Are steroids a long term thing? Thoughts
- 02-17-2013, 09:46 PM
To be at a higher weight all the time and being on anabolics long-term requires a lot of food. All that food puts a lot of strain on you digestive system, including your pancreas and your organs in general. To eat 400-500-600g of carbs a day requires a ton of insulin. Dont you think this insulin has some kind of effect on cells?
Maybe you should get off the juice sometimes and do a little more research instead of making statements that shows your level of knowledge and ignorance.
- 02-17-2013, 10:41 PM
- 02-18-2013, 08:51 AM
02-18-2013, 10:04 AM
02-18-2013, 10:53 AM
02-18-2013, 10:59 AM
02-18-2013, 11:03 AM
02-18-2013, 11:03 AM
02-18-2013, 11:40 AM
Jbry was joking..... And its actually a trick question.
02-18-2013, 11:43 AM
02-18-2013, 03:33 PM
Seeing as we're asking all sorts, is the following scenario realistic?
A newbie (with good form and nutrition, so not complete newbie) does a cycle of AAS, does a legit PCT, as long as he hasn't passed his natural genetic potential (which obviously is a variable) he would pretty much keep most of his gains?
So what I'm getting at is could newbies use AAS as a short cut?
For what it's worth, I'm not trying to do the above, don't think I'll ever dabble with AAS but it doesn't hurt to know about 'the dark side'
02-18-2013, 04:53 PM
02-18-2013, 05:19 PM
02-18-2013, 05:24 PM
02-19-2013, 10:26 PM
With steroids this problem is accelerated with the increase of food intake and cholesterol being higher, insulin, blood pressure etc..
That's why it's important to eat right in accordance to your body type. While off the cycle back off the food and give your body a break to recover.
I'd say if ppl decide to be on a lot watch your cholesterol closely. If you need to take suplements to correct it do it.
02-19-2013, 10:28 PM
>SNS-Glycophase<Serious Nutrition Solutions Rep
02-19-2013, 10:33 PM
THat's the catch. Trust me after a while being 250lbs tends to be a chore if all you do all day is eat 6-7 meals. You def need to love bodybuilding to do this.
02-19-2013, 10:41 PM
02-19-2013, 10:42 PM
02-19-2013, 10:47 PM
02-20-2013, 08:24 AM
Personally the feeling and confidence makes it a very ad ducting drug. I love the physical outcome but nothing feels better than being ON
02-20-2013, 09:03 AM
Are steroids a long term thing? Thoughts
Who the fk eats 400-500g of sugar a day? Answer a fat fk. Outside of the training window Bodybuilders eat brown rice, sweet potatoes etc that have a low insulin response.
Back your statements up with some studies, or sit back and stfu n00b.
02-20-2013, 10:56 AM
the best supplement is food. Eat plenty of it. Eat the right kind. Have plenty of micronutrients in there to keep everything working properly.
You'll keep all the muscle. Muscle loss is as simple as a caloric deficit. Glycogen retention and keeping a low bodyfat are what steroids are good for. They don't cause you to grow beyond what you could do alone. They only speed up the process & make it easier to do. GH and insulin is what causes you to go beyond what your body could ever do on its own.
People really need to understand the sex steroids do not proliferate the muscle cells and cause growth. They help channel more food to muscle cells and less to body fat when digested, among other things like increasing oxygen density in the vessels for optimal training and recovery. They do a number of things surrounding muscle growth, but never actually grow the muscle (except in glycogen retention), which isn't muscle mass but energy stored up as sugars.
Testosterone (and it's alternatives) for muscle training
GH & Insulin for muscle growth
02-20-2013, 11:29 AM
Wow bro, you really need to hit the books. THis is so basic.
02-20-2013, 11:40 AM
Eating popcorn while watching bro-wrestling haha
02-20-2013, 12:08 PM
Your answer conflicts with your argument. If I ate 500g of sweet potato vs. 500g of table sugar, the results would be different.
The faster food breaks down into usuable glucose, the greater the insulin secretion by the pancreas. The greater the release of insulin, the greater amount of food gets put up into fat cells, assuming you were't carb depleted. If carb depleted, you might get lucky and store up the vast majority as glycogen in the muscle and liver. But the chances are slim. You'll also have a sugar crash, because that much insulin equates to your body going from a really high blood sugar count to a really low blood sugar count within a few minutes.
So essentially, you supported your foe's response by agreeing that each break down at different rates. This is why certain complex carbs are also called "slow-releasing carbs". The slower the release, the less likely to have an insulin surge, which means a more steady flow of glucose - which ultimately means a more desireable nutrient partitioning.
1) Table sugar and sweet potato both convert to glucose, albeit at different rates
2) The rate of breakdown has a great influence on the amount of insulin released at any one time. If a surge of sugar rushes into the blood (which by the way is toxic to your blood), the greater the insulin response thus leading to fat storage.
3) Since a sweet potato breaks down slower than table sugar, sweet potatoes illicit a more gradual insulin response, which leads to less fat storage and more constant fuel & energy for the body.
4) The end result is not the same. We could do an experiment if you like.
a) you could eat table sugar carbs @ 2g per lb of body weight per day for 4 weeks
b) I could eat sweet potato carbs @ 2g per lb of body weight per day for 4 weeks
Let's see who gets fatter quicker. And lets also see who turns pre-diabetic quicker, too. If you really believed what you said before to the other guy, you should have no problem with attempting this quick study. We might could come to the conclusion in just a few short days really - you might not even last that long before going into a diabetic coma, lol.
