Don’t know if anyone has mentioned this before or asked before but we are all pretty much aware of the coaching and nutrition experts around the world. Fortunately, we have many of them writing great articles for T-mag.
However, I’m yet to see an informed article by professionals relating to steroid use and athlete application.
Of interest to me would be how best to take something for martial arts, MMA, wrestling etc rather than adapt a “bodybuilding” approach to it.
Surely there would be differences the way an athlete should take steroids if they were going to and what they should take.
Not that I take or have taken anything, but it’s just hard to come across articles that intellectually discuss the issue.
Steroids are illegal. As such, any studies involving subjects and steroid use would be illegal as well. Furthermore, people can not publish articles without data from a legal study.
[quote]JoeyD20 wrote:
Steroids are illegal. As such, any studies involving subjects and steroid use would be illegal as well. Furthermore, people can not publish articles without data from a legal study.[/quote]
Then why are there books on steroids? My guess is they were just published before they were illegal?
[quote]JoeyD20 wrote:
people can not publish articles without data from a legal study.[/quote]
This is false.
The better authors will often cite research, but most articles about bodybuilding and nutrition are not referenced. Some authors do this, but it is assumed many times that what they say is true. However, if you publish an article and say something scientific that isn’t the truth, someone will spend the time to prove you wrong.
This isn’t the case with steroids due to the lack of research, and the fact that there is so much anecdotal evidence out there and dipshits that will debate everything that it isn’t worth the time or money (and there isn’t a lot of revenue in steroid literature) to write these articles.
Take P22’s taper protocol. There is both science and anecdotal evidence, but unless someone has done it themselves they’ll likely disagree with it.
In areas where there are few experts (steroids) people will try to seem like experts themselves, as there are few people willing to debate their expert status. In an area such as exercise science or nutrition there are many experts, and as such the typical guy can’t claim he is an expert when he isn’t because he’ll get torn apart by people with formal education in the subject.
Hopefully this makes sense. Joey’s right in that most of this stems from legal issues, and secondly the lack of profit.
Speaking of profits self-proclaimed experts, take a look at most supplement companies and their marketing.
Perhaps then ( to make it more legal) endocrinologists addressing the issues from a sports/athlete perspective.
I thoroughly enjoyed the interview with Dr Serrano by John Paul Catanzaro but it felt like he had so much more to offer and was holding back. Are their any other guys anyone can think of?
[quote]JohnnyBlaze wrote:
Steroids are illegal and thus are bad and dangerous. Don’t do them.[/quote]
If the reason that they are bad and dangerous is by default because they are “illegal”, I just can’t swallow that.
If however they are bad and dangerous because when used intelligently, under supervision and for a specific purpose, I am yet to see evidence of them being the evil that they’re made out to be.
Being an athlete and someone who’s studied Exercise and Sports Science at university level I’m just astounded that their are no real “steroid experts” for athletes even though I know that many athletes do take them.
So rather than let the “bodybuilding world” (and I don’t mean to sound derogatory but there’s no other way to put it) dictate the use of steroids to athletes, I was just curious to know of well experts in the area.
there are many experts out there who have an endocrinology/biochem type background and are more interested in sports use rather than bodybuilding. the thing is it is not worth our while to run around proclaiming it as the unwanted attention will drive away any non-doping clients and most doping but tested athletes.
i mean who in their right mind wants junoir coached by the ‘sauce guy’ or what athlete wants testers doing ‘random’ tests at higher than normal frequency because they work out with the drug guru.
as to the danger, it is something that many endocrinologists are misinformed on, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the media blows it out of proportion. mysticism always sells more than the truth.
that many athletes take steroids is not surprising. they work. but much like athletes and supps, many are using poor protocols (this extends to training and nutrition too) not because they believe it is the perfect way, but they are afraid that if they don’t go that route, they will surely fail.
you should check the older articles. bill roberts and brian batcheldor have written enough about steroid use for athletes, just it is not arranged and targeted solely at that crowd.
[quote]humble wrote:
JohnnyBlaze wrote:
Steroids are illegal and thus are bad and dangerous. Don’t do them.
If the reason that they are bad and dangerous is by default because they are “illegal”, I just can’t swallow that.
If however they are bad and dangerous because when used intelligently, under supervision and for a specific purpose, I am yet to see evidence of them being the evil that they’re made out to be.
Being an athlete and someone who’s studied Exercise and Sports Science at university level I’m just astounded that their are no real “steroid experts” for athletes even though I know that many athletes do take them.
So rather than let the “bodybuilding world” (and I don’t mean to sound derogatory but there’s no other way to put it) dictate the use of steroids to athletes, I was just curious to know of well experts in the area.
[/quote]
The experts who help athletes probably try to lay low as it is frowned upon for professional athletes to use steroids. They obviously must take slightly different dosages and train differently since a sprinter for example wouldn’t want to get too bulky because it would hurt his time.
Looks like you haven’t been keeping up on your reading for the past 27 years.[/quote]
To be fair I would assume he was referring to AAS studies about performance enhancement, dosing for competition, etc. Most newer research focuses on health or user statistics.
[quote]Schwarzenegger wrote:
To be fair I would assume he was referring to AAS studies about performance enhancement, dosing for competition, etc. Most newer research focuses on health or user statistics.[/quote]
No problem. But there are studies about performance enhancement using subjects who self-report their AAS usage. That’s not exactly a tight experimental group, but hey, you work with what you’ve got.
Check out some of the research of Charles Yesalis on Pub Med. as an example of some recent studies.
[quote]Schwarzenegger wrote:
JoeyD20 wrote:
Take P22’s taper protocol. There is both science and anecdotal evidence, but unless someone has done it themselves they’ll likely disagree with it.
.[/quote]
Geez thanks for the vote of confidence Schwarz!
maybe if I would have included more pictures it would have been more convincing?
I don’t think he is slamming you, he is talking about the mentality of others.
I think the protocol sounds great, and I plan to implement it at the cessation of my first cycle in a couple months. You’ll be able to add my experience to your “anecdotal evidence” files.
[quote]Prisoner#22 wrote:
Schwarzenegger wrote:
JoeyD20 wrote:
Take P22’s taper protocol. There is both science and anecdotal evidence, but unless someone has done it themselves they’ll likely disagree with it.
.
Geez thanks for the vote of confidence Schwarz!
maybe if I would have included more pictures it would have been more convincing?
[quote]Prisoner#22 wrote:
Schwarzenegger wrote:
JoeyD20 wrote:
Take P22’s taper protocol. There is both science and anecdotal evidence, but unless someone has done it themselves they’ll likely disagree with it.
.
Geez thanks for the vote of confidence Schwarz!
maybe if I would have included more pictures it would have been more convincing?
