# Would you be as "big" as you are WITHOUT Supps?



## jdan (Jun 20, 2007)

Being relatively new to this Site (UK Muscle), from reading through the forums, it appears that most "rely" on Supplements in one form or another (not talking about 'gear' here).

Amazes me how many are taking like 4 or 5 different Supps together, as part of a daily routine!? Effectively just a concoction of chemicals!

If Supplements are removed from the equation, and you took none, would your lean mass (muscle) and physique be the same as you are now?

...I doubt it.

Isnt it like cheating yourself, or cutting corners, as you are not really pushing the weights you push/or developing lean mass naturally?

As the Supps feed the body and enable you to push it beyond it's natural capabilities, ARTIFICIALLY.

Bet I get alot more responses to this Q, than I have for my other recent Posts! Hmmm.

Interested to hear from those 'in the know' too


----------



## leeston (May 30, 2006)

wow, what a can off worms you have opened.

'Supps' are a wide catagory to consider. You must remember that vitamin tabs and flax/EFA tabs/oils are also supps. These are pretty musch essential for your diet and would not give you much, if anything, in the way of strength in the gym.

Typically, when one refers to supps they mean some type of tablet/powder to increase strength, agression, fatt loss etc. Many people here use such supps but the main contributors, I imagine, could do what they do without the supps although it may take a little longer to achieve their goals.

Personally, the only supps I use are vits, oils, protein powder and creatine. Protein powder is both convenient and a means of getting the protein level I want without eating solid food all of the time. Morning and night is the only time I will have a shake (also PWO in which case I will have eggs for breakfast). Eitherway I rely on no more than 2 shakes per day.

You must remember that supps are what they are supplements ans therefore are designed to supplement your regular diet. A lot of people use diet to supplement their supplements!!!!!

The market for supps is massive. People will easily buy £50 worth of supps but will not pay £20 for a book which will give them information to help for the future!

The ludicrous claims recently are getting worse. I download a podcast (bodybuilding.com) and listen to it duing my cardio. On there is a claim for a serum (oral taken) which activates the dormant muscle fibres. It goes on to say that a pro BB used it and gained 16lbs in 4 days!!

Another one says it aids fat loss and builds muscle and once ingested goes to work in 9 seconds. Also they use fancy wording such as steroid sounding names to increase the products desirablity. Deca delivery system. Basically, they are trying to market products by using 'drug related' stuff as the catchment.

So, the answer to your question is: yes, I would (save for the protein powder in which case if it were taken away I would substitue with eggs).


----------



## ARNIE (Dec 19, 2006)

the ancients did alright, look at the old statues and drawings from then, the gladiators etc they wernt small were they! and the greek statues some of them were pretty muscled up and they didnt have supps or steroids,they just did more and looked better.


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

ARNIE said:


> the ancients did alright, look at the old statues and drawings from then, the gladiators etc they wernt small were they! and the greek statues some of them were pretty muscled up and they didnt have supps or steroids,they just did more and looked better.


Very ture, however neither was their food and water contaminated with all sorts of crap like our is today (most notably estrogen - FKing pregnancy pills).


----------



## leeston (May 30, 2006)

ARNIE said:


> the ancients did alright, look at the old statues and drawings from then, the gladiators etc they wernt small were they! and the greek statues some of them were pretty muscled up and they didnt have supps or steroids,they just did more and looked better.


exactly megatron, I went to the cinema recently and saw 500. Thoise guys looked good and I bet they did not have protien powders back in then (500bc or whatever)!


----------



## jdan (Jun 20, 2007)

Leeston, thankyou for a very comprehensive reply. Interesting reading.

Out of interest, had a read on a supplement called NO-Xplode....

This is what the manufacturer actually says : Quote:

*The ingredient profile is mind-blowing ! Many of the ingredients in NO-Xplode are completely unique and relatively unheard of, and to date have never been applied to a product of this magnitude.*

SOOOOOO... the ingredients are completely unique and relatively unheard of? lol.

So how do you know what exactly you are pumping into your body, if no-one else out there has even experimented with these ingredients, let alone heard of them!?

If these 'facts' were documented by M&S or Sainsburys about one of their food products, health and safety would be in there at a blink of an eyelid.

Do people here really understand all of the ingredients in these products? Are they regulated?


----------



## Bulldozer (Nov 24, 2006)

You dont need supps to grow!

And thats a fact!

They are just more conveniant. i only use whey and maltodextrin and thats only for my pwo shake.


----------



## deejpj (Apr 7, 2007)

how is it cheating? so lifting weights is cheating too to get big and should just do natural stuff like they did thousands of years ago to get big!


----------



## the_gre8t_1ne (Apr 18, 2005)

IMO body builders would not look the same if we did not have any supps! im sorry there is only so much food u can eat in a day, and im 100% sure that there would be a hell of a lot less people who are big without supps as i kno loads who only use shakes for 4 meals


----------



## invisiblekid (Jun 18, 2006)

leeston said:


> exactly megatron, I went to the cinema recently and saw 500. Thoise guys looked good and I bet they did not have protien powders back in then (500bc or whatever)!


But did they really look like that??

Artists painting pictures of royalty were often told to make the subject more handsome, or in some cases fatter because this was a sign of wealth.

At the end of the day if you consume enough quality calories you'll grow. Supplements are there to aid you and make the consumption of said calories easier.

Many pros don't really use supps and get everything from whole food. In a perfect life...


----------



## leeston (May 30, 2006)

yeah invisable kid, I hope you realise I was only joking.

I agree, given that there are no photos of the era it is difficult to comment on how the gladiators and spartans looked.

As for the pro's - this was mentioned in a thread not so long ago. Leeding up to competition the pros rely very little on supps (I mean protein powder and such like) in favour of whole foods!


----------



## invisiblekid (Jun 18, 2006)

Yeah Leeston, I did realise in that reference, but as a whole I hope you know what I meant.


----------



## DB (Oct 31, 2003)

honestly if shakes were not available..

i recon the majority would be bigger!!

due to the fact more real food would be eaten!


----------



## invisiblekid (Jun 18, 2006)

Some would be bigger, some would be smaller.

I know if I couldn't neck a shake or two through the day I wouldn't be growing. I simply don't have chance to eat during working hours.


----------



## chrisj22 (Mar 22, 2006)

It's so hard to digest whole food 7 times a day or whatever. Even years ago the pro's used to make their own shakes with eggs & milk etc.


----------



## miller25 (Apr 22, 2007)

You can get big without supplements, It's all down to your ginetics. Some African slaves were huge and let me tell you they wasn't getting nowhere near the sort of nutrition required.


----------



## Conrad1436114525 (Mar 3, 2007)

lol...umm hate to break it to you guys but those greek statues etc are just that....statues. They, as with most ancient art forms portraying social elite and mythical characters, are subject to creative enhancement....

300 is a film made last year.... im sure all the actors with good physicues hav3e taken sups and quite possibly gear.


----------



## Ollie B (Mar 14, 2007)

Conrad. Alot of the muscles you see on 300 are airbrushed.


----------



## Conrad1436114525 (Mar 3, 2007)

nd back to the question... as leeston says...most ppl use the basic sups like whey and creatine which are both natural substances....not enhanced chemical compounds like you make out. We simply dont get sufficient protein in our diet through wholefoods so we supplement our diet with protein...whey is derrivative of cows cheese...natural stuff. Our body only makes something like a g of creatine a day so again we need to supplement to take full advantage.


----------



## Conrad1436114525 (Mar 3, 2007)

Ollie B said:


> Conrad. Alot of the muscles you see on 300 are airbrushed.


yeah im sure your right mate...


----------



## deejpj (Apr 7, 2007)

Ollie B said:


> Conrad. Alot of the muscles you see on 300 are airbrushed.


yeah you can tell when you watch closely, they did a good job though


----------



## Ollie B (Mar 14, 2007)

bloody good film though.


----------



## Mr Brown (Mar 20, 2007)

Weird I was just about to post something on supps and then saw this, I was just thinking to myself how when I'm taking suppliments I feel the need to make sure I'm hitting my 6-8 meals a day and training hard, it's almost as if it's a placebo to train that extra harder like "I'm putting this stuff in my body so I gotta go the extra mile"

that's how i've always felt anyway, in answer to the question who knows, I think we'd all like that little edge to reach those goals that little bit quicker and whether it be through shakes, creatine or a test booster.


----------



## Mr Brown (Mar 20, 2007)

Ollie B said:


> bloody good film though.


Watched this on Sunday, good film, made me wanna train after haha


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

jdan said:


> Isnt it like cheating yourself, or cutting corners, as you are not really pushing the weights you push/or developing lean mass naturally?
> 
> As the Supps feed the body and enable you to push it beyond it's natural capabilities, ARTIFICIALLY.


I am confused to why you think it is cheating?? cheating who?? to cheat is to do something that gives you an unfair advantage over others and by this you are assuming others are not using supplements.

You mention NOxplode but are you just talking about these types of supplements or all supplements like Vitamins/Essential fats or even whey powder??

As for if you can grow without them hell yes of course you can as the basic mechanics to muscle growth is amino acids the energy to lift would come from both carbs and fats all are readily available from food.

Can i ask jDan do you take supplements if so which ones?


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

Conrad said:


> lol...umm hate to break it to you guys but those greek statues etc are just that....statues. They, as with most ancient art forms portraying social elite and mythical characters, are subject to creative enhancement....


You have no idea if that's true or not, it's your speculation, how would sculptors know what a muscled body looked like if nobody had one?


----------



## ARNIE (Dec 19, 2006)

megatron said:


> You have no idea if that's true or not, it's your speculation, how would sculptors know what a muscled body looked like if nobody had one?


i agree and would like to see some evidence to show they wern't well built.

it is also a fact that the gladiators were usually the strongest and therfore most genetically girted just like the boxers and athletes of today,they also got the best foods to eat and they also had stronger bones than there modern day counter parts.plus thes didnt stop at 5 sets x 10 reps a day,and call it a good session. :blowme:


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

i can see your point on the fact that we do not know if they where not built like you say but what proof have you to say they where genetically gifted and muscular??


