Some links.

Hi Keith,

I’m just starting to learn to cook, so I’m looking for a good introduction. I’m more interested in _why_ certain steps are taken during the process than in collecting more recipes–do you have any recommendations? Would one of these Bittman (how to cook everything) books be a good start?

I know this is off-topic, but I had a question re: steroids.

You have repeatedly mentioned the research that demonstrates their is little, if any, benefit gained from using steroids. You rightfully shoot down the argument that “they would only use if it works” and don’t get sucked into weak anecdotal evidence.

That being said, there is strong research out there that demonstrates the impact that certain steroids and other PEDs have on muscle growth and gains in working out and exercise. Do you contend that these studies are wrong? Or that these benefits do not translate to benefits on the baseball field? I would imagine that, if I added 30 pounds of muscle through the use of steroids, I would be able to hit a baseball further than I could before I gained that muscle. This isn’t an absolute truth, as it would depend on what, if any, sacrifices were made for flexibility, coordination, etc. But I think it’s fair to say I would have a more powerful swing. That doesn’t mean I’d be better at hitting a baseball, but, if/when I did hit it, it would presumably go farther. Now, taking an already remarkable talent in baseball, such as Bonds or ARod, who have proven their ability to hit a ball, would added muscle and strength give them an advantage? I’m curious to hear your thoughts, since I don’t think that PEDs improve baseball playing abilities, but I DO think that they can improve skills and physical characteristics that can be used to play baseball better. Thoughts?

Keith,
Suggestions for quality cookbooks geared towards the amateur bodybuilder? I’m in the middle of my diet right now for a show in May. Unfortunately, the chicken that I “prepare” is slowly killing my tastebuds. I just tried a brine (is the is the correct usage?) and marinaded some breasts which could have been delicious had I not overcooked the chicken.

Keith-

Thanks for clarifying. You’re right, Gabe Kapler would have 1000 HRs if performance was directly related to bicep size. My gut tells me that it probably comes down to HOW you use PEDs as opposed to IF you use them. It’s like any working out/practice you do. Certain exercises and training will better prepare you to be good at baseball (or whatever sport it is you pursue). Others will have no impact on your baseball potential or may even have a negative effect. Roiding up and becoming so muscle-bound that you can’t turn your head isn’t going to help. But if a carefully constructed workout plan supplemented with “good” PEDs could certainly make a baseball player stronger in the way that will approve his ability. I would think this is particularly true of younger players, who usually take a few years to “fill out” into their body and may be able to do so faster. Obviously, if this isn’t coupled with the requisite development in approach, it’s useless. But, again, I would think that “properly used” PEDs would certainly help any athlete who made sure his/her usage was in line with the goals of their sport. Thanks for the input.

Mitch,
The point is that strength gains and muscle mass do nothing for baseball skills. Steroids make the player feel better – I’ve heard users characterize the feeling as being on top of the world. So players use the stuff under mistaken assumptions. The best thing McGwire or Canseco could have testified to congress was that they were great players regardless of supplement use or abuse. This would have been the truth. Does anyone think that Ronnie Coleman or Arnold could have been great ball players? If bodybuilders thought so, they would have quit bodybuilding for the better paycheck in baseball.

I’m gonna play devil’s advocate here. (while I realize none of this is proven and is really just speculation)

I don’t think steroids alone can make someone a good/great baseball player. If I took them it would have no result. The thing is, we’re not talking about average joe taking steroids, these guys were baseball players before.

Barry Bonds was a damn good baseball player in the late 80s/early 90s (assuming he didn’t use at the time). Steroids enhanced an already very good player into a great player.

I don’t think muscle mass always produces superior power numbers. Gabe Kapler hasn’t become great because he’s not very good (the guy has a career .331 OBP).

All that said, this isn’t the “tainted era” of baseball. Every generation has something that has skewed the numbers of it’s players- from an all white league to greenies, and everything in between.

I think we’re missing something here with the PED-benefits discussion. Gabe Kapler doesn’t disprove the idea that strength is good, simply that there’s much more to it than that. But strength is important, at least in relation to hitting a baseball hard and far. Ryan Howard is huge. He’s got other skills, like awesome hand-eye coordination, but he hits mammoth home runs because he’s a giant. David Eckstein is tiny, and couldn’t hit a home run with a fungo bat off a tee. The real question should be “How much strength do PEDs allow you to add?”

Re-reading my last comment, it sorta comes across like I wish Frank would have taken steroids. Of course that’s not the case. I’m proud that he didn’t (allegedly) and I’m proud that I picked the right guy to root when I was younger.

Gabe Kapler doesn’t prove a thing. He was drafted in the 57th round. If anything, he’s evidence that a bodybuilder physique DOES help.

@ 2&Fro, perhaps you missed how I peppered both of my comments with disclaimer terms like “allegedly” and “assume”.

Then you say this: “A big dude with ankle and foot injuries in his late 30s seems like a strange reason to assume someone didn’t take PEDs.”

That’s hardly the reason I’m assuming he didn’t take PED’s. I’m assuming he didn’t take PED’s because he was begging MLB to institute testing as early as the mid 90’s, and he didn’t stop begging MLB to institute testing until they actually instituted testing.

But let’s not let those facts get in the way of whatever it is you’re selling.

Yeah I got your point. It’s just that nowhere in any of my comments have I said anything different than that. Your first comment to me was this: “How is it that we know Frank Thomas didn’t take steroids? A big dude with ankle and foot injuries in his late 30s seems like a strange reason to assume someone didn’t take PEDs.”

I thought I responded to both of those questions/inquiries pretty clearly. I wasn’t saying that Frank Thomas didn’t take PED’s. I was just asking that we assume he didn’t for a minute in order to make my point, which was that players who didn’t use missed out on inflated counting stats and salaries due to injury. I just used Frank as the example (assumption) because he’s been the poster boy for anti-steroid ballplayers, and he’s been injured.

FQ- I think that logic is entirely too simplistic. To say that increased muscle mass and other benefits that may be derived from PED’s do not, in any way, relate to baseball skills is ridiculous. Strength alone does not make someone a great baseball player. But if increased muscle mass or leaner muscle allows an already great player swing a bat faster, with no drawback, he’s going to be a better baseball player. As others have pointed out, there is obviously an argument to how PED’s help players avoid injuries or recover from them, but I’m really thinking about the actual benefit they gain in existing levels of performance.

I know that I became a better baseball player after I learned how to take advantage of the weight room. However, I tailored my workout for a baseball skill set and developed more power and a stronger arm. Perhaps I lost some speed as I gained weight, but overall, I was a better baseball player. I did it naturally, so the gains were modest, but they were gains no doubt. Wouldn’t a baseball player, on a carefully regimented workout plan and PED regimen that was tailored to the skills of a baseball player, see benefits? Not absolutely, but I struggle to grasp when people don’t see that PED’s can BENEFIT baseball players, even if they don’t make them more skilled.

Brian,
Great use of anecdotal “evidence.” I too gained great various benefits from lifting weights. In fact, I’m a natural bodybuilder who go into it after realizing I couldn’t cut it as a ball player. But one statement you made makes it altogether clear that you don’t understand human physiology. Muscle is muscle – you don’t grow more muscle and it doesn’t get leaner. Body fat % or leanness is a function of body mass that is not fat. Muscle can never be fat. Furthermore, the number of muscle cells you are born with are the same number you die with, absent surgery in which muscle is removed from the body. If you lift in a manner to maximize hypertrophy or size, you merely increase the size of your muscles – usually done with increased reps and sets and a moderate weight executed with an intensity that in no way helps a person with baseball function. However, if you were to lift in a way that improves your neurological functioning (the way Dorian Yates and Mike Mentzer liked to lift) perhaps you can improve your baseball skill set. This type of training is thought to increase the speed with which your motor units operated – how fast your nerve synapses fire from eye to brain to hands, arms, and hips. However, this functional training is not weight dependent. It is somewhat like olympic lifts, but less technical and the emphasis is moving a fixed weight as fast as you can. Guys like Dorian didn’t use steroids to increase the speed with which they moved a weight – it was simply to get bigger. So the big question for a ballplayer is what sort of bang do you get for being able to move 405 lbs for 5 slow reps versus 225 lbs for 8 fast reps on the bench press? I’d tell a guy, do the latter and stop the drugs because the only thing the juice is doing is giving you back-ne and moobs, and killing your sex life.

And another thing – how can you identify lifting as the reason for your increased arm strength and power? It couldn’t be a function of playing games, body maturity due to puberty, or a good throwing program and extra bp. I had the opposite problem. I developed arm troubles and lost all pop when I was lifting in season. I cut out the weights and suddenly I’m dropping 400 ft bombs, running bases fluidly, and hitting cut off men with crisp throws. And I figured lifting was the detriment to my baseball development! I guess our anecdotes conclude mutually exclusive findings.

