Can someone tell me if “man boobs” can be attibuted to steroid use? I have a friend who has man boobs and he says it’s due to doing ‘roids in high school (back in the late 70s). I think he just has plain ol’ man boobs and I’d like to point and laugh at him, if he’s lying to us.
No, that’s definitely a possible side-effect of steroid use.
It can be. If you are not catious, steroid use can cause the estrogen level to rise too much, which can cause man boobs.
Once you stop the 'roids, do your man boobs shrink to a manly level? Or are they permanent?
Permanent. 
Yeah, and they aren’t like normal man-boobs, saggy and old looking ones, they are hard and are typically noticeable as being different (It is technically called gynaecomastia, or gyno ). In my experience, though there are guys with natural hardish deposits, but they are rare, and are often accused of having taken steroids.
My experience on BB message boards in the past has made me aware of methods to take steroids and not get gyno. Cycling different steroids somehow is all I know, however.
How about Human Growth Serum.
I suspect the press on steroids is like the press for smoking weed. Way overblown and mostly false.
I have a friend who played major college football. When I asked him the school stance he said they had none. But when you compete for a spot against a guy who is 40 lbs heavier and faster than he was last year the message becomes clear. Do it or fall back and lose scholarship. It is common and there are not tons of rage incidents. Jocks always have been involved in some of those anyway.
He didn’t fall under “moderate use”.
Am I the only one who sees a contradiction here?
His boobs are nicer than his wife’s. Very perky and unstressed due to gravity or chidbirth. I think they’re part of the reason my husband likes him!
Heck no. Definitely not my definition of ‘moderate’.
To the OP; all you need do is sign up for the free Medscape site and then read up on the side-effects of taking steroids. And then maybe have another look at your assertion that you are ‘moderate in every aspect of my life’.
It’s one thing if you are a competetive athlete, but what’s the point of the “rest of us” taking steroids? I like being in shape and all, but I don’t really feel a need to be all puffed up like a New Jersey guido.
Hey, you never know when a Volkswagan might roll over on you.
None of you have hobbies that you partake in 4-5 times per year? I ENJOY running marathons. That may be a foreign concept to those of you who don’t, just like enjoying stamp collecting or knitting is to me. I would run marathons if there were no health benefits whatsoever. If someone is a scuba diver and goes on scuba trips 4 times a year, would you say that person lacks moderation? Why would this be any different?
So’s dissolving salt. And the example I gave of adding HCl and NaOH includes half a dozen simultaneous reactions.
Think of your body as a HUGE reaction vessel (which happens to be broken into smaller, communicated vessels) with all these reactions going on. You still have such a thing as equilibrium; having an excess of a reaction product will still mean that the reaction slows down, etc.
Biochemistry is chemistry.
Now, if you wish to disregard any science which doesn’t match your wishes, my apologies. I’m interested in learning how the world works, not in convincing Nature to do as I say.
Who wants their body to break down?
I actually think there’s a possibly that the “rest of us” could benefit nicely from roids. It’s not able being buff, and strong, and taking your shirt off at the beach. But what about being able to work out only a few times per week, and reap the benefits of more intense training?
In a case like that, you’re not cheating anyone else out of anything, like an athlete woudl be doing.
If you’re not doing it to get big, but just as an assist to staying healthy (which some people claim they do), that’s an obvious benefit.
Yes, but saying a particular biochemical reaction reaches equilibrium like Salt dissolving is over simplifying the statement by far. You may be a scientist in the top of the field of biochemistry for all I know, and know much much more than me, but oversimplifying things to make a point is disingenuous when things aren’t that simple.
For one, in a simple chemical reaction, molecules are small and orientation plays a little part. Also the equilibrium of a system of two molecules is going to be different than a system with thousands of interacting chemical reactions, many of which are in favored of a particular state.
Saying “taking steroids will throw off your biochemical equilibrium” with nothing as a cite other than an overly simplistic analogy of HCL and NaOH is being offensively simplistic.
Because all ethnic slurs aside, these guys are probably not taking steroids moderately or intelligently. That seems to be getting confused here. There is no doubt that if you inject yourself willy-nilly, there are adverse repurcussions. There is also evidence that used in moderation, steroids are not harmful, and may be beneficial.
Maybe his wife should take steroids.
They are easily preventable by taking anti-estrogens during the cycle.
(snort!) She could accomplish so much if she’d wear a bra. But they’re probably all in his gym bag. Bwahahahahahaha!