----------



## ARNIE (Dec 19, 2006)

id say because of the reputation they had, to be a sucsessful gladiator or a warring state you couldnt be a weak dying bunch so therefore the strongest survive which equals genetically superior if not gifted,and they would only put the best forward who would have some talent and strength and natural size and ability


----------



## Bulldozer (Nov 24, 2006)

Being big dont mean your good in a fight . Has nothing to do with it!


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Whole foods over shakes with the exception of PWO.

Is it cheating?

No, they are only supplements.

I dont buy into the claims that most supplement companies rant about, whe I see that cleaver marketing stratagy then I get turned off.

I probably have spent more money on supplements that all of you and have done this for years, Looking back id rather have the money.

Whole foods if eaten correctly will yield better nutrition.

I supplement fish oils, digestive enzymes, pro-biotics, multi, and an anti-oxidant.

Its not cheating as all those ingrediants come from food.

PWO is a shake and that is it.


----------



## leveret (Jun 13, 2007)

All the actors in 300 went through a few months of intense weight traning / dieting + good food intake to get their bodys in that shape.

im also sure some airbrushing went on.

Thats according to my cousin who saw a program on the making of 300


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Bulldozer said:


> Being big dont mean your good in a fight . Has nothing to do with it!


exactly there are many greats in history who where not big and muscular gladiators where not all big even the best ones there is no proof to support the view that they where.

The film 300 is just that a film the size and condition of the "Actors" was to cause a dramatic effect....


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

Of course, there's no proof either way, that's the point. The only proof is the art from the era. So I ask again - how would the artists know what a muscular body looked like if nobody had one?


----------



## deejpj (Apr 7, 2007)

i dont think they were like huge but i think they would have been well toned as they would need to be really!


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

i agree they would know what muscle look like because we all have them and there will always be lean guys around no matter what they take all they have to do is exaggerate the size most of these statues where of gods so they had to make them intimidating in a way


----------



## ARNIE (Dec 19, 2006)

Spartan citizen boys left home for military boarding school at the age of 7 and were required to serve in the army until age thirty. Then they passed into the active reserve, where they remained until the age of sixty. Spartan education from the ages of seven to thirty emphasized physical toughness, steadfastness in military ranks,now that tells you something,23 years emphasized on phisical training,and then in the military until 60,

If male babies born to Spartan citizens were too small, weak or sick (all of which were believed as early signs that they would not be suitable for military life), they were abandoned on the slopes of Mt. Taygetos to die.


----------



## Stanco (Jan 7, 2007)

ARNIE said:


> Spartan citizen boys left home for military boarding school at the age of 7 and were required to serve in the army until age thirty. Then they passed into the active reserve, where they remained until the age of sixty. Spartan education from the ages of seven to thirty emphasized physical toughness, steadfastness in military ranks,now that tells you something,23 years emphasized on phisical training,and then in the military until 60,
> 
> If male babies born to Spartan citizens were too small, weak or sick (all of which were believed as early signs that they would not be suitable for military life), they were abandoned on the slopes of Mt. Taygetos to die.


Spartans were also one of the most homosexual cultures in history. Man on man sex for was not taboo, but encouraged. Made the spartans "bond" more, apparently. How MANLY! lol.


----------



## ARNIE (Dec 19, 2006)

it was like that on the whloe of greece not just in sparta,

stanco dont worry your secrets safe with me!


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

ARNIE said:


> Spartan citizen boys left home for military boarding school at the age of 7 and were required to serve in the army until age thirty. Then they passed into the active reserve, where they remained until the age of sixty. Spartan education from the ages of seven to thirty emphasized physical toughness, steadfastness in military ranks,now that tells you something,23 years emphasized on phisical training,and then in the military until 60,
> 
> If male babies born to Spartan citizens were too small, weak or sick (all of which were believed as early signs that they would not be suitable for military life), they were abandoned on the slopes of Mt. Taygetos to die.


this makles them focused and determined to acheive their goals this does not mean all of them where hanging with muscle....


----------



## ARNIE (Dec 19, 2006)

no not to say hanging with muscle but to strengthen the greek statue argument i bet they were simalar ,well some of them anyway.but all were probably very lean.


----------



## Rowlf (Jan 10, 2007)

As far as the Spartans go here, we've got a potentially fantastic example of breeding evolution in action. I know that this is an argument of surmise, but here goes....

The Spartans began leaving the children who were considered weak or inferior on the side of the mountain to die. This removed the obviously weak from the gene pool (there is a more complex argument here which would run that early infant indications are not necessarily good indicators of later facility in life for physical hardiness, but we'll sidestep that for the moment...). Thus, the next generation of 'breeders' for the gene pool are more likely to fulfil the criteria for children who will be appropriate to be labelled as 'hardy' and worth keeping rather than leaving on the mountain.

Problem here is that within a number of generations, one would expect to see most if not nearly all children fulfilling the criteria for being labelled a 'keeper'. So why did the practice continue for the duration of the Spartan civilisation?

