
From Mr Average to Superman: Craig Davidson's account of using steroids (2008) - jackschultz
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/may/18/healthandwellbeing.features1
======
jacques_chester
Over on reddit[1] a number of steroid users have pointed out that:

1\. He actually took unusually high doses for a first-time user.

2\. He took none of the additional drugs recommended to prevent or ameliorate
the side-effects.

3\. That he got _every_ side-effect, even some rare ones, with unusually high
severity, seems suspiciously like dramatic license.

Remember: this is a guy who has a novel to sell. He is not acting as a
journalist. He is not a scientist. He is under no legal or ethical requirement
to be honest. _He is a salesman for his own work_.

[1]
[http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1lodxn/til_ca...](http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1lodxn/til_canadian_journalist_craig_davidson_injected/)

~~~
groby_b
There's more dramatic license than just that - if you inject yourself into
your behind, there's _no_ way a "pressurised stream of blood spurted halfway
across the room". Not going to happen.

I have the "fortune" of having to do injections in that place every week for
several years running now, and I'm far from handy with a needle. The worst
that ever happened was a thin rivulet. And that was _dramatic_ \- usual is
nothing, or maybe a drop or two of blood.

Based on that part alone, he's dramatically exaggerating. Combine that with
having every side effect in the book, and my money is on this being made up in
large parts.

~~~
hackula1
I have been a Type I diabetic for the past 15 years, and have had the
"pressurized stream of blood" that shot across the room a handful of times
when injecting my stomach. Granted, being an insulin dependent diabetic, I
have given myself an estimated 32,000 injections, which I seriously doubt a
steroid user would ever get anywhere close to.

~~~
groby_b
You've got larger arteries/veins to deal with in the stomach area. The
buttocks are fairly light on them, and unless you move _close_ to the center,
there's nothing with high enough pressure to spurt.

Or at least that's what my doc told me :)

------
scotty79
I never seen the point of growing additional muscle tissue. First you have to
grow it which is tiring, then you have to feed it and lug it around. It's like
getting fat on purpose.

What's more, if your lifestyle and diet doesn't match your newly grown muscle
tissue the body will adjust and all your effort to grow it will be gone in few
weeks/months.

Instead of downvoting, please enlighten me about the benefits of growing few
pounds of muscle tissue in places you don't really use in your daily life.

~~~
jacques_chester
Lifting weights _is_ part of my daily life. I feel silly that I'm even
bothering to justify myself to an internet stranger. It's like when I had to
justify playing roleplaying games or using the internet back in the mid-1990s.

However:

> _It 's like getting fat on purpose._

The downstream health effects of developing muscle tissue (and increased bone
density) are largely positive; of fat, largely negative.

Weight training improves insulin sensitivity, improves various cardiovascular
markers, strengthens the heart and improves bone density. People who train
with weights live longer, with fewer health problems, with shorter senescence,
than people who don't.

These health effects are distinct from the health effects of non-resistance
training such as running, cycling or swimming.

~~~
scotty79
> The downstream health effects of developing muscle tissue (and increased
> bone density) are largely positive;

But surely up to a point? I find it hard to believe that guys growing so much
meat on themselves that they can't clap their hands over their head get only
largely positive health effects.

How's having hand, that when shaken by somebody feels like kaiser roll for
them, improves health?

> I feel silly that I'm even bothering to justify myself to an internet
> stranger.

Sorry. No offence meant. I can respect bodybuilding as a hobby (part of life
that has self contained meaning and brings pleasure by itself). I just see
people doing it as if it was a mean to something and that's what eludes me
(apart from, growing muscles to attract some girls, I get that).

~~~
dredmorbius
_I find it hard to believe that guys growing so much meat on themselves that
they can 't clap their hands over their head_

First off: even some really big guys can be amazingly flexible:
[http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mO3twKxKpqc/UfaQxvShokI/AAAAAAAAV0...](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mO3twKxKpqc/UfaQxvShokI/AAAAAAAAV0o/-uN4jkRL7cA/s1600/Bodybuilder+doing+the+Splits.jpg)

It's really got more to do with tendon and ligament mobility than anything
else.

The other: you're simply not going to get that big without drugs. A _really_
good natural bodybuilder will look more like this:

[http://mybodyhealth.net/wp-
content/uploads/2013/01/tumblr_md...](http://mybodyhealth.net/wp-
content/uploads/2013/01/tumblr_md62wi0kZP1rx75rt.jpg)

That's defined, but not huge. And he's doing better than most.

