natural vs. roids in middle weights

[tom1468]

I read all over how steroids or prohormones (both of which i know nothing) give a advantage to a body builder or powerlifter.
My question is if all things are equal a muscle is a muscle, right?
So a natural 160 pound powerlifter vs a chemically enhanced 160 pound powerlifter should make no difference, correct?
Same with a man competing in bodybuilding at 160, correct? 160 lbs vs 160 lbs , it should come down to who looks best

Seems to me that steroids should not come into play until you hit the top of the heavy weight class

I guess it could help some cut fat to get ripped
I guess I am asking what is the advantage of lower and middle classes using them?
Especially in powerlifting , 160 vs 160 pounds
can someone explain to me

 

[Eric160]

they would help in alot of ways, faster recovery decreased catabolism... as far as powerlifting androgens like dht increse strength/explosive force. so even if both lifters weigh the same and have the same bf%... the enhanced lifter can lift more also chances are that the enhanced lifter will have a better body composition anyways. as far as bodybuilding steroids also alow a much greater glycogen uptake giving the muscles a fuller apearence. when cutting the decrease catabolism so a bodybuilder can lose fat faster without wasting muscle than a natural lifter hope that helps

 

[SuperPro]

I used to think the same way. You gotta do some more research on the endocrine system and how hormones affect your muscles. There's way
too much to think about to put it in one post, also I don't know everything lol. If you wanna look up specific hormones you can look at testosterone, HGH, Luteinizing Hormone (LH) for starters. I know there's many more but I'm no expert.

 

[jbryand101b]

How do androgens increase strength and explosive force?

 

[Eric160]

im no doctor but just from my knowlage i thought dht and its derivatives increse strength. dht would be clasified as an androgen correct?

 

[Eric160]

also another posibility is the the increased red blood cell count increses vascularity which gives a more muscular appearence and i dont know the exact science behind it but i would only imagine more red blood cells means more oxygen absorbtion which has to has some effect on strength and endurance. in addition to that steroids that decrease estrogen would give muscles a much harder apearence witch again would help in a bodybuilding contest

 

[B5150]

Anabolic Steroids Increase Muscle Contractile Strength

Bodybuilding Pharmacology: Roid Muscle Architecture
By: Jerry Brainium
Anabolic steroids increase muscle size and strength through various mechanisms, including an increase in muscle protein synthesis and a significant decrease in muscle catabolic processes. Psychological effects also play a role. The increased aggression often noted with steroid use fosters more intense, heavier training. One aspect of steroids not previously examined is how they affect the internal structure of muscles; that is, the way muscle fibers contract.

A group of researchers who had previously studied the effects of combining testosterone enanthate injections with weight training for 12 weeks recently published a new study.1 In the earlier study subjects received an injection of testosterone enanthate that was 3.5 milligrams per kilogram (2.2 pounds) of bodyweight. That amounts to 315 milligrams of testosterone weekly, a conservative amount for a typical bodybuilder. Another group got a placebo injection. As expected, the steroid group made considerably greater gains in muscle size and strength.

The new study, which also took place over 12 weeks, involved 10 of the same subjects who used the same amount of testosterone enanthate injections and engaged in weight training; another group got a placebo. The researchers focused on structural changes in the triceps muscles in the two groups, which were both training hard. Strength gains were measured by increases in one-rep-maximum poundages on the bench press.

Those taking the testosterone injections made significantly greater strength gains than those in the drug-free group. The steroid group also showed increased muscle pennation, which refers to the direction in which individual muscle fibers run between the origin and insertion points of a muscle. Muscle pennation determines the direction of muscular contraction, and the increased pennation in the steroid group increased muscle force through more efficient contractions. Those in the drug-free group did not experience that muscle pennation change, though changes they did show led to a finding of no significant difference in muscle thickness between the two groups, which would surprise many people.

The major discovery of the study was that even conservative doses of anabolic steroids appear to promote changes in a muscle's internal architecture, which results in greater muscle contractile force'and thus greater muscular strength'when combined with training.

 

[tom1468]

so let me see if I understand
Roids make structural differences in the muscle as compared to the natural and these structural differences are perminate.

