9 ms·

From Mr Average to Superman: Craig Davidson's account of using steroids (2008)

130 points by jackschultz 13y ago

sosuke 13y ago
Bodybuilding with steroids, if we had some drug to make us super smart I imagine the cost would be the same, and I would be tempted by it. Edit: after thinking, I would be afraid of the worst side effect of quitting, just like a steroid user would fear weakness, I would be afraid of my own stupidity
- ctide 13y ago
  You mean Adderall?
  - roel_v 13y ago
    Adderall is in the same class as Ritalin and Concerta but it's not the same. It's used (or abused, depending on who you ask) for the same purposes.
- veidr 13y ago
  I have often described Ritalin and Concerta as mental steroids. (Haven't ever tried Modafinil and the others.) Like steroids, they don't work for everybody and they can have side effects. But when taken in normal, doctor-prescribed doses, these drugs will enhance mental function -- including the ability to learn -- in normal adult subjects. I still think I am pretty good at what I do, but there is absolutely no doubt that I was more productive as a computer programmer -- I learned faster, invented new solutions more quickly, was less prone to mistakes -- when I had a Ritalin prescription. And I do feel a serious sense of loss not having that anymore. Sometimes when I'm sick of thinking about a problem and just want to veg out and read HN, I get furious, thinking about how if only I'd had a tab of Concerta that morning, the fucking problem I'm working on would already be solved by now. I don't quite feel like Charlie in Flowers for Algernon, but it is in fact somewhat like that.
  - contingencies 13y ago
    But when taken in normal, doctor-prescribed doses, these drugs will enhance mental function -- including the ability to learn -- in normal adult subjects Modafinil is not to be toyed with. Far too powerful stuff. Common doses are 100mg or 200mg, far more than you can stomach without hitting the side effects rapidly and developing a dependence. A friend of mine takes it "about 4 days" a week because he's lost the ability to concentrate well for work otherwise; the long term effects remain unclear. That said, I've tried it and at low doses it can certainly help with concentration and artificially prolonging your wakefulness/restfulness to the detriment of the next day. But there's clearly a detriment.
    - veidr 13y ago
      Yeah, I should have been more clear that I was only making that assertion about methylphenidate (Ritalin/Concerta). I don't have significant experience with other cognitive enhancers, although I have tried many of the over-the-counter supposedly nootropic substances (none of which provided anything near the same level of cognitive improvement in my experience). I'm extremely interested in Modafanil and whatever else we come up with in this area, though; unlike the OP's over-the-top and poorly-thought-through quest for big muscles (and a salable story), enhancing human cognition is a tremendously useful, worthwhile thing to do. (Edit: I do actually think big strong muscles are actually pretty useful and worthwhile too; they're just not worth much risk in pursuing (since almost anybody can get fairly strong without injecting weird shit), and certainly not as much risk as this guy took.)
    - vidarh 13y ago
      > Far too powerful stuff. > > Common doses are 100mg or 200mg, far more than you can stomach without hitting the side effects rapidly and developing a dependence. Most people seem report the effect of modafinil as subtle and mild, to the point where it is unclear whether or not there's an objective effect on mental function at all (as opposed to being able to stay away - it is mainly prescribed for narcolepsy). I've used it, and for my part 200mg does in no way trigger any of the side effects - it takes quite a bit more for that. Taking 200mg a couple of times a day for several days in a row does start to trigger some side effects. The upside, see also below, for me is that I can use it when I need extra work capacity and then just not take it the next day without feeling any desire to take it, nor any physical withdrawal symptoms whatsoever, unlike with caffeine. 200mg in one go is certainly not optimal for concentration for most people, though; smaller amounts spaces out seems to work better for people. It's commonly reported by people using modafinil for nootropic effects that you develop a high tolerance very quickly, but this sounds like you're overgeneralising based on the experiences I see people having with it when it comes to dosage. As for dependence, modafinil is popular with a lot of people exactly because it compared to things like e.g. caffeine is trivially easy to get off for most people. Caffeine at doses that feels like it gives the same level of effects as modafinil can be nasty both in side effects and withdrawal symptoms unless you carefully manage a tapered reduction in intake. Heck, I have more problems staying off chocolate than modafinil.
- devnetfx 13y ago
  There was an episode in "Through the wormhole" where it showcased some experiments in how the subconscious mind can be utilized more. I bet this will become normal in coming decades.
- Patrick_Devine 13y ago
  I think it would actually be harder to quit than steroids. I can't imagine being in some lucid state where you could solve almost any problem and then having to come back to down to some foggy haze where you can barely comprehend anything. Vernor Vinge wrote about something called "Focus" in A Deepness in the Sky which explores that concept. People voluntarily become "focused" so they can have extreme concentration to solve difficult problems, but at the cost of neglecting everything else.
- ximeng 13y ago
