Steroids can benefit athletes for a decade after use

[Paddy234]

Steroids can benefit athletes for a decade after use

By Matt McGrathEnvironment correspondent, BBC News

Testosterone boosts the number of cell nuclei (in green) that help build muscle long after exposure to the drug

Continue reading the main story

Related Stories

• Belgian racing pigeons 'were doped'
• Lance Armstrong defiant in 2009Watch
• Indian media: Concerns over doping

New research suggests that athletes who use steroids for a short period can benefit for their entire careers.

Experiments with mice showed that a brief exposure to testosterone allowed the mice to rapidly regain muscle later in their lives.

The scientist behind the study says that if a similar effect can be shown in humans, it should lead to a lifetime ban for dopers.

The research has been published in the Journal of Physiology.

Norwegian scientists had previously published work that showed the existence of a "muscle memory".

This suggested that if people exercised when they were young, their muscles grew more easily when they exercised later in life.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

In science if you cheat you are out for life, and my personal view is that it should be similar for athletes”

Prof Kristian GundersenUniversity of Oslo

[Paddy234]

I find this article interesting especially when you have many people who claim that seroid gain's can not be kept and maintained naturally if one were to go off steroids or the other myth that once a person has tried steroids then they will not be able to make any future gains naturally. It appear's it's quite the opposite

[Realtalk]

Inb4 NZPF

[GyzzBrah]

Lol bs article by mainstream media phaggots that scream cheater at every gear user etc.

I don't have the data to back that up. It would be my speculation yes," he said.

there ya go.

[thatwaslight]

Lol bs article by mainstream media phaggots that scream cheater at every gear user etc.

I don't have the data to back that up. It would be my speculation yes," he said.

there ya go.

lol that ol' chestnut.

[Matrix]

I saw a similar article in our local paper (it may have even been excerpts from this one) which was questioning whether its fair Justin Gatlin should be allowed to compete as he has been banned twice for doping and is now running his career best times in his 100 and 200m events in the Diamond League.One of the times was a season best too.

Puts an interesting question in that if he is drug free now, how is he doing these times? Is it just the culmination of being a genetically gifted athlete and a life times training or do the drugs he used previously still benefit him physiologically over natural athletes by still having a delayed life or half life in his cells without showing obvious markers when he is tested?

Relevance to Natural Body Building, IMO iif this research does prove to be backed up by further credible studies it might make make it even tougher on Non Drug Taking Naturals trying to compete in all natural "tested" shows against other supposedly life time drug free BBuilders.

Relevance to non tested shows:none

Interesting article IMO

 

[yeelang]

Satellite cells and myoblasts formed from AAS will last post cycle.

 

Generally people lose their gains acutely for 3 reasons,

Exodus of androgenic hormones

Higher cortisol levels, higher myostain levels 

Lack of recovery (either from stress, overtraining, hormonal recovery)

 

[Leeroid]

I think that it would be true. Obviously you won't maintain the same mass or the same athletic performance as when you were on the drugs but it would no doubt stretch out the natural ceiling of your capabilities. If nothing else, it would accelerate the rate at which you reach your natural limit.

AAS main mechanism of action is through inducing hypertrophy but it does also increase hyperplasia, or proliferation of cells, as AAS increases IGF levels. Someone that has increased their muscle cell count through previous use shouldn't be able to claim natural or be able to compete against lifetime natural competitors.

[atrollappears]

Someone that has increased their muscle cell count through previous use shouldn't be able to claim natural or be able to compete against lifetime natural competitors.

How do you prove someone is genuinely natural..? 

I suspect there are less true natural athletes than we think..

[Leeroid]

You can't, I guess, that is the problem. The next best thing is to enforce a lifetime ban on athletes caught using anabolic substances or HGH or any substance that has a residual effect. I guess stimulants and EPO would be exempt from this as their effects are strictly temporary?

[jimmybro1]

After reading this decided to troll the internet looking around for studies on this. Not many studies but I did find something similar to a literature review. 

