Steroids, Creatine & other supplements

  • Thread starter Google Beta User
  • Start date



"Proton Soup" <[email protected]> wrote
> GWB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>After I have killfiled all the roidheads with shrunken balls and ISP
>>snobs with shrunken minds, I may actually continue to read this group.
>
> Nice try, but you're on cox, sucker.

Heh heh, you said cox sucker.

David
 
DZ <[email protected]> wrote:
>spodosaurus <spodosaurus@_yahoo_.com> wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>> Will Brink <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Freezer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>So the dozens of studies, hundreds of doctors, and thousands of
>>>>>first-hand testimonials about "roid rage" are all made up, are they?
>>>>
>>>>We got us a grade A first class retard here folks.
>>>
>>> What about double-blind studies? Add me to the retard list.
>>> http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol15N4/Study.html
>>>
>>
>> This is another example of (possibly) poor science, poor reporting, or
>> possibly both. I say possibly in front of 'poor science' because what
>> you cited was a WRITER'S 'impression' of what the actual study covered.
>> In this case it was only ONE out of 50 that had any sort of
>> aggression, and it doesn't say whether this guy was a ***** beforehand
>> or not. The ratings were on a mania scale, not a direct measure of
>> aggression, yet another shortcoming of this study...I *wonder* how it
>> got approval (but then, this wasn't the actual study, just some writer's
>> impression of it). In terms of the actual aggression testing done, it
>> was based on depriving what the participant believed to be an opponent
>> in another room (actually just a computer) of points on a COMPUTER GAME,
>> not really a 'grab a gun and go postal' sort of scenario! Also, most
>> people don't understand how statistical 'significance' doesn't match
>> with the everyday connotation of the word significant (apparently our
>> writer friend summarising the study for us is a bit hazy on this point,
>> too). It may show up with application of mathematical formulas, but
>> nowhere near that to be considered the mythical 'roid rage'. The report
>> you cited also says nothing about the pre-steroid scores on the two
>> psychological measures, and that's assuming they were even done! The
>> report is chock full of holes where details should be, as well as the
>> use of ambigious language.
>
>This report is NIH approved summary of scientific studies. It doesn't
>need to have the details you're talking about. Even then, it indicates
>that various pre-study measurements were taken:
>
>"Those who reacted with manic symptoms were not more likely to have
>taken steroids before, to have been a weightlifter, or to have a
>family history of psychiatric disorder. They also did not differ in
>various physiological measures, such as the blood level of
>testosterone following the steroid injections".
>
>Otherwise you make good points for someone to consider while digging
>up the original reports.

Well, the one study cited in the NIDA article noted in its conclusion:

"[M]ost showed little psychological change, whereas a few developed
prominent effects. The mechanism of these variable reactions remains
unclear."

I wonder if there was some level of bipolar affective disorder in those
who had a prominent response. Adding supraphysiological doses of
testosterone elicits a manic episode; withdrawal causes the type of
suicidal depression that is being batted around as one the horrific
results of steroid use. A possibility to consider?
 
Will Brink wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> spodosaurus <spodosaurus@_yahoo_.com> wrote:
>
>
>>DZ wrote:
>>
>>>Will Brink <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>Freezer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If I don't reply to this Robert Schuh post, the terrorists win.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Don't ask me to defend this nation's drug policy. However, there
>>>>>>>are costs to taking steroids. I've known people that have been
>>>>>>>into them, and it does affect their personalities.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jack,
>>>>>>You are a moron. There is no such thing as "roid rage." It is
>>>>>>painfully obvious that you know NOTHING about anabolic steroids,
>>>>>>so why comment?
>>>>>
>>>>>So the dozens of studies, hundreds of doctors, and thousands of
>>>>>first-hand testimonials about "roid rage" are all made up, are they?
>>>>
>>>>We got us a grade A first class retard here folks.
>>>
>>>
>>>What about double-blind studies? Add me to the retard list.
>>>http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol15N4/Study.html
>>>
>>>DZ
>>
>>This is another example of (possibly) poor science, poor reporting, or
>>possibly both. I say possibly in front of 'poor science' because what
>>you cited was a WRITER'S 'impression' of what the actual study covered.
>
>
> All of Pope's "research" is like that. He's a psychologist not a
> scientist. He means well and is actually a nice guy, but...
>

Please don't paint all psychologists like that. Some of us actually try
to do good, rigourous science and address the shortcomings of our work
as well as what the results indicate.

