Do steroids add or multiply?

[redflash]

Yes, it's another whacky question from flash...

Do steroids add to or amplify (multiply) the results you would get through training alone? I've been wondering about this for a while and the reason I ask is weak points.

If steroids amplify (multiply) the work you put in then in theory if you took 500mg/week of test for 8 weeks:
- if you did no training, you wouldn't gain anything
- if you trained only chest, only your chest would grow (plus ancillary muscles a bit, I guess)

If steroids add to the work you put in, then in theory if you took 500mg/week of test for 8 weeks:
- if you did no training, you would gain nearly as much as if you trained
- if you worked only chest, the rest of your body would grow anyway

In other words, can you use a cycle to quickly improve a weak point by pounding it on a cycle while working the rest of your body lightly?

The trouble is that I can't imagine anyone has tried this in practice - it would feel like a waste of a cycle! Anyone out there tried a cycle with no training? Or blasting one body part?

Basically, I want to know whether to keep trying to bring up my weak points all year or whether it would be better to set aside one cycle to give it hell to bring it up to standard.

 

[GFR]

My brain just exploded

 

[musclepump]

Dude...

 

[topolo]

ghey

 

[largepkg]

 

[Mudge]

If you dont train a bodypart, it wont grow, or not much (depending on diet). If you train something, it will grow, but faster than naturally provided everything else is in place.

 

[Hlanderr]

My brain just exploded

hahahhahaha


personally i would say any supplement/AAS is strictly an amplifier....
test kicks up your protein synthesis like whoa among other things, and if you dont eat correctly you still wont gain anything either

 

[Mudge]

If steroids add to the work you put in, then in theory if you took 500mg/week of test for 8 weeks:
- if you did no training, you would gain nearly as much as if you trained
- if you worked only chest, the rest of your body would grow anyway

That doesn't match the definition of adding, that is called something for nothing. Dont try and overcomplicate this, its simple. Eat, train, get bigger. Dont do shit, dont gain shit.

 

[Tha Don]

i've heard if you take steroids and did no training you'd still grow and put mass on, for example these people that are presribed steroids in hospital they obviously don't work out, but just by having more testosterone in their systems their bodies will increase the amount of LBM they are holding, so i guess the answer to your question is that steroids add to the work you put in, they will put every muscle in your body into an anabolic enviroment, whether you train it directly or not

 

[kicka19]

i've heard if you take steroids and did no training you'd still grow and put mass on, for example these people that are presribed steroids in hospital they obviously don't work out, but just by having more testosterone in their systems their bodies will increase the amount of LBM they are holding, so i guess the answer to your question is that steroids add to the work you put in, they will put every muscle in your body into an anabolic enviroment, whether you train it directly or not

 

[Mudge]

You are talking about nobodies who dont work out. I can lose LBM on any drug I promise you, I've been there and done that.

When you are talking about older men, you are still talking about ridiculously low amounts of body mass increase. The best results are wasting patients who have almost nothing to start with. I remained on cycle when I could not train for 6 weeks and lost enough that it took me OVER 3 months to recover from, I lost a lot of size starting post week 2. Gained some bodyfat as well because I tried to maintain the diet, which was too much when my body wasn't doing shit.

Dont think just taking drugs will make you a greek god, most people don't get there even with the training.

 

[shm353]

Dont think just taking drugs will make you a greek god, most people don't get there even with the training.[/QUOTE]

 

[Tha Don]

You are talking about nobodies who dont work out. I can lose LBM on any drug I promise you, I've been there and done that.

When you are talking about older men, you are still talking about ridiculously low amounts of body mass increase. The best results are wasting patients who have almost nothing to start with. I remained on cycle when I could not train for 6 weeks and lost enough that it took me OVER 3 months to recover from, I lost a lot of size starting post week 2. Gained some bodyfat as well because I tried to maintain the diet, which was too much when my body wasn't doing shit.

Dont think just taking drugs will make you a greek god, most people don't get there even with the training.

mudge is spot on, as you said i was just talking about the nobodies who don't work out, obviously for us guys used to working out week in week out it would be vital to train hard on steroids and eat enough to support futher muscle growth and development, they are certainly not magic beans - a comment that i make to newbies on muscletalk (that think this steroid will get them huge and that steroid will get the ripped) time and time again!

 

[DeadBolt]

i've heard if you take steroids and did no training you'd still grow and put mass on, for example these people that are presribed steroids in hospital they obviously don't work out, but just by having more testosterone in their systems their bodies will increase the amount of LBM they are holding, so i guess the answer to your question is that steroids add to the work you put in, they will put every muscle in your body into an anabolic enviroment, whether you train it directly or not

Yes these are bed ridden people who can't even get up to go to the bathroom. Their 3 months of rehab had a gain of 100% increase of leg strength but to use that would mean squatting 300lbs and 3 months later squatting 600lbs. To them its the difference from being able to stand up out of their own wheel chair by them selves vs having an aid or trasport service having to lift them up entirely.

When you use an example like that dont try to make it pertain to our sport with different variables.

 

[Tha Don]

When you use an example like that dont try to make it pertain to our sport with different variables.

it still has relevance, i see any mention of a 'sport' in the original topic of discussion

 

[redflash]

The usual mix of helpful and unhelpful comments - maybe it's the way I asked the question.

Everyone knows you need to eat right, train right, sleep right, for maximum gains, but I was asking about WEAK POINTS i.e. where you want those maximum gains. Most of us wouldn't want weight gains just anywhere. If AAS amplify/multiply then that means I can blast a weak point on cycle and keep everything else ticking over and the weak point will start to come up to strength.

For example, a guy might have weak calves and might be willing to sacrifice a few pounds of muscle gain elsewhere on his body in order to bring his calves up - from what I'm reading here, he could blast his calves on AAS, just train everything else lightly if at all, and rebalance his body. Correct?

 

[Mudge]

It may take years to get your calves up to snuff if you are behind in them and having great difficulties developing them, or in fact you may never get them where you want them. Why juice for just one bodypart?

You can't change genetic predisposition. The body is also very good at equilibrium, i.e. if you shrink everywhere else why would the body support imbalance?

 

[pengers84]

Why juice for just one bodypart? To achieve muscular balance i assume.

You can't change genetic predisposition.
Isnt that exactly what drugs such as AAS and HGH do, help you gain more muscle mass than your natural (genetically predisposed) limit?

 

[Tha Don]

Why juice for just one bodypart? To achieve muscular balance i assume.

You can't change genetic predisposition.
Isnt that exactly what drugs such as AAS and HGH do, help you gain more muscle mass than your natural (genetically predisposed) limit?

what are you trying to say? mudge is 100% correct, you can't change your genetics, gaining muscle from steroids and changing you genetic predisposition (i.e. the areas you hold that muscle) are two totally different things, as mudge says the body grows and shrinks as a whole and it will strive to balance out weight to those areas where weight is genetically predisposed, i'm not buying that a guy can take steroids, train calves all day and just end up with huge calves, its more likely his whole legs would grow some (or if he stopped training other bodyparts his whole body would shrink some)

 

[rgrmike74]

i actually remember watching a show on aas and they claimed that a group of males that were givin test and were nothing more than couch potatoes gained as much and sometimes more LBM as another group that did controlled weight training... now i personnally find this hard to believe but i do remember it...

wish i could remember thename of the show

 

[pengers84]

what are you trying to say? mudge is 100% correct, you can't change your genetics, gaining muscle from steroids and changing you genetic predisposition (i.e. the areas you hold that muscle) are two totally different things, as mudge says the body grows and shrinks as a whole and it will strive to balance out weight to those areas where weight is genetically predisposed, i'm not buying that a guy can take steroids, train calves all day and just end up with huge calves, its more likely his whole legs would grow some (or if he stopped training other bodyparts his whole body would shrink some)

Is the definition for genetic predisposition 'the areas that you hold that muscle'?

 

[pengers84]

wouldnt you also be genetically predisposed to attain a certain amount of LBM, which can be improved on by useing AAS?

I know you cant make a muscle longer or shorter but you can make it bigger and even bigger with AAS.

If your whole legs grow from training your calves, would your calves grow proportionately more because they are being worked directly?

 

[FullGo]

redflash here's my 2cents.i injured my shoulder while on cycle. it hurt to do much besides legs. so instead of stopping my cycle at mid point i trained legs three days a week and kept my cycle going my legs got huge and strong. so in conclusion i would say yes u could use AAS to catch up a lagging bodypart. but if not injured it would make more sense to train everything.Just push the lagging part alot harder if your looking to = out that part.

 

[redflash]

Now we're getting there....

i'm not buying that a guy can take steroids, train calves all day and just end up with huge calves, its more likely his whole legs would grow some

I think that's what I was trying to sort out. If AAS multiply/amplify as most seem to think, then if you trained pure calves why would your thighs grow? Maybe AAS add AND multiply, although Mudge's tale of being on cycle without training would suggest there is no adding going on.

I was using calves as an example, but in my case it is actually my chest. My body is in balance overall but the two noticable exceptions are my shoulders which tend to blow up and my chest which tends to look flat. I'm only 180lbs so we're not talking freaky here but I'm keen to stay in, or improve, symmetry as I grow to 190, 200. I already don't train my shoulders direct, they just get a hit from chest and back workouts. I think I know how to pre-exhaust etc and I'll continue that conversation on the training forum.

(I've attempted to upload a pic of me 20 years ago (at the tender age of 25) - it's not good enough to show how ripped I was but you might be able to see the chest/shoulder thing).

The reason for original post was trying to work out whether several cycles of AAS will exaggerate this (genetic) difference or whether I can use them to help balance things out. Original plan was to train everything hard but chest harder both on and off cycle, and to try different things such as pre-exhaustion to isolate the pecs. I'm not hearing anything here which changes that.

Hope that makes sense. Thanks for the views.

Flash

 

[Mags]

You grow the way your body is genetically predestined to grow. Like mudge said, if you have shit calfs genetically, AS can possibly increase there size but can't change the fact they're still shit. Its like when people train to lengthen their biceps and gain that fuller belly near the elbow. It may encourage it to grow, but it won't alter the fact you have a shorter bicep. You want a muscle to grow, you have to stimulate it. As for balancing out bodyparts, isn't that why people who are usually already on anabolics, use synthol at times, to blow up lagging areas that genetically won't undertake growth?

The only thing Ive read (probably gonna contradict myself now) that seemed to support localised growth was an article claiming injecting IFG-1 into specific bodyparts did promote that area to grow. It was tested on mice in the US and they got fucking huge. I can't quite remember, but I think it involved taking IFG-1 from the cell of the animal/person and re applying it to the other areas (kind've like stem cell stuff i guess) which grew as a result. The article refered to the worry that as it wasn't a synthetic substance it didn't hold side effects and wasn't traceable in testing, that the future for sports/olympics etc was gonna be ruled by super humans etc with a form of 'cheating' that commitees couldn't identify or regulate etc.