2/14/2003 4:18pm, #41
Piz: From what I understand you are asian, so naturally your body type is thinner. (Do NOT jump on me about this. Yes it's a generalization, but usually an accurate one.) I work out or train 7 days a week and moderate my food intake to some extent. I could easily be 210-215 and still hold solid muscle but with a fair bit of beefiness. LOL! It's all good though man, nobody's bashing you about it. Just us big white guys are complaining because we get shafted when it comes to definition in our muscles.
Doc: Yeah, I'm a chocolate lover too...terrible habit, I'll sit and finish a whole load of the stuff and not think twice about it. LOL! But I still worry about getting my salad dressing on the side. Go figure.
"You kicked me in the HEAD! You NEVER throw kicks! How'd you do that? Wires?!" - Sempai Phil (my last sparring partner)Regards,
"Na'h, they should go to old school rules.
One guy gets sword and sheild, the other gets a net and a trident.
Lions eat christians between rounds." - Strong Machine
2/14/2003 4:29pm, #42
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
I'm 5'11 bout 165.
2/14/2003 4:47pm, #43
"We know steroids can be used with a reasonable measure of safety," says Charles Yesalis, a Penn State epidemiologist, steroid researcher for more than 25 years, and author of the 1998 book The Steroids Game. "We know this because they’re used in medicine all the time, just not to enhance body image or improve athletic performance." Yesalis notes that steroids were first used for medical purposes in the 1930s, some three decades before the current exacting standards of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were in place.
When you hear that steroids can cause this or that dread problem, what exactly do you know? We know aspirin can cause severe stomach distress. That tells you little and by itself doesn't give you a reason never to use it. "Airplanes can crash and kill you." is a worthless remark. What exactly is the risk? More information, please. Statistics, sir, if you'll be so kind.
Yes, steroid use is more dangerous than taking aspirin - a lot more dangerous. But what does "a lot more" mean? In the famous aspirin study done at Framingham, aspirin was found to be a "lot more" effective than a placebo for preventing heart at tacks. The researchers called off the study for fear that they were depriving the placebo group of a valuable therapy. "A lot more" in this celebrated example meant 5% more effective. In other words, if one hundred people out of one hundred thousand who used placebos got heart attacks during the research period (over several years), only ninety-five aspirin takers got heart attacks. Most physicians don't tell their patients the statistical story for fear that their patients won't appreciate the math. But let me be kinder. Heart disease is a public health problem and not merely a matter of individual concern. A reduction of 5% annually in the total number of heart attacks that the American population experiences would be an enormous public health gain. Taking a global view instead of an individual perspective, 5% is no joke. But it is a joke when it comes to steroids. The main risks of steroids are not lethal. Even in his tirade against steroids, "The Consequences of Anabolic Steroid Abuse", Dr. David Lamb, of Ohio State University, admits "Young people should be told that very few athletes are known to have become seriously ill or to have died from steroid abuse." [Published by the Gatorade Sports Science Institute, an avowed enemy of drugs.] More over, the number of people taking steroids is so few that if every steroid user discontinued the practice the resulting drop in lethality would be trivial and there could be no marvelous public health gain. (My personal guess is that there would be one life saved per two year period.) Again, because the numbers are so low, the very substantial drop of 50% in acne, a particularly common side effect, would not be a marvelous social gain. (Perhaps there would be a drop from 4000 cases to 2000 cases each year.) And, of course, acne, a grave concern to those who have it, presents no public health concern since it isn't contagious. The number of persons developing some form of cancer or heart disease because of steroids is not known but it certainly is too low to regard as a significant contributor to the public health problem. Cancer and heart disease are matters for public health because they put a tremendous strain on our resources. All of us chip in to maintain the insurance and hospital costs. Acne, shrunken testicles, baldness, and gynecomastia are not social diseases; they are matters of individual concern. Individuals need to know the statistics (which don't exist) so they can assess the risks they run for themselves. The aforementioned Dr. Lamb warns that orally administered steroids usually cause abnormal liver function but confesses these abnormalities are usually harmless. He says "some" deaths have been reported. He says that "many" athletes have high blood pressure and also claims that "many" athletes have shrunken testicles. "Many" have poor sperm production. Athletes "have been known" to purposely crash their cars into trees under a "steroid rage". Not a single statistic occurs anywhere in the article. Right now, government and medical policy is simply to alarm us about a risk that no one can quantify. Even if steroid use became legal it is doubtful that steroids would appeal to more than two million people. Marijuana appeals only to about fifteen to twenty million people and there is no reason to suspect that steroids could ever approach marijuana in popularity. So what is the danger to America from steroids? -Sidney Gendin, PhD
Numerous references have been made in popular literature to the "serious side effects" of anabolic steroids. But what substantial side effects are well established by scientific evidence?
