Opinions on this article: research suggests that athletes who use steroids for a short period can benefit for their entire careers.

MrSecurity

MrSecurity

New member
Hey everybody :) I stumbled randomly over this article. I was wondering if anyone has read about this or just what their opinion are :)
Have a good day

Invalid Link Removed
 
seems to be obvious to me. but yes I have read that the dna itself is changed forever.. case in point; ask a woman mma fighter whos squared off against a transgender fighter. they will tell you they have never been hit like that. the bone strength and changes in contractibility of the muscle and weight of aforementioned muscle.. there is nothing remotely the same. of course that's a poor choice for comparison but its an obvious one no less.
 
I've read this before, I think I found it on ergo-log.com, but I can't find the exact article since they have so many. But the idea is that using AAS increases satellite cells in muscle tissue so, even after just one cycle, it primes your body to continue to grow muscle down the road for years - with AAS or not.

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Human satellite cells are stem cells involved in the repair and maintenance of skeletal muscle and have been proposed as the primary site of the anabolic action of AAS (Invalid Link Removed–Invalid Link Removed). However, the exact mechanism of action of AAS in these cells is still poorly understood. It has been proposed that AAS act through an hAR-mediated mechanism and induce the commitment of these cells into a myogenic lineage. The results of this mechanism in skeletal muscle are hypertrophy of both type I and type II muscle fibers (but not an increase in the number of fibers) (Invalid Link Removed,Invalid Link Removed–Invalid Link Removed), an increase in the number of myonuclei and satellite cells resulting in an increase in the number available for conversion to skeletal muscle fibers (Invalid Link Removed,Invalid Link Removed–Invalid Link Removed), and an upregulation of the number of hARs in the cells (Invalid Link Removed,Invalid Link Removed–Invalid Link Removed).
Click to expand...
 
MrSecurity said:
Hey everybody :) I stumbled randomly over this article. I was wondering if anyone has read about this or just what their opinion are :)
Have a good day

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
Thats true. WADA consideres (in future) to ban someone for life from sports if they catch them. Amount of satelite (myonuclei cells) stays high even at elderly age in someone who used AAS many years ago.
 
Thanks for chiming in everyone! I do think my own muscle memory has benefited from a few cycles because i have very little problems jumping between 68-70kg to 80kgs when i diet properly. It might just be my height and natural muscle memory but it does make sense to me, i never really look flappy and skinny fat even when i am as low as 68kgs i always maintain abs and definition to some extent even with less muscle on my frame, and as a child i used to be a bit chubby and then skinny as all hell so i def believe that my muscle memory is signicantly better than it used to be. That could ofc be because of more experience with training also.
 
Yea, just 1 cycle... chased that dragon.....😆😆😆😆
 
Alchemist11 said:
Thats true. WADA consideres (in future) to ban someone for life from sports if they catch them. Amount of satelite (myonuclei cells) stays high even at elderly age in someone who used AAS many years ago.
Click to expand...

A possible flaw in their reasoning could be related to how one could have had a spiked product without knowing it. I remember when I was younger having "HOT STUFF" and that sh*t was spiked for sure. I think I heard Dibol.

What are they going to do then?
 
justhere4comm said:
A possible flaw in their reasoning could be related to how one could have had a spiked product without knowing it. I remember when I was younger having "HOT STUFF" and that sh*t was spiked for sure. I think I heard Dibol.

What are they going to do then?
Click to expand...

They made their stance on this clear .... The athlete is responsible for knowing exactly what they are putting into their bodies. ... No matter what the label or "prescriber" may state.
 
Renew1 said:
They made their stance on this clear .... The athlete is responsible for knowing exactly what they are putting into their bodies. ... No matter what the label or "prescriber" may state.
Click to expand...

Uhm, how would one know if it was spiked because that means it's off label... and illegal.
That's impossible.
 
justhere4comm said:
Uhm, how would one know if it was spiked because that means it's off label... and illegal.
That's impossible.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying I agree with them.

But, their stance is firm. It is up to the athlete to know what is going into their own bodies. Up to, and including testing all of their own compounds.
 
Renew1 said:
I'm not saying I agree with them.

But, their stance is firm. It is up to the athlete to know what is going into their own bodies. Up to, and including testing all of their own compounds.
Click to expand...

I confused your post then because you didn't use quotations so it appeared to be your opinion. It just confused me a bit.

Pulling from another post: @Alchemist11
"WADA considers (in future) to ban someone for life from sports if they catch them. Amount of satelite (myonuclei cells) stays high even at elderly age in someone who used AAS many years ago."

That word considers bothers me because it does not appear to be a firm stance.
 
justhere4comm said:
I confused your post then because you didn't use quotations so it appeared to be your opinion. It just confused me a bit.

Pulling from another post: @Alchemist11
"WADA considers (in future) to ban someone for life from sports if they catch them. Amount of satelite (myonuclei cells) stays high even at elderly age in someone who used AAS many years ago."

That word considers bothers me because it does not appear to be a firm stance.
Click to expand...


I understand.
That's why I started with "They made their stance clear..."
I didn't include quotation marks because I was paraphrasing, not quoting.
:)

Well, IMO they probably feel like it makes them look better than a firm stance.

Don't you feel like the possibility of not being banned for life is better than the firm stance of "will be banned for life" ?
 
Renew1 said:
I understand.
That's why I started with "They made their stance clear..."
:)

Well, IMO they probably feel like it makes them look better than a firm stance.

Don't you feel like the possibility of not being banned for life is better than the firm stance of "will be banned for life" ?
Click to expand...

I'm more confused! lol.
I really don't care to be honest. I think every single athlete is using, it's just some get caught, so those that used it years ago to me are a non-sequitur. I just feel like being a pedantic pain in the butt for some reason...

Sorry.
 
justhere4comm said:
I'm more confused! lol.
I really don't care to be honest. I think every single athlete is using, it's just some get caught, so those that used it years ago to me are a non-sequitur. I just feel like being a pedantic pain in the butt for some reason...

Sorry.
Click to expand...

LOL.
Nah, you aren't bothering me a bit, brother.

The written word (alone) can cause confusion for sure.

.. And I feel like you are probably right (IMO) about modern athletes.
 
justhere4comm said:
I confused your post then because you didn't use quotations so it appeared to be your opinion. It just confused me a bit.

Pulling from another post: @Alchemist11
"WADA considers (in future) to ban someone for life from sports if they catch them. Amount of satelite (myonuclei cells) stays high even at elderly age in someone who used AAS many years ago."

That word considers bothers me because it does not appear to be a firm stance.
Click to expand...
That means that they wanted to warn people who are using and to try to scare them. But, as we all know, sports and Olimpics would be really boring place without ped's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top