What constitutes an "all natural"

[username]

[quote name='gammahydroxy' date='Aug 9 2005, 11:26 AM'][quote name='Lgoosey' date='Aug 9 2005, 04:59 PM']

If you use things that your mom would kick your ass for, then your not natural.

[/quote]



Well said.

[snapback]262935[/snapback]

[/quote]

But my mom thinks me taking 6 grams of fish oil is too much to take.

[str8flexed]

you ask 100 different people and you'll get 100 different answers. Personally I just say i'm natural b/c it's alot easier than saying "I don't use steroids, prohormones, psychomotor stimulants, GH, etc, etc, etc.



I do have ethical problems with the abuse of steroids but for the most part I don't care what a person wants to do to their own body. That said, the real evils I believe are the magazines that portray some of these bodytypes as healthy & fit. What a load of crap.



-Layne

[str8flexed]

[quote name='RepubCarrier' date='Aug 9 2005, 11:58 AM'][quote name='prolangtum' date='Aug 9 2005, 11:37 AM']when the natural definition is used, its not the hippie definition you guys are putting out. to me, its always meant it eliminated the substances that produce dramatic results in one's body/lb/fat mass.

[snapback]262901[/snapback]

[/quote]



So wouldn't layne then have to admit that everything Scivation/Primaforce sells doesn't produce dramatic results in his physique (if that was what we accepted as the definition of natural)? How would you define "dramatic"? Also, some people see "dramatic" results with ppar-alpha agonists like sesathin, and others don't see much. Does each person have their own set of substances that, for them, is natural, but for others is not natural?

[snapback]262911[/snapback]

[/quote]



hell i'll say it right now. No supplement out there period produces a dramatic change in my physique... not even close. But at my level... competition and persuing my natural pro card, every ounce counts.

[tlow4u]

[quote name='gammahydroxy' date='Aug 9 2005, 02:32 PM']Wait a minute is eating eggs out of a carton natural?

[snapback]262897[/snapback]

[/quote]

Just as natural as consuming products derived from the liquid squeezed from the teat of a cow.



I'd suggest as a start only those substances that were available at say the year 1900.



Uh, wait cocaine and porcine thyroid extract were available then, so fuck, I dunno. A real Pandora's box of a question it is.

[Supnut]

Ahh the natural argument, often matched with the limits of what is or is not ethically cheating.





First there are the morons that think if something is man made then it is almost always unsafe in some way and inversely if something is natural or if “God made it” then it is perfectly safe.



For the man made items I would point out that they are largely responsible for the life expectancy which is currently much higher then it was in previous generations.



For the later I’d like to list some contradictions to put things in perspective. The following are all natural or “made by God”: Snake venom, Anthrax, cholesterol, testosterone, UV radiation, Marijuana, Tobacco, alcohol, heavy metals, AIDS ect.



Obviously naturally occurring does not mean something is perfectly safe but it should also be noted that almost anything in existence can be harmful in some way or fashion, you could even choke to death on a protein bar *gasp*





Now as to cheating I think this is pertinent because it’s often those complaining about someone’s performance that are throwing the N word around.



Steroids and GH are the two biggies but probably more so because of media exposure then their actual relevance in the body. Insulin for instance could be argued to be a much bigger player and if you want to look at it like that sugar could almost be considered the prohormone of insulin.



And don’t forget that most people don’t even realize that steroids derive their name from cholesterol and without them (all of them) we’d be at best in very poor health and more likely dead.



Perhaps then natural should be rephrased as abnormal. The average normal person does not take steroids or GH or creatine or whey just for the hell of it.



So then perhaps the government in all its wisdom should define a list of foods that are acceptable for all athletes to eat. But what about training… I mean the average person does not have people video taping them so their form can be analyzed and they don’t have their bed inside a hepatent. Perhaps the government should define an acceptable standardized training method for all athletes to follow. You know, to make things fair across the board. And while we’re at it we mind as well regulate sleeping patterns as well.



So at this point none of the athletes are doing anything unnatural or abnormal. What does that leave them with? Genetics, natural talent?



The problem is that the basis for the need for this in sports has been, if only an excuse, because we want our children to have proper role models but I see a problem. If these sports icons, these heroes were just there by genetics and natural talent then what would anyone have to work towards. Either you have a killer jump shot or you mine as well not bother trying.



All performance enhancers (even if created for profit) are the creation of men’s minds to further their cause. This is not like buying the answers to a test ahead of time or buying off the ref or the other team. You are exercising all your skills to further your cause. You learn how to be better both in what you eat and how you sleep and train to what the best play is for the next game or how holding the ball a little different will increase your chance or scoring even if its not how you just ‘naturally’ hold it.



