I just saw this at
A pretty good piece, that should help a little to get a more balanced view out there.
Enjoy
Will watch later. Looks like pretty much the same stuff we’ve all seen before though.
Seen it before. Not too bad, but kinda one-sided if you ask me. The best one I’ve seen (and I’m sure all of you have seen) is Bigger, Faster, Stronger.
Props for bigger, faster, stronger. I have shown that movie to so many of my friends and everyone learns something from it.
[quote]Das Boot wrote:
Seen it before. Not too bad, but kinda one-sided if you ask me. The best one I’ve seen (and I’m sure all of you have seen) is Bigger, Faster, Stronger.
[/quote]
You think the National Geographic documentary was one sided, but thought BSF was unbiased? I’m not sure we were watching the same two videos man lol
BSF was not at all unbiased, and I think its biggest shortcoming was that bullshit at the end to cast it as unbiased despite holding your hand to an obvious conclusion through the entire program. I guess you could sorta make the argument that BSF was unbiased if you just listened to the last 5 minutes, where he suddenly becomes wishy washy on whether they are bad or not despite casting them in a positive light throughout the ENTIRE documentary.
I thought this documentary did a pretty good job of getting information from both sides of the story.
One problem I had with this and BSF is they don’t really delineate between types of steroids. They just lump everything into one big bag and paint the side effects with a very broad brush. I would like to know what types were responsible for the poor lipid changes, and the liver cysts, etc.
My biggest problem with the National Geographic documentary though was the piece on Taylor Hooton (the kid from Texas that committed suicide). BSF did a good job at painting his dad as a moron who was out to get steroids despite the fact his son had a history of mental problems and was on anti-depressants, which coincidentally have a side effect of SUICIDAL TENDENCIES!!! His past mental problems were not even mentioned in the National Geogrpahic documentary. That was bullshit.
I agree. It’s like lumping “recreational drugs” together. Yeah, like ecstasy, pot and cocaine do the same things… Now, AAS are pretty similar, but PEDs run the whole gamut IMO. Still there is a great variety of AAS protocols and drugs.
If this topic would be researched more thoroughly that would be an immense improvement in how we use AAS. We all know using Tren vs Primo as injectable steroids is not the same, as is using Anadrol vs Anavar for orals - or using orals vs injectables. Some of them might have unacceptable risk to benefits on health issues. Or a combination of 2 or 3 drugs might have great synergistic effect that minimize side effects almost completely. Now we mostly go about “how we feel” and tried-and-tested “bro knowledge”.
In the NG one they did make him look like a poor, uninformed, caught bu surprise Dad.
But overall, I do feel it’s unbiased as it is shed a mostly positive light on steroids use by adult males, while not missing pointing out dangerous side effects such as the cardiac issues, which are very real IMO.
My wife is a good friend of Chris Bell, we actually crashed at his pad in socal awhile back (and got to meet John Cena who he was lifting with at the time). Chris is a great guy. As for his documentary, BFS, it may have a slight bias to it, just like any other documentary or piece of journalism. And I think it helps to balance out all of the bullshit about performance enhancing drugs we are swamped with from the usual media outlets…
[quote]heavymetal1 wrote:
As for his documentary, BFS, it may have a slight bias to it, just like any other documentary or piece of journalism. And I think it helps to balance out all of the bullshit about performance enhancing drugs we are swamped with from the usual media outlets…[/quote]
I liked the fact that BSF showed that steroids aren’t really as dangerous as people make them out to be, or at least pointed out that there was very shaky, if any, evidence that they are dangerous enough to be a controlled substance. My only problem though was that after doing this the ENTIRE documentary, they copped out at the end and threw in that whole wishy washy “neutral” crap…it was lame
[quote]heavymetal1 wrote:
My wife is a good friend of Chris Bell, we actually crashed at his pad in socal awhile back (and got to meet John Cena who he was lifting with at the time). Chris is a great guy. As for his documentary, BFS, it may have a slight bias to it, just like any other documentary or piece of journalism. And I think it helps to balance out all of the bullshit about performance enhancing drugs we are swamped with from the usual media outlets…[/quote]
Here, let me get that for you- looks like you dropped something. ::roll eyes.emoticon::
I thought the national geographic one was very biased. At one point they say “If even low doses can cause dangerous side effects, what happens when large doses are used?” or something to that degree, however at no point did they prove, show, or imply that low doses can cause dangerous side effects… they just pulled it out of nowhere.
Bigger stronger faster wasn’t so much biased as it was realistic. you get an overall impression from BSF that steroids aren’t nearly as dangerous and most people believe, that’s not because Chris Bell is biased, it is because it is true. Although I admit there are more pro-steroid people interviewed, Chris Bell has no reason to defend steroids, he’s just trying to express the truth.
All documentaries are biased to some degree. If someone wanted to learn about steroids though I’d point them toward BSF before the national geographic one, because they would come away from the movie with a more realistic idea of what harm steroids can actually cause.
Interesting…I actually came away from the NG one thinking “man, steroids really aren’t that bad”…I guess its a matter of perspective…
the NG one is definitely more fair than I expected for mainstream media. Is it possible you came away thinking that because you already knew enough about them to seperate the true facts and the untrue ones? or did you watch it before you knew much about steroids?
there are just a few parts that bothered me about it… like bringing up taylor hooten and lyle alzado without mentioning that there are other, more likely causes of their deaths other than steroids. It failed to mention that steroids don’t cause brain tumours and it also didnt mention that hooten was on SSRIs that have been stastically linked to suicidal tendencies, unlike steroids. There is good information in this doc… i personally just found it was mixed in with media-hype.