I was just added to the February 29th 2008 Arnold Strength Training Summit speaker list. I will be giving a presentation with Hall of fame Strength and Conditioning Coach Dr. John Garhammer on the the application and implementation of the Olympic lifts in strength training. It’s a great honor for to be speaking with my mentor and friend. If you are going to be at the Summit, please stop by and say hello.
–
Sean
PureStrength.com
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Disclaimer: Pure Strength Inc. or Sean Waxman does not advocate or condone the use of any anobolic/androgenic substance. However, we do advocate educating yourself so you can form your own opinions instead of digesting what the mainstream media forces down your throat!
The Demonization of Anabolic Steroids, Part 2
Modern Society’s Love-Hate Relationship with Strength and Muscle
by John Williams
“[i]t is not from the strongest that harm comes to the strong, but from the weakest.”
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844-1900)
Introduction
The class of illicit drugs known as anabolic steroids, or more accurately referred to as anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS), is subject to a general “catch-all” definition. Although the laws of prohibition specifically name certain steroids, this general definition specifically excludes certain steroids from the scope of those laws. The single characteristic of a steroid which allows it to be classified as an illicit drug is not a chemical one, but rather, a reference to its physical effect: that it promotes muscle growth. It would seem, then, that muscle growth is a bad thing! Can it be said that modern American society treats strength and muscle as a social evil?
Are Strength and Muscle Considered Dysfunctional in Modern Society?
Historically, strength and muscle have been the stuff from which legend was made. From the biblical stories of Samson1 to the legendary Charles Atlas,2 strength and muscle had always been a source of respect and admiration. But as we stand at the brink of a new millennium, it appears that an overzealous pursuit of social inclusiveness and a reliance on technology have denigrated strength and muscle to little more than a primitive dysfunction.
* Women and Muscle
Those of us who grew to maturity in the 1970s remember the phenomenon known as “Women’s Liberation,” as well as the crown jewel of that early feminist movement, the Equal Rights Amendment.3 Although the goals of modern equity feminism have not been reached, we have grown accustomed to seeing women in positions as executives and skilled professionals, and in jobs traditionally reserved for men: construction workers, police officers, and firefighters. Nevertheless, society’s regard for strong and muscular women has changed very little since Victorian times.
****-Rx author Krista Scott-Dixon, a doctoral candidate in women’s studies, has written:
“Proper” femininity, for example, does not include muscles, strength, bulk, or physical power. *** The actual physical presence of muscular women is a challenge to rigidly gendered ideologies. In a society that prefers to function with an orderly demarcation of “normal” gender, female bodybuilders are constituted as deviant.4
George Whyte, a competitive bodybuilder from London, offered this view of bodybuilding in general, and women’s bodybuilding in particular:
[i]t’s always been seen as a freak show, and it will never be accepted. I personally don’t give a shit if the public accept bodybuilding. We can sustain ourselves. The fact that the bodybuilding public don’t have much interest in going to female bodybuilding shows that female bodybuilding is in a bad state. You can’t force people to buy tickets.5
In one university study, male and female students where shown photographs of male and female bodybuilders, as well as photographs of non-bodybuilders of each sex, and they were asked to attribute personality traits and sex-role behaviors to the persons shown in the photographs; both males and females attributed more masculine and less feminine tendencies to the female bodybuilders, despite the fact that they did not perceive any difference in such tendencies between bodybuilding and non-bodybuilding males.6 Perceptions such as these send the message that muscle makes a woman less of a woman.
It seems clear that, not only in the United States, but throughout all modern culture, strength and muscle in women is odd at best, and at worst, an outright abomination. Despite the advances which women have made in social equity, muscular strength is still not considered to be a proper goal for the “gentler sex.” But are these traits universally accepted amongst men?
* Muscle and Older Men
As a male over the age of 40 years, this author has experienced mainstream society’s curious perception of aging men who pursue strength training on more than a casual level: “Why not golf? Or racquetball? Or maybe enter some 10K races? Why would an older guy want to lift great big weights?”
It is true, of course, that a decrease in strength and muscle should be expected amongst older adults. As we age, the cross-sectional size and the number of muscle fibers in skeletal muscles decrease, and the relative strength of those muscles also decreases.7 However, heavy resistance training can minimize and even reverse that effect.8 In fact, substantial gains in muscle size (hypertrophy) have been observed as a result of heavy resistance training, not only in middle-aged adults, but also in the elderly.9 Nevertheless, the fact that muscular hypertrophy can be achieved by older men does not change social expectations.
Oddly enough, the most negative response to strength and muscle in older men appears to come from their peer age group. While younger adults, both male and female, may appreciate the muscularity of an aging male, those in his own age group will likely view that trait less favorably. A study involving 500 subjects, ranging in age from six to 60, showed that nearly all subjects attributed more favorable traits to ****morphs (muscular types) than to ectomorphs (slender types) or endomorphs (obese types), but that ****morphs were rated more negatively as the age of the group members increased.10
* Marginalization of the Strength and Muscle Culture
The culture of strength and muscle are best characterized by two types of competition: powerlifting and bodybuilding. While powerlifting is the ultimate expression of pure strength in athletic competition, bodybuilding expresses the aesthetics of muscular hypertrophy in physical appearance. Yet neither of these competitive events enjoy any substantial public support.
