What's 'Natural', What's 'Assisted'?

[quote]Marzouk wrote:
Do you become unnatural if you use something that isn’t synthesized from nature?

If so, ephedrine is from a plant?[/quote]

Something can be synthesised from nature and still not natural for humans to consume.

[quote]Marzouk wrote:
If they FDA banned whey would that then make a lifter unnatural?

Thoughts?[/quote]

I get what you’re saying but I don’t think you can base your views on what is natural vs assisted on what some organisation thinks, as you can never be fully aware of all of their motivations etc. I think it is important to think for yourself on this topic.

For me, being “assisted” means modifying the bodys hormonal profile to send stronger signals than it ever would could it regulate itself. That doesnt, however, imply any kind of opinion on whether its good or bad being assisted.

Cheers,
Chris

[quote]spongechris wrote:
For me, being “assisted” means modifying the bodys hormonal profile to send stronger signals than it ever would could it regulate itself.[/quote]

So you would agree then that someone who was clinically diagnosed with primary hypogonadism would be an assisted lifter if his medically justified replacement therapy brought him to, say, the mid-range values for testosterone?

The distinction is meaningless unless you’re participating in a competition that expressly prohibits certain kinds of supplementation. Then, according to that federation you’re not “natural”.

I think the line is drawn when a particular substance gives a DISTINCT advantage over another.

Where bodybuilding is concerned any substance allowed at a natural/tested contest = natural.
Anything banned = assisted
Simple as that

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
The distinction is meaningless unless you’re participating in a competition that expressly prohibits certain kinds of supplementation. Then, according to that federation you’re not “natural”.[/quote]

Basically this. Anything more is likely just to make certain people feel better about their lesser progress.

That is the only reason these debates form in damn near every thread about a well built lifter. There are way too many people trying to bring others down a notch…as if it isn’t because they want more company.

If you compete in a tested contest, you are an ass to not be “natural” BY THAT competition’s rules alone.

Going around trying to label random people makes little sense outside of self gratification.

[quote]lemony2j wrote:
I think the line is drawn when a particular substance gives a DISTINCT advantage over another.[/quote]

OK, but suppose I just invented a supplement. Call it anoDash.

Taking anoDash has been clinically shown in my “lab rats” to shave .15 seconds off your 100m dash. It works 60% of the time, every time. Now, this might not mean too much at the regional HS level, but it would totally change the dynamic of an Olympic race.

Is it natural for HS athletes to take anoDash but unnatural for Olympians to do it?

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]lemony2j wrote:
I think the line is drawn when a particular substance gives a DISTINCT advantage over another.[/quote]

OK, but suppose I just invented a supplement. Call it anoDash.

Taking anoDash has been clinically shown in my “lab rats” to shave .15 seconds off your 100m dash. It works 60% of the time, every time. Now, this might not mean too much at the regional HS level, but it would totally change the dynamic of an Olympic race.

Is it natural for HS athletes to take anoDash but unnatural for Olympians to do it?[/quote]

Is anoDash sold at GNC?

Is anoDash banned by the FDA?

Do you take it in powder form or is it injected? into the glutes?

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]spongechris wrote:
For me, being “assisted” means modifying the bodys hormonal profile to send stronger signals than it ever would could it regulate itself.[/quote]

So you would agree then that someone who was clinically diagnosed with primary hypogonadism would be an assisted lifter if his medically justified replacement therapy brought him to, say, the mid-range values for testosterone?[/quote]

That’s where it all gets a bit tricky. I suppose then the crux is the motivation behind the use, which in this case would be medical rather than more ‘recreational’.

I guess that I’d personally say that a substance is ‘natural’ if it exists in some form or another in naturally-occuring foodstuffs (e.g. meat, eggs, fish) or relatively un-processed foodstuffs (e.g. dairy) OR is used to bring a person’s levels of hormones to within the normal physiological range for their age and gender.

But no definition is perfect as very few real absolutes exist. 90% of what we eat is processed/altered in some way anyway, so I guess the only real extreme definition of ‘natural’ that can stand up to any kind of argument is following the paleo diet and not taking any medications - any kind of middle ground can be argued against.

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]lemony2j wrote:
I think the line is drawn when a particular substance gives a DISTINCT advantage over another.[/quote]

OK, but suppose I just invented a supplement. Call it anoDash.

Taking anoDash has been clinically shown in my “lab rats” to shave .15 seconds off your 100m dash. It works 60% of the time, every time. Now, this might not mean too much at the regional HS level, but it would totally change the dynamic of an Olympic race.

Is it natural for HS athletes to take anoDash but unnatural for Olympians to do it?[/quote]

Is anoDash sold at GNC?

Is anoDash banned by the FDA?

Do you take it in powder form or is it injected? into the glutes?[/quote]

AnoDash is sold in the “secret GNC glass steroid case”…placed right smack dab in the middle of the store under fluorescent lights.

It is banned by many PTA’s and individual soccer moms.

Therefore, anyone who so much as inhales around AnoDash is doomed to be labeled UNNATURAL for life.

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:
this is a pretty dumb thread it is fucking obvious when natural becomes unnatural

i see no correlation between this and the panda thread either.[/quote]

[quote]Marzouk wrote:
How is it pretty fucking obvious?[/quote]
Maybe just to the rest of us.

[quote]Marzouk wrote:
Again im not a retard, i know about steroids and blah blah.
No i’m not a retard who thinks creatine is a steroid
[/quote]
Insecurities?

