>steroids aren't magic you still have to train really ha-

>>41980402
What were their diets like?

>>41980402
i dont believe this

have you ever done a cycle op? i bet you haven't

>>41980425

Squats + GOMAD

>>41980402
This knowledge is old as /fit/

File: 3205902305990235.jpg (81KB, 1119x602px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1119x602px

>Don't worry about steroids bro, just enhance you testosterone natur-

Lean mass =/= muscle

Most of it would have been glycogen and water

>>41980451
>>41980451
This was taken into account during this particular study, it was all muscle mass, not just overall lean body mass. Bone, water, muscle tissue, fat tissue, it was all accounted for.

>>41980456
Can I see a citation? The one I saw just measured circumferences and lean mass

>>41980456
can you link study?

Right, so the people who trained on roids still gained roughly twice the lean mass as those who were on roids but didn't train. Also

>4.4 lbs

Was this study conducted over a single fucking month? Also what this guy >>41980425 said. Was everyone fed the exact same caloric surplus? Evidentally not, since to my knowledge steroids don't violate the laws of physics and magically pull new body mass out of some kind of secret steroid vacuum space. What is "lean mass" being defined as here?

I'm so sick of statistics-lets and methodology-lets posting a single unsourced infographic and thinking it qualifies even marginally as evidence for anything.

>>41980481
Study was over 10 weeks

>>41980471
>>41980475
it's not true boys, the only way group 3 could beat group 1, is if they were all labourers, while group 1 all had desk jobs

>>41980481
>steroids don't violate the laws of physics and magically pull new body mass out of some kind of secret steroid vacuum space.

Hormones are steroids, and hormones are actually magic.

How do you think a Male Lion grows from 10kg to 200kg in a few months, because they're not eating anywhere near enough calories in that short time to grow, the only need a bare minimum amount to support hormonal function for their natural growth potential.

>>41980488

And the steroid users barely gained one pound a week? Although I guess if that's like one pound of muscle a week, that's pretty damn impressive.

>>41980503

So then why aren't we using lion hormones to create unlimited energy? Fucking idiot. What, do you think the hormones just pull that 190kg out of thin fucking air? I seriously fucking doubt the growing lions don't get more than enough of the calories necessary. Where are you even pulling this bullshit from?

>>41980555
>Where are you even pulling this bullshit from?
>thin fucking air

S O U R C E
O
U
R
C
E

>>41980555
Educate yourself on the power of hormones. It's probably one of the only things in this existence that bypasses calories in vs calories out.

Still waiting on a link.

>>41980807
He is right tho. I don't think hormones can create matter out of nothing

File: Skærmbillede-2016-09-22-kl.-18.00.33-749x1024.png (157KB, 749x1024px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 749x1024px

>>41980819
Use google homo

>>41980807
>bypasses calories in vs calories out.
No.
They'll give godly caloric repartition, you'll build almost 100% muscle and no fat, will get more appetite, everything will fall in line for massive gains, but you
>WON'T
>BREAK
>THE LAWS
>OF THERMODYNAMICS

>>41980819
Google “The magic bullet” about steroids aka Bhasin et al, 1996

>>41980867
Its not that simple either. The CICO retards are gladly invited to go for a 2000cal sugar only diet and see how well their weight loss goes.

>>41980446
Thats insignificent

>>41980884

So youre telling me that if I burn 2500kcal a day but eat 2000kcal in sugar, I will gain weight?

>>41980913
No but you will lose muscle mass.

No shit steroids aren't magic but if you're working hard on gear you're fucking dumb, you can easily maintain a physique that just tips the scales from natty to roided with a fraction of the work and bullshit a natty would have to put up with and be able to maintain it year round on a low bodyfat by then you look and likely feel better than 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the population.

>>41980864
>>41980882
Or you could post the link, faggots.

>>41980930

Well thats not what was said. He said "weight loss" not muscle loss

>>41980959
Im not gonna google it for you faggot

>>41980402
H-how do I participate in these group experiments?

>>41980867
Mr Scott, give me 200lb of lion muscle
>a cannae break the laws of thermodynamics

File: 1497387904062.png (42KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 256x256px

>>41980887
>448 to 2828
>667 to 3277
>Insignificant

There are no words.

>>41980402
But the chart clearly says that roidlifters get twice as much gains as nonlifting roiders
Not saying that test isn't crazy effective, but that pic alone doesn't say anything about their diet and what kind of routine they do

>>41980446
>>41980402
Are there studies like this just for anavar/oxandrolone?

