For a subsect of a subsect of the population - those who genetically respond well to training and drugs. The general consensus on gear is you shouldn't start until you're familiar with the nuances of training (3-5 years). Particularly when it comes to ligament health- it's very easy to outstrip recovery ability when progressing fast on gear. That doesn't stop people from being reckless.
Plenty of people on gear who doesn't have the basics dialed in and get poor result. That said, I whole endorse more research into gear use, it's sad that purity of sports culture has basically made the area taboo. I think a lot of the population, particularly elderly or sedimentary would benefit from more muscle providing if the true cost benefit analysis are better understood or better gear is developed without current known side effects. The benefit would be compounded with resistance training but that's a hard sell for general population whereas magic juice is not. The health care savings in mitigating falls among elders (one of the largest medical expenditures) alone would be gargantuan.
> Plenty of people on gear who doesn't have the basics dialed in and get poor result.
I don't believe this is true. I read a study (that I can't source right now) essentially suggesting something like:
Training +gear: 9kg of muscle gained
Training -gear: 5kg of muscle gained
No training +gear: 7kg of muscle gained
No training -gear: 0kg of muscle gained
All that said, I'm left with the same conclusion as you, which is we should be actively shooting up menopausal men with testosterone. When my count goes below healthy, I'll certainly be looking for it.
Normal gear raises your genetic limit by ~5-10%, 7kg of leanmass is a great result for untrained people to inoculate against everyday challenges hence my endorsement for larger role in general population who can't be bothered to train. For serious trainers who you can pack on a lot more lean mass than that, whereas ignorant gear users gains + gear bonus might leave some pretty easy gains on the table by training stupid. Genetically exceptional folks aside. That's not to say gear doesn't confer a massive benefit in the short run. But it doesn't give you the knowledge for long term progress, and if one is not willing to be educated on the basics for lifting/nutrition, they're probably not responsible enough to use gear safely. Anecdotally, gear/dark side seems to be a one way street for most users, it's a lifelong commitment with real medical side effects, "rushing" it without understanding the consequences is a bad approach especially when most people reach 95% of their genetic ceiling withing 3-5 years without gear.
It really depends. Anabolic-androgenic steroids come in a rather wide variety. It's one thing to inject Test Cyp or some other bio-similar to natural human testosterone in "normal" doses as part of TRT or similar therapy. It's quite another to inject something like Trenbolone[1]. That and similar drugs will produce extreme results in anyone who isn't androgen resistant. And they have all kinds of other nasty side effects too. Suppressing intratesticular testosterone is virtually assured without additional intervention.
Interestingly there is some evidence that the effects of steroid use continue even after discontinuing use. Also, thanks to the unexplained secular testosterone decline, pretty much every American man who doesn't medicate is going to be well below his genetic potential. Unless, of course, the secular testosterone decline is a consequence of some dysgenic force.
[1]Used to make cattle get meatier. And it works exceedingly well.
