Anabolic Steroids

In the late 1980s, at a medical conference, I attended a profound lecture on the use of anabolic steroids to increase muscle mass and improve athletic performance. The speaker was strongly opposed to this use of steroids, and supported his opposition with a variety of scientific facts, especially regarding negative effects on the user's health, both short-term and long-term.

The most memorable part of the lecture, though, was the speaker's attack on the medical community in general, for assertions that anabolic steroids do NOT increase muscle mass and improve athletic performance. The speaker took the position that although the negative effects of steroids for athletes far outweigh the positive, and they should never be used in this manner, to state that they are ineffective for this purpose is totally untrue. When you CLAIM that anabolic steroids will NOT increase muscle mass and improve athletic performance, then you lose all credibility, and there is no reason for anyone to listen to anything ELSE you have to say about anabolic steroids, or, for that matter, any other topic.

Let me hasten to point out that I do not know enough about the subject of anabolic steroids to know whether the lecturer was right or wrong about their use, but his point about telling an untruth remains profound, and applies to many areas of life.

I suspect this phenomenon is more common that anyone will ever know. When people feel strongly about something, they embrace those aspects of it which favor their position, while denying those aspects that do not support their position. Or, someone feels strongly about something, for reasons they do not fully understand, and then embraces "facts" to support their strong feelings. This is totally understandable, but it is equally understandable that the use of untruths and/or denial of truths often weakens your position rather than strengthens it.

Some of the best-known examples come from childhood. Many a child has been told that their face will "stick" in a certain position, or that they will "go blind" from engaging in certain activities that their parents find unseemly. When the child realizes that their face will NOT stick, and that certain activities will NOT make them go blind, then it casts doubt upon everything else that their parents tell them (though I have no idea how damaging the effects might be).

In the world of grown-ups, an easy place to look for examples is with local "nuisance ordinances" and neighborhood rules. Growing up in Iowa, one of the main ways we made mischief during the Halloween season was to throw hand-fulls of field corn at the neighbors' windows, which, while a common activity at Halloween in my neighborhood, would have the effect of startling them. To this day, I maintain that "corning", as it was called, though possibly annoying, is essentially harmless and wholesome, especially when compared with other pranks. About the time I was growing too old to participate anyway, city officials spread word that "corning" must be stopped for reasons of community health -- the corn brought rats, and rats brought disease. Until I see some sort of scientific research, I will continue to doubt that rats and disease were ever a significant consequence of "corning". "Corning" was a common child's prank in our community, and some people didn't like it, so they came up with a reason to stop it.

Actually, the whole rodent/disease argument is invoked for a wide array of rules and pressures. You must keep your lawn well-mowed, or you will attract rodents and disease. You must keep your porch clutter-free, or you will attract rodents and disease. You must not have dishes of cat food outside, for you will attract rodents and disease (the idea that the attracted CATS will cut down on the "rodents and disease" is conveniently overlooked).

Some people reading this might say, "Wait a minute! An un-mowed lawn DOES attract rodents and disease!" This brings up a new point. This is one of those cases in which the precise truth of the situation is NOT all-important. I personally doubt that an un-mowed lawn attracts enough rodents and disease to support the case for requiring people to mow their lawns, and I am unaware of any data to support such an assertion, other than the fact that some people have claimed that it is true. While I may be completely wrong, if you go making this claim, and I believe that it is untrue, then I am less likely to believe anything ELSE you have to say, even if you have other valid reasons for requiring people to mow their lawns -- regardless of whether or not the "rodents and disease" claim is actually true.

Before I stray even further into my hatred of "nuisance ordinances", let me return to the original point: Even if your intentions are noble, and you are on the correct side of an issue, the use of untruths or denial of truths weakens your argument rather than strengthens it, and may negate all the factual information that supports your position. IF you have facts to support your position, state them. If some facts contradict your position, admit it. If your position is mostly just your opinion, or based mostly on an unproven "gut feeling," ACKNOWLEDGE that your position is your opinion, and cannot at the moment be "proven". This will not WEAKEN your argument. If anything, it will strengthen it.

Truth is complicated.