TRT for competitive powerlifters?

[Millard Baker]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 Baker]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by SWALE

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 Baker]

Originally Posted by SWALE

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.

Google it

[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 Baker]

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.

Originally Posted by 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 Baker]

Originally Posted by SWALE

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 Baker]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 "patients on steroids" 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 Baker]

Originally Posted by SWALE

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?

[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 Baker]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.