02-20-2013, 12:10 PM
02-20-2013, 12:19 PM
If anyone thinks refined, manufactured, table sugar is the same as eating a sweet potato - that's your own problem.
Common sense here. People get lost in the weeds with these fads. Holy sh*t
02-20-2013, 12:22 PM
Seriously, I lived off sweet potatoes during comp prep.
I think the point needs to be made that too much insulin is what causes fat storage. Generally, the slower your food digests, the smaller the insulin secretion (as it pertains to carbs and sugars).
Now this doesn't mean that fats get used as energy immediately upon digestion. They have a different metabolic fate than carbs and protein.
02-20-2013, 12:22 PM
02-20-2013, 12:29 PM
Glycemic index is junk. It also says that ice cream is a non offender, too. We could do an experiment on that one too and see who gets fatter - ice cream vs potatoes, lol.
Glycemic index also says that maltodextrin has a really high GI, like 106-130, which is stupid high. Yet the maltodextrin molecule is more complex, gummy and in general takes longer to digest than table sugar (which has a GI in the 60's) and other refined carbs. I have tested the two on myself and I know now that the GI diets are not telling the whole story. I think GI reflects how much insulin per unit measure of that food is released, but it doesn't actually reflect how long and slow the release itself takes.
Malto dextrin is a good case-in-point. I get a strong insulin response but it happens over a stretched out period of time, which allows for sustainable energy which is perfect for training. I do the same with straight sugar and 20 minutes later I'm having a sugar crash and needing more food for energy.
So I guess I agree with you on the GI thing. Here is its definition:
A number representing the ability of a food, relative to that of glucose, to increase the level of glucose in the blood.
So just because something has a greater ability to increase blood glucose does not necessarily tell us how long it takes to do it. Sweet potatoes and maltodextrin both increase blood glucose and hold it steady, causing a steady stream of insulin to be released throughout the digestive process.
Yet it doesn't equate to fat gains, either. Because a trickle of insulin for several hours is very anabolic in nature as to where something like table sugar (which breaks down extremely fast) is a sure fire way to store up as fat since too much sugar gets released into the blood in too short of a time period. That causes a surge of insulin, and a blood sugar that yo-yo's throughout the day.
02-20-2013, 12:41 PM
But table sugar has no nutrients, no vitamins, nothing. It's only redeeming quality is that it acts quickly and can be a catalyst to carry good stuff to muscle immediately after/during a workout. Very specialized situation and you can use other sources of carbs for that purpose rather than refined sugar.
Getting lost in the weeds....
02-20-2013, 12:47 PM
Carbs are the in thing right now - but it cycles - it was fats 5 years ago.
In the Roman times - look at what people were the biggest and strongest. The northern Europeans and certain African tribes - the hunters and gatherers who ate leaves, nuts, berries and meat. The agrarian societies who ate breads and wheat were smaller. What does that say? Something to think about perhaps.
02-20-2013, 12:58 PM
I was hoping to be much more cut,
No thanks, I'll stick to table sugar..
Haha, just kidding man you look great, but for some constructive criticism your legs could have came in harder,
Either a, you could have been leaner
Or b, you could have been drier.
Please don't take offense to this, it's not meant to be derogatory, just constructive criticism, take it for what it's worth
02-20-2013, 01:04 PM
02-20-2013, 01:22 PM
Haha no offense was taken. U r tellin me what I already knew before I walked on stage. The next 18 months is dedicated to legs. I've added an inch to them since then and hope to add another two to three by next year.
My upper body, especially my shoulders, has always come in correctly. Yet I was dry as I need to be in those pics. In fact, I was depleted. Hind sight, things would've been different no doubt. Looking forward I hope to pack on another 30lbs of good stuff - and mainly in the trunks.
02-20-2013, 02:29 PM
02-20-2013, 03:01 PM
Until about 3 weeks ago, I had been seriously lacking in strength training. Unfortunately, my body stopped reacting well to volume training. And since then, with nothin but a cruise control of Test-E, I have seen tremendous improvements in strength & muscle density not to mention a few solid lbs of mass.
I surprised myself with a deadlift pull of 395lbs last night, weighing in at only 162lbs. I didn't think I could lift that much. I'm curious to see what I could do with SD or Phera.
02-20-2013, 03:07 PM
02-20-2013, 03:30 PM
People who train consistently will likely have a better cholesterol profile than those who don't at that age (40+). In fact, training is about the only natural thing you can do to combat cholesterol issues anyways since most of it is genetic makeup. Food has a lesser impact on cholesterol levels, unless you consider the Daniel's Diet. Lack of exercise has a great impact on it though.
Steroids at 40+ will likely be TRT levels which is between 100-250mg per week, which isn't high enough to have sides like that but is enough to get an old man off his butt and go to the gym.
Similar Forum Threads
- By JWest0926 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 7Last Post: 08-24-2009, 05:05 PM
- By JBlaze in forum General ChatReplies: 14Last Post: 07-19-2004, 04:47 AM
- By badbart in forum AnabolicsReplies: 1Last Post: 02-26-2004, 10:14 AM
- By MrBean in forum General ChatReplies: 17Last Post: 12-15-2003, 05:01 PM
- By Dwight Schrute in forum AnabolicsReplies: 5Last Post: 05-12-2003, 06:15 AM