Fitness gurus on the juice...
Discussion
egor110 said:
Yeah that's the guy.
I'm not buying he's running 6 min miles , he might bust his ass to get the odd min mile in the 6's.
The further you run the less carrying muscle/weight is going to help , watch the runners who place well in long distance and instead of relying on muscle they glide over the ground
The sweet spot is being as strong and as light as you can get away with .
I don't him being natty at all - he owns a sups company and every muscle forum has threads on him being "natty or not" - given that, if he was clean, why not just drop your blood results into a video - would see his sups company do great business.I'm not buying he's running 6 min miles , he might bust his ass to get the odd min mile in the 6's.
The further you run the less carrying muscle/weight is going to help , watch the runners who place well in long distance and instead of relying on muscle they glide over the ground
The sweet spot is being as strong and as light as you can get away with .
With regards placing well.....my aim is always just to place ok and stay heavy. I'd rather come 30 out of 200 at 16st than 5th at 14st. As long as no one heavier than me is ahead of me, I'm happy.
Olivera said:
Tiggsy said:
It's all a bit swings and roundabouts - It also lets me retain more mass than I normally would despite the big miles I clock up...and the mass slows me down.
100% the biggest affect is on motivation and lethargy - I train more often and harder due to my head more than my bod.
Perhaps I'm cyncical, but running PB Ultramarathons, 5k in the 20 min region, training more than you've ever done at 46, generally aren't the symptoms of someone with low testosterone...100% the biggest affect is on motivation and lethargy - I train more often and harder due to my head more than my bod.
My symptoms where mostly mental with a sensation that, despite the hard training, my improvements where not coming in all areas - body fat was much harder to drop without impacting lean size than it had been when younger. That and multiple blood tests showed low T so....err.....science?
gregs656 said:
Fairly typical for people to underplay the effect is has on them and overplay the effect it must have on other people though isn’t it?
I dont think that was his point? He was suggesting my fitness levels before starting TRT suggested no need for TRT....i think?I think I've been pretty clear it has a huge impact on me (I wouldnt pay if it didn't!) - but the impact on certain things is not so clear. Does it let me run an ultra at 220lbs and stay at that weight....yes. Does that make me fast....not so much. Quite possible I'd go faster, off TRT and weighing less.
oceanview said:
Olivera said:
Perhaps I'm cyncical, but running PB Ultramarathons, 5k in the 20 min region, training more than you've ever done at 46, generally aren't the symptoms of someone with low testosterone...
Doing Ultramarathons -all that distance running, I would have thought caused the low test!For those talking about the long term downside of TRT - It's worth understanding the difference between true TRT and then average "TRT" and then getting jacked as f
k.
I (like most in the UK on true TRT) take around 100mg p/wk (lots take less)
The Yanks, for various reasons, tend to be starting around 150 - 200mg p/wk. My expectation is that the UK will be the same in a few years (I'll explain why)
Then you have people who call what they do TRT but in reality they sit in a grey area between that and running cycles. For a start a LOT will source their test from illegal labs because its cheap and (once you are on a settled dose) it seems tempting to do away with the expensive Dr bit and just source your own cheap test.....oh.....and you can up your dose without worrying about upsetting the DR when he sees your latest bloods. So someone who could get a DR to give them 100mg might take 150mg.....is that still TRT? If it pushes their test levels way above norm?
Then you have people that cruise and blast - TRT dose 90% then 300-500mg a week before a beach holiday (or movie). They would tell you they are on TRT...are they really?
And then you have guys that just run bodybuilder levels on regular cycles - 1000mg p/wk + a ton of other gear.
My point is that the people doing TRUE TRT are a small group so I'm not sure there's enough of us yet to show long term issues at those levels (even fewer when you take out the people on TRT because they screwed their system with roids when younger)
So....knowing Bob in the gym who does TRT and is 65 and had a heart issue is maybe not as simple as TRT = bad.
