Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [M----n] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You don't NEED it. You elect to take it because you don't like the natural symptoms of aging or effects of training.

I am not talking about natural symptoms of aging. I thought I made that pretty clear but let me try again. T levels are falling (as are sperm levels) generation from generation. For example, the normal T level of a 47 year old man is, on average, 20% lower than what it was 20 years ago due to our body reacting to some chemical that we are breathing, eating, drinking. Since this statistic is "on average" there are many men who don't have the issue and many that have experienced a much larger drop than 20%. For these men, I am discussing what is the difference between them supplementing to age appropriate levels (as they have a defined medical issue) versus what are people are taking (ex Dopamine, Insulin, Thyroid)? Add to that question that there is NO proof that supplementing to age appropriate levels gives any advantage over another subject whose T level is already at the accepted level.
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [Ralph20] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ralph20 wrote:
You don't NEED it. You elect to take it because you don't like the natural symptoms of aging or effects of training.

I am not talking about natural symptoms of aging. I thought I made that pretty clear but let me try again. T levels are falling (as are sperm levels) generation from generation. For example, the normal T level of a 47 year old man is, on average, 20% lower than what it was 20 years ago due to our body reacting to some chemical that we are breathing, eating, drinking. Since this statistic is "on average" there are many men who don't have the issue and many that have experienced a much larger drop than 20%. For these men, I am discussing what is the difference between them supplementing to age appropriate levels (as they have a defined medical issue) versus what are people are taking (ex Dopamine, Insulin, Thyroid)? Add to that question that there is NO proof that supplementing to age appropriate levels gives any advantage over another subject whose T level is already at the accepted level.

You say you want a scientific-based discussion but you keep saying that population-wide testosterone changes are due to chemical exposure. Where's the evidence for this?

And if so, where is the evidence that some people have been affected by it more than others and that testosterone variability between men as increased, which is a central part of your argument that simply having lower testosterone than "appropriate" as defined by what other people have (or had 20 years ago?) makes it OK to take testosterone and race.

As I said before, hormone levels vary between people. It's like one person being shorter than another. People's physiological differences are a big part of what makes sporting competition interesting, worth it, and even a competition at all.

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [Ralph20] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ralph20 wrote:
You don't NEED it. You elect to take it because you don't like the natural symptoms of aging or effects of training.

I am not talking about natural symptoms of aging. I thought I made that pretty clear but let me try again. T levels are falling (as are sperm levels) generation from generation. For example, the normal T level of a 47 year old man is, on average, 20% lower than what it was 20 years ago due to our body reacting to some chemical that we are breathing, eating, drinking. Since this statistic is "on average" there are many men who don't have the issue and many that have experienced a much larger drop than 20%. For these men, I am discussing what is the difference between them supplementing to age appropriate levels (as they have a defined medical issue) versus what are people are taking (ex Dopamine, Insulin, Thyroid)? Add to that question that there is NO proof that supplementing to age appropriate levels gives any advantage over another subject whose T level is already at the accepted level.

So if testosterone levels are lower (and that's a dubious claim in the first place, especially since we do not have reliable data for large samples running back to more than two decades or so) and all we have from endocrinologists are studies that propose absolutely no cause what-so-fuking-ever, we should allow doping to arbitrary testosterone levels?

Before we go on, I need you to ask yourself if you really are that stupid.

I think you are, but I'm going to point out that we have no idea what a "natural" level of testosterone is. None. Nada. No fuking clue. At all.

And then the idea that pushing needles into your body with synthetically produced hormones will get you to a "natural" state is just dum. Really dum, dum.

We have no idea what this shit does long term, and that's why anti-aging clinics are pushing the stuff and not the vast majority of endocrinologists.

Exterminate the dopers.
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [Desert Tortoise] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Before we go on, I need you to ask yourself if you really are that stupid.

I think you are, but I'm going to point out that we have no idea what a "natural" level of testosterone is. None. Nada. No fuking clue. At all. //

Well it is either the stupidity or a justification, lets hope it is not the latter..
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [Desert Tortoise] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hello Desert Tortoise and All,

This is interesting ...... and of course you would want to know who funded the study and what the results were from other similar studies ....

https://www.healio.com/...rone-levels-observed

Excerpts:

"The Massachusetts Male Aging Study was composed of randomly selected men (aged 45-79 years) living in the Boston area. The men were initially sampled between 1987 and 1989 (n=1,374). There were two follow-up periods: 1995 to 1997 (n=906) and 2002 to 2004 (n=489). There were 2,769 total observations from 1,532 men.

The age-matched study was conducted to measure participants at different times and generations, according to Travison.

In each wave, the researchers took blood samples and conducted extensive interviews, Travison said. Participants were asked about demographic and lifestyle characteristics, self-assessed general health, smoking and alcohol habits, BMI, waist-hip ratio, physical activity and other factors.

Age-independent decline

At baseline, the median serum testosterone level was 501 ng/d; at the first follow-up it was 435 ng/dL and at the second follow-up it was 391 ng/dL.

The estimated cross-sectional decline in total testosterone level was 0.4% per year of age (95% CI, –0.6% to –0.2%). The longitudinal within-person decline was about 1.6% per year (95% CI, –1.8% to –1.4%). The age-matched time trend was 1.2% lower per year (95% CI, –1.4% to –1.0%).

The decline was age-independent. “It is a little troubling,” Travison said. “The average differences are not very large, but they are big enough and occurring over a short enough time period to be the cause of some concern.”

These demonstrated population-level declines are greater than the cross-sectional declines typically associated with age, according to the researchers."


"The researchers wondered whether these factors are contributing to the generational decline. “We know that people in all age groups are heavier today than they used to be. Similarly, they’re taking a lot more medication, which has an influence on endocrine health, and they are smoking a lot less, which is good. Smoking is associated with higher testosterone levels; if you stop smoking that can bring levels down,” Travison said."


Who knew ... ????


Do you suppose that smoking will increase in athletes that are attempting to dope?

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [nealhe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SO less people smoking and getting fatter seems to be able to explain the results. In fact, I'm kind of surprised it is not more, but guess there are still a lot of people smoking. The equation doesn't seem to need anything else to be valid, chemicals, GMO's, etc.
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Why don't USADA make TUE retroactive for non national level competitors. The average weekend bike race, tri or fun run would be filled with people who would inadvertently fail a test from being on Doctors orders.

retroactive for non national is the standard in other places
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [Desert Tortoise] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think the risk and side effects of testosterone supplementation are not stressed enough. The average joe sees a bunch of middle aged men who look good, pretend to have a great sex life and pretend to achieve great things. Simply ignoring the fact that adding T to your system substantially increases the risk of cardiovascular events. But of course if the poster boys of these aging clinic pass away at 65 no one notices and probably also no one really cares.

If T would be the solution to delay aging and have a higher quality life I would totally go for it, screw triathlon or all other sports for that matter. It is a hobby and I would not put my health second to a random sport. BUT there simply is no magic bullet or pill or anything which does that.

Everyone has to decide for him/herself what to do with their body but it should be an informed decision and then people should take the responsibility for their decisions
U
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [Stevie G] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Stevie G wrote:
Why don't USADA make TUE retroactive for non national level competitors. The average weekend bike race, tri or fun run would be filled with people who would inadvertently fail a test from being on Doctors orders.

retroactive for non national is the standard in other places


Couple of responses..

That might be reasonable for some substances and some types of competition. But in this case the athlete was tested at U.S. masters track nationals. So though one might consider any masters competition "non-national level", I believe under the rules a even a geezer national championship is considered "national level." In fact in the press release USADA said he'd been selected for testing specifically because he'd been among the top performers at nationals.

Also, from what I can tell, a retroactive TUE does not lower the criteria necessary to get a TUE. Clomiphene is not FDA approved to treat any condition at all in males. So given that USADA places a pretty high bar on TUEs for substances whose sole intended purpose is to increase testosterone (as appears to be the case with clomiphene), I'm pretty doubtful that any TUE - retro or "standard" - would be allowed.

Maybe the substance could have been used as alternative treatment for a legitimate medical condition. And his Dr. decided to go a little cowboy and use clomiphene. That's why I hesitated to completely throw the guy under the bus in the OP. Like I didn't know if maybe it was useful in treating some kind of rash, or something like that. Like if it was testing positive for a corticosteroid - sure, I could buy that rationale. But it sure doesn't appear that's the case. You can go through page after page of search results and the only use in men I can find is: raise testosterone levels.

Also USADA has busted 10 guys for clomiphene this year. Tied with ostarine for Most Popular Substance of 2017. So it's a "thing," apparently, in doping circles.


Edit: Actually, it's interesting. Clomiphene was relatively rare in USADA's sanction list. Nothing in 2014 or 2015. Then earlier this year Brock Lesnar and Jon Jones (UFC) tested positive for it. Then suddenly, boom, boom, boom. 8 more guys (and one woman) show up in the following months. Including the last 3. It's not hard to connect the dots. Celebrity substance.
Last edited by: trail: Oct 7, 17 14:29
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wasn't expecting the controversial Pro-doping take, justified with some hand waving rationals and vague appeals to authority. "supplementing your T levels" back to what you had at 20 is DOPING. Full stop. You're a cheater if you do it and race. No TUE, no race. Its simple.
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
I don't quite get this one: John Schiefer.
The thing I don't understand is why they aren't disqualifying all his results since the time he started taking the drug. It says he admitted to taking it, and stopped taking it three months before the positive test (amazed you can test positive three months later!). They are disqualifying him as of the positive test, but really he should in addition be disqualified from all races he took part in since he admitted starting the drug. His results are mostly pretty lackluster, but I don't think that's any reason not to apply the same penalty. Also, given the sketchy nature of the drug in question I would have supported a larger penalty.
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [uw234] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I agree- I always ask people "what is your end game"? Because if you start using T, you may not like what you see when you come off it.
Your doc just assumes you will keep taking T until you die or until they come up with something better.

It is sad that we live in a world where you just get prescribed a drug for whatever ailment or affliction you have- even if the the ailment is old age.
Then you get prescribed another drug for the side effects that the 1st drug caused, and on and on...
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [lanierb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
lanierb wrote:
His results are mostly pretty lackluster

Also weird they didn't DQ his 2nd-place Team Pursuit team, just his individual events. If I was on that team pursuit team and my teammate was busted I'd have a DQ request to USAC in the mail.

His results are weird. In 2016 he was full profamateur. Raced 79 (!) times, and apparently a podium threat in any 45+ race. Eyeballed, it looks like around 20-30 podiums and around 10 wins. That's pretty much geezer-baller status.

Then in 2017 he just does a few races, and mostly sucks in them. Some DNFs. Until track nationals where he throws down some good results.

So putting on my twitch-hunt hat, there are two narratives that come to mind:

1) He had a medical condition in 2017, messed him up pretty good.

2) He decided to dope for track masters worlds starting in his home state of CA tomorrow. And laid low to avoid testing (everyone knows that USADA targets podium finishers at the masters level), but got busted at nationals because he miscalculated the clomiphene "glow time."

I'd like to believe 1), but of course the it's hard to fit placing well at nationals in that narrative. If you're pretty badly jacked up for medical issues, you don't schedule yourself into national championship races, generally.
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [Ralph20] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So, are you taking T and racing?
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Until track nationals where he throws down some good results. //

Good results, wasn't he national champion?
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [monty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
monty wrote:
Until track nationals where he throws down some good results. //

Good results, wasn't he national champion?

I had a tough time figuring that out with the DQ! I was just going off his IP time, which was decent.
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So, are you taking T and racing?


Jesus, it's impossible to have a rational conversation about this topic. Expressing scientific viewpoints does not mean I am taking it nor advocating for it. Simply pointing out some often overlooked facts. No where in this forum did I advocate or endorse its use. So basically you are making an unsubstantiated allegation against me because I looked to have a conversation. Classy...really classy.
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [Ralph20] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ralph20 wrote:
So, are you taking T and racing?


Jesus, it's impossible to have a rational conversation about this topic. Expressing scientific viewpoints does not mean I am taking it nor advocating for it. Simply pointing out some often overlooked facts. No where in this forum did I advocate or endorse its use. So basically you are making an unsubstantiated allegation against me because I looked to have a conversation. Classy...really classy.


No need for a hissy fit.

Your cluelessness about testosterone and your pseudo-scientific rhetoric made you sound like someone who has sat in a anti-aging clinic and listened to a man in a white coat explain the various solutions they have for your suppressed t-levels.

He asked what everyone was thinking.
Last edited by: Desert Tortoise: Oct 7, 17 17:14
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [Ralph20] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The argument of doping T up to normal levels seems to be a constant in these threads... One of the main flaws with that argument is that you can suppress T levels just by training hard. So your argument is that everyone should be allowed to dope up to some magic number. OK, train hard enough and drop your levels below that number, take some T to get back, rinse and repeat. You effectively make T supplementation a requirement of competition. For endurance athletes the main advantage of taking T is the ability to do more work. Wouldn't it be nice to totally smash a workout and be able to back it up the next day instead of three days later? You bet, compound that over months and years.

..
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RowToTri wrote:
I don't get it either. So much doping now is enabled by "anti-aging doctors" and this ruling sends the message that it's basically ok. Just a minor oversight

It's only going to get worse as medicine keeps getting better, we'll need a new division for anti aging doping.
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [Desert Tortoise] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Desert Tortoise wrote:
Ralph20 wrote:
So, are you taking T and racing?


Jesus, it's impossible to have a rational conversation about this topic. Expressing scientific viewpoints does not mean I am taking it nor advocating for it. Simply pointing out some often overlooked facts. No where in this forum did I advocate or endorse its use. So basically you are making an unsubstantiated allegation against me because I looked to have a conversation. Classy...really classy.


No need for a hissy fit.

Your cluelessness about testosterone and your pseudo-scientific rhetoric made you sound like someone who has sat in a anti-aging clinic and listened to a man in a white coat explain the various solutions they have for your suppressed t-levels.

He asked what everyone was thinking.


Hmmm...I don't think in all that Ralphy actually answered the question...

