the other day we were looking around the interweb and found this site that had all of these photos of celebs who had done super-fast bulk ups and the writers of this blog (i'm guessing that's what it was) were questioning if steroid use was involved.
so, i did a little research on my own. i found out that other than an initial surge in muscle-mass gain that will last few weeks, it is only possible for the human body to put on 6-8 pounds of muscle a month. that's A MONTH, people! now, for those celebs who don't want their new muscle hiding under bulky fat they then have to go on another sort of work out regime that involves continued weight training, loads of cardio, and good old-fashioned dieting. the only way to get those ripped bodies is to bulk up and then drop body fat so that all you can see is the underlying muscle. this is why body builders have such low body fat. the less you have, the more muscle you can see. in fact, i found out that all of us have six packs hiding under our bellies, regardless of how many sit ups some of may (not) have done in the last 10 some-odd years. that is simply the shape of the muscle that we all have and the only way to make them pop out is to lose that body fat (which, of course, is easier said that done).
so, knowing that putting on something like 30+ pounds of muscle and trimming the body fat to make your body look cut is an impossible feat without the use of steroids (which we all know are very bad), let's see if we think these celebs did or did not use steroids to get into their fighting fit shape...
let's start with christian bale. this man went from THIS in 'The Machinist'
to THIS in 'Batman Begins'
this transformation took place over a mere 6 month period. in that time he gained 100 pounds (not of pure muscle, just 100 pounds) i am going to vote no on steroid use here, and this is why. Bale's super thin frame in "The Machinist" would have put on fat in an absurdly quick period of time. his body was literally starving to death. he could have easily gained half of that weight in pure fat in a month alone. so, in the 6 months that it took him to transform he put on 100 pounds of body weight and (so my sources tell me) could not have put on more than around 50 pounds of muscle-mass. in "Batman Begins" he's obviously very muscular, but really look at him and you'll see that when he's not flexing, he's not all that cut. this means that he probably only did the body fat cutting routine for a short period of time. i think that it's reasonable that he could have done this without the use of steroids (for what it's worth, the guy on that blog agrees with me). what do you think? steroids or no steroids? (it must be noted here that the guy on that blog pointed out that bale is an extreme method actor and would probably not have done steroids if his character wouldn't have done them- making it less likely that he did use them. i think that this is a sort of moronic explanation for why bale couldn't have used steroids, but whatever).let's move on to a more clear-cut (no pun intended) case... Edward Norton. this is what he looked like in that whatever it was called richard gere movie. ONE MONTH LATER he began filming "American History X"
...and showed up looking like this. the man put on 40 pounds of sheer muscle (not to mention did the whole fat-burning, make you look cut thing) in a mere 30 DAYS!
now, according to my research, this is not physically possible without the use of steroids. it just can't happen. he claims that he worked out every single day and ate... blah blah blah... it's bullshit. the man was on the juice. there's no doubt about it. we've already established that you can't gain more that 6-8 pounds of muscle in a month (again, there's a surge at the beginning, so we'll give him an extra 5 pound of muscle in that time period- which is being generous) and say that it was possible for him to have gained around 13 pounds of muscle in that period of time. this does not include the time that it would have taken him to de-bulk and lose the fat that would have been required to put on the muscle in the first place so that he could look all cut up. so, what do you think? juice or no juice? i say that there's no argument. somebody was sticking needles in eddie's ass (and not in a good way).
ok, let's move on to someone who that blogger guy SWEARS is juiced out, but i think he's full of crap... the Madge herself. first of all, i want everyone to recall that for the last 20 some-odd years madonna has been a work out freak!! she's totally all yogaed out (not to mention she does pillates and strength training and cycling and god only knows what else). let's also recall that even in the 80s when she was softer, she was never THAT soft. the woman's a dancer. she's always had a good bit of muscle mass and has always been thin. now, this blogger guy swears she's on the juice. this is the 'before photo' that he says clinches his argument. for one, i would like to say that if he honestly thinks that this magazine cover hasn't been airbrushed to hell, he's on something (and it ain't juice). i would also like to point out that it's been well over 20 years that took madonna from her 'like a virgin' body to...
this hard body. we all remember that movie she made with rupert 'angry queen' everett (sp?). she looked totally toned in that movie. i think a lot of people underestimate the muscle building power of yoga (and on an already slim frame, well...)
i don't think madge is on the juice at all. i think she's hyper-skinny. i think she dances and works out for hours upon hours a day and that she eats a ridiculous macrobiotic diet that keeps her very thin and keeps her body fat super low so that her muscles really show. again, let's recall that it's been over 20 years since her not at all out of shape (soft, but still muscular body) went from 'lucky star' to what you see above. that's plenty of time to put on tons of muscle (and to lose tons of body fat). i think we all know that this would-be brit is totally ocd and works out like a maniac. yeah, she's muscular, but it's not like she's body builder muscular. she's just lean muscle. that's not juice, that's money and lots of time on your hands. so, what do you think here? juice or no juice?ultimately, i think it's up to everyone (other than athletes, that i think is not cool) to decided if they should take steroids or not. i think it's a stupid choice, but i've stood by and watch people make worse ones. BUT, if celebrities are now using steroids to bulk for films or whatever i think it's a slippery slope. do we really need one more thing to look at them about and ask ourselves, 'why do i not look like that?'. i think that if they're juicing, they should come out and say it, so that at least we know why we can't put on 40 pounds of muscle in a month (then again, that might be dangerous and lead to a whole bunch of kids going out and following suit!). oi, what a dilemma! what do you think? should they tell the truth? are they on it or aren't they? you be the judge...
