15% of Clemson's Football Team Tests Positive for PED's

Submitted by xtramelanin on January 28th, 2019 at 2:16 PM

Mates,

Came across this headline this afternoon, sure to warm you up even more than great slow cooker recipes.  I have ad blocker so reading the entire article is tough, but the gist of the article is as the headline states, 15% of the team tested positive for PED's. 

Link to article here: https://www.postandcourier.com/columnists/clemson-s-drug-probe-doesn-t-include-testing-all-football/article_6615cdf8-219d-11e9-9663-cfd49594d1b2.html

No wonder Clemson is doing so well?  #PED's are worth it? 

Sad if true, but I guess its not surprising.

XM

 

DrMantisToboggan

January 28th, 2019 at 5:17 PM ^

Eating enough is by far the hardest part of adding muscle, and I love eating food. I put on 60 pounds of muscle over 3 years as a teenager. I would kill a dozen eggs every two days about, would eat the fattiest meats, everything. For a while, until I broke through a sort of ceiling, I was literally eating until it hurt to eat. 

footballguy

January 28th, 2019 at 5:18 PM ^

Both of you are bullshitting.

You are both either lying, or don't know how much muscle you actually put on.

I was a collegiate athlete who was extremely dedicated to diet and training regimen (in season, and out of season when I was mostly training on my own).

Neither of your alleged gains are possible

DrMantisToboggan

January 28th, 2019 at 5:26 PM ^

I walked on here. I came in at 205 and had to get to 235 to play the position. I weighed 235 (verified by Schembechler Hall scales) by December of my freshman year. I only ate real food and trained, never touched a supplement.

Sorry that your training didn't go as well as mine.

DrMantisToboggan

January 28th, 2019 at 8:11 PM ^

Of course some was water, but some was water at 205 too. You can’t add muscle without adding water weight, and if you’re making significant strength gains I don’t see the point in delineating between muscle gains and marginal gains in water weight.

As for fat, very little. I probably was not single digit BF, but right around 10 yeah. 11 or 12% maybe? Defined abs without flexing/sucking in/etc which really isn’t possible above 14% or 15%.

Don’t really know why it’s difficult to believe, or why we are now discussing in depth my body composition from years gone by lol.

DrMantisToboggan

January 28th, 2019 at 8:34 PM ^

Of course some was water, but some was water at 205 too. You can’t add muscle without adding water weight, and if you’re making significant strength gains I don’t see the point in delineating between muscle gains and marginal gains in water weight.

As for fat, very little. I probably was not single digit BF, but right around 10 yeah. 11 or 12% maybe? Defined abs without flexing/sucking in/etc which really isn’t possible above 14% or 15%.

Don’t really know why it’s difficult to believe, or why we are now discussing in depth my body composition from years gone by lol.

footballguy

January 28th, 2019 at 6:09 PM ^

I am not arguing with the ability to gain weight in that time.

But going from 205 to 235 in two months with that being all muscle if physiologically impossible. Especially considering he was already 205 and presumably lifting in some capacity before that.

You'd be surprised at how much water you can hold or how much fat you gain when going the route of extreme bulking. 

iMBlue2

January 28th, 2019 at 7:19 PM ^

We’re talking about somone who didn’t do much for diet or lifts then getting serious, for that person the gains will be quick to start

 

in your scenario you are correct somone who has already been eating clean and lifting regularly gains will be harder to come by, as they are presumably closer to personal max potential.

xtramelanin

January 29th, 2019 at 5:20 AM ^

i'm old.  those things didn't exist back then.  i was at or sub 10% in my later 20's and 30's when still playing football.  was leaner as a teenager.  most of my sons are like this now, and there are more than a few mgobloggers that have met them and i'm guessing would agree.  genetics.  

CMHCFB

January 29th, 2019 at 10:42 AM ^

I’m 50 and 10.23% body fat, I don’t understand the relevance tho?  First, no one is genetically predisposed to being thin. Ectomorphs (and other body types) have been disproven.  If you’re thin and your kids are lean it’s because of caloric intake and activity, not genetics.   Even in the NFL, the leanest athletes, receivers and DB’s play at about 9%-10%. The  difference between 9% and 5% is huge. Unless it’s bodybuidling peak week, males are not going to be at 5%    https://in-thinair.com/2016/05/03/the-nfl-body-part-2-body-fat-percentage/.

Im not trying to be a jerk, but most people vastly underestimate actual body fat percentages.  Guys can workout hard and add 2lbs a week and feel like it is all muscle becuase they are still fairly lean.  The reality is that no one, without juice, is going to add more than 1/2 pound of muscle per week.  

xtramelanin

January 29th, 2019 at 11:12 AM ^

not taking you as a jerk and thank you for posting the chart.  i noted that most of the sports have body fat % 5-8 as the low range so my numbers seem pretty dead-on.  at U of M they tested, poked, prodded, measured, calculated our physiology during camp like nothing i'd ever seen.  you would have thought we were at the olympic tryouts.  that was how i knew my measurables and how they changed like they did.  i actually got taller then, too.  i took a lot of crud for that as a freshman in the form of 'hey.  rookie.  what's up with you?' (said in a canadian accent).  

i do totally disagree with one comment you made though, the bit about 'body types'. heck, even my avatars twins are different and they share in equal portions about everything that could be shared.  