As for why the UK will catch up with the states - supply and demand. More men will want it, more clinics will open and want business, those offering a more relaxed protocol might end up more popular (and people WILL want more......I am determined to stay as true TRT levels but even there its grey. My test levels are way above a 46 year old with good normal levels - but not crazy high....could I up it a tiny bit? The temptation to push a smidge more is VERY strong for many - at least to the point where you have side effects that you notice day to day. If you don't have acne, your nipples aren't sore, you don't free stressed.....does that mean you have room to creep up the dose? And as soon as you convince yourself no you see Wolverine running around at the same age looking like a beast. He is NOT on 50mg a week and lots of whey - I assure you!!!!!
k.I (like most in the UK on true TRT) take around 100mg p/wk (lots take less)
The Yanks, for various reasons, tend to be starting around 150 - 200mg p/wk. My expectation is that the UK will be the same in a few years (I'll explain why)
Then you have people who call what they do TRT but in reality they sit in a grey area between that and running cycles. For a start a LOT will source their test from illegal labs because its cheap and (once you are on a settled dose) it seems tempting to do away with the expensive Dr bit and just source your own cheap test.....oh.....and you can up your dose without worrying about upsetting the DR when he sees your latest bloods. So someone who could get a DR to give them 100mg might take 150mg.....is that still TRT? If it pushes their test levels way above norm?
Then you have people that cruise and blast - TRT dose 90% then 300-500mg a week before a beach holiday (or movie). They would tell you they are on TRT...are they really?
And then you have guys that just run bodybuilder levels on regular cycles - 1000mg p/wk + a ton of other gear.
My point is that the people doing TRUE TRT are a small group so I'm not sure there's enough of us yet to show long term issues at those levels (even fewer when you take out the people on TRT because they screwed their system with roids when younger)
So....knowing Bob in the gym who does TRT and is 65 and had a heart issue is maybe not as simple as TRT = bad.
As for why the UK will catch up with the states - supply and demand. More men will want it, more clinics will open and want business, those offering a more relaxed protocol might end up more popular (and people WILL want more......I am determined to stay as true TRT levels but even there its grey. My test levels are way above a 46 year old with good normal levels - but not crazy high....could I up it a tiny bit? The temptation to push a smidge more is VERY strong for many - at least to the point where you have side effects that you notice day to day. If you don't have acne, your nipples aren't sore, you don't free stressed.....does that mean you have room to creep up the dose? And as soon as you convince yourself no you see Wolverine running around at the same age looking like a beast. He is NOT on 50mg a week and lots of whey - I assure you!!!!!
Edited by Tiggsy on Sunday 26th January 14:21
slopes said:
Halb said:
I reckon most of them are full of st.
Shredded SPorts Science is good, and there's one called More Plates More Dates, who makes vids on what gear he reckons people are on.
James from Shredded Sports Science is one smart cookie and the only other guy whose videos i will watch is Jeff Cavaliere of AthleanX.t.Shredded SPorts Science is good, and there's one called More Plates More Dates, who makes vids on what gear he reckons people are on.
A lot of his stuff is based around the movement during the exercise, not just weight.
egor110 said:
Surely these young kids are learning it off you though?
You don't like the fact your getting older and testosterone levels are falling so take something to raise it .
So what there getting isn't accepting who you are it's don't accept it take something to change what nature's provided.
Its an interesting point. The counter to it is that my levels fell to a low point, even against the average 46 year old. Otherwise a DR wouldn't prescribe it. At which point it's into the realms of "would you not wear glasses to correct your natural sYou don't like the fact your getting older and testosterone levels are falling so take something to raise it .
So what there getting isn't accepting who you are it's don't accept it take something to change what nature's provided.
tty eyesight?" It's 2020 - we all do things that are not natural because nature is (in some areas) rubbish. It's why we have vaccines and don't just let kids die of a bug.The other issue is that a 16 year old has nature working FOR him - it WANTS him to get to sexual maturity, fight off competition and have babies. At 46, nature is done with me. There is no natural reason for me to stick around another 40 years. So me and nature have a relationship very different to my kids.
Lastly, I don't discuss with him my desires to go beyond "a little above average" - I am mindful of how he understands what I do and where it (and my motivation) sits in relation to him, his goals, youtube dicks, etc
ORD said:
egor110 said:
If you need glasses it's because your going to be a danger to the public without them .
Nobody's going to smash there car up because they have low testosterone , unlike being short sighted .
Or because you want better eye sight! That’s the usual reason. Nobody's going to smash there car up because they have low testosterone , unlike being short sighted .
If people don’t want to artificialy maintain youthful qualities due to cost, fear, morals.....that’s 100% cool. But I enjoy doing otherwise. Same as I drive an unnatural car, and accept all the risks of doing so, because I prefer to travel long distances with that degree of assistance.
MC Bodge said:
Taking hormones that could adversely affect you 20 or 30 years in the future isn't something I'd be risking. 20 years used to sound a long time, but as I've got older 20 years isn't that long....
