toaster
02-10-2010, 09:33 AM
Where do you draw the line?
Recently in a conversation a name of someone local came up as to rumors of alleged use of anabolics/testosterone and a discussion began on the ethics of the use of PED's in amateur racing.
It made me wonder how many state their opposition to others who may or may not use steroids or testosterone and yet are constantly searching and buying all the popular supplements available through companies like Hammer Nutrition who sell an entire line from sports drinks to anti-oxidants to vitamin/minerals, and therapeutic supplements for joints and PSA, etc.
The claims made by these products suggest performance enhancement and the purpose of consuming them has to be with the idea of improved results from training and beneficial effects of the supplement.
So, where do you draw the line?
Let's assume one begins by eating consistently to obtain the best possible nutrition from foods. The right calories, the right combination of protein, fats, and carbohydrates and the correct timing of meals with no junk. Now add nutritional support in the form of supplements. A good vitamin/mineral and some cellular support with anti-oxidants and proper hydration and nutrition supplementation during exercise.
Does that athlete then decide to go one better and add drugs or are the people using drugs possibly lacking in all the other ingredients so that there is really a grey area of optimal balance. In other words a junk food eating doper vs. a ideal dieter with every known sport supplement as his PED's of choice?
Who's right and who is wrong?
Recently in a conversation a name of someone local came up as to rumors of alleged use of anabolics/testosterone and a discussion began on the ethics of the use of PED's in amateur racing.
It made me wonder how many state their opposition to others who may or may not use steroids or testosterone and yet are constantly searching and buying all the popular supplements available through companies like Hammer Nutrition who sell an entire line from sports drinks to anti-oxidants to vitamin/minerals, and therapeutic supplements for joints and PSA, etc.
The claims made by these products suggest performance enhancement and the purpose of consuming them has to be with the idea of improved results from training and beneficial effects of the supplement.
So, where do you draw the line?
Let's assume one begins by eating consistently to obtain the best possible nutrition from foods. The right calories, the right combination of protein, fats, and carbohydrates and the correct timing of meals with no junk. Now add nutritional support in the form of supplements. A good vitamin/mineral and some cellular support with anti-oxidants and proper hydration and nutrition supplementation during exercise.
Does that athlete then decide to go one better and add drugs or are the people using drugs possibly lacking in all the other ingredients so that there is really a grey area of optimal balance. In other words a junk food eating doper vs. a ideal dieter with every known sport supplement as his PED's of choice?
Who's right and who is wrong?