Three Myths About Steroids


By Lou Schuler
Posted on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 10:43:05 AM EST


In a retort to yesterday's post, which included some blog-meat cynicism about Floyd Landis' claim of innocence, Joe from D.C. wrote this:

While I think cycling is a sport that's custom made for performance enhancing drugs, its not made for injecting anabolic steroids right before the last leg of the Tour de France. I'm calling BS on the circumstances. Also, based on the false accusations against Lance Armstrong in the past, I'm calling BS on Landis' accusers.
I've heard this argument about Landis -- there was no reason to take steroids at the point in the race in which he took them -- and I addressed it on my old blog:

In my posts on this, I've suggested that Landis had every reason to use testosterone before the 17th stage of the Tour de France. He had performed so badly on the 16th stage that he was written off asa serious competitor. He needed to do something spectacular on the 17th stage to get back in contention. I suggested that testosterone could, indeed, give him the kind of aggressiveness needed for the kind of performance he needed. But so far, no expert quoted ina story that I've read has even mentioned this possibility. They all say some version of this: "Testosterone only works over an extended period of time, with no acute effects that could help a cyclist on the day of a crucial race."
So, finally, I went to an actual expert, my old friend Tom Incledon. Tom, as you'll see from his website, specializes in sophisticated analysis of body fluids to determine hormone levels, nutritional status, disease risk, and all kinds of things I can't even spell, much less understand. He's done drug testing for any number of organizations, including the IOC and NCAA, and currently tests tens of thousands of athletes and individuals for everything imaginable. In other words, the guy knows as much about drug testing as anyone.
And Tom agrees with my theory about why Landis would've taken testosterone before the 17th stage of the Tour. "Years ago," he told me ina phone conversation this afternoon, "sprinters and throwers would do a very large dose of testosterone right before an event."
Why?
Because testosterone does more than build muscles and increase strength over defined periods of time. It also stimulates the central nervous system, allowing an athlete to push himself harder and compete more aggressively.
All signs point to Landis using testosterone for just that reason. Incledon speculates that Landis was told the drug would be out of his system by the time he finished the race. But it wasn't, as shown by the dramatic difference between the hormone levels in his urine after the 17th stage and at other times during the race.

Landis has been using the O.J. defense, saying that officials are prejudiced and his samples were mishandled. But I don't think there's any way to mishandle urine in a way that it comes up positive for synthetic testosterone in both the A and B samples. That would be the result of a criminal conspiracy, not a lab error.
Looking back over the Landis case, and other cases of doping among elite cyclists, I wondered what other myths about steroids are commonly accepted by sports fans. My list is by no means complete, so feel free to add your own in the comments.
Myth #1: Steroids don't make you bigger and stronger
I found a version of this myth in my local paper this morning, from sports columnist Gary Blockus:

I know that anabolic steroids accelerate the process of protein synthesis, overworking the liver in order to speed muscle tissue repair from damage brought on by training. Simply put, steroids don't make you bigger and faster; training does. Steroids allow you to train more often, with less rest between sessions. The higher volume of training at peak levels allows for greater peak performances.

I've gotten ripped for saying this, but research has shown conclusively that steroids increase muscle-fiber size, period. You can train or not train, and the drugs themselves make muscles bigger. That doesn't mean training is meaningless; of course the effects of the steroids are magnified with training, and of course the drugs help you train harder and longer, and recover faster.
It seems like a slight point, but it's an important one to make: Steroids don't just help hard-working athletes like Barry Bonds. They can help lazy ones as well.
Consider this study, which was published last year. The investigators, including steroid-research pioneer Shalender Bhasin, gave older men testosterone for 20 weeks. They explicitly instructed the men not to do any type of exercise during the study, and the list of what not to do included strength training. The men increased muscle-fiber size and satellite-cell activation. Satellite cells matter because they become, in effect, extra muscle fibers that are only available to people who have used steroids.
This is anecdotal and entirely unscientific, but when I've worked with models for my books and magazine articles, the former steroid users tend to have more amazing-looking muscles than models who haven't used them. Even if they're the same size, the ex-juicers just seem to have more muscle -- greater density, more ripples. I don't have any idea if humans have enough satellite cells to create that effect. I also don't know if those satellite cells stay activated after someone stops using steroids, or if those activated cells could continue to contribute to performance years later. I just know that the former juicers' muscles look different from those of the non-juicers, in my admittedly limited experience.
Myth #2: We should rely on published research to tell us what steroids can and can't do
I see this come up a lot with human growth hormone. Some smart blogger or sportswriter will dig up a bunch of studies showing the hGH doesn't make people stronger or help them recover faster from injuries, and then that column gets linked around as if it's the final word on the subject.
The fact is that anabolic drugs cannot be studied the same way we study prescription medications, as Sal Marinello explains here:

