site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   2385 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for October 20, 2023

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Tbh, I find the 'is he natty' debate to be pretty uninteresting. Does it actually change the ground reality of what he's doing or what he's saying?

Also though steroid use is more widespread than ever, it's still, like, illegal. I don't know how strict things are in the US, but I think people are reasonable to choose not to talk openly about it, if you could get arrested, lose your job or your place at college over it. Sulek has never claimed to be natty, and at the end of the day isn't selling training programs or boutique supplements or diet plans under the promise that others can get the same results. He's not selling anything except himself... But it's worth asking if that makes it better. The pressure to look good, to be big and strong, to earn the respect of other men, to be accomplished and confident and popular are still there.

As I understand it the effect of steroids is so significant that someone who lifts regularly and cares about nutrition can be easily outbulked by a largely sedentary person who takes them.

If that’s true, it essentially means that all the healthy eating, diet, schedule, discipline stuff is invalidated, at least mostly. It’s like a PUA type ‘teaching’ men to seduce women and then it turns out all the women he’s ever been with have been prostitutes, like clearly he’s playing a different game and his advice is theoretical at best.

That’s the root of the sentiment expressed with the facetious “tren hard anavar give up” line, preaching self improvement and a way to be healthy and masculine but actually everything is just the result of illegal and often risky doping.

It depends. To me it makes sense to lift natty for two years and then add in the steroids, but I wonder if that's my Puritan heritage kicking in: why lift natty for two years when you can do the same on gear in 6 months? I think the key is discipline: steroids can be done relatively safely and effectively, but it requires a level of discipline that's best gated by first getting ripped natty.

It's usually a safe assumption that any male influencer that stands out for his hypertrophy is on gear, though. The number of natty men with impressive physiques is far outweighed by the number of men on gear with impressive physiques who want to claim to be natty for cred.

I'd also note that the impressive men on gear still require discipline, healthy eating, and lots of hard work. Gear just makes that (much) easier to display.

That is a wildly incorrect understanding of steroids. They don't work on their own, they make other things you are doing work better, and make it possible to work harder. The Natty or Not debate matters at the extremes, which is to say the interesting parts.

How exactly is it incorrect? There are studies that show that muscle gain on juice without resistance training beats resistance training without juice.

That study is confounded by the effects of water retention in muscles of steroid users. It's also just looking at a ten week period, you're not going to keep gaining muscle sitting on the couch.

Also, the no steroids exercise group managed to not increase their triceps size at all which doesn't really make sense.

This is an overcorrection. Steroids help build muscle at all levels of training. You definitely don't need to be elite for it to matter.

But no one really cares about the non-elite. I don't care if a guy used test to deadlift 405 when he would have achieved the same thing Natty in a few more months.

The idea that roids will cause you to gain significant muscle sitting on the couch is false.

I mean, you personally might not care whether a given person can or can't deadlift 405, or the timeframe he achieves that in - it might matter to him.

My point is that no one deadlifting 405, natty or dirty, influences the discourse.

Speaking as a pathetic failure that deadlifts around 405 myself, we're not just influencing the discourse - we are the discourse. When Sulek or Doucette or whoever gets millions of views (and the money that comes with it), that's not from millions of bodybuilders, and the 'natty or not' debate is not really about the big guy - it's about the envy and anxiety and inferiority of Average Lifter, who wants to know if there's more to being huge and attractive and successful and confident than daily cardio.

Tbh, I find the 'is he natty' debate to be pretty uninteresting. Does it actually change the ground reality of what he's doing or what he's saying?

No it doesn't. I threw a comment out there (while drinking) and I don't really know if he's presenting as natural or not. I don't mean to derail on that front.

and at the end of the day isn't selling training programs or boutique supplements or diet plans under the promise that others can get the same results. He's not selling anything except himself

Fair enough. Seems like the guy is presenting himself in a 'lifestyle' way, as in 'here's me doing meal prep and driving to the gym. What a good session!' Good luck to him.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats