Steroid Users Forever Have an Advantage

[caleb_m]

Interesting article that was just put out looking at the muscle cells of former steroid users. I think many of us worked under the assumption that this was true, but now there is some actual supporting evidence on the cellular level.

Higher myonuclei density in muscle fibers persists among former users of anabolic androgenic steroids

Abstract:

Background and objective

No information exists on the long-lasting effects of supraphysiological anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) usage on the myocellular properties of human skeletal muscle in previous AAS users. We hypothesized former AAS users would demonstrate smaller myonuclei domains (i.e., higher myonuclei density) compared to matched controls.

Methods

A community-based cross-sectional study in men aged 18-50 years engaged in recreational strength training. Muscle biopsies were obtained from the m. vastus lateralis. Immunofluorescence analyses were performed to quantify myonuclei density and myofiber size.

Results

Twenty-five males were included: 8 current and 7 previous AAS users and 10 controls. Median (25th-75th percentiles) accumulated duration of AAS use was 174 (101–206) and 140 (24–260) weeks in current and former AAS users, respectively (P = 0.482). Geometric mean (95%CI) elapsed duration since AAS cessation was 4.0 (1.2; 12.7) years among former AAS users. Type II muscle fibers in former AAS users displayed higher myonuclei density and DNA-to-cytoplasm ratio than controls, corresponding to smaller myonuclei domains (P = 0.013). Longer accumulated AAS use (weeks, log2) was associated with smaller myonuclei domains in previous AAS users, beta-coefficient (95%CI), -94 (-169; -18), P = 0.024. Type I fibers in current AAS users exhibited a higher amount of satellite cells per myofiber (P = 0.031) compared to controls.

Conclusion

Muscle fibers in former AAS users demonstrated persistently higher myonuclei density and DNA-to-cytoplasm ratio four years after AAS cessation suggestive of enhanced retraining capacity.

 

[firsthandsemiuniversalist]

@caleb_m I won’t go into details but I can confirm that there are definitely longterm benefits to PED use. If you do a cycle of anabolic steroids for let’s say, 9 months, it wouldn’t be crazy to see a back squat increase of 100 lbs (depending on fitness levels and all that of course).

If you completely stagnate after that cycle and stop training of course you’ll lose strength, but if you continue to train you could easily maintain at least 80% of those strength gains.

This has always been my question when it comes to athletes like Ricky Garrard, he’s already reaped the benefits of PEDs and those will stay with him forever. I can’t see a 4 year time out changing that.

 

[marieeeee]

@firsthandsemiuniversalist A “thought experiment” I’ve gone over with a lot of people is: what if someone uses PEDs for years and then discovers CrossFit. They decide to compete and thus cycle off their drugs. They still have the permanent benefits and they never broke any rules.

 

[bigred009]

@firsthandsemiuniversalist That’s why I think most use prior to being on the radar and then once on, they either change their dosage or the type of drug used to something that’s easier to cycle or wouldn’t show up in a urine test.

 

[firsthandsemiuniversalist]

@bigred009 I’ll always wonder

 

[inquisitivesoul]

@bigred009 This comment nails it

 

[ballerspicy2423]

@firsthandsemiuniversalist I wouldn't be too sorry for the rest of the competitors. It's not like they are clean either, they just haven't been caught

 

[firsthandsemiuniversalist]

@ballerspicy2423 I honestly don’t know but I do wonder

 

[elsa]

@firsthandsemiuniversalist I argued about something like that over a decade ago on a basketball related message board. Told the guys that every single Tour de France cyclist was on pretty much every ped on the planet. Most of them were Texans, and they would deny, and defend Lance Armstrong to the death. Fast forward a couple years, and what’s that? Lance admitting to using every ped known to man? No way. It’s like that in every sport, where peds can make a difference between being a good athlete, or world class.

 

[bryher1980]

@elsa Yeah most cyclists took PEDs at that time. However what US Postal/Armstrong did went way beyond that. There are also hints that his body actually responded much better to PEDs than compared to other cyclists at that time.
And don't forget that you still need to put in the work, juice or not.

 

[elsa]

@bryher1980 More than some, but not all. Bjarne Riis was known in german athlete circles as „rollende Apotheke“. Rolling pharmacy. He had such bad athletic potential, compared to someone like Ullrich, that he had to push himself close to death with peds, to be able to compete. Another nickname of Riis was „Mr 60%“, because he was measured internally by Telekom with up to 64% hematocrit. Basically life threatening.

 

[shanec2000]

@elsa Shocking

 

[ballerspicy2423]

@bryher1980 But you can't put in the work without the PEDs. One of the big differences drugs make is the ability to constantly recover and keep going.

 

[bryher1980]

@ballerspicy2423 You don't get my point. Even if you use PEDs you need to train your ass off and can't just lay on the couch.
Of course the shorter recovery does allow you to train harder more often.

 

[ballerspicy2423]

@bryher1980 I get your point. Someone on PEDs has to put in less work than someone natural, and someone natural probably isn't capable of training the same way as the drugged up people do. Saying "you still need to put in the work" takes away from the fact that it's not even possible without the drugs.

 

[jomary]

@ballerspicy2423 I totally understand your point sir! My thought has always been, “What if they put in the same amount of work?” Or more accurately, that someone on PEDs can actually put in more work. If you are trying to be the best, you aren’t saying, “I put in half effort but can now compete with these guys.”

I’ve always thought, take the top 30 at the Games, assuming they are all putting in maximum effort into diet and training. How is it that the winner every year who is supposedly natural, can beat other guys in the field on PEDs? Unless they are all on them?

 

[ballerspicy2423]

@jomary Well I think you just answered yourself. No one's going to win natural

 

[betzaidak]

@bryher1980 "also hints"

Lol. There were no such hints until the argument started rising that Armstrong was just leveling the playing field like everyone else. The response by the Armstrong haters was . . ."NOOOOOOOoooooo. He's worse than all my heroes (like Pantani or Uhlrich)! . . Hmm. Let's see. I got it!. . . Armstrong responded better to drugs than everyone else!! Yeah, that's it! So, he was the real cheater after all!"

 

[rbcola]

@firsthandsemiuniversalist What’s it like to be that gullible? Lol

 

[alissa]

@firsthandsemiuniversalist A 9 month cycle?