PDA

View Full Version : Impatience or a valid time to use gear?



Mags
08-30-2005, 07:45 AM
Over the last year or so Ive read a fair bit in this forum and with exception of some of the bigger experienced guys, alot of people tend to talk of steroid use/cycles and then of relatively non-impressive lighter lifts etc. Im not trying to start any beef, but even on gear some peoples lifts are still fairly low. I thought it was best to reach your natural limit first in both strength/growth before giving gear a go. I know you do get people of all shapes/sizes/strengths but do you think people are simply naturally weaker or lazy/impatient. I dont boast of super lifts either but I feel I could still improve naturally although itching to have a go on gear. Is it impractical to perhaps hit a target of maybe 300+lb bench/squat etc naturally before cycling AS as plenty of clean lifters can shift that sort of weight. Do you think its best to keep increasing calories and lifting weight to the point where growth stops/slows or just have a go with gear when confident, as I dont want to waste another say 6 months breaking my balls, lifting more, eating more and not seeing too much return. What you guys think? Cheers.

Tha Don
08-30-2005, 08:14 AM
sup mate

i hear what u sayin, i've seen guys before hit the juice way too early, i don't think its a good idea due to the tremendous amount of strain that you will be putting on your body/organs and joints if your weight and poundages start flying up, its best to make natural progress first and get your body used to lifting, usually a good 4-5 yrs i've heard guys recommend... this is how long i left before my first cycle

if you feel like you can still make good progress without, then i wouldn't recommend juicing yet, you will kinda know when it is time, coz you will keep increasing cals until the only part of you that is growing is your waistline and you will totally plateau in the gym, that is what happened to me, and the gains i was hearing people making on steroids was just too tempting, i have no problem running a little juice to reach my goals, but there is a lot more to steroids than meets the eye, certainly the psycological effects were the biggest challenge for me and i feel they will be in the future (super confidence and the feeling of invincibility on cycle, depression and lack of motivation to do anything post cycle), these are things you have to be prepared for, and not things were if you notice symptoms you can pop a few tabs n it'll clear up

GFR
08-30-2005, 11:28 AM
Over the last year or so Ive read a fair bit in this forum and with exception of some of the bigger experienced guys, alot of people tend to talk of steroid use/cycles and then of relatively non-impressive lighter lifts etc. Im not trying to start any beef, but even on gear some peoples lifts are still fairly low. I thought it was best to reach your natural limit first in both strength/growth before giving gear a go. I know you do get people of all shapes/sizes/strengths but do you think people are simply naturally weaker or lazy/impatient. I dont boast of super lifts either but I feel I could still improve naturally although itching to have a go on gear. Is it impractical to perhaps hit a target of maybe 300+lb bench/squat etc naturally before cycling AS as plenty of clean lifters can shift that sort of weight. Do you think its best to keep increasing calories and lifting weight to the point where growth stops/slows or just have a go with gear when confident, as I dont want to waste another say 6 months breaking my balls, lifting more, eating more and not seeing too much return. What you guys think? Cheers.
It depends on your body..
A natural 300lb bench is low IMO, unless your 175 or less....
I have known dozens of guys who benched 300-435 naturally, and also many who did a natural 500+ squat and dead lifts as teenagers.

Only you can judge what is a good natural goal for yourself.

lnvanry
08-30-2005, 11:55 AM
some people like myself just don't care at ALL about strength. Yea I know all the fat powerlifters at my gym make fun of some of us, b/c my max bench is probably around 200lbs and I weigh 180 w/ 7% BF (never tried benching any more than 185 till failure). I am weak in almost all lifts accept barbell curls and lat pulldowns. I train for pure cosmetics and asthetics. I know that comes off pretty pussy like, I know I look good and that is my goal.

gococksDJS
08-30-2005, 12:06 PM
some people like myself just don't care at ALL about strength. Yea I know all the fat powerlifters at my gym make fun of some of us, b/c my max bench is probably around 200lbs and I weigh 180 w/ 7% BF (never tried benching any more than 185 till failure). I am weak in almost all lifts accept barbell curls and lat pulldowns. I train for pure cosmetics and asthetics. I know that comes off pretty pussy like, I know I look good and that is my goal. Yeah but you've never had anyone in the gym look at you in awe because the weight your throwing around would shatter a normal persons bones.

