Study: Short-Term Steroid Use Has Lasting Effects

All this study shows is how useful and effective steroids can be. Instead of talking about how they should be banned in sports, we should be talking about the legalization of steroids in larger society.

Why this is a taboo subject, and why people can get arrested for many years just for using it or selling it is beyond me. People should be free to put whatever they want in their bodies.
 
Irenaeus said:
Do you know of any well-conducted contradictory studies, or are you just assuming these exists?

Because while the first one would be interesting, the latter isn't a very useful approach to knowledge.
Click to expand...

Assuming. Just look into how science is conducted today with most studies funded by companies that have money on the line, scientists competing for science magazine covers, publicity and funding, dogma, outrageous claims and so on.

1neomonkey said:
All this study shows is how useful and effective steroids can be. Instead of talking about how they should be banned in sports, we should be talking about the legalization of steroids in larger society.

Why this is a taboo subject, and why people can get arrested for many years just for using it or selling it is beyond me. People should be free to put whatever they want in their bodies.
Click to expand...

I agree that we should be free to put it into our bodies, not so much with getting rid of the ban in sports.

You should be able to decide if you want to take a potentially very dangerous drug if you think it'll benefit you or if you believe it to not really be dangerous at all. But when it comes to sports, if one guy is taking it, all the others will be compelled to take it just to keep up. It's a touchy subject, like you said.
 
Yeah I had read before that steroids done correctly can have benefits for as long as ten years. That's a long time.
 
The temptation to take steroids is obvious. It's easy to take the high ground when you're just a spectator, and it's not your career that's at stake. Realistically, a large share of fighters will juice no matter the punishment. The advantage is just too obvious. It's like trying to combat file sharing by giving a few pirates huge fines - it may scare off a few, but at the end of the day it's not that effective. Some guys get caught, most don't.

Even a two-year ban is a career-ender for anyone but the top guys. Any more than that is excessive.
 
First, the links provided here are not to the actual article written by the scientists, but rather to some reporter's interpretation. The actual article in Journal of Physiology (a well respected journal in this field) will have all the methodological details including the types of steroids used.

Second, the lead author of the study is also a world level amateur boxer.
 
WTF? This is a stupid study!

First, it was on mice, so might not apply to humans.

Second, even if it does, the muscle memory effect is just the same as that caused by.... strength training! So anyone who has have ever strength trained and put on muscle mass has an advantage over those who haven't strength trained before competing due to muscle memory of aforementioned muscle mass. And anyone who has a had a long lay off from strength training can attest to this.

Building muscle mass creates a long lasting muscle memory whether it was induced by strength training, steroids or both. Hardly anyone who uses steroids doesn't weight train so it would be really difficult to ascertain how much of the muscle memory effect was due to the steroids or the prior strength training.
 
Came in expecting to read how bad steroids are for your health, how much it shrinks the size of your balls etc. Instead I find a study on how good and effective it is and how long lasting are its effects.

Now I want to use steroids.
 
After looking at the study, its findings cannot be applied to human, because the mice were on the steroid for 2 weeks - an equivalence of 89 weeks for human by factoring in their total lifespan :icon_lol:.

This is a highly flawed and misleading study!


"Gundersen and his team gave mice anabolic steroids for two weeks, and then took them off the drug for three months—about 15 percent of the mouse’s life span"​


  • If 15% of mice total life span = 3 months
  • Then 100% of mice total life span => 20 months

  • The mice were on steroid for a total of 2 weeks (0.5 month).
  • Therefore, they were on steroid for 2.5% of their total life.
    (0.5 month = 2.5% of 20 months)
-------


An average human male in the world has a total life span of 68.5 years. (source: http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.688?lang=en)

If an average human male is on steroid for 2.5% of his total life time (68.5 years), this means he would be taking steroid nonstop for 1.71 year or 89 weeks!

Who the heck does a 89 week steroid cycle?

LOL@ the misleading study. Most probably they're doing that on purpose!
 
Alexandergreat3 said:
After looking at the study, its findings cannot be applied to human, because the mice were on the steroid for 2 weeks - an equivalence of 89 weeks for human by factoring in their total lifespan :icon_lol:.

This is a highly flawed and misleading study!


"Gundersen and his team gave mice anabolic steroids for two weeks, and then took them off the drug for three months​
Click to expand...
 
Bokelj said:
I'm basing it off of inconsistency of health institute and research labs that find what they set out to find.

Meat is good, meat is evil. Eat potatoes, don't eat potatoes.

The problem with "research" today is that they go out with a purpose to prove something and actually find out what they set out to find, surprise surprise. I'm not into the roiding thing, I believe the results can be long lasting but I can see how cycling correctly can limit the risk
Click to expand...

Lol. The problem is not with the research, the problem is with the way it is reported upon by sensational-headline-producing media. Equal blame is owed to unctuois, smug consumers of these headlines like yourself who don't trouble yhemsves with actually reading the studies themselves,preferring instead to create a conspiracy about how the idea of research itself is flawed.
 
u would think mlb players from the 90s would be dying left and right. it really isn't the case. that documentary bigger, stronger, faster was pretty good.
 
Stump said:
Lol. The problem is not with the research, the problem is with the way it is reported upon by sensational-headline-producing media. Equal blame is owed to unctuois, smug consumers of these headlines like yourself who don't trouble yhemsves with actually reading the studies themselves,preferring instead to create a conspiracy about how the idea of research itself is flawed.
Click to expand...

I am in research and marketing and I can tell you, as someone that had to process a lot of researches that a company always will find out what they set out to prove. So no, I did not read about steroid research because I frankly don't give a flying f.ck about it but I know how research works and that an unbiased, controlled research hardly to never happens. So calling someone smug by basing your own opinion on someone is really smug and unctuous
 
Bokelj said:
I am in research and marketing and I can tell you, as someone that had to process a lot of researches that a company always will find out what they set out to prove. So no, I did not read about steroid research because I frankly don't give a flying f.ck about it but I know how research works and that an unbiased, controlled research hardly to never happens. So calling someone smug by basing your own opinion on someone is really smug and unctuous
Click to expand...

Your experiences in marketing do not constitute a relevant background from which you can fairly claim to say anything of weight about research labs and health institutes.

Your inability to properly form sentences and insistence that you "don't give a fuck" only reinforce this contention and further, proves without a doubt that you are indeed smug and unctuous - in addition to being ignorant and dismissive

Another know it all in marketing, favouring opinion and flare over substance. How surprising.
 
You dont need a study to know that building muscles will give you a long term gain. Muscles built wont deteriate quick and having been a top athelte in your youthes will be beneficial in your older years.

MMA should implement wada rules and punishment. 1 year bans are a joke. Most fighters only fight twice i year anyways.

1st offense. 2 years
2nd offense. 4 years
3rd offense. Life time.

Note: For Peds.
 
Stump said:
Your experiences in marketing do not constitute a relevant background from which you can fairly claim to say anything of weight about research labs and health institutes.

Your inability to properly form sentences and insistence that you "don't give a fuck" only reinforce this contention and further, proves without a doubt that you are indeed smug and unctuous - in addition to being ignorant and dismissive

Another know it all in marketing, favouring opinion and flare over substance. How surprising.
Click to expand...

I said that I didn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,283,034
Messages
58,477,570
Members
176,048
Latest member
gibberish

Share this page

Back
Top