[quote]MikeManos wrote:
Years ago it was testosterone therapy was a 100% guaranteed way to give you prostate cancer (which was medically dispelled), now it’s 100% guaranteed to give you heart disease…
[/quote]
My doctor has repeated this over and over, where do you find the documentation that shows that this was medically dispelled?
[quote]burndaddy0 wrote:
[quote]MikeManos wrote:
Years ago it was testosterone therapy was a 100% guaranteed way to give you prostate cancer (which was medically dispelled), now it’s 100% guaranteed to give you heart disease…
[/quote]
My doctor has repeated this over and over, where do you find the documentation that shows that this was medically dispelled?[/quote]
How old is your doctor?
[quote]burndaddy0 wrote:
[quote]MikeManos wrote:
Years ago it was testosterone therapy was a 100% guaranteed way to give you prostate cancer (which was medically dispelled), now it’s 100% guaranteed to give you heart disease…
[/quote]
My doctor has repeated this over and over, where do you find the documentation that shows that this was medically dispelled?[/quote]
Are you asking because you want to show this “evidence” to your doctor and prove that it doesn’t?
A simply search on this site will provide the information you seek.
Also of interest: Look up “T and your Ticker”, by Doug Kalman MS, RD.
It’s widely accepted within the TRT community that E2 and DHT are largely the true culprits of any BPH and prostate issues, and these can be easily managed with proper testosterone treatment (whether it’s adjusting the testosterone dose, or prescibing ancillary drugs to counter the potential sides). And based on clinical evidence, obtained during such (proper treatment), there has been no confirmed link incriminating TRT with any such prostate issues.
I should clarify that, in the midst of this discussion:
I am not stating that recreational/sports-related AAS use & abuse is in any way safe, risk free or (and I would hope this much is obvious) encouraged, especially among young adolescents who could seriously screw themselves up. There is still so much we don’t know about AAS, and self-medicating with such powerful compounds (especially unsupervised by a licensed medical practitioner) is potentially and highly dangerous, and can also lead to serious side effects.
Equally important, I am likewise stating that TRT is not without it’s risk(s), as any hormone based treatment has it’s pros/cons. Those risks are between the patient and medical professional to discuss and understand, as that’s the corner stone for experiencing minimal risk and obtaining the most beneficial treatment.
Having stated all that, I always found that the biggest obstacle in impartially discussing AAS (recreationally or TRT based) is often within the most vocal PRO and CON camps themselves, who both seem to be highly opinionated on the subject, yet both are also challenged with providing conclusive evidence to support their stance.
I should also mention that I’ve never used AAS recreationally, and am currently not (or have ever been) on TRT. Therefore, the information that I presented and have available is solely obtained from (credible) clinical online literature, licensed practioners (HRT clinic medical doctors), and from the first hand experience from those presently under such treatment.
[quote]MikeManos wrote:
I should also mention that I’ve never used AAS recreationally, and am currently not (or have ever been) on TRT[/quote]
GTFO the steroids forum then, asshole!
Just kidding, some interesting points being made here.
I was thinking, and if steroids only help someone get to their genetic potential faster… well as long as they don’t go beyond that, why do steroid users looks so much different than natural guys.
[quote]SirTroyRobert wrote:
I was thinking, and if steroids only help someone get to their genetic potential faster… well as long as they don’t go beyond that, why do steroid users looks so much different than natural guys. [/quote]
So you think you can tell who is on steroids and who isn’t by just simply looking at them?
[quote]eatliftsleep wrote:
[quote]SirTroyRobert wrote:
I was thinking, and if steroids only help someone get to their genetic potential faster… well as long as they don’t go beyond that, why do steroid users looks so much different than natural guys. [/quote]
So you think you can tell who is on steroids and who isn’t by just simply looking at them?
[/quote]
Actually it is pretty obvious when someone is on steroids, regardless of their level of fitness. Sorry bro
[quote]eatliftsleep wrote:
[quote]SirTroyRobert wrote:
I was thinking, and if steroids only help someone get to their genetic potential faster… well as long as they don’t go beyond that, why do steroid users looks so much different than natural guys. [/quote]
So you think you can tell who is on steroids and who isn’t by just simply looking at them?