In its “Guidelines for Organising a World Championship” the International Powerlifting Federation suggests that “[t]he venue should provide seating for a minimum of 500 spectators.”11 Five hundred spectators at a world championship? Bodybuilding fares better in attendance, but not by much. In 1998, Joe Weider’s Mr. Olympia, the most prestigious contest in bodybuilding, was held at New York’s Madison Square Garden with a sold-out crowd of less than 6,000.12 Compare this to basketball, for instance, where the venue in smaller cities, such as the Cleveland Cavaliers’ 20,000-seat Gund Arena, can boast annual attendance of more than 800,000 during a single season.13 Despite the enthusiastic support of die-hard fans, strength and muscle competitions are of minimal interest to the mainstream American public.
* Body Dysmorphic Disorder: The Deviance of Strength and Muscle
The attitude of many newcomers to strength training are revealed in Usenet’s most prolific weight training newsgroup, misc.fitness.weights:
“What I want to do is get stronger and have more tone without getting big. I really have a fear of getting huge.”14
“I don’t wanna get all huge and buff. Just solid and well toned.”15
“I’m not interested in getting big (just toned well.)”16
While these comments aptly demonstrate the ubiquitous use of the misnomer “tone” and the naïveté of the writers as to what is really involved in achieving the desired results, they also exhibit an attitude toward strength and muscle that has become quite prevalent: one should avoid getting too big or too strong. Does this attitude have an underlying source?
The answer is an emphatic “Yes!” As if strength and muscle were not already subject to sufficient social criticism, some in the medical community have recently decided to designate them as deviant. Coining the word “bigorexia” from a more familiar term, anorexia nervosa, health commentators have begun a campaign to designate muscular hypertrophy as a new version of body dysmorphic disorder, an obsessive-compulsive psychological illness. Describing the symptoms of this alleged disorder, one commentator stated that “men with the disorder think they are too small, and they exercise excessively or take steroids to bulk up.”17 Does an active effort to become stronger and more muscular make one mentally ill?
Commenting upon the recent recognition of this medical phenomenon, ****-Rx author J. Kevin Thompson, a professor of clinical psychology, cautions:
Certainly, the decision to engage in bodybuilding to improve ones appearance or to meet a personal goal of physical development should not be judged, either positively or negatively, by the professional or lay person. It is a personal and private matter. Indeed, there is no doubt that physical activity in its many and diverse forms may greatly contribute to enhanced self-esteem.18
Thompson further observes that “work in this area is just emerging and much of the research has the ‘pathologizing’ flavor of so much of mental health research (i.e., researchers focus on the psychological problems vs. the positive health associations).”19 Nevertheless, it appears that the popular news media has already seized upon this diagnosis and, fueled by its preexisting prejudice towards strength and muscle, is well on its way to labeling bodybuilders as psychologically deviant.
* Strength, Muscle and Criminality
The most jaundiced view of strength and muscle may come from the perception of its relationship to criminal behavior. Quite simply, people tend to fear those who are strong and muscular. Because some violent criminals are, indeed, strong and muscular, this fear is not completely unfounded; however, it has become so deeply ingrained in our social consciousness that many people distrust anyone who has these characteristics, regardless of other facts and circumstances.
In 1949, William H. Sheldon, the father of “somatotyping,” examined the relationship of body types to juvenile delinquency, and in his rating of 200 delinquent boys, he found a strong association between ****morphy (muscularity) and “assertiveness and uninhibited action” amongst the boys.20 Later studies of adult males in state penitentiaries, particularly the most violent criminals, also found a high incidence of ****morphic body types.21 These findings merely confirm a fallacy in public perception known as “affirming the consequent”: bad guys are big and strong, so big, strong guys must be bad.
In recent years, the fear of strong, muscular criminals has manifested itself in the legislative action to remove weight-training facilities from correctional institutions. Over the objections of corrections officials, including guards who deal directly with weightlifting prisoners, state and federal legislators have responded to public demand for prohibition of weight-training equipment in jails and prisons. In the State of Ohio, all weight-training equipment has been banned in local jails and regional correctional facilities, and free weights have been prohibited in state penal facilities, allowing only the use of selectorized strength-training equipment for limited periods.22 In federal correctional institutions, this trend has moved more slowly; however, the No Frills Prison Act seeks to ban “training equipment for any martial art or bodybuilding or weightlifting equipment” from all federal correctional facilities, and that bill has been referred to the Subcommittee on Crime of the House Judiciary Committee.23
Some concerned citizens argue that weight training will allow prisoners to overpower and intimidate guards, and that it serves to release stronger criminals back into society; they also argue that weight training equipment can be used as weapons against guards and as tools for escape.24 Although these concerns are not unfounded, the public appears to harbor serious misconceptions about the true results to prison weightlifting programs, and many of the suggested alternatives are not as effective as critics might believe.
