T Nation

"Steroids Build About Twice as Much Muscle"

I leave this without comment:

You can find the article and the full context on the quoted user’s website (hopefully he pops in)

Comments, thoughts and trolls of others on this topic always appreciated.

Most people train and eat like shit; so what’s twice shit?

Ultimately you can’t out-steroid a poor training/ diet lifestyle.


Twice as much is being a little over dramatic on his part. From what I have seen over the years results very.
With a shit ton of factors playing into the equation.

1 Like

I guess it’s fairly easy to get an idea how true this is by comparing the weight of top tested and untested bodybuilders who are the same height. Assuming the tested guys haven’t taken steroids.

Maybe someone who’s better versed with bodybuilders could provide some rough numbers?

I had heard it said that AAS’s is a 10% muscle advantage.
My guess would be closer to 20%, all other factors the same.

The statement lacks nuance. How much is being taken is completely left out. Is it assumed that one is going to the max dose that doesn’t acutely kill him? Is he on steroids at TRT levels? Somewhere in-between? I think the statement is only likely true if the individual is willing to take huge dosages, and training and diet are appropriate.

It is just kinda a silly statement to make. I would venture that for most it is much less than double as they aren’t willing to take decades off their lives to do so.

When we factor in how much actual, for real, contractile muscle tissue is built over the course of a year compared to the rest of lean mass, I honestly wouldn’t be all that shocked to find this to be true. Justin Harris has said that, per day, we build like 10 GRAMS of muscle, assuming EVERYTHING is in place and correctly done.

So you’re looking at .022 pounds of muscle a day.

Around .66 a month.

So maybe 8lbs in a year.

Again, assuming EVERYTHING is dialed in, and the trainee is training hard enough to stimulate muscular growth AND eating in a surplus for a full calendar year.

365 days without a break.

I could believe it.



A regular 6 foot 3 inch skinny dude weighs 200.

Lifetime drug free bodybuilder Mike O’ Hearn weights 250 at that height. Like +50 pounds more than a skinny guy.

And anything goes bodybuilder Gunter Herkenschmidt weighs 300 at 6 foot plus. Or +100 pounds more than the skinny guy.


Well, I wasn’t thinking we were going to crack this nut, but you got it all figured out in an indisputable way.


This made me laugh.


To work this out you need to take 3 averages.
A) Average mass of person no training
B) Average mass of top body builder training no PED.
C) Average mass top body builder with PED.

B-A = muscle mass training no PED
C-A = muscle mass with PED.
Adjusted for body fat of course.

Very crude but it would work.


I would say 2x the muscle mass achievable absent PEDs is about right.

Nah, it’s more like 36.009567575675% more.

To become convinced that the open guys have experienced double (at least) the hypertrophy gains of the natties, all you need do is look at them side-by-side. No weighing needed IMO.

1 Like

This assumes the best natty guys would be as good as the best open guys if the natty guys used drugs, which is a big stretch IMO.

1 Like

I actually agree with you. If you look at the pure size of mass monsters its easy to see how the 2x weight could easily be achieved.
The measure was a purely for an objective POV.

1 Like

I’m not going to post his name, but these are before-and-after pictures that a guy posted in the pharma forum a while back. They’re still up and available for viewing, so I’m gonna assume it’s okay that I post them here, and I’d rather do it this way so that his thread doesn’t become a flame-fest.

I think there are people who take steroids and still look like crap, but this is somebody who looks like they’ve never lifted a day in their life, and this is 12 weeks difference.


All that to say,
I disagree. Captain America is just a skinny guy on gear. Steroids give you a superhuman ability to build muscle. As I said before, you can look like shit on steroids, but you can absolutely also out-steroid a shitty diet and training regimen.


Is it? I’m willing to bet that both groups enjoy similar top-level genetics, and thus would have similar success profiles if their histories were reversed, ie, if the natty guys had elected to use PEDs they’d be the top open guys, and if the PED guys had elected to stay natty they’d be the top natty competitors.

1 Like

Dude has one hell of a good reaction to drugs. I’d never come off if I could do that in 12 weeks lol


It seems clear that most you that have replied consider HGH as a steroid. IMO, Steroids alone isn’t going to double muscle mass on anyone over hard (smart) training and diet.