Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Primary Captain on March 07, 2013, 10:24:33 AM

Title: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: Primary Captain on March 07, 2013, 10:24:33 AM
I remember reading a post where someone recommended the following substitutes:
Vanadyl Sulfate instead of slin
HMB instead of Decca
Creatine instead of HGH
Tribulus instead of test

The poster said with this stack you could acheve maybe 80% of what Dorian did.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: mass243 on March 07, 2013, 10:27:15 AM

HAHA, wouldn't quit my day-job with that "stack"  ;D
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: Chadwick The Beta on March 07, 2013, 10:28:16 AM
I remember reading a post where someone recommended the following substitutes:
Vanadyl Sulfate instead of slin
HMB instead of Decca
Creatine instead of HGH
Tribulus instead of test

The poster said with this stack you could acheve maybe 80% of what Dorian did.

hello "the poster"   ::)
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: Viking11 on March 07, 2013, 10:38:33 AM
By 80% he means yearly income)
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: Henda on March 07, 2013, 10:58:01 AM
Was it bill phillips?
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: anabolichalo on March 07, 2013, 11:09:56 AM
i know you are just joking but...

it baffles me how natural will be convinced that trying "bulking up" and then "cutting down" to reveal their "hard earned muscle" is a good idea

for years people tried to convince me this was the way to do it

i didnt want to get fat so i said fuck it it's better to stay small and lean than small and fat
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: njflex on March 07, 2013, 11:11:41 AM
please die in a fire
HAHAHAAA...
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: SquatsRule on March 07, 2013, 11:47:57 AM
I remember reading a post where someone recommended the following substitutes:
Vanadyl Sulfate instead of slin
HMB instead of Decca
Creatine instead of HGH
Tribulus instead of test

The poster said with this stack you could acheve maybe 80% of what Dorian did.

Who was the tool who said that HMB was like Decca? I can't remember. I haven't seen any successful human trials for Tribulus, only rats. Anyway, the muscletech hardcore stack is exactly 3.27642 times more anabolic.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: whataname on March 07, 2013, 11:48:45 AM
I remember reading a post where someone recommended the following substitutes:
Vanadyl Sulfate instead of slin
HMB instead of Decca
Creatine instead of HGH
Tribulus instead of test

The poster said with this stack you could acheve maybe 80% of what Dorian did.

Olive oil instead of Synthol
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: njflex on March 07, 2013, 11:52:25 AM
Who was the tool who said that HMB was like Decca? I can't remember. I haven't seen any successful human trials for Tribulus, only rats. Anyway, the muscletech hardcore stack is exactly 3.27642 times more anabolic.

BILL PHILLIPS,,HE BOUGHT PATENT,,
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: SquatsRule on March 07, 2013, 12:14:30 PM
BILL PHILLIPS,,HE BOUGHT PATENT,,

Yeah, I remember now. Thanks.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: Schmoff on March 07, 2013, 12:17:31 PM
don't forget sweet potatos

Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: Vince G, CSN MFT on March 07, 2013, 12:34:04 PM
I remember reading a post where someone recommended the following substitutes:
Vanadyl Sulfate instead of slin
HMB instead of Decca
Creatine instead of HGH
Tribulus instead of test

The poster said with this stack you could acheve maybe 80% of what Dorian did.


Poster is a fucking idiot if he thinks those are substitutes for anabolic steroids. 
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: JediTerminator on March 07, 2013, 12:54:40 PM
I tried to convince myself that DAA (D Aspartic Acid) was just as good as synthetic testosterone. The power of denial....
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: Nails on March 07, 2013, 01:12:55 PM
I remember reading a post where someone recommended the following substitutes:
Vanadyl Sulfate instead of slin
HMB instead of Decca
Creatine instead of HGH
Tribulus instead of test

The poster said with this stack you could acheve maybe 80% of what Dorian did.

Insted of pinning on the glutes , inject inside the anus

Turkey Baster instead of Needles
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: BigCyp on March 07, 2013, 02:44:09 PM
please die in a fire

Boom
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: Obvious Gimmick on March 07, 2013, 02:46:05 PM
Looks about right chief
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: claymore on March 07, 2013, 02:46:56 PM
I remember reading a post where someone recommended the following substitutes:
Vanadyl Sulfate instead of slin
HMB instead of Decca
Creatine instead of HGH
Tribulus instead of test

The poster said with this stack you could acheve maybe 80% of what Dorian did.

The poster is a RETARD, hope this helps.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: deadz on March 07, 2013, 02:50:16 PM
another comedian gimmick, great ::)
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: Krankenstein on March 07, 2013, 06:39:53 PM
sent email to Primary_Captain@yahoo.com hoping for better advice
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: cswol on March 07, 2013, 06:43:11 PM
there is no substitute for high grade pharmaceuticals, nothing can replace or give results that anabolics do
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: C-BuZz on March 07, 2013, 07:02:10 PM
the best alternative to steroids is to stay away from the gym and enjoy a different hobby.

a tennis player will have a better physique than 99.99% of naturals who try to gain muscle.or lose fat.

i hope this clears up some confusion

Spoken like a true drug user.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: JediTerminator on March 07, 2013, 07:33:41 PM
there is no substitute for high grade pharmaceuticals, nothing can replace or give results that anabolics do

asking your opinion (and anyone's), is TRT better than a natty?
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: njflex on March 07, 2013, 07:36:16 PM
;D

one thing is, a former user can be quite big when he trains clean later on, much bigger than if he remained natural,i dont know why that is, but it is true.


;D...
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: cswol on March 07, 2013, 07:38:31 PM
no need to waste money on alternatives that are scams, just get you some real shit
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: njflex on March 07, 2013, 07:43:14 PM
natty to trt is more of a difference than going from trt to 1000mg weekly.

even 1 test e ampoula weekly will show every natty how pointless natty training is in comparo.

but diet has to be fine.
another thing about that is, think one has to use high doses when young to benefit from that.couple small cycles wont grant those benfits i think.
true/true both lines....
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: el numero uno on March 07, 2013, 07:44:24 PM

another thing about that is, think one has to use high doses when young to benefit from that.couple small cycles wont grant those benfits i think.

Yeah I was going to ask you if maybe doses came into play, cause I've done small cycles and I don't see that benefit.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: el numero uno on March 07, 2013, 07:53:00 PM
must be something like 500mg-1gram test base weekly for years through with some other drugs added to it.

the only ones who got those benefits are all these "crazy" back then guys(and ofc, they had to diet properly somewhjat and grow, if they didnt grow, no benefot obviously).they go off training for years and still carry loads of mass,just fatter.

and i mean off training and diet, not just off drugs.

and typicaly, before age-lets say 25-is what ive observed.

theres this one guy in my gym, hes clean, guy is clearly bigger than me, and say 10% bodyfat.he used to be 260-270 at 8%.

Great info, I didn't know that.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: anabolichalo on March 08, 2013, 08:00:20 AM
Spoken like a true drug user.
it's true, a natural bodybuilders looks worse than most lean people who play general sports

because natural bodybuilding builds an oddly proportioned body
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: Powerlift66 on March 08, 2013, 10:14:10 AM
(http://www.bafg1.com/image/cache/PAK_RDe_png-500x500.jpg)

 ;)
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: Chadwick The Beta on March 08, 2013, 10:16:08 AM
(http://www.bafg1.com/image/cache/PAK_RDe_png-500x500.jpg)

 ;)

since it's ultra concentrated you can get swole
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: leadhead on March 08, 2013, 10:24:47 AM
Oh yeah great stack ;D

Seriously, I think since I quit steroids (nearly 7 yrs) the only real gains I can naturally keep was the extra 10-15 lbs of muscle from the first test cycle. My shoulders are still capped though unlike alot of nattys
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: JediTerminator on March 08, 2013, 10:27:21 AM
Oh yeah great stack ;D

Seriously, I think since I quit steroids (nearly 7 yrs) the only real gains I can naturally keep was the extra 10-15 lbs of muscle from the first test cycle. My shoulders are still capped though unlike alot of nattys

I heard you can only cap delts from steroids. true? cuz ppl say it's a tell tale sign of ped use
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: anabolichalo on March 08, 2013, 10:36:06 AM
i trained like a maniac for years

it just doesnt work lol

i used to set alarm and have 2 protein shakes during the night ::)
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: jodsy on March 08, 2013, 10:48:23 AM
I remember reading a post where someone recommended the following substitutes:
Vanadyl Sulfate instead of slin
HMB instead of Decca
Creatine instead of HGH
Tribulus instead of test

The poster said with this stack you could acheve maybe 80% of what Dorian did.
secret of the pro's
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: Gargamel on March 08, 2013, 11:12:32 AM
well I built 16 inch arms and 45 inch chest(to a 29 inch waist) at 8-10 %Bf and 5'10 height if that counts for anything.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: anabolichalo on March 08, 2013, 12:02:02 PM
well I built 16 inch arms and 45 inch chest(to a 29 inch waist) at 8-10 %Bf and 5'10 height if that counts for anything.
natural?

genetic of the gods or delusional
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: JediTerminator on March 08, 2013, 12:04:28 PM
what's the average for arms on a 5'10 natty?
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: anabolichalo on March 08, 2013, 12:05:27 PM
what's the average for arms on a 5'10 natty?
i'd say 15.75" max
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: Krankenstein on March 08, 2013, 12:08:21 PM
it's true, a natural bodybuilders looks worse than most lean people who play general sports

because natural bodybuilding builds an oddly proportioned body

Perhaps one of the dumbest things I have ever read on here.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: anabolichalo on March 08, 2013, 12:09:06 PM
Perhaps one of the dumbest things I have ever read on here.
look at that "matt" moderator guy from some big bodybuilding board

typical shit physique caused by natural bb
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: Vikingman on March 08, 2013, 12:33:27 PM
the best alternative to steroids is to stay away from the gym and enjoy a different hobby.

a tennis player will have a better physique than 99.99% of naturals who try to gain muscle.or lose fat.

i hope this clears up some confusion
totally agree.  Boxers and wrestlers etc who train hard have better physiques than natural guys who only do  isolation movements and have no athleticism at all.  Being a natural,for so long I gained better w diff activities that were also useful  now that im on trt with cycles my bodybuilding training is so much better and finally see what I always wanted as far as the look of the muscles and only on moderate doses
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: Gargamel on March 08, 2013, 12:43:28 PM
natural?

genetic of the gods or delusional

yes natural and I have been lifting for 8 years now. I have a feeling my arms will never be bigger than 16 so Iam just maintaining. My routine is basically 3 days a week lifting 1 hour each since 2 years now. Sometimes I feel pretty good about myself and my achievements but with all the natural liars out there it is hard to really grasp it.

Thats what I achieved(keep in mind I have small joints; 6.75 inch wrists and very small 8.25 inch ankles)

5'10
around 8-10%Bf
182 pounds
16 arms
45 chest
29 waist(when cutting)
23.25 quads
15.25 calves

I feel like Iam maxed out. Didnt make any progress since 2 years now. No strength gains, no muscle gains.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: anabolichalo on March 08, 2013, 12:46:44 PM
i think that's creazy good to have 16" lean arms naturlly at that height

i think my max arm was 15.75" lean at like 5'11" or 6' i dont know my height

but it was absolutely infucking possible to make them 16"


my wrists are 7"

wrist size could be proportional, what's your wrist size
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: Gargamel on March 08, 2013, 12:52:01 PM
i think that's creazy good to have 16" lean arms naturlly at that height

i think my max arm was 15.75" lean at like 5'11" or 6' i dont know my height

but it was absolutely infucking possible to make them 16"


my wrists are 7"

wrist size could be proportional, what's your wrist size

my wrists are 6.75 - 7" and height would be more like 5'10 - 5'11. Something in between.

Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: anabolichalo on March 08, 2013, 01:13:28 PM
boxers and wrestlers who look good are on peds


i've seen enough natural hard training boxers and wrestlers to know they arent mean to look good
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: JediTerminator on March 08, 2013, 01:16:06 PM
so is TRT better than being natural? cuz the levels are like 700mg/week or whatever you are on.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: anabolichalo on March 08, 2013, 01:20:40 PM
so is TRT better than being natural? cuz the levels are like 700mg/week or whatever you are on.
supposedly 250mg of test injection per week equals double of your natural test

so...
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: JediTerminator on March 08, 2013, 01:22:15 PM
supposedly 250mg of test injection per week equals double of your natural test

so...

interesting.......

I shall report back with gains
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: MCWAY on March 08, 2013, 01:23:45 PM
i know you are just joking but...

it baffles me how natural will be convinced that trying "bulking up" and then "cutting down" to reveal their "hard earned muscle" is a good idea

for years people tried to convince me this was the way to do it

i didnt want to get fat so i said fuck it it's better to stay small and lean than small and fat

Then, you can stop boo-hooing about not being able to put on any more size.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: anabolichalo on March 08, 2013, 01:29:06 PM
nah, thats maybe for a 20year old with happy genetics.

for average guy age 30, trt is easy 4 times natural :D
yeah i wanted to write double the test of a natural 18 year old nigerian
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: Gargamel on March 08, 2013, 01:34:57 PM
this is exactly whay i meant.

pll might think im jokng when i say natural bodybuilding is pointless, but im not joking.

im also not laughing at them, but theyre naive to believe otherwise.

not saying use gear, if gear is not for you, try other hobby and youll look better from a bbuilding perspective.lol.

very good post, explained exactly what i meant.

It is not pointless to me. I train very efficient. I spent 3 hours a week on natty bodybuilding and it is worth it. My big bonus is that Iam naturally very lean ecto so I look pretty good shirtless and even put some juicers to shame. My 16 inch arms look good in tight fitting sleeves.
I get attention from girls so I can always start a conversation from there.

Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: njflex on March 08, 2013, 01:45:02 PM
It is not pointless to me. I train very efficient. I spent 3 hours a week on natty bodybuilding and it is worth it. My big bonus is that Iam naturally very lean ecto so I look pretty good shirtless and even put some juicers to shame. My 16 inch arms look good in tight fitting sleeves.
I get attention from girls so I can always start a conversation from there.


8)THERE YA GO,,,
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: Vikingman on March 08, 2013, 01:49:16 PM
nah, thats maybe for a 20year old with happy genetics.

for average guy age 30, trt is easy 4 times natural :D
and for a 40'yr old even more :). Btw I went  from trt dr who gave me max 500 every other week to a new dr who likes weight training and said  I can do 400 mg week along with 400 deca. Both from the pharmacy ..
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: anabolichalo on March 08, 2013, 01:51:43 PM
It is not pointless to me. I train very efficient. I spent 3 hours a week on natty bodybuilding and it is worth it. My big bonus is that Iam naturally very lean ecto so I look pretty good shirtless and even put some juicers to shame. My 16 inch arms look good in tight fitting sleeves.
I get attention from girls so I can always start a conversation from there.


16" lean natural arms is not normal
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: Gargamel on March 08, 2013, 02:06:16 PM
16" lean natural arms is not normal

Are you serious? I know naturals are never taken serious on this boarding so in a way I guess Iam not normal  :D
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: 65stew on March 08, 2013, 02:07:14 PM
;D

one thing is, a former user can be quite big when he trains clean later on, much bigger than if he remained natural,i dont know why that is, but it is true.


Ahh, The beauty of muscle memory! It is amazing how you can get back up to a certain level clean, that you could never get to training natural your whole life up to that point.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: anabolichalo on March 08, 2013, 02:22:11 PM
Ahh, The beauty of muscle memory! It is amazing how you can get back up to a certain level clean, that you could never get to training natural your whole life up to that point.
amazing
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: DroppingPlates on March 08, 2013, 02:24:22 PM
don't forget sweet potatos



That must be the natural equivalent to slin  ;D
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: anabolichalo on March 08, 2013, 02:31:31 PM
DP, would you say on average dutch people have larger than average builds?

a lot of them seem like "big farm boy" type builds
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: DroppingPlates on March 08, 2013, 02:45:39 PM
DP, would you say on average dutch people have larger than average builds?

a lot of them seem like "big farm boy" type builds

I think 'yes' in an absolute sense, since the Dutch belong to the tallest people in the world (in general, taller also means wider). Check for example:
Ted van der Parre, world's strongest man in '92 (213 cm)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Ted_van_der_Parre.JPG/220px-Ted_van_der_Parre.JPG)

Olivier Richters (217 cm)
(http://static-webregio.nl/content/images/xl/spierbundelenlangstemanvannederlandinalmerealmere.jpg)

or Alistair Overeem (196 cm)
(http://www.fightblog.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/alistair_overeem_02.jpg)
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: anabolichalo on March 08, 2013, 02:48:43 PM
lol @ cutler next to tallest man in the world

that overeem guy is not dutch genetic tho
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: Rudee on March 08, 2013, 02:50:11 PM
You forgot the Bee Pollen and Squirrel Eggs.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: DroppingPlates on March 08, 2013, 02:56:59 PM
lol @ cutler next to tallest man in the world

that overeem guy is not dutch genetic tho


I was at the same Jay meet, saw that women (wife of the gym owner), but not this giant.
Not sure if Alistair has mixed blood or not, but he prob loves Dutch food ;)
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: MCWAY on March 08, 2013, 03:03:21 PM
Are you serious? I know naturals are never taken serious on this boarding so in a way I guess Iam not normal  :D

It's not so much that you're abnormal. It's more of AnabolicHalo (and folks like him) with the woe-is-me victim mentality, who think they can't tie their shoes without a syringe.

Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: HTexan on March 08, 2013, 05:14:22 PM
just lift for fun.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: Primary Captain on March 11, 2013, 02:09:42 PM
I'm considering dropping the Vanadyl Sulfate and go with a stack of:
HMB
Creatine
Tribulus

Will also incorporate a quality protein powder into this. Also, rotate a different test booster in after,say,8 weeks. D-Aspartic Acid comes to mind.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: DroppingPlates on March 11, 2013, 02:32:12 PM
I'm considering dropping the Vanadyl Sulfate and go with a stack of:
HMB
Creatine
Tribulus

Will also incorporate a quality protein powder into this. Also, rotate a different test booster in after,say,8 weeks. D-Aspartic Acid comes to mind.