Suggestions have been made that weightlifting equipment provides deadly weapons to inmates, and that adequate exercise can be provided through other recreational activities that do not involve such inherently dangerous instrumentalities.25 Although weightlifting equipment has been used as weapons in correctional settings, this answer is not as simple as it seems. On August 14, 1986, an inmate at the Wayne County Jail in Wooster, Ohio, staged an escape with four other inmates where a jail guard received near-fatal injuries after being beaten with a dumbbell and a “tension bar” exercise device.26 Ironically enough, on April 23, 1993, immediately before the end of the nationally-televised siege at Southern Ohio Correctional Facility in Lucasville, Ohio, that same inmate was beaten to death with a baseball bat which had been removed from the prison recreational supplies.27 The simple truth is that if prisoners wish to fashion deadly weapons, they will find something that works. So much for the safety of other recreational equipment.
Contrary to popular belief, many corrections officials, including guards, strongly support weightlifting in prisons. It can be used as a privilege which may be withdrawn as a punishment for negative behavior, and it can teach discipline and improve self esteem; furthermore, it occupies inmates’ leisure time, which might be devoted to more nefarious activities.28 Nevertheless, state and federal legislators are more interested in the public’s fear of bigger, stronger criminals, and legislative action continues.
Society’s negative attitude toward strength and muscle appears to be the combined effect of many factors, including the publics distaste for women with muscle; its curious regard for muscular older men; its shunning of the strength culture; and its ever-increasing view of muscle as deviant and criminal. Given these social pressures, why would anyone want to be strong and muscular, and more to the point, why would they want to risk the use of anabolic steroids in reaching that goal? Perhaps the answer lies in the unspoken expression of society’s more primitive desires and needs.
Does Modern Society Send Conflicting Messages on Strength and Muscle?
Despite open disdain for the culture of muscle, there exists an underlying appreciation and demand for the same. Popular sports require substantial degrees of strength at all levels: professional, collegiate, and adolescent. Furthermore, physical appearance is important. The sexual attraction inherent in the human mating process favors strength and muscle, not only with respect to men, but also to a lesser extent, as to women. Contrary to the conventional belief that these primitive traits are irrelevant in a modern civilized society, our attraction to strength and muscle is inherent in our nature, and it still serves as a very powerful motivator in our social transactions.
* Strength and Muscle in Sports
America’s appreciation for sports has not waned as we move into the new millennium. Professional sports heroes are still receiving contracts and salaries in sums which are far beyond the wildest dreams of the average person, and professional sports franchises have become the most prized possessions of our wealthiest citizens. Of course, the public’s demand for excellence in sporting competition is not without a price; those who participate in these sports are expected to win, and obtaining the “winning edge” often involves the use of AAS.
Steve Courson, a former offensive lineman for the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, is now suing the NFL players’ benefit fund for disability benefits due to his enlarged heart, which he claims was the result of AAS use, a professional necessity during his NFL career.29 Courson has said that he recalls thinking, “If I don’t take them, I’m risking my job security.”30 Strength is essential to a professional offensive lineman, and the exercise of that superior strength is demanded by the fans.
Olympic athletes face the same pressures. National attention is directed at their achievements, and they are expected to win, not only on their behalf and that of their team, but on behalf of their nation. Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson was stripped of his gold medal after the 1988 Olympic Games when he tested positive for the use of anabolic steroids.31 However, as observed by ****-Rx author Brent Allen, it is interesting to note the comment of his competitor, Carl Lewis, before the Senate hearings on the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990:
The steroids made that much of an impact over a 7-year period in his [Ben Johnson's] career. We are talking about someone who went from possibly 50th or 60th in the world to No. 1 in the world, setting world records.32
It seems clear that Johnson’s success was the result of AAS use. But was that AAS use fueled only by a personal desire to succeed, or was it the product of national expectations? Would athletes such as Courson and Johnson, with the advantage of hindsight, choose to sacrifice Super Bowl rings and Olympic gold medals in exchange for athletic mediocrity? It’s doubtful, very doubtful.
Expectations of athletic excellence are not limited to professional and Olympic athletes. Statistics accumulated by the National Criminal Justice Reference Service have shown that, in 1993, 1.2% of high school seniors had used AAS within the last twelve months.33 The United States Justice Department found that figure to have increased to 1.7% by 1998.34 By 1984, 20% of college athletes were using steroids.35 While these figures may alarm some, they are indicative of the expectations placed on high school and college athletes; the use of AAS may be a small sacrifice when sports scholarships and professional draft choices are at stake.