Seems use does benefit user years afterwards due to myonuclei created still hanging around. Loss of this seems to occur when the muscle fibres die from factors such as old age or serious injury/damage. 

Another thing mentioned in the review was testing on a group of people using and taking a placebo. Both were told they were on anabolics. The group using were adminstrated 600 mg/week for ten weeks while the placebo group were having sesame seed oil injected. Both groups training and had backgrounds were they had been previously been training. It was found both groups experienced similar strenght gains each individual achieving 5-20kg PB on the squat/bench/deadlift however in terms of muscle volume (hypertropy) the individuals in the group using gained significantly more muscle volume. 

After the ten week period the group taking the placebo where told and the group using were told they were also. The training continued and so did the testing. It was found that the placebo group was lifting back at their previous lift level whereas the group using continued to excell. 

Another test was also done where 600mg/week was adminstrated to a group that trained and a group that did not train at all. The same was done for two groups that were not enhanced and it was found that the individuals in the group that were inactive almost achieved the same muscle volume increases as the un-enhanced individuals that were training! 

The article also looked at the effectiveness of dosage for strenght gain. It was found that 300mg/week was the most effective for the particular group interms of specific strenght however the greater the dose the greater the amount of hypertropy. Strenght gains were measured in progress of the squat, bench and deadlift each of which plateau at doses greater than 300 mg/week. 

Obviously plenty of factors that would interfere with the results but still increasing results. 25-100mg/week was found to reduce strenght and sexual function. 

[GyzzBrah]

After the ten week period the group taking the placebo where told and the group using were told they were also. The training continued and so did the testing. It was found that the placebo group was lifting back at their previous lift level whereas the group using continued to excell.

Pretty sure I posted something similar before. Would that mean strength is largley dependant on mood / mental shit...

[jimmybro1]

 

After the ten week period the group taking the placebo where told and the group using were told they were also. The training continued and so did the testing. It was found that the placebo group was lifting back at their previous lift level whereas the group using continued to excell.

Pretty sure I posted something similar before. Would that mean strength is largley dependant on mood / mental shit...

Yup seems to be the case. But I would think if they continued the trail longer the enhanced group would have kept improving whereas the un-enhanced group would come into issues with recovery. 

What really came out of this is that more hypertropy (muscle mass) doesn't necessarily mean strenght improvements diffinitely not a one to one relationship anyway. But androgens also have effects on the nervious system though. 

I thought the results of the group just chilling on the couch on 600mg/wk almost gaining what the natural group did that did train!!  

[GyzzBrah]

I thought the results of the group just chilling on the couch on 600mg/wk almost gaining what the natural group did that did train!!  

This is interesting, did the study say wether the couch group had ever lifted before / were beginners? And when they checked for increased muscle mass how did they check for it, weight - bf%, or mri, dexa, biopsy etc? could be some variables that could lead to misinterpretation of such a thing.

[maccaz]

I thought the results of the group just chilling on the couch on 600mg/wk almost gaining what the natural group did that did train!!  

This is interesting, did the study say wether the couch group had ever lifted before / were beginners? And when they checked for increased muscle mass how did they check for it, weight - bf%, or mri, dexa, biopsy etc? could be some variables that could lead to misinterpretation of such a thing.

how you test muscle mass with biopsy? cut out all the muscle then weigh it? lol

[GyzzBrah]

I have no Idea how it works, but In some study done in steroid using hammerthrowers, they did something where they check the crossectional area of their muscle or someshit. Daz would know, he reads lots of those things.

[jimmybro1]

I thought the results of the group just chilling on the couch on 600mg/wk almost gaining what the natural group did that did train!!  

This is interesting, did the study say wether the couch group had ever lifted before / were beginners? And when they checked for increased muscle mass how did they check for it, weight - bf%, or mri, dexa, biopsy etc? could be some variables that could lead to misinterpretation of such a thing.

The measured the volume of the muscle groups and pitch test for bodyfat estimation