strength level

Transform · 17-05-2018 09:35AM

Mellor wrote: »

"The" limiting factor suggests there's only one. Which is not really the case. And while strength may rarely be the most significant issue, I guess it's almost always a factor to some degree.
I can't think of a physical sport or activity where being magically stronger (without any trace off obviousky) is not an immediate benefit. Hence the widespread abuse and subsequent banning of PEDs.

For me it's not a question of whether strength is a benefit/limiting factor. It's about the effort vrs payback. As you get stronger, each 10% gain is harder earned. There comes a point when the hours needed to add that 10% are better spent on other training imo.

Need to get stronger? No, of course not. They are plenty strong, compete in highly skilled sports, where conditioning is a huge factor. That training time is better spent elsewhere. That is exactly the situation above.

But if they could get instantly stronger without sacrifice. Would they be better, yeah of course they would.

and they're not going to be half a percent better if they dont believe in themselves, havent got a balance in their relationships, getting enough sleep (look into the research on that relating to sporting performance) etc etc etc

People love pushing the strength side of things yet at elite sporting level its almost NEVER the defining factor - but who do you blame when sports men or women have put on too much weight, spent too much time in the weight room, lots range of motion due to lack of attention towards mobility and speed and too much time on pure strength and not enough time practicing their sport etc

Have you ever talked to the S and C coaches at e.g. Leinster rugby? with EVERYONE on the squad they're doing far far less pure strength work with the primary goal of getting stronger. The elite are rarely training like you think they are or what you want to see in youtube videos

Transform · 17-05-2018 09:37AM

Powerhouse wrote: »

Yes, that is totally logical although there is a difference with protein shakes in that the average person will eat tuna - generally speaking even though people describe protein shakes as 'food' the average person usually doesn't sit down and have it for a meal.

People use many things to enhance performance and they are similar to PEDs in that sense. I'm not saying it's terribly wrong to be eating tuna but my point is that the principle is the same. Some people go down the road of PEDs to achieve whatever gains they are looking for. It is unsurprising that many people do this given the natural tendency for everyone to do something to enhance performance. One is considered 'illegal' or unethical or whatever the other is not but the principle is not really any different. PEDs seem to me to be a very short step away from what is almost uniformly done anyway.

difference is that most PEDs are controlled substances for a very good reason

Hell we're having to control sugar intake FFS

Open up the floodgates and see what happens.

As the joke goes - heres a pill that will make your willy 2inchs bigger, take one per day,

first question "so what would happen if i took three per day and how many can i take thats right below having a heart attack cause thats want ill do".

Powerhouse · 17-05-2018 10:11AM

whippet wrote: »

Powerhouse .. your logic is incorrect .. protein as a supplement is just another food ... it isn’t performance enhancing ... by your logic someone who steps up their training is similar to PED use .. as the extra training will give them an advantage

PEDs are chemicals which allow users improved performance ... you can take all the protein shakes in the world and it will only make you fat

This (the bit in bold) is misunderstanding me. Someone training in an absolute natural state and doing it more often and more intensely is not similar to PED use by definition - if that were the case then just walking around and getting the associated exercise could be considered similar to PED. That would be silly.

My point is that I believe protein shakes closer in spirit to PEDs than food (this is not saying they are PEDs and are not describable as food) in that I believe people take them because they perceive them to be advantageous to whatever effect they are trying to achieve. That might not be the ability to train harder - or whatever PEDs do - but it certainly appears to be based on the assumption that they will help optimise outcomes.

People will say that they are a quick alternative to a different type of meal but if it's just 'food' and it has no effect or perceived benefit why not just eat a slice of bread or a bar of chocolate whatever food is to hand if a specific outcome is not the desire? Presumably because protein is being consumed with a view to a particular result. Otherwise why bother? Also the average non-gym goer tends not to have a protein shake as an alternative to more mainstream food.

I am not saying that anyone who has a protein shake is an unethical juice-head but that using them is an acceptance of the principle that shortcuts with a view to a specific result are desirable.

Powerhouse · 17-05-2018 10:32AM

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

So if you did change your normal diet, are those foods PEDs as well?

.

