Talk:Richard Sandrak
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
[edit] Myostatin claims
Where is the evidence for the claim that he has a defective myostatin gene ? It doesn't even make sense as organisms with a defect in this gene have an large degree of muscle mass even when there is no environmental cue. This means he should have always been, and always continue to be quite muscular, which was not the case - at one point he was quite out of shape.
[edit] Anabolic Steriod Use, a response?
If his dad was giving up steriods secretely it would have had to have been oral (in his shakes), not intramuscular. Therefore, they would have had to be of the 17AA (I think that's what they're called) kind which means heavy liver damage if used for extended periods of time. In a child as young as 6 this, surely, would have caused death.
Anabolic steriods don't enable a person to bench 3 times their weight, especially at 8 years old. If I took all the steriods in the world, I still wouldn't be benching 420lbs @ 140lb bodyweight and I'm a 22 year old man, let alone when I was 8 years old. IMO he's a genetic wonderchild. And his less bulky figure and more looking body is a result of his farther not pushing him to train like a mad man. Further, if his farther went to jail and the steriods stopped instantly surely Richard would not have been able to cycle off whatever he was on correctly, leading to long term problems of his body shutting down its own testostorne production.
Just because he has superior genetics to you in that respect, it doesn't mean that he wasn't being fed steroids.
I'm no expert on this matter, far from it. I, however, would like this information to be presented to the public. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in anabolic steriod use and effects could draft something up and insert it into the article?
Also a further point in reply to the 8 pack - that is compltely genetic. IFBB bodybuilders take vast quantaties of steriods but don't magically have an 8 pack. It's entirely genetic. The 8 pack simply isn't a sign of steriod use. Further, contrary to poular belief you dont need to work the abs for them to show through. They are already increadibly dense and it just needs bodyfat lowering so one can see them. It's the same thing with calf muscles, that's why you can see everyone's calfs unless they are grossly overweight. Even in 6 year old children.
Dushyant Patel
[edit] Movie Deal
Richard has a 3 movie deal, the first of which, Little Hercules in 3-D, will be out summer of 2006.
- putting in his school name is an invitation for problems to him, I will remove it if you put it in. TripleH1976 07:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I took out the part about him not being able to have a six pack. That statement seems specious and only put there to amuse as it is also followed by "..." I think a source should be needed before such a statement is said. I remember some of my younger cousins having six packs and whatnot. Normally what determines such muscle definition in the abs is fat content and not development of the abdominal muscle. -Ryan
- not true, you can be a slim guy and not have muscle definition in your abs. Those muscles need to be exercised just like any other. Richard, at the age of 6, had his abs too defined. The poor guy his dad must have only fed him vegetables. I'm glad he's away from him now. TripleH1976 03:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Alot of kids aged 11-13 have six-packs!
- We are not talking about "alot of kids" we're talking about Richard Sandrak. Furthermore, Richard goes beyond a six-pack. At age 6, he had an eight-pack. Something very rare for a 6 year old. TripleH1976 Sun 08:22 p.m., 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Most of my younger cousins and friends have small six packs.
-
- Good for them. But what the hell is your point? TripleH1976 Mon, 15:57 p.m., 19 June 2006 (UTC)
My point is that most kids actually do have six packs just not really ripped ones like Richard.
-
-
- All right, fine, I'm not disputing that you can get a six-pack. So long as you eat properly and you get plenty of exercise, yes, you can get them. However, when it comes to Richard Sandrak, when he was 6 years old, he had more then a six-pack. He had an eight-pack; a very defined eight-back. That's not normal for a 6 year old. It takes many years for an adult to get an eight-pack. I believe his father was giving him steroids. Richard was unaware of it. What small child believes his father is giving him sport enhancing drugs? None, because children trust their parents and believe they have their best interest at heart. TripleH1976 Tue 03:00 a.m., 20 June 2006 (UTC)
-
If his dad was giving up steriods it would have had to have been oral, not intramuscular. Therefore, they would have had to be of the 17AA kind which means heavy liver damage if used for extended periods of time. In a child as young as 6 this, surely, would have caused death. Anabolic steriods don't enable a person to bench 3 times their weight, especially at 8 years old. If I took all the steriods in the world, I still wouldn't be benching 420lbs @ 140lb bodyweight. IMO he's a genetic wonderchild. And his less bulky figure and more looking body is a result of his farther not pushing him to train like a mad man. Further, if his farther went to jail and the steriods stopped instantly surely Richard would not have been able to cycle off whatever he was on correctly, leading to long term problems of his body shutting down its own testostorne production.
Most athletic kids will show a tiny six pack or eight.
-
- WE AREN'T TALKING ABOUT TINY, ALL RIGHT? I'M REFERRING TO A WELL-DEFINED, BULGING 8-PACK. You seem to want to argue with me for the sake of arguing. You have brought nothing to the discussion to explain why Richard, at the age of 6, could have a well-defined bulging set of 8 pack. The fact that you can say your young cousins or friend, athletic or not, have tiny 6-packs DOES NOT explain Richard. I don't know how old you are, but judging by your comments you must be pretty young. I suggest you grow up a little bit and learn a few things about human anatomy and biology, and then you'll understand why Richard's eight-pack, at 6 years old, could not have come from regular exercise alone. I'm finished with you. TripleH1976 Thurs, 18:54 p.m., 22 June 2006 (UTC)
You suck! You piece of crap!
Can I ask for all of your sources that pertain to a 6 year old not able to obtain a well defined eight pack without steroid usage? Thanks
Young kids can have little six packs, but an eight pack like Richard, no, just not possible without some sort of muscle enhancing drug, its just stupid. Hes not on steroids now and he just has a six pack, don't you think it would take a while for natural muscle to wear off, not with steriods, it can come off quickly. It obvious that he used steroids.