Whey may not be part of the average diet but is it ethically wrong once given the knowledge that lots of protein is vitamin for muscle growth for one to then seek out lots of protein? Aside from the increased convenience of the form whey is no different then one deciding to eat more meat. You just don’t have to go through the trouble of cooking the whey.



I dare say if seeking out more then what you’d normally get is cheating then how is joining a gym or buying free weights not cheating as well?



No one is naturally big in the sense of what we thing of as buff/hyooge or any of those terms they have to do something different, something more then the normal average Joe. If you remove the perceptions and misconceptions then doing anything extra or different becomes cheating.





Now while Lgoosey’s comment is cute and I’m sure he meant it rather tongue in cheek it’s hardly valid as many parents freak out over creatine or literally any supplement. We’ve all seen the teen rants on BB.



Layne’s comment is perhaps much more intriguing that it’s a matter of what’s healthy. There are many ways with and without supplements that can allow for shortcuts to your goals but at best increase the risk of side effects or at worse make a trade off of immediate progress giving up some degree of long term health.



Additionally the final goals of many (while usually too unreasonable to be credible) are often unhealthy such as people trying to stray ripped constantly. I think non competitive body building at least its fair to say that the goal is usually to look better so let me delve into attraction only so much to say that across cultures the things that have commonality are those traits that speak of one in good health such as shiny hair, clear skin, white teeth ect.



Certain cultures might like small feet or bimbos or even obese bodies but if you remove the fetishes and the culturally significant traits or those that are simply current fashion (the two are often the same) you generally define attractiveness based on the appearance of healthiness. Granted the mind does perceive this correctly, but just stick with me for a moment.



One could then argue that it is completely hypocritical to try and achieve a greater degree of health by either risking your health or flat out hurting it in the attempt to improve it and this could perhaps in a perfect world be a basis for what methods and supplements should be acceptable.



The problem is that its not a perfect world and while the BB deviant may be cursed for risking his liver with DNP the masses are doing the same on alcohol at the keg party up the road or by eating fast food four times a week. And again almost anything can hurt your health if abused. I could argue that ethically even the BB’er that eats no whey is being hypocritical in driving to the gym considering the number of people that die in auto accidents and what with automotive pollution and all.



Perhaps the error in my logic is that one does not try to look healthier or better for others to see. Not exactly anyway. More specifically this is about us, this is about trying to feel better about one’s self which can come from the response you get with your new enhanced sexy body or your new speed record on the sprint or the feeling of having bigger breasts after the implants and because it is only our mind which can weigh the risks, costs and side effects against the benefits perhaps that is the core of this argument.

[tlow4u]

[quote name='Supnut' date='Aug 9 2005, 09:24 PM']So then perhaps the government in all its wisdom should define a list of foods that are acceptable for all athletes to eat. But what about training… I mean the average person does not have people video taping them so their form can be analyzed and they don’t have their bed inside a hepatent. Perhaps the government should define an acceptable standardized training method for all athletes to follow. You know, to make things fair across the board. And while we’re at it we mind as well regulate sleeping patterns as well.

[snapback]262993[/snapback]

[/quote]

I've thought about this myself. The logical endpoint of this, to really enforce absolute fairness, would be to lock down, in a maximum security prison type environment, all athletes that would participate in a given sport. It would have to be from birth to eliminate any unfair advantages that might be had in the years prior to competing. For example, let say I used a slew of drugs, put on 50 lbs of solid muscle and then decided to go "natural". Say I went for 5 years on the natural path before entering a natural competion, in full compliance with the rules since I've been clean for 5 years. Would I not have an unfair advantage because while I've maintained much of my "ill gotten gains" naturally, I did not attain them that way. Lifelong quarantine is the only solution that I see.



Now of course this is an acedemic exercise and will never happen outside of a communist country. That is why I, personally could not enter into a natural competion of any type; BB, cycling or what have you; it is utterly impossible to guarentee that noone else is cheating.



Interestingly, in motorsports it is more feasible to ensure a level playing field. There are spec fuels (i.e. everyone gets their gas from the race officials) and all competitors are subject to a complete engine teardown at any time. Even with these elaborate controls, there is always talk/suspision of cheating, especially if someone is doing well. Of course human life and the human body are vastly more complex so such fairness controls are impossible.



BTW Layne, I do have great respect for what you do and the ideals and goals of natural BB. I looked over all the natural pros on your site and I find both the males and females to be much more aesthetically pleasing and, well, natural looking. How do you reconcile in your mind that there is no way to ensure that everyone is "clean" and has been for their entire lives?

[liorrh]

why not use the IOC stadards and rules? they have a very good deffinition (including HRT etc etc)

[str8flexed]

BTW Layne, I do have great respect for what you do and the ideals and goals of natural BB. I looked over all the natural pros on your site and I find both the males and females to be much more aesthetically pleasing and, well, natural looking. How do you reconcile in your mind that there is no way to ensure that everyone is "clean" and has been for their entire lives?

I think most people that say they are natural and compete probably are. There are some cheaters for sure, but I look at it this way... there is very little money in natural bodybuilding & very little recognition... If you feel you need to cheat just to feel better about yourself then I'm glad I'm not you lol. I feel like the same kind of weak-mindedness that causes them to cheat is the same thing that will be the reason they may win a few shows but will probably never make it to the top. I make it a point never to accuse someone of using drugs if they are doing a natural show. Think about it, the human race has some freaks out there. You see things everyday where such and such had 12 tumors in their brain and they survived, or this guy has skin that can stretch out a foot, or this person can run 300 miles straight, etc, etc. I'm sure there are just some people out there who respond really well to weight training and when you mix that with hard work and proper diet, you get guys who are natural but look like they are saucin'.

[Supnut]

Do any of the orgs look at blood levels? I think I've read that natural test levels have a wide average but still, if you are able to compete and have zero test something is amiss and likewise if you have super high test something is amiss. Sounds like a resonable way to at least isolate individuals that need to be looked at closer. This would perhaps be more pertinent to sports where you'd want to use the stuff during the competition like say androgenics during wrestlling.



There would of course be natural variences like Lance's larger heart which will always cast shadows.

"is that the only reason he wins" "it's almost unfair" yadda yadda



And its another facet of the arguement. Is being gifted geneticaly any more fair then being gifted with a mysterious gel from your trainer? You didn't earn either now did you.

[str8flexed]

one does not have a choice as to what genetic code they are given. One does have a choice whether or not to take X substance

[tlow4u]

[quote name='str8flexed' date='Aug 10 2005, 11:08 AM']I think most people that say they are natural and compete probably are.* There are some cheaters for sure, but I look at it this way... there is very little money in natural bodybuilding & very little recognition... If you feel you need to cheat just to feel better about yourself then I'm glad I'm not you lol.

[snapback]263111[/snapback]

[/quote]

OK, the lack of big bucks would be a big factor in keeping everyone honest. Conversely given the risk/reward ratio in big dollar sports, I'd be genuinley surprised to learn that someone who could benefit from a "banned" substance would not employ them.



Given the nature of the natural scene, an ill-gotten would be hollow indeed. Good point that such a person's character would result in their own downfall.

[tlow4u]

[quote name='Supnut' date='Aug 10 2005, 12:58 PM']Do any of the orgs look at blood levels? I think I've read that natural test levels have a wide average but still, if you are able to compete and have zero test something is amiss and likewise if you have super high test something is amiss. Sounds like a resonable way to at least isolate individuals that need to be looked at closer.

[snapback]263129[/snapback]

[/quote]

If you're talking Testosterone, the last I heard is that they look at Epitestosterone to Testosterone Ratio. The rationale being that someone with a naturally very high Testosterone level would still have a normal TE ratio. Epitestosterone to Testosterone Ratio and Drug Testing



As I understand the current testing in cycling, the biggie is EPO to raise the hematocrit. EPO is hard to test for, so they look at hematocrit and presume that if you are beyond an arbitrary cutoff (respresenting a very high normal reading) then you are cheating, i.e. must be using (too much) EPO. I imagine that everyone tweaks their EPO doseage to get right up to the limit. With this situation, everyone is using drugs, but it results in making it all quite fair, at least in one very significant regard.

===



[quote name='Supnut' date='Aug 10 2005, 12:58 PM']And its another facet of the arguement. Is being gifted geneticaly any more fair then being gifted with a mysterious gel from your trainer? You didn't earn either now did you.

[snapback]263129[/snapback]

[/quote]This reminds me of something I read on a track and field forum once. Two elite runners mated presumbly resulting in offspring with a heavily stacked genetic deck so to speak. Couple this with a child raised in a fitness and athletic/running home environment... wowza.



Conversely, it's funny to think how to level the playing field here. You would have to have dozens of genetic clones raised in a draconian controlled environment.

[mechaman]

Interestingly, in motorsports it is more feasible to ensure a level playing field. There are spec fuels (i.e. everyone gets their gas from the race officials) and all competitors are subject to a complete engine teardown at any time. Even with these elaborate controls, there is always talk/suspision of cheating, especially if someone is doing well. Of course human life and the human body are vastly more complex so such fairness controls are impossible.





