attn CET :

I guess I am refering to a hormone so I'm retarded..growth hormone is not a AS so I am a little of topic. I stand corrected !

This is true as well, but then GH isn't an anabolic steroid.

at least I replied before someone corrected me ;)

You are looking at things from the wrong perspective. I don't think that anyone here will argue the fact that a neuromuscular stimulis must be generated and an adaptation phase must also take place in order for an increase in strength and performance to occur. That's a given, but you must also consider what happens when particular anabolic androgenic steroids are included into the basic equation of training, nutrition and rest.

In general, androgens such as testosterone and dihydrotestosterone (DHT) do play a significant role in regards to strength. The impact of DHT on strength is more profound due to its impact on the Central Nervous System (CNS). Various parts of the brain are saturated in 5 alpha reductase (5AR) enzymes. Testosterone metabolizes into DHT via the 5AR. Basically, DHT amplifies the androgenic signal of testosterone and therefore increases neurological efficiency and resistance to physical and psychological stress, all of which are directly related to strength.


Jenetic

Lemme jump in here, I don't know much about steroids because I would never think about taking them.

However - you don't need to know much about steroids to know why they're wrong in sporting events. It's the basic principle that is the problem.

I know enough to know that there is too much inconclusive evidence about the long term health effects of steroids. Introducing something so pivotal to the body grants it an illegal status until there is that bit of solid evidence. Therefore, it is illegal.

And faced with these facts, although I believe one should have the free will to do whatever they want to their bodies, when it concerns massive organizations such as pro baseball (a privelege granted to athletes), and every other sport - it needs to be moderated and kept illegal because there are honest athletes who don't want to take a risk and subject their bodies to something potentially harmful.

That there is the reason it should be kept against regulations.

And besides - I believe in purity and natural means of athletic ability. Not lab rat experimental bullshit. Athleticism should be about one's natural ability without any other aids.

The point was, that steroids don't grow muscle on their own. Of course, all that will change if they can develope a good myostatin inhibitor.

Are you done acting like an ass yet?

You're talking about tissue repair, which is exactly what happens post workout. If there was no damaged tissue, then there would be no repair, let alone the building of new tissue.

This Is Your Nation on Steroids
Why does a performance-enhanced society scorn performance-enhanced athletes?
By JAMES PONIEWOZIK

Try 4 Issues of TIME magazine FREE!
Turn on a football game, and you'll see cheerleaders with seam-popping breast implants, aging sportscasters with suspiciously tenacious hairlines and commercials for pills that promise Olympian erections. Turn on the news, and you'll hear about how athletes have got the notion that it's O.K. to use artificial substances to improve their bodies. Appalling! Where would they get an idea like that?

On its face, the baseball steroid scandal is simple. Athletes who break the rules to win are cheaters. But ask why we have the rules in the first place, and you have to confront a basic irony. We decry performance-enhanced sports. Yet we live performance-enhanced lives.

We all know about Hollywood celebrities who get plastic surgery to extend their careers. (You want to see performance enhancement in sports, look courtside at a Lakers game.) But plastic surgery has become positively democratic. Businessmen get nipped and tucked to win promotions; other people, just to look hot. And there are plenty of other ways that we augment nature, medically, technologically and financially. The elderly can extend their sex lives beyond what God and their grandchildren imagined. Kids take expensive prep courses to ace tests that are supposed to measure inborn aptitude. Short but healthy children are given human growth hormone for their self-esteem. Adults take Ritalin to sharpen their senses. Pop singers have their vocals, ahem, "sweetened" with additional recorded tracks. Yet no one is threatening legislation against Ashlee Simpson.

So why are steroids the exception? One obvious answer is that sports are supposed to be fair in a way that life is not. But sports are full of institutionalized unfairness?ask anyone who's ever rooted against the Yankees. Olympic runner wins a gold medal because of blood doping: Cheater! Olympic team wins dozens of medals because it has tens of millions of dollars for training: U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! In the steroid debate, what's often cited is fairness, not to current players but to the records of retired and dead ones. Yet middling athletes of today routinely outdo greats of the past thanks to legal advances in everything from nutrition to sports medicine to biodynamics to equipment. If Roger Bannister had the advantage of competing today, wouldn't he run better than a mere 3:59.4 mile?