Mags
08-30-2005, 02:01 PM
Yeah but you've never had anyone in the gym look at you in awe because the weight your throwing around would shatter a normal persons bones.
That's what its about right there. Lookin good as a byproduct from being strong from body building

Mudge
08-30-2005, 10:45 PM
I heard of someone with a 185 bench press who was on I think their 5th cycle, just days ago in fact.

Gear wont fix lack of knowlege, it may get you further but you will still reach a dead point. I've also heard of people using BIG cycles with shitty numbers, who then claim to be resistant. Then you see their training and diet (say, Lucky Charms for breakfast with toast and OJ) and you know why their numbers suck.

Mudge
08-30-2005, 10:49 PM
It depends on your body..

YES.


A natural 300lb bench is low IMO, unless your 175 or less....
I have known dozens of guys who benched 300-435 naturally, and also many who did a natural 500+ squat and dead lifts as teenagers.

Only you can judge what is a good natural goal for yourself.

Some of us have shit genetics. :lol: Likewise though, you have to judge. Not everyone is the same. There are people who claim raw 800 squats all natural (usually people who HAVE used gear but have been off for 'months'). Everyone is different.

I reached 265 benching and even that was putting me in pain, until I discovered the powerlifters bench form. I dont have the genes for constant abuse, and after having used for awhile I have close gripped 315x8 I think at my peak. This is not astronomical for some but compared to my natural lifts and those I typically see in my gym, its a huge difference.

Some people also have different levels of response to gear, there was a huge and educational thread about this. Some people are more prone to getting sick on gear, and some like myself find its still a fight to break plateaus while on gear, and some respond amazingly well and never seem to stop growing.

There was one NPC competitor who put on 70 pounds in one year, but died from recreational drug abuse about a year ago.

LAM
09-02-2005, 12:07 AM
I heard of someone with a 185 bench press who was on I think their 5th cycle, just days ago in fact.

Gear wont fix lack of knowlege, it may get you further but you will still reach a dead point. I've also heard of people using BIG cycles with shitty numbers, who then claim to be resistant. Then you see their training and diet (say, Lucky Charms for breakfast with toast and OJ) and you know why their numbers suck.

so true. I have a buddy who probably used gear for a solid 10 years straight and still couldn't bench 400 lbs raw. fuking pathetic ! :laugh:

I have seen many people over the years get big from gear, but the majority of them had average strength at best

Tough Old Man
09-02-2005, 09:44 AM
Got to tell you something. Getting older doesn't help strength gains either. With this bad left shoulder of mine which stopped me lifting in the 80's and now with the same shoulder having a slight tear of the rotator cuff, never less is the 400 + lb bench gone, maybe the 300 lb bench for me.
Going to start all over using really light weight and try to work up slowly. I'm talking about going down to 150 lbs on my bench and starting over. last year I could incl 390 lbs and now look at me.

PT

lnvanry
09-02-2005, 12:17 PM
so true. I have a buddy who probably used gear for a solid 10 years straight and still couldn't bench 400 lbs raw. fuking pathetic ! :laugh:

I have seen many people over the years get big from gear, but the majority of them had average strength at best
Hello.....Some people do not train for strength....Its called Hypertrophy. You know this LAM. It is a principle of priorities. The priority is a great pump...not a heavy weight. The local pro at my gym is 260 one stage...I have never seen him bench over 300, ever.