But I never said that protein shakes are PEDs- just that I think they are closer in spirit to PEDs than food for reasons I have outlined in other posts.

Alf Veedersane · 17-05-2018 10:34AM

Powerhouse wrote: »

People will say that they are a quick alternative to a different type of meal but if it's just 'food' and it has no effect or perceived benefit why not just eat a slice of bread or a bar of chocolate whatever food is to hand if a specific outcome is not the desire? Presumably because protein is being consumed with a view to a particular result. Otherwise why bother? Also the average non-gym goer tends not to have a protein shake as an alternative to more mainstream food.

I am not saying that anyone who has a protein shake is an unethical juice-head but that using them is an acceptance of the principle that shortcuts with a view to a specific result are desirable.

Because most people that go to the gym have no real knowledge in the nutrient content of food. So they hear that they need protein for muscle protein synthesis but don't understand how they would get that from food.

And a lot don't understand how much they're getting from food or how much they need. It's a "I need protein....something that explicitly states protein on it is the solution".

and you're introducing 'shortcut' as if it's somehow comparable to taking a PED that generates levels of substances in your body that would never naturally be achieved.

Powerhouse · 17-05-2018 10:42AM

Transform wrote: »

difference is that most PEDs are controlled substances for a very good reason

Hell we're having to control sugar intake FFS

Open up the floodgates and see what happens.

As the joke goes - heres a pill that will make your willy 2inchs bigger, take one per day,

first question "so what would happen if i took three per day and how many can i take thats right below having a heart attack cause thats want ill do".

That's a whole different argument. I'm not saying protein shakes are dangerous substances just that they are very often taken by people for reasons other than sating their immediate hunger which is generally the primary focus of regular food at least in my experience anyway.

Powerhouse · 17-05-2018 11:00AM

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Because most people that go to the gym have no real knowledge in the nutrient content of food. So they hear that they need protein for muscle protein synthesis but don't understand how they would get that from food.

And a lot don't understand how much they're getting from food or how much they need. It's a "I need protein....something that explicitly states protein on it is the solution".

and you're introducing 'shortcut' as if it's somehow comparable to taking a PED that generates levels of substances in your body that would never naturally be achieved.

I would be surprised if (the bit in bold) is not absolutely true. Otherwise I cannot work out why anyone would favour a protein shake over nice tasty regular food.

But I do stand over the use of 'shortcut' as I think people use them to achieve some kind of outcome which they are not prepared to achieve under normal nutritional conditions. That is why I suggested that they were closer in spirit (not substance) to PEDs than food.

Alf Veedersane · 17-05-2018 11:00AM

Powerhouse wrote: »

That's a whole different argument. I'm not saying protein shakes are dangerous substances just that they are very often taken by people for reasons other than sating their immediate hunger which is generally the primary focus of regular food at least in my experience anyway.

Not if you take food for the purposes of having fuel for what you do.

Alf Veedersane · 17-05-2018 11:08AM

Powerhouse wrote: »

I would be surprised if (the bit in bold) is not absolutely true. Otherwise I cannot work out why anyone would favour a protein shake over nice tasty regular food.

Lots of gym bros have ****ty diets and fill themselves with shakes cos they know it has protein but they don't know how much they get from food and/or how much they need other than 'lots' because 'muscles, duh'.

Then there are the lads who eat tuna/chicken and pasta/rice in the changing rooms and you'll rarely see them chugging back a protein shake cos they know that they're getting enough protein from food.

When I have porridge for breakfast, I may include a scoop of whey in it because (1) I like to have a decent amount of protein at each meal and (2) I can't always have other, more protein rich foods for breakfast.

I use protein powder because it is a convenient, easy way of supplementing my protein intake from food. If I get enough from food, I don't use it, which is pretty much why I have a 1kg bag for god knows how long.

But then I have a reasonable handle on nutrition basics.

Powerhouse · 17-05-2018 11:48AM

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Not if you take food for the purposes of having fuel for what you do.

That's why I used the word 'generally'. Not matter what circumstances one envisages in life there'll be an exception. When someone is playing a match, for example, they will probably eat differently on the day but that's not what I am talking about when I talk about the general concept of people eating food.