Ari

--
spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo

I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my
neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. Complications in
hospital following this resulted in a serious illness. I now need a bone
marrow transplant. Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow
transplant, too. Please volunteer to be a marrow donor:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/
 
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:19:40 -0600, GWB <[email protected]> wrote:

>After I have killfiled all the roidheads with shrunken balls

I'm probably not the only one here that would be interested to learn
just how you "killfile" with "shrunken balls"!! It is not a method
with which I am familiar!!

>and ISP
>snobs with shrunken minds, I may actually continue to read this group.

We shall be enormously grateful if you would accord us that honour!!
;o)

Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(
 
On 21 Mar 2005 03:22:06 GMT, DZ
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Will Brink <[email protected]> wrote:
>> spodosaurus <spodosaurus@_yahoo_.com> wrote:
>>> > What about double-blind studies? Add me to the retard list.
>>> > http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol15N4/Study.html
>>>
>>> This is another example of (possibly) poor science, poor reporting, or
>>> possibly both. I say possibly in front of 'poor science' because what
>>> you cited was a WRITER'S 'impression' of what the actual study covered.
>>
>> All of Pope's "research" is like that. He's a psychologist not a
>> scientist. He means well and is actually a nice guy, but...
>
>I checked out his research and he is certainly a scientist.
>
>Interestingly, he has LOTS of papers with over 100 peer-reviewed
>citations, some with over 500, and he is listed by the Institute for
>Scientific Information as a highly cited scientist.

I believe you begin to get the flavour of our Slippery ***** Brinks,
who spends most of his time bullshitting while cunningly attempting to
part the general public from its hard-earned cash!!

Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(
 
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:31:38 -0500, JMW <[email protected]> wrote:

>DZ <[email protected]> wrote:
>>spodosaurus <spodosaurus@_yahoo_.com> wrote:
>>> DZ wrote:
>>>> Will Brink <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Freezer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>So the dozens of studies, hundreds of doctors, and thousands of
>>>>>>first-hand testimonials about "roid rage" are all made up, are they?
>>>>>
>>>>>We got us a grade A first class retard here folks.
>>>>
>>>> What about double-blind studies? Add me to the retard list.
>>>> http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol15N4/Study.html
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is another example of (possibly) poor science, poor reporting, or
>>> possibly both. I say possibly in front of 'poor science' because what
>>> you cited was a WRITER'S 'impression' of what the actual study covered.
>>> In this case it was only ONE out of 50 that had any sort of
>>> aggression, and it doesn't say whether this guy was a ***** beforehand
>>> or not. The ratings were on a mania scale, not a direct measure of
>>> aggression, yet another shortcoming of this study...I *wonder* how it
>>> got approval (but then, this wasn't the actual study, just some writer's
>>> impression of it). In terms of the actual aggression testing done, it
>>> was based on depriving what the participant believed to be an opponent
>>> in another room (actually just a computer) of points on a COMPUTER GAME,
>>> not really a 'grab a gun and go postal' sort of scenario! Also, most
>>> people don't understand how statistical 'significance' doesn't match
>>> with the everyday connotation of the word significant (apparently our
>>> writer friend summarising the study for us is a bit hazy on this point,
>>> too). It may show up with application of mathematical formulas, but
>>> nowhere near that to be considered the mythical 'roid rage'. The report
>>> you cited also says nothing about the pre-steroid scores on the two
>>> psychological measures, and that's assuming they were even done! The
>>> report is chock full of holes where details should be, as well as the
>>> use of ambigious language.
>>
>>This report is NIH approved summary of scientific studies. It doesn't
>>need to have the details you're talking about. Even then, it indicates
>>that various pre-study measurements were taken:
>>
>>"Those who reacted with manic symptoms were not more likely to have
>>taken steroids before, to have been a weightlifter, or to have a
>>family history of psychiatric disorder. They also did not differ in
>>various physiological measures, such as the blood level of
>>testosterone following the steroid injections".
>>
>>Otherwise you make good points for someone to consider while digging
>>up the original reports.
>
>Well, the one study cited in the NIDA article noted in its conclusion:
>
>"[M]ost showed little psychological change, whereas a few developed
>prominent effects. The mechanism of these variable reactions remains
>unclear."
>
>I wonder if there was some level of bipolar affective disorder in those
>who had a prominent response. Adding supraphysiological doses of
>testosterone elicits a manic episode; withdrawal causes the type of
>suicidal depression that is being batted around as one the horrific
>results of steroid use. A possibility to consider?

