This is the scenario: a guy, say age 21, becomes serious about gaining muscle. He’s 5′ 10″, 7″ wrists, 9″ ankles, average genetics for muscle size-and-proportioned. He’s played sports, but never done more than an occasional resistance workout. Now, he begins a good training-eating-and-resting program. With his genetics, he has the potential for naturally gaining 45 pounds of lean mass if he stays consistent with progressive training/proper eating for a continuous 3 to 4 years.
But, about three months after beginning his training, he starts taking steroids. He does three steroid cycles in the following 18 months, and includes proper post-cycle therapy. That entire time, he’s continuing to consistently train and eat properly. Before the end of two years, he’s gained 45 pounds of lean mass (which with steroids, by the way, is not necessarily typical but neither improbable). At that point, he permanently quits using steroids, but he does continue properly training and eating for another two years. At the end of four years, he carries the same 45 pounds of lean mass.
This report is another study that demonstrates the success of topical steroid therapy in an effort to avoid circumcision under anesthesia in older children. This article is an important contribution, as it is a report from a North American institution, where the threshold to proceed to circumcision has historically been lower than other countries, where the parent's desire to avoid late circumcision could potentially overstate the outcome or benefits of the topical steroid therapy. This therapy could also be applied to other foreskin problems such as persistent penile adhesions with similar expected results.