Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
J
Juice Authority
Guest
http://www.t-mag.com/nation_articles/304reb.jsp
Here at T-Nation, we don't expect much from the lay media when it comes to topics like steroids and nutritional supplements. Journalists today are much like trainers who work in large gym chains. These "trainers" are experts at selling gym memberships, not at getting their clients in shape. Well, today's reporters have sadly become more adept at selling newspapers and magazines than reporting the facts.
In this competitive market, their goal is to excite people, to entertain them and, if necessary, to scare them. Fear sells copies, after all, and misinformation is much more titillating than the truth. Well, we're sick of it, and we're calling out some of the worst offenders.
The latest offender is Chuck Hirshberg, author of "The Dangers of Steroids." This article was part of ESPN.com's Writers' Bloc feature. Look it over and then read Cy Willson's rebuttal below. We'll also be sending Mr. Hirshberg a copy of this article and see what he has to say, if anything.
Poison or Medicine?
Although performance enhancing drugs have always been part of professional sports, the media's interest in them has been cyclical. In spite of the fact that steroids and other drugs permeate high-level sport, the sporting press only gets involved when they have to, like when a few star athletes get busted or when the circumstantial evidence becomes overwhelming (read Barry Bonds.)
If there was a way to actually get rid of all performance enhancing drug use in sports, ESPN and Sports Illustrated wouldn't have much to write about : the Olympics would get boring really fast as no records would ever get broken and attendance-boosting homerun races would be a thing of the past. The Tour De France? Just boys with tight shorts on bikes.
Because they have to "do the right thing" and support the network agenda, these journalists must then turn around and bite the hand that feeds them. That means they must write article about steroids. This, for me, is where the problem starts.
When it comes to topics that are debatable, such as the morality or legality of performance enhancing drug use, I couldn't care less about what these guys write about. But when it comes to the discussion of drugs and the pharmacology thereof, I have a very big problem. In short, the average sports reporter knows dick about steroids, growth hormone, and legal sports supplements. The things they put in print and say on the air make those of us who do know something about these topics groan and smack our foreheads in frustration.
Instead of pointing out every unchecked false statement, myth, misconception, and outright lie I see daily concerning androgens, I'll focus on one recent ESPN.com piece, "The Dangers of Steroids" by Chuck Hirshberg. I'll quote or paraphrase the author, then rebut.
Make sure you've got your cup on, Chuck.
Hirshberg: "Creatine and steroids are completely different. Creatine is found naturally in your muscle and won’t cause you harm but steroids are poison compared to it. Steroids increase Testosterone levels and if you take enough, you’ll build muscle mass beyond the human body’s natural capabilities."
Rebuttal: I'm sick and tired of reporters stating that the mechanism of action with anabolic steroids is increasing endogenous Testosterone production. Androgens decrease endogenous Testosterone production!
The only androgen that would ever result in supraphysiological levels of Testosterone is Testosterone itself! Even in that case, endogenous (natural) Test production is still suppressed. It's people like Mr. Hirshberg — who have no background in any science and don't bother to check with someone who does — who continually perpetuate myths and misinformation. If the topic here was masturbation, journalist like this would still be writing about spontaneous vision loss and the epidemic of hairy palms.
And what’s this about creatine being safe? Yes, it is safe, we've always known it's safe, but wasn’t it just a few years ago when the media was running huge stories about the supposed harmful side effects? Remember the clueless (but no doubt copy selling) articles about kidney and liver damage? As I recall, these same reporters even pulled aside a few "experts" like local high school coaches and 87-year old physicians (who haven't cracked a book or research report in 30 years) and confirmed the "dangers" of creatine with them. Yet now that it’s been accepted that creatine monohydrate is safe, the media somehow forgets about this.
I think I remember something similar with low carbohydrate, high protein diets. Yes, that’s right, apparently these too cause kidney damage and are completely unhealthy and haven't even been shown to be efficacious. Oh that’s right, the media was again wrong, weren't they? But where were the retractions? Where were the big stories about the safety of creatine and low carb diets? What's wrong, does good news not sell as many magazines and newspapers? Hey, maybe the lay press should either do their research or (gasp!) keep their mouths closed when it comes to topics they know little about!
The sad thing here is the general public derives most of what they know from the popular media. Not just the average Joe either; this is even true when it comes to those in the scientific community. I honestly can’t tell you how many times I’ve argued with college professors in the past. It got to the point where I just had to bite my tongue.
I’ve had a PhD in biochemistry tell me that thyroid hormone is a steroid and then proceed to tell me that it might cause liver damage. For those who don’t know, thyroid hormone isn't a steroid hormone and doesn't cause liver damage. Anabolic steroids might, but only 17 alpha-alkylated steroids can do this and then only if misused and abused. Even then, the liver toxicity issue is blown way out of proportion. (See my Steroids for Health 2003 article for more info on that.)
I’ve had a PhD in molecular genetics tell me all steroids can cause gynecomastia. Oh really? Corticosteroids and even cholesterol are chemically steroids. So these cause gyno too? Afraid not.
