what the hell is the point of GH???

[21Guns]

Shawn Ray is a really funny guy,a class act.I never new what an immature person you where till you started posting here.

[The Luke]

No BroadStreet,

Not a genius, just someone who knows that most competitive bodybuilders take new, unusual (and dangerous) drugs simply out of a sense of paranoia. I've heard competitors say things like "I'd better use an an anti estrogen, 'cos i've heard other guys in the show are using it", I've even had a precontest bodybuilder ask me if his Vitamin B Complex tablets could be causing his bouts of heart arythmia. He was snorting two grams of cocaine every weekend...

Just for the record:
Steroids increase recovery ability by about 20% (50% for hyper responders), hard training naturals gain muscle on a about 4 hours or less of heavy training a week, with advanced trainers doing better with two or less hours a week. Therefore, an advanced, pro-level (steroid using) bodybuilder weighing 230-250 lbs should be training approximately THREE HOURS A WEEK.

He can continue to train relatively hard: too long and too often... but won't grow without the support of recovery enhancing drugs such as GH, insulin, HCG, T3 etc etc. Let's face it guys, most pros only gain a few pounds a year, and that's if they're lucky. Yates trained three or four times a week and quickly outgrew his skeleton.

Using GH to prop up a faulty training protocal is madness when you consider the side-effects involved: enlarged internal organs, facial deformities and enlarged extremities.

Just stay out of the gym guys... get a life outside of bodybuilding.

The Luke

[Disgusted]

Just for the record:
Steroids increase recovery ability by about 20% (50% for hyper responders), hard training naturals gain muscle on a about 4 hours or less of heavy training a week, with advanced trainers doing better with two or less hours a week. Therefore, an advanced, pro-level (steroid using) bodybuilder weighing 230-250 lbs should be training approximately THREE HOURS A WEEK.

The Luke

Where are you getting your info from? The size that you get from steroids have NOTHING to do with recovery ability. If that was true then we would all be huge whether we took sterodis or not. It would just take the natural guys longer to get the same size and we all know that this isn't the case. Your other theories on workout length make no sense.

[The Luke]

If steroids didn't increase recovery ability (they do) why are they given to burns victims?
Why do people with low hormone (test) levels suffer immune suppression on lower physical workloads than people with normal hormone (test) levels?
Why do steroid studies show increased muscle recovery (increased protein synthesis, decreased proteolysis) in supplemented subjects?

Recovery is DIRECTLY related to muscle growth, if you don't think so "Disgusted" you may well be the only one who doesn't think so.

Natural bodybuilders don't reach the size of steroid users because a certain amount of circulating anabolic hormone is required to maintain inordinate quantities of muscle mass. Without steroids recovery times can stretch so long that atrophy sets in.

I'd go into why training times should be around 4 hours a week but I don't think you'd understand the concept of a dose/response relationship seeing as you think steroids "have NOTHING to do with recovery ability"... this statement is a non-sequitur, if it were true steroid users lifting heavier weights would take LONGER to recover seeing as the steroids had no effect on their recovery ability.

Just remeber guys, before steroids/GH/insulin/test etc, nobody was able to gain any weight training 10+ hours a week. Check out any of the old time physical culture magazines... everyone repeats the same mantra over and over again: train three/four times a week for an hour.

The Luke

[Oliver Klaushof]

Where are you getting your info from? The size that you get from steroids have NOTHING to do with recovery ability. If that was true then we would all be huge whether we took sterodis or not. It would just take the natural guys longer to get the same size and we all know that this isn't the case. Your other theories on workout length make no sense.

It makes sense. I just don't know if it's reality.

[Disgusted]

It makes sense. I just don't know if it's reality.

Read it again bro, it makes zero sense. Even if his figures about recovery ability are correct (there're not) they still have nothing to do with how big one gets from using steroids.

[BroadStreetBruiser]

Luke. I tried what you said. I drove by my gym careful not to look to long then went to sleep for 72 hours by taking 4 bottleS of nyquil and I'm fucking 40lbs heavier all mass baby!