The possibility of a predisposing condition being responsible for
symptoms displayed while in withdrawal cannot ever be discounted.

Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(
 
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 01:00:49 -0600, Proton Soup <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:47:34 +0800, spodosaurus
><spodosaurus@_yahoo_.com> wrote:
>
>>DZ wrote:
>>> spodosaurus <spodosaurus@_yahoo_.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>DZ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Will Brink <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Freezer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So the dozens of studies, hundreds of doctors, and thousands of
>>>>>>>first-hand testimonials about "roid rage" are all made up, are they?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We got us a grade A first class retard here folks.
>>>>>
>>>>>What about double-blind studies? Add me to the retard list.
>>>>>http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol15N4/Study.html
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is another example of (possibly) poor science, poor reporting, or
>>>>possibly both. I say possibly in front of 'poor science' because what
>>>>you cited was a WRITER'S 'impression' of what the actual study covered.
>>>> In this case it was only ONE out of 50 that had any sort of
>>>>aggression, and it doesn't say whether this guy was a ***** beforehand
>>>>or not. The ratings were on a mania scale, not a direct measure of
>>>>aggression, yet another shortcoming of this study...I *wonder* how it
>>>>got approval (but then, this wasn't the actual study, just some writer's
>>>>impression of it). In terms of the actual aggression testing done, it
>>>>was based on depriving what the participant believed to be an opponent
>>>>in another room (actually just a computer) of points on a COMPUTER GAME,
>>>>not really a 'grab a gun and go postal' sort of scenario! Also, most
>>>>people don't understand how statistical 'significance' doesn't match
>>>>with the everyday connotation of the word significant (apparently our
>>>>writer friend summarising the study for us is a bit hazy on this point,
>>>>too). It may show up with application of mathematical formulas, but
>>>>nowhere near that to be considered the mythical 'roid rage'. The report
>>>>you cited also says nothing about the pre-steroid scores on the two
>>>>psychological measures, and that's assuming they were even done! The
>>>>report is chock full of holes where details should be, as well as the
>>>>use of ambigious language.
>>>
>>>
>>> This report is NIH approved summary of scientific studies. It doesn't
>>> need to have the details you're talking about. Even then, it indicates
>>> that various pre-study measurements were taken:
>>>
>>> "Those who reacted with manic symptoms were not more likely to have
>>> taken steroids before, to have been a weightlifter, or to have a
>>> family history of psychiatric disorder. They also did not differ in
>>> various physiological measures, such as the blood level of
>>> testosterone following the steroid injections".
>>>
>>> Otherwise you make good points for someone to consider while digging
>>> up the original reports.
>>>
>>> While you may be right the issue is not as clear-cut as to justify
>>> calling someone "grade A retard".
>>>
>>> DZ
>>
>>You'll note that I did not use those terms, and indeed only referenced
>>your use of similar terms in quotation marks. That said, the study also
>>used testosterone rather than any of the dozens of other anabolic
>>steroids that are more popular and less likely to get the results the
>>study's authors planned to get beforehand. Even then, they only got 1
>>out of 50, and as I stated before this guy may have been a ********
>>beforehand (and as far as I know, we don't have a PSDHB test -
>>PreSteroid ******** Battery test) :) Personally, I'd really like to
>>have some good science done on this issue! Even my doctors were
>>concerned about increased aggression when putting me on anabolic
>>steroids to keep me alive, such is the prevalence of this
>>unsubstantiated myth. Needles to say, I'm just as grumpy now as I was
>>beforehand. Indeed, I've calmed down quite a bit...but don't tell anyone.
>
>Hmph. :| As if "aggression" in itself is a bad thing. It's all about
>what you do with it.

