A question...as in comparisons. AS v. no AS.

[Sebass67]

Say i had 2 friends...one was on gear and another not. Let's call them Gear and anti gear..

So gear benches 375, squats 550, and deads 500...
and anti-gear benches 295, squats 450 and deads 425...

Who do you give the most credit to..assuming both are the same size..same build...etc...?

 

[Sebass67]

I guess you can't really compare...maybe that's the point...just something i just thought of...

 

[needsize]

there are too many individual variables to really compare that way. My old training partner was natural(at the time anyway) and squats almost 900 in competition and benches almost 600, I have been cycling for over 2 years now and cant even come close to his lifts, but have come a really long way myself

 

[revexrevex]

credit in what terms? in terms of absolute strength, or in terms of hardwork:weight lifted raito, its all relative in my opinion

 

[Lord_Suston]

you give more credit IMO to the guy who works out harder, progress is the big definer in my thought process

 

[rbrown]

Say i had 2 friends...one was on gear and another not. Let's call them Gear and anti gear..

So gear benches 375, squats 550, and deads 500...
and anti-gear benches 295, squats 450 and deads 425...

Who do you give the most credit to..assuming both are the same size..same build...etc...?

I really have no idea, but I did read an article once by Jeff Everson in planet muscle where I believe he stated that based on his experience with himself and many other athletes that he had been in contact with and trained that gear was probably good for about 30% additional on your lifts (I'm 90% sure it was 30%). If that is true, it looks like anti-gear is doing better, especially on the dead and squat--surely gear would give you more than a 15% increase on your lifts, at least at the level of lifts that are listed.

 

[WarriorPL]

in most cases, 'gear' works just as hard as 'anti-gear', so i would give equal credit to both.

 

[IJ26]

I would give credit to the person working harder. Sure the non gear guys lifts arent as impressive but if he still works his ass off thats fine by me.

 

[Tweakle]

So long as they both train hard both are equal IMO.

Guys who do grams of drugs and only train chest and arms are losers but other than that I don't see why some people feel they can take a higher moral ground on steroid use.

rbrown, that 30% is interesting - most gym steroid users I've seen can't even squat 405. Most people just cant/won't train hard even when they're using hundreds of dollars of drugs

 

[rbrown]

So long as they both train hard both are equal IMO.

Guys who do grams of drugs and only train chest and arms are losers but other than that I don't see why some people feel they can take a higher moral ground on steroid use.

rbrown, that 30% is interesting - most gym steroid users I've seen can't even squat 405. Most people just cant/won't train hard even when they're using hundreds of dollars of drugs

Obviously, different people will react to drugs differently; some better and some not as good. I assume Everson was making a generalization assuming equal genetics, equal work ethic, equal everything except for the drugs. I think that is what the question above is getting at.

Even in the case of the guys you know who can't squat 405 though, 30% may be the right number--just imagine how low their squat would be if they were not on the the steroids.

Nothing will replace hard work; that's for sure.

 

[Toozee]

in most cases, 'gear' works just as hard as 'anti-gear', so i would give equal credit to both.

I agree, with an extra point or two to mr gear for finding a source, making good cycle choices, and then not getting busted.

 

[Brett44444444]

there are too many individual variables to really compare that way. My old training partner was natural(at the time anyway) and squats almost 900 in competition and benches almost 600, I have been cycling for over 2 years now and cant even come close to his lifts, but have come a really long way myself

wow, do you mean "natural" as in had never used any hormones, or "natural" as in hadn't used recently? Those are some insane numbers even for someone using steroids... I wonder what the "natural" world record squat is...

 

[rbrown]

wow, do you mean "natural" as in had never used any hormones, or "natural" as in hadn't used recently? Those are some insane numbers even for someone using steroids... I wonder what the "natural" world record squat is...

they are insane numbers, but they are possible for a natural lifter, as in never used.

 

[needsize]

he was steroid free at the time, i havent trained with him in years so I dont know now, I believe he is ranked # 2 in canada now so I'm guessing he must be on now. Back then he was around 5'7" and 285lbs.

As for the original question, i was thinking about it and it depends on the lifter. Some people use steroids as a crutch, they dont like to train hard so they let the drugs do the work for them. If the juicer in the question was one of them, then he gets no respect. But if he uses gear as a tool, same as any other, and still busts his ass, then they both get equal respect from me, from one gym rat to another