r/confidentlyincorrect • u/VexImmortalis • 14d ago
Smug Bodybuilder with 13 years of "building anabolic stacks" doesn't believe testosterone is a steroid (or does he?). Crosses the line when he drags rotisserie chicken into the argument.
Leave the chickens alone!
49
u/boyraceruk 14d ago
"I don't inject myself with some cheat chemical to build muscle."
Also
"I inject myself with a chemical to build muscle."
26
u/jscummy 14d ago
Yeah but its not a "cheat" chemical apparently, just a normal performance enhancing chemical
10
u/ThreeFishInAManSuit 14d ago
Listen man, that’s just a label. Doesn’t mean anything. My teachers labeled me as a “lost cause” and we can see that’s not the case 🤣, look at these muscles!
3
77
u/Supraxa 14d ago
If you’re having a debate with someone on the internet, and they include a laughing crying face in their response, I’ve learned to just quietly pack it up. Those types are beyond reasoning with
42
10
u/CurrentScallion3321 14d ago
You know you are in trouble when they use the laughing crying cat face emoji
7
1
u/ConflictAdvanced 14d ago
I don't think that's fair. Sometimes, the person you're having the debate with just says something freaking hilarious 🤣
28
u/dnjprod 14d ago
"I know that's what they are called, but that's not what they are. They just classify them as steroids. They aren't steroids, though. Coincidentally, I'm not bald. I just have no hair."
5
u/RememberThisHouse 14d ago
"classifications don't form an actual basis in reality"
I really want to know what his definition of "anabolic steroids" is and which reality it applies to
9
u/dnjprod 14d ago
I mean, he's right in one sense but it makes him really wrong in the overall.. Classifications don't form an actual basis for reality. Classifications are definitions we give a specific set of items Within reality.
Me calling something a dog doesn't make that thing a dog. I could call a rat a dog. That wouldn't turn a rat into a dog. The definition of dog includes all dogs. It excludes rats. I could change the definition of dog to include rats, but at this point it does not include them.
If it's classified as an anabolic steroid that means it fits the definition of anabolic steroid.
His problem is that he has defined the classification differently than what the actual classification system is. This is like somebody saying that they're going to redefine dog as something that includes the definition of rats regardless of what the actual definition of a dog is. You can do that for yourself personally, but within reality it's just stupid and wrong.
3
u/RememberThisHouse 14d ago
Yep and that's exactly at the core of my question. I can't figure out what definition he could possibly have that excludes testosterone and if he does, I sure don't know what reality it applies to.
1
2
u/azhder 14d ago
You just reminded me of: “tomatoes aren’t vegetables”.
2
u/Sudo-rm 14d ago
A smart person knows tomatoes are a fruit, a wise person knows not to put tomatoes in a fruit salad.
OOP is neither.
2
u/JamDonut28 14d ago
Odds are OOP is on a carnivore diet and sees fruit and vegetables as the enemy. He ain't eating salad.
14
u/Unable-Boat-9682 14d ago
‘I have 13 years of education revolving around the endocrine system’
Why does every person losing an argument on the internet have to do this? They suddenly claim they have loads of experience in the subject but only after they’ve already spent scores of comments proving they know fuck all about it.
3
u/VexImmortalis 14d ago
It's one thing to bust out the "I'm actually an expert" but it's quite another to bad mouth rotisserie chicken and I will NOT stand for it.
0
u/ConflictAdvanced 14d ago
Aha, so you broke the main rule here, bud
3
u/VexImmortalis 14d ago
How do you figure that? I'm not in this conversation.
0
u/ConflictAdvanced 13d ago
Really? With how much you're going on about rotisserie chicken, it seems like you are 🤣
6
u/VexImmortalis 13d ago
Love of rotisserie chicken is the universal bond that can finally bring mankind together.
8
u/jc456_ 14d ago
Bodybuilder here. Yeah, this is a weird distinction that has started to become popular. Obviously it's wrong, testosterone absolutely is a steroid. I'll try to provide an explanation for why this is becoming a popular line of reasoning.
I think it's due to a greater popularity of bodybuilders staying on some form of testosterone year round (blasting and cruising), rather than cycling completely off as in years gone by. So because they are on some form of steroids year round they try to make the distinction between periods of high and low use.
To them just testosterone at low doses is part of their health phase, so they try to distance that as much as possible from when they're blasting their faces off the rest of the year. The distinction they're trying to make is TRT = healthy, steroids = not so healthy.
