nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

MyFitnessPal Community

steroid use ...

4leighbee

I am not "in the conversation" on this issue and would like to have a general picture - based on what you've observed and heard among younger athletes at the gym - about steroid use. Is this finally taboo now - or is it still an issue in certain circles? I'm not considering using steroids and have a valid reason for my inquiry. I think this is a good audience to ask and gather decent, real-world answers about the prevalence of steroids among young people. Thanks in advance. Moderators, hopefully I'm not breaking any rules by asking about this.

Replies

dbmata

glevinso wrote: »

The issue with simply saying "have at it" and let everyone use what they want, is that eventually the drug use will get pushed too far and people will die. Sure these things can be used in a safe manner, but if everyone uses it, then the risks of bad side effects for one person could be catastrophic.

People die all the time.

"Save just one life" is a bs reason.

3dogsrunning

auddii wrote: »

Lofteren wrote: »

There are sports where steroid use isn't really a problem at all. By that I mean that, no one has a problem with it and everyone does it, like bodybuilding, powerlifting and strongman (at the higher levels, the newbs usually aren't into using AAS yet). I really don't think that this is bad for the sport either because spectators aren't interested in seeing "an even playing field of natural athletes", they are interested in seeing "freaks". People being freakishly huge and strong is what supports the sport financially and, without steroids, that level of size and power is just not obtainable.

With that being said, I understand that there are some sports that don't want the participants using AAS and I understand why as well; however, there are always going to be people who find a way to get a leg up on the competition. Even without AAS use there are still peptide hormones which are extremely difficult to test for. There are short acting steroids which leave almost no metabolite profile to be tested for. There are now people experimenting with genetically modifying viruses who will change your DNA in such a way that you will no longer produce myostatin (an inhibitory hormone which interrupts the M-Tor pathway, halting muscle protein synthesis) or SHBG (sex hormone binding globulin, binds with free floating testosterone to make it inactive). This would be nearly impossible to test for as well. Insulin is also commonly used by athletes to increase performance. This is obviously a practice that is far more dangerous than any dosage of anabolic steroids.

At a certain point, if you step back and look at what banning steroids in sports has caused, it becomes apparent that just letting the athletes use steroids openly would probably be safer than the ridiculous measures people have gone to in order to mimic their effects.

As someone pointed out above though, if you have competitions that are clean and competitions that allow steroids, why compete in the clean competitions if you use?

From your post, I find it a little intimidating and sad because I wouldn't mind trying my hand at a powerlifting competition if I can get my lifts up. But, if everyone else is going to be using, it's rather intimidating and disappointing.

In regards to the bodybuilding, there aren't any natural comps here so I am not familiar but is there a difference in the look the judges prefer? I mean, are you going to see people/winners who have the "freak" look (using a word that has been used here) or do you still see a smaller, more natural look even though steroids may be used?
I would think that if the more natural look is preferred then it would at least be possible to compete against those who use steroids whereas in the other organizations, it is pretty much impossible to level up without taking something.
Just wondering.

glevinso

dbmata wrote: »

glevinso wrote: »

The issue with simply saying "have at it" and let everyone use what they want, is that eventually the drug use will get pushed too far and people will die. Sure these things can be used in a safe manner, but if everyone uses it, then the risks of bad side effects for one person could be catastrophic.

People die all the time.

"Save just one life" is a bs reason.

Sure - but when the person died because he was trying to one-up his competition by popping just one more pill, I think there is a problem.

dbmata

glevinso wrote: »

dbmata wrote: »

glevinso wrote: »

The issue with simply saying "have at it" and let everyone use what they want, is that eventually the drug use will get pushed too far and people will die. Sure these things can be used in a safe manner, but if everyone uses it, then the risks of bad side effects for one person could be catastrophic.

People die all the time.

"Save just one life" is a bs reason.

Sure - but when the person died because he was trying to one-up his competition by popping just one more pill, I think there is a problem.

Yup, I agree, but that's no reason to legislate or create rules. Just like, occasionally people die from other excesses. No reason to legislate or rule that out either. Some people are going to die. Some are not.

glevinso

As with most things like this - I like rules against it coming from the sport's governing body. I don't like legislation making it illegal.

dbmata

glevinso wrote: »

As with most things like this - I like rules against it coming from the sport's governing body. I don't like legislation making it illegal.

the legistlating body should really be reasonable though.

Like no TUE for TRT is not reasonable.

Sam_I_Am77

If legislation made it legal but by doctor's orders and supervision, then it could be safer just like TRT is safe.