* Strength and Muscle in Physical Appearance
While mainstream American society may exhibit disdain for the culture of muscle, we are as obsessed as ever with physical appearance. The presence of substantial muscle is an essential element of physical appearance for men, and to a large extent, for women, too. But most of us know that the exercise devices touted on late-night infomercials do not provide the muscular look which we desire and which most of society secretly craves. AAS do.
Muscularity at its most extreme is exemplified by bodybuilding competitions. Some competitions, such as the AAU Mr. USA, demand that competitors be drug free for extended periods of time; however, the most elite professional competitions, such as the IFBB Mr. Olympia, do not test for AAS use, nor do they require that competitors be free of the same.36 While “all natural” bodybuilding is growing in popularity, it seems that the “best of the best” still use AAS.
Mainstream ideals of physical attractiveness also stress ****morphic builds. In one study involving men’s and women’s ideals of attractive male somatotypes, women emphasized lean/broad-shouldered and average/balanced male types, while men showed more appreciation for the muscular bulk male type; however, both groups perceived that the media promoted stereotypic male muscularity.37 Although this study indicates gender differences in self-reported personal preferences, the more revealing truth may be found in the unified belief regarding media-promoted somatotypes.
Market success depends on well-targeted advertising, and the advertising which is best directed at the buyer’s ego is that which will sell the product, often without regard to the products quality. With regard to muscularity and men’s egos, this seems to be of great importance in underwear advertisements. One need look no further than the advertisements for Jockey underwear to see that muscularity is important.38 Although the models for underwear advertisements do not usually exhibit the type of muscle associated with competitive bodybuilders, they do show a level of ****morphy well beyond that of the normal man.
While many women claim to favor men of average builds, an examination of what they find to be sexually titillating belies that notion. A good indicator of those secret cravings is the appearance of male exotic dancers, i.e., strippers. Promotional photographs of male dancer Jeff DeCosta,39 former-Chippendale Robert Lopez,40 and Exoticomm male dancers “GQ” and “Maverick”41 tell the tale. While male dancers such as these would not qualify for the Mr. Olympia competition, they are far more muscular than the average male which many women claim to prefer. For women to deny their sexual attraction to these muscular male dancers is like men denying that they prefer buxom female strippers: the truth is told by what really sells. And let’s all face facts: the average man sees what type of physique turns the heads of wives and girlfriends when they are together in public.
It is unquestionable that the physiques of many male models and exotic dancers, like the performance of many elite athletes, are enhanced by the use of AAS. It is also clear that a strong athletic performance and muscular appearance is expected, if not mandated, of those who engage in these activities as their livelihood. Does it not follow that these social expectations continue to influence the use of the same drugs which society condemns?
Conclusion
As a civilized society, we seek to ignore or deny our more primitive side. Yet that side of our individual personalities is alive and well, and an essential component of that Freudian id is our attraction to strength and muscle. This undeniable aspect of our personalities conflicts with our more civilized goals of intelligence and reason over brute strength, and of discouraging disdain for the physically unattractive. So as a society, what are we to do?
We live in an age where notions of personal accountability and expectations of personal excellence have been exchanged for compassion and inclusiveness. We also live in a society where the people look to government for legislation which relieves our social discomfort. Conflicts in our outlook on many social issues have led to the demonization of inanimate objects related to those issues, including firearms, pornography, the Internet, and of course, drugs. And when it comes to our ambivalent attitude toward strength and muscle, drugs are the perfect scapegoat.
Strength and muscle make many people uncomfortable. Anabolic-androgenic steroids, by definition, promote strength and muscle. And despite blatant deficiencies in the popular belief that even limited AAS use is dangerous, we have been told by our government and the medical community that these drugs are “bad.” Thus, in 1990, the criminalization process began, and the demonization of AAS was complete. Nevertheless, we are still besieged with news of positive drug tests amongst athletes, hearings before Congress, and new myths of how AAS caused the death of every strong and muscular celebrity who passes on. While it appears that the use of AAS may still be on the rise, the criminalization of these drugs has done little to prevent that; it merely changes users into criminals. The solution is flawed … but don’t expect it to change.
Notes
1 Judges 13-16.
2 Brooks JR; The pecs that launched a thousand gyms [http://www.theglobeandmail.com/gam/H...HE11ATLA.html] The Globe and Mail. 11 Jan 2000.
3 U.S. CONST. amend. XXVII [proposed]. The proposed 27th Amendment, which guaranteed equal treatment under the law on the basis of sex, was passed by Congress and submitted to the States on March 22, 1972. However, after ten years, it still fell at least three short of the required ratifications by 38 states legislatures.
4 Scott-Dixon, K. The bodybuilding grotesque: the female bodybuilder, gender transgressions, and designations of deviance. [http://www.****morphosis.com/article...grotesque.htm] ****morphosis. 15 Dec. 1998.
5 Whyte, G. Ms Olympia cancelled – thoughts? Usenet:misc.fitness.weights. [http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=523430201&fmt=text] 10 Sep 1999.
6 Ryckman RM; Dill DA; Dyer NL; Sanborn JW; Gold JA. Social perceptions of male and female extreme ****morphs. J Soc Psychol. 1992 Oct;132(5):615-27.
7 Kirkendall DT; Garrett WE Jr. The effects of aging and training on skeletal muscle. Am J Sports Med. 1998 Jul-Aug;26(4):598-602.
8 Id.
9 Häkkinen K; Kallinen M; Linnamo V; Pastinen UM; Newton RU; Kraemer WJ. Neuromuscular adaptations during bilateral versus unilateral strength training in middle-aged and elderly men and women. Acta Physiol Scand. 1996 Sep;158(1):77-88.
10 Kirkpatrick SW; Sanders DM. Body image stereotypes: a developmental comparison. J Genet Psychol. 1978 Mar;132(1st Half):87-95.
11 Hosting a world championship: a contest promoters guide and contract. [http://www.ipf.com/tech/champ_manual.htm] IPF Newsletter. 23 Sep 1999.
12 Mr. Olympia contest winners. [http://www.******.com/results/e-mroly.htm] Joe Weider’s Olympia. 1999.
13 Gund Arena: attendance history 1994-1995. [http://www.mediacity.com/~csuppes/NB.../index.htm?../
ClevelandCavaliers/index.htm] Arenas by Muncey & Suppes. 18 Jul 1999.
14 Ong, DT. Please advise a new guy. Usenet:misc.fitness.weights. [http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=555639043&fmt=text] 2 Dec 1999.
15 Anonymous (strat81). Wanna get started lifting… Usenet:misc.fitness.weights. [http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=461011467&fmt=text] 30 Mar 1999.
16 Anonymous (KaptenKman). Starting on the right foot. Usenet:misc.fitness.weights. [http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=353425193&fmt=text] 15 May 1998.
17 Gordon S. Bigger isnt always better. [http://www.healthscout.com/cgi-bin/W...s/Af.woa/3/wo/
0C50008S200UN200RG/1.0.7.5.62.3.3.7.2.3.1] HealthSCOUT. 11 Jan 2000.
18 Thompson JK. Body image, bodybuilding, and cultural ideals of muscularity. [http://www.****morphosis.com/article...ybuilding.htm] ****morphosis. 30 Aug 1999.
19 Id.
20 Carter JEL; Heath BH. Somatotyping: Developments and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press,1990.
21 Id.
22 Ohio Revised Code §341.41, 753.31 and 5145.30.
23 H.R. 370, 106th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1999).
24 Polson G. List of issues concerning weightlifting in prisons. [http://www.strengthtech.com/correct/...g/listing.htm] Strength Tech. 27 Feb 1999.
25 Id.
26 State v. Sommers (Aug.26, 1987), Wayne App. No. 2242, unreported.
27 State v. Robb (Apr.30, 1998), Franklin App. Nos. 95AP08-1003 and 95AP08-1108, unreported.
28 Polson G. List of issues concerning weightlifting in prisons, supra.
29 Willing R. Courson fights steroid ruling. [http://www.usatoday.com/sports/footb...n/sfnd012.htm] USA Today. 6 Jun 1999.
30 The explosion of 300-lbers: burgers, barbells, and genetics … or modern chemistry? [http://www.*******************.com/may98/300lb.html] All Natural Muscular Development. 1998.
31 Bilder R. Drug testing in sport. [http://www.gemini.co.uk/gemini/biopa...art-drug.html] Gemini Biopages. 1995.
32 Allen, B. A “bizarre” look at steroid contradictions. [http://www.****morphosis.com/exclusi...n/bizarre.htm] ****morphosis. 30 Aug 1999.
33 Drug and crime facts, 1994. [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/dcfacts.txt] NCJRS. 1994.
34 Bureau of Justice Statistics drug and crime facts: drug use in the general population. [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/du.htm] USDOJ-BJS. 14 Oct 1999.
35 Smith DA, Perry PJ. The efficacy of ergogenic agents in athletic competition. Part I: androgenic-anabolic steroids. Ann Pharmacother. 1992;26:520-528.
36 Kidwell S. Bodybuilding competition FAQ version 1.0. [http://nps.ticz.com/bbcfaq.htm] Natural Physique Systems. 2 Sep 1998.
37 Salusso-Deonier CJ; Markee NL; Pedersen EL. Gender differences in the evaluation of physical attractiveness ideals for male and female body builds. Percept Mot Skills. 1993 Jun;76(3 Pt 2):1155-67.
38 Mens underwear. [http://www.jockey.com/sitelogic.cfm?id=245] Jockey®. (Date unknown).
39 Jeff DeCosta. [http://muscleweb.com/Jeff/] Muscle Web. 1999.
40 Robert Lopez. [http://muscleweb.com/Robert/] Muscle Web. 1999.
41 GQ. [http://www.exoticomm.com/images/stripads/gq01.gif]; Maverick. [http://www.exoticomm.com/images/stripads/maver01.gif] Exoticomm. 29 Nov 1999.
–
Sean
PureStrength.com
Disclaimer: Pure Strength Inc. or Sean Waxman does not advocate or condone the use of any anobolic/androgenic substance. However, we do advocate educating yourself so you can form your own opinions instead of digesting what the mainstream media forces down your throat!
The Demonization of Anabolic Steroids, Part 1
What Makes These Hormones So Evil?
by John Williams
“Laws are like sausages. It’s better not to see them being made.”
Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898)
Introduction
In the United States, anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) have always been considered drugs. Contrary to what today’s young athletes may believe, these substances were never stocked on the shelves of the corner grocery store. However, only within the last decade have these drugs been classified as “controlled substances,” thereby placing them in the same general category as more infamous drugs, including heroin, cocaine, LSD, and methamphetamine. The purpose of this article is to examine some of the social, medical and legal forces which have driven these changes and which continue to influence the use, abuse, and prohibition of anabolic-androgenic steroids.
What Led to the Classification of AAS as Controlled Substances?
Historically, AAS were classified as prescription drugs; they could be dispensed only upon the order of a licensed medical practitioner, who could then monitor their use and control individual dosages.1 Minors could not obtain prescriptions for AAS without the informed consent of their parents or guardian. Since medical practitioners knew that the administration of hormones could affect the body’s natural development, particularly in adolescents, they rarely prescribed AAS for minors, except in cases of a genuine medical disorder. Thus, as we examine the history of AAS and the progression toward their prohibition, we should be mindful of the following:
* Anabolic-androgenic steroids were subject to government regulation long before legislators decided to criminalize their use;
* Prior to the criminalization of AAS, proper dosages could be prescribed and potential side effects could be monitored by trained medical practitioners;
* Existing government regulation, a practitioner’s medical judgment, and the required consent of legal guardians have always stood as natural barriers between adolescents and their use of AAS.
In June of 1889, Charles Édouard Brown-Séquard, a 72-year-old physiology professor, announced at the Société de Biologie that he had injected himself with extracts of dog and guinea pig testicles, resulting in an increase in his physical strength and health; further research into these purported effects led to the synthesis of testosterone in 1935.2 During World War II, German scientists began to synthesize other anabolic steroids, experimenting with human prisoners, as well as with German troops, whose aggressive tendencies they hoped to increase.3 Adolph Hitler’s personal physician reported that Hitler was given injections of testosterone derivatives for various maladies.4 Ironically, one of the initial therapeutic uses of AAS was treatment of chronic wasting, such as was experienced by Nazi concentration camp prisoners.5
As early as the 1950s, bodybuilders and strength athletes began to experiment with AAS. Soviet weightlifters demonstrated impressive strength gains from the use of testosterone derivatives, and their secret was passed on to the Americans at the 1954 World Championship.6 By the 1960s, the medical community was conducting controlled scientific studies of the effects of AAS on strength and muscle mass.7 Early studies yielded promising results, but later research concluded that no palpable strength or muscle gains resulted from the use of AAS; recently, this trend has reversed, with scientists again finding that AAS promotes strength and muscle gains.8 This discrepancy in scientific findings leads one to wonder if some researchers intentionally misrepresented scientific findings in order to discourage the use of AAS for physical enhancement.
By the late 1960s, the use of AAS had become commonplace amongst bodybuilders and strength athletes, a trend which was quite noticeable in Olympic competition; the androgynous appearance of female athletes from former Communist bloc nations was a regular source of bawdy humor. In 1975, the Medical Commission of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) added anabolic steroids to its list of banned substances, and testing began at the 1976 Montreal Olympic Games.9 The most notorious violation of the IOC’s drug policy came in 1988, when Olympic sprinter Ben Johnson was stripped of his gold medal in the 100-meter after testing positive for the use of AAS; another positive test in 1993 resulted in Johnson being subject to a lifetime ban.10
Acting upon the lead of the IOC, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) followed suit. Although the NCAA had, in principle, banned the use of AAS in the college sports in 1973, it was not until 1986 that it initiated an active testing program.11 Likewise, the National Football League (NFL) began testing professional football players for AAS use during training camps in 1986, and by 1990, the NFL’s testing program included random tests during the regular competitive season.12
The medical community was not blind to the fact that AAS were regularly distributed outside legal channels; in December of 1986, the American Medical Association (AMA) published a report that endorsed the efforts of law enforcement to curb illegal distribution of AAS and promoted educational efforts to increase public understanding of the issues surrounding the use of AAS.13 Nevertheless, the AMA opposed the criminalization of AAS because government regulation of prescription drugs already existed, and because AAS did not meet the traditional criteria for scheduling drugs as controlled substances.14 Despite this opposition, a few vocal practitioners published studies and lobbied strenuously for AAS to be classified as illicit drugs.15 As a result, the Anabolic Steroids Control Act was passed into law by the federal legislature, and AAS were classified as Schedule III controlled substances.16
Once AAS were classified as controlled substances under federal law, mere possession could result in penalties of imprisonment of up to one year for a first offense, with enhanced penalties for subsequent offenses.17 Manufacturing, distributing or dispensing AAS, or possessing AAS with purpose to do the same, could result in imprisonment up to five years.18 However, the most onerous burden under the new classification may have been the one placed on medical practitioners by the Code of Federal Regulations: if a practitioner prescribes AAS for any purpose other than a “legitimate medical purpose * * * in the usual course of his professional practice,” or for “authorized research,” he or she may be prosecuted as common drug dealer and subjected to the same penalties.19
Although the general public presumes that federal jurisdiction is without limit, it is not. Federal authorities cannot possibly investigate and prosecute all drug cases, nor do they have the universal jurisdiction to do so. Approximately 92% of all drug trafficking convictions are in state courts, as are nearly all convictions of simple drug possession.20 Therefore, nearly all states have adopted the federal classification of anabolic steroids as controlled substances.21 Perhaps more interesting are the specific limitations which some states have placed on medical practitioners regarding prescriptions for AAS. Ohio law specifically prohibits a licensed health professional from prescribing, administering, or personally furnishing “a schedule III anabolic steroid for the purpose of human muscle building or enhancing human athletic performance.”22 A Texas statute prohibits a medical practitioner from dispensing, prescribing, delivering, or administering AAS for anything other than “a valid medical purpose,” further stating that “bodybuilding, muscle enhancement, or increasing muscle bulk or strength through the use of an anabolic steroid or human growth hormone listed in Schedule III by a person who is in good health is not a valid medical purpose.”23 Statutes such as these are clearly intended to intimidate medical practitioners and preclude any possibility that AAS will ever be legally prescribed for physical enhancement.
The attack on AAS did not end with their legal prohibition. Passionate statements before Congress continue to this day. On October 20, 1999, in a statement before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, drug czar Barry McCaffrey asserted that “the international sale of steroids is becoming increasingly sophisticated and entrenched in criminal networks.”24 Furthermore, McCaffrey has joined in the active movement to ban prohormones, stating, “The DEA is engaged in a scientific process to determine if Andro [androstenedione] actually produces muscle growth — and, in turn, whether it should be classed as a steroid.”25
As we stand at the turn of the millennium, AAS have been banned in sports, prohibited by law, and vilified before the general public. But what is it that makes anabolic-androgenic steroids so evil?
Why Should AAS Be Illicit Drugs?
Anabolic-androgenic steroids are clearly the “bastard child” of controlled substances. A review of federal and state drug schedules reveals that nearly all controlled substances are listed in sub-classifications which describe them in terms of their immediate psychoactive effects: stimulants, depressants, hallucinogens, and narcotics or opiates.26 Since AAS appear to have no immediate mood-altering effects, how did they come to be classified amongst this collection of unlike drugs?
* Serious Side Effects
Numerous references have been made in popular literature to the “serious side effects” of anabolic steroids. But what substantial side effects are well established by scientific evidence?
We know that certain AAS, when taken in substantial amounts, are toxic to the liver; however, this applies largely to 17-alpha-alkylated steroids, such as methandrostenolone (Dianabol) and oxymethelone (Anadrol®-50).27 There appears to be no strong evidence of such hepatotoxicity in orally-effective testosterone esters, such as methenolone acetate (Primobolan) and testosterone undecanoate, nor in the many injectable testosterone esters, including testosterone cypionate (Depo-Testosterone) and nandrolone decanoate (Deca-Durabolin).28 It has also been suggested that hepatocellular carcinoma (liver cancer) may result from the long-term use of 17-alpha-alkylated AAS, although a regression of tumors has been noted when AAS use is discontinued.29
Liver toxicity alone can hardly justify the classification of AAS as controlled substances. Paracetamol, also known as acetaminophen (Tylenol®), is touted as “the most trusted combination of strength and safety in pain relief today,”30 yet liver damage, even fatal hepatic necrosis, has been reported from repeated therapeutic usage of this over-the-counter drug, particularly from therapeutic usage amongst alcoholics.31 Nevertheless, even if the hepatotoxicity of 17-alpha-alkylated AAS is a matter of great concern, the banning of less toxic AAS contributes to the problem. A perfect example is stanozolol (Winstrol), a 17-alpha-alkylated steroid that is toxic to the liver in both its oral and injectable form, but which continues to be readily available on the U.S. black market because of its use as a veterinary drug (Winstrol®-V).32 One might logically speculate that the current use of more toxic AAS is less a matter of choice than one of accessibility, where the availability of safer choices has been limited by a legal prohibition that applies to all AAS, regardless of their toxicity.
The negative psychological and behavioral effects of AAS, commonly known as “‘roid rage,” seem to be accepted as a proven fact in popular, nonscientific literature;33 however, there is little conclusive proof that supports this presumption. Once again, such effects appear to occur in cases involving 17-alpha-alkylated steroids, but not in cases involving 17-beta-estrified steroids.34 Furthermore, the existing studies cannot account for the pre-steroid tendencies of individual users with respect to violence and aggression, nor can they account for the psychological “placebo effect” that may occur from an AAS user’s expectations of heightened aggression. A detailed critique of those studies, and flaws in their methodology, can be found in a recent ****-Rx article by Jack Darkes, an expert in the psychology of drug use.35 At best, we can conclude that “‘roid rage,” to the extent that it exists, may be limited to specific varieties of AAS, and that such hyper-aggressive states may well be the result of preexisting tendencies or predetermined expectations of the user.
There has been much criticism of AAS for their effect on a user’s cardiovascular health; however, this research is also highly speculative. One study involving bodybuilders who self-administered AAS found that AAS users had a ratio of “bad” low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC) to “good” high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLC) that was four times that of non-users;36 however, other studies have indicated that this effect is, once again, limited to 17-alpha-alkylated steroids.37 Later studies have indicated that AAS users retained substantial increases in lean body mass and muscle size three months after withdrawal, but with lipoprotein levels which were no different than those of non-users.38 Furthermore, a study involving controlled dosages of a 17-beta-estrified steroid showed that a 22-27% decrease in HDLC was almost completely reversed six weeks after discontinuation.39 It should also be noted that diet is also a substantial factor in the analyses of lipoprotein levels and ratios; decreases in the intake of saturated fats and dietary cholesterol can reduce LDLC levels by more than 33%.40 Simply put, there seems to be no concrete evidence that the use of AAS leads to permanent cardiovascular health risks.
The greatest disgrace amongst the anti-AAS medical community may be its “code of silence” as to the major health benefits of AAS use. Though rarely mentioned by the medical practitioners, scientific studies have concluded that “anabolic-androgenic steroid use as practiced by contemporary athletes is a potent modulator of immune responsiveness.”41 This benefit to the human immune response is by no means inconsequential, particularly to those with whose immune systems have been damaged by disease or congenital defects. The use of AAS is becoming an important element in the treatment of AIDS patients, not only to prevent AIDS-related “wasting,” but also to boost a severely depressed immune response. Further information on the use of AAS in AIDS treatment may be found at the Medibolics™ web site.42
* Minor Side Effects
Without question, AAS produce several minor side effects which are not life-threatening. But are these minor problems sufficient to warrant the classification of AAS as illicit drugs? Are many of these side effects nothing more than minor annoyances which many people endure as a result of their own hormonal balances?
Acne has long been associated with elevated levels of free testosterone, particularly amongst young women.43 Since AAS are potent providers of free testosterone, they are also recognized as a cause of acne.44 But isn’t acne, to varying degrees, an inevitable consequence of adolescence? Doesn’t every teenager learn to contend with the “zits” brought on by the raging hormonal imbalances of puberty?
It is also well established that AAS use can lead to gynecomastia, an abnormal expansion of the mammary glands in human males.45 Although this condition is generally undesirable amongst men, it is far from life-threatening, and it appears to be treatable by the use of antiestrogenic compounds such as tamoxifen (Nolvadex®)46, or by simple cosmetic surgical procedures which have been practiced for approximately 500 years.47 In any event, it is apparent that the negative effects of gynecomastia are largely aesthetic and not a justification for criminalization of AAS.
Continued use of AAS can lead to atrophy of the testicles; this is due to the endocrine feedback loop, whereby a male’s body reacts to the introduction of additional testosterone by reducing its own natural production of both testosterone and sperm.48 However, this effect appears to be reversible upon the cessation of AAS use, and medical researchers have found it to be therapeutically useful for birth control.49 A report of the World Health Organization is particularly interesting in this respect: after global trials of AAS as a male contraceptive, they found only minimal short-term physical side effects from doses exceeding those which caused Ben Johnson’s Olympic disqualification!50
The minor side effects of AAS are naturally more pronounced when they are used by women. Negative side effects can include enlargement of the clitoris, hirsutism (masculine hair growth), and deepening of the voice, while the positive side effects may include muscle growth and reduction of body fat.51 Although most women would wish to avoid the negative aspects of AAS use, it appears that none of the foregoing side effects are life-threatening, and if AAS use by women is strictly limited in time and dosage, the positive effects of muscle growth and fat reduction might prove to be an acceptable trade-off.
* Comparison to Other Medical Procedures
While the serious side effects of AAS use appear to be mostly speculative, and the minor side effects are largely limited and reversible, critics of AAS use will often justify the criminalization of these drugs by pointing to the fact that their use is predominantly for cosmetic purposes and to enhance athletic performance, not for treatment of legitimate medical disorders. Therefore, it seems fair that these criticisms be evaluated by comparing AAS use to legal medical procedures which are used solely for cosmetic and physical enhancement.
–
Sean
PureStrength.com
Posts