GFR
09-02-2005, 12:21 PM
Hello.....Some people do not train for strength....Its called Hypertrophy. You know this LAM. It is a principle of priorities. The priority is a great pump...not a heavy weight. The local pro at my gym is 260 one stage...I have never seen him bench over 300, ever.
:confused: how do you not train for strength? Do you run marathons or do the Iron man? Or do you do sets of 50 to 100 reps??

kraziplaya
09-02-2005, 01:28 PM
what are your age..weight...lifts..training exp now?

i just saw ur gallery....u seem in pretty good shape... i dont see why u wouldnt be able to run gear now as long as u get the proper knowledge

lnvanry
09-02-2005, 08:47 PM
:confused: how do you not train for strength? Do you run marathons or do the Iron man? Or do you do sets of 50 to 100 reps??
It is very simple...you train for hypertrophy. I'll try to explain in a nutshell.
Your goal is increase blood volume in a specific muscle group by method of isolation. Yes, sometimes that means reps of 50-100. WHATEVER it takes for your muscle to swell to maximum size. Think of it this way...:hmmm:...you increase blood volume and flow by contrating the muscle as intense as possibly. If one maximizes contracting by doing 50-100 reps then so be it...4 reps at heavy weight the so be it...It is different for everyone. This blood volume is what the "pump" is. The pump that NO2 hypes up. The pump the EQ creates. The pump Arnold always spoke of.
This maximum size pump is what stretches the fascia allowing the muscle to grow. The fascia is a constricting fibrous tissue around the muscle the "constraints" growth. Great pump=maximum growth. Great pumps do not necessarily come from heavy weights.
On an social note, it is somewhat difficult to train like this when strength has been ones goal for years. My mission is to contract my muscles as intense as possible no matter what the frequency. It is not about being able to lift a weight from point A to point B. Lifting point A to B is about strenth.

Mudge
09-02-2005, 10:41 PM
A to B is called a half repetition and has nothing to do with strength or hypertrophy. You can be a bodybuilder, powerlifter, or fitness model and do an A to B back to A lift.

brogers
09-02-2005, 10:48 PM
Do you not think strength and mass are positively correlated? Wow.

Mudge
09-02-2005, 10:55 PM
They do not, science has known this for some time. While they often share some relationship when we are talking about CHANGE, two guys both the same height, weight, and measurements do not neccessarily lift the same weights. You may be able to guess with a muscle biopsy, but size doesn't mean strength and strength does not require size.

In times of duress for example, the human body can trigger great strength by contracting more fibers than it normally would. Those that train for strength can not only better channel this ability through 'practice,' but they also will increase myofibrils within the tissue.

sarcoplasmic/myofibrillar hypertrophy (http://www.dolfzine.com/page216.htm)

GFR
09-02-2005, 10:58 PM
It is very simple...you train for hypertrophy. I'll try to explain in a nutshell.
Your goal is increase blood volume in a specific muscle group by method of isolation. Yes, sometimes that means reps of 50-100. WHATEVER it takes for your muscle to swell to maximum size. Think of it this way...:hmmm:...you increase blood volume and flow by contrating the muscle as intense as possibly. If one maximizes contracting by doing 50-100 reps then so be it...4 reps at heavy weight the so be it...It is different for everyone. This blood volume is what the "pump" is. The pump that NO2 hypes up. The pump the EQ creates. The pump Arnold always spoke of.
This maximum size pump is what stretches the fascia allowing the muscle to grow. The fascia is a constricting fibrous tissue around the muscle the "constraints" growth. Great pump=maximum growth. Great pumps do not necessarily come from heavy weights.

I'm familiar with this theory but it conflicts with every thing I know and have researched in anatomy and physiology.

Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy is a gain in both size and strength ( the greater the cross sectional area, the more tension it can develop and the greater its strength). You may be able to focus more on size than strength but only to a very small degree......I.M.O

sarcoplasmic hypertrophy........I have never found this term or idea in any text book....only on body building sites.

brogers
09-03-2005, 08:43 AM
I didn't mean they were perfectly (1-1 ratio) correlated, but there is no doubt that strength and mass are positively correlated.

Tha Don
09-03-2005, 10:34 AM
They do not, science has known this for some time. While they often share some relationship when we are talking about CHANGE, two guys both the same height, weight, and measurements do not neccessarily lift the same weights. You may be able to guess with a muscle biopsy, but size doesn't mean strength and strength does not require size.

i agree with mudge on this, they is no direct correlation IMO when comparing individuals

however i do feel that if someone was to increase their muscle mass through weight training, their strength would go up (and vice versa)

FishOrCutBait
09-03-2005, 11:56 AM
IMO, at an early point in one's lifting career, sarc. hypertrophy and myofibrillar hypertrophy are going to progress at a fairly equivalent rate, later on though, depending on what sort of regimen one is on, diet/training wise, either sarcoplasmic or myofibrillar hypertrophy will progress at a greater rate than the other, i.e, a very advanced bodybuilder's progress will go towards muscle size more than strength, and a very advanced powerlifter's gains will go more towards strength than size, whereas an absolute, fresh off the street beginner will gain more or less equally (i use this term loosely) in both.

Did that make sense?

Mudge
09-03-2005, 12:05 PM
I didn't mean they were perfectly (1-1 ratio) correlated, but there is no doubt that strength and mass are positively correlated.

I have gained measureable strength with ZERO size or weight gains. I would primarily agree that someone who gains size should gain strength but I would not be shocked if they did not, and vice versa. Just as my max bench to bodyweight ratio fluctuates.

Mudge
09-03-2005, 12:07 PM
sarcoplasmic hypertrophy........I have never found this term or idea in any text book....only on body building sites.

It would not be the first time bodybuilders knew what was going on before science admitted it OR even gave a rats ass about it.

buildingup
09-03-2005, 12:16 PM
im confused! if i increase the weight of my bench press every week then will i get a bigger chest?
i have got a bigger chest by increasing my bench press from 60kg to 80kg!

Mudge
09-03-2005, 12:20 PM
You probably would, but you might not. Most people I know of note strength before size gains, size gains follow - along with bodyweight increases as well, which means the diet has to be there for it to happen.

buildingup
09-03-2005, 12:22 PM
You probably would, but you might not. Most people I know of note strength before size gains, size gains follow - along with bodyweight increases as well, which means the diet has to be there for it to happen.
so say if you had the shittest diet with minimal protein then would you be able to increase strength just not mass?

FishOrCutBait
09-03-2005, 12:25 PM
Mudge, acknowledge meee... :sob: lol.

Mudge
09-03-2005, 12:47 PM
so say if you had the shittest diet with minimal protein then would you be able to increase strength just not mass?

For a time yes, but strength would not just continue until you were benching 800 pounds unless you were some kind of circus freak.

fish, asking if it made sense? I wouldn't generically say all powerlifters are the same, either. We have guys under 198 approaching 700 pound benches now that are very lean. Then we have guys doing near 700 that are almost 300 pounds, that still call themselves "powerlifters."

What I'm saying is I dont write generic rules and couple everyone into them with these things. I've been to 268 and not as strong as I was when I later got down to 252, etc etc etc

lnvanry
09-03-2005, 12:50 PM
so say if you had the shittest diet with minimal protein then would you be able to increase strength just not mass?
Yes, I know a world champion Powerlifter of '93-98' He has , or had, a max of 735lbs on the bench. He is really fat and about 5'4". he eats donuts, cookies, ice cream, and all types of sugar fatty foods. I'm sure that he eats a substantial amount of protein, most likely from hamburgers w/ everything on it. His name is Scott Smith. You should be able to find him on a google search. The years of 93-98 might be little off. I know he was champ some time in the mid ninety's. I do not know what his weight class is though.

