AAS - What's the point?

[Sperwer]

Are you suggesting that there is no way to use AAS responsibly in a prudent manner as a tool; that they are inherently addictive and harmful, even if not abused? Is the concept of "abuse" even pertinent in your considerations?

Is it safe to say that you don't believe Robby Robinson has been natural for the past 13-14 years since retiring from active competition (as claimed) and that his current condition is res ipsa loquitur evidence of his continued use of gear?

[Infamy]

Are you suggesting that there is no way to use AAS responsibly in a prudent manner as a tool; that they are inherently addictive and harmful, even if not abused? Is the concept of "abuse" even pertinent in your considerations?

Is it safe to say that you don't believe Robby Robinson has been natural for the past 13-14 years since retiring from active competition (as claimed) and that his current condition is res ipsa loquitur evidence of his continued use of gear?

Well, my opinion is "no" there is no safe way to use AAS for muscle building purposes. Note the importance of the highlighted sentence as I do believe that whilst testosterone is clearly an AAS, TRT isn't particularly detrimental to male health if used at correct doses and monitored closely. Even then some men need to stop using TRT due to unpleasant side effects such as prostate hypertrophy, dyslipidemia, carpal tunnel syndrome from water retention, excess estrogen etc etc.

The fact is that when you take enough of substance x to build muscle - it's harmful. Id be happy to be proven wrong and if you can think of an example of any AAS which when taken at muscle building doses doesn't do that. Even testosterone (which is probably one of the safer steroids) at high doses needed to build muscle causes deleterious effects on the human body.

I would say theoretically, if not abused, then possibly the resultant damage may be recoverable given sufficient time off between cycles. But the fact remains, the cycle will cause damage. The amount and severity of the damage is dependant on many factors - amount taken, steroid used, length of time on, age, genetics and diet to name but a few.

in practice, I don't think any bodybuilders have the ability to limit themselves to say, one short cycle every 5 years or something though so I think that question is a redundant one due to human mental frailties.

I'm not familiar with Robby Robinson other than what Ive seen from a quick google search now so it would be unwise for me to pretend I know about what he does and doesnt do. I accept however, that some people are just better than others and will always naturally look better due to good genetics. Although a generalisation, black people do seem to excel at good genetics when it comes to the aesthetics of muscle building so maybe Robby is lucky in that regard. Or maybe he, like many addicts before him, cant and wont admit that he uses due to social stigma and possibly he is in denial.

Jelisej - I do agree that hormone optimisation would be a much safer and better route to go down FWIW (although id never touch tamox!)

OD - Good point. But I guess i'm optimistic that if I live right and take care of my body inside and out then I might still be an active 80 year old. Sure, I wont bench what I can at 80 as I could at 30 but I reckon I could be respectable. And you should reconsider the moustache - they are back in fashion!

DJM - Thanks. Im always around lurking but dont get much time to post what with my job and work and all. Ive just torn a ligament in my calf though so im getting way more sofa hours now that id like though and I have to fill them with something.

JM1000 - Whilst the amount of damage you cause yourself on steroids is in part mediated by genetics (some people just have livers of steel whilst others have livers made of glass), the fact is that damage will occur nevertheless to some extent regardless of how gifted you are genetically speaking if you take them long enough and at high enough doses.

We are now at an age where more people than ever are using steroids. When I was a kid they were something only used by pro BBers and they were hard to get hold of. What the ideal male physique now resembling something out of a comic book more and availability no longer an issue thanks to the internet more people are turning to them. Unfortunately, few of them bother to do their research and many take frankly ludicrous doses (I read about some 160lb kid using over 1.5 grams of tren a week recently! Maybe it was Ippats!).

I mean, how many people reading this know about the deleterious effects of angiotensin II on the epithelial layer of your arteries. How many from that group know which steroids increase Angiotensin II levels? How many still know how to combat those raised Angiotensin II levels?

Or how about something more simple. How many people using gear have a home blood sugar tester and know what their blood sugar usually runs to on an average day. Would you know if you had increased insulin resistance? High glucose levels kill nerve cells, restrict blood supplies which leads to amputations and other horrible side effects. It's a serious thing but I'd wager few out there know or care to check on these things whilst using.

This is just a couple of small examples of the research that anyone taking gear should be doing and know all about before using steroids but the sad fact is that, aside from qualified medical professionals and those with an interest in medicine, virtually no one knows or attempts to do their homework.

The damage caused now is only going to show in decades from now and it's only going to get worse as more and more people turn to them for the ever elusive perfect physique which is always just one more cycle away.

[DJM]

DJM - Thanks. Im always around lurking but dont get much time to post what with my job and work and all. Ive just torn a ligament in my calf though so im getting way more sofa hours now that id like though and I have to fill them with something.

did that boat ever dock on your end hahaha

[Sperwer]

Well, my opinion is "no" there is no safe way to use AAS for muscle building purposes. Note the importance of the highlighted sentence as I do believe that whilst testosterone is clearly an AAS, TRT isn't particularly detrimental to male health if used at correct doses and monitored closely. Even then some men need to stop using TRT due to unpleasant side effects such as prostate hypertrophy, dyslipidemia, carpal tunnel syndrome from water retention, excess estrogen etc etc.
The fact is that when you take enough of substance x to build muscle - it's harmful. Id be happy to be proven wrong and if you can think of an example of any AAS which when taken at muscle building doses doesn't do that. Even testosterone (which is probably one of the safer steroids) at high doses needed to build muscle causes deleterious effects on the human body.

I would say theoretically, if not abused, then possibly the resultant damage may be recoverable given sufficient time off between cycles. But the fact remains, the cycle will cause damage. The amount and severity of the damage is dependant on many factors - amount taken, steroid used, length of time on, age, genetics and diet to name but a few.

in practice, I don't think any bodybuilders have the ability to limit themselves to say, one short cycle every 5 years or something though so I think that question is a redundant one due to human mental frailties.

...
I mean, how many people reading this know about the deleterious effects of angiotensin II on the epithelial layer of your arteries. How many from that group know which steroids increase Angiotensin II levels? How many still know how to combat those raised Angiotensin II levels?

Or how about something more simple. How many people using gear have a home blood sugar tester and know what their blood sugar usually runs to on an average day. Would you know if you had increased insulin resistance? High glucose levels kill nerve cells, restrict blood supplies which leads to amputations and other horrible side effects. It's a serious thing but I'd wager few out there know or care to check on these things whilst using.

This is just a couple of small examples of the research that anyone taking gear should be doing and know all about before using steroids but the sad fact is that, aside from qualified medical professionals and those with an interest in medicine, virtually no one knows or attempts to do their homework.

...

I understand the qualification and its importance, but what falls into the category of "muscle building purposes".

Obviously, I guess, the creation of the sort of escaped-Jurassic Park-attraction type of physique characteristic of contemporary professional body builders and wannabes. (And while I agree that the number of the latter has increased - well, so has the population. Has there been a real % increase. Moreover, I'm prepared to believe that there has been a small % increase, but I also think it is likely minor in relation to the number of people who have taken up the sport and that it is pretty much limited to Euro-America. There are serious gear head here in Asia, but their numbers are really small, and the ideal male physique is NOT the Bodybuilder blow-up doll - a six pack is de rigeur but the overall body profile is a very lean one, barely fitness model by Euro-American standards.)

But what about more modest endeavors than emulating the pros. I, e.g., have no interest in looking like those guys, or even most of their predecessors from the past 50 years since Arnold became the poster boy for size over form (with the possible exceptions of Frank Zane and Robby Robinson, neither of whom, I am very much aware, I'm ever going to come close to - a fact with which I'm quite comfortable). Nevertheless, I have wanted and continue to desire to improve both the size and especially the definition of my musculature (and to improve my flexibility and mobility - which is something of a combination rescue mission/rear-guard action given my (unrelated) injury history, past failures to deal effectively with the results and my age). In that pursuit, I've replaced about 50 pounds of fat with 35 pounds of muscle over the past six years; various muscles are now measurably larger; and I've got a fair amount of definition, including in the legs (although they are lagging in this regard). In the process of doing so I've done a 4-5 PH cycles, and am now doing a parabolan run, my first ever AAS. Constantly improving nutrition and ever more consistent training have been the essential foundations of my progress, and I've made really dramatic strides recently as a result of working with a coach who has rigorously corrected my form and drilled me in doing it right. But it's also clear that the PH cycles contributed and that the Tren run is having an impact now. And while it's also the case that substantial amounts of the gains from each cycle rather quickly dissipated, because of imo the post-cycle psychological and training let-up as much if not more the removal of the anabolic promoter, there has been a noticeable - rather dramatic, I'd say - preservation and cumulation of the gains. Moreover, just as there are countermeasures for the potential side effects of TRT, there are on-cycle and post-cycle therapies for the sides associated with PHs and AAS, the latter of which in my admittedly picayune experience are dramatically fewer and less intense than those associated w/ PHs. True, as you say, not everyone adequately understands and appreciates even the known physical risks, including the overwhelming majority of ostensibly qualified medical practitioners who are no less likely to simply parrot the the pet phrases of the anti-steroid inquisitors than the average suburban mom of a jacked up high school football player. But if that is the driving criterion for whether to use or not, and especially for government regulation, then in the latter case there are far larger and individually and especially socially more important targets for regulation (alcohol anyone?)see the Dutch Institute of Health study, Adverse health effects of anabolic–androgenic steroids, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031: "The dependence liability of AAS is very low, and withdrawal effects are relatively mild. Based on the scores for acute and chronic adverse health effects, the prevalence of use, social harm and criminality, AAS were ranked among 19 illicit drugs as a group of drugs with a relatively low harm"), and we are well into a nanny state that I prefer to have as little to do with as possible (even at soem significant 'cost" to myself).