I hear it said that steroids are practically pointless if your diet is not good. Recently I got sick of not gaining weight and got serious about food. Eating about 4000 calories/day (I’m the semi-skinny type) with very little junk I’ve gained about 10 pounds in 6 weeks.
What I’m wondering is with steroids how much does diet really matter matter? The public’s perception is that all you have to do is lift and take steroids and you’ll get huge. If I took say a beginners cycle of just test E on my previous diet which was sporadic of probably between 2000-3000 cals/day could I seriously end up not even gaining from a cycle?
I read a study where the researchers gave groups injections of between 25 and 600 mgs of test-e per week for 20 weeks. None of the participants were permitted to lift weights or engage in strenuous exercise. All were given the same diet. At the end of the 20 weeks, the lean body mass of the 25 mgs/week group was unchanged, while the 600 mgs/week group had gained an average of 15 lbs of muscle. I think all of the groups lost a pound or two of fat, probably due more to the diet the researchers put them on than the AAS.
So this doesn’t exactly answer your question about diet, but it does show that you don’t have to lift to benefit from AAS. That just leaves diet.
[quote]meep wrote:
I read a study where the researchers gave groups injections of between 25 and 600 mgs of test-e per week for 20 weeks. None of the participants were permitted to lift weights or engage in strenuous exercise. All were given the same diet. At the end of the 20 weeks, the lean body mass of the 25 mgs/week group was unchanged, while the 600 mgs/week group had gained an average of 15 lbs of muscle. I think all of the groups lost a pound or two of fat, probably due more to the diet the researchers put them on than the AAS.
So this doesn’t exactly answer your question about diet, but it does show that you don’t have to lift to benefit from AAS. That just leaves diet.[/quote]
any idea what diet they were on? I believe they would have had to have been eating a lot of protein
Gained 15 of muscle and lost fat without visiting the gym?
I am very sceptical of this do you have a link to the report?
I was being polite and didn’t want to call BS just yet, but the nore I think about it… It would be an effort to add 15lbs of muscle in 20 weeks by training hard in the gym 5 days a week, so ye gonna have to be less polite and call BS too im afraid.
This translation has just happened to me: after 11 weeks protocol (3 weeks still to go), my weight is the same as at the beginning (97 kg) but the form “slightly” different. Caloric intake less than 3.000/day. Hungry all the time but now with 6-back. In sum, you can gain without bulking. Good combo = training hard + eating well + AAS.
To the OP’s original question, steroids ramp up to overdrive the muscles cells ability to repair and grow. To take advantage of this you very much need to supply the raw materials=nutrients and overall calories to maximize this process. So yes, diet really matters as it always does.
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
Well ye skeptics, I too have seen a similar (or maybe the same, I can’t remember) study.
Basically, the conclusion was that it is possible to take steroids and gain weight without exercising. However, one has to assume that you can only take it so far (in terms of muscle mass increase) without factoring in the resistance exercise.
[/quote]
This has to be true - some non-organic cows are fed various steroids to increase meat yield. They don’t work out (at least not at my gym) and still increase muscle mass.
Tren is something widely used to beef up cows, as well as fight dogs. But you don’t see your average Moo Cow or Fido down at Powerhouse Gym knocking out sets on the bench press.
I see the reasoning behind AAS without a big diet still helping with muscular gains, but why would you do that? If you are need in a significant size why not maximize everything you have control over?
I’m not talking in a body recomp or cutting type situation, only for size gains.
I cannot see where it said they gained 15lb of muscle maybe I missed it, is there a direct statement in there about it?
Look at the link labeled “Table 3. Body composition analysis” about .25 of the way down from the top.[/quote]
thanks I missed the links to tables
Is fat-free mass all muscle? or could it be water retention also?
P.S. my sincere appologies for calling BS on your post it was not Necessarily aimed at you personally but more the report, I believed you had read a report giving that info, I just did not beleive the study report was as legitimate as it actually is.
I am always happy to admit my mistakes and appologise for my incorrect postings, I am here to learn after all.
[quote]wichita123 wrote:
What I’m wondering is with steroids how much does diet really matter matter? The public’s perception is that all you have to do is lift and take steroids and you’ll get huge. If I took say a beginners cycle of just test E on my previous diet which was sporadic of probably between 2000-3000 cals/day could I seriously end up not even gaining from a cycle?[/quote]
Of course the public has it wrong. It’s been said that AAS will only accelerate any progress you were already making. As in, you can recover faster which will allow you to TRAIN much more often with much more intensity while using much more FOOD much more efficiently. Think of it like how much you would lift over 6 months of natural training (total training volume) and now you’re able to do that over 2-3 months – so the body changes faster BUT YOU STILL HAD TO DO ALL THAT LIFTING (and eating). No shortcuts.
AAS can be some powerful, wonderful stuff for those who have already developed the proper lifestyle habits, and eating often is the most important of those. Seriously, who really cares what one study has to say about how much LBM can be added without consistent exercise and targeted nutrition?
Interesting report, have seen similar in summary form before, one noted greater growth in non training but steroid using than in training but not using - don’t know if the report was directly comparative or just summarising other reports, and i’ve long lost the link.
Still, depressing that someone could take steroids and not traing but out do a regular training guy in muscle growth, at least from a standing start.
Of course there still needs to be enough protein in the diet to gain muscle mass, but i doubt diet is anywhere near as important when seriously dosing.
check the quotations from this interview
“I will always have my Coca Cola. Right now it gets blended with a little scotch most of the time, and I have my beer. My diet has always been relaxed. It has never been one of those strict diets”
“I always try to maintain at least three meals a day, sometimes this is very hard. Sometimes it is one or two. This time around I have bumped it to five meals by adding two shakes to my diet. But overall I’m not a big food consumer, never have been, never would be.”
[quote]gswork wrote:
“I will always have my Coca Cola. Right now it gets blended with a little scotch most of the time, and I have my beer. My diet has always been relaxed. It has never been one of those strict diets”
“I always try to maintain at least three meals a day, sometimes this is very hard. Sometimes it is one or two. This time around I have bumped it to five meals by adding two shakes to my diet. But overall I’m not a big food consumer, never have been, never would be.”
Vince Taylor
of course it might all be BS, but still…
[/quote]
Interesting quotes by Vince Taylor, He works out at my gym. I usually see him working out 2-3 times a week. He looks like an absolute beast.
Maybe VT was BSing a bit in that interview, i think it’s true to say that AAS would give someone an advantage over more disciplined non AAS using folks. I.e. that they could be lazy both in diet and training but make gains not available to the non user under the same regimen. We would need a tightly controlled twin study to demonstrate that of course, but i’d bet on the outcome!