Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

As someone who follows tech, I have heard over and over that a product is "X on steroids." Now, outside of a few ailments and allergies that are treated with steroids, it is pretty well accepted that steroids have a negative connotation. Why the dichotomy?

share|improve this question
add comment

5 Answers 5

up vote 11 down vote accepted

Steroids have a negative connotation with respect to sportsmanship precisely because they make you stronger or faster. "X on steroids" comparisons are taking the sense of improvement into an arena where the sportsmanship aspect is irrelevant, so the negative connotation gets left behind.

share|improve this answer
3  
I suppose so. I just hear it so often and just now I though to myself, "wait I don't want my tech being overly aggressive with poor complexion and health problems." Perhaps I over analyzed this. –  Bob Roberts Dec 10 '10 at 15:23
    
@Bobnix -- ha, I would say you over-analyzed it. Though I would like never to hear the expression again. –  jbelacqua Apr 8 '11 at 4:02
add comment

"X on steroids" has no negative connotations, unless X is a negative to begin with. ("Leona was like the devil on steroids.") The construction is an intensifier, and just means that something is so good it has an unfair advantage. It is bigger, better, faster, stronger ... whatever qualities one would expect in X's domain, but with an additional multiplier.

Compare it to the use of "uber": Ron is an uber-programmer at my company. It's just one more way of hyping a thing.

share|improve this answer
    
Many athletes have used "anabolic" steroids to grow bigger muscles or otherwise improve their performance in unusual or unexpected ways. In most sports, that's now considered cheating, but outside of sports, I agree there's no inherent negative connotation. Saying "A is like B on steroids" just implies A is surprisingly better than B. –  Bob Murphy Dec 10 '10 at 23:33
    
Additionally, the "ana" (Greek "ανά") in "anabolic" connotes a "building up" or an "increase". Thus, "X on steroids" connotes a "building up" (or to be more colloquial, "souping up") whatever "X" is. –  user730 Dec 12 '10 at 10:04
1  
As for "über-", please don't forget the umlaut. :) –  user730 Dec 12 '10 at 10:06
    
@J.M.: I was merely rendering what Americans would write. They also pronounce it "oober", which is their wont. I was criticized somewhat harshly on this board a while back for calling American pronunciations of foreign words "mispronunciations," so I decline to go into that one again. –  Robusto Dec 12 '10 at 12:54
    
Fair point. :D That's a messy argument I wouldn't want to be in, either. (I had upvoted your answer before commenting, FWIW.) –  user730 Dec 12 '10 at 12:56
show 1 more comment

Steroids in a certain context do improve performance or theoretically make someone bigger/more masculine, so the use of "X on steroids" is meant to convey the positive meaning you indicate. However, it seems to me to retain something of a negative connotation in that it's an over-exaggerated or artificial improvement. So if something is described as "X on steroids" it may be improved a bit too much or made a bit too large.

share|improve this answer
add comment

As other answers point out, it's the 'beefing up' aspect of steroids that's being alluded to. The negative connotations for competitive sport and long-term health are irrelevant to this usage, and it's perhaps a bit 'anal' to even think of them in what is after all just an idiomatic coinage.

Even if there are no meaningfully positive connotations, you can get this kind of coinage. Mostly we think the expression Fuck Off is entirely negative (well, mostly it is). But to those familiar with the usage, a fuck-off car is in fact highly desirable.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Steroids has a negative connotation for animate objects but for inanimate objects it doesn't matter because they are not sentient.

share|improve this answer
    
What you say is inarguably true. But if I said Genghis Khan was Attila the Hun on steroids I don't think anyone would think the negative connotations come from the steroids being applied to animate objects. It's because they were bad guys. –  FumbleFingers Apr 8 '11 at 1:51
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.