[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
A fed can define the rules any way it chooses. IIRC some feds allow medically prescribed TRT use even in the “tested” class and some don’t. I recall at least one poster on this cite disclosed his TRT use/prescription in a “natty” PL fed and obtained express permission to compete tested. Its not cheating when you disclose and the fed allows it. [/quote]
These waivers were very common when TRT was first introduced; not as routine any longer.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Is a 20 or 30 or 50 or 100 year old man “deceiving” anyone and illicitly battling Nature if he is on TRT and not competing in tested competitive events?[/quote]
outside the boundaries of competition I support an individuals decision to use as they wish.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Another thing is: Isn’t the range for what’s considered ‘normal’ very large?
if a competitor on TRT is taking test to be in the upper range of ‘normal’ , is it considered any different than someone who is in the middle range of normal (assisted or not)?
Thing is: you can complain all you want and point out all the exceptions as red04 did, but it compromises the integrity of the sport. Either let everything or nothing is what it seems to be coming down to[/quote]
Soooo because I partake in powerlifting and happen to be on TRT i should partake in a non tested fed where other competitors are taking drugs for the sole purpose of strength and winning these meets. For me it doesent really matter as I never have entered a competition to win it its purely individual based. But for the guy who has a real chance to win who happens to be on TRT legitimately is basically fucked
[quote]red04 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
With respect to competing, I agree with BlueCollarTr8n. Competitions in general are about showcasing not only the hardest working but also the most genetically gifted.
I wouldn’t hold spots in medical school for people with low(er) IQs just because they can keep pace with a special study guide.
I wouldn’t concoct a handicap for people who are 5’2 so they can compete in the NBA.
I wouldn’t cut any breaks for the woman with the disfigured hand competing in a beauty pageant.
[/quote]
Those are some tragically bad examples.
Beauty pageants may not make exceptions to someone who walks on stage disfigured or ugly, but they don’t ask you to compete in the ‘plastic surgery and makeup added’ category if you previously were but have addressed it somehow. I’m pretty sure I remember hearing about a transgender Miss USA finalist?
The NBA wouldn’t disallow you from playing because you were 5’2" before some experimental surgery made you 6’1", they’d just check out your ability to play basketball like any other prospect.
And finally, there’s no IQ test on your college or graduate school application. They don’t give a fuck, what they want to know is if you, by some means that isn’t outright cheating, have passed examinations or whatnot.
One of the very few relevant examples I can think of is Oscar Pistorius and his ‘blade’ prosthetics that some believe gave him an unfair advantage over actual human competitors, but in the end he was allowed to compete as well.
Where do you draw the line if you want to be this strict though? As Dr. Pangloss mentioned, lasik eye surgery is commonplace, as are contacts. There are medical grade steroids in use every week in the NFL to deal with issues such as pain tolerance and asthma, shall we scrutinize their use as well? How about genetic diabetics? Deaf athletes wear hearing aids, and in modern times these aids are so advanced that have been worn for so long that it is the patient’s choice whether or not they want to learn sign language. That’s something that will stop being rare in the near future, better petition it or something, can’t be having people competing when their genetics should’ve prevented it.
What about the way modern science saves people’s lives from genetic abnormalities that cause SIDS, or things like tonsillitis and appendicitis every single day? How are we ever going to know which athletes on the field should actually be dead because genetically they couldn’t hack it and needed to be saved by surgery?
I am well aware that I’m starting to get ridiculous here, but that’s kind of the point. This argument seems absolutely absurd to me. Someone on TRT is apparently ‘cheating the system’ even though that same system allows other genetic faults to be overcome. This argument is entirely built on what ‘testosterone’ CAN do when used to boost into superphysiological amounts, not what it actually does when it takes someone from prepubescent boy to ‘standard man.’[/quote]
This is not a question of what should be allowed and to what extent it should be allowed. This is about rules set by the organisation running the competition and the fact that competitors choose to take part in such competitions under the assumption that these rules will be enforced.
Edit
The reasons behind the rules may be debatable, but whether one should follow them or not should not be.
[quote]dt79 wrote:
The reasons behind the rules may be debatable, but whether one should follow them or not should not be.[/quote]
Amen
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Soooo because I partake in powerlifting and happen to be on TRT i should partake in a non tested fed where other competitors are taking drugs for the sole purpose of strength and winning these meets. For me it doesent really matter as I never have entered a competition to win it its purely individual based. But for the guy who has a real chance to win who happens to be on TRT legitimately is basically fucked[/quote]
I’m contemplating competing in Physique next year. Obviously, I’d like to do so in an AAS/TRT-free competition (and probably will). I feel like I could be competitive (or at least unlikely to embarrass myself) in comparison to other 50+ y.o. non-AAS/TRT guys. Unfortunately for me, it seems the natty feds have decided not to employ age groups for their Physique competitions. (If anyone knows different, please let me know.) Because of this, I will have to compete against guys in their 20s/30s who will have natural T levels significantly higher than what I have at 52. Needless to say, the smart money won’t be betting on me.
