Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

how much cardio does it take to burn muscle on gear?

silverbackn said:
Genetics don't just apply to insertions and origins of muscle. You think genetics don't play a role in how much muscle you can hold? You are absolutely clueless. No, drugs don't take out the genetic factor at all, they proliferate it. The pro bb'ers you see onstage have comparable genetics in terms of rarity to that of an olympic sprinter. I feel like I'm wasting my time rebutting your ridiculous statements. You're so far off the truth that you don't have a chance.
I never said genetics didnt play a role in how much muscle you can hold. Where did you ever see me say that? What I said was that the drugs allow you to make up for that. If you can build muscle at a rate of 5, the drugs allow you to push that percentage up. What your saying is that the guy with the lesser genetics will always fall second to the guy with superior genetics and we both know that's not true.

And dont sit up here and give me this bullshit about the rarity of an olympic sprinters genetic make up. Of course they have more fast twitch fibers. After years of training as a sprinter, it's only natural that they are gonna have an elevated level of muscle, and specifically certain types of muscle. But you cant prove that it was ALWAYS geneticly that way from birth. By the same token, I cant disprove that it wasnt. So I guess we're at a deadlock. Believe what you want, and I'll do the same until discredited. But I bet I could find a sprinter who wasnt always the fastest kid, and a pro bodybuilder who wasnt always the biggest kid... which would definitely say something about your theory of being born with the genetics.
 
Meat_head said:
Thats what I figured. I since have added a little more low GI carbs and more protein in the a.m but other than that its working great. I'm not gonna change anything else. Since when are shakes the lowest quality protein anyway. I know whole foods are better but shakes have their place, and I won't cut them. Thanks for the support.
Because it's processed. But whole foods yield the greatest gains. Shakes are a good substitute for those that don't have time to cook.
 
PolfaJelfa said:
1 shake is excessive...or even 3? NOT TRUE.....WHEY PROTEIN ISOLATE has about 95-97% absorption rate......that is far more than any natural food with the exception of Eggs Whites....Tuna does not have as high nor steak.....

I do not like to drink a lot of shakes and am curently on a 0 shake per day shcedule..due to money.....( i take 2 cans of tuna mixed with water after workout) its disgusting....However when i add about 3 shakes per day when i have money....thats 180g more protein / day.....my results will explode!

3 is definatelly not excessive......
When i was cutting i was on ONLY PROTEIN SHAKES and low gi carbs.
Also bulked on Purely Pro-Complex, Salads, and Low Gi Carbs.......

When you realy look at it.....shakes are purer and absorb better than anything except eggs. Sure if you buy shity protein like 100% whey from optimum nutrition...you get screwed with 50% absorption or so.

I know there is a web site where you can check absorption rates, label claims etc. If they realy test as claimed.


LOL, How can shakes be purer than whole foods? It freaking processed for christ sakes.
 
Outtlaw said:
I never said genetics didnt play a role in how much muscle you can hold. Where did you ever see me say that? What I said was that the drugs allow you to make up for that. If you can build muscle at a rate of 5, the drugs allow you to push that percentage up. What your saying is that the guy with the lesser genetics will always fall second to the guy with superior genetics and we both know that's not true.

And dont sit up here and give me this bullshit about the rarity of an olympic sprinters genetic make up. Of course they have more fast twitch fibers. After years of training as a sprinter, it's only natural that they are gonna have an elevated level of muscle, and specifically certain types of muscle. But you cant prove that it was ALWAYS geneticly that way from birth. By the same token, I cant disprove that it wasnt. So I guess we're at a deadlock. Believe what you want, and I'll do the same until discredited. But I bet I could find a sprinter who wasnt always the fastest kid, and a pro bodybuilder who wasnt always the biggest kid... which would definitely say something about your theory of being born with the genetics.
Do you have any education past high school? Yes, it is always that way from birth. True athletes are born, not made. If you put every single kid on the same style of training they would all progress at different rates. Some would be terrible some would stand out, it's called genetics. Yes, olympics sprinters have incredible genetics. How the hell can you be so blind? Obviously hard work can improve anyone, but to be at the top extreme genetics are a given. Ronnie Coleman had 18" arms before he ever touched a weight. I hope I'm not the only one on this board educated enough to know how untrue all of your BS is. BTW, if all things are equal the guy with the best genetics wins EVERYTIME.
 
silverbackn said:
Do you have any education past high school? Yes, it is always that way from birth. True athletes are born, not made. If you put every single kid on the same style of training they would all progress at different rates. Some would be terrible some would stand out, it's called genetics. Yes, olympics sprinters have incredible genetics. How the hell can you be so blind? Obviously hard work can improve anyone, but to be at the top extreme genetics are a given. Ronnie Coleman had 18" arms before he ever touched a weight. I hope I'm not the only one on this board educated enough to know how untrue all of your BS is. BTW, if all things are equal the guy with the best genetics wins EVERYTIME.
You can believe that if you want to. But I dont. I believe I could take any skinny kid with average genetics, pump him full of drugs, and with the right amount of time and dedication turn him into a ripped 260lbs. (if the desire is there on his part). What you see as genetics, I see as the result of yrs of hard work and dedication. The goal of most sports, especially the Olympics, is to try to make the playing field as equal as possible. And in the Olympics, it does not come down to who's genetics are better. Guys with superior genetics get beat all the time. So I turn it around and ask how can YOU be so blind???
 
Outtlaw said:
You can believe that if you want to. But I dont. I believe I could take any skinny kid with average genetics, pump him full of drugs, and with the right amount of time and dedication turn him into a ripped 260lbs. (if the desire is there on his part). What you see as genetics, I see as the result of yrs of hard work and dedication. The goal of most sports, especially the Olympics, is to try to make the playing field as equal as possible. And in the Olympics, it does not come down to who's genetics are better. Guys with superior genetics get beat all the time. So I turn it around and ask how can YOU be so blind???
I have seen many a skinny kid pump themselves full of drugs, they remain skinny kids. Then I have seen kids with good genetics do a small cycle and blow up. I hit 240 before I ever touched a drug. Do I have good genetics? Yes, I do. YOU COULD IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM TURN A SKINNY KID INTO 260 RIPPED POUNDS, THAT IS FUCKING RIDICULOUS! You're talking about Mr. Olympia size athletes. Must be nice to not have to worry about reality interfering with any of your thought processes. By the way, you must be an absolute fucking monster. You would have to be atleast 260 ripped pounds, if you could turn a skinny kid into that. Somebody with some intelligence and knowledge of the body please back me up.
 
silverbackn said:
I have seen many a skinny kid pump themselves full of drugs, they remain skinny kids. Then I have seen kids with good genetics do a small cycle and blow up. I hit 240 before I ever touched a drug. Do I have good genetics? Yes, I do. YOU COULD IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM TURN A SKINNY KID INTO 260 RIPPED POUNDS, THAT IS FUCKING RIDICULOUS! You're talking about Mr. Olympia size athletes. Must be nice to not have to worry about reality interfering with any of your thought processes. By the way, you must be an absolute fucking monster. You would have to be atleast 260 ripped pounds, if you could turn a skinny kid into that. Somebody with some intelligence and knowledge of the body please back me up.
I TOTALLY agree with you.
 
Hey, like I said believe what you want. Im through arguing this. Until someone can disprove me with evidence, then I'll believe what I want. Keep chaulking up all your athletic defeats in life to lack of genetics... you'll go real far and acheive a lot that way :rolleyes: .
 
Top Bottom