Well in your case PS you have two ways of handling "aggression"!!

a. Be as unpleasant as possible whenever you feel like it while
hiding behind the safety net of anonymity.

b. Avoid all incoming "aggression" from those responding to your
outgoing "aggression", by running from it, ignoring it, allegedly
"killfiling" it, or proving what a dumbshit you really are by making
oblique references to it using the 3rd party 'piggy-back' method, with
unintended irony added, when you advise others how to deal with it!!

c. Proclaim anyone who responds to you in a negative way as a
"troll"!!

Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(
 
In misc.fitness.weights JMW <[email protected]> wrote:
> DZ <[email protected]> wrote:
>>spodosaurus <spodosaurus@_yahoo_.com> wrote:
>>> DZ wrote:
>>>> Will Brink <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Freezer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>So the dozens of studies, hundreds of doctors, and thousands of
>>>>>>first-hand testimonials about "roid rage" are all made up, are they?

>>>>>We got us a grade A first class retard here folks.

>>>> What about double-blind studies? Add me to the retard list.
>>>> http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol15N4/Study.html

>>> This is another example of (possibly) poor science, poor reporting, or
>>> possibly both. I say possibly in front of 'poor science' because what
>>> you cited was a WRITER'S 'impression' of what the actual study covered.
>>> In this case it was only ONE out of 50 that had any sort of
>>> aggression, and it doesn't say whether this guy was a ***** beforehand
>>> or not. The ratings were on a mania scale, not a direct measure of
>>> aggression, yet another shortcoming of this study...I *wonder* how it
>>> got approval (but then, this wasn't the actual study, just some writer's
>>> impression of it). In terms of the actual aggression testing done, it
>>> was based on depriving what the participant believed to be an opponent
>>> in another room (actually just a computer) of points on a COMPUTER GAME,
>>> not really a 'grab a gun and go postal' sort of scenario! Also, most
>>> people don't understand how statistical 'significance' doesn't match
>>> with the everyday connotation of the word significant (apparently our
>>> writer friend summarising the study for us is a bit hazy on this point,
>>> too). It may show up with application of mathematical formulas, but
>>> nowhere near that to be considered the mythical 'roid rage'. The report
>>> you cited also says nothing about the pre-steroid scores on the two
>>> psychological measures, and that's assuming they were even done! The
>>> report is chock full of holes where details should be, as well as the
>>> use of ambigious language.

>>This report is NIH approved summary of scientific studies. It doesn't
>>need to have the details you're talking about. Even then, it indicates
>>that various pre-study measurements were taken:
>>
>>"Those who reacted with manic symptoms were not more likely to have
>>taken steroids before, to have been a weightlifter, or to have a
>>family history of psychiatric disorder. They also did not differ in
>>various physiological measures, such as the blood level of
>>testosterone following the steroid injections".

> Well, the one study cited in the NIDA article noted in its conclusion:

> "[M]ost showed little psychological change, whereas a few developed
> prominent effects. The mechanism of these variable reactions remains
> unclear."

> I wonder if there was some level of bipolar affective disorder in those
> who had a prominent response. Adding supraphysiological doses of
> testosterone elicits a manic episode; withdrawal causes the type of
> suicidal depression that is being batted around as one the horrific
> results of steroid use. A possibility to consider?

