Smart Answers To Old Arguments (www.t-mag.com)

**RoNNy THe BuLL** · 10-07-2002, 11:40 AM

I read this over and it's quite funny. Thought a few people would get a kick out of reading this. The reason I posted the text rather than the URL? Who needs another page open on their desktop....

Here's the link for reference purposes anyways:
http://www.t-mag.com/articles/229smart.html

Smart Answers to Tired Old Arguments
How to get through the day without
killing the random doctor, nutritionist,
or personal trainer.
by Cy Willson

Let's say you're at the doctor's office, or in the gym, and you step knee-deep into a conversation that involves a subject like anabolic steroids , various supplements, exercise routines, calorie intake, etc. The next thing you know, you're hit with some moronic statement that makes you want to bitch slap the person who just said it.

In the following article, I'm going to give you a quick response to shut him/her up the next time they make some ill-founded comment. In all fairness though, and to ensure that I'm not consequently jumped by my siblings (One MD and two Pharmacy Doctorates between them) at our next family gathering, I will give one quick note. Although health professionals shouldn't talk about things they don't know much about, at the same time we shouldn't blame them for their lack of knowledge.

After all, it's not your family practice physician's job to keep up on the latest info on anabolic steroids or the latest info on post workout supplementation and you also have to keep in mind that they receive very little nutritional education (typically one semester). Aside from that, they're supposed to have your best interest in mind, so instead of taking a risk and siding with you on something they're unsure of, they instead oppose you since that releases them from any liability.

One thing that all of these people have in common is that they have to rely on what they were taught, and since textbooks aren't always up-to-date with the latest research and the professors who teach rarely try to find new research, they keep perpetuating a lot of the misinformation. Still, with all that being said, when a person doesn't know the answer to something, he or she should have the balls to admit it, or at least keep their mouth closed.

Tired old argument #1 — Steroids will kill you!

If you get this sort of response from your doctor or well-meaning buttinsky, you should first inform them that there is no conclusive evidence that anabolic steroids, in a direct manner, will indeed lead to a premature death.

Granted, if you use high doses of anabolic steroids constantly for years upon years, you do increase the risk for atherosclerosis due to alterations in blood lipids and possibly heart failure if your blood pressure is constantly elevated over the years. However, with judicious use over short periods of time (i.e. cycling), there is no reason to believe that anabolic steroids will shorten your life span. In fact, replacement doses of Testosterone often improve blood lipid profiles.

Oh, and just a quick side note, I honestly can't tell you how many times that doctors, pharmacists, nurses, and other health professionals that I've talked to don't know that Testosterone is a steroid , or worse yet, confuse anabolic steroids with corticosteroids. This happens very often.

Furthermore, there's no evidence that anabolic steroids cause cancer in any tissue and in fact, they've been used successfully to treat cachexia associated with human immunodeficiency virus, cancer, burns, renal and hepatic failure, and anemia associated with leukemia or kidney failure. Now, most people will be quick to point out the relationship of Testosterone and prostate cancer, but you should be quick to point out that this is done in an indirect manner since it's estrogen and DHT which contribute to BPH and prostate cancer and not Testosterone itself.

Essentially, those anabolic steroids that don't aromatize or reduce won't affect the prostate, and if you use an aromatase inhibitor along with a 5-alpha reductase inhibitor, you can essentially take care of this indirect problem with Testosterone. Aside from that, steroid-induced prostate hypertrophy is usually caused from high dosages of exogenous Testosterone, not from replacement dosages.

Lastly, they should be sure to differentiate those androgens that are 17-alpha alkylated from those that aren't since only those that are 17-AA have been shown to cause liver dysfunction. Even so, when using those 17-AA, liver dysfunction generally occurs with prolonged usage, which isn't encountered when following the usual cycling plans.

Oh, and be sure to inform them that the more lean body mass you have, the longer you'll live, at least by correlation

Tired old argument #2- A calorie is a calorie!

A calorie is not a calorie by any means. Granted, if the amount of calories that you're consuming is exceeded by the amount of calories that you're expending via exercise, you're going to lose "weight" regardless.

However, you must inform them that "weight" isn't what you should be aiming to lose, but instead, fat mass. They need to understand that you want to preserve lean body mass because it has so many beneficial effects (i.e., improved glucose tolerance, increased energy expenditure, etc.) while reducing fat mass.

With that being said, a person whom utilizes a 2,000 calorie/day diet with a high percentage of protein and a moderate amount of fat, along with a lower carbohydrate intake, will indeed lose more fat and preserve more muscle mass than a person who follows an isocaloric diet with high amounts of carbohydrate but low amounts of protein and fat.

It all has to do with how carbs affect insulin secretion/management, and insulin is, to a good degree, what determines how you process food and what percentage of said foods will wind up as fat or muscle.

Not only that, but those who consume higher amounts of omega-3 fatty acids and omega-9 fatty acids will actually have better lipid profiles than those on the high carbohydrate diet. Thus, fat sources are not the same by any means.

Tired old argument #3 — Too much protein is dangerous!

This is bullshit and you should challenge them to find any evidence that demonstrates a high protein intake having any deleterious effects in normal humans who aren't suffering from renal failure.

Since they're basing that statement on info derived from studies done with patients who had renal failure, they won't be able to produce any evidence. Oh, and if they want some "real world" or anecdotal evidence, you can point out that all of those weightlifters and athletes who consumed high amounts of protein since the 1950's and still continue to do so today have no problems with renal function. If it were true that a high protein intake caused kidney damage, then you'd expect the very opposite — a virtual epidemic of kidney disease among lifters.

Likewise, the tired old chestnut about high protein diets leading to calcium deficiencies and eventually, brittle old bones is also bullshit. True, high protein diets can cause some calcium to leech out of bones, but the amount lost in a single day can usually be replaced by the amount of calcium contained in single tablespoon of milk.

Tired old argument #4 — A supplement company can't develop a product that's as effective as something a drug company develops!

Well, give them this fact: Approximately 25% of all pharmaceutical drugs that we use are derived from plants found in rainforests. What's even more amazing is that less than 5% of the forest plant species, as well as less than .1% of the animals species have even been examined for various chemical compounds and potential medicinal value.

Think about how many undiscovered chemical compounds that leaves, not to mention how many potential derivatives of those compounds could exist!

Now, when you think about that, why couldn't a supplement company, or anyone for that matter, happen to find a plant which turns out to contain a chemical of medicinal value? It's not as if only pharmaceutical companies have eyes or that only they have the potential to find plants and examine them for chemical compound content. It's simply a matter of finding the plant, physically, and then analyzing it.

Analyzing a compound requires a person with a particular background in pharmacognosy or medicinal chemistry or some related field (which are present in the supplement industry or can be contracted out to work for you) but the physical portion, can be done by anybody as it's more a matter of luck than anything else.

Remember, access to these plants and such are available to everyone so it's not as if pharmaceutical companies possess some magical power that only allows them to find chemical compounds of medicinal value in plants and animals. As a side note, there are currently over 100 pharmaceutical companies or organizations currently searching through these forests for more products of potential use.

So, in short, the "garden" so to speak, from which many pharmaceutical medicines are derived is open to all people and all industries and thus it's just as likely that a supplement company could discover a chemical compound as it is for a pharmaceutical company.

I guess a good analogy would be this: Take two guys who can both see, hear, touch, etc., and who also have the same level of education. One is older and has more money. Put the two of them in a field and tell them that the goal is to flip over every pumpkin they see (over 1,000) until they find one with an X marked on it. The person who finds the X will win. Do you think the fact that one man is older and has more money will affect who finds the pumpkin first? No, because it's merely a matter of chance.

Tired old argument #5 — There haven't been any studies done to support that!

This is the usual crap you sometimes hear from those who aren't knowledgeable enough to answer your question. As such, they say, "That's dangerous and there are no studies on it," with a pissy tone to boot because you questioned them on something they know little about. The flip side of the coin in that they don't see anything wrong with what you're proposing but in case they're wrong, they don't wish to be sued. This takes care of about 99% of various health professionals' statements when it comes to many substances including androgens.

Tired old argument #6 — Sugar is bad for you!

Once again, these people aren't familiar with the value of post workout supplementation so your best bet is to simply tell them that after a workout you need to replenish glycogen stores as well as prevent catabolism of muscle tissue and increase protein synthesis.

Since insulin can accomplish these feats, you need to consume a drink with sugar after your workout. Aside from that, how often do you consume sugar by itself? You don't. Instead, you consume it with a combination of other foods, which slows the absorption of glucose from the small intestine.

Essentially, you should explain to them that glucose levels are what you should be concerned with since they dictate the amount of insulin that will consequently be released. If glucose levels are lowered, you get much less of a release in terms of insulin and thus your insulin sensitivity remains high and you don't experience excess insulin and its' lipogenic effects on fat cells.

"Sugar" really isn't the enemy provided that you consume it with other macronutrients in order to keep blood glucose levels at an even keel.

Tired old argument #7 — Ephedrine and caffeine are dangerous!

Explain these lists to them (after first grabbing them by the lapels):

According to the DAWN (Drug Abuse Warning Network) Detailed Emergency Department Tables of 2000, ephedrine seems to be very safe when compared to other drugs. These numbers reflect the number of mentions each drug received in regard to emergency room visits. Here's a quick list:

Drug Name - Number of Mentions

Acetaminophen (Tylenol) - 33,613

Alcohol-in-combination - 204,524

Ibuprofen (Advil) - 17,923

Aspirin - 15,657

Fluoxetine (Prozac) - 7,938

OTC sleep aids-Sominex/Nytol - 6,609

Diphenhydramine (Benadryl) - 6,270

Naproxen (Aleve) - 5,080

Caffeine - 1,674

Chlorpheniramine/aspirin - 1,116

Pseudoephedrine - 948 (A decongestant used in every cold/sinus formula around)

Ephedrine - 1,057

According to the DAWN Annual Medical Examiner Data of 1999, ephedrine seems to be much safer than many of the commonly used drugs. These numbers reflect the number of deaths per year in which a medical examiner mentioned the drug as a possible cause of death.

Drug Name - Number of Mentions

Alcohol-in-combination - 3,916

Codeine - 1,395

Marijuana - 670

Acetaminophen - 452

Lidocaine - 384

Fluoxetine - 305

Dextromethorphan - 132 (Used in MANY cold formulas as a cough suppressant)

Chlorpheniramine - 117 (Also used in many cold and sinus formulas as an antihistamine)

Aspirin - 104

Pseudoephedrine - 67

Ephedrine - 59

So, in short, commonly used drugs, even those given to children can be more dangerous, according to these statistics, than ephedrine and caffeine.

Tired old argument #8 — Anabolic Steroids cause you to have roid rage and lose your mind!

This is absurd. The only time they've found "roid rage" or an increase in angry behavior in men given Testosterone was when they had pre-existing psychological problems. When 43 normal men, ages 19-40 were given 600 mg/week of testosterone enanthate over a 10-week period and then evaluated, it was concluded that there was no increase in angry behavior.

Oh, and by the way, it was a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

So, in short, unless your name is Norman Bates, Michael Meyers, or Jason Vorhees, you don't have to worry about Testosterone affecting your behavior since it's only been found to cause angry behavior in those with pre-existing psychological problems.

Hopefully, I've given you enough ammo to shut the mouths of most annoying naysayers. Now go out there and stir up some shit!