- Joined
- Oct 5, 2009
- Messages
- 35
Four of the participants friends in the gym did steroids and did not end up in the hospital. There is your proof that steroids are not bad for you.
There is no doubt in my mine that there are people on this board who think the second sentence makes more sense than the mentioned comments from the case study.
Folks:
1.There will always be "exceptions". One exception will disprove many theories in math, and physics. We are dealing with more of a "probablility" than a definative rule. I.E. "___ users" have a 20% higher risk of stroke before fifty, etc.
2. Because of the nature of the illegal substances (in some countries) and the stigma both of society and insurance companies, sample size will always be "too low" as people are fearful to report/participate.
3. I believe for the reasons detailed in #2 above, problems are underreported.
4. Even in a "definative" sample there are too many other variables which cannot be accounted for which will always give the naysayers an out.
5. A lot of readers of this board have a built in desire for a particular outcome to confirm their lifestyle choices.
6. There is nothing wrong with #5, its normal.
I hold a few "unproven" things to be "self evident".
1. Carrying a huge excess of lean muscle mass for a prolonged period of life makes the heart work harder than in a pasta eating, pilates, fellow who still watches his diet and exercises regularly. It will make my heart wear out quicker.
2. Having periods of thicker blood, elevated blood pressure, higher than normal liver values is worse for your body than not having these things present.
3. My cardiologist group, takes it as a given, that all the musclar athletes they deal with will have slightly enlarged hearts, and a good number will have thicker left ventricle walls.
4. Taking products produced in non-licensed inspected facilities and injecting them past the skin barrier, is riskier than not doing it.
5. Ordering illegal substances, receiving them, storing them, having there metabolites present in your blood stream is riskier than not doing it.
6. Spending money on drugs when you are not yet financially secure is less smart than not doing it.
7. Losing you hair faster at a younger age is generally less desirable than not doing it.
8. For everyone ten people who think they "monitor" their bodies and their usage in an intelligent manner, maybe two people do. Don't believe me? Where are the baseline numbers? Where are the baseline echocardiorgrams? Is bloodwork done b4, during, and after a cycle? How often a day during a cycle is blood pressure checked? False security may be more dangerous than no testing at all.
For reasons 1-thru 8, above, if you are a steroid/hormone user, do not let the fact that you didn't poop out your liver today, or stroke out this morning, make you believe that you have conclusive evidence that use of same is not harmful to your well being.
Then again, it may not be. Who knows?
Exactly, this was key. The only reason Schwarzenegger is still around is because hes worth 100 mill, and has the best health care because of his money. He even had a valve replacement which they "say" was congenital, but who really knows...