Care to elaborate? I'm not being a smart ass...that's not my style. Go ahead and tell me what you "really" think. The only reason I am asking is that I think I might find it interesting. Once you reply I'll address your comments directly.
What i'm saying is that i've got good arms that get looks in and out of the gym based on years of intense hard work. By no means am i anti-drug but to have to resort to high levels that can throw your metabolism off-for what exactly?
Unless the point is contests, arms can be more than big enough through natural training-throw in moderate drug use to take it further, if there's a good reason. As i see it now after decades of training and good results, the drug part is really only necessary for competitions, there's no practical advantage outside of that. The general public will not care for that extra 2". To then go even farther into high doses is going too far with no real upsides, unless competing for a serious contest, IMO.
I realize that this would be highly controversial here, it's just my 2 cents. Would I say the same thing in the mid-1970s after a few years of training? No, i'd be entirely pro-drugs. It also matters what your work ethic and genetics are, i'm factoring in the highest work ethic that i've applied coupled with average genetics.
