S3:E10 - Truth About Steroids (and The War on Drugs) | Wolf’s Den

Please welcome to the show. All right, what do we got here? People from all over are coming to see him. Hi, I'm Mark Ottobre, and in this episode of The Wolf's Den, we sit down with Dr. Matt Dunn. Matt is a senior lecturer at Deakin University, and we discuss a very important topic: drugs. Drugs both in sport, recreational drugs, and steroids. And I just want to I just wanted to take this quick time just as a disclaimer to let all of you know that this podcast is for information purposes only, and in fact, entertainment purposes only, and in no way, shape, or form do we endorse or condone the use of drugs. Drugs are, and the drugs we discuss in this interview are illegal, and they should at this point in time be treated as such. So please look after yourself, and as Matt talks about, if you are currently using any illegal substances, Speak to your doctor, speak to your healthcare practitioner, and I hope you enjoy this episode. Hey folks, welcome to the show that punches you in the face with information. Welcome to The Wolf's Den. My name is Mark Ottobre, and today we have an unbelievable topic, a topic that I've been wanting to do a show on for some time now. We have senior lecturer from Deakin University, Dr. Matt Dunn, and we're going to be getting into the world of recreational drugs and steroids. Welcome to the show, Matt. It's an absolute pleasure to have you on. We've got our co-host Liam Fitzgerald here. Uh, so the topic I wanted to kick things off on was the war on drugs. Uh, by all means, I've got a friend who's a criminal barrister, and, uh, we have spoken about the war on drugs a few times, and his opinion from the legal side of things is that the war on drugs has been an absolute failure. Now, you've been studying both, uh, performance-enhancing drugs and recreational drug use for the last best part of 15 years. And you've been looking at the academic and the, the quantitative— what the actual research says, and not just what it says in Australia, but the research around the world. So if anyone's going to talk on the topic of steroids, recreational drugs, I think having someone like yourself who actually has researched this, and not just researched it but researched every facet, I would imagine, for the last 15 years, it's absolutely an honor to have you on. So this is what I wanted to kick the show off, just to tackle the, the issue of criminalization and the war on drugs. So what has your research led you to?

Thank you for having me on. I concur with your friend. The world of the war on drugs has been an abject failure, and it does nothing to help people who use substances, whether they're illicit or licit or using something that was prescribed to them, but now they're using because they've developed a dependence on it. It does nothing to help them get off drugs. It does nothing to help alleviate the harms that come from substances. All it does is push it underground. And so a lot of the problems that we see with substances related to the quality of them, so what's in them, is related to the stigmatisation of them. People don't want to admit that they're using something because it's illegal and they don't want to go seek help if they're having a harm from it because it's illegal. So the war on drugs has done nothing in my view.

So people sometimes quote places like Portugal, I think it is, that has legalised drugs, um, and there was a rising, uh, violence, I think, or rising and criminal activity, and then there was a decrease. Have you— is your research seeing this or matched?

Yeah, so I've got a colleague who, uh, did her PhD looking at the Portugal model, um, and they decriminalised—

just for the podcast, can you explain the Portugal model?

Sure. So Portugal had a lot of problems with illicit substances, um, and everything was going into the criminal system and it just, it creates a bottleneck. You're putting people into jail that don't need to be in jail. It's giving people criminal convictions that don't need it, that then they carry through the rest of their lives. And that has effects on what they can do later on. So Portugal decided to make it a health issue. They decriminalised the possession of illicit substances and treated it as a health problem rather than a law enforcement problem. And so what you do see is a decrease with all those criminal sanctions because it's no longer a law enforcement problem, and you see it being treated as a health problem. So for people that are injecting drugs, it means giving them access to sterile injecting equipment. It's giving people access to the healthcare that they need. And funnily enough, you see a rise in people having better health. And when people are coming forward and talking about their substance use, it also means that we can move them into maybe treatment if they want treatment, or putting them into a system where somewhere along the line, if they are someone that's dependent on a substance, they can then seek treatment or seek better health along the line. So that's when everyone talks about the Portugal model, that's what they're talking about. So it's not legalising it, it's not saying now you can walk down the shop and buy heroin or cannabis, but it's saying that if you're detected with certain amounts, it won't be a sanction or a criminal conviction or going into the, the law side of it. It's saying that this is now a, a health problem.

Right. So just on that, what about the people who say things like, well, if we legalise it or decriminalise it, it's going to increase users and potential harm for people?

Sure. So we do see a number of people that don't use illicit substances because they are illicit, they are illegal. And for some people, if you remove that criminal or that law element, they may decide to use something or try something. But there's no real evidence that that is a sustained change of pattern of substance use over time. We do see, I mean, cannabis has just been legalised in Canada. It's been about that, about a year now, and we're seeing a bit of an uptake because it's now you can go into a government-owned shop and buy cannabis. But I think over time we'll see that the numbers will either stay the same or they'll probably decrease.

So when you say there's no real evidence, is it just that there's not enough countries that are forward-thinking in terms of legalising or decriminalising drugs?

Yeah, look, it's, it's, it takes a lot for a country decide that they want to move something from it being illegal to either decriminalised or legal. We saw that with Canada. It was a, it was, it's kind of one of the first Western countries to make that decision.

Just all of Canada, not just particular parts of Canada.

So I was there in May and you can walk into a government-owned shop and someone will greet you in a very lovely store that looks very sterile, very nice posters of everything. And they'll ask you, what are you here for? What effect would you like? Do you want the cannabis oil or do you want a joint? Yeah, it's very schmick and it's government-owned and these are government employees. So it's very different, very foreign to what we would have here if you wanted to get cannabis.

Do—

I mean, Amsterdam have had this model, if I'm not correct. I mean, they're— it's quite able to get marijuana, say, in Amsterdam, or is this a different model compared to—

Yeah, so this is a different model and it's— I think in Amsterdam they have slightly changed it in recent years and I think that's because of the whole tourism that is around cannabis. So people coming in to Amsterdam to use, whereas in Canada it's for everyone, right?

So what do you think, what trends from your research can you— is there any predictable trends from seeing this?

No, look, drug markets are really interesting because use is always dependent on the price of drugs, the purity of drugs, and the availability. And those things can kind of go up and down independent of each other. There is, there is some there is some overlap. But, you know, if something goes down in price, more people might decide to use something. If it's better purity, someone might decide to use, use something. If it's better purity, then that might mean more money, more cost for it. If something's not available, they might switch over to something else. We see that with the synthetic drugs like the synthetic cannabis drugs that mimic the effects of the established drugs. We see people, if they can't get MDMA, for example, they might switch over to something else. So the kind of the surest thing in the world of illicit drugs is that people will always try and use them. And any type of policy that we enact to try and stop people probably won't work.

Right, right. So one of the things you said there was, is it as simple as supply and demand in the sense that there's more people want to use it? And one of the points that my friend would make on this is that the generally speaking, I don't know if this is true, but obviously I'd love to hear your thoughts. Generally speaking, the price of most drugs drugs has gone down over the decades, and that's simply because more people have access even though it's being illegal. Is this something that you've seen, or—

It is to a point. Australia is really interesting because we are so much further away from the places where drugs are made. So for drugs, for someone who manufactures and then tries to traffic drugs into the country, there's a lot, a lot of risk for that. We are an island nation, so we pay a lot for ecstasy or MDMA. We pay a lot for cocaine as well because, you know, cocaine is manufactured in South America and those types of countries to get it here takes a lot of effort when there's a very ready market in other countries in that hemisphere who will take it up happily. So we do pay more for drugs than the rest of the world, but people are willing to pay it.

