Adarq.org

I am not going to argue pro or contra legalizing steroids or moral implications but tell you about what kind of people I witnessed personally. Whenever I go to the gym I see people who are or were on steroids. From some I know it for a fact because oddly enough they keep coming to me and brag about it. With others it is just plain obvious that they used them because there is no way, even with amazing genetic gifts, that the way they are training lead to any progress and certainly not those physiques.

Now, I am not going to condemn those people. As far as I am concerned there is nothing wrong with them taking roids for their selves without ever competing in anything, like it is the case for most of those individuals I am talking about here. But seriously, you can tell that the vast majority of those people have never been strong in their lives, with or without steroids. It is just plain obvious in the way they train and in the kinds of weights they are using. I remember one guy who I did not even think took steroids training the deadlift with me. It's not a secret that I am the worst deadlifter in the fucking universe, yet I could easily outlift the guy by several reps (probably making me only the second worst deadlifter of the universe). He later told me he took roids before and is planning to do so again since he is unable to make any kind of progress without it (I know that he did not make any progress for the few weeks we were training together and I can also tell that he trained like shit). The only thing he is waiting for is his wife to get pregnant, which it seems is not as easy anymore at this point in time....
I do not know about you guys, and again, I do not mean any offense to anyone but if I would still get out-lifted regularly by random drug-free guys in a random everybody's gym, I would consider myself a failure regardless if my goals were only physique oriented...

I'm seeing two different stories here...

a) Steroids make gains easy and just injecting them will make athletes better without any hard work on the part of the athlete. Just inject them and strength gains will come no matter what you do and help your athletic endeavors...

b) Steroids don't help if you don't include proper strength training in the mix, though it will enhance gains if training is done correctly...

I'm not being sarcastic here. I just want to know which it is.

I am not an expert in steroids, so I will leave others answering this.

But you can observe plenty of people in gyms taking steroids who are weak. Some of them look huge and are weak, others are just weak and some are fairly strong (and usually look that way, too). What makes the difference? I don't know. But it seems to me that plenty of people can get away with shitty training and improve their physique with roids, but not make substantial gains in strength (meaning more gains than what would be possible with compliance to a solid training program alone).

I know both kinds of people. I've trained alongside people who are almost openly using and who work their asses off under weights that I will never, ever touch (partly because I'm not willing to get into the necessary supportive clothing and partly because I just am not that talented).

I also have met people who used and gained 10 lbs of bodyweight and maybe got their benches to 185-225. They are usually shocked to learn that I put on 20 lbs in a month as I added 80 lbs to my squat, just by drinking a shitload of whole milk (spell check didn't question "shitload").

So you have it both. People who use barbells+roids and bench 185 and people who use barbell+roids and set world records. Not sure any answers lie this way.

I'm going to have an opinion against roids now, because I have such an opinion as well.

I think the most important thing is sports is to create/mold/strengthten the mentality to work to win. That is what you lose/don't obtain when you take roids. You take the easy way out and you don't have a winning mentality. When you work hard and fight to increase your strength, increase your performance through the "traditional methods" you gain that work hard mentality and you "expect" to win. You work hard and WANT to win because you worked so hard and failing to win after such a hard work SUCKS, and if you lose you come back again and again and FIGHT.

This is the whole idea with sports and training. And this is what roids will usually rob you of. That's why roid people usually are losers and weak.

But from a pure performance standpoint, roids are cool. However, since we don't live in a vacuum, that's hardly the case in realife: to split performance and mentality and other sports aspects into separate, living enthities.

That's my point of view to sports in general and just winning mentality.

So I definitely agree and believe and KNOW what Steven Miller is saying. Heck, I know a few guys like that. They just pretty much suck.

EDIT: These guys just look at me like "wtf" when I deadlift ~120 kg or squat 120kg, pretty much in shock. How lame is that?

How can you negatively rate this ^^^

It's the truth.

About the "unnaturalness" of needles...

Needles deliver life-saving medicines and in emergency situations they even deliver nutrition.

If it weren't for needles, I wouldn't be able to remove the excess fluid from my knees and train at all.

Needles may not be "natural", but they are useful. The barbell isn't "natural" either. In fact some people go so far as to say training with anything but bodyweight isn't natural.

I'm trying to point out that where we stand on these things tends to be a matter of learned prejudices instead of consistent logic. We see needles as useful in some situations, but cheating in others. They can be used to save, but not improve.

I need needles to continue my training. Some would say that the fact that I have to drain my knees indicates that I ought to stop doing what I'm doing with barbells, but I refuse to listen. Maybe that's part of what makes me so open to using needles for improvement. I have to inject myself every day to keep training. I'm removing fluids instead of adding them, but like any steroid-user I am absolutely dependent on the injections to keep training.

