1) Average men hold total testosterone in the range of 350-850 ng/dl. Using “steroids” is injecting testosterone (500mg or 2cc or better) with the aim of attaining supra-physiological levels in the range of 2000+ ng/dl.
Nothing I had stated advocates this.
HRT, hormonal replacement therapy, is not for use of men with normal or higher testosterone levels (though it can be). Rather, it is to treat men with declining levels with the aim to be within the higher end of the normal physiological range ==> 700-850 ng/dl (the "Guideline Range").
Huge distinction. Do you ask a diabetic to forego insulin because his body does not produce enough of it by pointing to examples of bodybuilders who have abused insulin?
Sigh. You're not listening to what I'm saying here.
First of all, nowhere did I say you were telling men to
abuse drugs. Testosterone is just a form of anabolic steroids. Whether I call it steroids or Testosterone shouldn't matter.. the point is, you're altering your body's hormones for
vanity. You cannot compare a diabetic person taking insulin to taking steroids. The former
needs insulin to maintain any sort of normal life. You
don't need testosterone if you fall within the normal range. I'm not denying it doesn't improve your life, but it's not a
need. Surely you can see the point I'm making here?
guru1000 said:
You are barely 30 yo. Accordingly, not much of what I recommended applies to you. I am speaking directly to men in the 40+ age range, whereas in many cases, testosterone and gf-1 levels are suppressed. Moreover, there are many advantages with higher T levels in the Guideline Range, outside of increased energy, stamina, and appearance. I’d go further to state that men with low T levels sacrifice much more on a personal, financial, mental, and health-wise level than men with higher levels in the Guideline Range.
I agree with you here. I'm not talking about personal experience here because I've not reached the age where it's likely to be a problem yet.
Again, I don't deny it can have benefits. What I'm saying is
you do not need to
guru1000 said:
2) Botox? Reread, I did not mention botox. Though, I do use botox from time to time for the furrow and to smooth forehead lines .
Sorry, you're right. It was GunShow85 that mentioned Botox, not you.
guru1000 said:
3) Propecia. I advocated finasteride/Avodart, RU, and Rogaine, not propecia. If you are losing hair, the benefit/cost analysis of using these hair products are significant (that is if you like your hair). Again, at 30 yo, I did not need to worry about hair loss. Though, I would still recommend its use to men in their 30s, as by the time you recognize that you are losing hair, you have already lost a minimum of 25% of your hair count.
As I already mentioned, it's not a problem for me at the moment (and hopefully won't be), but the point I'm making is you're advocating the use of drugs with
very serious side effects, when they are
not essential to landing beautiful women. I mean take a look at this:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22789024
It's a medical paper outlining the significant effects Finasteride can have on male impotence. It's possible you can lose your ability to have sex, just to maintain your hair. What's the ****ing point of having hair to increase your attractiveness to women if you can't have sex with them?? And it's
not necessary. Don't you see the point I'm getting at? You're telling people they
need to take these risks otherwise beautiful women won't want them and it's not true.
guru1000 said:
SteR, much of what I advocated may not apply to you now. But it will. Instead of knee-jerk responding to claims I did not make, perhaps, it’s better to have a seat, and understand that there are anti-aging methods that you can employ as you get older and still get the hottest, young women while in your 40s, 50s, and 60s.
Again, I don't dispute that all of the methods you've outlined
can help. It may very well be that I choose to go down that route later in life.. and that's my decision. But again, (and I hate to keep repeating this but it seems to be the only way to get the point across) you don't
need to take this route to land beautiful girls.
Look at guys like Jason Statham, Lawrence Dallaglio, Billy Zane, Vin Diesel, heck even someone like Neil Strauss.. these guys don't have hair and nor do they do steroids (although I'd question maybe Statham/Diesel having done them at some point in their career) and they've all landed hot girls. In fact Neil Strauss is probably the best example here because the rest have had fame going for them (but how else could I find examples that we'd all know without using them?).
And I could give you a thousand more examples of guys who've landed hot women that don't use steroids, but have hair...
Like I mentioned right at the start of this: You're applying female beauty standards to men. Men aren't required to look pretty to land attractive women.. there are endless examples throughout history. If you had to put it down to one thing, it'd be status. If anything I'd advocate men putting their time and energy into raising their status over anything else. I'm surprised I'm even having to write this out - it's been discussed to death on these boards.
guru1000 said:
I’m here to employ men with power, not to deprecate men for being their best.
When I’m 60, I choose to look like
this… not
this.
Sure, you could resign your fate to an aged, older man and take whatever you can get. Not my style or intent for the men here.
I'm also all for men striving to be their best. What I'm not for is putting my health at risk (nor recommending others doing so) when it's not necessary.
Do you honestly think young women lust after Sly Stallone, or any 60-something man? They're clearly not going after them for raw physical attraction. You know as well as I do there's more to attraction than this.
Look at guys like Clooney, Robert Redford, John Stamos, Pierce Brosnan, Harrison Ford. They're far better examples of attractive older men, and none of them took steroids to get there..