TRT for competitive powerlifters?

[SWALE]

I have had enough.

Good bye.

 

[Bigman290]

Swale...you are a god!......"administrator"...you are a retard! I can't believe you could even argue the original question asked by the doc. It seems that you just wanted argue something that to the rest of us seems to be common sense.

 

[Millard]

Swale...you are a god!......"administrator"...you are a retard! I can't believe you could even argue the original question asked by the doc. It seems that you just wanted argue something that to the rest of us seems to be common sense.

What are you talking about? What do you think was the original question? What common sense are you talking about?

 

[Phreezer]

Wow, I am a little shocked by Swales reaction to this debate. He encountered someone with a different view point other than his own. He engaged that individual in a debate of semantics. Once the debate turned in a direction he did not like he just up and quit. The equivalent of "I'm going to take my ball and go home because I don't like opinions that deviate from my own".

In a nut shell Swale chose to walk away from the men who come here for no other purpose but to receive his help because he had a difference of opinion with someone... how sad.

Regardless, I wish you Well Swale and I wish you the greatest of luck in the HRT field.

 

[CyniQ]

My opinion may not count for much here. I won't pretend that it does. But since you guys did this in open forum. I'll chime in.

Neither of you is definitely correct, or incorrect, IMO. I am, on occasion, prescribed prednisone. My Dr. has never said, "We're putting you on steroids." But, if he did, I would know what he meant. Semantics are worthy of argument though, I think. So I don't blame you for the debate. Certain words bear implications, underlying meaning. Maybe more so for some than others.

With the utmost in respect to you both. Neither of you is entirely incorrect. It's a stalemate, and not worth damaging a relationship over. It seems that you have both walked away from the argument. That is good, I suppose. Just make sure that you agree to disagree as friends, colleagues, co-conspirators, or whatever it is that you consider each other.

I would encourage others to avoid personal attacks on either party. That doesn't help anyone.

 

[Millard]

I'm still here. And would enjoy the opportunity to debate anyone who has an interest in the semantics of AAS and would like to pick up on the dialogue.

Thank you for your post and your recognition of the worthiness of the topic. I think semantics is a crucial component in the 'war on drugs' and specifically, the demonization of AAS. The party who controls how language is used gains an advantage on the battlefield.

My opinion may not count for much here. I won't pretend that it does. But since you guys did this in open forum. I'll chime in.

Neither of you is definitely correct, or incorrect, IMO. I am, on occasion, prescribed prednisone. My Dr. has never said, "We're putting you on steroids." But, if he did, I would know what he meant. Semantics are worthy of argument though, I think. So I don't blame you for the debate. Certain words bear implications, underlying meaning. Maybe more so for some than others.

With the utmost in respect to you both. Neither of you is entirely incorrect. It's a stalemate, and not worth damaging a relationship over. It seems that you have both walked away from the argument. That is good, I suppose. Just make sure that you agree to disagree as friends, colleagues, co-conspirators, or whatever it is that you consider each other.

I would encourage others to avoid personal attacks on either party. That doesn't help anyone.

 

[Grizzly]

Actually, admin is right. I've competed in two bodybuilding competitions, both I trained for without AS. By the end of the 16 weeks, I was beat to shit and had little interest in anything but eating. I had a hot g/f, but sex wasn't so much on my mind, especially since half the time it didn't work. Presumably because of a mixture of low test and tons of ephedrine.

Had I been supplementing with a meager "replacement" dosage of testosterone, I wouldn't have had these problems and I probably wouldn't have lost as much muscle. I might have come in a bit more lean, too.

Regardless of the semantics, the fact of the matter is that supplemental adrogens do not act the same as those found in the "natural" athlete. Thus, the guy receiving TRT is at a distinct advantage.

Besides, as admin and Swale both agree, TRT is administered with the intent to put the patient at the upper 25% of the average "natural level". That righ there gives the TRT patient an advantage over 75% of the non-TRT athletes.

