hahaha

You seem to keep stumbling on this bit. They're not impossible. They are not common but more common than Twinkie man.

I was tired a long time ago.

Maybe you should get your T levels checked.

I didn't even make it to the finals of that discussion. I got Melked pretty hard.

I'm going to go and say I think both are natty. If either aren't, my guess is that it's due to some technicality or incidental (e.g. they had to take something for some reason and could now be considered not natty) and not sustained usage of PEDs. It just seems like something they should really have come clean with quite a while ago given what they stand for.

You got Melked!

Getting a lone magnesium test for an individual with no symptoms that would indicate the need for a magnesium test is something that has never happened and never will happen.

On the other hand, when I was running 3-6 miles in the morning and doing three hours of boxing training in the afternoon I was quite fit despite eating significantly worse than a box of twinkies per day.

They both bench 4 wheels and DL 7 wheels at under 200lb and are lean year round. It strains credulity.

That was just one example to try to illustrate a point that you were for some reason not getting.

I think we also touched on the invincible, dumb 18 year olds. You could do all sorts of unnecessary tests on many of them and they would give no ****s, regardless of results. Even if the results were very bad and needed serious attention, they would likely still give no ****s. Stupidity is protective in this case.

We can construct all sorts of examples. We are only limited by our imaginations.

Perhaps. It's on the post-COVID to do list.

But even being tired and likely double digit T, I still persist. I don't know... maybe I've got HEART.

On second thought, probably not.

This reminds me of a question I've always wondered about.

Is there a generally accepted definition of natty if you were non-natty in the past? If you're on gear, how long do you have to be off before you are considered natty again. Or is it impossible? One shot of T and you are in the non-natty category for life. Assume the individual in question is completely open about PED use and is not attempting to hide anything.

The examples would need to fit the criteria for probability and realism.

We have, as requirements, that risks are assessed PRIOR to knowing the results. Tbis includes NOT knowing how a teen will react, even if we have some indications of how they MIGHT react from doing a complete psychological assessment, interviews with their friends and family, etc.

If 10% of the imaginary teens you mention do x, then there is a risk of x. If one percent of them do x, there is a risk of x. If one tenth of a percent of them do x, there is a risk of x. I could go on, but I hope that you have recognized the pattern.

We do not, under any circumstances, get to be results oriented for a data point when determining risk, since, again by definition, the results MUST be unknown when determining (or guestimating) probabilities or it simply is not a probability problem. We simply cannot look at the result and then go backwards to say "see? No risk here." To do so would break every law of probability and statistics.

Once again you're just fabricating constraints to make your point.

When I say it's not true for some people in some testing cases, you have to know the people and the cases.

For example I know myself pretty well, I have friends and family I know pretty well and if some of them were in a particular testing situation, they would have ~0 risk.

So to go back to your reasoning, if we went to a random college and tested all the 18 year olds, then sure they would have an average risk of X. That is obvious. Now if I took the time to sit down and get to know each and every one of them, I'm sure we could identify some that would blow off just about any result. So for those people the risk is ~0.

**Also very important: At no point in this reasoning do I need to know the results of the tests.

I also said way back at the beginning (I can find it if you want) that most of these people in this small group are never going to request these unnecessary tests anyway, so it's not something that's going to come up often (the guy who doesn't care about the result is never going to demand an unnecessary test of his doc, or go to a private lab and get one). But that doesn't make it untrue.

Can you at least nit out on something I'm interested in: peri-workout nutrition. Go!

Yeah I like them too, but I try to be aware of the "my guru is natty" bias. Anyone making money from fitness has every incentive for fake nattydom.

I think it's pretty hard to be two or more rare things at the same time. In their case MD + elite powerlifting total, and when you consider that they also happen to be buddies, they're basically Bigfoot and a unicorn at that point.



If you used it for long enough to permanently increase your muscle mass potential then you're enhanced for life, IMO.

I had no idea this was possible.

So you're telling me there exists a PED regimen where I can do the following;

1. Be on it for a long enough time to increase muscle mass potential
2. Stop it for years, also stop training for years. Let's go with 5 years to make the example concrete.
3. Resume training hardcore for a decade (but completely off PEDs)

And after all of that I could have more muscle mass than an identical clone who just trained without PEDs from the beginning of my step 1 to the end of my step 3.

