One particular excerpt:
> The connection between naturally occurring testosterone and athletic performance appears to be overstated. When researchers measured the T levels of elite athletes from 15 Olympic sports, more than 25 per cent of the men were below 10 nmol/L
Yeah because training reduces testosterone.
If steroids would be a net positive for the body in general, then evolution would just follow the gradient and produce more of it.
> if steroids are indeed a net positive for the body they might even have legal choices available by the time they're adults
That's a huge "if ... might" there. Again, what are you telling your children? That gambling with your health is ok?
Think about teeth for an obvious example: The body is able to grow them, and some animals do it constantly - yet losing our adult teeth (due to aging, accidents or whatever else) does not cause us to grow new ones. It would be hard to dispute that growing a replacement tooth would be beneficial to a person in our current context and lifestyle, but evolution has not reached that conclusion.
Edit: Replying also to your second phrase (the message I'd be giving to my potential children) - I don't really see why, if current research points to minimal to no dangers for short term use (about as harmful as light alcohol consumption), I should be treating it as such a big deal. If anything, I think it would be a positive lesson that they should make adult choices for themselves by taking appropriate steps to be informed about the pros and cons of it.
Yes, and it's very well known too. You don't need to take steroids for very long to increase your muscle mass, then you go off them and stay off them for a few months and maintain it. You can then repeat multiple times if you need/want to. I've been told that it's fairly safe when done this way, with appropriate monitoring, etc.
So, when I was entertaining trying to be a bodybuilder, I had two problem areas. Chest and arms. Also, I should mention that my trainer at the time was an IFBB judge, and has his pro card. I really, really dived into this.
My chest got big from gear and stayed that way, and I kept most of my strength, even when I don't work out.
The reason I can't be a bodybuilder is-- I can't get my biceps to grow, even on the most aggressive steroids they grow mildly and shrink back to crap the moment I'm not killing myself.
My point is, bodies are weird. They're an indignity frankly. Anecdotally, I have evidence your supposition is correct and incorrect. It's mostly down to genetics.
> cycling steroids involves alternating the active and in active use of steroids. This means that there would be times where a person would be using the drug as well as times where they would refrain from using them.
the street theory, quite supported by old consumers and ex-competitors, was that, ok the "super-size" could be gone after some months, but the strenght increase would not. So you've got - and you'd be able - to train really hard in those months, consuming steroids, supplements, controlling diet, etc.
1. you also already have the basics of lifting technique down - it takes some time to learn to squat properly.
2. you are comfortable with going to the gym and getting into the lifts straight away instead of spending the first few months on the treadmill.
3. you're probably knowledgeable about programs and the need for progression.
this is all in addition to the epigenetic muscle memory.
I was already in my late 30s, but in about a year, I doubled my strength on barbell squat, bench press, and deadlift. (Almost any beginner/novice can do this, BTW!)
But, it was a slog. I failed a lot, often repeatedly, before I could complete all my sets and advance to a higher weight. So the progression was slow.
Then we had a second kid and that was that — no time for lifting for a while! Like almost 2 years. And I did revert to a weaker version of myself (still 50% stronger than I was originally, though). But when I finally got back to it, I got back to 90% of my peak in maybe 6-8 weeks.
That same story repeated after we had a third kid.
Wish there was a pill to solve this for us (phisically-)lazy ones...
You can start weight lifting, following a “Russian strength” program (just three exercises, heavier weight, small sets of 3-5 reps), and the experience noticeable changes within 4 weeks. And I’m not talking about a lot of time at the gym... perhaps 2-3 hours total of exercise per week.
Not only will you get strong, you will start burning more calories when you’re not even moving. Plus, you’ll feel more energy and more drive/discipline to eat better and go back to the gym. In fact, a common problem is wanting to go to the gym too often. (The older you get, the more recovery time needed between workouts... more workouts can actually be detrimental.).
And if you only have time to go to the gym once a week you can make visible progress in that much time. Three sets of five reps of squat, bench and deadlift is doable in 50 minutes and if you do it consistently once a week you’ll see steady progress for most of a year.
the biggest difference is, most likely, the amount of time you'll be able to spend in the gym and it might take you a little longer to get started properly as you'll probably have limiting deficiencies in mobility at first. but this is still negligible; one or two months really don't matter much if you plan to lift for the rest of your life. only being able to lift twice a week will still do wonders for your health, looks and wellbeing.
i can get in shape quickly now, but at first it took me 12+ months to get the technique down and it would have taken me 12+ months if i had started at 18 (which is not entirely accurate - there is not specific point where you'll finally "got it").
Luckily only the first few weeks are boring and excruciating, then your body starts responding and it actually starts to feel good.
...nope, I'm one of those humans miss-programmed to secrete dopamine and endorphines when slumping in a chair coding and eating chips, and to feel depressed to death when doing physical effort. For those other 99% of humans programmed with the normal response to physical effort that you describe: you don't know how lucky you are! (Anyhow, will carry on, ugly body + diabetes + heart-attack and/or stroke at 50 still sounds a bit worse than working out a bit feels :P ...still on the look for some pharmaceutical "cheat codes" though, there's gotta be some 0-days in the human body/mind that we can hack to get to avoid that work, though maybe risk/benefit might not be worth it here)
Yes, I do intend to challenge your position, but I mean no offense. Maybe the problem is not slumping nor coding, but the chips. The first step to fixing health, be it physical or mental, is fixing one's diet.
I absolutely believe this is true.
One thing that influence this is that the second (third, fourth) time that you are doing it, you are better at it and know exactly what to do. So, you get into shape faster.
"Epidemiological studies in human ageing cohorts also suggest that low birth weight and gestational malnutrition are strongly associated with reduced skeletal muscle size, strength and gait speed in older age"
More or less known among older folks.
I don't understand the science here, but I think they're saying the initial muscle-building efforts do something to the genome that allow future hypertrophy efforts to be more fruitful.
Anabolic drugs push the natural upper limits of myonuclei per cell, which can remain higher than natural even years after stopping exercise/dosing.
So once you have reached a certain level of hypertrophy
Some have no nuclei, like (mature) red blood cells
Epigenetics is fascinating and can hold another key to fixing aging...