weekendwarrior
New Member
Hey everyone, in case you fell for the clickbait title and came here to flame on another one of "those" threads, i'm sorry to let you know this isn't going to be one. I have been researching steroids for a while purely out of curiosity for the compound (i'm interested in this kind of stuff). I do not plan on using it until my early 30's (at least) as I am not a bodybuilder, and work out purely for muscle endurance (and strength), and do a lot of cardio (I'm training for MARSOC). Im currently 18, and just out of curiosity...
Why shouldn't steroids be used by younger athletes (x-mid 20's)? I haven't seen any studies (as expected) of increased risk or additional side effects of steroids on younger users. The only differences I can think of would be younger user's additional/peak output of test, possibly open epiphyseal plates, their possibly underdeveloped HPTA+endocrine system (most likely fully developed by 18-20), and maturity level. Adittionaly, growth plates may be open in younger users, but to my knowledge their is weak/stark evidence at best that steroids cause closure in epiphyseal plates, and it seems most of it is theoretical, based off of estrogen's increased concentration after using an anabolic compound.
As for producing test at "peak" levels--- everyone produces differing amounts of test. Their are some people in their 40's who still produce more endegenous test than some 17 year olds. I cannot see how this would be an issue at all, even if someone with expetionally high endegenous test production at 19 decided to run a cycle.
I realize estrogen aids in the closure of epiphyseal plates, and that estrogen is produced through aromatization of test and AAS to induce a homeostatic hormonal enviroment, but couldn't the solution for the whole "stunted growth" debate be as easy as using a non aromatizing compound or consuming an aromatase inhibitor like tamoxifen on cycle? A reduction/halt of estrogen production would shurely negate that argument.
I know everyone reacts differently to compunds (although most usually follow pradictable effects of use, so the notion that everyone reacts "differently" is usually bloated to the point it is no longer factual. Their will always be outliers, those who's tolerance/effects from a drug vary markedly from the group. However, under the assumption that everyone reacts differently from a substance, drugs from amoxacillan to adderall would be dodgy at best and precarious at worst. So when the statement "everone reacts diffrently to compunds" is stated, keep in mind it is most likely a neglible difference.), but it seems a substancial proportion of the overall amount of users that end up suffering from hypogonadism from steroids,as well as other side effects such as permanent impotency, etc, are young. When recounting their cycles, many ran either; extremely long and/or heavy cycles, or didn't utilize a proper pct regimen if they used one at all (I've seen some scary posts where people ask which otc herbal "pct" shit they should take, not even knowing what clomid is :/). Anyway, those side effects (hypogonadism, impotency, the other permanent hormone related shit, etc) seem to be heavily attributed to young users. Is this just a lack of knowledge thing or an actual biological occurrence in younger users that cuases these effects?
The final question is maturity. I can see this being an issue, but this is an individualistic thing rather than an encompassing issue. I honestly don't think this should even be apart of one's consideration as its something for the user to decide for themselves.
If anyone's managed to make it this far I just want to say thanks. Any answers are appreciated however please try to keep it more on the scientific side rather than the bioscience side. Sources/links to any studies would be awesome. Thanks again and maybe any answers will help clear up some stuff for other young guys who are thinking about using gear.
Edit-sorry for any spelling issues-typing this on mobile.
Why shouldn't steroids be used by younger athletes (x-mid 20's)? I haven't seen any studies (as expected) of increased risk or additional side effects of steroids on younger users. The only differences I can think of would be younger user's additional/peak output of test, possibly open epiphyseal plates, their possibly underdeveloped HPTA+endocrine system (most likely fully developed by 18-20), and maturity level. Adittionaly, growth plates may be open in younger users, but to my knowledge their is weak/stark evidence at best that steroids cause closure in epiphyseal plates, and it seems most of it is theoretical, based off of estrogen's increased concentration after using an anabolic compound.
As for producing test at "peak" levels--- everyone produces differing amounts of test. Their are some people in their 40's who still produce more endegenous test than some 17 year olds. I cannot see how this would be an issue at all, even if someone with expetionally high endegenous test production at 19 decided to run a cycle.
I realize estrogen aids in the closure of epiphyseal plates, and that estrogen is produced through aromatization of test and AAS to induce a homeostatic hormonal enviroment, but couldn't the solution for the whole "stunted growth" debate be as easy as using a non aromatizing compound or consuming an aromatase inhibitor like tamoxifen on cycle? A reduction/halt of estrogen production would shurely negate that argument.
I know everyone reacts differently to compunds (although most usually follow pradictable effects of use, so the notion that everyone reacts "differently" is usually bloated to the point it is no longer factual. Their will always be outliers, those who's tolerance/effects from a drug vary markedly from the group. However, under the assumption that everyone reacts differently from a substance, drugs from amoxacillan to adderall would be dodgy at best and precarious at worst. So when the statement "everone reacts diffrently to compunds" is stated, keep in mind it is most likely a neglible difference.), but it seems a substancial proportion of the overall amount of users that end up suffering from hypogonadism from steroids,as well as other side effects such as permanent impotency, etc, are young. When recounting their cycles, many ran either; extremely long and/or heavy cycles, or didn't utilize a proper pct regimen if they used one at all (I've seen some scary posts where people ask which otc herbal "pct" shit they should take, not even knowing what clomid is :/). Anyway, those side effects (hypogonadism, impotency, the other permanent hormone related shit, etc) seem to be heavily attributed to young users. Is this just a lack of knowledge thing or an actual biological occurrence in younger users that cuases these effects?
The final question is maturity. I can see this being an issue, but this is an individualistic thing rather than an encompassing issue. I honestly don't think this should even be apart of one's consideration as its something for the user to decide for themselves.
If anyone's managed to make it this far I just want to say thanks. Any answers are appreciated however please try to keep it more on the scientific side rather than the bioscience side. Sources/links to any studies would be awesome. Thanks again and maybe any answers will help clear up some stuff for other young guys who are thinking about using gear.
Edit-sorry for any spelling issues-typing this on mobile.