Table of Contents
Introduction
Through recommendations from different sources, people use diverse Performance Enhancement Drugs and other natural alternatives to satisfy their needs and wants. As such, scholars from different healthcare practices argue whether PEDs are superior to natural alternatives, or vice-versa (Petroczi and Aidman, 2008). Debates arise on the suitability of PEDs for human consumption and if “natural alternatives” are better, as compared to PEDs. It is within this context that the paper will discuss the differences between PED and “natural alternatives”.
Discussion
The difference between PEDs and natural alternatives can be debated from different perspectives. The first major argument is the purpose of these two remedies. The Performance Enhancement Drugs are artificial components incorporated together to alter and boost the outward performance of the human body. Alternatively, natural concoctions are remedies made of regular and authentic components such as herbs like Aloe Vera. The purpose of natural alternatives is to naturally maintain the strength of the body and to increase its capabilities through a slow and realistic physical process (Greely et al., 2008).
As mentioned above, PEDs are used to increase the performance a person in the activities he or she partakes such as sports and gymnastics. For example, there are steroids given to sports people that help in increasing their body mass and strength, thus remain competitive. On the other hand, natural alternatives are used to increase the health status of a person. For instance, certain non-toxic remedies are given to pregnant women to ensure their bodies remain rich in fundamental body nutrients and to ensure they deliver a healthy baby.
It is imperative to note that both the Performance Enhancement Drugs and the natural alternatives increase the performance of the user. However, there are different procedures and elements present in these performance enhancement remedies which aid in differentiating the two. PEDs are consumed within a short period of time while their results are fast (Karande and Mitragotri, 2009). Their results include increase in body mass, and an escalation in physical strength and capabilities such as running. Nonetheless, PEDs have side effects such as acne, severe depression, weight loss, hypertension, irregular heartbeats and liver damage.
In contrast to this, natural alternatives have no side effects while using them. More so, natural alternatives have long-term positive effects on the human body unlike PEDs, which have negative results in the long-run. Also, natural alternatives heal common cold, headaches, small injuries, and they also prevent diseases from overpowering the body. As such, a clear depiction of the different results that arise from using PEDs and natural alternatives exists (Petroczi and Aidman, 2008).
Conclusion
Moreover, as to the argument of whether there is a difference between PEDs and natural alternatives, the above discussion shows that indeed there is a huge difference between the two. The difference between PEDs and natural alternatives is more practical than philosophical. This is because, there is a clear difference in how the two are made, how they are consumed, the purpose of their consumption, and the positive or negative repercussions that later arise from utilizing them.
- Petróczi, A., & Aidman, E. (2008). Psychological drivers in doping: the life-cycle model of performance enhancement. Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy, 3(1), 7.
- Greely, H., Sahakian, B., Harris, J., Kessler, R. C., Gazzaniga, M., Campbell, P., & Farah, M. J. (2008). Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature, 456(7223), 702-705.
- Karande, P., & Mitragotri, S. (2009). Enhancement of transdermal drug delivery via synergistic action of chemicals. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-Biomembranes, 1788(11), 2362-2373.