genetic potential and steroids?
- Thread starter bonjorno
- Start date
goslamacamel
Banned
I don't know exactly what you meant by this. But are you saying that you don't need steroids to be slightly above where you could naturally be? If so, do you mean you can get above natural, natural? Or do you mean you can get above natural with supplements other than steroids?
The latter seems the more probable, but I'm a little confused by your post.
goslamacamel
Banned
But you do mean you can get above your 100% naked, natural potential using some kind of supplement, right? Because I take natural potential to mean what you can possibly hope to get without any help from supplements other than food. And I think it would be oxymoronic to get above your 100% natural max, completely naturally.
xtraflossy
Board Supporter
First off, I would venture to say that a VERY small amount of people actually GET to their genetic potential... There are always too many variables to be adjusted, diet being key...
If you are at say 170lbs, and you take roids, get to 190lbs, you might be able to hold that weight with proper diet and training. There is no one who can tell you exactly what your limit actually IS.
What id sounds like is you think your at your genetic potential. I'd bet you are not (no offense). Most of the time there's another pound to be gained ya know...
Taking supplements (and this includes steroids) will help in the persuit of mass. When you stop taking the supplement, you will loose SOME performence output. The result will be a proportional loss in mass/strength/endurrence, fitness..
What tends to happen is people who take androgens, have a harder time gaining weight naturally. This is due to many factors. increased nitrogen retention, caloric intake, the anabolic effect of course.
I beleive what he ment was that there are some people who REQUIRE cycling steroids to remain at a certin weight/ amount of mass. This would be considered "genetic limit" : The amount of mass you can carry free from the use of androgens.
So the more you put on with androgens, the higher the amount of mass, the more there is to support.
If I cycled from 185, to 200lbs, then, 6 months after the cycle went down to 190, then cycled again, got to 210lbs, only to find months after my 2nd cycle I was back at 190lbs, I MIGHT coinsider 190lbs my "genetic limit".
What might very well be the setting point for that limit is the fact I simply do not have the means to support above that 190lbs mark nutritionally (reasonable lean mass)
You shouldn't have a problem gaining naturally after taking the product you described.
xtraflossy
Board Supporter
First off, I would venture to say that a VERY small amount of people actually GET to their genetic potential... There are always too many variables to be adjusted, diet being key...
If you are at say 170lbs, and you take roids, get to 190lbs, you might be able to hold that weight with proper diet and training. There is no one who can tell you exactly what your limit actually IS.
What id sounds like is you think your at your genetic potential. I'd bet you are not (no offense). Most of the time there's another pound to be gained ya know...
Taking supplements (and this includes steroids) will help in the persuit of mass. When you stop taking the supplement, you will loose SOME performence output. The result will be a proportional loss in mass/strength/endurrence, fitness..
What tends to happen is people who take androgens, have a harder time gaining weight naturally. This is due to many factors. increased nitrogen retention, caloric intake, the anabolic effect of course.
I beleive what ManBeast ment was that there are some people who REQUIRE cycling steroids to remain at a certin weight/ amount of mass. This would be considered "genetic limit" : The amount of mass you can carry free from the use of androgens.
So the more you put on with androgens, the higher the amount of mass, the more there is to support.
If I cycled from 185, to 200lbs, then, 6 months after the cycle went down to 190, then cycled again, got to 210lbs, only to find months after my 2nd cycle I was back at 190lbs, I MIGHT coinsider 190lbs my "genetic limit".
What might very well be the setting point for that limit is the fact I simply do not have the means to support above that 190lbs mark nutritionally (reasonable lean mass)
You shouldn't have a problem gaining naturally after taking the product you described.
pantera101
Banned
(jokenly(spellcheck))Do you even know what you just asked?I'm so confused.
goslamacamel
Banned
I was basically asking what he meant by the statement that you can get above your natural potential naturally. Maybe it means without steroids, but with supplements. Or maybe it means without anything but food. The former of which I take to be the truth, as I believe non-supplemental max is automatically your natural max, which cannot be surpassed naturally as a paradox would then be reached.
Reverin
Member
Non supplemental max is not always your max. From a supplement point of view if you do not eat enough foods to reach a Creatine limit then you can supplement to reach your bodies creatine limit, anything extra will be wasted out. As far as steroids changing your limits its probably possible, steroids are extremely strong, but studies are diagnosed now; mainly 35-40yr olds +, on males that take small amounts of steroids once a week to maintain muscle growth and staying at their max potential. Hope this clears things, if it doesn't then tell us.
ManBeast
Well-known member
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I believe that if you hit your genetic max and keep pushing, you will make progress (even naturally), but at an incredibly slow rate. I guess I just think that it gets harder and harder to gain the more you have, and that the maximum is a theoretical.
MB
MB
jpk
Member
I've been working my a$$ off trying to gain mass for years "naturally." After blowing up 20 lbs on a pulsed Epistane cycle, I no longer care what my genetic max might be. Call me lazy, impatient whatever. At age 47, and with only so much potential time in the gym, I like the results I get with anabolics. This is not to ignore diet, sleep, support supps and PCT.
The younger chicks that all want to feel my arms don't give a rat how they got that way. Why should I?:clean:
EasyEJL
Never enough
I think that is what the original poster was asking about.
Its sort of vaguely possibly somewhat true
if you lower your natural testosterone production by using steroids earlier, its harder for you to later in life maintain a larger muscle mass.
pantera101
Banned
I agree too.Markus Ruhel was saying that guys like him can struggle all year to gain 5lbs.You know he juices.Or did atleast,he's retired now.I was reading about a natural who was saying a couple pounds.
Force of Green
Well-known member
I don't like how steroids are ignored in fitness magazines. You'll have a dude with veins the size of hoses and the writer saying, "this guy has incredible genetics for huge arms and chest!"...
I don't care what people say about, "...oh you still have to diet and train properly to get results with steroids." No you f#ing don't. An old buddy of mine (quite the laughing stock) was a scrawny bastard with a gut. He shoots 750mg test e per week and cycles E/C/A stacks and he's HUGE, JACKED, and ripped to shreds. He drinks a lot of beer, eats 3-4 meals a day of various fast foods, and he doesn't do cardio. I know a lot of people who're in the same boat.
I don't care what people say about, "...oh you still have to diet and train properly to get results with steroids." No you f#ing don't. An old buddy of mine (quite the laughing stock) was a scrawny bastard with a gut. He shoots 750mg test e per week and cycles E/C/A stacks and he's HUGE, JACKED, and ripped to shreds. He drinks a lot of beer, eats 3-4 meals a day of various fast foods, and he doesn't do cardio. I know a lot of people who're in the same boat.
pantera101
Banned
Then get in their boat.
Force of Green
Well-known member
I don't really feel like being on edge of having a stroke or a heart attack during my early-middle age.
goslamacamel
Banned
lolololol nice.
pantera101
Banned
I don't think so.It will always be a tad harder to gain after gaining.The bigger you get,the harder it is to grow.
EasyEJL
Never enough
it will be harder for him but so long as he did a good full pct, no harder than if he had reached that weight naturally. What I mean is 22 year old 5'10" 175lbs uses steroids goes from 175 to 185 (and let say has a genetic max of maybe 210). going from 185 to 190 naturally would be harder than going from 175 to 180 naturally, so it will be slower than he was gaining mass before the steroids. but so long as good pct is done, he should not hurt his general ability to add muscle. The closer you are to your genetic max, the harder it is to gain 1lb
Force of Green
Well-known member
Agreed. Although, many people tend to think that successful PCT is well enough to keep the mass, but they continue to train hard and heavy without adjusting to a high enough caloric level afterwards. After packing on LBM (especially the amount that AAS will allow you to acquire), your caloric rate should be significantly higher or you'll shrink back to that pathetic self that you were unhappy with to begin.
IroNwIlL2006
New member
All good points. One cycle I think you'll be fine, but most of us know that its very hard to limit yourself to just one cycle. Ppl need to keep in mind that complete recovery, even with the wealth of information now available, is not a given. Nobody reports elevated testosterone levels following a cycle, at best we hope to return to baseline levels. As hormones play a huge part in building/maintaining muscle mass, i'd say steroids definately WILL lower your 'genetic potential'.
dkkon1
Banned
I don't see how you could claim to know without a doubt that steroids will lower your genetic potential. I'm not saying that it's not the case but, There has been minimal research on anything even remotely close to this, to be honest (correct me if i'm wrong) I don't think you have any objective research to support this (and if you do please share with us, I love to read research on aas). Not trying to give anyone a hard-time
, just think that such a definate conclusion should be backed up...
pantera101
Banned
I don't see how you could claim to know without a doubt that steroids will lower your genetic potential. I'm not saying that it's not the case but, There has been minimal research on anything even remotely close to this, to be honest (correct me if i'm wrong) I don't think you have any objective research to support this (and if you do please share with us, I love to read research on aas). Not trying to give anyone a hard-time
Well theirs absolutely no way to test for that,so I would say he has no evidence.Your body will return to normal.Women can be on birth control non stop for years,then get pregnant when they stop.Your body is alwyas restoring and balancung hormone levels.Your test production is either on,or it's off.Naturally.
IroNwIlL2006
New member
It is of course all IMO. But I don't think you can count on returning to baseline levels (lots of guys on hrt), and a decrease in natural test levels would result in a decreased ability to build/ maintain muscle. We should just ask someone who gets regular blood testing done what their baseline levels were before their first cycle and what they are now after running a few.
Force of Green
Well-known member
For all we know, our testosterone can rebound to a higher level than it was before the cycle. Some things suppressed come back stronger and more efficient than before. Just my 2 cents.
pantera101
Banned
Are we talking long term or short term?I wouldn't be surprised at all if test levels were lower in the short term.I don't know about long term discontinued use though.I see no reason why they wouldn't bounce back to normal for your age.It is what your body wants.
jpk
Member
The fact is that we don't even know the exact mechanism of andropause. All we ever hear is that test levels decline with age. We really need to understand this phenomenon better.
Think about diabetics. We know their pacreatic cells stop producing as much insulin over time. But now we're much more aware of "insulin resistance." This seems to be a precursor to full blown diabetes. The resistance seems to follow years of simple carbohydrate overload, insulin spikes and is perhaps related to adrenal fatigue.
Back to testosterone. Did my nads get tired of trying to fight off all the estrogenic stimuli in my environment? Did the combination of bad marriages, phyto-estrogenic foods, stress and lack of good sex force the testes to work overtime to try to maintain a healthy test level?
I think nuts burn out the same as pancreatic cells. They don't have to. But we should be teaching younger guys how to protect their endocrine systems. Let's stop focusing on just cholesterol for long enough to see the bigger picture. Endocrine function is a symphony. We may find that with proper support throughout early life, andropause can be significantly reduced. In addition, a healthy endocrine system should be able to bounce back from an anabolic cycle to a much greater degree. I don't see why virtually anybody couldn't recover 100% from a well planned out cycle. Of course it's my prejudice to recommend pulse cycles over hard, straight cycles since they seem to be much kinder to one's natural test production.
Think about diabetics. We know their pacreatic cells stop producing as much insulin over time. But now we're much more aware of "insulin resistance." This seems to be a precursor to full blown diabetes. The resistance seems to follow years of simple carbohydrate overload, insulin spikes and is perhaps related to adrenal fatigue.
Back to testosterone. Did my nads get tired of trying to fight off all the estrogenic stimuli in my environment? Did the combination of bad marriages, phyto-estrogenic foods, stress and lack of good sex force the testes to work overtime to try to maintain a healthy test level?
I think nuts burn out the same as pancreatic cells. They don't have to. But we should be teaching younger guys how to protect their endocrine systems. Let's stop focusing on just cholesterol for long enough to see the bigger picture. Endocrine function is a symphony. We may find that with proper support throughout early life, andropause can be significantly reduced. In addition, a healthy endocrine system should be able to bounce back from an anabolic cycle to a much greater degree. I don't see why virtually anybody couldn't recover 100% from a well planned out cycle. Of course it's my prejudice to recommend pulse cycles over hard, straight cycles since they seem to be much kinder to one's natural test production.
pantera101
Banned
jpk
Member
Yeah, sex with yourself doesn't count!:toofunny: