How many picograms this time around, Jon Jones?

[shankmcgank]

I have, and I haven't come across anything showing that a male MMA fighter who takes PEDs is more likely to win his fights.

If you are saying that PEDs have some health benefits, then I am not going to argue against that. And this is pretty much what most articles about PEDs are claiming. They have some health benefits.

The question I am asking is this: Fighter A is healthy and on PEDs and Fighter B is healthy but not on PEDs. You are saying in a hypothetical match-up, Fighter A is going to win because he is taking PEDs. And I am asking, how do you know this, especially, since the fight record is saying not in agreement with you?

I don't know about that fight record article etc. though now that it's been mentioned, I'd like to read it.

But I do know PED literally stands for "Performance Enhancing Drug", if they were for "health" they would be called HEDs.

I also don't believe fighters would risk losing years from their career if they didn't do anything to improve their performance.

If you ever do find that article please tag me.

 

[Tylerlikesmma]

Most of us don't care. Let fighters fight. PEDs have a negligible say on which fighter is going to win the fight. UFC MMA is NOT sprinting, cycling or swimming. Improving your striking speed by 1/10th of a second is not going to significantly improve your chances of winning.

lol @ you thinking this is the only benefits taking steroids provide for a fighter

 

[Captain Herb]

Cage Potato had an article called "MMA steroid busts a definitive timeline." In this article, they listed all the official PED busts in MMA and the fight results. At that time, fighters who tested positive for PEDs were actually losing more fights. However, the results were close to 50-50. As you would expect with a fair coin toss.

I have been trying to find that article, but I think it is has been scraped from the internet. I wish I had saved it as a PDF. In any case, you don't have to take my word for it.

You can do your own research and look at all the official PED busts and compare them to the fight results. I am pretty confident that you will notice PED fighters are not any more likely to win.

That's not evidence in any way that steroids don't help lol. Maybe they would have won 25% without them.

 

[Intellidamus]

I have, and I haven't come across anything showing that a male MMA fighter who takes PEDs is more likely to win his fights.

If you are saying that PEDs have some health benefits, then I am not going to argue against that. And this is pretty much what most articles about PEDs are claiming. They have some health benefits.

The question I am asking is this: Fighter A is healthy and on PEDs and Fighter B is healthy but not on PEDs. You are saying in a hypothetical match-up, Fighter A is going to win because he is taking PEDs. And I am asking, how do you know this, especially, since the fight record is saying not in agreement with you?

Why would fighter’s risk so much to take them if they have no benefit on their performance?

 

[Doctor Lenovo]

I don't know about that fight record article etc. though now that it's been mentioned, I'd like to read it.

The article has disappeared from the internet. However, you can do your own research if you are interested in the truth, and not an agenda.
I read the article. There was no opinion. It simply listed the official test finding and the official fight result. PED fighters were not winning more often.

But I do know PED literally stands for "Performance Enhancing Drug", if they were for "health" they would be called HEDs.

Now, you are just being silly. So, I will let it go, because your above statement leads to deeper conversation about semantics, authority and etc. It is bigger than PED usage in the UFC.

I also don't believe fighters would risk losing years from their career if they didn't do anything to improve their performance. If you ever do find that article please tag me

Just because humans are willing to risk it all for something they believe in, it doesn't mean what they believe in is the truth.

Again, the article has disappeared from the internet. However, the PED tests and fights results are available. If this was about the truth, then you would look it up for yourself.

It is not that important for me.

 

[Captain Herb]

Why would fighter’s risk so much to take them if they have no benefit on their performance?

Dude's argument is that they help you with strength, endurance, recovery, and aggression but don't help you in a fight.

 

[Intellidamus]

Dude's argument is that they help you with strength, endurance, recovery, and aggression but don't help you in a fight.

Basically, all things that would help you in a fight. Makes sense.

 

[kflo]

Dude's argument is that they help you with strength, endurance, recovery, and aggression but don't help you in a fight.

Does seem like an odd position to take...

 

[shankmcgank]

The article has disappeared from the internet. However, you can do your own research if you are interested in the truth, and not an agenda.
I read the article. There was no opinion. It simply listed the official test finding and the official fight result. PED fighters were not winning more often.

Now, you are just being silly. So, I will let it go, because your above statement leads to deeper conversation about semantics, authority and etc. It is bigger than PED usage in the UFC.