  You might like this movie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitless http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitless The people in it fight to the death for their smartness drugs.
  - dylangs1030 13y ago
    That was a good movie.
  - chiph 13y ago
    Eddie stabs Gennady, and drinks his blood to absorb the intravenous NZT. OK, I reached my absurdity limit.
    - wmeredith 13y ago
      Good, because that's the climax of, and the craziest thing that happens in the film. It's certainly the limit and it's well-placed in the context of the story. I like this movie, despite it's short-comings, more than I thought I would. I recommend it, even though it runs right up to my absurdity detector.
- riffraff 13y ago
  if you haven't heard it, the Pal Erdős‎ story is interesting. Not only he was a great mathematician, he was also an amphetamine user for most of his life. In 1979, he accepted a bet from a friend about quitting drugs for a month (his friends _were_ worried about him being a druguser). Erdös won the challenge, but felt very stupid for the duration of the thing, declared that mathematics had been set back by a month and happily went back to amphetamine use.
- vidarh 13y ago
  > Edit: after thinking, I would be afraid of the worst side effect of quitting, just like a steroid user would fear weakness, I would be afraid of my own stupidity This is "sort of" the plot of the classic sci-fi novel (and short story) Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes: The main character who starts out below average intelligence, gets a treatment that causes his intelligence to shoot through the roof to well above normal levels, but then he is forced to face that it is only temporary.
photorized 13y ago
Bodybuilding with steroids is like launching a startup with VC money.
- redthrowaway 13y ago
  The difference being, when the VC money runs out and your startup fails, you can go get a job.
  - raverbashing 13y ago
    Well, unless the bodybuilding competition has been branded "natural" (and even then, sometimes) everybody took steroids.
habosa 13y ago
Just finished reading, and that was a seriously terrifying article. I have no idea how anyone could go through all of that work just to have a more muscular body that barely works. Thank you to the author, writing that is a public service.
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  I personally suspect that he made up some or all of it. I compete in a WADA-regulated sport and I take my promise to not use PEDs seriously. But I train some of the time alongside people in untested sports who use steroids. They are in pretty good nick. If this article had been about the time the author smoked weed and woke up in bed with dead kittens, would it be considered a credible PSA?
bsullivan01 13y ago
Call me paranoid but I'm scared as well to mess with hormones and other stuff I do not see. The body is a machine perfected over the millions (or billions) of years so no way in hell am I going to add all of the sudden, and on my own, 6 times the amount of testosterone.
- revelation 13y ago
  The body is a different one every time, and its sourcecode the result of a more or less random process, your version as much as mine.
  - caycep 13y ago
    That being said, what the nature came up with evolution follows, for the most part, the optimal thermodynamic profile for the most favorable gibbs free energy. Direct intervention by human minds/means don't always follow that optimal path, and so for what you gain, there are probably more trade-offs.
- VLM 13y ago
  One interesting topic not discussed which is very important is muscle / tendon strength balance. If you overgrow your tendons you are in deep trouble. "no way in hell am I going to add all of the sudden" This usually rapidly morphs into a discussion about paleo diet and such, which I follow but some irrationally hate (or are hired to hate, or whatever).
- roel_v 13y ago
  "The body is a machine perfected" While I agree with your overall point, calling the human body "perfect" is ridiculous. Human bodies, if they were engineered, would never even be released to the beta testers out of fear of the engineers for being labeled as a bunch of quacks. There is much, much to improved on the human body, and we will over the next decades; but I agree that ordering a bunch of syringes from halfway across the world through an anonymous email account and injecting that into your muscles is probably not the way to go.
  - 13y ago
anigbrowl 13y ago
Good heavens, that's alarming. I wonder if part of the problem was that he did all this in 4 months, and whether he could have taken lower doses with less intensive training over a year or two...but then I think of the few times I've looked at magazines like Men's Fitness or suchlike, and it was all about maxing things out, downing vast quantities of supplements, and generally overdoing it. I don't know whether this means that most of their readers are juicing or that having a big physique is simply a full-time commitment, but this article makes me happy to stay skinny.
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  Magazines are not a credible source of information. Their job is to sell eyeballs to advertisers. Whatever it takes to get you to pick up the magazine is what will go on the cover, whether it is true or false.
- ahelwer 13y ago
  Men's Health and the like have to come up with new content to fill a magazine every month. Fitness isn't complicated; sound fundamental principles have been known for decades. There's a lot of money in making people think it's complicated though, so we have exercise fads and fancy/expensive weight machines. Look up the Starting Strength program to learn the basic building blocks of lifting.
  - rhubarbcustard 13y ago