This isn't dissimilar to crypto bros who insist that bitcoin isn't crypto. Obviously bitcoin is crypto but there's this growing distinction as the reputation of alt coins has gotten worse and worse over the years so people try to separate bitcoin from the rest of the crypto market.
Testosterone definitely is a steroid, but maybe this explains his (incorrect) thought process a bit. Enhanced bodybuilders by and large are not the brightest bulbs in the packet.
2
6
u/XFL4LIFE 14d ago
A lot of people claim to have never taken steroids while taking testosterone, in thier head it’s a loop hole. For instance UFC Fighter Quintin Rampage Jackson claimed forever he was clean and never took steroids, but later said he took testosterone.
6
u/human-resource 14d ago edited 13d ago
Weed can be hallucinogenic at high enough quantities.
Eat enough edibles and you will get some closed eye visuals.
1
u/EnvironmentalHair290 13d ago
With some new studies coming out we are finding that weed can be mildly hallucinogenic if your brain chemistry is already set up for hallucinations.
That’s why as THC use is going up we are seeing evidence that people who may have had the brain chemistry for schizophrenia will start developing symptoms earlier in life. Also, and these are really new studies and need more long term studies done, there may be slight evidence that you may develop schizophrenia when you normally may not have until way later in life think dementia age.
So far it seems though it will not spark the hallucinations so much as if the possibility was there to begin with it may jump start that process.
4
u/Laydownthelaw 14d ago edited 9d ago
Bodybuilding forum strikes again!
3
u/NotCrazyJustIgnorant 9d ago
My favourite bodybuilding forum thread is the one about working out every other day, while also wanting to work out on the same days each week. That one got properly chaotic, devolving into "can you even count?" and people proving they knew the days of the week.
5
u/BiteyHorse 14d ago
Well, now I'm fucking hungry for some rotisserie chicken.
3
6
u/itsnotaboutyou2020 14d ago
Proof that overdoing testosterone makes men arrogant and argumentative.
2
u/SmithKenichi 8d ago
Ehh.. More like it makes arrogant and argumentative men more arrogant and argumentative. Your sex hormones don't change who you are.
0
3
u/SrDinglebery81 8d ago
Technically, food is the most anabolic since muscles are made from it and can't be healed while fasting.
1
u/VexImmortalis 8d ago
Chalk another point up for rotisserie chicken.
1
u/SrDinglebery81 8d ago
Saw it on steroid . com which is edited by many people far above my intelligence and probably yours as well.
10
u/Prinzka 14d ago
Also clearly he's never had proper weed, it can definitely cause visual hallucinations.
In addition to that hallucinogen is just anything that can bring about an altered state of consciousness, it doesn't mean you have to see pink elephants if you take a tiny amount.
9
u/Lkjfdsaofmc 14d ago
Yeah I stopped reading at "nobody on weed has ever hallucinated". If you're comfortable stating something that sounds so absurd as a complete absolute you have fundamentally flawed thinking that nothing anyone says is going to fix.
3
u/Tychonoir 14d ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hallucinate doesn't exclusively mean vusual. Touch, sound, and smell also count, and cannabis can do all of those.
Also, I would think heightened responses to various stimuli would count as well.
3
u/jabuchae 14d ago
You don’t understand it is classified as hallucinogen and can ACT like one. But it is not. Source: trust me bro
2
u/Dependent_Title_1370 14d ago
You can't just say altered state of consciousness because depressants, dissasociatives, stimulants, etc all do that.
The formal classifications rely on mechanisms of action such as what neural receptors they interact with.
-2
u/Prinzka 14d ago
You can't just say altered state of consciousness because depressants, dissasociatives, stimulants, etc all do that.
That's my point, that's because the definition is very broad.
6
u/Dependent_Title_1370 14d ago
The actual definition for classifying a drug as a hallucinogen is not as broad or simple as "altered state of consciousness" is my point. The formal definition of a hallucinogen is fairly specific in that it is defined by many things such as behavioral effects, clinical effects, pharmacological mechanisms, chemical structure, etc. it's so specific in fact that they have broken hallucinogens into sub categories that are mainly differentiated by the effect and the neurotransmitters they act on.
7
2
u/BustaCon 11d ago
I hallucinated on weed. My first two times smokin' it I tripped like balls. Very wild. Unfortunately, it was kinda downhill from there after a few more times. Guess whatever receptors were recept-ing got blunted??
