Once, only elite athletes took “performance enhancers”...

Iggy says:

07:44am | 20/11/12

Because obviously Gen Y was demanding protein formula and ‘roids in the 1980’s when the industry started to boom….

Lill says:

07:51am | 20/11/12

It’s not for me, or any of my friends, or their friends. So stop trying to shove an entire generation into one category okay.

Markus says:

08:00am | 20/11/12

Gen Y are merely a product of their environment.
The physically attractive have always had the upper hand, the only difference is that now physical attractiveness can be purchased to some extent.

Levi says:

08:07am | 20/11/12

I’m sure there is more to it than that, but you are right there is pressure to look a certain way of late. Might have something to do with image obsessed women having unrealistic expecatations of young men these days. Gen Y has been bombarded for years with perfect imagery in television and cinema, but you can blame the baby boomers and Gen X for that, they’re the ones who created the media, Gen Y were influenced by it.

Women watch movies with Channing Tatum and read about the Christian Grey’s of the world and suddenly they’re dissatisfied with guys who don’t have a combination of dance skills, just the right amount of muscle, tallness, confidence without cockiness, sense of humour, great job, financially stable, good dress sense etc.

And it goes the other way too. Women see other women on TV and in magazines with the perfect D size breasts, fit and toned stomachs, no cellulite, white teeth and they too will strive to seek this fabled state of perfection, often at drastic cost to their finances and self-image. While I’ve only seen a doco of a breast augmentation performed, it’s definitely not a nice thing to watch. I don’t know why women would put themselves through that.

It’s all up to the individual to resist these pressures, which is easier for some people than others.

And on Ant’s point about roids, he’s spot on. I try to hit up the gym a bit and always have a laught to myself when all the flat benches and dumbells are being thrown around by guys with massive upper body’s. Then look over and see the squat rack and deadlift bar unutilised. No chicken legs for me. Friends don’t let friends skip leg day

I hate pies says:

08:19am | 20/11/12

Too late Lill, I’ve done it. Just walk down the street on a hot day and count the number of young blokes with their shirts off; that will prove my point.
Iggy, no they weren’t, they were just babies then, or not alive yet…der. Whether people were on the gear or not in the past is irrelevant to my statement.

Ridge says:

08:39am | 20/11/12

Or that in recent generations, testosterone levels have been dropping.  So a little exogenous hormonal supplement could be a nice way to bring some excitement back into your life.

Rose says:

08:52am | 20/11/12

So how do you explain the baby boomers at the gym doing the same damn thing?

andye says:

09:04am | 20/11/12

Phew! As long as we can blame a specific demographic then everything is Ohhhh Kay.

Modern Primitive says:

09:21am | 20/11/12

I’m gen Y, and I don’t take anything mentioned above.

Lill says:

09:26am | 20/11/12

Well no sweat pies. You’re kust helpin us Gen Y’s think all old guys are idiots.

I hate pies says:

10:08am | 20/11/12

Got me a good one there Lill; your retort is too witty for my simple non-alcohol soaked brain.
Glad to help Andye. Pidgeon-holing and generalising makes life easier.
In all seriousness, Levi makes some good points. We have become a shallow and image obsessed society, where anything less than perfection is unacceptable. It’s truly disturbing.

marley says:

10:11am | 20/11/12

@Lill - maybe you should take your own advice and “stop trying to shove an entire generation into one category okay.”

Rose says:

11:14am | 20/11/12

“We have become a shallow and image obsessed society, where anything less than perfection is unacceptable”.
Rubbish, we’ve always been a shallow and image obsessed society. People have always done extraordinary things to fit the fashion/preferred body of the time. Think bone corsets, binding breasts to make them appear smaller, bound feet, brylcream, high heels. we’ve been through periods where waif thin was the go, and other eras were curves were all the rage. There has always been the ideal and there have always been drastic ways of achieving it. Men have always liked to show off their muscles, granted, in my dad’s day his singlet always stayed on but the shirt was often cast aside.
I love how people accuse the current younger generation of being all that is wrong with the world but the younger generation is just doing the same as their predecessors, just with better technology, more product and more advertising and instant communication methods. I often laugh at my kids who think they’re doing something original, when really their parents and grandparents have often been there done that, just using different stuff

Economist says:

11:44am | 20/11/12

I agree with Rose. The crux of the issue is managing expectations.

Kids are turning to stimulants for exams because they have this belief that failure is bad. That there are no second chances. Not realising that its not the result but how you get there. I was one of these piss weak individuals. I made a half arsed attempt at suicide on the back of an exam result because I didn’t get straight distinctions or above. Yet that one credit did not have any impact on me or my career. I was shallow and insecure, but only with hindsight could I see it. Exam results mean nothing in the broad scheme of things. What gives you more weight is simply a work ethic and a willingness to try and improve and to learn from your mistakes.

The same goes for body image.  I hit the gym to make me more attractive to the opposite sex in pursuit of woman that were quite frankly vacuous and weren’t relationship material.

Though I can see how some men blame feminism, not because its a problem but now men are just as insecure as woman were in the past and this is now discussed rather than being taboo and told to man up..

This article cracked me up. http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/a-question-of-size-20121116-29fzh.html Because looking at the comments you see how insecure some men are.  So what if for some woman size matters there are plenty of hot woman out there that will accept you for who you are. Personality goes a long way. Self reflection and acceptance goes a long way.

I hate pies says:

02:52pm | 20/11/12

So Rose, you can remember a time when girls dressed like prostitutes and boys took their shirts off to walk down the street can you? When?

Lill says:

04:29pm | 20/11/12

It’s called sarcasm Marley. I was copying what Pies did after he decided everyone born from 1980 to 92 (or whatever) is exactly the same person.

Lill says:

04:50pm | 20/11/12

The problem is I hate pies is that you assume Gen Y = 20 year old raver not 29 year old commercial pilot. Just remember, next time you’re on a domestic flight on a B737 this 29 year old apparently image obsessed, prostitute could very well be flying that plane. Gen Y out.

PsychoHyena says:

05:21pm | 20/11/12

@pies, every generation has them, as fashion changes. It used to be a sign you were a prostitute by showing your ankles or elbows.

Rose says:

05:26pm | 20/11/12

I hate pies….You completely miss the point. Every generation has had people dressing in ways to show off certain physical attributes in order to entice the opposite sex. Remember what was said about the girls wearing mini skirts in the ‘60s?
You make it sound as if the current generation is the only one to push the envelope and wear clothes their parents thought were akin to “dressing like prostitutes”. You obviously had a very boring youth if you didn’t see all the same kind of stuff happening.
What did prostitutes wear in the 60s anyway?

Graeme says:

08:50am | 20/11/12

Ozcharlie, I have to agree on pretty much all of what you have posted. I am sceptical of multivitamins, always have been, as I find it hard to believe that they can actually cram all those vitamins into one small capsule. But what I did also find over the years, is that some vitamins can actually help, as you have stated with “a specific nutritional need in specific medical circumstances”. I have suffered from asthma since I was a kid. I was prescribed puffers to “help” with the problem for years. I guess like many others, I ended up totally hooked on these puffers, and used them more and more, to the point where I was going through one in about two weeks, not a very healthy scenario. I then discovered a book written by a woman in Brisbane that showed that the proper use of vitamins, in my case vitamin A and E, could help get rid of your asthma. Reading this book further, I was convinced there was also something awry with the drug companies, who between themselves as it was mentioned at the time the book was published, had 73 different types of reliever for asthma, but not one cure. So I decided to try out a course of these vitamins, and stuck to the dosage daily. Within 6 months my asthma had gone, rather than being just relieved, and my lung capacity had opened up immensely. And unless I go through long periods of not taking these vitamins, I don’t have the breathing problems I once had. I guess some vitamins are very helpful, but as you say, a lot of them are marketed purely as “snake oil”.

Ridge says:

09:42am | 20/11/12

“It’s terrible that vitamin companies get celebrity endorsements for products that…”

Yes, but it’s equally terrible that people would follow celebrity endorsements.