    This is very, very true. I started doing the Stronglifts routine about 5 months ago, which is very similar to Starting Strength, and I'm amazed the progress I've made. The routine only contains simple, full-body exercises like squats, deadlifts, bench presses and pull-ups. Eating healthy and making sure you get a decent amount of protein along with full-body exercises with heavy weights beats that new fad from Men's Health every time. Don't believe the hype.
    - bgilroy26 13y ago
      >Eating healthy and making sure you get a decent amount of protein along with full-body exercises with heavy weights And getting 7+ hrs of sleep 5+ nights a week.
jacques_chester 13y ago
Over on reddit[1] a number of steroid users have pointed out that: 1. He actually took unusually high doses for a first-time user. 2. He took none of the additional drugs recommended to prevent or ameliorate the side-effects. 3. That he got every side-effect, even some rare ones, with unusually high severity, seems suspiciously like dramatic license. Remember: this is a guy who has a novel to sell. He is not acting as a journalist. He is not a scientist. He is under no legal or ethical requirement to be honest. He is a salesman for his own work. [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1lodxn/til_canadian_journalist_craig_davidson_injected/ http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1lodxn/til_ca...
- TruthElixirX 13y ago
  Doesn't sound like the dude took any SERMs to soak up the estrogen or to let his body's own testosterone up-regulate. Thats why he came out of his cycle with 3 pounds of nothing but bloat.
  - robbiep 13y ago
    He straight up says that he took tamoxifen A week's worth of double Nolvadex doses got the gyno under control. Paragraph 19 Although i'll note you're not the only one who missed it
    - TruthElixirX 13y ago
      Novladex is shit. It isn't really a SERM. It doesn't get rid of the estrogen. Furthermore a week of it is terrible. Your PCT should last at least as long as your cycle. http://www.steroid.com/Nolvadex.php http://www.steroid.com/Nolvadex.php
- jongraehl 13y ago
  I've never used steroids (I don't even lift and haven't for years), but I had the same thought as well. Incredibly dishonest article.
- groby_b 13y ago
nl 13y ago
If you find this interesting you might like http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/Drug-Test.html http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/Drug-Test.html, which documents a journalist's use of EPO, Human Growth Hormone (HGH) and testosterone while training for the amateur Paris-Brest-Paris bike race.
- tristanj 13y ago
  And if you're still bored on a Wednesday morning, you can read about how this Olympic sprinter took testosterone, HGH, and EPO yet cleared all his drug tests. After reading this, you might realise Olympic drug testing isn't as effective as it's said to be. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympics/athletics/7403158.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympics/athletics/7403158.s...
  - nl 13y ago
    Olympic drug testing could be a lot better, mostly because it is too infrequent. The biological passport (used in pro cycling) is about as good as it gets at the moment. There are plenty of ways around that (eg, bloodbags & microdosing EPO) but it has been moderately successful in cleaning up the worst abuses in cycling. The real story is the lack of drug testing in Soccer & Tennis.
    - riffraff 13y ago
      Soccer has drug testing, though obviously not very effective. Plenty of careers have been damaged for people who have been found out. But I'd argue doping is not as big in it as in cycling for example.
      - nl 13y ago
        Drug testing is Soccer is roughly where it was in Cycling circa 1997. Yes, there is testing but it only catches people who are stupid. There is plenty of evidence of systematic doping in professional soccer. For example, 150 out of the 200 samples in the "Operation Puerto" performance-enhancing drugs case in Spain were not associated with Cycling[1], and it is pretty easy to find out what clubs the doctor (Fuentes) was associated with. No one is publishing the allegations, because the Puerto evidence was destroyed (!!) and publishers are wary of the lawsuits that Lance Armstrong launched in the mid 2000's when allegations of his doping were first published[2]. The closest you'll get is stories like [3], which are careful to be non-specific. But read a few forums and it's pretty clear that many clubs have well funded, systematic doping programs. Personally, I think it's likely professional tennis is just as bad - and their testing is even worse than soccer. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_in_association_football#Spain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_in_association_football#... [2] http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jan/22/uk-libel-laws-sunday-times-lance-armstrong http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jan/22/uk-libel-laws-s... [3] http://www.goal.com/en-us/news/1786/fifa/2013/01/18/3682007/soccer-must-follow-lance-armstrong-and-admit-it-has-a-doping http://www.goal.com/en-us/news/1786/fifa/2013/01/18/3682007/...
nazgulnarsil 13y ago
everybody want to be a bodybuilder but nobody want to lift no heavy ass weight! Okay, so roid users are willing to lift heavy ass weights, what they aren't willing to do is put in the time, research, and diet to get fit naturally. It takes years, not 16 weeks, but the reward is actual health, health that will last into your old age.
- johnward 13y ago
  There are plenty of steroid users who do put in the time, research, and diet. Many of them grace the IFBB stages. I would argue many of them have much more knowledge about health and fitness then the natural counterparts.
