Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 22, 2014, 08:57:56 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: "Natural Bodybuilding" Modern Oxymoron?  (Read 8153 times)
brianX
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2813

Kiwiol has 13" arms!


« Reply #25 on: March 25, 2006, 10:34:02 AM »

The "natural" in "natural bodybuilding" is really a reference to natural hormone levels. Creatine or protein power will not radically change serum hormone levels, hence they are not unnatural in the bodybuilding sense.

I don't agree with some of your other points, either. Lifting weights is not "unnatural". Humans have been building up their muscles through manual labor for many thousands of years. There is even evidence that the ancient Greeks engaged in weight training. People have only been injecting synthetic hormones into their ass since the 1960's. Steroid bodybuilding was only made possible once the knowledge of steroid chemistry reached an advanced state.
Report to moderator   Logged

hahahahahahahahahahahaha
Johnny Apollo
Guest
« Reply #26 on: March 25, 2006, 10:56:33 AM »

The "natural" in "natural bodybuilding" is really a reference to natural hormone levels.

According to whom?


I don't agree with some of your other points, either. Lifting weights is not "unnatural". Humans have been building up their muscles through manual labor for many thousands of years. There is even evidence that the ancient Greeks engaged in weight training. People have only been injecting synthetic hormones into their ass since the 1960's. Steroid bodybuilding was only made possible once the knowledge of steroid chemistry reached an advanced state.

It doesn't matter how far back weight lifting goes...Unless it occurs naturally in nature it can't be called "natural". Where do dumbells and barbells occur in nature? Nowhere. Thus they can't be called "natural".
Report to moderator   Logged
shiftedShapes
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3687


http://pull-ups.blogspot.com/


« Reply #27 on: March 25, 2006, 12:52:22 PM »

they occur in nature right here and now.  They are one of the tools we humans use.
Report to moderator   Logged
Johnny Apollo
Guest
« Reply #28 on: March 26, 2006, 11:05:00 AM »

they occur in nature right here and now.  They are one of the tools we humans use.



By the strictest definition, If they are human created they can't be called "natural".
Report to moderator   Logged
The BEAST
Competitors
Getbig IV
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 1212


She-Beast


WWW
« Reply #29 on: March 26, 2006, 05:37:45 PM »

Fine you win...whatever-so I will continue to be a "natural bodybuilder" by only doing sit-ups, wall sits and push ups.  Maybe if I find a good branch outside I can do some pull ups too Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged

Jennifer
Johnny Apollo
Guest
« Reply #30 on: March 27, 2006, 05:58:45 AM »

Fine you win...whatever-so I will continue to be a "natural bodybuilder" by only doing sit-ups, wall sits and push ups.  Maybe if I find a good branch outside I can do some pull ups too Roll Eyes


Or you can stop calling yourself a "Natural bodybuilder" and start just refering to yourself as a "Bodybuilder who does not use steroids".
Report to moderator   Logged
GET_BIGGER
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3032


Peace and good genes be to you


« Reply #31 on: March 27, 2006, 09:20:19 AM »

Fine you win...whatever-so I will continue to be a "natural bodybuilder" by only doing sit-ups, wall sits and push ups.  Maybe if I find a good branch outside I can do some pull ups too Roll Eyes

Wow, he didn't say none of that is natural because it's not done in nature.  I have never seen an ape (not that I'm referring you to as an ape  Grin) doing situps or pushups on the discovery channel.  Well, maybe they do, maybe it's just not documented.
Report to moderator   Logged
GET_BIGGER
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3032


Peace and good genes be to you


« Reply #32 on: March 27, 2006, 09:24:02 AM »

According to whom?


It's a "universal label", it's common knowledge. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Johnny Apollo
Guest
« Reply #33 on: March 27, 2006, 09:48:56 AM »

It's a "universal label", it's common knowledge. 


No..Bodybuilders who don't take steroids just like to label themselves "natural" in an attempt to sould purer or better than enhanced bodybuilders who use steroids. When in reality there isn't anything "natural" about what bodybuilders do..steroids or not.
Report to moderator   Logged
The BEAST
Competitors
Getbig IV
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 1212


She-Beast


WWW
« Reply #34 on: March 27, 2006, 10:00:55 AM »

I move that we change the name of this board to "Bodybuilders who do not use steroids"  although that may make some steroid using bodybuilders angry since this also may indicate we are more pure and better then those who use.  How about Non-Enhanced Bodybuilders??? Though I didn't realize using steroids allowed you to be "enhanced!"

If you are trying to argue about word usage you may take a second look at the work "enhanced."  Since when does using an illegal substance enhance you?Huh  The defintion of enhanced is to intensify or increase in value, quality or beauty...not everyone thinks a mass monster is "enhanced," please Johnny Apollo what are we to do?Huh
Report to moderator   Logged

Jennifer
Johnny Apollo
Guest
« Reply #35 on: March 27, 2006, 10:05:12 AM »

I move that we change the name of this board to "Bodybuilders who do not use steroids"  although that may make some steroid using bodybuilders angry since this also may indicate we are more pure and better then those who use.  How about Non-Enhanced Bodybuilders??? Though I didn't realize using steroids allowed you to be "enhanced!"

If you are trying to argue about word usage you may take a second look at the work "enhanced."  Since when does using an illegal substance enhance you?Huh  The defintion of enhanced is to intensify or increase in value, quality or beauty...not everyone thinks a mass monster is "enhanced," please Johnny Apollo what are we to do?Huh


On the contrary using steroids does "enhance" you. It enhances muscle mass. Enhances protein synthesis. Enhances recovery. Enhances stamina...Ect..Ect.

Enhance just means "increase" and steroids increase the rate protein is synthesized, Steroids increase recovery time, Steroids increase muscle strength....


So yes...Anabolic Steroids enhance.
Report to moderator   Logged
The BEAST
Competitors
Getbig IV
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 1212


She-Beast


WWW
« Reply #36 on: March 27, 2006, 11:12:28 AM »

But enhance is used almost always used as a positive (like the examples you gave) and steroids to do have all positive side effects.  Well, I suppose we could say it enhanced HER masculinity...it enhanced his chance of cardiovascular disease. 

It seems you are implying non-steroid using athletes are inferior then those enhanced ones...you'll enjoy this article given to me by another member.
http://www.thebrushback.com/pussies_full.htm
Report to moderator   Logged

Jennifer
Johnny Apollo
Guest
« Reply #37 on: March 27, 2006, 11:39:49 AM »

But enhance is used almost always used as a positive (like the examples you gave) and steroids to do have all positive side effects.  Well, I suppose we could say it enhanced HER masculinity...it enhanced his chance of cardiovascular disease. 

It seems you are implying non-steroid using athletes are inferior then those enhanced ones...you'll enjoy this article given to me by another member.
http://www.thebrushback.com/pussies_full.htm

You don't seem to know anything about Anabolic Steroids. If used correctly the effects are ALL positive. You can prevent side effects from appearing by cycling correctly and using proper post cycle therapy.

Strength gain
Muscle gain
Faster recovery time
Increased apetite
Sense of well being
More energy
More motivation
Faster protein synthesis


These are negative side effects? I think NOT.

If used correctly the ONLY side effects that are even notable(Not even that common) are..

Acne
Temporary breast tenderness
Mild mood swings
Increased cholesterol count
Higher blood pressure

That's about it as far as proven immediate side effects go when cycling correctly and using proper PCT(Cycling "correctly" means no women or children)..ALL of which are temporary..ALL of which can be reduced by cycling correctly and all of which are fairly rare among steroid users.
Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16047


Getbig!


« Reply #38 on: March 28, 2006, 02:08:44 AM »


No..Bodybuilders who don't take steroids just like to label themselves "natural" in an attempt to sould purer or better than enhanced bodybuilders who use steroids. When in reality there isn't anything "natural" about what bodybuilders do..steroids or not.

As I said, the last time you and Robocop engaged in this pitiful whinefest, If you're so convinced that you must use roids to get the physique you desire, use them and quit blubbering about it; or find a way to get big without them.

Report to moderator   Logged
gcb
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2103


you suffer, why?


« Reply #39 on: March 28, 2006, 07:25:41 AM »


By the strictest definition, If they are human created they can't be called "natural".

You're being very pedantic - I mean I could say sitting at a keyboard reading decoded binary data coming
from a remote server is not very natural. Sure dumbbells and barbells don't occur in nature but it has been
in mans nature to train and improve himself both physically and mentally for as far back as we can remember
- bodybuilding is just a specific manifestation of this. The fact that specific tools have been created for this
purpose does not make it less natural.
Report to moderator   Logged
Johnny Apollo
Guest
« Reply #40 on: March 28, 2006, 07:32:02 AM »

As I said, the last time you and Robocop engaged in this pitiful whinefest, If you're so convinced that you must use roids to get the physique you desire, use them and quit blubbering about it; or find a way to get big without them.




It depends on the "Physique you desire". You can get to a point naturally but if you desire more...
Report to moderator   Logged
shiftedShapes
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3687


http://pull-ups.blogspot.com/


« Reply #41 on: March 28, 2006, 10:41:50 AM »

I don't like your definition of natural.  Why should fusion and black holes be considered natural phenomenon while an iron dumbell is considered unnatural just because it is created by a hairless ape.  I don't think there is a meaningful distinction to be found between natural and unnatural, as there is between natural and supernatural/imaginary.

-sS
Report to moderator   Logged
Johnny Apollo
Guest
« Reply #42 on: March 28, 2006, 11:04:32 AM »

I don't like your definition of natural.  Why should fusion and black holes be considered natural phenomenon while an iron dumbell is considered unnatural just because it is created by a hairless ape.  I don't think there is a meaningful distinction to be found between natural and unnatural, as there is between natural and supernatural/imaginary.

