Vince Basile?

[corinth]

You've mentioned this several times, Vince. I believe you. And here's a question in return. Why should they? Except, perhaps, in cases involving,muscular dystrophy or other 'medical' instances why should scientists waste their time, lab resources, their reputations so that gym rats like ourselves can build bigger muscles? It just seems that with so many real problems facing us these days, finding ways to 'maxim[ize]mum human hypertrophy' should not be one of them. Maybe you can explain a bit further.

Great post Dr. As much as I'd like the science community to find the best way for us to develop 20 inch arms, I'd much rather they devote themselves to finding a cure for cancer first. We sometimes forget how insignificant bodybuilding truly is in the grand scheme.

[Vince B]

It is very important for everyone that the hypertrophy process is fully understood by science. If it were then everyone would benefit and that includes all athletes, fat people, old people, women. All growth in the body should be fully understood. I am aware of an academic bias against bodybuilders because I have been to several universities. The fact that few scientists are interested in maximum hypertrophy doesn't mean it is not important. We need to know what goes on in the body that sustains hypertrophy. We need to know if hyperplasia occurs. When we can comprehend what is going on we can control it. Controlling hypertrophy by enthusiasts is called bodybuilding. At the moment we lack knowledge and what happens is the knuckleheads are experimenting with all manner of drugs to leapfrog the growth process. We need to find the 'aspirin' of hypertrophy and no longer try the reckless stacking protocols we hear about in this sport.

[oldtimer1]

Anyone who claims they beat drugs and then sticks a syringe in their butt is a fool.

I'm shocked at how many fans of steroids there are on this site.  I guess I shouldn't be considering that the "sport" is based on drug use.  If drugs were eliminated the sport would cease to exist.  The magazines would fold. The supplement companies using roided up bodybuilders in their ads would suffer major losses.  I'm sure some will counter that all sports use drugs.  This isn't true.  Pro bodybuilding is 100% drug use.

Bodybuilding drugs affects the mind as much as the body.  When you're on the juice you feel confident,aggressive and have a feeling of well being.  When you're off cycle as the drugs leave your system you feel nervous,meek,and depressed.  Using steroids,GH, insulin, LH hormone,diuretics,speed,anti estrogens;hcg,oil injection and who knows what else is madness to pose in your underwear.  They are a risk to health. 

They also affects the heart.  Heart disease is the number one killer in the world.  The heart is the most important muscle.  If the heart muscle was located outside the body bodybuilders would train it like mad.  Steroids increase blood pressure.  They change ratios of HDL and LDL for the worse.  The quickly added bodyweight is a strain on the heart much like being obese is.  Diuretics can stop your heart quickly as it depletes potassium.  Your liver enzymes go up as it cleans and processes the drugs out of your system.  How many kidney problems have we seen with pro bodybuilders?  Could all the stomach/digestive conditions be a result of GH?  How many young roid users have enlarged prostates from all the androgens?

This subculture of a sport does attract a lot of insecure young men.  I would hate to see them being given pharmaceutical advice from a steroid dealer who probably delivered pizzas prior to his drug dealing job.  Will every one who uses steroids develop health problems?  The obvious answer is no and the same can be said for heroin users.

Steroid users think the public is in awe of them. The fact is that they are laughing at them.  I was on the beach when a roided up guy went by and the family on the blanket next to me made horse sounds.  The implication is clear.  They were implying that he didn't earn those muscles.

I'm sure many of you think that I'm not a fan of bodybuilding.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I have been lifting for over 30 years.  I have seen steroid users quit after cycling on and off 10 years.  They quit due financial,health or legal reasons. Then they usually quit lifting because it seems like a waste of time off the juice.  Training natural has so many benefits it would take to many words to put in this post.  One thing is for sure is that if you train natural don't ever compare yourself to the drug user on the bench next you.  You should never let a drug user feel superior to you.  Sooner or later he has to come off the juice and then you can compare.


Is steroids like using heroin or cocaine.  That's for the user to decide.  I say it's the same mind set.  The same addiction. 

[Miss Karen]

This maybe true it may not, nobody cares the only people it effects are the family of the users.While you have some call themselves Guru and say never use synthol after they do. Makes you wonder how smart any of these people are,but it's choice no one is forced to gear up.IMO.

[Vince B]

Miss Karen, it is a fine line to walk being a competitive bodybuilder. Most of us have not achieved the results we wanted. What do we do when that happens and further training seems unlikely to produce what we seek? Many people give in and try the alternatives. This is human nature. I have seen young guys compete and lose against steroid users. Those young men gave up the sport and what a pity that was. I guess they did the right thing in a way but those guys had nice physiques. When you are not 'rewarded' for your physique it can be disappointing. I have always believed that bodybuilding was more about transcendence than anything else. This is especially true when we look at the titles the bodybuilders competed for. Mr Universe! Can there be a higher title? Nope. Joe has his Mr Olympia but in a way Mr Universe is a higher title. We all want to transcend our average selves and be a title holder. Athletes do that, too, and aim to be the Olympic champion or World champion and so on. With rewards this high is it any wonder that some elect to try 'dangerous' substances to gain an advantage or at least be on a level playing field with the other competitors? I agree that the mindset is foolish and what a pity that bodybuilding organizations do little to reverse the present unhealthy playing field.

To Old Timer. I would guess that drug free bodybuilding is possible and that we can compete with drug users and perhaps defeat them because those side effects would be absent. Can anyone imagine what a Steve Reeves could look like if he was a young man today and had access to the best gyms and nutrition?

[dr.chimps]

It is very important for everyone that the hypertrophy process is fully understood by science. If it were then everyone would benefit and that includes all athletes, fat people, old people, women. All growth in the body should be fully understood. I am aware of an academic bias against bodybuilders because I have been to several universities. The fact that few scientists are interested in maximum hypertrophy doesn't mean it is not important. We need to know what goes on in the body that sustains hypertrophy. We need to know if hyperplasia occurs. When we can comprehend what is going on we can control it. Controlling hypertrophy by enthusiasts is called bodybuilding. At the moment we lack knowledge and what happens is the knuckleheads are experimenting with all manner of drugs to leapfrog the growth process. We need to find the 'aspirin' of hypertrophy and no longer try the reckless stacking protocols we hear about in this sport.

Vince, this is a very soft and general answer, which might be accepted by some lay person. However, if, as you say, you've been around a university in your time, you would know that your above response would receive a failing grade (particularly the bolded exerpt) as it lacks any rigorous logic.

/not trying to ride you on this, so feel free not to reply, but i am still to be convinced, at the present time and using your parameters, that building bigger muscles needs to be investigated by the scientific community. perhaps your argument might be better served using a military or multi-year space voyage angle? 

[pumpster]

Have to give Vince credit i'm enjoying this.

[Vince B]

There is a vast gulf between philosophy and science. I haven't seen anything approaching a philosophy of hypertrophy or even exercise science. In the end what becomes science is what interests those scientists. They have problems and do research to try to gain insights into phenomena. If most exercise scientists do not have large muscles then why would any of them be personally interested in studying hypertrophy? The same goes for physical education and exercise science people. There has been a cult of valuing the mind over matter even in PE. That really is pathetic. Why isn't there more value placed on physiques? Well, the answer might be hidden in psychology and sociology along with history. No matter what value you place on mental pursuits and ability that does not diminish the value of physical traits such as appearance and physiques. So many people are mere hedonists and have no interest whatever in studying anything at all.  We can test this conjecture by examining what winners of sweepstakes and lotteries do with their money. They quit their jobs, take a holiday and buy nice things for themselves and families. I doubt anyone has enrolled in university.

'Muscle' has become a negative word and what a pity that is. We need philosophers to reverse that charge and turn things around so that the beautiful physique is again lauded and respected. In the end, progress will be made by unique and gifted individuals and not the rank and file we see here on Getbig. From all the jumping up and down and one liners you would think a hint of intelligence might be behind those posts. Heck, not only are those guys afraid to get up on stage in a lineup, most are afraid of their own identity and prefer to remain anonymous for their own safety. That is the only way the meek inherit anything.

Historically scientists have been wimps. Until we have some masculine guys doing science we are not going to see any research into maximum hypertrophy. I would be satisfied with a complete field theory explaining hypertrophy. That must be a long way off at the moment because I have seen nothing at all close to explaining hypertrophy. The so called experts on hypertrophy know almost nothing both theoretically or practically. I find the absence of knowledge surprising because surely someone should see the gap. I suppose we don't see what we are not looking for.

The scientists are a bit like the earnest lads on this board. You can knock on the door of the deaf man forever.

Let me list a few nonsense concepts that most here think they know something about. Genetics for hypertrophy is a subject with absolutely no content. There is no information about who has the genes for hypertrophy except to beg the question. Hardgainers? Yes, where is the evidence for them? Again, that is just a term invented to explain the phenomenon of guys who train but get nowhere. I could go on and on. We know very little but assume we can explain this and that. What does anyone here know about drugs and bodybuilding except personal experience. That is not knowledge. There is so much nonsense in our sport that we have invented a language to pass on this nonsense. We are perpetuating falsehoods and assume we know what we are doing. People then believe things and because they believe them they think they are right and what they believe is true. No amount of believing something is true will change what the facts are. We need more information. We have to stop believing falsehoods. Always ask this question when examining phenomena: What is the test of truth of that phenomena?

What is the test of truth of statements I have made? Well, I hope there should be a correspondence with the facts. Go and find exercise scientists and talk to them. Find out if they know anything about hypertrophy and how to maximize it in humans. Ask for references to controlled studies. Ask to see what evidence of hypertrophy they have generated in themselves or others. If you cannot find this evidence then what I said about scientists is probably true. What they believe is important to what they will think necessary to study. At the moment big muscles are way down there on the list of research subjects. Find me one person who has received a PhD on the subject of maximum hypertrophy. You can find several who have studied anorexia nervosa. Doesn't that seem bizarre to us? Why should they study skinny, mentally ill subjects instead of muscle men? Yeah, I guess I sound nuts even championing this subject.

Will the cynical dr chimps please enlighten us with his credentials as far as academic standing goes? You do not get marks for rigorous logic but for powerful arguments and sense.

[bic_staedtler]

Vince, science DOES know enough about hypertrophy to have isolated test in a synthetic form.  What, are we to believe it was MUSCLETECH!?!?!?....lol!

Drugs are the silver bullet.  However they have side effects.  ALL agents which augment extra muscle growth in humans have side effects...food, supplements....anything that works has them!  Everything will eat goes through the liver and it's no surprise that THAT'S where a lot of the damage occurs.  I'd LOVE to see a paper published that shows the REAL damage that a moderate steroid injectable cycle does on the liver, versus say, REGULAR ALCOHOLIC intake on par with your average couch potato...THAT I'd be interested in!

The only thing one can do is eat clean and train hard....sleep.  Repeat.  That's IT.

There will never be an 'aspirin' for hypertrophy...trust that the drugmakers would have FOUND one by now...they're VERY interested in doing so!...could you imagine how LUCRATIVE a chemical that could safely grow muscles would be?  I mean, it's BOGGLING, really.  Just imagine how much is spent on plastic surgery and implants.  Science HAS the answer, it's a dangerous one, STEROIDS.

Understanding the process of hypertrophy is fine and all, but we've had many theories and STILL can't agree! 

And if you're a man of science, Vince..then I sure hope you're taking more than the 1.8 grams of protein PER KILOGRAM that has been advocated by MANY published research papers in order to GROW MUSCLE...what's that?  You take MORE?  ....you'd think an educated man would heed the almighty words of science to heart, V!

Okay, I'm ball-bustin but you get my point, Vince.

