30 Myths About Bodybuilding
Despite
what many of the magazines say, all professional bodybuilders use either
steroids or steroids in combination with other growth-enhancing drugs. Without
manipulating hormones, it just isn't possible to get that degree of
muscularity, the paper-thin skin, and the continuing ability to pack on mass,
despite sometimes having poor workout habits and relative ignorance of the
principles involved that many pro bodybuilders have. Many supplement
distributors, in order to sell their products, would have you believe
otherwise.
Still,
that's no reason to give up. By using state-of-the-art training principles,
consuming a nutrient-rich diet, and by getting proper amounts of rest, almost
every person can make incredible changes in his or her physique. The
competitive bodybuilder circuit may not be in your future, but building the
kind of physique that gains you respect is certainly achievable, as are
self-respect and robust health.
Well,
that's true; you'll get really big if you eat a super high-calorie diet, but
you'll look like the Michelin Man's fraternal twin. However, if you want to get
big, lean-tissue wise, then
super-high-calorie diets are probably not for you unless you are one of those
very few people with metabolicrates so fast you can burn off these calories
instead of depositing them as fat. Unfortunately, studies show that, in most
people, about 65% of the new tissue gains brought about by high-calorie diets
consists of fat! Of the remaining 35%, approximately 15% consists of increased
intracellular fluid volume, leaving a very modest percentage attributable to
increased lean muscle mass.
According
to Dr Scott Connelly (MM2K, Spring
1992, p. 21), only about 20% to 25% of increased muscle growth stems from
increased protein synthesis. The rest of the muscle growth is directly
attributable to increased proliferation of the satellite cells in the basal
lamina of muscle tissue, and dietary energy (calories) is not a key factor in the differentiation of these cells into new
myofibres (muscle cells).
Of
all factors determining muscle growth, prevention of protein breakdown (anti-catabolism)
seems to be the most relevant, but adding adipose [fat] tissue through constant
overfeeding can actually increase muscle pro- teolysis (breakdown).
Furthermore, additional adipose mass can radically alter hormone balances which
are responsible for controlling protein breakdown in muscle. Insulin balance,
for one, which partially controls anti-catabolism in the body, is impaired by
consistent overfeeding. So much for the eat-big-to-get-big philosophy!
Stay
away from the super-high calorie diets unless you're a genetic freak, or you're
woefully lean and don't mind putting on fat [or you're using appropriate
pharmaceutical supplements].
3 -- If you eat a low-fat
diet, it doesn't matter how many calories you take in, you won't gain any fat.
The
bottom line is, if you exceed your energy requirements, you'll gradually get
fatter and fatter. It's true that eating a diet rich in fat will pack on the
pounds quicker for a variety of reasons, the most significant being that a gram
of fat has nine calories as opposed to the four calories per gram that
carbohydrates and proteins carry. Fat is also metabolized differently in the
body. It takes a lesser amount of calories to assimilate the energy in ingested
fat than it does to assimilate an equal (weight wise) amount of carbohydrates.
Consequently, more fat calories get stored than carbohydrate calories. However,
the gross intake of carbohydrates, as facilitated by many of the weight-gain
powders, will make you fat very quickly.
No,
no no. This is one of the most damaging myths that ever reared its ugly head.
95% of the pros will tell you that the biggest bodybuilding mistake they ever
made was to over-train--and this happened even when they were taking steroids.
Imagine how easy it is for the natural athlete to overtrain! When you train
your muscles too often for them to heal, the end-result is zero growth and
perhaps even losses. Working out every day, if you're truly using the proper
amount of intensity, will lead to gross overtraining. A body part, worked
properly, ie. worked to complete, total muscular failure that recruited as many
muscle fibers as physiologically possible, can take 5-10 days to heal.
To
take it a step further, even working a different
body part in the next few days might constitute overtraining. If you truly work
your quads to absolute fiber-tearing failure, doing another power workout the
next day that entails heavy bench-presses or deadlifts is going to, in all
probability, inhibit gains. After a serious leg workout, your whole system
mobilizes to heal and recover from the blow you've dealt it. How, then, can the
body be expected to heal from an equally brutal workout the next day? It can't,
at least not without using some drugs to help deal with the catabolic processes
going on in your body [and even they're
usually not enough .]
