Only have to look at the hardest hitting heavyweight in the world Deontay Wilder to realise big numbers in the gym don't matter. I watched a small segment of his training on youtube and he doesn't lift heavy at all. He hits like a damn truck though.
Looking at certain fighters it looks like their diet was a bit suspect. People do tend to eat healthier these days in general so it's little surprise that's been adopted a little more by the most dedicated scientists. We've moved on from raw eggs and steak.
For power being ‘strong enough’ is what is important, there are diminishing returns. For a guy with shorter levers it is more important to be able to apply extra force for power. Having shorter levers increases speed, but you don’t create as much impulse. If you have long levers (like Wilder) you don’t need as much muscular strength since your levers create impulse, so the speed is then the factor that determines your level of power. Wilder has long levers and explosive speed, that’s why he is a devastating puncher. Having big numbers in the gym is more important if you’re a shorter guy. Again you’re inferring from specific cases to the general, instead of the other way and then looking at the individual case. Your thinking is repeatedly flawed in the same manner, leading you to the wrong conclusion.
I’ve repeatedly addressed this in the past. Obviously when you are lacking something, being given that something has a massive effect. Testosterone given to females falls under that, the list of substances in the WADA banned list being given to really sick people falls under that. When a guy has high levels of testosterone and is in his athletic prime, what substance are you being given that really elevates performance? I work in sport so I understand the physiology of the substances in the WADA list of prohibited substances, and I understand the philosophy behind the list. Things are on there because they have produced a physiological effect on sick people. From that it has been inferred that taking the same substance ‘might’ improve athletic performance, or it might cause harm to the athlete. So onto the list it goes, with no evidence for it from athletic populations. Then a guy like Conte comes around and wants to make some money. Athletes aren’t all that smart, and tend to do whatever it takes to win, tend to be superstitious. Then you have a culture that worships those secret ‘performance enhancing drugs’ (despite the fact that’s not what they’re claimed to be on the banned list), and Conte has a business and some momentum. I have this discussion with people who work in elite sport, they often enter with the assumption that most have until they actually think about it and look at the evidence. Until I see evidence to the contrary I’m not going to jump on the unfounded assumption that there are things that you can take that improve performance across the board in every sport. [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/30411235/[/url]
it's all nonsense so that S&C coaches and their hanger-ons (dietitians) can give themselves jobs. Yes, fighters have learned to not jog in work boots, they know incorporating sprinting is beneficial , etc... But the old timers were simply better boxers. Boxing was vastly more popular back then that it is today. Deeper competition, far better trainers and activity built better fighters. No question. Today's fighters look like better athletes because they are juiced up. They would get their ears boxed off. 2019's champion's lose across the board to 1947's champs. It is what it is.
The greater the potential/genetics of the athlete the less banned substances are going to help, isn’t that self-evident? How can you assume and say they ‘must’ work? What is your faith based on really? You assume that the best want to take ‘shortcuts’ to success? Why wouldn’t you assume the opposite, doesn’t that seem more likely? If an athlete started performing a ritual, wearing their same pair of lucky socks, wearing a power bracelet etc. and noticed no improvement above and beyond the curve, they’d stop surely?
Wilder is not built for lifting weights. Levers are way too long. Guaranteed he does plyometrics, though.
Clueless. If Boxers were better then (which they wasn't), then that's down to SKILL. I'd pick Usyk, Loma, Canelo and Wilder over anyone from that time period.
Here's some ideas, this is a project by Nike using all kinds of new experimental techniques for training professional runners: Google "nike oregon project", check e.g. the Nitrogen House. I heard about runners who well into their career were able to boost their performance by massive amounts. Of course there are PED allegations but the Oregon runners are randomly PED tested just like any other OIympic athletes.
So you're saying extra testosterone won't help with performance? That's hilarious. Yes bodybuilding doses will harm endurance performance with the spiking of BP, muscle pumps, and worsening of other cardiovascular parameters. However, a slightly higher than physiological dosage will always improve performance. You sound like someone who has never used PEDs before. For the record, training hard increases stress on the body which can generally lead to decreased levels of testosterone. Athletes do not necessarily have high levels of testosterone. Guess how exogenous administration of testosterone helps with that?
No, I’ve never used banned substances because I get tested like my athletes do. I know an athlete who had a higher than allowable level of free testosterone, naturally. Regularly gets pulled up and does the secondary tests to prove that it’s endogenous. Almost all top athletes have higher than average levels of testosterone. Top performers can be reasonably reliably identified from pictures alone, from digit ratio alone. Obviously training hard is stress, and that alters your T:C ratio. The stress is the important part of adaptation, the rebound from that. If you blunt the stress then you blunt the rebound. Periodisation is specifically designed to manage training stress. Providing exogenous testosterone can prolong your time in stress, but not all markers recover in the same manner. I’m more convinced that exogenous testosterone is harmful to performance based on theory, on physiological mechanisms.
Wrong. Low testosterone levels are common for elite athletes, and even more common for rigorous endurance sports like long distance running. [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5804043/[/url] [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5988228/[/url] High testosterone is only common for elite female athletes. I can tell you that the PED staple puts you a level above your current level in terms of physical potential, but the most important component is the recovery aspect. With enough calories and sleep, multiple training sessions a day becomes a non issue depending on testosterone dosage. More importantly, joints and tendons recover much slower than muscles. HGH helps with this significantly. Again, you will have to use it yourself to see the difference. They aren't called the PED trifecta for no reason.
Did you read the part that mentions samples were taken immediately after competition? That study methodology and the write up is as if a high school student put it together. They used bioimpedence to measure body composition ffs. Yeah 4% of females had high testosterone levels, incredible. Is 4% common? Or is it that you didn’t read it? Obviously endurance runners have low testosterone, and a low proportion of fast twitch fibres. With enough calories and sleep, multiple training sessions a day becomes a non-issue. Nothing to do with ‘PEDs’. All the athletes I coach have multiple training sessions on most days, that’s normal. There’s no such thing as a ‘PED’. That name is made up by the media and the layperson. There’s a list of banned substances, it would be inaccurate and baseless to have a list with ‘performance enhancing drugs’. There isn’t evidence for that, and it’s always going to be in the context of the sport. The only evidence for HGH is that it impairs cardio function and impairs your strength to weight ratio. Why would I use that? I’m not dumb and I care about my health.