3 grams of D-Aspartic might raise your test levels (http://www.ergo-log.com/dasparticacidtestosterone.html), while tribulus won't do shit (http://www.ergo-log.com/tribnoeffect.html).
Just to save some bucks, I would suggest that you check your diet first by reading these suggestions, http://www.peaktestosterone.com/Testosterone_Diet.aspx
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: The Grim Lifter on March 11, 2013, 02:39:43 PM
I think you can build good size naturally if you start in your teens. But after 3 years that's all your getting. Plus you'll never hold as much muscle while dieting.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: MCWAY on March 11, 2013, 03:08:41 PM
I think you can build good size naturally if you start in your teens. But after 3 years that's all your getting. Plus you'll never hold as much muscle while dieting.

I beg to differ. When I finally broke 200 lbs, I'd been training for nearly 7 years.

I've often relayed my story of my college days, specificially spring semester 1996. I officially started serious training in 1989.

That semester, I went from 189 to 210. And, I simply wanted to hit 200. 21 lbs in three months, at least half of it lean mass. My mother and my friends shocked when I came home for the summer.

People are just afraid to eat....and I mean EEEEEAAAAAAAT to gain the mass they need.

And when I say "EAT", I don't mean just chewing and swallowing food. I mean ingesting calories, with both regular food and protein shakes.

I recall an article from Jeff Everson, which I used in my science project in high school about calories and nutrition. "If you're having trouble growing, despite stuffing yourself, then it's time you learned the real secret to gaining weight: Liquid Nutrition."

Your blender should be your good buddy. When I couldn't afford weight gain powder, I made my own shakes out of whole eggs and milk. When the cafeteria's breakfast food started to suck or I didn't have time to eat there, I made those shakes along with my weight gain powder, particularly for breakfast.

Get the size you need FIRST; worry about the cuts later. You don't have to turn yourself into a sumo wreslter. But, being ripped should be low on the totem pole, when size is priority.

Didn't Arnold once say, You can't sculpt a pebble; you sculpt a block of granite"?
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: Primary Captain on March 11, 2013, 04:23:04 PM
I think you can build good size naturally if you start in your teens. But after 3 years that's all your getting. Plus you'll never hold as much muscle while dieting.
I'm 42
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: MCWAY on March 11, 2013, 06:12:56 PM
I'm 42

Don't sweat it. I'll be 40 in two months. You are nowhere NEAR past your potential.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: njflex on March 11, 2013, 07:17:21 PM
Don't sweat it. I'll be 40 in two months. You are nowhere NEAR past your potential.
x2,,,,
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: JediTerminator on March 11, 2013, 07:19:14 PM
I'm 30. I wanna be bigger than your average guy that doesn't lift in his 20's. Prob about 200lbs. Someday I'll get there....

5'10 185lbs
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: Ronnie Rep on March 11, 2013, 07:24:36 PM
I remember reading a post where someone recommended the following substitutes:
Vanadyl Sulfate instead of slin
HMB instead of Decca
Creatine instead of HGH
Tribulus instead of test

The poster said with this stack you could acheve maybe 80% of what Dorian did.
LOL!
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: anabolichalo on March 12, 2013, 08:46:29 AM
I beg to differ. When I finally broke 200 lbs, I'd been training for nearly 7 years.

I've often relayed my story of my college days, specificially spring semester 1996. I officially started serious training in 1989.

That semester, I went from 189 to 210. And, I simply wanted to hit 200. 21 lbs in three months, at least half of it lean mass. My mother and my friends shocked when I came home for the summer.

People are just afraid to eat....and I mean EEEEEAAAAAAAT to gain the mass they need.

And when I say "EAT", I don't mean just chewing and swallowing food. I mean ingesting calories, with both regular food and protein shakes.

I recall an article from Jeff Everson, which I used in my science project in high school about calories and nutrition. "If you're having trouble growing, despite stuffing yourself, then it's time you learned the real secret to gaining weight: Liquid Nutrition."

Your blender should be your good buddy. When I couldn't afford weight gain powder, I made my own shakes out of whole eggs and milk. When the cafeteria's breakfast food started to suck or I didn't have time to eat there, I made those shakes along with my weight gain powder, particularly for breakfast.

Get the size you need FIRST; worry about the cuts later. You don't have to turn yourself into a sumo wreslter. But, being ripped should be low on the totem pole, when size is priority.

Didn't Arnold once say, You can't sculpt a pebble; you sculpt a block of granite"?

i dont like this advice at all, most people will just play water and bodyfat games like that

but if it worked for you thats good
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: MCWAY on March 12, 2013, 09:25:01 AM
i dont like this advice at all, most people will just play water and bodyfat games like that

but if it worked for you thats good

You're not going to gain substantial amounts of mass without a little bodyfat. That's unrealistic.

And, THAT is what gets people so frustrated. They think every pound they gain will be (or should be) lean mass. But, that rarely happens, even with steroid users.

Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: Papper on March 12, 2013, 11:15:43 AM
In the winter when you are covered up you can bulk up as a natural and look better than average and like you really work out in a well cut t-shirt.

In the summer you can slim down and look good without a shirt and in tank tops and tight t-shirts showing much skin... Sure, people may not be scared by your hugeness, but you look cut and better than the average dude.

I've had regular physique related compliments either way, and that's sort of is enough for me.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: SquatsRule on March 12, 2013, 11:32:52 AM
I beg to differ. When I finally broke 200 lbs, I'd been training for nearly 7 years.

I've often relayed my story of my college days, specificially spring semester 1996. I officially started serious training in 1989.

That semester, I went from 189 to 210. And, I simply wanted to hit 200. 21 lbs in three months, at least half of it lean mass. My mother and my friends shocked when I came home for the summer.

People are just afraid to eat....and I mean EEEEEAAAAAAAT to gain the mass they need.

And when I say "EAT", I don't mean just chewing and swallowing food. I mean ingesting calories, with both regular food and protein shakes.

I recall an article from Jeff Everson, which I used in my science project in high school about calories and nutrition. "If you're having trouble growing, despite stuffing yourself, then it's time you learned the real secret to gaining weight: Liquid Nutrition."

Your blender should be your good buddy. When I couldn't afford weight gain powder, I made my own shakes out of whole eggs and milk. When the cafeteria's breakfast food started to suck or I didn't have time to eat there, I made those shakes along with my weight gain powder, particularly for breakfast.

Get the size you need FIRST; worry about the cuts later. You don't have to turn yourself into a sumo wreslter. But, being ripped should be low on the totem pole, when size is priority.

Didn't Arnold once say, You can't sculpt a pebble; you sculpt a block of granite"?


So after seven years training you gained 10 plus pounds of muscle naturally in three months? I highly doubt it.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: MCWAY on March 12, 2013, 12:21:01 PM
So after seven years training you gained 10 plus pounds of muscle naturally in three months? I highly doubt it.

You can doubt it all you want. The fact is that it happened. It's not as if I gained nothing in the years prior to that.

But, like too many of our crying brethren here, I stopped eating the high calories I needed. Part of it was due to this misguided fear of being "fat"; the other part had to do with finances.

I printed my diet here years ago, which looked something like this:

:


#1 - Breakfast

#2 - Mega Mass 2000

#3 - Lunch

#4 - Mega Mass 2000

#5 - Dinner

#6 - Mega Mass 2000 (post-workout)


A serving of Mega Mass 2000 for me was 10 oz. of the weight gain powder in water, which yielded 1100 calories (210 g carbs, 55 g protein, 3 grams fat). During the winter months, when it was too cold to get up early for a sub-standard breakfast at the cafeteria, I consumed what I called "Poor Man's MET-Rx", based on an old-school recipe from the Iron Guru, Vince Gironda. This was a shake, consisting of 6 eggs, 2 cups of milk (I initally started with half-n-half, as Gironda suggested but found tha powdered milk was more economical), and one scoop of milk-and-egg protein powder (the Challenge brand that GNC used to sell at "Buy one, get one 50% off" prices).

I bought a food scale to measure my beef, making sure I got a half-pound of cooked hamburger. Those little scales usually come with a booklet that gives the nutritional breakdown of various foods. I used it initially, when I ate in the cafeteria. But, as school got more intense, I got lazy and decided to eat/drink the same foods every day, knowing what their caloric and protein contents were. Quantity-wise, I peaked at 6500 calories, half of which came from the 3 Mega Mass shakes. As I got busier/lazier, I'd say about two-thirds of my calories I drank from Mega Mass and "Poor Man's MET-Rx". Those 5 drinks gave me 300 to 320 grams of protein, depending on the size of eggs used for the blender brew.





Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: SquatsRule on March 12, 2013, 01:01:37 PM
You can doubt it all you want. The fact is that it happened. It's not as if I gained nothing in the years prior to that.