Two factors immediately spring to mind. The first is that as the quality of breeding stock improved, so the population became more sensitive to the criteria applied to the decision to 'keep' or 'mountain' the kids - a continual refinement process in which smaller differences become more readable as time passes, driving the standard ever higher (a relative concept I'll come to in a minute). The second is that fashions of thought about what constituted a 'keeper' changed with the passage of time, much as fashion changes today. For example, it may have been at some points size at birth was considered the primary indicator, and then thought changed to leanness at birth, then to torso/limb/head size ratios, etc. Both of these assume that obviously sickly children are automatically deemed to be 'mountain' kids.

The relative concept of what is considered a high standard is I think what the debate here is about. There is no way of knowing whether size or leanness or any of many other factors are the ones that were prized, but we can say with certainty that the human body isn't radically different from the body of thousands of years ago. It's what it gets used for that affects it most, given certain genetic predispositions. So, within these predispositions, we ought to be able to see the same sort of trends in terms of deviation from the regional genetic norms.

Because of this, I would suggest that the most useful way to make suppositions about the Spartan frame is in relation to their lifestyles. My best guess would be to look at the bodies of special forces service personnel today, as they are the most intensely trained fighting force we can currently refer to. In relation to their counterparts, they actually tend to be quite lean, dense, and not at all like the film version that we're sold. Being active in the field for long durations is not going to push you towards a large muscular body, but something very functional and highly efficient. Best common example might be someone like Bear Grylls. He's not in battle shape, but he's not far off, and when you see him doing things on his show, it's clear that physically everything is in its most usefully proportioned shape to carry out a multitude of tasks with a minimum of waste.

As far as the ferocity of the Spartans goes, certainly a great amount of their battle ferocity could be directly attributed to the homosexual nature of their military culture. Older Spartan soldiers had relationships with younger ones, including aspects of mentor as well as lover. These relationships were so deep rooted that when Spartan men were married, their wives heads were shaved to help masculinise them. The marriage and procreation thereof were seen as duties the men had to fulfil to propagate the Spartan culture.

Because of the deep rooted emotional relationship between soldiers, a fighting bond was formed which struck terror into most of the ancient world. Think about it in this way: if you fought in a regiment with your wife or partner, how much further would you go in terms of your refusal to accept defeat? The fact their relationships in their fighting groups was homosexual was an irrelevance - it was normal in that society, and as such was not considered anything other than absolutely the natural order.

I'm not sure I'm making a point here beyond that their bodies were in all likelihood more functional than anything, and terrifying because of what they were capable of rather than how they looked. As far as the argument about statues goes (the Spartans weren't really into art in a big way, so were talking about the rest of the ancient world here) there will always be the odd human who comes along and is very muscular by freak genetics. Once one has beeen seen and sculpted, that sculpture then becomes a reference point for other sculptors. Unfortunately I don't know anything about art and sculpture, so have no reference points for this.

And I had no idea when I wrote this that I'd bang on about it for so long. Sorry if I bored anyone....


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

No I wouldn't

Thats why I take them

I like being massive.


----------



## jdan (Jun 20, 2007)

Who would you be cheating? Yourself perhaps.

Interesting that by creating this Thread we all now know that Gladiators were a rare and dedicated breed (from birth so it seems). Also gay which is probably why they are popular here! 

So how were the Gladiators able to develop their rippling physiques/muscles back then (when supplementation/chemical substitutes werent available), but we rely so heavily on them nowadays.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

why are you cheating yourself MultiVits/Fish oils and others are good for your health ??

Again i ask how do you know that gladiators had rippling muscles?? you don't you are assuming they did Gladiators where probably genetically stronger and bigger than most hence why they where successful at what they did...

Can i ask why you are so against supplements??


----------



## thestudbeast (Jul 20, 2007)

There will always be genetic freaks who need no supplements and even very little food to grow big. It does'nt mean the rest of us should follow suit. Supplements give that final 10% gain once you've got every thing else in check. So no I would not be as big with out supplements but I'm sure there would be a few that would.


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

I'd bet any money that gladiators/spartans etc were nowhere near the level of physiques we see nowadays.

I would also bet any money that if Ronnie/Jay etc didnt take gear or supplements then theyd still be better physique wise that gladiators of 1000s of years ago.

This is due to the increased knowledge that we now have about kinesology and sports specific training. Look at the range of gym equipment now available and what we now about nutrition. Also the way that human physiology has evolved because we no longer need to carry extra bodyweight for heat or for periods of starvation like our ancestors. The human body is a much more efficient machine in the present due to other aspects such as immunity to certain diseases that would have ravaged early man.


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

> The human body is a much more efficient machine in the present due to other aspects such as immunity to certain diseases that would have ravaged early man.


I would say that living in such a sterile environment for generations will actually have the opposite effect. Were there horribly overweight people who sat around doing FK all all day back then? Doubt it.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Yah but I bet Ronnie nor Jay would be able to battle it out with axes better than a gladiator.

Remember they were fearless.


----------



## jdan (Jun 20, 2007)

Very thoughtful replies. Many thanks.

