What supplement should I take or should I do both?
Options
Replies
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
Very true, but pretending like said far outliers (and even those marginally on either side of the curve) don't exist is just as bad. Let me posit a bit of a what-if: let's say that MFP had've existed at the time, and that guy I know came here seeking advice. Nearly everything he'd have gotten here would have been completely wrong, because it's based in the average. So, instead of "buying the hype" from the lifting mags at the time and pushing the living hell out of himself, while shoving every calorie of godawful trans fat laden garbage he could afford into himself (remember, poor AF, and calories are needed for growth), he'd have ended up eating half as much because "lean bulk", and kept his intensity and volume lower because "overtraining", and he'd have likely accomplished half of what he did.
I'm in no way saying that science based on averages is invalid, but perhaps we should accept that some of the people who pop up here might just be one of those outliers, and stop pretending that everyone is "average".
I am not exactly sure what caused biological individuality to be completely cast off, but that's where all of the "rules" tend to come from. Using an example that someone else mentioned: what about the guy who has terrible E:T ratios? Technically, he'd never be able to accomplish *kitten* while "natty", yet few of us would demonize him for trying to level the playing field a bit. Why is it fine for him, yet as soon as someone tries to exceed "average", it's suddenly bad? There are natural outliers who get better results from iron and food than "average" people can get with gear.
That's my only real point here. We're pretending that anything that isn't "normal" is drug induced. Unless it's on the crap side of normal, then it's "wow, that sucks, but yeah, happens all the time".
ETA: none of this really answera my original question. How do we even define "natural", given the absurd number of definitions? And no "we all know what it means" isn't an answer, as that's the same silliness that "clean" food advocates put forth.
Let me ask you, since I personally don't have much knowledge of steroids. Are there specific enhancers that would pass if you were trying to compete in a natty competition, where a drug test was required? Caffeine is a simple stimulant, which would pass, which is legal everywhere.
Regarding the bold. I think there is enough knowledge, both anecdotal from experts (like Layne Norton or Alan Aragon) and scientific studies that we can provide adequate advice that would address almost 95% or more of people to help reach their goals. The outlier might be those on enhancers trying to compete in certain events. But at that point, they shouldn't be soliciting advice on a forum, but rather be working with a specific coach with direct experience.
I will say, I can't tell you how many people I have seen make more progress when it came to strength and muscle gains when I (or we) have gotten them off a bro-split of hitting muscle groups once a week, and put them on a well designed full body or upper/lower (or PPL) split where they hit muscles 2 to 3x a week. Hell, I can even argue that those on enhancers would probably benefit from it, too.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
Very true, but pretending like said far outliers (and even those marginally on either side of the curve) don't exist is just as bad. Let me posit a bit of a what-if: let's say that MFP had've existed at the time, and that guy I know came here seeking advice. Nearly everything he'd have gotten here would have been completely wrong, because it's based in the average. So, instead of "buying the hype" from the lifting mags at the time and pushing the living hell out of himself, while shoving every calorie of godawful trans fat laden garbage he could afford into himself (remember, poor AF, and calories are needed for growth), he'd have ended up eating half as much because "lean bulk", and kept his intensity and volume lower because "overtraining", and he'd have likely accomplished half of what he did.
I'm in no way saying that science based on averages is invalid, but perhaps we should accept that some of the people who pop up here might just be one of those outliers, and stop pretending that everyone is "average".
I am not exactly sure what caused biological individuality to be completely cast off, but that's where all of the "rules" tend to come from. Using an example that someone else mentioned: what about the guy who has terrible E:T ratios? Technically, he'd never be able to accomplish *kitten* while "natty", yet few of us would demonize him for trying to level the playing field a bit. Why is it fine for him, yet as soon as someone tries to exceed "average", it's suddenly bad? There are natural outliers who get better results from iron and food than "average" people can get with gear.
That's my only real point here. We're pretending that anything that isn't "normal" is drug induced. Unless it's on the crap side of normal, then it's "wow, that sucks, but yeah, happens all the time".
ETA: none of this really answera my original question. How do we even define "natural", given the absurd number of definitions? And no "we all know what it means" isn't an answer, as that's the same silliness that "clean" food advocates put forth.
Let me ask you, since I personally don't have much knowledge of steroids. Are there specific enhancers that would pass if you were trying to compete in a natty competition, where a drug test was required? Caffeine is a simple stimulant, which would pass, which is legal everywhere.
Regarding the bold. I think there is enough knowledge, both anecdotal from experts (like Layne Norton or Alan Aragon) and scientific studies that we can provide adequate advice that would address almost 95% or more of people to help reach their goals. The outlier might be those on enhancers trying to compete in certain events. But at that point, they shouldn't be soliciting advice on a forum, but rather be working with a specific coach with direct experience.
I will say, I can't tell you how many people I have seen make more progress when it came to strength and muscle gains when I (or we) have gotten them off a bro-split of hitting muscle groups once a week, and put them on a well designed full body or upper/lower (or PPL) split where they hit muscles 2 to 3x a week. Hell, I can even argue that those on enhancers would probably benefit from it, too.
Its highly unlikely that you can take any gear and be able to compete in a Natty competition. They do urine, and Polygraph testing in competitions sanctioned by organizations such as NANBF. I cant say for sure, but I am pretty sure they do blood tests as well.
The closest thing would be things such as creatine, which adds fullness and aids recovery. the downside is increased water weight.0 -
jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »
So that means all Naturopaths are bad or unreliable? Thats like saying there is one way to train, or one way to eat for mass. You sound so condescending its making me laugh.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »yeah some woman went to her naturopath who said she had a parasite. it wasnt a parasite thats for sure and what her naturopath told her could have harmed her in more ways than one.
laugh if it makes you feel better. doesnt bother me at all,but someone telling you to take a supplement that has NOT been proven to work to prevent liver issues,because of taking in too much protein which would be counterproductive and other issues? its like an orthopedic surgeon telling you to take coconut oil and to rub it on a broken bone to heal it. and nope,no condescension here,
Well, I am working with a coach who has been very successful in my region prepping people for competition. Im working on adding mass. In case you were not aware, to get big you have to eat big. I also, had some in depth discussion with nutrition experts who I had meetings with during the Olympia last September.
I guess my coach and other experts are wrong, and maybe I should hire you to coach me.
If you look at the works of people like Layne Norton, PhD , bodybuilder and powerlifter, he would probably disagree with many of the things you are saying. Even people on roids don't need to eat 350g of protein.
Was your malabsorption issue diagnosed by a GI specialist or another specialis?
My malabsorption is a direct result of a surgery I had a few years back.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
Very true, but pretending like said far outliers (and even those marginally on either side of the curve) don't exist is just as bad. Let me posit a bit of a what-if: let's say that MFP had've existed at the time, and that guy I know came here seeking advice. Nearly everything he'd have gotten here would have been completely wrong, because it's based in the average. So, instead of "buying the hype" from the lifting mags at the time and pushing the living hell out of himself, while shoving every calorie of godawful trans fat laden garbage he could afford into himself (remember, poor AF, and calories are needed for growth), he'd have ended up eating half as much because "lean bulk", and kept his intensity and volume lower because "overtraining", and he'd have likely accomplished half of what he did.
I'm in no way saying that science based on averages is invalid, but perhaps we should accept that some of the people who pop up here might just be one of those outliers, and stop pretending that everyone is "average".
I am not exactly sure what caused biological individuality to be completely cast off, but that's where all of the "rules" tend to come from. Using an example that someone else mentioned: what about the guy who has terrible E:T ratios? Technically, he'd never be able to accomplish *kitten* while "natty", yet few of us would demonize him for trying to level the playing field a bit. Why is it fine for him, yet as soon as someone tries to exceed "average", it's suddenly bad? There are natural outliers who get better results from iron and food than "average" people can get with gear.
That's my only real point here. We're pretending that anything that isn't "normal" is drug induced. Unless it's on the crap side of normal, then it's "wow, that sucks, but yeah, happens all the time".
ETA: none of this really answera my original question. How do we even define "natural", given the absurd number of definitions? And no "we all know what it means" isn't an answer, as that's the same silliness that "clean" food advocates put forth.
Let me ask you, since I personally don't have much knowledge of steroids. Are there specific enhancers that would pass if you were trying to compete in a natty competition, where a drug test was required? Caffeine is a simple stimulant, which would pass, which is legal everywhere.
Regarding the bold. I think there is enough knowledge, both anecdotal from experts (like Layne Norton or Alan Aragon) and scientific studies that we can provide adequate advice that would address almost 95% or more of people to help reach their goals. The outlier might be those on enhancers trying to compete in certain events. But at that point, they shouldn't be soliciting advice on a forum, but rather be working with a specific coach with direct experience.
I will say, I can't tell you how many people I have seen make more progress when it came to strength and muscle gains when I (or we) have gotten them off a bro-split of hitting muscle groups once a week, and put them on a well designed full body or upper/lower (or PPL) split where they hit muscles 2 to 3x a week. Hell, I can even argue that those on enhancers would probably benefit from it, too.
Regarding the legality: it's impossible to know if going by WADA's rules, due to their S0's (non-approved substances) wording. I'll just copy and paste it for you:
Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g. drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited at all times.
Basically: whatever the *kitten* we want to be illegal, just might be, and you could have been taking something illegal without knowing it.
*kitten*, because of their M1 methods rules, if you receive a blood transfusion, you can be disqualified. The entire thing is stupid, and why I could honestly give a rat's *kitten* about WADA sanctioned events.
However, outside of that, there's no real way to tell, because every fed seems to be a bit different, which falls in line with the problem I mentioned earlier: no real widely accepted definition.
As for the brosplits thing: no argument here. There's damned good evidence (both scientific and a boatload of anecdotal) that increasing frequency increases adaptation. That's just how the human body works. If we were theae frail things that could only work a muscle group once per week, our species never would have made it through the earliest stages, let alone the Industrial Revolution.
ETA: if you read back through the thread, that guy never once asked for macro advice. It was thrust upon him. That was my point. Lots of assumptions without having all of the evidence.
0 -
As one final addendum to the above, since edit time has passed:
All most any of them do is a urine test around comp time. It's pointless. Even the ones who do out-of-contest tests don't catch much. IIRC, a couple of years ago, IPF threw out something like 800+ random OOCs. You know how many failed? Somewhere between 15 and 20. We're talking guys walking around at 250+, sub-10% BF, and with 3.5x+ bodyweight lifts. The entire thing is a joke from the get-go.
You realize that the west's obsession with "fair" and "no drugs" are why we perpetually suck compared to say, China and the Eastern Bloc, yes? It's gotten to the point where it's just sad, because of how easy it is to dodge positive screenings. We are openly mocked on a very regular basis.
I know this has nothing to do with the conversation at hand, but it's something that's always bothered me. All of these guys, obsessed with "natty this" and "genetic potential" that, getting utterly curb-stomped by a guy on AAS, insulin, and possibly even gene manipulation, who can stand right next to him in a line and pass the same drug tests.
I can't tell if it's hilarious, pathetic, tragic, or a Cerberus of all three.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »As one final addendum to the above, since edit time has passed:
All most any of them do is a urine test around comp time. It's pointless. Even the ones who do out-of-contest tests don't catch much. IIRC, a couple of years ago, IPF threw out something like 800+ random OOCs. You know how many failed? Somewhere between 15 and 20. We're talking guys walking around at 250+, sub-10% BF, and with 3.5x+ bodyweight lifts. The entire thing is a joke from the get-go.
You realize that the west's obsession with "fair" and "no drugs" are why we perpetually suck compared to say, China and the Eastern Bloc, yes? It's gotten to the point where it's just sad, because of how easy it is to dodge positive screenings. We are openly mocked on a very regular basis.
I know this has nothing to do with the conversation at hand, but it's something that's always bothered me. All of these guys, obsessed with "natty this" and "genetic potential" that, getting utterly curb-stomped by a guy on AAS, insulin, and possibly even gene manipulation, who can stand right next to him in a line and pass the same drug tests.
I can't tell if it's hilarious, pathetic, tragic, or a Cerberus of all three.
Don't forget guys my age who are getting TRT because their bodies no longer produce enough testosterone.
When I compete in July, obviously I won't be going Natty.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
Very true, but pretending like said far outliers (and even those marginally on either side of the curve) don't exist is just as bad. Let me posit a bit of a what-if: let's say that MFP had've existed at the time, and that guy I know came here seeking advice. Nearly everything he'd have gotten here would have been completely wrong, because it's based in the average. So, instead of "buying the hype" from the lifting mags at the time and pushing the living hell out of himself, while shoving every calorie of godawful trans fat laden garbage he could afford into himself (remember, poor AF, and calories are needed for growth), he'd have ended up eating half as much because "lean bulk", and kept his intensity and volume lower because "overtraining", and he'd have likely accomplished half of what he did.
I'm in no way saying that science based on averages is invalid, but perhaps we should accept that some of the people who pop up here might just be one of those outliers, and stop pretending that everyone is "average".
I am not exactly sure what caused biological individuality to be completely cast off, but that's where all of the "rules" tend to come from. Using an example that someone else mentioned: what about the guy who has terrible E:T ratios? Technically, he'd never be able to accomplish *kitten* while "natty", yet few of us would demonize him for trying to level the playing field a bit. Why is it fine for him, yet as soon as someone tries to exceed "average", it's suddenly bad? There are natural outliers who get better results from iron and food than "average" people can get with gear.