Likewise, I may compete in an age-grouped open show. And while this means I will be competing against guys my age, it also means at least some of them will have enhanced T levels significantly higher than mine. Again, the smart money will not be on me.
Does it suck to be me in this regard? I suppose. But it’s just the way things are.
[quote]EyeDentist wrote:
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Soooo because I partake in powerlifting and happen to be on TRT i should partake in a non tested fed where other competitors are taking drugs for the sole purpose of strength and winning these meets. For me it doesent really matter as I never have entered a competition to win it its purely individual based. But for the guy who has a real chance to win who happens to be on TRT legitimately is basically fucked[/quote]
I’m contemplating competing in Physique next year. Obviously, I’d like to do so in an AAS/TRT-free competition (and probably will). I feel like I could be competitive (or at least unlikely to embarrass myself) in comparison to other 50+ y.o. non-AAS/TRT guys. Unfortunately for me, it seems the natty feds have decided not to employ age groups for their Physique competitions. (If anyone knows different, please let me know.) Because of this, I will have to compete against guys in their 20s/30s who will have natural T levels significantly higher than what I have at 52. Needless to say, the smart money won’t be betting on me.
Likewise, I may compete in an age-grouped open show. And while this means I will be competing against guys my age, it also means at least some of them will have enhanced T levels significantly higher than mine. Again, the smart money will not be on me.
Does it suck to be me in this regard? I suppose. But it’s just the way things are.[/quote]
Yep…I understand life isn’t fair and it is what it is but for the sake of debate and defending my stance on the subject I give my opinion and experience.
[quote]EyeDentist wrote:
Does it suck to be me in this regard? I suppose. But it’s just the way things are.[/quote]
Yup.
One of the easiest ways to compromise the integrity of an organization is to make exceptions for every sob story.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]EyeDentist wrote:
Does it suck to be me in this regard? I suppose. But it’s just the way things are.[/quote]
Yup.
One of the easiest ways to compromise the integrity of an organization is to make exceptions for every sob story.
[/quote]
Hmmmm
[quote]EyeDentist wrote:
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Soooo because I partake in powerlifting and happen to be on TRT i should partake in a non tested fed where other competitors are taking drugs for the sole purpose of strength and winning these meets. For me it doesent really matter as I never have entered a competition to win it its purely individual based. But for the guy who has a real chance to win who happens to be on TRT legitimately is basically fucked[/quote]
I’m contemplating competing in Physique next year. Obviously, I’d like to do so in an AAS/TRT-free competition (and probably will). I feel like I could be competitive (or at least unlikely to embarrass myself) in comparison to other 50+ y.o. non-AAS/TRT guys. Unfortunately for me, it seems the natty feds have decided not to employ age groups for their Physique competitions. (If anyone knows different, please let me know.) Because of this, I will have to compete against guys in their 20s/30s who will have natural T levels significantly higher than what I have at 52. Needless to say, the smart money won’t be betting on me.
Likewise, I may compete in an age-grouped open show. And while this means I will be competing against guys my age, it also means at least some of them will have enhanced T levels significantly higher than mine. Again, the smart money will not be on me.
Does it suck to be me in this regard? I suppose. But it’s just the way things are.[/quote]
As long as youre in the normal range you will not be behind in anyway in terms of muscle building, retention or reduced catabolism. If you are lower than normal then sure you are gonna have issues. Considering the pics youve posted Id say you will be in a good spot not to be embarrassed. Now in a non tested show depending on who shows up you could easily be blown out of the water
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
As long as youre in the normal range you will not be behind in anyway in terms of muscle building, retention or reduced catabolism. If you are lower than normal then sure you are gonna have issues. Considering the pics youve posted Id say you will be in a good spot not to be embarrassed. Now in a non tested show depending on who shows up you could easily be blown out of the water
[/quote]
If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re contending that the dose-response curve relating serum testosterone levels and LBM is positive for subnormal levels, flat throughout the normal range, and then (presumably) positive again at supranormal levels. Is that correct? And if it is, do you have a citation supporting this you can share? I ask because the study I found (‘Testosterone dose-response relationships in healthy young men’) does not support this. From the Discussion section:
“This study demonstrates that an increase in circulating testosterone concentrations results in dose-dependent increases in fat-free mass, muscle size, strength, and power. The relationships between circulating testosterone concentrations and changes in fat-free mass and muscle size conform to a single log-linear dose-response curve. Our data do not support the notion of two separate dose-response curves reflecting two independent mechanisms of testosterone action on the muscle.”
