Re: Age of initiation, maximizing natural gains first, and continuous cycles.
I thought I'd get more responses if I posted here rather than the "Chemically Insane" article from a few days ago. I cut and pasted my response at the bottom. I'd be interested in hearing what you guys have to say.
Ha.... I read this and was thinking along similar lines, albeit I'm 29. There seems to be a lot of unresearched dogma even among steroid veterans with respect to age of use, maxing out your natural potential first, doing cycles as opposed to continuous, etc... I'm not saying either way is right or wrong, but I think we should examine these "facts" more fully if we are going to be giving advice.
Why are girls allowed to take supraphysiological doses of hormones at age 16, but boys can't? What about the developmental effects of increased estrogens and progestins when a girl is still maturing? Should we tell girls not to take birth control until they've finished developing at age 25? Is the issue fully researched? I doubt it.
What is it about training natural first that makes one smarter? Yeah I heard the whole trump card theory expoused by Dave Tate, and some people are more apt to think a little more if they're having problems gaining performance. I think it's silly though to make broad sweeping generalizations that everyone should max out their natural potential first.
What if one has better genetics than another? Is the one with better genetics going to be the loser in the end due to them not trying as hard, or conversely will that genetic freak try that much harder due to them being good at something and the intrinsic motivation that follows.
Professional sports are dominated by genetic freaks, not the Rudy's of the world who were shitty to begin with and worked their way up. As I see it there isn't too much difference between the person with great genetics and an average joe on androgens. Of course there's always exceptions, but I don't think we should be giving advice based on exceptions.
Regarding continuous cycles I'm not sure there's a lot of research to back either side of the issue. So the people attacking others for extended cycle lengths are basically just arguing with wiffle bats. There's not a lot of weight to either claim as I see it. For all we know it could be healthy. And if you're going to flame me with that comment, then argue with some peer reviewed research, not some steroid propaganda your 11th grade phys. ed teacher told you or what some "Bro" on some steroid message board said.
And by the way, I am now fully qualified to speak on this topic as of yesterday since I have 400mg of testosterone enanthate coursing though my veins. (sarcasm)