Larry Wheels Has a Healthy Heart!

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.

IMO, not even close. Real smoking is multiple packs per day (2 to 3)

Yeah, but you dont know how these cats roll today. 2-3 g/week vs 500 mg/week in the old days?

In all seriousness your protocols were modest comparatively and you did take some breaks. I am with with you though, cumulative AUC is critical.

I hope Larry gets some better guidance. Hard to do when you have enablers and fiscal symbiotes around. But his career is AAS related it appears.

Just like everything else, the answer to all of these “which is worse” questions is: it depends.

Being diabetic and obese is terrible for your body, but if you lose the weight and really change your lifestyle, diabetes isn’t a death sentence.

Smoking is terrible for you, but if you only smoke 5-8 cigarettes a day (which was me when I was in the USMC) it’s not nearly as bad as smoking 1-2 packs for decades.

AAS can be terrible for you if abused, but if you mitigate the health risks as much as possible, maintain a clean diet and do regular check ups and blood work, it doesn’t have to be all that bad.

I believe that, with AAS and diabetes, diet is a much larger factor in overall health than your abuse/condition.

In fact, the more I hang out on these forums, I’m starting to believe that AAS use isn’t really that big of a deal, so long as you do all of the risk mitigation and eat clean. The only real stories I read about AAS related health issues and death, often come down to severe abuse or not taking care of your body and just blasting.

That’s my perception anyways


Tell me more. :thinking:

I still got a bunch of AAS in the fridge.


I know when I started AAS with my 10mg of Dianabol a day for 8 weeks, I doubt if 5 people out of 500,000+ population where I lived used any AAS. And no one was injecting any AAS.

The percent of the total population using steroids steadily increased into the 1980’s.

What would guess the percent of the population that uses AAS today?

Of that number of people what is the distribution of weekly consumption of AAS. If I got to 500mg/wk it was on the high end for me. Do you believe the mean is close to 500mg/wk today? I don’t believe true TRT should be included in the distribution.

Are the percent of AAS users consuming over 1,000mg/wk less that 5 percent?

I am trying to grasp the magnitude of this concern. If it’s just some top level competitors, I don’t believe much change will occur. The Goldman Dilemma at work.

1 Like

I’m the us, in a survey 0.5 percent of adults admitted to using AAS. I assume almost no women use, so about 1 percent of men admit to it.

That is admitting to an illegal activity in a survey though. I’ve seen estimates that the real number is more like 3 percent.

1 Like

I bet it’s more like 3% easily. It’s pretty rampant and I’m sure the percentage of just regular gym guys skyrockets vs the gen pop.