I once read a statistic (can someone confirm?) that 50% of all NFL players 'roid. I was surprised… by how low that was! The stereotype is that they ALL roid. The idea that fully half of all pro football players do not roid, and yet seem to still be able to make it as pros, says something about how necessary they really are to be a pro athlete.
In non-tested federations (like in Japan), I would be shocked if most of the fighters didn’t use. Except for the heavyweights, steroids are most likely for recovery – means they can work harder, longer, and recover from injuries quicker. They’re also used to prevent catabolism while cutting.
I get you man…
I even agree that your point has merit, but I would prefer it otherwise. Like I said…THat is MY preference.
I am currently trying to pack on mass, actually; and I am currently exploring legal supplement stacks for efficacy. My current experiment is DHEA/4-androstenediol/BCAA combination. I started yesterday…see my training log for the day-by-day. :icon_cool
I have to take a light steroid medication for severe asthma. If just a small dose like that can weaken your bones, which this one has for me, I cannot see using roids for MMA. Who wantt to fight with soft bones, even if your muscles are strong? I don’t personally care what people do to themselves, but I don’t see how weakening bones improves your fighting, unless I am missing something.
Albuterol?
or Prednisone?
Both of those operate differently from a typical anabolic steroid…although they are in the same family.
Albuterol and the Advair Diskus (not sure what the proper name for it is). But the point is, my doctor gave me a long lecture on steroid side effects (he also got into the kinds athletes sometimes use). Maybe he is part of this “mainsteam media conspiracy” people talk about. But at the end of the day, I trust my physicians opinion over some keg head’s at GNC. My experience is, people who really want to use steroids will believe the scenario that makes them feel most comfortable. Having seen the way some people act on the stuff, I would say the “mainstream media” is right about it.
It is further clouded by the fact that everyone is going to repond differently…some people don’t have too many side effects at all.
Curious, how would one feel competing against someone using steriods as an advantage. It would make things a bit “iffy” depending on the outcome of said competition. I think this is the biggest problem with steroid use. Team A is all roided up and Team B isn’t, Team A barely manages to beat Team B. Would it be right to think that without the roids (depending on what they were used for, lets just say for example, to help them heal, so most of the top guys on Team A are in good condition as opposed to Team B), Team A wouldn’t have won? Mind you this is just a random scenario but it shows that the little difference it does give, could have been enough for a win. That would mean that it wasn’t natural athletic ability that won, but a chemical. You can’t say that all athletes should be able to use it because some don’t want that mess inside of them.
Sure, some people don’t. I don’t think there is anything cloudy about it. That is like saying that the verdict is still out on whether cocaine is good for you or not. The medical community is pretty clear on the issue, it is bad for you. The majority of people do suffer at least moderate side effects over time. Either way, it is clearly not good for your body. Everyone I have met who claims to be on the stuff clearly is affected emotionally in a very bad way. I don’t understand this attitude that assumes there is a debate about the issue, because a few manufacturers have released contrary information. That said, someone wants to do it, fine by me. It just seems there are alot of people out there with nothing but an undergrad degree disputing the claims of professional physicians. There are also people out there selling ‘herbal cures’ for cancer and herpes. Physicians could be wrong, but like I said, I would take their advice over the advice of some guy at GNC.
i believe bas rutten already addressed the steroids issue properly and succinctly.
The issue is cloudy not because of the perceived lack of side effects, the issue becomes cloudy because of what people (sans medical degrees) BELIEVE this lack of side effects implies. They think it means doctors are wrong. They are idiots.
Steroids are bad for the body. There is no way around that. They WILL mess you up to a varying degree. They can even kill you. That’s why I won’t touch 'em.
Period.
Do you have any links (or other sources I can find) that have reliable info on what’s out there and what they do and do not do? It would be great to know where to look to get unbiased, factual info.
Steroids are bad for the body. There is no way around that. They WILL mess you up to a varying degree. They can even kill you. That’s why I won’t touch 'em.
Just to play devils advocate:
There is not one medical study published that links any ill effects in healthy adult males to use of AAS (Anabolic Androgenic Steroids). *notice i said use, not abuse.
However, when used as HRT, there are many published studies that report a laundry list of benifits from AAS.
the last statements is also very scewed, HRT or (Hormone Replacement Therapy) is for older individuals who can no longer produce test in the gonads (hahah I said gonads) effectively, and there for need it injected.
I would venture for those who have below average test numbers the same would hold true. The problems arise when you force feed your body false Hormones for long peroids of time. It creates more problems then I wish to list.
I am a firm believer that you can use AAS safely and effectively without harming yourself. Many have done it, and continue to do so.
My point, exactly.
If you have doctor to monitor, prescribe, and quality control you usage…risks can be minimal. Not non-existant…minimal. Pro athletes with entire teams of health professionals USUALLY do allright. (Lyle Alzaedo, Eddie Gurerro, Birget Dressel, not so much, though…)
I still don’t like 'em though.
PubMed
Journal of applied physiology and Endocrinology
Both these sites have MANY articles. They can get technical at times though. Let me dig a bit.
100% correct, there is no reason you should be doing anything ‘performance drug’ related without constant check ups from doctors.
As for the articles, the stuff on pub med and other medical sites can be tough to read for us non MD types. Although once you get used to some of the terminology its not all that bad.
Many bodybuilding websites have very comprehensive databases and detailed descriptions when it comes to endocrine systems. off the top of my head:
www.anabolicminds.com
www.bulknutrition.com
www.ironaddicts.com
Thanks for links and journals guys, I’ve always been against steroids but I have to admit that I really don’t know much about them at all. I’ve got some homework to do.
Albuterol is a beta-agonist, like ephedra, not a steroid. It’s an effective ergogenic aid though, and often used by athletes.
Fluticasone, found in Advair, is a CORTICOSTEROID. This is quite nearly the exact opposite of an anabolic steroid like those used by athletes. Corticoids break down muscle tissue. It’s noteworthy that anabolic steroids can assuage the catabolic effects of corticosteroids like cortisone and fluticasone without inhibiting their antiinflamatory effect. Some physicians are now more willing to prescribe an anabolic/anti-catabolic agent along with a corticoid regimen when appropriate.
Alzaedo, of course, was a victim of tainted Human Growth Hormone (produced by the old method of extraction from cadavers) and not by his use of anabolic steroids.
Dude.
If your primary concern really is heath and safety, you might consider staying away from DHEA and andro as well… I’m not sure how much better off you are with precursor hormones than you are with end-line hormones.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that andro aromatizes more readily than testosterone, which itself is worse than the better synthetics with little androgenic activity (like oxandrolone or nandrolone).
It seems unlikely that anyone will fund a decent trial to study the effects of OTC junk, but I’d be cautious nonetheless. As gyno is irreversible without surgery, aromatization is one of the principle dangers of hormone use. If you’re facing the same (or greater) risk from pro-hormones as you would with legitimate anabolics, WITHOUT the SIGNIFICANTLY greater reward, you might be getting a raw deal.
I must have just glanced over when you said you were using 4-androstenediol. That is a direct precursor to test, and if your not cycling it and using proper pct you could really be screwing yourself. Please please please go get an AI or a serm and run it with it now.
I should have caught that earlier, for some reason I thought you were using 4,5,6 dione (or 60X0).
Hmmmmm…???
4-Andro was supposedly a cleaner molecule then its predecessors, (androstenedione, etc.) and ostensibly safer. This is per my clinical pharmacist friend in Slat Lake City. He did suggest monitoring for side effects though.
I am currently taking 600 mg a day, and intend to re-evaluate at the end of the month. Much like anything else in the supplement area…everybody either loves it or hates it, and they all have a lot of reasons why.
This whole supplementation thing is new to me, so it’s alla grand experiment right now. I will keep everyone posted in my log.