You can get the positive results of strength training at or below these
levels.

~~~
vidarh
To add to your point about flexibility: I am vastly _more_ flexible now than
before I started lifting, for the simple reason that there's just no way I'd
be able to execute even "simple" lift like the standard powerlifting lifts
(that's bench, squats and deadlifts for the non-lifters) without hurting
myself without being reasonably flexible.

To extent you get improved flexibility from lifting with proper form, but if
you don't get flexible enough, you've got no choice than to work on it in
other ways: Staying inflexible while lifting is a surefire way of getting hurt
badly.

Body builders can "get away" with less flexibility, but as your pic shows they
certainly don't _have to_ be less flexible.

------
jotm
In 4 months, he could've easily sculpted a nice body without steroids.

Steroids are used by old people (and it really helps them), impatient idiots
or bodybuilders who have reached those relatively quick 80% that normal
training gives you and want to push it faster all the way to 100%.

Also, like others said, the side effects are suspiciously bad, there's no way
one person can have most of the worst, unless you're significantly overdosing.

~~~
cliveowen
Exactly judging by the photos anyone skinny could've reached the same results
with 3 to 4 months of regular training. Anyone not skinny would've had to just
lose weight in 6-12 months and then put in the 3-4 months of training.

~~~
vmasto
I'm sorry if I come up strong but that's completely false. It would require at
least 2 to 3 years of vigorous training and perfect nutrition for someone to
go from skinny to looking like the second picture.

------
anigbrowl
Good heavens, that's alarming. I wonder if part of the problem was that he did
all this in 4 months, and whether he could have taken lower doses with less
intensive training over a year or two...but then I think of the few times I've
looked at magazines like _Men 's Fitness_ or suchlike, and it was all about
maxing things out, downing vast quantities of supplements, and generally
overdoing it. I don't know whether this means that most of their readers are
juicing or that having a big physique is simply a full-time commitment, but
this article makes me happy to stay skinny.

~~~
ahelwer
Men's Health and the like have to come up with new content to fill a magazine
every month. Fitness isn't complicated; sound fundamental principles have been
known for decades. There's a lot of money in making people think it's
complicated though, so we have exercise fads and fancy/expensive weight
machines. Look up the Starting Strength program to learn the basic building
blocks of lifting.

~~~
rhubarbcustard
This is very, very true. I started doing the Stronglifts routine about 5
months ago, which is very similar to Starting Strength, and I'm amazed the
progress I've made. The routine _only_ contains simple, full-body exercises
like squats, deadlifts, bench presses and pull-ups.

Eating healthy and making sure you get a decent amount of protein along with
full-body exercises with heavy weights beats that new fad from Men's Health
every time.

Don't believe the hype.

~~~
bgilroy26
>Eating healthy and making sure you get a decent amount of protein along with
full-body exercises with heavy weights

And getting 7+ hrs of sleep 5+ nights a week.

------
sosuke
Bodybuilding with steroids, if we had some drug to make us super smart I
imagine the cost would be the same, and I would be tempted by it.

Edit: after thinking, I would be afraid of the worst side effect of quitting,
just like a steroid user would fear weakness, I would be afraid of my own
stupidity

~~~
ximeng
You might like this movie:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitless](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitless)

The people in it fight to the death for their smartness drugs.

~~~
chiph
_Eddie stabs Gennady, and drinks his blood to absorb the intravenous NZT._

OK, I reached my absurdity limit.

~~~
wmeredith
Good, because that's the climax of, and the craziest thing that happens in the
film. It's certainly the limit and it's well-placed in the context of the
story. I like this movie, despite it's short-comings, more than I thought I
would. I recommend it, even though it runs right up to my absurdity detector.

------
nl
If you find this interesting you might like
[http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/Drug-
Test.html](http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/Drug-Test.html), which
documents a journalist's use of EPO, Human Growth Hormone (HGH) and
testosterone while training for the amateur Paris-Brest-Paris bike race.

~~~
tristanj
And if you're still bored on a Wednesday morning, you can read about how this
Olympic sprinter took testosterone, HGH, and EPO yet cleared all his drug
tests. After reading this, you might realise Olympic drug testing isn't as
effective as it's said to be.

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympics/athletics/7403158.s...](http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympics/athletics/7403158.stm)

~~~
nl
Olympic drug testing could be a lot better, mostly because it is too
infrequent.

The biological passport (used in pro cycling) is about as good as it gets at
the moment. There are plenty of ways around that (eg, bloodbags & microdosing
EPO) but it has been moderately successful in cleaning up the worst abuses in
cycling.

The real story is the lack of drug testing in Soccer & Tennis.

~~~
jacques_chester
In Olympic sports the story is that out-of-competition testing is handled by
national agencies, not WADA.

And some national agencies are more ... vigorous ... than others.

~~~
nl
WADA doesn't handle testing for any sport - it's all done by the national
agencies.

But it gets complicated by the fact that any sport's governing body sets the
rules for testing for approval by WADA, which are then administered by the
national federations. But WADA has no real power, except to protest to CAS
(the Court of Arbitration in Sport) if they don't like how a sport operates
(eg [1]).

And yes, some national bodies are more vigorous than others. Famously, Lance
Armstrong moved from Nice (in France) to Spain, where the testing was much
more predictable and easy to avoid. Also, there were no criminal sanction for
the use of performance enhancing drugs in Spain, whereas there were in France.

[1] [http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/news/747725/fifa-&-wada-
agree...](http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/news/747725/fifa-&-wada-agree-terms)

~~~
jacques_chester
Thanks, I misunderstood WADA's exact behaviour at international contests.

