TRT for competitive powerlifters?

[AnimalMass]

There is no reason for them to end their powerlifting careers rather than just lift in a federation that not only allows AAS use, but practically condones it.

I wasn't meaning for them to not go on HRT - I was just stating that if they did, they should compete with us big boys rather than the "drug free" crowd.

 

[AnimalMass]

and Swale, while your motivation is treating disease, there is no doubt that improved performance will also be an outcome of the HRT.

Matt

 

[Millard]

I'm not sure why you are oblivious to the difference, but we are talking about treating disease, not "improv[ing] performance".

You Libertarians crack me up.

If you successfully treat disease, you improve performance. Simple.

If treating a disease doesn't make the patient better, then what is the point?

I'm not sure why you are oblivious to the game of semantics going on here.

 

[Millard]

we are talking about treating disease, not "improv[ing] performance".

Keep in mind, that you opened this thread inquiring about the use of testosterone in powerlifters subject to drug testing.

So, in this context, how can you ignore the performance-enhancing effects of androgens?

While you may be talking about treating disease in the confines of your doctor's office, how these drugs improve performance becomes front and center in athletic competition.

 

[SWALE]

These guys have never been on steroids, and never would.

Therefore they would be at an incredible disadvantage if they were to compete against those who will use any amount of same.

This is not a question of semantics. He only wishes to be restored to baseline. He now has a disease. So, we cannot treat the disease AND allow him to compete.

This is my bone with this federation: I cannot treat a legitimate disease--all within NORMAL range--without disqualifying them.

Would they get caught? I doubt it. But it is also a matter of honor for them. They feel as I do, that the Federation has the right to make its own rules, and violating them is cheating, no matter how unfair those rules are.

If you guys think that normal range is the same as a gram per week, we need to have a talk.

I think we've exhausted this topic. Thank you for your help, time, and suggestions, gents.

 

[Millard]

These guys have never been on steroids, and never would.

Therefore they would be at an incredible disadvantage if they were to compete against those who will use any amount of same.

This is not a question of semantics.

It is very much a question of semantics.

Your patients use testosterone. Testosterone IS a steroid. Your patients take steroids!

Testosterone doesn't magically cease to be a steroid when a doctor prescribes it.

Your patients use testosterone. Testosterone enhances performance. Your patients are taking a performance-enhancing drug.

Testosterone doesn't magicallly cease to enhance performance when a doctor prescribes it to treat an alleged disease.

 

[anabolicbruce]

I believe you have clearly demonstrated your lack of knowlege on the human edocrine system. Although you are right in saying "testosterone IS a steroid", what is the difference between an optimal natural level and TRT in a man with hypogonadism? THERE is NO difference! You are associating TRT to superphysiological doses of AAS including testosterone, I surely do not consider 100mg of cypionate a "performance enhancing dose". Dr. Crisler would be treating DISEASE which, as you said would improve overall health and performance, just like Lance Armstrong treated his disease (cancer), which in fact improved HIS performance; should we not aknowlege his accomplishments because he treated disease? I work at an HRT clinic and help treat many different types of professional athletes, many who are hypogonadic, shall they live in a state of sub-optimal health just because testosterone is "illegal" in their sport? You, just as the media, have it confused. TRT is not "cheating" unlike AAS. Take 600mg of test/week, now THATS performance enhancing!

SWALE- If it were me, I would treat these men, and advise them to continue the persuit of their dreams just as they deserve.

It is very much a question of semantics.

Your patients use testosterone. Testosterone IS a steroid. Your patients take steroids!

Testosterone doesn't magically cease to be a steroid when a doctor prescribes it.

Your patients use testosterone. Testosterone enhances performance. Your patients are taking a performance-enhancing drug.

Testosterone doesn't magicallly cease to enhance performance when a doctor prescribes it to treat an alleged disease.

 

[Millard]

I think you have demonstrated your inability to read my statements.

You are associating TRT to superphysiological doses of AAS including testosterone..

No. I never did that.

I surely do not consider 100mg of cypionate a "performance enhancing dose".

Practically every hypogonadal man on TRT I've corresponded with would disagree with this statement.