So If a person weigh in at 160 and took roids he could become stronger without actually gaining size? He could remain 160 and be stronger?
I always assumed a pound of muscle compared to a pound of muscle, is the same, just a pound of muscle.

 

[Eric160]

also after puberty we dont produce any more muscle cells we are only able to enlarge and strengthen them with steroids cellular division can occur and increase the number of muscle cells. didnt do reasearch just heard this from a bio proffessor but i was at comunity college for a semester so idk how true it is lol

 

[B5150]

so let me see if I understand
Roids make structural differences in the muscle as compared to the natural and these structural differences are perminate.

So If a person weigh in at 160 and took roids he could become stronger without actually gaining size? He could remain 160 and be stronger?
I always assumed a pound of muscle compared to a pound of muscle, is the same, just a pound of muscle.

The statement; "The steroid group also showed increased muscle pennation, which refers to the direction in which individual muscle fibers run between the origin and insertion points of a muscle. Muscle pennation determines the direction of muscular contraction, and the increased pennation in the steroid group increased muscle force through more efficient contractions." and "The major discovery of the study was that even conservative doses of anabolic steroids appear to promote changes in a muscle's internal architecture, which results in greater muscle contractile force and thus greater muscular strength when combined with training." make no inference that they are permanent.

Abundant anecdotal evidence suggest that this is a transient condition.

I goes without dispute that if I a guy puts on 20lbs of muscle from steroid use his baseline strength will be increased - but that is not what you are asking.

 

[SPS]

so let me see if I understand
Roids make structural differences in the muscle as compared to the natural and these structural differences are perminate.

So If a person weigh in at 160 and took roids he could become stronger without actually gaining size? He could remain 160 and be stronger?
I always assumed a pound of muscle compared to a pound of muscle, is the same, just a pound of muscle.

Nah if that were true anyone who is 5'10 180 pounds with 10% bf would all have the same lift numbers. From personal experience after a week of SD my weight or bf might not change much at all but my bench will prob increase 10-15 pounds, maybe its placebo but i don't think so

 

[SPS]

Actually I feel like I have increased intensity and focus on cycle, that alone increases the weight you can pull imo

 

[M50]

so let me see if I understand
Roids make structural differences in the muscle as compared to the natural and these structural differences are perminate.

So If a person weigh in at 160 and took roids he could become stronger without actually gaining size? He could remain 160 and be stronger?
I always assumed a pound of muscle compared to a pound of muscle, is the same, just a pound of muscle.

this is true, but the aas powerlifter in a 165lb class would be more stronger, holding more muscle mass with a lower bodyfat percentage. The natural lifter would not potentially be able to hold the same ratio of muscle/fat. In addition (im not sure if this is totally correct) if the enhanced lifter depleted his muscles of glycogen and water he could potentially lose more water/glycogen weight than a natural lifter who did not hold as much muscle mass

 

[B5150]

...and once his is off of steroids his body composition and strength will return to that of a 160lb natural lifter.

It is not permanent.

 

[tom1468]

The statement; "The steroid group also showed increased muscle pennation, which refers to the direction in which individual muscle fibers run between the origin and insertion points of a muscle. Muscle pennation determines the direction of muscular contraction, and the increased pennation in the steroid group increased muscle force through more efficient contractions." and "The major discovery of the study was that even conservative doses of anabolic steroids appear to promote changes in a muscle's internal architecture, which results in greater muscle contractile force and thus greater muscular strength when combined with training." make no inference that they are permanent.

Abundant anecdotal evidence suggest that this is a transient condition.

I goes without dispute that if I a guy puts on 20lbs of muscle from steroid use his baseline strength will be increased - but that is not what you are asking.

your right no where did it state permanent, this was my assumption. I assumed structural difference would be permanent. My bad

Your right I was not asking about a man adding 20 pounds ....I was refering to 2 men at 160, one natural, one is chemically enhanced

 

[tom1468]

So then it would seem that a enhanced female powerlifter vs a male natural , within same weight class .... the woman should be stronger?...i have seen women that i doubt i could compete with natural....some of these women juice the words juice but still these woman get no where close to the strength and size abilities of some of these men
Sorry if i appear stupid but it is a cool topic, at lewst i think so

 

[tom1468]

Sorry i am on my phone..... i was trying to say that many men could never compete with some of the steroid women.... but yet these women cant compete with the steroid men.....