Of course, but you don't need to go as far as psychopathology.
Different personalities have different kinds of hormone balances and
control regimes and are therefore likely to have different kinds of
reactions to hormone supplements, especially where aspects of
personality such as irritability and temper are concerned.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 
In article <[email protected]>,
spodosaurus <spodosaurus@_yahoo_.com> wrote:

> Will Brink wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > spodosaurus <spodosaurus@_yahoo_.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>DZ wrote:
> >>
> >>>Will Brink <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>In article <[email protected]>,
> >>>>Freezer <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>If I don't reply to this Robert Schuh post, the terrorists win.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>Don't ask me to defend this nation's drug policy. However, there
> >>>>>>>are costs to taking steroids. I've known people that have been
> >>>>>>>into them, and it does affect their personalities.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Jack,
> >>>>>>You are a moron. There is no such thing as "roid rage." It is
> >>>>>>painfully obvious that you know NOTHING about anabolic steroids,
> >>>>>>so why comment?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>So the dozens of studies, hundreds of doctors, and thousands of
> >>>>>first-hand testimonials about "roid rage" are all made up, are they?
> >>>>
> >>>>We got us a grade A first class retard here folks.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>What about double-blind studies? Add me to the retard list.
> >>>http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol15N4/Study.html
> >>>
> >>>DZ
> >>
> >>This is another example of (possibly) poor science, poor reporting, or
> >>possibly both. I say possibly in front of 'poor science' because what
> >>you cited was a WRITER'S 'impression' of what the actual study covered.
> >
> >
> > All of Pope's "research" is like that. He's a psychologist not a
> > scientist. He means well and is actually a nice guy, but...
> >
>
> Please don't paint all psychologists like that. Some of us actually try
> to do good,

I don't actually think Pope has done "bad" work per se, just that the
findings are of very limited use and the conclusions unproven, yet
people will treat it as being equal other research. Expectation has to
be one of the strongest of all human traits.

> rigourous science and address the shortcomings of our work
> as well as what the results indicate.

I am not painting them in any light. Physcologists can do great work and
the issue of psychology is a personal interest of mine.

>
> Ari

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
 
In article <[email protected]>,
DZ <[email protected]> wrote:

> Will Brink <[email protected]> wrote:
> > spodosaurus <spodosaurus@_yahoo_.com> wrote:
> >> > What about double-blind studies? Add me to the retard list.
> >> > http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol15N4/Study.html
> >>
> >> This is another example of (possibly) poor science, poor reporting, or
> >> possibly both. I say possibly in front of 'poor science' because what
> >> you cited was a WRITER'S 'impression' of what the actual study covered.
> >
> > All of Pope's "research" is like that. He's a psychologist not a
> > scientist. He means well and is actually a nice guy, but...
>
> I checked out his research and he is certainly a scientist.
>
> Interestingly, he has LOTS of papers with over 100 peer-reviewed
> citations, some with over 500, and he is listed by the Institute for
> Scientific Information as a highly cited scientist.

I you feel that makes the work he does as good science, that's your
choice. He means well and he's a nice guy, but I find the methodology
and conclusions that come from that methodology lacking much of the
time. He has also done some interesting stuff, for example, showing men
with low T suffer more depression, and raising their T, greatly reduced
depression. Androgens have complex effects that go both ways, but the
real issue is blanket statements made by ignorant kids about "roid rage"
and the favorite Lyle Alzado refs.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Freezer <[email protected]> wrote:

> If I don't reply to this Will Brink post, the terrorists win.
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Freezer <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> If I don't reply to this Will Brink post, the terrorists win.
> >>
> >> >> So could you tell me why I'm wrong in ways that don't involve
> >> >> 2nd- grade class insults?
> >> >
> >> > I would if I thought you would be able to understand it. Ask
> >> > specific well thought out questions, vs posting stupid
> >> > statements, and perhaps you will get an answer
> >>
> >> "Tell me why I'm wrong" isn't a specific question?
> >
> > No grasshapa, it's not.
>
> Hmm... Apparently steroids make you beligerent, dismissive, and
> defensive, as well.

