Are steroids a long term thing? Thoughts
- 02-20-2013, 10:24 AM
- 02-20-2013, 11:03 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, 12:56 PM
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, 01:29 PM
Wow bro, you really need to hit the books. THis is so basic.
02-20-2013, 01:40 PM
02-20-2013, 02:08 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, 02:10 PM
02-20-2013, 02:19 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, 02:22 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, 02:22 PM
02-20-2013, 02:29 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, 02:41 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, 02:47 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, 02:58 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, 03:04 PM
02-20-2013, 03:22 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, 04:29 PM
02-20-2013, 05:01 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, 05:07 PM
02-20-2013, 05:30 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.
02-20-2013, 06:22 PM
They all gained a modest amout of lean mass. I want to say 8 to 12lbs or so I'll have to find the study.
Point is, it does seem steroids can cause muscle growth on their own. Actually training and eating is what really accelerates those gains.
02-20-2013, 06:38 PM
My legs are not up to par with my upper body so I have really been hammering away at them and have seen growth on my whole body since...
Strength training is very important, even to bodybuilders, it gives your muscle that dense hardness to it.
I too was doing too much volume and not enough strength training, the heavy squats and deads have made me much thicker and bigger
02-20-2013, 06:55 PM
Did the subjects eat more? I imagine they did. And I also imagine the steroids cause nutrient partitioning. But without GH, the Test is useless for actual dry muscle fiber proliferation gains.
Lean mass also includes water weight, btw.
Steroids cause nutrient partitioning. They also cause hunger increases if the dose is high enough. 600mg of Test is enough to increase hunger significantly. More calories + better nutrient partitioning = more growth, particularly in muscle mass and less fat storage.
Now if the same group of people also ate the same amount as they did with 600mg of test in their system, they'd probably gain the same amount of weight, but this time mostly fat. Which brings me to the point I made earlier, steroids only help you do it in a lean fashion.
You are overlooking the caloric surplus + water weight. You are telling me that because non-trained people took test, that it caused muscular development. But reality is, the subjects most likely ate more & had better nutrient partitioning so that the surplus of food went to good intentions instead of bad intentions (ie. muscle cells got the calories instead of fat cells) which would explain the lean mass gains and the loss of fat simulateously.
GH and IGF causes muscular growth. Last time I checked, there wasn't any other hormone that performed this.
You can grow in muscle mass without Test. You can't grow in muscle mass without GH & IGF. Otherwise, women would be helpless in seeing gains. Their efforts would be futile. But we know that isn't true. It's easy to give all the credit to steroids. Fact is, they don't actually cause muscle growth, they make it easier to do things. Case in point, you go on a mass building routine, you pack on more lbs of weight in the same amount of time with testosterone cycles than you would without. Likewise, you also burn more fat in a caloric deficit with test than without it. Which supports the idea that it only accelerates what your body is already capable of doing. Yet it won't take you past what you could do naturally. And in many cases, trained subjects that cycle test often lose a large portion of weight, indicating that the gains were wet at best and not solid.
The GH, Insulin & IGF-1 bit is where men go from being "jacked" to "freakshow", surpassing anything they could have done with steroids alone.
02-20-2013, 06:58 PM
Too often people point fingers at a successful athlete and say "steroids" when they tend to disregard the hard work and dedication that was put into it. Ex lance Armstrong, any pro bodybuilder
and again, here is another big
Too often lazy people take steroids and make incredible gains even with a lack of dedication and hard work, and when they are accused of steroids they say "hard work" and disregard the drugs
Ex kids I know who used to be small and started taking drugs and blew up. But when I watch them train it's a joke, texting for ten minutes upwards between sets.
My point being, it's a double edged sword.
Should pro athletes use? If it's against the rules, but everyone around them is using, I'd say then they have every right to use, but we should have drug free divisions for those that choose to go that route.
Should average Joe use?
If he's on a large amount of gear at an early age (hgh,t3, insulin), and still can't win a local show, he's on a dead end road that will ultimately end up poorly for him
I do not use myself, nor am I anti gear. I think if it can be used responsibly than you should have the choice to do so, (one last time)
F'ing around with your endocrine system is no joke kids.
02-20-2013, 07:04 PM
test alone will cause one to gain muscle.. raising test to above normal levels increases protein synthesis... What happens when you increase protein synthesis? Bingo, muscle gain.
