Embracing Enhancement: The Changing Landscape of Performance Improvement

In recent years, discussions surrounding performance enhancement have sparked debates on ethics and societal acceptance. It's intriguing to observe how certain substances and methods gain widespread approval while others face scrutiny and bias. As individuals who have dedicated our careers to studying substance use and assisting those who seek non-medical means of improving performance, we've noticed a stark contrast in how different enhancers are portrayed in both the media and scientific communities.

The prevailing narrative often portrays users of androgenic/anabolic steroids (AAS) in a negative light, labeling them as narcissists with an "Adonis Complex" and suggesting they suffer from muscle dysmorphia. It's commonly assumed that AAS users are addicts with a wide range of psychopathological issues, cognitive deficits, and the potential for sudden fits of rage. Above all, they are often branded as "cheaters" who defy the limits imposed by nature. This perception seems unfounded when we consider the broader context.

Let's pause for a moment and ponder how our society has become increasingly accepting of performance enhancement. In academic and intellectual pursuits, the notion of playing the hand you're dealt has given way to the use of stimulant drugs to enhance cognitive performance. It's no longer about addressing deficits; it's about unlocking one's full potential. Television commercials now assure men that they can defy the natural decline in erectile function with a simple pill. Women are encouraged to combat age-related declines in skin firmness through cosmetic procedures. The American Dream seems to revolve around the pursuit of bigger, better bodies and sharper minds.

A recent study compared society's judgment of individuals who use performance-enhancing drugs in two different domains: athletics and academics. The study noted the similarities between the misuse of prescription stimulants and AAS – both involve the misuse of drugs with legitimate medical uses to gain a competitive edge. Surprisingly, the study found that society views athletes who use enhancers as bigger cheaters and assigns less necessity/justification for their drug use compared to students who use similar enhancers.

Interestingly, less than 1% of the study's participants reported ever using AAS, while approximately 8% had used prescription stimulants without a prescription. Familiarity seemed to breed acceptance, as those who had used prescription stimulants were more likely to view AAS users as cheaters. This highlights a certain level of hypocrisy in our society's perception.

The bias against physique-enhancing drugs is also reflected in the scientific community and the media. Researchers sometimes begin with the assumption that any use of AAS is abuse, failing to differentiate between use, misuse, and abuse. This one-sided approach can lead to misleading interpretations and sweeping generalizations. While a small percentage of AAS users may exhibit certain behavioral changes, it's essential to consider the vast majority who remain unaffected.

Furthermore, the media's portrayal of drugs used for physical enhancement often perpetuates stereotypes and sensationalizes rare cases, leading to distorted public perceptions. This bias against AAS stands in stark contrast to the changing attitudes toward other substances, such as marijuana, which has become more accepted in recent years.

In conclusion, our society's views on performance enhancement are complex and often inconsistent. While some enhancers are readily accepted, others face scrutiny and negative stereotypes. It's crucial for us to approach these topics with open minds, taking into account both the scientific evidence and the broader context. As we move forward, let's strive for a more balanced and informed perspective on performance enhancement, one that acknowledges the diversity of individuals seeking to better themselves.