Learn
to accept rest as a valuable part of your workout. You should probably spend as
many days out of the gym as you do in it.
It
just isn't necessary to do 20-30 sets for a body part, or even 10 sets like
many 'experts' would have you believe. In fact, research has shown that it's
possible to completely fatigue a muscle in one set, provided that that set
taxes a muscle completely, ie. incorporates as many muscle fibers as possible
and takes them to the point of ischemic rigour where, rather than contract and
relax, the muscle fibers freeze up, sort of like a microscopic version of rigor mortis. Any further contraction causes
microscopic tearing. Hypertrophy is just one adaption to this kind of stress
and it's naturally the kind most bodybuilders are interested in.
This
kind of intensity can usually be achieved by doing drop or break-down sets
where you rep out, lower the weight, and continue doing reps until you either
can't do another rep or you've run out of weight. It can also be achieved by
doing your maximum number of reps on a particular exercise: by a combination of
will, tenacity, and short rest periods, you complete ten more reps. You achieve
the short rest periods by locking out the weight-bearing joint in question
without putting the weight down. In other words, completely surpass your normal
pain and energy thresholds.
If
you can truly work your muscle to the point described, it will afford you
little, if any, benefit to do another set (Westcott, 1986). The exception would
be the body parts that are so big that they have distinct geographical areas,
like the back, which obviously has an upper, middle and lower part. The chest
might also fall into this category, as it has a distinct upper and lower part,
each with different insertion points.
For
a variety of reasons, people, even those with an equal amount of muscle mass,
vary in strength enormously. It might have something to do with
fast-twitch/slow-twitch muscle ratios, or it might have something to do with
the efficiency of nerve pathways or even limb length and the resultant torque.
But it is still a relative term. To get bigger muscles, you have to lift
heavier weight, and you, not the guy next door, have to become stronger --
stronger than you were. Increasing muscle strength in the natural athlete,
except in a very few, rare instances, requires that the tension applied to
muscle fibers be high. If the tension applied to muscle fibers are light,
maximal growth will not occur (Lieber, 1992).
You
see it happen every day in gyms across the country. Some bodybuilding neophyte
will walk up to a guy who looks like he's an escaped attraction from Jurassic Park and ask him how he trains.
The biggest guy in the gym likely got that way from either taking a tremendous
amount of drugs and/or by being genetically pre-dispositioned to get big.
Follow a horse home and you'll find horse parents. The guy in your gym who is
best bodybuilder is the guy who has made the most progress and done the most to
his physique using natural techniques. He may still be a pencil neck, but he
may have put on 40 pounds [19kg] of lean body mass to get where he is, and
that, in all probability, took some know-how. That person probably doesn't
overtrain, keeps his sets down to a minimum, and uses great form and concentration
on the eccentric (negative) portion of each exercise repetition.
Many
pros spend hours and hours doing innumerable sets--so many it would far surpass
the average person's recuperative abilities. If average people followed the
routines of average pro bodybuilders, they would, in effect, start to whittle
down what muscle mass they did have or, at best, make only a tiny bit of
progress after a couple of years.
It
may be a little harder, and it may require a little bit more know-how and a
little bit more conscientious effort, but it can be done. The fact is, the
obese state in humans and animals is not universally correlated with absolute
levels of caloric intake and neither is the accrual of lean body mass. The
ability to realize changes in lean/fat ratios is regulated by components of the
automatic nervous system working in concert with several endocrine hormones;
this is called nutrient partitioning. For example, certain beta-agonist drugs
like Clenbuterol increase meat production in cattle over 30% while
simultaneously diminishing bodyfat without
increasing the amount or composition of their feed. Other drugs, including
growth hormone, certain oestrogens, cortisol, ephedrine, and IGF-1 are all
examples of re-partitioning agents. All increase oxygen consumption at the
expense of fat storage--independent of energy intake!