Yes, but steroids are far more dangerous than, say, carb loading. That justification would be far more convincing if there were any evidence that fans and teams otherwise give two snorts about athletes' health. But that wouldn't explain how we tolerate, for example, football linemen larding up to heart-straining proportions and players hobbling themselves for life by "playing through the pain" (i.e., getting taped and numbed by the team doc). Or jockeys nearly killing themselves to drop weight. Or the very existence of boxing.

Of course, tainted Yankee Jason Giambi at least is an adult; teen athletes, however, have started using the same drugs the pros do. Again, setting a good example for kids is a noble argument?but one that society hardly heeds otherwise. If steroid scold John McCain were a woman, he might be pushing laws against plastic surgery among pop starlets, the better to save girls from deadly eating disorders. President George W. Bush denounced steroid use in the State of the Union. "It sends the wrong message?that there are shortcuts to accomplishment," said the Yale legacy student.

In the end, the steroid controversy may be less about what we want for athletes or children than about what we fear for ourselves. The performance enhancement of society promises to get only more radical, especially as genetic engineering grows more advanced. When people of means can buy sharper brains and stronger bodies for themselves or better genetic profiles for their kids, juiced-up athletes will be the least of our ethical worries. If Giants slugger Barry Bonds deserves an asterisk next to his home-run records, maybe we will deserve asterisks next to our salaries, our sexual conquests and our kids' SAT scores.

Our new power to transform ourselves raises the question of whether we are changing from nature's creation into man's invention. So we ask athletes to maintain an authenticity that we don't want to?to be museum pieces of purity. Is that hypocritical? Yes, because the fan-athlete relationship is inherently hypocritical: fans want sports heroes to be more admirable than the rest of us. We used to worship athletes for being mightier, faster, greater than we could imagine. The day may come when we gather in stadiums?with our bought-and-paid-for brains, bodies and libidos?and cheer on players for making do with less.

We were lovers. You forgot our relationsip that quickly!? Was it my breath? :sadcrying

maybe you missed this post by Jenetic

The only reason I brought up that argument (which really is a silly argument.), is because the average lay person actually believes it. Just read some of the posts in this thread defending that arugment.

BTW, NICE first post! :thumbsup

Honestly, if we take the whole bad example for the kids thing out of the equation I would be 100% for steroid use among pro atheletes.

I want to see linemen hit harder.

I want to see someone like Ray Lewis's head get knocked the fuck off when being tackled.

I want to see baseballs get hit out of the Yankee stadium everytime someone gets up to bat.

I want to see Marion Jones run faster than Smarty Jones.

I want to see bodybuilders come in at 5' 9" and 400 pounds with 3% bodyfat (heh heh, that would be funny).

Get the picture. I'm sure most human beings want to see the same thing. That's entertainment and that's also why they make 20 million a year.

First off, I'm "natural" too. My only supplementation is vitamins. I understand the desire to see sports on an "even playing field". However, there isn't an even playing field, that's just a utopian idea. DNA already makes it an uneven playing field, because some people are just faster and stronger then others. Steroids are going to be in sports no matter what and they're far more pervasive then anyone cares to admit. As long as there's a shit load of money and fame to be had in sports, there's going to be steroids to bring atletes to their full potential.

BTW, when you say "natural means" and "Athleticism should be about one's natural ability without any other aids," what exactly do you mean? Does creatine count? It's found in red meat. What about special shoes, or other equipment? These are both types of "aids". Where do you draw the line with "natural" and "aids"?

CET, you realize this statement is false right? I'm not trying to be a dick here, you of all people should know this.