TruthElixirX 13y ago
Fun fact: When anabolic steroids were banned by congress in the U.S., the DEA, AMA, NIDA, and FDA were all against the ban saying they were harmless [1], and they mostly are, especially if taken with doctor supervision. Now they have been pushed underground (unless you have the money to doctor shop) and you get all sorts of bro science around them which can be a real problem. Thank science the U.S. government is saving us from ourselves. [1]http://www.steroid.com/The-Steroid-Control-Act.php http://www.steroid.com/The-Steroid-Control-Act.php
- dylangs1030 13y ago
  Can we get a citation on this that looks more like a neutral third party?
  - msarvar 13y ago
    Here's wiki page with citations in it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolic_steroid#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolic_steroid#United_States
  - emiliobumachar 13y ago
    "During deliberations, the American Medical Association (AMA), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as well as the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) all opposed listing anabolic steroids as controlled substances, citing the fact that use of these hormones does not lead to the physical or psychological dependence required for such scheduling under the Controlled Substance Act. Nevertheless, anabolic steroids were added to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act in the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolic_steroid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolic_steroid
    - crntaylor 13y ago
      Chasing down the references in that paragraph reveals nothing about the FDA, AMA, DEA or NIDA's opinion on the Anabolic Steroid Control Act (1990). The only citation leads to the THOMAS page for the act[0] which only contains the text of the act, and not any of the discussion surrounding it. Remember that Wikipedia isn't a primary (or even secondary) source and shouldn't be used as one! [0] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d101:H.R.4658 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d101:H.R.4658:
scotty79 13y ago
I never seen the point of growing additional muscle tissue. First you have to grow it which is tiring, then you have to feed it and lug it around. It's like getting fat on purpose. What's more, if your lifestyle and diet doesn't match your newly grown muscle tissue the body will adjust and all your effort to grow it will be gone in few weeks/months. Instead of downvoting, please enlighten me about the benefits of growing few pounds of muscle tissue in places you don't really use in your daily life.
- emiliobumachar 13y ago
  I would not work out if not for the health benefits. That said, after I got a bit of muscle some chores became much easier. Carrying luggage or groceries, or squatting to pick up or manipulate something down low. I just had a baby, I suppose it will be much longer before he grows heavier than my capacity for carrying him. The aesthetic and self-esteem boost are also something to consider, though my muscles are barely noticeable by now.
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  Lifting weights is part of my daily life. I feel silly that I'm even bothering to justify myself to an internet stranger. It's like when I had to justify playing roleplaying games or using the internet back in the mid-1990s. However: > It's like getting fat on purpose. The downstream health effects of developing muscle tissue (and increased bone density) are largely positive; of fat, largely negative. Weight training improves insulin sensitivity, improves various cardiovascular markers, strengthens the heart and improves bone density. People who train with weights live longer, with fewer health problems, with shorter senescence, than people who don't. These health effects are distinct from the health effects of non-resistance training such as running, cycling or swimming.
  - scotty79 13y ago
    > The downstream health effects of developing muscle tissue (and increased bone density) are largely positive; But surely up to a point? I find it hard to believe that guys growing so much meat on themselves that they can't clap their hands over their head get only largely positive health effects. How's having hand, that when shaken by somebody feels like kaiser roll for them, improves health? > I feel silly that I'm even bothering to justify myself to an internet stranger. Sorry. No offence meant. I can respect bodybuilding as a hobby (part of life that has self contained meaning and brings pleasure by itself). I just see people doing it as if it was a mean to something and that's what eludes me (apart from, growing muscles to attract some girls, I get that).
jotm 13y ago
In 4 months, he could've easily sculpted a nice body without steroids. Steroids are used by old people (and it really helps them), impatient idiots or bodybuilders who have reached those relatively quick 80% that normal training gives you and want to push it faster all the way to 100%. Also, like others said, the side effects are suspiciously bad, there's no way one person can have most of the worst, unless you're significantly overdosing.
- cliveowen 13y ago
  Exactly judging by the photos anyone skinny could've reached the same results with 3 to 4 months of regular training. Anyone not skinny would've had to just lose weight in 6-12 months and then put in the 3-4 months of training.
  - vmasto 13y ago
    I'm sorry if I come up strong but that's completely false. It would require at least 2 to 3 years of vigorous training and perfect nutrition for someone to go from skinny to looking like the second picture.
otikik 13y ago
Body shape has changed. Stupidity has remained constant.

