Being a mass monster

[brisk walk]

But, you still have to use AAS to acheive that look and size of a Dexter or Samir also.

true.....very true.....but again.......train for quality.....not to just have slabs of muscle....... but to strategically distribute it evenly over your body! The your calves will look good......your bis ......chest......tris.....traps......abs.....quads........ ect.

 

[dece870717]

Take 10,000mg of Test suspension for one week. You'll have your own orbit in no time.

 

[Drbnmi]

Less is more. Of course you need to use gear to walk around lean at 6' 275 lbs. and have 22 inch arms. You don't need to use more than your body will utilize though. Look around at the guys taking thousands of mg per week and getting nothing out of it. AAS are going to refine a physique that has been built through genetics, diet, and hard training with consistantly.

 

[robot]

For the most part other than balancing size, i.e. weak legs or back you can't train for symmetry. Your flow, lines, muscle attachments are all genetic. You can work with what you have but you can't change you basic muscle structure. High Lats don't become Low Lats and great biceps peaks are not something that come from concentration curls.

So for those who say don't focus on size but instead focus on muscle structure I say "Sorry, it doesn't work that way".

While I do believe that a few of the elite bodybuilders are overly muscular for their frame I don't believe that anyone posting on this thread has to worry much about that problem now or likely ever in their lifetime.

You are much better off focusing on adding as much quality muscle to your frame as possible and letting your genetics decide whether you are going to look good. We can't all be pretty but we can all be strong.

 

[buselmo]

Less is more. Of course you need to use gear to walk around lean at 6' 275 lbs. and have 22 inch arms. You don't need to use more than your body will utilize though. Look around at the guys taking thousands of mg per week and getting nothing out of it. AAS are going to refine a physique that has been built through genetics, diet, and hard training with consistantly.

just a little correction

More is more... less is less.

look around at the guys taking thousands of mg per week of shit they bought from china, where they wouldn't know if it's test or white flour because they're too cheap to buy some real HG gear.

For the most part other than balancing size, i.e. weak legs or back you can't train for symmetry. Your flow, lines, muscle attachments are all genetic. You can work with what you have but you can't change you basic muscle structure. High Lats don't become Low Lats and great biceps peaks are not something that come from concentration curls.

So for those who say don't focus on size but instead focus on muscle structure I say "Sorry, it doesn't work that way".

While I do believe that a few of the elite bodybuilders are overly muscular for their frame I don't believe that anyone posting on this thread has to worry much about that problem now or likely ever in their lifetime.

You are much better off focusing on adding as much quality muscle to your frame as possible and letting your genetics decide whether you are going to look good. We can't all be pretty but we can all be strong.

on da money!!!


as for the main question...
someone at 5'5 or less weighing in at 235 lbs with less than 4% bodyfat... that's a fucking mass monster.
someone at 6'2, 15% bodyfat weighing 275 lbs... just looks like a tall dude who works out. but stand next to him, and you'll look like a midget.


i've met natural fat monsters... but never met a natural mass monster. sorry, it just aint happening

 

[Drbnmi]

A little test and EQ, a clean diet, hard training, and you can weight 275 at 6' tall and be lean. When I say lean, I mean around 6 to 8% body fat. Nobody is getting to 3% BF at 275 with out all kinds of drugs.

 

[robot]

If you can be Ruhl sized on a little test and a little eq I would be a little surprised.

I return to my initial plenty of aas ( a couple of grams a week), gh (8+ iu's), insulin (more than 10iu's) with 10 plus years of heavy training plus synthol (pre-contest) and/or implants (for those without calfs) and let us not forget great genetics.

 

[Beregond]

I'd say maybe 1% of men have the genetics to be "mass monsters" without AAS. For the rest, juice is required.

 

[luvingit]

imo yeah you do theres not one person in the olympia who aint on roids.

 

[robot]

I'd say maybe 1% of men have the genetics to be "mass monsters" without AAS. For the rest, juice is required.

Just in case you didn't realize it 1% equals 1 in 100. Not a chance. 0 is a far closer number or if it makes you happy I once heard about a guy who heard about a guy who heard that 3 generations ago there was this guy.

 

[massnup]

Another question about this size thing, can someone put on 50 pounds of pure muscle in 5 years? Of course, you would have to use AAS, but is this possible and can someone put on more than this amount in 5 years?

 

[Designbuilt]

Maybe the kid with the Myostatin Gene.

 

[Drbnmi]

Another question about this size thing, can someone put on 50 pounds of pure muscle in 5 years? Of course, you would have to use AAS, but is this possible and can someone put on more than this amount in 5 years?

You can also put on 175 lbs of muscle in 20 years. Start training when your 12 years old. Let your muscles mature along with hard consistant training and a clean diet. Then you add the AAS to get you where you couldn"t get naturaly. We use them to get us past our natural abilities and limits one we have reached them. Don't get me wrong, I love AAS. I will never stop taking them. I didn't start using them until I was 32 years old. I just don"t understand people who start out weight training and AAS use at the same time. Put some work in. Build a foundation. Then refine your physique beyond what our bodies will let us.

 

[massnup]

You can also put on 175 lbs of muscle in 20 years. Start training when your 12 years old. Let your muscles mature along with hard consistant training and a clean diet. Then you add the AAS to get you where you couldn"t get naturaly. We use them to get us past our natural abilities and limits one we have reached them. Don't get me wrong, I love AAS. I will never stop taking them. I didn't start using them until I was 32 years old. I just don"t understand people who start out weight training and AAS use at the same time. Put some work in. Build a foundation. Then refine your physique beyond what our bodies will let us.

I have been training since 19 years old naturally and think I have topped out my natural limits at 31 and I want to hit my goal of 200lbs in contest shape at 5'7" at age 35, I know AAS would be required to do this correct?

 

[Beregond]

You're right, luvingit; 1% was very optimistic. .0001% is more like it.

 

[Nate.184]

i would say to be a true mass monster you need AAS. but there are exceptions to every rule. some guys just have amazing genetics

 

[Thewhite9t]

Less is more. Of course you need to use gear to walk around lean at 6' 275 lbs. and have 22 inch arms. You don't need to use more than your body will utilize though. Look around at the guys taking thousands of mg per week and getting nothing out of it. AAS are going to refine a physique that has been built through genetics, diet, and hard training with consistantly.

Bump.

Good thread.

 

[Athlete]

Drbnmi said not to use more than your body can utilize...... well.... how do you know what your body can utilize?
How do you know that you wouldn't get better results with twice the dose unless you try?
Or is there a magic maximum dose depending on how much mass you're carrying?

If 2 total newbies weighing 180 (and no, i'm not saying to do this at all) with exactly the same genetics both decided to cycle for 12 weeks.
They had the exact same diet, exact same training, exact same everything... except dosage.

One guy did the typical 500mg test....
the other guy went overboard and did 1g test,1g deca, 50mg dbol, 10iu slin, igf-1.

what would happen? how big would the difference in gains be? how much can you gain in that period of time?

 

[Phidias]

what would happen? how big would the difference in gains be? how much can you gain in that period of time?

Your 2nd guy would obviously gain more if both #1 and #2 respond equally to gear, but he'd also end up building a tolerance much much quicker than the first one... and then would have to increase his already elevated dosages to keep progressing or just maintaining what he gained.

In the end, guy #1, by progressively upping his doses, disminish the risks of burning out too fast, build more "solid" foundations... and stay healthier.

In theory, of course.

 

[Athlete]

Thanks Phidias. That it's healthier I have no doubt about... but I wonder about this:

but he'd also end up building a tolerance much much quicker than the first one

What's the science behind this? Or is it mostly anecdotal evidence?
Because I've heard people who have used high dosages go down some amount and still make good gains after that.