We know that certain AAS, when taken in substantial amounts, are toxic to the liver; however, this applies largely to 17-alpha-alkylated steroids, such as methandrostenolone (Dianabol) and oxymethelone (Anadrol-50).27 There appears to be no strong evidence of such hepatotoxicity in orally-effective testosterone esters, such as methenolone acetate (Primobolan) and testosterone undecanoate, nor in the many injectable testosterone esters, including testosterone cypionate (Depo-Testosterone) and nandrolone decanoate (Deca-Durabolin).28 It has also been suggested that hepatocellular carcinoma (liver cancer) may result from the long-term use of 17-alpha-alkylated AAS, although a regression of tumors has been noted when AAS use is discontinued.29
Liver toxicity alone can hardly justify the classification of AAS as controlled substances. Paracetamol, also known as acetaminophen (Tylenol®), is touted as "the most trusted combination of strength and safety in pain relief today,"30 yet liver damage, even fatal hepatic necrosis, has been reported from repeated therapeutic usage of this over-the-counter drug, particularly from therapeutic usage amongst alcoholics.31 Nevertheless, even if the hepatotoxicity of 17-alpha-alkylated AAS is a matter of great concern, the banning of less toxic AAS contributes to the problem. A perfect example is stanozolol (Winstrol), a 17-alpha-alkylated steroid that is toxic to the liver in both its oral and injectable form, but which continues to be readily available on the U.S. black market because of its use as a veterinary drug (Winstrol®-V).32 One might logically speculate that the current use of more toxic AAS is less a matter of choice than one of accessibility, where the availability of safer choices has been limited by a legal prohibition that applies to all AAS, regardless of their toxicity.
The negative psychological and behavioral effects of AAS, commonly known as "'roid rage," seem to be accepted as a proven fact in popular, nonscientific literature;33 however, there is little conclusive proof that supports this presumption. Once again, such effects appear to occur in cases involving 17-alpha-alkylated steroids, but not in cases involving 17-beta-estrified steroids.34 Furthermore, the existing studies cannot account for the pre-steroid tendencies of individual users with respect to violence and aggression, nor can they account for the psychological "placebo effect" that may occur from an AAS user's expectations of heightened aggression. A detailed critique of those studies, and flaws in their methodology, can be found in a recent Meso-Rx article by Jack Darkes, an expert in the psychology of drug use.35 At best, we can conclude that "'roid rage," to the extent that it exists, may be limited to specific varieties of AAS, and that such hyper-aggressive states may well be the result of preexisting tendencies or predetermined expectations of the user.
There has been much criticism of AAS for their effect on a user's cardiovascular health; however, this research is also highly speculative. One study involving bodybuilders who self-administered AAS found that AAS users had a ratio of "bad" low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC) to "good" high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLC) that was four times that of non-users;36 however, other studies have indicated that this effect is, once again, limited to 17-alpha-alkylated steroids.37 Later studies have indicated that AAS users retained substantial increases in lean body mass and muscle size three months after withdrawal, but with lipoprotein levels which were no different than those of non-users.38 Furthermore, a study involving controlled dosages of a 17-beta-estrified steroid showed that a 22-27% decrease in HDLC was almost completely reversed six weeks after discontinuation.39 It should also be noted that diet is also a substantial factor in the analyses of lipoprotein levels and ratios; decreases in the intake of saturated fats and dietary cholesterol can reduce LDLC levels by more than 33%.40 Simply put, there seems to be no concrete evidence that the use of AAS leads to permanent cardiovascular health risks.
The greatest disgrace amongst the anti-AAS medical community may be its "code of silence" as to the major health benefits of AAS use. Though rarely mentioned by the medical practitioners, scientific studies have concluded that "anabolic-androgenic steroid use as practiced by contemporary athletes is a potent modulator of immune responsiveness."41 This benefit to the human immune response is by no means inconsequential, particularly to those with whose immune systems have been damaged by disease or congenital defects. The use of AAS is becoming an important element in the treatment of AIDS patients, not only to prevent AIDS-related "wasting," but also to boost a severely depressed immune response. Further information on the use of AAS in AIDS treatment may be found at the Medibolics™ web site.42 -John M Williams
"Prior reports of anabolic steroid-induced hepatotoxicity based on elevated aminotransferase levels may have been overstated, because no exercising subjects, including steroid users, demonstrated hepatic dysfunction based on GGT levels. Such reports may have misled the medical community to emphasize steroid-induced hepatotoxicity when interpreting elevated aminotransferase levels and disregard muscle damage. For these reasons, when evaluating hepatic function in cases of anabolic steroid therapy or abuse, CK and GGT levels should be considered in addition to ALT and AST levels as essential elements of the assessment." -
The Department of Biomedical Science, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth 76107-2699, USA.
I can go on alllllll day if you really want me to...."All warfare is based on deception." -Sun Tzu, ca. 400BC
Reverse punch Kiaii!!!
2/14/2003 4:52pm, #44
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
So buttom line...
Is the gains vs risk ratio worth it? Assuming your a fighter and not just some guy who wants to look buff.
2/14/2003 4:56pm, #45
- Join Date
- Jul 2002
- Rhineland Pfalz, Der Vaderland
&gt;In re-reading this thread I'm starting to realize that this forum is loaded with a bunch of skinny little fucks.