AllanMisner

3dogsrunning wrote: »

In regards to the bodybuilding, there aren't any natural comps here so I am not familiar but is there a difference in the look the judges prefer? I mean, are you going to see people/winners who have the "freak" look (using a word that has been used here) or do you still see a smaller, more natural look even though steroids may be used?
I would think that if the more natural look is preferred then it would at least be possible to compete against those who use steroids whereas in the other organizations, it is pretty much impossible to level up without taking something.
Just wondering.

Yes, there are natural competitions, but you can look at the competitors and it’s like looking a A&F model next to the Hulk. Fans want to see Hulks, not boys. The women’s competition has split into multiple sets (bodybuilders, fitness models, etc.) because women were beginning to not look like women.

AllanMisner

glevinso wrote: »

dbmata wrote: »

glevinso wrote: »

The issue with simply saying "have at it" and let everyone use what they want, is that eventually the drug use will get pushed too far and people will die. Sure these things can be used in a safe manner, but if everyone uses it, then the risks of bad side effects for one person could be catastrophic.

People die all the time.

"Save just one life" is a bs reason.

Sure - but when the person died because he was trying to one-up his competition by popping just one more pill, I think there is a problem.

More people die from smoking, over-eating, driving, and taking showers. Do we need to save them too?

glevinso

dbmata wrote: »

glevinso wrote: »

As with most things like this - I like rules against it coming from the sport's governing body. I don't like legislation making it illegal.

the legistlating body should really be reasonable though.

Like no TUE for TRT is not reasonable.

For TRT I could be persuaded. If your testosterone levels are shown to be in the "normal" range while under therapy I would be OK with a TUE. At least in Triathlon that is not permitted (you really can only get a TUE if you were born without testicles or something extreme like that), at least for now.

Sam_I_Am77

Regarding TRT in organized sports, limits could be established to prevent TRT from being abused. For instance, if the average total T for a 33 year old man is 664 dcl's then that could be the guideline for 33-year old male athletes, and anything above that would be grounds for banning from competition.

3dogsrunning

AllanMisner wrote: »

3dogsrunning wrote: »

In regards to the bodybuilding, there aren't any natural comps here so I am not familiar but is there a difference in the look the judges prefer? I mean, are you going to see people/winners who have the "freak" look (using a word that has been used here) or do you still see a smaller, more natural look even though steroids may be used?
I would think that if the more natural look is preferred then it would at least be possible to compete against those who use steroids whereas in the other organizations, it is pretty much impossible to level up without taking something.
Just wondering.

Yes, there are natural competitions, but you can look at the competitors and it’s like looking a A&F model next to the Hulk. Fans want to see Hulks, not boys. The women’s competition has split into multiple sets (bodybuilders, fitness models, etc.) because women were beginning to not look like women.

I know there are natural competitions. I am asking a differene in the looks between a natural competition and the other federations.

What is a non-"natural" competition called? LOL

I also don't believe that is the reason for the different divisions within the women's competition. The men also have different divisions as well.

dbmata

Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »

Regarding TRT in organized sports, limits could be established to prevent TRT from being abused. For instance, if the average total T for a 33 year old man is 664 dcl's then that could be the guideline for 33-year old male athletes, and anything above that would be grounds for banning from competition.

then someone would abuse an AI to get their free t in a more optimal position.

You're also advocating for a sporting body to essentially be defining what theraputic use is, trumping the work, knowledge, and experience of the actual physician guiding the process.

I see no problems coming from that.

dbmata

glevinso wrote: »

dbmata wrote: »

glevinso wrote: »

As with most things like this - I like rules against it coming from the sport's governing body. I don't like legislation making it illegal.

the legistlating body should really be reasonable though.

Like no TUE for TRT is not reasonable.

For TRT I could be persuaded. If your testosterone levels are shown to be in the "normal" range while under therapy I would be OK with a TUE. At least in Triathlon that is not permitted (you really can only get a TUE if you were born without testicles or something extreme like that), at least for now.

Then we'd have to have someone with experience define normal. Because normal for me, and normal for you may be different, even if we were straight up twins.

usmcmp

3dogsrunning wrote: »

AllanMisner wrote: »

3dogsrunning wrote: »

In regards to the bodybuilding, there aren't any natural comps here so I am not familiar but is there a difference in the look the judges prefer? I mean, are you going to see people/winners who have the "freak" look (using a word that has been used here) or do you still see a smaller, more natural look even though steroids may be used?
I would think that if the more natural look is preferred then it would at least be possible to compete against those who use steroids whereas in the other organizations, it is pretty much impossible to level up without taking something.
Just wondering.

Yes, there are natural competitions, but you can look at the competitors and it’s like looking a A&F model next to the Hulk. Fans want to see Hulks, not boys. The women’s competition has split into multiple sets (bodybuilders, fitness models, etc.) because women were beginning to not look like women.

I know there are natural competitions. I am asking a differene in the looks between a natural competition and the other federations.

Difference in look is usually size, leanness (how grainy their muscles look), and fullness of the muscle bellies.

3dogsrunning

usmcmp wrote: »

3dogsrunning wrote: »

AllanMisner wrote: »

3dogsrunning wrote: »

In regards to the bodybuilding, there aren't any natural comps here so I am not familiar but is there a difference in the look the judges prefer? I mean, are you going to see people/winners who have the "freak" look (using a word that has been used here) or do you still see a smaller, more natural look even though steroids may be used?
I would think that if the more natural look is preferred then it would at least be possible to compete against those who use steroids whereas in the other organizations, it is pretty much impossible to level up without taking something.
Just wondering.

Yes, there are natural competitions, but you can look at the competitors and it’s like looking a A&F model next to the Hulk. Fans want to see Hulks, not boys. The women’s competition has split into multiple sets (bodybuilders, fitness models, etc.) because women were beginning to not look like women.

I know there are natural competitions. I am asking a differene in the looks between a natural competition and the other federations.

Difference in look is usually size, leanness (how grainy their muscles look), and fullness of the muscle bellies.

Thanks. My question really was, is it easier to compete as a natural in a natural show even with people who use?

Sam_I_Am77

dbmata wrote: »

Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »

Regarding TRT in organized sports, limits could be established to prevent TRT from being abused. For instance, if the average total T for a 33 year old man is 664 dcl's then that could be the guideline for 33-year old male athletes, and anything above that would be grounds for banning from competition.

then someone would abuse an AI to get their free t in a more optimal position.

You're also advocating for a sporting body to essentially be defining what theraputic use is, trumping the work, knowledge, and experience of the actual physician guiding the process.

I see no problems coming from that.

Then establish minimums for what is determined to be hypgonadic and grounds for therapy. If an athlete had diabetes would they be eliminated from play because they take insulin? Insulin is used to improve performance by some. If an athlete was suffering from any ailment treatable by medicine would they be refused that treatment? No. Hypogonadism is a legit issue and trust me it absolutely *kitten* with every aspect of your body physically and mentally. Just because somebody plays a sport should not prevent them from getting the therapy they need. I'm sure there is a sensible solution somewhere in the middle.

jenluvsushi

Watch Bigger, Faster, Stronger. I thought it was very interesting and it gave me a different opinion about steriods. I have a few family members who compete in BB. Pretty much MOST people in the IFBB or NPC are doing cycles or at least pro-hormones that convert once ingested. You cannot look like Ronny Coleman or Dana Linn Bailey naturally....sorry but it's true. I appreciate these athletes though. They don't just do roids and look like that. They still have to put in tons of work and eat a certain way. I don't like people on gear competing in natural shows though....that is just wrong.

beertrollruss

I've never used steroids, but as a fan of bodybuilding I've learned a lot about them. I joined my first gym in 1983. After a year of working out, everyone I knew who was as big as me or bigger was on something.
Most people think of bodybuilders and other athletes as being the biggest consumers of steroids. The truth is that the majority of users are middle aged men trying to hang on to their youth.
The saddest thing to me is that many natural lifters are accused of taking steroids. I had one lady who swore up and down that I was on them. I wanted to drop my pants so I could show her there were no injection marks in my butt.
Anyone can build a pretty awesome physique if they follow a good workout plan and diet and you're never too old to start.

usmcmp

3dogsrunning wrote: »

usmcmp wrote: »

3dogsrunning wrote: »

AllanMisner wrote: »

3dogsrunning wrote: »

In regards to the bodybuilding, there aren't any natural comps here so I am not familiar but is there a difference in the look the judges prefer? I mean, are you going to see people/winners who have the "freak" look (using a word that has been used here) or do you still see a smaller, more natural look even though steroids may be used?
I would think that if the more natural look is preferred then it would at least be possible to compete against those who use steroids whereas in the other organizations, it is pretty much impossible to level up without taking something.
Just wondering.

Yes, there are natural competitions, but you can look at the competitors and it’s like looking a A&F model next to the Hulk. Fans want to see Hulks, not boys. The women’s competition has split into multiple sets (bodybuilders, fitness models, etc.) because women were beginning to not look like women.

I know there are natural competitions. I am asking a differene in the looks between a natural competition and the other federations.

Difference in look is usually size, leanness (how grainy their muscles look), and fullness of the muscle bellies.

Thanks. My question really was, is it easier to compete as a natural in a natural show even with people who use?

It depends on the level and how many years you've been working at it. I know guys who are natural who place well against steroid users at non-natural shows.

Also, there is no designation for a show that isn't natural. The natural shows and federations are labeled as natural. Sometimes the other shows have natural divisions within them, also designated for natural competitors. I've had to take a polygraph before each show stating I have been natural for at least 7 years and then at the show they select some people to be tested (it doesn't seem random, they seem to pick the suspicious ones).

Mr_Knight

Middle aged guys with money to burn are flocking to "anti-aging" doctors for full-course regimens of not just steroids but old-school hormones, HGH and even at times EPO. This is all doctor-supervised stuff and the fully monty typically runs about $1k/month (can vary widely).

It's a brave new world....this **** is everywhere, from gym rats to firefighters.

dbmata

Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »

dbmata wrote: »

Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »

Regarding TRT in organized sports, limits could be established to prevent TRT from being abused. For instance, if the average total T for a 33 year old man is 664 dcl's then that could be the guideline for 33-year old male athletes, and anything above that would be grounds for banning from competition.

then someone would abuse an AI to get their free t in a more optimal position.

You're also advocating for a sporting body to essentially be defining what theraputic use is, trumping the work, knowledge, and experience of the actual physician guiding the process.

I see no problems coming from that.

Then establish minimums for what is determined to be hypgonadic and grounds for therapy. If an athlete had diabetes would they be eliminated from play because they take insulin? Insulin is used to improve performance by some. If an athlete was suffering from any ailment treatable by medicine would they be refused that treatment? No. Hypogonadism is a legit issue and trust me it absolutely *kitten* with every aspect of your body physically and mentally. Just because somebody plays a sport should not prevent them from getting the therapy they need. I'm sure there is a sensible solution somewhere in the middle.

Only once sensible people get in the middle.

You don't need to tell me about hypogonadism, I'm living it, and it sucks. Oh, and since there aren't reasonable people in these sport orgs, I can't compete in any of my regional powerlifting competitions (USAPL) or any of the local olympic style competitions. So, that PL comp in May I really wanted to do and was training for, well... since there is NO tue for trt, and there is random testing for 10% of the lifters, I can't do it. Even though my testosterone level is still at the bottom end of the range. really makes me want to just say, "Yeah? Screw you hippy." Then double my t dosages (my doc would love that.) until then and compete anyway.

There's far too much hand wringing about "Ermagerds, but it might give them too much testosterone." Without enough looking at the realities of HRT, and steroid usage. Eh, whatever.

Mr_Knight

Here's a classic article by an amateur athlete who DIY'ed his way through the whole PED menu.

http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/Drug-Test.html

k20az

moya_bleh wrote: »

Anavar is pretty much an open secret among gym-goers in my area (I'm from the UK) Most users in my area now seem to go for cutting agents for that shredded look, rather than bulking on Test-E and Dbol (I've observed that it tends to be doormen who use the bulking 'roids in the gyms that I've trained at.)

And that is basically where inexperience lies. Why would you take anavar on its own? Yes it works, but even a tiny amount of test pinned a long side makes it a considerably more potent drug. The problem with England I've found is a lot of people will use orals without pinning.

Take dbol, gain a stone in a month, lose most when you come off. Waste of time and money.

dbmata

Isn't that stuff ridiculously expensive?

Hornsby

I'm a little surprised how civil this conversation has remained...

Sam_I_Am77

dbmata wrote: »

You don't need to tell me about hypogonadism, I'm living it, and it sucks.

Me too brotha'. I'm glad I figured it out and 3-doctors later I found a place that actually knew how to treat it; it's been life changing for me.

Sam_I_Am77

Hornsby wrote: »

I'm a little surprised how civil this conversation has remained...

I know and I'm really glad it has because it's a good conversation. Keep it up folks.

dbmata

Hornsby wrote: »

I'm a little surprised how civil this conversation has remained...

because it's a solid topic to discuss.

Hornsby

dbmata wrote: »

Hornsby wrote: »

I'm a little surprised how civil this conversation has remained...

because it's a solid topic to discuss.

I agree. I just figured there would be someone come in and blow it up with a dumb comment as per the status quo.

Glad to see it's staying civilized.