They made you look like a wimp because you were clean...and we all know baseball and 'roids go together like peanut butter and jelly.
Incidentally, one of the most underreported side effects of HGH in aging athletes is an increase in visual acuity...tell me that didn't help Barry Bonds.
Meanwhile, I'm in denial about my growing need for bifocals.
sprint, since you're in your 40's and have good health results, then it seems ok with good technique and regard to safety.
how much time do you allow for recovery? i've heard that bodybuilders and powerlifters train a bodypart once or twice a week.
Sprint Geezer wrote:
So you think that the benefits from 'roids only last so long as the actual 'roids remain in your body?
Thanks for that info on the girl, my squats are more reasonable at around 400-430.
Really, 700 lbs full leg presses at 130?
I'd better pass 1,000 lbs soon...
You will continue to reap the benefits of performance enhancers if you stay consistent with your workouts. They help push you pass certain plateus that would be unatainable without them, but you will not be able to perform like you would if you were still on them. Your squat total of over 400 is very impressive for your size and a comparable number in the leg press would be around 1200-1300. The leg press eliminates the balance needed for squats and also eliminates the lower back from the movement, also less stress on the knees. Go for it!
I only do a heavy leg workout once a week, but that's more for reasons of habit and convenience than recovery.
In fact, after the last big leg workout, I was out at the track the next day doing accelerations.
I felt it, but it wasn't totally brutal. They weren't quick, but I was doing them for form and not power.
So now this other poster comes along and tells me that I could be doing 1200-1300.
That makes me feel better about 900, but I'll tell you, that much weight on a machine gives me the willies.
Even putting 400+ lbs on an olympic bar gives me the willies. Who the heck knows if these YMCA olympic bars are any good or not? You can see the bar bend significantly doing squats, and when you do deadlifts...it looks like it's going to fold in half--but it never has!
It's still somewhat scary, though. Incidentally, I love that one youtube video where the guy has 2500 lbs on the machine and does 3" leg presses. I wonder to what weight the manufacturer warranties the machine?
Well, there's Arnold, who we know used steroids:
Doesn't look to have kept his muscle!
Junk Master wrote:
Or you could just gobble D-bol by the handfull like Arnold and the old Gold's gym guys used to.
I'd offer that when Joe Gold went franchise with World's was the time Arnold really got big and that was pretty much the same time the guys just gulping D-bol started to look small. In support I offer up Mike Katz's chest
http://www.ifbb.com/images/hf07/mikekatz2.jpgWell, it still looks as if there's no consensus on this issue.
I keep thinking back to this thread about Justin Gatlin, where a couple of people posted their opinion that, based on his college career (about which admittedly I know nothing), he was basically a 10+ guy.
And yet, years later after a long break from competition and only intermittent training, he runs sub-10 and shows signs of nothing but improvement.
So either those posters were wrong in their conclusions, or they were correct in their conclusions and he just got better naturally, or they were correct in their conclusions and he retained some of the benefits of 'roid use.
If some of the benefits ARE retained, what a drag that would be. On the other hand, if endogenous hormone production actually decreases, then there is some justice.
All this thinking about Bolt, of course.
A little something from the internet, a study of weightlifters in 2006.
When the researchers looked at the subjects' muscles through a microscope, they made a surprising discovery: Rather than returning to their original proportions, the muscles of the steroid users who'd stopped taking the drug looked remarkably similar to those of the subjects who were still using. They also had larger muscle fibers and more growth-inducing "myonuclei" in their muscle cells than the nonsteroid users.
http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation/2008/04/studies-suggest.html
What is difference between creatin and roids ?
Is creatin dangerous?
How might creatin benfit a high school football player ?
I am assuming creatin is legal ?
Tubby Jones wrote:
What is difference between creatin and roids ?
Is creatin dangerous?
How might creatin benfit a high school football player ?
I am assuming creatin is legal ?
It's legal
Sprint Geezer wrote:
By now most people know this, but 20 years ago, when creatine first hit the market as a supplement, I took a bottle of it, and my weights shot through the roof, and I packed on a ton of lean muscle--after having trained intensely for my entire life, yet never before having experienced those kinds of gains.
Some of the gains could have been from physical maturation, but the gains were ridiculous, so I concluded that there was some serious PED spiking the creatine that I used. It freaked me out and I stopped using it, as I didn't want my nuts to begin to disappear and my liver to shrivel up. This was all after my competitive track days had ended.
It's now 20 years later, and I found myself doing weights at the gym the day before yesterday.
I kid you not, I was doing 900 lbs on the leg press for reps, at a bodyweight of around 182. Maybe I'll make a video and post it for disbelievers.
Because that's a ridiculous amount of weight, and because I can probably hit 1,000 lbs, that got me thinking about how long the benefits of, say, 'roid use persist.
I'm pretty sure that that amount of weight is unreasonable for any clean 182-lb guy. Other weights are similarly unreasonable, although I don't TRY to achieve those high weights.
Anybody know how long the benefits of 'roids persist?
I got to thinking about this in light of Bolt's worsening times this year and last, after his skyrocketing to the heights of multiple sprint WR's only 2 years ago.
Say he WAS on drugs in '08 and '09, wouldn't he still manifest some benefits thereof if they were 'roids or something similar?
Or, if the benefits last even longer, what about guys like Gatlin and Chambers?
Anybody know how long the benefits last?
Would you like a pat on the back? Leg presses mean nothing.
Squatting 400 lbs is nothing especial; personally I've done 455x3 as a 19 year old.
