Steroids absolutely make a massive difference. I am on TRT for a medical reason that is not related to prior steroid abuse - I've never used them. However in an inpatient facility for 8 weeks, a doctor was giving me 150mg of test per week to establish a baseline TRT dose and my blood levels of test were at the top (but within bounds) of the reference range and I have dexa scans that show I put on 14lbs of lean mass in 2 months. From 150mg which isn't even the highest TRT dose! These guys take orders of magnitude more than that. I couldn't handle the side effects at even that dose. I currently only take 50mg/week and find its equivalent to how I recovered prior to having the medical issue. Most guys on TRT take 100-200mg so maybe I am a "hyper responder" but I dno. I think anyone hyper responds to steroids. I mean, the dose matters, but they are all taking massive quantities.
@@EnkiriElite the one benefit to TRT even at equivalent T blood levels to when I was young and healthy is that it's not effected by habits. If I decided to fk off and drink 9 beers, eat like shit and not sleep, my test isn't going to crash as long as I'm still taking it regularly. It's definitely a benefit. I truly don't think at the levels I'm at I'm getting anything truly special but.. if I was 41 and my test levels are at that of a 21 year olds and I've got all that experience on my side, Or if I took the original dose they wanted me on where I was at the top of natural range... it starts to add up. I also don't believe most guys who say they're on TRT only. They're really on like 250-300mg a lot of the time, which is absolutely supraphysiolgical. It's also really not fun having to stick yourself and plan for trips with this stuff and go to clinics asking for needles and looking like a junkie all the time... if I didn't absolutely need this, I would not want to be on it 100%.
People underestimate the benefits of just having stable test levels. However 14lb within 2 months tells me that your test levels were abysmally low to begin with and you having high natural test levels wouldn't of had such great results.
@stevenhewes1990 definitely this is the case because if I go out drinking or have shitty sleep or whatever else, I don't suffer from a big dip like most people (although my habits are generally pretty good these days). Some of it was definitely regaining/"muscle memory" gains since I was still below my PRs when I left the centre by a decent amount, but I have fallen off track before and come back and never came back that fast... maybe half that speed. I have always had an easy time gaining muscle and a hard time losing weight, but still. And yes, you are correct they were literally so low, that when they tested them the first time, they thought they accidentally exchanged my results with the one female-to-male trans person that was also at the centre... so a biological woman. I was low double digits on the reference range which is somewherr around 300-1000 ng/dl. But my lifts going in would've still been novice-intermediate, so the effect was huge considering all this
@@Dementia.Pugilistica I think for relatively young men who have normal levels of testosterone something like that is not going to have much of an impact. What you were on probably put you something in the top 5% for young men, so to go from low levels to something like that would realistically make you gain muscle, even if you technically were within a normal range for a human male. With this out of the way, steroids makes a massive difference, as we can see with this video. I knew someone from the gym a few years ago that had a very solid base from lifting for several years. He was somewhere around 5'11" or so, around 210 lbs. and had a max bench of around 315 and a max deadlift around 500. I remember when he went on his first cycle, I don't know exactly what it was but it was something pretty moderate, and the results were incredible. In a span of less than 6 months he ended up ballooning to about 270 lbs., he basically maintained the same body fat percentage and just gained a bunch of muscle. I remember seeing him easily bench 315 for 10 reps and deadlift 500 for 10 reps. This guy, that already had a very solid base of training, made progress that would honestly make noob gains look inconsequential lol.
Never underestimate the lengths many users will go to downplay the effectiveness of gear. They want to be special and unique, and keeping that status requires making sure the general public thinks it's all genetics and hard work, as opposed to pumping yourself full of anabolic compounds 24/7.
I think it was one of the Soviet weightlifting champions who said that you could win a medal clean but you couldn't train to do so clean. It might seem that those are the same thing, but they aren't. Olympic weightlifting is a very specific skill that requires a lot of practice but it also is a strength sport that is extraordinarily taxing. Getting in a lot of reps and being able to recover from them is the name of the game. Like, if you had to practice enough to get an extraordinarily fast and accurate tennis serve but also had to do so while having a 50 lb dumbbell duct taped to your wrist, you'd basically have to take drugs to get really good at it then. So even if it only gave you a 10% greater total ceiling of physical capacity, you also have to consider that it would let you do so while training twice as long or twice as often which is absolutely invaluable in anything requiring skill
Very true! The training itself is both more important and more taxing than competition due to the unrelenting nature of the beast....you always have to keep on pushing to keep on progressing! That said, out of competition testing could also potentially change this concept wherein you are likely having to get so creative to duck those tests *anyway* that its quite possible thst whayever you are already on anywah you csn remain on throughout the comp period. Seems like this may have been the case when half the Russian team pulled out of the Olympics at the last minute a few years ago, causing klokov to miss his final Olympics! They thought they were safe with whatever their protocol was, found out they weren't, and then bailed last minute because of it.
It is a little disingenuous using those at the peak of human performance in their respective field. Of course PEDs are most certainly needed at this point.
Also its important to keep in mind that even if former steroid users come off gear, they will still retain some strength and size advantage compared to their lifetime natural counterparts so when you account for that its more like a 50% drop on average
It's even more significant than that. Steroids increase myonuclei, which permanently increases a person's capacity for muscle development. Someone could literally take steroids, not train at all, stop taking steroids, and then start training a few years later and they will have an advantage over someone who never took steroids in their lifetime.
@@stayontrack usually returns to normal given enough time. Your body's quite smart. That is unless you've done permanent damage to yourself with abuse just like with any other drug.
@@EnkiriElite one question about your conjugate program which I started about two weeks ago. In case I dont feel 100% recovered, would you recommend cutting back the volume or spread the 4 days over a Mo-We-Fri-Mo shedule...? Related to this video I might ask for an alternative to start Taking peds 😁
@@pierre-renepeitzmeier7984 I think you could do either one! Whichever you find more preferable. I am biased towards 7 day weeks to keep everything lined up on the same day each week, so I am personally more inclined to cut the workload. But if you don't mind running an 8 or 9 day microcycle then there's no reason you can't just extend it out!
Alec is like that kid from the movie Bad News Bears. I can't remember his name the conversation perfectly encapsulates him "What happened to you?" "Got in a fight" "With who?" "The eighth grade...."
At 65, never injected steroids or heroin or bleach or anything. Sustained strength and speed training with sustained implementation of learning seems to have enhanced, then maintained my endocrine system for a long time. I don't understand why people throw their endocrine systems in the garbage for weight on the bar. For me at this point, lifting for 52 years seems to have been enhancing my body's own natural ability to rapidly deconstruct damaged tissue, get rid of the harmful bits, and build new tissue. This turns out to have been the primary benefit of drug-free training, nutrition, and sleep. Trying on purpose to degrade this ability seems really short sighted.
There are people I respect who become annoying when they push that "steroids only grant a 15% improvement at most" crap while being the size of 2-3 people and heads as red as a tomato or sporting the iconic skull horns from GH abuse. Also, I don't think Liu or Pete or any other previous user can ever be called "natural" anymore or have their future training results be a true indication of their training as a natural because they've permanently been enhanced by the gear and the gains made during their prolonged gear usage. Muscle memory is a hell of a thing and I wouldn't be surprised if roids permanently help push people past the "edge" if they come off it in a smart way like Pete (nothing against him, hes a pretty decent guy but I don't think he should be claiming natural like he does now). THAT is probably the "15%" that keeps getting touted.
Wasn't there a study that showed a group who didn't workout and did steroids built more muscle than another group who worked out but didn't take steroids?
A good example of on and off PEDS is grappling superstar Gordon Ryan. He posted on and off photos and there is a day and night difference between the two. I remember an article by a guy on the juice and he was honest enough to admit that roids put almost 40 percent on his squat and deadlift. The benefits in recovery alone are enough for most athletes to want to use them.
I can tell you from both sides of the coin. Ped's make a massive difference to your performance. It literally night and day. And I've seen the same in other people who lift weights. That's from a 51 year old man with 35 years of being in the lifting game.