Didn't say that I was against Supps *Pscarb*, was just asking a Q based on an observation.

Summarising some of the replies raised, there are indeed 2 types of Supplements available.

1/ Those that contain natural ingredients, Whey, multi-vits, fish oils etc.

2/ Chemical concoptions that give an 'artificial' boost/increase in performance.

It was the latter that I was referring to primarily. Also my other point - Won't repeat the name of any specific product as an example, but, is there any regulating body on the human consumption of these products?

As surely if the ingredients have hardly been known about, yet alone used in any product before, what types of research is done into the short/long-term health effects?


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

megatron said:


> I would say that living in such a sterile environment for generations will actually have the opposite effect. Were there horribly overweight people who sat around doing FK all all day back then? Doubt it.


No they probably got their asses kicked by the gladiators. 

I bet there were fat people who lived in oppulence while their servants did all the work, just like today. Its been the same through history, the manual labourers keep in good shape due to their jobs but the people who are sat in office or the senate or the forum were less active and so would have been over weight.

And loads of people died from colds and pneumonia in the old days. Thats less common now unless you are very very sick. We live in a sterile environment because countless ancestors have died from the very diseases that we are now tolerant to due to their deaths.


----------



## jdan (Jun 20, 2007)

All this talk about Gladiators - remember, no-body rooted for Goliath (it was the little man that won the day)!


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

jdan said:


> Very thoughtful replies. Many thanks.
> 
> Didn't say that I was against Supps *Pscarb*, was just asking a Q based on an observation.


with that said you never said that you was not against supplements and from the tone of your initial post you could understand why some one could think this.........and congratulations on finding the button to make text bold...


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

I think it was the cheating remark that did the most to get the ball rolling


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

Pscarb said:


> with that said you never said that you was not against supplements and from the tone of your initial post you could understand why some one could think this.........and congratulations on finding the button to make text bold...


I don't get why you are picking on this guy Paul. This is a good thread.


----------



## jdan (Jun 20, 2007)

Congratulations on finding the Bold button? Take it as a compliment that I boldened your Alias, giving it greater significance within the Post!

Could have set the font size to 1 making your name unreadable

...or even not bothered to take the time to reply. So is criticism hard to take (as you obviously saw it that way)?


----------



## jdan (Jun 20, 2007)

megatron said:


> I don't get why you are picking on this guy Paul. This is a good thread.


Thanks for the support mate.

Infact if I am in conversation with someone (on the Forum) I do often highlight their Alias, so it makes it easier to distinguish, within the text.

So am quite surprised by the sudden snipe!

Obviously hit a nerve somewhere, or should I say blood vessel! lol.


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

Reading back through the posts I think the "cheating" remark raised tempers perhaps. I don't think taking supps is cheating at all, fo rme cheating = breaking the rules, there's no rules about taking supps so whatever.

I am interested though in your points about some of the ingredients in things like N.O. Xplode - which claim to be unique and brand new - notrious oxide itself is used as an recreational drug by some (I found out after some investigation) and can cause some brain irregularities. Makes you wonder what the other things are doing.

Also the whole spartans/gladiators discussion is great, I would think that some of them at least had muscular bodies, not overmuscular like one of todays bodybuilders. I use the word overmuscular because there comes a point at which the extra muscle volume is detremental to other things like speed, agility, endurance etc. Which would obviously be requirements for combat athletes.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

I dont rate many supplements TBH.

Apart from the fish oils, pro-biotics, garlic, creatine, digestive enzymes and a multiple vitamin, I wont waist my time on anything else with the exception of branch chain amino acids.


----------



## Conrad1436114525 (Mar 3, 2007)

ARNIE said:


> i agree and would like to see some evidence to show they wern't well built.
> 
> it is also a fact that the gladiators were usually the strongest and therfore most genetically girted just like the boxers and athletes of today,they also got the best foods to eat and they also had stronger bones than there modern day counter parts.plus thes didnt stop at 5 sets x 10 reps a day,and call it a good session. :blowme:


The reason why people associate greeks with masculinity and musclular statues is that they are one of the first civilisations to encourage disection to establish a understanding...of sorts...of the human body. In other words they had a basic understanding of anatomy and thus were able to enhance the human physicue in statues in celebration of this. I can assure you they werent a super human race of muscle men.


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

Conrad said:


> I can assure you they werent a super human race of muscle men.


Ahh I see, you were there!


----------



## Conrad1436114525 (Mar 3, 2007)

i think we are going to have to agree to disagree.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

megatron said:


> I don't get why you are picking on this guy Paul. This is a good thread.


why are my comments count as "picking on him" Jdan raised a question i have replied to it from his first post he did come across as someone who did not like supplement use i merly asked if he was against supplements and why.

this is a forum for debate i disagree with his point of veiw therfore i am debating with him have i at any point called him names or used foul language??

if i disagree with some one i will say it unlike others on the board if you do not like it then that is just tough.....


----------



## ah24 (Jun 25, 2006)

Pscarb said:


> if i disagree with some one i will say it unlike others on the board if you do not like it then that is just tough.....