Does this mean these people are stupid? Of course not. In fact, one of them is a top scientist working in research focusing on neurodegenerative disorders. I know firsthand they’re very intelligent, but the fact is that their research interests have nothing to do with anabolic steroids, nor have they really received any direct education on the matter. Instead they derive their information, for the most part, from the media.
Aside from that, my own siblings (two Pharm D’s and an MD) are misinformed about anabolic steroids. Unfortunately, these are the types of people who reporters turn to, whether they be PhD’s, MD’s, or Pharm D’s. They look for those who'll support their own misinformed views. Did you know that T-Nation has been contacted many times by reporters gathering "facts" about steroids? We give them the facts too, but oddly enough, not much of what we tell them ever gets printed. Why? Do I smell an agenda?
For once, just once, I’d like a reporter to interview a person like Shalender Bhasin, M.D., who’s the Chief of the Division of Endocrinology in the Department of Internal Medicine at Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science. Anyone who’s familiar with his research will know that he’s brought forth some of the best data in terms of androgens and their biological effects in humans. But no, the local Ears, Nose and Throat doc always gets the call and always gives the reporter the info he's looking for. For once, I’d like one of these reporters to interview someone who actually researches androgens and their effects in humans.
I once asked a local reporter why it seemed that the media so often tries to create mass hysteria by reporting untrue or somewhat falsified stories or taking things completely out of context. His reply? "What’s the fun in reporting the truth?" Which do you think is going to draw more of the public’s attention, the boring truth or the truth with a bunch of BS thrown on top to get people panicking or at the very least intrigued? In other words, who wants to read that steroids are compounds that have legitimate medicinal uses and few side effects when used properly? Nah, that's no fun, but stories of instantaneous death, violent behavior and cancer? Now that sells magazines and boosts ratings, doesn't it?
Back to Mr. Hirshberg. Part of his reasoning is that things like creatine are safe because they’re found "naturally" in the body. Well, if he’s using that argument, maybe someone should tell him that Testosterone is found "naturally in the body" and that it, too, must be safe. Granted, the analogues of Testosterone aren’t found naturally in the body, but regardless, his logic is a bit circular in this regard.
As for having more muscle and less fat than a man would normally have.... oh no, we certainly don’t want that! I mean it's obvious that increasing lean body mass has so many detrimental effects like...um...well, let's see, um… heck, I can't think of any. What you do get is decreased LDL, increased HDL, decreased triglycerides in addition to decreased blood pressure, and even improved glycemic control that results from an improvement of insulin sensitivity. It may also improve your sleep and mood and you'll likely even feel more energetic. Nasty side effects, huh?
Here at T-Nation, we don't expect much from the lay media when it comes to topics like steroids and nutritional supplements. Journalists today are much like trainers who work in large gym chains. These "trainers" are experts at selling gym memberships, not at getting their clients in shape. Well, today's reporters have sadly become more adept at selling newspapers and magazines than reporting the facts.
In this competitive market, their goal is to excite people, to entertain them and, if necessary, to scare them. Fear sells copies, after all, and misinformation is much more titillating than the truth. Well, we're sick of it, and we're calling out some of the worst offenders.
The latest offender is Chuck Hirshberg, author of "The Dangers of Steroids." This article was part of ESPN.com's Writers' Bloc feature. Look it over and then read Cy Willson's rebuttal below. We'll also be sending Mr. Hirshberg a copy of this article and see what he has to say, if anything.
Poison or Medicine?
Although performance enhancing drugs have always been part of professional sports, the media's interest in them has been cyclical. In spite of the fact that steroids and other drugs permeate high-level sport, the sporting press only gets involved when they have to, like when a few star athletes get busted or when the circumstantial evidence becomes overwhelming (read Barry Bonds.)
If there was a way to actually get rid of all performance enhancing drug use in sports, ESPN and Sports Illustrated wouldn't have much to write about : the Olympics would get boring really fast as no records would ever get broken and attendance-boosting homerun races would be a thing of the past. The Tour De France? Just boys with tight shorts on bikes.
Because they have to "do the right thing" and support the network agenda, these journalists must then turn around and bite the hand that feeds them. That means they must write article about steroids. This, for me, is where the problem starts.
When it comes to topics that are debatable, such as the morality or legality of performance enhancing drug use, I couldn't care less about what these guys write about. But when it comes to the discussion of drugs and the pharmacology thereof, I have a very big problem. In short, the average sports reporter knows dick about steroids, growth hormone, and legal sports supplements. The things they put in print and say on the air make those of us who do know something about these topics groan and smack our foreheads in frustration.
Instead of pointing out every unchecked false statement, myth, misconception, and outright lie I see daily concerning androgens, I'll focus on one recent ESPN.com piece, "The Dangers of Steroids" by Chuck Hirshberg. I'll quote or paraphrase the author, then rebut.
Make sure you've got your cup on, Chuck.
Hirshberg: "Creatine and steroids are completely different. Creatine is found naturally in your muscle and won’t cause you harm but steroids are poison compared to it. Steroids increase Testosterone levels and if you take enough, you’ll build muscle mass beyond the human body’s natural capabilities."
