Robb said, when used properly, steroids can be beneficial depending on your goals. He, himself has never used and doesn't advocate. If you abuse them, things can go wrong, just like if you abuse any other supplement or foodstuff.

I think the more and more these folks are asked their opinions -- especially on the Paleo minutia -- the more and more they're forced to slightly tweak their original message corresponding to that minutia. The basic message is still the same; minutia is where all the n=1 massaging takes place. Just my opinion, of course -- take it for what it's worth, no more.

people on paleohacks are so particular...these kind of topics really turn me off from the community

yes, this wasn't the greatest contribution to the question, but people who feel the same way won't need an explanation. everyone else will disagree anyways

Just listened. So, if you listen to the whole segment you hear that he is interested in what hormone replacement therapy / anabolics at the later stages in our life cycle would do for longevity of performance. As a biochemist, I think that he has a clinical interest, and as an ex-power lifter, a performance/historical interest in the appropriate and timely usage of these treatments.

I'll channel a little Dave Tate here [paraphrased from my notes of an interview I saw]:

"We're dealing with young athletes looking toward professional athletes as comparisons. The problem with that is 90% of the professional athletes are going to be professional athletes with or without drugs due to genetics and skills.

The late maturers are generally the ones that are going to be at the higher level. The kids that aren't making he team at jr high levels. If they stay, they'll be the best in high school. What generally happens is that the kids that aren't playing / sitting the bench are working their skills and drills. The more mature athletes are running plays. That works really well until the other kids mature, an then they blow the early maturers away. Human potential is a lot higher than we think it is.

I think that drugs shouldn't be a part of the issue. In most sports it's a part of the sport. It's there. Those who get caught are labeled the bad person. Drugs have been a part of sports since the 60s. It's not going to go away. People who get locked into a vision, that's it. Nothing matters. Most people in society will never understand that.

I'm not pro nor con anabolics. It's your ace card. If you're an athlete and you get ONE ace card, when are you going to play it? If you have to play it to make your high school football, you're probably not going to play in college. If you play it to make your college team, you probably aren't going to make pro. If you play it to make the combine, then you're probably going to go pro, but how long are you going to be there? If you play it after five years in the pros to get another five years, well now you're making another $5 - $10 million dollars. It's all a matter of when do you feel you have to flip that card, because you can only play it once.

The problem I have with it is that you have high school kids flipping that card. I have a problem with people that are flipping it too soon. Just because you hit a sticking point, doesn't mean you aren't going to go any further. You need to try something new."

I just had a seminar with Robb on Saturday. He never mentioned steroids but has a joking personality. he also stated that he doesn't want people to worry about the details and minutiae. This isn't a cult. Live a little.

As for Steroids, I think its personal and what are your goals. How come they are ok to be prescribed by a physician? They must do some good. like anything else, when abuse happens is when you see the fall out.

1. I've heard that De Vany is anti-fat in his book. That is lame.

2. I am a regular podcast listener, and i doubt that Robb Wolf endorses steroids in any way. He was probably being sarcastic.

More generally, I think that the critique of "nutritionism" has to be understood in a nuanced way to make any sense. IMO, nutritionism doesn't mean that we can't look in the underlying chemical elements in our food. It means that we have to be humble about the extent of scientific knowledge, and it is basically a precautionary principle. It would suggest that science should be viewed as a way to evaluate cultural traditions or anthropological evidence, which we can already see are efficacious.

I get a kick out of the anti-steroid crowd. If there was a pill, when taken properly, is safe, and could turn a $50k/year accountant into a $1 million/year accountant, not many people would pass it up.

I read Melissa's blog post on De Vany. Where he says in his book that the "occasional" raw carrot is fine. OMG, what is so unhealthy about a carrot that it must be eaten only occasionally?

This is my take:

Paleo eating is a framework for eating the best to accomplish a variety of tasks (some are quite personal). A framework...not a religion. You have to make good decisions and cannot always say "well Wolf said" or "well Sisson says". Educate yourself and figure it out!

As for steroids. I won't touch them. I looked into them and there is just too much juggling around. If it was easy and safe, I would take them for sure b/c for me, this whole thing is about living longer and healthier. That is one of the promises of steroids.

HGH and Peptides? Well, those are a different story and I plan to take them (once my hormone levels have dropped a bit) for a long, long time. There is enough evidence that moderate GH/Peptide use is extremely beneficial to a long, healthy life that you cannot ignore it. And you can take moderate amounts of GH/Peptides forever with no adverse side effects. This is NOT the horse steroids of the '70s ;)

GH/Peptides may not be "paleo", but who cares? If your goal is to only "live like a caveman", sobeit. Mine is to live a long, healthy life with a physically high level of fitness for as long as possible.