> long walks have been a hidden weapon of superhero body transformations for ages.
Really? And here I thought the hidden weapon of celebrity body transformation was steroids.
When so many other athletics endeavours have widespread doping, despite testing? And somehow Hugh Jackman at age 50 is more ripped than Lance Armstrong was at age 30? And the secret weapon is walking? Sure.
No, you are absolutely right. It is extremely naive to think actors/celebrities (whose million dollar movie contracts, photo endorsements and ad placements, and other visual body marketing media, depend on their physical appearance being top 1%) are doing this without drugs.
Your observation about Hugh Jackman is on point. If you need more evidence, look at the difference between The Rock (a pro wrestler and admitted user) between 1993-2003 vs. now. In 2021, he’s at least 20 years older, and yet his latest action movie appearances have him at a lower body fat, and higher muscle mass % per height than when he was 20 years younger? Come on, that’s not how biology works.
If you go to any serious website or forum where actual steroid users converse, none of this is shocking news. Drugs make for fast body transformations, and the results revert back to natural limits once you stop the drugs (useful for an actor preparing for a movie/show/appearance, who then does not care about that look once it’s finished).
Well, taking steroids is a necessary but not sufficient condition for those kinds of body transformations. You still need a good diet and exercise regime (to a normal person who isn’t into fitness at all, even that is very hard), and because of the enhanced recovery you are probably exercising much more than without steroids.
> And here I thought the hidden weapon of celebrity body transformation was steroids.
The hidden (not so much, plenty are open about it) weapon of celebrity body transformation is (1) having plenty of resources for dietitians, trainers, equipment, etc., and (2) having it be central to your livelihood so that you can literally spend as great a proportion of your waking hours on it as necessary.
I used to this this. Now I think it's mostly the steroids.
I mean, yes, obviously having trainers helps, but really the basics of a good exercise plan are pretty readily available. As for equipment, really most gyms have enough equipment to get 95% of what most actors achieve.
And yes, it's part of their livelihood, but they can't actually spend every waking hour on training. Both because it's actually detrimental to gaining more muscle, but also because actors actually do have other things to do, like acting in other things, learning lines, appearances, etc.
This is not to take away from their hard work and sacrifices w.r.t. diet. Obviously they have to work very hard at it. But the actual reason most people won't end up "looking like a super-hero", even if they can devote lots of time to training and dieting, is because of the steroids.
> I mean, yes, obviously having trainers helps, but really the basics of a good exercise plan are pretty readily available. As for equipment, really most gyms have enough equipment to get 95% of what most actors achieve.
No it's 100%. What do actors have that can't be done with a gym?
> Obviously they have to work very hard at it.
How hard do they really have to work if they are taking powerful steroids? The roids will have large effects even with minimal training.
> No it's 100%. What do actors have that can't be done with a gym?
I mean, sometimes there are fancy machines. E.g. in a video on Kumail Nanjiani (whom I love, btw), they talk about using that machine which runs electricity through the muscles to aid in contraction. Or something, I really don't know. Most people won't have access to that.
But neither did the bodybuilders of the 70s, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, and he still managed to get a pretty impressive physique :)
> How hard do they really have to work if they are taking powerful steroids? The roids will have large effects even with minimal training.
Honestly, I really don't know, there's a raging debate on just how much the steroids help assuming no training, and since I have no hands-on experience and am not planning to get some, I'm not sure how big an effect it really is (again, assuming no training).
I can't tell if this post is sarcastic. It doesn't take an expert to figure out what to do to lose weight and gain mass (strength training), and strength training doesn't take long.
Or hired dieticians controlling what you eat and 3-4 hours of workouts a day under the supervision of a personal trainer or 3. Chris Pratt said something similar about his role in a few movies
The only way to do 3-4 hours workouts daily is to take performance enhancing drugs. Those hired dieticians are controlling diet, workout and drug regime.
The first statement is false. I do 3-4 hour workouts 5x a week and have never taken PEDs
Some facts.
- I am a professional stuntman, so my livelihood and time are dedicated to this pursuit. Making the time is a requirement.
- the time is made up of stretching, skill work, cardio, and strength training. It’s not 3 hours of 1 rep maxes. It is still intense.
- lots of people use PEDs and HGH to acquire a temporary physique. However you would be shocked what small changes can do to affect your health, physique, and overall happiness. Adding squats will help you move move better. Yoga will help you feel better, and sprints will shed fat.
- consistentcy beats all. Take all the drugs, do all the weekend bootcamps, and try all the crash diets you want. Simply doing anything over a long enough period of time will always yield better results.