But, like too many of our crying brethren here, I stopped eating the high calories I needed. Part of it was due to this misguided fear of being "fat"; the other part had to do with finances.

I printed my diet here years ago, which looked something like this:

:


#1 - Breakfast

#2 - Mega Mass 2000

#3 - Lunch

#4 - Mega Mass 2000

#5 - Dinner

#6 - Mega Mass 2000 (post-workout)


A serving of Mega Mass 2000 for me was 10 oz. of the weight gain powder in water, which yielded 1100 calories (210 g carbs, 55 g protein, 3 grams fat). During the winter months, when it was too cold to get up early for a sub-standard breakfast at the cafeteria, I consumed what I called "Poor Man's MET-Rx", based on an old-school recipe from the Iron Guru, Vince Gironda. This was a shake, consisting of 6 eggs, 2 cups of milk (I initally started with half-n-half, as Gironda suggested but found tha powdered milk was more economical), and one scoop of milk-and-egg protein powder (the Challenge brand that GNC used to sell at "Buy one, get one 50% off" prices).

I bought a food scale to measure my beef, making sure I got a half-pound of cooked hamburger. Those little scales usually come with a booklet that gives the nutritional breakdown of various foods. I used it initially, when I ate in the cafeteria. But, as school got more intense, I got lazy and decided to eat/drink the same foods every day, knowing what their caloric and protein contents were. Quantity-wise, I peaked at 6500 calories, half of which came from the 3 Mega Mass shakes. As I got busier/lazier, I'd say about two-thirds of my calories I drank from Mega Mass and "Poor Man's MET-Rx". Those 5 drinks gave me 300 to 320 grams of protein, depending on the size of eggs used for the blender brew.







If this is true then you have some of the best genetics in the world. Do you have photos of this transformation? Did you measure your bodyfat content?
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: MCWAY on March 12, 2013, 01:34:41 PM
If this is true then you have some of the best genetics in the world. Do you have photos of this transformation? Did you measure your bodyfat content?

No photos. This was back in 1996. Plus, I wasn't entering a transformation contest. Why would I need photos?

And no, I didn't measure my bodyfat. I wasn't concerned with it. Besides, when I went home that summer, my friends and family were surprised at my new look. And NOBODY thought I was fat.

If you need mass, YOU MUST EAT, steroids or no steroids, genetics or no genetics...YOU MUST EAT!!!!

As for my genetics, they are what they are. As a ectomorph, I finally realized that the only way I was going to reach my goal was to pack away the groceries. Hence I used the diet I described earlier.

Get the raw size you need; worry about the cuts later. Nobody puts on pure muscle all the time, not even steroid users.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: anabolichalo on March 12, 2013, 01:36:35 PM
naturals however, lose all their muscle they gained when they cut

so why bulk in the first place


Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: MCWAY on March 12, 2013, 01:58:58 PM
naturals however, lose all their muscle they gained when they cut

Says who? The only reason you lose all your muscle, as you put it, is because of crash dieting.

That is, you waited too late to start your diet and took your calories too low too quickly, with not enough protein. That happens to steroid users, as well.

If you're not competing or doing a photo shoot, why are you worried about being cut all the time?





so why bulk in the first place


You need the raw size. It's that whole pebble vs. block-of-granite thing.





Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: anabolichalo on March 12, 2013, 02:00:40 PM
Says who? The only reason you lose all your muscle, as you put it, is because of crash dieting.

That is, you waited too late to start your diet and took your calories too low too quickly, with not enough protein. That happens to steroid users, as well.

If you're not competing or doing a photo shoot, why are you worried about being cut all the time?



You need the raw size. It's that whole pebble vs. block-of-granite thing.






i'm not convinced on this at all

but oh well it all depends on genetics and peds
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: BIG ACH on March 12, 2013, 02:02:11 PM
Don't laugh at me.... Fuck it... You guys will laugh but whatever...


I actually just bought this today.  Has 3 g D-aspartic acid and 2 g L-carnitine, among other things.  I know its muscle tech but I like their new full disclosure policy.  Plus it tastes really fucking good!!!

(http://store.bbcomcdn.com/store/prodimage/prod_prod910036/image_prodprod910036_white450px.jpg)
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: anabolichalo on March 12, 2013, 02:03:02 PM
what the fuck^^^^

Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: MCWAY on March 12, 2013, 02:06:51 PM
Don't laugh at me.... Fuck it... You guys will laugh but whatever...


I actually just bought this today.  Has 3 g D-aspartic acid and 2 g L-carnitine, among other things.  I know its muscle tech but I like their new full disclosure policy.  Plus it tastes really fucking good!!!

(http://store.bbcomcdn.com/store/prodimage/prod_prod910036/image_prodprod910036_white450px.jpg)

I'm not going to laugh. I'll just say you should have waited a few months, until it gets marked down for clearance. I actually tried a sample of Anotest I got from GNC, after another purchase (clearance sale protein, of course  ;D). And you're right; it's yummy!!
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: HappyGorilla on March 12, 2013, 02:43:45 PM
If this is true then you have some of the best genetics in the world. Do you have photos of this transformation? Did you measure your bodyfat content?

He didn't gain 1 lb of muscle. He is a delusional perma bulker. Just like all those other idiots who will argue the 20-30 lbs they gained in 6 months was all muscle, "man". Idiots.

I gained in two years, 200 lbs on my deadlift, from 400 to 600 lbs. Do you know how much weight I gained. 20 lbs, actual muscle? 3 pounds in IDEAL situation over 2 fucking years. Fucking clown.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: SquatsRule on March 12, 2013, 03:24:09 PM
He didn't gain 1 lb of muscle. He is a delusional perma bulker. Just like all those other idiots who will argue the 20-30 lbs they gained in 6 months was all muscle, "man". Idiots.

I gained in two years, 200 lbs on my deadlift, from 400 to 600 lbs. Do you know how much weight I gained. 20 lbs, actual muscle? 3 pounds in IDEAL situation over 2 fucking years. Fucking clown.

Yes I agree. Celltech bulking delusion.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: MCWAY on March 12, 2013, 09:55:50 PM
He didn't gain 1 lb of muscle. He is a delusional perma bulker. Just like all those other idiots who will argue the 20-30 lbs they gained in 6 months was all muscle, "man". Idiots.


I gained in two years, 200 lbs on my deadlift, from 400 to 600 lbs. Do you know how much weight I gained. 20 lbs, actual muscle? 3 pounds in IDEAL situation over 2 fucking years. Fucking clown.

Hey, Einstein! Where did I say that I gained all muscle? Maybe you should actually read before you run your mouth.

Yes I agree. Celltech bulking delusion.

Wrong again! I don't even think Cell-Tech was out back in 1996.

You and the other crybabies can wail about how small you are, how bad your genetics are, and how big you'd be, IF ONLY you had a precious stack to inject in your rumps.

I guess I'll call you guys "perma-leaners": When your abs are all you have and people ask you IF you work out.






Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: MCWAY on March 12, 2013, 10:02:27 PM
mclean, any bodybuilder should have somewhat visible abs year round,if they dont its simply a fatso or powerlifter.



My abs are visible, for the most part. I'm just not ripped, nor did I ever claim to be. I can see four of my six-pack (five, if I flex really hard).

Where I have to be careful, especially as I get older is the love handles.

The flip side of that is I don't have to eat nearly as much food as I did back then, to maintain my size or strength (or to get bigger).

My point is and remains that all these people, bleating about how rough they have it, simply are not eating enough food. If their diets aren't right, they can whine about steroids and genetics all they wish. They will get nowhere.

My gains didn't improve, until I buckled down and really started chowing down. Believe me, downing a dozen eggs a day, a half-pound of beef, some chicken, a quart of milk, 3 Mega Mass shakes (described earlier) and whatever decent food was at the cafeteria, WAS NOT a picnic.

But, it was worth it all. I exceeded my expectations and my friends and family were in near-shock.



Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: SquatsRule on March 13, 2013, 04:08:51 AM
tt
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: BIG ACH on March 13, 2013, 07:04:06 AM

Take it from someone who has bulked up and leaned down MULTIPLE times for competition! (ME)....

Do you gain muscle when you bulk up?  Sure you do... you need to exceed your caloric requirements to do so.

Is all the weight that you gain when you bulk up going to be muscle?  HELL NO!!!


Here is an example:

In Spring 2003 I competed at 172, then bulked up that entire year after and got up to 230

In Spring 2004 I competed at 176.  But I was much leaner, and looked significantly better. 


Was bulking up to 230 beneficial?  Probably not...  thats not to say that bulking up was a bad idea.... maybe would've been better if I had only gotten up to 210 or 215


ITS VERY VERY VERY hard to put on muscle without putting on fat.  I got in a long chat with Layne Norton about this (laugh all you want... the guy has a fucking PhD in this shit) and he was saying, especially for long time experienced bodybuilders, that its very hard to put on lean muscle mass while staying ripped year round.  He himself follows a certain protocol where he gains weight in the off-season (both muscle and fat) and then he will take 50 weeks and diet down VERY slowly to get ready for shows.  And he believes if he was staying in contest shape year round, there is no way he'd be putting on more muscle and making all the gains that he would make if he puts on a little bit of fat.