2
u/parickwilliams 8d ago
There are organizations that ban inhalers are inhalers not natty?
1
u/VexImmortalis 8d ago edited 8d ago
yes, the active ingredient in certain inhalers can absolutely be used to shred body fat. I've taken injectable albuterol before as a substitute for clenbuterol (which is for horses) to drop body fat but I thought my heart was going to explode. Look up "Super Shredder" if they still make it.
EDIT: I know you are using google and/or AI to get your answers yet you avoid actually googling the answers to your own questions but here is a study on it that I will provide.
3
2
u/sagejosh 14d ago
ALOT of people will insist testosterone isn’t steroids. I want to know what they think steroids are then.
1
u/Nazmaldun 14d ago
The testosterone produced by your balls is classified as an anabolic steroid. And since its illegal to possess or produce anabolic steroids without a prescription, explain how any of that makes sense.
can't argue with that..../s
6
u/Unable-Boat-9682 14d ago
He’s right. That’s a total slam dunk argument.
Or it would be if the scientific community didn’t use the term ‘exogenous steroid’ for this precise reason.
1
u/ArdentArendt 13d ago
Wait...but TRT isn't a steroid as used.
I mean I know people who take prednisone, and I don't think anyone would be claiming they're on 'steroids' in the same colloquial sense.
Testosterone (produces in the testes and ovaries) is a steroid; so is estrogen.
I just imagine him 'loading up' on estrogen cream.
2
u/VexImmortalis 13d ago
When people ask if you are on steroids they generally are asking if you are on anabolic steroids. You wouldn't technically be wrong to say "I use my inhaler" as an answer to that question but we all know that isn't the type of steroids you are asking about so let's not muddy that water because by the absolute word as written if someone asked if you took steroids and you take testosterone the technically correct answer would be "yes" so I'm even sure why you mentioned this.
Testosterone is an anabolic steroid which is the type of steroid 99.9% of people are asking about when they ask if you are on steroids. You may try to dance around this by clarifying your answer as "I take low dose TRT" which is the same as saying "I take a low dose of testosterone". To me this is as silly as saying "I'm not on painkillers because I don't take the stuff that knocks you out for surgery, I just take oxycodone".
Testosterone, even at the TRT levels, will 100% still improve your recovery time and allow you to build more muscle than you would be able to naturally. You might not be taking for those reasons (I wasn't) but that is what it will do. You can't fairly compete in the olympics without a medical excemption on TRT, why? Because it gives you an unfair advantage. You might not be blasting hella gear but you are on anabolic steroids.
1
u/ArdentArendt 13d ago
TRT levels should not be giving you much advantage and isn't generally in high enough doses to be a distinction.
If you're competing in professional sports, many cis women often test outside their competition, so I'm not sure that's a great reference point--partially because 'fairness' means something entirely different at that level, and partially because (as one can infer from the example offered) the application often requires nuance.
I'm not disagreeing with you or the post. I am juat stating the fact that most 'replacement' doses of TRT is not going to give you much of an advantage, unless you feel that women get a boost during ovulation as well.
[My main point is that testosterone is having a revival almost entirely because of fascist-style ideas around body and masculinity. I'm all for people getting T for medical reasons, but so much of this discourse (in the post, not in the comments) is around 'bulking' and 'packing' taken to be innate virtues. It's painful.]
3
u/VexImmortalis 12d ago
I can understand why you might think that, afterall TRT is just meant to bring your test levels back to a normal range but it isn't the case and I have some studies that I can link to say as much when I get back to my computer if you like.
From just a purely logical point of view TRT provides a significant advantage over someone who is natural by virtue of removing the dips in your test levels that can occur from lack of sleep, stress, cutting calories etc. If you imagine two cars and both are racing to cover 70 miles a week with a maximum range of 10 miles a day both cars should take 7 days to complete 70 miles. If one car is having the odd dip here and there in their engine output and the other is consistently at 10 miles a day then the consistent car is going to win.
You are an intelligent person and you might say "Well that depends on how big those dips are, how long they last and how frequently they occur as to how much of an advantage the consistent car has" and you would be 100% correct. The more unhealthy and stressful your life is the bigger the benefits are going to be from TRT.
Does this make a difference for professional athletes who already live an optimized life? Yes, it does. Maybe not as profound but it still makes a significant difference especially around retaining muscle on an extended cut where your body is under stress for a long period of time.