But your mixing situations. Looking like a BB or men’s health model at 60 means running a cycle....not taking TRT. There are as many ailments that long term TRT can prevent as there are negatives it can cause (add in that somebody on TRT is getting a full medical yearly and blood work done more often. A level of medical care 99% of people do not have)And if your goal is to garden in old age that great. But if your goal is to run and lift in old age, you may need help. Same as my parents goal is holiday in Devon and when I’m 80 I’ll still want to holiday abroad. So I’ll need a plane. Different goals, different needs.
popeyewhite said:
Simply put if you performance tune a car engine most people would also upgrade the brakes and suspension, tyres etc.
If the quality of petrol you ran the car on got worse over the years, you’d look to restore the quality of petrol.Again, if people want to allow age to deteriorate their abilities I’m 100% behind allowing them to go so. And if people don’t, I’m all for that too.
Everything has risks and rewards. Hence the car which kills thousands (I assume you still drive?) and isn’t it cool we are free to own a car or not. But you can’t pick to walk then tell drivers their are heading for an early grave! Well, you can.....but it looks silly.
MC Bodge said:
Tiggsy said:
If the quality of petrol you ran the car on got worse over the years, you’d look to restore the quality of petrol.
Again, if people want to allow age to deteriorate their abilities I’m 100% behind allowing them to go so. And if people don’t, I’m all for that too.
Everything has risks and rewards. Hence the car which kills thousands (I assume you still drive?) and isn’t it cool we are free to own a car or not. But you can’t pick to walk then tell drivers their are heading for an early grave! Well, you can.....but it looks silly.
This appears to have little to do with "Fitness Gurus on the Juice" and much more to do with PHers justifying their own use of PEDs, for pseudo-medical reasons or otherwise.Again, if people want to allow age to deteriorate their abilities I’m 100% behind allowing them to go so. And if people don’t, I’m all for that too.
Everything has risks and rewards. Hence the car which kills thousands (I assume you still drive?) and isn’t it cool we are free to own a car or not. But you can’t pick to walk then tell drivers their are heading for an early grave! Well, you can.....but it looks silly.
Pvapour said:
Someone who is on Medical issue trt (like tigsy) just looks natural and like someone who works damn hard at their achievements.
Indeed - mostly due to the large mileage I run, my size is more like a swimmer build than a lifter. Which is perfect, my "size" aim is nothing more than to be able to run as much as I do and still look like a swimmer. Most people doing my endurance stuff would be a lot smaller. But thats because they are skinny, no upper body, endurance types - don't mistake that for me being big! There is nothing odd about my look other than I finish fun runs with people a few lbs lighter. I'm hardly the target of the next Netflix expose!My dose is standard UK prescribe - that means it comes off the back of a medically diagnosed deficiency. It's 100% the case that, with treatment, I jump from way below norm to above it. But so what? No one is disadvantaged by that. With glasses I can see better than most "normal sighted" 46 year olds, despite being short sighted.
The health issues are not really worth getting into here - people just have to do their own research and pick based on the risk/rewards. There's plenty of research showing mild TRT has a bunch of health positive impacts. The heart issues seem to impact those with existing issues. I have a resting pulse of 39 so I'm going to, unscientifically, guess my heart has no issues yet. At the end of the day, I do a LOT of things that have far higher risks but I do anyway as I enjoy them. I ride motorbikes, I holiday to some iffy places, I drive a fast car...I do TRT.
The cheating issue I am interested in - but I'm not sure I'm a good example??? I make no income from what I do....it costs me!! How I look is a) not impacted by TRT beyond my point above and b) nothing to do with any message I may have on fitness - which is, in simple terms, that anyone putting in some effort can get to a better than average state and it's worth trying as that's fun. I'm talking about getting your parkrun to 24 minutes! Not deadlifting 400KG
I'm also VERY happy to discuss if I'm lying to myself - I'm not sure where I am though? I know there may be risks. I know there are benefits. I have a fitness regime better than most. Diet better than most. Medical checks better than most. It's not like I'm getting gear from behind the bike sheds!
My only, personal, dilema is the inner battle to avoid pushing doses higher for continuing improvements. But thats just an inner dialogue I have with myself. It's no different to "shall I work 60 hrs per week and earn loads more but increase stress levels"....etc, etc. No one is hurt by my choice.
I'm open to people doing what they like if no one is hurt....hence I wouldn't stop the old men on their bicycles everyone was cheering for because they seem to be having fun - despite a high risk of skin cancer. I'm also delighted for folks looking forward to aging naturally. I hope it's great for them. I'm not sure why me skipping the gardening and going running at 65, looking 45, would bother them?
