Steroids on Today FM

Jayesdiem

I was surprised to see this topic come up on Matt Cooper's radio show last night but less surprised that the topic itself was handled with the sort of bias you might expect of a tabloid newspaper. There was much exaggeration and misinformation from a GP who had a very shakey grasp of the subject and I was surprised that the opinions of a well-reputed poster from this site didn't balance the discussion somewhat. The usual comparisons to protein supplements were made and the GP couldn't believe his luck when Matt Cooper gave him an opportunity to add blood clotting of the eyes to the many other negative outcomes associated with PED use. I don't think anyone denies the dangers associated with misuse of these drugs but it would be great if, for once, an Irish media outlet could address this topic with a degree of balance. Anyone who heard this piece, I'd like to hear your opinions.

JD

gordongekko

Jayesdiem wrote: »

I was surprised to see this topic come up on Matt Cooper's radio show last night but less surprised that the topic itself was handled with the sort of bias you might expect of a tabloid newspaper. There was much exaggeration and misinformation from a GP who had a very shakey grasp of the subject and I was surprised that the opinions of a well-reputed poster from this site didn't balance the discussion somewhat. The usual comparisons to protein supplements were made and the GP couldn't believe his luck when Matt Cooper gave him an opportunity to add blood clotting of the eyes to the many other negative outcomes associated with PED use. I don't think anyone denies the dangers associated with misuse of these drugs but it would be great if, for once, an Irish media outlet could address this topic with a degree of balance. Anyone who heard this piece, I'd like to hear your opinions.

JD

Were you really expecting a section on why its a good idea to but steroids off a lad you meet in the gym?

Jayesdiem

I said that??

Alf Veedersane

There are very few people that will want to be seen to promote or even normalise steroid use.

I don't know how you can expect someone to balance the anti-steroid commentary without it reflecting 'badly' on them to the general public that listen to /watch shows

Jayesdiem

I don't expect it of any one individual. All I'm saying is the reporting of it should be accurate and, on this particular show, it wasn't especially that. What was the point in getting two individuals on to agree with each other. The good side and the bad side of steroid use is an interesting topic and if the radio station doesn't agree, it should not fill the role of the nanny state. Why not have on an endocrinologist who prescribes these agents for therapeutic purposes? Would that not have delivered a clearer picture? Instead we had a GP and a trainer who agreed with him and no alternative to what they were saying.

Alf Veedersane

Jayesdiem wrote: »

I don't expect it of any one individual. All I'm saying is the reporting of it should be accurate and, on this particular show, it wasn't especially that. What was the point in getting two individuals on to agree with each other. The good side and the bad side of steroid use is an interesting topic and if the radio station doesn't agree, it should not fill the role of the nanny state. Why not have on an endocrinologist who prescribes these agents for therapeutic purposes? Would that not have delivered a clearer picture? Instead we had a GP and a trainer who agreed with him and no alternative to what they were saying.

Say they get on an endocrinologist who outlines what and why he prescribes testosterone, for example. That's not really relevant to a discussion on the rise of illegal steroid use in Ireland which was the topic of the discussion.

Jayesdiem

Well if that's what the discussion was, and it really didn't touch upon the legalities so much as the negative side effects, they should have had a law enforcement man or woman on the show. Neither individual talked much about the legal side of these drugs. It was all about the negative side effects and their relationship to the use of protein, creatine etc.

Alf Veedersane

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Well if that's what the discussion was, and it really didn't touch upon the legalities so much as the negative side effects, they should have had a law enforcement man or woman on the show. Neither individual talked much about the legal side of these drugs. It was all about the negative side effects and their relationship to the use of protein, creatine etc.

It was about the use of steroids, illegally, by gym goers. Not sure you would have a law enforcement person on. All they could add is that illegal drugs are illegal.

I would venture that the people taking steroids etc ate not well versed on how to take them or the potential effects.

Jayesdiem

I agree with you but in the process we got a very one sided story which instantly loses credibility as soon as the drugs are compared to perfectly safe, perfectly legal supplements.