 

[CyniQ]

The problem, and the disagreement, as I see it is based on the perception of the terms in the common vernacular. Contrary to what things may appear to be on the surface. The (assumed) goals of Admin and Swale are diametrically opposed. Swale recognizes the public opinion of "steroids" and seeks to distance himself and his work from this notion so as to legitimize his efforts in the public eye. Admin wishes to educate the public at large on the potential benefits "steroids" have to offer those who use them sensibly. Associating TRT with "steroids" is beneficial to Admin's goal as it may help the uneducated to understand that it is possible to use "steroids" to improve personal health and well-being. It is possibly detrimental to Swale's goal in that the term "steroids" invokes currently held predjudices in a large majority of the population.

I don't think that there can be any resolution between the two points of view. Therefore, it's a discussion that, for the sake of the board, is best left alone. Between the two of them anyway.

 

[Millard]

I thought this had been a very productive and thought-provoking debate. And IMO, Grizz nailed one of what I thought were two very good, very interesting questions that arose. (CyniQ got the other one.)

QUESTION: Should medically-recognized TRT patients be granted medical use exemptions for testostorone in drug-tested and/or explicitly "natural" competitions?

Regardless of whether I am right or wrong, this is a worthy question. Obviously, I agree with Grizzly.

Actually, admin is right. I've competed in two bodybuilding competitions, both I trained for without AS. By the end of the 16 weeks, I was beat to shit and had little interest in anything but eating. I had a hot g/f, but sex wasn't so much on my mind, especially since half the time it didn't work. Presumably because of a mixture of low test and tons of ephedrine.

Had I been supplementing with a meager "replacement" dosage of testosterone, I wouldn't have had these problems and I probably wouldn't have lost as much muscle. I might have come in a bit more lean, too.

Regardless of the semantics, the fact of the matter is that supplemental adrogens do not act the same as those found in the "natural" athlete. Thus, the guy receiving TRT is at a distinct advantage.

Besides, as admin and Swale both agree, TRT is administered with the intent to put the patient at the upper 25% of the average "natural level". That righ there gives the TRT patient an advantage over 75% of the non-TRT athletes.

 

[CyniQ]

I thought this had been a very productive and thought-provoking debate. And IMO, Grizz nailed one of what I thought were two very good, very interesting questions that arose. (CyniQ got the other one.)

QUESTION: Should medically-recognized TRT patients be granted medical use exemptions for testostorone in drug-tested and/or explicitly "natural" competitions?

Regardless of whether I am right or wrong, this is a worthy question. Obviously, I agree with Grizzly.

I agree completely. Also, I think the answer to your question is "absolutely not" for all of the reasons mentioned by you, Grizz, and AM. But that's a separate debate from the semantic argument that caused all the hubub. I even agree, as I said before, that the semantic argument regarding the use and implications of the terms "steroids" and "AAS" and "HRT" is a worthwhile one. But I also believe that Swale is an important member of this board, and to create a rift between he and you would be a mistake on both of your parts. Maybe I'm reading too much into this. It's difficult to determine tone and inflection in this context.

Anyway, it has been extremely informative and enlightening for me. For that, I thank you all.

 

[Millard]

Perfect! I agree with the gist of your analysis.

But I disagree that SWALE and I necessarily have "diametrically opposed" goals.

With regard to promoting TRT, I think we have identical goals. We agree almost entirely. However, there is a strong disagreement about how to best achieve this..

Essentially the question is "What is the best approach to promoting the advancement and widespread acceptance of TRT in an atmosphere of 'steroid hysteria'?"

• Is it taking a semantic approach to distancing TRT from AAS? (i.e. denying testosterone in TRT is an AAS)
• OR is it working to educate the public about AAS and dispel steroid misinformation? (i.e. AAS has medical applications such as testosterone in TRT)

SWALE's approach may indeed be the most expedient. But IMHO, it is somewhat disingenous if not outright dishonest. But effective nonetheless.

Keep in mind, I don't think this is an "either/or" question. We tend to see dichotomies when two people disagree. But there isn't always the best way to see it.

I think a dual apporach to promoting TRT may be best. Distance (but don't deny) TRT from AAS use. At the same time, work to dispel larger steroid misinformation out there. The former will have greater affects in the short-term; the latter will do more to stimulate understanding and research in the long-term.