Lance Armstrong treated his disease (cancer), which in fact improved HIS performance; should we not aknowlege his accomplishments because he treated disease?

What's your point? His accomplishments should be acknowledged, period. I've never hinted otherwise.

I work at an HRT clinic and help treat many different types of professional athletes, many who are hypogonadic, shall they live in a state of sub-optimal health just because testosterone is "illegal" in their sport?

What's your point? I've never suggested hypogonadal men should forego TRT. I've always been a big advocate of TRT.

You, just as the media, have it confused. TRT is not "cheating" unlike AAS.

I never suggested TRT was "cheating". I correctly pointed out that exogenous AAS use (including TRT) is banned by every anti-doping organization that I am familiar with. WADA considers it cheating. I do not.

Sir, I think you are the one that is confused. Practically every position you've attributed to me is wrong and unsubstantiated.

 

[Millard]

Although you are right in saying "testosterone IS a steroid", what is the difference between an optimal natural level and TRT in a man with hypogonadism? THERE is NO difference!

Actually, this is an excellent question. Someone with an incomplete understanding of the human endocrine system might think there is not a difference. But there is indeed a crucial difference between "optimal natural " (i.e. endogenously produced) testosterone levels AND TRT (exogenously administered) optimal testosterone levels...

TRT levels are much more stable.

A bodybuilding athletes will find it almost impossible to maintain optimal endogenous testosterone levels after 12-16 weeks of severe caloric restriction and overtraining seen in typical precontest preparation. When bodyfat levels drop to the low single-digits, this becomes almost impossible.

It is well-documented in elite endurance athletes that natural endogenous testosterone levels are dramatically suppressed. Months of logging 100 mile weeks really does hurt optimal T levels.

Now, if these athletes happened to be hypogonadal and received 100mg/week testosterone cypionate as part of a doctor-administered TRT protocol, they would be able to completely avoid the sub-optimal T levels that are almost unavoidable side effect of their training/nutrition regimens.

They could remain in the upper quartile of T levels unlike their peers who must relay on endogenous testosterone levels.

From an athlete's (i.e. performance-enhancement) perspective, this is a huge difference.

 

[SWALE]

Bruce is correct, on all points (except in that my patients have decided to retire from powerlifting competition rather than risk their health by remaining hypogonadal).

End of line.

 

[Millard]

Bruce is correct, on all points (except in that my patients have decided to retire from powerlifting competition rather than risk their health by remaining hypogonadal).

End of line.

Glad you finally agree testosterone is a steroid.

I'm making progress LOL

 

[SWALE]

Let me explain how to use the language:

The chemical structure of testosterone is that of a "steroid". But so are others, such as the glucocorticoids, for instance, such as cortisone. The vernacular phrase "using steroids" is kept for those who are supplementing androgenic/anabolic substances to serum concentrations above that of physiological range.

By your reasoning, anyone who has been prescribed a Predpak to treat poison ivy exposure is "on steroids". Technically correct, but it is not how we use the language. Especially in the common context of this message board.

Finally, are you oblivious to how much it damages the TRT movement to equate replacing testosterone to normal--and healthy--levels, and thereby treating a documented deficiency, with anabolic steroid use? You cannot simultaneously say you are in favor of TRT AND equate it with AAS use. Don't we make fun of ignorant doctors here who do that? IMPO, the top of normal range is the watershed.

 

[anabolicbruce]

Amen

 

[Millard]

Let me explain how to use the language:

The chemical structure of testosterone is that of a "steroid". But so are others, such as the glucocorticoids, for instance, such as cortisone. The vernacular phrase "using steroids" is kept for those who are supplementing androgenic/anabolic substances to serum concentrations above that of physiological range.

By your reasoning, anyone who has been prescribed a Predpak to treat poison ivy exposure is "on steroids". Technically correct, but it is not how we use the language. Especially in the common context of this message board.

SWALE, with all due respect, aren't you the one who said this is NOT an issue of semantics? And now, you lecture me on semantics? How about some consistency in your statements.

Also, with all due respect, you are the one who is in a very small minority who uses the language in such a manner. You really need to get out more.