Powerhouse · 17-05-2018 12:05PM

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Lots of gym bros have ****ty diets and fill themselves with shakes cos they know it has protein but they don't know how much they get from food and/or how much they need other than 'lots' because 'muscles, duh'.

But that's kinda the point I am making really - I'd say some people take it as an attempted shortcut for 'muscles'. They do see it as enhancing outcomes in the same why that they would not (rightly or wrongly) regard regular food. That's why I think they are taken by many in the spirit of PEDs rather than food.

Alf Veedersane · 17-05-2018 12:06PM

Powerhouse wrote: »

That's why I used the word 'generally'. Not matter what circumstances one envisages in life there'll be an exception. When someone is playing a match, for example, they will probably eat differently on the day but that's not what I am talking about when I talk about the general concept of people eating food.

"very often taken by people for reasons other than sating their immediate hunger which is generally the primary focus of regular food at least in my experience "

The other reasons being to ensure they have the right fuel on board for their activities.

Alf Veedersane · 17-05-2018 12:09PM

Powerhouse wrote: »

But that's kinda the point I am making really - I'd say some people take it as an attempted shortcut for 'muscles'. They do see it as enhancing outcomes in the same why that they would not (rightly or wrongly) regard regular food. That's why I think they are taken by many in the spirit of PEDs rather than food.

You're making a leap here.

They're consciously increasing their protein intake, which they could get from food.

If it was in the spirit of PEDs, they would be consciously taking it because they know they could never get it from food.

There's quite a difference.

Dtp1979 · 17-05-2018 12:29PM

Maybe I’m picking this up wrong, but I think powerhouse is saying that some people view protein in a tub as some kind of PED. I would agree. Obviously it’s not a ped but the amount of people that I know that say to me, because I lift, “you must be taking that protein stuff”. They simply do not understand that it’s basic whey. But because it comes in a tub with the picture of a muscular guy on the front, then their view of it is thwarted.

Powerhouse · 17-05-2018 12:36PM

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

You're making a leap here.

They're consciously increasing their protein intake, which they could get from food.

If it was in the spirit of PEDs, they would be consciously taking it because they know they could never get it from food.

There's quite a difference.

But this is the same argument about the substance of PEDs versus protein shakes and where food fits in. I think we all know that. But I am not arguing about the substance. I am arguing that people like convenient shortcuts to either a real or perceived outcome and in that sense protein shakes inhabit the same sphere as PEDs for many people.

That one is replicated by food does not stop people using it - I imagine if PEDs could be replicated by food you'd still get people opting for the former for reasons of availability, peer pressure, convenience or whatever. I don't understand why it's such a sticking point as it seems obvious enough to me.

Mellor · 17-05-2018 01:29PM

Dtp1979 wrote: »

the amount of people that I know that say to me, because I lift, “you must be taking that protein stuff”. They simply do not understand that it’s basic whey.

People do think it's a PED. But that's because people are idiots.
But people believing that doesn't actually make it true. Protein isn't actually remotely in the same stratosphere as PEDs.

Powerhouse wrote: »

I imagine if PEDs could be replicated by food you'd still get people opting for the former for reasons of availability, peer pressure, convenience or whatever.

There's not a chance the that's the case tbh.
PEDs are expensive, hard to source, borderline illegal and often require you to inject yourself.
If some food from Tesco did the same job, that would be a much easier option.

Mellor · 17-05-2018 01:34PM

Transform wrote: »

and they're not going to be half a percent better if they dont believe in themselves, havent got a balance in their relationships, getting enough sleep (look into the research on that relating to sporting performance) etc etc etc

I haven't suggested any of those aspects aren't also relevant.

People love pushing the strength side of things yet at elite sporting level its almost NEVER the defining factor - but who do you blame when sports men or women have put on too much weight, spent too much time in the weight room, lots range of motion due to lack of attention towards mobility and speed and too much time on pure strength and not enough time practicing their sport etc

Have you ever talked to the S and C coaches at e.g. Leinster rugby? with EVERYONE on the squad they're doing far far less pure strength work with the primary goal of getting stronger. The elite are rarely training like you think they are or what you want to see in youtube videos

That's all true. But again it doesn't actually dispute anything I've said.
It's almost like you're rattling off a set reply to errors you see in training, rather than what I actually said.