Thus, I think emphasizing the medical versus non-medical distinction with regard to AAS use is the best approach for this purpose.

With regard to the general issue of AAS, you are right: SWALE and I disagree completely. Since SWALE does not share my medical/nonmedical distinction, he believes ALL AAS use is BAD (at least from a health perspective if not other reasons). In addition to this distinction, I further believe that the non-medical use of AAS is safely possible in some circumstances. SWALE adamantly disagrees with this.

The problem, and the disagreement, as I see it is based on the perception of the terms in the common vernacular. Contrary to what things may appear to be on the surface. The (assumed) goals of Admin and Swale are diametrically opposed. Swale recognizes the public opinion of "steroids" and seeks to distance himself and his work from this notion so as to legitimize his efforts in the public eye. Admin wishes to educate the public at large on the potential benefits "steroids" have to offer those who use them sensibly. Associating TRT with "steroids" is beneficial to Admin's goal as it may help the uneducated to understand that it is possible to use "steroids" to improve personal health and well-being. It is possibly detrimental to Swale's goal in that the term "steroids" invokes currently held predjudices in a large majority of the population.

I don't think that there can be any resolution between the two points of view. Therefore, it's a discussion that, for the sake of the board, is best left alone. Between the two of them anyway.

 

[CyniQ]

Perfect! I agree with the gist of your analysis.

But I disagree that SWALE and I necessarily have "diametrically opposed" goals.

With regard to promoting TRT, I think we have identical goals. We agree almost entirely. However, there is a strong disagreement about how to best achieve this..

Essentially the question is "What is the best approach to promoting the advancement and widespread acceptance of TRT in an atmosphere of 'steroid hysteria'?"

• Is it taking a semantic approach to distancing TRT from AAS? (i.e. denying testosterone in TRT is an AAS)
• OR is it working to educate the public about AAS and dispel steroid misinformation? (i.e. AAS has medical applications such as testosterone in TRT)

SWALE's approach may indeed be the most expedient. But IMHO, it is somewhat disingenous if not outright dishonest. But effective nonetheless.

Keep in mind, I don't think this is an "either/or" question. We tend to see dichotomies when two people disagree. But there isn't always the best way to see it.

I think a dual apporach to promoting TRT may be best. Distance (but don't deny) TRT from AAS use. At the same time, work to dispel larger steroid misinformation out there. The former will have greater affects in the short-term; the latter will do more to stimulate understanding and research in the long-term.

Thus, I think emphasizing the medical versus non-medical distinction with regard to AAS use is the best approach for this purpose.

With regard to the general issue of AAS, you are right: SWALE and I disagree completely. Since SWALE does not share my medical/nonmedical distinction, he believes ALL AAS use is BAD (at least from a health perspective if not other reasons). In addition to this distinction, I further believe that the non-medical use of AAS is safely possible in some circumstances. SWALE adamantly disagrees with this.

"Diametrically opposed" was probably not the best choice of words. My apologies for that.

There was a series on for a while hosted by Morgan Spurlock. The SuperSize Me guy. It was called "30 days" I think. They had a episode about TRT. They had a fairly healthy but hypogonadal guy start TRT. He got leaner, more muscular, and improved his performance in a variety of tests. But... his sperm count dropped (which he was warned would happen), and he experienced unbelievably dramatized "rages". It was ridiculously orchestrated. He ultimately chose on day 22 that "steroids" were dangerous and discontinued his treatment.

My point is. The negative public opinion of steroids is deeply ingrained and constantly perpetuated. In light of the current anti-steroid climate which you correctly categorized as "hysteria" it seems that SWALE and his colleagues have little choice but to attempt to distance themselves as much as possible from the stigma of AAS. I agree wholeheartedly that the "best" course of action is to focus on education and counteract the misinformation campaigns that wage on even as we speak. But, given the unreasonable rhetoric that seems to be the norm nowadays I think our only hope may be to allow the TRT movement, which already has its foot in the door, to make a little room for us in their wake.