Like it or not, the vast majority of "research" that has been conducted on what drugs work, how they work, how to take them and any other tidbits of info with regards to steroids, their use and the outcomes has been conducted in basements, garages and gyms over the past 40-plus years. And the people who have been conducting this "research" aren't your typical white-coat and beaker types either, but are yourbody builder/power lifter gym rat types. Oh sure, there is some legit research out there on the subject, but this research doesn't deal with the real world realities of steroids and their use. This research deals with -- and must operate within -- the parameters set by the ethical constrains of the real world and of the Hippocratic Oath. Athletes who want to cheat for fame and vast riches don't care for such things. "People With Dirty Hands" are the true experts when it comes to steroids, their use and misuse. The guy in the lab can tell you why steroids are bad for you, but they aren't the experts when it comes to telling us why and how certain steroids work. Not on the scale that pertains to athletes who cheat.

Myth #3: Steroids won't help an athlete perform a complex task like hitting a baseball
Dr. Gary Gaffney addresses that one here:

Some fans argue that it takes hand-eye coordination to hit home runs, and that "steroids (PEDs) will not improve this athletic skill." Once again wrong. An athlete needs basic skills to perform at a high level. However, drug enhancement of athletic ability clearly occurs. Research indicates that a baseball's velocity coming off the bat is related to bat speed. Researchers have shown that muscleanabolic drug use can add extra power. development increases bat speed, and thus "hit ball" velocity. Weight training will improve bat speed;
Other PEDs improve athletic performance, too. Stimulants improve concentration as well as motor coordination. HGH, in conjunction with steroids or insulin, appear to improve strength and recovery. For each aspect of human performance, a drug can be found to enhance that parameter.

A corollary myth about steroid use in baseball goes something like this: "Pitchers were taking steroids too. When pitchers throw harder and the hitters swing harder, they cancel each other out."
Going back to my old blog once again, here's why the hitters still got a greater advantage from using steroids:

Pitchers, no matter how many steroids they take and how many surgeries they receive, have a natural limit to how fast they can throw a ball. Hitters may have a natural limit, too -- after all, no one's hit balls farther than Mickey Mantle -- but a juiced hitter can change the game more than a juiced pitcher. The pitcher still has to put the ball over the plate, and even non-juiced hitters in the major leagues can foul off the hardest fastballs, waiting for the pitcher to makea mistake and give them a pitch they can drive. Since 1998, the height of the steroid era, hitters have steadily increased the number of pitches they see per at-bat.
I'm not sure why it happened then. Maybe it's because of statistical analysis (even though it was five years before Moneyball), with teams figuring out that it made more sense to take pitchers deeper into counts, draw more walks, and get starting pitchers out of games earlier. Maybe it wasa reaction to juiced-up pitchers throwing harder -- hitters started fouling off more pitches and developing more patience, waiting to see something other than the pitcher's chemically enhanced heat.
Whatever it was, batters adjusted to pitchers throwing harder.
Pitchers, however, couldn't adjust to hitters swinging harder. They could walk guys like McGwire and Bonds, of course, but if multiple guys ina lineup are juicing, they have to pitch to someone.
And, perhaps most important, outfielders can't adjust to balls going over fences. The battle between pitcher and hitter takes place ina narrowly defined strike zone, but the defense can't ever get beyond the outfield wall. No matter how many drugs a pitcher might take, he still has to put the ball into that designated space. But a juiced-up hitter has all the space in the world, once he puts the ball over the fence. The defensive possibilities are finite, but the offensive vista is infinite.
source: malepatternfitness.com

Good post The first myth is always put out there by people who don't understand steroids. You made a good point about the research data you found concerning men taking test for 20 weeks with no exercise, yet still gaining muscle. Steroids do build muscle and strength. Look at Arnold Schwarzenegger, the guy was 140lbs and had a 39 inch chest when he first started weight training. However, through his yearly usage of steroids along with a training program, he built himself a Mr. Olympia physique.

Usually the people that say steroids don't build strength or size are the people speaking against steroids. We all know as users of AAS what they do, and damn they are powerfull hormones. My cousin took them when he weighed 155lbs with a starting bench of 200lbs. After 2 bulking cycles he weighed in at 180lbs with a bench of 300lbs. LOL.

Good post mate