I second that. Just a bunch of pencil neck geeks. We all need to go to the beach so I can kick sand in you eyes.
Xiao Ao Jiang Hu Zhi Dong Fang Bu Bai (Laughing Proud Warrior Invinsible Asia) Emporer of Baji!!! THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE AGAINST THE UNITED AUSSIE FRONT!!
"I love you Asia" - I Give BJJs Posted - December 25 2002 : 10:40:09______
Xiao Ao Jiang Hu Zhi Dong Fang Bu Bai (Laughing Proud Warrior Invincible Asia) Dark Emperor of Baji!!!
Didn't anyone ever tell him a fat man could never be a ninja
You can't practice Judo just to win a Judo Match! You practice so that no matter what happens, you can win using Judo!The key to fighting two men at once is to be much tougher than both of them.
2/14/2003 5:06pm, #46
I think that most people that look into it are going to agree that the side effects are overstated (though any chance of developing actual breasts is too much for me <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>). However, and this is where we come to a difference in opinion, it is still "cheating".
While it may be somewhat hypocritical, IMO supplements fall outside of this cheating as you are adding things to your system that you could get otherwise through "natural" diets. Steroids aren't going to be substantially introduced through such a diet.
While the "tenents" often expressed after many TMA classes are often denounced here, they do nontheless emphasis that a lot of the pursuit of MA's is for self betterment, and finding out what you as person are capable. IMO steroids are contrary to this pursuit.
**You're all a-holes**
2/14/2003 5:10pm, #47
The whole point is that the risks are NOT what you think. I've taken them. I have also researched into them. I have 2 friends who are doctors that helped me in the CORRECT way to take them and told me about how GROSSLY OVERSTATED the risks are. People just believe whatever they hear or they get their information from the internet. I can find stuff on the internet that says people can become invisible and fly.
Do some real research and just be honest and not LOOK for ghosts on the steroid subject. You'll be surprised at what you learn.
Remember that not too long ago our Govt told us Marijuana was addicting and was a "gateway" for harder drugs. The very person that INVENTED that idea, Dr. Benjamin Nahas, was later FIRED from the board after admitting he was pressured into giving answers that the govt wanted to hear. He later called all of his studies, including the gateway theory "useless".
This was taken as FACT for a very long time."All warfare is based on deception." -Sun Tzu, ca. 400BC
Reverse punch Kiaii!!!
2/14/2003 5:16pm, #48
How exactly is steroids contrary to this pursuit? How is making your body faster and stronger and boosting your recovery time such a terrible thing? I think you misunderstand what steroids do. I've submitted guys at NAGA that i KNEW were on the juice when I was NOT. Its not going to make you superman. i have no problem competing with guys that juice as long as they're not roided monsters. I also wouldnt want to compete with a guy whos BUGGING FACE because of ripped fuel or any other ephedrine based product. I dont mind competing against guys that use ripped fuel but when you take too much you get CRAZY HYPER and aggressive.
I'll say it again: Steroids do NOT give you the type of advantage you think unless you ABUSE THEM and its OBVIOUS who heavily uses steroids."All warfare is based on deception." -Sun Tzu, ca. 400BC
Reverse punch Kiaii!!!
2/14/2003 5:22pm, #49
Let me give you ONE MORE little hit here....
When I take mild steroids you would never be able to tell. I gain size but, unless you knew me, you wouldnt think I was on steroids at all.
Now DURING this cycle, I am able to train longer. I am able to train more OFTEN without as much muscle fatigue. Any injuries I have heal MUCH faster.
All of this makes me a BETTER martial artist because I am able to train MORE than I would WITHOUT them. It doesnt make me increase in skill by leaps and bounds(I actually havent taken steroids in over 2 years). By taking them I am getting BETTER. The only place I compete is in Submission Wrestling at NAGA and a SHIITLOAD of guys are doing them. WAY more than you think man. And, for the most part, i dont think i've ever seen a fight where the match was won because of steroids. Its just increasing your strength and size. The only way your going to be able to both MASSIVELY increase strength and size AND still train hard is if you have no job and train for a living.
I would be FOR drug testing at competitions but honestly dont think its such a big deal. the day I say a persons size and strength are what makes them a better fighter is the day I stop training forever."All warfare is based on deception." -Sun Tzu, ca. 400BC
Reverse punch Kiaii!!!
2/14/2003 5:27pm, #50
I lift at least 3 times a week (down from the 5 of a couple months ago due to some scheduling issues). I've lifted at least that often for the past several years and I'm stronger (of course this is exercise dependent) than most of the roiders in my gym. I could have gotten this strong with less dedication and less hard work (I didn't say none, just less) but I didn't and I'm glad for that.
I know what the benefits are, they make you stronger without having to work as hard as otherwise. I personally would rather find out what I can achieve sans such help. This will also be what I'm more likely to maintain. As I said I agree about the risks, but its still IMO a shortcut. Things that are worth having rairly come without hard work.
**You're all a-holes**