Mahailya Reeves, a 15 year old girl, benched 335 lbs RAW {IMPRESSIVE]

Matt Wenning once said drugs add 30% to your current lifts. Dont know where he gets that number outside of maybe his own experience but that's pretty fucking significant.
 
deadshot138 said:
Matt Wenning once said drugs add 30% to your current lifts. Dont know where he gets that number outside of maybe his own experience but that's pretty fucking significant.
Click to expand...

I know Jack shit about drugs, but that seems pretty generous.
 
FWII the NFL has been trying to determine an athletes genetic potential for decades now and spending millions of dollars to do so

nothing has been conclusive

IMO its a pretty self defeatist limiting attitude to believe you just a robot that has a genetic potential ceiling in accordance with a calculator

people always talk about genetics without even knowing what they are saying because there are athlete with horrible combine numbers who end up being some of the greats all time in all sports so how do you define those genetics......will, heart, desire, ability to handle failure, mental toughness are all traits that are genetic to
 
pokerandbeer said:
FWII the NFL has been trying to determine an athletes genetic potential for decades now and spending millions of dollars to do so

nothing has been conclusive

IMO its a pretty self defeatist limiting attitude to believe you just a robot that has a genetic potential ceiling in accordance with a calculator

people always talk about genetics without even knowing what they are saying because there are athlete with horrible combine numbers who end up being some of the greats all time in all sports so how do you define those genetics......will, heart, desire, ability to handle failure, mental toughness are all traits that are genetic to
Click to expand...


You can tell before they ever leave the hospital. At around 5:12 in the video he analyzes the newborn of an nfl player
 
pokerandbeer said:
people always talk about genetics without even knowing what they are saying because there are athlete with horrible combine numbers who end up being some of the greats all time in all sports so how do you define those genetics......will, heart, desire, ability to handle failure, mental toughness are all traits that are genetic to
Click to expand...
Name me one elite running back, receiver/cb, or defensive end with shitty combine numbers. Yeah, a physically subpar quarterback can achieve greatness through skill and smart playcalling. But that's impossible with any position that relies on speed.
 
Anquon Boldon ran a 4.7 40

Using these charts and at birth inspections(lmao)that determines who or what you can be in life is just stupid

How do you know that that baby has the injury resilience to withstand training it takes to be an nfl player at birth.

I think people use the FFMI chart or genetics as an excuse for their failures.

Aside from that part of sports......the art that y’all fail to recognize is finding out what your strengths are and focusing on them.

Our sports destiny is decided at birth is complete bullshit
 
pokerandbeer said:
Anquon Boldon ran a 4.7 40

Using these charts and at birth inspections(lmao)that determines who or what you can be in life is just stupid

How do you know that that baby has the injury resilience to withstand training it takes to be an nfl player at birth.

I think people use the FFMI chart or genetics as an excuse for their failures.

Aside from that part of sports......the art that y’all fail to recognize is finding out what your strengths are and focusing on them.

Our sports destiny is decided at birth is complete bullshit
Click to expand...
Perhaps not destiny but was he lying about the baby being thick solid and tight straight from the womb?
 
I just don't get the tested vs untested federation argument. How can you say "for sure he/she's drug free, he/she was tested and passed!" when we've seen countless examples to the contrary in many sports with more budget for drug testing?
 
Saint Of The K said:
I just don't get the tested vs untested federation argument. How can you say "for sure he/she's drug free, he/she was tested and passed!" when we've seen countless examples to the contrary in many sports with more budget for drug testing?
Click to expand...
Drug tested doesnt mean drug free. Think we all know that.
 
Saint Of The K said:
I just don't get the tested vs untested federation argument. How can you say "for sure he/she's drug free, he/she was tested and passed!" when we've seen countless examples to the contrary in many sports with more budget for drug testing?
Click to expand...

It’s the best you can do. You can’t say for sure that someone is on PEDs if they’ve never failed a test.

It also sets a soft limit on how much people can cheat.
 