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Last edited by: Tom A.: Oct 7, 17 19:00
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [Ralph20] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ralph20 wrote:
You don't NEED it. You elect to take it because you don't like the natural symptoms of aging or effects of training.

I am not talking about natural symptoms of aging. I thought I made that pretty clear but let me try again. T levels are falling (as are sperm levels) generation from generation. For example, the normal T level of a 47 year old man is, on average, 20% lower than what it was 20 years ago due to our body reacting to some chemical that we are breathing, eating, drinking. Since this statistic is "on average" there are many men who don't have the issue and many that have experienced a much larger drop than 20%. For these men, I am discussing what is the difference between them supplementing to age appropriate levels (as they have a defined medical issue) versus what are people are taking (ex Dopamine, Insulin, Thyroid)? Add to that question that there is NO proof that supplementing to age appropriate levels gives any advantage over another subject whose T level is already at the accepted level.

So since you care about the degeneration of the human race, you make it your personal cruisdade to stem this by supplementing Testo and make the World a better place?

Wow, that is a new apology that I haven't heard yet.

"The pituitary gland expands, which is worrisome, unless there is more space in the brain to do so without affecting vision."
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [windschatten] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wow, you guys totally missed the merits of this conversation and resorted to name calling and flame throwing. For the record, I am not taking testosterone, not dispensing testosterone, not advocating testosterone. I'm not even saying the word anymore. Ignorance won. Congrats
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [monty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hello Monty and All,

"Clomiphene is a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) commonly used in female fertility brand name prescription medications, such as Clomid. In women, clomiphene acts on the pituitary gland to stimulate the release of specific hormones responsible for ovulation."

"In men, clomiphene can alter testosterone levels by interfering with the negative feedback loop of the hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal axis."

"The researchers wondered whether these factors are contributing to the generational decline. “We know that people in all age groups are heavier today than they used to be. Similarly, they’re taking a lot more medication, which has an influence on endocrine health, and they are smoking a lot less, which is good. Smoking is associated with higher testosterone levels; if you stop smoking that can bring levels down,” Travison said."

I quoted the above in a previous message.

I think that statement above about smoking increasing Testosterone is probably wrong ....... This study below found little difference in Testosterone levels ... smokers vs. non smokers.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19473474


Excerpt:


MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
"The influence of smoking on levels of TT, FT, and BT.
RESULTS:
No significant difference was observed in the mean values of TT (P = 0.580), FT (P = 0.869), BT (P = 0.933), SHBG (P = 0.279), LH (P = 0.573), and FSH (P = 0.693) in the different levels of pack-years when compared to nonsmokers. Moreover, after multivariate logistic regression, no association between increased pack-years of smoking and increased odds ratio for occurrence of low hormones and SHBG levels was observed.
CONCLUSION:
In this study, smokers and nonsmokers had similar mean values of androgens, gonadotropins and SHBG. However, it is necessary to standardize pack-years of smoking in order to elucidate the influence of cigarette smoking on sex hormone levels, as well as to minimize differences among studies and to confirm our results." [emphasis added]
================================
So now I am thinking about smoking and nicotine ......

With that in mind it is important to note that a percentage of females/males 15%/20% smoking ..... is still with us and the physical effects of smoking are not good .... but it appears currently tobacco products are legal for WADA .

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...articles/PMC3752189/

but not legal for NCAA:

"Tobacco: Tobacco contains nicotine, a stimulant, and a multitude of damaging chemicals. Smoking damages lung tissue and reduces lung capacity. Spit tobacco use contributes to inflammation of soft tissue in the mouth and raises the risk of oral cancer. Tobacco use in all forms is prohibited during practice and competition by student athletes and game personnel, and may result in ejection from the game."

Smoking used to be ubiquitous .... not now, at least in California, it is so rare to see a cyclist with a cigarette ... it rates a second take .... and you think ... did I really see that?





Back to Clomiphene and ovulation and smoking ......

In the days of the silver screen, there was little sex shown, but lots of inference, and the post coital smoke scene was the code that spoke to what had just happened .... off screen.


https://mic.com/...-nicotine#.vszXC6BFd



"He first made the association after seeing it in the movies.

If that strikes you as archaic, it shouldn't. In 1988, Philip Morris USA, one-third of the Big Tobacco triumvirate, asked more than 400,000 smokers about their smoking habits, and found that more than half of respondents regularly lit up after sex."

Nearly three decades later, the practice is not only very much alive, but has evolved with trends."

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [nealhe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well, smokers are also less likely to get Parkinson's Disease.

For what it is worth, similar benefits have been claimed for Dark Chocolate and Red Wine.

For me convincing enough to stick with natural substances....

Which brings me to:
"To stay this slim, do you use the finger or do you take pills?"

Quote Reply

Prev Next