MCWAY makes some very valid points.  Gaining fat is beneficial to also gaining muscle, as long as you don't crash diet for a show you are bound to maintain a good amount of muscle.  Again, thats not to say that becoming a fat ass (like yours truly ;D ) in the off-season is a good idea... far from it.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: BIG ACH on March 13, 2013, 07:23:13 AM
BIG ACH APPROVED  ;D

(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-l7xZQrB4gIw/UUCLXno7UlI/AAAAAAAACmo/b51j_p5Vwh8/s845/CameraZOOM-20130313101932222.jpg)
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: njflex on March 13, 2013, 07:47:42 AM
BIG ACH APPROVED  ;D

(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-l7xZQrB4gIw/UUCLXno7UlI/AAAAAAAACmo/b51j_p5Vwh8/s845/CameraZOOM-20130313101932222.jpg)
HOW'S THE NEW YEAR DIET GOING.........
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: BIG ACH on March 13, 2013, 07:56:24 AM
HOW'S THE NEW YEAR DIET GOING.........

January was great, February was BAD, March is going well so far!  Its a work in progress :)

I'm being a lot more disciplined with Cardio though so I think that helps!
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: dj181 on March 13, 2013, 07:59:11 AM
I think 'yes' in an absolute sense, since the Dutch belong to the tallest people in the world (in general, taller also means wider). Check for example:
Ted van der Parre, world's strongest man in '92 (213 cm)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Ted_van_der_Parre.JPG/220px-Ted_van_der_Parre.JPG)

Olivier Richters (217 cm)
(http://static-webregio.nl/content/images/xl/spierbundelenlangstemanvannederlandinalmerealmere.jpg)

or Alistair Overeem (196 cm)
(http://www.fightblog.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/alistair_overeem_02.jpg)

van der Parre FTMFW 8)

(http://fast.mediamatic.nl/f/tqgr/image/570/77350-620-397.jpg)

(http://strongestman.billhenderson.org/pics2/ted92-ax.jpg)

(http://www.usrtriton.nl/pics/articlepics/CIMG0081.JPG)
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: MCWAY on March 13, 2013, 08:37:58 AM
tt

Cell-Tech wasn't even on the market, back when I was in college and didn't hit the stores until I GRADUATED.

But, thanks for playing. You and your fellow "perma-leaners" can continue to whine and bleat, while people hold telethons to raise money so you can eat.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: HappyGorilla on March 13, 2013, 08:49:14 AM
Cell-Tech wasn't even on the market, back when I was in college and didn't hit the stores until I GRADUATED.

But, thanks for playing. You and your fellow "perma-leaners" can continue to whine and bleat, while people hold telethons to raise money so you can eat.

You're an idiot who looked like a fat turd and impressed your fuckin family with your clothes on, you can hide the fat bloated mess you are to untrained people or people delusional like yourself.

Big ACH what is your fucking point? You just said you gained like 60 lbs and dieted down after a year for a total of 4 lbs? That's 4 lbs out of 60 lol. This guy claimed 20 lbs of muscle in 6 months. Every highschool kid does this, maybe entering university. Eat big, pull 450-500 lbs, hit a 300 lb bench and think the 50 lbs they gained is all muscle. Then they diet from 220 and lean down to 170 and reality hits. Or they stay like mcway, permanently delusional.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: MCWAY on March 13, 2013, 08:49:43 AM
Take it from someone who has bulked up and leaned down MULTIPLE times for competition! (ME)....

Do you gain muscle when you bulk up?  Sure you do... you need to exceed your caloric requirements to do so.

Is all the weight that you gain when you bulk up going to be muscle?  HELL NO!!!


Here is an example:

In Spring 2003 I competed at 172, then bulked up that entire year after and got up to 230

In Spring 2004 I competed at 176.  But I was much leaner, and looked significantly better. 


Was bulking up to 230 beneficial?  Probably not...  thats not to say that bulking up was a bad idea.... maybe would've been better if I had only gotten up to 210 or 215


ITS VERY VERY VERY hard to put on muscle without putting on fat.  I got in a long chat with Layne Norton about this (laugh all you want... the guy has a fucking PhD in this shit) and he was saying, especially for long time experienced bodybuilders, that its very hard to put on lean muscle mass while staying ripped year round.  He himself follows a certain protocol where he gains weight in the off-season (both muscle and fat) and then he will take 50 weeks and diet down VERY slowly to get ready for shows.  And he believes if he was staying in contest shape year round, there is no way he'd be putting on more muscle and making all the gains that he would make if he puts on a little bit of fat.


MCWAY makes some very valid points.  Gaining fat is beneficial to also gaining muscle, as long as you don't crash diet for a show you are bound to maintain a good amount of muscle.  Again, thats not to say that becoming a fat ass (like yours truly ;D ) in the off-season is a good idea... far from it.

EXACTAMUNDO!!

Even Arnold himself is noted as saying you sculpt a block of granite, not a pebble As much as folk worship the Oak here on Getbig, you'd think they actually take some of his advice to heart.

But, not our sniveling "perma-leaner" brethren. They'll be a a buck sixty, until they day they die. But, at least they'll have abs.

As you said, dieting slowly is the key to minimizing muscle loss.

Look at Ronnie in his prime. When he was competed in the 250-260 range, he was around 300 in the off-season.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: HappyGorilla on March 13, 2013, 08:51:16 AM
EXACTAMUNDO!!

Even Arnold himself is noted as saying you sculpt a block of granite, not a pebble As much as folk worship the Oak here on Getbig, you'd think they actually take some of his advice to heart.

But, not our sniveling "perma-leaner" brethren. They'll be a a buck sixty, until they day they die. But, at least they'll have abs.

As you said, dieting slowly is the key to minimizing muscle loss.

Look at Ronnie in his prime. When he was competed in the 250-260 range, he was around 300 in the off-season.


You're a fuckin troll clearly.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: dj181 on March 13, 2013, 08:51:47 AM
mclean, any bodybuilder should have somewhat visible abs year round,if they dont its simply a fatso or powerlifter.



what would you say is the upper acceptable limit with regards to bodyfat %?
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: anabolichalo on March 13, 2013, 08:52:48 AM
such a figure would not be useful as it requires dexa scan or unter water weighing to accurately assess bf%^^^^^^^^^^
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: BIG ACH on March 13, 2013, 08:56:29 AM
You're an idiot who looked like a fat turd and impressed your fuckin family with your clothes on, you can hide the fat bloated mess you are to untrained people or people delusional like yourself.

Big ACH what is your fucking point? You just said you gained like 60 lbs and dieted down after a year for a total of 4 lbs? That's 4 lbs out of 60 lol. This guy claimed 20 lbs of muscle in 6 months. Every highschool kid does this, maybe entering university. Eat big, pull 450-500 lbs, hit a 300 lb bench and think the 50 lbs they gained is all muscle. Then they diet from 220 and lean down to 170 and reality hits. Or they stay like mcway, permanently delusional.

First of all it was more than 4 lbs because I was actually leaner than the year before.....  but I think had I gone up to 215 or so instead of 230 and dieted longer, I would've been bigger on contest day, maybe 180 or 182 something like that.  

My point is that to put on a good amount of muscle you need to be exceeding your caloric requirements, and to do that you are bound to gain some fat.  
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: dj181 on March 13, 2013, 08:58:17 AM
such a figure would not be useful as it requires dexa scan or unter water weighing to accurately assess bf%^^^^^^^^^^

not really

if one isn't a totally clueless dipshit then bodyfat % can be "seen" by looking in the mirror

this here is roughly 7%

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lr9ks3IS3L1qk65fgo1_500.jpg)
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: anabolichalo on March 13, 2013, 08:59:11 AM
not really

if one isn't a totally clueless dipshit then bodyfat % can be "seen" by looking in the mirror

this here is roughly 7%

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lr9ks3IS3L1qk65fgo1_500.jpg)
all bro science

Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: BIG ACH on March 13, 2013, 09:00:42 AM
not really

if one isn't a totally clueless dipshit then bodyfat % can be "seen" by looking in the mirror

this here is roughly 7%

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lr9ks3IS3L1qk65fgo1_500.jpg)

See I would've said thats 6%.... someone else would've said thats 8%.....

Its all voodoo  ;D
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: anabolichalo on March 13, 2013, 09:02:21 AM
further more you are not assessing the obscene amounts of visceral fat all these blimps are carrying

Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: dj181 on March 13, 2013, 09:04:54 AM
See I would've said thats 6%.... someone else would've said thats 8%.....

Its all voodoo  ;D

 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: MCWAY on March 13, 2013, 09:05:05 AM
You're an idiot who looked like a fat turd and impressed your fuckin family with your clothes on, you can hide the fat bloated mess you are to untrained people or people delusional like yourself.

Wrong again, Banana-breath!!! Not only did I NOT look like a fat turd, I ended up getting that age-old question one gets when he puts on some size: Are you taking steroids, the answer to which was NO!!