Saying such things as 'testosterone is not an anabolic steroid' or telling people that 'steroid use is dangerous and bad' and then promoting the virtues of "legitimate" testosterone replacement therapy. These statements are difficult to take seriously

There is a collective scratching of heads by the majority of members on this board and the colleagues in bodybuilding circles that you speak so highly of. The reason is because you are misinformed about how language is used outside of your doctor's office. It hurts your credibility among athletes.

Finally, are you oblivious to how much it damages the TRT movement to equate replacing testosterone to normal--and healthy--levels, and thereby treating a documented deficiency, with anabolic steroid use? You cannot simultaneously say you are in favor of TRT AND equate it with AAS use. Don't we make fun of ignorant doctors here who do that? IMPO, the top of normal range is the watershed.

If telling the truth damages the TRT movement, then so be it. Truth is where my commitment remains.

TRT is AAS use. It is the truth. Ask Bill Llewellyn. Ask Rick Collins. Ask Jose Antonio. Ask Author L Rea. Ask Pat Arnold. Ask John Berardi. Ask Bill Roberts. Ask John Romano.

TRT may be AAS use in a medical context, but it is still AAS use. TRT may only be used to establish a threshold at top of normal, but it is still AAS use. Why is this so difficult to accept?

Instead of subscribing to and promoting the "AAS are evil/bad" dogma, why can't you modify this construct by assimilating the fact that perhaps AAS can be good/safe in certain situations e.g. prescribing therapeutic dosages of testosterone in TRT.

Well, then maybe ALL AAS use isn't bad after all, is it? The world will not disintegrate into anarchy, if this is acknowledged.

Going against the widespread steroid hysteria, may take a little more courage and be a little more challenging, I encourage you to do this.

Of course, it may be a little easier to go along with the misinformation that all AAS use is bad... and just pretend that you have nothing to do with AAS. Pretend that testosterone is not an AAS. Pretend that testosterone does not have performance-enhancing effects for your patients. Pretend that AAS use is bad ALL the time.

I've never questioned your commitment to your patients' health. And if you honestly feel your approach is in their best interest of TRT, then great.

 

[Millard]

By your reasoning, anyone who has been prescribed a Predpak to treat poison ivy exposure is "on steroids". Technically correct, but it is not how we use the language. Especially in the common context of this message board.

I stand by my reasoning. On the MESO-Rx board, "on steroids" refers to the use of AAS.

But in practically every other context (common vernacular use), especially in the context of medicine, referring to a patient "on steroids" refers to someone taking prednisone and/or other corticosteroid. You should know this.

[ame="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22patients+on+steroids%22&btnG=Search"]Google it[/ame]

 

[SWALE]

I am amused you think yourself qualified to lecture me on topics of medicine.

You are saying the since the molecular structure of the T molecule is that of a "steroid", that taking any amount of it is "being on steroids". Extending that logic, so then would be corticosteroids.

We must separate TRT from steroids. Or is it you want fewer men to be able to avail themselves of TRT? Is it your purpose to hurt the movement?

By your thinking, then I am a steroid dealer. I have to take exception to that.

No one who knows anything about TRT equates it with "AAS" use. No one. Relying on those who are expert in AAS does not make your arguement for you. I do not see anyone on your list who I would recognize as expert in TRT.

The simple truth is that you cannot do ANY amount of steroids without damaging your health. The damage ranges from almost none (compared to, for instance, consuming fast food regularly) to causing death (premature heart attack). Those who argue otherwise are either misinformed, not medically qualified, or are simply trying to profit from the business.

Are you saying TRT is bad for men? To date, there is not a single example of appropriate TRT hurting anyone.

"Testosterone" as it is applied in TRT, is NOT "taking steroids". I just cannot understnd why this simple concept escapes you. "Taking steroids" in this field refers to supplementing above and beyond that found in physiological range. TRT is treating a disease state. I have never seen anyone suffering from a "Deca deficiency".

But I am repeating myself here.

BTW, I have been completely consistent in these, and all other, topics related to hormonal supplementation. Now, and always.

I cannot for the life of me understand what it is you think I have written which would me make me less credible. You have chosen to try to make your points in an insulting ad hominem manner. This is disappointing.