Got a link for this article? I would love to keep it and pass it around. :glugglug

Nope, I got it and nothing in it disagree with anything I've asserted. On the contrary, it contradicts your assertion that gear inherently makes people stronger and faster. Becoming strong and faster is a function of stress, rest and nutrition. Leave out any one of these things and muscle cannot grow. Saying that gear inherently makes one stronger suggests that you can leave out stressing the body and still grow muscle. The only way to do that is to develope a myostatin inhibitor, which has not been done yet, but has been in the works for the last 30 years or so.

BINGO! And that is exactly why steroids have always been around in one form or another and always will be. :thumbsup

Would be cool if they had a roid olympics, but it would never work since there is no country where it's 100 % legal.. and all the negative aspects like it would give bad influence to youths etc

Anyway, I belive that a very high rate of the athletes are using some kind of steroids - more then most people would think. 8 years ago, the rate was probobly much higher in some sports like 100 meters.. People keep finding new ways to pass the tests, and new kind of drugs that cannot be detected etc.

Side effects of many drugs and steroids can be heavily limited if used safe, but most people don't use them safe unfortunaly :)

GH is a very safe drug for instance, but most BB's use too much of it and might get ugly side effects. Anavar is also a very safe drug, and so is many kinds of testo in low dosages..

First of all, I appreciate you dropping the crap. Maybe you're just used to dealing with GFY trolls and what not. I tend to get a little bit defensive too, just because I'm used to people answering with things like, "You're such a fucking moron . . . "

Back to the subject at hand, all the credible literature (I'm discounting things like propaganda pamphlets from having credibility) I have ever read has been condusive to that statement. Steroids allow one to become stronger and faster, but they themselves do not make someone stronger and faster. Case in point, I actually know of guys who have done a cycle, not gone to the gym and gotten pissed off that they didn't make any gains.

Until we discover that illusive myostatin inhibitor, you cannot become stronger and faster by doing a cycle of whatever your favorite stack is and watching TV.

1. If steroids were made legal and were allowed in sports, the wealthiest athletes would still be able to get the best steroids.

2. You can't compare steroids to stuff like alcohol, tobacco, etc. They're completely different things. A better comparison would be the one to medicins. Does the usage of medicins increase if they are approved by the FDA and are made easy to come by? Hell yeah.

Right now, many very effective steroids aren't being used by professional athletes because they're easy to detect. If steroids are allowed, they'll start using those.

Prohibition and testing place very severe limits on what athletes can do without risking their careers. Remove those limits, and obviously some people will go beyond them - and because of what steroids are, they'll be the ones dominating sports.

Steroids being legal would be cheaper. Right now, more expensive doesn't mean more effective, it means less easily detectable.

Steroids certainly can be compared to alcohol and tobacco. Tobacco offers no good effects, only dangerous and deadly effects. Alcohol does little more then relax an individual, and red wine on occasion might make your arteries a little cleaner. Outside of that, alcohol offers no positive effects, only dangerous and deadly ones. More alcohol or tobacco related deaths occur in one day then with steroids in a year, or even an entire decade.

I'm sure there will be a couple of nut jobs that will think "more is always better", but that's the case anyway. The only difference is the stigma we'll attach to using gear and maybe athletes can get good supervision, or even someone getting a bad reaction will be able to fearlessly get the treatment they need. How many people die from illegal drugs every year simply because their friends are too scared to take them to the emergency room?

Please research hormone replacement therapy (specifically TRT) in older men. It has been shown that an increase in the ease of daily activities as well as fat loss occur in testosterone deficient males on HRT. This is due to androgenic stimiulus and the bodies ability to deal with physical and psychological stress (as stated by Jenetic)

Steroids DO have a positive effect on strength because of their androgenic properties (physical and mental). Read the above once more.

Maybe you missed my other argument about EQ and Halotestin, a couple of steroids that increase the users red blood cell count, positively effecting their V02 max and aerobic capabilities?

As for your off topic remark about a couch potato building muscle. Steroids like Anavar are used to increase protein synthesis, (directly related to muscle building) in wasting patients like burn victims.... to help these patients heal faster. These patients are (effectively couch potatos) limited to lying down and watching TV.

Duh, nutrition plays a roll... that's obvious, yes steroids do play a part in protein synthesis for muscle building but they do more than just that.

Staying on topic, an ATHELETE will get strength and endurance gains while using steroids. Your "assymilation" argument states that steroids ONLY enhance nutritional intake and muscle repair is wrong.

Steroids won't grow muscle for someone that is frozen in a block of ice, no. But even a couch potatos daily activities involve the use of muscle resulting in a breakdown of those cells, in turn benefiting (not much) from the use of AAS.

Seriously, you can't even talk about this subject if you've never actually tried steroids. You should try a deca/test cycle, and then see what the effects on your strength and such are. I think you're underestimating the whole thing :2 cents:

Steroids being legal would mean more research into performance-enhancing steroids, and thus you'll still get a new top level of the latest and greatest steroids. Obviously, pharmaceutical concerns will ask craploads of money for their best stuff.


Steroids can NOT be compared to alcohol, tobacco, weed, coke, etc, because the goal behind using them is completely different - and because of that, the effects of prohibition are completely different.
Steroid use for professional athletes easily lends itself to a rational cost/benefit alalysis. It's a gains versus risks thing, and if risks are big (prohibition, testing, etc) less people will use them.
Substances used for pleasure, on the other hand, fall outside of simple cost/benefits analysis, because "pleasure" is too vague a concept.

This is all in relation to stress that has been put onto the body. The body will recover from stress and steroids increases recouperation abilities.

I hate arguing the couch potato argument, but there are a lot of people who believe it. The body will not heal unless it has been damaged, and it will not adapt unless it has been stressed. You have not provided an example of how someone can adapt without stress, which is what I'm arguing against when I say "steroids do not make anyone faster or stronger."

That's all steroids do. Yes, an athlete will get stronger and faster, because the athlete is putting his body under stress, where as a couch potato is not. That's why I'm arguing that the steroid cannot do that by itself. By themself all they will do is increase recouperation, and nutritional assymilation. Without stress, all the gear in the world means nothing.

Adaption comes from unusual and usually intense stimulus, which is why most athletes exercise to muscular exhaustion. The couch potato is not stressing his body, therefore adaption cannot occur and all the gear in the world isn't going to make that couch potato grow any muscle.

You're kidding, right? Then research scientists aren't allowed to talk about their field of study unless they have tried what they are studying themselves. Come on. Experience is a great teacher, but it is possible to learn a great deal through studying a subject as well. Usually studying a subject will reveal much more then experience.

I don't care to risk my freedom on gear, I don't care to spend the amount of money that one cycle will cost, and I don't care to pin myself.

If gear was legal, cheap and available in a transdermal, I would seriously consider it. Until then, no thanks.

Sure, there would be better gear, and probably safer gear too. I'm sure there will also be huge FDA warnings all over the boxes they came in, but that's how it is with all things that are potentially dangerous.

It still makes sense that usage wouldn't increase with legalization. If it did, it probably wouldn't increase much. Why would someone start using something that they know little to nothing about? I may or may not be one of those who did use (assuming a transdermal were offered, which probably would be the case), I haven't decided, nor do I expect I will for a while.

The truly ridiculous thing, is that the fed is going on this anti-prohormone rampage. They're banning at least one prohormone every session. They're talking about banning creatine, the safest supplement ever put on the market and they want to ban it. This whole cycle of misinformation and banning is simply out of hand and it's freakin ridiculous.

You can't talk about whether something should be allowed or not if you haven't tried it and reasonably(!) could have, no. Just like experience alone is not enough to fully understand a subject, neither is scientific study.


As for legal, cheap and transdermal, it isn't quite the same as steroids but it will have an effect:
http://www.1fast400.com/?products_id=414
30 more days of legality :glugglug

Ofcourse it makes sense that usage would increase with legalization. You just said yourself, a few posts back, "I don't care to risk my freedom on gear".

It shouldn't come as a complete shock that there are many other people who feel exactly the same way.

Sorry, I simply cannot agree with the first statement. That's like those people who argue that only combat (which I am) vets are allowed to discuss politics in war time.

1-test is going away, but you can still get 1-AD which converts to 1-test inside the body. After that, just stack it with nandro, 4-AD (to get rid of lethargy) and a post cycle of 6-OXO (to avoid gyno).

Please tell me of one time in history when substance use increased after its prohibition was ended. I'm going on a historical prescident. Most prohibitionists use the argument you just gave, but I've never heard a prohibitionist proponent of anything every give one example of when their proposed scenario actually occured.

With all due respect, a combination of knowledge and experience results in the most optimal and rational train of thought.

This particular subject of AAS causing an automatic increases in strength and performance is not something I like to comment on since it can give many people the wrong impression. However, this topic is more true than most people would like to believe and/or take the time to understand.

Many AAS users will report that certain substances such as methandrostenolone (Dianabol) cause a substantial increase in strength and endurance when taken prior to their training session. The general concensus would indicate that it's impossible. Especially, since methandrostenolone has been shown to have a week affinity for the androgen receptor (AR). These effects do in fact occur and are due to the activation of nongenomic pathways such as but are not limited to Ca++ fluxes, cAMP, mitogen activated protein kinases, protein kinase C, adenylyl cyclase, G proteins and G protein coupled receptors.

Regardless, there are no substitutes for training, nutrition and rest.

Jenetic

Notice the (!) behind reasonably?
Risking your life in combat is not something that you could reasonably be expected to have tried. In fact, that goes for risking your life, period.

1-test is going, but so are 1-ad and 4-ad. The ban really includes just about all prohormones.

Sure. Red Bull. It was banned in a number of countries for a while, and not surprisingly, became more used in those countries when it was freely available.

No doubt, but a lack of personal experience does not mean someone is not qualified to speak on a subject.

The percieved increase in strength and endurance prior to training is likely psychosomatic. The days when I'm really pumped to get into the gym, I feel like I'm stronger then normal before I even get there. When I get there, I almost always have an above usual day. I don't use any gear, so it has to be something else, such as mood, hitting an optimal point of hydration and blood sugar level, or both.

Dude, I don't think you understand the concept of strength.

You also don't understand the role that androgenic hormones play in the human body in regards to strength (mental and physical).

Who do you write for?

Really? Have you got any stats to this?

These effects are far from psychosomatic. This is based on the experience of my athletic training clients including myself.

For example, the comparison would be between 50 mgs Dianabol administered in a single dosage before training versus 50 mgs spread out at 10 mg intervals thoughout the day. The single dosing pattern cleary exerts an improvement in strength and endurance. However, due to the limited half life, the beneficial effects on protein synthesis and modulation of the glucocorticoid axis throughout the day are not as profound.

I understand where you are comming from, but all possible variables are taken into account with the level of athletes that I work with. In addition, you need to have a better understanding on the genomic and non genomic pathaways of androgens and the pharmacokinetics of AAS before jumping to conclusions.

Jenetic

Yes, many. However, you can easily look them up yourself. The growth in popularity of Red Bull in countries where it was approved isn't exactly a secret.


But it isn't all that hard to figure out anyway: better distribution and availability leads to more sales. I'm not sure if you really want to deny that...?

No, you made the assertion, so you prove it. I'm not going to prove your arugment for you.

The second does not necessarily follow, because every prohibition in history was not followed by increased usage upon legalization.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/images/pa-157a.gif

And I'm not gonna spend a lot of time on this looking up all the numbers again, because this is just a discussion on a message board. I've seen the numbers in the past though, showing how each time red bull got approved somewhere and was introduced into a market, it immediately sold loads and loads - for a large part because the earlier "not being legal" created a buzz.

Believe me or not, I advise you to check it out yourself, but I can't force you to accept reality.
Meanwhile, ask yourself if Red Bull would be able to have a $4BN yearly sales volume if it wasn't being sold in supermarkets, bars, etc.
Oh, and it might also be a good idea to think about drug sales on specific drugs after they get approved by the FDA :glugglug

So you do not think better distribution and better availability help increase sales? How about lower prices then?

I know that if I'm not able to get something or if I'm not able to afford it, I'm not likely to buy it... but maybe that's just me.