Steroids in Bodybuilding: Is Bodybuilding Too Drug Obsessed?

Neil Andrews says bodybuilding isn’t won with a syringe – but James Llewellin argues modern peptides are changing the game

By Gary Chappell

Bodybuilding drug use has become one of the most debated topics in the sport.

So when new Masters IFBB Pro Neil Andrews talks about drug use in bodybuilding, it carries more weight than most.

This is a man competing with a mechanical heart valve, a story already documented on Frontdouble and one that inevitably changes how he approaches enhancement, risk and longevity.

Now running what he says is just 200mg of testosterone cypionate per week, Andrews has thrown himself into one of the sport’s most sensitive debates: has bodybuilding become too drug-driven?

“This game isn’t won with a syringe”

In a recent Instagram post, Andrews did not hold back. “When did bodybuilding become so drug obsessed?" said the man who, in November last year, won his IFBB Pro Card at the European Masters in Milan.

He then listed what is fast becoming the toolkit of modern prep, before making it clear he used none of these during his last run:

And he said: “Bodybuilding has become heavily drug-driven, no denying that. But let’s get one thing straight. Nothing replaces hard work, consistency and going to those dark places others avoid. No drug, no peptide, no protocol is going to do that for you.

"It won’t build grit. It won’t build discipline. And it won’t carry you through prep when you’re exhausted, flat and questioning everything.

"You know why I stand on that? Because last year I beat guys across multiple shows, federations and internationally running 10 times what I was."

Andrews then delivered his most pertinent point: “This game isn’t won with a syringe.

"It’s won with mindset, execution and who’s willing to suffer longer. Get comfortable being uncomfortable."

For Andrews, the argument is rooted in experience, not theory. And it is a message that cuts directly against the current direction of the sport, where newer compounds and peptides are becoming increasingly mainstream.

Even in commercial gyms across the country, bodybuilders will be asked about performance-enhancing drugs long before diet and training are even at a basic, structured level.

Enter an Olympia voice and the 'peptide rabbit hole'

But the response from former 212 Mr Olympia competitor James Llewellin (above), who is set to return to the stage in the amateur ranks at May's PCA Universe this season, shows just how much the landscape has shifted.

While Llewellin did not disagree with the fundamentals of Andrews' argument, he went on to post a compelling narrative in support of peptides.

Responding directly to Andrews, Llewellin said: "Firstly, incredible conditioning mate and, secondly, until a few months ago I would have said exactly the same.

"In fact I still do. Nothing beats hard work, no drug, no peptide nothing. But when you start to go down the whole peptide rabbit hole, it’s quite remarkable what these signaling peptides can do. And not just performance enhancing.

"Nothing beats gear for muscle gains. Nothing. There isn’t a peptide out there that can really build muscle."

Health vs performance

Llewellin continues: "But there are some incredible peptides that are able to up-regulate metabolism, increase mitochondria function, reverse fatty liver, improve cholesterol, regulate blood sugar, lower blood pressure and decrease body fat.

"Peptides are of huge benefit for not only health but also longevity. The exact opposite of what AAS do to you.

"At 53 years old and with two kids, my health has never been so important to me and using less anabolics and conventional fat burners was always the goal for this “comeback” prep.

"Peptides aren’t hormones, they are amino acids that signal the body to do things better and more efficiently. I’ve been super impressed with them. I’ve never felt so good on prep at this [level of] body fat.

"I feel like I’m [in my] off-season, yet normally I’d be killing myself with 1-1.5 hours of cardio a day with my inflammation through the roof. I’d be moody, quiet and not really present for my family. That’s never a good thing.

"Delve a little into them, Neil, even if it’s just for your health. It can always be tweaked and improved no matter how healthy you are.

"Yes hard work and consistency will never be beaten but, when you combine that with less gear and certain peptides, the results can be pretty amazing."

Two philosophies. One sport

What makes this exchange compelling is that both sides agree on the fundamentals: hard work wins, discipline matters and there is no shortcut

But they diverge on one crucial question: Are modern compounds enhancing the process, or replacing it?

Andrews’ position is shaped by something most competitors never face. Competing with a mechanical heart valve forces a level of restraint and realism that cuts through bodybuilding’s usual bravado.

Llewellin's argument, however, reflects where the sport is heading; less reliance on high-dose anabolic stacks, more interest in metabolic and signalling compounds, greater focus on health markers. Not instead of hard work but alongside it.

