Nairobi & Brownsmith--
I know the difference between creatine and steroids, I am suggesting that my creatine powder contained some sort of anabolic PED in addition to the creatine monohydrate.
Regarding pressing so much weight, I have thought about the wisdom of that, and here's my thinking:
I used to believe it was a lot of weight, but if reports like the small girl pressing 700 lbs are accurate, it's not as much as I thought. Also, I remember seeing guys twice my size warming up at around 700 lbs, so it probably isn't that huge in an absolute sense.
Somewhere around 1,000 lbs would probably be my max right now, so the question becomes, why would I perform any physical activity at or near my max capability?
The first thing I would say is that there is a big difference between your max and 95% of your max, as far as musculature goes. Yes, I understand that the loads on your connective tissue and cartilage, etc. are increased.
However, those loads are increased by all sorts of activities, including for instance sprinting at or near full speed, plyometrics, etc.. At least while doing weights those loads are more smoothly applied in time, without any huge short-term spikes. I would venture to guess that the very short-term loads on those tissues in sprinting exceed those in a 1000-lb leg press, although I don't know for sure.
The question can be expanded to something like "why do ANY physical activity at or near your max", even sprinting or distance running?
One answer to this is to increase your max. What if I had said that I was pressing, say, 600 lbs instead of 900? Would you still have the same attitude toward the potential negative effects? What is the absolute threshold that is objectionable, if there is any? If there is one, is it somehow related to the intrinsic properties of the tissues involved? If so, what IS that absolute threshold?
Until I see good evidence of that absolute threshold, I think it's smarter to train smartly and increase your envelope, so that for instance when I am pressing 600 lbs I am only at 60% rather than 100%. This makes sense to me because the forces you are likely to encounter in normal life are probably less than those you encounter in a 1000-lb press, and you are therefore developing a margin of safety.
And conversely, if you are doing something where the forces exceed those in a 1000-lb press, like all-out sprinting or something like that, you are training your body to be able to deal with those forces without injury. I train without any wraps or artificial support of any kind, and I feel great, after a bout every year of initial injury of one sort or another. I have no chronic problems at all, so it has served me well so far.
And there is another point, on which I may be completely wrong, but I'm interested to hear what others have to say about it: I have believed that if you regularly perform physical activities to the full extent of your capabilities, then you will notice any diminution in those capabilities immediately--as opposed doing things below your level of capability, where your level of capability could fall without you knowing it. This is true in many critical dimensions of physical activity--muscular strength, muscular endurance, flexibility, coordination, etc.. I do all of these things to my max ability.
Why is that important? For me, it is important for health reasons. I have always believed that if there was something wrong with me, that I would notice its effect as a diminution in absolute capability BEFORE its effects became more severe, or less subtle. People don't catch diseases early because they have a certain amount of biological headroom that they are unaware that they are using to combat the effects of that disease. When that is the case, the disease process is allowed to continue until it IS noticed, at which point the disease is further advanced.
There are many examples of disease conditions that could be noticed early in the situation where the biological headroom normally used to address them was used for other purposes, like athletic endeavor.
I should say that I am fortunate to not have any of the congenital defects or abnormalities that could otherwise totally change this calculus.
I know that 900-lb leg presses and 400-lb squats could result in massive injury if something DID go wrong during those exercises, kind of like getting severe dehydration while running a marathon at your full aerobic capacity and suffering a resulting cardiac event--but I try to be smart about it. When doing endurance-type stuff, I stay in civilized areas, and always make sure to drink more than enough. When doing weights I NEVER do them alone, and I always use safety devices--e.g. safety supports on the squat rack.
I never do max stuff when away from civilization, like when out canoeing, hiking, or fishing, just in case failure did result.
So there you go--I do 900 lb leg presses BECAUSE they are near my max, to both prevent traumatic injury, and to facilitate early detection of disease.
It has worked for me so far, I'm in my mid-40's, totally fit, no chronic injuries, no medications at all, feel great, all bloodwork etc is perfect.
I know there will be those out there who disagree with this logic, and who will explain my great health status as being the lucky result of the crapshoot that is life--which may in fact be the case, and I can't prove that it's not.
But I think the logic makes sense, and I am not willing to change my behavior and risk that I was right--so far there have been no perceptible adverse costs of my max-type activities.
Yes, I understand that some failures only manifest catastrophically rather than gradually, but when acute injury is happening, I try to nip it as quickly as possible, and that has worked for me, too, as all my recoveries have been 100% successful.
Comments?