Brian?

How prevalent is juicing these days? I'm not calling anyone out, but is it as common as it's being made out?

I train in private work gym so I have no exposure to a normal gym and it's people.

I have noticed there are a lot more properly big guys around in general, but that doesn't necessarily corellate to juicing.

b_mac2

Brian? wrote: »

How prevalent is juicing these days? I'm not calling anyone out, but is it as common as it's being made out

It's rampant.

Tren is the job though in fairness...

whippet

It is rampant and very visible to anyone who is training around any type of lifter or bodybuilder male or female.

The misinformation banded about in the gyms by the people supplying and prescribing is scary.

My wife is a pharmaceutical scientist and has access to a wide range of clinical papers etc and really can't believe that people are taking the quantities of sh1te based upon what their PT or coach is recommending.

A huge amount of the stuff is counterfeit which is a separate concern.

As for tren ... I've had the misfortune of training with a lad who was taking a bit too much and wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy

Alf Veedersane

I don't know if I've just developed the ability to zone out pretty much everyone else or I'm just training when those on the PEDs aren't but I'd have never known it was as rampant as seems to be.

But I wouldn't be surprised.

whippet

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I don't know if I've just developed the ability to zone out pretty much everyone else or I'm just training when those on the PEDs aren't but I'd have never known it was as rampant as seems to be.

But I wouldn't be surprised.

I've learned to zone out myself to an extent ... but it is so open in the strength based gyms.

Sure even having separate tested and untested Feds for lifting in says it all.

Alf Veedersane

whippet wrote: »

I've learned to zone out myself to an extent ... but it is so open in the strength based gyms.

Sure even having separate tested and untested Feds for lifting in says it all.

Yeah that's true and I know it exists. I used to hear it discussed in the changing rooms but since I've started lifting later I go in ready to go so I don't hear about it as much. And it's possible it's more general public there when I am. I don't know.

But it doesn't surprise me because, aside from the very strong lads on it, everyone loves a shortcut. It's easier than doing everything else right before gear should even be a consideration.

Mellor

Jayesdiem wrote: »

There was much exaggeration and misinformation from a GP who had a very shakey grasp of the subject and I was surprised that the opinions of a well-reputed poster from this site didn't balance the discussion somewhat.

How you have expected the poster to treat the situation? He hardly wants to be presented as the pro-steroid foil to the medical opinion.

In fact I think it's the other way around, the GP shouldn't be alienating steroid users. They should highlight the risks of course, even discourage the use but ultimately they should encourage users get bloodwork done and similar.
If somebody is going to use steroids, or runs into issues, he should feel like he is excommunicated by the medical profession.

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

It was about the use of steroids, illegally, by gym goers. Not sure you would have a law enforcement person on. All they could add is that illegal drugs are illegal.

Unless something has changed recently, taking steroids isn't illegal afaik.

I would venture that the people taking steroids etc ate not well versed on how to take them or the potential effects.

For every educated user, you have 10 lads jabbing away and hoping for the best

Jayesdiem

Mellor wrote: »

Jayesdiem wrote: »

There was much exaggeration and misinformation from a GP who had a very shakey grasp of the subject and I was surprised that the opinions of a well-reputed poster from this site didn't balance the discussion somewhat.

How you have expected the poster to treat the situation? He hardly wants to be presented as the pro-steroid foil to the medical opinion.

In fact I think it's the other way around, the GP shouldn't be alienating steroid users. They should highlight the risks of course, even discourage the use but ultimately they should encourage users get bloodwork done and similar.
If somebody is going to use steroids, or runs into issues, he should feel like he is excommunicated by the medical profession.

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

It was about the use of steroids, illegally, by gym goers. Not sure you would have a law enforcement person on. All they could add is that illegal drugs are illegal.

Unless something has changed recently, taking steroids isn't illegal afaik.

I would venture that the people taking steroids etc ate not well versed on how to take them or the potential effects.

