A skinny wolf

[zillagraybeard]

You can take grams of gear and if you don't get the food in, nothing much is going to happen. You have to feed the machine to grow.

[Dawgpound_Hank]

You can take grams of gear and if you don't get the food in, nothing much is going to happen. You have to feed the machine to grow.

No offense, but this is not true, and I get tried of hearing it over the years. To epitomize gains, then I agree with you 100%. But to say "nothing much is going to happen" if you don't eat enough is bs. Read the post previous to yours by Rough. I am the exact same as Rough, as I would think many are. If I am ON, I can eat like complete shit - as in not near enough cals, and the gains I make will still dwarf any gains I made while OFF and eating like a horse. Even a hard gainer will see SOMETHING in terms of gains if he is ON and not eating right.

Let me add that I think it would be foolish for a guy to not eat on point while on cycle. I mean we want the most gains we can get right? However, there have been a few cycles that I merely could NOT eat right due to working long hours on a physical job in the heat of summer, and my appetite was complete shit bcoz if it. All I wanted to do on break was to drink a Gatorade or whateva. Also couldn't hit the gym but like 2-3x a week bcoz of the same circumstances. And yet, my gains were still far and above had I been OFF & training and eating on point.

[Dakota]

Much of it depends on how big of cycle a guy is running. I think that's why we see alot of pros who come off or trt lose a shitload of size. They are running some serious cycles. Speaking for myself, first cycle was a simple test 500mg ew took me from 240 to 254. However when I ran my biggest cycle ever of test 750, deca 500, tren e 400 & M1T I got up to close to 280. That's 40lbs up from natty, and that's what about 16-17% gain? And that's under 2g ew - I can't imagine if the doses were quite higher, with gh and slin in there - prolly 300? Now your talking 25%. So if going by just scale weight in your example, the potential is there to be a shitload more with larger doses - which of course applies to the pros cycles. Btw that was 15 years back - I don't even touch that amount these days haha.

p.s - I get you was talking about the average Joe. I am talking about pros, hence the Wolf vid initially. They get a shitload more than a 5-10% boost.

I think a large difference is our views is the average joe vs a pro. Also thought I think you are talking weight gain and I am speaking lean muscle. If I throw in Dbol with a heavy test and deca cycle I have no doubt I could hit 220 again. But how much of that is water and not muscle?

[Dakota]

[B][B]

I will use my own experiences as my examples. I eat the same year round. Sometimes I get sloppy by adding cake or pie, but that is not an every day thing. I'm pretty much a meat and either rice or some form of potatoes with a green veggie in there guy. Two large meals a day and an average breakfast. I'm taking in 3000 to 3500 calories a day. I weight train four or five times a week. Always the same. Sometimes I may do more reps if I'm not drained from work, or if I've busted my butt in the heat all day my rep ranges may be fewer. No matter what I'm running.
On average I'm between 235-245.
If I begin doing 750mg test a week, 600 mg deca a week, 100 mg tbol ed, I, on the same diet, same training regimen will easily go up to 275-280 with bf in the teens.
Now if i want to push it i throw in my insulin and hgh, i could easily hit 300lbs lean. But why?
What's the difference? The steroids and other growth factors.
That's been my personal experience. I've never been 300 lbs. Hell at my height at 280, which I have hit and maintained, I look freakish enough. If after years of use you can only gain 20 lbs, and i mean absolutely no disrespect, something ain't right. Naturally you can gain and keep about 5 lbs of muscle a year if that your goal.
It's not my intent to disrespect anyones opinion. But I know my experience.

I think we are apples and oranges. I am talking about lean muscle gain not weight gain. Pro blast up to 300 lbs and then compete 50-60lbs lighter when they take of the fat and water.

I lose very little when I come off cycle but I don't do heavy cycles. If I used drol or dbol I could put on a lot more weight and size but is it lean muscle? or is it bloated muscle and body fat?

In my 30s I used Dbol and Dr prescribed deca and test to get up to 220 but I am sure I didn't have 30lbs more muscle than I have now. Weight vs muscle. I also hated the way I felt at 220. Watch the weight ins for the Olympias back in the 80s. A lot of the guys were 200 to 215.

[Ripitup]

I don't think I agree with the 5-10%, but I also don't agree with the 50% either. It's probably somewhere in the middle. Genetics definitely play a large role. What I definitely agree with is that even if you take steroids you have to work your ass off. You can't just take steroids and each chips on the couch every day. However, the ignorant people think that's how it works. They don't know how much work we put into, in my case, just staying healthy and strong.

[Roughrydr]

Dakota, if you add insulin and growth hormone the lean size comes. Please keep in mind I'm not talking about .10 cc of slin and .4iu's of gh a day. Triple that. Quadruple that. I'm telling you with your exact same daily diet, and your exact same training routine you will see massive lean gains for as long as you stay on. Some of it will stay with you. I was 145 in my early 20's. Now in my early 60's I'm an average 240 very lean. But my point is gh is the key as well as massive cycles. Am I saying anyone can achieve an ifbb type body? Yep. Right training,
right diet and right drugs. That said I will modify the 50% claim to 40%.

Dakota says: (lol)

I might be more accepting of your point of view if you use all the advanced gear. But for average Joe's like me, I am not going to mess with slin. I am not going to compete. Also a lot of the opinion is that it is Slin that actually the cause of "gh gut". Yates has and inteview that he insists that is the case

Bottom line, could I be 5'8" 250lber? Yes probably, if was willing to step that far out on the thin ice. I think that gear heads like me that use 500 to 600 mg a week max with an Meso body type just don't have the genetics to get there without mega dosing everything including heavy amounts of slin and gh. I run gh at 2 iu a day and I am happy with the results. I usually gain 10-12 lbs on a cycle and give back 4 or 5. I am not unhappy with that.

I also dieted WAY down this year to my lowest weight in 20 years and gained 17 on cycle after that. I only lost about 6 or 7. This cycle I am hardly putting on any "weight" but the mirror is telling a good story. Midsection leaning and my traps and lats have really jumped up. I like having more muscularity.

It has so much to do with goals, what you are willing to do to get there, and as well has the enhancement you are willing to undertake. I have no reason to be 220 -230. It would be unhealthy at my size and I probably would not look as good as I can at 200.

[Roughrydr]

Dakota. I'm assuming that's you?

[Massive G]

My personal experience is gear is pretty much the game changer...I started messing with weights at 15 at 165, not much concentration curls plastic concrete weight bench presses, played around in school on universal machines, and played baseball football and wrestled.
By Senior I was 185, started serious body buliding in college and after 4 years was 220 -230. Biggest problem for me was recoup. Very fine line between gains and OT'ing.

Started very mildly with test and was up to solid 240 in no time. Felt like superman off 200 mg test. Cycles were really small and gains were on par with my diet - which I was eating to stay lean.
Back then 240 was huge, and no need to push it further.

During this period steroids were in very short supply and very expensive for people like me living in a small town on the east coast so for about 4 years they were small cycles - it wasn't until late 90's early 2000's I got connected on the net and started doing bigger longer cycles-hit 290 in few years, after adding GH and slin ended up at a peak 320 at the very end with an average cycle being 300 mg tren 600 mg deca and 800 mg test blend, GH 18 iu's every third day and 20 ius R after workout.

Never could tolerate orals, never need anti-e's and to note each time I did a bigger cycle I also trained heavier and heavier and reduced volume and added food, sometimes 8-10 meals a day. I lost my thyroid in 2005 and tore my knee slipping off a staircase, and that changed everything. No more competition dreams.

Reduced cycles to only 600 mg per week with small amounts of GH and insulin. HRT was 100 mg every 5 days.

Probably 5 or 6 years ago I tried sub-q shots and respond very well to them, and will sometimes add in tiny amounts of other non testosterone esters and love any type of test ester. I do GH in very small amounts from time to time, and no insulin for many years.

As I get older the gear becomes more and more important as the metabolism changes a lot

Funny fast forward to today and the options seemed limitless there were so many things I never tried that are available now...just was born too late. LOL Plus I take 1000's times more supplements than I did back then, workout drink if lucky was a super tea or carbo force and later on a designer whey.

[Roughrydr]

Dakota, Thanks for putting your post on mine. Hopefully it's not confusing for others. Two contradicting views on the same post.
Now to my comment. We WERE talking about pro bodybuilders, not the average Joe. At least that was my impression by the skinny wolf title then ensuing comments. And I stand by my both assertion and experience that drugs play a massive role in size, density, leanness, vascularity, etc. Way way more than 10%.
I also should note, that my basic assumption was that diet and training were in place. The logic being that if you are spending $2,000 plus a month on gear you are going to be training hard and eating right.

[Dawgpound_Hank]

Dakota, Thanks for putting your post on mine. Hopefully it's not confusing for others.

LOL it was for me! I was scratching my head until I just read your latest post, then seen Dakota added to your other post. Perhaps he meant to edit his own post and had a brain fart & edited yours.

[Roughrydr]

probably meant to quote instead of edit. Just like I didnt mean to underline this. Oh well. What do you do.
All that aside I've enjoyed this debate. And I'm right while all who disagree are wrong. : )

[Dakota]

Just a case of clumsy fingers.

But is good to know that I can still pack on another 80lbs of muscle if I just up my weekly dose of gear.

PS, Danny Padilla was 175lbs. Franco Columbo 185 lb. They should have had a better work ethic I guess.

[Dawgpound_Hank]

Just a case of clumsy fingers.

But is good to know that I can still pack on another 80lbs of muscle if I just up my weekly dose of gear.

PS, Danny Padilla was 175lbs. He should have had a better work ethic I guess.

That's why they called him the Giant Killer - 175 @ 5'2 and shredded. Also uncrowned 1981 Mr Olympia.

[Roughrydr]

Both Danny and Franco were freaks no doubt. Flex Wheeler started in his first Olympia at 185 looking large and in charge. Then along came Dorian Yates. Then Ronnie Coleman. I wonder how Danny and Franco would do against them. Things changed. Knowledge has increased. It's not all about busting hutt in the gum and eating steak. Fish and chicken every day 8 times a day, although that is important too. Look at the medical and agricultural uses of gh. Undersized kids dont work out yet they experience massive growth. I've never seen a cow in the gum yet they experience massive growth. And that has been my point from post one. Drugs are a lot more of the equation now than they used to be. How many interviews have you seen from the old pros who say the bodybuilders of this day and age are lazy and dont have the work ethic that existed in their day because of the drugs?

[Dawgpound_Hank]

Both Danny and Franco were freaks no doubt. Flex Wheeler started in his first Olympia at 185 looking large and in charge. Then along came Dorian Yates. Then Ronnie Coleman. I wonder how Danny and Franco would do against them. Things changed. Knowledge has increased. It's not all about busting hutt in the gum and eating steak. Fish and chicken every day 8 times a day, although that is important too. Look at the medical and agricultural uses of gh. Undersized kids dont work out yet they experience massive growth. I've never seen a cow in the gum yet they experience massive growth. And that has been my point from post one. Drugs are a lot more of the equation now than they used to be. How many interviews have you seen from the old pros who say the bodybuilders of this day and age are lazy and dont have the work ethic that existed in their day because of the drugs?

Flex was 215 at his first O.

Yates and Coleman at their best would completely own Padilla and Franco at their best. Arnold too. But very unfair comparison due to the different eras. Most people like to do their comparisons by bringing one of the best from the past to current times and then debate it. I like to do the opposite - I like to put the current guy back to the old era and speculate. Put a prime Ronnie and Yates in a time machine back to 1971 - 1974, and see how they would fare given the drugs available, supps available, etc. Being that the emphasis was much less on legs and back regarding judging, would Ron or Dorian have even busted ass nearly as much as more present times? Think about that - we may have never seen such freakish backs on either of the two had they been around back then due to the times and what was in vogue. End of the day, IMO, I think Arnold would have dominated both of them. JMO.