[The Luke]

Guys,

I'm not making this up.

The New England Journal of Medicine ran a groundbreaking study on supraphysiological doses of testosterone a few years ago (2001??). It was a double blind study (the best kind) in which subjects were given...
A- placebo, with no training
B- placebo, with weight training
C- 600mg/week testosterone suspension, with no training
D- 600mg/week testosterone suspension, plus weight training

   ...the training program was pretty sensible, three 45 minute workouts per week. I believe the diets were pretty much standardised too. I think it ran for 4, 6 or 8 weeks, can't quite remember... but anyway it was a relatively long term study with lots of subjects.

The average results: (from memory, might not be exact)
A- placebo, no training                  negligible muscle change, gained small bit of fat
B- placebo, weights                      gained 6 lbs musle, lost small bit of fat
C- 600mg test, no training            gained 7 lbs of muscle, lost small bit of fat
D- 600mg/week test, weights       gained nearly 14 lbs of muscle, lost fair bit of fat

However, since then further studies using similarly large doses of testosterone (large by medical community standards not so large by bodybuilding standards) have found that the exercise response is related to the amount of exercise. They tested guys training once, twice, three times, four times, five times, six times and seven times a week with each session lasting an hour.

The biggest muscle gains happened with testosterone using subjects training three times a week.
Twice and four times a week caused similar growth responses.
Once a week did better than five times a week, because five times a week caused practically no muscle growth despite how popular gym folklore would have it.
Six and seven times a week actually caused the subjects to LOSE MUSCLE.

For non-supplemented subjects the results were less spectacular in terms of muscle gained and surprisingly different with respect to frequency.
Twice a week worked best.
Once a week or three times a week was the next best.
Four times a week produced some noticeable muscle, but the gains tapered off.
Five times a week had practically no effect at first, and later on in the study lead to a loss of muscle.
Six times a week caused the guys to lose muscle from the start, and many of them got sick.
Seven times a week left very few subjects standing at the end of the study.

Different studies with different levels of workout intensity (the above study worked the guys to failure) showed different results but the general trend held across the board.

So it's best to train approximately 2 hours a week, or 3 hours a week if using steroids. For the average trainee who wouldn't be working out as hard or intensely as was forced on these subjects under laboratory conditions the data would seem to indicate 3 hours a week (4 hours for steroid users).


Other studies showed that very advanced, muscular, long-time trainers took LONGER to recover: ie they couldn't train as much without a drop off in response. Really, really hard training bodybuilders did best on about an hour a week of training (two 30 minute sessions), steroid users could generally train 50% more often and make the same gains from workout to workout.

Does that clear things up guys?

Scary to think non-training steroid users can gain more muscle than a hard training weightlifter just by sitting on the sofa, eh? [see groups B and C above]

The Luke

[washedup]

Where are you getting your info from? The size that you get from steroids have NOTHING to do with recovery ability. If that was true then we would all be huge whether we took sterodis or not. It would just take the natural guys longer to get the same size and we all know that this isn't the case. Your other theories on workout length make no sense.

Overload-induced skeletal muscle hypertrophy leads to activation of the P13K/Akt pathway principally by inducing muscle expression of IGF-1.  Fracture of the basal lamina by eccentric strain created with resistance training allows release of IGF-1 and other mitogens/myogenic factors and access to the satellite cell population which differentiate and fuse with adjacent mature myofibers to increase cross sectional area (hypertropy).  Additional transcriptional signalling factors include:

1.  Hypertrophy mediators downstream of P13K and Akt:  The Akt/mTOR pathway.
2.  A second hypertrophy mediator downstream of P13K and Akt:  GSK3beta
3.  Inhibition of specific E3 Ubiquitin ligases
4.  Akt inhibition of FOXO transcription factors BLOCKS upregulation of MuRF1 and importantly MAFbx (also called Atrogin-1)
5.  mTOR activity from #1 (above) additively blocks upregulation of MuRF1 and MAFbx

Anabolic steroids amplify all of the above especially #1.  GH indirectly activates #1 only by way of increased hepatic synthesis of IGF-1 (hence poor hypertrophy effects of GH even at megadoses)  GH directly stimulates lipolysis (hence significant fat loss even at modest doses) over a relatively narrow range of exogenous dosing.  GH gut = direct stimulation of organomegaly which is profound with higher doses/longer dosing duration.