130 points by jackschultz 13y ago

Bodybuilding with steroids, if we had some drug to make us super smart I imagine the cost would be the same, and I would be tempted by it. Edit: after thinking, I would be afraid of the worst side effect of quitting, just like a steroid user would fear weakness, I would be afraid of my own stupidity

ctide 13y ago
You mean Adderall?
- roel_v 13y ago
  Adderall is in the same class as Ritalin and Concerta but it's not the same. It's used (or abused, depending on who you ask) for the same purposes.
veidr 13y ago
I have often described Ritalin and Concerta as mental steroids. (Haven't ever tried Modafinil and the others.) Like steroids, they don't work for everybody and they can have side effects. But when taken in normal, doctor-prescribed doses, these drugs will enhance mental function -- including the ability to learn -- in normal adult subjects. I still think I am pretty good at what I do, but there is absolutely no doubt that I was more productive as a computer programmer -- I learned faster, invented new solutions more quickly, was less prone to mistakes -- when I had a Ritalin prescription. And I do feel a serious sense of loss not having that anymore. Sometimes when I'm sick of thinking about a problem and just want to veg out and read HN, I get furious, thinking about how if only I'd had a tab of Concerta that morning, the fucking problem I'm working on would already be solved by now. I don't quite feel like Charlie in Flowers for Algernon, but it is in fact somewhat like that.
- contingencies 13y ago
  But when taken in normal, doctor-prescribed doses, these drugs will enhance mental function -- including the ability to learn -- in normal adult subjects Modafinil is not to be toyed with. Far too powerful stuff. Common doses are 100mg or 200mg, far more than you can stomach without hitting the side effects rapidly and developing a dependence. A friend of mine takes it "about 4 days" a week because he's lost the ability to concentrate well for work otherwise; the long term effects remain unclear. That said, I've tried it and at low doses it can certainly help with concentration and artificially prolonging your wakefulness/restfulness to the detriment of the next day. But there's clearly a detriment.
  - veidr 13y ago
    Yeah, I should have been more clear that I was only making that assertion about methylphenidate (Ritalin/Concerta). I don't have significant experience with other cognitive enhancers, although I have tried many of the over-the-counter supposedly nootropic substances (none of which provided anything near the same level of cognitive improvement in my experience). I'm extremely interested in Modafanil and whatever else we come up with in this area, though; unlike the OP's over-the-top and poorly-thought-through quest for big muscles (and a salable story), enhancing human cognition is a tremendously useful, worthwhile thing to do. (Edit: I do actually think big strong muscles are actually pretty useful and worthwhile too; they're just not worth much risk in pursuing (since almost anybody can get fairly strong without injecting weird shit), and certainly not as much risk as this guy took.)
  - vidarh 13y ago
    > Far too powerful stuff. > > Common doses are 100mg or 200mg, far more than you can stomach without hitting the side effects rapidly and developing a dependence. Most people seem report the effect of modafinil as subtle and mild, to the point where it is unclear whether or not there's an objective effect on mental function at all (as opposed to being able to stay away - it is mainly prescribed for narcolepsy). I've used it, and for my part 200mg does in no way trigger any of the side effects - it takes quite a bit more for that. Taking 200mg a couple of times a day for several days in a row does start to trigger some side effects. The upside, see also below, for me is that I can use it when I need extra work capacity and then just not take it the next day without feeling any desire to take it, nor any physical withdrawal symptoms whatsoever, unlike with caffeine. 200mg in one go is certainly not optimal for concentration for most people, though; smaller amounts spaces out seems to work better for people. It's commonly reported by people using modafinil for nootropic effects that you develop a high tolerance very quickly, but this sounds like you're overgeneralising based on the experiences I see people having with it when it comes to dosage. As for dependence, modafinil is popular with a lot of people exactly because it compared to things like e.g. caffeine is trivially easy to get off for most people. Caffeine at doses that feels like it gives the same level of effects as modafinil can be nasty both in side effects and withdrawal symptoms unless you carefully manage a tapered reduction in intake. Heck, I have more problems staying off chocolate than modafinil.
devnetfx 13y ago
There was an episode in "Through the wormhole" where it showcased some experiments in how the subconscious mind can be utilized more. I bet this will become normal in coming decades.
Patrick_Devine 13y ago
I think it would actually be harder to quit than steroids. I can't imagine being in some lucid state where you could solve almost any problem and then having to come back to down to some foggy haze where you can barely comprehend anything. Vernor Vinge wrote about something called "Focus" in A Deepness in the Sky which explores that concept. People voluntarily become "focused" so they can have extreme concentration to solve difficult problems, but at the cost of neglecting everything else.
ximeng 13y ago
You might like this movie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitless http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitless The people in it fight to the death for their smartness drugs.
- dylangs1030 13y ago
  That was a good movie.
- chiph 13y ago
  Eddie stabs Gennady, and drinks his blood to absorb the intravenous NZT. OK, I reached my absurdity limit.
  - wmeredith 13y ago
    Good, because that's the climax of, and the craziest thing that happens in the film. It's certainly the limit and it's well-placed in the context of the story. I like this movie, despite it's short-comings, more than I thought I would. I recommend it, even though it runs right up to my absurdity detector.
riffraff 13y ago
if you haven't heard it, the Pal Erdős‎ story is interesting. Not only he was a great mathematician, he was also an amphetamine user for most of his life. In 1979, he accepted a bet from a friend about quitting drugs for a month (his friends _were_ worried about him being a druguser). Erdös won the challenge, but felt very stupid for the duration of the thing, declared that mathematics had been set back by a month and happily went back to amphetamine use.
vidarh 13y ago
> Edit: after thinking, I would be afraid of the worst side effect of quitting, just like a steroid user would fear weakness, I would be afraid of my own stupidity This is "sort of" the plot of the classic sci-fi novel (and short story) Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes: The main character who starts out below average intelligence, gets a treatment that causes his intelligence to shoot through the roof to well above normal levels, but then he is forced to face that it is only temporary.