Complicating the issue still further is that some tests will be carried out by
sporting bodies directly, some by national sporting bodies and others by
international sporting bodies. And then there are multi-sport bodies like the
IOC who will also carry out tests.

In any case, the point is that some countries are more aggressive about
testing out-of-competition than others. Depending on the sport, that can make
an enormous difference in performance.

------
photorized
Bodybuilding with steroids is like launching a startup with VC money.

~~~
redthrowaway
The difference being, when the VC money runs out and your startup fails, you
can go get a job.

~~~
raverbashing
Well, unless the bodybuilding competition has been branded "natural" (and even
then, sometimes) everybody took steroids.

------
habosa
Just finished reading, and that was a seriously terrifying article. I have no
idea how anyone could go through all of that work just to have a more muscular
body that barely works. Thank you to the author, writing that is a public
service.

~~~
jacques_chester
I personally suspect that he made up some or all of it. I compete in a WADA-
regulated sport and I take my promise to not use PEDs seriously. But I train
some of the time alongside people in untested sports who use steroids. They
are in pretty good nick.

If this article had been about the time the author smoked weed and woke up in
bed with dead kittens, would it be considered a credible PSA?

------
nazgulnarsil
everybody want to be a bodybuilder but nobody want to lift no heavy ass
weight!

Okay, so roid users are willing to lift heavy ass weights, what they aren't
willing to do is put in the time, research, and diet to get fit naturally. It
takes years, not 16 weeks, but the reward is actual health, health that will
last into your old age.

~~~
johnward
There are plenty of steroid users who do put in the time, research, and diet.
Many of them grace the IFBB stages. I would argue many of them have much more
knowledge about health and fitness then the natural counterparts.

------
otikik
Body shape has changed. Stupidity has remained constant.

------
TruthElixirX
Fun fact:

When anabolic steroids were banned by congress in the U.S., the DEA, AMA,
NIDA, and FDA were all against the ban saying they were harmless [1], and they
mostly are, especially if taken with doctor supervision.

Now they have been pushed underground (unless you have the money to doctor
shop) and you get all sorts of bro science around them which can be a real
problem.

Thank science the U.S. government is saving us from ourselves.

[1][http://www.steroid.com/The-Steroid-Control-
Act.php](http://www.steroid.com/The-Steroid-Control-Act.php)

~~~
dylangs1030
Can we get a citation on this that looks more like a neutral third party?

~~~
emiliobumachar
"During deliberations, the American Medical Association (AMA), Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as well
as the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) all opposed listing anabolic
steroids as controlled substances, citing the fact that use of these hormones
does not lead to the physical or psychological dependence required for such
scheduling under the Controlled Substance Act. Nevertheless, anabolic steroids
were added to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act in the Anabolic
Steroid Control Act of 1990."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolic_steroid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolic_steroid)

~~~
crntaylor
Chasing down the references in that paragraph reveals nothing about the FDA,
AMA, DEA or NIDA's opinion on the Anabolic Steroid Control Act (1990). The
only citation leads to the THOMAS page for the act[0] which only contains the
text of the act, and not any of the discussion surrounding it.

Remember that Wikipedia isn't a primary (or even secondary) source and
shouldn't be used as one!

[0] [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-
bin/bdquery/z?d101:H.R.4658](http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-
bin/bdquery/z?d101:H.R.4658):

~~~
jacques_chester
You'd need to look at the Congressional Record, not the Acts. So far as I can
make out, the online Record only goes back to the 104th Congress. The
_Anabolic Steroid Control Act (1990)_ was passed by the 101st Congress.

------
bsullivan01
Call me paranoid but I'm scared as well to mess with hormones and other stuff
I do not see. The body is a machine perfected over the millions (or billions)
of years so no way in hell am I going to add all of the sudden, and on my own,
6 times the amount of testosterone.

~~~
roel_v
"The body is a machine perfected"

While I agree with your overall point, calling the human body "perfect" is
ridiculous. Human bodies, if they were engineered, would never even be
released to the beta testers out of fear of the engineers for being labeled as
a bunch of quacks. There is much, much to improved on the human body, and we
will over the next decades; but I agree that ordering a bunch of syringes from
halfway across the world through an anonymous email account and injecting that
into your muscles is probably not the way to go.

~~~
bsullivan01
_There is much, much to improved on the human body, and we will over the next
decades; but I agree that ordering a bunch of syringes from halfway across the
world through an anonymous email account and injecting that into your muscles
is probably not the way to go._

so we agree. Also let's not forget that the body is engineered to survive in
much different conditions than today, never know what will happen tomorrow. So
if 50 years from now, after all these tech advances, one says "we don't need
the fingers, let's 'cut them out'" I wouldn't rush to do it.

~~~
jacques_chester
GK Chesterton observed that one should find out why a fence is there _before_
taking it down.