TRT/steroid ABUSE buy those lying to the public where the physic correlates directly to the income.....that I dislike. Someone like Chris Hemsworth, Christian Bale, etc coming out and explaining how they prep for a movie might do the world of good. Although - maybe not, people would stop trying to achieve the impossible in the gym and just copy what they REALLY do. Maybe??
MC Bodge said:
Men are beginning to be put under the sort of pressure to conform to a physical appearance that women have been for a very long time.
Whats interesting - and the same with women...is that it is 100% true that people are under more pressure than ever.....yet most of them are fatter than ever! It's almost like the "ideal" is moved so far from achievable that they give up with a burger and fries.popeyewhite said:
I think it's never been easier to be distracted from exercise. And the two most pernicious inventions of the modern era, mobile phones and social media, both encourage a sedentary lifestyle.
I think food is a bigger one (although we could argue exercise V food forever!)I've never been inactive.....but I have been 23 stone and could do a multiple 10k calorie a day binge with ease. I'm convinced we'll look back in 50 years and regard our eating like we see smokers from the 1950's
mcelliott said:
People are lazy, the average Joe has no idea what goes into achieving a decent level of fitness/physical development, often witnessed in threads on here.
While true - It's not 100% the case. "Lazy" as a description is dangerously misleading - it's like calling terrorists cowards. It sounds good but misses the point and leaves the real issue unresolved.I was a gym instructor for years - long before I got fat. I knew exactly what to do in order to drop weight. And lazy would be to sit on the sofa and do nothing - I'd get in the car and drive 30 mins to find a McDonalds. It takes effort to overeat......more effort than doing nothing.
People eating too much that is bad for them is more than being lazy. You wouldn't call an alcoholic lazy - having known alcoholics and overeaters....they share A LOT of similar traits.
popeyewhite said:
little reward other than psychological.
How does that sit with people who take PEDS to shortcut their progress? More or less commitment - could be argued either way.
The problem is - psychological reward is not little. It's MASSIVE! Your brain runs the show...if it's motivated to act in a way that isn't to your long term health....you have little say in the matter!How does that sit with people who take PEDS to shortcut their progress? More or less commitment - could be argued either way.
PEDS to shortcut performance....we can't ignore the huge difference between true TRT use and running gear. At the top end you are cheating in a sport, depriving others of success, wrecking your health.....at the other end, you hurt no one, feel better* and have as many health improvements as you do downsides. You can't answer your question without narrowing down the PED user we are discussing.
- I know it's easy to think TRT users spend all day worrying about their triceps insertions and whether the quad development is overpowering their hammys.......but I'm on a few TRT forums and the majority of people who start TRT are in a bad place on day 1. They aren't starting a life long, expensive, routine of injecting themselves every day to look hench! They are, literally sometimes, at the end of the line. If a small percent go on to feel great and end up ahead of the norm, that doesn't detract from their starting place. Had I not been unwell I would NEVER have done TRT in a million years!
popeyewhite said:
Tiggsy said:
The problem is - psychological reward is not little. It's MASSIVE!
For some of us, not all.There are those, like you, who don't fall foul of these problems. But MILLIONS do - so saying "yeah, just lazy" doesn't move the situation forward.
You are standing in an AA meeting saying "what's the problem, drink less....I control what I drink...get a grip" - then walking out, job done. Only it's not - and that AA group is over half of everyone! You can argue alcoholics should all be terminated/are lazy scum/don't deserve your help......but unless you kill or deport them all, you are stuck living with them.
gregs656 said:
James English for example - not a healthy message to promote IMO.
At least when I was young 13/14 (even before I twigged Arnold was using gear) I never really saw him as an actual viable body to achieve - BB where superhuman, even if I didn't know why or how.Guys like English today make kids think they CAN look like that - and the ONLY two paths are drug ABUSE or failure.
popeyewhite said:
Not sure where you're going with that Tiggsy - that wasn't what I meant by quite some margin. I have worked with addicts of various kinds and most have said there was a point at which they were aware they were tipping towards addiction but decided it was the easier option, for whatever reason, at the time.
I suppose my point was (having lived with an addict) they found getting to the point of addiction easy because socially it was fine to over drink - once there, no amount of telling them the obvious would bring them back. The compulsion to drink (or eat) is overwhelming once stuck in that place.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff