"An example: you'd be hard pressed to find a single adult death physiologically related to steroid use"

IIRC, the late Lyle Alzado blamed his brain cancer on steroid use.

The perfect example of distortion on this issue - everybody gets that impression because of Alzado's well-publicized finger-pointing at his steroid use, but there is no apparent connection between his condition and anabolic steroid use. If one develops cancer, steroid use while you are sick would help it proliferate, but there is no evidence that it actually causes cancer. The idea that his death was connected to steroids is a popular myth.

This synopsis of a recent episode of Real Sports on HBO is relevent:

HBO Real Sports is airing a segment this month entitled "The Contrarian View" about anabolic steroids. Armen Keteyian, who has been reporting on illegal substances in sports for the past five years, investigates the belief held by some scientists that steroids, when properly administered, cause no harm in mature adult males (the segment emphasizes that the serious risks to teens and women are higher). The proposition seems like heresy in the current atmosphere of national steroid hysteria, but HBO concludes that the scientific evidence against enlightened steroid use by adult men is sorely lacking. The persistent myth that steroids killed Lyle Alzado is properly debunked, and anti-steroid authority Dr. Gary Wadler seems flustered when pressed for proof to support his claims that steroid use by mature adults is "Russian Roulette." (I watched this, and he was -- Bill) Given the many millions of users spanning nearly five decades, the fact that an exhaustive review could turn up only twelve deaths purportedly linked to steroids (and some of these are reportedly very questionable) suggests that the risks are much less than for some accepted cosmetic surgery procedures. Keteyan ends the piece with a surprising apology for helping to spread unfounded information in his previous stories on the subject.

I read your post and I, for one, am outraged. You have no business coming out and supporting pre-marital sex like you did in that post. You're a bad influence on your readers and on America in general. For shame.

I get this feeling all the time when I debate lefties...which, being a graduate student in philosophy, is something of a dirty pleasure that must be supressed as they are everywhere. Occasionally I've met a few who can demonstrate a modicum of comity and actually follow and respond to my argument. However, most follow the simple yet effective formula of:

1) First, ignore what you have just heard, it is war-monger propaganda.

2) Prattle of the talking points of last week's Democracy Now!

3) Dismiss said war-monger's interjections as "RNC" talking points.

4) Call him a name.

A perfect example would be my argument with the village idiot who runs satp.blogspot.com. If you read some of the comments you will see precisely what I'm talking about...however he only gets about 20 visits a day so perhaps you could just take my word for it and keep it that way.

At least some of the 17aa steroids (usu. oral) do cause cancer, but it's generally liver cancer. It's because of that nasty methyl group attached to the testosterone-like molecule. It allows them to be taken orally without being destroyed on the first pass through the liver, but it can have some nasty consequences. I know at least two were conclusively linked to liver cancer: methyltestosterone, the first oral steroid ever produced, and the most powerful currently available oral steroid (illegal, of course). Not even the gray market internet pharmacies will sell you those.

The injectable-only beta esters, otoh, are relatively benign, though iirc there is some evidence even these steroids cause circulatory problems in addition to shutting down the HPTA axis between your balls and your brain that tells your body when to make more testosterone. These steroids are basically a testosterone or similar molecule with a long chain attached so that they take time to break down (tesosterone has a half-life of an hour or so in the body); the advantage is that they only have to be injected once a week.

At the bottom are the recently de-legalized prohormones, which are precursors to testosterone or similar molecules. You can take them twice a day on an empty stomach and achieve nearly the same results as the steroids above. You can even make them injectable, if you're crazy enough to stick yourself with a giant needle every day. The risks are similar to the beta esters.

I have very mixed feelings about this subject. People ought to be free to do what they want, but with the competitive nature of sports and the incredible salaries and respect professional athletes enjoy today, it's going to be impossible to keep high school and college kids off of this stuff, esp. those with few other perceived prospects.