For every educated user, you have 10 lads jabbing away and hoping for the best

I didn't expect the poster to be pro steroids. I expected the radio station to bring on two individuals who had somewhat alternative perspectives and a fuller knowledge of the topic. What actually occurred was that the GP put himself across as an expert (which he absolutely was not), as the second contributor metaphoricaly nodded in agreement at most things that were said. It didn't make for a very balanced or informative discussion.

Mellor

Jayesdiem wrote: »

I didn't expect the poster to be pro steroids. I expected the radio station to bring on two individuals who had somewhat alternative perspectives and a fuller knowledge of the topic. What actually occurred was that the GP put himself across as an expert (which he absolutely was not), as the second contributor metaphoricaly nodded in agreement at most things that were said. It didn't make for a very balanced or informative discussion.

What you are describing is a debate. While that was obviously possible, I'd imagine that debating the pros/cons of steroid use wasn't actually what the radio station wanted to achieve.

Why do you think the GP wasn't an expert , on medicine or steroids specifically. What parts did you think were lacking. I've been trying to listen to it on the website but its not working

Zillah

You see the occasional lad in Flyefit with traps up to his ears.

In what way were protein and creatine being conflated with PEDs on this show?

Jayesdiem

Guys, try to listen to it if you can - iTunes podcasts has it. What I've given is my own perspective and nobody is obliged to agree with it. Every claim made by the GP has a caveat and a devil's advocate would have added much needed detail to the argument, or lack of argument. Two examples: testicular atrophy is reversible and does not necessarily signal infertility or permanent infertility. Renal issues are not a given, in fact they are probably non-existent with injectable compounds and almost certainly aren't caused by whey protein consumption. What I mean is not everything said was necessarily untrue but nor was it true and the debate required a devil's advocate rather than two individuals intent on giving a public service announcement.

Alf Veedersane

Mellor wrote: »

Unless something has changed recently, taking steroids isn't illegal afaik.

Worded slightly incorrectly. The use of illegal steroids as opposed to the illegal use of steroids.

ford2600

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Guys, try to listen to it if you can - iTunes podcasts has it. What I've given is my own perspective and nobody is obliged to agree with it. Every claim made by the GP has a caveat and a devil's advocate would have added much needed detail to the argument, or lack of argument. Two examples: testicular atrophy is reversible and does not necessarily signal infertility or permanent infertility. Renal issues are not a given, in fact they are probably non-existent with injectable compounds and almost certainly aren't caused by whey protein consumption. What I mean is not everything said was necessarily untrue but nor was it true and the debate required a devil's advocate rather than two individuals intent on giving a public service announcement.

I heard it.

As a doctor he couldn't but be anti non medical supervised use of steroids.

I looked into steroids before out of interest; is there anyone in the country getting proper safe advise on their use? I found a guy in UK who gives experts evidence on their use and is a competitive lifter. Anyone like that here?

From a public health perspective steroids are not something to play around with.

On creatine/whey a position that it's not necessary is fine but Dr went further and waffled about dangers not unlike Neil Francis.

He had more vague diet stuff.

I thought it was a poor enough piece of radio

whippet

ford2600 wrote: »

I looked into steroids before out of interest; is there anyone in the country getting proper safe advise on their use? I found a guy in UK who gives experts evidence on their use and is a competitive lifter. Anyone like that here?

There are loads of 'experts' in Ireland .. just like there are loads of people with PT after their name on Facebook.

ted1

Jayesdiem wrote: »

I don't expect it of any one individual. All I'm saying is the reporting of it should be accurate and, on this particular show, it wasn't especially that. What was the point in getting two individuals on to agree with each other. The good side and the bad side of steroid use is an interesting topic and if the radio station doesn't agree, it should not fill the role of the nanny state. Why not have on an endocrinologist who prescribes these agents for therapeutic purposes? Would that not have delivered a clearer picture? Instead we had a GP and a trainer who agreed with him and no alternative to what they were saying.

Prescribing of controlled drugs is very different than it being used and abused by lads down the gym for non medicinal use

gordongekko

Jayesdiem wrote: »

I don't expect it of any one individual. All I'm saying is the reporting of it should be accurate and, on this particular show, it wasn't especially that. What was the point in getting two individuals on to agree with each other. The good side and the bad side of steroid use is an interesting topic and if the radio station doesn't agree, it should not fill the role of the nanny state. Why not have on an endocrinologist who prescribes these agents for therapeutic purposes? Would that not have delivered a clearer picture? Instead we had a GP and a trainer who agreed with him and no alternative to what they were saying.

The reporting was accurate. It was a report based upon the seizure of a large quantity of illegal steroids in Donegal which appear to have been destined for gyms. The discussion afterward is explaining why its not a good idea to buy drugs off a lad in the gym.

Jayesdiem

ted1 wrote: »

Jayesdiem wrote: »

I don't expect it of any one individual. All I'm saying is the reporting of it should be accurate and, on this particular show, it wasn't especially that. What was the point in getting two individuals on to agree with each other. The good side and the bad side of steroid use is an interesting topic and if the radio station doesn't agree, it should not fill the role of the nanny state. Why not have on an endocrinologist who prescribes these agents for therapeutic purposes? Would that not have delivered a clearer picture? Instead we had a GP and a trainer who agreed with him and no alternative to what they were saying.

Prescribing of controlled drugs is very different than it being used and abused by lads down the gym for non medicinal use

That doesn't justify the spreading of misinformation.

Jayesdiem

gordongekko wrote: »

Jayesdiem wrote: »

I don't expect it of any one individual. All I'm saying is the reporting of it should be accurate and, on this particular show, it wasn't especially that. What was the point in getting two individuals on to agree with each other. The good side and the bad side of steroid use is an interesting topic and if the radio station doesn't agree, it should not fill the role of the nanny state. Why not have on an endocrinologist who prescribes these agents for therapeutic purposes? Would that not have delivered a clearer picture? Instead we had a GP and a trainer who agreed with him and no alternative to what they were saying.

The reporting was accurate. It was a report based upon the seizure of a large quantity of illegal steroids in Donegal which appear to have been destined for gyms. The discussion afterward is explaining why its not a good idea to buy drugs off a lad in the gym.

That may have been the initial intention but it isn't what occurred on the show. A differentiation between use and abuse, positive and negative side effects, was never made. All users were implicitly assumed to be in danger of the described effects. The legalities were barely discussed, if at all.

Mellor

Jayesdiem wrote: »

What I mean is not everything said was necessarily untrue but nor was it true and the debate required a devil's advocate rather than two individuals intent on giving a public service announcement.

This is what I was getting at. Most likely the radio weren't trying to book a debate.
A PSA was probably the purpose.

A debate would have seen a former pro bodybuilder opposing the doctor.
I don't know a whole lot about the chances of testicular atrophy, or renal issues. But medically, people tend to consider an increased risk as bad, regardless of whether it's a guaranteed outcome.

Jayesdiem

Mellor wrote: »

Jayesdiem wrote: »

What I mean is not everything said was necessarily untrue but nor was it true and the debate required a devil's advocate rather than two individuals intent on giving a public service announcement.

This is what I was getting at. Most likely the radio weren't trying to book a debate.
A PSA was probably the purpose.

A debate would have seen a former pro bodybuilder opposing the doctor.
I don't know a whole lot about the chances of testicular atrophy, or renal issues. But medically, people tend to consider an increased risk as bad, regardless of whether it's a guaranteed outcome.

I really struggle with a private business (Today FM) taking it upon itself to look out for the public interest in this way. It's not its function and is totally unnecessary particularly given that their message wasn't unique and didn't provide any information beyond that which is usually presented whenever this topic is recycled.

whippet

I don't think today fm were ever going to have anyone on encouraging people to consult their local gym trainer about the pros and cons of steroid abuse.

The only method of getting them in Ireland is through shady channels and as such using them as PEDs is dangerous and unregulated.

Regardless of the advise you have it is roulette as to what is supplied.

