ExRx.net

I just saw Bigger Stronger Faster, since I had seen it mentioned as a good, neutral source of information on steroids. Have you guys seen it? What do you think about it? What was/is your view on taking steroids before and after seeing it?

I really liked it, for the most part. I like how it clearly shows that a lot of the people advocating against steroids are complete and utter idiots(Like the congressman, the dad whose kid committed suicide and so on).
But what I really dislike about it is that throughout the movie it is implied that you really can't get very far without the use of steroids, but maybe they're simply pointing out that if you want to be the best in the world in powerlifting or bodybuilding, you're not going to get very far without them; but using the guy posing for the supplement ad as an example was terrible, seeing as he was not very big compared to a lot of other natural people.

After watching it my views on steroids changed, though. Where I was generally against them before, due to my lack of knowledge of the subject, I now feel that if you want to take them, it's fine, as long as you know what you're doing and as long as you've really reached the limit of your genetic potential. If you're just starting out and aren't seeing any gains and you go straight to steroids, I think that's pretty stupid(Like my friend intended to do in the thread I posted a while back -- he kind of stopped training though).

So, what are your views?

I'm still against them, even after watching the movie. It was a good movie and did show a different side of things (though I don't think a father should be called an idiot, he's just needing something to blame), but I still think they should be illegal. If not for everyone, at least people who participate in sports. Sure you won't get much of anywhere without natural talent in a sport, but those who play will feel pressure to use them in order to keep up with those who took them up because they became legal. I don't think that should become the norm. The difference between the steroids and something like a protein shake or creatine is those are basically for convienence, as opposed to steroids that you don't get from food (although I have heard certain foods are condusive to producing more testosterone).

I saw the movie before. I thought it was a good documentary. I don't see anything wrong with steroids. When you get to a certain level, that is the only way to progress. When you start getting close to your genetic maximum it gets very slow too. Some people also don't have the greatest genetics. If you are not doing a sport where steroids is prohibited, I see nothing wrong with it.

You have to know what you are doing though. It takes a lot of research. You need to have a high degree of medical knowledge in that one particular area. Steroid cycles also require meticulous planning. You also have to have diet and training perfected.

If a person doesn't meet those criteria, I would advise against it. Steroids are a schedule 3 drug, so they are not actually illegal. They are only illegal without a prescription. They have a lot of medical uses, which is what they were made for in the first place.

People take drugs all the time without a second thought that have more side effects than steroids.

I saw it a while back, and agree it was a good documentary. Overall, they tried to stay pretty neutral, but at times, the pendulum did swing closer to the PRO steroid use then the Anti Steroid use.

I would agree that if the Sport does not prohibit Steroid use, there shouldn't be anything wrong with it's use. The problem with that thought is that here in the US, it is a controlled substance and must be prescribed to be used legally.

I don't believe they should be used by anyone in their younger days, because many youth have not reached their natural potential.

One thing is for certain... Mainstream media has definitely spread some false information about Steroid use, (No surprise here) and this has caused much of America and the World to believe Steroid users are Evil. This is just utterly wrong.

Cliff

One thing that people should consider is that all points are not always equally valid. If you have two sides to something the truth is not necessarily in the middle. This sort of intellectual relativism that grips the mainstream right now is fallacious.


For example if one group says elephants are large mammals with trunks, and another group says they are little green insects, that in no way gives the 2nd group ANY validity or moves the truth to a middle point between those positions.

The middle ground thing is great for opinions. However it seems to be applied to everything. I call it CNN syndrome sometimes.

So just a little caveat there. The truth can be at point A, point B or anywhere in between. Only by examining evidence can we know that.


However a lot of people also have this sort of "well I choose to believe X, and they choose to believe Y" and they do it with no regard to what reality is. So this intellectual relativism may be a part of that as well.

The issues of logic and intellectual prejudice fascinate me, but I have never studied them.

I have seen a lot of people who will refuse to concede an opinon/point even with huge amounts of evidence (even smoking guns) against them. I think one way to get past this is to make bets with substantial amounts of money on the outcome. If someone puts their money on it, then they REALLY beleive it. Not just "want it to be true".

look at the amateur statistician WM Briggs. I remember him saying that he thought it more likely than not that McCain would win in 08 (about a week before the election). I told him I would put several thousand on a bet with him (Tradesports had it at 85% that Obama would win at that point). He refused. The bizarre thing is that WM is a Bayesian!

I think wagers would just heat things up. You're totally right about a lot of people sticking to a certain position though. They are either motivated by the need to "win" or to protect the particular idea. That trumps being right. I see it all the time.

You make a good point on the 2nd one as well. You get to see what people know is right deep down vs what they want to believe. Faith healing, Christian scientists (The religion, not scientists that believe in Jesus), and alternative medicine are good examples. The vast majority will go to a real doctor when it gets serious. There are some true believers who let their kids die though. Luckily there aren't very many.


I think many people believe in belief more than any specific belief. People switching religions for non-religious reasons is a good example. How much could a Christian REALLY have believed in Jesus if they convert to Judaism, for example, for purely external reasons?

On the other hand you could make the argument that a strong emotional experience, like planning to get married, may be enough to overcome the emotional attachment the lymbic system has with the original idea. The strong love feelings plus the positive reinforcement and frequent exposure to the new belief system could make that an acceptable replacement. The cerebral cortex in people like that will just rationalize what the lymbic system wants.

It is pretty interesting.