T Nation

Steroid Vet Dogma


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. :slightly_smiling: 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) :slightly_smiling:


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


As was mentioned above there's a lot of uncertainty resulting from the lack of formal study on the matter. There also seems to be quite a bit of variance amongst individuals and I think the cautious attitude towards early use reflects these factors. If you want my opinion though, the kiddies are discouraged because while an adult screwing up is seen as just a free and autonomous individual making a poor decision, a kid misusing is seen as a victim and its an affront to society. It's the image kids using steroids that is used to justify their legal proscription for adults.

On bushidoboy's statement with regard to maxing out genetic potential I generally agree although I think there is a bit of a slippery slope with less and less experienced guys saying, "if he's using why shouldn't I" pointing at a guy 5 pounds heavier but still featherweight. As has been said a million times, one needs to know how to succeed in the gym past the phase of newbie gains for the negatives of use to be worthwhile.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


The problem is, as I've said numerous times, everybody wants to come to the party, and nobody wants to bring the beer.

Everyone wants to give out advice and nobody wants to do the research necessary to give out good advice.

Here's a benign example:


Here you have a member of this site "educating" another member on Paper anabolics. Unfortunately, he's totally incorrect, and upon being corrected and questioned, readily admits that he's never seen, much less actually used paper anabolics.

What the fuck?

"Here's a description of something I've never seen....."

And this is basically, as I said in my interview, why even though most moderators/vets/etc...are often well meaning - they are just as often totally incorrect.

This is why we see the prevalant paradigms which are total bullshit, repeated time and again- and it's why we often see so much resistance to ideas I put forward.

People are much happier repeating what someone else says, and appearing to be correct, instead of investing time into actually being correct.

Everyone loves to party, but nobody loves to buy the beer...but you can't party without it. Drinking is fun (as is repeating information without doing any research, and getting accolades for being "knowledgable")- but buying beer, i.e. actually doing research- is not fun, because everyone else can "appear" to be correct without an iota of knowledge- so why be the guy who brings the beer, if everyone else is just going to drink yours?

Hence, we have the current and terrible state of AAS forums around the internet, spewing the same old bullshit- because nobody does any real research. Nobody brings the beer.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Oh wait, I almost forgot. Why should I listen to you? Oh yeah, because your THE expert right? Which makes your info correct? OK, got it, let me write that down somewhere........

There is a reason no REAL research is done its called illegal.


I wasn't picking on you- that example was simply the most benign case of showing where someone who is considered to be knowledgable was clearly wrong, and was giving out information on a subject that he had no real knowledge about.

It doesn't matter that you don't know how Paper anabolics are manufactured or what they look like, in any real sense of things. The point was that you were repeating bad information (of the benign sort). And I was presenting that as the way bad information circulates around the internet, in answer to the question posed by the original poster.

It's not a big deal, I didn't mean to come off like I was attacking you, it's just the clearest example I could think of, and is often the case, the least malicious.

If it can happen to you, and you're considered one of the knowledgable members here, then it could happen to anyone who doesn't do their research- was my point.


Just gotta ask this question:

I have always wondered about the benefits of traditional cycling. Now, I know about the shutdown issues with males, but it seems to me that the fluctuating hormone levels would cause additional issues. Doing a cycle for six weeks and then doing PCT for two months just seems like two steps forward and one step back. It seems to me that a constant low dose, just enough to give you an anabolic edge, would be much less disruptive to the endocrine system, and allow you to progress at the same time.

And I don't see how a two week cycle would do anyone any good.


I don't think why you should listen to me instead of someone else, is really part of the original question - which simply attempts to clarify where current steroid dogma originates and is propagated on the internet.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


It wasn't part of the original question - but it was part of your answer. It's always part of your answers.

I think everyone that is even remotely interested in AAS should buy Llewellyn's book and read it/refer to it when ever there is a question.

I agree with Viking - the dark side is illegal. There will never be any empirical evidence to support time on = time off, or that blasting and cruising is superior to going on and coming off.

Every bit of proof we have wrt how to use AAS is all anecdotal. Hooker's ideas are totally unproven in real life - he just had a rich guy pay to have them printed. His ideas have no more real proof behind them than does P-22's tapering theories.

It has absolutely nothing to do with which board you are a member of.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Hey Bushy, thanks for responding.

Ahh, I see. That makes sense. But if you never go off and continue at low levels, wouldn't you make up for the gains you may have made at a higher dose, but lost a portion of during PCT? And at a lower dose, wouldn't you experience fewer side effects such as acne and hair loss?

Is there any dose dependent effect regarding how fast one rebounds from shutdown? (I guess these questions are probably answered in the steroid newbie thread)

Thereby avoiding shutdown?

So, a short cycles effectivenss is dependent on the gear used.

Interesting. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


No, not really. I'm agnostic.

And I certainly wouldn't make one up, if someone asked me for a description of something that I'd never seen.

I think someone who makes up a description of something they've never even seen, as if they have- may make up other things as well, without knowing what they're talking about.

All of which is sometimes worthwhile. But if someone asks a question, and you make the entire answer up off the top of your head (as in the thread I linked to, where you made up the production process as well as the look of the final product), then you are doing nobody a service. You're doing a dis-service, I think.

Small boards aren't by nature, elitist. Neither are large boards, by nature. Boards that offer special little invites, and restrict access to only a few are elitist; and garbage, bar none.

I have to limit my involvement to the largest boards, because from a financial point of view, I won't be able to sustain any kind of career posting on 1k, 2k, or even 5k member boards with any regularity.

I would rather spend my time and energy posting on 50-100k member boards, which is strictly a buisness thing, not a sign of contempt or anything for smaller board size.

I'm spread very thin as it is, and can't really commit time where it's not going to produce ample exposure for me. That sounds harsh, but I think to state otherwise would be an obvious contradiction of the facts at hand.


Spread so thin? Ha.
You have so much time on your hands that you don't know what to do with it you elite athlete you.
Oh...by the way. Being an elite athlete and all can you tell me where we might read up on your elite statistics?
You are here to pedal your snake oil and nothing more.
You are not Dan Duchaine and stop trying to compare yourself to him. It's fucking ridiculous.
I hate people who blow their own horn and you are definately a blower.
Your steroid advice is selective and you do not answer questions where you are in the dark.
Cmon man. Answer the question that was asked by the poster about PCT protocal when on for years on end.
Testicular shrinkage? I think so.
Children down the road? I don't think so.
Bullshit? Yes a lot of it.

You haven't a clue. Your a wannabe athlete cum guru that is looking for recognition on the internet.
You want to sell your cut and paste book on anabolics? That's ok by me as long as you stop making yourself out to be the man.
You suck.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


You made up a manufacturing process, then made up a physical description of a product which you had no idea about.

I'm saying that if you have no idea what you're talking about, then you ought not "try to help"- because it's not helping to give out fallacious information.

Don't know the answer = don't answer the question

And my point is that when enough people do it, we have (as dopamineloveaffair pointed out)- the current state of misinformation about steroids that constitutes steroid dogma.


If you want to get plum technical about it - Hooker misrepresented the process and the appearance of the paperbolics in question as well.

I guess since he used something 4 years ago he can still claim he is an expert - regardless of whether he is right or not.