How Much Stronger Do Steroids Make You

Sign up to get exclusive first access to the RP Hypertrophy App: bit.ly/401aAt4
Become an RP channel member and get instant access to over 24 hrs of exclusive in-depth training and advanced science content! ➡️ bit.ly/37esL8i

[@drschwandi3687]

This analysis could also just mean that doing unregulated steroids is only 10% better than doing steroids while beating drug tests at meets.

[@dsb_training]

He explains why this is unlikely. Also accounting for multi variables the difference is sometimes closer to 5%. What it really says is that steroids increase the rate at which you can reach your strength ceiling. Everybody has a cap, if you trained hard enough and long enough you have the potential be within 5% of your steroid level strength.

[@CosLepszeNizKtos]

@@dsb_training nah, studies says steroids make u 3x faster building mass + u can surpass the genetic limits your body got. if u think that juice give only 5% then gl in life xD

[@maxschmidt9461]

Also keep in mind the enhanced guys would be significantly smaller as naturals, so weaker on an absolute scale

[@GeezNutz]

Go read the analysis instead of posting information that, albeit is a logical first thought, is misleading to those unfamiliar with the rigors of data gathering.

[@Mads12211]

remember, a lot of people do have mediocre reactions to steroids. And you can get real strong natural.

[@its_slat3]

Dang, no wonder why my football coach told me to go "110%"

[@paulphillipdavies168]

That actually makes sense and is actually quite funny 🤣🤣🤣

[@theparalexview785]

Technically, coach told you to go a hunnertandten percent. 🏋️‍♂️

[@Jaydo12345]

Underrated coo.ent lol

[@its_slat3]

@@theparalexview785 lmaooo

[@its_slat3]

@@Jaydo12345 I love being goofy lmao

[@gunzborgia1403]

40lbs-50lbs is a huge difference. 10% is a lot when weights get heavier and heavier

[@thomasgarcia8118]

yea say something like a deadlift record thats 700 pounds untested is 70 pounds heavier untested.

[@ashertoledano3338]

40-50 is a 25% increase

[@teknoreaper9232]

@@ashertoledano3338 for a 200 lb lift sure. for a 500 or more lift thats 10%

[@aryavart296]

Not really a fair comparison the fair comparison will be when they measure the same person on and off the roids

[@Suds1407]

@@aryavart296also wouldn’t be fair because of practice effect

[@Lost1nTranslation]

That's assuming those "natural" lifters were actually "natural" in the "natural" competition.

[@stefs]

still, there actually is a difference in lifted weight, so a difference in PED use (none or at least greatly reduced) seems realistic.

[@mikewalkow1860]

Yep, exactly!

[@teancoffee208]

No shit.

[@aorippedbandaid3711]

Might not be. It might be that the best lifters choose not to frolic about timing their dosages and dancing around tests and instead choose to not stress about the testing and instead just blast and lift stress free

[@Schmegil]

They’re as natural as mike o Tren

[@joseallday133]

Lance Armstrong never failed a drug test

[@mpclepto182]

And the company that made his bikes STILL refuses to acknowledge that he cheated

[@schulme123]

Great point!!

[@idk9637]

​@@mpclepto182everyone in those races are on the same shit it doesnt matter.

[@tobiasrietveld3819]

Such an ignorant statement. Someone clearly doesn't understand that there are different kinds of perfomance enhancers for different purposes with different levels of detectability.

[@DazePhase]

What this has to do with bodybuilding? In cycling they use different compounds.

[@999awesomekid]

Everyone needs to realise that this is relative strength, so untested vs tested in the same weight class. You could get 30% stronger hopping on steroids but if you gain 30lbs then you’re competing against stronger guys hence the disparity being only 10%

[@ianhowe007]

Conclusion everybody's on steroids

[@gariejoyce5263]

Thats the only thing that makes sense. 10% difference my ass

[@sadbanana5896]

Can't test for bioidentical hormones.

[@manwithnoplan5496]

Ok Nate Diaz

[@camilosanchez831]

Repent and believe the gospel ❤

[@fitness3447]

​@@sadbanana5896 You literally can. Look up "carbon isotope ratio test".

[@larrybaba5635]

Drug tested athletes doesn't mean natural, it means athletes who are able to pass the tests!

[@Iceman-xe7jo]

I’ve done lifting with them and without them and I can tell you straight up it was way more than 10%.

[@Barneyfithlawman]

Absolutely

[@user-nk7zk1nf8n]

Awesome brother your subjective scientific study containing a single data point provides us with all the knowledge we need in this area 😊😊😊😊

[@Iceman-xe7jo]

@@user-nk7zk1nf8n you have no subjective or objective data point brother 😜

​@@user-nk7zk1nf8n 🤓

[@IndepenisDay]

​@@user-nk7zk1nf8ngod you're lame, many ppl share his experience

[@77dris]

I so hate how drug users try to downplay the advantages they have taking said drugs.

[@Jtking3000]

One of the videos where Mike goes full retard.

[@maximusmeridius5705]

The truth is even more depressing, Israetel & other successful trainers have mentioned how they've had A LOT of clients abusing steroids who you'd never guess were on them. It ranges from guys who don't even look like they lift, to guys who are sorta jacked, both abusing the fuck out of steroids & that's the majority of them. The sad part is the guys who actually become successful Pro Bodybuilders, while natural, will be bigger than the majority of people abusing steroids. This also applies to strength. In one word, genetics.

[@HagakureJunkie]

Lmao, my test level is 1500ng/dl and I look disturbingly average despite how much i lift and what I take.

[@gigithebird2151]

How is this a downplay? This means that independent of muscle mass, steroids literally just make you 10% stronger. Off rip. No extra meat added, just free strength. At the top of the sport, that’s like adding 100 lbs to your deadlift without ANY visual change. Do you understand how insane that is?

[@StaaaaNzHD]

Same, its so annoying. They try to attribute their strength or size to their hard work or fucking genetics which is obviously a load of horseshit. Obviously you still have to work fucking hard but youd he nowhere near as big if you hadn't taken the motherfucking gear.

[@maurikunnas6266]

10%?? Try 60-80%. Are you telling me, there are people who can naturally bench like 300kg?

[@Alexor715]

60-80% IS above 10 so he doesn't lie. Sly little fox that Mike. 😅

[@inigo137]

There were studies on steroids that literally showed that people on steroids grew as much muscle as people lifting weights without having to do any exercise, look it up

[@NoName-cx3gk]

Roid users, with 100% more muscle mass, are categorized in a different class due to their heavier build. This only indicates that within the same class, roid users are 10% stronger. It seems like someone is trying to mislead with these statistics 😂.

[@sleeper9638]

​@@NoName-cx3gkhes not, its a very famous study. 600 of test split between two dosages administered twice a week was all it took

[@radalexander7160]

@@sleeper9638 You should take a look at the follow up to the study done by the same group and look at a lot of the limitations from the original study. Greg Nuckols addressed that study as well.

[@jimjim5245]

They studies showed they actually grew more muscle

[@ultramegadavidbowie6314]

People in tested federations aren't natty (I am speking about top competetors). Maybe they are off cycle during competition but they are not lifetime naturals.

[@AS-Stardust]

There is no way every tested competitor is using something

[@ultramegadavidbowie6314]

@@AS-Stardust , not every competetor, but the top guys are certainly using a lot of stuff. I mean you gotta be really naive to think Rey Williams squated 490kg in sleeves while being lifetime natty. Then there are guys like Rouska that look like pro bodybuilders and lift same weights as untested crowd)

[@rickharris275]

There are freak genetics that are 1 in a million that don't need drugs to hit these marks

[@hithro5466]

Got any proof or are you basing this off your insecurities?

[@ultramegadavidbowie6314]

@@hithro5466 , how about a fact that people in ipf lift same numbers or sometimes more than untested people? Ray Williams with his 490kg squat in sleeves and Jesus Olivares with his total that is higher than untested WR total are supposedly lifetime natties. Somehow everyone in the IPF is such a genetic prodigy that they outlift guys who are blasting gear for years. I swear people nowdays are dumb as f.

[@GratuitusPangolin]

This assumes nobody is beating those drug tests.

[@lukeharris2622]

He does address that possibility in the full video

[@MrOrthodox13]

@@lukeharris2622 what is the title of the full video?

[@lukeharris2622]

@@MrOrthodox13 “How Much Stronger Do Steroids Make You? (Less Than You Think)”

[@GeezNutz]

No the study did not. You are assuming that.

[@TheLordMyRock]

It also assumes that all the lifters that are untested ARE on steroids.

[@m-a-t-t6869]

Imagine getting on gear gaining a bunch of lean mass and then saying to all the nattys in ur new weight class that the roids are only 10%.

[@truestrength-oz5kk]

IDIOTS ALL OF THEM

[@ZaneGeeting]

You could have made that a way shorter screed by saying; telling the truth. I know that makes you feel bad about yourself, but those are the facts.

[@m-a-t-t6869]

Why would I feel bad about myself?

[@IndepenisDay]

​@@ZaneGeetingbro, you just played yourself. And also told everyone you've never touched the stuff and have no experience with it. You gain more than 10% homeboy, a lot more

[@ZaneGeeting]

@jordielpino well, if you'd taken even one second to do any research, you'd see that I'm a pro powerlifter in multiple weight classes and compete untested for 20+ years now. I'm literally in the strongest 1% of people to ever live, and yes, I've used all kinds of AAS. I've forgotten more about gear than you'll ever know. You're the one who played themselves. Now shut up and let the adults talk.

[@ultramegadavidbowie6314]

Steroids, HGH, insulin and other stuff allow you to grow a lot more muscle than you otherwise would. That muscle mass will result in a lot more strength gains than 10%.

[@MsKoffeinjunky]

Cool, mind sharing your data on that?

[@ultramegadavidbowie6314]

@@MsKoffeinjunky , my data is that I made it the f up. Seriously though, just look at pro bodybuilders, do you really think they are just slightly bigger and stronger than they would be have they never used anything? There are people weighing 250lbs + at averege height and stage lean condition, do you really think anyone can achieve anything remotely close without drugs? And don't you think all this additional muscle mass will result in a lot more strength gains than just 10%?

[@rickharris275]

Correct, but as you have put on 40+ pounds of muscle , you have moved up two weight classes and are now competing against different people. I can all but swear to you that the difference in strength on drugs and off drugs is about 10%

[@ultramegadavidbowie6314]

@@rickharris275 , if is true tgat you will be competing against heavier people, but then again if we compare true lifetime natural (not ipf natty) and someone who uses lots of PEDs for a long time and if those two are in the same weight class, chances are enhanced guy will be either shorter, leaner, more muscular or all of the above.

[@HagakureJunkie]

And yet science just proved you wrong...

[@todorkolev7565]

nah. These are professional athletes at the peak of human ability. Give regular gym goer a boost and you'd see at least 50% increase.

[@DuBstep115]

Nah, they are all on gear Other are openly on gear and others try to hide it

[@conorobriencoaching]

I think the analysis had same body weight comparison of tested to untested. So if you were 80kg weight class pre gear this would not factor if the gear moved you upto 90kg weight class for example.

[@ultramegadavidbowie6314]

Depending on duration of use, compounds and dosages you can gain a lot more than 10kg.

[@standarsh8056]

​@@ultramegadavidbowie6314 dude re read what he said...

[@ultramegadavidbowie6314]

@@standarsh8056 , i get what he said, 100% agree with it. Just pointed out that it could result in a lot more than just 10kg difference in bodyweight.

[@dsb_training]

Yes but now youre competing against people who are 90kg, i.e lifting weights. Mass moves mass, but it's far from the most important factor.

[@himeshsinghshishodiya]

​@@dsb_training Mass is one of the most important factors. There is a reason why weight classes exist.

[@399d6]

Drug tested federations doesnt mean they havent taken steroids, so 10% weaker is logically fair

[@bertrandronge9019]

Yeah excactly they are drug tested when they reach a certain level and then put on a list with regular testing. Untill that happens, they can have take as much gear as they wish

[@Jtking3000]

Wow Mike, you spend 1000's of dollars a month, evade the law, screw up your procreation, your mood and risk having your heart explode before you're 40 just for a 10% performance boost. Maybe you're not sharing the full picture?

[@Jtking3000]

@@NickOtero Actually it's how much stronger do they make you, not do they make you stronger but maybe that's because I'm Einstein.

[@mfd1993]

Excellent comment. If it were simply 10% difference, no one would risk a lot for getting juiced.

[@christionthornton7893]

Yea cause bro cappin. Ain’t no way you risk your entire livelihood for 10% more strength

[@discountstrelok505]

@@christionthornton7893hey retard 10% is the difference between winning and not. Adding 70 pound to a deadlift ? “Wow bro it’s only 10% tho”

[@flawtyjohn133]

Can only speak from my own experience (with very detectable PED´s lmao) I was naturally benching 55kg dumbells for a hard set of 8 during my bulk. I started doing Test Cyp 300mg/week at the start of my cut and included 20mg Tren Ace/daily after 4 weeks into the cut and 15-25mg Anavar pre workout. 8 weeks into my cut (after losing 10kg of bodyweight) I was benching the 60kg dumbells for a pretty easy 10. So I went from 55kg x8 in the peak of my bulk to pressing 60kg x10 towards the end of my cut while having lost 10kg of bodyweight. Pretty nuts imo

[@acewilson316]

10 percent my ass, my friends got on gear and within a year they are lifting like they have been training for 10

[@jocaingles8464]

the difference is at least 10%. This is good data. It could be 100%, but it's at least 10

[@schulme123]

Hell, it could be 200%...lol

[@gromswowguide7927]

This is also within weight classes, so at around the same weight you would be 10% stronger. If a strong guy uses and goes a bunch up in weight, wouldn't this data suggest that it's way more than 10%?. If for example Eddie hall got around 10% stronger from peds, that would mean he was able to deadlift 450kg naturally, which im pretty sure he would not even come close to being a natural.

[@rickharris275]

Yes, most of the full length videos about this topic address the weight gain issue, essentially only comparing within weight classes. But total overall strength, yes much more than 10%

[@muscularclassrepresentativ5663]

And that's at a given size. The main effect of the steroids is making you gain size. Overall strength gain potentially much higher over time, this is just the gear

[@michaelanthony4750]

This is strength per pound since there are weight classes. Also we all know how easy it is to beat a drug test.

[@CosLepszeNizKtos]

TeStEd fEdErAtIoNs xDDD

[@qpghostqp9551]

It's not usada bro and not even is smart enough to know how to beat those tests are you ?

[@japanesebitter1066]

@@qpghostqp9551are you smart enough to rewrite that sentence?

[@qpghostqp9551]

@@japanesebitter1066 I missed one word scholar is that's all you have to say then you did nothing good job here's your 🍪

[@japanesebitter1066]

@@qpghostqp9551 I can call you an idiot who can’t bake a cookie if I read you the instructions. Try not to type like a idiot next time you question someone else’s intelligence. PS your grammar is still atrocious, dickwad.

[@japanesebitter1066]

@@qpghostqp9551 also yeah plenty of people know how to beat drug tests. Are you even aware that they usually have coaches who definitely know how to beat a drug test? That’s if I was able to read that embarrassing attempt at English correctly.

[@henrykjohn78]

What about the powerlifters that doubled their totals going on roids ? I know of several guys who put 100kg on their lifts after roids

[@trtnec]

lol doubled their totals by adding 100kg? Your gym buddy who squatted 100 before gear doesn't count as an elite powerlifter. Also you're ignoring the main factor - how much weight did they put on once they started using and making the huge gains you're talking about?

[@henrykjohn78]

@Erudite lifts he hit a 220 squat, 160 bench, 250 deadlift. Roided he went to a 320 squat, 260 bench and a 360 deadlift (yes kg)

[@trtnec]

​@@henrykjohn78 again, you don't answer the question which dodges the whole point, how much weight did he put on during that time? Plus your math still makes no sense

[@henrykjohn78]

@Erudite lifts he added about 30kg of bodyweight. Also yes it does

[@henrykjohn78]

@@trtnec please don't tell me you're one of those "mass moves mass" guys who use their weight as an excuse to not lift heavy..

[@Swamp_Donkey_]

"if you torture the data for long enough, it will confess to anything"

[@GeezNutz]

Great platitude. Means nothing without context. Greg Nuckols isn't a liar or an idiot.

[@Swamp_Donkey_]

@@GeezNutz dang it must be hard being so dumb, im sorry bro 💪

[@jonz23m]

​​​@@GeezNutz his analysis design is still bad. It's pretty useless.

[@aureate]

​@@GeezNutzHe misapplied statistics. If you have two Gaussian distributions, and you only compare the two tails ends of the populations, you can conclude a whole lot of nothing. You need to know the median and/or mean of the two populations, which Greg didn't provide. The 10% conclusion presumes that the populations are identical in terms of standard deviation with a 10% shift in the mean. The data does not rule out a tigher variance in the population of PED-users. If that were the case (and I would wager that it is), then the difference statistically is much larger than a mere 10%. It's like if you compare the IQ distributions between men and women. Men have much more variance than women, where women are more centered about the mean. If you only look that the tail ends of the plots, you find that both men and women both reach the same IQ, and you would wrongly conclude that there is little difference between men and women. The standard deviation is a critical piece of information that Greg omitted.

[@radu2173]

Meanwhile in my local gym, no steroids people vs 16 y o(for real) on steroids: 100%

[@davidhealy4534]

I don't think so🙄

[@musashiwebb]

If true, that's wild. My body my choice, I suppose.

[@ZedzDed311]

Kids be eating those SARMS sandwiches

[@theupson]

use of records instead of some suitable measure of average makes the results far more variable than necessary. it also introduces bias insofar as the difference between maximum and average is an _increasing_ function of sample size.

[@BlackBird26]

If you think roids only make you 10% stronger you’re delusional

[@rickharris275]

There is also another way to do this, with much the same result. Comparing the few years prior to the ipf going tested and the ipf a few year after. Judging the same individuals lifts both on and off drugs. Pretty much about 10% difference.

[@AgitpropPsyop]

First cycle added 35lbs to my bench when before I was completely plateaued. It feels like an enormous change.

[@drstevenbrule4406]

yeah bc they cant be beating tests. I went to a local meet once and a guy was going to get tested and they just looked him and were like nah hes natty and didnt test him lol

[@carlosoliver1887]

The dramatic difference would come in an experiment where maximum training volume was measured every week, that and muscle gains are the most noticeable changes when it comes to PED use.

[@Asdfbedffhdsxe345]

Definitely not true. I’m 45 and I’ve been training for two years, I bench pressed 200kg ( 450lb) for 7 reps and I way 200lb. The maximum I could naturally ever press was about 100kg. I know my limits and there’s no way I should ever be able to bench 200kg. Only the secret sauce can do that.

[@andresruval]

This has to be a joke lol

[@PinataOblongata]

2 years and you think you reached your natty limit? I've been training for 9 years and still making progress. Small, incremental progress, for sure, but still progress.

[@DarthBane-zf8wv]

100kg was not your Natty limit. Haven’t trained enough to know.

[@Xplora213]

Training for two years? You need to be hitting 10 before I would consider you had hit a real plateau. You responded well to gear and surely started eating properly.

[@sleeper9638]

Guys I think he meant training two years enchanced and before thag in his training was only able to push 100

[@Kabra2012]

For competitive athletes, a 10% diff is absolutely worth it for them. For ppl who just want to look and feel good, the downsides would surely outweigh the upsides, right?

[@graff8757]

My friend reckons before steroids he could only lift 100 kg of feathers, now hes on steroids he can lift 100 kg of steel.

[@dude157]

I think they should compare the median lifts for each weight category. If you go for World records you're very likely including people on at least moderate PED use or lifters that may have used in the past in the tested category. In addition record holders are likely genetic freaks too so they aren't representative of normal people If you compare the median lifts, this will ignore outliers, and it's much more likely that that the people in the tested category are clean. I would predict that the gap would be closer to 20% but I haven't looked at the numbers.

[@diogofs25]

Biggest difference is the speed of progression

[@hendrikmoons8218]

It is not just in the total power, like in how much you can bench that the difference sits. It is in your recoverytime after a night's sleep. Off the roids, you need about 48 hours, sometimes 72 hours before you hit the same musclegroup again. Roided up, well 24 hours inbetween should do it, unless you hit em light, then go boy, bench it again.

[@toxicworld7211]

It also highly depends on which steroids you're using. You're not going to get the same effects of Tren while taking Anadrol or other weaker forms of steroids, it also depends on the dosage and length of each of your cycles.

[@cerhfhrow4122]

This also does not account for the extra muscle from steroid, as you would then move up weight classes

[@rc198028]

Not necessarily... PED's will help increase muscle mass and decrease body fat ... no change in weight required.

[@jarredjenkins8054]

Natural 180 lbs vs Enhanced 180lbs Is 10% stronger. If someone weighs 180 lbs hops on steroids and bulks upto 220 and then you compare that to his previous weight class Lets test on Deadlifts. . 2.5xBW@180 =450 2.5xBW@220 =550 +10% =605 That is actually a 25% strength increase.

[@baconbitz2092]

It’s cool to see how much RP has grown in the last couple of years. You can certainly tell they are reaching a wider audience by a lot of these comments 🙂

[@jessejacobs]

The true advantage of steroids is not the strength increase. It's the recovery and muscle repair increase. It's why most footballers end up using them and getting huge bans.

[@Caio-ow5tm]

No, this means that not all people on drug tested events are natty. The best ones might be tho, since they get tested more often

[@jessejacobs]

@@Caio-ow5tm yes a lot of them are on steroids and there are ways of cheating the system. Some are naturally gifted but what causes them to end up using steroids is lack of discipline.

[@Caio-ow5tm]

@@jessejacobs it's def not lack of discipline

[@jessejacobs]

@@Caio-ow5tm it is a discipline issue, watch interviews of Kobe and Cristiano Ronaldo. Those guys had talent but what made them GOATS was the discipline. Other players may have been more talents but no where near as disciplined.

[@Caio-ow5tm]

@@jessejacobs Dorian Yates, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ronnie Coleman, Jay Cutler, etc. All some of the greatest work ethics in their sport and all of them were doing steroids. Steroids isn't what makes great champions but it doesn't disqualify them either.

[@tylert2413]

I lifted for 5 years straight consistently. Did a oral only cycle of turinabol at a moderate dose and put 150 pounds on my squat 8 weeks later. Also this completely contradicts other advice hes given. “Enhanced lifters often suffer injuries because their muscles grow faster than their tendons and ligaments can keep up”. If the difference was only 10% you would not have this problem

[@anthonycampana1105]

10% in a population with great genetics. I wonder what the difference is among regular people with average/poor genetics

[@rickharris275]

About the same, adjusted fir weight class, 10%

[@FiFiFilth]

This really doesn't answer most people seek. That is because they compared athletes from the same weight classes, that probably also had pretty ideal body compositions already. So they factored any muscle gains out of the equation. What Dr. Mike answeres is this: How much stronger will you get on steroids, without gaining any muscle or weight. If the average gymbro starts doing PEDs and gains alot of weight in the process, he will get immensely stronger.

[@noahgore7931]

I think the study lacks a true "control" group outside of the possibility of enhanced athletes in the "unenhanced" group. I'd think you'd want to do an intentional study that eliminates variables like training schedule, diet, and body type (to the best degree possible). Group A uses steroids, Group B doesnt. 100 people both sides, 50/50 male to female and like 3 different weight categories

[@FiFiFilth]

Mike just answered how much stronger you will get without gaining any weight, as they compared lifters from the same weight classes.

[@ericrenner4411]

Or just comparing off cycle lifters to on cycle lifters

[@FiFiFilth]

​@@ericrenner4411 also a very good point, as most 'natural' competitors are not on fact natural

[@thewintersoldier383]

I tried to explained to someone that TJ dillashaw lost on steroids to a clean opponent. And hundreds of more fighters. Steroids really just make certain people LOOK better. It’s not a super human drug.

[@test5093]

I think this is more about how much stronger you can get if you don't have to hide your drug use versus having to hide it.

[@firmament0]

10% was for a given weight category. The difference is actually huge. Let's say you trained your whole life naturally and can bench 136 kg for 75 kg. Now, *without changing weight*, with steroids you can reach 150 kg. Tbh it's more likely than smaller guys went to 75 kgs but that illustrate things better.

[@JackOfAllWeights]

I friend of mine had a 170kg snatch when he stopped the roids due to medical issues his snatch was 120 kg. He always competed in tested competitions… how would they do this test knowing people are clean!? In Peking ALL the Chinese lifters where popped almost 10 years later. But when they won they where clean!

[@johanjotun1647]

the difference between winning any of the strongman events was much smaller than 10%

[@NatSoc14888]

I always get asked or accused of being on TRT or SARMS because of my age and ability to still pack muscle on ..eat like a bodybuilder on the off season and still remain at or under 10%BFP...personally i just think i found the key that unlocked my genetic door because of diet and lifestyle...

[@hopj2223]

B.S. It's more than ten percent. You have to test the individual vs his or her non steroid use to their steroid use. It makes you MUCH stronger than your original self. There are also different potent steroids.

[@Billionaireben]

There are natty guys who can squat over 1000lbs, but if you go from natty to steroids that agree with you; you may triple your endurance, increase your metabolism (including ability to assimilate protein), increase strength, recover faster and maybe not even have soreness that you'd otherwise have. You gain faster, don't put on fat, lose fat faster if not bulking (maybe even while bulking.) I'd say it's 300% of what you'd do while growing, probably only an extra 50lbs of lean mass from natural potential. I can't quantify that to lifts, but for gains; I'd say that's 300% in short term and 20% in long term.

[@Hatredy11]

It's a better measure of how much strength you lose off-cycle. Off-cycle doesn't equate to natural.

[@standarsh8056]

10 percent doesn't seem like much, but for top level athletes 10 percent is the difference between first and last

[@Xplora213]

Very true , but most people on gear are not pro athletes at all.

[@382u3uuej]

@@Xplora213 But they get those big boy muscles that makes men want them and women want to be them.

[@standarsh8056]

@@Xplora213 was lumping peds into that aswell

[@Xplora213]

@@standarsh8056 the point is that there is very little justification to get on gear, you are limited by genetics for your success.

[@christersmith5470]

Building the connective tissues to handle the extra weight without tearing stuff takes much longer.

[@MrVincentTremblay]

I expected 30% but even 10% is big. BUT is it big enough to ruin your physical and mental health? I think probably not.

[@charlesdean640]

1% is still winning, which is why they do it

[@l8zycool]

The lifters in the tested federations are or probably were taking steroids at some point during their training. It probably depends what you're taking too. I know some people at the gym and the difference in benching and squatting pre and post steroids is night and day. It's very common to see their main compound lifts shoot 20-30% in just a few months.

[@Obscurite1221]

There's a very simple way to fix the problem of unregulated steroid use in weight lifting. Have people who use steroids submit that they're using steroids and dock their lifts by like 8-10% to compensate, whatever the calculated average might be. Sure, it might lead to people getting salty for whatever reason, but it'll bring steroid use roughly into parity with natural competition. Juciers will still get their increased lifts, and naturals can still compete. Both will still work their asses off, so might as well let them pit effort against effort. This also means that EVERYONE gets tested thoroughly before a lift. Yes, it's currently a crime, but this solution assumes that the legality is a non-factor. It also means that anyone who willingly enters a competition and submits that they're juicing will acknowledge that they will be penalized before they ever attempt a lift. Will help alleviate the cries of unfairness.

[@Bombsuitsandkilts]

I think the big thing to remember is that little differences in averages can equal huge swings on the margins, so maybe 10 guys see a 1% increase and 1 guy gets a 50% increase and it averages out to 10%

[@SteveColescott01]

These are not necessarily anabolic-users, just non-tested. Maybe those annoying tests are just the last thing you want to spend the time on it when you are focusing on some PRs

[@Phenomenalll]

This is 10% at the very end of the curve though, so it's much more significant than it sounds

[@eirikram]

So a 10% increase on a 225lb bench 1RM would increase to roughly 250. That's totally not worth doing drugs. Stay healthy and safe.

[@Nobody-bq7pl]

That’s the overall percentage meaning all classes. I think if you were to break it down depending on the class as he mentioned the percentage would be highly different. The real stat I want to know is the standard deviation.

[@0blivionCor]

I imagine that after 10 years of training consistently and properly, this is a lot more true than say after 3-5 years of train where an enhanced lifter would probably have a lot higher advantage.

[@gregd4391]

The problem with this is, there are lots of drug users competing in drug tested contests.

[@DouglasGross6022]

People respond differently, too

[@theovercomer2006]

Guys that means you can achieve awesome strength and hypertrophy and not severely shorten your life by taking steroids.

[@shanehardin5589]

Like Charles Glass said, strength and building muscle aren’t the same thing. That’s the difference here. He’s comparing strength and not building muscle.

[@rniejx4219]

Muscle size =/= strength, so 10% may actually be true, although on the low end due to some cheating. If you were looking into ultimate muscle size, or muscle mass:leanness ratio, you would find much larger variance.

[@mrrprelentlesspressure4983]

Yes it can’t be only a 10% difference

[@nationalgeo2191]

Everybody is saying cap. Could be true. But strength numbers doesn’t vary nearly as much as actual body mass does when it comes to steroid use. So a guy on roids could have 20-30 pounds more muscle mass at the extremes, but when it comes to raw strength, that 10 percent figure doesn’t sound too far off. I’d say 20 percent to be safe. Moral of the story if you wanna get strong as shit no need for steroids.

[@farhanhussain_]

it would have been better if same lifter's maxes were noted when he/she was not using drugs and when drugs were used.

[@coachmikaellaakso]

Probably true. Steroids make you stronger of course. And I have no experiense in this but I think mostly it makes you stronger by being able to gain muscle mass faster. So if you compare same weight class, 10% might be true

[@RoidfreeSenior]

yeah, have always heard that

[@powerrob7863]

A more precise analysis would be comparing athletes in the USA or other 1st world country with some not so developed country. That's because in rich countries there is more facilities to use PEDs and more knolowedge on how to use them, because we can all agree that being in a tested competition doesn't mean much. I'm from Mexico, and from what I've seen, the differences from the top lifters in USA vs Mexico would be closer to 20%, a bit more or less.

[@ryankirsch3609]

2to5% for me.....not.worth it.for strength gains, but helps.alot for aesthetics. Still quit doing cycles as the cost the health risks werent worth it

[@nichtsistkostenlos6565]

Yeah, in the tested federations they're still on steroids, they're just more careful. The 10% is just comparing steroid users that are restricted by what they can get away with vs. steroid users that are unencumbered. I don't know what the percentage is, but all this study proved is that something north of 10%.

[@davidcohen7881]

One thing not mentioned is the fact that the body weight will probably go up and a person that was naturally in the 75 KG can go up at to 82 KG, 90 KG or even 100 KG.

[@danski6694]

A ton stronger. Once the gear kicks in your lift’s immediately improve Only problem is it becomes increasingly difficult to get stronger naturally. Thats what I’m finding out right now

[@unregisturd]

I heard that this figure is used to unofficially confirm PED use in Olympic lifting. If a lifters best lift is within 10% of the world record lifts they are on PEDs. This makes an assumption that none of the records at any weight level have been made natural, an assumption which no one in their right mind questions.

[@UTUBEJOHNNY74]

Gave me at least 30% , so take that for what it’s worth

[@FiFiFilth]

Doing steroids you will gain a lot of strength really quickly if you can build mass without being under weight restrictions. The end point for people with the same weight might not be that much different, but you will get there faster on steroids, and you will also get heavier, so you will be alot stronger than just 10%

[@jacksonmclellan3370]

At the top I can see it being closer but the average geared lifter and average natural lifter aren’t even remotely close.

[@thejuiceisloose8703]

Tested doesn't mean hasn't used before. I'm sure the absolute strength of a steroid user vs a never used steroid guy is significant

[@jessemcdaniel5923]

10% is wild if you throw that into powerlifting. Someone with a 500 lb deadlift could legit lift 550 or 700 now 770. That’s assuming the studied individuals were truly natural

[@oridge100]

Best competition bench I had as a natty was 385 lbs @ 220 BW. Best competition bench I had after hopping on gear was 525 @ 242 BW. So a 36% increase 🤔

[@hithro5466]

Your dots on bench went up about 25% of that 25% about 15% can be attributed to additional training time, larger weight cuts, and this is based on the total and some people have been paying around the idea that steroids help some lifts more than others based on androgen receptors bench likely benefits more than squats from a percentage perspective. So it could be bench goes up 15% in dots but squats go up 7.5% in dots but because squats are a larger portion of your total it averages out to 10%

[@user-ov9hk6vk9s]

What weight lifters do you speak of? Were they powerlifters, Olympic style lifters, or "CrossFit" type lifters? Training techniques will effect how much weight is lifted.

[@PowerliftingAndPhysics]

One flaw with the methodology is those tested lifters could have used in the past.

[@orestbala7722]

The thing is they are all the time at their "10%" boost compared to natties who got to their peak during hard work ups and downs. And at the time of the comparison it was just 10% allegedly. In my opinion its best to take a lifetime natty who has hit a plateau for 3years and get him on gear without changing his program or anything else. Then u can get the real difference between gear and natty

[@ScbSnck]

Cause they all use it

[@XX-rs7sq]

The strength difference may be 10% at peak lvls, but did he measure the years training?

[@s.a.f8794]

Well if your more aggressive your 9 times outta 10 gonna be stronger because your gonna have more drive and motivation mentally and physically more than likely and also depends on what compounds your running some make you strong ass shit probably more than 10 percent.