Larry Wheels Has a Healthy Heart!

Hey guys,

since I know you love the heart health discussions, here’s a good spark for such a discussion:

After 10 years of abuse, Larry Wheels has a healthy heart. He started at 17.

Do you think in 10 years it will still be healthy?

Are the tests used (ECG and Echocardiogram) reliable enough to judge heart health?

Is AAS use safe for him? Is one heart attack of one of his grandpas enough to call it a familial history of heart disease?

I for my part think he has not reached the critical age yet. He seems very confident that his heart health is and will be fine but most bodybuilders get problems in their late 30s and 40s.

Just tagging a few of you:
@tareload @hankthetank89 @blshaw @RT_Nomad @mnben87 @Andrewgen_Receptors @unreal24278


I think he didnt do all the tests but it is possible that he has a healthy heart. As much as some people want to say that steroids ruin health, there are much more sreroid users who dont have these problems than those who do. We get these 5 deaths a year out of thousand popular athletes and we lose our shit. There are just as much non steroid users who die of same causes at same ages.
I was in ICU when i was like 22… After that i have permablasted pretty much everything and all my shit is fine now, but i almost died back when i didnt do all this shit. Also, in the ICU there were many people of different ages but none of them were athletes or steroid users.


I’m not convinced that the stats here are correct as it begs the question of what we call problems. If we only take fatal heart attacks, then it may very well be the case, but if we take cardiac output for example it would be more difficult to say that most don’t have problems somewhere down the line.

I’m still wary about how damaging steroids really are. Permablasting for sure will have an impact on life and health span but that’s a minute percentage of people who are doing that.

Then there’s the question some guys on here always discuss: is it worth the potential risk to temporarily rent gains? It is always only temporary as you will lose the gains if you get older anyways.

How much does blasting during youth shorten life span? And how much blasting or cycling is needed to cut 10 years off your life span?
I don’t know, but shortening life by 2 decades would make one out of my generation die at 70 vs at 90 which would be hefty. Some people don’t care about those 20 years at the end as much; which I can understand but people like Roger Penrose are making a good case for why living until 90 can be a worthwhile thing especially if mental and coginitive ability is still there.


This guy is transparent and also he is abusing but not monstrously

He checks his blood values regularly and take action accordingly

He also explained his cycle and it wasn’t very crazy

He is really strong because probably he is a genetic elite

I personally love this guy personality

1 Like

Decent coverage here but Greg should have went a little more in depth. His Dad as example was good. I guess when i say Echo on here to raise awareness I should say instead Echo+Calcium Score+PET scan. Plenty of case studies in the literature of false negatives with Echo only. Larry does not possess the requisite info to know if he has a healthy cardiovascular system.

Thanks @lordgains. I agree relative risk doesnt scale linearly as we age. I hope Larry can see the light and use this as an opportunity to turn it around. As someone on the comments section said…Dancin with the Devil.

1 Like

We’ve had a couple back and fourths Hank but i couldn’t agree more with your statement… spot on. People only remember the bad things or the hyped media stuff. 2-3 recent deaths compared to millions who are overdoing gear.

1 Like

Good descriptions of some of the tests.

1 Like

That’s what I was getting at. It’s good he did something but the statement that he’s relieved and happy that his heart is completely fine is overconfident in the results of the tests. He needs the correct tests to be able to approximate the parameters of health. I think he’s taking a big risk now if he makes decisions from the standpoint that 10 years of blasting had no impact on his heart all while he just does not know.


You and @hankthetank89 I am sure mean well but these statements are hand waving at its finest. So using your points we already know the risks of just being alive and being a human in terms of cardiac events as we age. Then layer on top of that AAS abuse where we pretty well understand the impact and mechanisms as least on some fraction of the population using them. Then jack up your SBP above 300 mmHg then add in the muscular obesity.

How many serious cardiac issues and deaths in the BB/strength community do you think are covered on Boobtube? Mine sure was not.