“There is not a shred of evidence (despite years of studies, worldwide) of any health benefit for anyone taking suplemental vitamins (or even antioxidants) unless there is a specific nutritional need in specific medical circumstances.”

Here are a few articles/studies indicating fairly broad health benefits for a fairly broad target sample:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110531115323.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21365161
http://www.cpmedical.net/elderly-individuals-deficient-in-several-vitamins

People seem to be confused that a supplement is not meant to be a replacement.  Vitamins aren’t magic pills.  It is difficult, even for nutritionists, to recommend diets that would cover all nutritional bases for optimal health, and within the necessary calorie limits.

So for your average person, you could almost guarantee that they won’t have optimal nutrition without some form of supplementation.

“Tired, Stressed? You won’t feel any benefit from Swisse! “

Actually, I’d agree with this… lol

crock says:

09:35am | 20/11/12

I have a number of chronic illnesses and can go for days living on lemonade, toast and tea because nothing else stays down. I rely on multivitamins and can tell the difference if I don’t have them. I acquired Hepatitis C in a blood transfusion, and the treatment I tried for two weeks damaged the lining of my stomach which decreased my ability to absorb nutrients, so I’ll stick to the vitamins. I’m also on prednisolone. I’d give anything to get rid of the pills and be healthy.

Steve says:

09:51am | 20/11/12

No. Proper diet is the most effective way of ensuring optimal amount of nutrients. Multivitamins are snake oil, just another marketing ploy pandering to most peoples laziness and guilt.

Pedro says:

12:31pm | 20/11/12

The pills might be of benefit to sick, infirm, elderly ...
Normal helthy youngsters are just throwing their money away. How do you think Swisse pays for those ads, sheeple?
Have an apple.

Rose says:

01:21pm | 20/11/12

The only vitamins and supplements that will be of any use to use are those that meet a diagnosed deficit in your diet. For example, I don’t eat fish, so fish oil may not be a bad idea, a woman going through menopause can often need calcium supplements,people who don’t get out much may need Vitamin D…however, taking a multi ‘just because’ seems like a really stupid way to throw money down the drain…..

Gary says:

09:29am | 20/11/12

F me Gregg, do you people always have to harp on and scoff about the “future leaders”. This has happened in my youth, your youth, your grandpa’s youth and further. It’s just happening different ways! Times change, so do methods of stupidity.

PsychoHyena says:

10:01am | 20/11/12

@Gregg I partially agree with your comment, where I disagree is that the level of work required for a uni student these days has drastically increased, coupled with needing to work to survive, with the only option being casual work on weekends and nights. You have very little if any time to study for exams. However I don’t agree with taking drugs as a solution. Maybe if the level of knowledge required to pass uni these days has increased then perhaps uni length needs to be increased from 3 - 4 years for a Bachelor’s degree (full-time) to 4 - 5 years, reducing the pressure.

The other option is reduce the required knowledge level to get a Bachelor’s degree and create a new degree level that sits between the Bachelor’s and Master’s.

vox says:

11:39am | 20/11/12

Right on Gregg. Future leaders , indeed. Next thing you know they’ll be punching holes in walls because they can’t believe that they could be defeated. By a woman.
Another case of some gutless, head-softened, ‘I’m supposed to win all the time’ mentality.
Very observant, Greggy. And so damned topical!

Gregg says:

11:43am | 20/11/12

At PhyschoH
Times have certainly changed and you even now have degree courses for stuff like radiographers and even nurses whereas you’ll find many still about who got their training as a better mix of practical work in the wards for nurses with theory from a nurses school usually attached to a hospital.
For radiographers they need to have what they call a professional development year tacked on to a degree because the degree alone will mean that are no better than tits on a bull.

Yes, it seems we have gone degree mad, often learning for the sake of learning and hopefully then not driving taxis.
In my own field of engineering there was a time when there were diplomas at places like the RMIT now also called a university and yes the diploma was still a fully accredited qualification that allowed me to become a full member of the Institution of Engineers Australia.

What was common with engineering and radiography is that engineers with degrees were not always that useful either, many not even able to read an engineering drawing and I do wonder what they did get taught at universities.