Hope this helps

[Samourai Pizzacat]

Finally, I've been advocating this less is more attitude to a couple of colleagues of mine, but they still won't believe it. I train 3 hours a week, eat clean and have some extra protein, I stay fairly lean (BF 8-10%). I train with a lot of intensity, to faillure, not to many sets and excercises per muscle group. Works like a charm, my colleagues don't/won't get it. They don't believe that the increased proteinsynthesis in the muscle can stretch up to ten days. To train a muscle once a week is enough (with the right intensity that is). Enlightenment is such a burden 

[sculpture]

Sounds like  a HIT advocate here. And 260lbs. Where have you been. Coleman hovers around 280 these days

[The Luke]

I recently (year ago) started back training after a four month lay-off. I decided to ease in with a simple abbreviated routine...

Smith incline
Dips
Close-grip benches
Bent-over rows
Close-grip pulldowns
Hammer curls
Lateral raises
Smith squats
Deadlifts

...nine exercises, one set each, takes about 25-30 mins, only ONCE a week.

 After a month my arms had gone from 15'' back up to their previous all time high of 15.5'' (I'm only 5'4'' and natural). I was so excited I decided to continue training this way (30 mins a week), and after another 3 months my arms were up to 16''. My deadlift was up to 455 for 10! (from 375 for 10)

I still train this way! It's great! Though it doesn't do much for fat loss.

People ask me what I do for the rest of the week... I tell them I look in the mirror admiring my new muscle.


The Luke

PS-before people start in on me about my measurements, at 5'4'' a cold 16'' arm measurement is pretty big  for a natural, although arms are a genetic weakness for me (my calves are 17.5'', thighs 28'', chest 45'' and neck 17.5'').

[Disgusted]

If steroids didn't increase recovery ability (they do) why are they given to burns victims?
Why do people with low hormone (test) levels suffer immune suppression on lower physical workloads than people with normal hormone (test) levels?
Why do steroid studies show increased muscle recovery (increased protein synthesis, decreased proteolysis) in supplemented subjects?

Recovery is DIRECTLY related to muscle growth, if you don't think so "Disgusted" you may well be the only one who doesn't think so.

Natural bodybuilders don't reach the size of steroid users because a certain amount of circulating anabolic hormone is required to maintain inordinate quantities of muscle mass. Without steroids recovery times can stretch so long that atrophy sets in.

I'd go into why training times should be around 4 hours a week but I don't think you'd understand the concept of a dose/response relationship seeing as you think steroids "have NOTHING to do with recovery ability"... this statement is a non-sequitur, if it were true steroid users lifting heavier weights would take LONGER to recover seeing as the steroids had no effect on their recovery ability.

Just remeber guys, before steroids/GH/insulin/test etc, nobody was able to gain any weight training 10+ hours a week. Check out any of the old time physical culture magazines... everyone repeats the same mantra over and over again: train three/four times a week for an hour.

The Luke

Yes, muscle growth is obviously related to recovery, but this IS NOT what you said before. You said steroids improve recovery ability and this is why they work and that is the part that I am disagreeing on.

You said "Without steroids recovery times can stretch so long that atrophy sets in." 

This makes no sense. Your either in a state of recovery or your not. Atrophy would have to set in after recovery not during???

Also, they give burn victims steroids to promote tissue growth beyond what regular healing without them can acheive.

Bodybuilders are not burn victums. They take steroids to get bigger above and beyond what is possible naturally, not to recover faster. Who cares how fast it takes to recover as long as I'm bigger when I'm finished recovering.

You said "Why do steroid studies show increased muscle recovery (increased protein synthesis, decreased proteolysis) in supplemented subjects?"   

Steroids studies do not show increased recovery, but they do show increased protein synthesis and decreased proteolysis. These are two different processes and you are confusing the two. Remeber, just because something heals faster does not mean it heals bigger.

BTW, I train 4X a week and my workouts last about 40 min. Been doing it for years.

[GMCtrk]

I recently (year ago) started back training after a four month lay-off. I decided to ease in with a simple abbreviated routine...

Smith incline
Dips
Close-grip benches
Bent-over rows
Close-grip pulldowns
Hammer curls
Lateral raises
Smith squats
Deadlifts

...nine exercises, one set each, takes about 25-30 mins, only ONCE a week.

 After a month my arms had gone from 15'' back up to their previous all time high of 15.5'' (I'm only 5'4'' and natural). I was so excited I decided to continue training this way (30 mins a week), and after another 3 months my arms were up to 16''. My deadlift was up to 455 for 10! (from 375 for 10)

I still train this way! It's great! Though it doesn't do much for fat loss.

People ask me what I do for the rest of the week... I tell them I look in the mirror admiring my new muscle.


The Luke

PS-before people start in on me about my measurements, at 5'4'' a cold 16'' arm measurement is pretty big  for a natural, although arms are a genetic weakness for me (my calves are 17.5'', thighs 28'', chest 45'' and neck 17.5'').

replace the smith bullshit with some real full squat and front squat.

[The Luke]

"Steroids studies do not show increased recovery, but they do show increased protein synthesis and decreased proteolysis. These are two different processes and you are confusing the two."

Eh, Disgusted, isn't recovery defined as the time it takes for the muscle to heal the damage done to it?

By definition, increasing protein synthesis speed this process.
By definition, decreasing proteolysis speeds this process.

If steroids speed up the time it takes for a muscle to recover, how do they have nothing to do with recovery?

Are you talking about growth? central nervous system recovery? I'm unsure how you think steroids don't allow trainers to workout more often when it's obvious that they do??

What I meant about recovery times and atrophy setting in is that someone who overworks a muscle (negatives to failure for example) and really damages it could conceivably still be recovering up to 80 days later (MRI studies have shown this) if you workout once every 80 days you loose the hormonal benefits, the metabolism slows back down and atrophy in a systematic sense can set in.

If you could explain your argument and/or what exactly you find wrong with mine maybe we could expplain it to each other.

My point remains that most pros are using/need to use GH because they are simply overtrained, they are too big and too strong to recover in time but resort to metabolism altering drugs with nasty side-effects rather than simply train less.

GMCtrk,
I need the Smith squats man. Squats and deads back to back is a killer, it's not a question of IF you're going to puke/passout but whether you can control your breathing enough to puke/passout AFTERWARDS.
Also I've got short legs (short everything) and can actually free squat more than I can Smith squat. The Smiths allow me to save my lower back for the deadlifts to come.
  I know what you mean, my gym is full of guys who quarter squat on the Smith and consider themselves hardcore.

The Luke

[pumpster]

Luke with 16" arms & once a week HIT training setting Coleman straight on his routine. Very good.

Let's get back to basics. GH is excellent if you want to look gross..

[Disgusted]

"Steroids studies do not show increased recovery, but they do show increased protein synthesis and decreased proteolysis. These are two different processes and you are confusing the two."

Eh, Disgusted, isn't recovery defined as the time it takes for the muscle to heal the damage done to it?  Yes it is.

By definition, increasing protein synthesis speed this process.  Really? Why?
By definition, decreasing proteolysis speeds this process. Why again?

If steroids speed up the time it takes for a muscle to recover, how do they have nothing to do with recovery? Again, recovery it not responsible for growth. I should clarify this and add that the kind of recovery that we are talking about it not responsible for the extreme size gains that steroids give you.

