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

Insulin - How necessary is it??

mattdan

New member
This is just my opinion on the use of insulin. You are free to disagree if you like, just do it civilly.

A while back (I think it was Nelson) posted a thread on 10 things that have improved lately. I’d like to add one – less use (abuse) of insulin. I’d like to question just how necessary it is to inject insulin, and can similar gains be made without the injections.

Back in the early 90’s you just had to do insulin – all you had to do was go to any board and they’d tell you. Kinda like some with test on this board.

We all know that insulin is the most anabolic hormone and is the master hormone when it comes to storing fat and building muscle. In fact, the body really can’t effectively do either without some insulin.

But – does this mean you HAVE to inject insulin? I don’t think so. This is of course not based on any medical studies. I do have some medical training, but this is mostly common sense.

Here’s why: Let’s make up some purely hypothetical numbers here. These numbers are for example only and ARE NOT accurate. Lets say you do 5 iu’s of insulin. Let’s also say you consume 100 grams of carbs with the insulin.

Now let’s say the body actually requires the equivalent of 10iu’s of insulin to properly process those 100 grams of carbs. Well your body will only release 5 iu’s of insulin. (again, these numbers are not accurate, only for example)

Example 2: So lets say you don’t do insulin at all, you only ingest the 100 grams of carbs. Your body will in this case release all 10 iu’s of insulin to maintain proper blood sugar level.

In other words, your body will self-regulate your blood sugar levels. TRUE – you don’t get that initial spike of insulin up front by injecting, but in the end, your body will essentially use the same amount of insulin to process the 100 grams of carbs (more or less).

So – doesn’t it stand to reason you could get similar gains by just doing the carbs, then follow up with the protein an hour later? Maybe the gains won’t be quite as good, but they should be similar in my mind with much less risk.

Plus, I remember one very unpleasant side effect of insulin. You get tired as hell an hour later. It’s damned hard NOT to go to sleep.

You also have to deal with the stored fat. What the muscles don’t use WILL get stored as fat, even if you don’t eat any fat. I wonder how many people know your body will MANUFACTURE ITS OWN FAT. You DO NOT have to eat fat to store fat. Your body converts some of the excess sugar to fat.

My main problem with insulin is the possibility of developing diabetes later in life. Our bodies were never designed to eat the amount of poor quality carbs we eat. We were not designed to eat processed white shit like sugar, white flour, etc. We process out all the fiber and such which causes the spiking and crashing blood sugar which adds to the insulin resistance.

Because of this our bodies develop insulin resistance. This means it requires more and more insulin to accomplish the same thing – regulating our BS. The pancreas cannot keep up with the ever increasing insulin needs and you eventually develop type II diabetes. (I’m obviously leaving out the obesity factor here.)

There are other potential side effects of insulin abuse. Heart disease for one. Plus insulin abuse increases the stores of visceral fat, which is not a good thing.

The bottom line is I feel you can get similar results with a good carb drink followed by a healthy meal with much lower risk.

Oh yeah, there is that other little pesky side effect of insulin – death. There HAVE been documented cases of insulin abuse comas and death. Insulin can cause a coma in a matter of minutes. I’ve never heard of someone overdosing on a carb drink. One girl was in a coma for 2 years before dying. She was a pro BB abusing insulin.

Good luck.
 
I'm not sure if the results are the same with natural insulin but I'm definitely not a fan of synthetic insulin.......it has its medical uses but misuse can have life altering effects.
 
The way I see it is this -- Arnold, Draper, Oliva, Scott, Menzter, Pearl, Coe, Robinson and Nubret never did insulin. Once you get as muscular as them, and it isn't muscular enough...then you can think about doing insulin.
 
Great post.

I think one think people forget is that nothing in the body acts in isolation.

Insulin suppresses growth hormone release, and growth suppresses insulin release.

Considering insulin is one of the EASIEST hormones in our body to trigger the release by diet, whereas trigger for GH release are uncertain, I really don't understand why people would take it.

Type II diabetes, or insulin resistance is on the increase, and it is due to lifestyle, diet and being overweight. Basically the receptors 'down-regulate', which could happen with insulin use.
 
how am I supposed to live without you " slin " and how am I supposed to carry on when all dt 'm be livin' 4's gone ........and 2 nelson : r u happy with the old pros tone, health and the physical condition? just curious.!!!
 
Qphoton said:
how am I supposed to live without you " insulin " and how am I supposed to carry on when all dt 'm be livin' 4's gone ........and 2 nelson : r u happy with the old pros tone, health and the physical condition? just curious.!!!


There are other factors besides drugs that have resulted in the different size and condition of the pro-bodybuilders today.

Just think how much knowledge about the human body has increased in the last 30 years, as well as the greater availability to good quality food.
 
