Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Rich Piana

rugger48 said:
Your all forgetting contest prep, the loads of stuff that increases when contest prep begins and gets bigger as they closer to contest time.
Click to expand...

For the ones that have crappy genetics. The ones that are the biggest and most successful in this sport take less than most amateurs.
 
rugger48 said:
I don't believe that for minute, common health science will tell you that.
Click to expand...

I have a degree in a health science related field, makes sense to me. Why don't you believe it?
 
Professional bodybuilders who have probably been on cycles for over 10 years approaching 40 y/o of age who are dropping down to 3% of body fat give or take, carrying 260 pounds of muscle on a 5'8" frame?


It makes sense to you that guy like Kai Greene is doing less than most amateurs at 42?
 
rugger48 said:
Professional bodybuilders who have probably been on cycles for over 10 years approaching 40 y/o of age who are dropping down to 3% of body fat give or take, carrying 260 pounds of muscle on a 5'8" frame?


It makes sense to you that guy like Kai Greene is doing less than most amateurs at 42?
Click to expand...

Just listens to a Dorian Yates podcast, he said the most he ever took in off season was 1g test and 500mg deca with maybe 30mg dbol to start and this was when he was 300+ lbs, he said he didn't even run much when he was in contest prep, mainly primo and anavar at low doses.
 
Juicedeez utz said:
Just listens to a Dorian Yates podcast, he said the most he ever took in off season was 1g test and 500mg deca with maybe 30mg dbol to start and this was when he was 300+ lbs, he said he didn't even run much when he was in contest prep, mainly primo and anavar at low doses.
Click to expand...

That's not a modest amount of steroids in the offseason, and that not less than amatuers, at least not most His contest prep, probably never going to be truthful about, its been proven test levels drop dramatically at super low level of body fat percentage.


were also talking year round not just plain 12-16 week cycles.
 
No it's not a modest amount but we're talking about a 6 time mr Olympia.... the 1% of the 1%, arguably the GOAT. Also he was 300lbs+ in off season, leagues above the best people. I know a couple of people now who are either in or about to start competing amateur who still haven't gone above 500mg test 300mg tren a week.... some people use crazy amounts to try and pack it on but I, and all my fellow gym goers, believe as little as possible for still good returns.
I didn't say he wasn't using test but Whys he gonna lie? He hasn't competed in 20 years.... he says it's stupid how much people use and the amounts they're using. Also we're talking about preserving muscle in a cut, both of the compounds are probably the best for this job IME.
The only reason he started speaking about how much he was using because of the cycles people were making up online and how damaging it can be, to them and the sport.
 
Juicedeez utz said:
No it's not a modest amount but we're talking about a 6 time mr Olympia.... the 1% of the 1%, arguably the GOAT. Also he was 300lbs+ in off season, leagues above the best people. I know a couple of people now who are either in or about to start competing amateur who still haven't gone above 500mg test 300mg tren a week.... some people use crazy amounts to try and pack it on but I, and all my fellow gym goers, believe as little as possible for still good returns.
I didn't say he wasn't using test but Whys he gonna lie? He hasn't competed in 20 years.... he says it's stupid how much people use and the amounts they're using. Also we're talking about preserving muscle in a cut, both of the compounds are probably the best for this job IME.
The only reason he started speaking about how much he was using because of the cycles people were making up online and how damaging it can be, to them and the sport.
Click to expand...


I didn't say he didn't put in the work, but because he is the top 1% doesn't mean his body just knows how to deal with water retention or hold muscle at extremely low Bodyfat, or deal with estrogen, or deal with the thyroid function, and all that after doing this stuff for years and while approach their late 30s The original statement is they are doing modest amounts steroids less than most amatuers, do you really believe that?


what seperates these guys is the work ethic,diets, and knowledge but you just don't avoid the physiological effects of long time steroid use or father time for that matter.

Why would he lie, lets just say that bodybuilding isn't exactly the most honest sport.
 
again I'm not saying the yates took massive amount to what the public thinks they are doing so they can get there the easiest way possible, because they are the best of the best. Look at what Andreas Munzer was taking before he died. I don't even think most get that deep into it, but I definitely don't think that all he took precontest for MR Olympia is some primo and anavar.
 
I honestly think it's person dependant. Have some people made it not banging some serious numbers of gear? Sure. Have some not made it trying to do the same? More than not. Yeah ok so he cycled for 10 years, on hrt now but after everything he took for 10years all his health markers were fine. Said he never had many issues rather than slightly higher BP at high weight.
I don't think he's lying.... he openly talks about how he smokes weed everyday, does DMT and has ayahuasca ceremony's.... plus he's made his money, has a huge company and still trains/teaches people all over the world.
Why? Most people I see on this forum and others who compete do test/tren/mast while cutting, seems to be the standard nowadays, so why could he have not just been doing test/primo/anavar?
 
Yes, I believe that 20+ years ago and beyond, the steroid cycles for competitors were smaller than what you see amateurs doing on any online forum currently.

You stated, the work ethic, etc. is what separates them. So why do you put so much emphasis on the steroids?

Btw, he also claims to have used hgh while competing.

HGH
Dbol
Deca
Test

What else do you need to grow with proper nutrition, training, and rest?
 
Dma378 said:
Yes, I believe that 20+ years ago and beyond, the steroid cycles for competitors were smaller than what you see amateurs doing on any online forum currently.

You stated, the work ethic, etc. is what separates them. So why do you put so much emphasis on the steroids?

Btw, he also claims to have used hgh while competing.

HGH
Dbol
Deca
Test

What else do you need to grow with proper nutrition, training, and rest?
Click to expand...


Don't take this wrong way but your not reading what I wrote?

Your also need to understand I'm just talking about the bodies natural reaction to dropping to 3% bodyfat while holding onto large amounts of muscle, adding in that these guys have been doing steroids for 10 to 15 years are approaching 40 years of age.


I'm 47 modest amounts of steroids were 500 test weekly and managing the estrogen maybe throw in a little tren or deca, not a gram a week of test 500 mg of deca and some dbol in the offseason. Maybe that's the problem, what people consider modest.

are we also considering the

t3
insulin
AI's
HGH
diuretics
 
I think the ppl that are arguing that Yates and other greats didn't need massive amounts of gear have 0.000 clue of genetics. First gear only enhances what your genetics can do so; so someone with great genes will see 50% more return because they are built that much better. This also goes to the bodies ability to handle substances.

If you look at the NFL and see 245lb guys sprinting from 0-28 in seconds, cutting on a dime and tackling someone [they might have juiced a bit but can't get away with any real use] then look at your average pick-up game of touch or low contact football with athletic guys at the park. It is not even in the same planetary system. It's like comparing 2 breeds of dogs you can't make a pugg into a pitbull !!! nomatter how much gear you pin into the pugg.
 
He liked a very recent post ?! I hope so.
 
Holy **** man! Where have you been! We've been worried sick :D
 
rugger48 said:
Professional bodybuilders who have probably been on cycles for over 10 years approaching 40 y/o of age who are dropping down to 3% of body fat give or take, carrying 260 pounds of muscle on a 5'8" frame?


It makes sense to you that guy like Kai Greene is doing less than most amateurs at 42?
Click to expand...

Considering that when I first started taking gear, 8 years ago, and took twice as much and I'm carrying around 20-25lbs of additional muscle now

Yes, yes, I think it makes perfect sense.

So much more to metabolism than just getting old and losing peak hormone levels, lol. As you continue to study things in your field, I recommend that you look at it with this assumption:

That the body is always trying to find stability. Stability and rthym are conducive to survival. An unstable body isn't conducive to adaptability.

Dexter Jackson has been doing this rthym, this routine of bulking and cutting, for decades. His body has stability and a fat set point and he pounds the food each and every day to ensure he maintains muscle mass.
 
fueledpassion said:
Considering that when I first started taking gear, 8 years ago, and took twice as much and I'm carrying around 20-25lbs of additional muscle now

Yes, yes, I think it makes perfect sense.

