguing about. The pictures, by the way, are for motivation.

34

Actually, I read your first post again, and you are implying that the authors are all on roids, and everyone in the pictures of the articles are juiced. You are also saying that because of this, the training routines will not work for natural trainees. Don’t take this the wrong way, but you sound very paranoid about steroids being everywhere.

Your logic is just flawed. There are plenty of people on this site who are natural and have applied the information of the articles to great success. Oh wait but of course they are all on steroids because you haven’t made any progress in the gym and you want to make yourself feel better.
Actually, everyone is on steroids, except for you. Time to join the club, bud.

35

I think… they are in show condition if they are on steriods or not… I personally have no plans of getting to 3% bf and being dangerously dehydrated ect…who cares what you look like for 2 days if your not in a show

36

[quote]Aceo wrote:
A small thing that puzzles me. A lot of the response in this thread focuses on my lack of experience and at the same time the authors are being praised for being scientific researchers. Experience vs science is a big topic but please dont use conflicting arguments from both sides when telling me I have no case.[/quote]

The authors write many of the articles based on scientific research. A bunch of the authors are actually scientists themselves so research is kinda their job. I’d like to add that I have basically never seen an author write an article based on “experience” other than TC’s rants.

I purposely used conflicting arguments to show you that science is not the end-all of training. Time and time again science has been proven wrong by the results of bodybuilders. Many of us are picking on your lack of experience because they don’t bother to try and pick out the flaws in your thinking. Why are we so motivated to try and become as big as we can be?

Is it because you are the only person who isn’t naive enough to believe incredible results can be made without steroids? The fact that every poster here has expressed negativity towards you should be a sign that there is something off with the points you are trying to make.

37

[quote]Aceo wrote:
aallen85: and Der Candy: Scientifically youre body is only able to gain a certain amount of mass naturally. After training perfectly with perfect nutrition for an amount of time youre will simply not grow anymore since it wont be able to sustain more muscle (we are talking quite a few yers here and genetics play a big role). Only way to get bigger is enhancing its capabilities by taking drugs. This is a scientific fact for which I’m sure severeal people in here will be able to find documentation.
[/quote]
You talk about a high level of debate, and then you throw out a supposed “fact” without any support, and claim that “several people in here will be able to find documentation.” Post a study or get the fuck out.

Magnus is 6’7" and weighs 343 lbs. Andre the Giant was 7’4" and weighed 500lbs, and I’m pretty sure he wasn’t on steroids. Some people have the genetics to get huge naturally. Some don’t. Anyone without a medical condition can get fairly big, lean out, and look like a smaller version of the motivational images on this site. Sure, most might not get as big, but anyone can get muscular and lean.

For example, I weigh 210 lbs, and I’m currently sitting at about 18% bf, down from around 250lbs last year. I’m 5’9", and I haven’t weighed less then 180 lbs since I was 17, and with the exception of my last year of college, I’ve always been sub 20%bf. Do you really think that after a couple of years of hard work and good diet, I’ll stall out completely instead of getting to around 250-260 at a sub 10% bf? Just because it seems hard to you doesn’t make it impossible, so please stop assuming that every big, strong guy is juicing.

38

[quote]Aceo wrote:
A great deal of the authors and almost all the males in the pictures of the articles are obviously on steroids.

Yet all the articles seems to assume steroids are not necesary to gain that amount of muscle the articles promote.

Or am I wrong. Does the average beginner (I’m a beginner, but I know the basics of human physique) think it it’s possible and therefore it is good motivation - atleast for a couple of years. Personally it makes me question quite a few of the articles. Are they based on research subjects who are clean or on steroids?

And it’s nagging me that T-Nation is selling this mirage. Makes me think they are more about the money than the knowledge. To me it comes close to a lie when products from this site are sold in connection with articles that has pictures with people on roids.

And please dont start saying I cant tell if they are on drugs and its just because I’m a small nerd with no self esteem.[/quote]

What a total fucking douchebag.

39

Aceo,

If you’re not a troll, you’re not really being very smart. If your only complaint about this site is the pics, you’ve a very small complaint indeed. People are suggesting you shut up, eat, and lift because you’ve no idea how much muscle you can pack on before you try. And on steroids or not, the information presented in the articles remains valid.

Also, has this site ever really maintained that they don’t “like” steroids? How can they be disingenuous if they never said that the pics weren’t people who were on steroids?

Show us one place on this site where it says “you can look like this pic without steroids” and you’ll have a point. Before that, I think you just lack reading and analytic abilities.

But you’re probably just trolling, so good luck with that.

40

clearly everyone with a nice physic got there by doing roids.

I prepared this huge rebuttal to your argument, however, its a lot easier to tell you to not read the articles and leave the site then argue with you.