EXCELLENT CASE STUDY OF 4 BODYBUILDERS USING STEROIDS FOR MANY YEARS

[Demonhunter323]

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...

 

[maldorf]

I always enjoy your posts as you seem to always touch on the side effects of using which a lot of people are willing to look past. That is until something happens later on.

I wonder if the same goes for people on TRT, would the side effects be the same or limited due to only replacing what the body was making (assuming one is not taking more than they should)?

Yes, in theory if youre just replacing what is a normal test dose for your body then there should not be any abnormal side effects. The problem with some guys that cruise inbetween cycles is the fact that they are crusing on 2x or more a true HRT dose. A true HRT dose is going to be somewhere between 100- maybe 200 mg/wk. Most take 100-150/wk and do great.

 

[maldorf]

Its the " it will never happen to me mentality". That is prevalent in many things. Not just steroids. Alchol, bad eating, recreational drugs. Many people will never stop until problem hits. I have a friend who got 4 dui's in 6 months during a seperation with his wife. The only reason he stopped at 4, because he was finally facing prison time.

Yes. You are right. It is very hard to stop doing AAS once you have started. The psychological toll is incredible when you look in the mirror and see yourself shrinking weekly when you go off. I was once the very same way. It just sucks that most of us have to learn the hard way. I have never claimed I was smarter or had more common sense than any of the other members on here. I choose now to share what happened to me with the hopes that just a few members might change what they are doing.

 

[ericraven2003]

Yes. You are right. It is very hard to stop doing AAS once you have started. The psychological toll is incredible when you look in the mirror and see yourself shrinking weekly when you go off. I was once the very same way. It just sucks that most of us have to learn the hard way. I have never claimed I was smarter or had more common sense than any of the other members on here. I choose now to share what happened to me with the hopes that just a few members might change what they are doing.

I think that getting married and having kids in my mid 20's kept me from falling into the high dose, get huge mentality. If I had been single, I might have gone that way too.

 

[maldorf]

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?

Wow, i should have had you come and speak for me. What you said is exactly what I am trying to say. I guess sometimes I tend to ramble on. I like your format with the bullets and how you outlined it.

Everyone needs to read your post. It is concise and to the point. No BS.

 

[maldorf]

maldorf,
I didnt mean that as an attack in any way man, or to sound sarcastic. I was just geniunly confused how the AAS users were chosen for this study.

I think we all should appreciate the fact that you were able to take the time out of your day to find this study and summarize it for us.

Is there any way of finding out if the amounts of AAS listed in the table were, infact, weekly or monthly?

No problem. Well, I think the only way to find out what those doses in the table mean is to contact the people that conducted the research. That is certainly possible. Seeing that most docs have no idea how much and how we run these drugs, they may not really understand the data that the lifters gave to them.

I think most of the test dosages were like several grams, and I would think that is weekly. ITs the oral doses that look all screwed up. I think in reality the table might be a mix of weekly doses and some that are monthly. Certainly very sloppy, but the docs really dont know any better.

The fact remains though that there was significant cardiac issues in all of these men, and they had been taking AAS for years.

 

[maldorf]

I think that getting married and having kids in my mid 20's kept me from falling into the high dose, get huge mentality. If I had been single, I might have gone that way too.

Having kids didnt stop me.

 

[Johnny Smiles]

please, what is this BP medicine????

ok, so what is that BP medicine? -JS

dying to know (no pun intended lol) but seriously, really wanna know what that BP medicine is.... -JS

 

[Magnum]

This study is extremely flawed and not because steroids are good or bad for you. Regardless, taking large doses of steroids for many years straight is dumb. Problem is that everyone wants to be big all year round. Nothing wrong with wanting that, but actually doing what it takes to stay that way all the time is not good for your health and for many many reasons that go far beyond steroid use.

I am seeing people now more than never with heart failure, kidney problems, liver problems etc and these are in people who never touched a steroid, but I do see a common denominator in a surpisingly high number of these people and that is prescription drug use. I just read the other day that Zocor can and has caused kidney failure and death especially at the highest recommended dose. **broken link removed**

Imagine if someone who is a steroid and Zocor user went to their Dr 6 months ago with kidney failure (before the FDA warnings that Zocor can kill your kidneys) What do you think that Drs will blame it on??? This is only one reason that studies like these are very flawed. What other common denominator did these two workout partners have? Obviously we will never know.

 

[ssdark1]

well they said hi doses! my wife is a ccrn she thought they were weekly also. but not sure cause it not written like studies she use to reading...but if you take what you say..who is going to do 110mg of anadrol monthly!!!?? they going to chop it up into crumbs!? it actually making me think this is BS...also from what it seems this is all suppose to be doses by memory...they werent watched during the timeframe just studied afterwards? correct or did i read wrong

good point about the anadrol. idk. it just seemed unfathomable to do that much dbol but right after i posted i saw the thread "look at this guys cycle" where he is supposedly taking 130mg dbol daily. ur right, they did say high doses, but damn.

 

[maldorf]

This study is extremely flawed and not because steroids are good or bad for you. Regardless, taking large doses of steroids for many years straight is dumb. Problem is that everyone wants to be big all year round. Nothing wrong with wanting that, but actually doing what it takes to stay that way all the time is not good for your health and for many many reasons that go far beyond steroid use.

I am seeing people now more than never with heart failure, kidney problems, liver problems etc and these are in people who never touched a steroid, but I do see a common denominator in a surpisingly high number of these people and that is prescription drug use. I just read the other day that Zocor can and has caused kidney failure and death especially at the highest recommended dose. **broken link removed**

Imagine if someone who is a steroid and Zocor user went to their Dr 6 months ago with kidney failure (before the FDA warnings that Zocor can kill your kidneys) What do you think that Drs will blame it on??? This is only one reason that studies like these are very flawed. What other common denominator did these two workout partners have? Obviously we will never know.

I think you made some very good points. The large doses and wanting to stay on year long in some form or another to maintain that same look is what is most dangerous.

Any drug we put into our body is going to present some form of risk this is true, and its sad when the FDA cant get it right. It is not realistic though to expect them not to make mistakes.

I do think it is wishful thinking though to not see any link at all between anabolic steroids and heart disease. The effects on the heart now are becoming more and more documented with animal reserach and we have empirical evidence from the various deaths and health problems users have suffered. Just because a study such as this is not a controlled study doesnt make it poor and flawed. What are some other alternatives to what might have caused those 2 friends to have had heart problems? For example, did they both do rec drugs like cocaine? I suppose you can call the study flawed because of this unknown variable, but the most obvious thing they both shared was the use of steroids.

 

[Magnum]

I think you made some very good points. The large doses and wanting to stay on year long in some form or another to maintain that same look is what is most dangerous.

Any drug we put into our body is going to present some form of risk this is true, and its sad when the FDA cant get it right. It is not realistic though to expect them not to make mistakes.

I do think it is wishful thinking though to not see any link at all between anabolic steroids and heart disease. The effects on the heart now are becoming more and more documented with animal reserach and we have empirical evidence from the various deaths and health problems users have suffered. Just because a study such as this is not a controlled study doesnt make it poor and flawed. What are some other alternatives to what might have caused those 2 friends to have had heart problems? For example, did they both do rec drugs like cocaine? I suppose you can call the study flawed because of this unknown variable, but the most obvious thing they both shared was the use of steroids.

Of course people make mistakes, but I'm certainly going to hold the FDA to a higher standard for the simple fact that it is peoples lives they hold in the balance. I remember reading a study that was done on rats and stanazolol. It was years ago and I wish I would have saved it. Anyway, they fed these rats hundreds of milligrams a day, something a human could never do and I wondered why even waste the resources to try and prove such a useless point.

I don't think it takes a brainiac to figure out that years of any type of drug abuse can lead to serious problems. My point about the study you posted was that is made no mention as to what prescription drugs they may have been on and they also did not mention they may have been on any type of rec drugs which is a lot of times common with people who totally abuse steroids. The problem with prescription drugs is that the recommended doses are killing people and this is not happening with years of abuse, but just weeks and months of NORMAL RECOMMENDED use!!

 

[Ivan]

So youre going to just keep on doing what youre doing unless you suffer a bad health problem? What are you going to do if it turns out to be a blood clot like Bapper had? Sometimes you dont get much warning, and its too late. Oh well, just keep on keepin on.

Maldorf, that is not what I said. If you come across a health problem, you address it. I am not going to live my life in fear or with the "what if" syndrome. And this is precisely why I am careful and responsible with my use -- meaning I do not cruise I simply stop, and I keep my doses at 1 gram MAX per week. I stay away from orals and I do not run anything longer than 12 weeks w/ at least a 12 week break. I almost always had my values checked while on and made sure to use hcg. There IS a responsible way of doing it man. And I know you are one of the smarter guys here, you just are getting a little too subjective in all this.

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?

This is an EXCELLENT post. Very well said.

Yes. You are right. It is very hard to stop doing AAS once you have started. The psychological toll is incredible when you look in the mirror and see yourself shrinking weekly when you go off. I was once the very same way. It just sucks that most of us have to learn the hard way. I have never claimed I was smarter or had more common sense than any of the other members on here. I choose now to share what happened to me with the hopes that just a few members might change what they are doing.

I can totally understand your plight man, but you make it sound like all users are doomed. Perhaps to the fellas here who indeed do abuse aas I see your point, --- I guess the question should be; how many here are using vs. abusing? Are you taking anything anymore? What are your thoughts on John Romano? Just curious man, you may not think so, but I do respect your opinion, I just have to play devils advocate a little bit

 

[Ivan]

Magnum

Of course people make mistakes, but I'm certainly going to hold the FDA to a higher standard for the simple fact that it is peoples lives they hold in the balance. I remember reading a study that was done on rats and stanazolol. It was years ago and I wish I would have saved it. Anyway, they fed these rats hundreds of milligrams a day, something a human could never do and I wondered why even waste the resources to try and prove such a useless point.

I don't think it takes a brainiac to figure out that years of any type of drug abuse can lead to serious problems. My point about the study you posted was that is made no mention as to what prescription drugs they may have been on and they also did not mention they may have been on any type of rec drugs which is a lot of times common with people who totally abuse steroids. The problem with prescription drugs is that the recommended doses are killing people and this is not happening with years of abuse, but just weeks and months of NORMAL RECOMMENDED use!!

100% agree. That whole industry scares me lol. Good stuff Magnum.

 

[maldorf]

The problem with prescription drugs is that the recommended doses are killing people and this is not happening with years of abuse, but just weeks and months of NORMAL RECOMMENDED use!!

Oh I totally agree with you on this. There are and have been some damn dangerous drugs approved by the FDA and they should do a better job. Im not sure what has to change, and if it is even possible for them to avoid such occurances. I think sometimes monetary gain is behind the scenes somewhere, perhaps picking up the pace in which some of these drugs are approved or perhaps somehow conducting studies that are flawed and it is just overlooked because some lobyist is influencing things. That could all just be paranoia in my part.

 

[emeric delczeg]

Maldorf, that is not what I said. If you come across a health problem, you address it. I am not going to live my life in fear or with the "what if" syndrome. And this is precisely why I am careful and responsible with my use -- meaning I do not cruise I simply stop, and I keep my doses at 1 gram MAX per week. I stay away from orals and I do not run anything longer than 12 weeks w/ at least a 12 week break. I almost always had my values checked while on and made sure to use hcg. There IS a responsible way of doing it man. And I know you are one of the smarter guys here, you just are getting a little too subjective in all this.


This is an EXCELLENT post. Very well said.


I can totally understand your plight man, but you make it sound like all users are doomed. Perhaps to the fellas here who indeed do abuse aas I see your point, --- I guess the question should be; how many here are using vs. abusing? Are you taking anything anymore? What are your thoughts on John Romano? Just curious man, you may not think so, but I do respect your opinion, I just have to play devils advocate a little bit

HCG will not prevent blood cloths.

 

[Rictor33]

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?

Good, intelligent post.. Some of these younger members need to read this. There are long-term consequences to using aas. Are they are bad as the mainstream media sensationalizes? Probably not. Are they potentially unhealthy long term? I would say probably. Just because you know people who have done them and claim no side effects does not mean that you are not playing with fire here.

 

[Ivan]

lol

HCG will not prevent blood cloths.

ha ha yeah man I know I know -- I use it to keep my HPTA intact. What would you advise for a good preventative course for blood clots?

 

[maldorf]

Maldorf, that is not what I said. If you come across a health problem, you address it. I am not going to live my life in fear or with the "what if" syndrome. And this is precisely why I am careful and responsible with my use -- meaning I do not cruise I simply stop, and I keep my doses at 1 gram MAX per week. I stay away from orals and I do not run anything longer than 12 weeks w/ at least a 12 week break. I almost always had my values checked while on and made sure to use hcg. There IS a responsible way of doing it man. And I know you are one of the smarter guys here, you just are getting a little too subjective in all this.


I can totally understand your plight man, but you make it sound like all users are doomed. Perhaps to the fellas here who indeed do abuse aas I see your point, --- I guess the question should be; how many here are using vs. abusing? Are you taking anything anymore? What are your thoughts on John Romano? Just curious man, you may not think so, but I do respect your opinion, I just have to play devils advocate a little bit

The way you do things does indeed sound like the most responsible way to do things. No more than 1g/wk and 12 weeks on 12 weeks off is good IMO. I believe you are doing most things possible to avoid problems, although I would probably seek out doing at least 1 echocardiogram to see what kind of shape your heart is in (wall thickness, wall motion, ejection fraction). Then run one of those every few years again to make sure the condtion of your heart hasnt changed. These changes in your heart most times you will never be able to feel anything is wrong nor will any blood test tell you anything.

Sure abusing is going to make your chances of running into trouble that much greater, but some people like me are going to have trouble even while not really abusing. One of the points I try to make is that some are going to suffer tragic injury even when not abusing. The chances are much more slim, I guess its just the chance you take. I guess its kind of like speeding on the highway. Sometimes you can speed drive 85 mph all of the time and only get caught by the police after driving for 2 years, or you could have luck like mine and get a speeding ticket for going 85 mph the first week you have your drivers license.

From some of the posts, I would say there are a great number on here that abuse.

I do not take anything anymore besides my endo prescribed 120mg/day. i will do that the rest of my life. I feel much better after going on that. As far as John Romano's piece on HBO, I used to think he was my hero. Before my problem I appluaded him. Now after my circumstances have changed, I feel differently. Sure the media hyper exaggerates the dangers of anablic steroids, but he gave the impression that they are much safer than they actually are. I fear that a young person watching that will take it the wrong way. It was a one sided view of taking steroids. I guess its only fair though, since the media engages in that portrayal in the opposite light showing AAS as pure evil. To me it is similar to the tale of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. You get tired of hearing so much bullshit that once something real happens you just blow it off as more bullshit.

 

[Pekkerwood]

I am an advocate of "intelligent use". I thing Ivans protocol, closely mimics what I would do, although I would cut things by about 25% in dosage and time. He may as well, as he implied up to a gram and twelve weeks.

I guess my main points from my post are its frivolous for us to argue for and against harmful effects as if there are "sides" to take. We never know enough about any one individual to make a guess. The genetics, prior health, lifestyle, stress, enviromental factors, etc. It is going to be nigh impossible to get a large enough sample to even out the other factors. Oddly enough, this site is probably the best place to do it. Sort of our own "census". It would need to be anonymous because I for one know I am taller, bigger, leaner, and better looking on this board than in the carbon based world.

My second main point is HAVING ONE BLOOD PANEL DRAWN A YEAR ISN'T SUFFICIENT MONITORING. But so few do even that , it seems like a lot. Testing is not cheap, but some things are. What percentage of members do you think own a decent Blood Pressure monitor or cuff? What percentage use it?

A common thread amongst us old farts is smaller, shorter cycles, involving less compounds and health testing. Only a couple of folks here in there late forties, fifties, or sixties openly advocate "Get bigger or die trying" type approach.

Preface: Some of the younger members on here are some of the brightest and most helpful members. No doubt about it. The energy to take an idea and track down research and present it, well, I applaud you. With that said.....We have several designations on this board, Featured Member, Pro, Mod, Kilo Club and, yes, Banned. Don't take these for granted they convey valuable information much like a rattlesnakes rattle. I suggest playfully, that one more be considered: Old Fart. The avatar can be a dried up frog looking butt pooting a dust ball. This will be reserved for members either 40 and above or with twenty years training. People can actually read what we type or a feature can be added to ignore us as a group so you don't have to listen to our "Preaching, whining, and player hating" we tend to deliver to the younger members.

BTW I didn't really post that much although I was a member here for many years until my health problems began. Many were so more advanced with their ideas and knowledge I felt that I had little to add. It just so happens, that what I now can add, information on what happens when you are a steriod abuser and you contract major health issues, is not a populer discussion. I would much prefer to have been the starter of the "Ass Thread". MainEvent is on my thank you list now forever.

I will continue to post encouragement to apply intelligence to your body and your lifes decisions. I certainly understand how it is sometimes received. For all you young Supermen, I was you at one point.

Be at Peace
Pekkerwood.