It has been a proven fact that many young bodybuilders, within the age range of 18-22 are using performance-enhancing drugs. While many of these drugs are not illegal in the United States and other countries per se, it remains to be seen whether long-term effects would be beneficial.
Common drug
Often, undergraduate bodybuilders use performance-enhancing drugs to improve their workouts and to increase their mass building. The pressure to be more than fit is a key indicator that this trend will continue.
The most commonly used substance is creatinine, which fortunately has not shown any deadly side effects. However, medical science points at a peculiar truth about building: the body should be allowed to build mass and strength on its own.
Potentially harmful effects
According to David M. Williams, Eileen S. Anderson, Richard E. Winett, researchers for the Journal of Sport Behavior:
“Creatine may be a gateway drug to other more harmful performance enhancing substances such as dehydroepiandrosterone (i.e., DHEA) and androstenedione.”
“Numerous anecdotal accounts illustrate adverse side effects, such as kidney dysfunction, effects on the body’s creatine and insulin production, diarrhea, gastrointestinal pain, muscle cramping, and dehydration.”
“Although laboratory studies of creatine’s efficacy are numerous,
field studies of creatine supplementation patterns have been scarce. This is especially true among young, male, resistance trainers, who are the target of marketing strategies that emphasize creatine’s ability to increase body mass.”
Like all performance-enhancing drugs, the most commonly used drug seems to have its own set of bad effects. For one, creatinine affects the way energy is stored and used. Second, it affects the amount of protein used and expended during workouts.
The main point here is that even if the evidence is anecdotal (or from interviews), the potential dangers remain. Empirical proof need not always be the basis of spotting the danger signs.
For a long time now, medical science has been dependent on anecdotal evidence even for the discovery of new forms of medicine. Biological prospecting for one would not be possible without the use of anecdotal data.
Causes
According to the researchers, the use of steroids and other similar substances to enhance bodybuilding may have a psychological precession:
“Research on steroid use suggests that psychological variables may be important. Lovstakken, Peterson and Homer (1999) found some positive expectations of the effects of steroids associated with higher risk of steroid use, and negative social expectations associated with lower risk of steroid use among college students.”
Because of the perceived causes of increased use, some researchers have made it a point to actually intervene. Williams, et alia, continue:
“Goldberg et al. (1996) used a psycho-educational intervention to decrease intentions to use steroids and increase resistance-training self-efficacy in male high school athletes.”
Intervention and critical insight
The researchers stated that there must always be a critical eye on the variables that link together social expectations and bodybuilding. A usable theoretical framework for such inquiry is as follows:
“Social cognitive theory provides a useful theoretical framework for understanding creatine use by addressing its specific behavioral, personal, and environmental influences.”
“That is, self-efficacy and outcome expectancies specifically related to the use of creatine can help us understand why some resistance trainers use creatine while others do not.”
Benedict Yossarian
http://www.articlesbase.com/sports-and-fitness-articles/creatinine-use-among-the-young-in-bodybuilding-743969.html
