Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Hulk-smash! on May 26, 2015, 09:44:17 PM
-
Basically the acute exercise induced increases in plasma anabolic hormones do not appear to play a primary role in enhancing anabolic signalling, protein synthesis and hypertrophy at least in the short term - i.e. increases in muscle hypertrophy appear near independant and despite these plasma increases or lack thereof. Animal models where they've ripped the testicles and pituitary glands out have still exhibited comparable hypertrophy despite the lack of circulating hormones when subjected to muscle overload. Human studies have also shown that hypertrophy occurs even without the acute increases of plasma anabolic hormones.
Local mechanisms - like intra-muscular signalling and growth factors - in response to resistance training are the dominant factors.
Insofar as I can determine, there is no known drug that will improve the performance, or increase the muscular mass, of a healthy individual. Furthermore, I would like to go record at this point by stating…”I do not believe that such drug will ever be discovered. I think that such a result from any chemical is impossible.”
I am fully aware that some drugs can improve the condition of a weakened individual, in cases of sickness or accident…but I also believe that a state of normal health is possible only in the presence of a very delicate chemical balance that is regulated automatically by the system. If any chemical is added for the purpose of upsetting this balance, the result can only be counterproductive.
In effect, there is no such thing as a “super chemical balance”…if the chemical balance is normal, you are healthy…if not, you are sick…and it matters not whether the state of imbalance is produced by too much or too little of a practical chemical. This has been proven repeatedly in literally thousands of tests conducted with animal subjects, and no slightest evidence exists in support of an opposite result with either animal of human subjects.
Certain hormones will help add muscular mass to a steer, or a gelding…but they will NOT produce the same result with a bull or a stallion. When an animal has been castrated, removing the testicles produces an abnormal situation where normal growth is impossible, giving such an animal the hormone drugs merely tends to restore a normal situation, a situation that would have existed naturally if the animal had not been castrated.
In such cases you are merely removing something and then trying to replace it in another manner; first creating a subnormal condition and then trying to restore normal health.
Yet the widespread bias in favor of such so called “growth drugs” borders on hysteria. Even suggesting that the use of these drugs is anything less than necessary automatically labels you a fool in some circles. And there is certainly no doubt that a lot of people are being fooled on this subject; but you can NOT fool your endocrine system, and when you add an un-required chemical for the purpose of disturbing a normal balance, you are NOT improving the situation.
Pointing to recent strength records as proof of the value of such drugs actually proves nothing. The fact remains that the single strongest human recorded in history established his records long before the drugs were ever used. Paul Anderson established records prior to 1958 that have never been approached and androgenic-anabolic drugs were apparently first used in athletic circles in 1960.
Bob Peoples established a deadlift record thirty years ago, lifting nearly 800 pounds at a bodyweight of approximately 180; today, a very few individuals have reached or passed that level of performance…but most of them weigh nearly twice as much as he did, and some of them weigh more than twice as much.
Men who establish such records are merely statistical standouts, literally genetic freaks; they are NOT the products of drugs, regardless of their opinions on the subject.
Great strength is a result of two factors…(1) individual potential, which cannot be improved…and (2) hard training, which will increase the strength of almost anybody.
But a third factor exists as a prerequisite…NORMAL HEALTH, without which, reaching the limits of potential strength is simply impossible. So you can improve a sick individual in some cases, but you can NOT turn a normal individual into a superman by chemical means. Such a result is impossible, and ridiculous on the face of it.
-
Just the finishing touch as I always say.
-
The bad part is impressionable kids have been brainwashed into believing steroids can make anyone into Mr Universe which as I posted is impossible. Fuckups like "the situation" are perfect examples.
If you ain't got it nothing is going to give it to you. On the other hand the avg person has the necessary genes to, if they put out the effort, to develop themselves to a point they will be unrecognizable by they're own mother.
All pro bb'ers are are very responsive people w/ one in a few million genes for ridiculous muscular size.
All bodybuilding supplements are a waste of $$. You don't need protein, creatine, arginine, glutamine, ALL wastes of $$...thats all they are. Just an adequate supply of decent calories which you can get anywhere. Eating for optimum health is an entirely other issue. What you eat in that regard matters very much.
