GEORGE SPELLWIN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Enlightening Men about Anabolic Steroids and Bodybuilding for over Two Decades
|
 Elite Fitness Bodybuilding, Anabolics, Diet, Life Extension, Wellness, Supplements, and Training Boards
 Women's Discussion Board
 Daddy was juicing hard....
|
| Author | Topic: Daddy was juicing hard.... | ||
|
Amateur Bodybuilder 
Posts: 286 |
Just got done reading the thread about BC and gear...oh yes that question just keeps poppin'up. Geesh, wish there was some hard data on that. For me I would say that getting pregnant while on gear would be far worse than hindering any gains. I worried my ass off during my second pregnancy because Mr. Riptchick was doing some major cycles when I got pregnant. I, like a dumbass, told the doctor (like they would know) about all the shit he was on and was wondering what, if any, kinds of affects it would have on junior. After the initial, anti-gear, speech she made several hundred phone calls and came to the conclusion that it wouldn't have any effects on the baby that they knew of. Now, I must say, it is odd that baby number 1 (no gear) weighed 6lbs 5 ozs at birth at full term and that baby 2 (Dad was juicin') weighed 9lbs 12 ozs at 38 weeks. They are five years apart and now weigh within 10 lbs of each other. Now that is not to say that they wouldn't have been that way to begin with. There are all kinds of genetic mysteries that no one has yet to understand. Who knows but I did think it was interesting. Does anyone have any info on if gear alters your own DNA or am I just watching too many sci fi movies....hehe. Also just wondering if any of you'll have had kids while you were on gear? Results, birth weights etc....any interesting stories?     | ||
|
Cool Novice 
Posts: 29 |
I don't know about the baby's size due to your hubby's gear...my husband and I weren't on anything at the time and my son weigh 11.2 when he was born. My husband is 6'4 190 with a crazy fast metabolism and before baby I was 5'7 145 with 14% BF. Who knows! Some babies just grow big! I was only 6 pounds when I was born and my hubby was a month early @ 8.5#. The difference in weight is kinda weird though..... | ||
|
Cool Novice
Posts: 22 |
The baby's birth weight is probably not due to your husband's use. Steroids cannot alter DNA. Once the egg and sperm get together - your set with the DNA you're going to have for the rest of your life. So, your husband's sperm will not be altered by steroids, but the concentration of sperm in the semen can change with steroid use. Also, there are two major factors in baby birth weight: the baby's genetics, and the environment the mother creates for the fetus in her womb. The second can have a much more pronounced effect than the first. I'd say the large birthweight is due to a combination of the baby's genetics and your lifestyle during the pregnancy. AYN | ||
|
Amateur Bodybuilder
Posts: 50 |
Had a personal friend get pregnant when she was on Deca and Winny, Her boyfried was doing test, & deca at the time. She is 5'0", 120lbs 14% b/f, Her boyfriend 5'11", 195lbs. 8% b/f. Her son weighed 12.4 lbs.at birth. He is now 4 years old and is the size of a six year old and wears a size 8 weighs about 40 lbs and is solid. Now, I don't know if it's gear related or not but I have always thought so. Doesn't have any developmental problems or glandular problems as he has been checked out 'cause the doc thought he was just too big for his age and might have some kind of giantism thing going on. Kind of interesting. !!!! ------------------ | ||
|
Amateur Bodybuilder
Posts: 286 |
Yes, I definitely agree that it is probably not gear related I just thought it was thought provoking. I was in much much better physical shape when baby two was conceived....I also gained more weight with my second son....its just interesting that he has maintained such a steady growth outside the womb as well. He's a huge kid. I read an article a long time ago in, I believe MM2000, regarding gear sides in women and while it didn't go into much detail, it did discuss some instances where children born to mothers on gear were larger and more aggressive. Now, that's not a scientific study of course, I would seriously question any instance where someone could say that they know this or that about genetic predisposition to aggressiveness or size with respect to mom's gear use. There simply is not enough data on that or any controlled studies I'm sure. Plus it doesn't address any other factors such as environment etc. Studies like that are bogus from the get go. Just an interesting topic that I thought would produce some diverse responses. I would tend to think that in terms of health women who train to such a degree that gear usage is an issue would have healthier babies simply because of the diet and lifestyle that they are leading at the time.... | ||
|
Moderator 
Posts: 2023 |
I don't have anything to add about the "gear" side of this issue, only adding some data of my own about my kiddies for comparison. Child 1. 8# 15oz at birth - big baby for small lady. By the age of one she was in a 2T/3T the size of your average 2 year old). She is now 8+ and though her rate of growth has remained unchanged (95% or higher) in respect to height between her 2nd and 3rd bday her weight gain had sharply declined. She would grow 3" and only gain about 3# per year! She is amazingly tall and skinny!....child eats like a fucking horse!...but is picky. Has a definite sweet-tooth. Child 2. 6#7oz - born pettite, just turned 7 and remains small. She has a small frame and is also VERY skinny and wiry. EATS LIKE AFUCKING HORSE!...loves her veggies and eats mostly anything I give her w/out much of a fight. Prefers salty/fatty to sweets (ie chips). Child 3. 6#4oz - born 2 weeks early, a bit jaundiced and the runt of the litter. Is now 5 1/2 and is the thickest most muscularly well-developed of the four. She is still in "slim" sizes but has wide feet and definitely the largest frame. She has amazing hamstrings, shoulders etc. EATS LIKE A FUCKING HORSE - LOVES BEEF, EGGS, SAUSAGE....you name it, if it once moved, she will eat it. She will pass up oreos and chips for another helping of dinner! Child 4. 6#6oz - will be 4 on Sunday. Has a small frame but not as small as child 2, will probably not attain the height of child 1. Gives me a hard time about a lot of different foods (but then again, this is somewhat typical for her age range) - If she doesn't eat the "food", she doesn't get the junk...PERIOD. All four children are active - ride bikes, play on swing set, walk to school, etc. NO VIDEO GAMES, NO CABLE TV, NO GAMEBOY - PERIOD. I was best able to eat properly and get the most rest when I was pregnant w/my first child. With the others I had less and less time to care for myself as I could have had that been my first time around. In the end, genetics took over. I have the same diet/activity rules for ALL FOUR (ie no junk till you eat the real food and here's a ball, go play) and regardless of how large/small they were at birth.....nature took its course. All four are different and all four are healthy. Whether they are solid or thin and wiry...the point is that they are active and eat a diet that is varied and healthy....and are all STRONG AS MOFOS! Heck, they have better muscletone than their male cousins who are 10 and 12 years old. NOW WHAT IS UP WITH THAT?! I would be curious to see though, what effect gear use would have on a child (I mean if the mom and dad used before the child was concieved). Experts out there? ------------------ | ||
|
Pro Bodybuilder 
Posts: 484 |
Birth weights of my brood First son - 9lbs 14oz | ||
|
Cool Novice
Posts: 22 |
All interesting stuff, but as riptchick pointed out, there have not been, and likely never will be studies that look at this question in females. BUT, I have been searching for a peice of research that I came across last week on a related topic. I seem to have lost it. I've been looking because it was also relevant to WarLobos muscle fiber thread. But this study showed that prenatal nutrition can influence the development of muscle fiber type in the unborn kiddies. From memory I think that high density, 'good' nutrition favored type 2 muscle formation, and poorer nutrition favored type 1 muscle development. Now I would expect a woman who had recently been taking gear to be very nutrition conscience, and MUCH more likely to eat well during pregnancy than your average "I wanna be a model and don't want to get fat" type of woman. I would love to look at birth weight of children in female bodybuilders on and off gear to see how much nutrition contributes to size and health of babies compared to how much (and if) the gear has an effect. | ||
|
Elite Bodybuilder 
Posts: 619 |
The reason is most likely that men and women using gear are more healthy than the average person, so I fetus is able to grow to its full potential. It doesnt have to deal with an unhealthy mother stiffling its attempts to mature, like unhealthy eating by the mother resulting in the fetus not getting adequate nutrients to grow. The father being healthier leads to "healthier" sperm (better motility and the same issues with better nutrition leading to better sperm). AAS doesnt alter anything in your genetic code! So it wouldnt have a bearing on your childrens development... ------------------ |
| |
posted December 06, 2000 09:52 PM