So much more to metabolism than just getting old and losing peak hormone levels, lol. As you continue to study things in your field, I recommend that you look at it with this assumption:

That the body is always trying to find stability. Stability and rthym are conducive to survival. An unstable body isn't conducive to adaptability.

Dexter Jackson has been doing this rthym, this routine of bulking and cutting, for decades. His body has stability and a fat set point and he pounds the food each and every day to ensure he maintains muscle mass.
Click to expand...

and when you get older you lose that ability no matter what, and when you add steroids and t3, and other ancillary to the mix it happens faster. Father time is undeafeted.



"That the body is always trying to find stability. Stability and rthym are conducive to survival. An unstable body isn't conducive to adaptability."

its called Homeostasis.
 
FRITZBLITZ said:
If you look at the NFL and see 245lb guys sprinting from 0-28 in seconds, cutting on a dime and tackling someone [they might have juiced a bit but can't get away with any real use] then look at your average pick-up game of touch or low contact football with athletic guys at the park. It is not even in the same planetary system. It's like comparing 2 breeds of dogs you can't make a pugg into a pitbull !!! nomatter how much gear you pin into the pugg.
Click to expand...

This is probably the BEST analogy I've read
 
rugger48 said:
and when you get older you lose that ability no matter what, and when you add steroids and t3, and other ancillary to the mix it happens faster. Father time is undeafeted.



"That the body is always trying to find stability. Stability and rthym are conducive to survival. An unstable body isn't conducive to adaptability."

its called Homeostasis.
Click to expand...

Being unnecessarily condescending doesn't further qualify your statement nor does it bring anything constructive to the discussion.

Yes, homeostasis is in fact what I'm talking about. The greater point I made in that post was largely ignored as far as I can tell. You jumped from claiming one statement, which was the disbelief that top tier pros can and do use less gear than amateurs to now defending the idea that age-related sarcopenia always overcomes (which scientists and doctors have yet to put a finger on precisely ALL of the components responsible for that, btw).

Well yes, my statement in no way claims that sarcopenia doesn't win in the end. My statement was that top bodybuilders don't use as much gear as people want to think they do. We don't fully understand all that encompasses age-related sarcopenia. All we know is some experience it sooner than others, which further supports my claim that pro bodybuilders have superior genetics for this sport, which is why they are there to begin with and why they don't need 2-3g of gear per week to be that big.

Your argument seems to say that pros take stupid amounts of gear because they are still so big and lean even when they hit an age that most people would start experiencing performance decreases and sarcopenia. You're arguing the pros use way more gear than anyone else in bodybuilding on the claim that they aren't shrinking as fast as normal people would in the aging process. Nevermind, these guys are religious as they come with their regimine & diet, but even more than that, they already have the body. It's much easier to maintain and even improve on current status & when current status is 250lbs @ 7% BF, things get easier. I need you to recal my earlier post - that I use half the gear I used to but I maintain FAR more muscle mass now and I'm also considerably older now. On that basis alone, my argument is validated. Plus, do you know how much gear some of these amateurs use?!? Many of them are taking a 1.5-2.5g of Test/Tren/Mast/Winny combo each week. For larger amateur bodybuilders, this isn't uncommon...

To really understand the rub this statement has with natty and lower level competitors, you'd have to acknowledge human tendency to downplay someone else's natural born gifts and work ethic in order for them to feel like the only reason they aren't as amazing as Phil Heath is because of the drugs. It's obvious why people say such stupid crap - a good portion of our society believes in equality of outcome. That also explains the growing practice of expansive redistribution of wealth and participation trophies.

Nonetheless, I'm here to defend the obvious, that we don't look like Phil Heath simply because we aren't as gifted, aren't as motivated and aren't as disciplined.