That's my only real point here. We're pretending that anything that isn't "normal" is drug induced. Unless it's on the crap side of normal, then it's "wow, that sucks, but yeah, happens all the time".
ETA: none of this really answera my original question. How do we even define "natural", given the absurd number of definitions? And no "we all know what it means" isn't an answer, as that's the same silliness that "clean" food advocates put forth.
Let me ask you, since I personally don't have much knowledge of steroids. Are there specific enhancers that would pass if you were trying to compete in a natty competition, where a drug test was required? Caffeine is a simple stimulant, which would pass, which is legal everywhere.
Regarding the bold. I think there is enough knowledge, both anecdotal from experts (like Layne Norton or Alan Aragon) and scientific studies that we can provide adequate advice that would address almost 95% or more of people to help reach their goals. The outlier might be those on enhancers trying to compete in certain events. But at that point, they shouldn't be soliciting advice on a forum, but rather be working with a specific coach with direct experience.
I will say, I can't tell you how many people I have seen make more progress when it came to strength and muscle gains when I (or we) have gotten them off a bro-split of hitting muscle groups once a week, and put them on a well designed full body or upper/lower (or PPL) split where they hit muscles 2 to 3x a week. Hell, I can even argue that those on enhancers would probably benefit from it, too.
It is 100% possible for someone to pass a drug test that is still benefitting from the effects of performance enhancers (of many forms). Short esters, un-tested compounds and masking substances are all ways round tests.1 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
Very true, but pretending like said far outliers (and even those marginally on either side of the curve) don't exist is just as bad. Let me posit a bit of a what-if: let's say that MFP had've existed at the time, and that guy I know came here seeking advice. Nearly everything he'd have gotten here would have been completely wrong, because it's based in the average. So, instead of "buying the hype" from the lifting mags at the time and pushing the living hell out of himself, while shoving every calorie of godawful trans fat laden garbage he could afford into himself (remember, poor AF, and calories are needed for growth), he'd have ended up eating half as much because "lean bulk", and kept his intensity and volume lower because "overtraining", and he'd have likely accomplished half of what he did.
I'm in no way saying that science based on averages is invalid, but perhaps we should accept that some of the people who pop up here might just be one of those outliers, and stop pretending that everyone is "average".
I am not exactly sure what caused biological individuality to be completely cast off, but that's where all of the "rules" tend to come from. Using an example that someone else mentioned: what about the guy who has terrible E:T ratios? Technically, he'd never be able to accomplish *kitten* while "natty", yet few of us would demonize him for trying to level the playing field a bit. Why is it fine for him, yet as soon as someone tries to exceed "average", it's suddenly bad? There are natural outliers who get better results from iron and food than "average" people can get with gear.
That's my only real point here. We're pretending that anything that isn't "normal" is drug induced. Unless it's on the crap side of normal, then it's "wow, that sucks, but yeah, happens all the time".
ETA: none of this really answera my original question. How do we even define "natural", given the absurd number of definitions? And no "we all know what it means" isn't an answer, as that's the same silliness that "clean" food advocates put forth.
Let me ask you, since I personally don't have much knowledge of steroids. Are there specific enhancers that would pass if you were trying to compete in a natty competition, where a drug test was required? Caffeine is a simple stimulant, which would pass, which is legal everywhere.
Regarding the bold. I think there is enough knowledge, both anecdotal from experts (like Layne Norton or Alan Aragon) and scientific studies that we can provide adequate advice that would address almost 95% or more of people to help reach their goals. The outlier might be those on enhancers trying to compete in certain events. But at that point, they shouldn't be soliciting advice on a forum, but rather be working with a specific coach with direct experience.
I will say, I can't tell you how many people I have seen make more progress when it came to strength and muscle gains when I (or we) have gotten them off a bro-split of hitting muscle groups once a week, and put them on a well designed full body or upper/lower (or PPL) split where they hit muscles 2 to 3x a week. Hell, I can even argue that those on enhancers would probably benefit from it, too.
It is 100% possible for someone to pass a drug test that is still benefitting from the effects of performance enhancers (of many forms). Short esters, un-tested compounds and masking substances are all ways round tests.
If you can get around the polygraph. Most natty competitions use that as well
0 -
jwknight67 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
Very true, but pretending like said far outliers (and even those marginally on either side of the curve) don't exist is just as bad. Let me posit a bit of a what-if: let's say that MFP had've existed at the time, and that guy I know came here seeking advice. Nearly everything he'd have gotten here would have been completely wrong, because it's based in the average. So, instead of "buying the hype" from the lifting mags at the time and pushing the living hell out of himself, while shoving every calorie of godawful trans fat laden garbage he could afford into himself (remember, poor AF, and calories are needed for growth), he'd have ended up eating half as much because "lean bulk", and kept his intensity and volume lower because "overtraining", and he'd have likely accomplished half of what he did.
I'm in no way saying that science based on averages is invalid, but perhaps we should accept that some of the people who pop up here might just be one of those outliers, and stop pretending that everyone is "average".
I am not exactly sure what caused biological individuality to be completely cast off, but that's where all of the "rules" tend to come from. Using an example that someone else mentioned: what about the guy who has terrible E:T ratios? Technically, he'd never be able to accomplish *kitten* while "natty", yet few of us would demonize him for trying to level the playing field a bit. Why is it fine for him, yet as soon as someone tries to exceed "average", it's suddenly bad? There are natural outliers who get better results from iron and food than "average" people can get with gear.
That's my only real point here. We're pretending that anything that isn't "normal" is drug induced. Unless it's on the crap side of normal, then it's "wow, that sucks, but yeah, happens all the time".
ETA: none of this really answera my original question. How do we even define "natural", given the absurd number of definitions? And no "we all know what it means" isn't an answer, as that's the same silliness that "clean" food advocates put forth.
Let me ask you, since I personally don't have much knowledge of steroids. Are there specific enhancers that would pass if you were trying to compete in a natty competition, where a drug test was required? Caffeine is a simple stimulant, which would pass, which is legal everywhere.
Regarding the bold. I think there is enough knowledge, both anecdotal from experts (like Layne Norton or Alan Aragon) and scientific studies that we can provide adequate advice that would address almost 95% or more of people to help reach their goals. The outlier might be those on enhancers trying to compete in certain events. But at that point, they shouldn't be soliciting advice on a forum, but rather be working with a specific coach with direct experience.
I will say, I can't tell you how many people I have seen make more progress when it came to strength and muscle gains when I (or we) have gotten them off a bro-split of hitting muscle groups once a week, and put them on a well designed full body or upper/lower (or PPL) split where they hit muscles 2 to 3x a week. Hell, I can even argue that those on enhancers would probably benefit from it, too.
It is 100% possible for someone to pass a drug test that is still benefitting from the effects of performance enhancers (of many forms). Short esters, un-tested compounds and masking substances are all ways round tests.
If you can get around the polygraph. Most natty competitions use that as well
I am going to take a gander that passing a polygraph is probably a lot harder then a drug test. Speaking from experience on the former.0 -
jwknight67 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
Very true, but pretending like said far outliers (and even those marginally on either side of the curve) don't exist is just as bad. Let me posit a bit of a what-if: let's say that MFP had've existed at the time, and that guy I know came here seeking advice. Nearly everything he'd have gotten here would have been completely wrong, because it's based in the average. So, instead of "buying the hype" from the lifting mags at the time and pushing the living hell out of himself, while shoving every calorie of godawful trans fat laden garbage he could afford into himself (remember, poor AF, and calories are needed for growth), he'd have ended up eating half as much because "lean bulk", and kept his intensity and volume lower because "overtraining", and he'd have likely accomplished half of what he did.
I'm in no way saying that science based on averages is invalid, but perhaps we should accept that some of the people who pop up here might just be one of those outliers, and stop pretending that everyone is "average".
I am not exactly sure what caused biological individuality to be completely cast off, but that's where all of the "rules" tend to come from. Using an example that someone else mentioned: what about the guy who has terrible E:T ratios? Technically, he'd never be able to accomplish *kitten* while "natty", yet few of us would demonize him for trying to level the playing field a bit. Why is it fine for him, yet as soon as someone tries to exceed "average", it's suddenly bad? There are natural outliers who get better results from iron and food than "average" people can get with gear.
That's my only real point here. We're pretending that anything that isn't "normal" is drug induced. Unless it's on the crap side of normal, then it's "wow, that sucks, but yeah, happens all the time".
ETA: none of this really answera my original question. How do we even define "natural", given the absurd number of definitions? And no "we all know what it means" isn't an answer, as that's the same silliness that "clean" food advocates put forth.
Let me ask you, since I personally don't have much knowledge of steroids. Are there specific enhancers that would pass if you were trying to compete in a natty competition, where a drug test was required? Caffeine is a simple stimulant, which would pass, which is legal everywhere.
Regarding the bold. I think there is enough knowledge, both anecdotal from experts (like Layne Norton or Alan Aragon) and scientific studies that we can provide adequate advice that would address almost 95% or more of people to help reach their goals. The outlier might be those on enhancers trying to compete in certain events. But at that point, they shouldn't be soliciting advice on a forum, but rather be working with a specific coach with direct experience.
I will say, I can't tell you how many people I have seen make more progress when it came to strength and muscle gains when I (or we) have gotten them off a bro-split of hitting muscle groups once a week, and put them on a well designed full body or upper/lower (or PPL) split where they hit muscles 2 to 3x a week. Hell, I can even argue that those on enhancers would probably benefit from it, too.
It is 100% possible for someone to pass a drug test that is still benefitting from the effects of performance enhancers (of many forms). Short esters, un-tested compounds and masking substances are all ways round tests.
If you can get around the polygraph. Most natty competitions use that as well
I am going to take a gander that passing a polygraph is probably a lot harder then a drug test. Speaking from experience on the former.
If you don't think you're doing wrong then I imagine a polygraph isn't that hard to pass.0 -
jwknight67 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
Very true, but pretending like said far outliers (and even those marginally on either side of the curve) don't exist is just as bad. Let me posit a bit of a what-if: let's say that MFP had've existed at the time, and that guy I know came here seeking advice. Nearly everything he'd have gotten here would have been completely wrong, because it's based in the average. So, instead of "buying the hype" from the lifting mags at the time and pushing the living hell out of himself, while shoving every calorie of godawful trans fat laden garbage he could afford into himself (remember, poor AF, and calories are needed for growth), he'd have ended up eating half as much because "lean bulk", and kept his intensity and volume lower because "overtraining", and he'd have likely accomplished half of what he did.
I'm in no way saying that science based on averages is invalid, but perhaps we should accept that some of the people who pop up here might just be one of those outliers, and stop pretending that everyone is "average".
I am not exactly sure what caused biological individuality to be completely cast off, but that's where all of the "rules" tend to come from. Using an example that someone else mentioned: what about the guy who has terrible E:T ratios? Technically, he'd never be able to accomplish *kitten* while "natty", yet few of us would demonize him for trying to level the playing field a bit. Why is it fine for him, yet as soon as someone tries to exceed "average", it's suddenly bad? There are natural outliers who get better results from iron and food than "average" people can get with gear.
That's my only real point here. We're pretending that anything that isn't "normal" is drug induced. Unless it's on the crap side of normal, then it's "wow, that sucks, but yeah, happens all the time".
ETA: none of this really answera my original question. How do we even define "natural", given the absurd number of definitions? And no "we all know what it means" isn't an answer, as that's the same silliness that "clean" food advocates put forth.
Let me ask you, since I personally don't have much knowledge of steroids. Are there specific enhancers that would pass if you were trying to compete in a natty competition, where a drug test was required? Caffeine is a simple stimulant, which would pass, which is legal everywhere.
Regarding the bold. I think there is enough knowledge, both anecdotal from experts (like Layne Norton or Alan Aragon) and scientific studies that we can provide adequate advice that would address almost 95% or more of people to help reach their goals. The outlier might be those on enhancers trying to compete in certain events. But at that point, they shouldn't be soliciting advice on a forum, but rather be working with a specific coach with direct experience.
I will say, I can't tell you how many people I have seen make more progress when it came to strength and muscle gains when I (or we) have gotten them off a bro-split of hitting muscle groups once a week, and put them on a well designed full body or upper/lower (or PPL) split where they hit muscles 2 to 3x a week. Hell, I can even argue that those on enhancers would probably benefit from it, too.
It is 100% possible for someone to pass a drug test that is still benefitting from the effects of performance enhancers (of many forms). Short esters, un-tested compounds and masking substances are all ways round tests.
If you can get around the polygraph. Most natty competitions use that as well
I am going to take a gander that passing a polygraph is probably a lot harder then a drug test. Speaking from experience on the former.
a polygraph is something around only 80-85 percent accurate? if that. not to mention people can manipulate the readings if they can control their heart rate and so on. lots of people have beat polygraph tests. so to me that would be inconclusive as well0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
Very true, but pretending like said far outliers (and even those marginally on either side of the curve) don't exist is just as bad. Let me posit a bit of a what-if: let's say that MFP had've existed at the time, and that guy I know came here seeking advice. Nearly everything he'd have gotten here would have been completely wrong, because it's based in the average. So, instead of "buying the hype" from the lifting mags at the time and pushing the living hell out of himself, while shoving every calorie of godawful trans fat laden garbage he could afford into himself (remember, poor AF, and calories are needed for growth), he'd have ended up eating half as much because "lean bulk", and kept his intensity and volume lower because "overtraining", and he'd have likely accomplished half of what he did.
I'm in no way saying that science based on averages is invalid, but perhaps we should accept that some of the people who pop up here might just be one of those outliers, and stop pretending that everyone is "average".
I am not exactly sure what caused biological individuality to be completely cast off, but that's where all of the "rules" tend to come from. Using an example that someone else mentioned: what about the guy who has terrible E:T ratios? Technically, he'd never be able to accomplish *kitten* while "natty", yet few of us would demonize him for trying to level the playing field a bit. Why is it fine for him, yet as soon as someone tries to exceed "average", it's suddenly bad? There are natural outliers who get better results from iron and food than "average" people can get with gear.
That's my only real point here. We're pretending that anything that isn't "normal" is drug induced. Unless it's on the crap side of normal, then it's "wow, that sucks, but yeah, happens all the time".
ETA: none of this really answera my original question. How do we even define "natural", given the absurd number of definitions? And no "we all know what it means" isn't an answer, as that's the same silliness that "clean" food advocates put forth.
Let me ask you, since I personally don't have much knowledge of steroids. Are there specific enhancers that would pass if you were trying to compete in a natty competition, where a drug test was required? Caffeine is a simple stimulant, which would pass, which is legal everywhere.
Regarding the bold. I think there is enough knowledge, both anecdotal from experts (like Layne Norton or Alan Aragon) and scientific studies that we can provide adequate advice that would address almost 95% or more of people to help reach their goals. The outlier might be those on enhancers trying to compete in certain events. But at that point, they shouldn't be soliciting advice on a forum, but rather be working with a specific coach with direct experience.
I will say, I can't tell you how many people I have seen make more progress when it came to strength and muscle gains when I (or we) have gotten them off a bro-split of hitting muscle groups once a week, and put them on a well designed full body or upper/lower (or PPL) split where they hit muscles 2 to 3x a week. Hell, I can even argue that those on enhancers would probably benefit from it, too.
It is 100% possible for someone to pass a drug test that is still benefitting from the effects of performance enhancers (of many forms). Short esters, un-tested compounds and masking substances are all ways round tests.
If you can get around the polygraph. Most natty competitions use that as well
I am going to take a gander that passing a polygraph is probably a lot harder then a drug test. Speaking from experience on the former.
a polygraph is something around only 80-85 percent accurate? if that. not to mention people can manipulate the readings if they can control their heart rate and so on. lots of people have beat polygraph tests. so to me that would be inconclusive as well
Precisely, but "due process" isn't really a thing in tested feds, so it just further illustrates my point that the whole thing is just stupid. The only people who have to care about tested feds are "natty bros" and guys that compete for a living. One is just sad, and the other will have figured out how to beat the test.
Even guys who are on and compete for fun will be able to find out how to dodge easily. They just have less to lose if they screw up, than the guy who does it for a living.1 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
Very true, but pretending like said far outliers (and even those marginally on either side of the curve) don't exist is just as bad. Let me posit a bit of a what-if: let's say that MFP had've existed at the time, and that guy I know came here seeking advice. Nearly everything he'd have gotten here would have been completely wrong, because it's based in the average. So, instead of "buying the hype" from the lifting mags at the time and pushing the living hell out of himself, while shoving every calorie of godawful trans fat laden garbage he could afford into himself (remember, poor AF, and calories are needed for growth), he'd have ended up eating half as much because "lean bulk", and kept his intensity and volume lower because "overtraining", and he'd have likely accomplished half of what he did.
I'm in no way saying that science based on averages is invalid, but perhaps we should accept that some of the people who pop up here might just be one of those outliers, and stop pretending that everyone is "average".
I am not exactly sure what caused biological individuality to be completely cast off, but that's where all of the "rules" tend to come from. Using an example that someone else mentioned: what about the guy who has terrible E:T ratios? Technically, he'd never be able to accomplish *kitten* while "natty", yet few of us would demonize him for trying to level the playing field a bit. Why is it fine for him, yet as soon as someone tries to exceed "average", it's suddenly bad? There are natural outliers who get better results from iron and food than "average" people can get with gear.
That's my only real point here. We're pretending that anything that isn't "normal" is drug induced. Unless it's on the crap side of normal, then it's "wow, that sucks, but yeah, happens all the time".
ETA: none of this really answera my original question. How do we even define "natural", given the absurd number of definitions? And no "we all know what it means" isn't an answer, as that's the same silliness that "clean" food advocates put forth.
Let me ask you, since I personally don't have much knowledge of steroids. Are there specific enhancers that would pass if you were trying to compete in a natty competition, where a drug test was required? Caffeine is a simple stimulant, which would pass, which is legal everywhere.
Regarding the bold. I think there is enough knowledge, both anecdotal from experts (like Layne Norton or Alan Aragon) and scientific studies that we can provide adequate advice that would address almost 95% or more of people to help reach their goals. The outlier might be those on enhancers trying to compete in certain events. But at that point, they shouldn't be soliciting advice on a forum, but rather be working with a specific coach with direct experience.
I will say, I can't tell you how many people I have seen make more progress when it came to strength and muscle gains when I (or we) have gotten them off a bro-split of hitting muscle groups once a week, and put them on a well designed full body or upper/lower (or PPL) split where they hit muscles 2 to 3x a week. Hell, I can even argue that those on enhancers would probably benefit from it, too.
It is 100% possible for someone to pass a drug test that is still benefitting from the effects of performance enhancers (of many forms). Short esters, un-tested compounds and masking substances are all ways round tests.
If you can get around the polygraph. Most natty competitions use that as well
I am going to take a gander that passing a polygraph is probably a lot harder then a drug test. Speaking from experience on the former.
a polygraph is something around only 80-85 percent accurate? if that. not to mention people can manipulate the readings if they can control their heart rate and so on. lots of people have beat polygraph tests. so to me that would be inconclusive as well
What you read on thr internet, are things the testers read too and have addressed. Its a multifaceted device that has several sensors to test various things in physiology. So it takes a lot more than just believing.0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
Very true, but pretending like said far outliers (and even those marginally on either side of the curve) don't exist is just as bad. Let me posit a bit of a what-if: let's say that MFP had've existed at the time, and that guy I know came here seeking advice. Nearly everything he'd have gotten here would have been completely wrong, because it's based in the average. So, instead of "buying the hype" from the lifting mags at the time and pushing the living hell out of himself, while shoving every calorie of godawful trans fat laden garbage he could afford into himself (remember, poor AF, and calories are needed for growth), he'd have ended up eating half as much because "lean bulk", and kept his intensity and volume lower because "overtraining", and he'd have likely accomplished half of what he did.
I'm in no way saying that science based on averages is invalid, but perhaps we should accept that some of the people who pop up here might just be one of those outliers, and stop pretending that everyone is "average".
I am not exactly sure what caused biological individuality to be completely cast off, but that's where all of the "rules" tend to come from. Using an example that someone else mentioned: what about the guy who has terrible E:T ratios? Technically, he'd never be able to accomplish *kitten* while "natty", yet few of us would demonize him for trying to level the playing field a bit. Why is it fine for him, yet as soon as someone tries to exceed "average", it's suddenly bad? There are natural outliers who get better results from iron and food than "average" people can get with gear.
That's my only real point here. We're pretending that anything that isn't "normal" is drug induced. Unless it's on the crap side of normal, then it's "wow, that sucks, but yeah, happens all the time".
ETA: none of this really answera my original question. How do we even define "natural", given the absurd number of definitions? And no "we all know what it means" isn't an answer, as that's the same silliness that "clean" food advocates put forth.
Let me ask you, since I personally don't have much knowledge of steroids. Are there specific enhancers that would pass if you were trying to compete in a natty competition, where a drug test was required? Caffeine is a simple stimulant, which would pass, which is legal everywhere.
Regarding the bold. I think there is enough knowledge, both anecdotal from experts (like Layne Norton or Alan Aragon) and scientific studies that we can provide adequate advice that would address almost 95% or more of people to help reach their goals. The outlier might be those on enhancers trying to compete in certain events. But at that point, they shouldn't be soliciting advice on a forum, but rather be working with a specific coach with direct experience.
I will say, I can't tell you how many people I have seen make more progress when it came to strength and muscle gains when I (or we) have gotten them off a bro-split of hitting muscle groups once a week, and put them on a well designed full body or upper/lower (or PPL) split where they hit muscles 2 to 3x a week. Hell, I can even argue that those on enhancers would probably benefit from it, too.
It is 100% possible for someone to pass a drug test that is still benefitting from the effects of performance enhancers (of many forms). Short esters, un-tested compounds and masking substances are all ways round tests.
If you can get around the polygraph. Most natty competitions use that as well
I am going to take a gander that passing a polygraph is probably a lot harder then a drug test. Speaking from experience on the former.
a polygraph is something around only 80-85 percent accurate? if that. not to mention people can manipulate the readings if they can control their heart rate and so on. lots of people have beat polygraph tests. so to me that would be inconclusive as well
What you read on thr internet, are things the testers read too and have addressed. Its a multifaceted device that has several sensors to test various things in physiology. So it takes a lot more than just believing.
yeah but people can still beat them thats why in a lot of courtrooms a polygraph tests is inadmissible.point is there are always ways around them whether legal or not.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions