Are bodybuilders (pros) relying too much on gear?

[jmt1]

Yes, true.  But it's amazing how quickly the hormones affected his body weight.

If I was on all the gear Cutler is on right now I would go from a lean 190 to a lean 220 without TOUCHING a weight.  I could STOP all current training and I would put on 30 pounds and remain in the same condition.

FACT.

When you are on gear, the most important thing is nutrition.  Cows do not train and gain hundreds of pounds with the increased feed efficiency caused by gear.

TRAINING IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT PART OF BODYBUILDING.

For crying out loud, everyone understand this right now.  Training is MAYBE 10% - if that. 

training doesnt matter? ...lol...u gotta be kidding

what is your issue with pro bodybuilders?  jealousy? hate?

i'm not even gonna get into the reasons why drugs dont matter if you dont bust your ass in the gym because its just stupid.

[Man of Steel]

My recently roided up friend on dbol said the pumps were so incredible that he had to actually DROP the weight he was using.  I told him this has to be normal and just lift heavy and get used to the stronger pumps.  Not sure if this is accurate, but I'm sure the "painful pumps" are actually a good thing once you get used to them.  He's up 10 pounds but the gains have stopped in the past two days.  He said he was considering increasing the dose to 40mg.

Roids will not change your genetic structure but they damn well will make you much bigger and leaner.  Don't kid yourself, pros would look like any normal natural trainers without drugs.  Bodybuilding as we know it is drugs.

"All drugs" simply means that the only difference is "all drugs."  Adam is not saying pros ONLY inject themselves and don't train or eat properly (aside from some pros like Tom Prince), but that they do what we do and that the only difference IS an injection.  The difference - the awe factor - IS an injection.

Any pro here disagree?  Awesome - go off drugs and we'll compare notes in two years.  I would like to see if you could keep up with my muscle endurance at that point.

Does it bother your friend that his gains are virtually meaningless and acquired by no effort of his own?   Maybe he should consider some type of implant surgery.   He'll still get that artificial physique he desires, but at least it'll last when he runs outta money and can't afford his drug addiction.



Just a thought.

[Jr. Yates]

Here is an example guys:

If I trained and ate like Jay Cutler and stayed natural I would probably gain a bit more mass - maybe gain 10 pounds or something.

If I juiced and ate like Jay Cutler I would probably gain 30 pounds.

Juice and nutrition matter WAY more than training, and training means little compared to juicing and training.  10%?  Maybe 25% AT MOST.  But between 10-25% is realistic.  Jay said he considers training to be 10%.  Not that his opinion is more valid than my own, but I think that is pretty accurate.

If you don't believe me, juice up and eat TONS and curtail your training intensity and tell me whether or not you grow more than training harder as a natural (or clean).

I agree with you Matt. But i don't agree that anyone would look like Cuter or any pro if they did that.

[columbusdude82]

Come on, Matt C... Everyone knows Jay Cutler got big on celltech... Ronnie got big on KFC, according to what he said on the Tonight Show a few years back... Why are you being so pigheaded?!

[RJB]

who cares.

[Jr. Yates]

This much is true and it's an important distinction to note on the boards.  Very few of us, if any, would look like pros.

That being said, I think more than a few pros would look like us.  E.g., they are just incredible responders to gear.  I would say I have more size than Kevin Levrone and Tom Prince as it is now.  Of course excuses will be made for them indefinitely.

In any event, it's important to understand what gear does: it drastically increases protein synthesis.  So to make gear work, the most important thing is to feed your body the nutrients you want it to synthesize.  As mentioned, cattle do not need resistance training to gain muscle on gear.  Neither do human beings.

Bhasin and his colleagues already proved that if you juice you will gain more mass than a natural training even if you do not workout while on the juice, providing the diet is the same for both the non training juicer and the natural trainer.  Fact - scientifically proven, and not open to debate.  Being an analytical guy, it kind of annoys me that some on here would want to open this to debate.

When your knowledge is founded in ignorance it's easy to believe some misconceptions are true.  I know what I'm saying is a tough pill to swallow, but do the related reading and research and once you realize that I am telling the truth, you may not find what I'm saying as offensive.  Don't shoot the messenger though (not directed to Jr. Yates, just a general statement).

Truth hurts. thats why people want to stay blinded by the government. but lets not get into that now.

[DragonsBreath]

I guess some of you are missing my point.

My point is: Are they relying on gear to get them in shape for a contest rather than dieting harder and/or doing more cardio?

Ex: Pro1 takes xyz drugs and diets his ass off
     
     Pro2 takes xyz drugs and doesn't diet as hard

Is Pro2 going to look not as good as Pro1 even though he is taking the same exact stuff but rather relied on the "xyz" combo to get him shredded?