So, so this model, I suppose, on the war on drugs and as it fits into performance-enhancing drugs, specifically steroids, it seems to me— well, I mean, there's a couple of places I want to go here because in Canada, I haven't looked at the numbers, But is it suggested that now that cannabis is legal, places the illegal, like drug trafficking places, is this necessarily that crime in basically dealing cannabis is going to go down by consequence of that because people can just walk in?

Yeah, look, it's really interesting. And they— the reason why I think it took so long for Canada to do this is because they had to figure out the model. Because if the government is going to sell something, they need to sell it at a price where it's probably going to make a profit. But it can't be too much higher than the illicit market. Because if I'm buying it from a guy down the street who's growing stuff, why would I then walk into a government store to buy it if it's more than what I'm buying it already, or if I'm growing my own? So that was something that Canada had to tackle. Um, but yeah, they seem to have got it right. I think the prices are kind of similar, um, but by making it government-owned, it just— it takes away the stigma, I think. And also it's a revenue raiser, and we've seen that in the US where the states that have legalized it, um, they're just making a huge profit. And there are people, as I said before, that will now try it because it's legal. Um, that doesn't mean that everyone will keep, will keep using it. In fact, I think Canada ran out of kind of legal cannabis the day that it was legalized.

Wow. Yeah, it's kind of funny.

Yeah.

Uh, so from, from your perspective of researching and looking at the, the data and the research, is, is this a is this a positive step forward for the Western nations that Canada has done this?

I think so. I think so. I think we do see drug policy change in other countries and sometimes, and particularly Australia, we look at countries like the US, Canada, the UK, Europe and say, well, if they're not doing something, why should we change? The US really did lead the war on drugs. That's where it started in the Nixon era. And all countries kind of signed on to the UN conventions because the US basically wanted them to. Canada taking that step is a really good step. We in Australia, I think it's a little way off. We've got medicinal cannabis, but it's probably not as readily available as it should be for people that really need it. That's a positive step, but I think there's still a long way to go. But I think Canada doing that was, was a good step.

And is there a line on the war on drugs? I mean, it's like, okay, we allow cannabis to be, to be purchased over the counter, for say. But is this to say like the lines at MDMA, cocaine, heroin, And like, is there a line or from your opinion, from where you sit, should everything be made not legal in a sense, as you said before, but the Portugal model following this model where people can get certified sources so there's more of a controlled damage approach? How do you see if there's a line on these things?

Yeah, look, I think the reason why we haven't gone down the road of looking at decriminalizing or legalizing cannabis is because I think people are scared that once you do it for one drug, you have to do it for all of them. I personally think I haven't made up my mind whether decriminalisation or legalisation is the better model. I definitely think decriminalisation for all illicit substances is the best first step. Once you legalise something, it's very hard to make it illegal again. I mean, tobacco and alcohol are great examples. If the government said, right, tomorrow alcohol is illegal, I think there would be riots in the street. So once you make something legal, you've really got to make that decision because it's probably not then going to be illegal for a very long time, if ever. So I think decriminalization is a good first step.

So let's just circle back to that because I'd love to know the differences between decriminalization and legalization from a perspective of ramifications when you're considering this. What— what you said, you're undecided which one is better. What are the pros and cons of each?

I come from a public health point of view. And so we see this with alcohol whereby just because something is available doesn't mean it's good for you and doesn't mean that people that use it have got good mechanisms or ways of using in a way that doesn't cause harm to themselves or others. So we see that with alcohol. It's, it's everywhere. It's, you know, it's a Saturday night. There are going to be people that will go to the bottle shop or have alcohol at home that will drink to a point where it's harming themselves or others. So I don't know. And we see it with drink driving as well. You know, people consume something that they legally purchased and then do something stupid with a car. So once it's legal, it's very hard to kind of put the genie back in the bottle. So I think we just remove the criminal sanctions that go with it, the criminal element. So if I'm caught with 2 MDMA pills or whatever, a bag of cocaine, providing it's not, you know, 400 grams, 400 kilograms or something. But as you know, if it's a personal use amount, why send someone into the criminal justice system and all the money that goes with that, all the time that goes with that? And, you know, if someone gets a criminal conviction that has real consequences for the rest of their life. I think we just remove that element and make it so it's not a criminal, criminal aspect.

And this is where the Portugal model falls in.

Yeah.

So where does, I suppose, steroids fit on this continuum? Because to me it seems like the recreational drug use is one, but then you have the, the image-enhancing/performance-enhancing drugs, which people aren't necessarily obviously doing steroids to get high. They're doing it for more of an outcome, usually image performance. So in this one, I mean, is it— is it— should we treat it the same, uh, decriminalize?

Yeah, look, I've published a paper recently, an editorial, where I— my personal opinion with these substances is we make it so it falls under a medical model. Um, and this kind of goes into the whole doping, drugs in sport aspect. We make these, these substances illegal. You can't use them if you're a professional athlete. Um, you know, they are scheduled substances in Australia. If you use them without a prescription, there comes, you know, a criminal sanction with that, it does nothing to help the health of a person. And there's been some really good commentaries over the years that said, look, at the Olympics, if we focus more on protecting the health of the athlete, if they were using these substances, this might involve having health checks before someone decides to use something, monitoring it over the life of when they decide to use it, the quality of the substance. We know it's pharmaceutical grade. And then if they have any problems, we can be on top of that. And going back to what I said before, if something is illegal, it's stigmatised. People don't talk about it. So if someone has a problem with it, a health problem, they tend not to talk about it. Whereas if it's not, there might be a little bit more forthcoming to say, yep, I've had a problem and going to a GP or whoever. So with these substances, I think if we made it so they're prescribed, so if I decided one day that I wanted to really put on some serious muscle, I go to the doctor or a doctor who's trained in it to say, I'm thinking about doing this, let's talk about it. I think that would just remove a lot of the health problems that we see from these substances. And a lot of these health problems are long-term ones that we actually don't know. We've got no data about. So we don't know what the long-term health consequences of using these high doses of these substances. But if they were prescribed, we might have a better idea.

That's, that's quite fascinating because on one end, and this is actually a topic that I did want to jump into with steroid use specifically, on one end we have, you know, the gym rat slash bodybuilder who's a heavy user and says things like, you know, there's really no issues with steroid usage so long as you use it in a balance. And then you have, I suppose, the medical establishment, or, you know, not even the medical establishment, I suppose people's general stigma of steroids is that it's going to cause heart failure and you're going to get cancer, and all these things are thrown out and probably sensationalized. So from your research, I know that you said that you— there's not— is it as simple as there isn't enough data to point conclusively that we don't know what the effects are? Or are— I mean, at this point, can we say, yeah, there are actually some effect, uh, effects on steroid use?

Yeah, look, one of the, the first things that I get asked when I tell people I research steroids are, are they bad for you? And look, it's kind of a yes or yes and no type response. Um, no, if you take a step— if you injected yourself with a steroid right now, you wouldn't overdose on the floor like you would maybe with heroin. Um, so it's not that acute harm, A lot of the harms that we— when we interview people that use these substances, say that they get— they consider nuisance harms. So you get more acne or you get night sweats. And, you know, if you stop taking the substance or if you take something else, it might reverse or counteract that negative effect. The long-term harms we don't have good data about, and there's a number of reasons as to why we don't.

Can we just define what the long-term harms are?

Sure. So if you— so in the US, they're starting now to look at the people that might have taken— started taking steroids in their 20s. Back in kind of the days when Arnie was taking them. If they've been taking them for 30 years, what does that person look like? What are their, what are their insides look like? Some data coming out looking at suggesting there might be some long-term cardiovascular effects. I know the liver is one that people kind of are concerned about if you're going to take steroids, but we don't really know like we might do with other substances. You know, if you drink a bottle of bourbon a day for 10 years, we might have a bit of an effect, knowledge of what that looks like. If you're injecting methamphetamine every day for 10 years, we might have an understanding of what that looks like. But with steroids and the other substances that people use, we just don't have that knowledge because that's the other question I get. What happens if I use these in 5, 10, 15, 20 years' time? And we just don't really have the good evidence around that. That's not to say that there are huge harms. There may not be. But as a, as a researcher, I'd like to know that from the data.

Anything that suggests, like, because one, one that does get thrown out a lot is, uh, heart enlargement.

Yep.

Uh, is that, is that factual, or is that, uh, just simply not enough data to confirm?

Um, the US researchers would probably say that that's, that is a real outcome. I probably would like to see more data, but that's the stuff that's emerging now. So as I said, we're seeing those guys getting to middle age or later middle age that started taking them kind of back in the '70s. So we're starting to get some of that data. Um, the stuff that kind of does concern me, and this is something that is raised by the consumers themselves when they talk to me in my research, is that when you're taking steroids, your body stops producing them. And it's not like a tap where you can turn it on and off. The body decides when they kick back in, not you. Um, so I've interviewed guys that have said, look, if I had have known that my body would shut down the way it has, I wouldn't have started them. Or, you know, I wanted to start a family, I started using steroids 20s. Now that I'm married and want to have kids, we're finding that hard. That's not to say that the steroids caused infertility or anything like that, but definitely guys are sitting there thinking, well, if I hadn't have done that 10 years ago, would I have a kid now? So it's, it's when I talk to people, that is kind of the main one, saying, you know, if I come off it, what happens then? How long will it— will I have to wait for my body to kick back in?

So that, that is a very interesting point because obviously then you're looking at post-cycle therapy and all these kind of things. And one of a more, I suppose, forward-thinking idea that I once heard was there are— well, testosterone receptors in the brain, and one of the treatments for males, particularly in terms of depression, could potentially be steroids. Uh, so they start feeling more, more well about themselves and being prescribed by a doctor to increase testosterone, therefore increase overall well-being. So in saying that, because what I've observed as a certified gym rat, uh, when there's guys at the gym or whatever, uh, and they've, say, done steroids and then they get off, one of the things I would look at is their mental health.

Yeah.

Because their physique has gone from, let's say, 100 kilos jacked at 4% body fat to now, you know, 80 kilos, barely able to lift something. So from your research, has there been a mental health component that stood out to you and go, right, the actual bigger issue— I know, is the bigger issue mental health with steroids?

Yeah, look, we're starting We need to now look at that, just like we looked at eating disorders amongst women and the mental health aspect with that. We're seeing this with, with men and steroid use. And again, when I get asked by people saying, you know, oh, you research steroids, I'm thinking about doing them. One of the big things that I say is, well, first of all, why? And is it related to just, you know, I was the kid that was beaten up at school because I was scrawny. Now I want to get bigger. Probably don't be that guy because how big is big? And I don't personally believe that there is an addictive factor to steroids, but I think it's more psychological dependence. I think you do see guys that put on those, those kilos, then they go off, they lose some of it, and then they don't like the way they look, so they go back on. I've certainly interviewed guys over the years that said, look, I started it and then I couldn't get off because every time I did and I was starting to lose that size, I would go straight back on. And going to what you said before, some of these people are now— the steroids that they're taking are to basically replenish what the body is not giving them. They've taken so many over so many years that the body has stopped producing it, so they're taking it almost as testosterone replacement.

So should we be scared of that as a health concern? Is that, is that a bona fide, like, okay, if I take steroids, uh, my testosterone is going to shut down and therefore I'm going to be injecting artificial or taking orally artificial steroids? Is I suppose my question is, or is there simply not at this point enough research to say that's actually any worse? And I suppose what really what I'm asking is the body producing its own testosterone versus, you know, me say injecting it just to be at what my body would be producing normal. There almost seems to me there's no evidence that my body producing on its own is necessarily like— it's not better or worse, it's just if I'm at this point and if I'm going above, that's— is that where the health consequences come from?

Yeah, look, I think that's a— that's an individual thing that each person kind of needs to consider. But certainly when I've spoken to— when I've done my research and you speak to some of the old school guys who say, look, I've been bodybuilding for 20 years. Back in my day, if you were going to do them, you, you had a good program for your, your weights, your nutrition. It was only when you really plateaued that you probably started looking at steroids. If you were going to compete, yep, definitely you'd have to do it, but you've got everything else in place first. And then they talk about the young guys who come in and they go, right, I want to get jacked. So the first thing they do is use steroids. And so We're seeing different patterns, I think, over the generations. That's a big generalisation that I'm saying, but certainly the concern is that you've got younger guys that go, right, I need to look good, or I need to— I'm a tradie, so I need to be in my best physical, physical state. But I also might play footy on the weekend, so I'm going to take steroids versus the old school guys who might have done everything else first and then chosen it. So I think, as I said, when I talk to people, it's thinking ahead and saying, right, in 5 years' time, if you're still taking this because either you've become dependent on the way that you look in the mirror or you've just got to take these because your body's not producing anything, are you willing to accept that? Now, some people might, some people not. So I think it's a real individual thing there. But obviously tracking this stuff over time would be— would give us a better evidence base from which we can talk about.

So what an argument. I suppose one of the questions which I'm going to get there in a roundabout way— is, say again, I'm 40, I'm 50, my, my testosterone is bottoming out. Uh, should we be giving testosterone if I'm, if I'm wanting to be in the best shape that I possibly can? Should that be a cause to say, yep, doc, now I'm not at where I was when I was 30, there's no risk factor for me, uh, taking steroids, say, in my 40s and 50s, I just want to get back to where I was, say, in my 30s? Would that not be age anti-aging treatment? Or again, I suppose people watching this, the thing would be, you know, what about the risks? But as we've established, there's just simply not the research there to establish the risks from, from what you've said. But is that a legitimate or legitimized way to actually look at the world of actually when to take it?

I think so, because there you're making the distinction between something that's prescribed for a reason versus non-prescribed. And we're certainly seeing a bit of that crossover where someone might be prescribed steroids for testosterone replacement or something else. And this is the thing that I always say to people. You need to remember that these substances have very legitimate therapeutic uses. They just happen to have benefits outside of those, those uses. So one is the prescribed by a doctor. We're doing all the tests, we're monitoring over time, and yeah, it probably is testosterone replacement. And I think we need better data about that over time. Going back to the whole war on drugs. What it does is it stops people doing good research, looking at the legitimate effects that come from using these substances. And that's kind of akin then next to the person that just decides that I'm going to do it. And I think sometimes people kid themselves that, oh, it's testosterone replacement therapy, where I think they're just giving themselves an excuse to use it. But certainly in my, my opinion, we live in a society where we want a pill for everything. And sometimes that's good, sometimes that's, that's bad. But I don't see why we can't start looking at placing this under a medical model and seeing what benefits might come from these things.

Women and steroids, it's a different topic.

Yes.

What, what is, I suppose, legitimate apart from, say, a woman who wants to be, you know, a certain amount muscle mass, certain degree strong, uh, I suppose, masculinized their physique is there another use outside that for females to use steroids?

You'd have to ask them. And we've tried over the years, but we talk about steroid users being a hidden population and drug users in general being a hidden population. Females who use steroids and other performance and image enhancing drugs really are the hidden, hidden, hidden population. I think in my time and all the research I've done, we've only ever had 2 women be a part of it. And so it's— I'm not sure why that is, whether it's just because they don't want to talk about it we've not looked in the right places or we haven't done the research that makes people want to come forward. But certainly we did study a couple of years ago and we had two women talk about it. Both of them were just about to start their first cycle because they were going to compete and they stopped using after their first. They didn't like the way that their body had changed. I don't believe that at that point, with how long they'd been using, that they'd really seen enough changes anyway. But it was enough for them to go, this is not for me. So that was, that was really interesting. They didn't like that it was their perception was it was masculine, masculinizing their bodies, and they didn't like that.

So with steroid usage, there's differences between anabolics and androgenics. Can you speak to that?

God, no.

Introduce—

no, uh, look, I'm not a medical doctor, and so whenever I try and put these things together, I always get them completely wrong and people look at me, um, crazily. But you know, there's the, the anabolic ones. Basically, one's building up and one's, one's breaking down, kind of in the way that I say to people that, that don't know anything about it. But you know, that, that's how I basically look at it. That's how I look at it. We call them androgenic and anabolic androgenic steroids, or just steroids in general. But with the, the knowledge that you can't pick one that's fully anabolic and one that's fully androgenic, it's going to have certain effects on people. They're one— there are ones that will do more than the other, but we just call them steroids. We don't really look at the difference between the anabolic and the androgenic.

And in the research that you've done and looked at the populations, is it generally accepted that people will be taking more than one substance at a time?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So we call that polysubstance use. That happens in pretty much any drug-using population or drug-consuming population. The person that takes MDMA on the weekend is probably taking something like an amphetamine or a methamphetamine and a cocaine or something else over their lifetime, or even in the last 6 months. You know, people that use something will use other things for a variety of reasons. And that's the same on the gym floor. The person that's taking steroids is probably taking a range of other things. Things for a variety of reasons. And that, that can be legal substances, so things like creatine or protein powders, to the steroids or the growth hormones, the SARMs, those types of things. So every person who's taking them will have a reason of why they're taking something, what effect they're trying to get. We've done research looking at the online forums and how people talk about this, and I think if I had a dollar for every unique plan that someone had, I'd be a rich What do you mean unique plan? Well, everyone will have their reason of, okay, if I'm the person that has never, never used, what should I use to start myself off? If I'm trying to cut down, what I should take. If I'm trying to bulk up, what I should take. And it's interesting just looking at people's, the protocols that they have for these types of things.

Do you look at those protocols and shake your head like, what the hell is this person doing?

Look, as a public health person, it's not I'm more interested in whether they really know why they're doing what they're doing. So I don't have a huge amount of opinion around whether people should do something or not. As a harm reductionist, my, my hope is that if people are going to do something, that they inform themselves. So if you're going to go out and do MDMA tonight, know what it's doing and what some of the side effects might be. If you can take GHB, the same thing. That should be the same with steroids. And so you do see on the forums where where people log in, probably guys saying, look, I want to put a couple of kilos on, what should I take? They're the person that, that person scares me because they've done nothing to do with research or anything like that. If you're going to do something, know what it is that you're trying to achieve, what might get you there, but what might some be, be some of the harms or the obstacles.

Would you say that that person though, the person who's going on logging into the forum saying, hey, what should I take, Would that not be indicative of the general population though, when it comes to drugs?

Yeah, definitely. But what's really interesting with the forums is that there's— and you kind of see this on the— in the locker rooms as well, where people go up to the guy that they know using steroids and say, look, hey, I want to look like you, how do I do it? There's kind of this mentality of you've got to show me that you've done some research and you've got some knowledge before I give you my knowledge. And certainly I think the forums are a great way of people to, from a harm reduction point of view, give you, get the advice that is going to hopefully reduce harm. But if you're coming in without having done any research into it, just saying, hey guys, I want to put 10 kilos on, what do I do? That really worries me from a, from a harm reduction point of view. But if you said, look, I'm thinking of doing XYZ at these, these doses for this long, and I've done it, I've done my bloods with my doctor and everything looks good, what do you reckon? That kind that might be a better approach from a harm reduction point of view.

But the gold standard from a harm reduction point of view would be to get it from your doctor.

There would be people that would say, I mean, I think so. I think a gold standard in a perfect world would be I go to a doctor who has done endocrinology or something like that and say, look, I want to put on 5 kilos of muscle because I want to go compete. Let's do this. And the doctor goes, right, okay, let's do some bloods. Let's look at your family history. Let's look, do all those things. Halfway through your cycle, let's do your bloods again, let's have a look at everything. In a perfect world, that's how I would love to see it. I think we do need some, some medical model placed around it. I think again, people, if you just say, here, here, take everything that you want, we're probably not the best, best people to say no to something. So I would like to see it under a medical model with, with trained specialists, but that's a perfect world.

Just, I wanted to, um, while we're on that topic, I wanted to read something from one of your, your published pieces. It was in Post-Cycle Therapy for Performance and Image Enhancing Drug Use: A Qualitative Investigation. What stood out to me on this one was there were— what you, I think, interviewed a bunch of participants. Um, participant 10 said, my own GP, I let him know that I was taking off-the-street steroids, uh, purchased through the black market, but I also asked him if he would monitor me. I wanted to buy some anti-estrogens off him as well so I didn't have any effects so that they limit the amount of stuff I do off the black market so I can get genuine products. I contrasted this with what participant 1 said in the study, and he's— he or she, I'm not sure— said, um, the GPs should be informed. They need to do more research on it. A lot of the GPs have no idea about it. They got no fucking idea what it does. There is a lot of health benefits with it and they don't even know about it. All GPs I see want to do nothing with it. They won't take on bored. Any health benefits you bring up, they're just straight up, nope, nope, nope. So I suppose the reason why I point to those as a public health thing, it seems to me that the issue with steroids is the stigma. If someone walks in and says, hey, oh, to their doctor, I want to get bigger, uh, I want to do some steroids, I want to get stronger, uh, doctor immediately is probably going to have their back against the wall. So I suppose for people like in participant 1's experience, the doctors seem to me a bit more supportive. Is this, is this indicative? Are there doctors that you can actually talk to, and I suppose what, from your perspective, what public health, I suppose, not necessarily advice, but points of view that people who are wanting to use, how in this model that we have in society today where it's not legal, it is criminalized, what are some things that people can do to start being more sensible in the way they do it?

Sure. So a lot of the work that I'm starting to do now is trying to work with GPs to make sure that they do understand what these substances are. So GPs and chemists will be the first to put up their hands and say, say, I don't know what these things are and why people would use them outside of the reasons that I've been trained that a person would take these substances. Yes, there are people in their health professions that say, nope, don't take these, um, just, just don't do it. And I've certainly spoken to consumers who have said, I told my GP and they said, I never want to see you again. Um, but there's a lot more out there that do want to know, um, you know, what am I looking for, what are the things that I should be trying to treat them for, you know, what should I be monitoring? Um, and I've also worked with GPs where they're looking at it going, God, how do we even put this on Medicare? Like, if someone comes in, they do tests, how do I then claim this back? And so there's a whole— there is a whole kind of bureaucracy behind all of that. Um, but again, going back to the forums, that's why I think they're really important for people, um, is to be going and speaking and having a look at what people who readily admit are using these substances, what are they doing? And getting that advice from other people. And I advocate to health professionals that want to know more about this to look at those forums as well, because they will get a lot of knowledge from the mainly guys that are doing this. I think one of the problems— and we have this divide between the community— is because, you know, back in, I think it was the '70s or the '80s, the American Medical Association said you get no benefits from taking these, these substances when you've got guys that have got arms bigger than my head. Like, it It was a stupid thing to say. And so that, that really kind of caused a bit of a schism between the bodybuilding community and the medical community. I think that's starting to come back where people are like, well, if they're going to take something, I want to make sure that they're the healthiest that they can be. So I say to the doctors that say, I don't know anything about this, go into the forums. Or if someone comes in and says, look, I've been taking a cycle of something, ask them, Okay, why? Because they're going to be the best, the best person to tell you. And I think it's people that are using these being upfront with their health professionals. And if they get a knockback from them, then they're not the health professional for you. But it's about saying to people, look, this is why I'm doing it. This is what I've read up on. This is why what I'm led to believe is the effect that I'll get from it. And for the health professional to go, okay, look, I'll integrate that into my knowledge usage of these substances and try and come to optimal care for the patient, which is, which is what I'm concerned about.

