Cars kill much more people than steroids, FACT

[Bam-bam]

Its funny how some of the hypocrites here act like bodybuilders are the only ones with a risky lifestyle.

Well, if you drive a car everyday you are gambling your life 10x worse and are a degenerate person, FACT.

If you care about your life you should be riding these only:



FACT

[The True Adonis]

Its funny how some of the hypocrites here act like bodybuilders are the only ones with a risky lifestyle.

Well, if you drive a car everyday you are gambling your life 10x worse and are a degenerate person, FACT.

If you care about your life you should be riding these only:



FACT

What if you drive your car every day on your own property?  Do the sames rules apply?

[_aj_]

I would say that the risk pool for people in cars is vastly larger than for people on steroids (notwithstanding this board's contention that "everybody is on PED"). Statistically, you'd want to make the death rate per 100,000 "participants" in each risk category.

Also, there are other dangers associated with AAS than just dying (cardiac, renal, hepatic disease, etc)

[Bam-bam]

What if you drive your car every day on your own property?  Do the sames rules apply?

are you talking about a very very very rich person or just a retard?

[Bam-bam]

I would say that the risk pool for people in cars is vastly larger than for people on steroids (notwithstanding this board's contention that "everybody is on PED"). Statistically, you'd want to make the death rate per 100,000 "participants" in each risk category.

Also, there are other dangers associated with AAS than just dying (cardiac, renal, hepatic disease, etc)

if paul walker was injecting some trt test last saturday instead of driving around in sports cars he would be here still with us, FACT

[The True Adonis]

I would say that the risk pool for people in cars is vastly larger than for people on steroids (notwithstanding this board's contention that "everybody is on PED"). Statistically, you'd want to make the death rate per 100,000 "participants" in each risk category.

Also, there are other dangers associated with AAS than just dying (cardiac, renal, hepatic disease, etc)

Here is the problem.

Driving a car depends on where you live.  If you live in a place with a low population, say under 2000 people or less, your odds will go down.  Then, if you only drive just a small bit everyday, say 2-6 miles at the most, its even less. 

Now tell me, which is safer, driving in the above scenario or loading yourself up with roids and never coming off?

[Bam-bam]

I would say that the risk pool for people in cars is vastly larger than for people on steroids (notwithstanding this board's contention that "everybody is on PED"). Statistically, you'd want to make the death rate per 100,000 "participants" in each risk category.

Also, there are other dangers associated with AAS than just dying (cardiac, renal, hepatic disease, etc)

ever saw something like that happen in a bbing contest? guy was LITERARILLY torn in half in front of everyone to see

so why are racing driver "heros" while bodybuilding is considered an undeground sport?

risk taking is hard coded in our dna and it serves a great purpose in the evolution of our species. Stop blaming the bodybuilder just because he is bigger than you.

[_aj_]

Here is the problem.

Driving a car depends on where you live.  If you live in a place with a low population, say under 2000 people or less, your odds will go down.  Then, if you only drive just a small bit everyday, say 2-6 miles at the most, its even less. 

Now tell me, which is safer, driving in the above scenario or loading yourself up with roids and never coming off?

Then is it only fair to compare professional racers to professional bb'ers? And then folks with a one-hour commute to gym rats who do a few runs of test+tren? Then I suppose the "2 miles to Church on Sunday" folks to TRT recipients?

Since the two behaviors are well-nigh incomparible, it is fun to slice the risk groups to desperately make a comparison, I guess.

[Bam-bam]

Then is it only fair to compare professional racers to professional bb'ers? And then folks with a one-hour commute to gym rats who do a few runs of test+tren? Then I suppose the "2 miles to Church on Sunday" folks to TRT recipients?

Since the two behaviors are well-nigh incomparible, it is fun to slice the risk groups to desperately make a comparison, I guess.

its irrelevant because the only kind of people puting their lives at risk to do something they are passionate about is the bodybuilder.

[_aj_]

its irrelevant because the only kind of people puting their lives at risk to do something they are passionate about is the bodybuilder.

Driving your fiery car into a retaining wall at 180 MPH is "going out in a blaze of glory" (pours 40oz on the ground), but having big muscles is just stupid 

[Tapeworm]

So you're saying that steroids kill some people, but less people than cars?

[oldtimer1]

Driving a car is a risk we all take. It's a risk we take to be employed, buy food, enjoyment and to see loved ones. Your path of logic is one of a simpleton.

 Cars kill more people than guns in the US by far.

[_aj_]

Driving a car is a risk we all take. It's a risk we take to be employed, buy food, enjoyment and to see loved ones.

 Cars kill more people than guns in the US by far.

33,000 deaths in '09 (last number I could find). If there were that many deaths from steroids per year, the government would have happily closed every gym in the nation.

[The True Adonis]

Iatrogenesis, or medical error, wrong prescription/diagnosis is the leading cause of death, around 230,000 to 284,000 a year in the United States.  Better not go to the doctor. 

[The True Adonis]

The terms iatrogenesis and iatrogenic artifact refer to adverse effects or complications caused by or resulting from medical treatment or advice. In addition to harmful consequences of actions by physicians, iatrogenesis can also refer to actions by other healthcare professionals, such as psychologists, therapists, pharmacists, nurses, dentists, and others. Iatrogenisis is not restricted to conventional medicine and can also result from complementary and alternative medicine treatments.





latrogenesis is a major phenomenon, and a severe risk to patients. A study carried out in 1981 more than one-third of illnesses of patients in a university hospital were iatrogenic, nearly one in ten were considered major, and in 2% of the patients, the iatrogenic disorder ended in death. Complications were most strongly associated with exposure to drugs and medications.[12] In another study, the main factors leading to problems were inadequate patient evaluation, lack of monitoring and follow-up, and failure to perform necessary tests.[13]

In the United State alone, recorded deaths per year (2000):

    * 12,000—unnecessary surgery
    * 7,000—medication errors in hospitals
    * 20,000—other errors in hospitals
    * 80,000—infections in hospitals
    * 106,000—non-error, negative effects of drugs

Based on these figures, 225,000 deaths per year constitutes the third leading cause of death in the United States, after deaths from heart disease and cancer. Also, there is a wide margin between these numbers of deaths and the next leading cause of death (cerebrovascular disease).

This totals 225,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes. In interpreting these numbers, note the following:

    * most data were derived from studies in hospitalized patients.
    * the estimates are for deaths only and do not include negative effects that are associated with disability or discomfort.
    * the estimates of death due to error are lower than those in the IOM report. If higher estimates are used, the deaths due to iatrogenic causes would range from 230,000 to 284,000.[14]

[JasonH]

Its funny how some of the hypocrites here act like bodybuilders are the only ones with a risky lifestyle.

Well, if you drive a car everyday you are gambling your life 10x worse and are a degenerate person, FACT.

If you care about your life you should be riding these only:



FACT

There's a high number of cyclists getting killed too - look at this year's figures for London only. I sure as hell wouldn't cycle round that place.

[TheShape]

You're comparing apples and oranges here.

[Radical Plato]

Its funny how some of the hypocrites here act like bodybuilders are the only ones with a risky lifestyle.

Well, if you drive a car everyday you are gambling your life 10x worse and are a degenerate person, FACT.

If you care about your life you should be riding these only:

FACT

Evaluating the worthiness of risk has nothing to do with what kills someone the most. Risk is always balanced against reward.  Childbirth poses a risk to the potential mother, but the reward that comes from motherhood pushes women to accept the risk.  The transport system in general benefits not only the individual, but society as a whole, so although the activity poses a risk, the rewards from such an activity far outweigh the risk.  Couple this with the fact the things like cars are at least accessing the transport system are what some would call a necessary evil, something that has become integral to modern life, in other words, you don't have much choice, to opt out may leave you a social pariah.  

Anyway, back to your initial point, the risk involved in bodybuilding drugs doesn't appeal to the mainstream because the reward is a body they consider grotesque.  Walking around with exaggerated muscularity is seen more as some type of mutant deformity, so the average person feels not only that they not rewarded for such a pursuit, but effectively worse off.  It is only a very tiny fraction of the community that wants to look like a bodybuilder, everyone else thinks they just look like deformed mutants.  For most men, looking like a bodybuilder has about as much appeal as slicing one's testicles off with a blunt knife.  For risk to be worthy, the reward needs to be greater.  The equation is thus:  Reward > Risk = Acceptable risk or alternatively if Risk > Reward = Unacceptable risk

[JasonH]

Evaluating the worthiness of risk has nothing to do with what kills someone the most. Risk is always balanced against reward.  Childbirth poses a risk to the potential mother, but the reward that comes from motherhood pushes women to accept the risk.  The transport system in general benefits not only the individual, but society as a whole, so although the activity poses a risk, the rewards from such an activity far outweigh the risk.  Couple this with the fact the things like cars are at least accessing the transport system are what some would call a necessary evil, something that has become integral to modern life, in other words, you don't have much choice, to opt out may leave you a social pariah.  

Anyway, back to your initial point, the risk involved in bodybuilding drugs doesn't appeal to the mainstream because the reward is a body they consider grotesque.  Walking around with exaggerated muscularity is seen more as some type of mutant deformity, so the average person feels not only that they not rewarded for such a pursuit, but effectively worse off.  It is only a very tiny fraction of the community that wants to look like a bodybuilder, everyone else thinks they just look like deformed mutants.  For most men, looking like a bodybuilder has about as much appeal as slicing one's testicles off with a blunt knife.  For risk to be worthy, the reward needs to be greater.  The equation is thus:  Reward > Risk = Acceptable risk or alternatively if Risk > Reward = Unacceptable risk

Hope this helps.

Good post.

[The True Adonis]

Evaluating the worthiness of risk has nothing to do with what kills someone the most. Risk is always balanced against reward.  Childbirth poses a risk to the potential mother, but the reward that comes from motherhood pushes women to accept the risk.  The transport system in general benefits not only the individual, but society as a whole, so although the activity poses a risk, the rewards from such an activity far outweigh the risk.  Couple this with the fact the things like cars are at least accessing the transport system are what some would call a necessary evil, something that has become integral to modern life, in other words, you don't have much choice, to opt out may leave you a social pariah.  

Anyway, back to your initial point, the risk involved in bodybuilding drugs doesn't appeal to the mainstream because the reward is a body they consider grotesque.  Walking around with exaggerated muscularity is seen more as some type of mutant deformity, so the average person feels not only that they not rewarded for such a pursuit, but effectively worse off.  It is only a very tiny fraction of the community that wants to look like a bodybuilder, everyone else thinks they just look like deformed mutants.  For most men, looking like a bodybuilder has about as much appeal as slicing one's testicles off with a blunt knife.  For risk to be worthy, the reward needs to be greater.  The equation is thus:  Reward > Risk = Acceptable risk or alternatively if Risk > Reward = Unacceptable risk

Hope this helps.

For some though, The Risk=The Reward

[Radical Plato]

For some though, The Risk=The Reward

Agreed, but like I said, it is only a tiny fraction of the population.  I think too, sometimes people get so caught up in the reward that they poorly assess the risk.

[Radical Plato]

As for what poses the greater risk, driving a car or an extreme bodybuilder lifestyle, frequency of exposure is a large factor, and millions of people expose themselves to the risk of car fatalities simply because so many people drive cars all the time.  There is simply a far greater car driving population than there is people quaffing down extreme amounts of Growth Hormones, Insulin and steroids.  If as many people indulged in a hardcore bodybuilding lifestyle as those who expose themselves to the transport system each day, you might have a better indication of what is more dangerous.

[Tapeworm]

You're all missing the point that alcohol and cigarettes are legal and women have plastic surgery.  Therefore steroids are good for you.  QED.

[Mr Nobody]

So you're saying that steroids kill some people, but less people than cars?

Yes there are many more people taking steroids than driving cars.

[Tapeworm]

Yes there are many more people taking steroids than driving cars.

I did both and got into a fight on the shoulder.  Luckily I was on steroids at the time.