This is not a case of right vs wrong, it is a shift. Competitive bodybuilding is no longer just food, training and steroids. It is becoming hormones, peptides, metabolism and health optimisation

And the question now is not whether drugs are part of the sport. It’s how much is too much and what actually matters most?


Read more on Frontdouble:

Retatrutide in contest prep

Why drying out is a myth

Kidney health in bodybuilding

Bodybuilding results

Health and Education Hub

Follow us on instagram


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Growth Hormone doses: Just how much?

Stories of up to 16iu a day, Dave Palumbo's size 15, 16 and 17 shoes and why today's bodybuilders are leaner but don't look it

How much growth hormone do bodybuilders need is one of the most misunderstood questions in bodybuilding. From low-dose “health” protocols to high-level contest prep use, expectations often don’t match reality. This article breaks down what growth hormone actually does, how it works over time and what bodybuilders can realistically expect.

HOW much growth hormone to take for optimal results is a debate with no ending.

Some say doses of 2iu a day is plenty, others advise to take as much as you can tolerate.

American bodybuilder Paul Barnett is one person very open with his usage.

Recently he revealed on social media that had worked up to 16iu of GH per day.

He told frontdouble.com: “I talk to quite a few pros behind the scenes and the saying I’ve heard a lot is, ‘Take as much as you can afford and tolerate’.

“Until this year the most I ran was 9iu. I’m currently at 16 and I do see a difference in fullness and density.”

One thing he also revealed on his social media posts, however, was his lethargy, writing: “I’m tired all day. Still trying to figure that out.”

Former bodybuilder and coach and host of Rx Muscle, Dave Palumbo, does not see much benefit in running higher doses.

Speaking to frontdouble.com, he said: “I feel 2-4iu per day is deal for maximum muscle growth with least side effects. Length of time on GH is more important than how much you use daily.”

But whether the man himself adhered to such growth hormone doses during his competitive days is another question. Research and you can find a few memories of when he sold his old shoes. They started at size 15, then 16, then 17.

Maybe Palumbo discovered the ‘most side effects’ from higher doses for him was excessive foot growth and that is why he is now advocating lower-dose use. Maybe that will remain a mystery.

There is no one size fits all for growth hormone doses

In reality, how much growth hormone bodybuilders need depends less on the dose itself and more on time, consistency and overall training and diet.

The point is, however, that as usual these things are person dependent. What works for one may not work for another. It is a case of trial and error.

In the case of Barnett, for example, while he might be lethargic on 16iu a day, some might be OK.

On the tiredness issue, coach Justin Harris of Troponin Nutrition and 1st Detachment said: “It’s probably due to insulinogenic nature of IGF-1. Similar to how you feel sleepy after a large high carb meal.”

COMPARISON ROUND: How bodybuilders looked at the 1999 British GP (top) v the 2015 Mr Olympia

One difficulty for people considering their GH dose is often the debate around how bodybuilders looked in the 1990s compared to today.

You will often hear criticism from 90s bodybuilders about the condition of today’s athletes. Dorian Yates, John Hodgson, Flex Wheeler and Rich Gaspari have been particularly vocal about how ‘their day’ showed more granite-like physiques in comparison to today’s line-ups.

Harris says: “Long term high-dose GH use is the reason people think the 90s bodybuilers looked better. Guys today are leaner than they were back then, but the GH thickens skin so much at high doses that, even though everyone is leaner than they used to be, their conditioning doesn’t seem better – and often seems worse.

“It’s understandably hard as an athlete to know that about the 1990s guys and today’s guys and make the decision to use low-dose GH when, for any short-term timeframe, your look will always be better with higher dose GH; rounder muscles, fuller muscles, lower body fat, higher body weight, etc.

“It’s only with long-term use of high doses that the thicker skin, structural changes, reduced glycogen storage (likely due to insulin resistance) etc start to develop and then it’s even harder to go to 2iu GH because you’re losing your look – and dropping the GH dose will only accelerate that.”

Written and edited by Gary Chappell, UK Masters bodybuilder, Personal Trainer, Nutrition Advisor, prep and lifestyle coach and former national newspaper sports journalist.

MORE FROM FRONTDOUBLE:

BODYBUILDING RESULTS

ATHLETE PROFILES

HEALTH AND EDUCATION HUB

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *