ExRx.net

Thought this was really interesting. A review of a study done over 10 weeks, 4 groups of men, same diet. 1 group was natural and didn't lift, 1 was on roids but didn't lift, 1 was natural and did lift, and finally 1 was on roids and lifting. The ones who trained done the same program. The results are quite interesting.

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/steroids-vs-natural/

Spoiler alert, here's the results for those who can't be bothered clicking the link,



I've never looked into steroids very much. I'm a complete neutral on the topic in general. So i'm not sure if there's been studies like this done before or not but it's the first i've came across it.

What's especially interesting is the guys on roids and doing no training gained more muscle than the natural guys who trained. Proving, at least to an extent, that guys using steroids can make progress doing stupid programs (or, no program, as the case may be).

KPj

p.s I never scrutinised the study itself just read the review.

_________________
Thanks TimD

thx for the link, VERY interesting.

very funny results imo.

_________________
"his hands can't hit what his eyes can't see" - muhammad ali

The author uses the study to draw some interesting cautions for natural lifters, most of which stem from the results gotten by steroid users crossing over into advice for naturals, with bad results.

The article stands on its own as a very good read, it uses the study only as a jumping off point.

That wouldn't be surprising. Between age 12 and 17, I put on something like 14" of height and I don't even know how many pounds, without significant exercise, because my body decided to flood itself with growth hormone and testosterone. So it's not strange to me that by themselves, steroids can cause muscular growth. It's a good part of what they do, isn't it?

It's depressing but also not surprising that steroids beats hard work, and steroids plus hard work beats everything.

_________________
--
Peter V. Dell'Orto
http://strength-basics.blogspot.com

Not to nit-pick (he says, as he goes ahead and nit-picks), but for clarity, testosterone, while technically a steroid in structure, isn't usually referred to as simply a "steroid". Usually in the context we are using it here, the term "steroid" usually refers to the anabolic steroids. Of course, to confuse things further, testosterone is anabolic. But it is usually discussed in it's own category of "sex steroids" or "steroid hormones". Testosterone has many commonly-accepted medical uses (although not usually in the doses that athletes us it), and so isn't subject to the harsh condemnation that the anabolics are.

I think that this study is interesting in that it only looks at a compound that any family doctor at any corner clinic in your home town can prescribe without fear of criticism. It's especially interesting to old guys. Not that I know any old guys, but if I did, I'm sure it would be interesting to them.

_________________
Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at things in life that don't really matter.--Francis Chan

Also note that the study involves much higher doses of test than are commonly prescribed. They are only able to consider short-term side effects, but there were next to none at all. There was some discussion of this study here a few months ago.

_________________
Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at things in life that don't really matter.--Francis Chan

I would imagine the type of exercise would have a big impact on the outcome.

7lbs of muscle without training? Sign me up

That sounds typical of a first cycle. You still have to know what you're doing though. Or be under the care of a doctor like these guys.