Steroid Scaremongering In The Media

Hanley

I know this comes up every few months, but it would be nice to have a resource to share, discuss and reply to the many myths the media throws out there around steroid usage.

The first ones that spring to mind:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/junior-cup-kids-have-necks-on-them-like-adults-due-to-supplements-says-sports-doctor-584563.html

Necks like adults? Kids have necks like adults because of good training and nutrition.

20-30% cross contaminated with Steroids? A total misinterpretation of some valid data from a WADA study looking at supplements containing compounds that could contain SUBSTANCES that may make you fail a drug test, not specifically steroids.

What else is there?

Gummy Panda

I suppose roid rage is the obvious one. When Oscar Pistorius home was found to contain AAS, the media was all over it.

Antisocialiser

Gummy Panda wrote: »

I suppose roid rage is the obvious one. When Oscar Pistorius home was found to contain AAS, the media was all over it.

Yeh, saw this one plastered over yesterday's Irish Star. The creatine made him do it, obvz.

spodoinkle

do you have any decent links for any 100% facts on Steroids, good and bad?

squod

But shure a lot of this is their fault. Employing some cartoon character looking bodybuilder to endorse their brand is going to lead to questioning by the average person.



There isn't any 30 stone BB'ers knocking around my gym, or probably your gym.

jive

The media throw around a lot of crap about steroids. However, the media throw around a lot of crap about everything. Any bodybuilder convicted of anything is always portrayed to be some wild ape. That's just the way they sell papers.

Regarding steroids, there are 2 sides to the coin. Sure, steroids aren't as bad as people make out but they also aren't as safe as other people make out. They can be extremely useful in the treatment of various ailments but using them for sport is a completely different thing. When treating various diseases there is a risk / reward benefit that makes taking the drugs worth while. For sport, many people think 'ah all these people take them and doctors prescribe them so they're fine'. I think there is a middle ground, there are obviously risks but not everybody who takes steroids is going to shoot someone in the head, for example.

The main issue for me regarding steroids in sport is that they are obtained illegally and fúck knows where they come from a lot of the time. If I'm running some underground lab then I'm obviously not adhering to any industry regulations because I'm not being audited and I'm going to take shortcuts because I want to maximise profit. I certainly don't think they're as bad as they're made out but their effects in terms of what kind of issues you may be more at risk for later in life still aren't understood. What would worry me the most is where they are coming from - ideally you would want to get them from a reputable pharmaceutical company because anything other than that you are adding significant risk; you really don't know what you're putting into your body.

Fitness in general is ignorantly portrayed in the media (think the '2 day diet' or '5 minute abs') and steroids is just another branch of that, IMO.

Hanley

A quick excerpt from an article I'm writing about the difference between steroids and supplements... Can people follow/understand this?

"The primary result of steroid use is increased muscle mass as a result of increased levels of testosterone facilitating greater protein synthesis and faster recovery. That is to say – you can rebuild your muscles at a faster rate by using more protein than your body could normally use. It's like having a team of 20 professional construction workers building your house versus a few local block layers. The “workers” laying the blocks (testosterone) are the same, there's just more of them. The “building blocks” themselves (protein and amino acids) are the same too.

The difference is rapid construction only occurs when you supply the right materials (again, protein) along with the right conditions (a team of block layers). If you were to dump a yard full of blocks beside a couple of builders, your house wouldn't be finished any faster. It's only when you add in a bigger construction crew that the pace starts to pick up.

If you've followed that analogy, you'll understand that increased protein intake from food and supplements doesn't have any potent anabolic/steroid like effects because it's just the building block of muscle. The actual construction/signalling is controlled by testosterone production. Increase that, and you increase muscle at a faster rate than otherwise possible. And that's why bodybuilders love the stuff."

Zombienosh

squod wrote: »

But shure a lot of this is their fault. Employing some cartoon character looking bodybuilder to endorse their brand is going to lead to questioning by the average person.


There isn't any 30 stone BB'ers knocking around my gym, or probably your gym.

That could be a big problem too, a lot of models and brand mascots are steroid users and the brand use that to market the supplement to gullible people saying "take this and look like this" kind of a thing.

Whereas anyone with a bit of cop on and who actually works out knows that this is marketing, the average person will look at the supplement and go "If it makes you look like that, there must be steroids in it"

COH

jive wrote: »

I think there is a middle ground, there are obviously risks but not everybody who takes steroids is going to shoot someone in the head, for example.

