steroid vs natural... study
- Thread starter imdennis
- Start date
Mad- scientist
Moderator
I knew a guy who gained crazy weight on tren and test and didn't even work out or do shit. And he abused drugs and didn't eat that much. But whenever I say that people get mad and say steroids don't work magic. But I find that they do. People don't remember what its like to be natural. I mean ive gained a shit load of weight working out naturally about 50 pounds just from 18 to 19. But it had a lot to do with just eating right. I think that people go through the magic phase of working out for a few years where your gaining a lot of weight. But the older you get and the closer you get to your genetic limit you just cant grow anymore even if everythings perfect. So I think steroids just plain pack on crazy muscle anyway you look at it. But its fucking stupid to never work out and jump on gear because you can gain a good 30 40 pounds in that first year of working out.
madeleine24
New member
Cows don't work out and they gain weight on steroids lol go figure..
CanAmBrah
New member
Touché
Mike Arnold
New member
Keep in mind that these men were assuredly 1st time users...or at least the large majority of them were, which is why we see this type of "average" result in the non-trainer. I can gaurantee you that if you took a typical steroid using BB'r and did not have him train, not only would he not gain any muscle at all, but he would quickly lose muscle tissue due to the lack of training. Training, even if lazily, is essential to gaining muscle mass with AAS beyond that 1st time experience. But...I have to wonder why anyone would ever contemplate using steroids without traning, as the person will gain muscle more muscle with training than by not traning.
Another thing to think about is the difference betwen the gains observed in steroid using trainers compared to steroid using non-trainers. The trainers gained 13 lbs, while the non-trainers gained 7 lbs. That is only a 6 lbs difference. However, keep in mind that it is VERY unlikely that these people were BB'rs...and they likely did NOT follow an ideal BB'ing diet or training program. That means that these results are inapplicable to the typical BB'r, as they do not accurately portray the role training plays in one's ability to gain muscle tissue. Just following a proper BB'ing diet alone can easily result in many 1st timer users adding 20-30 lbs during a 1st cycle, but this would never happen without training. Individuals in a non-training group would simply add a bunch of fat following that type of diet.
In addition, many of these guys...probably all...were nowhere close to their natural limit. Gaining only 13 lbs on a 1st cycle when you are nowhere close to your natural limit is sad (unless it's anavar or something similar)! We have all seen many cases where some 165 lbs guy who has never cycled before and just started training a year prior decides to take steroids. If he know how to eat for BB'ing, what happens? He blows up...gains 30 or 40 lbs and completely changes his physique.
Believe me...the difference in total gains is almost always much greater in those who train, when they know what they are doing.
Mike Arnold
New member
error.
Mike from what I read it said they selected "experienced" lifters but not competitive ones for what it's worth. They didn't specify, as far as I could see, what qualifies one as "experienced" in the researchers' opinions. One other thing to consider is that the results only showed fat free mass and not actual muscle mass so the changes in body weight, while not able to be attributed to fat, very well could be water and increased glycogen stores as well as muscle mass I would imagine. One final note, while the diets were standardized, they relied on self-reporting to verify adherence to the nutritional aspect of the study. This opens the door and leaves a lot of room for error.
Similar threads