Are you talking about growth? central nervous system recovery? I'm unsure how you think steroids don't allow trainers to workout more often when it's obvious that they do?? Steroid users do not have to workout longer and many don't.   Anyone can workout more often. I know a ton of guys who are natural and do a ton of sets. Some look good, some don't. Sounds like you have been reading too much of Mentzer's BS.

What I meant about recovery times and atrophy setting in is that someone who overworks a muscle (negatives to failure for example) and really damages it could conceivably still be recovering up to 80 days later (MRI studies have shown this) if you workout once every 80 days you loose the hormonal benefits, the metabolism slows back down and atrophy in a systematic sense can set in. Too much mumbo jumbo Luke. Stop trying to turn lifting weights into a science experiment.

If you could explain your argument and/or what exactly you find wrong with mine maybe we could expplain it to each other.

My point remains that most pros are using/need to use GH because they are simply overtrained, they are too big and too strong to recover in time but resort to metabolism altering drugs with nasty side-effects rather than simply train less. No pros need to use GH. GH is a waste of $ unless your looking to use it for longevity purposes.

[The Luke]

Eh, Disgusted...

Noticed the only part of my previous post you didn't write a cryptic comment on was:

"If you could explain your argument and/or what exactly you find wrong with mine maybe we could explain it to each other."

So consider that re-stated.

Don't know why you can't grasp the concept of increased recover causing growth...

Two identical twins, both train the same way, one takes steroids... one does not. Each guy gains the same amount of muscle from each workout, except the steroid user recovers 50% faster and is ready to train again 50% faster, he does 50% more workouts. At the end of one year, natural identical twin is X amount of muscle heavier, steroid using twin is X and a half amount of muscle heavier having effectively accomplished 18 months training in that same year.

Can someone else chime in on this guys? Does anyone else understand Disgusteds argument? If so could they (or Disgusted) explain it to me? I really thought it was a given that steroids increase recovery ability.


Hey pumpster,

I said I got them up to 16'' after a few months of once a week. They are NOW a tape-stretching 16.125''!!
Don't knock a 16 and one eighth cold arm measurement, that 16.125'' is 16.75'' pumped up, that's 17'' with a slack tape... or 18'' with the tape the pros use. And a pro's claim of 18'' pumped is 19'' cold in their Flex Star Profile.
  Now that I think of it I'm not so far off Lee Priest's 21'' bazooka's (we're the same height).

The Luke

[Van_Bilderass]

I'm with Disgusted on this one.

Luke, steroid using bb'ers actually get away with training less frequently. Once a week per bodypart is almost the norm nowadays. It used to be that everyone trained each bodypart twice. Drugs elevate protein synthesis so there isn't as much need to keep it elevated with frequent training (protein synthesis is elevated approx. 48 hours in a natural).

Steroids do not simply enhance recovery.

[st@nco]

The Luke...


...Shut up. You were a bit interesting at first. Now you're just boring. You're also making the others boring too.

Enough is enouth.

[robocop]

Mr luke show me some Amazing natural pics from yourself

[Oliver Klaushof]

I'm with Disgusted on this one.

Luke, steroid using bb'ers actually get away with training less frequently. Once a week per bodypart is almost the norm nowadays. It used to be that everyone trained each bodypart twice. Drugs elevate protein synthesis so there isn't as much need to keep it elevated with frequent training (protein synthesis is elevated approx. 48 hours in a natural).

Steroids do not simply enhance recovery.

It has always been understood that steroids speed up recovery time. If this wasn't so, bodybuilders would never be able to complete these marathon workouts, week after week, without falling apart.

[The Luke]

Good point Van_Bilderass,

Everyone started training their bodyparts only once a week when they found out that's all Dorian was doing (around '92/'93). But in terms of training sessions and HOURS A WEEK in the gym most pros are grossly overdoing it. It's because of this that the pros feel the need to use GH and insulin, they work out too much and then stop growing... so they increase their dose, or add GH/insulin to their stack and grow a little bit more because of the slight drop in their required recovery time. Whereas they would be better off training less.

