Jump to content

Steroids level the genetic playing field... or do they?


Pseudonym

Recommended Posts

There's a school of thought, usually in the pro-steroid camp, that says using steroids levels the genetic playing field. That with enough AAS and hard work, a scrawny weakling can compete on the same stage as a genetic monster.

 

There's another school of thought, often from anti-steroid campaigners, that says if that's the case, sport becomes simply about who's got the best pharmacist and access to the best drugs.

 

I was discussing this recently with a mate at a bodybuilding show (although it applies to other sports as well) and he had a slightly different take on it.

 

He pointed out that actually the limiting factor now - particularly in the pro levels - was not how much gear they could afford, or what they could get their hands on... It wasn't really even about how much their bodies grew from a cycle. Now, it's about whose body could tolerate the highest amounts of gear for the longest time.

 

So, once again, the genetic advantage does still exist... but maybe not in the way you'd first imagine!

 

What do you reckon? Discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as pro bb is concerned, I always felt let bodybuilders do their thing, whatever that may be. So if it's all about how much gear they take then let them do that, it's not media's buisness, not mine either. I guess this is where education comes into play, as too many teenagers aspire to become bbers / fitness models when they pick up weights, and they should be aware of what that really involves, so they can choose wether they want to fall into that trap or not. When I picked up weights I felt the same way, till I realised how disgusting bodybuilding can be at times. gymrats log etc.

This way, young uns will look towards healthy eating and responsible gear use for performance etc, rather than a bodybuilding lifestyle. Most anti steroid people are beta fucks anyway.

 

Although I have to agree, they certainly do level the playing field by allowing people to reach goals they would not be able to do otherwise, e.g zyzz, leeroid me etc, and it's probably the main reason a lot of people want to take gear anyway, so it's really something anti betas need to consider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genetics still has a major factor, just not is much in NZ amateur ranks since we have hardly any mass monsters. So if one guy in nz had shit genetics but took lots if gear and stood on stage peeled, and huge, even with an ugly physique he would probably turn pro.

Now switch to the pro ranks, and the top guys were winning mr junior universe, or other national/international shows. A lot of them turning pro at as young as 24 years old, and have consistently improved and maintained a high level as a bodybuilder. Sure, doses probably increased, but that's a given, and without knowing how much they actually use, it's hard to say how much it plays a part. I mean, I'm sure there are pros using twice as much as Phil Heath who can't even place top 5 in a qualifier

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a school of thought, usually in the pro-steroid camp, that says using steroids levels the genetic playing field. That with enough AAS and hard work, a scrawny weakling can compete on the same stage as a genetic monster.

 

There's another school of thought, often from anti-steroid campaigners, that says if that's the case, sport becomes simply about who's got the best pharmacist and access to the best drugs.

 

I was discussing this recently with a mate at a bodybuilding show (although it applies to other sports as well) and he had a slightly different take on it.

 

He pointed out that actually the limiting factor now - particularly in the pro levels - was not how much gear they could afford, or what they could get their hands on... It wasn't really even about how much their bodies grew from a cycle. Now, it's about whose body could tolerate the highest amounts of gear for the longest time.

 

So, once again, the genetic advantage does still exist... but maybe not in the way you'd first imagine!

 

What do you reckon? Discuss.

 

Similar was discussed recently on GH15, he reckons genetics play a huge part in obtaining size, but keeping that size is about tolerating huge doses of AAS, hGH, IGF-1 etc the longest.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it polarizes it. It's another avenue where somebody can have better genetics over someone else.

 

Is it another avenue? Are the genetics to tolerate those dosages different to the "get-big" genetics? Or is it the same people who have the genetics to grow also tend to tolerate more gear with less sides? ie, this just widens the existing gap further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it another avenue? Are the genetics to tolerate those dosages different to the "get-big" genetics? Or is it the same people who have the genetics to grow also tend to tolerate more gear with less sides? ie, this just widens the existing gap further.

genetics also play a part in how well one's androgen receptors function, transcription etc, how quickly your body reacts to changes in AAS levels (such as with myostain, catabolism etc) so you can be more gifted geneticly in how your body responds to AAS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me rephrase the question... I get that some people respond to AAS more than others. What I'm wondering is if those people are the ones who are likely to be biggest naturally anyway.

I sort of answered this but more so indirectly.

So yes, it really just widens the gap. You look at Flex Lewis when he was 16 for example his arms were huge and he was only playing rugby at the time!

Now if guys with worse genetics are willing to use more gear, train fucking hard and eat a lot i.e. Branch Warren (though I don't know what he uses) then they can be up on that stage and maybe even place top 5.

But for the most part, the guys with great natural genetics when they were teenagers seem to be the ones that are on the Olympia stage placing top 3 or even winning their respective class

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...
On 11/29/2014, 11:35:33, Pseudonym said:

There's a school of thought, usually in the pro-steroid camp, that says using steroids levels the genetic playing field. That with enough AAS and hard work, a scrawny weakling can compete on the same stage as a genetic monster.

 

 

 

 

There's another school of thought, often from anti-steroid campaigners, that says if that's the case, sport becomes simply about who's got the best pharmacist and access to the best drugs.

 

 

 

 

 

I was discussing this recently with a mate at a bodybuilding show (although it applies to other sports as well) and he had a slightly different take on it.

 

 

 

 

 

He pointed out that actually the limiting factor now - particularly in the pro levels - was not how much gear they could afford, or what they could get their hands on... It wasn't really even about how much their bodies grew from a cycle. Now, it's about whose body could tolerate the highest amounts of gear for the longest time.

 

 

 

 

 

So, once again, the genetic advantage does still exist... but maybe not in the way you'd first imagine!

 

 

 

 

 

What do you reckon? Discuss.

 

Sorry for digging up old thread I am new, just discussing this on a ride other day. In the cycling world at pro level the short answer is no, no matter what you give or how hard you train a donkey it will never be a race horse.

That said the pro bike racing ball park has always been considered a level playing field that has been known to change its own goal post. Most of the riders are on some kind of program, the programs dont differ that much from each other, however for sure some guys (like LA) body's will respond and handle "stuff" better than others. 

With all the heat pro cycling gets atm, my feeling is that sure the level of doping is far less or as they call it now micro dosing. This gives the clean genetically gifted guys better odds against the less gifted riders. 

Most sports should follow what the body builders do, have a juiced and non juiced category. Set some goal posts for the juiced guys to keep the athletes safe from themselves, cause lets face it pro sports is about entertainment and money for sponsors so they are going to do it anyway. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they don't level the playing field especially in bodybuilding. Guys who are going to be great show that potential very early on. Yes a guy with lesser genetics can grow and be shredded but someone who is genetically bigger with better shape is going to beat him. I think it's pretty funny when people use Branch Warren as an example of someone with bad genetics lol ummm he was a teenage national champion.. he doesn't have the best genetic structure but make no mistake about his ability to put on muscle and be lean. Add steroids and that genetic difference becomes even more apparent. 

 

Guys who don't have the best genetics and make up for that shortcoming with huge amounts of gear... so if we say someone like a Dave Palumbo... well they get onstage with a guy who's genetically superior and they lose. Even if that guy doesn't have the same muscle or even the same condition. 

 

The idea that it's just about being able to stand huge doses for a long time is... well it's stupid in my opinion. I understand people not wanting to admit to themselves that it just isn't going to happen to the degree they want it to. But that doesn't mean it isn't stupid lol 

 

The constant search for the "secret" drug or formula of drugs that equal a Mr Olympia physique I guess is why people take more and more gear. If it was just about the drugs all the geniuses on the Internet would be champions... suprisingly... that's not the case :)

 

Strength sports and endurance sports I'd imagine are the same. Someone who is naturally strong will always have the advantage over someone who isn't. Drugs or no drugs. Of course a weak guy can become amazingly strong for his frame and weight and blah blah blah 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, HarryB said:

Strength sports and endurance sports I'd imagine are the same. Someone who is naturally strong will always have the advantage over someone who isn't. Drugs or no drugs. Of course a weak guy can become amazingly strong for his frame and weight and blah blah blah 

 

This. My mate who is a labourer for a job. Natty. Big frame like a giant, naturally very strong. Starts lifting. 3 months later he squats 4 plates, bench 3 plates, deadlifts 5.  Goes gym twice a week and maxes every session. Has no idea. Add proper training he would be great (too lazy tho). Add drugs even better. 

 

Some people are just born strong or at least predisposed to get strong easily. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29 November 2015 at 3:01:18 PM, maccaz said:

 

This. My mate who is a labourer for a job. Natty. Big frame like a giant, naturally very strong. Starts lifting. 3 months later he squats 4 plates, bench 3 plates, deadlifts 5.  Goes gym twice a week and maxes every session. Has no idea. Add proper training he would be great (too lazy tho). Add drugs even better. 

 

Some people are just born strong or at least predisposed to get strong easily. 

 

I would say one of the greatest genetic gifts would be to actually have a solid training ethic.  

 

The 'do whatever it takes' mentality you see so much from young guys these days rarely stretches to Mobility, programming and working on weaknesses...

 

Don't care much for guys who have a lot of potential but can't train for shit.  Show me a guy who is starting from a lower base but can train balls to the wall any day.  He will go further

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, soundsgood said:

 

I would say one of the greatest genetic gifts would be to actually have a solid training ethic.  

 

The 'do whatever it takes' mentality you see so much from young guys these days rarely stretches to Mobility, programming and working on weaknesses...

 

Don't care much for guys who have a lot of potential but can't train for shit.  Show me a go who is starting from a lower base but can train balls to the wall any day.  He will go further

Only to a certain degree... hard work and drive and drugs will get you a long way... but it isn't going to make you stronger or bigger than someone who's just got better genetics. Scary is when you see the guys with crazy genetics and they couple that with work ethic and drugs. At the pinnacle it's always the cream who win but lower down yeah... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genetics will only get you so far for sure, still gotta have  good training ethics competing at the top of any sport. Cycling is unusual in that not always the strongest guy or girl wins, every dog has his day when everything comes together sprinkled with some luck.

Seems like there is a mold you have to start with to have a chance in bodybuilding, but I havent a clue about that sport. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, atlarge said:

Genetics will only get you so far for sure, still gotta have  good training ethics competing at the top of any sport. Cycling is unusual in that not always the strongest guy or girl wins, every dog has his day when everything comes together sprinkled with some luck.

Seems like there is a mold you have to start with to have a chance in bodybuilding, but I havent a clue about that sport. 

 

 

 

Absolutely but in the context if this topic.. steroids do not even the playing field. They just add another genetic factor, how your body takes on steroids and to what degree they work on you as an individual. 2 guys doing exactly the same things in any sport rarely get the same result. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...


  • Popular Contributors

    Nobody has received reputation this week.

×
×
  • Create New...