Quote:
Originally Posted by benb
Compared to the memoirs of Pro cyclists it seems like this thread is downplaying the PE effects of Testosterone and Steroids.
Guys like Tyler Hamilton made a pretty strong case for the recovery benefits being a huge big deal.
Recovery lets you ride more & harder and you get gains from that.
Drugs don't have to make you improve without work.. if they let you work harder you get the gains.
I don't see it as that different from the body building guys.. the recovery & injury prevention they get from their drug regimes lets them train at ridiculous volume compared to guys who are clean. It's a huge joke if you look at the muscle magazines.. they constantly recommend these ridiculous workouts that will massively overtrain any lifter who isn't doing drugs, and they have a guy who is doped to the moon telling you the workout is the secret.
|
Hormones (e.g., steroids, HGH etc.) are serious business and are alleged to make a huge difference - even in cycling. Fun fact: you can gain more muscle just taking steroids and sitting around than you will lifting religiously without steroids, at least according to some studies (assuming same diet). Supra-normal doses of anabolic hormones *work*. Those big guys lifting competitively have one and only one secret, and it's the cocktail of stuff they are taking. The workouts yield about the same effects and the rest is genetics. There are a lot of huge scams in bodybuilding and the idea that an IBF pro gets huge with a special training program is just laughably stupid. Pros workout pretty hard, but plenty of natties chasing gains workout harder. The dangers of the amount of hormones required for those body types, however, are not inconsiderable.
BTW, it is worth considering that Lance's dominance was due not so much to an exceptional doping regimen, but genetic predisposition to respond to doping. That's my belief, anyway. Plenty of guys were taking the same stuff and not getting the same results. The order of the peloton without drugs during that era may well have been radically different, with Lance as a super-domestique and some natural talent that didn't respond to drugs a super-star. It's interesting to think about! Genetics matter in more way than one!
What the early-'70s and earlier guys were doing in cycling - uppers I guess mostly - are in a totally different category.