I understand that steroids do not simply boost recovery, they have myriad effects of which that is only one. The point I'm trying to get across is that guys like Mike Morris (read his interview in the thread) was using grams and grams of anabolics each week... but felt he needed growth hormone too. A lot of this has to do with the constant excessive metabolic stress these guys put on themselves... using 2 or 3 grams of anabolics a week mike was still only able to gain 5-10 lbs of quality muscle each year... at even two grams of anabolics a week you could gain 10 lbs in a year without even working out. That's more male hormone than a 9' 800 lb sasquatch would have.

I'd love to see one of these big pros make a concerted effort on a very abbreviated routine, say a 1 hour whole-body workout once every two weeks, for even six months. The scientific data seems to indicate that would be the most productive. The GH is mostly a crutch to allow these guys live in the gym... I dare say some of them only take it because it's called GROWTH hormone.

In the '90's the late Ray Mentzer (Mike's brother) was training hard for a Masters Olympia comeback. He apparently used steroids, but supposedly wasn't megadosing (1 gram a week) or using GH. I've read that he was training HIT style only twice a week (onlyme maybe you can confirm/debunk this) and was squatting 900 for reps at 260 lbs (6% bf).

If that's true why do lower tier pros need up to 4 grams a week, a plethora of other drugs, GH and insulin along with 10-20 hours in the gym?

The Luke

[paul84]

I recently (year ago) started back training after a four month lay-off. I decided to ease in with a simple abbreviated routine...

Smith incline
Dips
Close-grip benches
Bent-over rows
Close-grip pulldowns
Hammer curls
Lateral raises
Smith squats
Deadlifts

...nine exercises, one set each, takes about 25-30 mins, only ONCE a week.

 After a month my arms had gone from 15'' back up to their previous all time high of 15.5'' (I'm only 5'4'' and natural). I was so excited I decided to continue training this way (30 mins a week), and after another 3 months my arms were up to 16''. My deadlift was up to 455 for 10! (from 375 for 10)

I still train this way! It's great! Though it doesn't do much for fat loss.

People ask me what I do for the rest of the week... I tell them I look in the mirror admiring my new muscle.


The Luke

PS-before people start in on me about my measurements, at 5'4'' a cold 16'' arm measurement is pretty big  for a natural, although arms are a genetic weakness for me (my calves are 17.5'', thighs 28'', chest 45'' and neck 17.5'').

Where's sarcasm when you need him to make fun of a guy with 15" arms giving out advice?

[Disgusted]

Eh, Disgusted...

Noticed the only part of my previous post you didn't write a cryptic comment on was:

"If you could explain your argument and/or what exactly you find wrong with mine maybe we could explain it to each other."

So consider that re-stated.

Don't know why you can't grasp the concept of increased recover causing growth...

Two identical twins, both train the same way, one takes steroids... one does not. Each guy gains the same amount of muscle from each workout, No they don't since one is on steroids except the steroid user recovers 50% faster and is ready to train again 50% faster, Here you go again getting the growth and recovery confused he does 50% more workouts. At the end of one year, natural identical twin is X amount of muscle heavier, steroid using twin is X and a half amount of muscle heavier having effectively accomplished 18 months training in that same year. So are you saying tht if the other twin lifted for 18 months he would be as big as his twin without steroids? Lifting weights is not an exact science Luke, way too many variables. [/b]
Can someone else chime in on this guys? Does anyone else understand Disgusteds argument? If so could they (or Disgusted) explain it to me? I really thought it was a given that steroids increase recovery ability.
 
Luke your example is flawed. Each twin does not gain the same amount of muscle from each workout. (Actually, no one "gains" muscle from working out, they destroy it.) The first twin gains more muscle because he is on steroids. 

The Luke