Alf Veedersane · 17-05-2018 02:01PM

Powerhouse wrote: »

I am arguing that people like convenient shortcuts to either a real or perceived outcome and in that sense protein shakes inhabit the same sphere as PEDs for many people.

This isn't about the substance of protein versus PEDs.

There is a world of difference to taking a shortcut with your nutrition and taking something that would not have been achieved naturally, no matter what you do with your nutrition.

So no, taking a protein shake to supplement protein intake from food isn't in the same sphere as taking PEDs nor is having it in the same spirit as taking PEDs.

That should be obvious.

geotrig · 17-05-2018 02:31PM

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

So if you did change your normal diet, are those foods PEDs as well?

PEDs generally tend to increase performance by boosting levels of substances to a degree that could not be achieved naturally. That's why people inject testosterone. All of the steak, sleep and sex in the world won't boost your natural testosterone production to anything like the level that an exogenous boost will.

Just as an FYI, smoothies aren't PEDs either even though they might increase the level of micronutrients someone gets.

can i just ask where would creatine or other similar types of supplments that arent banned(i think) be seen in this discussion , would it be considered by some as a ped.Its not a natural way to increase creatine levels in the body as such or the like. I've read/ watch some sports where the use of caffeine pills etc are at a level that would sound like doping only for they are not banned.

geotrig · 17-05-2018 02:36PM

Mellor wrote: »

I haven't suggested any of those aspects aren't also relevant.

That's all true. But again it doesn't actually dispute anything I've said.
It's almost like you're rattling off a set reply to errors you see in training, rather than what I actually said.

I think Cian Healy and quite a few others on the irish team, for a while to me anyway ,showed a couple of years ago although progressing strength wise that it seemed to hampered his game and others also by going to far ,but that just my opinion, it looks like now there seems to be a bit of balance where a certain level of strenght is strong enough for most.

GiftofGab · 17-05-2018 02:41PM

This weeks strength level. Performed Mon - Thur.

Equipment: Liquid Chalk, Belt, Squat Shoes.

Program: Jim Wendler 5/3/1 BBB.

Score: 80

Weight: 73.7kg

Transform · 17-05-2018 02:56PM

geotrig wrote: »

I think Cian Healy and quite a few others on the irish team for a while to me anyway showed a couple of years ago although progressing strength wise that it seemed to hampered his game and other also by going to far ,but that just my opinion, it looks like now there seems to be a bit of balance where a certain level of strenght is strong enough for most.

exactly the point i was making - increased strength for strength sake is not always what people need and can actually hinder them

Plus Nick W the head S and C of Leinster is hyper aware of all of this

Transform · 17-05-2018 03:01PM

Mellor wrote: »

I haven't suggested any of those aspects aren't also relevant.

That's all true. But again it doesn't actually dispute anything I've said.
It's almost like you're rattling off a set reply to errors you see in training, rather than what I actually said.

Just so were clear you're saying that using a training program which will involve a certain amount of overload and stress on the system that will potentially make someone stronger is beneficial to all, especially athletes?

We need to eliminate the magically making someone stronger because nothing comes for free in training - if you choose to put your energy and focus into an aspect of training you're choosing to not work on or work far less on other aspects.

We can set aside the lifestyle factors so

Mellor · 17-05-2018 03:26PM

geotrig wrote: »

can i just ask where would creatine or other similar types of supplments that arent banned(i think) be seen in this discussion , would it be considered by some as a ped.Its not a natural way to increase creatine levels in the body as such or the like. I've read/ watch some sports where the use of caffeine pills etc are at a level that would sound like doping only for they are not banned.

Creatine isn't a drug though.
Whether something is natural or not isn't relevant to it being a PED. Multi-vitamin tablets aren't natural for example.

Caffeine is technically a drug, so I guess it's a PED just not a banned one.

geotrig · 17-05-2018 03:36PM

Mellor wrote: »

I haven't suggested any of those aspects aren't also relevant.

That's all true. But again it doesn't actually dispute anything I've said.
It's almost like you're rattling off a set reply to errors you see in training, rather than what I actually said.