Tell that to the guys prosecuting Pistorius :rolleyes:

squod

COH wrote: »

Tell that to the guys prosecuting Pistorius :rolleyes:

They found out it was just a 'erb.

Orla K

Hanley wrote: »

A quick excerpt from an article I'm writing about the difference between steroids and supplements... Can people follow/understand this?

"The primary result of steroid use is increased muscle mass as a result of increased levels of testosterone facilitating greater protein synthesis and faster recovery. That is to say – you can rebuild your muscles at a faster rate by using more protein than your body could normally use. It's like having a team of 20 professional construction workers building your house versus a few local block layers. The “workers” laying the blocks (testosterone) are the same, there's just more of them. The “building blocks” themselves (protein and amino acids) are the same too.

The difference is rapid construction only occurs when you supply the right materials (again, protein) along with the right conditions (a team of block layers). If you were to dump a yard full of blocks beside a couple of builders, your house wouldn't be finished any faster. It's only when you add in a bigger construction crew that the pace starts to pick up.

If you've followed that analogy, you'll understand that increased protein intake from food and supplements doesn't have any potent anabolic/steroid like effects because it's just the building block of muscle. The actual construction/signalling is controlled by testosterone production. Increase that, and you increase muscle at a faster rate than otherwise possible. And that's why bodybuilders love the stuff."

I think a lot of peoples problems with supplements isn't so much with protein but they think there's other stuff in the protein. And then when it comes to things like creatine and bcaa they really don't have a clue what they are or what they're for and they associate them with gaining muscle and since they're more familiar with steroids they think they are similar or the same.
Think of it from the point of view of someone who's been working out but doesn't really know what they're doing, they don't realised they have to eat more to get bigger but they see someone with good gains and they take extra stuff with the protein, the clueless person thinks that the extra bits are what's giving the guy gains, not the crap load of food that he eats. It's pretty easy for the guy to assume that it's the other stuff is causing the gain.

Then there's the people that don't work out and think anything like that is steroids. I mostly know these types of people and they want to stay ignorant. I've been hiding my protein just for less hassle.

Zombienosh wrote: »

That could be a big problem too, a lot of models and brand mascots are steroid users and the brand use that to market the supplement to gullible people saying "take this and look like this" kind of a thing.

Whereas anyone with a bit of cop on and who actually works out knows that this is marketing, the average person will look at the supplement and go "If it makes you look like that, there must be steroids in it"

First thing I thought of

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgEam8QMKek

Thud

Orla K wrote: »

I've been hiding my protein just for less hassle.

^this i've been using a glucosamine tub for other pills just to avoid having to explain them

brownej

Hanley wrote: »

A quick excerpt from an article I'm writing about the difference between steroids and supplements... Can people follow/understand this?

"The primary result of steroid use is increased muscle mass as a result of increased levels of testosterone facilitating greater protein synthesis and faster recovery. That is to say – you can rebuild your muscles at a faster rate by using more protein than your body could normally use. It's like having a team of 20 professional construction workers building your house versus a few local block layers. The “workers” laying the blocks (testosterone) are the same, there's just more of them. The “building blocks” themselves (protein and amino acids) are the same too.

The difference is rapid construction only occurs when you supply the right materials (again, protein) along with the right conditions (a team of block layers). If you were to dump a yard full of blocks beside a couple of builders, your house wouldn't be finished any faster. It's only when you add in a bigger construction crew that the pace starts to pick up.

If you've followed that analogy, you'll understand that increased protein intake from food and supplements doesn't have any potent anabolic/steroid like effects because it's just the building block of muscle. The actual construction/signalling is controlled by testosterone production. Increase that, and you increase muscle at a faster rate than otherwise possible. And that's why bodybuilders love the stuff."

I'm not sure that the analogy adds to your explanation. Your opening couple of lines and your explanation of the analogy are very clear on their own. The analogy is not really needed. Personally I got distracted by the analogy. I had visions of steroid fuelled builders in hard hats and tool belts working on a house.

This bit

"The primary result of steroid use is increased muscle mass as a result of increased levels of testosterone facilitating greater protein synthesis and faster recovery. That is to say – you can rebuild your muscles at a faster rate by using more protein than your body could normally use."

and this bit

"...you'll understand that increased protein intake from food and supplements doesn't have any potent anabolic/steroid like effects because it's just the building block of muscle. The actual construction/signalling is controlled by testosterone production. Increase that, and you increase muscle at a faster rate than otherwise possible. And that's why bodybuilders love the stuff."

together are very clear and concise and all you really need.

kevpants

Do not make decisions based on what anyone with a loud voice says. This is one thing I’ve learned based on past mistakes. That loud voice is often the media but it also often anointed experts with teams of followers or anti-hero types who go against the conventional wisdom and congregate followers as a result. In ALL cases try and step back, look at facts and think for yourself. For every media outlet saying creatine will kill your kids and lower your house price there is an internet S&C guru who everyone accepts as being “one of the smart ones” sarcastically lambasting anyone who is slightly worried about the effect of 400g of protein on a teenager’s kidneys.

Instead of rowing behind the fitness gurus in every one of these arguments it’s worth remembering that they are only mouthpieces with their own agenda as well. They teach people how to exercise, they aren’t doctors. But doctors are apparently wrong all the time as well though so that’s convenient.

If you’re worried about cross contamination in your teenagers protein shake then don’t let him take one. That doesn’t make you an idiot believe it or not. Also if you don’t take Jack3d because you’re scared your heart will explode, guess what, that’s ok too.

Saying the substances that might be in protein shakes isn’t steroids is beside the point. It’s contamination with unknown substances that worries people. For christ sake there was donkey in our burgers.

discus

kevpants wrote: »

Do not make decisions based on what anyone with a loud voice says. This is one thing I’ve learned based on past mistakes. That loud voice is often the media but it also often anointed experts with teams of followers or anti-hero types who go against the conventional wisdom and congregate followers as a result. In ALL cases try and step back, look at facts and think for yourself. For every media outlet saying creatine will kill your kids and lower your house price there is an internet S&C guru who everyone accepts as being “one of the smart ones” sarcastically lambasting anyone who is slightly worried about the effect of 400g of protein on a teenager’s kidneys.

Instead of rowing behind the fitness gurus in every one of these arguments it’s worth remembering that they are only mouthpieces with their own agenda as well. They teach people how to exercise, they aren’t doctors. But doctors are apparently wrong all the time as well though so that’s convenient.

If you’re worried about cross contamination in your teenagers protein shake then don’t let him take one. That doesn’t make you an idiot believe it or not. Also if you don’t take Jack3d because you’re scared your heart will explode, guess what, that’s ok too.

Saying the substances that might be in protein shakes isn’t steroids is beside the point. It’s contamination with unknown substances that worries people. For christ sake there was donkey in our burgers.

That post is going to be lost on most of this forum.

Hanley

discus wrote: »

That post is going to be lost on most of this forum.

Pendulum. Applies to everything in the industry.

Hanley

... The irony of the same parents afraid of steroids in supplements feeding their kids per packaged processed meals and other rubbish quality food will be lost on most too.

Hammer Time

I agree with the OP that there is a lot of misguided scaremongering coming from the media. However, its probably a case of the blind leading the blind as the author or the source probably has little knowledge on the subject itself. Personally I feel quoting Doctor's when its a nutritional issue doesnt help. Most Doctors have very little knowledge on nutrition beyond "healthy eating". I've heard anecdotal reports of medical Doctors mixing up creatinine and creatine during sports council meetings.

The study referenced by the doctor is probably this one that was carries out in Germany http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18563865 in which they tested over 600 supplements and found quite a lot of contamination. This even applies to established companies. Myprotein had to recall a huge batch of pills and powders recently after contamination was found in an independent test carried out by the RFU.

The people who post in this forum are in a closed environment where much of the information given out is decent and people will be given decent advice on which supplements work and dont work however if you're a kid in a school you probably have a small knowledge base (peers and coaches) to draw on which means they could end up buying literally anything with the intention of improving size/performace etc. This is dangerous.

The S&C knowledge base is growing in the country and schools players are probably being exposed to methods that wouldnt have been available 5-10 years ago so it's natural that the players will be getting bigger as practices become more professional.

COH

Hanley wrote: »

... The irony of the same parents afraid of steroids in supplements feeding their kids per packaged processed meals and other rubbish quality food will be lost on most too.

Absolute fact. Steroids in supplements is so far down the list of things parents should be worried about its beyond a joke. Poor diet, alcohol consumption, tobacco, household cleaning products, recreational drugs, taking too many aspirin by accident, internet perverts, the catholic church, crossing the road, meteor showers, hours of TV a day, kidnapping, happy slaps etc. etc. etc. and about a billion other things are all far more likely to be doing their children harm.

The problem with steroids is that 99.9% of people have a pre-formulated opinion. It doesn't matter what you say, they are bad/dangerous/stupid/cheating. End of story. And if you try to argue to the contrary in any capacity well than you probably take them! From my experience people that have an opinion of steroids have no interest in changing that opinion regardless of information or rationale... and the loudest voice is generally the most ignorant one - in this case, the associated press.

/Rant

So, back on topic. If I take creatine do I even need to like... train?

john_cappa

Hammer Time wrote: »

. Myprotein had to recall a huge batch of pills and powders recently after contamination was found in an independent test carried out by the RFU.

It was my-protein themselves i understand who drew attention to the potential contamination.

Hammer Time

john_cappa wrote: »

It was my-protein themselves i understand who drew attention to the potential contamination.

It was via the RFU. Covering themselves I think. Original point was that even "reputable" brands susceptible.

Dermighty

I think most people associate steroid usage with steroid abuse.

The two are not the same!


As an aside, Hanley, where are you getting your info for the article? Experience from usage or experience from being in the same environment as steroids or things you've read or some or all of the above.

brownej

kevpants wrote: »

Do not make decisions based on what anyone with a loud voice says. This is one thing I’ve learned based on past mistakes. That loud voice is often the media but it also often anointed experts with teams of followers or anti-hero types who go against the conventional wisdom and congregate followers as a result. In ALL cases try and step back, look at facts and think for yourself. For every media outlet saying creatine will kill your kids and lower your house price there is an internet S&C guru who everyone accepts as being “one of the smart ones” sarcastically lambasting anyone who is slightly worried about the effect of 400g of protein on a teenager’s kidneys.

Instead of rowing behind the fitness gurus in every one of these arguments it’s worth remembering that they are only mouthpieces with their own agenda as well. They teach people how to exercise, they aren’t doctors. But doctors are apparently wrong all the time as well though so that’s convenient.

If you’re worried about cross contamination in your teenagers protein shake then don’t let him take one. That doesn’t make you an idiot believe it or not. Also if you don’t take Jack3d because you’re scared your heart will explode, guess what, that’s ok too.

Saying the substances that might be in protein shakes isn’t steroids is beside the point. It’s contamination with unknown substances that worries people. For christ sake there was donkey in our burgers.

This is a really good point and COHs point about parents have more important things to worry about too.
The fitness industry on the one hand is encouraging people to get out take exercise and eat healthy which is a very good thing. Eating whole foods and minimising the consumption of processed foods is something that should definitely be encouraged. However on the other hand the "Fitness industry" also encourgaes the supplementation of diet with protein and other supplements which are heavily processed and as kevpants rightly pointed out are just as susceptibe to cross contamination as pony burgers.

brownej

Dermighty wrote: »

I think most people associate steroid usage with steroid abuse.

The two are not the same!

Where is the line though? How many "units" of steroid is acceptable and how many is abuse?

Setting aside clinically prescribed usage here of course.

Dermighty

brownej wrote: »

Where is the line though? How many "units" of steroid is acceptable and how many is abuse?

Setting aside clinically prescribed usage here of course.

I can't say myself, basically I take supplements and for all intents and purposes my family think I take steroids or something similar. They're completely uneducated re nutrition or steroids. My point is that uneducated people generally have unrealistic perceptions of things. So people that have no knowledge of steroids, including myself in the past, have skewed views on the reality of steroids, naturally tending towards negative stereotypes of steroid usage and steroid users, ie only seeing a big ape versus instead of the possibility that someone uses it for recovery.

kevpants

Hanley wrote: »

... The irony of the same parents afraid of steroids in supplements feeding their kids per packaged processed meals and other rubbish quality food will be lost on most too.

Absolutely. The problem with people being outraged about a few particular things is that they lose all perspective about life in general. If someone's absolute ire is directed at protein shakes they wont notice the sausages they feed little Jimmy have 16% pork in them.

This is pretty much all I'm saying. Look at a situation, disregard the opinion of the top 10% most in favour and the top 10% against and call the rest of it useable information.

People need to stop being so feckin outraged all the time.

iba

Steriods are a known cause for of Avascular Necrosis aka AVN:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avascular_necrosis

cc87

iba wrote: »

Steriods are a known cause for of Avascular Necrosis aka AVN:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avascular_necrosis

The reference they use to suggest that is from a corticosteroid steroid injection given to treat hip pain and they acknowledge that there was no clear link between the injection and the AVN

Scuba Ste

jive wrote: »

The main issue for me regarding steroids in sport is that they are obtained illegally and fúck knows where they come from a lot of the time. If I'm running some underground lab then I'm obviously not adhering to any industry regulations because I'm not being audited and I'm going to take shortcuts because I want to maximise profit.

Unless your Walter White.

I'm not sure you can just accuse the media of scaremongering. The level of ignorance that surrounds supplements is comparable to the ignorance on most other things related to the fitness industry. That ignorance is driven largely by companies in the industry. New products, supplements and training methods all make stupidly outrageous claims about strength and size gains and fat loss that it's hard to separate the truth from the bull****. You only have to look around here at threads on shake weights and the best creatine etc to see how much nonsense people are sold. If there's scaremongering it's partly a reaction to the nonsense promoted by the big supplement companies.

Regarding contamination of supplements, I don't really care. Contamination usually refers to WADA banned substances not illegal per se or steroids so if your not competing in a tested sport it's not that important.

Someone who knows more can correct me but anything I've read has seemed to find that the contaminated products have usually been derivatives of whey and creatine not those supplements in their 'pure' form.

squod

kevpants wrote: »

.

If you’re worried about cross contamination in your teenagers protein shake then don’t let him take one.

Oestrogen gets into water somehow. Bottled water more often it seems.

discus

Hanley wrote: »

Pendulum. Applies to everything in the industry.

I'm just waiting for Rippetoe to **** off so I can start lunging as a prelude to squatting.

Or who knows, maybe free weights will fall from grace and we'll all be using multigyms again.

Hanley

Dermighty wrote: »

I think most people associate steroid usage with steroid abuse.

The two are not the same!


As an aside, Hanley, where are you getting your info for the article? Experience from usage or experience from being in the same environment as steroids or things you've read or some or all of the above.

I'm sorry, what are you implying?

harvester of sorrow

Dermighty wrote: »

I think most people associate steroid usage with steroid abuse.

The two are not the same!


As an aside, Hanley, where are you getting your info for the article? Experience from usage or experience from being in the same environment as steroids or things you've read or some or all of the above.

"if you are trying to build a brick wall what do you need?Bricks.Now if i gave you ten brick layers and no bricks what would happen?No wall would be built.But if i gave you two bricklayers and lots of bricks,we will get the wall built without a problem.Now your diet is the bricks,what we need to build the wall with.The bricklayers are products that allow this to take place or speed up the process.Things such as supplements,steroids and so on."
Operation Morpheus
J K Stettler

Very original.

Gummy Panda

Hanley wrote: »

I'm sorry, what are you implying?

Chill Hanley. He is not saying you are on or were on gear.

He is asking do you know this info from if you tried steroids, being around people who have used them or just read a lot of articles about them.

Dermighty

Hanley wrote: »

I'm sorry, what are you implying?

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Chill Hanley. He is not saying you are on or were on gear.

He is asking do you know this info from if you tried steroids, being around people who have used them or just read a lot of articles about them.

I thought I'd phrased it in a way that wouldn't be read the way you seem to have read it Hanley. I mean exactly what I asked. When you wrote that piece, is your knowledge based on prior use, prior learned knowledge (ie books, etc) or from working with people who are taking steroids.

For the record, why would I imply anything, I've never met you so I was asking a question because I genuinely don't know the answer.

Also, if you have ever, are currently or ever will take steroids I have no positive or negative opinion towards it, just wondering what the basis of your piece is.

mathepac

"Media scare-mongering?" Get up the yard the lotta yiz. David Hickey is a medic as well as a former sports-star and is still involved in the medical side of sport.

I'd give his views on what he has seen a lot more credence than the views of a bunch of internet randomers.

Why do children (his area of concern) involved in sport need to take the supplements he describes? What happened to children enjoying their sport and using it as a physical and psychological developmental mechanism to match the more cerebral methods used in the classroom / study periods. Why can't they just enjoy running around in the fresh-air?

There is no doubting the fact at this stage that supplements are contaminated as they run though the same factories as steroids and God only knows what else. Fish-food, cattle-feed, bone-meal?

Children still at the developmental stage should be banned from taking these supplements as if they were professional athletes and David Hickey's concerns, as quoted, are most certainly not "media frenzy".

Gummy Panda

mathepac wrote: »

There is no doubting the fact at this stage that supplements are contaminated as they run though the same factories as steroids and God only knows what else. Fish-food, cattle-feed, bone-meal?

Wait.. What?

Most steroids are made in underground labs. Not in facilities like Reflex Science Park

Thud

mathepac wrote: »

"Media scare-mongering?" Get up the yard the lotta yiz. David Hickey is a medic as well as a former sports-star and is still involved in the medical side of sport.

I'd give his views on what he has seen a lot more credence than the views of a bunch of internet randomers.

Why do children (his area of concern) involved in sport need to take the supplements he describes? What happened to children enjoying their sport and using it as a physical and psychological developmental mechanism to match the more cerebral methods used in the classroom / study periods. Why can't they just enjoy running around in the fresh-air?

There is no doubting the fact at this stage that supplements are contaminated as they run though the same factories as steroids and God only knows what else. Fish-food, cattle-feed, bone-meal?

Children still at the developmental stage should be banned from taking these supplements as if they were professional athletes and David Hickey's concerns, as quoted, are most certainly not "media frenzy".

I don't like this phrase but...

get's (steroid sprinkled) popcorn...:rolleyes:

Hanley

harvester of sorrow wrote: »

"if you are trying to build a brick wall what do you need?Bricks.Now if i gave you ten brick layers and no bricks what would happen?No wall would be built.But if i gave you two bricklayers and lots of bricks,we will get the wall built without a problem.Now your diet is the bricks,what we need to build the wall with.The bricklayers are products that allow this to take place or speed up the process.Things such as supplements,steroids and so on."
Operation Morpheus
J K Stettler

Very original.

I've no idea who or what that came from, but he's a smart dude. Only a clever guy would think of that analogy

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Chill Hanley. He is not saying you are on or were on gear.

He is asking do you know this info from if you tried steroids, being around people who have used them or just read a lot of articles about them.

Dermighty wrote: »

I thought I'd phrased it in a way that wouldn't be read the way you seem to have read it Hanley. I mean exactly what I asked. When you wrote that piece, is your knowledge based on prior use, prior learned knowledge (ie books, etc) or from working with people who are taking steroids.

For the record, why would I imply anything, I've never met you so I was asking a question because I genuinely don't know the answer.

Asking is my information from prior use ISN'T implying I may have used them?!

If anyone actually followed the first post, you'd see the thread was about the media confusing steroids and supplements and all the crap that comes from it. Nothing to do with any position on steroids themselves.

mathepac wrote: »

"Media scare-mongering?" Get up the yard the lotta yiz. David Hickey is a medic as well as a former sports-star and is still involved in the medical side of sport.

I'd give his views on what he has seen a lot more credence than the views of a bunch of internet randomers.

Why do children (his area of concern) involved in sport need to take the supplements he describes? What happened to children enjoying their sport and using it as a physical and psychological developmental mechanism to match the more cerebral methods used in the classroom / study periods. Why can't they just enjoy running around in the fresh-air?

...then the problem isn't supplements. It's the kids being forced to perform at such a high level at such a young age by parents, teachers, coaches and social pressure.

It's no surprise they will do anything they can to improve with pressure like that. Remove the pressure, and you remove the supplement "abuse" (LOL).

But actually tackling the PROBLEM would be too hard. It's easier to just pick on a small component like supplement use.

There is no doubting the fact at this stage that supplements are contaminated as they run though the same factories as steroids and God only knows what else. Fish-food, cattle-feed, bone-meal?

Children still at the developmental stage should be banned from taking these supplements as if they were professional athletes and David Hickey's concerns, as quoted, are most certainly not "media frenzy".

Supreme levels of ignorance. People like you ARE the problem.

squod

mathepac wrote: »

David Hickey is a medic as well as a former sports-star and is still involved in the medical side of sport.

I'd give his views on what he has seen a lot more credence than the views of a bunch of internet randomers.

Never heard of David Hickey but presume he's involved with ball games. I've been followin' strength sports since forever. This forum is right up there with the best of 'em as regards advice about fitness, supplements and training.

It's up to you who you take advice from. I wouldn't condemn this place so easily.

Dermighty

Hanley wrote: »

Asking is my information from prior use ISN'T implying I may have used them?!

Yeah, fair enough, I contradicted myself there unwittingly.

Either way I was just asking. I'm guessing your not going to answer the question seeing as you decided to point out my mistake leave it at that.

Grand.

what I had meant to say by "I'm not implying anything" was that I wasn't being intentionally smarmy about it in alluding to you using steroids.

deadlybuzzman

mathepac wrote: »

"Media scare-mongering?" Get up the yard the lotta yiz. David Hickey is a medic as well as a former sports-star and is still involved in the medical side of sport.

I'd give his views on what he has seen a lot more credence than the views of a bunch of internet randomers.

Why do children (his area of concern) involved in sport need to take the supplements he describes? What happened to children enjoying their sport and using it as a physical and psychological developmental mechanism to match the more cerebral methods used in the classroom / study periods. Why can't they just enjoy running around in the fresh-air?

There is no doubting the fact at this stage that supplements are contaminated as they run though the same factories as steroids and God only knows what else. Fish-food, cattle-feed, bone-meal?

Children still at the developmental stage should be banned from taking these supplements as if they were professional athletes and David Hickey's concerns, as quoted, are most certainly not "media frenzy".

Sounds like someone couldn't get through to Joe Duffy today!

Hanley

Dermighty wrote: »

Yeah, fair enough, I contradicted myself there unwittingly.

Either way I was just asking. I'm guessing your not going to answer the question seeing as you decided to point out my mistake leave it at that.

Grand.

what I had meant to say by "I'm not implying anything" was that I wasn't being intentionally smarmy about it in alluding to you using steroids.

The information from the article is referenced to commercial and independent scientific journals. And no, I've never taken steroids.

Dermighty

Hanley wrote: »

The information from the article is referenced to commercial and independent scientific journals. And no, I've never taken steroids.

Cool, thanks.

Aquarius34

Ugh, the "health" and cough fitness forum seems to be pro steroids here.

Steroid is a drug. Can't get around that one. But I am sure people here will somehow come up with some magic excuse to make it like someone wonderful multivitamin that empowers your life and gives you good kidneys.

banquet

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Ugh, the "health" and cough fitness forum seems to be pro steroids here.

Steroid is a drug. Can't get around that one. But I am sure people here will somehow come up with some magic excuse to make it like someone wonderful multivitamin that empowers your life and gives you good kidneys.

Can you show me a single example of someone expressing they were "pro steroid" on this forum?

Aquarius34

banquet wrote: »

Can you show me a single example of someone expressing they were "pro steroid" on this forum?

Read the steroid threads on this forum, perhaps?

Talk about been completely elusive......

banquet

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Read the steroid threads on this forum, perhaps?

Talk about been completely elusive......

I read one a few days ago. What I recall was you embarrassing yourself claiming that whey producers would secretly add extremely costly anabolics to their product. When it was argued that this made no economic sense, instead of engaging in debate, you embarrassed yourself further with replies like "so says you".

WHIP IT!

banquet wrote: »

I read one a few days ago. What I recall was you embarrassing yourself claiming that whey producers would secretly add extremely costly anabolics to their product. When it was argued that this made no economic sense, instead of engaging in debate, you embarrassed yourself further with replies like "so says you".

Ah lads, are people still dignifying that eejit's third-rate trolling efforts by answering him even semi-seriously??

Complete the well-known interweb phrase: "Don't feed the........ ?"
C'mon now, we all know this one...

Aquarius34

banquet wrote: »

I read one a few days ago. What I recall was you embarrassing yourself claiming that whey producers would secretly add extremely costly anabolics to their product. When it was argued that this made no economic sense, instead of engaging in debate, you embarrassed yourself further with replies like "so says you".

No I did not, I said I wouldn't be surprised if they did, and when I seen the thread, that's what I said.....

And it would be no surprise. I didn't embarrass myself. I am not a freaking sheep who follow's popular opinion, like so many freaking Irish people do with their tails between their legs on anything that goes against the norms of mainstream thinking..... My god this country is so naive....

Aquarius34

WHIP IT! wrote: »

Ah lads, are people still dignifying that eejit's third-rate trolling efforts by answering him even semi-seriously??

Complete the well-known interweb phrase: "Don't feed the........ ?"
C'mon now, we all know this one...

I see, so when someone has a different view to someone else, it's deemed trolling, is that how it rolls here then. Your use of insults, certainly gives you the calling of your own trolling efforts.