Saint Of The K said:
I just don't get the tested vs untested federation argument. How can you say "for sure he/she's drug free, he/she was tested and passed!" when we've seen countless examples to the contrary in many sports with more budget for drug testing?
Click to expand...
I suggest everyone interested in the natty vs enhanced debate read this carefully:
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/steroids-for-strength-sports/
It's the most comprehensive summary on powerlifting records and the role of steroids in the record books. In particular this-
  1. There are people with drug-tested records who have failed drug tests and were almost certainly using steroids when they set their records; Sergey Fedosienko and Ed Coan come to mind.
  2. There are likely others who were on drugs when they set drug-tested records, because the drug tests are (or at least used to be) easy to beat. Organizations affiliated with the IPF have started drug testing out of contest in recent years, which makes it more difficult to get away with steroid use (though it’s still far from impossible), but many of the records are from an era when drug testing only happened on the day of the meet, or were set in federations that still only do in-meet drug testing. In that context, it’s just a matter of cycling off steroids far enough out from the meet that you pee clean – a simple matter of knowing the half lives of the compounds you’re taking. Hardly rocket science.
  3. The IPF recently restructured its weight classes, so about a dozen of the drug-tested records are actually a bit lower than they should be. For example, Krzysztof Wierzbicki’s world record total at 220 was actually set at a bodyweight of 207 – those extra 13lbs can make a big difference.
  4. Equipment and judging differences play a role as well. In general, the major drug-tested organizations (the IPF and its affiliates) require deeper squats and aren’t as lenient on shaky deadlift lockouts. There are exceptions (the Raw Unity meet, USPA meets, and major GPC meets don’t drug test and generally have very strict judging, and other organizations with a drug-tested division are a bit more lenient), but drug-tested records are generally set in meets with stricter judging standards. Equipment plays a role as well. Stiffer squat bars, thinner deadlift bars, and squatting out of a monolift help people lift a bit more weight, and are allowed in many untested meets, but aren’t allowed in the IPF and its affiliates.
  5. Weight cuts factor in. Most of the untested records and a few of the drug-tested records were set in organizations that allow the lifter to weigh in the day before the meet. This allows the lifter to make a lighter weight class by shedding water (often 5-10% of someone’s body weight), and gives them time to rehydrate before the meet. The bulk of the drug-tested records were set in organizations that have weigh ins on the morning of the meet. Lifters will often still cut 1-3kg (2-6lbs) of water weight, but they’re much closer to the actual weight class limit when they step on the platform. Combine this with the restructured IPF weight classes, and you’ve got the potential for huge differences in body weights. For example, Krzysztof Wierzbicki’s drug-tested 220 record of 1868 was set at a bodyweight around 207, and Dan Green’s 220 total record of 2099 was set at a bodyweight around 235 or 240 – a massive difference.
  6. Powerlifting isn’t a hugely competitive sport. If you can make the assumption that the world records represent the people with the most elite genetics for a particular sport, then the majority of the variation between drug-tested and untested records should be explained by the effects of drugs (or at least the difference between the amount of drugs someone can take and still pass a drug test, and the “everything and the kitchen sink” approach to steroid use). You can’t win an Olympic medal in powerlifting, and there are no strong financial incentives, so the sport just doesn’t attract the cream-of-the-crop talent you’d need for an accurate comparison.
tldr: it's MUCH harder to get away with doping in tested federations today, and that's a recent phenomenon. This also goes for weightlifting. The most promising American weightlifter, Pat Mendes, was caught by USADA twice and indefinitely suspended. He was the only shot America had for a men's weightlifting medal since the end of the cold war and they still clipped his wings. They aren't playing.

Put all of that together, and you can assume the effect of drugs on powerlifting performance is likely a bit larger than the 4.88-9.11% observed when comparing drug-tested and untested world records, and the effect of drugs on weightlifting performance is likely a bit smaller than the 11.66-13.85% observed when comparing the world records to the American records.​
 
  1. Steroids help you get bigger and stronger, faster.
  2. Both observational evidence (comparing records in powerlifters and weightlifters) and experimental evidence suggest that the advantage you get from steroids is quite large in terms of absolute measures (total muscle and strength gained), but that they only confer a ~10% advantage in terms of how competitive you’ll be in strength sports. As you gain more muscle mass, you’re expected to lift more to be equally competitive in your sport. When taking into account both gains in strength and muscle mass, the performance edge they give you is about 10%.
  3. Higher doses for longer periods of time don’t seem to provide an increasingly larger advantage. The relative performance improvement in Bashin’s 20-week study was identical to the performance improvement in his 10-week study. Additionally, in his 20-week study, the group using 300mg of Test per week actually improved their Wilks Score more than the group using 600mg of Test per week. Furthermore, in Yu’s study comparing drug-free lifters to lifters who had been using much higher doses for 5+ years, the advantage of steroid use for improving relative performance disappeared entirely, though there were some important drawbacks to that study.
  4. The advantage steroids give you is likely larger for tests of upper body strength, such as the bench press. Though Bashin’s 1996 study actually found a larger advantage in the squat than the bench press, the world records in powerlifting, Yu’s study, and insights into the muscle groups most affected by steroid use all seem to suggest that the bench is the lift that benefits the most from steroid use.
 
woloo said:


Mahailya Reeves, a 15 year old girl, benched 335 lbs RAW {IMPRESSIVE]

Is that the world record for teen? And she is not even a powerlifter (wanting to do weightlifting). She's in the 9th grade. How is it possible for a girl?
Click to expand...

Hell yeah, good for her
 
dissectingaorticaneurysm said:
  1. Steroids help you get bigger and stronger, faster.
  2. Both observational evidence (comparing records in powerlifters and weightlifters) and experimental evidence suggest that the advantage you get from steroids is quite large in terms of absolute measures (total muscle and strength gained), but that they only confer a ~10% advantage in terms of how competitive you’ll be in strength sports. As you gain more muscle mass, you’re expected to lift more to be equally competitive in your sport. When taking into account both gains in strength and muscle mass, the performance edge they give you is about 10%.
  3. Higher doses for longer periods of time don’t seem to provide an increasingly larger advantage. The relative performance improvement in Bashin’s 20-week study was identical to the performance improvement in his 10-week study. Additionally, in his 20-week study, the group using 300mg of Test per week actually improved their Wilks Score more than the group using 600mg of Test per week. Furthermore, in Yu’s study comparing drug-free lifters to lifters who had been using much higher doses for 5+ years, the advantage of steroid use for improving relative performance disappeared entirely, though there were some important drawbacks to that study.
  4. The advantage steroids give you is likely larger for tests of upper body strength, such as the bench press. Though Bashin’s 1996 study actually found a larger advantage in the squat than the bench press, the world records in powerlifting, Yu’s study, and insights into the muscle groups most affected by steroid use all seem to suggest that the bench is the lift that benefits the most from steroid use.
Click to expand...
Wish I had more time to listen to more of the stronger by science podcasts. SBS, RTS, BBM are great resources in the powerlifting community
 
boingyman said:
Wish I had more time to listen to more of the stronger by science podcasts. SBS, RTS, BBM are great resources in the powerlifting community
Click to expand...
heh, I just read his articles cuz I dont have the patience to sit through hours of conversation. But we're blessed to have Nuckols and his wealth of knowledge with the scientific rigor to back it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,717
Messages
55,436,942
Members
174,775
Latest member
Ruckus245

Share this page

Back
Top