One particular excerpt:
> The connection between naturally occurring testosterone and athletic performance appears to be overstated. When researchers measured the T levels of elite athletes from 15 Olympic sports, more than 25 per cent of the men were below 10 nmol/L
Yeah because training reduces testosterone.
If steroids would be a net positive for the body in general, then evolution would just follow the gradient and produce more of it.
> if steroids are indeed a net positive for the body they might even have legal choices available by the time they're adults
That's a huge "if ... might" there. Again, what are you telling your children? That gambling with your health is ok?
Think about teeth for an obvious example: The body is able to grow them, and some animals do it constantly - yet losing our adult teeth (due to aging, accidents or whatever else) does not cause us to grow new ones. It would be hard to dispute that growing a replacement tooth would be beneficial to a person in our current context and lifestyle, but evolution has not reached that conclusion.
Edit: Replying also to your second phrase (the message I'd be giving to my potential children) - I don't really see why, if current research points to minimal to no dangers for short term use (about as harmful as light alcohol consumption), I should be treating it as such a big deal. If anything, I think it would be a positive lesson that they should make adult choices for themselves by taking appropriate steps to be informed about the pros and cons of it.
Yes, and it's very well known too. You don't need to take steroids for very long to increase your muscle mass, then you go off them and stay off them for a few months and maintain it. You can then repeat multiple times if you need/want to. I've been told that it's fairly safe when done this way, with appropriate monitoring, etc.
So, when I was entertaining trying to be a bodybuilder, I had two problem areas. Chest and arms. Also, I should mention that my trainer at the time was an IFBB judge, and has his pro card. I really, really dived into this.
My chest got big from gear and stayed that way, and I kept most of my strength, even when I don't work out.
The reason I can't be a bodybuilder is-- I can't get my biceps to grow, even on the most aggressive steroids they grow mildly and shrink back to crap the moment I'm not killing myself.
My point is, bodies are weird. They're an indignity frankly. Anecdotally, I have evidence your supposition is correct and incorrect. It's mostly down to genetics.
> cycling steroids involves alternating the active and in active use of steroids. This means that there would be times where a person would be using the drug as well as times where they would refrain from using them.
https://www.whatsteroids.com/steroids/what-is-a-steroid-cycl...
the street theory, quite supported by old consumers and ex-competitors, was that, ok the "super-size" could be gone after some months, but the strenght increase would not. So you've got - and you'd be able - to train really hard in those months, consuming steroids, supplements, controlling diet, etc.