baseball and steroids

[whoman69]

do you care?

[Logical]

Originally Posted by mcan

One amendment and this statement is accurate...


"They only enhance your ability to BECOME a better athlete."

[Rain Man]

I don't care about baseball, but if I did care about baseball I'd also care about steroids. As it is, I don't care.

[David.]

steriods are fun.

[mcan]

Originally Posted by jspchief

Take two exactly equal players and give one of them steroids, and the one that takes steroids gets an advantage. Period.

this is only true if they take the roid right before the game...

If they are both able to bench 400 lbs going into the game, they will both only be able to bench 400 lbs during the game. The difference being the guy who is "on" will be able to do that the whole game, while the guy who is not will slowly only be able to do 380, 360, 340, 320... Untill finally he gets too tired to work anymore.

[Logical]

Originally Posted by mcan

...
Then, go to the gym with a friend of yours who is roughly the same size and build. You take a ton of steroids and keep him clean. Both of you do exactly the same amount of work in the gym and eat the same kinds of food. The only difference between your results at the end of the month is that you will probably be leaner than him (less fat due to higher metabolic rate) and will not be as sore (quicker recovery time due to high levels of testosterone). You will probably not be much stronger or bigger than him though...

Actually I sort of question your last statement as well. It is my understanding that the steroids will will allow the muscle tissue to regenerate at a slightly faster rate than without it. So if you are both doing intense weight training the steroid user will see slightly more benefit. Big Daddy is the expert on this so I will defer to him if he shows up.

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by mcan

this is only true if they take the roid right before the game...

If they are both able to bench 400 lbs going into the game, they will both only be able to bench 400 lbs during the game. The difference being the guy who is "on" will be able to do that the whole game, while the guy who is not will slowly only be able to do 380, 360, 340, 320... Untill finally he gets too tired to work anymore.

No. It has nothing to do with immediate performance results. It has to do with building your muscle faster. If the two guys have identical workout regimens, the guy on steroids will display advantages in as little as two weeks.

[mcan]

Originally Posted by Vlad Logicslav

Actually I sort of question your last statement as well. It is my understanding that the steroids will will allow the muscle tissue to regenerate at a slightly faster rate than without it. So if you are both doing intense weight training the steroid user will see slightly more benefit. Big Daddy is the expert on this so I will defer to him if he shows up.

The key word their is "faster" not "better" or "bigger."

The process that builds muscle is called "protein synthesis." It is regulated by the bodies hormone levels, but more hormone does NOT mean more protein, nor does it mean that your body will do the process when it is not needed. The process happens when the muscle tissue becomes destroyed or the energy in the muscle (glycogen) becomes depleted.

Only working the muscle will generate growth. The extra hormone just makes sure that you can do it ALOT. How do you suppose those bodybuilders get into the gym two or three times a day? A normal person would be way overtrained and start to shrink like a marathon runner. That's why athletes like this stuff. It makes them not so tired after practice, so they can get to the gym every day too...

[Eleazar]

So the record stood for 40 years and then it's broken, what, 7 times in 5 years?

And each time by a guy who used to weigh about a buck and a quarter but now looks like Ivan Drago?

Right... keep telling me it had nothing to do with it...

[Katipan]

The moral of this story is to make sure you start your sons on Growth in high school. That way they can cycle off by college!

[mcan]

Originally Posted by jspchief

No. It has nothing to do with immediate performance results. It has to do with building your muscle faster. If the two guys have identical workout regimens, the guy on steroids will display advantages in as little as two weeks.

Not true (according the research that I've done). If they both put in the same amount of work, they will both get back the same results. The key is that the guy who is "on" will be able to get in 4 weeks worth of working out in that 2 week period...

That said, there is one other factor that I hadn't thought of... There comes a point when your body says "stop growing." Most body builders call it the "genetic ceiling." These guys have been working out like monsters for years already, and have stopped growing due to the lowering T levels in an aged body. If both players in the previous scenario were at that level, then yes the guy who was ON would have a growth advantage...

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by mcan

Not true (according the research that I've done). If they both put in the same amount of work, they will both get back the same results. The key is that the guy who is "on" will be able to get in 4 weeks worth of working out in that 2 week period...

That said, there is one other factor that I hadn't thought of... There comes a point when your body says "stop growing." Most body builders call it the "genetic ceiling." These guys have been working out like monsters for years already, and have stopped growing due to the lowering T levels in an aged body. If both players in the previous scenario were at that level, then yes the guy who was ON would have a growth advantage...

That's just not the case. Even if player 1 and player 2 do the exact same workout regimen, the guy that is on steroids will be stronger, faster.

[Boozer]

By a show of hands, who doesn't think steroid use is rampant in college and pro football? [/hands at his side]

[mcan]

Originally Posted by Cochise

So the record stood for 40 years and then it's broken, what, 7 times in 5 years?

And each time by a guy who used to weigh about a buck and a quarter but now looks like Ivan Drago?

Right... keep telling me it had nothing to do with it...

You aren't reading... I didn't say it had nothing to do with it. In fact, it has a lot to do with it... The facts are these:

1. Players in the eighties used all sorts of steroids. Where did THEIR homeruns go?

2. Players today work more than twice as hard, and twice as smart from the days of milkshake diets and "don't lift weights or you'll lose flexiblity and range of motion." Players back then actually thought this way!

[mcan]

Originally Posted by jspchief

That's just not the case. Even if player 1 and player 2 do the exact same workout regimen, the guy that is on steroids will be stronger, faster.

I promise you that if you took steroids right now and went for a nice little run, you would be no faster or stronger than you were before you took them.

[mcan]

Originally Posted by Boozer

By a show of hands, who doesn't think steroid use is rampant in college and pro football? [/hands at his side]

Of course they are! You can just look at these guys and see that they are juiced. People don't get that big naturally.