Steroids On TV Aren’t Based In Reality
Filed Under Anabolic Steroids
So I was sitting on my butt all day, which rarely happens, but it happens. And as I flickered in and out of consciousness, i awoke to a new episode of “CSI”. I’m a fan of the original, so I sat up in bed to watch what I found to be an interesting show. To be short with the details, there were fake FBI agents involved, and a cage fighter who was taking steroids ( of course). Believe it or not, there were complications (never have I seen a show where someone was taking steroids and nothing terrible happened to such a character), because God forbid that they don’t use every possible chance to make steroids the plague of all civilization. Now how in anyway does that reflect reality? Well, it doesn’t, but in these shows the bad guys always get caught, and the good guys always have a catchy line when they arrest the villain.
So this steroid using brute has an infection, because of improper use of clean needles, that caused part of his bicep to fall off during an attack on a fake Federal Agent. If this was a likely possibility, there would be biceps scatter throughout football fields , from here to California. So while I do believe that an infection could possibly do such damage, I just don’t know why writers feel the need to attach such horrible, uncommon issues to steroids. The stigma attached has become an impenetrable force, with most that lead the way against us, actually have no clue about basic anabolics. They don’t know a DHT from a Test Derived steroid, but they feel fully qualified to bash steroids, and the writers who back any such idea.
All I want is a fair chance to prove that steroids aren’t bad if used properly, yet with such biased situations thrown around frivelously, it can never be a level playing field. Like my new friend Chloe of “Healthy, Wealthy, & Wise” Blog, who decided to bash me, then decided to not allow me to defend my standpoint. She is the epitome of what the average everyday anti-steroid person is, biased because society told them to be, uneducated on the topic itself, and believes they are right because one Public Health Study partially backs their point. Now by no means is she a bad person, just naive to think that because she reads an article on steroids in a Publich Health Study, she is now qualified to critisize an entire sub-culture. For the record, if you do comment on my site Chloe I will post it, I actually respect peoples right to defend their view, so I will be waiting.
Pease feel free to contact me at drs@steroidslive.com . Just my opinion, take what you like, leave the rest.
![[Post to Twitter]](http://www.steroidslive.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter.png){kind=icon}
Related Posts
Comments
10 Responses to “Steroids On TV Aren’t Based In Reality”
Leave a Reply
I’d thought I’d speak up, since you’re “waiting”.
I’ve never pretended to have any expert knowledge or experience with the sub-culture of steroid users. The point of my original post was to explore the question: Why use? Maybe I’ve overlooked that section of your blog, or maybe that question is irrelevant to you at this point.
For me, though, that question is at the heart of MY issue. All the steroid blogs and sites I’ve looked are set up for people who have already decided to use, but how does a person decide? Who helps them? In my opinion, to responsibly blog about a health and lifestyle issue, you should provide people with the pros AND cons. Sure, all you ever hear about in mainstream media is how terrible, destructive and illegal steroids are, and you spend a lot of time saying how wrong I am, but you have yet to say explain how you’re right.
My opinion of steroid usage is, I don’t get it. That’s all. If you feel the urge to explain it, by all means, go ahead. But I’m not holding my breath. I’m perfectly willing to just add it to my list of incomprehensible ideas, alongside Spam, polygamy and Communism.
And for the record, my blog has a space for comments the same as yours does. You have always been (and always will be) welcome to respond to anything you feel is unfair or to “defend your standpoint.”
Why use?
Why anything? Why do women wear makeup?
What’s the point?
I’ll be doing a documented cycle (which I’ll be blogging on). Relating to the above, my aim is to provide a more unbiased report into steroid usage.
Chloe and Dr.S : Both of you are on extreme ends of the discussion and both of you represent what is inherently wrong with society in this discussion. Asking questions like why or why not isn’t the right way to go about this.
On the why end, for you chloe, it is indeed often as stupid a question as the poster before me alludes to, as asking why women wear make-up, why people go to a spa, or anything of the sort. For most people who use and abuse steroids, and I agree for a great deal of them its true they shouldn’t be using this stuff (same as a lot of women don’t need to wear so much make-up, no one should get plastic surgery electively, and you shouldn’t be wasting your money on herbs, potions, creams and spices that don’t make an iota of difference) its about looking better and feeling better. Confidence granted by both the nature of the product and the nature of the result. Looking better all the time is a malady of modern society and believe it or not, it affects men as much as it affects women. But, and listen closely now because I’m about to give you a little bit of evidenced insight, as you seem to be seeking (and coming from a person who has been in this game for ages and is yet to touch his first steroid, so it is conscious decision for some of us), in some cases steroid use can be justified and even prove beneficial. And not just in clinical settings. I feel it can be justified in some circles of sport. Believe it or not, drug use is prevalent in professional sports, and the anti-doping decrees do nothing but endanger the health of athletes, because it drives them away from harmless, effective and cheap things like steroids, straight to infinitely more dangerous compounds like growth hormone insulin and EPO. A lot of people believe it’s a choice, for athletes to take drugs, but really the only choice they have is to follow suit with the drug-riddled field of pro sports, or give up a professional sports career. Simple as that. Nowadays many feel its no longer an issue because steroids are too easily detected, so we are past that. But steroids grant greater strength and explosivity long after use, so athletes can benefit from using them long before they ambiate a professional career. And if it makes them more capable of enduring, and keeps them from potentially life-threatening drugs I say “why not ?”. But more importantly steroids, and I speak mainly of testosterone, which has a proven track record and a gazillion medical studies that elucidate its actions, quantify its risks and more of that stuff, can be beneficial to just about any man over 40, providing them with better quality of life, reduced chance at the maladies of old age and more energy. I for one have made the decision that I will in fact use steroids later in life, even though I don’t feel I have any reason to right now.
On the “why not ?” end for Dr.S : Honesty compels me to spell out both sides of this debate. Your stances are all too often ideological in defending the steroid using community as a whole, when in fact it’s an oft ignored truth that many people using steroids shouldn’t be using them, and even more aren’t using them safely and correctly. Your stance on things, and especially your lack of scientific background actually do your cause more harm than good because you embody the average uninformed steroid user who has no real justification for his use, which only perpetuates the idea the general community has of steroid users since they were first demonized in the 80’s. If you aren’t near a genetic limit of muscle growth, with a near perfect diet plan and training regimen, something that takes several years to develop even with sufficient knowledge and experience, you have no business using steroids. This part you know : steroids don’t magically create your body, they merely enhance your growth potential. Maximizing natural growth first through diet and exercise don’t just make sure that you spend a greater amount of time not using drugs you don’t need (I’m assuming you aren’t over 40, suffering from muscle weakness or a professional bodybuilder) but also makes sure that when you do decide it is the right time to start using them, that you will get the maximum benefit from them.
I’ve helped and trained a great many people using anabolic androgenic steroids over the years, and I have a set of ground rules. You never use under 21 (hormones have an impact on a developing nervous system leading a whole host of possible psychological issues), you shouldn’t use unless you are near a natural limit of growth, you shouldn’t use unless under the supervision of a physician (I know more than all the physicians in the country put together about steroid and receptor physiology and still I made my athletes consult their physician during use, since a physician will be quicker to detect problems, whether or not related to use of substances) and you need to fully inform yourself BEFORE you start. That not only includes briefing yourself on steroids and their actions in your body, what to expect and how to respond to it, but also simply learning how to be properly prepared. An important part of SAFE steroid using is understanding cycling length, off-time and proper post-cycle therapy.
So in short, your bickering is pointless, you both seem to currently represent a narrow sheepish viewpoint, each on the other side of the spectrum.
Wow , that is a very profound view you have there Big Cat and by lack of science background do you mean my PhD in Public Health or my years of research and being around the game???? I have to say I know you are well respected in a few forums, but your elitest view is no different then the anti-steroid users… Who are you to define who should use steroids. If you actually read through my blogs I do point out that natural abilities should be fully reached and that diet is the number one thing. But you know that because you read them all.
Your the embodiment of what is wrong with this community, your to busy trying to be better then me , to actually see what views we have in common. Most of my points are what the community can become if this bullshit ended……
Now with that said I would rather not argue with you , I would rather work with you. Like if you want to pass on certain view points I would love to the springboard for such especially if it helps a new user. You are well respected and because of that you have an obligation to help all that need it. While no I am not an MD I do a lot of research before I do anything, not that does limit me because the studies are not in useful in our application. So I am fair and that is why I posted your comment I refuse to hide, so if you want to argue, I will post your response. But if you wnat to do a write up I would love to post it on my blog, other then that God bless and good luck…….
Sorry if I came across offensive, I was merely making a few key points, and they still stand. A PhD in anything is worthless if you don’t use it. I’m not arguing here, merely stating. You should base your statements about steroid use more on facts, and cite the proper scientific sources to back up those facts.