This aint me a4se licking...but thats what i like about pauls posts - there straight up no bullsh1t.

Would be better if more people were like that in my opinion.


----------



## Littleluke (Nov 21, 2005)

naa mate your are a$$ licking. lol


----------



## ah24 (Jun 25, 2006)

Littleluke said:


> naa mate your are a$$ licking. lol


For what reason?! I just dont see the point in sugar coating everything.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Everyone has their own style of posting.

Sometimes it is difficult to read into the mood of the post without facial expressions or tone of voice.

So, it is done in a diffrent way online.

Might take a bit more words to get the point accross in the way it was intended.

But after all we do learn the diffrnet personalities and how to respond, it is all a learning thing.

I know a guy on another board, a very insightfull guy suggested he was a bully, then it dawned on me that he was.

But he is so sharp that I dont take it as a bully but just that he knows his stuff, and is quite opionated.

Once you know that then the rest is easy.


----------



## jdan (Jun 20, 2007)

Quoted, but very interesting (Gladiators diet) ! :

Holywood depicts them as muscular and manly, but Austrian anthropologists have found evidence that Roman gladiators were fat vegetarians who in no way resembled a cinematic representative of the ancient warrior, such as Russel Crowe. The scientists have studied the corpses of two kinds of gladiators - the mymillos and the retiariae - whose remnants were discovered in the ancient Ephesus near Selsuk, Turkey.

"Tests on bone fragments taken from the corpses of some 70 gladiators burried in Ephesus prove that they ate mostly barley, beans and dried fruit," said forensic doctor Karl Grosschmidt who participated at the study by Austrian Archeology Institute. "This food, mentioned in oral history, was fairly uninteresting but gave the gladiators strength, though it made them gain weight," said Grosschmidt who also is a member of the Vienna based Institute of Histology and Embryology.

Austrian paleo-anthropologists used a method known as elementary microanalysis which helps scientists determine what people ate during their lives. With the help of sonar they were able to determine chemical concentrations in the cells in the bone samples extracted from the Ephesus corpses. From them they were able to deduce the representation of meat, fish, grains, and fruits in the nutrition of the Roman fighting machines. Balanced nutrition consisting of meat and vegetables leaves equal traces of zinc and strontium in the cells, while a mostly vegetarian diet leaves high levels of strontium and low levels of zinc, added the Austrian scientist.

"Their bone density is higher than usual, as is the case with present-day athletes," introduced Fabian Kanz from Office of Analytical Chemistry of University of Vienna. Through testing, the scientists were able to overthrow another myth about Spartacus's leather sandals, which he used in the arena. "The bone density is much higher in the samples from the bones of the foot, which proves that the gladiators were fighting barefoot in the sand," said Kanz. He thinks that, as some gladiators fought with but their bare hands, "they grew a layer of fat to protect their vital organs from the strikes of the oponents."

In ancient Rome the myrmillos gladiators used a sword, helmet, and shield to fight against llightly armed warriors, the retiariae, equiped with a net and dagger, and also had a leather pouch protecting the right arm. They were mostly slaves who fought voluntarily because sometimes the winner was rewarded by freedom, or in the case of poor Romans the motivation was money. The Austrain scientists are continuing in the research, but if their current findings are confirmed, it will change the image we have of the gladiators whom we know from such movies as Spartacus with the young Kurt Russel or The Gladiator starring Russel Crowe.

"It appears that the gladiators tried to gain weight before fight," says Kanz. "That, however, does not mean that they did not work hard on losing it afterwards," he added laughing. The archeological location in Ephesus is one of the most important ones in Turkey. The city was founded by the Greeks but it was the Romans who turned it into a capital of an Asian province and turned it into one of the richest cities of their empire. Austrain anthropologists have been working on location since 1998.


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

Great find Jdan


----------



## ARNIE (Dec 19, 2006)

Roman gladiators were fat vegetarians This statement is too sweeping for me to agree with i know the gladiators ate barly to help them gain a layer of fat to protect against slices and chops of the sword,but this doesnt mean they were just fat cnuts,look at it this way gladiators had to be good looking and with good phisiques to get the crowd on there side after the bout so to survive now nobody likes a fat cnut do they?

i prefer this discription

The Ephesus remains also show that gladiators were heavily built: they ate heartily to increase body weight and to protect themselves against deep wounds, and were nicknamed 'barley eaters' because of their diet of pulses and barley porridge, rich in carbohydrates. Dr Galen, however, was concerned that the barley made their flesh soft. On the day before battle, they were given special meals to steel them for the task ahead.


----------



## Conrad1436114525 (Mar 3, 2007)

i think we should move off this topic of conversation. No one really understands enough about the make up of ancient societies to suggest wether spartans and gladiators etc were more physicaly advanced than todays man.


----------



## jdan (Jun 20, 2007)

OK, so back on subject, it appears no-one can really justify/explain the "relatively unheard of" ingredients in popular (chemical) performance enhancing supplements?

The subject of regulating bodies that overlook and govern the manufacture and sale of such products also appears to be a grey area? That's if such monitoring even exists?