For the question-- It depends on the steroid and if a proper PCT (post cycle therapy) was in place. Typically, a cycle will last for 12 weeks with a PCT period of an additional 4 weeks, give or take. After this stage, the body will be functioning at normal testosterone levels. Some of the gains will stay, but obviously without the crazy T levels some will vanish.
*It's unknown if steroid usage has long-term positive effects. My research suggests not.
BTW assuming you knew the product was pure, why wouldn't a sprinter cycle creatine? It's an extensively studied, legal, cheap performance enhancer. Huge bang for your buck. As long as your stomach tolerates it and you don't cramp excessively, it would be right up there with whey protein/carb recovery drink.
Seriously, what are the negatives?
Elitefitness.com wrote:
Would you like a pat on the back? Leg presses mean nothing.
Squatting 400 lbs is nothing especial; personally I've done 455x3 as a 19 year old.
His weight lifting was actually tied in to the subject of the thread. Yours, however, is not. Seems like you're the one looking for a pat on the back.
really, sprint geezer? You can leg press 1000 pounds, run a sub 5 minute mile and should have been a professional baseball player.
I hate to flame people, but I'll do it anyway.
Well, not exactly flame. But this is all too much.
tupperware--
You should pay more attention.
If you believe any of this is really good, you should consider that apparently there are young girls who leg press 700 lbs and that mine "should" be around 300 lbs more than it is;
that I ONCE did a 4:58 mile, not too long ago, after doing tons of 5k training on a treadmill, that that 4:58 mile almost killed me, that it took a bout of illness and a huge resulting drop in body weight to do it, and that that time really isn't very good, even in my age group, where I believe there are guys doing sub-4:00;
that baseball was probably my BEST sport;
that I never achieved any sort of international status in sprinting;
etc.
These aren't even in the ballpark of the best things I've done--for you to consider them questionable, when apparently none of them is anything to write home about, but instead look great only from the perspective of the average joe, tells me that you are either still fairly young, or an underachiever, or a self-deprecator, or some combination of these.
I'll tell you what I CAN'T do athletically but what I've always WANTED to do, how about that?
Sprint a 10.1x 100m
Do an Iron Cross
A double back in the layout position
Won Wimbledon men's singles
LJ 8+ metres
Seriously dunk, instead of just sneaking it in over the rim
Run a 15-minute 5k
Thrown the jav over 70m
Been competitive in ANY kind of swimming in a distance greater than 10m (yes, TEN metres)
Win the Olympic Decathlon
Be able to tread water in cool water for more than 2 hours
March in the opening ceremonies as an athlete
AND ABOVE ALL, FLOAT! I have always been VERY negatively-buoyant. To me, floating would be like flying.
etc.
The thing is, it has a lot to do with how you apply yourself. Maybe I could have achieved some of the above if I had concentrated on them, like playing in the majors, but I did other things instead, and never achieved those things. And now it is too late do achieve them, but I've got other things I've achieved instead, and which I value very much.
As it stands now, the only things I do athletically even half-seriously are weights and sprint training at the track, so it is no surprise that I'm OK in those activities--but I haven't hit a ball in decades, I haven't tumbled forever, I haven't done jumps, throws, hurdles, etc. for decades, etc. Sure I might do stuff recreationally like riding, b-ball, swimming, etc., but not even semi-seriously.
That not-so-big leg press is the result of DECADES of conditioning and preparation, and now I find out that, although it is the most I've ever seen anyone do who wasn't a roid monkey, it's not even that great.
That's the good thing about letsrun--just when you think you're good, some guy comes along and leg presses 900 lbs.
And just when the guy who does 900 lbs thinks he's good, along comes some guy who tells him he should be doing 300 lbs more than that, and another guy tells him that a teenage girl does almost as much.
And just when I will think that the sprint training is going well, I will enter an open meet at the U and get my ass handed to me--but for now, letsrun will do just fine.
Welcome to the club, tupperware.
All you have to do to float is fill your lungs with air and relax. There's no way you're sinking with your lungs full.
ja, ja. So you can dunk too.
keep going, this is fun.
tupperware no wrote:
ja, ja. So you can dunk too.
keep going, this is fun.
Seriously dude . . . dunking? Sub 5 mile? These are not mind blowing athletic feats. Moderately talented high-schoolers do this shit all the time.
smanimal wrote:
tupperware no wrote:ja, ja. So you can dunk too.
keep going, this is fun.
Seriously dude . . . dunking? Sub 5 mile? These are not mind blowing athletic feats. Moderately talented high-schoolers do this shit all the time.
__________
doing any of these one or the other is not more than 99 percentile, no. But doing all three at age 43? at 182 lbs? After being a sprinter his whole life?
And oh yeah, having national class baseball skills?
Come on. World class decathletes in their prime, training 8 hours a day have trouble running 4:45.Dunking? 5 kids in my 3000 person high school could do that. Leg pressing 5.5 your weight? I know nothing about lifting, but this website says anything over 3x bodyweight is extraordinary:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/archive/index.php/t-106870291.htmlSo reps at 900 (5x body weight)? With not huge legs? Guy needs to post a video.
As for SG's questioning me - I am mid 40s, been running 30 years, always finish in the top 1% overall of road races, am a good overall athlete. I do ok.
Does anyone else believe this guy?
almost 45, actually
don't dunk anymore, haven't been able to in 15 years, did a volleyball 10 years ago or so
world-class decathletes do not train 8 hours a day for the mile
you are mid-40's but you still refer to what kids in your HIGH SCHOOL could do?
OMG--get a life!
