BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > General information > Articles on the Main Site
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 03-09-2016, 09:56 AM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 900
Default Do Drugs Only Help a Little?

Main Site
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread 03-10-2016, 09:47 AM
Toast Toast is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 93
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcdonald View Post
Great article Lyle. One thing the study missed with the 10% improvement is length of Career. For example, MMA. Guys in MMA (one the most grueling and dangerous sports), are competing until 40 at a high level and are in the best shape of their lives. So the 10% sounds correct until you go past the normal age one is expected to compete. At that point it becomes the difference between competing and not competing at all.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 03-10-2016, 10:07 AM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toast View Post
Great article Lyle. One thing the study missed with the 10% improvement is length of Career. For example, MMA. Guys in MMA (one the most grueling and dangerous sports), are competing until 40 at a high level and are in the best shape of their lives. So the 10% sounds correct until you go past the normal age one is expected to compete. At that point it becomes the difference between competing and not competing at all.
Not even remotely relevant to my point. We can compare an 85 year old to a 25 year old too. But it has nothing to do with what I was saying.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 03-10-2016, 10:10 AM
Toast Toast is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 93
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcdonald View Post
Not even remotely relevant to my point. We can compare an 85 year old to a 25 year old too. But it has nothing to do with what I was saying.
I thought your point was that drugs help more than a little. If that isn't the case then yes I missed your point.

Last edited by Toast : 03-10-2016 at 10:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 03-11-2016, 08:19 PM
kdt kdt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 164
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toast View Post
I thought your point was that drugs help more than a little. If that isn't the case then yes I missed your point.
I read the point of the article as 10% sounds minimal as just a number (and is peddled as a justification for why drugs aren't the reason someone is very successful), but when put into real world meaning, 10% is HUGE, which I fully agree with. Everything gets exponentially harder at high levels and 10% difference could mean 100x more difficult to achieve.

titles/headers/semantics are probably a little confusing for the average reader who glosses over or jumps to the bottom.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread 03-12-2016, 07:44 AM
Magumi Magumi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 152
Default

Excellent article, as always. And besides the main argument, I really like the point about recovery and training capacity.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 03-23-2016, 07:11 PM
TripleH TripleH is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1
Default

Hi Lyle

Great article, but would drugs not contribute more to the bodybuilder's size once you adjust for skeleton and organ weight?

It appears you arrived at the 30-40% improvement figure as the difference between a maxed out natural and a maxed out juicer (280lbs - 185lbs = 95lbs; 95lbs / 280lbs = 33%).

However, if you assume that both bodybuilders have about 100lbs of skeleton and vital organ weight (just for ease of running the numbers), the difference drugs make is considerably greater.

Let's assume that drugs predominantly grow muscle (there may be some visceral organ growth or bone density increase, but let's assume this is minimal). In which instance the difference is between a natural bodybuilder carrying 85lbs of muscle (185lb total bodyweight - 100lbs of skeleton and vital organs) and a juicer carrying 180lbs of muscle (280lbs total bodyweight - 100lbs of skeleton and vital organs).

The difference in actual muscle carried would be 111% ((180lbs of juiced meat - 85lbs of natural meat =95lbs) / 85lbs = 111%). A massive advantage.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Unread 07-25-2016, 12:38 PM
OneAndOnly OneAndOnly is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 2
Default

From article: "Hell, consider that Bolt has run a 9.59, a 10% reduction in performance is a 10.51." I am not sure if I understant this correctly(non english speaker here) but do you suggest that he would run 10.51 without drugs?
He run 20.58 over 200m at age 16. Some people have just simply lots and lots and lots of talent.
Usain Bolt will be first with or without drugs.

There is no rule that drugs add 10% to result in every sport, maybe in weighlifting drugs add 10% but in majority of sports no.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Unread 07-26-2016, 07:54 AM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneAndOnly View Post
From article: "Hell, consider that Bolt has run a 9.59, a 10% reduction in performance is a 10.51." I am not sure if I understant this correctly(non english speaker here) but do you suggest that he would run 10.51 without drugs?
He run 20.58 over 200m at age 16. Some people have just simply lots and lots and lots of talent.
Usain Bolt will be first with or without drugs.

There is no rule that drugs add 10% to result in every sport, maybe in weighlifting drugs add 10% but in majority of sports no.
Not the point but thanks for playing anyhow.

The point is this: drugs change the game completely in every sport. Principles, not specifics, please.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Unread 07-26-2016, 10:46 AM
OneAndOnly OneAndOnly is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 2
Default

Yes I agree with your point.
Here is table of All-time women's shot put :
http://www.alltime-athletics.com/wshotok.htm
The best throw in 21century is in 79th place overall( she was later disqualified for doping anyway) !!
Most of the best throws are from 80s , the golden age of doping.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.