# Genetical Steroids



## XcelKrush (Mar 2, 2005)

Can the effects of steroids be passed on to your children?


----------



## thatguy (Mar 2, 2005)

First of all, "genetical" is not a word.   

Second of all, no, steroids (or any other product for that matter) does not change your genetic makeup in any way, and therefore cannot be passed on genetically to your offspring.  

However, if your wife is pregnant and taking steroids, obviously that would create some serious developmental problems.  Also, if your wife is pregnant, stay far away from transdermals as she could inadvertantly be affected by those through bedsheets, rubbing up against you, etc.


----------



## thatguy (Mar 2, 2005)

BTW, I know you're 15 and don't have a wife - when I said "your wife" I meant it hypothetically.


----------



## XcelKrush (Mar 2, 2005)

thatguy said:
			
		

> BTW, I know you're 15 and don't have a wife - when I said "your wife" I meant it hypothetically.


16   I was just hoping because my dad took some "special supplements" while he was on the Seal Teams.  

BTW Genetical is a word.


----------



## thatguy (Mar 2, 2005)

Well, I've never heard it if it is, and I've been studying that kind of stuff for a while.  "Genetic" is usually used.


----------



## XcelKrush (Mar 2, 2005)

thatguy said:
			
		

> Well, I've never heard it if it is, and I've been studying that kind of stuff for a while. "Genetic" is usually used.


Yeah, but that wasn't cool enough for me so I had to use "Genetical"


----------



## largepkg (Mar 2, 2005)

genetical

adj : of or relating to the science of genetics; "genetic research" [syn: genetic]


----------



## Mudge (Mar 2, 2005)

Steroids don't modify genes.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 2, 2005)

XcelKrush said:
			
		

> 16   I was just hoping because my dad took some "special supplements" while he was on the Seal Teams.
> 
> BTW Genetical is a word.


 It sure is a real word.  See, I'll use it in a sentence: "I frequently scratch my geneticals".


 On topic, I do remember reading an article that indicated that steroids did have an effect on children.  Then again, it might have propaganda.


----------



## XcelKrush (Mar 2, 2005)

Mudge said:
			
		

> Steroids don't modify genes.


Yeah but alot of substances can damage them.


----------



## SlimShady (Mar 2, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> It sure is a real word.  See, I'll use it in a sentence: "I frequently scratch my geneticals".


 Steroid use has been known to cause users to have children who have tiny geneticals.


----------



## topolo (Mar 2, 2005)

I once spilled bleach on my genes.


----------



## DDan16 (Mar 2, 2005)

thatguy said:
			
		

> Second of all, no, steroids (or any other product for that matter) does not change your genetic makeup in any way, and therefore cannot be passed on genetically to your offspring.



they may not change your genetic make up, but many drugs can be passed through sperm (effecting the child)


----------



## LAM (Mar 2, 2005)

DDan16 said:
			
		

> they may not change your genetic make up, but many drugs can be passed through sperm (effecting the child)



the only thing steroids can do is effect sperm production and that returns to normal once HPTA function has been restored


----------



## DDan16 (Mar 2, 2005)

LAM said:
			
		

> the only thing steroids can do is effect sperm production and that returns to normal once HPTA function has been restored



that guy said nothing could effect your child because it doesnt change your genetic make up, but i was taught in health class that some drugs could.. i wasnt talking about steroids tho my bad.


----------



## Mudge (Mar 2, 2005)

XcelKrush said:
			
		

> Yeah but alot of substances can damage them.



Damage is modification.

STEROIDS DO NOT MODIFY YOUR GENES.

There we go.


----------



## brodus (Mar 2, 2005)

There are some things bodybuilders take that may effect your genes, but steroids will not 99.9% of them time, and never on their own.

Uncouplers might, IGF-1 derivatives might, as well as designer peptides and protoglandins.

BTW, living near power lines/power plants can alter your genes, too.


----------



## Tha Don (Mar 3, 2005)

Mudge said:
			
		

> Damage is modification.
> 
> STEROIDS DO NOT MODIFY YOUR GENES.
> 
> There we go.



amen!


----------



## brodus (Mar 3, 2005)

I find it hard to believe that doing a lot of anything for a long time wouldn't effect you on a gene transcription/replication level at some point.   