Skill work is clearly a different beast than weight lifting. Skill work has minimal bearing on physique so should be left out. Cardio also does very little for action hero physique so unless you're trying to say that you can get better results on 4 hours a day of weight lifting than one hour, I don't think you've invalidated gp's statement.
Adding 30 minutes of yoga to my daily routine has been life-changing. I have more energy, move better, feel more comfortable in my body, and feel more confidence in doing other workouts. It's been 6 months and I wish I would have know about this in my teens.
Depends how intense those 3-4 hour workouts are. I think a lot of the difference in peoples estimate of how much they can exercise without steroids is down to differences in how people train.
E.g. you're not going to manage 3-4 hours of heavy compound lifts a day done in quick succession, sure. At least not without lowering the weights so much it becomes more cardio than resistance training.
Even 1 hour a day is overdoing it for powerlifting type training. At my strongest I was doing 45m every other day. I could probably have done more, but I got my best gains when I eased up and let my body recover properly.
But if you're doing bodybuilding, and a lot of that time are not the big lifts but adding in lots of isolated lifts of various small muscle groups, and sufficiently low intensity cardio takes up a good chunk of the time as well, sure you can easily spend 3-4 hours a day without drugs.
That said, a lot of people clearly claim to be natural while they're not.
People keep bringing up dieticians as if there's some kind magic, secret food they have access to that normal people don't. It's complete nonsense. Bodybuilders and actors and athletes eat the same chicken breast, rice, and broccoli that you can buy at the store.
Also, for this having made it, money-wise, being able to afford a great cook, having a personal trainer who reminds you of your goals, being tempted less because you never visit a supermarket, etc. all help.
Maybe it was once, but things like Myfitnesspal make diet tracking pretty easy for everyone nowadays. As for timing and macronutrient composition of foods, that's something the dieticians can probably help, but it's also something you can learn in a few hours by watching Youtube.
Having trainers, dieticians, etc. professionals around you to help with everything probably makes it easier in the sense that you probably save one or two hours of planning and organizing your life per week, and probably your programming is a bit more optimized, but it's hardly a game changer. If you are somewhat devoted to the topic, you can learn and do all the same stuff yourself.
Yeah, it's literally paying someone to follow you around all day and control what you put in your mouth. There's no guy in spandex telling me not to buy those Reese's Pieces at 7/11 when I'm bored on a Sunday.
It's not a "or", it's "and". Steroid use is very common among celebrities, especially male action stars. Celebrities have physiques in time frames and at ages that just aren't possible otherwise.
No hate to them for doing it. But it's important that we're at least honest about it because of the effect it has on people's (especially men's) own body images and ideas about transformations. Losing 60 pounds while packing on muscle in 6 months at 38 years old is not possible without gear.
>But it's important that we're at least honest about it because of the effect it has on people's (especially men's) own body images and ideas about transformations.
Steroids are mostly there to aid recovery from the otherwise unmanageable amount of work one puts in. Most people are limited by their willingness to put in the work and never reach the point where steroids would be required (or even make a significant difference).
You can get somewhat faster results using steroids (provided you are a decent responder and don't experience strong sides), sure. However, the overwhelming majority of people complaining about (often hypothetical) drug users are not putting in even minimal effort and haven't taken the time to learn how to train properly. I'm unconvinced that this is anything but a way to protect their ego and simultaneously feel cheated of the god-like bodies they would most assuredly have if it wasn't for their superior morals and judgement. It comes as no surprise that those very people don't get anywhere once they hop on gear, which is something I've witnessed firsthand a few times.
It's not just somewhat faster, the difference is often huge. You shouldn't let your personal experiences and anecdotes get in the way of the science here, what you wrote earlier about steroids only aiding recovery for people who put in large amounts of work was ridiculous.
I don't see how it is ridiculous. Can you get a great body with hard work and intelligent programming without anabolic steroids? Yes. Can you get it without hard work and with anabolic steroids? No [cue that one study where they gave test to people for ten weeks and they gained a few kilos of water and glycogen weight]. Can you become a mass monster without either? No. Now what I personally find ridiculous is how people complaining about "unrealistic bodies" prefer to promote unrealistic expectations of what AAS do instead like they're some sort of black magic.
Really? And here I thought the hidden weapon of celebrity body transformation was steroids.
When so many other athletics endeavours have widespread doping, despite testing? And somehow Hugh Jackman at age 50 is more ripped than Lance Armstrong was at age 30? And the secret weapon is walking? Sure.