What's 'Natural', What's 'Assisted'?

[quote]niksamaras wrote:
I don’t believe in natural/unnatural. I believe in good genes, so you have insane amounts of anabolic hormones in your body and bad genes, in which case you have to inject them into your body. For me, everybody should be juicing, this is how to even out the field. If everybody is juicing, everybody has the same amount of hormones in their body, so everybody is equal.[/quote]

Fair enough. Like I said I think that the only really strong arguments are at the extremes, it’s too easy to argue against the middle ground.

Congratulations on your thousandth post.

[quote]SSC wrote:
Okay, so all this being said, but what about…

Peptides?

Clen / DNP?

T3?

Going by the show-testing standards, most of these would be considered ‘assisted,’ but to what degree are they really?[/quote]

Posts like this are what i wanted to see and i started this thread

[quote]niksamaras wrote:
I don’t believe in natural/unnatural. I believe in good genes, so you have insane amounts of anabolic hormones in your body and bad genes, in which case you have to inject them into your body. For me, everybody should be juicing, this is how to even out the field. If everybody is juicing, everybody has the same amount of hormones in their body, so everybody is equal.[/quote]

I too use a similar excuse as to why i take penis enlargement pills.

[quote]SSC wrote:
Okay, so all this being said, but what about…

Peptides?

Clen / DNP?

T3?

Going by the show-testing standards, most of these would be considered ‘assisted,’ but to what degree are they really?[/quote]

they are all unnatural who care what a show or the law says

DNP is not natural for fucks sake come on it’s hardly green tea

[quote]Kooopa wrote:

nobody should give a shit about HGH because i don’t see any advantage in it for lifting weights/building your physique[/quote]

Wow.

Can you expand your thoughts on this, please?

[quote]imhungry wrote:

[quote]Kooopa wrote:

nobody should give a shit about HGH because i don’t see any advantage in it for lifting weights/building your physique[/quote]

Wow.

Can you expand your thoughts on this, please?[/quote]

Wait…we really want that?

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]imhungry wrote:

[quote]Kooopa wrote:

nobody should give a shit about HGH because i don’t see any advantage in it for lifting weights/building your physique[/quote]

Wow.

Can you expand your thoughts on this, please?[/quote]

Wait…we really want that?[/quote]

Well, I did.

I needed a laugh after catching up on the racist Panda thread.

[quote]imhungry wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]imhungry wrote:

[quote]Kooopa wrote:

nobody should give a shit about HGH because i don’t see any advantage in it for lifting weights/building your physique[/quote]

Wow.

Can you expand your thoughts on this, please?[/quote]

Wait…we really want that?[/quote]

Well, I did.

I needed a laugh after catching up on the racist Panda thread.[/quote]

Bro I got a level 90 Monk Panda. Come at me.

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]lemony2j wrote:
I think the line is drawn when a particular substance gives a DISTINCT advantage over another.[/quote]

OK, but suppose I just invented a supplement. Call it anoDash.

Taking anoDash has been clinically shown in my “lab rats” to shave .15 seconds off your 100m dash. It works 60% of the time, every time. Now, this might not mean too much at the regional HS level, but it would totally change the dynamic of an Olympic race.

Is it natural for HS athletes to take anoDash but unnatural for Olympians to do it?[/quote]

If it contains bits of real panther, and panther based supplements aren’t banned by the governing body concerned, then go for it

I think I’ll just drop this here. I abide by these guidelines and only these guidelines.

[quote]IFlashBack wrote:
I think I’ll just drop this here. I abide by these guidelines and only these guidelines.

LOL

Best part was that with “rape starting with steriods”

What substances have been chosen to be banned by athletic federations is a clear distinction, but natural/unnatural is not. I think most people look this dichotomy only in terms of black and white, but I see mostly grey. Assuming equal genetic/environmental potential, would someone who has used one PH cycle for recovery purposes be more like someone who has never used, or someone who has done 30 cycles of everything under the sun?

are all unnatural, but I would consider the person to be relatively natural, as drugs gave him/her the potential to achieve something that more closely resembles what can be achieved at the natural extreme than the unnatural extreme.

Medication isn’t so black and white, either. We all love the low test example, but what about amphetamines for treatment of ADHD? Amphetamines may mask inattention and concentration difficulties, but they also promote alertness and wakefulness (in addition to strong appetite suppression), which could definitely be considered performance-enhancing. People with ADHD are not deficient in dopamine nor do they suffer issues with alertness, so it’s not like the drug is replacing a naturally deficient neurotransmitter. It still acts like a stimulant, and a hell of a powerful one at that.

Further complicating things, substances like testosterone, ephedrine, and hGH are found in nature. It seems that the word “natural” has lost its original meaning.

Personally, I class all substances as supplements or drugs. Caffeine is a drug, ephedrine is a drug. You use drugs, then you are unnatural. We are all unnatural. However, we choose to be unnatural to different degrees. In this world, few things exist as absolutes and most exist on a gradient.

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
What substances have been chosen to be banned by athletic federations is a clear distinction, but natural/unnatural is not. I think most people look this dichotomy only in terms of black and white, but I see mostly grey. Assuming equal genetic/environmental potential, would someone who has used one PH cycle for recovery purposes be more like someone who has never used, or someone who has done 30 cycles of everything under the sun? We are all unnatural, but I would consider the person to be relatively natural, as drugs gave him/her the potential to achieve something that more closely resembles what can be achieved at the natural extreme than the unnatural extreme.

Medication isn’t so black and white, either. We all love the low test example, but what about amphetamines for treatment of ADHD? Amphetamines may mask inattention and concentration difficulties, but they also promote alertness and wakefulness (in addition to strong appetite suppression), which could definitely be considered performance-enhancing. People with ADHD are not deficient in dopamine nor do they suffer issues with alertness, so it’s not like the drug is replacing a naturally deficient neurotransmitter. It still acts like a stimulant, and a hell of a powerful one at that.

Further complicating things, substances like testosterone, ephedrine, and hGH are found in nature. It seems that the word “natural” has lost its original meaning.

Personally, I class all substances as supplements or drugs. Caffeine is a drug, ephedrine is a drug. You use drugs, then you are unnatural. We are all unnatural. However, we choose to be unnatural to different degrees. In this world, few things exist as absolutes and most exist on a gradient.[/quote]

You bring up a good point with ADHD medication. In fact, recently, Browner and Sherman in the Seahawks secondary tested positive for adderall. In this case, it was for performance enhancement to be able to focus while tired, giving them an edge over receivers. I do not think their punishment was very bad at all. If they used some kind of steroid, it would have been a different story, even if it sounds unjust.

Is this ethical? Who knows/who cares?

Is it better for your body than using a small amount of PH? Probably not. But since it is FDA regulated and approved, adderall is not as harshly looked upon as PH regardless of how bad it is for your body.

[quote]perseng wrote:
a lifter becomes unnatural as soon as they have reached a greater level of muscular development than you

[/quote]

Pretty much lol. At least that’s been my observation around these parts, and my gym.

Why is this even a thread? Too much shit is going to be thrown.

EDIT: I take that back…for the time being. 3 whole pages without shit being thrown. I am impressed.

[quote]imhungry wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]imhungry wrote:

[quote]Kooopa wrote:

nobody should give a shit about HGH because i don’t see any advantage in it for lifting weights/building your physique[/quote]

Wow.

Can you expand your thoughts on this, please?[/quote]

Wait…we really want that?[/quote]

Well, I did.

I needed a laugh after catching up on the racist Panda thread.[/quote]

What? Racist panda? How is that possible when pandas are half black and half white?

That’s going to be my next read.

[quote]perseng wrote:
a lifter becomes unnatural as soon as they have reached a greater level of muscular development than you

[/quote]

Brilliant.

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]imhungry wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]imhungry wrote:

[quote]Kooopa wrote:

nobody should give a shit about HGH because i don’t see any advantage in it for lifting weights/building your physique[/quote]

Wow.

Can you expand your thoughts on this, please?[/quote]

Wait…we really want that?[/quote]

Well, I did.

I needed a laugh after catching up on the racist Panda thread.[/quote]

What? Racist panda? How is that possible when pandas are half black and half white?

That’s going to be my next read.[/quote]

You forgot that they are asian too.

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:
You bring up a good point with ADHD medication. In fact, recently, Browner and Sherman in the Seahawks secondary tested positive for adderall. In this case, it was for performance enhancement to be able to focus while tired, giving them an edge over receivers. I do not think their punishment was very bad at all. If they used some kind of steroid, it would have been a different story, even if it sounds unjust.

Is this ethical? Who knows/who cares?

Is it better for your body than using a small amount of PH? Probably not. But since it is FDA regulated and approved, adderall is not as harshly looked upon as PH regardless of how bad it is for your body. [/quote]

My understanding is that the league does not disclose the specific drug that caused the player to fail the drug test. In this case, I believe the Adderall claim came from the player’s people, and it’s taken with a grain of salt. A more likely scenario, according to the article’s I’ve read, is the player’s were partying and got busted for blow, but claimed it was for Adderall because it’s perceived as being a less bad drug.

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
The distinction is meaningless unless you’re participating in a competition that expressly prohibits certain kinds of supplementation. Then, according to that federation you’re not “natural”.[/quote]

That is 1 way to see it that i totally agree with.

In my honest opinion natural is a thing of the past.
If we go back to way past olympics, the competitors were not professionals/amateurs.
Today all it is, is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Being active, fitness, training was wayyyy back about health.

For health oriented people doing new things is not suggested. It takes about 4-5 generations to evaluate if a food is beneficial or detrimental(about 100 years).
For activities, yoga, tai-chi, meditation have milleniums of proven records in all clutrures, on all continents.
Today many countries do not list “improved foods/genetically modified” so we are forced to eat new stuff without knowing the real effects so we are not naturals.

Look at fads, jogging and aerobics were hot, than came “low impact aerobics”
I am not talking about resistance training wich is not new. I am talking about buying things that our grand fathers could not have bought.
I live in Montreal in the middle of the st-lawrence river. It is a knowned fact for 35 years that all the chemicals make it unsafe but people drink it and each of our mayors certifies it is the BEST !

Around the world reproduction challenges for humans are about 5% but here 25%. Nobody within 80 kilometers of our seaway is natural. After tchernobyl no european is natural, etc…

All the best !

[quote]BHappy wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
The distinction is meaningless unless you’re participating in a competition that expressly prohibits certain kinds of supplementation. Then, according to that federation you’re not “natural”.[/quote]

That is 1 way to see it that i totally agree with.

In my honest opinion natural is a thing of the past.
If we go back to way past olympics, the competitors were not professionals/amateurs.
Today all it is, is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Being active, fitness, training was wayyyy back about health.

For health oriented people doing new things is not suggested. It takes about 4-5 generations to evaluate if a food is beneficial or detrimental(about 100 years).
For activities, yoga, tai-chi, meditation have milleniums of proven records in all clutrures, on all continents.
Today many countries do not list “improved foods/genetically modified” so we are forced to eat new stuff without knowing the real effects so we are not naturals.

Look at fads, jogging and aerobics were hot, than came “low impact aerobics”
I am not talking about resistance training wich is not new. I am talking about buying things that our grand fathers could not have bought.
I live in Montreal in the middle of the st-lawrence river. It is a knowned fact for 35 years that all the chemicals make it unsafe but people drink it and each of our mayors certifies it is the BEST !

Around the world reproduction challenges for humans are about 5% but here 25%. Nobody within 80 kilometers of our seaway is natural. After tchernobyl no european is natural, etc…

All the best ![/quote]

WHAT THE FUCK