[/quote]
Not 100%… But it’s fairly obvious don’t you think?
[quote]SirTroyRobert wrote:
[quote]eatliftsleep wrote:
[quote]SirTroyRobert wrote:
I was thinking, and if steroids only help someone get to their genetic potential faster… well as long as they don’t go beyond that, why do steroid users looks so much different than natural guys. [/quote]
So you think you can tell who is on steroids and who isn’t by just simply looking at them?
[/quote]
Not 100%… But it’s fairly obvious don’t you think? [/quote]
I think I know where you’re going with this, as most of the guys I know/knew on gear do appear to have hyper-developed traps, lats, delts, pecs and arms. Large doses of AAS do seem to enlarge all the muscles surrounding the shoulder girdle especially well, and allow for a certain amount of asymetry in these muscle groups that a natural trainer (at the same height, weight and body fat %) wouldn’t typically replicate.
It has likewise been theorized that the amount of androgen receptor sites at these aformentioned location sites are more numerous, which leads to this type of uneven hypotrophy, as AAS which have a high affinity for these receptor sites which would lead to larger localized growth (though this has been debated).
Also, if you see them gain rapid amounts of impressive muscle, especially with a significant decrease in body fat, that’s usually a dead giveaway to chemical enhancement.
Of course genetics play a huge role too (some guys have especially well developed muscle groups that may stick out more with respect to overall build), though let’s not forget that a great portion of the younger male gym crowd, who by far constitute a large percentage of ASS users, are newbie “bench press and curl” guys, so that may also contribute to this asymetric development, as those are the primary muscle groups that they’re usually working out anyway.
However, someone who trains “more proportionately” and works all their muscle groups with equal intensity might not look as chemically enhanced, though here extreme size and leanness combined may be a dead giveaway.
It can be very obvious or very subtle when someone is on AAS. Case in point, I know a 38 year old trainer who has been a very dedicated for well over 20 years, and he has built a very impressive physique to go along with his equally impressive strength. Recently he is finishing up his first cycle (15 weeks @ a gram of test a week), and despite the fact that he’s slightly leaner (not ripped, but still relatively lean), and went from 220 lbs to 250 lbs (at 6’ 2"), he just looks like a modestly larger version of his former self, with well placed overall development.
So as large as he is, he still looks impressively natural, and you probably wouldn’t guess otherwise looking at him.
Lastly, remember that different people can develop (amounts of muscle) differently to the same amount of gear, and it’s sometimes hard to tell.
[quote]MikeManos wrote:
[quote]MikeManos wrote:
[quote]SirTroyRobert wrote:
[quote]eatliftsleep wrote:
[quote]SirTroyRobert wrote:
I was thinking, and if steroids only help someone get to their genetic potential faster… well as long as they don’t go beyond that, why do steroid users looks so much different than natural guys. [/quote]
So you think you can tell who is on steroids and who isn’t by just simply looking at them?
[/quote]
Not 100%… But it’s fairly obvious don’t you think? [/quote]
I think I know where you’re going with this, as most of the guys I know/knew on gear do appear to have hyper-developed traps, lats, delts, pecs and arms. Large doses of AAS do seem to enlarge all the muscles surrounding the shoulder girdle especially well, and allow for a certain amount of asymetry in these muscle groups that a natural trainer (at the same height, weight and body fat %) wouldn’t typically replicate.
It has likewise been theorized that the amount of androgen receptor sites at these aformentioned location sites are more numerous, which leads to this type of uneven hypotrophy, as AAS which have a high affinity for these receptor sites which would lead to larger localized growth (though this has been debated).
Also, if you see them gain rapid amounts of impressive muscle, especially with a significant decrease in body fat, that’s usually a dead giveaway to chemical enhancement.
Of course genetics play a huge role too (some guys have especially well developed muscle groups that may stick out more with respect to overall build), though let’s not forget that a great portion of the younger male gym crowd, who by far constitute a large percentage of ASS users, are newbie “bench press and curl” guys, so that may also contribute to this asymetric development, as those are the primary muscle groups that they’re usually working out anyway.
