4 ms·
There are hundreds of thousands of people taking steroids who go to the gym at far larger dosages than the pros to try and look like a pro. None of them looks a
by tiew9Vii 4y ago
There are hundreds of thousands of people taking steroids who go to the gym at far larger dosages than the pros to try and look like a pro. None of them looks anywhere near pro bodybuilders.
Steroids help. No one can deny that. The average person might get into pretty good shape using steroids without much effort. You can gain muscle by taking steroids and not training as your body processes protein better.
None of these people taking steroids will ever look like a pro bodybuilder as they don't have the dedication, mental mindset, determination, or work ethic to get there. Pro bodybuilders are a special kind. It's all built on consistency, day in and day out, every day, every week, every month, every year. Every meal is calculated, and every training session is calculated, logged and analysed.
Steroids certainly helped in his bodybuilding, but his single-mindedness made him the best bodybuilder of his time. The same single-mindedness got him a film career and then a political career.
The difference with Lance Armstrong is that pro bodybuilding competitions have never had rules banning performance enhancing drugs. Cycling isn't judge on your body being the biggest unnatural freaks on stage where performance-enhancing-drugs is a given unless you are competing in a completely natural class.
- keymon-o 4y agoI find your arguments on point, but his will, determination and sacrifice are just like steroids - means that enabled him to be competitive. It’s unfair not to mention his genetics as the most significant factor in his entire jouney. Arnold‘s story is amazing, but he was surrounded with like minded people at least as much determined to achieve what he did, yet they never did come close to his heights. There are examples of genetically predispositioned individuals in a lot of sports or competitive activities, and though amazing, we ought to differentiate pure will with blessings of nature, and celebrate the qualities that should be celebrated. Arnold was a literal and figurative beast, no doubt in that.
- Kye 4y agoI always hear genetics this, genetics that. Who is going around sequencing the DNA of athletes?
- harry8 4y agoYou think Mike Jordan got to be 6'7" and you didn't because he worked harder than you?
- Kye 4y agoNow work out how much environment contributed to that. Height isn't 100% genetic. There are kids out there with the same genetic potential who don't get enough to eat and will never stand a chance of playing in the NBA. So back to my original question: Who is going around sequencing the DNA of athletes? I am actually curious. I'm sure someone somewhere had the thought to apply science to the question of how much environment and genetics contribute to athletic outcomes. Anyone can stroll in and assert one or the other matters more. And people have! We have enough of that in here. I want science.
- harry8 4y agoYes genetics are not the only necessary condition which means it also is not a sufficient condition. Obviously so. Charles Darwin didn't need to sequence DNA to observe heritable characteristics. I strongly doubt sequencing Jordan's DNA will tell you anything at our current tech levels. MJ is 6'7", fast, athletic and well coordinated. Several million people in the USA grew up loving playing baskeball, were well coached and well nourished. We may well have missed a better MJ, or Einstein, Hendrix or Terry Tao or whoever you like due to them never getting a chance for all the reasons that can happen and that is an ongoing tragedy. One we as a species have been steadily and slowly fixing (albeit with some big dramatic setbacks) over the past 100 years or so. Long may that continue.