Olbermann's Mouth

[ghostrunner]

I've seen that slow-twitch issue discussed before, and it sounds reasonable, but I've read arguments (not authoritative) that it also assists with fast-twitch muscles, which is why runners use it. As much as Olympic athletes are focused on getting that extra fraction of a second, it's hard for me to imagine it doesn't help with speed. They must know something. If there were any thought that it might slow them down, I'd think they'd be off it instantly.

Again, it's the ages and pre-1998 numbers that stick out for me and McGwire and Bonds and Sosa. All of them suddenly increased their home run numbers by 10 or more, and distanced themselves from people they had been rather close too previously. In Bonds case, he had gone through 4 straight years of decline prior to 2000 (42, 40, 37, and 34) before suddenly jumping back up to 49. His age in these years was 32-35, past the time when you'd normally expect peak numbers, and in fact his previous peak of 46 came at age 29.

There is a small precedent for old-age performance like this with Hank Aaron, but his numbers fluctuated between the low 30's and mid 40's throughout his career.

Sosa and McGwire have similar stories, in the same range of years, though Sosa was younger during his run. It's hard for me to chalk all that up to park sizes and pitcher dilution.

[skmsw]

I've seen that slow-twitch issue discussed before, and it sounds reasonable, but I've read arguments (not authoritative) that it also assists with fast-twitch muscles, which is why runners use it. As much as Olympic athletes are focused on getting that extra fraction of a second, it's hard for me to imagine it doesn't help with speed. They must know something. If there were any thought that it might slow them down, I'd think they'd be off it instantly.

I've never seen any evidence that steroids build fast-twitch muscle.

How steroids affect runners of course depends on their workout. Runners are not likely to slow down much because they are not doing maximum-overdrive weight/strength training like Bonds et al did. So the added slow-twitch muscle is not likely to slow them down -- they won't bulk up enough for that to happen.

Plus, some runners would actually be significantly better off with slow-twitch muscle development; NOT to the point of adding bulk, of course, but distance runners and other events that need endurance need slow twitch muscle. Sprinters need fast-twitch muscle. And so do baseball players -- slow-twitch muscle does not help much with hitting (where the muscle has to fire in about a third of a second, and is done in under a second) or with any other baseball skills I can really think of.

And as I said before, the fact that runners try it does not mean it definitely works. It could be that they expect the steroids to boost their training, so they intensify their workouts and the workouts themselves are what help. It could be that the steroids neither help nor hurt, but the athlete keeps using because they spuriously attribute improvement that comes from training, to the steroids.

Again, it's the ages and pre-1998 numbers that stick out for me . . .

You might have missed my thoughts about the age thing, because I added them on in an edit after I first posted. Here they are:

What stands out to me is the advanced age of people like Bonds and McGwire when they had their big home run seasons. How would you account for that?

It could be coincidence -- overall fitness and nutrition and lifestyle conditions are meaning that 40 is the new 35 and 45 is the new 40, with or without steroids.

Or they could be outliers -- Mays had his best year at around age 34, if I recall (and given my thoughts above, 34 in 1965 was probably more like 37-39 now). Darrell Evans hit 40 homers at age 38 (after having topped 25 ONCE in the previous 12 years), and hit about 140 homers age 38+. Aaron's career high came at age 37 (which could, based on my reasoning above, be the equivalent of age 40-42). Obviously these examples are not as extreme as Bonds et al, but the point is, there have always been outliers.

Or it could be placebo, or correlation not equalling causality -- that is, taking the steroids, they also ramped up their overall strength, conditioning, fitness, and nutrition programs. Expecting the steroids to make the workouts better, they worked out much more intensively and with an enhanced level of dedication and attention. Maybe the intensive workouts just were what they were, and the steroids were the least important (or inert) part.

I dunno, just speculating. I think we read too much into some of the surface-level details and anecdotal elements of these cases. Again, just my opinion though -- I certainly understand WHY you think what you think, and I can't say you're wrong. I just think something else.

Genes determine how much one benefits from exercize. It is absolutely possible that Bonds and McGwire changed their workouts as they got older -- whether because they thought they were capitalizing on the steroids, or for other reasons -- and the workouts themselves -- NOT the added muscle from the steroids -- were what led to their late-career surges.

that's not to say that it is NOT possible that the steroids did it -- I don't know. I just happen to believe otherwise, and feel that the available evidence supports that opinion every bit as well as any other.