photorized 13y ago

Bodybuilding with steroids is like launching a startup with VC money.

redthrowaway 13y ago
The difference being, when the VC money runs out and your startup fails, you can go get a job.
- raverbashing 13y ago
  Well, unless the bodybuilding competition has been branded "natural" (and even then, sometimes) everybody took steroids.

habosa 13y ago

Just finished reading, and that was a seriously terrifying article. I have no idea how anyone could go through all of that work just to have a more muscular body that barely works. Thank you to the author, writing that is a public service.

jacques_chester 13y ago
I personally suspect that he made up some or all of it. I compete in a WADA-regulated sport and I take my promise to not use PEDs seriously. But I train some of the time alongside people in untested sports who use steroids. They are in pretty good nick. If this article had been about the time the author smoked weed and woke up in bed with dead kittens, would it be considered a credible PSA?

bsullivan01 13y ago

Call me paranoid but I'm scared as well to mess with hormones and other stuff I do not see. The body is a machine perfected over the millions (or billions) of years so no way in hell am I going to add all of the sudden, and on my own, 6 times the amount of testosterone.

revelation 13y ago
The body is a different one every time, and its sourcecode the result of a more or less random process, your version as much as mine.
- caycep 13y ago
  That being said, what the nature came up with evolution follows, for the most part, the optimal thermodynamic profile for the most favorable gibbs free energy. Direct intervention by human minds/means don't always follow that optimal path, and so for what you gain, there are probably more trade-offs.
VLM 13y ago
One interesting topic not discussed which is very important is muscle / tendon strength balance. If you overgrow your tendons you are in deep trouble. "no way in hell am I going to add all of the sudden" This usually rapidly morphs into a discussion about paleo diet and such, which I follow but some irrationally hate (or are hired to hate, or whatever).
roel_v 13y ago
"The body is a machine perfected" While I agree with your overall point, calling the human body "perfect" is ridiculous. Human bodies, if they were engineered, would never even be released to the beta testers out of fear of the engineers for being labeled as a bunch of quacks. There is much, much to improved on the human body, and we will over the next decades; but I agree that ordering a bunch of syringes from halfway across the world through an anonymous email account and injecting that into your muscles is probably not the way to go.
- 13y ago

anigbrowl 13y ago

Good heavens, that's alarming. I wonder if part of the problem was that he did all this in 4 months, and whether he could have taken lower doses with less intensive training over a year or two...but then I think of the few times I've looked at magazines like Men's Fitness or suchlike, and it was all about maxing things out, downing vast quantities of supplements, and generally overdoing it. I don't know whether this means that most of their readers are juicing or that having a big physique is simply a full-time commitment, but this article makes me happy to stay skinny.

