This kind of shit is why I can't take Nuckols seriously

Stick to training related posts.

Moderators: Dux, seeahill

User avatar
Holland Oates
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 14137
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:32 am
Location: GAWD'S Country
Contact:

Re: This kind of shit is why I can't take Nuckols seriously

Post by Holland Oates » Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:13 pm

Sangoma wrote:Which ones did you use?
mod-grf and ghrp-2
Southern Hospitality Is Aggressive Hospitality

TerryB
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 9697
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:17 pm

Re: This kind of shit is why I can't take Nuckols seriously

Post by TerryB » Sun Sep 06, 2015 12:32 am

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:Steroids are like painkillers for stupid dietary and training practices. Yes, if you get all your ducks in a row it's better. But, injecting 600mg/weekly vs TRT dose will cause an untrained subject to gain muscle faster than a training subject, given similar caloric intakes
Image
Figure 1: Dose response relationship of muscle gain (in kg) per mg of testosterone enanthate; the white line indicates a dose that would probably have produce testosterone levels identical to baseline (calculated based on Bhasin. 2001)
:ponder
"Know that! & Know it deep you fucking loser!"

Image

ccrow
Gunny
Posts: 823
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 5:19 pm

Re: This kind of shit is why I can't take Nuckols seriously

Post by ccrow » Sun Sep 06, 2015 10:12 am

Smet, you are ruining the image I had in my head of doctors behind the iron curtain. I figured that while the nitwits at the AMA were cocking off about "there is no evidence that anabolic steroids improve athletic performance," you guys were in med school learning how to make East German woman swim team out total the US men's weightlifting team.

Dropping the "as a doctor I can tell you" thing is a little off putting since we've all seen doctors give shitty training advice. (Hell we've all seen them give shitty non-PED drug advice, haven't we?) But really using drugs for performance enhancement isn't something a doctor is going to have a clue about. It isn't covered in med school. It couldn't be taught even if they wanted to, because there's no scientific data - it's recreational use, hasn't been rigorously scientifically studied, and realistically won't be. The closest thing to real study of drug effects, I imagine, would happen in state sponsored programs like the old comm block program and the current China program, but any findings there will be buried and denied with the WMDs.

Regarding the whole proper-context thing for drugs - I think the theory does apply in this case, to some extent, but not the way you think. The optimal context to take steroids is when you're at an age when you've reached physical maturity and you've gotten about as far as you're going to get without steroids, i.e. gains have slowed to a creep. So telling kids to stay off steroids is actually good advice, but not for protective / moral reasons, for practical reasons. Ironically I learned this in a 1970s book by a US medical doctor, James E. Wright's "Anabolic Steroids in Sport." (I think it was in volume 2) If you want to learn about the magic beans, minus the various agendas, that book still holds water after all these years.

When you're thinking about steroids, always filter your own bias, things aren't the way you want them to be: life isn't fair! Sometimes slackers find shortcuts and win. If you really haven't seen someone with good genetics and magic beans beat a bunch of dedicated guys playing by the rules, your steroid radar is probably not working.
But when I stand in front of the mirror and really look, I wonder: What the fuck happened here? Jesus Christ. What a beating!

Boris
Top
Posts: 1516
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:54 am

Re: This kind of shit is why I can't take Nuckols seriously

Post by Boris » Sun Sep 06, 2015 9:16 pm

ccrow wrote: Dropping the "as a doctor I can tell you" thing is a little off putting since we've all seen doctors give shitty training advice. (Hell we've all seen them give shitty non-PED drug advice, haven't we?) But really using drugs for performance enhancement isn't something a doctor is going to have a clue about.
Holy cow... yes.

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6633
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: This kind of shit is why I can't take Nuckols seriously

Post by Sangoma » Sun Sep 06, 2015 11:24 pm

ccrow wrote:Smet, you are ruining the image I had in my head of doctors behind the iron curtain. I figured that while the nitwits at the AMA were cocking off about "there is no evidence that anabolic steroids improve athletic performance," you guys were in med school learning how to make East German woman swim team out total the US men's weightlifting team.

Dropping the "as a doctor I can tell you" thing is a little off putting since we've all seen doctors give shitty training advice. (Hell we've all seen them give shitty non-PED drug advice, haven't we?) But really using drugs for performance enhancement isn't something a doctor is going to have a clue about. It isn't covered in med school. It couldn't be taught even if they wanted to, because there's no scientific data - it's recreational use, hasn't been rigorously scientifically studied, and realistically won't be. The closest thing to real study of drug effects, I imagine, would happen in state sponsored programs like the old comm block program and the current China program, but any findings there will be buried and denied with the WMDs.

Regarding the whole proper-context thing for drugs - I think the theory does apply in this case, to some extent, but not the way you think. The optimal context to take steroids is when you're at an age when you've reached physical maturity and you've gotten about as far as you're going to get without steroids, i.e. gains have slowed to a creep. So telling kids to stay off steroids is actually good advice, but not for protective / moral reasons, for practical reasons. Ironically I learned this in a 1970s book by a US medical doctor, James E. Wright's "Anabolic Steroids in Sport." (I think it was in volume 2) If you want to learn about the magic beans, minus the various agendas, that book still holds water after all these years.

When you're thinking about steroids, always filter your own bias, things aren't the way you want them to be: life isn't fair! Sometimes slackers find shortcuts and win. If you really haven't seen someone with good genetics and magic beans beat a bunch of dedicated guys playing by the rules, your steroid radar is probably not working.
I still stand by the basics: drugs are best used in appropriate context. Sure, there are high and low responders and life is not fair. But taking potentially lethal drugs in suboptimal conditions does not make sense to me. Lowest effective dose, risk-benefit playout etc. Not taking it into account is not smart and does not make sense. At least to me, a doctor who is clued up in PEDs. It's pretty much like jumping red light: you will get away with it most of the time, but it doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.
Image


The Cunning Stunt
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 376
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 5:27 am

Re: This kind of shit is why I can't take Nuckols seriously

Post by The Cunning Stunt » Wed Sep 09, 2015 2:37 am

TerryB wrote:
Shafpocalypse Now wrote:Steroids are like painkillers for stupid dietary and training practices. Yes, if you get all your ducks in a row it's better. But, injecting 600mg/weekly vs TRT dose will cause an untrained subject to gain muscle faster than a training subject, given similar caloric intakes
Image
Figure 1: Dose response relationship of muscle gain (in kg) per mg of testosterone enanthate; the white line indicates a dose that would probably have produce testosterone levels identical to baseline (calculated based on Bhasin. 2001)
:ponder
Integrate that curve and it's a substantial difference.

User avatar
newguy
Top
Posts: 1909
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:32 am

Re: This kind of shit is why I can't take Nuckols seriously

Post by newguy » Wed Sep 09, 2015 3:34 am

Sangoma wrote:
ccrow wrote:Smet, you are ruining the image I had in my head of doctors behind the iron curtain. I figured that while the nitwits at the AMA were cocking off about "there is no evidence that anabolic steroids improve athletic performance," you guys were in med school learning how to make East German woman swim team out total the US men's weightlifting team.

Dropping the "as a doctor I can tell you" thing is a little off putting since we've all seen doctors give shitty training advice. (Hell we've all seen them give shitty non-PED drug advice, haven't we?) But really using drugs for performance enhancement isn't something a doctor is going to have a clue about. It isn't covered in med school. It couldn't be taught even if they wanted to, because there's no scientific data - it's recreational use, hasn't been rigorously scientifically studied, and realistically won't be. The closest thing to real study of drug effects, I imagine, would happen in state sponsored programs like the old comm block program and the current China program, but any findings there will be buried and denied with the WMDs.

Regarding the whole proper-context thing for drugs - I think the theory does apply in this case, to some extent, but not the way you think. The optimal context to take steroids is when you're at an age when you've reached physical maturity and you've gotten about as far as you're going to get without steroids, i.e. gains have slowed to a creep. So telling kids to stay off steroids is actually good advice, but not for protective / moral reasons, for practical reasons. Ironically I learned this in a 1970s book by a US medical doctor, James E. Wright's "Anabolic Steroids in Sport." (I think it was in volume 2) If you want to learn about the magic beans, minus the various agendas, that book still holds water after all these years.

When you're thinking about steroids, always filter your own bias, things aren't the way you want them to be: life isn't fair! Sometimes slackers find shortcuts and win. If you really haven't seen someone with good genetics and magic beans beat a bunch of dedicated guys playing by the rules, your steroid radar is probably not working.
I still stand by the basics: drugs are best used in appropriate context. Sure, there are high and low responders and life is not fair. But taking potentially lethal drugs in suboptimal conditions does not make sense to me. Lowest effective dose, risk-benefit playout etc. Not taking it into account is not smart and does not make sense. At least to me, a doctor who is clued up in PEDs. It's pretty much like jumping red light: you will get away with it most of the time, but it doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.
I think context might be a bit shady in this context.....drugs and "medicine" are two different things a lot of times.

If I want to get drunk my "drug" of choice (alcohol) doesn't care about my diet, health habits, or anything else. It just works if I take enough of it. Not sure that eating better or healthier or getting more sleep would change that.

If I have a headache, the Tylenol takes care of it, disregarding the same things.

Maybe "steroids/PEDS/Juice" or whatever they are called now are the same? Eating right "in this context" just isn't part of the equation.

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6633
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: This kind of shit is why I can't take Nuckols seriously

Post by Sangoma » Fri Sep 11, 2015 5:44 am

That's exactly what I am arguing here. Getting drunk from good wine or whiskey in a good company with nice food is different from drinking cheap liquor alone in public toilet. Sure the "drug" is the same, but the context is different and, in my opinion, will have different effects on health. The same with the other example: using Tylenol for a headache caused by subdural hepatoma or bring tumour will work (at least for a while), but is not very smart.

In one book Dorian Yates is quoted saying that steroids are similar to smoking: it is no one cigarette that kills you, but prolonged use. PEDs have risks and sinister side-effects, and it is best - I insist on using the word best - to use them in proper context.

I don't understand this idea causes such resistance. Lots of people progress using stupid workout routines, but nobody argues that proper planning is better. Lots of folks get strong eating lots of crap, but again, nobody argues that proper nutrition is better. Not so long ago I asked for sleeping aid advice and was ridiculed for not taking care of sleeping hygiene first. So, what's different about PEDs? Sure, pinning steroids will cover lots of sins in training and nutrition, but why is it not obvious that they are better used in optimal manner? Drugs are drugs, legal or otherwise, and basic principles of clinical use apply to all of them.
Image

ccrow
Gunny
Posts: 823
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 5:19 pm

Re: This kind of shit is why I can't take Nuckols seriously

Post by ccrow » Fri Sep 11, 2015 12:13 pm

Nobody is arguing that steroids work best if you're doing everything right. Far from it.

I now people who went on steroids and were inconsistent getting to the gym, only making it to one or two workouts of a four day a week program - no good.

If you gear your plan towards gaining a lot of muscle fast, but undereat, the results won't be what you'd hoped. Still way, way more than if you'd done the same without the steroids, but you'd still leave some on the table, waste of drugs.

It's still possible to overtrain on steroids, but again you'll go farther than a total moron off steroids, and in fact you'll probably go further than an optimal genius off steroids.

I thought you were suggesting that steroids aren't worth taking if you can't get everything else "optimal" and the truth is this: in the real world, you can get to where you're getting nowhere without steroids, even with optimal or near optimal training and diet. Go on steroids, get anywhere near the ballpark for optimal training and nutrition, and you'll be breaking the PRs you had set before steroids regularly.
But when I stand in front of the mirror and really look, I wonder: What the fuck happened here? Jesus Christ. What a beating!

Chris McClinch
Sarge
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 10:22 am

Re: This kind of shit is why I can't take Nuckols seriously

Post by Chris McClinch » Fri Sep 11, 2015 12:20 pm

And of course, there's this classic study in which the group given test enanthate and told NOT to exercise increased muscle mass and strength: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8637535

Chris McClinch
Sarge
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 10:22 am

Re: This kind of shit is why I can't take Nuckols seriously

Post by Chris McClinch » Fri Sep 11, 2015 12:39 pm


User avatar
WildGorillaMan
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 9951
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:01 pm

Re: This kind of shit is why I can't take Nuckols seriously

Post by WildGorillaMan » Fri Sep 11, 2015 1:45 pm

Chris McClinch wrote:And of course, there's this classic study in which the group given test enanthate and told NOT to exercise increased muscle mass and strength: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8637535
Life is so unfair.
Image
You'll Hurt Your Back

basically I'm Raoul Duke trying to fit into a Philip K. Dick movie remake.

User avatar
Grandpa's Spells
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 10838
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:08 pm

Re: This kind of shit is why I can't take Nuckols seriously

Post by Grandpa's Spells » Fri Sep 11, 2015 2:02 pm

Chris McClinch wrote:And an excellent write-up by Lyle: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle ... owth.html/
Great article.
if you want to know why naturals are stuck in the 180s if they are lucky and the top pros are up at 280 and ripped, well…now you know. More is better, that’s what more means.
This is why it's amusing when people call drugs "the cream on top" or whatever else.
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.

Chris McClinch
Sarge
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 10:22 am

Re: This kind of shit is why I can't take Nuckols seriously

Post by Chris McClinch » Fri Sep 11, 2015 2:23 pm

WildGorillaMan wrote:
Chris McClinch wrote:And of course, there's this classic study in which the group given test enanthate and told NOT to exercise increased muscle mass and strength: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8637535
Life is so unfair.
The unfair part is that they put on ~50% more muscle than the drug-free guys who were told to bench and squat.

User avatar
WildGorillaMan
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 9951
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:01 pm

Re: This kind of shit is why I can't take Nuckols seriously

Post by WildGorillaMan » Fri Sep 11, 2015 2:53 pm

Chris McClinch wrote:
WildGorillaMan wrote:
Chris McClinch wrote:And of course, there's this classic study in which the group given test enanthate and told NOT to exercise increased muscle mass and strength: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8637535
Life is so unfair.
The unfair part is that they put on ~50% more muscle than the drug-free guys who were told to bench and squat.
That's what I'm saying.
Image
You'll Hurt Your Back

basically I'm Raoul Duke trying to fit into a Philip K. Dick movie remake.

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6633
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: This kind of shit is why I can't take Nuckols seriously

Post by Sangoma » Sun Sep 13, 2015 1:12 pm

Holland Oates wrote:
Sangoma wrote:Which ones did you use?
mod-grf and ghrp-2
Surprising, I heard lots of people swear by this combo. Was it part of the protocol or you just use them on their own?
Image

User avatar
Holland Oates
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 14137
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:32 am
Location: GAWD'S Country
Contact:

Re: This kind of shit is why I can't take Nuckols seriously

Post by Holland Oates » Thu Sep 17, 2015 3:43 am

Sangoma wrote:
Holland Oates wrote:
Sangoma wrote:Which ones did you use?
mod-grf and ghrp-2
Surprising, I heard lots of people swear by this combo. Was it part of the protocol or you just use them on their own?
Stand alone. It works great but I don't think it was a magic bullet. Mainly it just made me feel better so I could train every day.
Southern Hospitality Is Aggressive Hospitality

Post Reply