Just because humans are willing to risk it all for something they believe in, it doesn't mean what they believe in is the truth.

Again, the article has disappeared from the internet. However, the PED tests and fights results are available. If this was about the truth, then you would look it up for yourself.

It is not that important for me.

I'm at work, no time for hours of research, and honestly can't be bothered.

PED usage is rampant in every sport, and the Olympics.

Silly is sitting here trying to say that PEDs don't enhance performance, yet I can't think of a single sport where athletes haven't been caught using them. Are you trying to say all these athletes, and doctors, across multiple sports are all wrong?

Biathletes use them, cyclists use them, body builders use them, football players use them baseball players use them, but they don't do anything to enhance performance ?

In the immortal words of super annoying Chris Berman "C'mon man !"

 

[Doctor Lenovo]

That's not evidence in any way that steroids don't help lol. Maybe they would have won 25% without them.

I can accept that some steroids help with building lean muscle mass, but how does having more lean muscle mass make it more likely to win a fight? This is the question I am asking.

For example, a sprinter who uses Steroid XY may develop more lean muscle mass, and that may allow him to run a 1/10th of a second faster. In sprinting, this enhancement could be an Olympic Gold medal. So, I will understand calling Steroid XY a PED in the context of sprinting.

However, in the context of MMA, I am arguing that Steroid XY will not improve a male MMA fighter's chances of winning a fight. This is the default position.

If you believe otherwise, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that a male MMA fighter who uses Steroid XY will be more likely to win any given fight.

No such proof has been provided, and yet, so many people believe all types mythical benefits of PEDs in MMA. LOL

 

[shankmcgank]

I can accept that some steroids help with building lean muscle mass, but how does having more lean muscle mass make it more likely to win a fight? This is the question I am asking.

For example, a sprinter who uses Steroid XY may develop more lean muscle mass, and that may allow him to run a 1/10th of a second faster. In sprinting, this enhancement could be an Olympic Gold medal. So, I will understand calling Steroid XY a PED in the context of sprinting.

However, in the context of MMA, I am arguing that Steroid XY will not improve a male MMA fighter's chances of winning a fight. This is the default position.

If you believe otherwise, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that a male MMA fighter who uses Steroid XY will be more likely to win any given fight.

No such proof has been provided, and yet, so many people believe all types mythical benefits of PEDs in MMA. LOL

Maybe if Aldo was 1/10th of second faster, he'd still be champ ?

 

[Doctor Lenovo]

Maybe if Aldo was 1/10th of second faster, he'd still be champ ?

View attachment 721693

Are you suggesting that Conor McGregor was on steroids, and that is why he was able to land "faster and stronger" than Aldo?

 

[Captain Herb]

I can accept that some steroids help with building lean muscle mass, but how does having more lean muscle mass make it more likely to win a fight? This is the question I am asking.

For example, a sprinter who uses Steroid XY may develop more lean muscle mass, and that may allow him to run a 1/10th of a second faster. In sprinting, this enhancement could be an Olympic Gold medal. So, I will understand calling Steroid XY a PED in the context of sprinting.

However, in the context of MMA, I am arguing that Steroid XY will not improve a male MMA fighter's chances of winning a fight. This is the default position.

If you believe otherwise, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that a male MMA fighter who uses Steroid XY will be more likely to win any given fight.

No such proof has been provided, and yet, so many people believe all types mythical benefits of PEDs in MMA. LOL

Oh, I see. So Steroids are banned in every legit sports competition including golf and darts, are rampant in local gyms and are scientifically proven to help with strength, endurance, recovery, etc. but since YOU say that they don't actually help, it's up to US to prove YOU wrong.

 

[kflo]

I can accept that some steroids help with building lean muscle mass, but how does having more lean muscle mass make it more likely to win a fight? This is the question I am asking.

For example, a sprinter who uses Steroid XY may develop more lean muscle mass, and that may allow him to run a 1/10th of a second faster. In sprinting, this enhancement could be an Olympic Gold medal. So, I will understand calling Steroid XY a PED in the context of sprinting.

However, in the context of MMA, I am arguing that Steroid XY will not improve a male MMA fighter's chances of winning a fight. This is the default position.

If you believe otherwise, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that a male MMA fighter who uses Steroid XY will be more likely to win any given fight.