Drugs
are not the only way to do this, however. It's true that a significant
component of this mechanism is genetically linked, but specific nutrients, in
specific amounts, when combined with an effective training programme, can
markedly improve the lean/fat ratio of adult humans. MET-Rx is one such
nutrient re-partitioning agent, and several companies are trying to duplicate
its successes
If
you work out -- work out intensely--
then it can take 5-10 days for the muscles to heal. Although the following
should be taken with a grain of salt when determining your own exercise
frequency, a study in the May 1993 issue of the Journal of Physiology revealed it can take weeks for muscles to
recuperate from an intense workout. The study involved a group of men and women
who had worked their forearms to the max. All of the subjects said they were
sore two days after exercising, and the soreness was gone by the seventh day,
and the swelling was gone by the ninth day. After six weeks, the subjects had
only gained back half the strength they had before the original exercise! By no
means are we advocating that you wait two months between workouts, but we are
trying to prove the point that it takes muscles longer to heal than what you
might have previously thought. For some people, especially natural
bodybuilders, waiting a week between body part workouts might be just what the
doctor ordered for size and strength gains!
Although
you probably couldn't find a single steroid-assisted athlete who trains only
three days a week [well, I was, and I made fantastic gains!], there's
absolutely no reason why a three-day-a-week routine couldn't work for many
natural athletes. As long as your routine attacked the whole body and you
worked to failure on each set, you could easily experience great gains on this
sort of routine. However, you need to pay even more attention to your diet if
you only train three days a week, especially if your job involves little or no
physical activity, and you like to spend your idle time eating. Ignore those
who say three-day-a-week bodybuilders are only 'recreational lifters'. Think
quality and not quantity.
That's
true if you're trying to improve cardiovascular health or lose some bodyfat. But in order to build muscle, you need
to allow enough time for the muscle to recuperate fully (ie. let the lactic
acid buildup in your muscles dissipate and ATP levels build back up). In order
to make muscles grow, you have to lift the heaviest weight possible, thereby
allowing the maximum number of muscle fibers to be recruited. If the amount of
weight you lift is being limited by the amount of lactic acid left over from
the previous set, you're only testing your ability to battle the effects of
lactic acid. In other words, you're trying to swim across a pool while wearing
concrete overshoes. When training heavy, take [at least!] two and three minutes
between your sets. Notice I said, "when training heavy." The truth
is, you can't train heavy all the time. Periodization calls for cycling heavy
workouts with less intense training sessions in an effort to keep the body from
becoming overtrained. (See 'Periodization' by Brad Jeffreys on p. 85 of the
Feb/March 1993 issue of MM2K)
Futuristic-looking,
complex machinery designed to give your muscles the 'ultimate workout' is
typically less effective than
good-old barbells and dumbbells. Using simple free weights (barbells and
dumbbells) on basic multi-joint exercises, like the squat, bench press,
shoulder press, and deadlift, is still the most effective means of resistance
exercise ever invented. Scientific research has shown that many exercise
machines lack the proper eccentric component of an exercise that's necessary to
stimulate muscle tissue to remodel (grow). (See the article titled 'Research
Confirms that Bodybuilders Should Pay Heavy Attention to Negative Reps' by Bill
Phillips on p.18 of the Feb/March issue of MM2K)
Manipulations
in your nutrient intake are the main factor in getting cut up, and how you do
it doesn't matter. If your daily caloric expenditure exceeds your daily caloric
intake on a consistent basis, you will lose fat and get more cut.
Aerobic
exercise is generally meant to improve cardiovascular efficiency, but if you do
it long enough, you will burn up calories and in the long run drop the fat.
However, weightlifting can do the same thing, only better. Studies have shown
that the body burns far more efficiently if exercise is performed at a moderate
pace for periods longer than 20 minutes. (It generally takes that long for the
glucose in the bloodstream to be 'burned up', causing the body to dip into
glycogen reserves for its energy) Once the glycogen reserves are used up, the
body must metabolize fatty acids for energy. That equate to lost bodyfat.