Ironically enough, a month after I got home, my friends and I went on our usual trip to the very place, where I DON'T hide my alleged fat-bloated mess: Wet-N-Wild, in Orlando, FL.

So, you and your fellow perma-leaners can continue to wail about your woeful gains and lament how you can hardly lift the toilet seat without a syringe.

Steroid users with great genetics don't even put on pure muscle all the time. Yet, goofies like you think, somehow (with that mystical magic stack of 'roids), you're going to put on nothing but lean muscle constantsly while staying ripped......all on near-minimal amounts of protein.


::)

Big ACH what is your fucking point? You just said you gained like 60 lbs and dieted down after a year for a total of 4 lbs? That's 4 lbs out of 60 lol. This guy claimed 20 lbs of muscle in 6 months. Every highschool kid does this, maybe entering university. Eat big, pull 450-500 lbs, hit a 300 lb bench and think the 50 lbs they gained is all muscle. Then they diet from 220 and lean our 170 and reality hits. Or they stay like mcway, permanently delusional.

Someone get this guy a clue and some reading lessons. Neither one of us said that the weight we gained was all muscle. Maybe if reading were fundamental to you, you would have realized that.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: MCWAY on March 13, 2013, 09:08:11 AM

You're a fuckin troll clearly.

Clueless and way off the mark, AGAIN!! I've been on this forum for years (almost a decade, now that I think about it).

And, I'll be here, when you crawl your sniveling perma-leaner hind quarters back to where you came, while your buddies ask you if you're smoking crack, not if you lift weights.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: HappyGorilla on March 13, 2013, 09:08:50 AM
First of all it was more than 4 lbs because I was actually leaner than the year before.....  but I think had I gone up to 215 or so instead of 230 and dieted longer, I would've been bigger on contest day, maybe 180 or 182 something like that.  

My point is that to put on a good amount of muscle you need to be exceeding your caloric requirements, and to do that you are bound to gain some fat.  

If you are going to use Layne Norton as your example, then maybe you should add he only suggests adding 1-2 lbs a month. We all know you need to gain fat and be in a caloric surplus. But what is the point in gaining 60 lbs? Furthermore, you are saying it is possible to gain 20 lbs of muscle in 6 months, that was MCKAYS areguement. Yet you even admit to gaining all that weight, yet end up 170's , you were in the 170's when you started.

?????????????????????
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: HappyGorilla on March 13, 2013, 09:09:39 AM
Clueless and way off the mark, AGAIN!! I've been on this forum for years (almost a decade, now that I think about it).

And, I'll be here, when you crawl your sniveling perma-leaner hind quarters back to where you came, while your buddies ask you if you're smoking crack, not if you lift weights.

Ah you shut up idiot. I don't even read your stupid posts. Too long.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: MCWAY on March 13, 2013, 09:13:40 AM
If you are going to use Layne Norton as your example, then maybe you should add he only suggests adding 1-2 lbs a month. We all know you need to gain fat and be in a caloric surplus. But what is the point in gaining 60 lbs? Furthermore, you are saying it is possible to gain 20 lbs of muscle in 6 months, that was MCKAYS areguement. Yet you even admit to gaining all that weight, yet end up 170's , you were in the 170's when you started.

?????????????????????

NOOOOO....that was not my argument. Can someone teach this guy to read, please?

My argument was and remains that NOBODY puts on lean muscle all the time, period.

If steroid-using, genetically-gifted bodybuilders can't do it, what makes you think delusional perma-leaners like YOU can?

Oh, that's right. You and AnabolicHalo are just waiting to find that magic stack of steroids, to stick in your rumps.



Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: MCWAY on March 13, 2013, 09:16:28 AM
Ah you shut up idiot. I don't even read your stupid posts. Too long.

That's to be expected from a clueless perma-leaner like you. Anything more than two sentences sizzles your tender skull.

further more you are not assessing the obscene amounts of visceral fat all these blimps are carrying


When people assess the amount of muscle you and HappyGorilla are carrying, they start singing, "We Are The World".
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: BIG ACH on March 13, 2013, 09:17:18 AM
If you are going to use Layne Norton as your example, then maybe you should add he only suggests adding 1-2 lbs a month. We all know you need to gain fat and be in a caloric surplus. But what is the point in gaining 60 lbs? Furthermore, you are saying it is possible to gain 20 lbs of muscle in 6 months, that was MCKAYS areguement. Yet you even admit to gaining all that weight, yet end up 170's , you were in the 170's when you started.

?????????????????????

Are you just making up shit???  

1.  I SPECIFICALLY said it was NOT beneficial gaining 60 lbs over my contest weight
2.  I never said its possible to gain 20 lbs in 6 months...  Actually I never said any sort of numbers.  All I said was, in order to put on a good amount of quality muscle you need to put on a little bit of fat.
3.  Layne's off-season strategy was to bulk for 4-6 weeks, and cut for 2 weeks, rinse and repeat. And he said on MD that he was always aiming for 1 lbs  a week weight gain, but now aims for 0.5 lbs a week.  Whats your point man?
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: SquatsRule on March 13, 2013, 09:29:29 AM
Cell-Tech wasn't even on the market, back when I was in college and didn't hit the stores until I GRADUATED.

But, thanks for playing. You and your fellow "perma-leaners" can continue to whine and bleat, while people hold telethons to raise money so you can eat.

Hahahaha! I never said you took Celltech. You have what I call "celltech delusion." It's similar to imagenary lat syndrome. You claimed you put on atleast ten pounds of lean mass in three months which is basically impossible for a natural. That is why I asked if you took photos or measured your bodyfat percentage. Anybody can put on that much fat and water. You also have no idea who I am or how long I've been training. I'm not a perma leaner but I never go over 15% bodyfat for several reasons.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: BIG ACH on March 13, 2013, 09:31:23 AM
Hahahaha! I never said you took Celltech. You have what I call "celltech delusion." It's similar to imagenary lat syndrome. You claimed you put on atleast ten pounds of lean mass in three months which is basically impossible for a natural. That is why I asked if you took photos or measured your bodyfat percentage. Anybody can put on that much fat and water. You also have no idea who I am or how long I've been training. I'm not a perma leaner but I never go over 15% bodyfat for several reasons.

I think 15% is a great bf to be at for putting on muscle.  I'm more referring to people who stay sub 10%
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: dj181 on March 13, 2013, 09:36:46 AM
something like this:

a guy on juice wont do himself any favors if hes fatter than 12%.(lipids gonna be very bad, estrogen issues will be bad).
so a guy on juice shouldnt go higher than that.id even say 10%, but 12 is the top limit.
ok,if one is 15% and wants to diet anyway, he can go on juice but should should straight away diet down(still better than to diet naturaly).

so if a juicer wants be fatter than that bc he feels like eating what he wants, hed best come off until hes motivated again.

for a natural, well, even 15% is ok, but for the asteatics sake they shouldnt go higher than 13%.



agreed about the 12% limit, but you think one would really get estrogen issues @ 12% ???

seems to me that would happen at a much higher % something like 18-20%
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: El Diablo Blanco on March 13, 2013, 09:40:51 AM
agreed about the 12% limit, but you think one would really get estrogen issues @ 12% ???

seems to me that would happen at a much higher % something like 18-20%

Bro science at it's bullshit finest right here in the last few posts.  why not 13% or 14%?  maybe 17%  lol.

Fact is you can take 10 dudes at the same weight and bodyfat, give them all the same diet, the same workout, the same drugs and chances are their muscle gain and fat loss will be all over the map compared to each other.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: MCWAY on March 13, 2013, 09:41:15 AM
Hahahaha! I never said you took Celltech. You have what I call "celltech delusion." It's similar to imagenary lat syndrome. You claimed you put on atleast ten pounds of lean mass in three months which is basically impossible for a natural. That is why I asked if you took photos or measured your bodyfat percentage. Anybody can put on that much fat and water. You also have no idea who I am or how long I've been training. I'm not a perma leaner but I never go over 15% bodyfat for several reasons.

If my main concern were putting on size, why would I be measuring my bodyfat? There are these things called MIRRORS, which can pretty much give me an assessment of how my progress was going. I didn't run around frantically, with a pair of calipers every two days, thinking, Gosh!! I hope I'm still lean!!

I'm not the one, whining about what supposedly is "basically impossible for a natural". That's the goofy mentality that keeps perma-leaners puny. "I can't do this, because I'm natural"; "I can't do that, because I'm natural." "I can't tie my shoe, because I'm natural". "I can't start my lawnmower, because I'm natural."

As I said, I was simply trying to hit 200 by semester's end. But, I reach that mark ahead of schedule (March 20, 1996, to be exact). So, I kept going, until I hit 210. Even the guys larger than me noticed my progress and encouraged me to keep up the good work.