[TheGoldenPrince]

Vince, science DOES know enough about hypertrophy to have isolated test in a synthetic form.  What, are we to believe it was MUSCLETECH!?!?!?....lol!

Drugs are the silver bullet.  However they have side effects.  ALL agents which augment extra muscle growth in humans have side effects...food, supplements....anything that works has them!  Everything will eat goes through the liver and it's no surprise that THAT'S where a lot of the damage occurs.  I'd LOVE to see a paper published that shows the REAL damage that a moderate steroid injectable cycle does on the liver, versus say, REGULAR ALCOHOLIC intake on par with your average couch potato...THAT I'd be interested in!

The only thing one can do is eat clean and train hard....sleep.  Repeat.  That's IT.

There will never be an 'aspirin' for hypertrophy...trust that the drugmakers would have FOUND one by now...they're VERY interested in doing so!...could you imagine how LUCRATIVE a chemical that could safely grow muscles would be?  I mean, it's BOGGLING, really.  Just imagine how much is spent on plastic surgery and implants.  Science HAS the answer, it's a dangerous one, STEROIDS.

Understanding the process of hypertrophy is fine and all, but we've had many theories and STILL can't agree! 

And if you're a man of science, Vince..then I sure hope you're taking more than the 1.8 grams of protein PER KILOGRAM that has been advocated by MANY published research papers in order to GROW MUSCLE...what's that?  You take MORE?  ....you'd think an educated man would heed the almighty words of science to heart, V!

Okay, I'm ball-bustin but you get my point, Vince.

Meditation in the Word of God, faith, prayer, proper nutrition (not just eating the BB staples but also SECRET natural foods that maximise absorption of nutrients) , rest and training (smart, slow, heavy, cycling low-to-moderate rep ranges and injury-free) will have wondrous effects on the natural BB. Faith in the Lord is the most vital aspect for me; don't forget who the Creator is!

[dr.chimps]

There is a vast gulf between philosophy and science. I haven't seen anything approaching a philosophy of hypertrophy or even exercise science. In the end what becomes science is what interests those scientists. They have problems and do research to try to gain insights into phenomena. If most exercise scientists do not have large muscles then why would any of them be personally interested in studying hypertrophy? The same goes for physical education and exercise science people. There has been a cult of valuing the mind over matter even in PE. That really is pathetic. Why isn't there more value placed on physiques? Well, the answer might be hidden in psychology and sociology along with history. No matter what value you place on mental pursuits and ability that does not diminish the value of physical traits such as appearance and physiques. So many people are mere hedonists and have no interest whatever in studying anything at all.  We can test this conjecture by examining what winners of sweepstakes and lotteries do with their money. They quit their jobs, take a holiday and buy nice things for themselves and families. I doubt anyone has enrolled in university.

'Muscle' has become a negative word and what a pity that is. We need philosophers to reverse that charge and turn things around so that the beautiful physique is again lauded and respected. In the end, progress will be made by unique and gifted individuals and not the rank and file we see here on Getbig. From all the jumping up and down and one liners you would think a hint of intelligence might be behind those posts. Heck, not only are those guys afraid to get up on stage in a lineup, most are afraid of their own identity and prefer to remain anonymous for their own safety. That is the only way the meek inherit anything.

Historically scientists have been wimps. Until we have some masculine guys doing science we are not going to see any research into maximum hypertrophy. I would be satisfied with a complete field theory explaining hypertrophy. That must be a long way off at the moment because I have seen nothing at all close to explaining hypertrophy. The so called experts on hypertrophy know almost nothing both theoretically or practically. I find the absence of knowledge surprising because surely someone should see the gap. I suppose we don't see what we are not looking for.

The scientists are a bit like the earnest lads on this board. You can knock on the door of the deaf man forever.