However, someone who trains “more proportionately” and works all their muscle groups with equal intensity might not look as chemically enhanced, though here extreme size and leanness combined may be a dead giveaway.
It can be very obvious or very subtle when someone is on AAS. Case in point, I know a 38 year old trainer who has been a very dedicated for well over 20 years, and he has built a very impressive physique to go along with his equally impressive strength. Recently he is finishing up his first cycle (15 weeks @ a gram of test a week), and despite the fact that he’s slightly leaner (not ripped, but still relatively lean), and went from 220 lbs to 250 lbs (at 6’ 2"), he just looks like a modestly larger version of his former self, with well placed overall development.
So as large as he is, he still looks impressively natural, and you probably wouldn’t guess otherwise looking at him.
Lastly, remember that different people can develop (amounts of muscle) differently to the same amount of gear, and it’s sometimes hard to tell.
[/quote]
I really try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. I really do believe that you can achieve great things naturally. My dad was an elite level power lifter. Many would say his numbers couldn’t be from natural lifting. He’s told me time and time again he never touched steroids. I can only judge based on what he does and his character. He never had the money to get any sort of gear, and he never had huge jumps in strength or size. He built consistently over the course of years. I know for a fact there’s no way he can be on steroids now, yet his lifting numbers and size are above 90% of the population. Hopefully since I have some of his genetics, I can get to that level one day naturally.
Then you have the right attitude, keep up with it and you just might. Your goal should always be to beat your previous best, not anyone else’s.
As for AAS, my approach from day one of training has been that you have to earn the right to use the gear. To me, that meant at least 10 years of dedicated training and dieting, and since I constantly improved, I never went near the stuff. My goal was never to look like an IFBB pro or put up at 2,000 lb total (not that there is anything inherently wrong with either, they are both noteworthy accomplishments, so to each their own), it was to become as strong, lean, muscular and athletic as possible, which at 41 I’m still happily progressing with.
There will come a day when even maintaining may become a challenge, but with attention to nutrition and lifestyle that day should come WAY down the line for most (maybe then I’ll turn to TRT).
For now, you are at an age where if you’re serious and dedicated enough, and put in the time and effort, the results and rewards will be undeniable.
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
[quote]eatliftsleep wrote:
[quote]SirTroyRobert wrote:
I was thinking, and if steroids only help someone get to their genetic potential faster… well as long as they don’t go beyond that, why do steroid users looks so much different than natural guys. [/quote]
So you think you can tell who is on steroids and who isn’t by just simply looking at them?
[/quote]
Actually it is pretty obvious when someone is on steroids, regardless of their level of fitness. Sorry bro
[/quote]
If I didn’t already know what a moron you were, I would think this was sarcastic.
I know a guy who has taken almost everything in the book (test, tren, deca, hgh off the top of my head), and without exaggeration, he doesn’t look like he’s ever set foot in the gym. It’s absolutely ridiculous. If you put him and I next to each other and asked “which one of these guys uses steroids”, there wouldn’t be a single person who would say him (I’m natural).
On the other end of the spectrum, you have guys like Stu. How often do you think people say that it’s ‘obvious’ he uses steroids? I’m sure he’s heard it more times than he can count from pricks like you who think that anyone who is remotely impressive is juicing.
My dad thinks like you do, and it’s a shame. He thought that Ryan Braun absolutely HAD to be innocent, because he doesn’t have that ‘steroid look’. Meanwhile, he’s been convinced that I use steroids since I weighed 160 lbs.
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
[quote]eatliftsleep wrote:
[quote]SirTroyRobert wrote:
I was thinking, and if steroids only help someone get to their genetic potential faster… well as long as they don’t go beyond that, why do steroid users looks so much different than natural guys. [/quote]
So you think you can tell who is on steroids and who isn’t by just simply looking at them?
[/quote]
Actually it is pretty obvious when someone is on steroids, regardless of their level of fitness. Sorry bro
[/quote]
If I didn’t already know what a moron you were, I would think this was sarcastic.