It's a good thing I did this, before I joined Getbig and found out how "impossible" it is. Otherwise, I'd still be 189 lbs.  ;D
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: BIG ACH on March 13, 2013, 09:48:13 AM
something like this:

a guy on juice wont do himself any favors if hes fatter than 12%.(lipids gonna be very bad, estrogen issues will be bad).
so a guy on juice shouldnt go higher than that.id even say 10%, but 12 is the top limit.
ok,if one is 15% and wants to diet anyway, he can go on juice but should should straight away diet down(still better than to diet naturaly).

so if a juicer wants be fatter than that bc he feels like eating what he wants, hed best come off until hes motivated again.

for a natural, well, even 15% is ok, but for the asteatics sake they shouldnt go higher than 13%.



Come on man.... do you REALLY think you can tell the difference between 13% and 15%???  come on man! lol
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: dj181 on March 13, 2013, 09:52:27 AM
Come on man.... do you REALLY think you can tell the difference between 13% and 15%???  come on man! lol

15 can ;)
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: njflex on March 13, 2013, 10:23:25 AM
8 to 10 is nice zone,,8 for the looks end of things veins and abs but not low zone 6 or less which will kill energy/strenght for the long haul good temp look,,,10/12 pct still can grow on ..now some guys are 12 pct and have veins and abs showing ..depends on skin shows the look the leaner/drier.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: abijahmaniaco on March 13, 2013, 10:24:26 AM
lol at the thread title. ::)
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: SquatsRule on March 13, 2013, 10:24:51 AM
If my main concern were putting on size, why would I be measuring my bodyfat? There are these things called MIRRORS, which can pretty much give me an assessment of how my progress was going. I didn't run around frantically, with a pair of calipers every two days, thinking, Gosh!! I hope I'm still lean!!

I'm not the one, whining about what supposedly is "basically impossible for a natural". That's the goofy mentality that keeps perma-leaners puny. "I can't do this, because I'm natural"; "I can't do that, because I'm natural." "I can't tie my shoe, because I'm natural". "I can't start my lawnmower, because I'm natural."

As I said, I was simply trying to hit 200 by semester's end. But, I reach that mark ahead of schedule (March 20, 1996, to be exact). So, I kept going, until I hit 210. Even the guys larger than me noticed my progress and encouraged me to keep up the good work.

It's a good thing I did this, before I joined Getbig and found out how "impossible" it is. Otherwise, I'd still be 189 lbs.  ;D




I said it was impossible for a natural to put on ten pounds of lean mass in three months. I did not say it was impossible to gain ten pounds in three months. I'm implying that you gained mostly fat and water and you have no proof otherwise.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: MCWAY on March 13, 2013, 10:55:40 AM


I said it was impossible for a natural to put on ten pounds of lean mass in three months. I did not say it was impossible to gain ten pounds in three months. I'm implying that you gained mostly fat and water and you have no proof otherwise.

Yeah, because I don't have a time machine. ::)


Fat and water must have allowed me to bench 315 for 3-4 reps, when I could barely move 300 (with the stars aligned and rabbits' feet in my pocket).

You must have the "Hydroxycut delusion". That's when guys yap about how lean they are, when they're being dwarfed in the gym. I once had that myself.

That guy has arms bigger than my legs and can move weights that would put me in the hospital. But, hey, I'm leaner than he is.



Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: Chadwick The Beta on March 13, 2013, 10:58:15 AM
You people have a lot to learn about getting swole.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: anabolichalo on March 13, 2013, 11:50:01 AM
 ::)
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: MCWAY on March 13, 2013, 12:01:09 PM
::)



(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSlFfbP4y1BEzKbxkEKJ5dTWojOw0rTqgJvwA40FCULrRobeGFU)


Hey! I'm leaner than you permabulkers!!


Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: anabolichalo on March 13, 2013, 12:02:16 PM


(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSlFfbP4y1BEzKbxkEKJ5dTWojOw0rTqgJvwA40FCULrRobeGFU)


Hey! I'm leaner than you permabulkers!!



this looks better than an obese "bodybuilder"
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: MCWAY on March 13, 2013, 12:05:11 PM
this looks better than an obese "bodybuilder"

Only if you're in the mood for chicken.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: SquatsRule on March 13, 2013, 12:12:41 PM
Yeah, because I don't have a time machine. ::)


Fat and water must have allowed me to bench 315 for 3-4 reps, when I could barely move 300 (with the stars aligned and rabbits' feet in my pocket).

You must have the "Hydroxycut delusion". That's when guys yap about how lean they are, when they're being dwarfed in the gym. I once had that myself.

That guy has arms bigger than my legs and can move weights that would put me in the hospital. But, hey, I'm leaner than he is.





I'm sorry, I can see now that you are the alpha male. Clearly part of the genetic elite. Please post a pic of your buff swoleness. I'm sure you dwarf everyone on getbig and must be no less than 400lbs of lean mass.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: anabolichalo on March 13, 2013, 12:13:40 PM
of course fat and water increase your strength you fucking moron


Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: BIG ACH on March 13, 2013, 12:24:52 PM
I'm sorry, I can see now that you are the alpha male. Clearly part of the genetic elite. Please post a pic of your buff swoleness. I'm sure you dwarf everyone on getbig and must be no less than 400lbs of lean mass.

He actually does.  MCWAY has posted many pictures in the past!
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: MCWAY on March 13, 2013, 12:37:31 PM
of course fat and water increase your strength you fucking moron


If fat and water increased your strength, NJ governor, Chris Christie, would be the world's strongest man.

Perma-leaners like you are not only small, they're apparently senseless, too.

Fat and water cushion the joints. They DO NOT increase your strength, genius. Muscle does, however.

But, that's something you won't get getting anytime soon, worried about getting fat.

I'm sorry, I can see now that you are the alpha male. Clearly part of the genetic elite. Please post a pic of your buff swoleness. I'm sure you dwarf everyone on getbig and must be no less than 400lbs of lean mass.

Wrong again, whiny one!

What is it with your apparent inability to read simple sentences? I never claimed to be genetically elite (I do believe I identified myself as an ectomorphic guy). Nor did I ever claim that all the weight I put on my body was lean mass.

Nor did I claim that I was ripped now. I'm not, nor do I need to be.

My entire point, which you and fellow perma-leaner, Anabolichalo, missed by a country mile, is that eating big is a MUST, if mass if your priority. That is especially true, if you started off skinny as I did.

Get the size you need first. Worry about the cuts later. That's how it's been done for generations, hence the term, "off-season".

As Big Ach stated you can go too far in both directions. You can put on too much weight too quickly, resulting in too much bodyfat. You can ALSO do the opposite, making almost no gains in size and mass, being foolishly too preoccupied with being lean 24/7.

Halo is a prime example, hence the reason he keeps putting up dozens of threads, lamenting his smallness and wishing for that perfect steroid stack to let him eat like a bird but get bigger.

Yet, delusional perma-leaners like you think you can do what steroid-using, genetically superior bodybuilders can't: Put on pure muscle all the time and stay lean.

So, you and Halo have decided to remain small and yap about being lean (something I did, back in the day, when faced with guys in the gym who made me look like a smurf).






Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: anabolichalo on March 13, 2013, 12:41:00 PM
you think permaleaners feel impressed by your bloated fat ass benching 3-4 plates for a few shitty reps

i have seen guys like you do this

then walk around with an air of self fulfillment after they do their shitty few reps with a big weight and they are about to have a heart attack


i just look at them and shake my head


the kings of the gym are the competitors who pump out sets of 12 with your big fat natural struggle weight

nobody cares you're natural either

all we see is a big fat delusional man with a chip on his shoulder
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: MCWAY on March 13, 2013, 12:57:52 PM
you think permaleaners feel impressed by your bloated fat ass benching 3-4 plates for a few shitty reps

i have seen guys like you do this

then walk around with an air of self fulfillment after they do their shitty few reps with a big weight and they are about to have a heart attack


i just look at them and shake my head


the kings of the gym are the competitors who pump out sets of 12 with your big fat natural struggle weight

nobody cares you're natural either

all we see is a big fat delusional man with a chip on his shoulder

Then apparently, you need glasses, as well as clues and some size.

I'm not the one, posting thread after thread after thread, lamenting about my puniness, wondering when my magical stack will appear and how useless it is to train without drugs. By your own admission, even the guys on the Steroid forum got tired of your blubbering and booted you off, telling you to come here.

As for being king of the gym, that honor will NEVER fall on you. Heck, dollars to donuts, the girls in the Zumba classes train harder than you (and probably have more muscle to boot).

You shake your head, because the "kings in the gym" move weights, the mere sight of which would put you in a body cast. 315 for 4-5 reps was back in the day for me. I incline with that now.

You and your crachkhead physique can keep boo-hooing about what you can't do, unless that magic syringe hits your @$$-cheeks. But, you might want to limit it to one thread, before you get booted off here, too.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: El Diablo Blanco on March 13, 2013, 01:00:09 PM
If fat and water increased your strength, NJ governor, Chris Christie, would be the world's strongest man.


Umm CC is holding the entire state of NJ on his shoulders.  nuff said.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: The True Adonis on March 13, 2013, 01:06:09 PM
If my main concern were putting on size, why would I be measuring my bodyfat? There are these things called MIRRORS, which can pretty much give me an assessment of how my progress was going. I didn't run around frantically, with a pair of calipers every two days, thinking, Gosh!! I hope I'm still lean!!