Let me list a few nonsense concepts that most here think they know something about. Genetics for hypertrophy is a subject with absolutely no content. There is no information about who has the genes for hypertrophy except to beg the question. Hardgainers? Yes, where is the evidence for them? Again, that is just a term invented to explain the phenomenon of guys who train but get nowhere. I could go on and on. We know very little but assume we can explain this and that. What does anyone here know about drugs and bodybuilding except personal experience. That is not knowledge. There is so much nonsense in our sport that we have invented a language to pass on this nonsense. We are perpetuating falsehoods and assume we know what we are doing. People then believe things and because they believe them they think they are right and what they believe is true. No amount of believing something is true will change what the facts are. We need more information. We have to stop believing falsehoods. Always ask this question when examining phenomena: What is the test of truth of that phenomena?

What is the test of truth of statements I have made? Well, I hope there should be a correspondence with the facts. Go and find exercise scientists and talk to them. Find out if they know anything about hypertrophy and how to maximize it in humans. Ask for references to controlled studies. Ask to see what evidence of hypertrophy they have generated in themselves or others. If you cannot find this evidence then what I said about scientists is probably true. What they believe is important to what they will think necessary to study. At the moment big muscles are way down there on the list of research subjects. Find me one person who has received a PhD on the subject of maximum hypertrophy. You can find several who have studied anorexia nervosa. Doesn't that seem bizarre to us? Why should they study skinny, mentally ill subjects instead of muscle men? Yeah, I guess I sound nuts even championing this subject.

Will the cynical dr chimps please enlighten us with his credentials as far as academic standing goes? You do not get marks for rigorous logic but for powerful arguments and sense.

Wow, that is a response, even a treatise. But you have covered so much and you jump from from point to point with so much rapidity that I don't think I can pick out a theme to answer you in a coherent manner. I can address the last bit tho. At the university level, research (sadly) is being driven more and more by outside (private) funding and less by internal budgets and hence research topics are skewed, dep'ts are headed by MBA's and not faculty members, etc. The biology dept. at the local university is continually hyped for it's ability to attract funding in the tens of millions!? I think for the purposes of examining 'maximum hypertrophy' as you detail, my bet would be on a Phys. Ed. graduate student working on a thesis or doc. But offhand, I can see sample size problems and control aspects that would be a nightmare. Heck, I would like to see your 'problem' more fully investigated, but playing devil's advocate, even simply, reveal so many practical difficulties in doing so. Perhaps, this is why the venal supplement companies have filled this gap so well and taken so many of the gullible for more than they can afford. 

As for me, I suppose I have, as they say, enough degrees for a thermometer, and while I did some teaching it was never for me and now fill my time doing a bit of writing. My on-line moniker reflects a persona that is strictly of an honorific nature, hence the small d. (I certainly don't want to appear to be the jumped-up pantry boy!). As they say, like yourself, I am but a simple traveler. Cheers 

/cynical perhaps, but i have found you learn more by questioning things rather than accepting them at face value. call it a skeptic's reasoning.

[pumpster]

Faith in the Lord is the most vital aspect for me; don't forget who the Creator is!

What is the Lord's position on hypertrophy? 

[Yorkie T]

What is the Lord's position on hypertrophy? 

good question..something scholar's have been pondering for many many years.the vatican recently funded a major investigation on this..

they concluded that cell tech was indeed the work of god and muscletech will be using it in there next ad campaign..featuring gustavo badell and jesus

[oldtimer1]

Sometimes I wonder if you could take a pill that would give you a world class physique with no training, how many would do this?  Would anyone then care about the new magic pill bodybuilder physiques?

 Right now I see guys that have the worst out of shape bodies looking beyond fantastic by using steroids for a six to 8 week cycle.  Then when they go off for a couple months they quickly revert back to what they were before.  I have seen guys so addicted to the juice that their cycles are almost back to back for the year with little down time. 

I'm off topic here.  Back to Vince. 

[Vince B]

To reply to Vic. Science, in my opinion, knows very little about hypertrophy. I am impressed that they are finding out about body processes at the molecular level. From diagrams I have seen the body is immensely complicated and I doubt anyone can synthesize all that information to produce a field theory of hypertrophy. Scientists have come up with steroids but the ones that I have seen taken, including testosterone, are not safe if taken in high doses or for long periods of time. The present practices in bodybuilding are the reverse of science and so-called gurus are nothing more than charlatans and witch doctors. If a man takes a substance and has breasts that is not scientific bodybuilding but insanity. Who wants to have muscles but also breasts?

