A
POSITION STATEMENT BY
BILL MISNER, Ph.D.
While steroid use was a mystery to me at that time, and something only "Muscleheads" used, I was shocked that competitive distance runners, especially the "hardcore" master runners, would stoop to using an illegal, potentially harmful performance-enhancing drug.
In 1983, 15 athletes tested "Positive" for anabolic steroid use, and were subsequently suspended at the Pan American Games. In my own reasoning, this sort of behavior parallels Rosie Ruiz's leap from the sidelines to take a "short cut" from the 20-mile mark in a sprint-to-win the female division of the Boston Marathon. Simply put, it is illegitimate cheating!
BIGGER IS STRONGER....BUT
Reason follows that a larger, stronger muscle fiber will produce more torque during contractile stages when energy is spent to propel the body in time and distance run. Steroids are unlawfully used to advantage athletes unfairly for developing muscle growth, endurance and strength. Self-medication with steroidal substances are believed by athletes to permit intensive training sessions with minimal rest periods culminating in extra-ordinary performance gains. Athletes who use steroids exercise the "If-a-little-is-good-more-is-better" mentality, resulting in "Stacking", (using more than one steroid or potentiating stimulant at a time), and "Pyramiding", (using increasing doses of a given drug).
BUT, DO THEY REALLY WORK FOR EVERYBODY?
Anabolic steroids are synthetic molecules developed for separation of both androgenic and myotrophic-anabolic actions of testoserone. Some synthetic steroids present partial dissociation between both actions, but none have ever been observed to perform completely. Since a single hormone receptor mediates androgen and anabolic reactions of testosterone, different patterns of androgen metabolism in the muscles and sex accessory organs are plausible explanations for outcome. Androgens are able to exert trophic effect on both skeletal and cardiac muscles fibers in subjects with hypotestosterone levels; however, many researchers question the value of steroid use in subjects with normal serum testosterone levels.(Celotti & Negri Cesi 1992) Animal studies do not produce effective gains in athletic performance, while human studies to date are contradictory. One study records higher "bad lipids"(LDL) and lower "good lipids"(HDL) Cholesterol profiles, and irregular blood pressure pattern when comparing large-dose anabolic steroid body-builders with steroid-free bodybuilders.(Palatini et al., 1996)
STEROID GAINS ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE ONES YOU WANT!
If an athlete gains in strength or endurance performance from steroid use, those gains last only as long as the steroids are used. When use is discontinued, performance will deteriorate to preexisting levels. To mimic the effects of male testosterone will cause the body to stop its own production. Testosterone is produced mostly in the testicles, but a small amount is produced in the adrenals. Countless reports of testicular shrinkage, irregular and unpredictable penile erection, male-pattern baldness, and breast malformation are direct results of synthetic anabolic steroid use. Use of these illicit drugs has been observed by medical doctors to create both long-term and short-term unwanted side effects such as: liver toxicity, liver cancer, tumor formation, prostate cancer, diabetes mellitus, edema/fluid retention, elevated LDL cholesterol, stroke potential, and premature coronary heart disease. Too much testosterone synthetic or otherwise is not tolerated well in persons with normal blood serum levels. Sound like a good deal to compromise your health and life expectancy for a competitive "Moment of Glory" at the finish line that may not receive so much as a whisper either in your hospital room or at the wake of your funeral! Steroid use may do nothing more than increase performance temporarily at best, arouse your insensitivity to your fellow man, raise your potential for bursts of rage, while sapping the joy one earns from an athletic achievement earned from honest, hard work! There is currently no legal way for a responsible physician to prescribe steroid medications for enhancing performance or body size. It is not only dangerous, it is simply illegal!"
Submitted by:
Bill Misner, Ph.D.
E-CAPS Inc. & Hammer Nutrition Ltd.
1-800-336-1977
REFERENCES
Celotti F, Negri Cesi P, "Anabolic Steroids: a review of their effects on the muscles, of their possible mechanisms of action and their use in athletics," J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol, 1992;43:5, 469
Skin cancer, as one of the "benefits" of getting a sun tan, was the subject of an article in the July/August 1997, issue of HEALTH magazine. It reminded me of my younger years - years of overexposure to the sun. Back before "skin cancer" and "holes in the ozone," were not common phrases. 'Sunburn" and "healthy tan" were though. A sunburn was no big deal; the damaged skin peeled off, and was replaced by new healthy skin; or so we thought. It now seems that there is no such thing as a healthy tan, except maybe if it comes from a bottle.
