In other words...

Bring what ya got, eh, Chad?

Seems a simple enough concept. Or maybe I'm just not vain enough to buy the argument that life might deal me an unfair hand that requires outside assistance.

Hello Steve Irwin and All,

Along with WADA, USADA, NCAA, and other organizations having rules prohibiting performance enhancing drugs I think the possible adverse long term health problems of many performance enhancing drugs argues against their use in healthy athletes ..... and TUE's address drug use by unhealthy athletes.

Your mention of castration (not likely to enhance performance) for better health and longer life is certainly thinking out of the box ...... (Lance Armstrong was halfway there) ....

perhaps a Caloric Restriction diet (lighter weight is performance enhancing) is the road to take ….. rather than castration for life extension … and caloric restriction may be the primary agent for the better cardiovascular health of professional cyclists and their approximately 5 year longer life than the general male population in this study:

(Time will tell if the caloric restriction effect on professional cyclists will mitigate or erase possible adverse effects from those cyclists that may have used performance enhancing drugs.)

https://academic.oup.com/...pants-in-the-Tour-de

It appears many professional cyclists are experts at caloric restriction.



"Here's a rough rule of thumb that many experts generally agree on now: Eat 15 percent less starting at age 25 and you might add 4.5 years to your life, says Eric Ravussin, who studies human health and performance at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Louisiana.
One important caveat: Ravussin's estimate is based mostly on studies of other animals and only preliminary research in humans. But the work by Weiss and others is unlocking the mysteries of aging and suggesting the animal studies apply to humans."
"There is absolutely no reason to think it won't work," Ravussin told LiveScience.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23924667

Calorie Restriction (CR) without malnutrition slows aging and increases average and maximal lifespan in simple model organisms and rodents. In rhesus monkeys long-term CR reduces the incidence of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer, and protects against age-associated sarcopenia and neurodegeneration.

"Whether or not CR will extend lifespan in humans is not yet known, but accumulating data indicate that moderate CR with adequate nutrition has a powerful protective effect against obesity, type 2 diabetes, inflammation, hypertension, cardiovascular disease and reduces metabolic risk factors associated with cancer. Moreover, CR in human beings improves markers of cardiovascular aging, and rejuvenates the skeletal muscle transcriptional profile. More studies are needed to understand the interactions between CR, diet composition, exercise, and other environmental and psychological factors on metabolic and molecular pathways that regulate health and longevity."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19262201

"There are currently no interventions or gene manipulations that can prevent, stop or reverse the aging process. However, there are a number of interventions that can slow down aging and prolong maximal lifespan up to 60% in experimental animals. Long-term calorie restriction without malnutrition and reduced function mutations in the insulin/IGF-1 signaling pathway are the most robust interventions known to increase maximal lifespan and healthspan in rodents. Although it is currently not known if long-term calorie restriction with adequate nutrition extends maximal lifespan in humans, we do know that long-term calorie restriction without malnutrition results in some of the same metabolic and hormonal adaptations related to longevity in calorie restriction rodents. Moreover, calorie restriction with adequate nutrition protects against obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and atherosclerosis, which are leading causes of morbidity, disability and mortality. " [emphasis added]

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

I have four kids. If I were training like I could train (in an age appropriate range for men without kids) I would be a much stronger swimmer, biker, runner, climber, etc. etc. Therefore, I am going to supplement myself with drugs to bring my physiology to the point it would be without those kids. Why should I suffer the consequences of my station in life...Im just getting back to where I should be...Right?

Oh, and about the CRISPR thing, you are ignorant or stupid if you believe this. Please do not take my word for it...read about the off site insertions from this technique in the peer review scientific literature. In addition to being a Dad, Im also molecular biologist who actually knows about this stuff.

Stephen Judice

---

I believe my local reality has been violated.
____________________________________________
Happiness = Results / (Expectations)^2

There is no causal relationship as you seem to be implying...although there are suggestions in the literature that it is linked to increased levels of obesity...triathletes would be a subpopulation which is divergent from the obese population (at least those who would be concerned with peak performance), and leads you back to the statement which you are trying to refute.