You will gain much faster with hgh and insulin, i'm not arguing that.
But you cannot sit here and say that test alone will not cause dry muscle gains. Why else have I seen people on this board suggest a test only first cycle
02-20-2013, 07:04 PM
02-20-2013, 07:15 PM
This is intersting. Here's a study where the recipients did not train. Apparently, using testosterone alone can also increase IGF-1 levels.
The following text outlines the benefits and risks of Testosterone administration based on a clinical human trial of 61 healthy men in 2001. The purpose of the trial was to determine the dose dependency of testosterone’s effects on fat-free mass and muscle performance.
In this trial 61 men, 18-35years old were randomized into 5 groups receiving weekly injections of 25, 50, 125, 300, 600 mg of Testosterone enanthate for 20 weeks. They had previous weight-lifting experience and normal T levels. Their nutritional intake was standardized and they did not undertake any strength training during the trial. The only two groups that reported significant muscle building benefits were the 300 and 600 mg groups so any dose lower than 300mg will not be considered in this essay. 12 men participated in the 300 mg group and 13 men in the 600 mg group.
600mg of Testosterone a week for 20 weeks resulted in the following benefits:
Increased fat free mass, muscle strength, muscle power, muscle volume, hemoglobin and igf-1.
The same 600 mg administration resulted in 2 side effects. HDL cholesterol was negatively correlated and 2 men developed acne.
The normal range for total T in men is 241-827 ng/dl according to Labcorp and 260-1000 ng/dl according to Quest Laboratories. The normal range for igf-1 is 81-225 according to Labcorp. Total T and igf-1 levels were taken after 16 weeks and resulted in the following;
300 mg group-1,345 ng/dl a 691 ng increase from baseline
600 mg group-2,370 ng/dl a 1,737 ng increase from baseline
300 mg group-388 ng/dl a 74 ng increase from baseline
600 mg group-304 ng/dl a 77 ng increase from baseline
Body composition was measured after 20 weeks.
Fat Free Mass by underwater weighing
300 mg group-5.2kg (11.4lbs) increase
600 mg group-7.9kg (17.38lbs) increase
Fat Mass by underwater weighing
300 mg group-.5kg (1.1lbs) decrease
600 mg group-1.1kg (2.42lbs) decrease
Thigh Muscle Volume
300 mg group-84 cubic centimeter increase
600 mg group-126 cubic centimeter increase
Quadriceps Muscle Volume
300 mg group-43 cubic centimeter increase
600 mg group-68 cubic centimeter increase
Leg Press Strength
300 mg group-72.2kg (158.8lbs) increase
600 mg group-76.5kg (168.3lbs) increase
300 mg group-38.6 watt increase
600 mg group-48.1 watt increase
300 mg group-6.1 gram per liter increase
600 mg group-14.2 gram per liter increase
Plasma HDL Cholesterol
300 mg group-5.7 mg/dl decrease
600 mg group-8.4 mg/dl decrease
300 mg group-7 of the 12 men developed acne
600 mg group-2 of the 13 men developed acne
There were no significant changes in PSA or liver enzymes at any dose up to 600mg. However, long-term effects of androgen administration on the prostate, cardiovascular risk, and behavior are unknown. The study demonstrated that there is a dose dependant relationship with testosterone administration. In other words the more testosterone administered the greater the muscle building effects and potential for side effects.
02-20-2013, 07:26 PM
02-20-2013, 08:29 PM
02-20-2013, 09:15 PM
I've only done oral. I've done sledge and gained about 8 lbs. I am now doing M-Sten and am about 3 weeks in and have gained about 5 lbs. I have buddies that tell me to do injectables but it's just so expensive! I can buy a stack with a PCT for $150 and that's a 15 week cycle! I haven't done blood work so idk how my liver and all that is but I take milk thistle and other liver protectors daily. I've been happy with orals, might do a injectable cycle here in about 4 months will see.
Similar Forum Threads
- By JWest0926 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 7Last Post: 08-24-2009, 07:05 PM
- By JBlaze in forum General ChatReplies: 14Last Post: 07-19-2004, 06:47 AM
- By badbart in forum AnabolicsReplies: 1Last Post: 02-26-2004, 12:14 PM
- By MrBean in forum General ChatReplies: 17Last Post: 12-15-2003, 07:01 PM
- By Dwight Schrute in forum AnabolicsReplies: 5Last Post: 05-12-2003, 08:15 AM