[/quote]



Good point. You can't tear down an athlete after a meet to see what he's been using; the closest we can get is piss and blood tests. I like the motorsports analogy, because I remember an incident in NASCAR involving Rusty Wallace's team -- they'd put titanium roof flaps on the car, and the NASCAR techs said it was not 'cheating', but fined them anyway because the lighter material was seen as an unfair advantage, even though the rules didn't say the flaps had to be the same metal as the body. I'd say 'all natural' means no exogenous anabolics, and leave it at that.

[SwingGuru]

[quote name='Supnut' date='Aug 10 2005, 09:58 AM']Do any of the orgs look at blood levels? I think I've read that natural test levels have a wide average but still, if you are able to compete and have zero test something is amiss and likewise if you have super high test something is amiss. Sounds like a resonable way to at least isolate individuals that need to be looked at closer. This would perhaps be more pertinent to sports where you'd want to use the stuff during the competition like say androgenics during wrestlling.



There would of course be natural variences like Lance's larger heart which will always cast shadows.

"is that the only reason he wins" "it's almost unfair" yadda yadda



And its another facet of the arguement. Is being gifted geneticaly any more fair then being gifted with a mysterious gel from your trainer? You didn't earn either now did you.

[snapback]263129[/snapback]

[/quote]

By far the best post on the subject yet. Whether or not earned, genetics prevails in the end, whether in a natural competition or a juiced one.



It does kill me every time a good physique comes along people think the guy is juicing. There are good naturals out there, and gear isn't required given the mesomorphic phenotype.

[omnibus]

http://media.putfile.com/gustavo-bfto2005

[str8flexed]

[quote name='omnibus' date='Nov 18 2005, 08:35 AM']http://media.putfile.com/gustavo-bfto2005

[snapback]282628[/snapback]

[/quote]

hard to believe he was able to keep a straight face

[Green Man]

Just a thought,



I did a few courses of steroids about 10 years ago. Nothing major, just some anavar & d-bol. I'm needle-phobic son no injectibles. Altogether I gained about 15 pounds of lean & probably kept about half of it.



Do I count as natural ? I'd certainly pass a drug test, but it could be argued that some of the gains have remained & not everything on my body is the result of natural gains.

[kethnaab]

[quote name='Green Man' date='Jan 29 2006, 05:29 PM']Just a thought,



I did a few courses of steroids about 10 years ago.* Nothing major, just some anavar & d-bol.* I'm needle-phobic son no injectibles.* Altogether I gained about 15 pounds of lean & probably kept about half of it.



Do I count as natural ?* I'd certainly pass a drug test, but it could be argued that some of the gains have remained & not everything on my body is the result of natural gains.

[snapback]301422[/snapback]

[/quote]





isn't there some type of time limit, i.e. "if you haven't juiced in the last 10 years" or something?



either way, that sure is open to interpretation



FWIW, my opinion is that if you have used an "anabolic", i.e. prohormone/steroids, GH, insulin, IGF, or any of the following fat loss items and/or their relations - synephrine, ephedrine, t3, clen, DNP, yohimbine...



then you aren't natural. the steroids/GH/IGF thing should be pretty much a lifetime thing. prohormones aren't nearly that strong, and the fat loss stuff...well....it's real easy to get fat, so if there is a time limit, i would think it would be shorter.



just my (worthless) $0.02

[kethnaab]

[quote name='Green Man' date='Jan 29 2006, 05:29 PM']Just a thought,



I did a few courses of steroids about 10 years ago.* Nothing major, just some anavar & d-bol.* I'm needle-phobic son no injectibles.* Altogether I gained about 15 pounds of lean & probably kept about half of it.



Do I count as natural ?* I'd certainly pass a drug test, but it could be argued that some of the gains have remained & not everything on my body is the result of natural gains.

[snapback]301422[/snapback]

[/quote]





isn't there some type of time limit, i.e. "if you haven't juiced in the last 10 years" or something?



either way, that sure is open to interpretation



FWIW, my opinion is that if you have used an "anabolic", i.e. prohormone/steroids, GH, insulin, IGF, or any of the following fat loss items and/or their relations - synephrine, ephedrine, t3, clen, DNP, yohimbine...



then you aren't natural. the steroids/GH/IGF thing should be pretty much a lifetime thing. prohormones aren't nearly that strong, and the fat loss stuff...well....it's real easy to get fat, so if there is a time limit, i would think it would be shorter.



just my (worthless) $0.02

[str8flexed]

the longest required drug free length in bodybuilding organizations is the BNBF (the amatuer version of the WNBF in britain) & they have a 10 year ban. Ideally it would be lifetime, but I understand that some people experiment when they are young and if they truly comit themselves to being natural the rest of their lives, they shouldn't be punished there entire life for it by not being allowed to compete.



-Layne