I can be all those things, but at least I am not a retarded twerp.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
 
In article <[email protected]>,
DZ <[email protected]> wrote:

> Will Brink <[email protected]> wrote:
> > DZ wrote:
> >> Will Brink <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > spodosaurus <spodosaurus@_yahoo_.com> wrote:
> >> >> > What about double-blind studies? Add me to the retard list.
> >> >> > http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol15N4/Study.html
> >> >>
> >> >> This is another example of (possibly) poor science, poor reporting, or
> >> >> possibly both. I say possibly in front of 'poor science' because what
> >> >> you cited was a WRITER'S 'impression' of what the actual study covered.
> >> >
> >> > All of Pope's "research" is like that. He's a psychologist not a
> >> > scientist. He means well and is actually a nice guy, but...
> >>
> >> I checked out his research and he is certainly a scientist.
> >>
> >> Interestingly, he has LOTS of papers with over 100 peer-reviewed
> >> citations, some with over 500, and he is listed by the Institute for
> >> Scientific Information as a highly cited scientist.
> >
> > I you feel that makes the work he does as good science, that's your
> > choice.
>
> It's not my choice. It's the choice made by his peers who reference
> his work and that means he has outstanding impact in his field and
> that makes him an outstanding scientist.

How many bad papers not worth what they are printed on get through peer
review? That's a general comment not directed at Pope per se, but it's
no proof at all of being an outstanding scientist.

>
> A typical paper is cited like... never to 2 or 3 times. That is, a
> typical paper is junk and pretty much ignored or maybe self-cited.
>
> > He means well and he's a nice guy, but I find the methodology and
> > conclusions that come from that methodology lacking much of the
> > time. He has also done some interesting stuff, for example, showing
> > men with low T suffer more depression, and raising their T, greatly
> > reduced depression. Androgens have complex effects that go both
> > ways,
>
> I read he's a weightlifter.

Not by the looks of him :)

>
> DZ

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Freezer <[email protected]> wrote:



> >
> > Is that the only steroid you know of? I suggest you castrate
> > yourself as quickly as possible to avoid furthering the rage
> > you've demonstrated here.
>
> Not being a roid head, I am most familiar with anabolic steroids.
> Which are testosterone derivatives. Which are the most popular
> because of their effectiveness and the fact that they won't get
> broken down by the body into estrogen.
>
> If I'm still mistaken, I'll just have to eat my words.

Better start eating...

>
> >> How does having massive amounts of the stuff
> >> in your bloodstream NOT make you more aggressive?
> >
> > "massive amounts"? How much is massive? You must first define your
> > terms before you can test your hypotheses. You seem inclined to do
> > neither, but rather rant and yell and act like an imbecile. You're
> > a prime example of the point I was trying to make: if you took
> > steroids, it wouldn't be the steroids that made you act
> > aggressively, it'd be your own choice to aggress, because you're
> > an ******** before any steroid consumption.
>
> 1) I'd consider having triple the amount of testosterone your body
> normaly produces injected into your ass "massive". As a starting
> point.

That's some deep science you are using there. Good work.

>
> 2) How many non-agressive people use steroids without doctor's
> orders?

Millions over decades actually.


> > I've actually got a lot more against your stance, but you seem
> > unworthy. I hope that somewhere else in this thread I'll be able
> > to respond with some more of my arguement.
>
>
> If you have that much more, why not bring it? Stop me - and those
> that think like me - in my tracks once and for all?
>
> Or are you guys simply concerned that if you do, the conversation
> will segue into the _other_ effects of roid abuse?

At least you have proven that one does not need "roids" to be an idiot...

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
 
In article <[email protected]>,
DZ <[email protected]> wrote:

> Will Brink <[email protected]> wrote:
> > DZ wrote:
> >> Will Brink <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> > All of Pope's "research" is like that. He's a psychologist not a
> >> >> > scientist. He means well and is actually a nice guy, but...
> >> >>
> >> >> I checked out his research and he is certainly a scientist.
> >> >>
> >> >> Interestingly, he has LOTS of papers with over 100 peer-reviewed
> >> >> citations, some with over 500, and he is listed by the Institute for
> >> >> Scientific Information as a highly cited scientist.
> >> >
> >> > I you feel that makes the work he does as good science, that's your
> >> > choice.
> >>
> >> It's not my choice. It's the choice made by his peers who reference
> >> his work and that means he has outstanding impact in his field and
> >> that makes him an outstanding scientist.
> >
> > How many bad papers not worth what they are printed on get through peer
> > review? That's a general comment not directed at Pope per se, but it's
> > no proof at all of being an outstanding scientist.
>
> There are lots of bad papers but unlike Pope's they are not
> cited. There are less than 1% of research scientists that are cited at
> the same rate as Pope. Some of his papers are cited at such high rate
> that only 0.0001 of peer-reviewed papers are cited like that. That is,
> in his field they are very high impact papers.