In
the long run, bodybuilding is more
efficient than aerobics for burning up calories. Let me explain--if
researchers were to undertake a study of twins whereby one twin performed daily
aerobics and the other practiced a bodybuilding programme where the end result
was increased lean body mass, the bodybuilding twin would ultimately be a more
efficient fat burner than his aerobic twin. Why? Well, by adding lean body
mass, that person's metabolic requirements are higher--muscle uses energy even
while it is not being used. The aerobic twin might use more calories during the
time period of exercise itself, but the weight-lifting twin would use a higher
amount during rest time, leading to a higher net 24-hour expenditure. The
weight lifter burns fat just sitting
there.
You
can't limit growth to only one area of a muscle. Larry Scott, for whom the
'biceps peaking' Scott curl was named, had tremendous biceps, but he didn't have much of a peak. The shape of
your biceps, or for that matter, any muscle, is determined by your genetic
makeup. When you work a muscle, any muscle, it works on the all-or-nothing
principle, meaning that each muscle fiber recruited to do a lift -- along the
entire length of that muscle -- is contracted fully. Why would a certain number
of them, like the ones in the middle of the biceps, suddenly start to grow
differently or at a faster rate than its partners? If anything, the muscles
that are closest to the insertion points are the most prone to mechanical
stress, and you don't see them get any bigger than the rest of the muscle. If
they did, everyone would have proportions like Popeye.
This
is true of any muscle, but you're probably thinking, what about quads? I know
that when I do hack squats with my feet together, it tends to give me more
sweep in my legs. Sure it does, but the quadriceps are made up of four
different main muscles, and doing hacks with your feet together forces the vastus lateralis muscles on the outside
of the leg to work harder; consequently, they grow proportionately along their
entire length and give the outer quads more sweep.
As
further evidence, take a look at a picture of any young professional
bodybuilder before he was developed enough to become a pro. He will have
virtually the same structural lines as he does today. All that has changed is
that his muscles are now bigger.
15 -- If you get a pump ,
you're working the muscles adequately to ensure muscular hypertrophy, or if
your muscles are burning, that means you are promoting muscle growth.
A
pump, despite what Arnold Schwarzenegger said about it "feeling better
than coming", is nothing more than the muscle becoming engorged with blood
from capillary action. It can be achieved easily by curling a soup can fifty
times. It by no means equates to the muscular intensity needed to promote
growth. The same is true of the coveted 'burn' that Hollywood muscleheads
advise the public to 'go for'. A burn is simply an accumulation of lactic acid,
a by-product of chemical respiration. You can get a burn by peddling a bicycle
or simply extending your arm straight out and moving it in tiny circles [or
sitting in a burning fireplace!]. It does not necessarily mean you are
promoting muscle growth. For hypertrophy to occur, you have to subject the
muscles to high levels of tension, and high tension levels are best induced by
heavy weights.
16 -- If you do hundreds of
sit-ups a day, you will eventually achieve a narrow, washboard-type midsection.
There
is no such thing as spot-reduction. Doing thousands and thousands of sit-ups
will give you tight abdominal muscles, but they will do nothing to rid your
midsection of fat. Thigh adductor and abductor movements will give women's
thighs more firmness, but they will do nothing to rid the area of fat, or what
is commonly [and erroneously] called cellulite. Nothing will rid the body of
fat, unless it is a carefully-orchestrated reduction in your daily energy
intake; in other words, if you burn more calories than you ingest (or do that
in conjunction with a nutrient partitioning agent. See #8)
17 -- Training like a
powerlifter --deadlifts, heavy squats, bench presses--will make your physique
look blocky.
Blockiness,
like baldness or a flat chest, is a genetic trait. If you were born blocky,
then powerlifting will simply make you a bigger blocky person. The only way to
offset a blocky appearance is to give special emphasis to the lats, the outer
muscles of the thighs, and to a fat-reducing diet which will keep the
midsection as narrow as possible. With these modifications, you will give your
body the illusion of a more "aerodynamic" appearance. The truth is,
powerlifting exercises are excellent for bodybuilding.