Excellent. You wrote another paper. It was, there's a, in brackets, drug policy, close brackets, storm coming. So there's a, there's a storm coming. I'm curious, what's the storm?

So that was the editorial I talked about before about just changes to drug policy worldwide. What has been the status quo is no longer. And I think what really drove me to write that piece was having gone to Canada last year and this year, but also I've been going to Canada, Vancouver, since 2002 and seeing the opioid crisis just sweep across Canada and the United States and their prescribed substances. Largely the people that are having the most harm are people that have gone to their GP or have been prescribed these substances for pain pain or some kind of chronic condition that are now dependent on these substances.

What substances are we talking about exactly?

So things like oxycodone, OxyContin, those types of things. And so, you know, these are prescribed by medical professionals. And so that really got me thinking, you know, cannabis has also been legalised in Canada, but we've seen other countries, you know, Ecuador taking a different stance to— they've legalised substances or decriminalised. We do see— we are seeing things change around, around the world. We've got medicinal cannabis in parts of the world, even here in Australia. There's been a big push looking at psychedelic-assisted therapy. So using LSD and psilocybin that when they were legal in the '60s, people were doing trials on these, looking at the effects on things like alcoholism and mental health. But because they became illegal, that just shut that down. But we know that there are beneficial effects to people with anxiety and post-traumatic stress, end-of-life issues to do with with. There's been some studies looking at people that are terminally ill using psychedelics to help them deal with that. So kind of what I said right at the top of this interview is when you legalise something— when it's illegal, people— it just stops the research. Imagine where we'd be if that hadn't have happened with, um, you know, we might have cannabis for medical purposes rather than people going on to prescription opioids. So that's really where, um, where that all came from. And it was looking at, well, these are substances that people are going to continue to use. Um, how can we do it better?

Definitely. Now, one topic on that is— I know, I forget which country it was, but the pills at festivals. Uh, there's certain countries that have embraced putting, um, pills basically where you get the pills from at festivals, and it's minimized the overdoses and things like this. Do you know much about the—

Yeah, so full disclosure, I do volunteer work for The Loop Australia, which is one of the two organizations organisations here in Australia that's trying to get pill testing up or drug checking. But The Loop UK, they do it in the UK, so they go to the big music festivals like Boomtown and do pill testing on site. It's been around in Europe for quite some time. There are even countries in Europe where if you buy an ecstasy pill, you can mail it off in the mail and a week later they'll send you a full forensic analysis of what's in that pill. You obviously don't get the pill back, but it'll say what's in it and the purity of it. We know that when people get that information, they make better choices around their substance use than people that don't. So the big problem in the UK at the moment is they've got really, really strong MDMA stuff that can probably cause an overdose. And so when they, when they tell people this at music festivals, they can then give the harm reduction advice that always starts with, if you don't want a negative effect, don't take the drug. But if you're going to take drug with this particular pill, I would probably halve it or quarter it. Wait a while. Don't mix it with another drug. Don't mix it with alcohol. So it's giving that practical harm reduction advice to someone that is at an event who's already bought the drugs, that's holding them, intending to consume them. It's, it's, it's a no-brainer, really.

So prohibition basically just doesn't work. Is.

No, that's, that's my opinion. No.

Yeah, yeah. Why? Can you expand on that?

It— people will have always sought to take things that will alter their, their mind or their body. I mean, it's not, you know, I get up in the morning, the first thing I do is have a coffee. That's a drug. It changes the way your, your brain works. It stimulates the body. There are people that will wake up and have a cigarette. There are people that get sick that will take Panadol and take more and then more. And that's an over-the-counter substance. So people will always look for substances to do something, to have an effect. And we just happen to live in an age where some can cause real harm and people are still going to take them. Let's just try and divert some of our dollars to making them healthy if they choose to stop using them, or if they take something once, that they don't die from it.

So just to point on social stigma, Michael Pollan, great author. He— I heard him in an interview once say that in, in the West, we celebrate caffeine because it makes us more productive, but we demonize cannabis because it makes us slower. And really, there's— I think his point— no, I'm not gonna, uh, put words in his mouth, but one of the points that I took away from it, well, is this simply social stigma that we've been trained to— that is— can I suppose he's raising the point, is cannabis as bad as what society would essentially essentially put forth, and is it comparable to something like caffeine? It's just the fact that one is making us more productive and the other one is making us want to relax. And relaxing in the West is actually— our perception of relaxing is obviously the opposite of being productive and going to work and making money and all these things. And in the West, we're more about celebrating achievement, and any drug that helps us celebrate achievement is celebrated in a sense, say, like caffeine. And we— I mean, in the West, there's no doubt about it, uh, we have a caffeine culture, you know, fueled by caffeine. Get the t-shirt now. Whereas there's marijuana, weed, cannabis, whatever you want to call it. I mean, does it get a bad rap for that reason?

I think all drugs do. I think if you talk to the— your examples, they're really interesting where, yes, we celebrate productivity and achievement. So one of my research areas is study drugs, anything that a person takes to help them study for longer, get through an exam period, stay up all night, whether that's caffeine, modafinil, Ritalin, whatever the case may be. And some people will say, well, that's just helping me achieve achieve more. It doesn't create knowledge in my brain, but it just allows me to stay up for 12 hours, read a really thick textbook, and then, you know, hopefully retain that information. Other people would look at that and say, that's probably not a good use of your time. If you're tired, go to bed, because we know that sleep is really important. Um, same with steroids. The person that takes them may say, I am being my optimal best, I'm trying to achieve the best of me, whereas other people would look at that person and saying that they're being ego— egotistical. The person that takes LSD because it opens up creativity. Other people wouldn't get that. So it really is kind of a subjective thing. I think with cannabis, there are so many other uses that we, we just don't know about because it's been illegal. So medicinal cannabis is, is the best example. There are people that, that use it because it alleviates symptoms of whatever health condition they've got. Imagine if we had that rather than OxyContin.

Um, yeah, yeah, I know he's raring to ask some questions.

No, yeah, I've got some questions.

Yeah, fire away.

What do you think here in Australia with like things like TRT, um, and obviously older adults who generally do lose the testosterone, it's very hard for them to get help or to get the support they need?

Yeah, look, I haven't researched a lot about that, but I know there's stuff happening in the US. I do think it's a misunderstood or poorly understood phenomenon. And I think that again comes back to medical practitioners see the uses for these substances and anything outside of that is a bit of a gray area for them. But I certainly think that we should be doing more in that space. I don't mean for everyone to run out and get testosterone and inject it, but I do think I think if we want to live longer and with better health, then that's maybe something that we need to look at.

And what is, um, I saw in some of your papers DNP, and I, I just saw a bit about it that it's quite harmful in what it is. What is that substance?

Absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Uh, diotryptophan, is my saying that correct? DNP, this It's always—

always a genetic—

I thought I saw it.

Yeah, look, as I'm not a pharmacologist, so my, my knowledge of all this stuff can be hazy, but certainly if it's one of the newer substances, these have come out to circumvent laws that make other substances illegal. So in Australia, something becomes illegal because it's related to another substance that's already illegal. And so what the chemists try to do is add something onto to it that isn't illegal. And so we're seeing all these new substances kind of coming out, and that's, uh, some of the psychedelics and some of the stimulants can be, um, not good for you.

So this is the problem with drugs in sport though, right? In the sense that the people are constantly— the chemists are constantly inventing new drugs ahead of the testers.

Yeah. And we see this in the drug market. So, um, when the purity of MDMA in Australia went down, people started making other things that mimicked MDMA but wasn't quite the same, but it was legal because of the way it was, um, the, the chemical structure of it. So the government makes that illegal, so the chemists just try and make something else, and then it's just this never-ending cycle which probably ends to a more dangerous point, I'd imagine. Yeah. And so you see things like in North America with all the prescription opioids where they just keep making stronger ones and stronger ones and stronger ones because because they're sometimes they're not illegal because they're new. So yeah, we just— people are just trying to find a way around the laws.

All right, well, I think it's time we'll have a quick break and be back with more great content from Matt. I hope you're enjoying this episode of The Wolf's Den, brought to you by our good friends at personaltrainermentoring.com. So if you're a personal trainer looking to level up your business and career, head over to personaltrainermentoring.com. They have a free $500 gift pack ready and waiting for you, a digital gift pack that contains a free course all about how to screen and assess your clients. The course is over 2 hours long, gives you the ins and outs of screening and assessment, and also included in the pack are 3 ebooks all on how to make more sales, get more clients, and basically get better results. So if you're a trainer, head over now, personaltrainermentoring.com, leave your details and get on the Fast Track to Success. Are you looking to get into the best shape of your life? Are you looking to lose that last 5, 10, or even 20 kilos? Well, I founded Enterprise Fitness. Well, I should say I started personal training in 2006, and Enterprise Fitness has been an evolution of my career and finally has brought me to this point of opening up this facility here. And this facility is dedicated to bringing you the very best standard of personal training bar none. We have trained over 250 champions in Competing in a variety of different sports as well as quite literally thousands of before and after transformations helps people get in the very best shape of their life. And heck, we've even educated a stack of trainers throughout the world. This has become a travel-to destination. So folks, if you are in the Melbourne area, hit us up. It's melbournepersonaltrainers.com. This is the place to train. You can email us at info@enterprisefitness.com or the website is melbournepersonaltrainers.com and make sure you check us out on Instagram as well. Reach out to us. To us. We're here to help. And again, this is the place you want to be if you're serious about your fitness and physique goals. And we're back in the Wolf's Den. Our guest today is Dr. Matt Dunn, talking about an issue that often doesn't get talked about. We are addressing the elephant in the room today. We're talking about performance-enhancing drugs and recreational drugs. And Matt has had over 15 years— well, 15 years researching both of those topics. So let's get back in. Hope you're enjoying this interview that we're doing with Dr. Matt Done. Matt, let's talk about drugs in sport.

Yes.

Is everyone using?

Everyone tells me that they are. So about 10 years ago, I did a project, world-first project, looking at illicit or recreational drug use amongst elite Australian athletes. And when I told people I was doing that project, first thing people would say was, they're all on it. I don't know what it was, but they're all on it. Certainly, as testing catches up to the substances, we are seeing more and more being caught. I mean, we're getting athletes from the London Olympics, the clean games, being stripped of their medals, and those medals are being rewarded. I don't think as many people are on things as we think, and this is where you've kind of got to make the distinction between the performance drugs and the recreational drugs. Performance enhancing drugs, look, probably I'm not naive. If you want to be a professional athlete in these days, day and age, you can earn a lot of money from being an AFL player or Rugby League player or, or winning an Olympic medal. So I'm not naive to think that people aren't doing something. In terms of recreational drugs, I don't think it's as, as much as people think. Certainly our data, which is now about 10 years out of date, but when you compared rates of MDMA, cocaine, amphetamine, that type, those types of drugs, to the general population, it was much lower. And that kind of makes sense. I mean, if anyone's taken even too much caffeine, you know what the effects can be from that. You get that kind of that high and then you get the crash. Um, so illicit drugs are probably very much the same. I don't think they're all on it, and some spots have increased their testing for those substances. But, um, yeah, I I think, I think it's more than probably what we think. But I guess the question that I often ask is, why do we care? And I haven't gotten a good answer to that.

So do you think we should take the brakes off in the sense that instead of this thing where we're constantly testing athletes and putting them in the media and shaming them for, you know, their life's work, and, you know, they took a performance-enhancing substance of some sort— and I mean, Lance Armstrong, that was a good example where, you know, that went on for years, right, without anyone really being the wiser. Is it a time in our society where we say, no, we should just let athletes be athletes, and if they can get an advantage somehow with performance-enhancing drugs, and it's a fair playing, playing ground for everyone? Is that, is that an approach?

It's certainly an approach. Look, the, the editorial I wrote about placing steroids under a medical model really came from work from an ethicist in Oxford University who's talked about this in doping, uh, drugs and sports, saying Look, if we just, if we stopped penalizing, we would move it under a medical model. And the same thing applies where if you're an athlete who wants to use something to get faster, you get the tests done, you get the pharmaceutical grade stuff. And if there was any problems, you'd be able to deal with it. I don't know the argument for having clean sport, and I hate that phrase, but having drug-free sport is that it's a level playing field. And my response to that is, Well, the athlete that is competing in swimming that comes from a country that doesn't have a pool, how is that a level playing field? How is it a level playing field where you've got athletes in the US training, training at custom-built Nike-funded centers versus athletes in other countries that don't have that? You know, there we see stories every time there's an Olympic Games of athletes turning up not having the equipment for the sport that they're competing in. So it's it's not a level playing field already. So I don't know how the element of substances makes it any more level than what, what it is. But certainly if you're looking at health, then you might take that view. I'm not saying everyone go off and, and use something if you want to be an athlete. I've got a 13-year-old nephew who wants to be an AFL player. I'm not going to say to him, hey, when you hit 18, go use something. So I think we've got to kind of look at what we want as a society, um, and whether that fits in with our values.

Um, yeah, recently there was, um, an Australian swimmer. She was taking a SARMs, uh, selected androgen receptor, one of the SARMs. It's basically, uh, as it's prescribed by a lot of people, uh, steroids but without the side effects. Um, this swimmer had to withdraw from the Olympic team or the Commonwealth gold team or whatever. The substance that you had was to aid with muscle growth. What are your thoughts about SARMs? And what do you think about the swimmer that took these?

We don't, from the research that I do, it doesn't come up a lot. Certainly I know that people are using them. And every time I get questions from people saying, oh, look, people using SARMs, it's from people that might have heard it from someone else, from heard it from someone else. So I don't know how much it is actually happening. I don't have a huge opinion about it. As for the athletes that get caught, I do feel sorry for them. A lot of them, it is a contaminated supplement that they've, they've been using. So in Australia and many countries around the world, if I want protein powder, I rock down to a shop and I buy some. That's not regulated. That's not tested. Supplements fall under a different category here in Australia than they do steroids. So that's why the Olympics and all the anti-doping agencies say you can't trust one, even the ones that have on the side, you know, these are tested, these are fine. You know, people that you talk to, people that work in the industries that say all these supplements come off the same conveyor belt, they just go into different, different packages. You can't trust what's in them. So if I was an elite athlete, athlete, I wouldn't be placing my trust on what's on the side of the packet, because we've seen over the years athletes that have not taken anything knowingly, but the rules of sports say that you have to know everything that's going into your body and have to be accountable for everything that goes into your body. That's just if you want to be a professional athlete, them's the rules. And so I do feel sorry for them to that, that that point. But until WADA decides that we're not going to have that anymore, that's here to stay.

So what— I imagine that when the Lance Armstrong story, I suppose, exploded, you would have been flooded with people going, hey, what's your take on this? What is your take on that whole fiasco?

Um, I, I remember watching the Oprah interview I had no sympathy for him, and I think most of it was because he consistently denied doing it. Variety of reasons why he did that. And when you read interviews with people that were teammates or former teammates, there did seem to be a culture of if you weren't on board with it, you're off. And if you're a professional cyclist and that's your livelihood and they say, you know, can no longer be on our team, I've got kind of issues with that. There seemed to be this bullying element, but we see that in sport where it's a— they call it the sports net. It's all the people around an athlete that they all know that the athlete's doing it. They're all helping the athlete do it. And everyone just becomes complicit in that activity. But yeah, with Armstrong, I didn't really have any sympathy. And I think it was because for years he had sued people people that had claimed that he'd taken these drugs. So I had no sympathy for him.

You had some things to ask on post-cycle therapy.

Yeah, so, well, first of all, the term cruise and blast comes up a lot in the forums. So can you define what that is for, say, bodybuilders?

Sure, so in the oldie day, if you were gonna take a cycle of steroids, you might cycle on for 12 weeks 12 weeks, stop using for 12 weeks, then cycle on for a period of time. The problem with that, I guess, from a person that's taking these substances is that you'll probably lose a lot of the gains that you've put on when you go off a substance. So blast and cruise is where you take that initial high dose going along, and instead of going off something, you're going down to a minimal level almost. So you're keeping the gains or most of the gains that you've put on, but it's also keeping the testosterone running through your system. So you're not going off it cold turkey, so to speak.

In your opinion, is that the way to do it, or should people be coming off for a certain amount of time?

Look, for every, every person that thinks cycle on and off is the best, there'll be 10 people probably think that blast and cruise is the best. That does seem to be what, when we interview people and we look at the forums, that's what's happening. I'm not an endocrinologist or anything, so I don't know the kind of the cellular level whether that's the best thing to do, but certainly certainly that's what the guys are saying. And it does make a little bit of sense that when you talk to guys, they go off, they go off. And I do say guys because that's predominantly who we've interviewed. Um, they talk about the, um, the mental health effects of coming off. And I remember an interview with one of the participants in a study that said, you know, I was watching a TV commercial with a puppy rolling toilet paper and I was just crying. Um, that's when I knew that I probably needed to do something about it because I'd— they'd cycled off. Um, and just, they, they didn't understand and how their body would react to it. So if it's keeping your body running a little bit better, then sure, that seems to be what everyone's doing. So I'll defer to all the experts that are watching this.

I'm sorry, why was the guy crying?

Well, 'cause he'd cycled off and so his body really hadn't kicked in and he was saying— He's too high on estrogen. He's like, why am I crying? I'm just, I'm crying at a drop of a hat.

Yeah, amazing. Would you ever—

just one last question, just back to PCT. If so, things like HCG, tamoxifen, Novodex, these kind of things like that, do you think they're needed? Because there's some experts, uh, or, and very, very big bodybuilders, uh, with very big followings on Instagram and Facebook and so forth saying you don't need it. As you said before, you— it's like a tap, you turn it off, it comes comes back on, you need a certain amount of time before it comes back on. Do you think you need PCT, or is it just to maintain muscle mass what you've done, or is— are things going to start coming back naturally, like libido and things like that?

Look, when you talk to the guys, and it's the participants that I speak to, I take their— what they tell me is the evidence, for what it's worth. Almost all of them that know about PCT— and that's the big complaint from the old-school bodybuilders that say, you know, the young guys these days know nothing about this, and if you're going to start a course of something, you to have your escape plan or your end plan. They say that you need PCT for a variety of reasons. So I'm going to defer to them and say, you know, if you're thinking about steroids, think about what you're going to do when you come off them. And again, it goes back to this idea of you just can't turn your natural testosterone on and off. People are different. And I've had guys that have said, look, I'm a year off, it still hasn't kicked in. Others have said, you know, 6 months later, a couple of months later, it's kicked in. So it's, it's an individual thing. And, um, yeah, I think at least explore the idea. It can't hurt.

Yeah, I just want to say something on that as well, is that, um, one thing that, that obviously I've been a part of the gym industry since I was 14, and, and being in the industry, people have often said to me, oh Mark, when you're getting on a cycle? And in my head, my, my kind of always thinking around it was not until I have all my kids, and I won't even consider it until I'm 30. So I'm now 30 and I've had kids, uh, and I still don't feel the need to do steroids because there's just— I just don't feel there's, there's a need. But I combine that through just simply what I've observed from other people who I've known in gyms around the country, really, that have done steroids. And when they've done steroids, the thing that gets me every single time is the PT, is the post-cycle therapy. Uh, they— in observing them as, you know, in my 20s, and, you know, they might have been around the same age if not older, most of them, uh, they're, they're just in a bad way, um, mentally, uh, physically. They just could never get back to where they were unless they were using. And I just— for me, I never wanted to have a dependency on a substance, but then also that being able to take away from me, and that was my new norm. Like, if I don't know it, it doesn't exist, then my norm doesn't have to. But it's not even just it's that. It's, it's people— they— my understanding from talking to guys is they go from feeling, uh, like the strength of 10 men to then feeling the strength of a 10-year-old girl. And the contrast is so extreme, uh, with, with steroids, without steroids, that for me, uh, yeah, the idea that my testosterone may be shut down for a year scares the shit out of me.

Yeah.

And I think— I just want to make that point— should probably scare scare the shit out of a lot of people, uh, in saying that. If you really gotta know what you're doing, uh, and that's the big thing.

And, and the thing that whenever again I get asked, should I take steroids, um, because I'm a drug researcher, at dinner parties people ask me a range of things about what they should take and not take. But should I take steroids? It's like, well, do you have someone in your life that at some point, if they think that you're getting too full-on with it, that you can listen to them and say, if they said to you, look, I'm worried about you, I think you, you know, whether it's because noticeable or some increase in aggression if you're on steroids and the whole issue of roid rage, debatable. Some guys say it is, some guys say it's not. But, you know, if someone says, I'm really worried about you, that you listen to them. And if you don't have that person in your life, it's probably not for you. Because again, I mean, my PhD was actually in body image in men and it was looking at muscle dysmorphia. Dysmorphia and the, the effects that exercise, sexual orientation, and drug use has on body dysmorphia and body image concerns in men. And you— I was interviewing guys that are going to the gym even though they're, they're injured because they've got to get in, because if you don't have a gym day, you're going to lose all the gains from the weeks before. So even though we know that rest is good, and— but these are people that are injured still trying to get down to the gym. So You know, when people are trying to chase a dream or they've got an image in mind, I personally don't think people are ever going to get close to what they want. And so if you're that person that goes, I've got an image of how I want to look, or I want to look like that guy over there that's doing bicep curls, I'm going to do steroids. Are you also able to say, that's, that's it for me, I've, I've hit where I want to be, this is good enough, or I'm going to cycle off. This is, this is it. And if, if you don't think you can, then it's probably not for you.

Interesting. You said something there that I've never heard anyone say before, but image disorders as it relates to sexual orientation.

Yeah.

What— can you expand on that?

Sure. So, um, we live in a society where people value looks, um, and when you look at all the research with women and eating disorders, I mean, I don't want to get into it too much and I don't want to offend people, but early research and research looking at the way that people want to look because they think that that's how people want them to look. And so we see this in the gay community. I'm gay. You go to clubs, you see guys that look fantastic, and then it's about, you know, you see the good-looking guy getting all the attention. So, well, if he's getting all that attention, then I need to look at— I need to look like him to get that attention. And so it's looking at how things like sexual orientation affect the way that we want we want to look and the way we feel. And so in my PhD, which is now very old, but it was looking at amongst men who has higher body image concerns based on sexual orientation. What was interesting, that kind of not surprising, gay men had higher body image concerns on the scale that I used, but actually all the men had some facet of changing the way that they lived their life because of the way that they felt, or they didn't like the way they felt. So from, you know, not going out to eat with friends at restaurants because they can't count calories, to not looking in the mirror, to wearing really baggy clothes because they're worried about the way they look. It was just really interesting that in my sample anyway, and again it's about 15 years old, but men, no matter who they slept with, really had concerns about the way they looked when they looked in the mirror. And this was just kind of when we'd done all this research on women with the same thing.

So there was more concern with the gay community around the way they look than the straight community?

Yeah, and that, that's been And I published some research recently that kind of shows that, that, that's, that's kind of a, I don't want to say a universal thing, but in Western cultures that does tend to be when you get a group of men and you look at body image concerns and then you look at sexual orientation, it's the men who have sex with men have higher body image concerns than the men that don't.

Right. And before we get into the one word game, we spoke off camera briefly about diet apps.

Yeah.

Not being very good.

Yeah. So I've been doing some research with a work colleague, Fiona Mackay, and with VicHealth and all our researchers on the VicHealth website evaluating the potential for apps on your phone to help behaviour change, healthy, healthy behaviour. So we've looked at alcohol, tobacco, mental health, nutrition and physical activity. Tobacco ones are usually really good. They're the top of the line ones because they're really well informed with psychological theories. So, you know, We've, we've been trying to get people to stop smoking for a very long time. We know what works and doesn't work. The apps around physical activity and nutrition and are not good. And on the scales that we were using, which weren't the best scales, and Fiona developed a new scale for that. But as if you looked at it from a point of view of someone that doesn't do physical activity, they're not really good. They weren't really well weren't well linked with theory around behaviour change. And, you know, there's a lot of ones to kind of get you off the couch and go for a run. But if you haven't run before, if you've been really inactive, they just didn't have the things in the apps that if we look to tobacco, we know what works and what doesn't work. So, and the good thing is Fiona did a lot of media around that and we had people that developed these apps say, how can we make them better? Because we want people to be healthier. Obesity is an issue. Inactivity is an issue. And everyone's got a phone.

So let's, let's build calorie counting apps. Is, is these the kind of apps?

They kind of worked. But again, as someone that has been told to use those, I don't think they're crash. I think you've got to be really looking at, at everything. And, and I think if, again, if you're someone that doesn't know the best things to eat, you know, because I train here, Luke makes me go get a scale, weighing the chicken breasts, weighing everything. I can do that. That's not a problem. But for the person that doesn't have that support or know how to do that. I think some of those apps are fine, but the physical activity ones, they really weren't great. And particularly when you look at the weights ones, you know, doing a squat is hard if you've never done one before. So I really worried about some of these apps that are like, right, we can help you build muscle. You look at them, it's like, well, I've done deadlifts before and I know they're really hard. It took me 4 weeks to figure out how to do it. If you've never even walked into to a gym, what's, what's going to happen? So, um, I, I think they have a place. I think we can make them better. Um, but yeah, the ones that are out there at the moment aren't all that crash hot.

Certainly not for public health at this point.

No, I think we can, we can do better. And there are people that want to do better, Dave. And as I said, our research is on the VicHealth website. Go look at it. Um, yeah, there are people that have gotten in contact, said, look, how can we do it better? So that Encouraging.

Alrighty, well, I think we should get into the one-word game. The way this game works is that we go through basically a bunch of topics. We'll go through about 10 or so topics, pretty rapid fire. So Liam and I will just throw words at you and you're just going to say the, the first thing that, that comes to your head.

Sure.

Ready? All right, I'll start. MDMA.

Nightlife.

Testosterone.

Performance enhancing.

Trembolone.

Olympics. Waste of money.

Cannabis.

Medicinal.

Food.

Fuel.

Cannabis oil.

Another form of cannabis.

Deakin University.

Great place to work.

Psilocybin.

Um, alleviate mental health.

Clenbuterol.

Shredding.

Did I say trembolone?

I did say trembolone.

Uh, and you said testosterone, you stole my other one. Uh, raves.

Techno.

Pill testing.

Harm reduction.

Drugs in sport.

Topical.

Bikini athletes.

Not my thing.

Supplements.

Expensive urine.

Can I pass?

Pass. Uh, well, I, you, I'll pass back to you. No, you can't pass.

Primobolan.

No idea.

And we'll leave it here. Uh, I'm blank as well, so we'll give you a round of applause for being put on the hot seat so fast. And us, that was great. What, um, that was really Really great. What final thoughts do you have, or anything you'd like to share? What's an ask of— actually, it's still in two parts. What do you want to ask of the audience?

Um, in a perfect world, I want people, if they're looking at this thinking that they want to use steroids, to do their homework and talk to people that are either using them or have used them. At the very least, talk to your GP and get a health checkup. If you are using these substances and you haven't told your GP, please do so, because all the GPs I talk to, most of them say, look, we just want the health of the person that's in front of us to be optimal. Um, and I think the more we can have dialogues about this, um, hopefully the better it'll be.

And that's slash the, uh, the health disclaimer as well, I imagine. Yeah. And what are your final thoughts on— let's go two parts. What are your final thoughts on recreational drugs? And then we'll do into steroids?

Um, I think we need a real policy shift in Australia. We say that we've got a harm minimisation policy, but we spend most of our money on law enforcement. Law enforcement has a place, don't get me wrong, but as I said, I've got a 13-year-old nephew, and if at some point he chose to take a pill at a nightclub, I don't want him to die. So my— I really think we need to start— not saying, well, just say no, we know that that doesn't work. So let's just start trying to to make policies that keep people healthy if they choose to do these substances.

And final thoughts on steroids?

Um, again, I think we— what we're doing is not working. Um, and I think we need, again, a policy shift. We need to start looking at ways that we can address the elephant in the room, is that people use them, they will continue to use them. Let's just make it so when they don't use them, they're healthy.

Thank you very much for your time. I know that a bunch of people watching this on YouTube and listening to us on iTunes are going to get tremendous amount of value and just real, like the real factor here. And it's absolute pleasure to spend this hour or so with you and, and speak to someone who is in the academia researching this and seeing it from a public health. It's a real honor to sit down, have this conversation, and provide it to our audience. I hope everyone watching this gets a whole great value. If people want to reach out to you and potentially be part of your research or want to know more, where can they find you?

If you just Google Matthew Dunn Deakin University, you'll get my email address, and I'm happy happy to hear from people. People will tell me that what I've said is wrong. Some people say what I've said is right. I'm happy to hear from people. So yeah, get in contact if you want. And if anyone wants a copy of the research that I've done, more than happy to send it. So just get in touch.

Absolute honor. Uh, Liam, where can people find you?

Uh, Instagram at Liam_Fitz.

I'm Mark Ottobre. Thanks for watching. You can follow me on Instagram, it's @MarkOttobre. And obviously follow Enterprise Fitness as well, it's Enterprise Fitness Melbourne on Instagram. And if you're watching this on YouTube, if you haven't already, do subscribe for all future videos, updates, cooking shows, exercise tutorials, you name it, we've got you covered. If you're listening in your car or on the go on iTunes, hit subscribe and do leave us a review. And obviously, folks, this is where it's at. We're in the Wolf's Den. Share this info with all your friends and family. Get the word out. The Wolf's Den is where the information's at. So till next time, folks, train hard, eat well, and supplement smart.