Question about all the things to take

Any of the supplements you take will do little anyway. Nothing can beat a solid routine and diet.

In order to get any benefit form anything anyway, you have to be totally 100% routine and diet. The cost:benefit ratio is pretty ridiculous. Save your money and buy a unicycle imo.

So how do the body builders get soooooooooooooooo big. Roids? routine and diet can't be all they do.

Actually... a spotless diet and solid routine can work wonders. And I do mean spotless.

Look at Cassie. Granted, her testosterone levels are probably a little low, but if she were a boy, I can promise you she'd be a total beefcake.

190lb+ guys will take things like Protein powders, possibly Creatine, and some will take expensive things, and Prohormones.

Bigger guys, do in many cases use Steroids.

However except the Protein Powder or BCAA's, anything else you take would a waste of time, expensive and / or pointless.

The only one I haven't mentioned is Glutamine, which is a Protein synthesiser, but it isn't really anabolic that much as opposed to Powders or BCAA's.

The comment about training hard, and have a good diet is extremely valid though, as supplements should be just that, supplements.

Try some BCAA's. I use protein powder, glutamine and bcaa pills.

I have herd prohormones work well but also herd you loose most of it when you quit taking them. They also have some bad sides and are hard on your liver. I am hard enough on my liver all by myself ha ha.

I did use a supp called jungle warfare. made by ALRI. kinda a weak prohormone. To tell the truth I had the best gains of my life on that stuff got stronger bigger and leaner. Worth looking into. only side I had was big zits on my back. good winter supp lol.

It was also the time of my life diet and training was best it has been. The pills seemed to have helped.

As for the The cost:benefit ratio comment. I think thats a matter of oppinion. if you want to pay to try and gain an edge I say its woth it. Everyone is different in what they are willing to pay for what they want.

As for the The cost:benefit ratio comment. I think thats a matter of oppinion. if you want to pay to try and gain an edge I say its woth it. Everyone is different in what they are willing to pay for what they want.

That is true, but until you are in top shape, they won't do too much anyway. Having big, defined muscles is rad, but if you can't see them under that last stubborn layer of fat, they are totally wasted.

Well I have alwys respect your opinion, so in reply, I think cost benefit ratio means everything.

I wrote about this some time back, but to try and be brief, here's an example.

Question. Arnie in the 60's. Around 200lb natural before he juiced, like most juicers today were, or weighing 20-30lbs less, then juiced?

99.99% of me, say 200lbs approx. If supplements were the only way to bulk beyond a certain point, without having to go for Steroids or Prohormones, then you'd probably need them to get more than 16" Arms perhaps.

However that 99.99% of me is saying no they're not, because Arnie had nothing like that. Even when Protein powders first arrived, they were supposedly as foul as mud, and i'm not sure that even happened until the 70's.

Even with a protein powder, you technically don't need one to get 200lb natural bulk, it's about how you train and eat.

People who buy expensive stuff that's 50%+ more cost, just for some Caffeine an a few neither her nor there herbs in, are trying to acheive something, someone with a PP, or BCAA's and maybe some Creatine, could get, with a litte more time and patience.

Most fancy stuff with fairly mediocre added extras, would have to work about 50% better than gear, to justify the higher prices and the need, if some 150lb guy could get 50lbs mass in 18 months, coupled with a good diet and training, on a posh Powder.

Any guy who takes expensive stuff won't stop, when he's got that mass, because he'll claim it gives him killer pumps and feel more energised, or stuff like that, but that means by then he aint gaining, he's just paying for a "feeling", but he'll keep paying through the nose for the feeling, 99.99% assured, because he won't just get slightly more expedient results, over some other guy on basics, then switch back to basics, because of the psychologically deflating feelings, those slightly lower pumps, and slightly less energised feelings, will give him.

Fact is, if some American guy pays $30 a tub for a PP, with a consumption rate of 1 tub every 2 weeks, that's $720 a year on supps.

Some guy pays $55 for something fancy, same consumption rate, that's $1,320, a difference of $600 a year.

Imagine two dudes doing that from the age of 20. Still supplementing by the age of 60, one guy will pay $28,800 in 40 years, the other guy, $52,800. He spends another $30,000, that he can't have to retire on, or leave in his will to relatives, like children / grandchildren, just to still get some kind of "feeling". Why? So he could get the same results as a guy on basics, about 3-6 months quicker?

Chances are that expensive stuff would probably do almost sod all, in the way of helping reduce muscle loss rates, in the over 50 age range, compared to basic stuff.

Where's the sense? Arnine assuming I'm right about his mass before jucing, did it with just hard effort, and big calories alone, no supps at all. no need to hit the 165, 170 mark and then juice, when better knowledge of diet and training, could get natural 20-30lbs bigger than in the 40's and 50's.

Fact is, supplements don't give people bigger natural mass, that diet and training can't, they just accellerate it a little, or make it a little easier, possibly cheaper too.

The only paying to gain an edge thing here really, is whether you want 220lbs of shredded mass, or 200-210lbs of mass, with 15-18% fat on. One will require additional cash to buy gear, one won't.

One of those does requires essential supplementing of sorts, as it's not possible without gear.

The other requires "conditional" supplementing, because it requires no supps at all, to achieve. The big BB's of old proving it I feel.

