You will not keep your gains

[Nelson Montana]

Yes and no.

First of all, the "increased muscle fiber" is arguable. Viewpoints differ on this and many believe muscle cells, like fat cells, are predetermined and can only enlarge or decrease in size.

Okay, on to the original statement.

Muscle gained from steroids is still muscle and can definitely be maintained. Of course if you stop training and eat like crap you'll also lose it. You can't keep muscle gained naturally if you don't train correctly, so it isn't a matter of how you grew the muscle, it's knowing what to do to keep it.

HOWEVER...

We all have a set point. (Both natural and enhanced) If you were to gain 60 pounds beyond your natural point using drugs you will not be able to sustain the extra size, drug-free for very long, for no other reason other than you won't have the endogenous testosterone to maitain that much muscle. Few people do.

Now I've always been a terminal ectomorph but through proper training and diet, at the age of 37, I put on another 25 pounds of muscle. (Pretty damn good, if I do say so myself). But that was my limit. Adding more weight would only mean adding more fat as well. (Unacceptable) With several low dose, short duration cycles I put on an ADDITIONAL 25 pounds and kept every bit of it. But, if I were to do more/higher dosed cycles, I'd gain more mass, but not maintain it. In other words, my "enhanced" genetic limit that I can keep naturally has also been met.
What's also interesting is that at a certain point, (and this occurs with most everyone, though few will admit it) steroid enduced gains aren't of the same qualty. One tends to increase in overall size, but the level of muscularity seems to level off. Your muscles are no more dense or seperated from additional cycles -- only bigger.

 

[sk*]

What's also interesting is that at a certain point, (and this occurs with most everyone, though few will admit it) steroid enduced gains aren't of the same qualty. One tends to increase in overall size, but the level of muscularity seems to level off. Your muscles are no more dense or seperated from additional cycles -- only bigger.

What do you mean by level of mascularity? I am confused?

-sk

 

[myasshurts]

I think testalot summed it up well. IF YOU NEED DRUGS TO GET IT, YOU NEED DRUGS TO MAINTAIN IT. I think for those of you that gained 10-15 and kept it, you didn't really need the drugs to get there. They just let you get there much quicker.

 

[KnoXville]

Steroids Do Not change your genetic makeup, that is the composition of your genes.

The DNA blueprint for your personal level of muscle type, strength, metabolism and ideal size is all predetermined before birth. No anabolic / androgenic compound will ever change your genetic makeup. Also muscle size increases are as a result of muscle fiber growth, not additional muscle fiber creation. You can manipulate your body all you want (and quite simplistically to a certain level) yet it will always try and revert back to homeostasis, your predetermined genetic coding.

 

[Texas Ranger]

So, what your saying is this. You have someone that starts out weighing 190lbs naturally and eventually works his way up to 240lbs through the use of multiple cycles of Gear. Then, when he gets off of Gear for a 1 year or so. He reverts back to 190-195lbs, right???

 

[myasshurts]

I would say he is most likely to revert to his natural limit, whatever that may be. 190 may not have been his limit. If he could have gotten to 220 without drugs he could stay there after he comes off. If he is a freak then maybe he will only drop a few pounds. I guess the hard part is knowing where your body thinks it should be at.

 

[The_Eviscerator]

Caloric intake has a lot to do with holding your gains. If you are eating nothing but COMPLEX (NOTHING REFINED) carbs, and high quality proteins at a rate 15 times your bodyweight, you should keep your gains. If you were a 200 pound guy and now you are 230, you have to eat like a 230 pound guy.

Many people think they are eating enough, but when they sit down and meticulously go through their diet they will realize that they aren't even close to coloric level they need to grow.

 

[KnoXville]

So, what your saying is this. You have someone that starts out weighing 190lbs naturally and eventually works his way up to 240lbs through the use of multiple cycles of Gear. Then, when he gets off of Gear for a 1 year or so. He reverts back to 190-195lbs, right???

I was only referring to gear in pointing out that it cannot change your DNA.

To clarify my statement with your example, I am saying that this 190lb guy may get to 240lbs, and can indeed hold a good portion of it (how well / much partially determined by his genes) the other part being diet and training. If the person is naturally more physiologically gifted in holding the weight he may hold all 240 no problems (which would be very rare) or variable x amount less. I am not saying everyone will fall back on there preset weight, just that your body will keep gradually trying to bring it there, that is what its instructed to do, and for the most part this process is easily averted – just make up for caloric deficits, which will once again only work until you hit a certain x amount of weight, at this point without chemical assistance holding the muscle would be extremely strenuous.

In a simpler and more obvious example regarding ones genetic presets; If that same person at 240lbs started eating only his standard maintenance calories, his body would inevitably pull back to the ideal weight for his frame (close to his ideal BMI), over time | it would not change its blueprint due to decades of training and a plethora of anabolic drugs to state that the muscle gained will be spared from catabolism and be kept. If your body wanted you to have 21" arms, you would have the amount of fibres naturally to have them, all while eating your maintinence (no deficit / exess) calories. Different people have very different metabolisms, and the change would be gradual but your body will never alter its genes to instruct your body to keep the 50lbs of muscle you put on. You would have to constantly fight it with training, diet and drugs (especially drugs if the difference is so great). Inevitably you would loose a lot of what you worked for as you may forget to hit required caloric / nutrient levels, but your body always 'on' would make up that difference by catabolically burning its combination of fat/muscle/glycogen to make it up. So in essence your genes would not all of a sudden spontaneously alter in such a favorable way that would instruct your body to slow down its muscle metabolism or keep its nitrogen retention high to alleviate losses (and your gains).

 

[jacshelb]

To me, this is a very good thread. It brings up a couple of questions. 1) How do we know what our genetic limit is? 2) what determines our genetic limit?

We can observe that our genetic limit can be exceeded, as far as muscle mass, by using anabolics. What else might help us do the same? Perhaps on a smaller scale.

Has anyone ever scientifically tested training theories, calorie cycling, etc. over the course of a lifetime to test the "natural" limits? You would need a control (a twin? a clone?).

I wonder what might be possible, and it might do us all some good to think about what we accept as fact. There may be (there most definitely are in some way) revolutionary ideas that might help us achieve our goals in ways we never have known before.

Jacob

 

[MikeyG]

To me, this is a very good thread. It brings up a couple of questions. 1) How do we know what our genetic limit is? 2) what determines our genetic limit?

That's a REALLY good question, but I would think that by observing your heredity traits from your parents and grandparents will give you a good idea what is your genetic limit. Well, maybe not since they most likely didn't work out. But, seeing if they are bulky, and big boned-- you may be able to carry more mass than compared to skinner relatives etc.