jacques_chester 13y ago
Magazines are not a credible source of information. Their job is to sell eyeballs to advertisers. Whatever it takes to get you to pick up the magazine is what will go on the cover, whether it is true or false.
ahelwer 13y ago
Men's Health and the like have to come up with new content to fill a magazine every month. Fitness isn't complicated; sound fundamental principles have been known for decades. There's a lot of money in making people think it's complicated though, so we have exercise fads and fancy/expensive weight machines. Look up the Starting Strength program to learn the basic building blocks of lifting.
- rhubarbcustard 13y ago
  This is very, very true. I started doing the Stronglifts routine about 5 months ago, which is very similar to Starting Strength, and I'm amazed the progress I've made. The routine only contains simple, full-body exercises like squats, deadlifts, bench presses and pull-ups. Eating healthy and making sure you get a decent amount of protein along with full-body exercises with heavy weights beats that new fad from Men's Health every time. Don't believe the hype.
  - bgilroy26 13y ago
    >Eating healthy and making sure you get a decent amount of protein along with full-body exercises with heavy weights And getting 7+ hrs of sleep 5+ nights a week.

jacques_chester 13y ago

Over on reddit[1] a number of steroid users have pointed out that: 1. He actually took unusually high doses for a first-time user. 2. He took none of the additional drugs recommended to prevent or ameliorate the side-effects. 3. That he got every side-effect, even some rare ones, with unusually high severity, seems suspiciously like dramatic license. Remember: this is a guy who has a novel to sell. He is not acting as a journalist. He is not a scientist. He is under no legal or ethical requirement to be honest. He is a salesman for his own work. [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1lodxn/til_canadian_journalist_craig_davidson_injected/ http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1lodxn/til_ca...

TruthElixirX 13y ago
Doesn't sound like the dude took any SERMs to soak up the estrogen or to let his body's own testosterone up-regulate. Thats why he came out of his cycle with 3 pounds of nothing but bloat.
- robbiep 13y ago
  He straight up says that he took tamoxifen A week's worth of double Nolvadex doses got the gyno under control. Paragraph 19 Although i'll note you're not the only one who missed it
  - TruthElixirX 13y ago
    Novladex is shit. It isn't really a SERM. It doesn't get rid of the estrogen. Furthermore a week of it is terrible. Your PCT should last at least as long as your cycle. http://www.steroid.com/Nolvadex.php http://www.steroid.com/Nolvadex.php
jongraehl 13y ago
I've never used steroids (I don't even lift and haven't for years), but I had the same thought as well. Incredibly dishonest article.
groby_b 13y ago

nl 13y ago

If you find this interesting you might like http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/Drug-Test.html http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/Drug-Test.html, which documents a journalist's use of EPO, Human Growth Hormone (HGH) and testosterone while training for the amateur Paris-Brest-Paris bike race.

tristanj 13y ago
And if you're still bored on a Wednesday morning, you can read about how this Olympic sprinter took testosterone, HGH, and EPO yet cleared all his drug tests. After reading this, you might realise Olympic drug testing isn't as effective as it's said to be. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympics/athletics/7403158.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympics/athletics/7403158.s...
- nl 13y ago
  Olympic drug testing could be a lot better, mostly because it is too infrequent. The biological passport (used in pro cycling) is about as good as it gets at the moment. There are plenty of ways around that (eg, bloodbags & microdosing EPO) but it has been moderately successful in cleaning up the worst abuses in cycling. The real story is the lack of drug testing in Soccer & Tennis.
  - riffraff 13y ago
    Soccer has drug testing, though obviously not very effective. Plenty of careers have been damaged for people who have been found out. But I'd argue doping is not as big in it as in cycling for example.
    - nl 13y ago
      Drug testing is Soccer is roughly where it was in Cycling circa 1997. Yes, there is testing but it only catches people who are stupid. There is plenty of evidence of systematic doping in professional soccer. For example, 150 out of the 200 samples in the "Operation Puerto" performance-enhancing drugs case in Spain were not associated with Cycling[1], and it is pretty easy to find out what clubs the doctor (Fuentes) was associated with. No one is publishing the allegations, because the Puerto evidence was destroyed (!!) and publishers are wary of the lawsuits that Lance Armstrong launched in the mid 2000's when allegations of his doping were first published[2]. The closest you'll get is stories like [3], which are careful to be non-specific. But read a few forums and it's pretty clear that many clubs have well funded, systematic doping programs. Personally, I think it's likely professional tennis is just as bad - and their testing is even worse than soccer. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_in_association_football#Spain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_in_association_football#... [2] http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jan/22/uk-libel-laws-sunday-times-lance-armstrong http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jan/22/uk-libel-laws-s... [3] http://www.goal.com/en-us/news/1786/fifa/2013/01/18/3682007/soccer-must-follow-lance-armstrong-and-admit-it-has-a-doping http://www.goal.com/en-us/news/1786/fifa/2013/01/18/3682007/...

nazgulnarsil 13y ago

everybody want to be a bodybuilder but nobody want to lift no heavy ass weight! Okay, so roid users are willing to lift heavy ass weights, what they aren't willing to do is put in the time, research, and diet to get fit naturally. It takes years, not 16 weeks, but the reward is actual health, health that will last into your old age.

johnward 13y ago
There are plenty of steroid users who do put in the time, research, and diet. Many of them grace the IFBB stages. I would argue many of them have much more knowledge about health and fitness then the natural counterparts.

TruthElixirX 13y ago

Fun fact: When anabolic steroids were banned by congress in the U.S., the DEA, AMA, NIDA, and FDA were all against the ban saying they were harmless [1], and they mostly are, especially if taken with doctor supervision. Now they have been pushed underground (unless you have the money to doctor shop) and you get all sorts of bro science around them which can be a real problem. Thank science the U.S. government is saving us from ourselves. [1]http://www.steroid.com/The-Steroid-Control-Act.php http://www.steroid.com/The-Steroid-Control-Act.php

dylangs1030 13y ago
Can we get a citation on this that looks more like a neutral third party?
- msarvar 13y ago
  Here's wiki page with citations in it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolic_steroid#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolic_steroid#United_States
- emiliobumachar 13y ago
  "During deliberations, the American Medical Association (AMA), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as well as the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) all opposed listing anabolic steroids as controlled substances, citing the fact that use of these hormones does not lead to the physical or psychological dependence required for such scheduling under the Controlled Substance Act. Nevertheless, anabolic steroids were added to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act in the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolic_steroid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolic_steroid
  - crntaylor 13y ago
    Chasing down the references in that paragraph reveals nothing about the FDA, AMA, DEA or NIDA's opinion on the Anabolic Steroid Control Act (1990). The only citation leads to the THOMAS page for the act[0] which only contains the text of the act, and not any of the discussion surrounding it. Remember that Wikipedia isn't a primary (or even secondary) source and shouldn't be used as one! [0] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d101:H.R.4658 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d101:H.R.4658:

scotty79 13y ago

I never seen the point of growing additional muscle tissue. First you have to grow it which is tiring, then you have to feed it and lug it around. It's like getting fat on purpose. What's more, if your lifestyle and diet doesn't match your newly grown muscle tissue the body will adjust and all your effort to grow it will be gone in few weeks/months. Instead of downvoting, please enlighten me about the benefits of growing few pounds of muscle tissue in places you don't really use in your daily life.

emiliobumachar 13y ago
I would not work out if not for the health benefits. That said, after I got a bit of muscle some chores became much easier. Carrying luggage or groceries, or squatting to pick up or manipulate something down low. I just had a baby, I suppose it will be much longer before he grows heavier than my capacity for carrying him. The aesthetic and self-esteem boost are also something to consider, though my muscles are barely noticeable by now.
jacques_chester 13y ago
Lifting weights is part of my daily life. I feel silly that I'm even bothering to justify myself to an internet stranger. It's like when I had to justify playing roleplaying games or using the internet back in the mid-1990s. However: > It's like getting fat on purpose. The downstream health effects of developing muscle tissue (and increased bone density) are largely positive; of fat, largely negative. Weight training improves insulin sensitivity, improves various cardiovascular markers, strengthens the heart and improves bone density. People who train with weights live longer, with fewer health problems, with shorter senescence, than people who don't. These health effects are distinct from the health effects of non-resistance training such as running, cycling or swimming.
- scotty79 13y ago
  > The downstream health effects of developing muscle tissue (and increased bone density) are largely positive; But surely up to a point? I find it hard to believe that guys growing so much meat on themselves that they can't clap their hands over their head get only largely positive health effects. How's having hand, that when shaken by somebody feels like kaiser roll for them, improves health? > I feel silly that I'm even bothering to justify myself to an internet stranger. Sorry. No offence meant. I can respect bodybuilding as a hobby (part of life that has self contained meaning and brings pleasure by itself). I just see people doing it as if it was a mean to something and that's what eludes me (apart from, growing muscles to attract some girls, I get that).

jotm 13y ago

In 4 months, he could've easily sculpted a nice body without steroids. Steroids are used by old people (and it really helps them), impatient idiots or bodybuilders who have reached those relatively quick 80% that normal training gives you and want to push it faster all the way to 100%. Also, like others said, the side effects are suspiciously bad, there's no way one person can have most of the worst, unless you're significantly overdosing.

cliveowen 13y ago
Exactly judging by the photos anyone skinny could've reached the same results with 3 to 4 months of regular training. Anyone not skinny would've had to just lose weight in 6-12 months and then put in the 3-4 months of training.
- vmasto 13y ago
  I'm sorry if I come up strong but that's completely false. It would require at least 2 to 3 years of vigorous training and perfect nutrition for someone to go from skinny to looking like the second picture.

otikik 13y ago

Body shape has changed. Stupidity has remained constant.