You beat me to it.
Hi, Rip. Wondering if you'd let me help announce your new article. It's always a delight to pull up the T-Nation homepage and see an article about something other than excuses to do Bulgarian Split Squats instead of actual squats, or using Japanese occlusion training to get a sweet bicep peak.
Link
Steroids don't make athletes more "athletic" – they make athletes stronger, which makes them better athletes, and that's why so many athletes take them.
You beat me to it.
Great article Rip.
I remember a number of years ago, when Mark McGwire was first accused of steroid use, to my surprise, a number of sports commentators didn't have anything bad to say about it. They said that of all sports, baseball should be given a pass because it's more about skill and precision to hit the ball, rather than strength (which obviously isn't true). But nonetheless, I guess it was something different than the usual rhetoric of "steroids bad under every circumstance".
Back then, baseball and their slack testing standards was being blamed for a rise of steroid use in teenagers. Now, when individuals want to get strong via basic barbell training, without the use of steroids, the government is going after that too.
Hmm...
from article: "But so do squats, presses, and deadlifts, and they're not illegal."
. . .maybe just not quite yet . . . but "they" are working on it.
Great article, Rip; and while I agree with it in its entirety, I'd also add that steroid aren't going anywhere even if a strength training renaissance led professional athletes out of the dark ages. As long as there are $200 Million contracts up for grabs, cheaters gonna cheat.
As always love the article. It so needs to be said.
Here's a photo montage of famous athletes before and after steroids : http://www.businessinsider.com/what-...-barry-bonds-1
With the possible exception of Canseco, who has extremely broad shoulders naturally, the rest of these guys are pretty pathetic. I know that I, a man in his forties (with a wife, an office job and several kids), achieved as much or greater mass (yes, even more mass than McGwire, since I'm 6'4") from Starting Strength, followed by Texas Method, over 3 years or so. Naturally. Also, I'm no natural athlete. I could not even make my high school's baseball team, or basketball team, despite being a 6'3" freshman. So, yeah. Piss poor genetics.
These professional idiots need to take their youth, their superior genetics (better natural hormonal profile, fast-slow twitch fiber ratios, and or mechanical limb length/tendon insertions), their access to better nutrition (plenty of beef) and their down time and get strong. I'm actually pro-steroids and PEDs - don't tell grownups what to do. But for fuck's sake. Get strong naturally first the smart way.
How did this whole "functional strength", PT-style of training get into vogue? Was it a devolution from the Arthur Jones era?
Rip, that was a very good article, but I'm curious about this part:
"It's common for athletes who have never gone through the process of a simple linear strength progression to see squat strength double, and deadlift strength more than double, in a period of weeks. Bodyweight-on-the-bar presses overhead can be achieved just as quickly. Without steroids."
How many times have you seen a bodyweight press at the end of a novice linear progression?
I was just getting into the industry 10 years ago as this stuff was really peaking, so my historical perspective isn't necessarily personal, but my impression is that it was not so much a devolution from but an over-counter-reaction-to the Jones/Nautilus stuff. Nautlius was all about single planar, no balance or stabilization required stuff. The over reaction to the other side was making it almost all about multi-planar balance and stabilization, to the detriment of force production.