-
I wish they'd make the damn things illegal, like M-80's.
-
I disagree. The then DEA cheif argued against making steroids illegal & I agree. A controlled substance - yes. Much like marijuana should be legalized & alcohol prohibited as its caused exponentially more problems/tragedies than weed ever has or will.
-
Yes. Yes they do.
-
I disagree. The then DEA cheif argued against making steroids illegal & I agree. A controlled substance - yes. Much like marijuana should be legalized & alcohol prohibited as its caused exponentially more problems/tragedies than weed ever has or will.
X2
Steroids = mental placebo
Weed = mellow people
Alcohol = lost cause
-
I disagree. The then DEA cheif argued against making steroids illegal & I agree. A controlled substance - yes. Much like marijuana should be legalized & alcohol prohibited as its caused exponentially more problems/tragedies than weed ever has or will.
I disagree with you where you say alcohol has caused more problems and tragedies then weed. People cause the problems when they abuse whatever substance they use to get a buzz on. In my neck of the woods, cops can just as easily arrest you for a DUII caused by weed as they can one caused by alcohol.
-
True but the human body doesn't become chemically addicted THC like it does alcohol.
-
...
Insofar as I can determine, there is no known drug that will improve the performance, or increase the muscular mass, of a healthy individual. ...
you cant be serious?..who wrote this rubbish?, and why did you copy and paste it?
-
True but the human body doesn't become chemically addicted THC like it does alcohol.
seriously where do you get your information from?
every post you have made in this thread is beyond stupid.
-
The bad part is impressionable kids have been brainwashed into believing steroids can make anyone into Mr Universe which as I posted is impossible. Fuckups like "the situation" are perfect examples.
If you ain't got it nothing is going to give it to you. On the other hand the avg person has the necessary genes to, if they put out the effort, to develop themselves to a point they will be unrecognizable by they're own mother.
All pro bb'ers are are very responsive people w/ one in a few million genes for ridiculous muscular size.
All bodybuilding supplements are a waste of $$. You don't need protein, creatine, arginine, glutamine NOTHING!!! Just an adequate supply of decent calories which you can get anywhere. Eating for optimum health is an entirely other issue. What you eat in that regard matters very much.
Not sure about this. Response, yes but gotta remember these guys are short; majority under 5'11 so naturally they are all very small individuals. It's their response and tolerance, that's it. They abuse the shit outta of drugs which is a given for their size walking around at 250+ at 5'7/5'8 single digit bf levels
Big is relative but imo a person 5'10 and below in majority bbing contests is a small person
-
Haha! It's genes hard work and gackic!
-
yup ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
Proof that Chad Mower could've been as big as Larry Scott and banged all the fitness bitches but unfortunately opted for the health look.
-
yup ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=573005.0;attach=617627)
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1056588!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/image.jpg)
-
True but the human body doesn't become chemically addicted THC like it does alcohol.
It's easily psychologically addictive. I used to smoke a half Q a day and have since quit altogether and my stress levels are a lot higher
-
Wasnt it up until the last 10-20 yrs that steroids could not be provin scientifically to increase muscle mass or increase performance?
Obviously real world results told a different story
Before uncle bill feels like im on deca phillips sold out, i thought i had read in mm2000 that there was scientific support now
I dont remember if it was written by dan duchaine, bill ect
Id like to hear patrick arnolds opinion
-
Yes. Yes they do.
;D
-
It's easily psychologically addictive.
Agreed.
-
Basically the acute exercise induced increases in plasma anabolic hormones do not appear to play a primary role in enhancing anabolic signalling, protein synthesis and hypertrophy at least in the short term - i.e. increases in muscle hypertrophy appear near independant and despite these plasma increases or lack thereof. Animal models where they've ripped the testicles and pituitary glands out have still exhibited comparable hypertrophy despite the lack of circulating hormones when subjected to muscle overload. Human studies have also shown that hypertrophy occurs even without the acute increases of plasma anabolic hormones.
