[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I just thought the analogy was a bit of a stretch just because there are health benefits to certain compounds where as there isn’t with cigarettes. [/quote]
Smoking cigarettes is strongly correlated with a lower risk of Parkinson’s disease, FYI.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This guy seems like a real fucking douche. [/quote]
Yup. Now look at his size(factor in the synthol). Someone with PRO genetics would need to take around 10% or less of the amount of PEDs he’s using to get there.
[quote]eatliftsleep wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Wow, at this train wreck. I’ve always found it a little ironic too that there are super health conscious guys who compete at that level. It’s kind of like being a smoker who is all into healthy eating. I’m sure it does them good, and it may even be more worth their while with their other habits, but it’s still weird to talk about healthy living with a cigarette dangling out of your mouth.[/quote]
I’m not so sure the analogy fits. Smoking pretty much causes cancer, we know this, PED use is more of an open case isn’t it? There are legitimate medical uses for various compounds also used as PEDs. That is not the case for cigarettes (except nicotine I suppose). [/quote]
PED use is still in its relative infancy, so there hasn’t been a ton of studies done on their long term safety (that I’m aware of). But, through anecdotal evidence, context clues and just plain listening to all of the older bb’ers outright state that the drugs ruined their health, we can come to the logical conclusion that, at that level, steroids are bad for you. How many ex bb’ers have died in the last five years from heart and/or kidney problems? [/quote]
I dont think snyones denying that. But if you take precautionary measures like eating healthy, daily cardio, routine bloodwork, etc, you may be able to stay more healthy as opposed to someone who doesnt do this. That is all im trying to say.
[/quote]
That’s a completely fair assessment, and you’re probably right.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Wow, at this train wreck. I’ve always found it a little ironic too that there are super health conscious guys who compete at that level. It’s kind of like being a smoker who is all into healthy eating. I’m sure it does them good, and it may even be more worth their while with their other habits, but it’s still weird to talk about healthy living with a cigarette dangling out of your mouth.[/quote]
I’m not so sure the analogy fits. Smoking pretty much causes cancer, we know this, PED use is more of an open case isn’t it? There are legitimate medical uses for various compounds also used as PEDs. That is not the case for cigarettes (except nicotine I suppose). [/quote]
PED use is still in its relative infancy, so there hasn’t been a ton of studies done on their long term safety (that I’m aware of). But, through anecdotal evidence, context clues and just plain listening to all of the older bb’ers outright state that the drugs ruined their health, we can come to the logical conclusion that, at that level, steroids are bad for you. How many ex bb’ers have died in the last five years from heart and/or kidney problems? [/quote]
Idk, I mean on one hand, yes, I think anecdotal evidence does suggest PED use can be detrimental to health. However, in a lot of cases I think PEDs become the scapegoat for other issues so I disagree that the logical conclusion is that steroids are bad for you.
A guy has an underlying heart issue, is on roids, and dies. It’s the steroids that get blamed even when proof is anecdote in most case because, you’re right, there aren’t a lot of studies (that I’m aware of). From what I understand there are moral / ethical issues with the study of PEDs. I don’t see it, but that’s what I’ve read.
The fact is TRT is a legitimate use for certain compounds that are already being used recreationally. I’m talking more in general here at this point. If a 30 year old 230lbs guy that eats relativity healthy (not ripped), trains regularly (still has strength goals), and genuinely has their shit together decides to use steroids to get to a more ideal physique for himself (think 10%-11% BF) and finally deadlift 600lbs I don’t see an inherent danger to that. Yes, low levels of BF (3%-4%) seem dangerous logically (Idk if that’s true or not), but isn’t 10% a healthier bf% than 15%-20%? Wouldn’t less BF actually increase (in theory) longevity and equally as important, imo, quality of life?
I just don’t think it’s quite as black and white as some would make it seem where as smoking is pretty black and white. [/quote]
I see what you’re saying, but (using heart problems as an example), there would have to be some strange cosmic phenomenon that draws people with underlying heart problems to bodybuilding. I’m sure carrying around all that weight, the insane amounts of food and lack of other general activity play into it as well.
Using the smoking example, I view TRT akin to “social smoking”. Having two cigs while drinking twice a month is probably not doing much damage, at least irreversibly. Smoking two packs a day though is gonna catch up to you real quick. I’m obviously using a ton of creative liberty in these comparisons.
[quote]dt79 wrote:
No one is denying that the LIFESTYLE of high level competitors poses certain risks, which responsible users take ample precautionary measures to mitigate. This includes having a proper, healthy diet because staying at that bodyweight itself has potential health risks.
The question is whether PEDs play a significant role in severe afflictions some might suffer, and if so, in what quantities.
Since causation has yet to be proven medically, and we’re going by anecdotal evidence while extrapolating causal links from certain unfortunate individuals, one would have to be a user AND have indepth knowledge of how these PEDs are used by other users through constant interaction to form a proper conclusion.[/quote]
This is also fair.
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This guy seems like a real fucking douche. [/quote]
Yup. Now look at his size(factor in the synthol). Someone with PRO genetics would need to take around 10% or less of the amount of PEDs he’s using to get there. [/quote]
Aaron Clark pretty much reached that level doing a couple prohormone cycles, lol
Just goes to show more isnt always better, once you cross a certain line, the positive returns are just not there. I think loyd could achieve the same results with less. But he chooses to go all out. It is quite intrieging to be honest and thats why he has the following he does. I mean come on, this is exactly why he said that to meadows, so people will talk, and thats just what we’re doing.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Wow, at this train wreck. I’ve always found it a little ironic too that there are super health conscious guys who compete at that level. It’s kind of like being a smoker who is all into healthy eating. I’m sure it does them good, and it may even be more worth their while with their other habits, but it’s still weird to talk about healthy living with a cigarette dangling out of your mouth.[/quote]
I’m not so sure the analogy fits. Smoking pretty much causes cancer, we know this, PED use is more of an open case isn’t it? There are legitimate medical uses for various compounds also used as PEDs. That is not the case for cigarettes (except nicotine I suppose). [/quote]
PED use is still in its relative infancy, so there hasn’t been a ton of studies done on their long term safety (that I’m aware of). But, through anecdotal evidence, context clues and just plain listening to all of the older bb’ers outright state that the drugs ruined their health, we can come to the logical conclusion that, at that level, steroids are bad for you. How many ex bb’ers have died in the last five years from heart and/or kidney problems? [/quote]
Idk, I mean on one hand, yes, I think anecdotal evidence does suggest PED use can be detrimental to health. However, in a lot of cases I think PEDs become the scapegoat for other issues so I disagree that the logical conclusion is that steroids are bad for you.
A guy has an underlying heart issue, is on roids, and dies. It’s the steroids that get blamed even when proof is anecdote in most case because, you’re right, there aren’t a lot of studies (that I’m aware of). From what I understand there are moral / ethical issues with the study of PEDs. I don’t see it, but that’s what I’ve read.
The fact is TRT is a legitimate use for certain compounds that are already being used recreationally. I’m talking more in general here at this point. If a 30 year old 230lbs guy that eats relativity healthy (not ripped), trains regularly (still has strength goals), and genuinely has their shit together decides to use steroids to get to a more ideal physique for himself (think 10%-11% BF) and finally deadlift 600lbs I don’t see an inherent danger to that. Yes, low levels of BF (3%-4%) seem dangerous logically (Idk if that’s true or not), but isn’t 10% a healthier bf% than 15%-20%? Wouldn’t less BF actually increase (in theory) longevity and equally as important, imo, quality of life?
I just don’t think it’s quite as black and white as some would make it seem where as smoking is pretty black and white. [/quote]
I see what you’re saying, but (using heart problems as an example), there would have to be some strange cosmic phenomenon that draws people with underlying heart problems to bodybuilding. I’m sure carrying around all that weight, the insane amounts of food and lack of other general activity play into it as well.
Using the smoking example, I view TRT akin to “social smoking”. Having two cigs while drinking twice a month is probably not doing much damage, at least irreversibly. Smoking two packs a day though is gonna catch up to you real quick. I’m obviously using a ton of creative liberty in these comparisons.[/quote]
Gotta watch out for the massive amount of confounding factors that are involved. IE many of the ones that find themselves in big problems have other issues like abuse of cigarettes, tobacco, illegal drugs, pain killers, alcohol. None of those are good and will all cause problems. Through some bad diets in there on that and the fact that cardio is viewed as a demon expect for a couple weeks a year and you have a recipe for disaster with or without PEDs
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
No one is denying that the LIFESTYLE of high level competitors poses certain risks, which responsible users take ample precautionary measures to mitigate. This includes having a proper, healthy diet because staying at that bodyweight itself has potential health risks.
The question is whether PEDs play a significant role in severe afflictions some might suffer, and if so, in what quantities.
Since causation has yet to be proven medically, and we’re going by anecdotal evidence while extrapolating causal links from certain unfortunate individuals, one would have to be a user AND have indepth knowledge of how these PEDs are used by other users through constant interaction to form a proper conclusion.[/quote]
This is also fair.[/quote]
Also well said. Have yet to see any well done primary lit to support PEDs being a factor in these types of deaths
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
The problem with Loyd, and the reason Meadows has every right to call him out the way he did, is not the simple fact of PED usage, it’s the amounts, combinations, and mismanagement of health as a whole.
Obviously both guys use steroids. Loyd’s usage is well documented, and if we are to take him at his word, he’s presumably used, at times, higher quantities of anabolics (as much as 13g, as previously mentioned), than many guys who are currently competing at the highest levels of bodybuilding. If I were to guess, I would think Meadows has never used a third of what Loyd uses. That’s pretty important to the discussion.
As far as diet goes, what Eatliftsleep mentioned, and a couple others, is important. I don’t think the importance of an awesome diet while using anabolics, especially in higher amounts, can be overstated. It absolutely makes sense that Meadows would be a guy to stress this. I don’t see how this is contradictory in any way. [/quote]
John has talked a bit about things before if you listen to podcasts
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Wow, at this train wreck. I’ve always found it a little ironic too that there are super health conscious guys who compete at that level. It’s kind of like being a smoker who is all into healthy eating. I’m sure it does them good, and it may even be more worth their while with their other habits, but it’s still weird to talk about healthy living with a cigarette dangling out of your mouth.[/quote]
I’m not so sure the analogy fits. Smoking pretty much causes cancer, we know this, PED use is more of an open case isn’t it? There are legitimate medical uses for various compounds also used as PEDs. That is not the case for cigarettes (except nicotine I suppose). [/quote]
Nictone causes quite a few health problems itself and can exacerbate many others
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Using the smoking example, I view TRT akin to “social smoking”. [/quote]
I wouldn’t even use that analogy. TRT is for a medical condition: hypogonadism. I’ve been hypogonadal since 22 and under the care of a doctor all along.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Using the smoking example, I view TRT akin to “social smoking”. [/quote]
I wouldn’t even use that analogy. TRT is for a medical condition: hypogonadism. I’ve been hypogonadal since 22 and under the care of a doctor all along. [/quote]
Lmao at that logic. Smoking effects other people as well as yourself. Trt effects no one but yourself and in many cases these are all positive.
[quote]eatliftsleep wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Using the smoking example, I view TRT akin to “social smoking”. [/quote]
I wouldn’t even use that analogy. TRT is for a medical condition: hypogonadism. I’ve been hypogonadal since 22 and under the care of a doctor all along. [/quote]
Lmao at that logic. Smoking effects other people as well as yourself. Trt effects no one but yourself and in many cases these are all positive.
[/quote]
OH, NO? What about roid rage. dun…dun…dun
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
[quote]eatliftsleep wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Using the smoking example, I view TRT akin to “social smoking”. [/quote]
I wouldn’t even use that analogy. TRT is for a medical condition: hypogonadism. I’ve been hypogonadal since 22 and under the care of a doctor all along. [/quote]
Lmao at that logic. Smoking effects other people as well as yourself. Trt effects no one but yourself and in many cases these are all positive.
[/quote]
OH, NO? What about roid rage. dun…dun…dun[/quote]
Hahah ya if you have ‘‘roid rage’’ youre probably just a dick anyway. Id expect a lot of people with lower natural test would be more angry and grumpy than someone on trt.
[quote]eatliftsleep wrote:
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
[quote]eatliftsleep wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Using the smoking example, I view TRT akin to “social smoking”. [/quote]
I wouldn’t even use that analogy. TRT is for a medical condition: hypogonadism. I’ve been hypogonadal since 22 and under the care of a doctor all along. [/quote]
Lmao at that logic. Smoking effects other people as well as yourself. Trt effects no one but yourself and in many cases these are all positive.
[/quote]
OH, NO? What about roid rage. dun…dun…dun[/quote]
Hahah ya if you have ‘‘roid rage’’ youre probably just a dick anyway. Id expect a lot of people with lower natural test would be more angry and grumpy than someone on trt.
[/quote]
Was no one paying attention when I finished that statement with “I’m obviously taking a lot of creative liberties with these comparisons”? Jesus, the collective reading comprehension around here has taken a sharp nosedive.
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
The problem with Loyd, and the reason Meadows has every right to call him out the way he did, is not the simple fact of PED usage, it’s the amounts, combinations, and mismanagement of health as a whole.
Obviously both guys use steroids. Loyd’s usage is well documented, and if we are to take him at his word, he’s presumably used, at times, higher quantities of anabolics (as much as 13g, as previously mentioned), than many guys who are currently competing at the highest levels of bodybuilding. If I were to guess, I would think Meadows has never used a third of what Loyd uses. That’s pretty important to the discussion.
As far as diet goes, what Eatliftsleep mentioned, and a couple others, is important. I don’t think the importance of an awesome diet while using anabolics, especially in higher amounts, can be overstated. It absolutely makes sense that Meadows would be a guy to stress this. I don’t see how this is contradictory in any way. [/quote]
John has talked a bit about things before if you listen to podcasts
[/quote]
yeah, and it wasn’t anywhere close to Bostin’s use
I just remembered you wrote that you tried Superdrol once in a previous thread.
Superdrol is a relatively new oral designer steroid and very harsh on your body. It is nothing like normal orals that have been approved for use medically in the past. Personally I will never touch it because I react rather badly to orals in general. Regular users here won’t even recommend using it for more than 3 weeks.
Perhaps your views may be influenced by this experience.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]eatliftsleep wrote:
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
[quote]eatliftsleep wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Using the smoking example, I view TRT akin to “social smoking”. [/quote]
I wouldn’t even use that analogy. TRT is for a medical condition: hypogonadism. I’ve been hypogonadal since 22 and under the care of a doctor all along. [/quote]
Lmao at that logic. Smoking effects other people as well as yourself. Trt effects no one but yourself and in many cases these are all positive.
[/quote]
OH, NO? What about roid rage. dun…dun…dun[/quote]
Hahah ya if you have ‘‘roid rage’’ youre probably just a dick anyway. Id expect a lot of people with lower natural test would be more angry and grumpy than someone on trt.
[/quote]
Was no one paying attention when I finished that statement with “I’m obviously taking a lot of creative liberties with these comparisons”? Jesus, the collective reading comprehension around here has taken a sharp nosedive. [/quote]
So since you said
“I’m obviously taking a lot of creative liberties with these comparisons” Makes it not stupid? Ok yeah that makes sense. LOL
[quote]eatliftsleep wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Was no one paying attention when I finished that statement with “I’m obviously taking a lot of creative liberties with these comparisons”? Jesus, the collective reading comprehension around here has taken a sharp nosedive. [/quote]
So since you said
“I’m obviously taking a lot of creative liberties with these comparisons” Makes it not stupid? Ok yeah that makes sense. LOL
[/quote]
x2.
Common Internet-forum phenomena: couch whatever you’re about to say with some disclaimer, then say whatever you want, and if called on it fall back on “Gosh, don’t take things so LITERALLY, I said (disclaimer).”