Long term damage

[Bast]

i just had a tumor pulled out from the top of my chest 4 weeks ago --turned out to be noncancerous but a tumor nontheless - when we start piling on the so called exotics - pounding growth ,igf13 etc etc - your risks skyrocket -

Shit bro, good to hear youre ok!
What doses are we talking about that you consider to be dangerous, or is that any dose?

I', otherwise with you. Keeping the cycles simple is the key. You could still use a fair amount of it, aslong as one comes off.
As I've said before. My coach is an old World Champion bodybulder (early 90's). They used, test, deca, anavar and dbol. Hardly anything else and he was in great shape/conditioning. Also he was clean for most parts of the year using just 3-4 months prior to a competition.

 

[Thoms]

Of course there are side effects associated with gear that you need to be aware of and manage. However, I have no idea how anyone can conclude that using gear "must" shorten our lives and that this is obviously self evident from common sense and it is a "fact" even though there are no studies or emperical data to support this conclusion. That is nonsense. The lack of evidence supporting a conclusion that using steroids will kill you or shorten your life actually supports the conclusion that it will not do so.

I'm talking in general terms of course. I'm not implying that we should all start using anadrol daily for years and not worry about it.

Trevdog, with your line of thought, I can buy a car, drive it twice as much as normal, self-rightiously claim it looks and drives the same, having no studies except common sense that ik will break down sooner, and then claim it died of natural causes with an engine failure. The problem is, it will die sooner. We are doing the same thing to our bodies, putting them in overdrive physically and chemically. I think their will never be proof of shortened life because of training hard and using Anabolic Androgenic Steroids (AAS) because you have no way of comparing a death at age 70 of natural causes to a death of the same man, not using, at age 71 of natural causes. That doesn't change the fact it is true. The lack of evidence supporting a conclusion that using steroids will kill you or shorten your life is logical, and supports no conclusion eitherway.
No empirical data? Give me a break. In the last 2000 years of mankind, people who were heavier, be it from fat or muscle, have died sooner than their thinner counterparts.

 

[Jimmykick]

Trevdog, with your line of thought, I can buy a car, drive it twice as much as normal, self-rightiously claim it looks and drives the same, having no studies except common sense that ik will break down sooner, and then claim it died of natural causes with an engine failure. The problem is, it will die sooner. We are doing the same thing to our bodies, putting them in overdrive physically and chemically. I think their will never be proof of shortened life because of training hard and using Anabolic Androgenic Steroids (AAS) because you have no way of comparing a death at age 70 of natural causes to a death of the same man, not using, at age 71 of natural causes. That doesn't change the fact it is true. The lack of evidence supporting a conclusion that using steroids will kill you or shorten your life is logical, and supports no conclusion eitherway.
No empirical data? Give me a break. In the last 2000 years of mankind, people who were heavier, be it from fat or muscle, have died sooner than their thinner counterparts.

I don't know how I can argue with that. Makes too much logical sense.

you have no way of comparing a death at age 70 of natural causes to a death of the same man, not using, at age 71 of natural causes.

to add to this, who is to say that the man that used roids wasn't supposed to live into his 80s or beyond but instead died at age 70 due to "natural causes" ?

 

[Jimmykick]

Um, James, did you notice this part of the article?:

"three of the steroid-using bodybuilders died during the study period and all of them had significantly higher levels of homocysteine than the average for the steroid-using group."

These guys, in other words, were already at "double" the higher risk to begin with...I guess they thought that one would slip by a bunch of meatheads, since they kinda' slipped it in the tail of their alarmist report, Hmmm?

you left out an important part...the quote at the end says "AS MENTIONED" because it is mentioned early in the report and again at the end. And there is no way to know if their protein levels were higher before the study began or if 3 of them reacted differently than the rest of the group seeing those proteins rise during the study. Maybe the others didn't rise for whatever reason??? You have to look at this objectively and from both angles to draw any conclusions

 

[Jimmykick]

i would also like to add that the days of test only cycles are gone -- you have to look at the fine print to find actual test in anyones cycles -

the types of drugs and the amounts used are whats catching up to this generation - the older bodybuilders did not run into the problems that are seen today i feel because things were kept basic - no such thing anymore - since i started competeing i am guilty of this aswell -

Thanks House
Great point. If NOTHING else comes out of this maybe we can all try to get back to basics and just go back to test cycles until more testing is reported, if at all. I think we all feel relatively safe with moderate doses of test, keeping the cycles under 12 weeks, coming off and recovering, etc.

 

[roccodart440]

Louie Simmons has been on for the past 25 years.

 

[Jimmykick]

Louie Simmons has been on for the past 25 years.

and the 70 year old guy from the HBO special on steroids has used steroids his whole life too. Except for maybe being in the tanning bed too long he appeared to be, on the outside, relatively healthy with muscle tone admirable for a 70 yr old man. neither him nor Louie simmons prove or disprove anything other than he's been on for 25 years or more. Maybe their end is coming sooner and maybe it isn't.

I think we really need to push for human testing of steroids. How that happens and through what channels it might be influenced ...I have no idea.

 

[{R}a{G}e]

i don't think moderate doses hurt anymore than the rest of the shit we put in our bodies on a weekly basis.

SMoking , drinking, ect. these all have effects on our life.

 

[Perfection Awaits]

i don't think moderate doses hurt anymore than the rest of the shit we put in our bodies on a weekly basis.

SMoking , drinking, ect. these all have effects on our life.

And to add fast foods, and the bad rec drugs...addicting ones.

 

[Jimmykick]

i don't think moderate doses hurt anymore than the rest of the shit we put in our bodies on a weekly basis.

SMoking , drinking, ect. these all have effects on our life.

Well put

 

[Ponderosa]

Summary?