Thanks but I will continue to try to give some an ounce of prevention. Remember there are some things worse than death. Living years with significantly reduced QOL stuck in a shell without a well functioning heart is one of them in my book.

I get it, cognitive dissonance is a Bitch. Larry’s video is neatly sprinkled with it. At least Greg gets the message clearly i think. Who really knows what anyone truly believes though.

Lets take your statement here at face value and assume it is a true statement. What fraction of the worldwide population use steroids? How about age adjusted fraction? Once you define this what would that tell you about the relative risk of AAS usage compared to non-user population?

Sorry i missed the subtle sarcasm in your title. Thanks for this thread. You got me :grin:

1 Like

IMO, genetics is a larger indicator of heart health past 40 than most any risky lifestyle choice. I also believe there are more dangerous lifestyle choices than AAS use.

I suppose my question would be is there an amount of AAS use that has essentially no heart risk?

I also wonder if the presence of extreme muscle mass is actually of greater risk than the AAS it took to get there.

Both of my parents lived into their mid 80’s, so I have fairly good lifespan genetics. [My mother’s sister Iived and worked (taught school) until she had a heart attack at 95, she drove herself to the hospital and died in the hospital five days later of sepsis.]


0.5 - 2 mg per day of stanozolol for the solid win.

Almost a homeopathic-type perma regimen.

1 Like

I also believe we should stratify the cause of death by competitive bodybuilders who die due to diuretic abuse from those from other causes.

Also, does this thread only apply to heart health?

Please allow me to add this cause of my father’s death of which many of us worry about just the opposite. My dad died because his body quit producing red blood cells. He was given blood periodically for a while, but died at 85. Maybe he would have benefited from TRT. This occurred in 1995. I don’t know if TRT was a widely recognized therapy then.

Haven’t read this thread super thoroughly but my thoughts are as follows:

@tareload’s comment about cognitive dissonance is spot on

@hankthetank89 is probably right to an extent. If i permablast for the next 5 years, then taper and just stick with TRT for the rest of my life and die at 70-75 years old, is anyone going to blame steroids? No, they’ll just say it was a little early. The deaths that are OBVIOUSLY AAS related are the only ones we really hear about, and theyre also the only ones we can definitively say “steroids caused this”

Larry is still too young to see any real negative effects of this i think. If he keeps this up for another 5-10 years, i think that story will change quite significantly though… who the fuck can accurately gauge heart health of a physically active sub-30 year old?

Also, he could have been much more thorough with his testing…

  • Holter monitoring
  • Cardiac catheterization
  • Cardiac computerized tomography (CT) scan
  • Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)

These are all valid options, and I’d be willing to bet one of these would turn up some less-than-favorable results if he’d done them. Or maybe not, maybe he’s just one of the lucky guys who’s done a ton of dumb shit the right way and lived to tell the tale.


Well definitely not more safe than abstaining. I had a similar discussion recently with my fitness buddies about Russel Crowe. He’s become obese and smokes on top of it in his late middle age. One of my buddies said “Well at least he’s not juicing like the rest of Hollywood.” My reply was that I bet somebody on TOT or even moderate cycling is better risk adverse than being obese, borderline diabetic, and a smoker. But… who knows?

1 Like

IMO, these are far more lifespan limiting than AAS use. I lost ALL my smoking friends who worked at the power plant more than 10 years ago. Granted with asbestos abatement this situation is highly unlikely today.

Obese and diabetic are both more lifespan limiting that AAS use, IMO. But I doubt most on this forum would disagree. We all tend to lean strongly to healthy lifestyle, acknowledging that our greatest health temptation is AAS use, especially use that tends toward abuse.


Here it is… and I agree with you.



Hey, he may be ripped under there!


Or even peeled…

But what about boderline diabetic, obese, and AAS vs borderline diabetic, obese and smoking?

AAS vs smoking? Hmmm, that is a hard one.