Mellor wrote: »

Creatine isn't a drug though.
Whether something is natural or not isn't relevant to it being a PED. Multi-vitamin tablets aren't natural for example.

Caffeine is technically a drug, so I guess it's a PED just not a banned one.

so creatine is a food then ?, to me its sits in or arount preformance inhancing but i dont know a lot about it ,ive just wondered with athletes or general gym goers seemingly wanting to get stronger what defines acceptable and not ,i know there is banned substances list but there are some items like the 2 above to me that are grey areas. Maybe they are not ,i dont know enough about creatine and the like , caffeine is like a stimulant and is widely abused in sports from what i believe. does it give preformance enhancing effects well yes /short term but probably no long term.

from wikipedia definition :
A drug is any substance (other than food that provides nutritional support) that, when inhaled, injected, smoked, consumed, absorbed via a patch on the skin, or dissolved under the tongue causes a temporary physiological (and often psychological) change in the body.[2][3]

Mellor · 17-05-2018 03:56PM

Transform wrote: »

Just so were clear you're saying that using a training program which will involve a certain amount of overload and stress on the system that will potentially make someone stronger is beneficial to all, especially athletes?

Can you show me where you think I said that. Strawman stuff.
Really looks like you've shoehorning in some prepared point. Rather than actually considering the posts.

We need to eliminate the magically making someone stronger because nothing comes for free in training

That was a hypothetical example to prove a point, not a training plan.

if you choose to put your energy and focus into an aspect of training you're choosing to not work on or work far less on other aspects.

Thats not really any different to what I said.

Mellor wrote:

As you get stronger, each 10% gain is harder earned. There comes a point when the hours needed to add that 10% are better spent on other training imo.

Mellor · 17-05-2018 04:12PM

geotrig wrote: »

so creatine is a food then ?, to me its sits in or arount preformance inhancing but i dont know a lot about it ,ive just wondered with athletes or general gym goers seemingly wanting to get stronger what defines acceptable and not ,i know there is banned substances list but there are some items like the 2 above to me that are grey areas. Maybe they are not ,i dont know enough about creatine and the like , caffeine is like a stimulant and is widely abused in sports from what i believe. does it give preformance enhancing effects well yes /short term but probably no long term.

from wikipedia definition :
A drug is any substance (other than food that provides nutritional support) that, when inhaled, injected, smoked, consumed, absorbed via a patch on the skin, or dissolved under the tongue causes a temporary physiological (and often psychological) change in the body.[2][3]

I wouldn't consider creatine a food. It is performance enhancing. But it's not s PED because it's not a drug. That definition above wouldn't match creatine imo.
Same way that Multi vitamins arent food, but aren't drugs either. Even if they provide physiological benefits.

geotrig · 17-05-2018 04:27PM

Mellor wrote: »

I wouldn't consider creatine a food. It is performance enhancing. But it's not s PED because it's not a drug. That definition above wouldn't match creatine imo.
Same way that Multi vitamins arent food, but aren't drugs either. Even if they provide physiological benefits.

Yeah thanks i " suppose " it fits the food category more so than anything as its found in foods but yeah.
As i said i was just trying to see what is deemed acceptable or not on these boards and where people stand on all these for the average gym goer as highlighted some people even think "protein" as ped's of sorts

Transform · 17-05-2018 05:09PM

Mellor wrote: »

Can you show me where you think I said that. Strawman stuff.
Really looks like you've shoehorning in some prepared point. Rather than actually considering the posts.

That was a hypothetical example to prove a point, not a training plan.

Thats not really any different to what I said.

man we agree on most points here so maybe im just after drinking too much of this new mushroom infused coffee to see that were supposed to be arguing about

Brian? · 17-05-2018 07:46PM

geotrig wrote: »

Yeah thanks i " suppose " it fits the food category more so than anything as its found in foods but yeah.
As i said i was just trying to see what is deemed acceptable or not on these boards and where people stand on all these for the average gym goer as highlighted some people even think "protein" as ped's of sorts

Creatine is a supplement in the same way zinc of vitamin C are. You can get it from for or you can supplement it. 4 pork chops has your RDA of creatine, if I'm remembering rightly.

It's not banned, because it's not a drug.

strength level

Comments