I believe we will look back on the current scene and shake our heads at the lack of information available to bodybuilders. Instead of listening to doctors and scientists it appears that bodybuilders are following the prescriptions of 'experts' in drugs.

We need to find out more about hypertrophy and the steady accumulation of muscle. It must be possible to understand the processes completely and then come up with things that will aid this process but not end up making us freaks.

[Laura Lee]

Who wants to have muscles but also breasts?

Female bodybuilders. 

[Yorkie T]

 Who wants to have muscles but also breasts?
 

Vince G

[Vince B]

dr chimps has more degrees than a thermometer. Okay, I will accept that. Well, you know how conservative universities are. We also know that drug companies do a lot of research but not the kind that involve finding out about hypertrophy. So I suppose the only chance we have is for a single person to do some pertinent research into maximum hypertrophy. Can we even imagine such a study done over a long period of time? Most university studies last for a term or about 12 weeks. That is not long enough to discover anything at all. We need studies going for several years. Yes, it will be difficult to get a sufficient dedicated sample for this. Maybe prison populations can be used? Anyway, with all the current research it should be quite easy to isolate factors and measure responses.

At the moment it seems to me that all current theories of hypertrophy are plainly false. At best some are partly true. High intensity training is patently false. HST is also false. Neither method can generate continuous methods even in disciples!

Let us do a thought experiment. It is possible to come up with every possible winning combination in chess. If that can be done then the game would cease to be interesting because you could always know what moves to make to win every game. Suppose it is possible to build huge muscles in a short time. Suppose we can put 5 inches on biceps in 2 years. Well, we should be able to reverse that process and specify what to do for each workout to end up with that result. In other words we should be able to maximize hypertrophy and accumulate the greatest amount of growth possible. From what I have seen re protocols I can safely say that most are going to be submaximal programs. There are no current methods that would lead to maximum hypertrophy. Oh, many make all sorts of claims but the legions of disappointed guys who are not growing testify to the ineffectiveness of those programs.

[Laura Lee]

Vince G

You got me there Yorkie.

[bailey]

Cheri : Any new pictures you can show us

[Vince B]

Yes, Cheri, Bev Francis was a friend when she lived in Australia. I respect women who want to develop larger muscles. Good for them. I don't approve of bodybuilders using silicon for effect. I know that most women resort to that silly addition to compensate for what they lose when they reduce their fat levels. Bodybuilding is great for women but maybe competitive bodybuilding is not. How many women want large muscles and almost no breasts?

[Laura Lee]

Cheri : Any new pictures you can show us

lol, you looking for new ammo bailey?   

[Laura Lee]

Yes, Cheri, Bev Francis was a friend when she lived in Australia. I respect women who want to develop larger muscles. Good for them. I don't approve of bodybuilders using silicon for effect. I know that most women resort to that silly addition to compensate for what they lose when they reduce their fat levels. Bodybuilding is great for women but maybe competitive bodybuilding is not. How many women want large muscles and almost no breasts?

Women's competitive bodybuilding might not be as profound as men's, but it's out there.  And those that want breasts along with greater muscle mass will usually go for the implants.

[bailey]

No. Just for our viewing pleasure. I told you what I thought about you.
I just thought you might have some newer photos since you were going to get ready for a show. Even If you are not dieting you still look hot !!! Post a few more pics to brighten my day.

[Laura Lee]

No. Just for our viewing pleasure. I told you what I thought about you.
I just thought you might have some newer photos since you were going to get ready for a show. Even If you are not dieting you still look hot !!! Post a few more pics to brighten my day.

I remember your post, and I am just messin with ya.  No pics to post today, but you all know Michael.  That's all he needs to whip out the camera.  lol