Although
there is some evidence to suggest that high repetitions might induce some extra
capillary intrusion into a muscle, they will do nothing to make the muscle
harder or more cut up. If a completely sedentary person began weightlifting,
using either low reps or high reps, he or she would experience a rapid increase
in tonus, the degree of muscular
contraction that the muscle maintains even when that muscle is relaxed, but
that would happen regardless of rep range. The only way that high repetitions
would make a muscle more cut up is if, by doing a higher number of reps, your
body as a whole was in negative energy balance, and you were burning more
calories than you were ingesting. The truth is, heavy weights, lifted for 5-8
reps per set, can build rock-hard muscles. You just have to get the fat off
them to see how "hard" they are.
If
bodybuilders followed their instincts, they'd go home and pop open a Bud [much
prefer Toohey's Red myself!]. Instinctive training is a wonderful catch-phrase,
and it might even work for drug-assisted athletes since the very act of opening
up a Bud would probably induce muscular growth in them. However, in a natural
bodybuilder, the approach to long-term, consistent gains in muscular mass has
to be, shall we say, a bit more scientific. Research results conducted by
exercise physiologists recommend a systematic approach such as the one
encompassed by periodization where the bodybuilder, through a period of several
weeks, lifts ever-increasing pre-set percentages of a one-rep lift. This heavy
period is also periodically staggered with a lighter training phase 'cycle'.
Ultimately, the percentages increase, the maximum one-rep lifts increase, and
lean body mass increases. There is nothing instinctive about it.
On
a microscopic level, there is virtually no difference between the muscle tissue
of men and the muscle tissue of women. Men and women have different levels of
the same hormones, and that's what is responsible for the difference in the
amount of muscle a man can typically put on and the amount of muscle a woman
can typically gain. There is absolutely no reason why either should train
differently than the other sex, provided they have the same goals. The only
difference in training might be as a result of cultural, sexual preferences. A
woman might desire to develop her glutes a little more so she looks better in a
pair of 'Guess' jeans. Conversely, a man might want to build his lats a little
more so that he fits the cultural stereotype of a virile man.
The
only things as effective as steroids are other steroids. Despite the
proclamations of some supplement distributors, usually in giant, 35-point type,
no currently available supplement works like steroids. However, nutrients and
supplements can be extremely effective, especially if your diet is lacking in
some critical component or you're genetically predisposed to accept that
nutrient or supplement. Biochemically, individuals vary enormously, and the
interaction of genetics, coupled with the widely varying diets that each of us
eats, makes it virtually impossible to gauge just what will work for one
individual and what won't. That is why some supplements work better than others
for some people, just as some people are genetically predispositioned to accept
steroids more readily than others. Food supplements do have benefits that can't
be overlooked -- they're generally safe, and they won't get you thrown into
jail. But none of them build muscle
as fast or as well as steroids.
The
ultimate irony is that the IFBB is facing in trying to get bodybuilders into
the Olympics is that while every athlete in every
other sport is presumably the healthiest they've ever been so that they are
able to compete athletically and
break records, the bodybuilder is so weak on competition day that he or she
would have trouble fending off the attacks of an enraged toy poodle. The weeks
of constant dieting, workouts that continually tax the body almost beyond
recovery, and a constant influx of potentially harmful drugs and diuretics have
brought most of them to total exhaustion.
And
think about the huge amounts of food some steroid-using bodybuilders eat. In
all the longevity sites in the world where people routinely live to be one
hundred, the only common denominator is that they all either under-eat or eat
just enough to meet their daily caloric requirements. By ingesting less food,
they ingest less harmful chemicals, and fewer free radicals are formed in the
body. The average professional builder probably eats at least four or five
times what these aforementioned people eat. As a result, bodybuilders often
suffer from high cholesterol and high blood pressure. Plus, with all that extra
mass, the heart has to work that much harder and will probably stop beating
years before it was designed to. That's why professional bodybuilding is the
ultimate act of vanity. It was done strictly to fulfill some misguided notion
of the superhuman ideal, and health was not even a consideration. Almost
without exception, these guys and gals are not healthy, and they'll probably be
among the first to tell you so. However, weight-training and consuming a
nutrient-rich diet is very healthy,
as long as it is not carried to
extremes.