[quote]EyeDentist wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
As long as youre in the normal range you will not be behind in anyway in terms of muscle building, retention or reduced catabolism. If you are lower than normal then sure you are gonna have issues. Considering the pics youve posted Id say you will be in a good spot not to be embarrassed. Now in a non tested show depending on who shows up you could easily be blown out of the water
[/quote]
If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re contending that the dose-response curve relating serum testosterone levels and LBM is positive for subnormal levels, flat throughout the normal range, and then (presumably) positive again at supranormal levels. Is that correct? And if it is, do you have a citation supporting this you can share? I ask because the study I found (‘Testosterone dose-response relationships in healthy young men’) does not support this. From the Discussion section:
“This study demonstrates that an increase in circulating testosterone concentrations results in dose-dependent increases in fat-free mass, muscle size, strength, and power. The relationships between circulating testosterone concentrations and changes in fat-free mass and muscle size conform to a single log-linear dose-response curve. Our data do not support the notion of two separate dose-response curves reflecting two independent mechanisms of testosterone action on the muscle.”
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/281/6/E1172.full#BIBL[/quote]
It was from a layne norton pod cast or youtube where he discussed GH and testoserone so maybe I mishread/saw. Truthfully not a topic i pay a ton of attention to since I truly dont care very much. I can attempt to look further.
Edit Biolayne 25 and i am so lazy i dont truly even want to look if I am correct or not 
[quote]dt79 wrote:
This is not a question of what should be allowed and to what extent it should be allowed. This is about rules set by the organisation running the competition and the fact that competitors choose to take part in such competitions under the assumption that these rules will be enforced.
Edit
The reasons behind the rules may be debatable, but whether one should follow them or not should not be.[/quote]
Except as per this quote:
You should feel ashamed for following the rules, because even though you’re following them, you’re breaking them in spirit.
[quote]EyeDentist wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
As long as youre in the normal range you will not be behind in anyway in terms of muscle building, retention or reduced catabolism. If you are lower than normal then sure you are gonna have issues. Considering the pics youve posted Id say you will be in a good spot not to be embarrassed. Now in a non tested show depending on who shows up you could easily be blown out of the water
[/quote]
If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re contending that the dose-response curve relating serum testosterone levels and LBM is positive for subnormal levels, flat throughout the normal range, and then (presumably) positive again at supranormal levels. Is that correct? And if it is, do you have a citation supporting this you can share? I ask because the study I found (‘Testosterone dose-response relationships in healthy young men’) does not support this. From the Discussion section:
“This study demonstrates that an increase in circulating testosterone concentrations results in dose-dependent increases in fat-free mass, muscle size, strength, and power. The relationships between circulating testosterone concentrations and changes in fat-free mass and muscle size conform to a single log-linear dose-response curve. Our data do not support the notion of two separate dose-response curves reflecting two independent mechanisms of testosterone action on the muscle.”
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/281/6/E1172.full#BIBL[/quote]
Wow That summary just spoon fed you doc.
[quote]EyeDentist wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
As long as youre in the normal range you will not be behind in anyway in terms of muscle building, retention or reduced catabolism. If you are lower than normal then sure you are gonna have issues. Considering the pics youve posted Id say you will be in a good spot not to be embarrassed. Now in a non tested show depending on who shows up you could easily be blown out of the water
[/quote]
If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re contending that the dose-response curve relating serum testosterone levels and LBM is positive for subnormal levels, flat throughout the normal range, and then (presumably) positive again at supranormal levels. Is that correct? And if it is, do you have a citation supporting this you can share? I ask because the study I found (‘Testosterone dose-response relationships in healthy young men’) does not support this. From the Discussion section:
“This study demonstrates that an increase in circulating testosterone concentrations results in dose-dependent increases in fat-free mass, muscle size, strength, and power. The relationships between circulating testosterone concentrations and changes in fat-free mass and muscle size conform to a single log-linear dose-response curve. Our data do not support the notion of two separate dose-response curves reflecting two independent mechanisms of testosterone action on the muscle.”
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/281/6/E1172.full#BIBL[/quote]
Does the English translation mean that the more you juice, the bigger, stronger, and leaner you get in direct proportion to how much you juice?
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]EyeDentist wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
As long as youre in the normal range you will not be behind in anyway in terms of muscle building, retention or reduced catabolism. If you are lower than normal then sure you are gonna have issues. Considering the pics youve posted Id say you will be in a good spot not to be embarrassed. Now in a non tested show depending on who shows up you could easily be blown out of the water
[/quote]
If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re contending that the dose-response curve relating serum testosterone levels and LBM is positive for subnormal levels, flat throughout the normal range, and then (presumably) positive again at supranormal levels. Is that correct? And if it is, do you have a citation supporting this you can share? I ask because the study I found (‘Testosterone dose-response relationships in healthy young men’) does not support this. From the Discussion section:
“This study demonstrates that an increase in circulating testosterone concentrations results in dose-dependent increases in fat-free mass, muscle size, strength, and power. The relationships between circulating testosterone concentrations and changes in fat-free mass and muscle size conform to a single log-linear dose-response curve. Our data do not support the notion of two separate dose-response curves reflecting two independent mechanisms of testosterone action on the muscle.”
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/281/6/E1172.full#BIBL[/quote]
Wow That summary just spoon fed you doc.
[/quote]
It’s an amazing study. They took ~60 healthy young (18-35) men, all experienced weightlifters, and used a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist to pharmacologically castrate them–dropped their endogenous testosterone production to zero. (Temporarily and reversibly, of course.) This allowed the researchers to randomly assign the subjects to one of five levels of (exogenous) testosterone, and assess the effects. How they (the researchers) managed to convince their Institutional Review Board to approve this, I have no idea. (To say nothing of convincing the volunteers.)
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]EyeDentist wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
As long as youre in the normal range you will not be behind in anyway in terms of muscle building, retention or reduced catabolism. If you are lower than normal then sure you are gonna have issues. Considering the pics youve posted Id say you will be in a good spot not to be embarrassed. Now in a non tested show depending on who shows up you could easily be blown out of the water
[/quote]
If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re contending that the dose-response curve relating serum testosterone levels and LBM is positive for subnormal levels, flat throughout the normal range, and then (presumably) positive again at supranormal levels. Is that correct? And if it is, do you have a citation supporting this you can share? I ask because the study I found (‘Testosterone dose-response relationships in healthy young men’) does not support this. From the Discussion section:
“This study demonstrates that an increase in circulating testosterone concentrations results in dose-dependent increases in fat-free mass, muscle size, strength, and power. The relationships between circulating testosterone concentrations and changes in fat-free mass and muscle size conform to a single log-linear dose-response curve. Our data do not support the notion of two separate dose-response curves reflecting two independent mechanisms of testosterone action on the muscle.”
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/281/6/E1172.full#BIBL[/quote]
Does the English translation mean that the more you juice, the bigger, stronger, and leaner you get in direct proportion to how much you juice?
[/quote]
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
Your natural levels are whatever the hand nature delt you at any given point in time. Eveyone thinks they have a good reason for doing a wrong thing. Right now there are any number of people involved in affiars that violate the ‘exclusive’ agreement they have with another; they rationilize them for a variety of reasons; that doesn’t mean they are anything less than a betrayal of honor. The path of least resistance is what water does when it’s rolling down hill; not the path an ethical man chooses to take. [/quote]
Oh for crying out loud, comparing TRT use with adultery?
C’mon man.[/quote]
Wow wow wow. Ignorance and being naive. What a post. I normally respect BC’s posts but this is too much.
[/quote]
I guess I’m naive & ignorant too. Got a picture of this 20 year old with the test levels of a girl? 'Cause Im skeptical on top of naive and ignorant.[/quote]
Yes. I have lots. I take lots of pics of myself[/quote]
Ryan, after giving this some thought I have to conclude that anyone under the age of 40 who hasn’t had some type of tragic accident or has had some kind of genetic disorder like kleinfelter’s is doing themselves a huge disservice by going on TRT.
If your T levels were legitimately as low as you claim at 20 years old, there was something else going on besides your testicles just up and quitting on the testosterone production. Could it actually be that you were under tons of stress in college, pulling regular all-nighters and maybe partying a lot on top of that? Could it be you had some undiagnosed illness like Epstein Bar?
Going on a life time of TRT starting at 20 over what may have been a passing circumstance in ones life is crazy.
Did you at least get your test monitored for many months before starting TRT? I think it should be malpractice for any doctor to prescribe testosterone to a 20 year old without previously monitoring the patients testosterone for at least 12 months while ruling out possible causes of low T.
[quote]EyeDentist wrote:
How they (the researchers) managed to convince their Institutional Review Board to approve this, I have no idea. (To say nothing of convincing the volunteers.)[/quote]
No shit. I guess there’s no shortage of individuals who are overly trusting in the researchers. Or, maybe they just really need the money.
I was a guinea pig in a sleep deprivation study when I was in college. It was true torture and in no way worth the money.
What exactly is the downside of jumping on TRT at a young age (21+) ?
4-6 weeks of brain fog and downward mood when coming off?