I’ve always believed that there is a genetic response aspect to PEDs. Yeah for some people, they could very well get fuckall out of them if they took them, while others could go from a Minecraft skeleton to literally Hercules.
I think there's just a lot more variability in response, so giving an average benefit of 10% in strength gains isn't the best statistic. If you're a dialed in natty who knows how to eat, train, and recover, 10% seems way too low for strength gains even if you don't have elite genetics. Also, a lot of people are probably taking trash quality gear since it's illegal and not standardized. I would bet that if everyone were on the pharma grade stuff those bodybuilders are getting in Kuwait, they'd be seeing much more substantial gains. Size is an entirely different animal. Steroids absolutely increase your size more than 10%. You have Olympia competitors walking around at 320 lb in the offseason in the 10-15% bodyfat range. Natty they'd be what, maybe 240 lb at similar composition (these guys are usually freak natties)? However, there are certainly people who don't respond well, but they don't respond well to training in general. They're outliers on the bottom end. Also, some people can't tolerate them from side effects so never are able to push their dosages to "optimal" levels for peak strength benefits. Pete Rubish is an excellent case study. He almost pulled 700 lb at 238 lb in his meet last year, so even if you use that as an example, we're looking at over 30% increase on peak gear. Plus he's older now and still training hard! He should be stronger, maybe he'd pull 945 or higher on gear now.
Exactly! You absolutely cannot try to create some sort of averaged out standardization because the degree of variability seems to be so high likely based on a whole host of factors. But just with that level of variance alone making those claims is silly because they automatically become moot when the high responders more than double all of their natty gains.
I would like to point out that it is so annoying when people misuse the whole 10% strength increase quote. The quote was from incredibly well respected researchers Greg nuckols (I think that's how his last name is spelled) and the quote was not "yeah bro PEDs only give a 10% strength increase" the actual quote was "PEDs give you a 10% increase on RELATIVE strength". Relative being the word that always seems to get left out. So for example. Let's talk about clarence kennedy. Someone who I think is one of the few people I would bet my life savings on, actually hopped on gear when he said he did. He had borderline Olympian tier genetics and squatted around 265kg natty. When he jumped on, he went on to squat around 310. That's around a 45 kg jump or a near 20% increase in his squat. Now you look at that and say "see! The 10% quote is BS!" Again, RELATIVE STRENGTH. If you've kept up with clarence you'd know when he squatted 265 his bw was around 85kg. When he squatted 300+ his bw was around 100 from the muscle mass gained from PEDs. So it is completely stupid and useless to compare his natty and juiced numbers because THEY WERE AT DIFFERENT BW and hence not RELATIVE strength. A fair comparison would have been to compare juiced clarence to a natty 100kg guy with Olympian tier genetics. Something that can probably never happen because we just don't know if they're telling the truth or not unless they're in a situation like clarence. Anyway enough ranting. I'm one of the people who actually believes the 10% quote (the real quote about relative strength not yeah bro only gives a 10% general increase) and just wanting to clear up the confusion and hopefully teach another person of the actual quote. And also Greg does point out how PEDs might only give you a 10% relative increase on strength but basically doubles your gains on average when talking about size so you are correct on that point
How much do they matter? More than anyone on them will admit too, they can take a fairly average guy like apparently Pete is (maybe a little above average but given training age, I'll stick to average) and turn them into a world class powerlifter.
Lowest decrease ive seen from gear is 30% all the way upwards of about 60%, hell there is a guy in my gym who changed gyms cause he is taking time off gear completely he doesnt want to be there when he is not blasting tren. Because without it he actually lifts about 45% less, so his 200kg bench on mega does tren becomes about a 115 kg bench so he goes from a monster bench to a bench that could be reached by any dude with average genetics.
Honestly anyone with 2 Brian cells could figure it out Natrual bodybuilders vs enhanced bodybuilders it’s a huge fucking difference Enhanced guys often have 50lb+ over natrual competitors of stage weight
bostyn lloyd's one year transformation proves that peds do all the work. In one year he achieved a physique that is not attainable naturally. So if the stack is right it does all the work. Yea yea, you still need to work out, but everyone works out, but folks on peds grow that much easier
Tbf a 170kg cpean dl or 150kg squat atg arent anything to scoff at at all. Most powerlifters sumo pulling 500 and squatting 450 parallel low bar couldnt do those
In strength sport a lot of the knowledge that’s been passed down seems to come from people who were on PEDs. That’s not to say it doesn’t work but it makes it hard to decipher exactly how effective these methods are. PED use really makes the target a lot bigger in terms of how you respond. If you’re a natural athlete bumping up against the so-called “genetic ceiling of your potential”you’re going to have to be more on-point with all your variables.
I've always been annoyed by those "PEDs only help 10%!" figure. There's so many "buts" about this number: 1) It compares the strongest guys of a weightclass to each other, but PEDs make you gain a ton of muscle (plus a lot of water weight for some of those compounds). 2) Since it compares only the strongest people at a weight class, you already know they will fill out the weight class very well. So steroids can only make you have more muscle at a same bodyweight (lower bodyfat) or have shorter people have the same amount of mass as a larger person (so better, smaller leverages). Way different than weighing 30kg at the same bf% because of years on tren. 3) A lot of fake natties muddy those statistics, even if thy aren't as common as they used to, they still exist, so the figure is lowballed a little bit at the very least 4) It compares people who use vs don't use PEDs in a binary way, when different amounts of drugs will give you different results. If you've done small cycles of anavar/testosterone/SARMs and then stopped, you're not natty anymore, and you therefore lower the average of everyone else in the PED group.
Just putting this here cause I knew there would be lots of people misusing the 10% quote: I would like to point out that it is so annoying when people misuse the whole 10% strength increase quote. The quote was from incredibly well respected researchers Greg nuckols (I think that's how his last name is spelled) and the quote was not "yeah bro PEDs only give a 10% strength increase" the actual quote was "PEDs give you a 10% increase on RELATIVE strength". Relative being the word that always seems to get left out. So for example. Let's talk about clarence kennedy. Someone who I think is one of the few people I would bet my life savings on, actually hopped on gear when he said he did. He had borderline Olympian tier genetics and squatted around 265kg natty. When he jumped on, he went on to squat around 310. That's around a 45 kg jump or a near 20% increase in his squat. Now you look at that and say "see! The 10% quote is BS!" Again, RELATIVE STRENGTH. If you've kept up with clarence you'd know when he squatted 265 his bw was around 85kg. When he squatted 300+ his bw was around 100 from the muscle mass gained from PEDs. So it is completely stupid and useless to compare his natty and juiced numbers because THEY WERE AT DIFFERENT BW and hence not RELATIVE strength. A fair comparison would have been to compare juiced clarence to a natty 100kg guy with Olympian tier genetics. Something that can probably never happen because we just don't know if they're telling the truth or not unless they're in a situation like clarence. Anyway enough ranting. I'm one of the people who actually believes the 10% quote (the real quote about relative strength not yeah bro only gives a 10% general increase) and just wanting to clear up the confusion and hopefully teach another person of the actual quote.
@@samj8932 "See guys? Steroids don't actually help that much because it actually adds a lot of bodyweight, meaning your 300+lbs added to your deadlift is less impressive now because I'm using a buzzword that says so."
@@radalexander7160 I was at a 285lb bench before, but my nutrition was crap at that time and training like an idiot, so I know I was not at any kind of genetic limit. I had 2 other gym buddies that ran the same cycle with me and their bench gains were much smaller, so the genetic component was very clear to me also
I don't think i would hyper respond to PED use but I kno for certain i would look very different after the many years of weight training I've done. Bigger isn't Better, my hypertrophy is free from & free hold.
one thing to point out that you didn't is that lu wasn't just taking regular steroids/PEDs. he was sponsored by the chinese government, and they have access to classified performance enhancing drugs that are not available to the average recreational steroid abuser. so when he went off whatever he was on, it wasn't like a regular PED user going off of them. he was going off of something much more powerful than typical PEDs. how else could he have been so dominant over everyone using regular PEDs (even though he was lighter and older than everyone he was beating in the olympics, while still being much stronger) if he didn't have access to secret, even more powerful ones? and those unknown ones have withdrawal effects that are unknown to us.
Guys like Pete and Lu deserve nothing but immense respect for their honesty. It’s good for people, especially young dudes/girls to see. I think we all went through a “man I suck compared to these guys” stage when we were younger due to the sheer ridiculousness of physiques and strength roid users obtain.
was lu xiaojun's post steroid training honesty or just videos someone posted? i don't remember him saying much about them and he definitely didn't say anything about steroids, lol
That Lu thing is so insane. He actually became soo insanely weak for his standards. So sad for German weightlifters like Max Lang. They have insane talent, but not the PED support.
Hey Alec, I was wondering how you would go about programming for powerlifting? What is the best frequency for each lift, and are there any programs you recommend?
There is evidence that taking PEDs has lasting effects that make users permanently stronger and larger than people who don't take drugs. Would Lu Xiaojun have made a 300 lbs squat, if he'd never used drugs?
They work good enough that l have been told by guys using ped's that they were NEVER going to stop using, one person l know has been "on" for at least 15 years, so he was definitely serious
10% seems to be too little of a difference, especially for the powerlifts, because they strongly correlate with bodyweight. since weightlifting is more about mobility and speed and less about strength, 10% makes more sense and i think lu could have snatched 150 natty. if you look at clarence , he also snatched like 160 natty and 185 on gear so thats closer to 20% but clarence was still very young when he started roiding (22) so he would have definitely snatched 170 natty which fits well with 10%.
This was my reply to another post but I'll post it here because I knew for a fact there would be people misusing the 10% quote in the comments. When you consider this, his increase in the olympic lifts makes sense: I would like to point out that it is so annoying when people misuse the whole 10% strength increase quote. The quote was from incredibly well respected researchers Greg nuckols (I think that's how his last name is spelled) and the quote was not "yeah bro PEDs only give a 10% strength increase" the actual quote was "PEDs give you a 10% increase on RELATIVE strength". Relative being the word that always seems to get left out. So for example. Let's talk about clarence kennedy. Someone who I think is one of the few people I would bet my life savings on, actually hopped on gear when he said he did. He had borderline Olympian tier genetics and squatted around 265kg natty. When he jumped on, he went on to squat around 310. That's around a 45 kg jump or a near 20% increase in his squat. Now you look at that and say "see! The 10% quote is BS!" Again, RELATIVE STRENGTH. If you've kept up with clarence you'd know when he squatted 265 his bw was around 85kg. When he squatted 300+ his bw was around 100 from the muscle mass gained from PEDs. So it is completely stupid and useless to compare his natty and juiced numbers because THEY WERE AT DIFFERENT BW and hence not RELATIVE strength. A fair comparison would have been to compare juiced clarence to a natty 100kg guy with Olympian tier genetics. Something that can probably never happen because we just don't know if they're telling the truth or not unless they're in a situation like clarence. Anyway enough ranting. I'm one of the people who actually believes the 10% quote (the real quote about relative strength not yeah bro only gives a 10% general increase) and just wanting to clear up the confusion and hopefully teach another person of the actual quote.
@@samj8932es, i didn't like the nuckols paper because of the very issue you describe here. Aside from the fact that a 10% increase in relative strength is HUGE, wheh it also comes along with 15-20kg of additional muscle mass...if you knew the person from before vs after it would literally look like an alien to you after that transformation. It's so massive if a change. But the way Greg wrote his paper made it sound minimal, and it gives people like Mike Israetel ammunition to use in his efforts to downplay the effectiveness of the drugs. That and Greg's databases are inherently flawed anyway as he compares drug free Powerlifting records to untested records. Seeing as how many of the drug tested records exceed the untested records at this point are we now to believe that steroids actually make you weaker? Lol. It was a good article. But you can't really do what he tried to do because the data pools do not exist in an untainted enough fashion.
@@EnkiriElite I think with the tested vs untested records, maybe it's just that the sport is growing at a rate where we're seeing more genetic freaks get into powerlifting. 20 years ago, the strong ass football player who likes to lift weights and could maybe be an all time great in PL wouldn't dedicate his time to being a powerlifter, he'd try to go to the NFL. Now you have people who are specifically getting into powerlifting at a young age which opens up to door for more genetic outliers. Also, I think the biggest determinant in how effective drugs are is someone's genetic response. Obviously steroids in general help or else people wouldn't use them. But I know so many guys who take loads of shit and look like shit and are weak, and I know guys who take stuff, train consistently and still aren't at a high level because their genetic response is poor or average at best. I think what people try to get across is that steroids aren't these magic super soldier serums that turn a bum into a champion. I firmly believe that if you took any all time or world class enhanced athlete and could make a completely natty clone of them, they'd still be world class. Maybe not #1 exactly but still part of the 0.001%.
Having had a year off myself Liu’s experience is kinda similar to mine. I could rep 405 on squats for like 3-5. Came back after a year off and was dying under 185 for 5-6. I wasn’t on drugs or nothing so I’d think his loss in strength is more likely due to inactivity then being off cycle. Not to refute anything you said or anything, just adding my own anecdote.
Steroids allow humans to grow muscle and strength to superhuman levels. If you’re on them that’s your business, no one needs to know, just don’t go around telling people you’re not on them!
Been using PEDs since 2008. They definitely make a difference. How much of a difference will depend on a variety if factors. One of them being genetics. Some people just blow up on AAS. But also...some people just look like tiny bodybuilders with no PEDs and hardly any work. It is what it is.
There’s no denying these guys are juicing. However, in Lui’s case his been known to have nagging back problems. Could he have had corrective surgery during that hiatus. Meaning he must avoid training while recovers thus the significant muscle loss.
3:45 Lu senza steroidi è molto più debole di me. Gli steroidi non contano niente senza la genetica, sennò non puoi giustificare casi di gente che si dopa e mette zero massa muscolare o molta poca massa muscolare. Però se ti dopi e si potrebbe scoprire che hai una risposta genetica pazzesca agli steroidi. 1. Risposta genetica agli steroidi. 2. Risposta genetica all'allenamento (sennò non puoi spiegare perché sono più forte io che non la maggior parte dei dopati che conosco). 3. Steroidi
It depends on how much steroid an individual can tolerate,their receptor affinity and the amount an individual is willing and can afford to take. If an individual has favourable genetics naturally DOESN'T mean they'll respond particularly well to anabolics.
I bet I can squat and deadlift 300lbs more and maybe bench 200 lbs more if I jumped on. But the permanent effects is a massive downside because those are just numbers and really not worth it for a health and longevity standpoint.
People tell themselves that. But the reality of it is that there's a significant chance that you have a low response to the gear and only gain 100 pounds on squat/dead. The gear isn't going to turn an ordinary person into a world class athlete.
well, that's the irony. The gear *may very well* turn an ordinary person into a world class athlete! It may also take a super above average athlete and fail to turn them into a world class athlete. It could go either way. One's genetic responsiveness to steroids is not the same as one's genetic predisposition for acquiring natural strength.
@@EnkiriElite You are right. It COULD. But the likelihood is that it won't. I think we also need to temper the expectations. Because for every one person out there on gear breaking records, there are dozens or more taking gear just to look a little better than ordinary.
@@zebulonbare326 well sure, but most people who use it as a crutch or shortcut were likely never going to train very hard either way. They would be average with or without steroids. It's asimply disingenuous to act like the results are by and large modest. This sentiment emerges due to a conflict of interest.
@@EnkiriElite That's kind of my point though. The results are going to be mostly modest because people already aren't getting the most out of their bodies. There's a reason why we don't see dudes all over the place looking like Mike O'Hearn. I just doubt how often gear is going to take someone ordinary and have them at a level to where they're going to win an IFBB pro card. I also have zero experience with PEDs and only know what I know about them from people like Derek at MPMD and other people in powerlifting circles that I interact with.
It doesn't matter if he stopped taking PED. Someone who took PEDs cannot EVER be called "natty", cause he is benefitting from years of training with PEDs. He cannot reverse this. Once enhanced, always enhanced.