Qphoton said:
how am I supposed to live without you " insulin " and how am I supposed to carry on when all dt 'm be livin' 4's gone ........and 2 nelson : r u happy with the old pros tone, health and the physical condition? just curious.!!!


Also thinking about it, I would take the narrrow waisted, ab vaccuuming pros of the 'golden era' over the current GH bloated bellies of the new pros.

Insulin would also increase fat and glycogen storage in the liver, so it could also result in that bigger belly look.
 
tatyana_zadorozny said:
Also thinking about it, I would take the narrrow waisted, ab vaccuuming pros of the 'golden era' over the current gh - growth hormone (somatropin) - bloated bellies of the new pros.

Insulin would also increase fat and glycogen storage in the liver, so it could also result in that bigger belly look.


I can feel what u talking about is beauty to beast approach. after all,
I guess most of the ppl in the bb world don't look at it like this " fitness point of view" beside the need to get bigger not fit is dominant in this game ...kinda of
 
tatyana_zadorozny said:
There are other factors besides drugs that have resulted in the different size and condition of the pro-bodybuilders today.

Just think how much knowledge about the human body has increased in the last 30 years, as well as the greater availability to good quality food.

I would disagree to some point most of the pros use the same work out equipment that was around 30 years ago basic free weights with some cable pulls.The work outs have changed some over the years but basically the same going in cycles over the years depending on what the fad is . The same whole foods that were around 30 years ago are the same ones around today.Most pro's eat 6 real meals a day no protien drinks or mrp's
but yet they promote them becuase they get paid to.Back in the day they ate 4 times a day so yes that part has changed

really the only big change is the bodybuilders of today is in fact they use higher steroids doses and insulin with GH.

Sure we have better knowledge of the body and nutrition
.But then agian pros like coleman during interviews alway say they stick with the basics and go heavey.then when asked what he eats he always says chicken and rice ,steak potatoes,never mentions any of the no2,creatine or any mrp's.

I
 
tatyana_zadorozny said:
Also thinking about it, I would take the narrrow waisted, ab vaccuuming pros of the 'golden era' over the current gh - growth hormone (somatropin) - - growth hormone (somatropin) - bloated bellies of the new pros.

Insulin would also increase fat and glycogen storage in the liver, so it could also result in that bigger belly look.

This is perfection
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTCcPdiefv0
1983 5'9 205lbs with a 29 inch waist
a true work of art ,watch his vacuum at the very end incredible.
IMO the best of all time
sure he was a little on the thinner side when he took the 77 mrO at 185lbs
but no one can argue by 83 at 205lbs at 4% bf 5'9 his demensions were amazing
 
Nelson Montana said:
The way I see it is this -- Arnold, Draper, Oliva, Scott, Menzter, Pearl, Coe, Robinson and Nubret never did insulin. Once you get as muscular as them, and it isn't muscular enough...then you can think about doing insulin.



This i will agree on 100%


RADAR
 
Frank Zane had some great poses - especially his vacuum pose, and he looked good on stage. In real life he doesn't carry the physical impressiveness that I strive for.
No I don't think insulin in needed to build an impressive physique, but it sure helps put on pounds.
 
Tatyanna is right in that insulin is pretty easy to produce, so taking more and risking diabetic conditions is just ridiculous.

When it comes to improvements in muscular development, looking toward the pros is not a good idea. There were, are, and always will be the genetic elite. They also will use anything that will give them a few extra pounds. There is no way in the world anyone else would need to do that. (Some may argue that even the pros don't need to do it, but it's a weird game).

There are training techniques, equipment, nutrition tactics and supplements that can give the average Joe a huge advantage that simply didn't exist 30 years ago. And we know more about safe anabolic use. The paradox is; there's less of a fear and respect of it, which leads to more misuse and abuse.
 
chazk said:
I would disagree to some point most of the pros use the same work out equipment that was around 30 years ago basic free weights with some cable pulls.The work outs have changed some over the years but basically the same going in cycles over the years depending on what the fad is . The same whole foods that were around 30 years ago are the same ones around today.Most pro's eat 6 real meals a day no protien drinks or mrp's
but yet they promote them becuase they get paid to.Back in the day they ate 4 times a day so yes that part has changed

really the only big change is the bodybuilders of today is in fact they use higher steroids doses and insulin with gh - growth hormone (somatropin) - .

Sure we have better knowledge of the body and nutrition
.But then agian pros like coleman during interviews alway say they stick with the basics and go heavey.then when asked what he eats he always says chicken and rice ,steak potatoes,never mentions any of the no2,creatine or any mrp's.

I

What I mean by this, the cost of meat has dropped substantially in the last 10-20 years, as has the cost of other 'meat' foods like eggs and milk.

The 60s and 70s were absolutely raging for the use of chemical pesticides and fertiliser as they were all still relatively new.

So yes the diet may have been relatively the same, but people today can eat MORE for a lot less money.

There have been significant economic, agricultural, medical and scientific advances that cannot be overlooked. One factor is never the 'answer'.
 
To further my point about changes in the diet, in England, pasta was almost unheard of until the 1980s, similarily for the widespread use of rice, and brown rice is still quite a 'new' thing.

Fast food restaurants, in particular Maccy D's, was not in the UK until the 1980s.

I think if we did a bit of digging, it would be quite amazing to see what foods were widely available 30-40 years ago compared to today.

There is also some interesting research in genomics, or the expression of DNA.

They are finding that not only the nutritional status of the mother, but previous generations can effect how DNA is expressed.

There are so many factors in how human being grow, what affects them.............

Yes the use of anabolic steroids would have an effect, but it is not the only thing.
 
tatyana_zadorozny said:
Great post.

Considering insulin is one of the EASIEST hormones in our body to trigger the release by diet, whereas trigger for gh - growth hormone (somatropin) - release are uncertain, I really don't understand why people would take it.


Thank you, and that paragraph actually sums it up better than I did.

But to answer the why part, we all know about the propagation of internet myths. If you came to any of these boards in the 90’s insulin posts were all over the place. The posts discussed the benefits and skipped over the risks. It was an easy way to get big quick.

These wives’ tales die hard.

I also 100% agree that the old pros looked better. Colombo, Arnold, Zane, etc. They looked big without looking like a freak. Today’s BB’s to me just look like total freaks with no proportion. To me, proportion is what it’s all about.
 
tatyana_zadorozny said:
To further my point about changes in the diet, in England, pasta was almost unheard of until the 1980s, similarily for the widespread use of rice, and brown rice is still quite a 'new' thing.

Fast food restaurants, in particular Maccy D's, was not in the UK until the 1980s.

I think if we did a bit of digging, it would be quite amazing to see what foods were widely available 30-40 years ago compared to today.

Interesting questions, but what are your conclusions? What do you think about white rice, pasta, etc.
 
tatyana_zadorozny said:
Also thinking about it, I would take the narrrow waisted, ab vaccuuming pros of the 'golden era' over the current gh - growth hormone (somatropin) - bloated bellies of the new pros.

I agree. The pros of today may be awe inspiring because of their mass, but in reality, they don't look good IMO.
 
tatyana_zadorozny said:
What I mean by this, the cost of meat has dropped substantially in the last 10-20 years, as has the cost of other 'meat' foods like eggs and milk.

The 60s and 70s were absolutely raging for the use of chemical pesticides and fertiliser as they were all still relatively new.

So yes the diet may have been relatively the same, but people today can eat MORE for a lot less money.

There have been significant economic, agricultural, medical and scientific advances that cannot be overlooked. One factor is never the 'answer'.
I see your points.
I have also talked with some older guys at my gym and
they did all kinds of crazy stuff like 12 egg whites mixed in a blender with vanilla extract added for flavor,one guy even claimed to eat 5 lbs of liver a week becuase it was " good for you" when in fact we all know that the liver of a cow filters and stores all the chemicals they eat and really is not the best source of protien.

I see your point about acess to foods and the knowledge of knowing exactly whats in the foods carb,fat and protien ratios.

back in the day packaged food were not required to put the sodium ,fat ,sugar ,carb counts on the labels so alot of people really had no way to keep track of calorie and protien intakes.

So you do make alot of valid points and the smart bodybuilder has taken advantage of it to build a better body.
 
mattdan said:
Interesting questions, but what are your conclusions? What do you think about white rice, pasta, etc.

I am putting together a presentation at work right now on 'diabesity', and the changing diet in the UK is implicated in the merging obesity crisis.

Interesting enough, white basmati rice has a lower GI than brown rice.

Also, it does depend on the pasta, I do eat wholemeal pasta, kamut pasta, soba noodles (buckwheat 'pasta') off season.

I diet using baby new potatoes.

I do think there is an issue with food combinations and quantity.

There is nothing wrong with a proper Italian meal everynow and then, but the combo of simple carbs and fats, in particular saturated fats, is now being implicated in rapid fat gain.

So pasta with pesto (YUM) is cool, and I do have it as a cheat meal off season, but if you eat it everynight, and you don't exercise, it is a recipe for disaster.
 
Well, grains were not meant to be processed and stripped of all vitamins and fiber as we do today. This significantly raises the glycemic index of all grains.

