Ok so lets say a man who has been training for years and has reached his full potensial and has not seen any progress regardless of changing the way he works out and eats and decides to take roids just to get that little bit bigger to what he would consider a perfect body. So he takes them and he gets this extra mass that hes been wanting. So if he now went of the roids could he maintain this body by just keeping to a good diet and strict gym workout or would you need to keep taking it to maintain the muscle?
Question on roids
- Thread starter SmithMachine
- Start date
I don't think there's a natrual limit either. It's just the time from when you start training to when you stop. Roids might make some results come faster, resulting in greater results in that time frame.
Why don't anyone reach their natrual limit? They don't have the dedication they need.
Or, as I believe, most people won't have the time to do so in their "training lives" (the time from when they start training to when they stop, be it because of age, boredom or death)
Why don't anyone reach their natrual limit? They don't have the dedication they need.
Or, as I believe, most people won't have the time to do so in their "training lives" (the time from when they start training to when they stop, be it because of age, boredom or death)
Er, If there are no natural limits then how come top athletes all perform at roughly the same level?
What about the 100m? Is it just coincidence that the fastest man in the world is seperated from about a hundred other sprinters by a few hundreths of a second? And even then it's often found that they're taking steroids. If it were a simple case of trying harder why are people not pushing back boundaries at a faster rate?
What about the 100m? Is it just coincidence that the fastest man in the world is seperated from about a hundred other sprinters by a few hundreths of a second? And even then it's often found that they're taking steroids. If it were a simple case of trying harder why are people not pushing back boundaries at a faster rate?
from my reading and research, I learned the following:
1. people that started taking steroids found that when they stopped, they never felt the same when working out...less intensity, less payback...thus making it harder to stay off them (constantly cycling, instead of 'only doing it once')
2. that they did find they lost some gains over time. not all, but many.
I mean, you're artificially increasing testosterone, and your body tries to adapt to that. then you nerf it back to normal levels (hopefully not below normal due to endocrine damage) and the body essentially 'throttles back'.
you may not lose your gains or size, but it'll be harder to pack on more size after that, and you'll need more dedication to hold on to it than if you achieved it without 'help'.
I'm not 100% against roids (though I don't use them either)...but honestly if you're not willing to practically earn a pH D in steroidology, you're probably not ready to use them.
1. people that started taking steroids found that when they stopped, they never felt the same when working out...less intensity, less payback...thus making it harder to stay off them (constantly cycling, instead of 'only doing it once')
2. that they did find they lost some gains over time. not all, but many.
I mean, you're artificially increasing testosterone, and your body tries to adapt to that. then you nerf it back to normal levels (hopefully not below normal due to endocrine damage) and the body essentially 'throttles back'.
you may not lose your gains or size, but it'll be harder to pack on more size after that, and you'll need more dedication to hold on to it than if you achieved it without 'help'.
I'm not 100% against roids (though I don't use them either)...but honestly if you're not willing to practically earn a pH D in steroidology, you're probably not ready to use them.
True, It is pretty obvious if you look in nursing homes that humans can get infinitely fat, maybe they can also get infinitely muscular. I don't know
Not even! Look at Roger Bannister in 1957... For years and as far back as could be remembered, breaking the 4 minute mile was considered impossible. Physiologists said it couldn't be done, and that it was extremely dangerous for anyone who attempted it. He broke the barrier in 3 minutes, 59.4 seconds. Later that year, 2 others broke his record... In the same race. By the end of 1957, 16 people logged miles underneath 4 minutes. The current record is 3 minutes, 43 seconds.
People push back barriers because of competition which is derived from will. All in the mind.
No it isn't, it's from training every day for years
It's all well and good quoting 50 year old records but how much progress has been made in the mile over the last 5 years?
Nothing can get larger indefinitely and I'm afraid that's a fact. It may well be true that no one has ever reached their full potential before but there has to be one
It's the same with athletic performance, will we ever see the 10 second mile? If what you're saying about constant advancement of the human body is true then it'll happen, and it'll be broken
It's the same with athletic performance, will we ever see the 10 second mile? If what you're saying about constant advancement of the human body is true then it'll happen, and it'll be broken