Or maybe I should not be spending my time on an AAS-based Message Board?

 

[Millard]

There is the medical use of anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS).

There is the non-medical use of anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS).

I am not equating one with the other by using this distinction.

But they do share at least one commonality i.e. both instances involve the use of AAS.

---

I am sorry that you disagree. Your arguments against this position do not logically follow.

I am sorry that you find my defense of this position insulting to you personally.

But really, threatening to leave the board unless I retract my defense of my position?

Please make your points by providing support for your statements and attempting to refute my statements.

I am amused you think yourself qualified to lecture me on topics of medicine.

You are saying the since the molecular structure of the T molecule is that of a "steroid", that taking any amount of it is "being on steroids". Extending that logic, so then would be corticosteroids.

We must separate TRT from steroids. Or is it you want fewer men to be able to avail themselves of TRT? Is it your purpose to hurt the movement?

By your thinking, then I am a steroid dealer. I have to take exception to that.

No one who knows anything about TRT equates it with "AAS" use. No one. Relying on those who are expert in AAS does not make your arguement for you. I do not see anyone on your list who I would recognize as expert in TRT.

The simple truth is that you cannot do ANY amount of steroids without damaging your health. The damage ranges from almost none (compared to, for instance, consuming fast food regularly) to causing death (premature heart attack). Those who argue otherwise are either misinformed, not medically qualified, or are simply trying to profit from the business.

Are you saying TRT is bad for men? To date, there is not a single example of appropriate TRT hurting anyone.

"Testosterone" as it is applied in TRT, is NOT "taking steroids". I just cannot understnd why this simple concept escapes you. "Taking steroids" in this field refers to supplementing above and beyond that found in physiological range. TRT is treating a disease state. I have never seen anyone suffering from a "Deca deficiency".

But I am repeating myself here.

BTW, I have been completely consistent in these, and all other, topics related to hormonal supplementation. Now, and always.

I cannot for the life of me understand what it is you think I have written which would me make me less credible. You have chosen to try to make your points in an insulting ad hominem manner. This is disappointing.

Or maybe I should not be spending my time on an AAS-based Message Board?

 

[Millard]

You have chosen to try to make your points in an insulting ad hominem manner. This is disappointing.

I have attacked your semantic arguments, pure and simple.

I have not attacked nor questioned your authority or expertise as a physician committed to men's health. I never have. Given what I know of you, I doubt I ever will. You are one of the pioneers in TRT.

However, your expertise with TRT is irrelevant to a debate over the semantics of AAS.

 

[Millard]

I am amused you think yourself qualified to lecture me on topics of medicine.

You are saying the since the molecular structure of the T molecule is that of a "steroid", that taking any amount of it is "being on steroids". Extending that logic, so then would be corticosteroids.

I am talking about semantics.

You stated that patients taking prednisone are technically "on steroids" because, by definition, prednisone is a (cortico)steroid.

However, you further stated that patients who use prednisone are rarely, if ever, referred to as patients on steroids.

This is simply false.

When discussing "patients on steroids", it almost inevitably refers to patients taking corticosteroids, particularly in medicine. This is the most common semantic use of the phrase.

I even provided a link to the Google search of "[ame="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22patients+on+steroids%22&btnG=Search"]patients on steroids[/ame]" so that you can see the validity of my statement regarding patients who use corticosteroid being on steroids.

Please be clear - I am not "lecturing" you on medical topics. I am not telling you how, when, or if patients should use predpaks. I am not telling you when testosterone is appropriate. I am not telling you what is optimal TRT. I defer to you on these "medical issues".

Our debate remains almost entirely in the domain of semantics.

 

[Millard]

Relying on those who are expert in AAS does not make your arguement for you. I do not see anyone on your list who I would recognize as expert in TRT.

Other than yourself, which TRT experts do you believe would take exception to my position, as succinctly described below?

There is the medical use of anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS).

There is the non-medical use of anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS).

I am not equating one with the other by using this distinction.

But they do share at least one commonality i.e. both instances involve the use of AAS.

I have not found this to be a very controversial position, except in the context of my debate with you. I am curious to the number of your colleagues similarly share your position and disagree with my aforementioned position?