Basically the theory is that once muscle is built for the first time and allowed to detrain, the satellite cells remain. This is supposed to help explain why gains come back so quickly after returning from a layoff.

I don't think people going off peds keep all of their enhanced gains, but a substantial percentage of them.

I've always assumed bolded. However, I figured if you waited long enough (and didn't train) your body would eventually return to a state more or less indistinguishable from what it would be if you never used PEDs. But I guess that's not the case.

That's fake sure. You go off, you lose everything. But you do get to keep droopy pecs and even lower T with smaller balls. So there's that.

Ok that's more like what I had in mind.

However, I also would have assumed ball size and T would come back to normal* after many years? Is that truly not the case?

*by normal I mean it will end up at the level it would have been if you hadn't been on PEDs. Obviously it will decline naturally with time.

Well, the point is about the actual way probability and risk is calculated. You may, if you have time, invent a new form of mathematics. I'll probably even buy a first edition of your textbook.

Until then, my point stands as firmly as one of those things that don't fall down.

Edit: I'll let you know when I get around to inventing a personality test that explains more than 20% of the variance in any behavior* once you are done with your part of the work. I expect that you will purchase my textbook.**

*the first of its kind!

**just kidding. I'd be rich as **** if I did that

There's no real disagreement about that. I mean half the stuff you are posting makes my point for me. Take this bit for example.

I guess I assumed you recognized the pattern, but perhaps that was a mistake on my part. I don't think we need calculus to realize that this function you are describing approaches zero. So if we keep going on, we will eventually get to .00000000000000000001 percent of teens doing x and even smaller numbers, which is, of course, ~0.

Sure it's not actually zero. I mean they could get hit by a bus on the way to getting their blood drawn, so if that's the point you're trying to make, no argument here. I've tried to write ~0 most of the time, but I may have forgot the ~ somewhere.

Since you seem to like real examples, let try another one. I'll preface by saying it's not a good one. Let's say we get you an unnecessary HIV test tomorrow. We'll say it's a false positive. Now we repeat the test and it's negative. What risk are you at? I mean you, specifically.

Not a good example. There are ample reasons to test me for HIV, which makes it irrelevant to this discussion. One other problem is that you are now introducing a post-test-result behavior (getting a second test) as a certainty when post-test-result behavior is the thing we are examining.. The other other problem is that I don't know how I'd react due to the hot-cold empathy gap.

You misunderstood the pattern. I think you are capable of figuring it out.

You also seem to have missed the part where I mentioned that there are absolutely no tests in the entire history of the world that will predict more than 20% of the variance in the behaviors of people. This is kind of a key point to why you are wrong that you can predict whether a member of a subset of the population (in your case, using the highly reliably non-predictive "they be teenagers" test) will react poorly or not to "a false positive in a battery of tests that were given for absolutely no reason."

That last paragraph is due to a couple of extremely common (nearly unavoidable) cognitive biases btw.

I just added the repeat test on the HIV, because that is a fairly routine course of action. You can ignore that if you want. Even if there is reason for you to get an HIV test, we can still find reason for you to get an unnecessary one (e.g. you just had one a couple of days ago). But never mind, as I said it's a bad example.

I did see your point, but that's why I keep trying to focus on what you would do, or what I would do. Surely we can predict our own behavior better than any test? But I guess you will continue to hide behind "Well, we can never really predict what anyone will do, can we?"

So, lets move to a different example. We're going to give you an unnecessary test for color blindness. For the record, there are color blindness tests which have a reported zero percent false positive rate. So what risk are you at if we give you an unnecessary color blindness test?

Not to over Yugo this but I thought they were both 210 or 220 or something roughly. Also, Baraki isn't super lean and doesn't seem to care as much about aesthetics. Having said that, yeah, I've of course wondered if they're actually natty or not.

I don't think there is proper consensus. Afaict once you lose it you've lost it forever but I'm not sure if it is or should be that cut and dry. I know maybe 1% of what I should know to have a useful opinion, though, lol.

It's good to be skeptical of any claims - they certainly walk that talk. I don't follow many "gurus" or whatever but the ones I've generally seen either seem to hint that they are not natty or they make being natty some part of their pitch. BBM doesn't pitch in the way "gurus" generally do. Sure they have a newsletter and sell some supplements but (as you know of course) they really have seemed to attracted whatever attention they have from providing high quality content. Lots of it. And it all seems consistent and backed by evidence (or it get changed/tweaked).