My “elitist view” as you call it, is merely my adherence to what we know, and what is logical, and my vigor to keep anything that isn’t in accordance with fact or logic away from people who can be influenced by the wrong information. If that makes me sound like I’m trying to be better than you, that’s certainly not the point. Its me trying to DO better than you by putting in the research. Objective facts and proper science will sooner sway public opinion than ideological pieces by a steroid user. I know this is not your intent, so this is certainly not a reproach, merely pointing out that in taking this sort of stance, you make it easier for people to dismiss you and further demonize steroid use.
I’m actually no one to decide who should and shouldn’t use, you are right in that statement. In the end if you WANT to use, then that’s always your own business and no one elses. I’m just stating, based on science and experience who shouldn’t use. The first step to making steroids less of a taboo in the eyes of the general public is to accept they are pharmacological, prescribed substances. They are not, will not and should not ever be treated as an over the counter product like make-up. A little more reverence and respect go a long way in this regard.
It doesn’t help that you keep referring to the steroid using community as some sub-culture, that only lengthens the divide and separates it from the mainstream, when the whole idea is to make this subject discussable in the mainstream and then grow some acceptance based on the plain facts. No more, no less. Opinion really has no room in this. We all know what they say about opinions.
That’s all I’m saying no more. I felt I needed to respond to chloe’s stand, and it wouldn’t have been fair of me not to explain the nuance.
Its not ABOUT The views we have in common, it doesn’t matter whose views they are and where they come from, it merely matters that they are founded in fact and/or logic.
Once again I will respond, You speak of this fact and logic, and to behonest I search for such but with limited Studies out there how can say that all you do is based on fact and logic…. Whose logic? Yours because you happen to have a few degrees? Most of what I say I try to back with fact or at least experience. These studies you reference, for the most part, aren’t practical because we have different application of these compounds.
I do however agree that a Doctor should always be involved, but I know by those standard you nor I would ever see a prescription.
Finally, I must say that as a person with experience of being involved in certain studies, to back your statements by such doesn’t always work. This is because if a group or Corp. wants a study to have certain results, then the study will be bent to fit those findings.
I realize that I am overly opinionated and I admit that to the highest degree, but I don’t just throw around info aimlessly, and if you believe I do on a regular basis, please give me example so I can really understand your point.
It will always be about what we have in common, we both want users to practice proper safety. If you can’t see that is FACT, then once again I say that is what is wrong with OUR community. I have a great respect for your regardless of how you feel about me. Not everyone will agree, it is like the GREAT HCG DEBATE, both have there points but neither is wrong, because it effects everyone differently.
Anytime you would like to write an article on my blog of your views it will always be welcome. In the end we both want what is best for the community, we just believe different things. I do think fact and logic are the best leaders, but logic is still persception based my freind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Logic is logic. if you feel your logic is different from my logic, then your logic isn’t logic. Its really that simple. If you require a study to spell out for you that x amount of this exact steroid does this to a healthy male your exact age, you still lack a little background. Even if there was all the money and good will in the world, there will never be studies for every product at every dose on subjects that fit your profile. Its about extrapolation. This takes a lot of insight, some education and a little bit of experience and logic knowing what you can safely extrapolate, and where you need to be cautious about making blanket conclusions. So the problem is you are looking for the wrong things. For some things, like ligand-receptor interactions, even in vitro studies will often be valid enough to draw conclusions, while obviously a protein hormone influence by many enzymes throughout the body requires a whole body system before you can state what exactly occurs (just think of how many people thought they could grow on HGH).
On the issue of doctors, I never said to get your scripts from them. That’s immoral by the way, asking your doctor to do something illegal. I mean you should be under the care of physician while using, not using them as a dealer.
Corporate interests in the outcome have to be listed on the study. On top of that it helps having some experience with scientific research so you know the ratings of the publications. Its less likely that oversights of the fraudulent kind will happen in reputable publications than something like The Bulgarian journal of obscure studies from authors you’ve never heard of.
Your two most recent pieces on your synergy stack are two great examples of throwing erroneous information around aimlessly as you put it.They are based solely on perpetuated ideologies created by 80’s and 90’s guru’s
I don’t know why you are out to antagonize me. You said you didn’t want to argue, but somehow you want to make me out as an agressor. Why do you think I don’t like you ? I don’t know you. I’m fairly indifferent to you, I only care about the facts.
Well, that is plan enough I guess, but we will always disagree on a few points. First logic varies because all have different views, no matter how objective a person is , there will always be influenced in some slight way.
Now by no means do I find you to be the agressor , I asked you questions and you were nice enough to answer and I appreciate that.
Now that ideal that my Synergy stack is not fact, well for me it is, for some it may not, but I used many combinations at lower doses to find a safer way of good gains. So while you may think it is opinionated to a high extent, I find it is a value that works for me. While I am not quite as big as you I am above average (been putting on a few pounds lately writing instead of doing…
But I know we have to make good with the studies that appear even if the purpose isn’t exact, but it seems as part of that is taking the science out and replacing it with assuption. Like I was saying about HCG, and I bring that up because I am working on something with it right now. It is tough at ttimes to put your stamp of approval when to be honest, it only has been tested in a small group.
I do believe you are writing with the best intention of steroid users, as so am I, and if I was able to disclose so freely some of my involvement I would, but do to the nature of my job I cannot. So I guess for now this debate is a starting point. The fact I have only been writing for a short time ( been around a while) allows me the benefit of the doubt.
I would like to say that regardless of how long either one of us spend learning about the body, and its chemistry, we will never know what works for all, because as you and I both know, all compounds react slightly different in each person’s body ( because we are all slightly different ).
While you are indifferent towards me, I wish you the best because I think all involved are brothers. Thank you for reading and responding I really do appreciate it. Please feel free to continue to , and continue to comment and keep me on my toes.
If their is subjective influence, then it isn’t logic. Logic has no room for the unproven and dogmatic. That is why science works through things like double-blind studies and the peer review process. Sure, when I extrapolate, what actually becomes practical advice could certainly be tainted with a little bit of the subjective, but I won’t present it as fact or logic. and I always leave room for people to ask about my thought process when no objective proof is provided.
I’m not saying the synergy stack doesn’t work for you, or at least you think it works for you. And as with so many things, if you feel it works and its not hurting you, then go for it. But you presented it as a universal thing without any proof, and based solely on your own experience. You are clearly operating out of the erroneous assumption that you need to stack a drug from each category, as if that is the definition of synergy. There are no classes like test, 19nor or DHT based. Not for the body. Everything is test based. These drugs have different characteristics, metabolisms, affinities and what not, and as such each drug needs to be seen separately. A drug like nandrolone is in fact in ALL ways a poor steroid for an athlete or bodybuilder. And primobolan is a weak steroid with a very narrow androgen-specific action, which in vivo, it turns out, has an A:A ratio of less than one. The stack, it seems, is neither safe, nor all that effective. A safe and effective cycle for almost any healthy male who feels he needs to use steroids is 500 mg of testosterone (enanthate or cypionate) per week, 10-12 weeks on, 10-12 weeks off.
For the record, i’m not that big, maybe a little bigger than you (235 now) but I’ve yet to use my first steroid, because like I said, you don’t need to be using steroids if you can’t put in all the effort needed on diet and exercise, and with my life that has been hard up to now. I earned my stripes almost exclusively as a researcher and a trainer to a few hundred athletes, many of them who have seen international success.
HCG has a very proven track record. Even standalone HCG and HMG have been used for months on end to restore testicular function in people who have been abusing steroids long term. People who succesfully have children afterwards (in fact that is where I saw the protocol put to use). There is actually study that shows shock doses of HCG at the end of a cycle, followed by use of clomid and nolvadex caused complete restoration of HPTA function in subjects using testosterone and nandrolone for 12 weeks. And this in spite of the fact that we know that theoretically, HCG is best used in small doses intermittently during a cycle (although I still recommend shock doses for ease of use quite often). So its not that huge of a debate, HCG is quite well understood and plenty of clinical trials have demonstrated despite our biggest concerns about its actions (decreased sperm quality during use, high conversion to estrogen due to bolus increase in test) that it is quite a safe drug.
If you wish to disclose more of your reasoning, feel free to send it in email or PM to me so we can continue the debate. You couldn’t have been around too long, by the look of it you appear to be my age or a little longer, and I’ve been in this game for 10 years now.
I do believe we can in fact design more effective and safer programs for everyone. People will react differently, that’s for sure, but knowing how these drugs and the body works, allows you to pinpoint WHY they react differently and make the necessary adjustments. this is also why I’ve given up on making blanket cycles. I can make statements like “test and tren are the most effective for a large majority of people” but depending on needs and response, what a person should use is always different.