Doing a diploma was no easy route for many like myself either who as in my case had an engineering cadetshi[p which meant fulltime work for a pittance mind you and up to a day a week off for studies but first a commitment to do night classes as well and in my case it was up to three or four nights a week for up to four hours and still then needing to fit in assignment write ups etc. and swat for exams so you developed techniques of making time when way out from exams to review your yeasrs work, make summaries etc., a swat guide if you like and you needed them for there could be a number of exams that would be scheduled within days.
You could think of it as training for meeting deadlines and it worked with no drugs and yes a bit of sacrifice etc.

Even if the extent of work for a degree has increased, perhaps they need to review the merit in that for I think if you go and do a review with most professionally trained people, you might find they have forgotten a lot more of what they learnt than what they need to remember for doing their work and it is work where they further develop knowledge/skills and maintain that which they need to know, naturally there being some exceptions and variations.

Grobius says:

01:38pm | 20/11/12

As a medical student in what felt like a very compressed graduate course, I took Selegeline (on script) and piracetam (bought over the internet). Both of these are allegedly ‘nootropics’, meant to improve brain function. Looking back, the amount of material I learnt was ridiculously huge, and I seemed to be even able to retain the information post-exams. Not sure if it was these supplements, but in my case it did seem to do the trick, with a minor side effect of being very slightly manic, and bit nervous. I wouldn’t advocate doing this, as the benefits felt real, but marginal. Some people swear by the nootropic substances you can buy quite cheaply from America, and amongst medical students in particular over there, the use of Provigil (modafinil) is huge. As for taking drugs meant for ADHD kids, that’s playing with fire. Your work output on these things is usually sh*tty, and they have unpleasant after-effects (washed out feelings etc.). I don’t recommend any supplements to normal people, except for Coenzyme Q10 for patients on statins - evidence is accumulating that this redresses the reduction in this natural substance you get while taking the drugs, and patients do say it makes them feel ‘better’ - a bit vague, but it’s a harmless substance and levels do reduce with age.

willie says:

01:39pm | 20/11/12

Well I for one am glad our “future leaders” are resourceful people using all the tools at their disposal and not mindlessly following accepted wisdom.

Drugs are bad m’kay.

CJ says:

11:23am | 20/11/12

Ah, right, so the 80s corporate power movement never happened then? Coke parties were just a myth invented by Gen X to make the 80s sound more interesting than it actually was?

I hate pies says:

03:00pm | 20/11/12

CJ, my point is that body image is more important to todays youth than it’s ever been. Their vanity coerces them into taking drugs to look better. For example, just look at the number of boys in the schoolies photos who have been lifting weights; I don’t remember a single kid I went to school with who did weights, nor was I aware of any in my town who did at my age. And if they didn’t they certainly didn’t take their shirts off to show everyone.
Coke parties in the ‘80’s are completely unrelated.

Iggy says:

03:44pm | 20/11/12

I call bullsh*t. They were a popular pre-gen Y. Gen Y are just following the trend set for them by previous generations. Looks have always been important. It’s not new or confusing. Social status is based partly on the way you look and whether you use designer clothing, steroids etc to acheive it. Some people go the other way and use their lack of designer clothing etc as a statement.

Laura says:

04:11pm | 20/11/12

” just look at the number of boys in the schoolies photos who have been lifting weights;”

Lifting weight doesn’t have anything to do with taking drugs to look better. Or are you suggesting that they’re all taking steroids? (which cost about $100 a week over a 10 week course, by the way - maccas must pay a mint these days!)

Oh no! Boys working out & becoming more physically fit & healthy. Shock horror. Considering the amount of obese children we have in this country, you should be applauding them for trying to look after their bodies (even if they are vain d*ckheads) instead of berating them for it.

Sure it ain't Caffeine? says:

10:10am | 20/11/12

Coffee is not a drug - by the way.

Knowitall says:

10:28am | 20/11/12

Coffee is a drug.
So is nicotine

They are licit drugs.

Modern Primitive says:

10:55am | 20/11/12

How is coffee not a drug?

Ryan says:

11:32am | 20/11/12

Caffeine is a drug. Coffee is a beverage.