I know a guy who has taken almost everything in the book (test, tren, deca, hgh off the top of my head), and without exaggeration, he doesn’t look like he’s ever set foot in the gym. It’s absolutely ridiculous. If you put him and I next to each other and asked “which one of these guys uses steroids”, there wouldn’t be a single person who would say him (I’m natural).
On the other end of the spectrum, you have guys like Stu. How often do you think people say that it’s ‘obvious’ he uses steroids? I’m sure he’s heard it more times than he can count from pricks like you who think that anyone who is remotely impressive is juicing.
My dad thinks like you do, and it’s a shame. He thought that Ryan Braun absolutely HAD to be innocent, because he doesn’t have that ‘steroid look’. Meanwhile, he’s been convinced that I use steroids since I weighed 160 lbs.
[/quote]
dude, don’t entertain jasmincar. He’s a wank. Everyone knows this, including him.
[quote]MikeManos wrote:
I think I know where you’re going with this, as most of the guys I know/knew on gear do appear to have hyper-developed traps, lats, delts, pecs and arms. Large doses of AAS do seem to enlarge all the muscles surrounding the shoulder girdle especially well, and allow for a certain amount of asymetry in these muscle groups that a natural trainer (at the same height, weight and body fat %) wouldn’t typically replicate.[/quote]
This statement is nonsense, IMO, no disrespect.
[quote]
[…] though let’s not forget that a great portion of the younger male gym crowd, who by far constitute a large percentage of ASS users, are newbie “bench press and curl” guys, so that may also contribute to this asymetric development, as those are the primary muscle groups that they’re usually working out anyway. [/quote]
This statement is true. Far too often someone hops on gear, lashes 600lbs to his wrist and does bouncy shrugs til his face turns purple, but wont squat above 225 for 3 sets. Its disproportional training in which the gear illuminates the disparity.
To think that someone can judge who is on steroids 100% is fairly arrogant. I think it was a good statement that a certain level of size and conditioning could be an indicator. For me its a combination of size, conditioning, age, and proportionality that turns me one way or the other but frankly I don’t really think about it that much.
EDIT: Also that level of vascularity that looks like varicose veins everywhere.
Main indicators are size and conditioning. Everything else is just retarded, like that shoulder/trap statement, just bro science. Everyone says my traps are big compared to everything else but they have always been that way, just genetics I guess.
Good points c.m.l. and eatsleeplift, and not trying to argue the point or seem “retarded”…just basing it on personal observation.
Or, looking at it from a lifetime natural bodybuilder vs. enhanced bodybuilder (in a stage ready/conditioned standpoint), and many pictures from said competitions, it’s just that I have yet to see a natty have either the delt or trap development of a juiced bb, pound for pound. True, there is the overall impressive size and insane vascularity combo among all muscle groups (and yes, some bb are blessed with very large traps proportionate to their body size), though these two aforementioned muscle groups really seem to stick out.
it’s funny, when I think about the comparison between bodybuilders who use and bodybuilders who don’t, I find it’s the legs that have the biggest difference, proportionally speaking.
But I agree the majority of steroid users just train chest and traps, but that’s just because the majority of ALL gym users just train their chest and traps.
What is it about traps anyway? Make em too big and your shoulder width suffers…
[quote]MikeManos wrote:
Good points c.m.l. and eatsleeplift, and not trying to argue the point or seem “retarded”…just basing it on personal observation.
Or, looking at it from a lifetime natural bodybuilder vs. enhanced bodybuilder (in a stage ready/conditioned standpoint), and many pictures from said competitions, it’s just that I have yet to see a natty have either the delt or trap development of a juiced bb, pound for pound. True, there is the overall impressive size and insane vascularity combo among all muscle groups (and yes, some bb are blessed with very large traps proportionate to their body size), though these two aforementioned muscle groups really seem to stick out.[/quote]
Sorry for using the word retarded, definitely didn’t mean it directed towards you or anything. Like yogi said, the main thing that sticks out to me in bbs is their legs for sure.