I will respect your well educated opinion that, but I still don¹t agree.
One of Pope¹s studies was being conducted in my gym. He had grad
students go to gyms and hand out questionnaires with questions like ³how
many supplements do you use?² etc and so on and ³have you ever used
steroids² was on there. Don¹t ya know, steroid use was amazingly low!
Who the F is going to admit to steroid use to a stranger that gave you a
questionnaire?!! This study is cited often when people are talking about
the % of gym goers using steroids and other supps. Wish I had the cite
off the top of my head, but it¹s not science as far as I am concerned
and he has many ³studies² out there like that. Some times you get cited
a great deal for other reasons than putting out great research. I think
you know the reliability of questionnaires in general. Look how many
³cutting edge² studies in nutrition are based on questionnaires making
them all but worthless.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
 
In article <[email protected]>,
DZ <[email protected]> wrote:

> Will Brink <[email protected]> wrote:
> > One of Pope?s studies was being conducted in my gym. He had grad
> > students go to gyms and hand out questionnaires with questions like ³how
> > many supplements do you use?? etc and so on and ³have you ever used
> > steroids? was on there. Don?t ya know, steroid use was amazingly low!
> [...]
>
> Well, he co-authored at least 500 papers, probably some of them are not
> good.
>
> Here is the ISI summary of one of his high-impact papers ("Diagnosis
> in schizophrenia...")
>
> http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1988/A1988N612700001.pdf
>
> I'm not an expert but I doubt it's junk science.

I doubt it's junk science either, but that's not really my point. I do
think most of his steroid based research has very limited use however.
The bottom line of this thread however is that androgens do have
psychoactive effects, but roid rage in the context the idiot used it
does not exist. There is far more data that finds it?s men with low
testosterone that are moody and depressed and raising T reduces
depression (some of Pope?s own data in fact) so it would probably be
some physiological range here, but the number of variables that will
dictate the psychoactive effects, differences in steroids, etc, etc
absolutely eliminates the steroids = roid rage mantra of ill informed
ignorant twits as well as the doctors out there who should know better.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
 
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:18:58 -0500, Will Brink
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> DZ <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Will Brink <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > One of Pope?s studies was being conducted in my gym. He had grad
>> > students go to gyms and hand out questionnaires with questions like ³how
>> > many supplements do you use?? etc and so on and ³have you ever used
>> > steroids? was on there. Don?t ya know, steroid use was amazingly low!
>> [...]
>>
>> Well, he co-authored at least 500 papers, probably some of them are not
>> good.
>>
>> Here is the ISI summary of one of his high-impact papers ("Diagnosis
>> in schizophrenia...")
>>
>> http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1988/A1988N612700001.pdf
>>
>> I'm not an expert but I doubt it's junk science.
>
>I doubt it's junk science either, but that's not really my point. I do
>think most of his steroid based research has very limited use however.
>The bottom line of this thread however is that androgens do have
>psychoactive effects, but roid rage in the context the idiot used it
>does not exist. There is far more data that finds it?s men with low
>testosterone that are moody and depressed and raising T reduces
>depression (some of Pope?s own data in fact) so it would probably be
>some physiological range here, but the number of variables that will
>dictate the psychoactive effects, differences in steroids, etc, etc
>absolutely eliminates the steroids = roid rage mantra of ill informed
>ignorant twits as well as the doctors out there who should know better.

mmmm..... not true Slippery *****!!