I honestly think that exposure to massive doses of steroids for a decade would alter your genetics.  You have to realize that studies you may reference aren't involving long-term, mega-dose application of steroids that most bodybuilders use, and they frequently involve diseased patients of some sort.

I base this on known factors-->namely that your genes aren't totally static, and they most certainly can change based on environmental influence.  It's what the whole theory of evolution is based upon. Part of the reason evolution works the way it does is because survival traits and expressions become embedded in the genetic code. 

Now...if were talking judicious use over periodic intervals, I don't see this as a concern.


----------



## thatguy (Mar 3, 2005)

brodus said:
			
		

> I base this on known factors-->namely that your genes aren't totally static, and they most certainly can change based on environmental influence. It's what the whole theory of evolution is based upon. Part of the reason evolution works the way it does is because survival traits and expressions become embedded in the genetic code.


Evolution is more based off of natural selection, which is one trait survives through a certain hardship and thus is expressed more often because the other genotype is in a dead body that never got to reproduce. 

Genetic mutation is also a source of variety, but it certainly is not what "evolution is based upon." It is a very small percentage of the changes made in the evolution of a species. Genetic mutation is that one in millions upon millions chance that a gene will mutate forming a different trait. What you are referring to is a mutation brought on by your environment, such as by extreme radiation or something like that. Since steroids has never been shown to alter genes, this type of mutation is not a factor here.


----------



## gococksDJS (Mar 3, 2005)

Brodus, Evolution occurs on a very large scale, not just one or two mutations, and takes a very long time. A point mutation in one person is not going to cause natural selection. Survival of the fittest is not a correct way to describe natural selection. It's based solely on the ability to reproduce. Whatever organism reproduces, passes its genes on. The mutation also has to occur on a sex cell and not on a somatic cell, and certain chemicals like alpha, beta and gamma and ultraviolet rays have been shown to cause mutations, as well as hydrocarbons, strong acids and bases, but anabolic steroids have never been directly linked to causing inheritable genetic mutations.


----------



## brodus (Mar 3, 2005)

Can you post some studies?


----------



## DOMS (Mar 3, 2005)

Mudge said:
			
		

> Damage is modification.
> 
> STEROIDS DO NOT MODIFY YOUR GENES.
> 
> There we go.


 Does alcohol modify your genes?  If not, then why does alcohol cause birth defects?


----------



## brodus (Mar 3, 2005)

Perhaps we are talking about two different things now, as GC points out.  There is a difference between a mutation within yourself (cancer, etc.) and your sex genes being damaged and effecting your offspring.

For instance, we knopw that steroids are not a good idea if you have a history of prostate cancer, based on what we know about receptor sites in the prostate gland.  We also know that gynecomastia can occur with steroid use.  Both of these conditions can occur as the result of mutations.  I have studies showing this.  

But whether or not anything happens to your sex genes...that's the question.  And how can you study this?


----------



## LAM (Mar 3, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> Does alcohol modify your genes?  If not, then why does alcohol cause birth defects?



alcohol consumption from the mother exposes the baby to aloohol.  this in turn effects the CNS causing problems with behavior, learning, memory, attention, etc.  I belive the average IQ of infants born with fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) is 70, which is mentally retarded.  FAS also causes physical birth defects.

none of the above is caused by any genetic mutation due to alcohol consumption of the mother


----------



## LAM (Mar 3, 2005)

brodus said:
			
		

> Perhaps we are talking about two different things now, as GC points out.  There is a difference between a mutation within yourself (cancer, etc.) and your sex genes being damaged and effecting your offspring.
> 
> For instance, we knopw that steroids are not a good idea if you have a history of prostate cancer, based on what we know about receptor sites in the prostate gland.  We also know that gynecomastia can occur with steroid use.  Both of these conditions can occur as the result of mutations.  I have studies showing this.
> 
> But whether or not anything happens to your sex genes...that's the question.  And how can you study this?



scientists do not even know which genes are expressed when certain steroids are adminsitered, only that different genes are expressed by different steroids.  so no one can say either way that the long term effects of supraphysiologic doses of sterods effect sex genes.

but looking at what we know about present day and bodybuilders of the past we have yet to hear of one having any type of mutated offspring.