@@zebulonbare326 genetics are in part what determine the response to PED's, which is why it's disingenuous to use averaged out large data pools in order to downplay the potential impact they can have.
studies don't generally use the types dosages and duration of use of anabolic steroids that top bodybuilders are on if they put average people on maga doses of gear for 10 to 15 years plus a high protein diet and a generic workout program you would get IFBB ready bodybuilder. hypertrophy is simply protein syntheses minus protein breakdown. use drugs to keep them in the positive for long enough and they will get huge!
Steroids are so awesome, it feels pretty pointless to even train when not using, which makes perfect sense to me why Lu took a year off of training haha
One thing to keep in mind though. Pete's 633 pound deadlift was done now when he is training extensively for marathon running. When he was bulking and focusing on powerlifting as a natty a few months back he hit a 705 pound deadlift (though he hitched it at lockout). Another important factor is that when a person comes off steroids (especially cold turkey- like Pete did) their hormone levels, i.e. test, are really out of whack. This plays a huge role. So what a lifter is capable of hitting natty after they come off years of steroid use and what they could hit as a lifelong natty are 2 different things...
Assuming his test levels are at least enough to have his body function normally, he will still have a strength and size advantage having used steroids in the past. Especially for a longer duration. Could he have hit a 700lbs deadlift as a lifetime natural? Maybe, but as an ex PED user it was no doubt easier.
Steroids: more effective than someone who takes them claims, but less effective than what someone who doesn’t take them thinks. I’m going to throw a caveat into the discussion though if you don’t mind. For the average person, I really don’t believe steroids do much of anything. To be in shape, you have to be consistent with your sleep, diet, workouts, etc. You can definitely have a one percent physique without taking any PEDs. BUT even with PEDs I dont believe youd maintain a great physique or high level of fitness without being consistent with everything else. So do they matter for top level bodybuilders, powerlifters, etc… of course. But would they do anything for me? No… i don’t think so. So I think the answer to this really depends on your perspective.
It's been proven that guys who don't even train put on more muscle than a group of natty guys that trained over the same time period. You're severely underestimating the power of Peds if you think they don't do anything for the average person.
I'm curious. Do you actually believe that he would bother taking only EPO, but then skip out on the drugs that ACTUALLY boost performance in weightlifting substantially? Even though he's already at risk of failing a drug test by having EPO in his system.
We need to remember that lu Xiaojun was at his peak before quarantine before he was allowed to go outside. He lost his gainz during quarantine, because China was very strict when it came to quarantine to the point where people starved to death because they weren't allowed to go outside, so I'm sure lu couldn't go to the gym, thus losing his gains
This seems pretty disingenuous with both cases.... For Lu- You can't extrapolate anything from him taking an entire year off at what seems to be his lifts the first week back after a year of detraining and cns not being activated, especially with the lockdowns in China. ANYONE that takes a full year off of lifting is going to be significantly weaker the first time back and will rapidly gain back the strength after the first few months, as you likely well know. Pete is not focused on chasing big numbers anymore and he's been very clear about this in his videos if you've actually watched them. He is trying to stay lean and continue to lose weight as his main focus is running, as well as creating content and training clients. ON TOP OF THIS, he's shared his hormone levels and he's just now back to a normal testosterone level after two years. He's significantly lighter now, has been shut down for two years and is not focused on heavy lifting, but on other things, long distance running, and HIIT workouts as well. Why not compare somebody who knew how to train before, and then went on later. Let's take John Haack. His best total while competing in tested in IPF/USAPL was 1792 at 183 bodyweight. His last tested comp was october 2016, after almost TWO YEARS competing untested in december 2018 his total at 181 was 1929. This is a 7% increase after two years of using for meet preps. Sure 7 years after competing untested he's totaling north of 2200 in a higher weight class, and if we're generous we could say HALF of that gain is from gear, due to the long amount of years and bump in weight it's very likely he'd still be totaling close to or even past 2000 naturally if he continued to train, who knows. But if it's as drastic as you say, how is he not jumping his total up by 2-400lbs within a few years. It's because it generally will add around 10% I think that's an accurate number. It's not going to increase his lifts by 40% like some of these comments claim. There are others you can look at too who've made that switch and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who upped their total by over 10-15% even after YEARS of lifting untested, when their natty total was already trained and beginner gains aren't a factor. Sure if you're squatting 225 or something you could probably double that through ped's in a year or less, but most of that could have been done naturally too since they're still so untrained.
I'm going to memorize this script on a weekly basis? Lol that's not even possible. No one on TV does that. They use teleprompters. If you don't like the way I make content then don't watch it 👋
Alec, I think you’d be interested in this Reddit thread of a first time PED user. Already a solid lifter with 10 years under his belt. www.reddit.com/r/weightroom/comments/107mgvv/peds_a_casual_users_experience_now_with_actual/ 1335lb total to 1626 total, ~25% added to the squat and bench, 18% to the deadlift. 20lb increase in bodyweight from 168-188lbs (the OP estimates less than 10lbs of that was lean tissue). 20 weeks. Moderate doses. OP himself was ‘surprised’ at the degree of progress, and posits that he may be a ‘hyper responder’.
Very inaccurate in both conclusions,i get the point but its wrong ,petes best comp deadlift is around 370 his best natty comp is around 300 while -10kg bw so 20% deadlift decrease and -10% bw
Comp deadlift is irrelevant in Pete's case as he lost over 100 pounds solely due to grip strength from not being able to use straps. He was a 900+ pound deadlifter at the peak of his gear use.
Steroids absolutely make a massive difference. I am on TRT for a medical reason that is not related to prior steroid abuse - I've never used them. However in an inpatient facility for 8 weeks, a doctor was giving me 150mg of test per week to establish a baseline TRT dose and my blood levels of test were at the top (but within bounds) of the reference range and I have dexa scans that show I put on 14lbs of lean mass in 2 months. From 150mg which isn't even the highest TRT dose! These guys take orders of magnitude more than that. I couldn't handle the side effects at even that dose. I currently only take 50mg/week and find its equivalent to how I recovered prior to having the medical issue. Most guys on TRT take 100-200mg so maybe I am a "hyper responder" but I dno. I think anyone hyper responds to steroids. I mean, the dose matters, but they are all taking massive quantities.
Thank you for shining some light on this with your experiences! Very illuminating for those of us who tend to receive more biased recountings.
@@EnkiriElite the one benefit to TRT even at equivalent T blood levels to when I was young and healthy is that it's not effected by habits. If I decided to fk off and drink 9 beers, eat like shit and not sleep, my test isn't going to crash as long as I'm still taking it regularly. It's definitely a benefit. I truly don't think at the levels I'm at I'm getting anything truly special but.. if I was 41 and my test levels are at that of a 21 year olds and I've got all that experience on my side, Or if I took the original dose they wanted me on where I was at the top of natural range... it starts to add up.
I also don't believe most guys who say they're on TRT only. They're really on like 250-300mg a lot of the time, which is absolutely supraphysiolgical. It's also really not fun having to stick yourself and plan for trips with this stuff and go to clinics asking for needles and looking like a junkie all the time... if I didn't absolutely need this, I would not want to be on it 100%.
People underestimate the benefits of just having stable test levels.
However 14lb within 2 months tells me that your test levels were abysmally low to begin with and you having high natural test levels wouldn't of had such great results.
@stevenhewes1990 definitely this is the case because if I go out drinking or have shitty sleep or whatever else, I don't suffer from a big dip like most people (although my habits are generally pretty good these days).
Some of it was definitely regaining/"muscle memory" gains since I was still below my PRs when I left the centre by a decent amount, but I have fallen off track before and come back and never came back that fast... maybe half that speed. I have always had an easy time gaining muscle and a hard time losing weight, but still.
And yes, you are correct they were literally so low, that when they tested them the first time, they thought they accidentally exchanged my results with the one female-to-male trans person that was also at the centre... so a biological woman. I was low double digits on the reference range which is somewherr around 300-1000 ng/dl. But my lifts going in would've still been novice-intermediate, so the effect was huge considering all this
@@Dementia.Pugilistica I think for relatively young men who have normal levels of testosterone something like that is not going to have much of an impact. What you were on probably put you something in the top 5% for young men, so to go from low levels to something like that would realistically make you gain muscle, even if you technically were within a normal range for a human male.
With this out of the way, steroids makes a massive difference, as we can see with this video. I knew someone from the gym a few years ago that had a very solid base from lifting for several years. He was somewhere around 5'11" or so, around 210 lbs. and had a max bench of around 315 and a max deadlift around 500. I remember when he went on his first cycle, I don't know exactly what it was but it was something pretty moderate, and the results were incredible. In a span of less than 6 months he ended up ballooning to about 270 lbs., he basically maintained the same body fat percentage and just gained a bunch of muscle. I remember seeing him easily bench 315 for 10 reps and deadlift 500 for 10 reps. This guy, that already had a very solid base of training, made progress that would honestly make noob gains look inconsequential lol.
Never underestimate the lengths many users will go to downplay the effectiveness of gear. They want to be special and unique, and keeping that status requires making sure the general public thinks it's all genetics and hard work, as opposed to pumping yourself full of anabolic compounds 24/7.
0:06 lol brilliant Mike Israetel impression.
I think it was one of the Soviet weightlifting champions who said that you could win a medal clean but you couldn't train to do so clean. It might seem that those are the same thing, but they aren't. Olympic weightlifting is a very specific skill that requires a lot of practice but it also is a strength sport that is extraordinarily taxing. Getting in a lot of reps and being able to recover from them is the name of the game. Like, if you had to practice enough to get an extraordinarily fast and accurate tennis serve but also had to do so while having a 50 lb dumbbell duct taped to your wrist, you'd basically have to take drugs to get really good at it then. So even if it only gave you a 10% greater total ceiling of physical capacity, you also have to consider that it would let you do so while training twice as long or twice as often which is absolutely invaluable in anything requiring skill
Pisarenko.
Very true! The training itself is both more important and more taxing than competition due to the unrelenting nature of the beast....you always have to keep on pushing to keep on progressing! That said, out of competition testing could also potentially change this concept wherein you are likely having to get so creative to duck those tests *anyway* that its quite possible thst whayever you are already on anywah you csn remain on throughout the comp period.
Seems like this may have been the case when half the Russian team pulled out of the Olympics at the last minute a few years ago, causing klokov to miss his final Olympics! They thought they were safe with whatever their protocol was, found out they weren't, and then bailed last minute because of it.
It is a little disingenuous using those at the peak of human performance in their respective field. Of course PEDs are most certainly needed at this point.
Also its important to keep in mind that even if former steroid users come off gear, they will still retain some strength and size advantage compared to their lifetime natural counterparts so when you account for that its more like a 50% drop on average
It's even more significant than that. Steroids increase myonuclei, which permanently increases a person's capacity for muscle development. Someone could literally take steroids, not train at all, stop taking steroids, and then start training a few years later and they will have an advantage over someone who never took steroids in their lifetime.
ok but doesn't their natural production plummet?
@@stayontrack usually returns to normal given enough time. Your body's quite smart. That is unless you've done permanent damage to yourself with abuse just like with any other drug.
@@jorjitbhullar5023but wouldn't they have no natural testosterone
Sleep is better than steroids, man. Trust my PhD. Y'all natty guys just don't sleep enough.
😂
But, but, but, Alex Bromley says it's just the icing.
ruh roh shaggy
I swear whenever I listen to someone on gear talk about lifting they will eventually try to gaslight you about how much steroids helped them.
Using peds to get stronger is like using a calculator and then claiming YOU got better at mental arithmetics.
this is a pretty good analogy haha
@@EnkiriElite one question about your conjugate program which I started about two weeks ago. In case I dont feel 100% recovered, would you recommend cutting back the volume or spread the 4 days over a Mo-We-Fri-Mo shedule...? Related to this video I might ask for an alternative to start Taking peds 😁
@@pierre-renepeitzmeier7984 I think you could do either one! Whichever you find more preferable. I am biased towards 7 day weeks to keep everything lined up on the same day each week, so I am personally more inclined to cut the workload.
But if you don't mind running an 8 or 9 day microcycle then there's no reason you can't just extend it out!
@@EnkiriElite would be an interesting topic... Higher frequency with lower volume vs lower frequency with higher volume...
@@EnkiriElite Thanks a lot for your reply...
Alec is like that kid from the movie Bad News Bears. I can't remember his name the conversation perfectly encapsulates him
"What happened to you?"
"Got in a fight"
"With who?"
"The eighth grade...."
😂 "who hurt you"
At 65, never injected steroids or heroin or bleach or anything. Sustained strength and speed training with sustained implementation of learning seems to have enhanced, then maintained my endocrine system for a long time. I don't understand why people throw their endocrine systems in the garbage for weight on the bar. For me at this point, lifting for 52 years seems to have been enhancing my body's own natural ability to rapidly deconstruct damaged tissue, get rid of the harmful bits, and build new tissue. This turns out to have been the primary benefit of drug-free training, nutrition, and sleep. Trying on purpose to degrade this ability seems really short sighted.
There are people I respect who become annoying when they push that "steroids only grant a 15% improvement at most" crap while being the size of 2-3 people and heads as red as a tomato or sporting the iconic skull horns from GH abuse. Also, I don't think Liu or Pete or any other previous user can ever be called "natural" anymore or have their future training results be a true indication of their training as a natural because they've permanently been enhanced by the gear and the gains made during their prolonged gear usage. Muscle memory is a hell of a thing and I wouldn't be surprised if roids permanently help push people past the "edge" if they come off it in a smart way like Pete (nothing against him, hes a pretty decent guy but I don't think he should be claiming natural like he does now). THAT is probably the "15%" that keeps getting touted.
Knowing every “influencer” mocked in the intro 🤣
Wasn't there a study that showed a group who didn't workout and did steroids built more muscle than another group who worked out but didn't take steroids?
Yes
A good example of on and off PEDS is grappling superstar Gordon Ryan. He posted on and off photos and there is a day and night difference between the two. I remember an article by a guy on the juice and he was honest enough to admit that roids put almost 40 percent on his squat and deadlift. The benefits in recovery alone are enough for most athletes to want to use them.
I can tell you from both sides of the coin. Ped's make a massive difference to your performance. It literally night and day. And I've seen the same in other people who lift weights. That's from a 51 year old man with 35 years of being in the lifting game.
DUDE, the fuckin Dr Mike 'I'm blinking S.O.S in Morse Code' fucking sent me, INSTANT like just for that on it's own!
All impersonations are based on totally hypothetical fictional characters!!!
I’ve always believed that there is a genetic response aspect to PEDs. Yeah for some people, they could very well get fuckall out of them if they took them, while others could go from a Minecraft skeleton to literally Hercules.
🤣
Agreed!
So they add 30% to your peak potential. Sounds about right.
I think most steroid using influencers would be weaker than average without the gear
Example, larry
@@NoNono-o3h what are you asking?
The average man can't even bench 2 plates. They would still be way stronger.
@@MR12AMAZING how do you know they would be stronger than average studies show steroids to be incredibly effective
@@MR12AMAZING plus a lot of them lie about when they started using so we can't really know how good they got without the use of gear
I think there's just a lot more variability in response, so giving an average benefit of 10% in strength gains isn't the best statistic. If you're a dialed in natty who knows how to eat, train, and recover, 10% seems way too low for strength gains even if you don't have elite genetics. Also, a lot of people are probably taking trash quality gear since it's illegal and not standardized. I would bet that if everyone were on the pharma grade stuff those bodybuilders are getting in Kuwait, they'd be seeing much more substantial gains.
Size is an entirely different animal. Steroids absolutely increase your size more than 10%. You have Olympia competitors walking around at 320 lb in the offseason in the 10-15% bodyfat range. Natty they'd be what, maybe 240 lb at similar composition (these guys are usually freak natties)?
However, there are certainly people who don't respond well, but they don't respond well to training in general. They're outliers on the bottom end. Also, some people can't tolerate them from side effects so never are able to push their dosages to "optimal" levels for peak strength benefits.
Pete Rubish is an excellent case study. He almost pulled 700 lb at 238 lb in his meet last year, so even if you use that as an example, we're looking at over 30% increase on peak gear. Plus he's older now and still training hard! He should be stronger, maybe he'd pull 945 or higher on gear now.
Exactly! You absolutely cannot try to create some sort of averaged out standardization because the degree of variability seems to be so high likely based on a whole host of factors. But just with that level of variance alone making those claims is silly because they automatically become moot when the high responders more than double all of their natty gains.
I would like to point out that it is so annoying when people misuse the whole 10% strength increase quote.
The quote was from incredibly well respected researchers Greg nuckols (I think that's how his last name is spelled) and the quote was not "yeah bro PEDs only give a 10% strength increase" the actual quote was "PEDs give you a 10% increase on RELATIVE strength". Relative being the word that always seems to get left out.
So for example. Let's talk about clarence kennedy. Someone who I think is one of the few people I would bet my life savings on, actually hopped on gear when he said he did. He had borderline Olympian tier genetics and squatted around 265kg natty. When he jumped on, he went on to squat around 310. That's around a 45 kg jump or a near 20% increase in his squat.
Now you look at that and say "see! The 10% quote is BS!"
Again, RELATIVE STRENGTH. If you've kept up with clarence you'd know when he squatted 265 his bw was around 85kg. When he squatted 300+ his bw was around 100 from the muscle mass gained from PEDs. So it is completely stupid and useless to compare his natty and juiced numbers because THEY WERE AT DIFFERENT BW and hence not RELATIVE strength. A fair comparison would have been to compare juiced clarence to a natty 100kg guy with Olympian tier genetics. Something that can probably never happen because we just don't know if they're telling the truth or not unless they're in a situation like clarence.
Anyway enough ranting. I'm one of the people who actually believes the 10% quote (the real quote about relative strength not yeah bro only gives a 10% general increase) and just wanting to clear up the confusion and hopefully teach another person of the actual quote.
And also Greg does point out how PEDs might only give you a 10% relative increase on strength but basically doubles your gains on average when talking about size so you are correct on that point
Power of observation!!!😄
Yessir
How much do they matter? More than anyone on them will admit too, they can take a fairly average guy like apparently Pete is (maybe a little above average but given training age, I'll stick to average) and turn them into a world class powerlifter.
Lowest decrease ive seen from gear is 30% all the way upwards of about 60%, hell there is a guy in my gym who changed gyms cause he is taking time off gear completely he doesnt want to be there when he is not blasting tren. Because without it he actually lifts about 45% less, so his 200kg bench on mega does tren becomes about a 115 kg bench so he goes from a monster bench to a bench that could be reached by any dude with average genetics.
I HATE when people downplay drug use thank U for spitting facts😎
Honestly anyone with 2 Brian cells could figure it out
Natrual bodybuilders vs enhanced bodybuilders it’s a huge fucking difference
Enhanced guys often have 50lb+ over natrual competitors of stage weight
bostyn lloyd's one year transformation proves that peds do all the work. In one year he achieved a physique that is not attainable naturally. So if the stack is right it does all the work. Yea yea, you still need to work out, but everyone works out, but folks on peds grow that much easier
Tbf a 170kg cpean dl or 150kg squat atg arent anything to scoff at at all. Most powerlifters sumo pulling 500 and squatting 450 parallel low bar couldnt do those
Natty 4Life
Natty World Order
In strength sport a lot of the knowledge that’s been passed down seems to come from people who were on PEDs. That’s not to say it doesn’t work but it makes it hard to decipher exactly how effective these methods are. PED use really makes the target a lot bigger in terms of how you respond. If you’re a natural athlete bumping up against the so-called “genetic ceiling of your potential”you’re going to have to be more on-point with all your variables.
I've always been annoyed by those "PEDs only help 10%!" figure. There's so many "buts" about this number:
1) It compares the strongest guys of a weightclass to each other, but PEDs make you gain a ton of muscle (plus a lot of water weight for some of those compounds).
2) Since it compares only the strongest people at a weight class, you already know they will fill out the weight class very well. So steroids can only make you have more muscle at a same bodyweight (lower bodyfat) or have shorter people have the same amount of mass as a larger person (so better, smaller leverages). Way different than weighing 30kg at the same bf% because of years on tren.
3) A lot of fake natties muddy those statistics, even if thy aren't as common as they used to, they still exist, so the figure is lowballed a little bit at the very least
4) It compares people who use vs don't use PEDs in a binary way, when different amounts of drugs will give you different results. If you've done small cycles of anavar/testosterone/SARMs and then stopped, you're not natty anymore, and you therefore lower the average of everyone else in the PED group.
Just putting this here cause I knew there would be lots of people misusing the 10% quote:
I would like to point out that it is so annoying when people misuse the whole 10% strength increase quote.
The quote was from incredibly well respected researchers Greg nuckols (I think that's how his last name is spelled) and the quote was not "yeah bro PEDs only give a 10% strength increase" the actual quote was "PEDs give you a 10% increase on RELATIVE strength". Relative being the word that always seems to get left out.
So for example. Let's talk about clarence kennedy. Someone who I think is one of the few people I would bet my life savings on, actually hopped on gear when he said he did. He had borderline Olympian tier genetics and squatted around 265kg natty. When he jumped on, he went on to squat around 310. That's around a 45 kg jump or a near 20% increase in his squat.
Now you look at that and say "see! The 10% quote is BS!"
Again, RELATIVE STRENGTH. If you've kept up with clarence you'd know when he squatted 265 his bw was around 85kg. When he squatted 300+ his bw was around 100 from the muscle mass gained from PEDs. So it is completely stupid and useless to compare his natty and juiced numbers because THEY WERE AT DIFFERENT BW and hence not RELATIVE strength. A fair comparison would have been to compare juiced clarence to a natty 100kg guy with Olympian tier genetics. Something that can probably never happen because we just don't know if they're telling the truth or not unless they're in a situation like clarence.
Anyway enough ranting. I'm one of the people who actually believes the 10% quote (the real quote about relative strength not yeah bro only gives a 10% general increase) and just wanting to clear up the confusion and hopefully teach another person of the actual quote.
@@samj8932 "See guys? Steroids don't actually help that much because it actually adds a lot of bodyweight, meaning your 300+lbs added to your deadlift is less impressive now because I'm using a buzzword that says so."
@@InsulinRunner calm down lil guy won't add 300 to yours
@@samj8932 It's gonna add 0 cause I don't need PEDs, I'm not a stranger to hard work and dedication.
I have liked the vid. I will have to watch later tho
much love brotha
0:15 Is that a Gregg Doucette reference and joke? 😉
Yeah.. when I did a cycle of 500mg test only.. I gained 45lb on my bench in 4 weeks... this is after being at a hard plateau
What was your before before you cycled?
@@radalexander7160 I was at a 285lb bench before, but my nutrition was crap at that time and training like an idiot, so I know I was not at any kind of genetic limit. I had 2 other gym buddies that ran the same cycle with me and their bench gains were much smaller, so the genetic component was very clear to me also
Its just trt plus the accent fuck man I'm crying 😂😂
It's like an automatic Ferrari driver claiming they can drive the exact same way in a stick shift Toyota Yaris. Different leagues bro. 😂
Lets goooooooooooo. Happy Friday boys.
If you think steroids have no effect look at the top crossfit "girls"
I don't think i would hyper respond to PED use but I kno for certain i would look very different after the many years of weight training I've done. Bigger isn't Better, my hypertrophy is free from & free hold.
one thing to point out that you didn't is that lu wasn't just taking regular steroids/PEDs. he was sponsored by the chinese government, and they have access to classified performance enhancing drugs that are not available to the average recreational steroid abuser. so when he went off whatever he was on, it wasn't like a regular PED user going off of them. he was going off of something much more powerful than typical PEDs. how else could he have been so dominant over everyone using regular PEDs (even though he was lighter and older than everyone he was beating in the olympics, while still being much stronger) if he didn't have access to secret, even more powerful ones? and those unknown ones have withdrawal effects that are unknown to us.
It shows character flaws too.
Guys like Pete and Lu deserve nothing but immense respect for their honesty. It’s good for people, especially young dudes/girls to see. I think we all went through a “man I suck compared to these guys” stage when we were younger due to the sheer ridiculousness of physiques and strength roid users obtain.
Damn, even I look better than Lu natty.
Suck it, Lu!
was lu xiaojun's post steroid training honesty or just videos someone posted? i don't remember him saying much about them and he definitely didn't say anything about steroids, lol
That Lu thing is so insane. He actually became soo insanely weak for his standards. So sad for German weightlifters like Max Lang. They have insane talent, but not the PED support.
Hey Alec, I was wondering how you would go about programming for powerlifting? What is the best frequency for each lift, and are there any programs you recommend?
He has some free programs here on UA-cam
Ashton rouska and russ livid at this vid
There is evidence that taking PEDs has lasting effects that make users permanently stronger and larger than people who don't take drugs. Would Lu Xiaojun have made a 300 lbs squat, if he'd never used drugs?
imagine STANDART chinese guy.... small asian.... 150kg in squat is almost a limit for this guy
They work good enough that l have been told by guys using ped's that they were NEVER going to stop using, one person l know has been "on" for at least 15 years, so he was definitely serious
10% seems to be too little of a difference, especially for the powerlifts, because they strongly correlate with bodyweight. since weightlifting is more about mobility and speed and less about strength, 10% makes more sense and i think lu could have snatched 150 natty. if you look at clarence , he also snatched like 160 natty and 185 on gear so thats closer to 20% but clarence was still very young when he started roiding (22) so he would have definitely snatched 170 natty which fits well with 10%.
could be more than 10% but that number is already really fucking high, especially once you get into elite territory
This was my reply to another post but I'll post it here because I knew for a fact there would be people misusing the 10% quote in the comments. When you consider this, his increase in the olympic lifts makes sense:
I would like to point out that it is so annoying when people misuse the whole 10% strength increase quote.
The quote was from incredibly well respected researchers Greg nuckols (I think that's how his last name is spelled) and the quote was not "yeah bro PEDs only give a 10% strength increase" the actual quote was "PEDs give you a 10% increase on RELATIVE strength". Relative being the word that always seems to get left out.
So for example. Let's talk about clarence kennedy. Someone who I think is one of the few people I would bet my life savings on, actually hopped on gear when he said he did. He had borderline Olympian tier genetics and squatted around 265kg natty. When he jumped on, he went on to squat around 310. That's around a 45 kg jump or a near 20% increase in his squat.
Now you look at that and say "see! The 10% quote is BS!"
Again, RELATIVE STRENGTH. If you've kept up with clarence you'd know when he squatted 265 his bw was around 85kg. When he squatted 300+ his bw was around 100 from the muscle mass gained from PEDs. So it is completely stupid and useless to compare his natty and juiced numbers because THEY WERE AT DIFFERENT BW and hence not RELATIVE strength. A fair comparison would have been to compare juiced clarence to a natty 100kg guy with Olympian tier genetics. Something that can probably never happen because we just don't know if they're telling the truth or not unless they're in a situation like clarence.
Anyway enough ranting. I'm one of the people who actually believes the 10% quote (the real quote about relative strength not yeah bro only gives a 10% general increase) and just wanting to clear up the confusion and hopefully teach another person of the actual quote.
@@samj8932 thx for clearing that up
@@samj8932es, i didn't like the nuckols paper because of the very issue you describe here. Aside from the fact that a 10% increase in relative strength is HUGE, wheh it also comes along with 15-20kg of additional muscle mass...if you knew the person from before vs after it would literally look like an alien to you after that transformation. It's so massive if a change.
But the way Greg wrote his paper made it sound minimal, and it gives people like Mike Israetel ammunition to use in his efforts to downplay the effectiveness of the drugs.
That and Greg's databases are inherently flawed anyway as he compares drug free Powerlifting records to untested records. Seeing as how many of the drug tested records exceed the untested records at this point are we now to believe that steroids actually make you weaker? Lol.
It was a good article. But you can't really do what he tried to do because the data pools do not exist in an untainted enough fashion.
@@EnkiriElite I think with the tested vs untested records, maybe it's just that the sport is growing at a rate where we're seeing more genetic freaks get into powerlifting. 20 years ago, the strong ass football player who likes to lift weights and could maybe be an all time great in PL wouldn't dedicate his time to being a powerlifter, he'd try to go to the NFL. Now you have people who are specifically getting into powerlifting at a young age which opens up to door for more genetic outliers.
Also, I think the biggest determinant in how effective drugs are is someone's genetic response. Obviously steroids in general help or else people wouldn't use them. But I know so many guys who take loads of shit and look like shit and are weak, and I know guys who take stuff, train consistently and still aren't at a high level because their genetic response is poor or average at best. I think what people try to get across is that steroids aren't these magic super soldier serums that turn a bum into a champion. I firmly believe that if you took any all time or world class enhanced athlete and could make a completely natty clone of them, they'd still be world class. Maybe not #1 exactly but still part of the 0.001%.
Having had a year off myself Liu’s experience is kinda similar to mine. I could rep 405 on squats for like 3-5. Came back after a year off and was dying under 185 for 5-6. I wasn’t on drugs or nothing so I’d think his loss in strength is more likely due to inactivity then being off cycle.
Not to refute anything you said or anything, just adding my own anecdote.
Shh, don't tell the truth you're supposed to play along and pretend.
its just trt.... bro knew who he was targetting 😂😂😂 ... im hearing high pitch screaming in the distance
Steroids allow humans to grow muscle and strength to superhuman levels.
If you’re on them that’s your business, no one needs to know, just don’t go around telling people you’re not on them!
Been using PEDs since 2008. They definitely make a difference.
How much of a difference will depend on a variety if factors. One of them being genetics.
Some people just blow up on AAS.
But also...some people just look like tiny bodybuilders with no PEDs and hardly any work.
It is what it is.
But You can achieve mike o trens physique by hard working
There’s no denying these guys are juicing. However, in Lui’s case his been known to have nagging back problems. Could he have had corrective surgery during that hiatus. Meaning he must avoid training while recovers thus the significant muscle loss.
3:45 Lu senza steroidi è molto più debole di me. Gli steroidi non contano niente senza la genetica, sennò non puoi giustificare casi di gente che si dopa e mette zero massa muscolare o molta poca massa muscolare. Però se ti dopi e si potrebbe scoprire che hai una risposta genetica pazzesca agli steroidi. 1. Risposta genetica agli steroidi. 2. Risposta genetica all'allenamento (sennò non puoi spiegare perché sono più forte io che non la maggior parte dei dopati che conosco). 3. Steroidi
0:06 lmao only real ones get who the reference is
One good bit of evidence in the mma world is Alistair overeem lol look at him now
It depends on how much steroid an individual can tolerate,their receptor affinity and the amount an individual is willing and can afford to take.
If an individual has favourable genetics naturally DOESN'T mean they'll respond particularly well to anabolics.
I agree! Really changes things in that regard, which is quite interesting as somebody can be an impressive natty but an unimpressive gear user.
I wonder how much the westside guys would be lifting without the grams of peds
Well
I mean if they could even survive their training craziness
OG Westside was built different.
I bet I can squat and deadlift 300lbs more and maybe bench 200 lbs more if I jumped on. But the permanent effects is a massive downside because those are just numbers and really not worth it for a health and longevity standpoint.
People tell themselves that. But the reality of it is that there's a significant chance that you have a low response to the gear and only gain 100 pounds on squat/dead. The gear isn't going to turn an ordinary person into a world class athlete.
well, that's the irony. The gear *may very well* turn an ordinary person into a world class athlete! It may also take a super above average athlete and fail to turn them into a world class athlete. It could go either way. One's genetic responsiveness to steroids is not the same as one's genetic predisposition for acquiring natural strength.
@@EnkiriElite You are right. It COULD. But the likelihood is that it won't. I think we also need to temper the expectations. Because for every one person out there on gear breaking records, there are dozens or more taking gear just to look a little better than ordinary.
@@zebulonbare326 well sure, but most people who use it as a crutch or shortcut were likely never going to train very hard either way. They would be average with or without steroids.
It's asimply disingenuous to act like the results are by and large modest. This sentiment emerges due to a conflict of interest.
@@EnkiriElite That's kind of my point though. The results are going to be mostly modest because people already aren't getting the most out of their bodies. There's a reason why we don't see dudes all over the place looking like Mike O'Hearn. I just doubt how often gear is going to take someone ordinary and have them at a level to where they're going to win an IFBB pro card.
I also have zero experience with PEDs and only know what I know about them from people like Derek at MPMD and other people in powerlifting circles that I interact with.
It doesn't matter if he stopped taking PED. Someone who took PEDs cannot EVER be called "natty", cause he is benefitting from years of training with PEDs. He cannot reverse this. Once enhanced, always enhanced.
Genetics>> PEDs. Everyone responds differently to gear.
and?
@@BuJammy Just saying. That it mostly depends on the individual. Some people won't benefit a ton from PEDs. Some will turn into Eddie Hall.
@@zebulonbare326 genetics are in part what determine the response to PED's, which is why it's disingenuous to use averaged out large data pools in order to downplay the potential impact they can have.
Genetics are > PEDS. And PED response is dependent on genetics. But there’s this thing called dosage that you can play with to get desired outcomes.
studies don't generally use the types dosages and duration of use of anabolic steroids that top bodybuilders are on if they put average people on maga doses of gear for 10 to 15 years plus a high protein diet and a generic workout program you would get IFBB ready bodybuilder. hypertrophy is simply protein syntheses minus protein breakdown. use drugs to keep them in the positive for long enough and they will get huge!
Steroids are so awesome, it feels pretty pointless to even train when not using, which makes perfect sense to me why Lu took a year off of training haha
"It feels pretty pointless to even train when not using". This is precisely why I'll never take steriods.
Literal meth head thinking
One thing to keep in mind though. Pete's 633 pound deadlift was done now when he is training extensively for marathon running. When he was bulking and focusing on powerlifting as a natty a few months back he hit a 705 pound deadlift (though he hitched it at lockout). Another important factor is that when a person comes off steroids (especially cold turkey- like Pete did) their hormone levels, i.e. test, are really out of whack. This plays a huge role. So what a lifter is capable of hitting natty after they come off years of steroid use and what they could hit as a lifelong natty are 2 different things...
Assuming his test levels are at least enough to have his body function normally, he will still have a strength and size advantage having used steroids in the past. Especially for a longer duration. Could he have hit a 700lbs deadlift as a lifetime natural? Maybe, but as an ex PED user it was no doubt easier.
Steroids: more effective than someone who takes them claims, but less effective than what someone who doesn’t take them thinks.
I’m going to throw a caveat into the discussion though if you don’t mind. For the average person, I really don’t believe steroids do much of anything.
To be in shape, you have to be consistent with your sleep, diet, workouts, etc. You can definitely have a one percent physique without taking any PEDs.
BUT even with PEDs I dont believe youd maintain a great physique or high level of fitness without being consistent with everything else.
So do they matter for top level bodybuilders, powerlifters, etc… of course.
But would they do anything for me? No… i don’t think so.
So I think the answer to this really depends on your perspective.
It's been proven that guys who don't even train put on more muscle than a group of natty guys that trained over the same time period. You're severely underestimating the power of Peds if you think they don't do anything for the average person.
@@MR12AMAZING yeah sure keep telling yourself that…
He only tested positive for EPO, which technically isnt a steroid. but it is performance enhancing since it increases red blood cells.
I'm curious. Do you actually believe that he would bother taking only EPO, but then skip out on the drugs that ACTUALLY boost performance in weightlifting substantially? Even though he's already at risk of failing a drug test by having EPO in his system.
@@EnkiriElite whos to say, he may or may not. is it possible!? sure its possible. is there any proof though. not beyond the EPO.
@@SaltyRad c'mon
5:15 those numbers ain't average man. Normal healthy fit guy can't snatch 95 lbs.
We need to remember that lu Xiaojun was at his peak before quarantine before he was allowed to go outside. He lost his gainz during quarantine, because China was very strict when it came to quarantine to the point where people starved to death because they weren't allowed to go outside, so I'm sure lu couldn't go to the gym, thus losing his gains
Lol stop
This seems pretty disingenuous with both cases....
For Lu- You can't extrapolate anything from him taking an entire year off at what seems to be his lifts the first week back after a year of detraining and cns not being activated, especially with the lockdowns in China. ANYONE that takes a full year off of lifting is going to be significantly weaker the first time back and will rapidly gain back the strength after the first few months, as you likely well know.
Pete is not focused on chasing big numbers anymore and he's been very clear about this in his videos if you've actually watched them. He is trying to stay lean and continue to lose weight as his main focus is running, as well as creating content and training clients. ON TOP OF THIS, he's shared his hormone levels and he's just now back to a normal testosterone level after two years. He's significantly lighter now, has been shut down for two years and is not focused on heavy lifting, but on other things, long distance running, and HIIT workouts as well.
Why not compare somebody who knew how to train before, and then went on later. Let's take John Haack. His best total while competing in tested in IPF/USAPL was 1792 at 183 bodyweight. His last tested comp was october 2016, after almost TWO YEARS competing untested in december 2018 his total at 181 was 1929. This is a 7% increase after two years of using for meet preps. Sure 7 years after competing untested he's totaling north of 2200 in a higher weight class, and if we're generous we could say HALF of that gain is from gear, due to the long amount of years and bump in weight it's very likely he'd still be totaling close to or even past 2000 naturally if he continued to train, who knows. But if it's as drastic as you say, how is he not jumping his total up by 2-400lbs within a few years. It's because it generally will add around 10% I think that's an accurate number. It's not going to increase his lifts by 40% like some of these comments claim.
There are others you can look at too who've made that switch and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who upped their total by over 10-15% even after YEARS of lifting untested, when their natty total was already trained and beginner gains aren't a factor. Sure if you're squatting 225 or something you could probably double that through ped's in a year or less, but most of that could have been done naturally too since they're still so untrained.
So if steroids are that good why aren't you and a lot of others taking them?
Health concerns, legality concerns, disinterest. Plenty of reasons not to do something.
it would be easier to watch and listen to if you learned your lines rather than reading your screen.
I'm going to memorize this script on a weekly basis? Lol that's not even possible. No one on TV does that. They use teleprompters. If you don't like the way I make content then don't watch it 👋
What a ridiculous critique
As a man who consumes his daily fitness content while on the toilet for an hour every morning, I’m not offended by him not memorizing his scripts haha
@davidcraig9540 don you need to up your fibre intake good sir? xD
@@danielfarrell3534 it’s a thought 🤣
Whatever helps you sleep at night
No help required there! But thank you for your concern. Much appreciated
@@EnkiriElite why is it that there people who take PEDs and look worse than the best naturals…
Alec, I think you’d be interested in this Reddit thread of a first time PED user. Already a solid lifter with 10 years under his belt. www.reddit.com/r/weightroom/comments/107mgvv/peds_a_casual_users_experience_now_with_actual/
1335lb total to 1626 total, ~25% added to the squat and bench, 18% to the deadlift. 20lb increase in bodyweight from 168-188lbs (the OP estimates less than 10lbs of that was lean tissue).
20 weeks. Moderate doses.
OP himself was ‘surprised’ at the degree of progress, and posits that he may be a ‘hyper responder’.
Very inaccurate in both conclusions,i get the point but its wrong ,petes best comp deadlift is around 370 his best natty comp is around 300 while -10kg bw so 20% deadlift decrease and -10% bw
Comp deadlift is irrelevant in Pete's case as he lost over 100 pounds solely due to grip strength from not being able to use straps. He was a 900+ pound deadlifter at the peak of his gear use.