The article focuses on the high incidences of skin cancer in Australia, but applies to other locales - especially the ideas about covering up during the hottest part of the day, and being aware that the best sunscreens aren't 100% effective. Americans seem to think that a good sunscreen makes them impervious from sun damage - not so. In fact, we seem to be in a near epidemic of skin cancer - currently about 1,000,000 people per year. The full arsenal of weapons against sun damage includes a hat, long sleeved shirt, sunscreen, and shade. Sun exposure is worst between 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., but that is also "prime time" for sun worshippers, or people working in, or just enjoying, the outdoors. In the event that you won't, or can't, avoid the sun at this time, WEAR A HAT.
In the early days of sunscreen, it was thought that protection from burning was the critical issue. But then it was discovered that skin damage was done before skin even turned pink, and we had the birth of UVA/UVB sunscreen. (Both are ultraviolet light, but UVB is the burning part of the spectrum, and UVA is the part of the spectrum that causes DNA damage.
The problem was that not only were we getting lines and blotches (premature aging) on our skin (called "photoaging"), but DNA was also being damaged. A genetic switch - p53 - tells damaged cells to stop reproducing, but some ultraviolet light damages p53, which lets damaged cells reproduce, and - voila - skin cancer.
Even with UVA/UVB sunscreen liberally applied, it does not make skin impervious to sun damage because they leave the lower part of the ultraviolet spectrum unblocked.
Adele Green, an epidemiologist, says that there is, after 20 years of study, no substantial evidence that sunscreens protect against any of the three major types of skin cancer.
And Martin Weinstock, Associate Professor of Dermatology at Brown University, says that melanoma may not be affected much, if at all, by sunscreen. That we aren't even sure if ultraviolet light is the true culprit. It may actually be some other part of the light spectrum.
In the end, it is thought that you should continue to use sunscreen, but don't use it as your sole protection. Don't treat it as THE ANSWER, because it isn't.
In a recent issue of the MAF Fitness Newsletter, the word "borage" came up. Borage is a good source of GLA, an omega-6 fatty acid (remember that omega-3 and omega-6 are the two "essential" fats). But what is "borage?" I didn't have a clue, but now I know that it is: "a coarse hairy blue-flowered European herb used medicinally and in salads."
We have discussed "21's" before, as an arm curl exercise - seven reps of the lower half of a biceps curl, then seven reps of the top half, then seven reps of a full range curl - all non-stop. Here is a new version of 21's - for the shoulders.
Front laterals will serve as our example, but this technique will also work for side laterals.
Using dumbbells with arms hanging at your sides, raise the weighs in an arching motion until they are at shoulder height, and with elbows soft. Pause. Slowly lower the weight to the initial position. After seven reps, do seven more from the arms-forward position to overhead. Now do the last seven from the hands-down position to hands overhead - full range.
The July 1997, issue of the Tufts University Health & Nutrition Letter is the source of the two following articles - synopsized from the originals.
It appears that vitamin K may be important to preventing bone fractures. It also appears that many people may not be getting enough. The current RDA is 65 micrograms for women and 80 micrograms for men; but, researchers at Tufts have discovered that at least 400 micrograms may be needed to maintain strong bones.
A process by the name of carboxylation seems to affect a protein called osteocalcin. Carboxylated osteocalcin helps preserve bone strength, and vitamin K aids in the carboxylation process. It looks like a vitamin K deficiency; therefore, results in loss of bone strength. One French study of older women suggested that those with the least carboxylated osteocalcin were nearly twice as likely to get a hip fracture as those with the highest amounts Other studies have shown a correlation between levels of carboxylated osteocalcin and bone breaks. Still others have shown a direct relationship between low blood levels of vitamin K and bone fractures. Tufts researchers have shown that doses of vitamin K (up to 420 micrograms) caused a decrease of undercarboxylated osteocalcin in the blood by an average of 41% over a five-day span.
At this point, no one wants to say that extra vitamin K decreases the number of fractures, but vitamin K aids with carboxylation of two other bone proteins, which supports the get-plenty-of-vitamin-K idea.
The current low RDA's are because the original concern about vitamin K had to do with its blood clotting influence in the event of injuries. The current levels are sufficient for that function; but, Tufts researchers suggest 420 micrograms for bone strength preservation.
It is often said that vitamin K deficiency is nearly impossible because it is manufactured by bacteria in the large intestine, but Sarah Booth, Ph.D., who was on a vitamin K study at Tufts claims that the body's production only provides about 10 to 15% of what is needed.
Some cautions - people on antibiotics probably need more vitamin K, because antibiotics kill bacteria in the gut that produces it; and those taking Wayfarin [a blood thinner, if I remember correctly] should consult with a physician before increasing vitamin K intake.
Some good sources of vitamin K include collard greens, spinach, Brussels sprouts, and broccoli.
It might be a good idea to know your triglyceride level. Nearly everyone seems to be concerned with total cholesterol and LDL/HDL blood levels, but triglyceride level (obtained in the same test) is almost ignored; however, recent findings indicate that it shouldn't be. High triglyceride levels on their own may cause heart problems, and that idea differs significantly from previous thinking. It has been thought that only levels above 400 were cause for concern; but a study at the University of Maryland Medical Center in Baltimore, of 460 middle-aged-and-up adults, found that those subjects with levels higher than 100 had twice the risk of those with lower levels to have a heart attack.
Research has shown that triglyceride levels at or above 190 makes the blood much more viscous, which slows its flow, which decreases the amount of oxygen and nutrients delivered to the heart.
High triglycerides are often accompanied by low HDL levels and smaller LDL particles, leading to atherosclerosis and impeded blood flow.
What to do? Lose excess fat; decrease alcohol intake; restrict use of simple carbs in your diet; and do eat cold-water fish for its healthy omega-3 fatty acid content.
On Vit D and Osteoarthritis:
as reported in the Dec 1996 Tufts University Diet and Nutrition Letter, a study of 500 people, in Boston, over the course of eight years, seemed to show that the amount of progression of the disease was increased threefold for those who took the RDA for vitamin D, as opposed to those who took nearly twice as much.
It is not perfectly clear why this result was observed, but there are two theories:
1- One is that vitamin D helps to maintain the integrity of the cartilage, which is present on the ends of the femur and tubia to act as a shock absorber against body weight; and thereby to help prevent the problem, or, at least, to minimize it.
2- The second theory is that vitamin D helps even those whose cartilage is already shot, by helping the bones retain their shape. Normally, after knee cartilage is worn away, the ends of the bones rub against each other, and cause irregular surfaces, which cause pain and stiffness. Since vitamin D helps with calcium absorption, it may be that bone density loss is limited, even after the cartilage is "gone."
It was also stated that other studies have had similar results. Consequently, there is a push for the FDA to double the RDA for vitamin D to 400 units. [Note that the RDA for vitamin D is already 400 units up to age 25, then it drops to 200 units. This study was done with an elderly population. So the upshot of this study seems to be that vitamin D intake shouldn't be reduced as we age.] Milk is a good source, and so is the sun (the body synthesizes vitamin D from sunlight at lower latitudes - probably not significant where we live. Also many Multi-Vitamins contain a full day's supply.
This same article pointed out the obvious: that weight loss can also be a positive weapon in the war against osteoarthritis of the knee.
(Q) I have just heard about a walking technique that is supposedly very good aerobic exercise. It is called "heel-to-toe walking." Have you ever heard of it?
N.M.F., Las Vegas NV
(A) Yes, it is a technique for intensifying walking - sort of between just-plain-old-walking and race walking. You get a more intense workout, but without the race walker's weird gait. Start by striding forward and contacting the ground with your heel. As your body starts moving forward, your weight rolls toward your toes from where you push off. Your other heel now strikes the ground. This is as opposed to slower walking where your foot is relatively flat as it strikes the ground. Add to that an arm swing, where your elbow bends, but your forearm only travels forward until your forearm is parallel to the ground, and the forward swing is greater than the backward swing. The armswing should be in the direction of travel - not side-to-side; and the hips should face forward, rather than rotate forward from side-to-side with each stride (i.e., your hip shouldn't rotate forward as your leg moves forward). I hope I am getting across the idea that both your shoulders and hips should remain relatively perpendicular to your line-of-travel. The rotating hips and shoulders (especially common among women walkers/runners) is counter-productive.
(Q) When is the best time to workout - morning, midday, or evening?
A.F., Palo Alto, CA
(A) Some say that the morning may not be so good because of the overnight fast. But the best advice on this issue is to do it when you can. Schedule is the overriding factor. Many people like an early workout schedule - get it over with before the excuses start showing up. Others like lunchtime, or after work. Regularity is ultimately more important than time of day.
_____________________________________
For questions or comments call MAF at (408) 739-0501,
send snail mail to: 965 Ponderosa Ave., # 25, Sunnyvale, CA, 94086,
or click here to send an email to the author, Mike Fenner
To see the MAF FITNESS NEWSLETTER archives, goto http://www.hinc.com/maf/