23 -- Training with weights
causes your muscles to get tight and hinders flexibility and, consequently,
athletic performance.
If
anything, when done properly (slowly and using a complete range of motion),
weight training increases flexibility. Many athletes now engage in weight
training in order to improve their performance in their chosen sport -- witness
Evander Hollyfield or any number of track athletes, basketball players, or
gymnasts; the list goes on and on.
This
lie goes all the way back to the 1930s. Companies that were selling isometric
exercise programmes by mail were trying to convince people _not_ to exercise
with barbells, simply because it wasn't practical to send weights through the
mail. So they made up the 'muscle-bound' lie.
This
lie might have been fueled from the feeling of 'tightness' that accompanies an
intense workout. If the workout was intense and a sufficient number of muscle
fibers were recruited and microscopically damaged, then even the normal tonus
(the normal amount of contraction experienced by a relaxed muscle) is more than
enough to cause a feeling of pain and tightness. The tightness is compounded by
the 'tugging' of the tendons on the muscles. Stretching, however, would do much
to alleviate this tightness, and stretching is a recommended part of any
athletic pursuit.
The
only possible confirmation of this lie concerns a baseball pitcher's arm. An
intense weight training programme might affect a pitcher's ability to throw a
fast ball, but it wouldn't be because of a lack of flexibility. The speed a
pitcher can generate seems to be determined more by a complex relationship of
tendon length and strength and nervous system efficiency as opposed to muscular
strength, and weight training could, possibly, upset this delicate balance.
The
traditional manner in which athletes 'carb up' for an athletic competition
usually involves first depleting the body's stores of carbohydrates through exercise
and diet. This is then followed by rest and a high carbohydrate intake.
However, studies have shown that this type of preparation is unnecessary. An
athlete who eats a balanced, high-carbohydrate diet and is in reasonably good
shape has plenty of carbohydrates in his or her system to meet the demands of
short-duration exercises that don't exceed roughly one hour. Anyone that does
exercises that last more than an hour, like long-distance running or cycling,
may benefit from 'carbing up', but the ability of muscles to use fat as a
source of energy rather than carbohydrates in endurance events may be even more
important to performance at that level.
25 -- Consuming foods high in sugar before training provides your body with
extra energy to sustain workouts.
Simple
sugars like sucrose don't need to be broken down by the body's enzymes to be
used as energy like complex carbohydrates do. Therefore, they elicit a rapid
release of insulin, the hormone that regulates blood-sugar levels. The trouble
is, the sudden, rapid influx of sugar into the system causes the body to
release insulin in what must be considered a haphazard method, ie. the amount
released is usually more than what's needed to metabolise the sugar.
Consequently, your blood sugar often temporarily drops to a point that is
actually lower than it was _before_ you had the sugar, which might cause you to
become more exhausted much earlier than it normally would. Your body is then
forced to dip into its glycogen reserves in order to correct the imbalance.
To
ensure that you have enough energy to complete a workout, eat nutrient- rich
foods with low glycemic indices (those that elicit a smooth, steady stream of
sugar into the bloodstream) like barley, lentils or beans.
Here's
a good trivia question borrowed from Dan Duchaine's Underground Steroid Handbook [highly recommended]: if you lined up
a bottle of Dianabol (a popular steroid), a bottle of Lasix (a diuretic used by
heart patients and bodybuilders who want to 'cut up' for a competition), a
bottle of Valium, a bottle of aspirin, and a bottle of Slow-K (a potassium
supplement), which one, upon eating a 100 tablets, wouldn't kill you? Well, most likely the Dianabol. This isn't an
endorsement of steroids; it's just an effective illustration of the stigma
generally associated with all steroids: 'they'll give you brain tumors like
Lyle Alzado . . . they'll cause your heart to enlarge and eventually give out
[they cause spontaneous decapitation . .]'. Maybe, but all steroids are
different. Some are more dangerous than others. Birth control pills are
steroids. Testosterone patches have been used with great success to enhance the
quality of life for elderly men. Some of the steroids that bodybuilders use are
very mild, and the risk associated with them is virtually negligible. Still,
there _are_ dangerous steroids, and that's all the more reason that athletes
who choose to use them must be more knowledgeable about them. This is what Bill
Phillips' Anabolic Reference Guide
[_very_ highly- recommended] is all about -- education. Of course, the physical
changes that steroids bring about might cause adverse psychological effects in
the user, and that fact shouldn't be ignored.
This
is almost too preposterous to address. Muscle can no sooner turn to fat than
gold can turn into lead. Muscle is made up of individual cells--living,
'breathing' cells that undergo all kinds of complex metabolic processes. Fat
cells are simply storage packets of lipids. The possibility of one changing
into another is akin to the bowling ball in your storage closet turning into
your Aunt Edna. If you stop working out, if you stop applying resistance to
your muscles on a consistent basis, they will simply adapt to the new
condition. In other words, they'll shrink. If the degree of inactivity or
immobilization is severe, the muscles will shrink faster than the surrounding
skin, and a temporary condition of loose skin might be experienced, but that
too would remedy itself with time.
28 -- Ingesting MCT . (medium-chain triglyceride) oils will give you tons of
energy, but they won't make you fat.
MCTs
first gained prominence for treating persons suffering from fat mal-
absorption, pancreatic deficiency, or stomach or esophageal diseases.
Researchers found that MCTs, because of their better solubility and motility,
underwent a rapid hydrolysis by salivary, gastric, and pancreatic enzymes.
Consequently, they were able to reach the liver and provide energy much more
quickly than long-chain triglycerides (Guillot, et al., 1993). There was also
some evidence that MCTs reduced lipid deposition in fat stores compared with
that resulting from LCTs under identical energy intake conditions. However,
this is no reason to believe that ingesting these oils in excess will not
result in a positive energy balance which the body stores as fat. MCTs, like
regular oils, like regular fats, have nine calories per gramme. Even though
they are metabolized differently, using them in excessive amounts will add
inches to your waistline.
29 -- If everyone took the same amount of steroids, everyone would look like
a professional bodybuilder.
One
of the ironies of steroid use is that some people are genetically 'gifted' in
terms of steroid receptors. That means that they have a large number of
receptor sites in the muscles with which a particular steroid can combine and
exert its mass-building effects. The man or woman who won the last contest
might very well have the most active steroid receptors rather than being the
most dedicated, knowledgeable bodybuilder. On the other hand, some people might
possess very few receptors for a particular steroid. That's why they experience
very little, if any, growth on a particular steroid. Another factor that
influences receptor affinity is age. The highest receptor affinity seems to
occur in late teenage years. This is a generalization, but it seems to be true
for a good number of people. Since there is a greater uptake in these
individuals, they are often able to take lower dosages for longer periods of
time and make better gains than older users. The truth is, two bodybuilders
could take the same steroid stack, train and eat the same, and one could turn
out to be in the Olympia, and the other might never even win a local contest.
The difference in how people react to these drugs is incredible.
30 -- Someone with a
well-built body must be knowledgeable about fitness and physique development.
Despite
popular belief, just because some guy has 20" [51cm] arms or 30"
[77cm] thighs, that does not automatically credential him as a bodybuilding
expert. Unfortunately, in a society where looks count for so much, well-built
lifters are often regarded as bodybuilding scientists. The unfortunate fact is,
many well-built athletes, even pro bodybuilders, have no idea how they got
where they are. Many of them are so genetically gifted and embellish their
genetic potential even further by using tons of bodybuilding drugs that they actually
succeed in spite of themselves. With
few exceptions, elite bodybuilders are the last people in the world you want to
turn to for bodybuilding advice if you're genetically average like 98% of us.
You're more likely to find expert advice from someone who has 'walked a mile in
your shoes'.
The above has been reprinted from the
October/November edition of Muscle Media
2000.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home