4 ms·

I go further and wonder why don't we do that (steroids, growth hormones, sarms, everything) in advance as people reach certain age (and their natural secretion

I go further and wonder why don't we do that (steroids, growth hormones, sarms, everything) in advance as people reach certain age (and their natural secretion of the hormones falls below certain level). I feel inspired by Dr. Life and feel like starting taking hormones (from the black market, European doctors will never prescribe this officially) as I reach 50-60. AFAIK the growth hormone even rejuvenates the thymus, the immune system (and may prevent cancer this way, if not over-used) and is the only way to trigger regeneration of joints.

Y-bar 5y ago
Take this with a major grain of salt. But I learned that giving growth hormones will make the body produce less of its own. So the risk, as I understand it, is that by giving these hormones in advance may stump what little the body will produce on its own and "will definitely doom" these people to a full lifetime of hormones from external sources.
- qwerty456127 5y ago
  This is why I'm only going to do this after the rate of their production actually falls significantly below the healthy adult level. When they are not produced anyway it seems nothing to loose. I didn't know this is also the case with the growth hormone, however. I thought this only applies to testosterone, also tyroxine and some other hormones.
  - southeastern 5y ago
    At that point you still have a natural production, it's just less than at your lifetime peak. You can still destabilize your hormone signaling further and get symptoms like hypogonadism and gynomastia-- to say there's nothing to lose isn't quite right.
    - bigwavedave 5y ago
      > At that point you still have a natural production, it's just less than at your lifetime peak. You can still destabilize your hormone signaling further and get symptoms like hypogonadism and gynomastia-- to say there's nothing to lose isn't quite right. Sure, there isn't "nothing to lose", but let's not kid ourselves- if you're past retirement age and in a position to essentially be on TRT for the rest of your life, hypogonadism isn't a big deal unless for some crazy reason TRT becomes unavailable. As for gynecomastia, it's very easily managed with an aromatase inhibitor like exemestane or anastrozole. I'm not saying there aren't risks or possible side effects, but exogenous testosterone shouldn't be dismissed out of hand because of the FUD surrounding steroids. If you haven't seen the documentary "Bigger, Stronger, Faster", I highly recommend it.
captainmuon 5y ago
Let's set aside the obvious, that it probably has a lot of downsides and doesn't work well (like shrinking testicles and heart problems from steroids). Our society has a real discomfort with "improving" "healthy" people. We make a clear, but somewhat artificial distinction between healthy and diseased, and the diseased people can get recognition and treatment but the healthy ones cannot. That's why there is often a battle to have certain things recognized as a medical condition. For example if you have trouble focussing, you might be considered lazy, but if you get a ADHD diagnosis people will be more accomodating (and you can legally take amphetamins!). I was never especially athletic. I would love to workout more, but find it really hard to make time for it between work and family. And found that many people in my social circle or at the gym don't encourage me but make me feel like I don't belong there. But if I had a "real" recognized medical condition that required physiotherapy, I would get time off work and would get the gym paid (in my country), and most important people would support me. But if you are "healthy enough" and just want to improve yourself, you are on your own. I would love to have a world where everybody can strive to improve themselves - become more healthy, strong, beautiful, smart, and so on - and where you would get the resources and the support needed to do so.
- qwerty456127 5y ago
  I agree to you 1000% :-) and share your concern. I have always had severe ADHD (never diagnosed officially, also this doesn't give you legal amphetamines or any other benefits outside the US, nor does it convince people - people mostly say "in the US they drug kids to treat a condition that doesn't even exist", even though the condition actually is recognized officially), low muscles, and no free time/willpower for working out regularly. I am a BLTC proponent too. Nevertheless, I speculate the probable downside of "a world where everybody can strive to improve themselves" is competition going even higher. If taking all kinds of meds this way would become a norm everyone would probably have to just to keep up with the new baseline. This (together with many ability-augmenting meds having adverse effects) supposedly is the logic backing the war on doping in professional sports. But I think there is no point in caring about anything (like adverse effects, society's judgement) other than boosting your life quality by all means physically (and chemically) possible when you are old. And it seems logical to me to start in advance because doing so will probably give more effect, giving chance to actually prevent the decline instead of just helping to cope with it.
longlivedeath 5y ago
> European doctors will never prescribe this officially Google "hormone replacement therapy".
lazyjones 5y ago
> European doctors will never prescribe this officially) as I reach 50-60. In Austria you can get HGH from several normal doctors easily (even against "stress" or sleeplessness). E.g. https://antiaging-wien.at/wachstumshormon-hgh/ https://antiaging-wien.at/wachstumshormon-hgh/ Try to stay away from the black market... > growth hormone even rejuvenates the thymus, the immune system (and may prevent cancer this way, if not over-used) I believe it's generally thought that HGH will always speed up tumor growth, so you should not assume there are safe amounts to take. The safe way is to get regular screening.

Y-bar 5y ago

Take this with a major grain of salt. But I learned that giving growth hormones will make the body produce less of its own. So the risk, as I understand it, is that by giving these hormones in advance may stump what little the body will produce on its own and "will definitely doom" these people to a full lifetime of hormones from external sources.

qwerty456127 5y ago
This is why I'm only going to do this after the rate of their production actually falls significantly below the healthy adult level. When they are not produced anyway it seems nothing to loose. I didn't know this is also the case with the growth hormone, however. I thought this only applies to testosterone, also tyroxine and some other hormones.
- southeastern 5y ago
  At that point you still have a natural production, it's just less than at your lifetime peak. You can still destabilize your hormone signaling further and get symptoms like hypogonadism and gynomastia-- to say there's nothing to lose isn't quite right.
  - bigwavedave 5y ago
    > At that point you still have a natural production, it's just less than at your lifetime peak. You can still destabilize your hormone signaling further and get symptoms like hypogonadism and gynomastia-- to say there's nothing to lose isn't quite right. Sure, there isn't "nothing to lose", but let's not kid ourselves- if you're past retirement age and in a position to essentially be on TRT for the rest of your life, hypogonadism isn't a big deal unless for some crazy reason TRT becomes unavailable. As for gynecomastia, it's very easily managed with an aromatase inhibitor like exemestane or anastrozole. I'm not saying there aren't risks or possible side effects, but exogenous testosterone shouldn't be dismissed out of hand because of the FUD surrounding steroids. If you haven't seen the documentary "Bigger, Stronger, Faster", I highly recommend it.

captainmuon 5y ago

Let's set aside the obvious, that it probably has a lot of downsides and doesn't work well (like shrinking testicles and heart problems from steroids). Our society has a real discomfort with "improving" "healthy" people. We make a clear, but somewhat artificial distinction between healthy and diseased, and the diseased people can get recognition and treatment but the healthy ones cannot. That's why there is often a battle to have certain things recognized as a medical condition. For example if you have trouble focussing, you might be considered lazy, but if you get a ADHD diagnosis people will be more accomodating (and you can legally take amphetamins!). I was never especially athletic. I would love to workout more, but find it really hard to make time for it between work and family. And found that many people in my social circle or at the gym don't encourage me but make me feel like I don't belong there. But if I had a "real" recognized medical condition that required physiotherapy, I would get time off work and would get the gym paid (in my country), and most important people would support me. But if you are "healthy enough" and just want to improve yourself, you are on your own. I would love to have a world where everybody can strive to improve themselves - become more healthy, strong, beautiful, smart, and so on - and where you would get the resources and the support needed to do so.

qwerty456127 5y ago
I agree to you 1000% :-) and share your concern. I have always had severe ADHD (never diagnosed officially, also this doesn't give you legal amphetamines or any other benefits outside the US, nor does it convince people - people mostly say "in the US they drug kids to treat a condition that doesn't even exist", even though the condition actually is recognized officially), low muscles, and no free time/willpower for working out regularly. I am a BLTC proponent too. Nevertheless, I speculate the probable downside of "a world where everybody can strive to improve themselves" is competition going even higher. If taking all kinds of meds this way would become a norm everyone would probably have to just to keep up with the new baseline. This (together with many ability-augmenting meds having adverse effects) supposedly is the logic backing the war on doping in professional sports. But I think there is no point in caring about anything (like adverse effects, society's judgement) other than boosting your life quality by all means physically (and chemically) possible when you are old. And it seems logical to me to start in advance because doing so will probably give more effect, giving chance to actually prevent the decline instead of just helping to cope with it.

longlivedeath 5y ago

> European doctors will never prescribe this officially Google "hormone replacement therapy".

lazyjones 5y ago

> European doctors will never prescribe this officially) as I reach 50-60. In Austria you can get HGH from several normal doctors easily (even against "stress" or sleeplessness). E.g. https://antiaging-wien.at/wachstumshormon-hgh/ https://antiaging-wien.at/wachstumshormon-hgh/ Try to stay away from the black market... > growth hormone even rejuvenates the thymus, the immune system (and may prevent cancer this way, if not over-used) I believe it's generally thought that HGH will always speed up tumor growth, so you should not assume there are safe amounts to take. The safe way is to get regular screening.