Local mechanisms - like intra-muscular signalling and growth factors - in response to resistance training are the dominant factors.
Insofar as I can determine, there is no known drug that will improve the performance, or increase the muscular mass, of a healthy individual. Furthermore, I would like to go record at this point by stating…”I do not believe that such drug will ever be discovered. I think that such a result from any chemical is impossible.”
I am fully aware that some drugs can improve the condition of a weakened individual, in cases of sickness or accident…but I also believe that a state of normal health is possible only in the presence of a very delicate chemical balance that is regulated automatically by the system. If any chemical is added for the purpose of upsetting this balance, the result can only be counterproductive.
In effect, there is no such thing as a “super chemical balance”…if the chemical balance is normal, you are healthy…if not, you are sick…and it matters not whether the state of imbalance is produced by too much or too little of a practical chemical. This has been proven repeatedly in literally thousands of tests conducted with animal subjects, and no slightest evidence exists in support of an opposite result with either animal of human subjects.
Certain hormones will help add muscular mass to a steer, or a gelding…but they will NOT produce the same result with a bull or a stallion. When an animal has been castrated, removing the testicles produces an abnormal situation where normal growth is impossible, giving such an animal the hormone drugs merely tends to restore a normal situation, a situation that would have existed naturally if the animal had not been castrated.
In such cases you are merely removing something and then trying to replace it in another manner; first creating a subnormal condition and then trying to restore normal health.
Yet the widespread bias in favor of such so called “growth drugs” borders on hysteria. Even suggesting that the use of these drugs is anything less than necessary automatically labels you a fool in some circles. And there is certainly no doubt that a lot of people are being fooled on this subject; but you can NOT fool your endocrine system, and when you add an un-required chemical for the purpose of disturbing a normal balance, you are NOT improving the situation.
Pointing to recent strength records as proof of the value of such drugs actually proves nothing. The fact remains that the single strongest human recorded in history established his records long before the drugs were ever used. Paul Anderson established records prior to 1958 that have never been approached and androgenic-anabolic drugs were apparently first used in athletic circles in 1960.
Bob Peoples established a deadlift record thirty years ago, lifting nearly 800 pounds at a bodyweight of approximately 180; today, a very few individuals have reached or passed that level of performance…but most of them weigh nearly twice as much as he did, and some of them weigh more than twice as much.
Men who establish such records are merely statistical standouts, literally genetic freaks; they are NOT the products of drugs, regardless of their opinions on the subject.
Great strength is a result of two factors…(1) individual potential, which cannot be improved…and (2) hard training, which will increase the strength of almost anybody.
But a third factor exists as a prerequisite…NORMAL HEALTH, without which, reaching the limits of potential strength is simply impossible. So you can improve a sick individual in some cases, but you can NOT turn a normal individual into a superman by chemical means. Such a result is impossible, and ridiculous on the face of it.
TL;DR;FY;KHTKY;TIA.
-
Wasnt it up until the last 10-20 yrs that steroids could not be provin scientifically to increase muscle mass or increase performance?
Obviously real world results told a different story
Before uncle bill feels like im on deca phillips sold out, i thought i had read in mm2000 that there was scientific support now
I dont remember if it was written by dan duchaine, bill ect
Id like to hear patrick arnolds opinion
In the very short term yes steroids give a slight advantage. In the long term the body is very smart & simply lowers its own endogenous production to maintain it's perception of a healthy androgen level. Progressively escalating dosages are the only way to stay ahead of homeostasis and in the end the user is in far worse shape than he started in, regardless of what kind of PCT he does using HCG. I love when I hear some idiot kiddy who doesn't know shit from shit saying some BS about "steroids will take you past your genetic limit". Thats about like saying you can change your hair or eye color w/ drugs.
-
And where is the 1990's steroid guru Dan Duchaine? He's freakin' dead from steroid induced kidney failure. Much like alotta the pros he influenced, like Mike Matarazzo for one.
-
X2
Steroids = mental placebo
Weed = mellow people
Alcohol = lost cause
^ This guy gets it.