This talk of crazy steroid doses being a trait of all pro bodybuilders is nonsense and a feel good tactic to make people think it'd be the same outcome for them "if only they were willing to take all those drugs".. You see how that takes a less successful person and makes them seem like they are taking the moral high road instead of being an awesome, successful bodybuilder? I'm only disucssing this becuase this lack-of-facts mentality that pro bodybuilders are the worst abusers of AAS is nonsense and harmful to the future of the sport itself.
 
rugger48 said:
You didnt read what I wrote other how I summed up one statement you made with a word.
Click to expand...

You mean this?

rugger48 said:
and when you get older you lose that ability no matter what, and when you add steroids and t3, and other ancillary to the mix it happens faster. Father time is undeafeted.



"That the body is always trying to find stability. Stability and rthym are conducive to survival. An unstable body isn't conducive to adaptability."

its called Homeostasis.
Click to expand...

I did read it lol and I even went as far as mentioning that you never addressed my rebuttal at all:

"You jumped from claiming one statement, which was the disbelief that top tier pros can and do use less gear than amateurs to now defending the idea that age-related sarcopenia always overcomes..."

I'm not here to discuss sarcopenia. I'm here to discuss the notion that bodybuilders at the highest level take similar amounts of gear as what Rich Piana takes or has been taking. It's a myth. Not a single person has substantiated the claims either. your position was apprently derived from some sort of science but when asked to substantiate your thoughts on it you just commented back to me about sarcopenia and the inevitable loss of mass. I never talked about that (at least I don't remember discussing sarcopenia) and my point had little to do with it.

But on a side note, have you considered the semi-permanent effects of androgens on nuclei density in muscle tissue and insulin's whole-body anti-catabolic effects? The two in conjunction could keep muscle around for a much longer period of time and done so fairly easily. It wouldn't take much.

But it would take tons of food and training.
 
fueledpassion said:
But on a side note, have you considered the semi-permanent effects of androgens on nuclei density in muscle tissue and insulin's whole-body anti-catabolic effects? The two in conjunction could keep muscle around for a much longer period of time and done so fairly easily. It wouldn't take much.

But it would take tons of food and training.
Click to expand...

You ever done 2-a-days?
 
He is either in coma or he. can't talk otherwise he would says something and make some $$$ on this situation
 
This is a true story Rich Piana is in the middle of a huge lawsuit. Apparently he developed malignant cists around his tear ducts from an eye liner that was only tested on retarded gay low self esteem orangutans and He is supposed to be their poster child!
 
FRITZBLITZ said:
This is a true story Rich Piana is in the middle of a huge lawsuit. Apparently he developed malignant cists around his tear ducts from an eye liner that was only tested on retarded gay low self esteem orangutans and He is supposed to be their poster child!
Click to expand...
Inb4 TMZ link
 
fueledpassion said:
You mean this?



I did read it lol and I even went as far as mentioning that you never addressed my rebuttal at all:

"You jumped from claiming one statement, which was the disbelief that top tier pros can and do use less gear than amateurs to now defending the idea that age-related sarcopenia always overcomes..."

I'm not here to discuss sarcopenia. I'm here to discuss the notion that bodybuilders at the highest level take similar amounts of gear as what Rich Piana takes or has been taking. It's a myth. Not a single person has substantiated the claims either. your position was apprently derived from some sort of science but when asked to substantiate your thoughts on it you just commented back to me about sarcopenia and the inevitable loss of mass. I never talked about that (at least I don't remember discussing sarcopenia) and my point had little to do with it.

But on a side note, have you considered the semi-permanent effects of androgens on nuclei density in muscle tissue and insulin's whole-body anti-catabolic effects? The two in conjunction could keep muscle around for a much longer period of time and done so fairly easily. It wouldn't take much.

But it would take tons of food and training.
Click to expand...

No you didnt read it, because I wasn't just talking about due to aging was I also wasn't saying that they take as much gear or other stuff as what piana does on a regular basis did I?

Please go back a read my posts from the beginning of our discussion.
 
So apparently he has passed. R.I.P
 
Now rich is dead too....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top