What is the accepted level? What is age appropriate levels? Where is the literature that says that any one individual should be at some specific measurement? One could also ask what are you using to measure that level, and who is doing the measuring; as these can greatly affect the answer you get. To address your point in red above, there is no way to prove a null hypothesis; so claiming that as evidence of your hypothesis is not the correct statement to be making if you are trying to make a believable argument.


Stephen J

---

I believe my local reality has been violated.
____________________________________________
Happiness = Results / (Expectations)^2

And here is some data from that study.... Interesting how they got those 'trends' isn't it? THIS IS WHY YOU HAVE TO READ THE PEER REVIEW ARTICLE AND NOT JUST A SUMMARY!!!! Take a look at their SD and CVs...They are all in the original paper.

---

I believe my local reality has been violated.
____________________________________________
Happiness = Results / (Expectations)^2

But you are not being rational, you are not expressing scientific viewpoints, and not pointing out facts. I think that is the issue that I have problems with.

Stephen J

---

I believe my local reality has been violated.
____________________________________________
Happiness = Results / (Expectations)^2

Hello stephenj and All,


The following information generally does not consider the fact that the drugs being discussed are illegal for venues that subscribe to the rules promulgated by WADA and USADA and other organizations.

It appears that it is too early to say what effect various drugs (such as testosterone, growth hormone, and EPO) will have on longevity and we will need to wait until the human 'early adopters' get sick, die, or survive ...... or perhaps get some clues from animal studies.

My personal view is that because of the dollar value of the global testosterone market ($3.4 billion in 2022) we do have to be wary of the possibility of skewed testosterone studies funded to support greater sales of testosterone.

=========================================

It appears that you are disagreeing with the data reduction in the authors study because of their Standard Deviation and Coefficient of Variance values.

stephenj stated: "In addition to being a Dad, Im also molecular biologist who actually knows about this stuff."

With that in mind I appreciate your thoughtful criticism of the study I posted ...... but will leave the defense of the study to the authors.

Could you post some studies contradicting the referenced study .... that is .... studies showing that men's testosterone is not declining historically?

It appears there is a relationship between sperm count and testosterone. Is it reasonable to associate sperm count lowering historically with testosterone levels lowering historically?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26789272

Excerpts:

"There was a significant decline in sperm concentration (-3.55, 95% CI -4.87, -2.23; p < 0.001), total motility (-1.23, 95% CI -1.65, -0.82; p < 0.001), total count (-10.75, 95% CI -15.95, -5.54; p < 0.001) and total motile count (-9.43, 95% CI -13.14, -5.73; p < 0.001). "

"This report demonstrates a decline in semen quality among young adult men in the Boston area who were attending or completed a college education during the past 10 years, and requires further study." [emphasis added]

stephenj wrote in part:

"And here is some data from that study.... Interesting how they got those 'trends' isn't it? THIS IS WHY YOU HAVE TO READ THE PEER REVIEW ARTICLE AND NOT JUST A SUMMARY!!!! Take a look at their SD and CVs...They are all in the original paper. "



More in line with your comments ..... this study below proposes a thoughtful approach to prescribing Testosterone to older men ....

(and you are welcome to read the all of the citations and other articles that pertain to this one too)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...articles/PMC4707424/


Excerpts:


"Treatment for hypogonadism is on the rise, particularly in the aging population. Yet treatment in this population represents a unique challenge to clinicians. The physiology of normal aging is complex and often shares the same, often vague, symptoms of hypogonadism. In older men, a highly prevalent burden of comorbid medical conditions and polypharmacy complicates the differentiation of signs and symptoms of hypogonadism from those of normal aging, yet this differentiation is essential to the diagnosis of hypogonadism. Even in older patients with unequivocally symptomatic hypogonadism, the clinician must navigate the potential benefits and risks of treatment that are not clearly defined in older men.