----------



## leeston (May 30, 2006)

i take it you mean regulated/monitored' in the pro bodybuilding circle.

Sounds odd, but the upper eschalones of the BB heirachy condemn drug useage. I also beleive that testing has been used in previous pro competitions but I dont know what they were looking for. I beleive duiretics are banned. However, whethere these rules are enforced I cannot comment.

As for the IOC (athletics comittee) I have a friend who represents the UK in discus. He has to inform the IOC which gym he trains in and when (and where) he is going to be, even on holiday, as they can turn up unannouced and test him. I have seen this done.

However, the thing with the IOC is that there records show that have tested say, 500 athletes a month. In reality, it is not the case as my mate has been done numerous times in a month which are classed a seperate tests, if you know what I mean.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

jdan said:


> it appears no-one can really justify/explain the "relatively unheard of" ingredients in popular (chemical) performance enhancing supplements?


Unheard if ingrediants?

Creatine you can get out of meat, but It would be hard to get the amount for good ATP production, so it is added in as a supplement.

Hardly unheard of as it occurs naturally in foods.

Whey protein?

Made from milk, again hardly unheard of.

NO products?

Well, again L-Arginine raises NO and nitric oxide is not anything unheard of as it is an amino acid. Most of the NO products are derived from the noni plant.

Everyone has heard of noni juice, again a naturally occuring substance in nature.

Benefits of elivated NO are better erections, blood pressure relief, very important for the cardio vascular system, NO acts as a signal molecule in the nervous system, important for the immune system, aids in digestion, inflammation, wound healing, pain relief, diabetes, Sickle Cell Anemia, Tuberculosis, memory enhancement, weight loss, the list is huge.

Not only does L-Arginine raise NO but it also raises HGH, all done naturally using isolated amino acid combinations.

So, I am not too sure what products you are talking about the facts are all in nature, and naturally occuring in nature.


----------



## pauly7582 (Jan 16, 2007)

jdan said:


> OK, so back on subject, it appears no-one can really justify/explain the "relatively unheard of" ingredients in popular (chemical) performance enhancing supplements?
> 
> The subject of regulating bodies that overlook and govern the manufacture and sale of such products also appears to be a grey area? That's if such monitoring even exists?


I don't understand the stress about supplements? All major supplement companies have to abide by regulations of the European Specialist Sports Nutrition Alliance who are linked with the Food Standards Agency. Just like anything else we consume there'll always be questions to ask. Pesticides on fruit, homones in cow milk etc etc.

Why do you think supplements are such dark deviant substances?


----------



## pauly7582 (Jan 16, 2007)

Your posts are very 'cloak and dagger' mate lol.

'Beware, it be those evil sports supplements'.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

hackskii said:


> Unheard if ingrediants?
> 
> Creatine you can get out of meat, but It would be hard to get the amount for good ATP production, so it is added in as a supplement.
> 
> ...


Nice Post Scott i would like to know what supplements Jdan is talking about as long as he does'nt think i am picking on him....


----------



## jdan (Jun 20, 2007)

Ermmm, was infact some fellow members of this forum that picked up on your blunt response to one of my posts (even before I had said anything).

Was it something I said, or are you on something??? (stupid question. suppose it's kinda obvious) lol!


----------



## jdan (Jun 20, 2007)

Forget it, please close this Thread.

Was a bit too much questioning Supplements on a body building forum, where 99% are taking the stuff and gear!

Will ask elsewhere, where I'll have non-influenced feedback with less of the player hating.


----------



## shorty (Mar 13, 2007)

woooo Some serious issues with supps and gear man.... :crazy:


----------



## ARNIE (Dec 19, 2006)

Conrad said:


> i think we should move off this topic of conversation. No one really understands enough about the make up of ancient societies to suggest wether spartans and gladiators etc were more physicaly advanced than todays man.


i dont think they were more advanced phisically that would be like trying to compare a 1920 car with aq 2007 car but i would say the were more phisicaly strong and determined without aas then men of today.


----------



## leeston (May 30, 2006)

oooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!

jdn - do you have roid rage. I have heard about that, it is not nice.


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

jdan said:


> Ermmm, was infact some fellow members of this forum that picked up on your blunt response to one of my posts (even before I had said anything).
> 
> Was it something I said, or are you on something??? (stupid question. suppose it's kinda obvious) lol!


Well yes it would be obvious seeing as that Paul logs his gear use on his diet thread as do most of the other guys here.

As for closing the thread isnt that a little bit like running out of the room slamming the door with your hands on your ears after calling everyone a poo pants?


----------



## ARNIE (Dec 19, 2006)

leeston that is a nice hangbag you own


----------



## ARNIE (Dec 19, 2006)

are people on things other than otc stuff?because by some of the pics you wouldnt think so lol


----------



## jdan (Jun 20, 2007)

shorty said:


> woooo Some serious issues with supps and gear man.... :crazy:


Sorry but this Thread is what people have made it.

I simply asked about supplementation and how it is regulated.