Rebuttal: I'm sick and tired of reporters stating that the mechanism of action with anabolic steroids is increasing endogenous Testosterone production. Androgens decrease endogenous Testosterone production!
The only androgen that would ever result in supraphysiological levels of Testosterone is Testosterone itself! Even in that case, endogenous (natural) Test production is still suppressed. It's people like Mr. Hirshberg — who have no background in any science and don't bother to check with someone who does — who continually perpetuate myths and misinformation. If the topic here was masturbation, journalist like this would still be writing about spontaneous vision loss and the epidemic of hairy palms.
And what’s this about creatine being safe? Yes, it is safe, we've always known it's safe, but wasn’t it just a few years ago when the media was running huge stories about the supposed harmful side effects? Remember the clueless (but no doubt copy selling) articles about kidney and liver damage? As I recall, these same reporters even pulled aside a few "experts" like local high school coaches and 87-year old physicians (who haven't cracked a book or research report in 30 years) and confirmed the "dangers" of creatine with them. Yet now that it’s been accepted that creatine monohydrate is safe, the media somehow forgets about this.
I think I remember something similar with low carbohydrate, high protein diets. Yes, that’s right, apparently these too cause kidney damage and are completely unhealthy and haven't even been shown to be efficacious. Oh that’s right, the media was again wrong, weren't they? But where were the retractions? Where were the big stories about the safety of creatine and low carb diets? What's wrong, does good news not sell as many magazines and newspapers? Hey, maybe the lay press should either do their research or (gasp!) keep their mouths closed when it comes to topics they know little about!
The sad thing here is the general public derives most of what they know from the popular media. Not just the average Joe either; this is even true when it comes to those in the scientific community. I honestly can’t tell you how many times I’ve argued with college professors in the past. It got to the point where I just had to bite my tongue.
I’ve had a PhD in biochemistry tell me that thyroid hormone is a steroid and then proceed to tell me that it might cause liver damage. For those who don’t know, thyroid hormone isn't a steroid hormone and doesn't cause liver damage. Anabolic steroids might, but only 17 alpha-alkylated steroids can do this and then only if misused and abused. Even then, the liver toxicity issue is blown way out of proportion. (See my Steroids for Health 2003 article for more info on that.)
I’ve had a PhD in molecular genetics tell me all steroids can cause gynecomastia. Oh really? Corticosteroids and even cholesterol are chemically steroids. So these cause gyno too? Afraid not.
Does this mean these people are stupid? Of course not. In fact, one of them is a top scientist working in research focusing on neurodegenerative disorders. I know firsthand they’re very intelligent, but the fact is that their research interests have nothing to do with anabolic steroids, nor have they really received any direct education on the matter. Instead they derive their information, for the most part, from the media.
Aside from that, my own siblings (two Pharm D’s and an MD) are misinformed about anabolic steroids. Unfortunately, these are the types of people who reporters turn to, whether they be PhD’s, MD’s, or Pharm D’s. They look for those who'll support their own misinformed views. Did you know that T-Nation has been contacted many times by reporters gathering "facts" about steroids? We give them the facts too, but oddly enough, not much of what we tell them ever gets printed. Why? Do I smell an agenda?
For once, just once, I’d like a reporter to interview a person like Shalender Bhasin, M.D., who’s the Chief of the Division of Endocrinology in the Department of Internal Medicine at Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science. Anyone who’s familiar with his research will know that he’s brought forth some of the best data in terms of androgens and their biological effects in humans. But no, the local Ears, Nose and Throat doc always gets the call and always gives the reporter the info he's looking for. For once, I’d like one of these reporters to interview someone who actually researches androgens and their effects in humans.
I once asked a local reporter why it seemed that the media so often tries to create mass hysteria by reporting untrue or somewhat falsified stories or taking things completely out of context. His reply? "What’s the fun in reporting the truth?" Which do you think is going to draw more of the public’s attention, the boring truth or the truth with a bunch of BS thrown on top to get people panicking or at the very least intrigued? In other words, who wants to read that steroids are compounds that have legitimate medicinal uses and few side effects when used properly? Nah, that's no fun, but stories of instantaneous death, violent behavior and cancer? Now that sells magazines and boosts ratings, doesn't it?
Back to Mr. Hirshberg. Part of his reasoning is that things like creatine are safe because they’re found "naturally" in the body. Well, if he’s using that argument, maybe someone should tell him that Testosterone is found "naturally in the body" and that it, too, must be safe. Granted, the analogues of Testosterone aren’t found naturally in the body, but regardless, his logic is a bit circular in this regard.
As for having more muscle and less fat than a man would normally have.... oh no, we certainly don’t want that! I mean it's obvious that increasing lean body mass has so many detrimental effects like...um...well, let's see, um… heck, I can't think of any. What you do get is decreased LDL, increased HDL, decreased triglycerides in addition to decreased blood pressure, and even improved glycemic control that results from an improvement of insulin sensitivity. It may also improve your sleep and mood and you'll likely even feel more energetic. Nasty side effects, huh?