Doing marijuana and coke and meth and heroin doesn't make you hit 70 hone runs or get you an NFL contract. If anything it generally just makes you a loser. So there isn't a huge motivation to start using them. Steroids, otoh...

It's a difficult issue.

TallDave -

I'm aware that significant health problems are associated with oral steroid use that cause liver toxicity, but I don't consider the use of oral steroids that have liver toxicity "proper use."

That also qualifies with ...

iirc there is some evidence even these steroids cause circulatory problems in addition to shutting down the HPTA axis between your balls and your brain that tells your body when to make more testosterone.

That axis will shut down every time with steroid use, but proper use of course cycles to ameliorate effects. I'm unaware of circulatory problems other than those related to increase in negative cardiac risk factors (cholesterol, high blood pressure, etc) associated with steroid abuse. Again, "proper use."

I'm midway through "Anabolic Steroids and the Athlete," and I'm really convinced that when properly, moderately used, anabolic steroids are one of the safest drugs out there, with comparatively large benefits.

Doing marijuana and coke and meth and heroin doesn't make you hit 70 hone runs or get you an NFL contract. If anything it generally just makes you a loser. So there isn't a huge motivation to start using them. Steroids, otoh...

In the strongest terms, I don't think the fact that a drug has great positive benefits - combined with a parent's unwillingness or inability to control his child - is cause to make its use illegal for responsible adults. Just wait for some of the physical and cognitive enhancers just around the corner. Do you really want the government telling you that you can't reverse aging, or be stronger, healthier or smarter, because there is some economic incentive to a given therapy? And thus, kids might abuse it?

Plus, it is NOT hard to spot when your kid is doing steroids.

I am just writing a comment because it's a low-traffic afternoon and I am avoiding work. Yep. Probably go smoke a cigarette or something. Maybe throw a ball around the backyard for the neighbour's dog. Yep. Sooo... how's things?

so the problem is you have a public forum (in that people can respond to what you post), and gosh darn it, none of them respond exactly the way you would.

*snicker*

so the problem is you have a public forum (in that people can respond to what you post), and gosh darn it, none of them respond exactly the way you would.

Thank you for illustrating the point* of my post! In real time!

* by not understanding the difference between disagreement and specifically adding or distorting meaning.**

*snicker*

and you for illustrating mine;

and, my, what an impressive vocabulary you have...

LOL

You had a point? I mean, other than to bust chops?

Because let's be honest, you think that I have a problem because you didn't "respond exactly the way (I) would." But the truth is, I respond like an asshole all the time.

ROTFLMAO

(the vocab is rather good, no?)

I understand where you are coming from. However, it is my belief that misunderstandings, including the variety you've described, are unavoidable. All you can do is talk to the person who has mad the misconception, and explain that you never made the case for what they are arguing against.

While being misread is frustrating, the thing that seems far worse to me is the decline in sane and fair discussion, particularly in the throngs of the 2004 election. I believe that cooler heads can prevail, if we give people the benefit of the doubt more often, including those who, as you put it, distort what we are saying.

But that's just my own naive idealism, I suppose.

However, it is my belief that misunderstandings, including the variety you've described, are unavoidable.

No disagreement from me.

But that's just my own naive idealism, I suppose.

Your prescription takes a great deal of patience (which I often lack). And sometimes it works, often it doesn't. That's not to say it's not worth the effort.

You have all completely failed to respond to my comment the way I wanted.

ROFLMAOPMP

ROFLMAOPMP

The sad thing is, even never having seen that particular acronym, I think that I figured out the end immediately.

I read that post and it seemed to me that it implicitly endorsed drug legalization.Obviously my misunderstanding had nothing to do with your skill as a writer but has to be because I am too stupid to understand your genius.Therefore,I conclude that I must stop reading your weblog immediately since it can only confuse a lesser mortal such as I.Have a nice day.

XB -

My post merely critiqued Harrell's rhetoric, it laid out absolutely NO case for drug legalization. Anecdotally, I mentioned that amphetamines have a benefit when used moderately. I also approvingly linked another blogger's calmer critique of John Tierney's defense of methamphetamines. Thus, to draw the conclusion that I endorsed the legalization of drugs is sort of a big, presumptive leap.