RobertKK

I heard this the other night, it was said the continued use of steroids leads to testicles the size of small pebbles.
It was also said there is no need for anyone to use protein powders, protein bars, and simply a good diet is all that is needed with the exercise.
Creatine was mentioned and negative effects with the kidneys, nothing about potential hair loss...

A texter said that it is about going on and off steroids, another said the testicles return to normal if you stop taking the steroids. It was interesting as I battled the traffic jams and chaos created by all the roadworks going on in Kilkenny at the moment.

PowerToWait

RobertKK wrote: »

It was also said there is no need for anyone to use protein powders, protein bars, and simply a good diet is all that is needed with the exercise.

I'd say in the 'mainstream' population that's true. I'd also say that anyone 'training' (a broad term) 8 plus hours a week will definitely benefit from protein supplementation. I try for 160g a day, which isn't huge, and I'd struggle to reach that with food alone.

Dtp1979

Ye I'm on the protein too. Do a few g's of creatine too

New Goat

RobertKK wrote: »

Creatine was mentioned and negative effects with the kidneys, nothing about potential hair loss...

Isn't creatine the most researched supplement of all time with it transpiring that there are no negative effects for kidneys

PowerToWait

New Goat wrote: »

Isn't creatine the most researched supplement of all time with it transpiring that there are no negative effects for kidneys

But it's a white powder. Which basically makes it illegal. And definitely makes it dangerous.

PowerToWait

PowerToWait wrote: »

But it's a white powder. Which basically makes it illegal. And definitely makes it dangerous.

Mine's green so I guess it's ok
Phew

Naos

ford2600 wrote: »

As a doctor he couldn't but be anti non medical supervised use of steroids.

I'd disagree. He could have been a voice of reason.

People are too hung up now on what a Doctor is and isn't - I've had doctors tell me that protein shakes are bad.

If you're ever in a position where people will listen to you, speak the truth.

drdeadlift

Anavar i tried that over ten years ago,the first side effect was a ridiculous pump from performing almost anything in the gym,the second side effect was everything i was use to lifting became light.Fun times.

Transform

Jayesdiem wrote: »

I don't expect it of any one individual. All I'm saying is the reporting of it should be accurate and, on this particular show, it wasn't especially that. What was the point in getting two individuals on to agree with each other. The good side and the bad side of steroid use is an interesting topic and if the radio station doesn't agree, it should not fill the role of the nanny state. Why not have on an endocrinologist who prescribes these agents for therapeutic purposes? Would that not have delivered a clearer picture? Instead we had a GP and a trainer who agreed with him and no alternative to what they were saying.

Just to clarify - the researchers approach me and framed it around the rise in patients coming to said doctor asking for help with the negative effects they were experiencing from steroid use AND the massive increase in steroids being caught by customs, TRT is a completely different field that i would have been more than happy to talk about.

Overall, on a show like this you basically get 3hrs notice, you get your 30secs then patiently wait to get asked your opinion again and even if i had more to say on the topic they basically are not giving me a chance.

Transform

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Well if that's what the discussion was, and it really didn't touch upon the legalities so much as the negative side effects, they should have had a law enforcement man or woman on the show. Neither individual talked much about the legal side of these drugs. It was all about the negative side effects and their relationship to the use of protein, creatine etc.

to be fair that was a dumb ass question that was asked and if that was passed over to me (which i wish it was) i would have said as much

Transform

whippet wrote: »

It is rampant and very visible to anyone who is training around any type of lifter or bodybuilder male or female.

The misinformation banded about in the gyms by the people supplying and prescribing is scary.

My wife is a pharmaceutical scientist and has access to a wide range of clinical papers etc and really can't believe that people are taking the quantities of sh1te based upon what their PT or coach is recommending.

A huge amount of the stuff is counterfeit which is a separate concern.

As for tren ... I've had the misfortune of training with a lad who was taking a bit too much and wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy

this so much ^^^ plus there is no possible way you're ever going to paint steroid use as 'safe' when people cant even make junk food intake 'safe'

Transform

PowerToWait wrote: »

I'd say in the 'mainstream' population that's true. I'd also say that anyone 'training' (a broad term) 8 plus hours a week will definitely benefit from protein supplementation. I try for 160g a day, which isn't huge, and I'd struggle to reach that with food alone.

Most of the people I work with that want to gain muscle make the mistake of focusing on eating "enough protein" and not enough effort put into eating enough CALORIES. Not always the same thing.

Again as i said it was dumb question that came in re protein intake when discussing steroids

flutered

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

It was about the use of steroids, illegally, by gym goers. Not sure you would have a law enforcement person on. All they could add is that illegal drugs are illegal.

I would venture that the people taking steroids etc ate not well versed on how to take them or the potential effects.

i would venture that most of them are really up to date with the taking of drugs, experienced users abound, google is also their friend, no one taking steriods take them for the sake of taking them

Transform

one more thing - i did an interview with Pat Kenny in studio some months back on the same topic, i was given far more time and gave a better fist of it.

these things tend to depend if you're in the studio or not and how long you're given, drive time shows = sound bites unfortunately.

Alf Veedersane

flutered wrote: »

i would venture that most of them are really up to date with the taking of drugs, experienced users abound, google is also their friend, no one taking steriods take them for the sake of taking them

Googling and research aren't the same thing. Sure, there are plenty of experienced users but the huge increase in the quantities being taken isn't all being taken up by knowledgeable users.

Alf Veedersane

Transform wrote: »

one more thing - i did an interview with Pat Kenny in studio some months back on the same topic, i was given far more time and gave a better fist of it.

these things tend to depend if you're in the studio or not and how long you're given, drive time shows = sound bites unfortunately.

That was a lot better of a discussion on it actually. Partly because Pat was a little more knowledgeable/less biased and asked less loaded questions

Transform

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

That was a lot better of a discussion on it actually. Partly because Pat was a little more knowledgeable/less biased and asked less loaded questions

Cheers and I was just given more time.

Overall steroid usage has massively increased, most are not being sensible in their usage and I worry about both the mental and physical effects for those going into it with zero understanding of the Pandora's box there're opening.

Transform

flutered wrote: »

i would venture that most of them are really up to date with the taking of drugs, experienced users abound, google is also their friend, no one taking steriods take them for the sake of taking them

No one taking them for the sake of it! Wow that's massively under estimating the stupidity and naivety of many

flutered

whippet wrote: »

It is rampant and very visible to anyone who is training around any type of lifter or bodybuilder male or female.

The misinformation banded about in the gyms by the people supplying and prescribing is scary.

My wife is a pharmaceutical scientist and has access to a wide range of clinical papers etc and really can't believe that people are taking the quantities of sh1te based upon what their PT or coach is recommending.

A huge amount of the stuff is counterfeit which is a separate concern.

As for tren ... I've had the misfortune of training with a lad who was taking a bit too much and wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy

papers can be got on anything, their is pro and anti everything, people are not as stupid as they are made out to be, if one is carefull and weighs up the consequences the they will not make mistakes, a small percentage will always be there

whippet

flutered wrote: »

papers can be got on anything, their is pro and anti everything, people are not as stupid as they are made out to be, if one is carefull and weighs up the consequences the they will not make mistakes, a small percentage will always be there

There are 'papers' and actual clinical research ... but I've met more stupid than carefull in my time.

Jayesdiem

Transform wrote: »

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Well if that's what the discussion was, and it really didn't touch upon the legalities so much as the negative side effects, they should have had a law enforcement man or woman on the show. Neither individual talked much about the legal side of these drugs. It was all about the negative side effects and their relationship to the use of protein, creatine etc.

to be fair that was a dumb ass question that was asked and if that was passed over to me (which i wish it was) i would have said as much

I've heard you on this show before so as you've described on this thread, you know the gig, the order of questioning etc. That being the case why allow them to back you into a corner on a topic for which they clearly have a preset agenda? You are a right-thinking, rationale individual who can make his own decisions during a conversation, yes? I ask because your opinion here isn't really in line with what you expressed on the show. It was a poor piece of radio (on their part) but your name is associated with it regardless.