Myfitnesspal

Message Boards Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

The PED questions I get

13

Replies

  • IVMayIVMay Member Posts: 442 Member Member Posts: 442 Member
    Rich Piana is my favourite natural athlete.
    KILL IT.
    One day you may.
    Gdammit!

    We're all gonna make it.
  • SideSteelSideSteel Member Posts: 11,077 Member Member Posts: 11,077 Member
    BHFF wrote: »
    leajas1 wrote: »
    If someone uses steroids, then stops, are they able to maintain the muscle they gained (presuming they continued to lift heavy and meet protein minimums) or will the automatically lose some muscle? Just curious.

    If the drugs cause a level of development about your genetic potential then yes once they are out of the system, those gains will go.

    Not all of them are lost that is a fallacy

    Not all of them are lost but the ones above your genetic potential will, as I stated.

    I'd be curious if there is any evidence of this one way or another.

    You could make a case for satellite cell changes that could be quite meaningful.
  • IVMayIVMay Member Posts: 442 Member Member Posts: 442 Member
    Look. Can we put this matter to rest because some poeple are making valid points on both sides.
    That 'genetic potential' thing had me laughing though considering steroids don't affect the 'genetic potential' limits.
    You can be nautral and reach a plateau that can be surpassed given new methods of training/diet/performance enhancers etc - but steroids will not alter your genetic potential. Only things like IL-15, IGF, MGF, HGH can make new muscle cells whereas steroids will cause existing cells to enlarge.

    Steroids WILL help you with recovery. They WILL put on lean muscle size even if you sit and do nothing.
    Some will give you water retention
    Others will dry you out

    You *can* literally gain and sit around playing video games.

    The recovery time and pain blocking capabilities make it a far more enjoyable recovery and training experience. The pumps and instant gratification will surpass natural levels hence drive up your psychological approach and also raise the possibility of injury and future complications due to the pain blocking...

    In other words: you can *kitten* yourself up in the long run in many ways using them.

    So yes - 99% of people who take them still go work out. But it's a hell of a lot easier. Is it cheating? NO - it's subjective and who cares if they're not competing or hurting anyone else it's their choice. I'd rather a load of gear users living in delusion land about their health and fitness than a load of crackheads who go out and rob old ladies for their fix.

    FFMI is a good indicator. I think the 25 range was suggested by some people but I'm not too clued up about it. Plenty of information I dare say if you type in FFMI and 'natty limit' there's a lot more qualified fitness experts that will lay out a few facts.

    It's an industry build on insecurities and accusations. Of course it requires hard work either way.
  • BHFFBHFF Member Posts: 421 Member Member Posts: 421 Member
    I'm simply going to say this and leave it at rest. For the people saying that you can literally sit around and gain lean muscle mass while on a cycle not doing anything but playing video games. My question to you is this. Have you done this? Have you done a steroid cycle and not worked out afterwords for the entirety of the cycle?? Or are you simply going off one or two studies among 200 or 300 studies? If you have not done so then your knowledge is strictly based upon one or two studies when I am sure there are probably hundreds if not thousands of studies done on this. All of which probably contradict one another.
  • SideSteelSideSteel Member Posts: 11,077 Member Member Posts: 11,077 Member
    BHFF wrote: »
    I'm simply going to say this and leave it at rest. For the people saying that you can literally sit around and gain lean muscle mass while on a cycle not doing anything but playing video games. My question to you is this. Have you done this? Have you done a steroid cycle and not worked out afterwords for the entirety of the cycle?? Or are you simply going off one or two studies among 200 or 300 studies? If you have not done so then your knowledge is strictly based upon one or two studies when I am sure there are probably hundreds if not thousands of studies done on this. All of which probably contradict one another.

    Except there aren't 200-300 studies on this.
  • trigden1991trigden1991 Member Posts: 4,660 Member Member Posts: 4,660 Member
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    leajas1 wrote: »
    If someone uses steroids, then stops, are they able to maintain the muscle they gained (presuming they continued to lift heavy and meet protein minimums) or will the automatically lose some muscle? Just curious.

    If the drugs cause a level of development about your genetic potential then yes once they are out of the system, those gains will go.

    Not all of them are lost that is a fallacy

    Not all of them are lost but the ones above your genetic potential will, as I stated.

    I'd be curious if there is any evidence of this one way or another.

    You could make a case for satellite cell changes that could be quite meaningful.

    Anecdotally it is quite well documented but I'm not sure how one could study/test it. People who use PED's after only a few months of lifting seem to experience a maintenance of LBM after coming off yet experienced lifters who have exhausted their natural potential, seem to relapse down to a similar LBM prior to starting a cycle.

    For all the pedants; this is not based on science, merely on many many hours on forums etc.
  • Sara1791Sara1791 Member Posts: 760 Member Member Posts: 760 Member
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101#t=articleResults

    lify48sm6c61.jpeg


    Note that the non exercise group given steroids showed a significant increase to lean mass

    If you have never been on steroids before that I don't want to hear your opinion. There is no such thing as a miracle drug. There are so many variables within the study you showed. What were their diets like the non steroid users the steroid users the exercisers the none exercisers? It doesn't say.

    You're free to disregard any opinion of mine you'd like, but I haven't stated an opinion in the post you're quoting. I shared a controlled study. This study is not my opinion, it is a study.

    Note: Strength measures in the non exercise group went up. Meaning, steroids increased their strength without them doing any lifting at all.

    You Chose one study, I'm sure there are hundreds of studies, you specifically chose one that fits your argument. Within that study there is no information showing diet. That is a big problem for me considering diet has more of a factor on body composition than working out does

    bust 'em out
  • BHFFBHFF Member Posts: 421 Member Member Posts: 421 Member
    Sara1791 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101#t=articleResults

    lify48sm6c61.jpeg


    Note that the non exercise group given steroids showed a significant increase to lean mass

    If you have never been on steroids before that I don't want to hear your opinion. There is no such thing as a miracle drug. There are so many variables within the study you showed. What were their diets like the non steroid users the steroid users the exercisers the none exercisers? It doesn't say.

    You're free to disregard any opinion of mine you'd like, but I haven't stated an opinion in the post you're quoting. I shared a controlled study. This study is not my opinion, it is a study.

    Note: Strength measures in the non exercise group went up. Meaning, steroids increased their strength without them doing any lifting at all.

    You Chose one study, I'm sure there are hundreds of studies, you specifically chose one that fits your argument. Within that study there is no information showing diet. That is a big problem for me considering diet has more of a factor on body composition than working out does

    bust 'em out

    Nah no need Sara. I AM the research
    And you're so everyone remembers, science does not equal fact. Science is not fact.
    Shoot, Pluto is a planet up to about four years ago LOL oooppps
  • rainbowbowrainbowbow Member Posts: 7,492 Member Member Posts: 7,492 Member
    BHFF wrote: »
    Sara1791 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101#t=articleResults

    lify48sm6c61.jpeg


    Note that the non exercise group given steroids showed a significant increase to lean mass

    If you have never been on steroids before that I don't want to hear your opinion. There is no such thing as a miracle drug. There are so many variables within the study you showed. What were their diets like the non steroid users the steroid users the exercisers the none exercisers? It doesn't say.

    You're free to disregard any opinion of mine you'd like, but I haven't stated an opinion in the post you're quoting. I shared a controlled study. This study is not my opinion, it is a study.

    Note: Strength measures in the non exercise group went up. Meaning, steroids increased their strength without them doing any lifting at all.

    You Chose one study, I'm sure there are hundreds of studies, you specifically chose one that fits your argument. Within that study there is no information showing diet. That is a big problem for me considering diet has more of a factor on body composition than working out does

    bust 'em out

    Nah no need Sara. I AM the research
    And you're so everyone remembers, science does not equal fact. Science is not fact.
    Shoot, Pluto is a planet up to about four years ago LOL oooppps

    19789999.jpg
    edited April 2017
  • SideSteelSideSteel Member Posts: 11,077 Member Member Posts: 11,077 Member
    BHFF wrote: »
    Sara1791 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101#t=articleResults

    lify48sm6c61.jpeg


    Note that the non exercise group given steroids showed a significant increase to lean mass

    If you have never been on steroids before that I don't want to hear your opinion. There is no such thing as a miracle drug. There are so many variables within the study you showed. What were their diets like the non steroid users the steroid users the exercisers the none exercisers? It doesn't say.

    You're free to disregard any opinion of mine you'd like, but I haven't stated an opinion in the post you're quoting. I shared a controlled study. This study is not my opinion, it is a study.

    Note: Strength measures in the non exercise group went up. Meaning, steroids increased their strength without them doing any lifting at all.

    You Chose one study, I'm sure there are hundreds of studies, you specifically chose one that fits your argument. Within that study there is no information showing diet. That is a big problem for me considering diet has more of a factor on body composition than working out does

    bust 'em out

    Nah no need Sara. I AM the research
    And you're so everyone remembers, science does not equal fact. Science is not fact.
    Shoot, Pluto is a planet up to about four years ago LOL oooppps

    Wow.


  • BHFFBHFF Member Posts: 421 Member Member Posts: 421 Member
    rainbowbow wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    Sara1791 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101#t=articleResults

    lify48sm6c61.jpeg


    Note that the non exercise group given steroids showed a significant increase to lean mass

    If you have never been on steroids before that I don't want to hear your opinion. There is no such thing as a miracle drug. There are so many variables within the study you showed. What were their diets like the non steroid users the steroid users the exercisers the none exercisers? It doesn't say.

    You're free to disregard any opinion of mine you'd like, but I haven't stated an opinion in the post you're quoting. I shared a controlled study. This study is not my opinion, it is a study.

    Note: Strength measures in the non exercise group went up. Meaning, steroids increased their strength without them doing any lifting at all.

    You Chose one study, I'm sure there are hundreds of studies, you specifically chose one that fits your argument. Within that study there is no information showing diet. That is a big problem for me considering diet has more of a factor on body composition than working out does

    bust 'em out

    Nah no need Sara. I AM the research
    And you're so everyone remembers, science does not equal fact. Science is not fact.
    Shoot, Pluto is a planet up to about four years ago LOL oooppps

    19789999.jpg

    Another brilliant person on here I see
  • 3bambi33bambi3 Member Posts: 1,650 Member Member Posts: 1,650 Member
    BHFF wrote: »
    Sara1791 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101#t=articleResults

    lify48sm6c61.jpeg


    Note that the non exercise group given steroids showed a significant increase to lean mass

    If you have never been on steroids before that I don't want to hear your opinion. There is no such thing as a miracle drug. There are so many variables within the study you showed. What were their diets like the non steroid users the steroid users the exercisers the none exercisers? It doesn't say.

    You're free to disregard any opinion of mine you'd like, but I haven't stated an opinion in the post you're quoting. I shared a controlled study. This study is not my opinion, it is a study.

    Note: Strength measures in the non exercise group went up. Meaning, steroids increased their strength without them doing any lifting at all.

    You Chose one study, I'm sure there are hundreds of studies, you specifically chose one that fits your argument. Within that study there is no information showing diet. That is a big problem for me considering diet has more of a factor on body composition than working out does

    bust 'em out

    Nah no need Sara. I AM the research
    And you're so everyone remembers, science does not equal fact. Science is not fact.
    Shoot, Pluto is a planet up to about four years ago LOL oooppps

    So science and scientific studies aren't facts...but your personal experience is?
  • BHFFBHFF Member Posts: 421 Member Member Posts: 421 Member
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    Sara1791 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101#t=articleResults

    lify48sm6c61.jpeg


    Note that the non exercise group given steroids showed a significant increase to lean mass

    If you have never been on steroids before that I don't want to hear your opinion. There is no such thing as a miracle drug. There are so many variables within the study you showed. What were their diets like the non steroid users the steroid users the exercisers the none exercisers? It doesn't say.

    You're free to disregard any opinion of mine you'd like, but I haven't stated an opinion in the post you're quoting. I shared a controlled study. This study is not my opinion, it is a study.

    Note: Strength measures in the non exercise group went up. Meaning, steroids increased their strength without them doing any lifting at all.

    You Chose one study, I'm sure there are hundreds of studies, you specifically chose one that fits your argument. Within that study there is no information showing diet. That is a big problem for me considering diet has more of a factor on body composition than working out does

    bust 'em out

    Nah no need Sara. I AM the research
    And you're so everyone remembers, science does not equal fact. Science is not fact.
    Shoot, Pluto is a planet up to about four years ago LOL oooppps

    So science and scientific studies aren't facts...but your personal experience is?

    No, science does not equal fact. Why do you think that things constantly change?? Scientific studies show that eggs are bad for you then scientific study show you that eggs aren't bad feel scientific study show you the coffee is bad for you then scientific studies come out and say it's not bad for you. Science is not equal fact. I never once have I ever stated that I am 100% correct on everything I say and that I know everything I don't know where you're getting that from. The problem is you're embarrassed Because you think a science equals fact when we know it doesn't.
    edited April 2017
  • SideSteelSideSteel Member Posts: 11,077 Member Member Posts: 11,077 Member
    BHFF wrote: »
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    Sara1791 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101#t=articleResults

    lify48sm6c61.jpeg


    Note that the non exercise group given steroids showed a significant increase to lean mass

    If you have never been on steroids before that I don't want to hear your opinion. There is no such thing as a miracle drug. There are so many variables within the study you showed. What were their diets like the non steroid users the steroid users the exercisers the none exercisers? It doesn't say.

    You're free to disregard any opinion of mine you'd like, but I haven't stated an opinion in the post you're quoting. I shared a controlled study. This study is not my opinion, it is a study.

    Note: Strength measures in the non exercise group went up. Meaning, steroids increased their strength without them doing any lifting at all.

    You Chose one study, I'm sure there are hundreds of studies, you specifically chose one that fits your argument. Within that study there is no information showing diet. That is a big problem for me considering diet has more of a factor on body composition than working out does

    bust 'em out

    Nah no need Sara. I AM the research
    And you're so everyone remembers, science does not equal fact. Science is not fact.
    Shoot, Pluto is a planet up to about four years ago LOL oooppps

    So science and scientific studies aren't facts...but your personal experience is?

    No, science does not equal fact. Why do you think that things constantly change?? Scientific studies show that eggs are bad for you then scientific study show you that eggs aren't bad feel scientific study show you the coffee is bad for you then scientific studies come out and say it's not bad for you. Science is not equal fact. I never once have I ever stated that I am 100% correct on everything I say and that I know everything I don't know where you're getting that from. The problem is you're embarrassed Because you think a science equals fact when we know it doesn't.

    Things constantly change because:

    1) Media reports on research and it's often media outlets distributing sound-bite conclusions to the public. Often erroneously.

    2) Evaluating research properly needs to consider study strengths and weaknesses along with considering the entirety of evidence available on the topic rather than a single study. To use your previous false statements as an example, if we had 200 studies where they gave steroids to a sedentary population and they sat on the couch and didn't gain any muscle, and we had 1 study showing they did, and we properly evaluate the strengths and limitations of those studies we would most likely conclude that in all likelihood, steroids don't add mass if you don't lift. But I'll note that this is just an example, and that there AREN'T 200 studies on this like you falsely assumed so that you could avoid being wrong. But this is a good example.
  • VintageFelineVintageFeline Member Posts: 6,771 Member Member Posts: 6,771 Member
    BHFF wrote: »
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    Sara1791 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101#t=articleResults

    lify48sm6c61.jpeg


    Note that the non exercise group given steroids showed a significant increase to lean mass

    If you have never been on steroids before that I don't want to hear your opinion. There is no such thing as a miracle drug. There are so many variables within the study you showed. What were their diets like the non steroid users the steroid users the exercisers the none exercisers? It doesn't say.

    You're free to disregard any opinion of mine you'd like, but I haven't stated an opinion in the post you're quoting. I shared a controlled study. This study is not my opinion, it is a study.

    Note: Strength measures in the non exercise group went up. Meaning, steroids increased their strength without them doing any lifting at all.

    You Chose one study, I'm sure there are hundreds of studies, you specifically chose one that fits your argument. Within that study there is no information showing diet. That is a big problem for me considering diet has more of a factor on body composition than working out does

    bust 'em out

    Nah no need Sara. I AM the research
    And you're so everyone remembers, science does not equal fact. Science is not fact.
    Shoot, Pluto is a planet up to about four years ago LOL oooppps

    So science and scientific studies aren't facts...but your personal experience is?

    No, science does not equal fact. Why do you think that things constantly change?? Scientific studies show that eggs are bad for you then scientific study show you that eggs aren't bad feel scientific study show you the coffee is bad for you then scientific studies come out and say it's not bad for you. Science is not equal fact. I never once have I ever stated that I am 100% correct on everything I say and that I know everything I don't know where you're getting that from. The problem is you're embarrassed Because you think a science equals fact when we know it doesn't.

    This is most often about bad cherry picking reporting by journalists who don't know how to read research papers.

    I'm not sure why you're even here if you think this community is so against you?
  • 3bambi33bambi3 Member Posts: 1,650 Member Member Posts: 1,650 Member
    BHFF wrote: »
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    Sara1791 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101#t=articleResults

    lify48sm6c61.jpeg


    Note that the non exercise group given steroids showed a significant increase to lean mass

    If you have never been on steroids before that I don't want to hear your opinion. There is no such thing as a miracle drug. There are so many variables within the study you showed. What were their diets like the non steroid users the steroid users the exercisers the none exercisers? It doesn't say.

    You're free to disregard any opinion of mine you'd like, but I haven't stated an opinion in the post you're quoting. I shared a controlled study. This study is not my opinion, it is a study.

    Note: Strength measures in the non exercise group went up. Meaning, steroids increased their strength without them doing any lifting at all.

    You Chose one study, I'm sure there are hundreds of studies, you specifically chose one that fits your argument. Within that study there is no information showing diet. That is a big problem for me considering diet has more of a factor on body composition than working out does

    bust 'em out

    Nah no need Sara. I AM the research
    And you're so everyone remembers, science does not equal fact. Science is not fact.
    Shoot, Pluto is a planet up to about four years ago LOL oooppps

    So science and scientific studies aren't facts...but your personal experience is?

    No, science does not equal fact. Why do you think that things constantly change?? Scientific studies show that eggs are bad for you then scientific study show you that eggs aren't bad feel scientific study show you the coffee is bad for you then scientific studies come out and say it's not bad for you. Science is not equal fact. I never once have I ever stated that I am 100% correct on everything I say and that I know everything I don't know where you're getting that from. The problem is you're embarrassed Because you think a science equals fact when we know it doesn't.

    Trust me, bro. I'm not the one who should be embarrassed.
  • BHFFBHFF Member Posts: 421 Member Member Posts: 421 Member
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    Sara1791 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101#t=articleResults

    lify48sm6c61.jpeg


    Note that the non exercise group given steroids showed a significant increase to lean mass

    If you have never been on steroids before that I don't want to hear your opinion. There is no such thing as a miracle drug. There are so many variables within the study you showed. What were their diets like the non steroid users the steroid users the exercisers the none exercisers? It doesn't say.

    You're free to disregard any opinion of mine you'd like, but I haven't stated an opinion in the post you're quoting. I shared a controlled study. This study is not my opinion, it is a study.

    Note: Strength measures in the non exercise group went up. Meaning, steroids increased their strength without them doing any lifting at all.

    You Chose one study, I'm sure there are hundreds of studies, you specifically chose one that fits your argument. Within that study there is no information showing diet. That is a big problem for me considering diet has more of a factor on body composition than working out does

    bust 'em out

    Nah no need Sara. I AM the research
    And you're so everyone remembers, science does not equal fact. Science is not fact.
    Shoot, Pluto is a planet up to about four years ago LOL oooppps

    So science and scientific studies aren't facts...but your personal experience is?

    No, science does not equal fact. Why do you think that things constantly change?? Scientific studies show that eggs are bad for you then scientific study show you that eggs aren't bad feel scientific study show you the coffee is bad for you then scientific studies come out and say it's not bad for you. Science is not equal fact. I never once have I ever stated that I am 100% correct on everything I say and that I know everything I don't know where you're getting that from. The problem is you're embarrassed Because you think a science equals fact when we know it doesn't.

    Things constantly change because:

    1) Media reports on research and it's often media outlets distributing sound-bite conclusions to the public. Often erroneously.

    2) Evaluating research properly needs to consider study strengths and weaknesses along with considering the entirety of evidence available on the topic rather than a single study. To use your previous false statements as an example, if we had 200 studies where they gave steroids to a sedentary population and they sat on the couch and didn't gain any muscle, and we had 1 study showing they did, and we properly evaluate the strengths and limitations of those studies we would most likely conclude that in all likelihood, steroids don't add mass if you don't lift. But I'll note that this is just an example, and that there AREN'T 200 studies on this like you falsely assumed so that you could avoid being wrong. But this is a good example.

    And how would you know there arent multiple studies? I don't have to look at studies, I am the subject. I've done this. Have you?
    edited April 2017
  • BHFFBHFF Member Posts: 421 Member Member Posts: 421 Member
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    Sara1791 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101#t=articleResults

    lify48sm6c61.jpeg


    Note that the non exercise group given steroids showed a significant increase to lean mass

    If you have never been on steroids before that I don't want to hear your opinion. There is no such thing as a miracle drug. There are so many variables within the study you showed. What were their diets like the non steroid users the steroid users the exercisers the none exercisers? It doesn't say.

    You're free to disregard any opinion of mine you'd like, but I haven't stated an opinion in the post you're quoting. I shared a controlled study. This study is not my opinion, it is a study.

    Note: Strength measures in the non exercise group went up. Meaning, steroids increased their strength without them doing any lifting at all.

    You Chose one study, I'm sure there are hundreds of studies, you specifically chose one that fits your argument. Within that study there is no information showing diet. That is a big problem for me considering diet has more of a factor on body composition than working out does

    bust 'em out

    Nah no need Sara. I AM the research
    And you're so everyone remembers, science does not equal fact. Science is not fact.
    Shoot, Pluto is a planet up to about four years ago LOL oooppps

    So science and scientific studies aren't facts...but your personal experience is?

    No, science does not equal fact. Why do you think that things constantly change?? Scientific studies show that eggs are bad for you then scientific study show you that eggs aren't bad feel scientific study show you the coffee is bad for you then scientific studies come out and say it's not bad for you. Science is not equal fact. I never once have I ever stated that I am 100% correct on everything I say and that I know everything I don't know where you're getting that from. The problem is you're embarrassed Because you think a science equals fact when we know it doesn't.

    Trust me, bro. I'm not the one who should be embarrassed.

    I'm not your "bro"
  • SideSteelSideSteel Member Posts: 11,077 Member Member Posts: 11,077 Member
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    Sara1791 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101#t=articleResults

    lify48sm6c61.jpeg


    Note that the non exercise group given steroids showed a significant increase to lean mass

    If you have never been on steroids before that I don't want to hear your opinion. There is no such thing as a miracle drug. There are so many variables within the study you showed. What were their diets like the non steroid users the steroid users the exercisers the none exercisers? It doesn't say.

    You're free to disregard any opinion of mine you'd like, but I haven't stated an opinion in the post you're quoting. I shared a controlled study. This study is not my opinion, it is a study.

    Note: Strength measures in the non exercise group went up. Meaning, steroids increased their strength without them doing any lifting at all.

    You Chose one study, I'm sure there are hundreds of studies, you specifically chose one that fits your argument. Within that study there is no information showing diet. That is a big problem for me considering diet has more of a factor on body composition than working out does

    bust 'em out

    Nah no need Sara. I AM the research
    And you're so everyone remembers, science does not equal fact. Science is not fact.
    Shoot, Pluto is a planet up to about four years ago LOL oooppps

    So science and scientific studies aren't facts...but your personal experience is?

    No, science does not equal fact. Why do you think that things constantly change?? Scientific studies show that eggs are bad for you then scientific study show you that eggs aren't bad feel scientific study show you the coffee is bad for you then scientific studies come out and say it's not bad for you. Science is not equal fact. I never once have I ever stated that I am 100% correct on everything I say and that I know everything I don't know where you're getting that from. The problem is you're embarrassed Because you think a science equals fact when we know it doesn't.

    Things constantly change because:

    1) Media reports on research and it's often media outlets distributing sound-bite conclusions to the public. Often erroneously.

    2) Evaluating research properly needs to consider study strengths and weaknesses along with considering the entirety of evidence available on the topic rather than a single study. To use your previous false statements as an example, if we had 200 studies where they gave steroids to a sedentary population and they sat on the couch and didn't gain any muscle, and we had 1 study showing they did, and we properly evaluate the strengths and limitations of those studies we would most likely conclude that in all likelihood, steroids don't add mass if you don't lift. But I'll note that this is just an example, and that there AREN'T 200 studies on this like you falsely assumed so that you could avoid being wrong. But this is a good example.

    And I would you know there are multiple studies? I don't have to look at studies, I am the subject. I've done this. Have you?

    No I have not used steroids. I did have some caffeine today though, I hope I'll be ok.
    Does your oncologist have to have cancer in order for you to consider her opinion?

    edited April 2017
  • BHFFBHFF Member Posts: 421 Member Member Posts: 421 Member
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    Sara1791 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101#t=articleResults

    lify48sm6c61.jpeg


    Note that the non exercise group given steroids showed a significant increase to lean mass

    If you have never been on steroids before that I don't want to hear your opinion. There is no such thing as a miracle drug. There are so many variables within the study you showed. What were their diets like the non steroid users the steroid users the exercisers the none exercisers? It doesn't say.

    You're free to disregard any opinion of mine you'd like, but I haven't stated an opinion in the post you're quoting. I shared a controlled study. This study is not my opinion, it is a study.

    Note: Strength measures in the non exercise group went up. Meaning, steroids increased their strength without them doing any lifting at all.

    You Chose one study, I'm sure there are hundreds of studies, you specifically chose one that fits your argument. Within that study there is no information showing diet. That is a big problem for me considering diet has more of a factor on body composition than working out does

    bust 'em out

    Nah no need Sara. I AM the research
    And you're so everyone remembers, science does not equal fact. Science is not fact.
    Shoot, Pluto is a planet up to about four years ago LOL oooppps

    So science and scientific studies aren't facts...but your personal experience is?

    No, science does not equal fact. Why do you think that things constantly change?? Scientific studies show that eggs are bad for you then scientific study show you that eggs aren't bad feel scientific study show you the coffee is bad for you then scientific studies come out and say it's not bad for you. Science is not equal fact. I never once have I ever stated that I am 100% correct on everything I say and that I know everything I don't know where you're getting that from. The problem is you're embarrassed Because you think a science equals fact when we know it doesn't.

    Things constantly change because:

    1) Media reports on research and it's often media outlets distributing sound-bite conclusions to the public. Often erroneously.

    2) Evaluating research properly needs to consider study strengths and weaknesses along with considering the entirety of evidence available on the topic rather than a single study. To use your previous false statements as an example, if we had 200 studies where they gave steroids to a sedentary population and they sat on the couch and didn't gain any muscle, and we had 1 study showing they did, and we properly evaluate the strengths and limitations of those studies we would most likely conclude that in all likelihood, steroids don't add mass if you don't lift. But I'll note that this is just an example, and that there AREN'T 200 studies on this like you falsely assumed so that you could avoid being wrong. But this is a good example.

    And I would you know there are multiple studies? I don't have to look at studies, I am the subject. I've done this. Have you?

    No I have not used steroids. I did have some caffeine today though, I hope I'll be ok.
    Does your oncologist have to have cancer in order for you to consider her opinion?

    Wow, that's low. The fact that you brought up such a deadly disease like that you should be ashamed of yourself. Regardless of whether it was intended for me or not the fact that you would use something like cancer and diseases killed so many people to your benefit. You're a disgusting human being. That's being reported
This discussion has been closed.