CMHCFB

January 29th, 2019 at 11:46 AM ^

If you were actively being measured, as long as it wasn’t bio electrical impedance, then your numbers were probably fairly accurate. I made the false assumption it was the mirror test.  

IMO somatypes can describe what a person looks like but it’s not the cause of what they look like.  Personally I struggled to gain weight in HS.  In college a 4,500 calorie per day diet quickly erased that challenge.  I wasn’t an ectomorph, I just wasn’t hungry naturally. The only fix was being uncomfortably full and eating calorie dense foods.   We can agree to disagree on that.   Thanks  

https://www.justinwoltering.com/the-truth-about-somatotypes/

tFerriState

January 28th, 2019 at 6:24 PM ^

Agree. The guy saying 60# over the course of 3 years is probably accurate at a rate of a little over 1.5# per month of lean muscle tissue. Those claiming upwards of 15-20# over 2-3 months of “muscle” are not taking into account for excess water retention and fat which is normal in a bulking cycle. While it’s impressive to put on that much mass in a short amount of time, it’s vaulabe to understand how much lean muscle you have actually gained. 

iMBlue2

January 28th, 2019 at 6:32 PM ^

Everyone’s body is different, personally when i started lifting and eating clean I found that I quickly added lean mass at my peak I would add about 2 pounds a week.  Now the downside of this is that the opposite is also true when I’m a loaf and drink beers and eat crap I add excess adipose tissue at the same rate...yes holidays are rough.   Much like the good doctor my coach switched my position and I was tasked with adding “good” weight they had a nutritionist put me on a 7500 calorie a day diet which consisted of a lot of chicken, brown rice, sweet potatoes, and salmon.  Workouts twice a day.  It was a chore but the results were there I grew immensely stronger.

iMBlue2

January 28th, 2019 at 7:25 PM ^

The nervous system along with training tendons which are really the heavy lifters in the body for sure play a huge role.  But as a by product of taxing these parts of the body it’s inevitable to gain at least some lean mass. Without good nutrition the strength gains are finite and any person would plateau 

CMHCFB

January 29th, 2019 at 9:34 PM ^

No, everybody is not different in the sense “some people” can add 2 lbs a week of muscle.  No one, period, ever.  I can’t be more clear about this.  NOBODY IS ADDING MORE THAN 1/2 LB PER WEEK OF MUSCLE, PERIOD, NOBODY.  Adding 2lbs a week and not looking fat is totally different than adding 2lbs of muscle.   When I say it’s physiologically impossible, it means no human can do it.   No human can gain 2lbs of muscle a week regardless of how much juice you take either.  Eat  your Test, Dboll, Winnie V, Tren and Sarm sandwich every day and you can’t gain 2 lbs a week of muscle.    Drop the “when I lifted” bs and show a single study that shows it being possible or look at 40 years of research showing the max potential, regardless of genetics or level of training showing 1/4 lb a week is the max. FFS, the flat Earthers are closer to being scientifically correct. F

CMHCFB

January 28th, 2019 at 8:36 PM ^

I can’t tell if you are delusional, ignorant, or both??  Your ridiculous claim of gaining 3.75 lbs of muscle per week is pure BS, Dr. Full it...   No one who isn’t taking juice is putting on more than 1/2 pound per week of lean body mass.  Period.  Even taking a stack of juice no one can put on muscle at that rate.   You had a huge caloric surplus, don’t understand physiology and think your fat is muscle or you’re  just a tool..which is it?  

CMHCFB

January 28th, 2019 at 8:46 PM ^

https://www.menshealth.com/fitness/a19515623/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain/.  Pick one of 100 different sources or validated studies. You actually believe that nonsense?   In a  good weight program in college I put on 22lbs in a year and even that was likely not all pure muscle.  You can gain weight but nobody can put on more than 1/2*lb of lean body mass in a week. Period.  

CMHCFB

January 29th, 2019 at 10:28 PM ^

There’s the evidence Khaleke, now you can, as you eloquently put it, shut up.  There are multitudes of studies on this topic, it’s not even a debate.  Try learning for yourself instead of hanging on anecdotal bs stories.  

iMBlue2

January 28th, 2019 at 2:23 PM ^

It’s rampant and the product that dexter Lawrence claims he was positive for (ostarine) is used all the time as a post cycle therapy to re stimulate the production of natural testosterone, which shuts down when there is an abundance of the artificial stuff.  Very rarely do guys get caught with the actual steroids as much of the stuff is not known to regulators, it’s the PCT that gets flagged

mGrowOld

January 28th, 2019 at 2:26 PM ^

Which means 85% of the team has better masking agents than those losers.

Dabo not gonna like hearing about those idiots who got caught.  Need to take more care before peeing in the cup boys.  

Dallas Walmart…

January 28th, 2019 at 2:26 PM ^

Misleading thread title.  What the article says is that 15% of those that were screened (less than 20 players) tested positive.  The title of this post implies that much more extensive testing was done and that the same results were found throughout the team.