Also the ingredients in a certain NO product. There have been 3 or 4 replies to my original Question that do actually address these nicely.

However there was also ALOT of 'defending' such products - Not once have I said that I was against the use of Supps, or those that use them.


----------



## ARNIE (Dec 19, 2006)

jdan i thought this was a good thread there are a lot of sheep on this thread.silently waiting for a ban lol


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

jdan said:


> Forget it, please close this Thread.
> 
> Was a bit too much questioning Supplements on a body building forum, where 99% are taking the stuff and gear!
> 
> Will ask elsewhere, where I'll have non-influenced feedback with less of the player hating.


Actually if you look through the thread there are some very informed answers, Hackskii answered your question very well, you just dont like the answers you are getting.

From this quote its obvious you arent really into your training that much or you would know that hard work and discipline create a physique not a supplement.

A supplement can only augment muscle growth if the effort put in from nutrition and training is present. Genetics play a role as well.

Supplement and Gear will never turn a loser into a winner unless you have the winners mentality to begin with.

And when you talk about genetics playing a role then just look at Dorian Yates, his genetics were rubbish compared to Flew Wheeler, Kevin Levrone and Shaun Ray but he beat them all because of his work ethic. Not some magic supplement or gear.

Also look at Troy Brown who won last years britain, not genetically gifted for muscle like Zak Kahn but he won because of his strict discipline and attention to detail.


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

ARNIE said:


> are people on things other than otc stuff?because by some of the pics you wouldnt think so lol


Whats this comment all about?

Theres no hiding of gear use on this board at all so I dont know why you are alluding to people taking gear when they admit to it openly anyway.

and waiting for a ban? People get banned for being cocks and not complying with the board rules.

Discussion is welcome as long as it does not infringe board rules.

I bet some of the people you are alluding to would be people you would ask for advice in the future so making snide comments probably wont get you in their good books.


----------



## ARNIE (Dec 19, 2006)

dont take it to heart tom just a post thats all plus i agree i have had good advice on this board and will continue to do so but does this mean i cant traed on toes if i disagree and the quote contained scarcasm and i was alluding nothing.


----------



## jdan (Jun 20, 2007)

Tom, there HAS been a number of Posts that really have helped answer my original Q's, as I mentioned in my Post above. And I am grateful for the time people put into the replies.

Also it has been very interesting to read people's views on the Gladiators, that came into the conversation mid way through 

I was asking the Q's about supplements from an 'on the fence' point of view, happy to hear both for and against's. It's a pity there are a few that feel the need to 'defend' the 'in crowd', with their sarcastic one liners - talk about follow the herd! Nicely put Arnie 

Quote:

"As for closing the thread isnt that a little bit like running out of the room slamming the door with your hands on your ears after calling everyone a poo pants?"

Thought this Thread had run it's course, therefore a good place to lock it (as above, as some very informative responses have been posted).

Regarding your 'poo pants' ? :lalala:  Doesn't quite match the image that you are trying to portray in your Profile pic.


----------



## chrisj22 (Mar 22, 2006)

I think Tom was referring to you calling a room full of people poo pants.


----------



## jdan (Jun 20, 2007)

chrisj22 said:


> I think Tom was referring to you calling a room full of people poo pants.


^^^ POINT PROVEN! One of the sheep I mentioned above, following the Herd!


----------



## chrisj22 (Mar 22, 2006)

Mate, you posted something incorrectly so I told you where you went wrong - it's a bit like school children eating with their fingers when they should be using a knife & fork - do you understand where I'm coming from or is that classed as 'laying into you'??

Your after an arguement, end of. Still, it was a good thread until it all turned remotely sour.....


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

jdan said:


> Ermmm, was infact some fellow members of this forum that picked up on your blunt response to one of my posts (even before I had said anything).
> 
> Was it something I said, or are you on something??? (stupid question. suppose it's kinda obvious) lol!


well i did not want you to think i was picking on you.....this is a forum therefore you will get a debate when you ask a question like i said on most of my replies from the tone of your first post you seemed to be against supplements all i asked was if you was against supplement use?? i also asked what supplements you have used and although you have replied many times you have not answered my question...Why??

As for me being on something actually no i am not at the moment but i don't hide the fact when i am on gear you obvouisly have no clue what it takes to build muscle and think that all you have to do is take supplements of any kind......

If you feel that you don't like the board because of the "Sheep" then leave there is nothing holding you here and that goes for anybody else who feel the same way......i will echo what Tom has said it is amazing how many guys suggest things in their post's but then expect to get advice later on down the line....


----------



## Venetia (Jun 26, 2006)

The guys who post threads with a question like this or discussion and already have made up their mind on the matter why not just make a bold statement instead. This seems to have happened before where these people appear to be open minded on the subject and want to discuss ideas. But instead i think all they want is an argument or to blatantly put down BBing. If so, why are you on this site?! Why not go to aerobics.com.


----------



## pauly7582 (Jan 16, 2007)

ARNIE said:


> jdan i thought this was a good thread there are a lot of sheep on this thread.silently waiting for a ban lol


Think it's just called sticking up for your mates.


----------