[Jr. Yates]

I guess some of you are missing my point.

My point is: Are they relying on gear to get them in shape for a contest rather than dieting harder and/or doing more cardio?

Ex: Pro1 takes xyz drugs and diets his ass off
     
     Pro2 takes xyz drugs and doesn't diet as hard

Is Pro2 going to look not as good as Pro1 even though he is taking the same exact stuff but rather relied on the "xyz" combo to get him shredded?

umm no. You still have diet and cardio. you should know that.

[shootfighter1]

Matt, you are wrong.

There was a hormone replacement study (I don't remember what journal so can't look it up) that was double blind and randomized (gold standard) which looked at the effects of hormone replacement and exercise.

One group exercised and given a placebo shot
Second group given testosterone without exercise
Third group exercised plus the testosterone replacement.

In short, the group that was given test, but didn't exercise, gained a small amount of lean mass and lost a small amount of bodyfat.  The group that exercised and given test replacement had several times the gain of the test without exercise group.

So, yes AAS can build some lean muscle without exercise but it is a fraction of what can be built with combining the two.  Weight training is essential in building muscle, the AAS just makes it easier with better recovery.  Proper nutrition and proper training makes using AAS much more effective.  Then there are individual variations in responses to AAS but I don't believe there have been too many studies on that.

[shootfighter1]

Oh, do I think most BBers are on too much gear these days....Absolutely!  I am against AAS abuse.

[DragonsBreath]

umm no. You still have diet and cardio. you should know that.

No shit! Again, what I'm saying is: because someone feels they are taking gear that they KNOW get them shredded, do they slack off a bit on their diets and cardio and just up thier gear a bit? Thus relying more on the gear to get them shredded.

[shootfighter1]

I see that you posted again above, took me a long time to finish the post (at work)...yes that is correct, but not exactly what you said before.

Interesting.  Where is the study where people using gear without training gained more lean mass than individuals training?  I'll bet that study has numerous flaws.  Both groups should have been off training for several months before comparing the groups as we know it is a long process to build muscle unassisted when you are already a veteran lifter.

[Jr. Yates]

No shit! Again, what I'm saying is: because someone feels they are taking gear that they KNOW get them shredded, do they slack off a bit on their diets and cardio and just up thier gear a bit? Thus relying more on the gear to get them shredded.

Yes i can see people doing that....it goes the same for getting bigger...."ok im on gear now, thank god i don't have to eat as much now" in reality the person who eats more taking the same gear will grow more. But I agree with you that gear can make someone work less hard.

[DragonsBreath]

Yes i can see people doing that....it goes the same for getting bigger...."ok im on gear now, thank god i don't have to eat as much now" in reality the person who eats more taking the same gear will grow more. But I agree with you that gear can make someone work less hard.

What I'm seeing these days is guys looking like shit even though they are loaded. That's because they felt they didn't need to diet super strict to get lean.

[alexxx]

The more I look at pictures of these guys [pros & top ams], some look like their relying too muchon "gear" to make so-called miracle muscle and get them lean. therefore, they are not dieting hard or doing the necessary cardio needed to come in shredded.

It just seems like because they make take some GH and some thyroid meds, they can slip up on their diets.

ALERT....ALERT: Steroids DO NOT change your genetics. So in other words, if you look like shit small, chances are you'll look like shit big!

The main problem with bodybuilders is the lack of training. They put in 45 min 4-5 times a week and call that a hard workout. They make compremise after compremise and soon believe cardio is not essential and even depremential to there bodybuilding goals. They stuff themselves with all sorts of impurities mcdonalds burgerking.. etc and expect their physiques to become elite??

[Jr. Yates]

What I'm seeing these days is guys looking like shit even though they are loaded. That's because they felt they didn't need to diet super strict to get lean.

yeah thats probably true.

[shootfighter1]

Matt, I appreciate these kind of discussions and good to see some of you guys looking into studies.
I believe your % ages are incorrect though.  According to the quoted study:

gear w/o lifting changes =  424mm2 (tricep)  and  607mm2 (quad)
gear w/o lifting strength changes = 9 kg (bench)  and   16 kg (squat)

gear + lifting changes =  501mm2 (tricep)   and   1174mm2 (quad)
gear + lifting strength changes  =  22kg (bench)   and   38 kg (squat)
---------------------------------------------------

gear + lifting caused a 93% greater increase in quad size and 18% greater increase in tricep size (thats odd)
gear + lifting caused an additional 140% strength increase in bench and additional 137.5% increase in squat.

One odd result is the dissproportionate size increase in the quad vs. the tricep.  I remember seeing a greater increase in upper body mass vs. lower body mass in a different study.  Thanks for pasting the study results man.