No such proof has been provided, and yet, so many people believe all types mythical benefits of PEDs in MMA. LOL

stronger, faster, better recovery.....how can those not be assets for a fighter?

 

[Doctor Lenovo]

Oh, I see. So Steroids are banned in every legit sports competition including golf and darts, are rampant in local gyms and are scientifically proven to help with strength, endurance, recovery, etc. but since YOU say that they don't actually help, it's up to US to prove YOU wrong.

Steroids are banned on "religious" grounds, and not on scientific grounds. Also, the banning or allowing of steroids doesn't tell us much about their impact on deciding which male fighter will win the fight.

 

[Doctor Lenovo]

stronger, faster, better recovery.....how can those not be assets for a fighter?

Why do fighters who test positive not win by a land slide?

 

[Alpha_T83]

I can accept that some steroids help with building lean muscle mass, but how does having more lean muscle mass make it more likely to win a fight? This is the question I am asking.

For example, a sprinter who uses Steroid XY may develop more lean muscle mass, and that may allow him to run a 1/10th of a second faster. In sprinting, this enhancement could be an Olympic Gold medal. So, I will understand calling Steroid XY a PED in the context of sprinting.

However, in the context of MMA, I am arguing that Steroid XY will not improve a male MMA fighter's chances of winning a fight. This is the default position.

If you believe otherwise, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that a male MMA fighter who uses Steroid XY will be more likely to win any given fight.

No such proof has been provided, and yet, so many people believe all types mythical benefits of PEDs in MMA. LOL

Dude I'll try to be respectful and explain this.

Firstly, the notion that "gains" disappear after PED use cases is wrong. If you continue to work out you will maintain gains. And scientific paperw studying muscle after PED use have shown a permanent increase in nuclei within muscle cells, which means a permanent potential increase in muscle strength with exercise.

But that's not even the biggest benefit of PEDs. A big limit on fighters is technique, and PEDs actually give you better technique. The reason is a normal person can only train so long before getting injured. This limit on training time limits their improvement. Steroids improve your recovery and reduce frequency of injuries, allowing you to train harder and longer, thus improving your technique and muscle memory.

The reduced injuries from steroids also give you an advantage with the lack of nagging injuries. You have no clue how often clean fighters have injuries that hurt their performances.

You want to know who is on steroids? Look for fighters that dont get injured. Jon Jones is one. Whereas Cain Velasquez was injured all the time because he was clean and still training hard.

 

[Intellidamus]

Are you suggesting that Conor McGregor was on steroids, and that is why he was able to land "faster and stronger" than Aldo?

I believe the point is that all things being equal steroids could be the difference maker. McGregor might be the “faster and stronger” fighter naturally but if Aldo were to take steroids maybe he could have closed that gap.

 

[kflo]

Why do fighters who test positive not win by a land slide?

do you not agree that strength, speed and recovery are assets in a fight?

 

[Captain Herb]

Steroids are banned on "religious" grounds, and not on scientific grounds.

Lol what? They're controlled substances because the liberal use by the population would result in health concerns, which is based on scientific evidence. You can argue that no drugs should be outlawed but that's a different issue.

 

[kflo]

Dude I'll try to be respectful and explain this.

Firstly, the notion that "gains" disappear after PED use cases is wrong. If you continue to work out you will maintain gains. And scientific paperw studying muscle after PED use have shown a permanent increase in nuclei within muscle cells, which means a permanent potential increase in muscle strength with exercise.

But that's not even the biggest benefit of PEDs. A big limit on fighters is technique, and PEDs actually give you better technique. The reason is a normal person can only train so long before getting injured. This limit on training time limits their improvement. Steroids improve your recovery and reduce frequency of injuries, allowing you to train harder and longer, thus improving your technique and muscle memory.

The reduced injuries from steroids also give you an advantage with the lack of nagging injuries. You have no clue how often clean fighters have injuries that hurt their performances.

You want to know who is on steroids? Look for fighters that dont get injured. Jon Jones is one. Whereas Cain Velasquez was injured all the time because he was clean and still training hard.

guys on steroids often have associated injuries as well.

here's an old article on nfl steroid use. it's obviously not a scientific paper but those exist as well.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/news-blog/nfl-players-who-use-steroids-have-m-2009-02-20/