I'm not the one, whining about what supposedly is "basically impossible for a natural". That's the goofy mentality that keeps perma-leaners puny. "I can't do this, because I'm natural"; "I can't do that, because I'm natural." "I can't tie my shoe, because I'm natural". "I can't start my lawnmower, because I'm natural."

As I said, I was simply trying to hit 200 by semester's end. But, I reach that mark ahead of schedule (March 20, 1996, to be exact). So, I kept going, until I hit 210. Even the guys larger than me noticed my progress and encouraged me to keep up the good work.

It's a good thing I did this, before I joined Getbig and found out how "impossible" it is. Otherwise, I'd still be 189 lbs.  ;D


 :D

Ummm…genius, I didn’t claim that I could bench 405 at a bodyweight of 235. In fact, I specifically said that I’ve never tried that.

It was nearly three years ago (Sept 1, 2005, to be exact; I posted it on a Getbig thread, after I pulled it off). At that time, my bodyweight was 252, NOT 235.

Nor did I claim that I was “lean”, when I did it. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons that I STOPPED using one of my favorite weight gainers is due to the extra fat I put on while bulking up in 2004 and 2005. Yes, I reached my size and strength goals. But, my waist took a beating for it. I could barely see my abs; the handles got thicker, and my arms didn’t have a biceps and triceps. They were just two big limbs.

I mentioned that two years ago on the Natual Bodybuilding forum, LONG before you ever came to this site, Deicide.

And, O ye in desperate need of “Hooked on Phonics”, the quote of mine that you woefully misused says that I’m a “LEANER” 235. That is, I’m leaner now than I was at 252. I estimate that my current bodyfat is 19-20%. That, O blubbering one, is “leaner” than the 25% or so bodyfat I was carrying at 252.



Unlike you,  I didn’t (and don’t) blubber about how poor my genetics are or sing woe-is-me songs, putting on sackcloth and ashes upon reaching my 30th birthday, as you’ve been doing for months. I do the best I can with what I have. To date, every goal that I once thought I’d have to use steroids to achieve, I’ve reached WITHOUT THEM.

No bleating, no excuse-making!!!

Now, the challenge for me is to replicate the size and strength I had, minus the 40+ inch waist or the mega-sized rump I sported back in ’05 (although my wife digs my big booty).



Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: MCWAY on March 13, 2013, 01:13:52 PM
:D


Thanks for making my point, Adonis.

Back then (2008) at 235, my strength levels were near what they were at 252 (back in 2005).

And, as I clearly stated, I learned the hard way that I couldn't eat the same volume of food at age 32 that I did at age 22.

You are comparing two different periods of time, separated by nearly a decade.

Now, that I'm approaching the big 40, there's no way I'm going to eat the way I did 17 years ago.

The metabolism is slower; plus I'm not walking up and down hills in college, or playing softball and/or volleyball with my church league, anymore.




Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: SquatsRule on March 13, 2013, 01:23:33 PM
If fat and water increased your strength, NJ governor, Chris Christie, would be the world's strongest man.

Perma-leaners like you are not only small, they're apparently senseless, too.

Fat and water cushion the joints. They DO NOT increase your strength, genius. Muscle does, however.

But, that's something you won't get getting anytime soon, worried about getting fat.

Wrong again, whiny one!

What is it with your apparent inability to read simple sentences? I never claimed to be genetically elite (I do believe I identified myself as an ectomorphic guy). Nor did I ever claim that all the weight I put on my body was lean mass.

Nor did I claim that I was ripped now. I'm not, nor do I need to be.

My entire point, which you and fellow perma-leaner, Anabolichalo, missed by a country mile, is that eating big is a MUST, if mass if your priority. That is especially true, if you started off skinny as I did.

Get the size you need first. Worry about the cuts later. That's how it's been done for generations, hence the term, "off-season".

As Big Ach stated you can go too far in both directions. You can put on too much weight too quickly, resulting in too much bodyfat. You can ALSO do the opposite, making almost no gains in size and mass, being foolishly too preoccupied with being lean 24/7.

Halo is a prime example, hence the reason he keeps putting up dozens of threads, lamenting his smallness and wishing for that perfect steroid stack to let him eat like a bird but get bigger.

Yet, delusional perma-leaners like you think you can do what steroid-using, genetically superior bodybuilders can't: Put on pure muscle all the time and stay lean.

So, you and Halo have decided to remain small and yap about being lean (something I did, back in the day, when faced with guys in the gym who made me look like a smurf).









And you obviously can't detect sarcasm or have any skill at reading comprehension. I'll leave you with this. a diamond doesn't look like a diamond when it's covered in 60 pounds of shit. Have a nice day.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: The True Adonis on March 13, 2013, 01:26:11 PM
Thanks for making my point, Adonis.

Back then (2008) at 235, my strength levels were near what they were at 252 (back in 2005).

And, as I clearly stated, I learned the hard way that I couldn't eat the same volume of food at age 32 that I did at age 22.

You are comparing two different periods of time, separated by nearly a decade.





Are you still fat circa 2008 and earlier?
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: MCWAY on March 13, 2013, 01:31:55 PM
Are you still fat circa 2008 and earlier?

I wasn't fat in 2008; nor am I fat NOW. As long as the abs are visible (which they are now and were then), I'm cool.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: MCWAY on March 13, 2013, 01:33:08 PM

And you obviously can't detect sarcasm or have any skill at reading comprehension. I'll leave you with this. a diamond doesn't look like a diamond when it's covered in 60 pounds of shit. Have a nice day.

I'll leave you with this: If you have to squint to see if a diamond actually is a diamond, chances are that it's not; or if it is, it still ain't worth much.

You're welcome!!
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: The True Adonis on March 13, 2013, 01:34:28 PM
I wasn't fat in 2008; nor am I fat NOW. As long as the abs are visible (which they are now and were then), I'm cool.
20 percent plus bodyfat is fat. 
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: MCWAY on March 13, 2013, 01:40:53 PM
20 percent plus bodyfat is fat.  


If your abs are visible, you're not fat. Mine are visible.

Not fat, not ripped, just normal.

BTW, if you're going to dredge up some of my old posts, you might want to add this one from Christmas Eve 2005:

I've had some great workout the last week or so, as it's been fairly empty at the gym!!

The only bad thing about this time of year, especially where I train (Bally Total Fitness), is that in about a week or two, the New Years' Resolutionist crew will be bum-rushing the gym, initially eager to whittle off those Christmas pounds.

I guess you take the bitter with the sweet.

Nonetheless, I've achieved all of my training goals in 2005:

- I reached my biggest bodyweight ever, 252 lbs.

- I broke the 400-lb mark on my bench press, reaching 405 on Sept. 1

- My arms hit the 181/4-inch mark.

- After bulking to 252, I managed to, as a last-minute goal, cut down to 227 in three months, maintaining most of my size and virtually all of my strength.

Bodybuilding-wise, 2005 was good for me. I hope 2006 is even better, not only for me but for all the GetBig folks here.

I hope you all had a MERRY CHRISTMAS and have a HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

Eat, Drink, Be Massive, and may God Bless You ALL!!!

MCWAY
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: arce1988 on March 13, 2013, 01:44:31 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Depo-testosterone_200_mg_ml_crop.jpg/220px-Depo-testosterone_200_mg_ml_crop.jpg)
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: MCWAY on March 13, 2013, 01:46:45 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Depo-testosterone_200_mg_ml_crop.jpg/220px-Depo-testosterone_200_mg_ml_crop.jpg)

Just remind the perma-leaners that they'll still have to eat, even with that shot in their hind quarters.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: HappyGorilla on March 13, 2013, 01:55:06 PM
(http://community.weightwatchers.com/LoadDown/Blogs/d5/5d/98540c404b5e48c29983b0e0c9f99b07_2.jpg?repository=1)

Fuck off Mcfag.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: MCWAY on March 13, 2013, 01:57:54 PM
(http://community.weightwatchers.com/LoadDown/Blogs/d5/5d/98540c404b5e48c29983b0e0c9f99b07_2.jpg?repository=1)

Fuck off Mcfag.

(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSlFfbP4y1BEzKbxkEKJ5dTWojOw0rTqgJvwA40FCULrRobeGFU)

Get a clue and a steak, Banana-breath!!
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: HappyGorilla on March 13, 2013, 01:59:52 PM
(http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/001/442/517/butterbean-10_display_image_display_image.jpg?1318952436)

Is this pre or post workout?
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: arce1988 on March 13, 2013, 02:17:39 PM
(http://www.probody.com.uy/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/serostim-somatropin-hgh-uruguay1.jpg)
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: MCWAY on March 13, 2013, 02:18:54 PM
(http://www.probody.com.uy/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/serostim-somatropin-hgh-uruguay1.jpg)

Judging from Gorilla's whimpering, that ain't the only thing he want stuck in his behind.
Title: Re: Natural stack, alternative to 'roids
Post by: jodsy on March 13, 2013, 02:20:04 PM
just take grits and fried chitlin