0

Often people say that the only "real" way to see "real results" is with AAS/PEDs. I disagree.

There have to be various other ways to improve things like muscle synthesis; improve satellite cell functioning; increase nervous system and muscle recovery; and even increase size too.

Obviously besides just working out and "hoping." I'm talking about "natural enhancements."

We know of the typical stuff people taut: creatine, caffeine, "supplements," etc.

What else is there? What's the real holy grail that can (almost) compare to high doses of AAS/PEDs?

As long as it isn't AAS/PEDs. Good sleep never made me wake up looking like Phil Heath; neither did a 20,000 calorie surplus, 900g of protein, zero stress, or years of training. Something's gotta give.

How can we create true enhanced natties, without the steroids, growth hormones, insulin, etc.?

Remember, before this garbage existed we still played sports professionally & adored great bodies.

  • You may be interested in looking at SARMs. Also I'm not sure it still is 'natural' from your point of view. Don't know much about them but you can find sources online making good apologies of them, – Idri K Apr 17 '17 at 1:54
  • @IdriK SARMs are still in early stage of trials and AAS cycle should be preferred over them..just my point of view – amar Apr 17 '17 at 9:11
  • 1
    @amar You're probably right. I honestly don't know anything about them. Just thought it would be interesting to look into it as an alternative. – Idri K Apr 17 '17 at 10:29
6

You can't. You've been answering your own question.

There have to be various other ways to improve things like muscle synthesis; improve satellite cell functioning; increase nervous system and muscle recovery; and even increase size too.

Increase compared to what? You state no baseline for comparison.

Obviously besides just working out and "hoping." I'm talking about "natural enhancements."

Define "natural". Heck, define "enchancements". We're not replacing our weak limbs with bionic limbs on a whim just yet.

What else is there? What's the real holy grail that can (almost) compare to high doses of AAS/PEDs?

This isn't a secret we're keeping to ourselves. If we had the knowledge to gain equal progress WITHOUT anabolic steroids, why would people still be using anabolic steroids?

As long as it isn't AAS/PEDs. Good sleep never made me wake up looking like Phil Heath; neither did a 20,000 calorie surplus, 900g of protein, zero stress, or years of training. Something's gotta give.

No, nothing's gotta give. A 20k kcal surplus is going to kill you. 900g of protein is going to give you gastric distress. Zero stress is going to be impossible, especially with the aforementioned diet. Years of training is what we're doing. That, and a slightly more reasonable approach to dieting and rest than what you said.

How can we create true enhanced natties, without the steroids, growth hormones, insulin, etc.?

Now you're just throwing out buzzwords to see what sticks. Like I said, if bodybuilders didn't need the AAD's, why would they still be using the AAD's?

Remember, before this garbage existed we still played sports professionally & adored great bodies.

Yes, and the bodybuilders of yesteryear looked pretty damn different from what they do now.

Case in point; here's Mr. Olympia 40 years ago, vs. today.

Frank Zane Phil Heath

Look, here's the answer to the question you're afraid to ask.

How can I look like a bodybuilder without using the same supplements as they use?

You can't. They use these supplements to break the barriers that the human body imposes on itself. Through decades of research, we have come up with the best way to do so, and the bodybuilders you see compete for the title of Mr. Olympia, are the result of this research.

If you want to look like they do, do what they do.

  • I have to add that the bodybuilders of yesteryear weren't natural either. They were enhanced. You show Frank Zane, which is a legend in the scene, but he wasn't natural. – MJB Apr 18 '17 at 10:35
  • @MJB I'm curious, is it your opinion that Zane was not natural, or, do you have some proof to that fact? – rrirower Apr 18 '17 at 13:04
  • @MJB - Yes, whether he was natural or not wasn't really my point. I was simply stating that the top bodybuilders then looked way different from top bodybuilders now, due to advancements in the field of medicated hormone regulation – Alec Apr 18 '17 at 14:38
  • @rrirower Well, I have never seen him claim he was natural nor that he was on gear during his prime. But all his competitors were taking stuff and admitted to doing so. Arnold for example said he used to take steriods because even doctors gave it to him. It wasn't illigal during this time. This was the case for all bodybuilders of this era. Frank Zane defeated Arnold on several occasions (one of only a handful of people who managed to do so), so I'm assuming he wasn't a natural bodybuilder. – MJB Apr 19 '17 at 6:17
  • @Alec Fair enough! I agree with your post, just didn't want to get people confused :) – MJB Apr 19 '17 at 6:18
0

From How Natural is Natural Bodybuilding

"Natural" in this case simply means "not currently on steroids and other drugs at this very moment... as least not the ones that can be detected by a lame drug test at a bodybuilding show."

and

You can beat a drug test like this by doing a few little tricks.

That said, it's unlikely that you can even get close to without unnatural enhancements if even associations devoted to natuaral bodybuilding are not close to natural.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.