----------



## Tha Don (Mar 3, 2005)

brodus said:
			
		

> I honestly think that exposure to massive doses of steroids for a decade would alter your genetics



i disagree

massive doses of roids would just mean severe shut-down and low (or even zero) sperm-count

your bodys' genetics will NOT change! why the hell would they change??? as soon as your body eventually starts reproducing sperm it will be of the same genetic make up as before you juiced

i know its hard to get your head around but think about it, dna is dna how the hell would steroids actually change your dna? all they do is pump extra test in your system, maybe HGH would change dna i've not looking into it but roids will certainly not


----------



## Tha Don (Mar 3, 2005)

LAM said:
			
		

> looking at what we know about present day and bodybuilders of the past we have yet to hear of one having any type of mutated offspring.



indeed


----------



## brodus (Mar 3, 2005)

> i know its hard to get your head around but think about it, dna is dna how the hell would steroids actually change your dna?



Like I said, we're talking about two different things.  Do you know much about prostate cancer? You can certainly cause cellular mutation within your own cells/body from just about anything--but whether this does anything to your sperm is another question entriely.  I'm not saying steroids alter the genes you pass on.  However, high concentrations of test and metabolites can have nasty effects, most of which we are all aware of.


The adrenal androgen androstenediol is present in prostate cancer tissue after androgen deprivation therapy and activates mutated androgen receptor.

Mizokami A, Koh E, Fujita H, Maeda Y, Egawa M, Koshida K, Honma S, Keller ET, Namiki M.

Department of Urology, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan. mizokami@med.kanazawa-u.ac.jp

Despite an initial response to androgen deprivation therapy, prostate cancer (PCa) progresses eventually from an androgen-dependent to an androgen-independent phenotype. One of the mechanisms of relapse is antiandrogen withdrawal phenomenon caused by mutation of 877th amino acid of androgen receptor (AR). In the present study, we established a method to measure the concentration of androstenediol (adiol) in prostate tissue. We found that adiol maintains a high concentration in PCa tissue even after androgen deprivation therapy. Furthermore, adiol is a stronger activator of mutant AR in LNCaP PCa cells and induces more cell proliferation, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) mRNA expression, and PSA promoter than dihydrotestosterone (DHT). Because antiandrogen, bicalutamide, blocked adiol activity in LNCaP cells, it was suggested that adiol effect was mediated through AR. However, high concentration of bicalutamide was necessary to block completely adiol activity. These effects were specific to LNCaP cells because adiol had less effect in PC-3 PCa cells transfected with wild-type AR than DHT and had similar effect in PC-3 cells transfected with mutant AR. *The mechanism that adiol activates mutant AR in LNCaP cells* did not result from the increased affinity to mutant AR or from AR's association with coactivator ARA70. *However, low concentration of adiol induced more AR nuclear translocation than DHT in LNCaP cells and not PC-3 cells transfected with AR. These results indicate that adiol may cause the progression of PCa even after hormone therapy.*

Cancer Res. 2004 Jan 15;64(2):765-71.


----------



## gococksDJS (Mar 3, 2005)

There is quite a difference between actual genetic mutation of a gamete cell, and the potential for a proto-oncogene to become an oncogene. Many cancers that are genetic, like breast cancer, are due to the expression of an oncogene, which either stimulates uncontrollable cell division or fails to stop cell division. Now I have no idea if a substance like anabolic steroids could cause the transformation of a proto-oncogene to an oncogene, but whether or not steroids cause direct genetic mutations is a different story.


----------



## Mags (Mar 4, 2005)

there's alot of talk about cells and stuff, whoa, i'm back in biology class. Interesting stuff. Gocock, are you some kinda med student or summin? Your rolling out allsorts of technical terms


----------



## Mags (Mar 4, 2005)

SlimShady said:
			
		

> Steroid use has been known to cause users to have children who have tiny geneticals.


Damn, my old man must've taken loads of gear for years!


----------



## brodus (Mar 4, 2005)

I'm not against steroids, per se, but if steroids don't have any propensity to cause mutations and growths, why do we take anti-breast cancer drugs and anti-prostate cancer drugs as ancillaries? 

If the answer is "to combat unbalanced hormone levels, not cancer," and we have studies that prove that elevation of certain hormones causes (or triggers) cancers, then again, we've proven my point.

All of which is *not * a platform for banning steroids or saying that they's make mutant babies.

I just think we need to be honest about both sides of the coin. 

It's like hunter's saying they only hunt to commune with nature.  Give me a break.  Who comes back to the hunting cabin with a story about watching butterflies in the fading sunlight...


----------



## thatguy (Mar 4, 2005)

brodus said:
			
		

> I'm not against steroids, per se, but if steroids don't have any propensity to cause mutations and growths, why do we take anti-breast cancer drugs and anti-prostate cancer drugs as ancillaries?
> 
> If the answer is "to combat unbalanced hormone levels, not cancer," and we have studies that prove that elevation of certain hormones causes (or triggers) cancers, then again, we've proven my point.
> 
> ...


You're trying to change the entire subject of the thread. The question is not "does steroids cause cancer," i.e. genetic mutations. We all already know the answer to that question. The question was "can the effects of steroids be transferred to offspring through genetics" and the answer is no. I don't know if you lost focus of the point of this entire thread, or if you are retreating to a well-known fact of steroids (it causes cancer & genetic mutations) so you don't look as wrong about your previous comments.


----------



## gococksDJS (Mar 4, 2005)

Mags said:
			
		

> there's alot of talk about cells and stuff, whoa, i'm back in biology class. Interesting stuff. Gocock, are you some kinda med student or summin? Your rolling out allsorts of technical terms


 Im not going to medschool, but I take the same classes as a premed because im a chemistry major, so ive also had to take a lot of anatomy, physiology, and biology classes.


----------



## APG (Mar 4, 2005)

gococksDJS why havent you got any pics up?  You seem to have good knowledge on a range of questions on the board would be nice to see your results


----------



## gococksDJS (Mar 4, 2005)

APG said:
			
		

> gococksDJS why havent you got any pics up? You seem to have good knowledge on a range of questions on the board would be nice to see your results


 I will have my pre-cycle and 16 days in photos up this week. If you look at my journal, you'll see ive been way to busy with school to learn how to work my digital camera


----------



## APG (Mar 4, 2005)

Will have a look at your journal


----------



## brodus (Mar 4, 2005)

> You're trying to change the entire subject of the thread.



Sorry if it appears this way. I'm as interested as anyone.  I looked through 250+ research articles, and can't find anything one way or the other.  As I said in my first post:



> There are some things bodybuilders take that may effect your genes, but steroids will not 99.9% of them time, and never on their own.
> 
> Uncouplers might, IGF-1 derivatives might, as well as designer peptides and protoglandins.
> 
> BTW, living near power lines/power plants can alter your genes, too.



I later stated: 


> I find it hard to believe that doing a lot of anything for a long time wouldn't effect you on a gene transcription/replication level at some point.



As more of a rhetorical question than anything.  I'm serious about that.  There are no studies of genetic changes in long-time, high-dose steroid users (and people who have _ONLY_ used anabolics, and not also insulin, GH, IGF, uncouplers, anti-estrogens, stimulants, dieuretics and anti-coagulants, etc...).

Theoretically, to my mind, long-term, high-dose use of something that requires anti-cancer drugs to be used safely might, _might_ have some deleterious effect on your genes, and until I can find a study proving otherwise, I'm entitled to this doubt.


----------



## Pirate! (Mar 4, 2005)

This is one of the most interesting discussions I've read in this forum in some time. Having watched _The Incredible Hulk_ while growing up, I'm inclined to believe that steroids make you huge, mean, and green. Imagine your wife having to give birth to such a mutant. Maybe you would luck-out and your kid would be more like one of the X-Men.


----------



## gococksDJS (Mar 4, 2005)

PirateFromHell said:
			
		

> This is one of the most interesting discussions I've read in this forum in some time. Having watched _The Incredible Hulk_ while growing up, I'm inclined to believe that steroids make you huge, mean, and green. Imagine your wife having to give birth to such a mutant. Maybe you would luck-out and your kid would be more like one of the X-Men.


 You ever seen Mall Rats when Brody says "I bet superman blows a load like a shotgun right through her back......and the kid would kick right through her stomach"


----------



## Pirate! (Mar 4, 2005)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> You ever seen Mall Rats when Brody says "I bet superman blows a load like a shotgun right through her back......and the kid would kick right through her stomach"


  
I'm not familiar with Mall Rats, but I'd like to be. Is that a cartoon?


----------



## gococksDJS (Mar 4, 2005)

PirateFromHell said:
			
		

> I'm not familiar with Mall Rats, but I'd like to be. Is that a cartoon?


 It's one of those movies from the 90's with Jay and Silent Bob. I think they are funny as shit.


----------