Obviously my misunderstanding had nothing to do with your skill as a writer but has to be because I am too stupid to understand your genius.Therefore,I conclude that I must stop reading your weblog immediately since it can only confuse a lesser mortal such as I.

You said it. And I have to say that it's very big of you to admit as much in a public forum like this.

Here's a challenge for you: go read the post again, and pull out any quotes that gave you the implication that I would like the government to legalize drugs. We'll wait.

Bill,
It does take patience. And I also have a tendency to lose my temper.

But when that happens, and I realize it, I feel it's necessary to acknowledge and apologize, even if the person I was debating with got personal before I did.

In online forums, I've actually found that, telling someone they're being insulting is less likely to get them to change their behavior than if I lose my temper, realize it, and apologize for it. Nine times out of ten, they're more likely to apologize under those circumstances than if I don't even lose my temper in the first place.

Human beings are strange, perverse creatures.

You're a better man than me.

Adam said: "Human beings are strange, perverse creatures." Is that on or off steroids/drugs?

No offense meant. I just couldn't resist swinging at that one.

I read Mr. harrells' post and later,yours.Note I said your post IMPLICITLY endorsed drug legalization.It was the sum total of your post that lead me to my conclusion.Mr. Harrell attacked drug use and you attacked him (rhetorically of course).If you actually oppose drug legalization why don't you just say so? I admit I've only been an occasional visitor to your blog so maybe I've missed a statement of your actual position on that matter-but why don't you just tell us now so those of us that may misunderstand your position will know?

XB -

There are two interesting things about your response, one odd, one ironic:

1. It was the sum total of your post that lead me to my conclusion. Mr. Harrell attacked drug use and you attacked him (rhetorically of course).

I attacked his rhetoric that said, among other things, that all people that use drugs should be beaten to death, as well as his two declarations that he wanted to "beat up" John Tierney. To take my critique as an implicit endorsement for legalization from that is, once again, a huge leap.

2. Here's the situationally ironic part:

If you actually oppose drug legalization why don't you just say so? I admit I've only been an occasional visitor to your blog so maybe I've missed a statement of your actual position on that matter-but why don't you just tell us now so those of us that may misunderstand your position will know?

This post is about reading comprehension and failure to digest information. Above, at the end of this post, are the words "read more." If you click on those words, you finish the post and learn my position on illegal drugs.

Again, "proper use."

Well, that gets sticky again. Doctors will tell you 250mg test a week. Athletes and bodybuilders will laugh and tell you a couple grams a week for real results.

AS you noted, there are lots of ways around the HPTA issue that juicers use to get around the "crash" at the end of a cycle. Clomid was a favorite for a long time; Tribex was overtaking it to some extent last I heard. (Tribex also has a VERY amusing side effect that's popular in the porn industry).

I'm midway through "Anabolic Steroids and the Athlete,"

I'll have to pick that one up. World Anabolic Review probably still has the best description of all steroids regarding their uses and immediate side effects. It's more of a reference guide though.

and I'm really convinced that when properly, moderately used, anabolic steroids are one of the safest drugs out there, with comparatively large benefits.

I would tend to agree. The problem, as I see it, is that people will not use them responsibly, because irresponsible use produces faster, better results and the pressure to succeed is enormous. OTOH, I've argued before that you can't legislate against stupidity.

Just wait for some of the physical and cognitive enhancers just around the corner. Do you really want the government telling you that you can't reverse aging, or be stronger, healthier or smarter, because there is some economic incentive to a given therapy? And thus, kids might abuse it?

Yeah, good point. I already take dimethylaminoethanol (DMAE) daily and theanine where it seems appropriate (stressful situations).

I definitely think the issue of health and steroids warrants a lot more study and a lot less "Illegal drugs are bad because they're illegal" circular arguments.

Last I heard, John McCain has his nanny-statist eyes set on DMAE ...

BTW, Tribex (tribulus terrestris part) is available in different brands at the local grocery, supposed to work by increasing LH (LH and FSH are the immediate precursors to T, I bet you know), and ... well, it works.

Yeah leutinizing hormone (LH) and follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) tell your balls to make test, iirc. It's kind of surprising to me I remember all this (maybe the DMAE is working).

Tribex does work, unlike 99% of bodybuilding supplements that are just snake oil sold to gullible kids (I bought enough of them to know). I've used it off and on for maybe 10 years. I had a minor obsession with amateur bodybuilding in college, probably mostly because at the time I was 6'3" and weighed only 155 lbs (not a look the college girls go for). I thought about juicing, but the stuff available was always some Eastern Europe product that could have been God knows what (one nasty little surprise some juicers have unwittingly gotten is that dianabol (methandrostenolone iirc), the most popular 17aa oral steroid, is sometimes incompletely converted from methyltestosterone, esp the E European varieties). But even with just Tribex, oral precursors, a good training regimen, and a serious bb diet (5000 cals, 150g protein per day), I was able to hit a peak weight of around 210 after about 4 years. That was probably unhealthy; now I try to stay between 180 - 190 and use as little of anything as possible. I haven't even used a precursor in 2 years.

I did stock up on the precursors before they were de-legalized again. I shudder at the thought of weighing 160 lbs again.

oops, typo on that first again, this is the first time they've been illegal of course

I don't understand why more people don't call out all the social conservatives who refer to 18th and 19th century American values as the golden era of religious values, yet equate drug legalization as a satanic plot.

In 18th and 19th century America, narcotics were actually legal.

And it is the 20th century, the century when social consevatives view America as being corrupted by the values of godless secular humanism and Darwin, that saw drug prohibition introduced.

The true nightmare is when our government creates agencies to trample on our civl rights and uses the term "czar" to describe the head of such agencies. It also doesn't help when these "czars" publicly proclaim they have no problems with public beheadings of citizens who have violated the holy writ and purpose of such agencies.

"Czars" aren't bothered that America, the great beacon of liberty, has both the largest prison population and the highest rate of incarceration in the world.

Perhaps Jefferson had these "czars" in mind when he wrote: "I like a little rebellion now and then."

Bill,

I have a quick question, one that you should feel free to ignore at your leisure. What is your medical science background? I ask b/c you seem fairly well informed on a number of subjects that are 'medicine-y', and I was just curious if this was part of your career, or just that you're well-read out of general interest. Thanks.

I've begun to think this is just the way of the world & we have to get used to it. No one reads or listens that carefully, unless it's a law school exam or some sort of contest. Maybe people aren't interested in the exact point you're making but want to go off on a tangential one because that interests them at the moment. Or, they aren't accustomed to seeing a fresh view so they try to fit it into the ones they've heard already.

H-Is it correct to infer from your post that you endorse the bell curve. You raging bigot.

I-"Ooh look at me my names Bill and I got a good SAT score. I went to college. I have a job." Well you can just go and hang out with your hot trophy bride and the rest of your former A/V club nerd friends. Just remember in gym class that the kid with the low SAT score made you cry. You fancy pants looser. You'll never get over that Mr. I can read better then you bell talkin jerk. I had it all before that damn SAT, I had it all.

J-I have decided to take my reading comprehension to the next level, beyond the stars. If you look at your first sentence of this post, you will see if you have eyes to, that the first letters of each word make up the anagram STIPICHWTESABGR. I think that says it all. You sir are from the future here to save the past/future trancendent being machine stored in the bottom of a well somewhere in Nashville. The anagram for the first sentence I wrote is IHDTTMRCTTNLBTS. Enough said I believe, Sir?

K-You suck and so does your mom. Comprehend read that Bill. Bill, do you know what "Bill" comprehends as in French? It comprehends you suck thats what. You suck really really bad.

Well put.