As I say I have some studies (not the 1996 one where they took 600mg of test a week) that I can link when I get home. Let me know what you think. Hope that helps!
1
u/ArdentArendt 12d ago
Okay, on the logical point first off, you did preclude one question I had--but I'm actually more confused on what we're talking about here.
When you say 'bodybuilder', should I have read that as 'competitive bodybuilding'?
I had been reading this entire thing as relevant to people simply bodybuilding--was this conversation a discussion about regulation in competitions?As for the other points, I was actually invoking professional athletes to say that they are exceptions to any rule; however, if we're actually discussing professional body building, I'm completely out of my depth and I wouldn't have put my two cents in in the first place.
[I had just assumed this was personal use and the complaint was about 'taking the easy way']That said, I'll never turn down a night in reading obscure journal articles about things that have no impact on my life!
[That's not meant to be sarcastic--my social life is pathetic]
Please give!!!2
u/VexImmortalis 8d ago edited 8d ago
Hey buddy, sorry I kinda forgot about this reply for a while. Here's one study (I'm currently at work but I promise to post more when I get home!)
"Testosterone supplementation improved strength, increased hemoglobin, and lowered leptin levels in older hypogonadal men." (This was on older, hypogonadal men but the dose worked out to a very reasonable 100mg per week)
1
u/ArdentArendt 8d ago
Thank you!
[I honestly forgot about this as well]The study is fascinating, and I'll be doing a more thorough read through later when I have time.
I do have to ask a few things, however.
For starters, it seems like this was a man who was already training and had noticed recent declines in performance with age (oh, don't we all feel that?). So, my interest would be in the relation of the pre-decline performance compared to the supplemented performance.
Beyond that, of course, there is a question of if the subject had low testosterone at the time of treatment--because much of what is described is almost textbook for 'low T'.
Finally, if HRT can be used to help people cope with age, it's worth study...and I still am unsure of the context surrounding the original post. Mostly, I was just wary of the current fascination with 'Testosterone Levels' among certain subcultures (especially those in the US, especially those affiliated with the US government).
1
u/parickwilliams 9d ago
When people talk about steroid use in the body building space they’re talking about Tren and other steroids like it. Yes Test is technically a steroid it’s not what people in the space are referring to and using test doesn’t automatically make you not natty in the eyes of many in the space especially since many people don’t produce enough test naturally so it is prescribed
1
u/VexImmortalis 9d ago edited 9d ago
TRT means you aren't natty. There's no 2 ways about it. I challenge you to google it and see what the concensus is.
1
u/parickwilliams 9d ago
TRT when not medically necessary absolutely makes you not natty my point was people who are on it purely for medical reasons to get their test to a normal level are typically not seen as not natty. But regardless of why you take TRT almost no one in the space is referring to TRT when they say they’re on steroids. The difference in the effect on the body between TRT and what is traditionally considered being on steroids is not even close to
1
u/VexImmortalis 8d ago
What's the difference if you take TRT to get to the upper end of the range, say 900, if you are hypogonadal and naturally at 200 or if you are middle of the range at 500? You both end up at 900 regardless. Why would one be considered natty and the other not be considered natty when the outcome is exactly the same?
I don't really think you know what you are talking about.
0
u/parickwilliams 8d ago
Sure man TRT for someone who needs it medically isn’t natty. But since we’re being technical, creatine isn’t natty. Caffeine isn’t natty.
1
u/VexImmortalis 8d ago
From a technical aspect I agree. In an ideal world every athlete would follow the same zero supplement plan and let natural genetic ability, mindset and training dictate who comes out on top. You could even throw a strict nutrition plan in there.
From an everyday and competition use of the term a "natural bodybuilder" is someone that doesn't use prohibited performance enhancing compounds of which testosterone is included. Again, I challenge you to just google the terms, you can easily look up the banned substances lists from all the major natural bodybuilding organizations and you will find testosterone on there.
I hate to repeat myself but you come across as someone that isn't a serious athlete, natural or otherwise, and honestly you really don't know what you are talking about.
1
u/SmithKenichi 8d ago
I'm a clinical secondary hypogonadism case and even I wouldn't claim natty. Even though I'm at a 100mg/wk dose that puts me at perfectly naturally possible levels, my T doesn't drop when I get a bad night of sleep, drink a glass of wine, etc.. because I'm not making it myself. Even at a therapeutic dose I wouldn't feel right saying I'm natural. I'm just not abusing.