 

[Reptilicus]

you left out an important part...the quote at the end says "AS MENTIONED" because it is mentioned early in the report and again at the end. And there is no way to know if their protein levels were higher before the study began or if 3 of them reacted differently than the rest of the group seeing those proteins rise during the study. Maybe the others didn't rise for whatever reason??? You have to look at this objectively and from both angles to draw any conclusions

I did not intentionally leave that out, IMHO that reference is part of what is "wrong" about the article, they felt it necessary to hammer it 3 times that there were deaths during the study...When those type of tabloid tactics pop up in a supposedly "objective study", my B.S. detector goes off and the aroma of a hidden agenda becomes a question, and since all these projects must be funded from some source, this is always a legitimate line of questioning, particularly when, as in this case, there is cause to be skeptical....I do not see how that affects the point I originally submitted regarding the group of BB'ers in the study, it appears to me the authors are engaging in ...I'm not trying to be difficult, just cautious...

 

[Jimmykick]

Thanks Bro
Unfortunately sensationalism is part of it due to the explosiveness of the subject.
Steroids have been given a black eye due to guys like Canseco, "McGwire, Bonds, Ben johnson, the latest tour de France jerkoff, etc.

 

[Jimmykick]

http://www.steroidology.com/forum/showpost.php?p=953086&postcount=14

another thread on this

 

[Jimmykick]

Summary?

We all agree that steroids cause long term hidden damage to our bodies but how much is still unknown. This recent test confirms some things and yet raises more questions. We need more testing on humans. There are people willing to be lab rats out there so why not?

 

[Trevdog]

Trevdog, with your line of thought, I can buy a car, drive it twice as much as normal, self-rightiously claim it looks and drives the same, having no studies except common sense that ik will break down sooner, and then claim it died of natural causes with an engine failure. The problem is, it will die sooner. We are doing the same thing to our bodies, putting them in overdrive physically and chemically. I think their will never be proof of shortened life because of training hard and using Anabolic Androgenic Steroids (AAS) because you have no way of comparing a death at age 70 of natural causes to a death of the same man, not using, at age 71 of natural causes. That doesn't change the fact it is true. The lack of evidence supporting a conclusion that using steroids will kill you or shorten your life is logical, and supports no conclusion eitherway.
No empirical data? Give me a break. In the last 2000 years of mankind, people who were heavier, be it from fat or muscle, have died sooner than their thinner counterparts.

You're taking a quantum leap by comparing driving a car "twice as much as normal" to using steroids. There is no valid connection between the two. Using steroids isn't driving my body twice as much as normal.

You claim with zero support that by using steroids we are "putting our bodies in overdrive physically and chemically". What does that mean? And why should we assume that we are shortening our lives by increasing protein synthesis? WE SHOULDN'T.

Sorry bro but you act as if I'm some kind of fool for not just accepting your "facts" just because you claim they are facts. They aren't.

Once Abe Lincoln made an analogy. Abe says to his friend. "If I say a dog's tail is actually a leg, how many legs does the dog have?" His friend responded that it has five. Honest Abe countered, "Wrong. It has four. Just because I say his tail is a leg doesn't make it so."

You give me a break and stop spouting nonsense and calling it fact. I'm happy to entertain the notion that using steroids could shorten my life, and in fact I have entertained that notion and researched it extensively (albiet that was about 3 years ago when I was contemplating staying on indefinately). For the record, I've been at least as healthy over the last 3 years that I've been on full time as I was before.

I'll agree that an obese person is more likely to die sooner than a lean one. There is plenty of evidence to support that. However, I have not been convinced that my life will be shorter because I have used steroids along with training and diet to increase my lean body weight from about 160 lbs. to about 185 lbs. I would be surprised but not offended if you could produce some evidence that would support that conclusion.

 

[Trevdog]

Leaving aside the perils of overstressing the liver with orals, I think the main health concerns associated with long term use of injectable testosterone are hypertension and cholesterol. Fortunately, neither has been a problem for me. That is not to say that they could not be problems for other long term users or to say that they could never be problems for me.

 

[Thoms]

Sorry bro but you act as if I'm some kind of fool for not just accepting your "facts" just because you claim they are facts

I was afraid you would get personal. Trev, I don't think you're a fool at all and in no way I meant to target you directly. In fact I'm sure you are pretty knowledgeable and experienced about the subject.
But you shouldn't call my claims bullshit when you can't disprove them either, and have no tests yourself. As said before there is no evidence eitherway and we are following our own lines of thought on this. You are claiming you will live just as long on steroids which is BS to me, and a dangerous claim as well. FACT The human heart can pump about 51 million gallons (193 million liters) of blood before it gives out. FACT this will let a normal-bodyweight person live to the age of 70 FACT the extra weight on your body requires extra blood FACT your heart won't last that long.

 

[Thoms]

And I haven't even gotten to the direct side-effects of steroid use. Bad lipid profile, cholesterol, blood pressure and stiffening of the heart muscle all contribute to an untimely dead. (And please don't make me post studies linking BP etc. to death). I don't go and ask myself if steroid use will shorten my life. I ask myself what I can do to prolong my life as much as possible. 90% of steroid use is damage control.

 

[Thoms]

You're taking a quantum leap by comparing driving a car "twice as much as normal" to using steroids. There is no valid connection between the two. Using steroids isn't driving my body twice as much as normal.

It's merely an illustration, and not about steroids, but mostly about working out. When you work out you put twice as much stress on your body than normal. It becomes damaged and needs to recuperate. And we do it our entire lives. As a general rule, if you use something more extensively, it gives up quicker. Do I believe it will lead to a shortened life? Yes I do. Probably not by much, but I do. You believe your body keeps preserved all the way to the end. I don't. I hope that clears my opinion up a little.