"Fat-free mass did not change significantly in the group assigned to placebo but no exercise (Table 4 and Figure 1Figure 1Changes from Base Line in Mean (±SE) Fat-free Mass, Triceps and Quadriceps Cross-Sectional Areas, and Muscle Strength in the Bench-Press and Squatting Exercises over the 10 Weeks of Treatment.). The men treated with testosterone but no exercise had an increase of 3.2 kg in fat-free mass, and those in the placebo-plus-exercise group had an increase of 1.9 kg. The increase in the testosterone-plus-exercise group was substantially greater (averaging 6.1 kg). The percentage of body fat did not change significantly in any group (data not shown)."
Its fun to google and paste links to studies. But you also need to do some work if you want people to think that its relevant.
Could you detail how you established that this is a study whose results have been replicated or otherwise accepted into the general body of knowledge as applicable for the general population? If not, what if any are the contingent factors that would preclude its applicability for people not represented in the sample that was chosen for the study?
How did the guy to whom I replied validate his broscience? I'm not going to write a PhD thesis in a HN comment box. At least I cited a source. If you don't feel that my comment is relevant you're free to ignore it and move on with your life.
Citing something doesn't mean you're any closer to the truth than the 'broscience' crowd. A lot of broscience people are buff and they think their success validates their ideas.
>If you don't feel that my comment is relevant you're free to ignore it and move on with your life.
I always think it's worth pointing out the BS inherent in the "I take steroids but I actually work harder than non-steroid users".
(ps. I hav nothing against steroids/PEDs; I just hate the moral equivocating around them)
Steroids/PEDs in general allow you to get bigger than your genetic/physical limits should allow, in a much shorter period of time, and/or spend more time exercising in a given period than a natty equivalent.
So, if I'm natty, and I do a heavy workout on my arms, I need to wait 2 days or 3 days or whatever until I recover before I can hammer them again. If I'm on the juice, then I wait a day, or less. Plus my recovery will be enhanced, so instead of growing 1-2lbs of total muscle a month, I might grow 5-6lbs.
So, because steroid users can exercise heavily every day, and make outrageous gains that means they're pulling heavy weights pretty quickly, or ridiculous rep counts, they say they're working harder.
I question this - non-steroid users are working just as hard, but their work is spaced out over a longer period, with less visible gains and improvements. At least to me, this isn't "working harder" - it's 100% attributable to the drugs, and not to some other exterior, alternative mental factor or higher degree of commitment from the athlete.
So, because steroid users can exercise heavily every day, and make outrageous gains that means they're pulling heavy weights pretty quickly, or ridiculous rep counts, they say they're working harder.
This is exactly the same argument as startup founders becoming millionaires by compressing a lifetime's work into a few years.
what do you mean it's the "same argument"? are you making an analogy that VC money is exogenous -- like steroids?
So is it:
CLAIM: "yeah-I-take-steroids-BUT" I work hard and it pays off.
Fact: the steroids do most of the heavy lifting
CLAIM: "yeah-I-take-VC-money-at-a-$1.7M-valuation-and-then-$10M-and-then-$100M-because-I'm-in-a-very-special-club-BUT" I work hard and become a millionaire by compressing a lifetime of work into a few years. Fact: the VC money does most of the heavy lifting.
Something like that? The reason I'm asking is that you don't go ahead and spell it out, I could be the one reading this into what you've written.
Without this, though, I don't see where the argument is 'exactly the same'; where is the analogy for the steroids?
The reason I don't like my interpretation of what you've written is that taking VC money isn't usually considered cheating (or anything like it)... I feel like I'm putting words in your mouth and that it would be better for you to write more clearly, what you mean...
>So, because steroid users can exercise heavily every day, and make outrageous gains that means they're pulling heavy weights pretty quickly, or ridiculous rep counts, they say they're working harder.
I hear this option often enough but could anyone point out what those supposed outrageous gains are? IMO Bodybuilding (like many physical sports) in general self-selects for the physically 'gifted' person - good bone structure, proportions, muscle insertions, etc. e.g. You're pretty much stuck with a certain ratio of fast twitch to slow twitch fibers (I know, its a simplification), you can train with steroids all you want, but you ain't running 100m in under 10 seconds.
I'd like to see what is the currently accepted science on what an average Joe would stand to gain from taking steroids.
* Steroids allow you to put on muscle way, way quicker than your natural limits allow. It means you can achieve your physical goals much more quickly (ie. movie stars like Hugh Jackman or Chris Evans who get massive for a role in 3 months are all on the juice)
* They allow you to exceed your genetic limits. A natural human being just shouldn't be able to reach Arnies peak size/muscle. Just not possible. Sure you get 250lb guys, but they should be fairly fat too.
* Steroids and other PEDs mean you recover from workouts quicker, so you can train more. So if you're an MMA star, which is physically demanding AND highly technical, you can be in the gym 6 days out of 7 going hard at it.
That's a simplistic run down. The main benefit for athletes is being able to train hard every day, and being big AND ripped.
For an average Joe, I think it allows you to achieve your goals with significantly less effort and investment. E.g. if you want to get a ripped, muscled body, you'll get that with steroids in a few months vs. maybe 1-2 years without. If you hit the gym 3 times a week, you'll quickly pull ahead of guys doing the same routines without juice. If you're 40 and want to put on significant muscle, it's near impossible without roids.
Incidentally, the Tim Ferriss blog has a long post talking about MMA star Georges St Pierre and how he put on 12lbs of muscle in 6 weeks with his diet. It's physically impossible to do that without juice.
This is an odd definition of "working just as hard".
I wouldn't recommend explaining to your boss that way:
"Yes, I'm only working in the morning and then playing computer games the rest of the day. But I'm working just as hard as the rest of the team, just spread out over more days."
Maybe a better way of saying it is that whatever your fitness/sports goals, generally speaking steroids/PEDs will allow you to achieve them in less time and with less effort than non-users. I.e. if you and I starting from a similar base decide we want to achieve 20 pull-ups, and we will go to the gym for 1hr a day, 3 and a week doing roughly the same routine, if I use steroids, I'll start pulling away from you extremely quickly.
The steroid-user 'hard work' implication is often: "steroids aren't a massive advantage to me, the critical factor in my success is my hard work". I'm just saying that the critical factor is and always will he the steroids. Non-steroid users work just as hard, and in some ways harder because they need more patience, commitment and resolve over a longer period of time with more incremental gains to achieve the same result.
A funny car running nitro pulls harder than the same car just running methanol fuel. I think you could pretty fairly argue that it's "working harder". You wouldn't give it more credit for determination, though.
I work out. That hard work is required as well is not a secret, which is why I mentioned it.
Arnold is actually a somewhat inspiring figure. But clicking on the article and looking at that comical photo of him in a bath robe prompted the comment. He left out a few of the secrets of his success in the story, so I mentioned them by name.
You don't go through a cycle and immediately become swole.