Quote:
Originally Posted by Montecore
I'm assuming this is a troll? Confounding variables aside, I'm neither a pro bodybuilder nor an average male, and I'm only concerned with downside risk, as my QoL is quite sufficient, so even if that article weren't amazingly ******ed and irrelevant it wouldn't really matter.
This is not about Montecore. We must be arguing two different things.
My claim is that the risks of PED use are greatly overstated and that pro bodybuilding lifestyle is no less unhealthy than an average american male lifestyle, not that it is no less healthy than average recreational endurance athlete lifestyle (your lifestyle). Bear in mind of course this article is using data from highest level men's open pros; if we can see that their risks of all cause mortality are lower than the average male, we can very easily conclude that amateur bodybuilders or this in divisions like men's physique or classic physique are taking even less health risks than living like an average American male. We should also bear in mind that when the pros being observed in this article were active, knowledge about PEDs, prophylaxis, and optimizing offsetting behaviours was a fraction of what it is now. In particular, nobody was regularly monitoring blood glucose, nobody was using prophylactic insulin but rather kinda dice rolling spazzoid insulin protocols, nobody was using telmisartan, nobody was using metformin, cardio in the offseason was far less common, some athletes were still consuming tons of saturated fats (unheard of today) and in some cases they weren't even doing bloodwork regularly. Every pro of the modern era is doing all of those things, and it's not at all unreasonable to speculate that the trivial gap in mortality rates between average American male and Olympia Stage bodybuilder will widen.
Lastly, although many people greatly underestimate the IQs and overestimate the genetic variation in high level professional athletes in sports like football, even the staunchest BBC worshipper like loco would acknowledge a large portion of the NFL (and MLB, but probably relatively smaller) is on PEDs. Why would we observe such a low rate of all cause mortality if steroids were so unhealthy and being widely used by professional athletes in these sports? It follows a similarly illogical pattern of "don't play football because you could end up with CTE". While this is true, playing football even at the highest level leads to habits that will overall reduce all-cause mortality, because it turns out being athletic and highly physically active more than offsets whatever health risks are imposed by PEDs?
Would I ever make the claim that, ceteris paribus, PEDs will make you healthier if you are already active and following a healthy diet? No. Am I saying YOU should use PEDs? given your goals, no absolutely not. As you said, if you're satisfied with your QoL and athletic performance, why add even a minor amount of downside risk?