The average bro from this forum could get on a cycle of test and experience almost nothing in the way of positive results outside some body comp changes and strength increases, but the drugs are very relevant to higher level speed-strength athletes. These athletes already have elite level nervous systems and transfer strength into power extremely effectively. They tend to border on overtraining to begin with, have little time to truly specialize on capacities like strength, and have only so much time to compete as far as their career goes.  What drugs do is enable them to reach a high level strength potential much faster and from lower volumes of work.  They also increase muscular recovery allowing them more sessions per week without interfering with extreme fast twitch characteristics, which tend to decline from large volumes of work.   The difference between say a sprinter on drugs and sprinter not on drugs is relatively minor IMO - maybe 15% (compared to the ~100% difference in something like bodybuilding), but it's still relevant. So, say you have 10 identical twins all with the same genes, same training, etc. That 15% difference becomes extremely relevant on something like a 100 meter final when you're talking about a group of athletes who for the most part are the same physiologically, are mostly the same w.r.t. training etc.

Kelly Baggett:

Quote

Manufactured Strength Vs Natural Strength

Before I get into it I'd like to point out that no supplemental training method is perfect and has a perfect transfer to sport. The practice of adding strength and size thru weight training in an attempt to apply the benefits of that strength and size to a sport is effective but it won't ever be perfect. You're basically manufacturing something that wasn't there to begin with - You're allowing your body to adapt to one stimulus and then applying those adaptations to another area. It really is cheating in a way. The only thing that isn't cheating would be actually playing the sport and letting your body adapt naturally. However, we know there are limits to that. But this is one reason why people that have "natural" strength, size, and power will generally have a "functional" strength advantage over those who have to manufacture it. Reggie White, Lawrence Taylor, and Mike Tyson rarely if ever lifted a weight. Compare them to muscled up guys like Frank Bruno, Tony Mandarich, and Vernon Gholston. Manufacturing size and strength isn't perfect regardless of how you acquire it, but it beats the alternative and can allow you to compete at a level you wouldn't have.

I'm not the first to bring this up, but I still don't see much distinction between barbell use and steroid use.

I know that steroids are currently considered cheating and that they're illegal, but neither makes much sense. Steroids help you get stronger, but so do barbells. Steroid use can result in long-term health complications, but again so can barbells as can sports in general, especially contact sports like boxing and American football.

well, you have to weigh the pros and cons of steroid vs barbell... each method can results in improvement, each method can result in injury/complications.. the injury/complications results amplify greatly with PED use, especially unsupervised or improper PED use.. then you have to understand how athletes will utilize something that works, to the fullest AND beyond, in order to gain and edge on their competition....

is this safer with barbells/performance training, or with PED usage?

it's obviously safer with barbells/performance training, athletes aren't going to simply run themselves completely into the ground leaving them unable to compete.... however, athletes will utilize more pharmaceuticals to try and gain an edge, of which can be very deadly.

so, it's not about being the "police", but, do you want your sport to end up like professional bodybuilding? insanely roided freaks who are bound to have some serious health issues... you can't compete on the pro level at all, unless you are a chemistry experiment.

by the same line of reasoning though, anything can be considered on the level of PED's... eating, water, sleep, etc, they all benefit performance and provide an advantage, but overdoing them cause an immediate drop in performance generally.. for example, taking in too much testosterone won't have that effect, it'll make you feel like a monster for the short term.

Again, I know that steroids are against the rules. I just don't think it makes any sort of sense. It's like drug prohibition in general. Alcohol is more destructive than just about any other drug that you go to prison for possessing, yet it's perfectly legal; alcohol destroys health, induces aggression, impairs judgment (and leads to horrible life-wrecking outcomes), yet we can buy it and consume as much of it as we want...but can't smoke weed or snort cocaine because they're "bad" for us...

right but alcohol in moderation can be beneficial, especially in the form of red wines etc... PED's in moderation could be beneficial also, of course, but, once everyone is allowed to utilize them and compete, the idea of moderation is thrown out of the window......... people will need MORE to compete at a high level, if a small portion of the athletic field starts to utilize them beyond moderation and experience gains in performance but possible detrimental effects on health or increased risk of injury.

I digress, but I hope the digression underscores the point.

In my own case, I've more than doubled my strength levels from where they were in my early twenties, at least by a couple of measures. I'm far more athletic than I was 15 years ago when I was in my "prime" because of barbell use, particularly the almighty barbell back squat. I've gone from 130 lbs to 180 lbs by taking my unequipped full squat from ~150 to ~350. I've sort of wrecked my knees in the pursuit of squat strength, but I can still do every physical activity better than my 18-20-year-old self could; my knees just hurt a lot more when I do it.

right, now imagine having lifted & utilized PED's.. you'd either be better off, or far worse.. without ped's, when you feel like shit & get that feeling to take a rest day, you rest, generally.. ped's can mask that inhibition, which adds up over time..

There are those who would argue that I used my "natural" or inherent chemistry in building up my strength. But the fact is I used the assistance of a very unnatural artifact of industrial civilization--the rotating collar barbell--to alter the structure and functioning of my body. I built strength that did not come naturally by "unnatural" means. In the past only natural athletes, those who were big, strong and fast just because that's how they were, had a chance of competing at any meaningful level. Barbell training changed that and gave the naturally small, weak and slow a way to make themselves bigger, stronger and faster than they would have been otherwise, even with diligent participation in their sport. Serious athletes nowadays go outside their sport to acquire strength with barbells (and with steroids) and then apply that new strength in their sport.  

yup

I would not have become so much bigger, stronger and faster just by running, swinging from trees and lifting rocks. It took very detailed programming of the use of man-made objects to get me where I am. The man-made objects in my case were the barbell, weight plates and a squat rack. Would it have really been so bad if I added chemical supplementation to that to take me even further?

maybe, maybe not.. but just like if something works, for example, squatting, you want to do more of it.. ie, smolov... ped's will work, and perhaps you'll want to do more of them, but that's completely different when using them recreationally vs competitively... ped's in a competitive field would exceed moderation/safe levels very quickly.

Our culture is one steeped in myths about the wickedness of drugs (except alcohol, at least these days). It's not unlike the American South where there are cultural fears that black men are ticking white-women-rape bombs. Steroids are like the lurking Negroes of the world of S&C lily white womanhood in the Old South. Those who would protect the virtue of the S&C world gotta string up them damn steroids every chance they get.

lmfao!$!@

Also, there's this pride in building strength "naturally" that makes me chuckle. I'm a guy who cheered when he got his first 135-lb back squat because that was a hug accomplishment to me when I was a 120-lb adult. I built my strength "naturally" up to a 365-lb squat recently (using loose knee wraps; I'm getting old). But how "natural" was that strength really? "Natural" strength would be the 200-lb 15-year-old who squats 315 deep for a few reps the first time he walks into a gym (I believe Andy Bolton worked up to 405 his first time under the bar).

I'm not writing this to convince anyone. My mind's made up and I'm sure yours is too. I just know that while I acknowledge that steroid-use is cheating under almost all current rules (except untested powerlifting feds), I think that policy is the outcome of hysteria and something like superstition.

Thanks for reading.

well, like i've said in previous posts on this topic...... if you want to compete, you have to follow the regulations.. i have no problem with PED's for recreational use, people can put anything in their bodies as far as i'm concerned, absolutely anything... When it comes to competition in professional sport, the regulations are there to ensure a "fair" playing field... anyone in this field can lift weights, eat however they want, sleep however they want, etc, they will do so in a way that allows them to achieve their maximum potential. Perhaps it will carry health risks, but in my opinion, those health risks are far less than utilizing PED's in combination with today's methods to achieve maximal potential. Sometimes regulation is needed, for example an age limit on driving, an age limit on buying alcohol etc. That is simply where we are at with PED's in competitive sport: there is a limit to what we can ingest/intake in order to try and maintain a healthy & fair playing field.

so anyway, like i always say, if people want ped's allowed in sport, create untested leagues/associations... i'd rather watch clean, though i'd watch those freaks also, but they need to be separate just like drug free PL and untested PL.

pC

Depends on the compound really. Testosterone is naturally produced and in sane doses increases the synthesis and recovery of most structures, including tendons and ligaments. You're much more likely to have creaking joints etc with low test than high test.  Where people get injured is mostly via the process of getting at the upper level of strength and power  - Same reason you see more ACL tears & other injuries in college and pro football than you do pee wee football...lots more force and power involved. Youre more likely to get injured at the elite levels of anything than as a raw beginner.  A guy like Gary at his age on a sane dosage of dr. prescribed test would probably actually find he handles smolof better and has less problems with his knees.  Not recommending he do that just saying I wouldn't be surpised if that's the case.

On the other hand non aromatizing compounds are popular with athletes and can be hard on connective tissue becase they lack estrogen which helps with collagen synthesis.  Winstrol is notorious for it. You take winstrol yor body will perceive it as testosterone and cut off natural testosterone production.  You're replacing that production with a compound that doesn't aromatize and over time the tendons and connective tissue don't resynthesize at the same rate as the muscles and that can create problems. But a lot of athletes are using HGH in tandem which offsets that.  I do know a strongman guy that did a cycle of winstrol and several months later tore his achilles tendon slipping while doing a tire flip Maybe he woulda tore it anyway who knows but it coulda been a factor...