Nick+
09-03-2005, 12:53 PM
Over the last year or so Ive read a fair bit in this forum and with exception of some of the bigger experienced guys, alot of people tend to talk of steroid use/cycles and then of relatively non-impressive lighter lifts etc. Im not trying to start any beef, but even on gear some peoples lifts are still fairly low. I thought it was best to reach your natural limit first in both strength/growth before giving gear a go. I know you do get people of all shapes/sizes/strengths but do you think people are simply naturally weaker or lazy/impatient. I dont boast of super lifts either but I feel I could still improve naturally although itching to have a go on gear. Is it impractical to perhaps hit a target of maybe 300+lb bench/squat etc naturally before cycling AS as plenty of clean lifters can shift that sort of weight. Do you think its best to keep increasing calories and lifting weight to the point where growth stops/slows or just have a go with gear when confident, as I dont want to waste another say 6 months breaking my balls, lifting more, eating more and not seeing too much return. What you guys think? Cheers.


Don't take it.

FishOrCutBait
09-03-2005, 01:08 PM
((lol, i feel better))

Mags
09-07-2005, 07:40 AM
what are your age..weight...lifts..training exp now?

i just saw ur gallery....u seem in pretty good shape... i dont see why u wouldnt be able to run gear now as long as u get the proper knowledge
Im 23 now (feel I shouldve gained alot more size now after 4 years of lifting, irrelavant of growth slowing after the beginner year etc) 6' and am currently at my lightest in the last two years(first contest in 6 weeks). Those pics were when I was 21, so I have filled out a fair bit since then, although still too goddam small!! I had an injury last febuary that meant I was out of training till late april, in which I didnt eat half as much as I did when training, so lost a fair bit of weight (everyones nightmare when injured-just wont heal quick enough!!) I was benching 300lbs naturally but am not benching that at all now, comfortably benching (although dont bench now, only heavy dumbells and incline pressing) 270lbs. Im just in the dilemma to try and get my lifts back up to where they used to be before having a go on the gear, or just go now. My lifts are not very heavy IMO for just general male strength of my age, hence why I feel im failing as I should be alot stronger to warrant the use of gear. However I dont want to reach a 300 bench etc again using gear just to find I cant do it when off the juice. Id be in the same predicament like now. Like i said, train back up to my best (although this isnt happening as fast as Id like making me question if it will or not) and size, or just get bang on the juice after xmas etc.

Mags
09-07-2005, 07:46 AM
i agree with mudge on this, they is no direct correlation IMO when comparing individuals

however i do feel that if someone was to increase their muscle mass through weight training, their strength would go up (and vice versa)
Yeah, I agree. Both Arnold and Ronnie always say in articles that you increase the weight, your muscle will increase also. This may not be at the same rate as eachother, but as a general rule, it seems to be the case. Ronnie even insists, he has never really changed his mass training scheme since starting bodybuilding so apart from the cocktail of goodies he's taking, it is simply the weight encouraging the muscle to grow instead of changing what exercises/rep ranges etc. It did also help with the fact taking AS will promote muscle hypotrophy in this case where a natural lifters body make not respond as much and therefore demand a change of rep range/exercise etc.

Mags
09-07-2005, 07:55 AM
Hello.....Some people do not train for strength....Its called Hypertrophy. You know this LAM. It is a principle of priorities. The priority is a great pump...not a heavy weight. The local pro at my gym is 260 one stage...I have never seen him bench over 300, ever.
I understand where you're coming from, you tend not to have too much depending on your strength gains as long as your body responds and grows. Thats okay, and you're accurate in the fact that weight doesn't always depict the amount of growth we experince. We always read 'its never about the weight you use, but the mind-muscle connection, the pump, the full range of motion, the overall highest stimulation of the muscle etc, but then BBs like Arnold and Ronnie (altho both exceptional examples) employ all this and are still super massive and hellishly strong. Thats why I feel too much of a pussy lift wise to start to think I deserve or am ready for gear. I do wish to be big (around 240-260lbs), but not if its all just for show, I mean if you're know as a huge fella then it turns out your weak as shit, you'll feel a fraud and a right ponce. Its all about being big and having the strength to have earnt the size!