 

[tom1468]

Just thinking....men take chemicals and it shuts down their hormones and the have to do pct to restart....so shouldnt that make men and women equal?.... a woman therefore should be able to obtain the size and strength of the top males... if both are enhanced then both would be in a shut down situation and only supported by chemicals...... i know i am missing something

 

[SuperPro]

Just thinking....men take chemicals and it shuts down their hormones and the have to do pct to restart....so shouldnt that make men and women equal?.... a woman therefore should be able to obtain the size and strength of the top males... if both are enhanced then both would be in a shut down situation and only supported by chemicals...... i know i am missing something

Women have much less test naturally than men. I've read that they only have 5-10% the amount of testosterone than men naturally. So even with steroids their test levels aren't near the amount men have.

 

[tom1468]

Women have much less test naturally than men. I've read that they only have 5-10% the amount of testosterone than men naturally. So even with steroids their test levels aren't near the amount men have.

Of course
But when both are on the juice, then both would have their natural supply shut down.
Seems to me that both would make the same gains until the end of cycle or similar as they are 2not different people but hormones should not be a factor until pct ......
I know i am wrpretty........it pretty clear i am wrong when you just compare them in real life
I just was wondering how and / or why
The mysteries of life amaze
I also know i have drifted off my original topic, forgive me

 

[SuperPro]

Of course
But when both are on the juice, then both would have their natural supply shut down.
Seems to me that both would make the same gains until the end of cycle or similar as they are 2not different people but hormones should not be a factor until pct ......
I know i am wrpretty........it pretty clear i am wrong when you just compare them in real life
I just was wondering how and / or why
The mysteries of life amaze
I also know i have drifted off my original topic, forgive me

Something to take into account is that you don't just suddenly shut down completely. In fact in a 4-6 week cycle your natural test production probably won't completely stop, though it may slow significantly. In a longer cycle it can, and I'm sure it also depends on the strength of the compound. With less test in their system naturally though natural production for a woman probably stops quicker than a man.

 

[machorox123]

Something to take into account is that you don't just suddenly shut down completely. In fact in a 4-6 week cycle your natural test production probably won't completely stop, though it may slow significantly. In a longer cycle it can, and I'm sure it also depends on the strength of the compound. With less test in their system naturally though natural production for a woman probably stops quicker than a man.

acually tests production never FULLY shut down..but yea men will always have more test than women especially men bodybuilders that are taking supraphysiological doses of test

 

[supraseed48]

Of course
But when both are on the juice, then both would have their natural supply shut down.
Seems to me that both would make the same gains until the end of cycle or similar as they are 2not different people but hormones should not be a factor until pct ......
I know i am wrpretty........it pretty clear i am wrong when you just compare them in real life
I just was wondering how and / or why
The mysteries of life amaze
I also know i have drifted off my original topic, forgive me

Test or no test women are not genetically predisposed to be as muscular as men. Genetics has as much to do with building muscle as roids ever will. That topic seems to have missed this thread completely..

 

[evodrag]

Steroids do not cause cellular division. HGH can. Steroids simply inlarge the muscle cells.

As for powerlifting 160lbs natty will not compare much to 160lbs steroid user if they both have similar genetics and lifting history. Like others mentioned muscle fiber contractility is increased when using gear. Thats why people gain so much strength before the weight comes on.

Bodybuilders will benefit from gear for so many reasons. Men carry less bodyfat than women(hard to tell with all the fatty in america) because of test/estrogen ratios. There have been plenty of medical studies that link taking high dose test/anavar as being fat shedding. You also hold onto more muscle cutting. The benefits are far outway any legal compounds, what a joke they are. Ive wasted a lot of money like most have. So a 160 juicer will come in looking more shredded, harder and less BF% if they are eating/training right.

