# PH - Natural or Not?



## Mudge (Jun 17, 2003)

I am just curious what everyone thinks. Yes I know that people get "less" in the way of results with PH use than "real" steroids, but I still think if you are directly playing with hormone levels then your not "natural."

Firestorm brought up coffee and things like that, with coffee being so widely used I don't see that a natural BB organization could get that banned without some kind of serious fight 

So, I'm just curious what the opinions are.

1) PH is still legal for most of us
2) Not as "good" as the real thing

But I dont believe #1 or #2 qualify it as "oh well then its natural."

Doh, should have thought about a "semi-natural", hate to reset the votes this late in the game though although it should have been up there who have an "in the middle" view on PH use. It probably didn't occur to me because I see this as night and day, although I can of course understand the "inbetweener" but I think ultimately that is sort of fibbing


----------



## Robboe (Jun 17, 2003)

Method of administration is really the deciding factor IMO.

If you took an oral PH (or anabolic steroid in the case of 1-test), not many will really bat and eye lid or give it much substance.

If you apply an oral PH transdermally, most will just think you're weird.

If you inject a steroid, most will consider you anything ranging from a "gear head" to a "criminal" to a "cheat".


----------



## Mudge (Jun 17, 2003)

Yep, people fear the needle, and thusly if you use one you are deranged.


----------



## Twin Peak (Jun 17, 2003)

I think natural is a term that should be done away with.

Anytime you take any substance to supraphysiolocial levels through supplementation, that is not "natural."

So, creatine use is no more "natural" than PHs.

That said, PHs and especially 1-test, are AAS.


----------



## Mudge (Jun 17, 2003)

I can agree on some level, but creatine does not play with hormone levels like the PHs do. I'm glad to see that you agree at least with that  I honestly dont understand how someone can't agree, it may not be "the same thing" but it still affects natural hormone levels.


----------



## Twin Peak (Jun 17, 2003)

Absolutely.  I consider 1-test AAS, as stated.  I also believe it is equally potent as many illicit steroids, it is just limited by its modality.

I don't think PHs are natural.  I just don't agree with your chopping up natural to be a hormonal thing.  Why is that?  "Natural" to me is simply, whether or not you have taken things beyond what nature provided.

So, I am suggesting that essentially, save for the supplement, it is impossible to obtain high levels of creatine as you'd have to eat pounds and pounds of red meat each and everyday.

Protein supplementation would not qualify since you can eat a protein dense diet "naturally."

My point is, essentially, any attempt to define "natural" is simply impossible.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 17, 2003)

I think it is NOT natural, orally or transdermally! You still get an advantage, regardless if they are as strong or not.


----------



## Mudge (Jun 17, 2003)

This is not BTW a huge pet peeve of mine or anything, I think the answer is clear as day


----------



## Twin Peak (Jun 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> This is not BTW a huge pet peeve of mine or anything, I think the answer is clear as day



Then you have not made "the answer" clear.  Do tell?


DG, I am sorry, but that was a piss-poor response.  Advantage over what?  Since when is "having an advantage" the definition of not natural?  By that definition, protein is not natural, hell, good genes or a better training program, or a high protein diet isn't natural.


----------



## Twin Peak (Jun 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> This is not BTW a huge pet peeve of mine or anything, I think the answer is clear as day



BTW, I am not trying to slide into the natural category.  I don't care whether anyone else thinks I am natural or not.

I am legal, which is what matters to me.

If I decide to compete, I will compete in a show that does not ban PHs.  There are "natural" shows that do not ban them.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> 
> DG, I am sorry, but that was a piss-poor response.  Advantage over what?  Since when is "having an advantage" the definition of not natural?


Since I just said it!!!!!!!! No, what I meant was you having extra test to work with from the PH's that you would not otherwise have! That is the advantage.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> 
> If I decide to compete, I will compete in a show that does not ban PHs.  There are "natural" shows that do not ban them.


If you do that, then you will also be competing against roids users and it won't even be fair. Even in natural shows here, you have people on roids, and you can spot them a mile away because they are twice as big and thick. Thy know they won't spend the money to test.


----------



## Mudge (Jun 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> I don't think PHs are natural. I just don't agree with your chopping up natural to be a hormonal thing. Why is that? "Natural" to me is simply, whether or not you have taken things beyond what nature provided.



I can agree with that, my main issue is that PH users want to think of themselves as somehow different than steroid users. To me the only real difference is, hardly anyone is going to be injecting 1-Test. To be truly natural in this day and age is nearly impossible, unless you live on a farm and grow your own stuff from the grass all the way to raising your own cattle/lambs etc, but then we could get into what kind of fertilizer/pesticices yada yada.

So in short, I just dont understand how PH users think of themselves as somehow better or different than gear users, one is legal one isn't, and thats the main difference I see as well as administration.



> So, I am suggesting that essentially, save for the supplement, it is impossible to obtain high levels of creatine as you'd have to eat pounds and pounds of red meat each and everyday.



Like you, I seriously wonder if I respond to creatine at all.


----------



## Mudge (Jun 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> BTW, I am not trying to slide into the natural category. I don't care whether anyone else thinks I am natural or not.



I dont know if Prince uses PH or not, but I like his "semi-natural" stance.



> I am legal, which is what matters to me.



No argument there, who wants to be a felon - not many of us. I think the laws are stupid and often made by uneducated individuals, but when the day is over if a gear user gets caught its going to affect them to some degree.



> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> Since I just said it!!!!!!!! No, what I meant was you having extra test to work with from the PH's that you would not otherwise have! That is the advantage.



Is the advantage administration based? I have heard of good results from those who have converted 1-Test to an injectable.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> I dont know if Prince uses PH or not, but I like his "semi-natural" stance.
> 
> Is the advantage administration based? I have heard of good results from those who have converted 1-Test to an injectable.


Prince did order several bottles of Avant Gel,
And from what I hear, injecting 1-test is God-awful painful. I think anyone in their right might is crazy to inject it! The theory behind it is good, only having to inject twice a week, but it just isn't there yet!


----------



## ZECH (Jun 17, 2003)

I think some guys have tried injecting 4/ad with some success! But they say it compares to transdermal use in gains. But you still only inject twice a week vs. applying twice a day!


----------



## Mudge (Jun 17, 2003)

Yep, same thing I heard, painfull injections. Some of that though could be the conversion process, then again prop and other things are painfull as well. Some people litterally use coffee filters to filter thier stuff


----------



## Eggs (Jun 17, 2003)

I think that taking any supplement is truly not natural.  Someone may say that lifting weights, etc is not... but I dont think that you can categorize weight lifting and supplementation together.

I mean, it seems that many people think that the category of natural falls into some grey area between taking supplements and taking steroids.  So then what is the difference between a injectable steroid user and a oral steroid user?  What happens if someone responds better to a supplement than another person... does the person who responds better become less natural?

I dont know, I just think that trying to define natural as anything other than using/not using supplements is a moot point.

I've used PH, and I dont consider myself natural.  But why would I care, I dont really need to prove anything to myself for why people are bigger than I am.


----------



## Twin Peak (Jun 17, 2003)

Mudge, I agree completely.  And your "beef" is well taken, save for the difference in legality.

My beef is on the opposite side of the coin -- when gear users make unfounded and derogatory comments on those who use PHs as if it is stupid.  I think its a defense mechanism personally.

Personally, I think that steroids should not be illegal.  But since they are, and my career depends on me abidding by the law, I will refrain.  Though the illegality gives me a good excuse since I hate needles. 

And Prince's title is a direct result of this very same discussion some time ago.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> Yep, same thing I heard, painfull injections. Some of that though could be the conversion process, then again prop and other things are painfull as well. Some people litterally use coffee filters to filter thier stuff


1-test has a burning sensation to it! I assume the test cyp does too! It is actually the 1-test that is burning on top of the normal pain. The new burn free 1-test is not suitable for injection as I understand. Maybe TP can verify all this.


----------



## Twin Peak (Jun 17, 2003)

I have not looked into the injectible aspect of it, so I will refrain from posting that which I do not know about.


----------



## Mudge (Jun 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> 1-test has a burning sensation to it! I assume the test cyp does too!



Not the "real" Cypionate, although the new OTC stuff I dont know  I wonder what the law has to say, if anything, about conversion to an injectable?


----------



## Mudge (Jun 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Eggs *_
> I think that taking any supplement is truly not natural.  Someone may say that lifting weights, etc is not... but I dont think that you can categorize weight lifting and supplementation together.



True, good points. I suppose natural could be cut down to hunting and gathering, so technically yes you are correct I'd say. Most of us, I think though, take natural to mean hormonally speaking, although maybe it is just me and a handfull of others. This is backed somewhat though by "natural" BB organizations, its not homeless men competing up there, its a hormonal argument


----------



## Twin Peak (Jun 17, 2003)

Then why do some "natural" organizations allow PHs?  And why are some non-hormonal agents banned (like Clen and T3)?

You see, it breaks down.

As to the law question, it all comes down to the "intended use" of the product.  Modality is regulated as well.  If its intended use was as an injectible, it would no longer be classified as a "dietary supplement" but rather a "New Drug", and regulated as such.


----------



## Mudge (Jun 17, 2003)

Didn't know that any did offhand, only know that GP said his doesn't allow it. Since its still OTC though I could see it being accepted.


----------



## MeanCuts (Jun 19, 2003)

I think anyone who supplements with anything to raise test to above normal levels or takes real GH is not natural .JMO


----------



## Twin Peak (Jun 19, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by MeanCuts *_
> I think anyone who supplements with anything to raise test to above normal levels or takes real GH is not natural .JMO



Define normal.  Above an individuals baseline, or above the normal range for adult males?


----------



## MeanCuts (Jun 19, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> Define normal.  Above an individuals baseline, or above the normal range for adult males?



I guess taking testosterone to bring an individual baseline back up to normal range(for his age) would still be natural since he's in a unatural state to begin with,but I think taking anabolics of any kind is quit different.


----------



## Mudge (Jun 19, 2003)

What exactly is normal though, if someones natural test levels are low and its not dietary related, then that is "natural" for them.


----------



## MeanCuts (Jun 19, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> What exactly is normal though, if someones natural test levels are low and its not dietary related, then that is "natural" for them.



If a child is dying when their born then don't save it because it's natural for the he/she?
If a person suffers from low test levels then it's a medical condition like any other and should be treated the best way possible.


----------



## Mudge (Jun 19, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by MeanCuts *_
> If a child is dying when their born then don't save it because it's natural for the he/she?
> If a person suffers from low test levels then it's a medical condition like any other and should be treated the best way possible.



Now your judging that I am against medicine, which is FAR FAR from the truth, look at the forum that I moderate after all 

However, it is still not natural IMO if you are supplementing with test. A person can simply state I have low natural T levels and am on HRT, discussion complete  I am not judgemental against users that 1) know what they are doing 2) have a reason, etc

Picture bodybuilders who call themselves natural when they are "cruising" with "only" 500-1000g test a week, thats natural? Since WHEN?

I am NOT against medicine, far far from the truth, you are reading into things to far and making assumptions


----------



## Arnold (Jun 19, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> Define normal.  Above an individuals baseline, or above the normal range for adult males?



I say anything above 1000/ng's is entering the "unnatural" level, only my opinion of course. 

No matter what a male is taking, even with HRT, if they are at or below 1000ng that keeps them in the "natural" category IMO.


----------



## Mudge (Jun 19, 2003)

Maybe for Superman   I dont know if I've seen anything over 700 "naturally"


----------



## Arnold (Jun 19, 2003)

a teenager would be, the only reason I used that number is because the USED to be the upper line for "normal" T levels, recently it was lowered to around 860 or so....I say it's all a frick'n conspiracy though...damn government!


----------



## Arnold (Jun 19, 2003)

btw, can you/we add a vote option for "semi-natural"?


----------



## Mudge (Jun 19, 2003)

LoL... I think LAMs was one of the highest I'd seen, especially for his age.

Go for it Prince, I dont mod this forum so I can't change it   I shoulda thought about that, doh.


----------



## Twin Peak (Jun 19, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> What exactly is normal though, if someones natural test levels are low and its not dietary related, then that is "natural" for them.



Exactly.  

I see we are on the same page here Mudge.


----------



## MeanCuts (Jun 19, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> I am NOT against medicine, far far from the truth, you are reading into things to far and making assumptions



Well i didn't think you were anti medicine~lol~just that people are born with all kinds of "abnormalities" including low test levels.As far as me thinking you were taking an anti test stance I think you're reading to much into it


----------



## Mudge (Jun 19, 2003)

It is truly amazing that so many of us, with so many quadrillions or maybe a "google"  of variables can be born so damn close to perfect as we are, you are very right. But it exactly that which seperated so many of us, some are naturally very skinny, all the way to a very few who are genetically muscular and lean with very little effort who eventually sometimes go on to set world records.


----------



## MeanCuts (Jun 19, 2003)

I know what you're saying Mudge  all I was saying is if you have a real medical condition.Which in most cases you'd have to be sick(eg HIV) in any case these people most likely wouldn't be bodybuilding.


----------



## Mudge (Jun 19, 2003)

True, its still not natural - but that is where the market for medicinal anabolics is in a big way, wasting diseases. Obviously they have a legit reason.

This isn't a morality argument though on my part, obviously they didn't want thier disease to be "natural" for them.


----------



## MeanCuts (Jun 19, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> True, its still not natural



Neither is AIDS


----------



## Mudge (Jun 19, 2003)

Well, I think honestly that one can be argued. While foreign to the body I have not seen or heard proof myself that it was man made. Semen is foreign to a womans body, but I'd sure call it of nature.

Although I suppose one could then say, well while Testosterone injectables are man made, they are chemically no different than natural human testosterone save for the ester.


----------



## MeanCuts (Jun 20, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> Well, I think honestly that one can be argued.



Yeah I agree,and AIDS is probably a natural virus.IMO


----------



## MeanCuts (Jun 20, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Prince *_
> btw, can you/we add a vote option for "semi-natural"?



In your opinion,what exactly does semi-natural mean?


----------



## Mudge (Jun 20, 2003)

From what I understand his take is somewhere in the middle, meaning that "PH" is in between, aka semi-natural.


----------



## MeanCuts (Jun 20, 2003)

I see


----------



## Doctor X (Apr 4, 2006)

this is a tough topic.  i feel taking supplements (PHs) is not truly "natural", because you're giving your body a boost that it would not get from a normal diet.  

But then if PHs are semi-natural and steroids are not natural, what happens when you're taking a supplement PH and then a few months later the FDA decides its to much like steroids and bans it.  so then you're not natural or semi-natural?

what do you guys think?


----------



## topolo (Apr 6, 2006)

Doctor X said:
			
		

> this is a tough topic.  i feel taking supplements (PHs) is not truly "natural", because you're giving your body a boost that it would not get from a normal diet.
> 
> But then if PHs are semi-natural and steroids are not natural, what happens when you're taking a supplement PH and then a few months later the FDA decides its to much like steroids and bans it.  so then you're not natural or semi-natural?
> 
> what do you guys think?



I think the thread is 3 years old.


----------



## GFR (Apr 9, 2006)

topolo said:
			
		

> I think the thread is 3 years old.


----------



## Pirate! (Apr 12, 2006)

topolo said:
			
		

> I think the thread is 3 years old.


Some people are just indecisive. Three years and it's still a tough topic.


----------



## topolo (Apr 13, 2006)




----------



## Nachez (Apr 18, 2006)

you want natural

bodybuilding and weight lifting in prison
thats natural


----------