To pay more for fancy supps and keep paying for life, is not an edge, unless other guys on just a basic PP, couldn't get 190-200lb mass, without at some point, buying a PP with stuff like Herbs and Caffeine in, and paying 80% more, but they can anyone can if they suss out how.

Where's the edge there? Fancy supps therefore don't have it. A mildly accellerated growth rate, with a slightly enhanced "feeling" or pump during workouts, isn't worth approximately $30,000 more over 40 years of anyones money, and does'nt look like a serious ede, worth possibly ending up close to potless for, in your 70's or 80's..

It's that simple.

The only benefit fancy supps give anyone, is when the companies cash in big time.

Again, I respect your opinion .

I also respect yours bossman. I know you have very good knowledge behind the science of supplements. I admit it is better than mine.

That said I have tried almost everything. If I never spent that money on supps I would have found some other way to waste it. new clothes, round of shooters for my friends, a good supper, take in a movie. Its things like that the money would have been spent on. I am still to stupid to save for my future. That’s what my pension plan and RRSP's do for me.

If its going to cost me $1000.00 bucks a year to be slightly bigger and stronger than that’s a price i am willing to pay. that said i hardly spend that. I buy the 10 pound of ON 100% whey for 70 bucks and it last me 4 months. So that’s $210.00 a year fairly cheap. spend 40 bucks on some bcaa's a huge bottle last 3 months $160.00/year some glutamine that i use after training hard and feeling sore 30 bucks a tub maybe 2 a year/ 60 bucks a year. for $430.00 bucks my supps for the year are paid for. It cost more than my gym membership per year but that’s a price I am willing to pay.

people with less money than me might think that’s lots and people with more money than me would think nothing of it.

To make a long story short I still think the cost:Benfit is totally up to the person!

The thing is, you're actually buying sensible supps, which is fine. I've no beef with BCAA's, and I use a PP and Glutamine as well.

Plus something that costs $70 and lasts 4 months, looks good value to me, so that's not really my problem with supps.

My problem is all these B.S. merchants selling stuff for the price you buy at, that lasts about 4 weeks, and then is full of Caffeine, and formulations called exclusive proprietary blends and all that nonsense, and claiming the herbs focus you, channel more blood to muscles, regulate GH and Test during workouts, or some such vaguely plausible stuff, but even if all these posh ingredients are scientifically proven to work, most could have so little benefit, there's no point spending 30-50% more.

So certainly there's no problems with what you're taking in my mind. You're using sensible supps. Sensible because they're worthwhile and cheap. .

I would agree with you 100% on that one. Some are not worth the money. Like the ones you are talking about.

Another thing I have learned is to shop around and not buy from overpriced supp stores like GNC. Best deals are online.

I did some reading online about things before I posted this thread and thought about taking the BCAA and Glutamine.

Never use sites that sell stuff, as way of learning about them. If any supps cause minor downsides to a tiny percentage of users, as opposed to things like Miscarriages, Heart attacks, Stomach cramps, Vomiting, Muscle Spasms etc etc, some people might not want to disclose them.

Put it this way. If 1 in 10,000 regular users of a supp, got a mild Kidney problem after 5 years, why would some people list it, because sure as hell 9,999 people aren't going to go meh, that wouldn't be me, and if all the people who got the problem in 5 years amounted to say 10 for example, I.E. 3 Americans, 1 Canadian, 3 Brits, 2 Aussies and a New Zealander for example, try proving a link, when the Patient Doctor histories, are so infrequent and spread out world-wide.

Plus if the individual gets checked for Kidney issues and fails to disclose supp use, not making the connection, or a Doctor doesn't ask if someones been using any supps or Meds, as far back as then, maybe just stating that in relation to new and recent use, non-disclosure would miss the cause of the Kidney issue, causing potential misdiagnosis, and only partially accurate treatment protocols, the offending supplement, still being in the persons schedule.

This would allow a product capalbe of minor or infrequent anomelies of any kind, to go potentially unchallenged and unchecked.

So to not disclose certain things like that, is good for supp company profits, because hey why scare the crap out of lots of users, visa vie an anomelie, that affects a microscopic percentage of regular users, because a mild kidney complaint in 1 in 10,000 regular users, after 5 years, is not as bad, as a 30% increased risk of Miscarriage, for 1 in 10 Women is it?

Some people selling stuff will hide any negatives, they think they can get away with.

Plus don't trust people with clever intelligent write-ups coupled with offers.

I used a site once, to read a write-up about Creatine. Good intelligent laymans speak, nice drawing of a Creatine structure, then at the bottom, "click here to get 50% off Creatine".

Huh, impartial right up, don't think so. Made me think, I don't care what they told me about Creatine, but rather what they potentially didn't.

The best stuff on supps is written by BB's stating no affiliation to companies, or independant scientists, saying the same. Peer reviewed science does it too. A scientists backing up some other guys work, both parties using a totally unbiased stance.

There was one guy I saw once I think on a blog talking about supps, and linking to selling sites, but he did link to about 3 or 4, which shows no real bias, as opposed to linking to just one, clearly he did it to reccomend a few good ones, regarding their customer service practices and pricing.

Additionally, it is worth mentioning that even the FDA only requires 6 months of testing to get something on the shelves.

What you could have said is, the FDA requires testing, then after 6 months, if necessary, be shelved .

what so do they test it before it goes on the shelf or after?