Natural vs. chemically assisted

[Nelson Montana]

bill would be ahead... I know guys who started juicing and made big gains and kept the majority of them or even continued to gain even after quitting for a few of years. They are still bigger and stronger than they would have been had they not.

But even with steroids, you can only get so big. And if you rely on them too soon, you'll never reach your natural genetic limit. It' s unlikely someone would use steroids for years and then stop and make gains naturally.

 

[sharkmaster]

I would agree with that if they had used large quantaties past they're gnetic limit that they would loose size and strength afterwards, but even still dont you think the retention of gains would keep them ahead of someone who had never reached the the level they had? The guys I know arent heavy users but have always kept the greater portion of theyre gains.

 

[sharkmaster]

I should add that using so much that your natural test production gets shot would be another story and lead to a very large loss when going back natty. In that case yeah the long time user would loose.

 

[Nelson Montana]

But even with steroids, you can only get so big. And if you rely on them too soon, you'll never reach your natural genetic limit. It' s unlikely someone would use steroids for years and then stop and make gains naturally.

Having said that, I think someone who did infrequent short cycles would be the biggest gainer of all in the long run.

 

[HugeLifter]

Here is a hypothetical scenario.
Imagine there is Bill and Billy. They both are 25 yrs. old and currently have the exact same stats,DNA, lifts, and they love training. And they both have the same diet and the same training intensity.

At the age of 25, Bill starts juicing.

At the same time, Billy keeps working towards his genetic potential.

Of course Bill will quickly surpass Billy.

But then Billy starts juicing at 30 yrs of age.

By the time they are both 35 yrs. old, will they be the same size and have the same strength? Billy has only been juicing for 5 while Bill has been for 10 yrs. But Billy had waited until he filled out his genetic potential till he started aas.

So by 35 yrs. of age, who would be bigger and stronger? Bill or Billy?

You are looking for a black and white answer, and people are giving their opinions, but IMO there is no good way to tell.

The general assumption is that the longer you wait the better, but the fact is that there are many variables. Remember that AAS generally increases motivation and intensity. Can Bill and Billy really keep the same intensity even though only one of them is on AAS?

Taking AAS is a personal choice. IMO the decision to take the plunge should be based on close monitoring of one's body and gains.

 

[Nelson Montana]

You are looking for a black and white answer, and people are giving their opinions, but IMO there is no good way to tell.

The general assumption is that the longer you wait the better, but the fact is that there are many variables. Remember that AAS generally increases motivation and intensity. Can Bill and Billy really keep the same intensity even though only one of them is on AAS?

Taking AAS is a personal choice. IMO the decision to take the plunge should be based on close monitoring of one's body and gains.

I disagree. In all the years I've been doing this I've found that the motivation gained from using steroids is quickly lost -- especially if started too soon. The guys who last the longest are the ones who train for the love of training.

 

[HugeLifter]

I disagree. In all the years I've been doing this I've found that the motivation gained from using steroids is quickly lost -- especially if started too soon. The guys who last the longest are the ones who train for the love of training.

I didn't mean to use motivation as my main argument. My point is that there are many factors and it is best to know your body and measure your progress.

Taking steroids is a personal choice and it is best to take everything into account before taking the plunge.

The hypothetical scenario that was given is pointless IMHO.

 

[Nelson Montana]

I didn't mean to use motivation as my main argument. My point is that there are many factors and it is best to know your body and measure your progress.

Taking steroids is a personal choice and it is best to take everything into account before taking the plunge.

The hypothetical scenario that was given is pointless IMHO.

The question had nothing to do with personal choice.

I think it was an excellent question.

 

[sharkmaster]

Having said that, I think someone who did infrequent short cycles would be the biggest gainer of all in the long run.

I agree with this.