Steroids alone – unequivocally no.

That’s a lot of fancy words to say that steroids will not help a baseball player, right? To which I would disagree with you. For a person who seems to poopoo anecdotal evidence, that’s a nice play right off the bat there with the Alfonso Soriano example.

Sure, hitting HR’s is more than just strength. It’s bat speed, hand/eye coordination. It’s too many things to even mention. But strength is part of it. You say that steroids alone won’t make you stronger, but can they if taken correctly with the right workout regimen?

Awesome response. Yeah, steroids is the kicker. That’s what I’m saying. That’s what I’ve been saying this whole time.

You throw around terms like “intellectually lazy”, and yet your responses are filled with logic fails. You dismiss strength as a factor in being a good hitter because there is a guy who is weaker than you who can hit 40 HR’s. It’s silly to even argue with that.

I’m a youth basketball coach, but I’m going to tell my power forward to stop wasting time in the weight room because I saw a skinny PG who’s good at rebounding.

Push on man. I’m done.

I try to get out but he pulls me back in.

First of all, I don’t really teach youth basketball. That was an example. And you may be right about youths wasting time in a gym. But my example still works. Apply it to a professional if you like.

Second of all, I don’t have to bridge the gap between anything. If any of your posts were misunderstood, that could be a reflection of how they were constructed versus how they were comprehended. Either way, your point about intellectually lazy wasn’t wasted on me anyway. Your point was that it would be lazy for someone to think that steroids free you from the limitations of being human. I agree with this. But at the same time, thinking that there’s no benefit to them whatsoever? To me, that’s just naive.

Excuse me, I should have said “caught abusing” instead of “test positive.” I forgot about the existence of false positives. Sorry

FQ-

Your responses make a ridiculous amount of assumptions. I (nor anyone else here) said that taking steroids = better baseball player. But it is certainly possible, that the proper steroids taken properly on top of a proper training regimen CAN make a player better. As you pointed out, there are a number of workouts and training regimens that can improve a player. If a player can go through these exercises more effectively or efficiently through the use of PEDs, won’t they achieve better results than they would have otherwise? You can throw all the big words out you want, but you haven’t really presented any evidence (outside of the anecdotal evidence you earlier denounced) or citations to back up your refutations. You say that there are ample questions to be answered, but then also flat-out deny any possible link between steroid and other PED use and improved play.

Do steroids or other PEDs guarantee improvement as a ballplayer? No. Can they be detrimental to a ballplayers development? Certainly. But so would going through football practice in order to prepare for baseball. Taking the wrong steroids in the wrong way with the wrong workouts won’t work. But I fail to see how you can conclude that the right drugs taken the right way coupled with the right workouts will not improve performance.

How am I having this both ways. There is a clear demarcation between baseball and medicinal use. Burn victims, AIDS patients, cancer patients are prescribed some low dosage steroids at times. How on God’s green earth does this relate to baseball? How is this in any way inconsistent with what I’ve said? Honestly, I would love for someone to explain in excruciatingly clear detail how I’m inconsistent.

Finally, the whole debate with regard to steroids is that they constitute cheating because they guarantee improved performance. That is the specific implication bandied about by media, politicians, and the MLB. I specifically stated they don’t, you’ve specifically agreed to my point but deny the logical conclusion. Steroids have zero bearing on baseball skills. What is left to argue? If you aren’t more skilled because of steroids then you aren’t a better baseball player because of steroids. Try muddying the details by adding in all the hypotheticals you want. The clear truth to the matter is that steroids do not make you a better baseball player.

“Finally, the whole debate with regard to steroids is that they constitute cheating because they guarantee improved performance.”

I think this is the problem with your argument. I would say that steroids constitute cheating not because they guarantee improved performance (which we all agree they certainly do not), but because they allow for improved performance. To use a parallel, spitting on the ball does not guarantee that you will throw a better pitch – it may even cause you to throw a wild pitch – but it’s still cheating. You’re making a massive logical leap by going from the statement that steroids do not guarantee improved performance to the statement that they have zero bearing on baseball skills. It is perfectly logical to argue that when combined with the proper program, steroids can have an effect on strength, speed, and recovery time, all of which play an important role in being a successful player. The difference, of course, is incredibly difficult to judge, given that the tailoring of the workout, the body type of the player, and the many other skills that go into being a successful player are all variables that would need to be considered before determining the effect that steroids had on a player.

It seems to me that it would be extremely difficult to prove, statistically, whether steroids were helpful or not. We would need to know a greater number of people who were using, what they were using (not all drugs might have the same effectiveness), how they were using (with the right accompanying workout program?), when they were using and not using (can we be sure about the truthfulness of any player’s confession to this point?), and what effect other factors, such as expansion, had on their statistics. Frankly, I never expect there to be a satisfactory answer to the question of how much steroids et al. affected statistics. This bothers me far less than people arguing either side, or even worse, making assumptions about how stats were affected, without anything close to conclusive proof.

BSK,
Which Francis are you referring to in your point? I’m one of two.
Steroids aren’t a well researched drug. The AMA believes that steroid dosages and effects are linearly related which is hog wash. The fundamental issue for me is making a conclusive statement without information. My example of burn victims, AIDS patients, cancer patients, asthma sufferers was to argue that steroids are highly effective but testosterone has larger benefits for the immune system than for hypertrophy. Doesn’t arguing Viagra should be banned from baseball because it artificially improves cardiovascular health and improves healing capabilities due to improved circulation sound a bit ridiculous? But Viagra is derived from heart medication and it could be the ultimate greenie. If baseball’s standard is to purify the sport and to limit benefits derived from “artificial” means, then let’s be consistent about this across all possible avenues of cheating – gene therapy, certain surgeries, most processed supplements.

I disagree with your point that steroids allow an individual to achieve attributes that are naturally (as defined as without steroids) impossible. I do agree that it accelerates some timetables – but I’m very cynical about the effects on baseball skills – specifically improving mechanics. I’m also very cynical about the seriousness baseball is treating the subject. The issue has been oversimplified and the standards at question are blurred. I’d argue that baseball should implement rules to protect the health of players and better reflect the rules and regulations of the country and various states. In a baseball regimen, steroids are completely superfluous. You can get incredible gains with $250 of supplements from Vitamin Shoppe without the side effects in conjunction with a proper diet. However, my opinion is a minority view.

FQ-

I didn’t know you were a Francis, so it was directed at the other one.

I agree with you on many sections of the larger issue. Please do not mistake my belief that steroids can provide a benefit with the argument that steroid users are the biggest cheaters ever and need to be crucified. I agree that MLB is handling this horribly and it has become more about making headlines than making a change and protecting players.

It seems as if you’ve softened your stance though. Earlier, you seemed pretty adamant that there was no possible benefit to steroids. Now you say you can make impressive gains with things bought at GNC. It seems as if your point was really not so much that there is NO benefit and more so that the benefits of steroids have been grossly exaggerated. That I would agree with. And perhaps it is a minority view, but that is likely the result of the way the media, government, and MLB have handled it.

I also think part of the problem is the terminology. Steroids, PEDs, “greenies”, etc. People throw these terms around not really realizing what they are, which makes for inaccurate and irresponsible reporting, but also does little to educate both the public and the players about the realities of the situation. Should viagra be banned? Should testosterone? Should cortisone? I can’t really speak to any of this, and I agree that there is too much double-speak that really does little to protect players. The situation has gotten murky and ugly, but I do think it’s clear that many of the substances provide a benefit to players one way or another, again with the caveat that it is the RIGHT stuff, done the RIGHT way, coupled with the RIGHT workouts, diet, etc.

I look at steroid legislation like tax laws. They seem completely arbitrary in light of the fact that legislation in both arenas have been written without solid evidence (I think steroids are illegal because communist olympians used them so much). Yet, people get pissed when we read about tax cheats (well, I applaud tax evaders because I feel it is a standard we all should aspire to). People are also pissed with steroid abusers for the same reason – we respect the rule of law.

Hey Keith,

Thanks for the pain a l’ancienne rec. Made it this past weekend, and it came out great. I believe it should have risen at room temp slightly longer, but it still developed a good crust and moist interior.

The only differences I made were to make 14″ loaves, since that’s the size of my baking stone, and skipped the parchment; using a peel to transfer the bread to the stone.

I have a seed culture started now (using the rye/bread flour combo so far, but may start splitting some ww flour in the last couple days). I saw little to no rise on Day 1, but added the first batch of bread flour last night and have already seen about a 30% rise as of this morning.