More recently, a greater awareness of the potential risks associated with treatment in older men, particularly in regard to cardiovascular risk and mortality, have been appreciated with recent changes in the US Food and Drug Administration recommendations for use of testosterone in aging men."

"Testosterone has become one of the most widely prescribed medications in the USA, increasing five-fold according to 2011 data. This increase has resulted in the dramatic growth of the testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) sector of the pharmaceutical industry from US$18 million in the 1980s to US$1.6 billion in 2011 [Handelsman, 2013]. The reason is multifactorial, but can partly be attributed to the continued growth of the population over 65 years of age and a greater awareness of medical comorbidities more prevalent with age and associated with low testosterone, such as metabolic syndrome (MetS) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) [Traish et al. 2009a, 2009b]."

"The authors encourage clinicians to only offer TRT to men diagnosed with symptomatic hypogonadism based upon a careful history demonstrating clear symptoms along with convincing laboratory data, and only after a thorough discussion of the uncertain benefits and possible risks of treatment. Informing patients of the recent FDA statement regarding TRT in aging men is of utmost importance in the current healthcare climate, particularly because testosterone use for this population may now be considered ‘off-label’.


With these caveats, the authors also want to reiterate the vast literature of known and proven benefits of testosterone normalization, which must also be carefully considered during the decision of whether or not to offer treatment. The best approach to TRT for the population of older hypogonadal men is probably one of full disclosure and shared decision-making." [emphasis added]

Go to:
Footnotes

Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

so, the guy who takes supplemental T to get to within the "normal" range for men his age is doping ? any benefits derived from this is considered (positively) impacting race performance ? i suppose, verbatim, that might be correct. but, let;'s be honest. is this guy gaining performance benefits over and above a guy with normally-occurring T ? me, in my layman's view, would say no. i'm a 57-year old BOP-er, and i take T to get me up to within "normal" range. believe me, i don't see this is as gaining any type of competitive advantage in racing. jack the T up to above "normal" levels, and then maybe you have a point. you seem to make the simple equation of " take T, then you're doping and getting an advantage". that's a bit intellectually dishonest to make that kind of generalization.

What a giant crock of bullshit

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

 i don't see this is as gaining any type of competitive advantage in racing. jack the T up to above "normal" levels,//

So you are saying that you are not any faster taking T from your former self who was not taking it?? Because that is the only question that needs to be answered, you bringing in all this not beating the other guy or being on a level playing field, or I'm just normal now is all nonsense in this argument. Are "YOU" personably faster? Of course the answer is yes, otherwise why would you take it? You are doping, don't race. Do everything else in life, feel better, have better workouts, have better sex, sleep better, recover better, but JUST DONT RACE others that are not doping like you are...


And there is no such thing as a normal level, red herring..

Yes you are a doper. Yes, you should be banned from competing in all orgainzed sport. You have no place among honest athletes. The massive errors in your logic have been pointed out ad nauseum on this thread and others.

Edit - and this is not just my opinion. This is what WADA, USADA, and all the other national anti-doping federations say.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

You know who's "intellectually dishonest" in this conversation? You!

Sport has deemed Testosterone as a performance enhancing substance. Period.
You, in your infinite wisdom, have decided that it doesn't apply to YOU!

You don't think that's intellectually dishonest?

Wake up and smell the coffee.

---

"Good genes are not a requirement, just the obsession to beat ones brains out daily"...the Griz

"so, the guy who takes supplemental T to get to within the "normal" range for men his age is doping ? any benefits derived from this is considered (positively) impacting race performance ? i suppose, verbatim, that might be correct. but, let;'s be honest. is this guy gaining performance benefits over and above a guy with normally-occurring T ? me, in my layman's view, would say no. i'm a 57-year old BOP-er, and i take T to get me up to within "normal" range. believe me, i don't see this is as gaining any type of competitive advantage in racing. jack the T up to above "normal" levels, and then maybe you have a point. you seem to make the simple equation of " take T, then you're doping and getting an advantage". that's a bit intellectually dishonest to make that kind of generalization."

Your logic is a perversion of "normal", in my view. Unless you have a specific medical condition (cancer, etc.) that reduced your ability to produce your own natural level of testosterone, you are creating an artificial condition of your body's natural state. Frankly, the studies I have been exposed to have not substantiated "normal" among the greater population to the degree that satisfies the arguments for allowing it in sports. Here's an example abstract:

"The diagnosis of hypogonadism in human males includes identification of low serum testosterone levels, and hence there is an underlying assumption that normal ranges of testosterone for the healthy population are known for all ages. However, to our knowledge, no such reference model exists in the literature, and hence the availability of an applicable biochemical reference range would be helpful for the clinical assessment of hypogonadal men. In this study, using model selection and validation analysis of data identified and extracted from thirteen studies, we derive and validate a normative model of total testosterone across the lifespan in healthy men. We show that total testosterone peaks [mean (2.5–97.5 percentile)] at 15.4 (7.2–31.1) nmol/L at an average age of 19 years, and falls in the average case [mean (2.5–97.5 percentile)] to 13.0 (6.6–25.3) nmol/L by age 40 years, but we find no evidence for a further fall in mean total testosterone with increasing age through to old age. However we do show that there is an increased variation in total testosterone levels with advancing age after age 40 years."

If you feel the need to supplement, that's an issue with you and your doctor, and I don't have any issues with the basic act. I'm pretty laissez-faire about such things people do in private life. I'll ride bikes with you, run the woods and roads with you, swim with you....whatever. It's not a moral judgement of supplemental T itself.

I'm just damn sure going to continue to say I don't want you or others toeing the line against me at sanctioned races. THAT is a moral and ethical judgement I make regarding what is fair in racing.

so, it seems we cannot have a polite difference of opinion. since you choose to make this a personal venomous spew, i'll simply add that you are a narrow-minded moron with no capacity to have an intellectual sharing of thoughts. go find your liberal safe space and pet a puppy or play with some crayons or some damn thing.

LLLLOOOOOLLLL.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

i re-read my post. i don't see anything that resembles a claim that using T (as a banned PERFORMANCE ENHANCING substance) doesn't apply to me.

in reality, i'm a BOPer. there is no amount of PED of any type that can change that fact. do you think i give a shit if you or anyone else thinks i'm a doper ? trust me, i don't. get a life.

Hi Neal,
Unfortunately, what you ask for is proof of a null hypothesis. This is proving that something does not exist which is impossible if it were true. The issue that I have is the use of data sets to drive forward an agenda which the data does not support. Could there be an environmental trigger to cause testosterone to decrease in a population? Maybe; but using a dataset like that to suggest that it is OK to supplement with testosterone so that some guy can play the game we like to play a little bit better than someone else when that has already been called out as against the rules...Well, that just seems stupid; and I was pointing that out in my poorly worded way.

Regarding the other study which you attached a link to...I took a quick look, and it suffers from some additional issues. In the final paragraph of the paper (full text of the paper) the author actually goes over the problems with the study...and there are some big controls which were not in place. One of the huge problems with human studies are that humans are very hard to control (experimentally or otherwise), and their longevity lends itself to additional problems if you are doing longitudinal studies. And then you have to add in to that the sample collection differences, sample preparation differences, operator differences/error, and unfortunately the list goes on. I would guess this is why you so often hear that one thing is good for you, and then a few weeks/years/decades later, you hear something that directly contradicts that. So, with that said, when you are dealing with differences which are as small as those described in the article, something as mundane as tight pants will make a difference in sperm motility (heat is the cause), and something as stupid as questions not answered properly in a survey (or not included in an earlier survey) which goes along with the collected data will throw off the numbers...So I don't think that one could use this study as a definitive link between decreased sperm counts/motility with decreasing testosterone...but it might just get the author another grant to study this question (please don't think that academia is altruistic...those gals/guys have gotta put food on the table too).
This reminds me of a case in which I had to travel across to Europe to diagnose a problem with a clinical diagnostic which I developed and was being manufactured overseas. It took walking into the room and looking at their setup for 5 seconds to determine the problem...it was too close to a window which led to thermal gain in the instrumentation which prevented deposition of the proper quantity of a compound which needed to be extremely precise to give correct results (language barrier was a major contributing factor in this). The point Im making (hopefully not too poorly) is that little things can affect measurements in a big way sometimes, and that one needs to look carefully at not just the data, but also at the way the data was generated to determine the robustness of conclusions which may be drawn.