Michael says:

11:35am | 20/11/12

Coffee is the beverage, caffeine is the drug….pedant’s paradise.

Hannah says:

12:00pm | 20/11/12

Coffee isn’t a drug, but caffeine is considered to be. Decaf therefore is technically not a drug…

Victoria says:

12:03pm | 20/11/12

Wow. Speed for cramming? You may be up all night but I don’t think you’ll achieve much.
As a 42 yo Uni student and one that went in the 80’s as well I must miss all this drug taking at exam time! This whole story is a bit of a beat up IMO. It may be happening but not on a large scale.

I also work out with weights a lot and must admit protein shakes are my post workout meal but don’t consider that a drug. It’s convenience in a very busy life.

Modern Primitive says:

12:16pm | 20/11/12

Good lord, is it Pedant hour in here or something?

Bear says:

12:32pm | 20/11/12

That’s too much coffee. Just mush a bunch of ‘no doze’ pills into a paste and eat the paste.

kat says:

12:28pm | 20/11/12

Mark so freaking true(I watched a whole doco on this subject)! Alot of the issues we go to the doctor for can usually be treated and or improved by diet and lifestyle changes. Although some medical conditions definitely benefit from pharmaceuticals, there are probably that same amount or more that don’t!  Some drugs shouldn’t be so easily prescribed and consumers should be made well aware of all the possible side effects by their doctors. I myself have had some really bad reactions to some medications and now always hesitate to take anything new a doctor prescribes me.

Rose says:

02:58pm | 20/11/12

My doctor would still be driving a beat up Datsun if all his patients were like my family. We are rare visitors to his surgery and we take few medications. I’m always baffled by otherwise healthy people trotting themselves and their kids off to the doctors any time a sniffle lasts for more than a day or two. Granted a huge problem is the need for sick certificates to give the boss. But I just don’t see why otherwise healthy people don’t just deal with minor ailments so that doctors have the time to deal with those who are genuinely unable to deal with their illness without them.

AFR says:

10:56am | 20/11/12

It would appear there are few people still in denial.

marley says:

10:56am | 20/11/12

@Anyone?  - we’ve been through this before.  Eyewitness testimony.  Financial records.  And one positive test at least.

freethrow says:

11:01am | 20/11/12

Marion Jones?

Rick says:

11:24am | 20/11/12

In fact, he has. Cortisone has been tested positive, however he evaded this with a dodgy doctors prescription for ‘saddle sores’. Why the hell do ‘saddle sores’ require cortisone shots, anyone?

Anyone? says:

11:39am | 20/11/12

This is not a court of law.  We are talking about Cycling and WADA testing. The fact that you think hearsay better evidence than a quantifiable result from a drug test I find ridiculous and show your ignorance.

“If you were pulled over for drink driving, passed the breath test, and the blood sample, but were charged by the cops on the basis of ‘circumstantial evidence’ or hearsay you would walk free if the prosecutor was naive enough to pursue the matter.

marley says:

12:35pm | 20/11/12

@Anyone?  before you accuse others of ignorance, you might want to get your terminology right. Eyewitness testimony is not “hearsay.”  Eyewitness testimony is not “circumstantial evidence.”  Eyewitness testimony is direct evidence, and as powerful as the results of any drug test. 

And your analogy is incorrect.  A better analogy would be that the cop sees the car weaving all over the road, hitting a bollard and bouncing off, and chases it but can’t catch up with it for a few days.  When he does, he gets a flat denial from the driver that he was ever in an accident - but the cop has the eyewitness testimony of three passengers in the car, plus receipts from the body shop the driver took the car to to get it fixed.  No, he doesn’t have a blood alcohol test result, but he sure as hell has evidence that will stand up in court.

Anyone at all? says:

01:14pm | 20/11/12

marley
weasel words by you.
Check your prescription or get a magnifier for your screen.
“This is not a court of law.  We are talking about Cycling and WADA testing.”

The only thing that can prove you have taken drugs is discovery of a quantifiable amount of a prohibited substance in a “sample” that was taken from an individual and sent to a pathology lab by a chain of custody.