There are too many scientific studies, together with anecdotal
evidence from experienced users and observers (including many here)
that make it clear that you are talking out of your 'brown and
puckered' - as usual!!
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Charles <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:18:58 -0500, Will Brink
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > DZ <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Will Brink <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > One of Pope?s studies was being conducted in my gym. He had grad
> >> > students go to gyms and hand out questionnaires with questions like ³how
> >> > many supplements do you use?? etc and so on and ³have you ever used
> >> > steroids? was on there. Don?t ya know, steroid use was amazingly low!
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> Well, he co-authored at least 500 papers, probably some of them are not
> >> good.
> >>
> >> Here is the ISI summary of one of his high-impact papers ("Diagnosis
> >> in schizophrenia...")
> >>
> >> http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1988/A1988N612700001.pdf
> >>
> >> I'm not an expert but I doubt it's junk science.
> >
> >I doubt it's junk science either, but that's not really my point. I do
> >think most of his steroid based research has very limited use however.
> >The bottom line of this thread however is that androgens do have
> >psychoactive effects, but roid rage in the context the idiot used it
> >does not exist. There is far more data that finds it?s men with low
> >testosterone that are moody and depressed and raising T reduces
> >depression (some of Pope?s own data in fact) so it would probably be
> >some physiological range here, but the number of variables that will
> >dictate the psychoactive effects, differences in steroids, etc, etc
> >absolutely eliminates the steroids = roid rage mantra of ill informed
> >ignorant twits as well as the doctors out there who should know better.
>
> mmmm..... not true Slippery *****!!
>
> There are too many scientific studies, together with anecdotal
> evidence from experienced users and observers (including many here)
> that make it clear that you are talking out of your 'brown and
> puckered' - as usual!!
>
>
>

As much as I dislike steroid use in sports I have to disagree. The
evidence indicates that the people who experience depression and/or roid
rage have issues prior to their use. IOW - using steroids is a symptom
with them of underlying problems, not the cause.

The current crop of testimonies in the baseball hearing are typical. The
parents blame steroids. They should be asking themselves why their sons
were so driven by finding significance in sport that they felt compelled
to cheat to try and make it.

I suspect a lot of the blame that is being given to steroids should
really be aimed at poor parenting in these cases. But it is easier to
blame a drug, right?

--
Keith
 
"Hobbes" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> As much as I dislike steroid use in sports I have to disagree. The
> evidence indicates that the people who experience depression and/or roid
> rage have issues prior to their use. IOW - using steroids is a symptom
> with them of underlying problems, not the cause.
>
> The current crop of testimonies in the baseball hearing are typical. The
> parents blame steroids. They should be asking themselves why their sons
> were so driven by finding significance in sport that they felt compelled
> to cheat to try and make it.
>
> I suspect a lot of the blame that is being given to steroids should
> really be aimed at poor parenting in these cases. But it is easier to
> blame a drug, right?
>

This would be a logical extension of those crazed liitle league parents. If
you had crazies like that for parents, ANYTHING would be acceptable to
acheive the impossible ideals of dad (mostly) amd mom.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:

> "Hobbes" <[email protected]> wrote
> >
> > As much as I dislike steroid use in sports I have to disagree. The
> > evidence indicates that the people who experience depression and/or roid
> > rage have issues prior to their use. IOW - using steroids is a symptom
> > with them of underlying problems, not the cause.
> >
> > The current crop of testimonies in the baseball hearing are typical. The
> > parents blame steroids. They should be asking themselves why their sons
> > were so driven by finding significance in sport that they felt compelled
> > to cheat to try and make it.
> >
> > I suspect a lot of the blame that is being given to steroids should
> > really be aimed at poor parenting in these cases. But it is easier to
> > blame a drug, right?
> >
>
> This would be a logical extension of those crazed liitle league parents. If
> you had crazies like that for parents, ANYTHING would be acceptable to
> acheive the impossible ideals of dad (mostly) amd mom.
>
>

Yeah. And I'm sure it isn't just the parents. There is peer pressure,
pressure at school, etc. The media contributes and they reflect societal
values. But at some point parents have to let their children know that
sports really aren't the point of living.

It hurt me to say that...

:^)

--
Keith
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back