Thinking is important, and learning how to determine what is important is important. I appreciate your contributions on this forum, and hope that I can give something useful every now and again.

Stephen J

---

I believe my local reality has been violated.
____________________________________________
Happiness = Results / (Expectations)^2

It sounds like you're aware that Testosterone is a banned substance.

You've used the term "BOP", meaning you compete and don't place well in races

If you are competing and taking Testosterone, you don't think that's intellectually dishonest?

---

"Good genes are not a requirement, just the obsession to beat ones brains out daily"...the Griz

Haha, I was actually going to slightly defend abablduya, and then he goes on this rant!

I will say this though. I think it's clear abablduya1 is a "cheater" in the literal sense. Same with amateur golfers who take mulligans on the first tee box, or take 4 foot "gimmes", etc. I personally couldn't care less if a middle aged BOP or MOP dude races occasionally on T therapy though. T therapy is cheating, period, but there's a huge difference between using it to beat serious competitors who have invested lifetimes of 20 hour training weeks, and using it to mainly just improve your quality of life and sometimes beat a few competitors who occasionally go for a weekly jog or bike ride and entered a sprint triathlon for fun.

I've made this point before but I'll make it again. I can't remember within 50 places where I finished in the 1 Ironman I've ran. I have a vague sense of where I was in percentile terms within my age group, but couldn't give 2 hoots if 3 guys on T therapy beat me. Now,...if I had trained like some of you guys train and someone on T beat out of a Kona spot, THAT would be a bummer

Yup, he definitely cheats at golf too.

Ha!

But, ANYONE doing "T" therapy is a liar if he does any USAT events since you agree to USAT rules when you sign up. They are quite clear about doping.

Medication is between you and your doctor, but when you sign on the dotted line for these races and agree to race according to the rules, and knowingly just ignore the parts you disagree with, it shows a shocking lack of integrity.

It is obvious what the word of anyone who does that is worth - nothing.

Awesome! I nominate this division to be called the Gilderoy Lockhart division. Mirrors provided in transition.

So he's a doper, AND a jerk. Really the complete package.

Why do people at the back of the pack think the rules don't apply to them? Seriously. I see this all the time, mostly with drafting. People think that because they're not winning awards it doesn't matter if they cheat.

If you're taking testosterone without a TUE, you ARE a doper. It's not a matter of opinion.

the difference between me and those of you who live and die by the "rules" is that i live in reality, and reality is not absolute, it's not pure black and white. i'm 57, i take medically prescribed T to improve the quality of my life. and yes, i am aware that it is on the WADA banned substance list. given that fact, i'll agree that my use would constitute "doping", in the literal sense. in reality, i participate (i prefer to use that word instead of compete, because it's more accurate) in triathlons as a recreational activity, an end goal to attach to training /preparation. again, i finish waaay back in the pack, so anything i do or anything i ingest will have zero effect on anyone who is truly "competing". so, i'm not about to go to the effort of obtaining a TUE because it will influence nothing; if my T gets me into a "normal range" as far as my health and quality of life is concerned, i'm not gaining any advantage on anyone. so, yeah, in this particular circumstance, i am ignoring the rule regarding this substance. if this suggests to some of you that i am a cheat, you go right ahead and believe that, i really don't give a shit. further, to suggest that i "cheat" across the board, such as drafting, because i am slow and in the back of the pack, is being intellectually dishonest.

it's clear that some of you are hard-line anti-doping, period, and that's fine. now, how many of you same folks stop at EVERY stop sign, or commit some other traffic violation on occasion ? if so, nice for you. if not, then accept being a "rule-following" hypocrite and keep your righteous indignation to yourself.