File: 1494425662201.jpg (39KB, 367x367px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 367x367px

>>41980402
um.. your picture shows this??????

trained got 6.4 pounds of muscle more???

>>41981007
This is underrated

File: 1491191472914.jpg (138KB, 1356x1017px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1356x1017px

>>41980481
>this whole post

>>41981074
I know this is bait but it shows test users gaining more lean mass doing literally nothing than natural lifters actively training.

>>41980435
It's supported by scientific results and old news btw

>>41980864

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101#t=article

>>41981297
It's fake and /fit/ is almost 100% wrong about health

File: will frauds ever recover.jpg (100KB, 579x800px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 579x800px

>>41980425
>>41980435
>>41980451
>>41980471
>>41980475
>>41980481
>>41980490
>>41980727
>>41980819
>>41980835
>>41980887
>>41980959
>>41981007
>>41981051
>>41981074
>>41981165
>>41981480

>>41981049
Read it again.

448 to 2828+/-400 was 10 weeks without exercise

667 to 3277 +/-300 was 10 weeks WITH exercise.

So a difference of 500 when the combined standard error is 700. That is statistically insignificant.

>>41980402
>natty builds 4.4 lbs of muscle in only 10 fucking weeks

These must have been completely new lifters.

>>41983948
IN OTHER WORDS:

There is no statistically significant difference in test levels between someone who takes steroids and exercises for ten weeks vs someone who takes them and does nothing.

/fit/ enjoys likes to meme about improving test naturally but it's a huge farce, your test levels are whatever you were born with barring chemical interference. You also aren't going to somehow raise your testosterone levels to those of steroid users without literally injecting yourself with it.

Roid rage makes a lot more sense when you realize these guys are walking around at six times the human baseline of a chemical that for millions of years of mammalian evolution makes monkeys want to chimp out and fight everything that moves.

>>41983948
How the fuck did you calculate P(Data|Null) < alpha in your head? Oh wait, you didn't and you're just trying to act smart. You have no idea what proportion of the variance is accounted for by random variables and what proportion of the variance is accounted by the residuals.

>>41981049
>>41983948
Neither of you absolute fucking retards read the table or know anything about statistics, and you both need to shut the fuck up.

The study clearly has 4 groups:

Exercise/Test, Exercise/No Test, No Exercise/Test, No Exercise/No test (control).

>no exercise group/no test group (control)
Baseline test 516 sd 58
10 weeks later they measured at 453 sd 35

>No exercise group that took test
Base line test 502 sd 63
10 weeks later they measured at 2828 sd 417

>Exercise group, no test
Baseline measured at 557 sd 45
10 weeks later of exercising natty, measured at 667 sd 117

>Exercise/test group
Baseline 431 sd 38 (lowest of them all)
10 weeks later measured at 3244 sd 305

I can't believe you retards actually turned a table sideways because you want to believe injecting test e doesn't increase the amount of test in your body. Nigga can't even spell insignificant.

>>41981049
>>41983948
Also,
>448
These motherfuckers didn't even read the numbers. Where the fuck did you see 448?

How do you even get test? Do you lurk on Tor or something?

>>41984257
This, genuinely disappointed those retards couldn't read something so fucking simple

File: 5C7B67F7-92FF-4566-9F00-23657418ED48-9028-00000C17427408E9.jpg (146KB, 904x1280px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 904x1280px

>>41980402
After not working out ever probz. Big surprise, people are weak af.

Regardless steroids are silly unless you wanna train at an elite level. Or when your old and can't make gains, might as well I guess

>>41984847
google eroids and hf anon

>>41980913
That's actually fair game to any answer. Someone should try this out and report back if they're still alive

>>41984044
and that was just with just 500mg of teso if i remember correctly. a user could do allot more than that.

>>41981049
so what does qualify as exercise
does cardio endorse test?

>>41984257
so what does that mean to us?

File: RogerHazard1.jpg (12KB, 318x238px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 318x238px

>>41984257
so basicly not training and doing test will get you fucking jacked?

>>41980446
So many arguing over this result, Its pointless anyway. Everyone knows its easier to take alot of test than it is to increase it trough bio-hacking.

>>41987367
No you moron. No training and taking test will increase your test. A study needs to have some parallels.

File: 1488834029264.jpg (171KB, 1588x866px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1588x866px

Would of been cool if they also measured their 1RM.

Test makes you strong af.

>>41984257
What the fuck ever. My point stands: taking steroids significantly increases test by a whole fucking lot regardless of your exercise routine.

The time you spent typing this out could have been better spent taking sterons