Ive ran some prohormones and I never hold onto much of the gains. I think there too short of a cycle to put on muscle to keep. As far as longer injectables you really hold the gains a lot better. But research more for yourself. Thats the only way you ll find out

 

[tom1468]

Something to take into account is that you don't just suddenly shut down completely. In fact in a 4-6 week cycle your natural test production probably won't completely stop, though it may slow significantly. In a longer cycle it can, and I'm sure it also depends on the strength of the compound. With less test in their system naturally though natural production for a woman probably stops quicker than a man.

Hmmm...... this i did not know. I assumed your system to be shut down and that was the purpose of pct. I guess pct isnt to restart and completely shut down system but rather to bring a slowed system back up.....and maybe to control estrogen ....hell i have no idea... i just find the topics amazing

 

[tom1468]

Test or no test women are not genetically predisposed to be as muscular as men. Genetics has as much to do with building muscle as roids ever will. That topic seems to have missed this thread completely..

So then it would seem that everyone has a genetic limit. A natural limit and a enhanced limit. Steroids can push the limits but not exceed it and that will soon be lost if you stop taking the roids. So then what determines the limits and how do you overcome these limits

 

[tom1468]

Steroids do not cause cellular division. HGH can. Steroids simply inlarge the muscle cells.

As for powerlifting 160lbs natty will not compare much to 160lbs steroid user if they both have similar genetics and lifting history. Like others mentioned muscle fiber contractility is increased when using gear. Thats why people gain so much strength before the weight comes on.

Bodybuilders will benefit from gear for so many reasons. Men carry less bodyfat than women(hard to tell with all the fatty in america) because of test/estrogen ratios. There have been plenty of medical studies that link taking high dose test/anavar as being fat shedding. You also hold onto more muscle cutting. The benefits are far outway any legal compounds, what a joke they are. Ive wasted a lot of money like most have. So a 160 juicer will come in looking more shredded, harder and less BF% if they are eating/training right.

Ive ran some prohormones and I never hold onto much of the gains. I think there too short of a cycle to put on muscle to keep. As far as longer injectables you really hold the gains a lot better. But research more for yourself. Thats the only way you ll find out

So if you dont maintain the gains then what is the purpose? So after the cycle if you lose all the you have gained nothing.
Or if you have to keep cycling to maintain the gians
I always thought their was a certain amount of gains that you make with the juice and when you stopped you would lose much of the gains but that their wqs a certain amount that you would be able to maintain cleanly

 

[B5150]

 

[MrKleen73]

View attachment 57040

LMAO!

Look man, in a bodybuilding contest 2 people with the same structure weight and body composition the most balance and aesthetic will win. THe bodybuilding show is to display the results of the work and the comparison is done after the work is already put in. At that point the natural and anhanced athletes are on a level playing feild. However there is NOTHING level about the methods they used to get there.

Consider this, a natural athlete competing at 160 probably started out with a decent amount of mass and worked really hard for several years, doing everything damn perfectly. The 160 lb guy on AAS could have easily started out as a 135 lb bean pole only a year or two before, used gear and ate everything he wanted to bulk up while on them and then dieted back down with other AAS that help him not lose any muscle or even better, GROW up into the show if done right.

So who has the advantage here? Obviously the guy on gear does. Don't get me wrong and think that guys on gear do not work or diet as hard as naturals. Most of them do if not harder, but there is a lot more leniency to be had with diet, and training for someone on gear to get the same results that a natural guy gets being extremely strict. On top of that A natural athlete at 160 would more than likely end up competing in a higher weight class if he got on gear.

As far as women go regardless of their size they can not be compared accurately to a man. The bone structure is completely different between the two, creating very differently shaped bodies. Women have proportionately wider hips and smaller waist lines which really changes the appearance of the back, and or legs. It is not that a woman who is 5'6 and 185lbs is not as big as a guy who is 5'6 and 185 lbs, it is that they do not have the same structures to compare against one another.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions based on what I don't exactly know. I TRULY hope you are not considering running ANY AAS until you have a real understanding of the subject.