[quote]Marzouk wrote:
What about creatine? No i’m not a retard who thinks creatine is a steroid

People minds change all the time. Why does a hormone or extra test make you assisted? What about creatine?
external supplementation of it which give you levels never achieved naturally or that you can get from food.[/quote] Are you sure? [quote]
Same goes with BCAA’s
What if creatine was banned? Then 10 years down the line people would oh creatine is doping.
Who is anyone to say that one supplement is classed as making you ‘unnatural’ and another isn’t?
Oh and btw the correlation comes from Stu saying that Jeff Willet used a lot of pro hormomes back in the day.
[/quote]

Sounds like you have some homework to do.

  1. Creatine and BCAA’s don’t really give you something you can’t achieve naturally, just top your body off at levels that are difficult to obtain without. Too much and your body will just excrete it, enough rest and food your body can have the amount of creatine or BCAA’s it can use. Not the case with roids.

  2. Banning something doesn’t mean it’s unnatural, what it means is the Government deems it dangerous. Marijuana was banned a long time ago in 2011.

3)Pro Hormones today and pro hormones back in the day are different. Many were just lighter steroids that were not banned.

When it comes to natural use common sense and don’t over think it. If you’re worried about where it ends it depends on how educated the person your talking to is. I know people that think protein is the same as steroids, you’re creatine example isn’t far from people that think that’s a steroid. [/quote]

All good points, for the record i’m not on any side of the fence. I was just wondering what everyone else thought.

My examples were just examples.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
The distinction is meaningless unless you’re participating in a competition that expressly prohibits certain kinds of supplementation. Then, according to that federation you’re not “natural”.[/quote]

Basically this. Anything more is likely just to make certain people feel better about their lesser progress.

That is the only reason these debates form in damn near every thread about a well built lifter. There are way too many people trying to bring others down a notch…as if it isn’t because they want more company.

If you compete in a tested contest, you are an ass to not be “natural” BY THAT competition’s rules alone.

Going around trying to label random people makes little sense outside of self gratification.[/quote]

QFT

[quote]lemony2j wrote:
I think the line is drawn when a particular substance gives a DISTINCT advantage over another.

Where bodybuilding is concerned any substance allowed at a natural/tested contest = natural.
Anything banned = assisted
Simple as that[/quote]

This is pretty good, but banned by who? The government of a sport fed?

Most sports feds banned jack3d a long time ago. Now the british government has banned it, i guess over health concerns rather than performance, but vise versa for sports feds

“assisted” is whatever it’s deemed to be by the governing body for whatever organisation you compete in. Outside of that there’s no relevance

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]lemony2j wrote:
I think the line is drawn when a particular substance gives a DISTINCT advantage over another.[/quote]

OK, but suppose I just invented a supplement. Call it anoDash.

Taking anoDash has been clinically shown in my “lab rats” to shave .15 seconds off your 100m dash. It works 60% of the time, every time. Now, this might not mean too much at the regional HS level, but it would totally change the dynamic of an Olympic race.

Is it natural for HS athletes to take anoDash but unnatural for Olympians to do it?[/quote]

Is anoDash sold at GNC?

Is anoDash banned by the FDA?

Do you take it in powder form or is it injected? into the glutes?[/quote]

AnoDash is sold in the “secret GNC glass steroid case”…placed right smack dab in the middle of the store under fluorescent lights.

It is banned by many PTA’s and individual soccer moms.

Therefore, anyone who so much as inhales around AnoDash is doomed to be labeled UNNATURAL for life.[/quote]

Foorrrreeeever… forrreeeeevver…

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Is anoDash sold at GNC? [/quote]

anoDash is sold exclusively in my van, next to the candy (Vico-nym) I keep for the curious children.

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Is anoDash banned by the FDA?[/quote]

Let’s just say it is in anoDash, LLC’s best interests that this supplement stays off the grid for the time being.

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Do you take it in powder form or is it injected? into the glutes?[/quote]

anoDash is a suppository administered via a proprietary insertion method that only I (and the guy with the camcorder, I guess) know about. I suppose that if you need an extra boost, you can maybe put whatever leaks out into your sock.

Okay, so all this being said, but what about…

Peptides?

Clen / DNP?

T3?

Going by the show-testing standards, most of these would be considered ‘assisted,’ but to what degree are they really?

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Is anoDash sold at GNC? [/quote]

anoDash is sold exclusively in my van, next to the candy (Vico-nym) I keep for the curious children.

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Is anoDash banned by the FDA?[/quote]

Let’s just say it is in anoDash, LLC’s best interests that this supplement stays off the grid for the time being.

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Do you take it in powder form or is it injected? into the glutes?[/quote]

anoDash is a suppository administered via a proprietary insertion method that only I (and the guy with the camcorder, I guess) know about. I suppose that if you need an extra boost, you can maybe put whatever leaks out into your sock.[/quote]

DEFINITELY not natural

I don’t believe in natural/unnatural. I believe in good genes, so you have insane amounts of anabolic hormones in your body and bad genes, in which case you have to inject them into your body. For me, everybody should be juicing, this is how to even out the field. If everybody is juicing, everybody has the same amount of hormones in their body, so everybody is equal.

[quote]Kooopa wrote:
nobody should give a shit about HGH because i don’t see any advantage in it for lifting weights/building your physique[/quote]
ok.