-sS


That's my point. "Natural" is ambigious.
Report to moderator   Logged
shiftedShapes
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3687


http://pull-ups.blogspot.com/


« Reply #43 on: March 28, 2006, 01:14:48 PM »

ok we are basically in agreement here that the line between natural and unnatural is arbitrary.  Where we disagree is that you think that weight lifting and steroids should both be considered unnatural whereas I think they are both natural. 

From your posts I take it that you are not natural.  How long did you lift before you got on teh juice?

I tend to think that talk of building a natural base is bollocks.  If you want to get super big I think the best bet is get on as soon as possible.  it takes many years of juicing full steam ahead to get huge.

That being said, it's not important enough for me to get huge to risk the sides (I'm prone to acne, only got it under control with the help of accutane) and have baldness in my family so I might start really losing hair if I tried it.  I'm also reluctant to mess with my cholesteral and liver chemistry.

So until the myostatin blocking antibody's are availible and proven safe I will have to settle for looking like an average joe.
Report to moderator   Logged
Johnny Apollo
Guest
« Reply #44 on: March 28, 2006, 06:28:06 PM »

ok we are basically in agreement here that the line between natural and unnatural is arbitrary.  Where we disagree is that you think that weight lifting and steroids should both be considered unnatural whereas I think they are both natural. 

From your posts I take it that you are not natural.  How long did you lift before you got on teh juice?

I tend to think that talk of building a natural base is bollocks.  If you want to get super big I think the best bet is get on as soon as possible.  it takes many years of juicing full steam ahead to get huge.

That being said, it's not important enough for me to get huge to risk the sides (I'm prone to acne, only got it under control with the help of accutane) and have baldness in my family so I might start really losing hair if I tried it.  I'm also reluctant to mess with my cholesteral and liver chemistry.

So until the myostatin blocking antibody's are availible and proven safe I will have to settle for looking like an average joe.


1.I've never used steroids myself.

2.I strongly disagree as far as the "natural base" goes. I say that you need atleast 8 years of good training before you should ever use anabolic steroids(And be over 18 years old).

3.We aren't in disagreement as far as the natural/unnatural thing goes.
Report to moderator   Logged
shiftedShapes
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3687


http://pull-ups.blogspot.com/


« Reply #45 on: March 28, 2006, 07:40:05 PM »


2.I strongly disagree as far as the "natural base" goes. I say that you need atleast 8 years of good training before you should ever use anabolic steroids(And be over 18 years old).

From looking at most of the pics of the pros it seems like they get on juice in their teens or early 20's.  You gain faster on roids then off them, sp it just seems like a better way to get big.  I know people say receptors burn out after a while but I think that the palumbo, kovacs, nasser look is more a result of too much eating, GH, and Slin.  Look at guys like Dave Drapper, who has probably been on some kind of exogenous hormones for 40 years and he still looks awesome.

Then there is the argument that without a natural base you are more likely to grow too fast and muscle gains will outpace tendon strength increasing the chances of injury.  I think that this could be avoided with conservative progression and a solid background as a natural (no way that 8 years is necessary though, 2-3 of serious training should be plenty). 

To some extent I think that talk of the natural base is just another way for pro BBs to claim that their results are not all caused by sauce.

-sS
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41726

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #46 on: April 15, 2006, 11:49:52 AM »

Straw man argument. "Natural" in bodybuilding circles simply means you've never used steroids. Nothing more, nothing less.

I agree.  It's that simple. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Johnny Apollo
Guest
« Reply #47 on: April 15, 2006, 12:01:58 PM »

I agree.  It's that simple. 


But bodybuilding circles don't define the word "natural". Natural is defined by common usage which is in the dictionary. Nowhere in the definition of "natural" in any reputable dictionary does it say "not using anabolic steroids". You can't just make up your own definitions to words to fit your argument.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41726

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #48 on: April 15, 2006, 12:58:10 PM »


But bodybuilding circles don't define the word "natural". Natural is defined by common usage which is in the dictionary. Nowhere in the definition of "natural" in any reputable dictionary does it say "not using anabolic steroids". You can't just make up your own definitions to words to fit your argument.

You can't just rely on dictionary definitions to fit your argument either.  I use the dictionary a lot, but there are connotative meanings too.  The connotative meaning of "natural bodybuilding" is "drug free." 
Report to moderator   Logged
Johnny Apollo
Guest
« Reply #49 on: April 15, 2006, 02:48:17 PM »

You can't just rely on dictionary definitions to fit your argument either.  I use the dictionary a lot, but there are connotative meanings too.  The connotative meaning of "natural bodybuilding" is "drug free." 


Well your "connotative" definition is hypocritical. That's what i'm pointing out. You say "natural" means "drug free". Why? Why does it mean drug free? How are steroids unnatural and synthetic chemicals like creatine natural? Creatine can be found in food, Occurs in the body..So what? That doesn't mean the synthetic purified form that is injested in supplements is natural. In fact every single definition of natural...Creatine would be unnatural!
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!