 

[MrKleen73]

So if you dont maintain the gains then what is the purpose? So after the cycle if you lose all the you have gained nothing.
Or if you have to keep cycling to maintain the gians
I always thought their was a certain amount of gains that you make with the juice and when you stopped you would lose much of the gains but that their wqs a certain amount that you would be able to maintain cleanly

The article David referenced is about strength... The specific question the OP asked regarding it was about the muscle pennation lasting, not whether or not the added size sticks around.

Also someone mentioned about the reason for PCT and they thought the reason was to bring natural test back online and why do it if natty test does not go away. Well the person that spurred that was just saying that your natural testosterone production does not stop immediately upon first injection. The HPTA has to see the increased androgens for a little bit before it starts adjusting testosterone production to get back into homeostasis. The PCT is at the end where the HPTA has already had the time to adjust and has stopped or drastically slowed its own testosterone production. An adequate PCT is done to quickly increase natural testosterone production. That will limit the loss of any new muscle that was built. SO yes you do keep quite a bit of the muscle gained on cycle if you have a good PCT.

FYI a good PCT should not only contain a SERM but some type of anti-cortisol product as well if maintaining the gains is important to you. When the body realizes there are no androgens it goes into a stress mode creating a lot of cortisol, this eats muscle like nobodies business. Add that to not having androgens on tap and you have a perfect storm to lose the muscle you just gained.

 

[tom1468]

LMAO!

Look man, in a bodybuilding contest 2 people with the same structure weight and body composition the most balance and aesthetic will win. THe bodybuilding show is to display the results of the work and the comparison is done after the work is already put in. At that point the natural and anhanced athletes are on a level playing feild. However there is NOTHING level about the methods they used to get there.

Consider this, a natural athlete competing at 160 probably started out with a decent amount of mass and worked really hard for several years, doing everything damn perfectly. The 160 lb guy on AAS could have easily started out as a 135 lb bean pole only a year or two before, used gear and ate everything he wanted to bulk up while on them and then dieted back down with other AAS that help him not lose any muscle or even better, GROW up into the show if done right.

So who has the advantage here? Obviously the guy on gear does. Don't get me wrong and think that guys on gear do not work or diet as hard as naturals. Most of them do if not harder, but there is a lot more leniency to be had with diet, and training for someone on gear to get the same results that a natural guy gets being extremely strict. On top of that A natural athlete at 160 would more than likely end up competing in a higher weight class if he got on gear.

As far as women go regardless of their size they can not be compared accurately to a man. The bone structure is completely different between the two, creating very differently shaped bodies. Women have proportionately wider hips and smaller waist lines which really changes the appearance of the back, and or legs. It is not that a woman who is 5'6 and 185lbs is not as big as a guy who is 5'6 and 185 lbs, it is that they do not have the same structures to compare against one another.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions based on what I don't exactly know. I TRULY hope you are not considering running ANY AAS until you have a real understanding of the subject.

Not meaning to make assumptions.... i just question everything.... i mean not to offend
As far as me jumping on the juice? I have no plan to do that for several reasons....1) i am a truck driver and have to take random drug screens.....2) i clearly wouldnt know what to do......3)i do not think i have maxed out what is possible natural....i get kind of lazy....... but none the less it is a subject that is interesting......

 

[tom1468]

The article David referenced is about strength... The specific question the OP asked regarding it was about the muscle pennation lasting, not whether or not the added size sticks around.

Also someone mentioned about the reason for PCT and they thought the reason was to bring natural test back online and why do it if natty test does not go away. Well the person that spurred that was just saying that your natural testosterone production does not stop immediately upon first injection. The HPTA has to see the increased androgens for a little bit before it starts adjusting testosterone production to get back into homeostasis. The PCT is at the end where the HPTA has already had the time to adjust and has stopped or drastically slowed its own testosterone production. An adequate PCT is done to quickly increase natural testosterone production. That will limit the loss of any new muscle that was built. SO yes you do keep quite a bit of the muscle gained on cycle if you have a good PCT.

FYI a good PCT should not only contain a SERM but some type of anti-cortisol product as well if maintaining the gains is important to you. When the body realizes there are no androgens it goes into a stress mode creating a lot of cortisol, this eats muscle like nobodies business. Add that to not having androgens on tap and you have a perfect storm to lose the muscle you just gained.

I am the op. I understand that i have drifted with the topic on this thread but in my defense it all of your faults. You guys keep saying things that peak my interest ....lol......also thank for this well thought out post...it explains allot

 

[MrKleen73]

Not meaning to make assumptions.... i just question everything.... i mean not to offend
As far as me jumping on the juice? I have no plan to do that for several reasons....1) i am a truck driver and have to take random drug screens.....2) i clearly wouldnt know what to do......3)i do not think i have maxed out what is possible natural....i get kind of lazy....... but none the less it is a subject that is interesting......

No offense taken, I assumed you were not that familiar with them in the first place due to the conclusions you had drawn.

As far as random drug testing, places of employment do not test for steroids. They test for the recreational drugs like amphetamines, hallucinagens, barbituates, opiates but they do not test for steroids. The companies that insure them do not see too many steroid related injuries, so they don't test for them and make no mistake that is why the testing is done now for the most part, because the insurance companies want/need to limit their exposure to high risk people and situations before insuring a person or company.

 

[tom1468]

No offense taken, I assumed you were not that familiar with them in the first place due to the conclusions you had drawn.

As far as random drug testing, places of employment do not test for steroids. They test for the recreational drugs like amphetamines, hallucinagens, barbituates, opiates but they do not test for steroids. The companies that insure them do not see too many steroid related injuries, so they don't test for them and make no mistake that is why the testing is done now for the most part, because the insurance companies want/need to limit their exposure to high risk people and situations before insuring a person or company.

Good to know that in case i at some point change my mind.
Isnt it always about the insurance companies, you elect them and they control them.....but that is politics

 

[machorox123]

The article David referenced is about strength... The specific question the OP asked regarding it was about the muscle pennation lasting, not whether or not the added size sticks around.

Also someone mentioned about the reason for PCT and they thought the reason was to bring natural test back online and why do it if natty test does not go away. Well the person that spurred that was just saying that your natural testosterone production does not stop immediately upon first injection. The HPTA has to see the increased androgens for a little bit before it starts adjusting testosterone production to get back into homeostasis. The PCT is at the end where the HPTA has already had the time to adjust and has stopped or drastically slowed its own testosterone production. An adequate PCT is done to quickly increase natural testosterone production. That will limit the loss of any new muscle that was built. SO yes you do keep quite a bit of the muscle gained on cycle if you have a good PCT.

FYI a good PCT should not only contain a SERM but some type of anti-cortisol product as well if maintaining the gains is important to you. When the body realizes there are no androgens it goes into a stress mode creating a lot of cortisol, this eats muscle like nobodies business. Add that to not having androgens on tap and you have a perfect storm to lose the muscle you just gained.

thats wherre a lot of people go wrong..i for one didnt know this for my first ph run..but i got lucky and didnt spike cortisol because i only lost a few pounds..very important though

 

[SuperPro]

I think in the posts you see about genetics, on any board in general, I think many people forget about a few simple facts. These would be that your genetics will determine your bone and muscle structure and placement. Beyond this, growth is going to be controlled by however much test, HGH, LH, etc your genetics decide that your endocrine system needs to release at specific points (early childhood, puberty). So if you think about it you essentially change your genetic "plan" when you take steroids, HGH, or IGF-1.

I know there is probably much more to this, but at a very basic dumbhead level this is pretty much it. Might be something that I erroneously said hopefully not.

 

[supraseed48]

I think in the posts you see about genetics, on any board in general, I think many people forget about a few simple facts. These would be that your genetics will determine your bone and muscle structure and placement. Beyond this, growth is going to be controlled by however much test, HGH, LH, etc your genetics decide that your endocrine system needs to release at specific points (early childhood, puberty). So if you think about it you essentially change your genetic "plan" when you take steroids, HGH, or IGF-1.

I know there is probably much more to this, but at a very basic dumbhead level this is pretty much it. Might be something that I erroneously said hopefully not.

Some guys are genetically pre-disposed to have more muscle than others, whether it be overall build or specific muscle groups. Drugs or no drugs. Take calves for example some guys can grow them, some struggle to on or off cycle. Can be said for any muscle group. AAS do not level the playing field of genetics although it does close the gap somewhat I do agree.

 

[B5150]

thats wherre a lot of people go wrong..i for one didnt know this for my first ph run..but i got lucky and didnt spike cortisol because i only lost a few pounds..very important though

and you know this how?

 

[MrKleen73]

Myostatin is the limiting factor in muscle growth. That is why people or animals with a myostatin deficiency grow to excessive musculature without the use of steroids. Like the Belgian Blue or this whippet or for that matter this little boy, who simply is not old enough for testosterone to be a factor. Myostatin inhibits growth, even when on gear, myostatin levels will slow or even stop your growth at the end of a cycle.

 

[supraseed48]

That kid has got to be photo shop...

 

[bla55]

Shall we also point out that everyone has a "genetic barrier" which will at one point or another make that individual get to a genetic "maximum" or huge plateaus to go over and anabolics help them get over said plateau?

 

[machorox123]

and you know this how?

Okay maybe i did but i didnt loose a lot of muscle post cycle

 

[MrKleen73]

That kid has got to be photo shop...

The kid suffers from a condition that allows his muscle to grow unabated. You can find multiple pics of him so if it is photoshopped it is done everywhere. Pictures of him doing things a kid his age should not be able to do.

I find it interesting that out of those 3 pics the one you thought was photo shopped was the closest thing to looking like it should and not the whippet or the cow.

 

[GeraldNY181]

muscular weight is often distributed differently when you are on, muscles are fuller...a 160lb guy who was "on" would look 185, while the 160lb guy who was not would look 160. Thats the difference

 

[MrKleen73]

muscular weight is often distributed differently when you are on, muscles are fuller...a 160lb guy who was "on" would look 185, while the 160lb guy who was not would look 160. Thats the difference

Interesting thought process. There are holes in it though. You are forgetting there are tons of ways to increase your insulin sensitivity naturally. Not just being on gear, it does enhance the Glut4 activity, however so does depleting your carbs for a while then reintroducing them. If they both have a good peak week plan they would both come in very full, and very shredded.

 

[supraseed48]

The kid suffers from a condition that allows his muscle to grow unabated. You can find multiple pics of him so if it is photoshopped it is done everywhere. Pictures of him doing things a kid his age should not be able to do.

I find it interesting that out of those 3 pics the one you thought was photo shopped was the closest thing to looking like it should and not the whippet or the cow.

It's just that the head is much larger than the body. Like the body was that of a shrunk down adolescent. Seen those done b4, but ill take ur word on it..

 

[SuperPro]

Myostatin is the limiting factor in muscle growth. That is why people or animals with a myostatin deficiency grow to excessive musculature without the use of steroids. Like the Belgian Blue or this whippet or for that matter this little boy, who simply is not old enough for testosterone to be a factor. Myostatin inhibits growth, even when on gear, myostatin levels will slow or even stop your growth at the end of a cycle.

So why don't they just make myostatin inhibitors?

 

[CopyCat]

So why don't they just make myostatin inhibitors?

Because it is not a simple thing to accomplish. When they have the ability to make a true myostatin inhibitor you will surely know about it because it will be hyoooge news, literally.

 

[SuperPro]

Because it is not a simple thing to accomplish. When they have the ability to make a true myostatin inhibitor you will surely know about it because it will be hyoooge news, literally.

Would probably be dangerous anyway. People use HGH to get huge nowadays but I believe it is much more dangerous than conventional steroids, though the gains are obviously on a whole different scale.

 

[MrKleen73]

They do have some myostatin inhibitors, research companies carry them. Not sure how well they work. They already know how to make them because they have made myostatin inhibitors and tested them on mice with insane results. Here is a picture of mice treated with follistatin which can be purchased from multiple research companies, but is considered not for human consumption so they are legal to by but not use... Most people who use them use them for about 2 weeks at the end of the cycle when myostatin levels are high and slowing growth quite a bit.

Now how legit the Follistatin that the research companies sell I don't know. You would have to find on that others had good results with but they are available.