That someone saw someone take a substance means nothing unless that substance was verified and quantified by a pathology lab. By your standard, a person shooting insulin could be convicted of taking heroin if you saw him shooting up and you thought it was heroin.

You are indeed ignorant and choose to ignore this fact.

Your analogy has nothing to do with drug testing and my analogy is perfect. No quantifiable level above the limit for a prohibited substance, no drug problem.

marley says:

02:55pm | 20/11/12

@Anyone - I find it amusing that you call me ignorant when you yourself clearly don’t have a clue how WADA or the sports organisations operate.

You do not in fact have to test positive for drugs to be banned under the anti-doping regulations.  You can be banned for skipping a post-race drug test, as has happened to Christophe Basson.  You can be banned for missing too many out of season drug tests.  You can be banned for lying about your whereabouts so that testers cannot find you.  You can be banned if a masking agent is found in your system, even if the drug isn’t.  You can be banned for tampering with your urine sample. 

I can name a dozen athletes banned for one or more of these offences without testing positive.  That’s how the system works.  That Armstrong got away with missing all sorts of tests raises questions about the ICU;  Rio Ferdinand missed one and got banned for six months.

That’s why your breath test analogy is wrong.

And I reiterate a point you seem unable to grasp:  eyewitness evidence is not hearsay. 

Finally, Armstrong wasn’t banned just for using drugs; he was banned for organising the supply of drugs to his teammates.

Anyone at all? says:

03:41pm | 20/11/12

marley
king of the weasel words.

Refusing to take a drug test is admission of guilt.
WADA’s recommendation, is that a competitor avoiding or refusing a drug test is deemed guilty. He or she is given a two-year suspension

Refusing to take a breath test when requested by police:
If you refuse to submit to a breath analysis test then you will be charged with high range PCA (prescribed concentration of alcohol)

Armstrong never failed a drug test, never refused a drug test. All your allegations are hearsay and have no relevance in the discussion. Armstrong has not been convicted of supplying banned substances. You have nothing.

My breath test analogy is appropriate, you know it, I know it and all those playing at home know it.
Best you slink off now and lick your wounds. Your arguments are tired, unfounded in fact and repetitively boring.

paul says:

03:53pm | 20/11/12

You are 100% right, it is must a bunch of accusations. But this is the world we live in trial by media. Lance Armstrong will always be a legend.

marley says:

04:39pm | 20/11/12

@Anyone?  - I’m not alleging anything.  You said you can only be banned for failing a drug test.  You are wrong..

You said Armstrong has never failed a drug test. You are wrong.

You say there’s only hearsay evidence against him.  Wrong again..  There’s eyewitness testimony - of his taking drugs, of his providing drugs to his teammates, of his and the teams’ actions in burying drugs.  There’s also eyewitness testimony of Armstrong deliberately avoiding drug tests.  Eyewitness testimony is not hearsay.  Look it up.

Your analogy is incorrect.  And your weaselling around the simple fact that Armstrong is being banned for more than just taking drugs is rather pathetic, to say the least.  Believe in your hero if you must - but read the USADA report first. All of it.

Laura says:

04:46pm | 20/11/12

“Theres a whole f*kn range of reasons people are taking ritalin dexies and adderall”

Yes, and a whole range of dumbasses with unknowing amphetemine addictions because they need to ‘manage their lack of time’..

You seem tense, not coming down are we Sam?

Sam says:

06:14pm | 20/11/12

Yeh just put labels on me because you know who i am and what i do…. FYI haven’t touched any of them, apart from adderall, and it was for 1 exam in University (SO YEP IM A DUMBASS WITH AMPHETAMINE ADDICTION). But honestly yes, people do consume them because they make studying time efficient. Have you even thought about WHY? Maybe its because they enjoy socializing, have a job AND are studying full time at university. Just because you have no friends and no social life doesn’t mean I’m in the same boat as you. P.S Amphetamines aren’t really addictive either, thats mostly methamphetamines

Scone says:

03:17pm | 20/11/12

“it really irks me that do-gooders get such a knot in their knickers over “drugs”

It amuses me no end that the “conservative right” are the do-gooders in this argument.
Just shows to go you!