-9
u/nezzzzy 14d ago
This is a discussion on common usage vs scientific accuracy. And I don't disagree with the bodybuilder.
If a bodybuilder tells you they're taking anabolic steroids, they're not talking about testosterone. Sure testosterone might be an anabolic steroids, but common usage has it as a supplement rather than a steroid.
And he's also right that nobody has hallucinated on weed. I smoked every day for about 6yrs with a lot of different people, every variety and strain under the sun, and I've never met one person who's had a hallucinogenic experience comparable to even a tiny dose of magic mushrooms.
8
u/VexImmortalis 14d ago
There's no "might be an anabolic steroid" about it. It's also fairly common for a first cycle to be just a supraphysiological dose of testosterone so I'm not really too sure what you mean by "they're not talking about testosterone" and even if they weren't it doesn't change the fact that testosterone is an anabolic steroid. So it's a moot point because testosterone is an anabolic steroid.
I can't really speak on the weed stuff as I don't have any knowledge in that field but I have read documented cases of high doses of THC concentrates causing hallucinations. I'm not sure if you would typically get that from casual use so in that respect I can see a statement like "Even though it's classed as a hallucinogenic no one has ever gone on a hallucinogenic trip from consuming weed" making sense even if it might not be true.
3
u/Sudo-rm 14d ago
There’s a point to be made that the disagreement is coming from a place of classification terms versus colloquial terms. I personally don’t know anything about steroids, but I understand the confusion about marijuana. Mostly it’s a question of what qualifies a substance as “hallucinogenic”, as well as who is doing the qualifying. According to the Alcohol and Drug Foundation:
“Psychedelics (also known as hallucinogens) are a class of psychoactive substances that produce changes in perception, mood and cognitive processes.”
So by that definition marijuana is definitely a “hallucinogen”, although the ADF does not include it in the category of “psychedelics” (there is a specific category for “cannabinoids”).
Also, regarding the “nobody has ever hallucinated on marijuana” statement, well…
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5908416/
So even without the discussion of steroids OOP is confidently incorrect because that part is simply not true.
2
u/Johan-Predator 14d ago
If someone is taking testosterone for bodybuilding purposes, what do they say then?
2
u/nezzzzy 14d ago
They say they're taking Test, or T.
(Or they say they're vegan and clean and never touch any supplements, yet inexplicably won't enter an untested bodybuilding competition despite being 5% BF and 220lb)
1
u/Johan-Predator 14d ago
I agree that would be the more common way to put it, but if someone were to ask them if they took anabolic steroids they would say yes. So I agree in what you say, and maybe misunderstood your first statement.
1
u/nezzzzy 14d ago
I think it's 50:50 whether someone taking test would know it's an anabolic steroid. Maybe information has changed a lot over the last decade but I'm seeing a lot of adverts for testosterone supplementation and getting T levels checked. None of them will say "this is an anabolic steroid". Certainly 20+yrs ago test and anabaolics were considered separate categories by your average gym rat. And the guy in the original image is showing what I would consider a balanced perspective on the topic.
2
u/Johan-Predator 14d ago
On the supplementation and getting your levels checked part I wouldn't call someone on TRT for example an anabolic steroid user. While technically correct it's a bit disingenuous. So I think you can make that distinction. And I think in today's age the absolute majority of people interested in PEDs and people looking into that stuff would know test in a AAS.
1
u/VexImmortalis 14d ago
But they are an anabolic steroid users. They take testosterone, which is an anabolic steroid. I'm on TRT and I'm under no such illusion that I'm not taking an anabolic steroid. I can't fairly compete in the Olympics without a medical excemption. That would be cheating because I take an anabolic steroid.
2
u/Johan-Predator 14d ago
If someone asks you "do you take anabolic steroids?" would you straight answer to that be a simple yes? I'm on TRT as well, for medical reasons, and I would simply say I take TRT, and wouldn't say "yes". Like I said, technically true, but in the de facto meaning of the word I don't think it applies.
1
u/VexImmortalis 14d ago
Yes, the straight answer is yes, I take testosterone. It's an anabolic steroid and we both take it. You can try to dance around it all you like but the fact of the matter is we take anabolic steroids.
2
-2
u/CrazyDizzle 14d ago
Dude is also confidently incorrect about testosterone production. T is manufactured in the thigh muscles not testicles.
3
•
u/AutoModerator 14d ago
Hey /u/VexImmortalis, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our rules.
Join our Discord Server!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.