The other way we've screwed them up is by genetic engineering. Take corn for example. The early maize of the Indians was high in fibre and low in sugar. We've managed to turn it into a low fiber, high sugar grain. I'm sure we've managed to do the same thing with rice

You say you diet with potatoes? Some potatoes actually have a higher glycemic index than sugar I believe.

Again, welcome to genetic engineering. Sure it tastes better, but I have no doubt it's a major factor in obesity and diabetes.
 
great post matt good to see you back around here

two terms for yall

nutrient timing + glycemic index = mimic insulin spike
a lot of guys are getting into dextrose is it?

fck i carb cycle almost yearly :/
 
Nelson Montana said:
Tatyanna is right in that insulin is pretty easy to produce, so taking more and risking diabetic conditions is just ridiculous.

When it comes to improvements in muscular development, looking toward the pros is not a good idea. There were, are, and always will be the genetic elite. They also will use anything that will give them a few extra pounds. There is no way in the world anyone else would need to do that. (Some may argue that even the pros don't need to do it, but it's a weird game).

There are training techniques, equipment, nutrition tactics and supplements that can give the average Joe a huge advantage that simply didn't exist 30 years ago. And we know more about safe anabolic use. The paradox is; there's less of a fear and respect of it, which leads to more misuse and abuse.

Thanks hunny bunny :)
 
mattdan said:
Well, grains were not meant to be processed and stripped of all vitamins and fiber as we do today. This significantly raises the glycemic index of all grains.

The other way we've screwed them up is by genetic engineering. Take corn for example. The early maize of the Indians was high in fibre and low in sugar. We've managed to turn it into a low fiber, high sugar grain. I'm sure we've managed to do the same thing with rice

You say you diet with potatoes? Some potatoes actually have a higher glycemic index than sugar I believe.

Again, welcome to genetic engineering. Sure it tastes better, but I have no doubt it's a major factor in obesity and diabetes.

Baby NEW potatoes, which are really tiny and dense. Also if you don't cook them all that long.

I am not sure if they are all that common in the US.

That is on high carb day, I eat mostly veg when dieting, very few grains, except some rice cakes as snacks.

x
x
x

T
 
Thanks Ghost, good to see ya,

Baby new potatoes were a big fad around the US several years ago, they're still around but the fad wore off.
 
Vanadyl Sulfate including dextrose is a good insulin equilivant About 35mg after training immediately followed by carbs.
 
nzrodney said:
Vanadyl Sulfate including dextrose is a good insulin equilivant About 35mg after training immediately followed by carbs.

Vanadyl? I thought Vanadyl just increased sensitivity to insulin so the body needs less.
 
I've heard somewhere, I think it was on prosource's website, that drinking a tablespoon or so of vinegar with a high glycemic carb meal will prevent your blood sugar from spiking drastically. Anyone have an opinion on this?
 
mattdan said:
Vanadyl? I thought Vanadyl just increased sensitivity to insulin so the body needs less.

I believe that Vanadyl is regarded as a mimic of insulin. There is much conjecture to this theory.

"With the "outside help" of vanadyl sulfate suppliers try to convince innocent consumers that vanadyl sulfate triggers glucose transports, which starts a domino effect that ultimately leads to bigger muscles and greater strength gains. With glucose being triggered by this �insulin effect,� they say that the body will experience a greater amount of glucose transport to the muscle tissue, an increase in glycogen storage, and a greater assimilation of protein by muscle tissue" this is the sales talk

" Even if one ignores the potential dangers of insulin-mimicking supplementation, one cannot ignore the fact that it simply does not work. In December of 1996, a research team at the School of Pharmacy at the University of Otago in New Zealand performed a study on the effects of oral vanadyl sulfate on body composition and athletic performance. In the twelve week, double-blind placebo controlled test, the results were astounding.
To test the strength gains of the subjects, a strength baseline was established at the beginning of the study. In addition, subjects were measured for body fat percentage and overall lean body mass. At the beginning of the study, the strength of all participants was assessed using the 1 and 10 repetition maximum for bench press and leg press. Throughout the twelve week period, subjects worked out with a partner. One subject took vanadyl sulfate (.5mg/day) and the other took a placebo. At the end of the double-blind study, the researchers concluded that with regard to side effects, oral vanadyl sulfate appeared to be well tolerated,.. However, they also concluded that "oral vanadyl sulfate was ineffective in changing body composition in weight -training athletes" (Fawcett et al. 1996). Specifically, both groups gained (.07%) body fat and had almost identical strength gains. " This is a study done in NZ

The dose at .5mg ED was a waste of time. It can be beneficial at about 35mg after a heavy training session & immediately followed by carbs. I would suggest you try it in place of slin & see how it goes. I am using it at present. My buddy a experienced BB of some years attributes some of his growth to Vanadyl. Hes 5'9" 290lbs.
 
Top Bottom