Getting kind of sick of people just linking random links and expecting that to suffice as an argument.
No, it doesn't.
It directly supports my argument. Compare group 2 and group 3 on bench-press and squatting exercises. Group 3 have an 11% better improvement than group 2 at bench-press (comparatively), and NEARLY DOUBLE the improvement at squatting than group 2 (again, comparatively).
This ABSOLUTELY CONFIRMS MY ARGUMENT.
Please DrHax, at least read your links before posting!!!!!!!
Just doing your normal everyday things is not exercise.
We are talking about exercise as specific training. If ancient cavemen trained their sprinting, practiced throwing spears at targets, etc, then maybe we can say it was like a naive ancient form of exercise.
But it's absurd to compare something like that to modern training methods and the sheer volume of training.
Drugs have existed in aboriginal times in many civilizations though. Perhaps we should allow drugs only for them?
Originally Posted by DrHax
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...99607043350101
This scientific study disagrees with you.
No, it doesn't.
It directly supports my argument. Compare group 2 and group 3 on bench-press and squatting exercises. Group 3 have an 11% better improvement than group 2 at bench-press (comparatively), and NEARLY DOUBLE the improvement at squatting than group 2 (again, comparatively).
This ABSOLUTELY CONFIRMS MY ARGUMENT.
Please DrHax, at least read your links before posting!!!!!!!
Originally Posted by Dscigs
Same principle, different methods.
I doubt it was any easier for cavemen to kill mammoths or sabre-teeth. Or any easier for African tribes to hunt elephants now a days.
As well, not all civilizations have used drugs. We don't see any during aboriginal times or the revolution. As well as none during the stone and dark ages.
Just doing your normal everyday things is not exercise.
We are talking about exercise as specific training. If ancient cavemen trained their sprinting, practiced throwing spears at targets, etc, then maybe we can say it was like a naive ancient form of exercise.
But it's absurd to compare something like that to modern training methods and the sheer volume of training.
Drugs have existed in aboriginal times in many civilizations though. Perhaps we should allow drugs only for them?
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
That study showed that the group who took steroids and didn't exercise at all gained more lean muscle mass, tricep size, and quad size sitting on their couch than a bunch of people who were working out. That is to say that the drugs actually matter more than the exercising. Obviously taking steroids AND working out combined hold a better result than just taking steroid. And yes before you point it out- the strength of those who trained in Squats and Bench Press went up more than the men who didn't lift but were using testosterone.
Just for the record: I'm 100% for the legalization of anabolic steroids. I'm also 100% for the use of anabolic steroids, prohormones, IGF-1, insulin, Clenbuterol, Albuterol, HGH, and DNP. Yes, taking steroids "isn't enough" to take you the distance, but they give you a serious advantage and those who preach you need a stellar diet and exercise routine to make use of anabolics else it's "pointless" are people who are either trying to rationalize why they aren't juicing or trying to rationalize their use as something requiring immense discipline.
Obviously it's more important for you to lift weights than it is to inject yourself with steroids for performance purposes; however, you're vastly underselling steroids. A guy on an unorganized unmonitored diet with a sub-par workout routine taking anabolic steroids will well outperform a solid diet natural athlete if they have similar genetics. What I'm actually trying to say is: Yeah, training is more important than steroids, but taking steroids is so important that you can do a crappy job with your diet, your exercise, and your sleep and get better results than a natural athlete who's disciplined and nailing that stuff down perfectly ASSUMING they have the similar genetics.
Just for the record: I'm 100% for the legalization of anabolic steroids. I'm also 100% for the use of anabolic steroids, prohormones, IGF-1, insulin, Clenbuterol, Albuterol, HGH, and DNP. Yes, taking steroids "isn't enough" to take you the distance, but they give you a serious advantage and those who preach you need a stellar diet and exercise routine to make use of anabolics else it's "pointless" are people who are either trying to rationalize why they aren't juicing or trying to rationalize their use as something requiring immense discipline.
Obviously it's more important for you to lift weights than it is to inject yourself with steroids for performance purposes; however, you're vastly underselling steroids. A guy on an unorganized unmonitored diet with a sub-par workout routine taking anabolic steroids will well outperform a solid diet natural athlete if they have similar genetics. What I'm actually trying to say is: Yeah, training is more important than steroids, but taking steroids is so important that you can do a crappy job with your diet, your exercise, and your sleep and get better results than a natural athlete who's disciplined and nailing that stuff down perfectly ASSUMING they have the similar genetics.
Last edited by Bodhisattva; Oct 28, 2014 at 06:55 AM.
Need help?
Creati0n says: still my favorite. <3
I sacrificed my firstborn for this great human being to join (M) ~R
Just Use Thunder!
Creati0n says: still my favorite. <3
I sacrificed my firstborn for this great human being to join (M) ~R
Just Use Thunder!
Originally Posted by DrHax
That study showed that the group who took steroids and didn't exercise at all gained more lean muscle mass, tricep size, and quad size sitting on their couch than a bunch of people who were working out. That is to say that the drugs actually matter more than the exercising. Obviously taking steroids AND working out combined hold a better result than just taking steroid. And yes before you point it out- the strength of those who trained in Squats and Bench Press went up more than the men who didn't lift but were using testosterone.
Since those that trained were able to perform better than those who used steroids, this proves that training is more important than steroids.
That was the whole argument, and the study supports it.
Originally Posted by DrHax
Obviously it's more important for you to lift weights than it is to inject yourself with steroids for performance purposes; however, you're vastly underselling steroids. A guy on an unorganized unmonitored diet with a sub-par workout routine taking anabolic steroids will well outperform a solid diet natural athlete if they have similar genetics. What I'm actually trying to say is: Yeah, training is more important than steroids, but taking steroids is so important that you can do a crappy job with your diet, your exercise, and your sleep and get better results than a natural athlete who's disciplined and nailing that stuff down perfectly ASSUMING they have the similar genetics.
No, I said "training is much more important than roids" and as the study you linked demonstrates, that is correct.
Your claim that doing everything sub-par but using roids will make you perform better than someone who does everything right but doesn't use roids is contentious at best. Not that it matters - the argument isn't "should roids be allowed for those with sub-par exercise routines", it's should they be allowed at all.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Just doing your normal everyday things is not exercise.
We are talking about exercise as specific training. If ancient cavemen trained their sprinting, practiced throwing spears at targets, etc, then maybe we can say it was like a naive ancient form of exercise.
But it's absurd to compare something like that to modern training methods and the sheer volume of training.
Drugs have existed in aboriginal times in many civilizations though. Perhaps we should allow drugs only for them?
All of humanity has had to train to get better, the only difference now is that some people do it for entertainment and not survival and we have better technology to do it with. Training is still training; no matter the amount of time put in.
Just because we spend hundreds of hours running or practicing archery, do you think it was any easier for any civilizations before us? They had to do the same thing.
I just said that not all civilizations have used drugs for training purposes. Nothing else, so you might want to stop taking points that don't exist in statements.
