# When do anabolics become an rational option?



## Monolith (Dec 23, 2003)

When is a person "ready" for something like M1T... or any steroid for that matter?

I feel like i'm progressing decently without using any anabolics, but it seems like everyone on the boards and a whole lot of people at my gym are popping them like candy.


----------



## ZECH (Dec 23, 2003)

Usually, you would want at LEAST several solid years of training. If you are still making decent gains, I would wait. Lots of factors are involved including age. Start slowly and progress slowly with PH's for best results.


----------



## Mudge (Dec 23, 2003)

If you are pleased with your gains now, then I would probably hold off. For people not pleased with thier natural gains, then it becomes a "I want it" situation.

However I think everyone pretty much assumes that we have around 6 months before this stuff is illegal.


----------



## BabyArnold (Dec 23, 2003)

Personally I think that if you are under 25 you are already producing the same amount of test as some bodybuilders shoot in the ass. Or at least close to it. Depending on your body and what you want, you should wait until your system slows like after 25. If you use your own bodies supply to it's max and then you stop making gains then you can start adding to it. But I don't think that it works to it's potential unless your body is already maxed out naturally. Plus your muscles need to be used to being pounded day in and day out before you use something that is going to jump your squat from 200 to 500. There are lots of muscles that need to be worked before you do this.


----------



## BabyArnold (Dec 23, 2003)

Am I right Mudge????????? You're alright Mudge! I don't like people too much, but you seem intelligent enough for me to get along with.


----------



## Monolith (Dec 23, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> If you are pleased with your gains now, then I would probably hold off. For people not pleased with thier natural gains, then it becomes a "I want it" situation.
> 
> However I think everyone pretty much assumes that we have around 6 months before this stuff is illegal.



The gains are coming, yes... but not as fast as those around me.  Is there a reason that several years of serious training and an eventual plateau be the reason for moving to anabolics (or at least the recommended reason)?

I've always thought that there werent any "magic pills" that could do what dedication couldnt, but i really havent read of any down sides to anabolics used properly.

All that combined with what appears to be an imminent banning of "legal steroids", makes me think maybe i should give them a try sooner than later.


----------



## BabyArnold (Dec 23, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Monolith *_
> The gains are coming, yes... but not as fast as those around me.  Is there a reason that several years of serious training and an eventual plateau be the reason for moving to anabolics (or at least the recommended reason)?
> 
> I've always thought that there werent any "magic pills" that could do what dedication couldnt, but i really havent read of any down sides to anabolics used properly.
> ...


Genetics are a Bitch!!!


----------



## BabyArnold (Dec 23, 2003)

I know guys at the gym that are geared up and have been for years and they are wasting their time!!! They look like nothing! And I also know guys that don't ever work out and are damn huge!!


----------



## Monolith (Dec 23, 2003)

!!!


----------



## MeatheadSam (Dec 23, 2003)

It is a personal matter but I do not advocate them and have never used them. I did have plenty of opportunity when I was in Europe in the Military back in the 80's. The other guys were getting them off base and using them.

But if you plan to compete then in BB you almost have to take something. Find a medical professional to keep you in line and "safe". Know what you are using and how to use it safely. Like any drug a steriod has dosage limits that need to be adhered to.


----------



## BabyArnold (Dec 23, 2003)

Meat! You an Army Dog?????


----------



## Mudge (Dec 23, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by BabyArnold *_
> Personally I think that if you are under 25 you are already producing the same amount of test as some bodybuilders shoot in the ass.



If we are talking about people beyond 1000ng then that is a pretty beefy test level, but realistically gear users are still multiple times above anything resembling normal.

Estimated average is about 10-30mg worth of test a day, and as we both know gear users shoot much more   100mg a week or every second week is considered enough for replacement therapy.



> _*Originally posted by BabyArnold *_
> Am I right Mudge????????? You're alright Mudge! I don't like people too much, but you seem intelligent enough for me to get along with.



I have half a brain, if its pumping out 10% capacity I'm happy


----------



## Mudge (Dec 23, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Monolith *_
> The gains are coming, yes... but not as fast as those around me. Is there a reason that several years of serious training and an eventual plateau be the reason for moving to anabolics (or at least the recommended reason)?



We could probably say generically that after 6 months of training things are going to slow down for the average person. Some people have embarrasingly good genetics, some dont,  and some are in between. I chose to use something to get me beyond my natural levels, after some reading to convince myself it was either OK to do or something that would kill me, I decided things looked safe and I dont regret the decision.

Still though, I would not push this on anyone, and if someone is happy with where they are then let them be happy. If someone is scared crapless of even Creatine, then let them be scared, if they choose to educate themselves on the topic they will see.


----------



## prolangtum (Dec 23, 2003)

Honestly, there never is solid rationale for using androgens. Unless you support yourself by your body appearance (model, pro BBer, etc) there is never a reason besides narcissitic reason. It is not healthy no matter what precautions you take, to use PH or AAS, to be frank. But do I use them? Yes. I had an excuse before, I was a stripper from 18-23. Being in shape and looking good was my job. Now, I work at a desk on a computer most of the time but I still do use them. Will I stop any time soon? Probaly not. A choice you make, and have to live with it.


----------



## MeatheadSam (Dec 23, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by BabyArnold *_
> Meat! You an Army Dog?????



82nd Airborne from 85-89. 3/325th Infantry Regiment. I was a radio totin mo fo with an M16/M203. Short stint but it was a blast. How about you?


----------



## Monolith (Dec 23, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> We could probably say generically that after 6 months of training things are going to slow down for the average person. Some people have embarrasingly good genetics, some dont,  and some are in between. I chose to use something to get me beyond my natural levels, after some reading to convince myself it was either OK to do or something that would kill me, I decided things looked safe and I dont regret the decision.
> 
> Still though, I would not push this on anyone, and if someone is happy with where they are then let them be happy. If someone is scared crapless of even Creatine, then let them be scared, if they choose to educate themselves on the topic they will see.



I suppose what i'm getting at is this:

Are there any detrimental side effects to anabolics if they're taken intelligently?

Also, could someone link me to a general overview of steroids?  How they work, doses, the various kinds, etc?


----------



## Mudge (Dec 23, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Monolith *_
> Are there any detrimental side effects to anabolics if they're taken intelligently?



IMO no, but what is intelligent... someone can be intelligent and not get blood tests, and find out that thier cholesterol has been out of whack, and after years of using this could be detrimental to ones health. Blood pressure and cholesterol are things that many people do not pay attention to.

http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24254


----------



## Monolith (Dec 23, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> IMO no, but what is intelligent... someone can be intelligent and not get blood tests, and find out that thier cholesterol has been out of whack, and after years of using this could be detrimental to ones health. Blood pressure and cholesterol are things that many people do not pay attention to.
> 
> http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24254



So, in other words... there are no side effects if you remain extremely vigilant; i.e. there are more variables you need to keep track of when on anabolics to keep yourself healthy.

That link is great by the way, im printing it out now.  Thanks.  This thread has been pretty damn informative.


----------



## Power Rabbit (Dec 23, 2003)

I dont look at other people and judge myself by how fast they are gaining compared to me. As long as my gains are what I want em to be, Im happy. And when they stop being what I want em to be I give myself a little boost. When you feel that your gains aint like you want em to be, maby its time for a little boost.

And while you should be vigilent about doing things right( RESEARCH!!!!), there is no way to tell whether there will be side effects or not. It does make you alot less likely to be boned by those effects though.


----------



## MeatheadSam (Dec 23, 2003)

It is considered in the medical community that Arnolds heart problem and subsequent surgery was due to steroid use.


----------



## Mudge (Dec 23, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Monolith *_
> So, in other words... there are no side effects if you remain extremely vigilant; i.e. there are more variables you need to keep track of when on anabolics to keep yourself healthy.



Well sure there are side effects, in terms of things changing in the body, but yes they are controllable and will not kill you if you are not stupid.

Yes you have to take breaks if you plan to have kids. This is the first set of side effects, replacing the bodies natural hormones causing shut down of your own.

Hair loss, if you are genetically predispositioned to it, you have some reading to do. I can run whatever I want and not lose anything, so I know little of it.


----------



## Mudge (Dec 23, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by MeatheadSam *_
> It is considered in the medical community that Arnolds heart problem and subsequent surgery was due to steroid use.



So far as we believe from legend, he was nuts as far as pill popping. Yet those still close to him claim he used 2 dbol a week, for 4-6 weeks pre-competition only, which I think frankly is a load of crap.

Other sources claim he would take a handfull before his workout, wash it down with a beer and say "now we are ready to workout." Frankly with Arnolds attitude being what it is, I believe this much more so than 10mg of dbol a week.

When you play doctor with your own body, it would be advised to know what you are doing. Dont just ask people hey what do I run and for how long, ask the questions but I would suggest already having some kind of background knowlege from your own studies on it.

There are occasional examples, like the recent post of "hey guys what did I take?"

That is irresponsible and not even worth laughing at. I would not put something in my body if I didn't know something about it. Anyhow, I would suggest reading up, and coming to your own conclusions as to wether you feel you want to try something or not. Generally you start out slow, with one or two things only, several reasons for this.

Anyhow, happy reading. If you want some profile pages PM me and I can send you a couple links.


----------



## Twin Peak (Dec 24, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by BabyArnold *_
> Personally I think that if you are under 25 you are already producing the same amount of test as some bodybuilders shoot in the ass. Or at least close to it.



Sorry, but this is just plain stupid.


----------



## Twin Peak (Dec 24, 2003)

Side effects, transient and permanent will depend on the substance, the dose, the length of cycle(s), the precautionary and post cycle measures, and your predispositions.

In other words, there is no sure fire way of knowing.  That said, used "intelligently" (i.e. taking into consideration all of the above) you can significantly minimize permanent effects, and, to a lesser degree, transient ones.

I will say, that use of anabolics is certainly a slippery slope.

Generally, I'd advise like Mudge, 6-12 months of hardcore training and diet; full knowledge of training, diet, supplementation, and the anabolics involved; and slowed or halted gains.  At a minimum.


----------



## MeatheadSam (Dec 24, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> Sorry, but this is just plain stupid.



Do us the favour of keeping this kind of comment to yourself. We have been down this road on threads before and it adds no value to the discussion.

The post following this one is quite informative and useful, so thank you for that input. So why erode your credibility with off the wall degrading comments?

But what B Arnold said in this statement does make sense to me. A 25 year old or less should not be at any loss of natural testosterone production so why would they wish to shoot up? As a matter of fact some people produce quite normal test well into the 30's and if you remain active the body does so beyond that.

I do not advocate steroid use as I consider it dangerous. But it is especially strange for a very young athelete to use them.


----------



## Mudge (Dec 24, 2003)

I have seen a blood test of a never cycled 22 year old who was putting out something like 340ng. Now from what I remember of LAM who is I believe 34, and not white, he is putting out almost exactly double that.

But honestly, even again a high output 1000ng+ person, is not in the same neighborhood as someone running 500mg of test or more a week, which would put them way over that mark seeing how it is at least 5x more than normal, which we could probably call 2-3x higher than our high tester.

Not to say at all that I recommend jumping straight into the ball game. If someone is happy with thier gains, spend the time learning the training and dieting aspects like TP said, and then go from there. Plus waiting on these things lets you spend the time to study and see if its for you, or something you'd rather avoid.

Perhaps a genetically gifted person is going to look at an early juicer and laugh, but not all of us have the genetics to do that well. If someone starts out benching 80 pounds, I am not going to predict them benching 300 naturally any time soon.


----------



## prolangtum (Dec 24, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by MeatheadSam *_
> Do us the favour of keeping this kind of comment to yourself. We have been down this road on threads before and it adds no value to the discussion.
> 
> The post following this one is quite informative and useful, so thank you for that input. So why erode your credibility with off the wall degrading comments?
> ...


Well, it is true. If you translate natural production into mgs of Test, it would be somewhere around 50-150mgs.


----------



## Twin Peak (Dec 24, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by MeatheadSam *_
> Do us the favour of keeping this kind of comment to yourself. We have been down this road on threads before and it adds no value to the discussion.
> 
> The post following this one is quite informative and useful, so thank you for that input. So why erode your credibility with off the wall degrading comments?
> ...



Fair enough.  I should have said "incredibly ignorant" instead of stupid.

And decent prohormone will raise *anyones* test levels to supraphysiological levels.  By supraphysiological I mean well higher than anyone else's normal endogenous T levels.

Use a good prosteroid, and the difference is even more dramatic.

Use a good injectible steroid, and the difference if even more dramatic.

Talk about a pro bodybuilder who uses insane amounts of injectible substances and you get someone who is far, far beyond what ANY NORMAL HUMAN OF ANY AGE in terms of test levels.

So to spout out that anyone under 25 has test levels of the equivalant of someone injecting is just plain silly nonsense.


----------



## MeatheadSam (Dec 24, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> Fair enough.  I should have said "incredibly ignorant" instead of stupid.
> 
> So to spout out that anyone under 25 has test levels of the equivalant of someone injecting is just plain silly nonsense.



Thanks. You are obviously correct here but I guess the thing that I am saying is why does a young person feel the need for all that extra test? The risks outweigh the advantages to any rational thinking individual.

Heck, the roid rage might land you in jail or put you at the wrong end of a gun.


----------



## Mudge (Dec 24, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by MeatheadSam *_
> The risks outweigh the advantages to any rational thinking individual.
> 
> Heck, the roid rage might land you in jail or put you at the wrong end of a gun.



I'm glad you are up on the latest fictional stories. Its no wonder the feds want to outlaw prohormones, I'm betting they think just like you do.

What are these risks you speak of? Is this to say that 18 year olds are incredibly unhealthy because of all this "massive" testosterone in thier systems?

I'd like to hear your medical theories that apparently I haven't heard of.


----------



## PreMier (Dec 24, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> I'm glad you are up on the latest fictional stories. Its no wonder the feds want to outlaw prohormones, I'm betting they think just like you do.
> 
> What are these risks you speak of? Is this to say that 18 year olds are incredibly unhealthy because of all this "massive" testosterone in thier systems?
> ...



Exactly.

I know a few people who have taken "juice" and they are big enough that they dont give a shit what people think.  I have also seen people get "roid rage" but I can tell you 1 thing right now.  That was their attitude to begin with.  So "roid rage" isnt a total myth, but it is caused by the persons attitude and not the "juice".

Thats my opinion anyways.


----------



## Mudge (Dec 24, 2003)

The only "reliable" stories of roid rage I can think of are from:

* High doses of fina
* Cheque drops (probably #1)
* Halotestin (probably #2)


----------



## oaktownboy (Dec 24, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by MeatheadSam *_
> Heck, the roid rage might land you in jail or put you at the wrong end of a gun.


u only believe what the media tells you huh?


----------



## MeatheadSam (Dec 24, 2003)

An exerpt from an article in Medscape. An online physicians reference widely utilized by internists and other medical professionals....

This hardly makes them out to be harmless and at the very least risky if used for extended periods. Some of this is over my head but I do understand most of it. But it is a personal call, if you think the risk is worth it then you are the one who will have to live with the possibilities of health problems.

* The exerpt:*



*Side Effects of Anabolic-Androgenic Steroid Hormones*
The adverse effects of any drug must be considered from the viewpoint of short- and long-term effects. Most of the studies of the anabolic-androgenic steroid hormones were of short duration, from 8 to 16 weeks. Meanwhile, a large number of people have been taking these medications -- often obtained through the illicit drug market -- for many years, but there are no studies of the long-term effects. From an epidemiologic viewpoint, the anabolic-androgenic steroids do not appear, at this point, to have the same potential for causing death or disability that cigarette smoking, cocaine use, or chronic alcohol abuse has. Nevertheless, anabolic-androgenic steroid hormones have well-recognized side effects.

*Transient Hepatotoxic Effects*
The oral preparations of the anabolic-androgenic steroid hormones are the most hepatotoxic of this class of drugs.
Peliosis hepatis is the most serious hepatic complication. It is characterized by the development of blood-filled cysts in the liver and sometimes in the spleen. These cysts are not associated with evidence of hepatic dysfunction but have caused liver failure. Often, the first indication of peliosis hepatis is the occurrence of liver failure or life-threatening intra-abdominal hemorrhage. The 5-year incidence of peliosis hepatis has ranged as high as 17%. However, with discontinuance of the drug, the condition spontaneously resolves.

Benign, androgen-dependent adenomas of the liver may also develop with prolonged use. Hepatocellular carcinoma has been reported but is rare. Cholestatic hepatitis and jaundice have occurred with the oral anabolic steroid hormones, including the synthetic derivatives of testosterone-methyltestosterone and fluoxymesterone.


*Transient Lipid Effects*
Even with small doses of the oral anabolic-androgenic steroid hormones, the serum levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and, particularly, the lipoprotein A1 fraction will be decreased. This effect may be a consequence of an increase in the activity of hepatic triglyceride lipase, which leads to a decrease in the HDL cholesterol level. At times, the change in the HDL cholesterol level is marked and, theoretically, could hasten the development of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

*Cardiomyopathy*
Data obtained in animals and case reports in the literature have indicated that the anabolic-androgenic steroid hormones could be causally linked to an increase in the risk of dilated cardiomyopathy. Dilated cardiomyopathy may also be caused by long-term use of alcohol. The effects of the anabolic-androgenic steroid hormones and alcohol may be additive or even synergistic.

*Increased Risk of Heart Attack/Stroke*
The anabolic-androgenic steroid hormones may increase platelet aggregation. Also, vasospasm may occur, and the 2 factors combined may cause thrombosis. Thrombosis may also occur with the use of either testosterone or the anabolic-androgenic steroid hormones.

*Transient Testicular Effects*
With administration of the anabolic-androgenic steroid hormones, testosterone synthesis by the testes is reduced. However, no major alterations in the morphology of spermatozoa have been reported.

*Virilization*
If given to women in high enough doses for a long enough period, the anabolic-androgenic steroid hormones cause virilization.

*Gynecomastia*
Fibrocystic masses, usually immediately deep to the nipple, may develop in men and adolescent boys who take anabolic-androgenic steroid hormones. These lesions impart to the male breast an appearance similar to that of Tanner stage 2 or early stage 3 breast development in the adolescent girl. The lesions are painful. They may not resolve with discontinuation of the drug and may have to be removed surgically.

*Premature Closure of the Epiphyses*
In adolescents, there is the probability of premature closure of the epiphyses with prolonged use of high-dose anabolic-androgenic steroid hormones, resulting in a shorter stature than would have been attained if there had not been interference with natural growth.

*Needle Sharing*
In adolescents, needle sharing has been observed in association with the use of injectable anabolic-androgenic steroid hormones.

*Psychological Effects*
A small percentage of users of high-dose anabolic-androgenic steroid hormones appear to exhibit clinically significant psychological signs and symptoms, including highly aggressive behavior ("roid rage"), psychoses, and depression. Equally important, perhaps, is the fact that people who take anabolic-androgenic steroid hormones for an extended period become psychologically dependent on the drugs. Whether this is a result of liking their drug-induced appearance or of an action on the brain is not known.

*Less Relevant Side Effects*
Hyperinsulinemia and altered glucose tolerance have been reported with the use of the oral anabolic-androgenic steroid hormones, but diabetes mellitus does not develop.
Increases in blood pressure have been reported in several studies, but the magnitude of the increases has not been clinically significant.


----------



## MeatheadSam (Dec 24, 2003)

Of specific concern in a young steriod user, say an 18 -21 or younger, the premature closure of the Epiphyses or growth plates will result in being smaller than naturally possible.


----------



## MeatheadSam (Dec 24, 2003)

Don't get me wrong fella's. Pop all the pills you want. Inject until you look like a human pin cushion. It will not affect me in any way. 

I just feel compelled to try and give some sound advice about something I feel is more risky than the general musclehead will admit.

In fact, I would hope the studies are wrong and everything is harmless. This would mean none of my friends here on IM will be at risk if they use them. But I don't beleive they are harmless.

here is another helpful link  http://espn.go.com/special/s/drugsandsports/steroids.html


----------



## Mudge (Dec 24, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by MeatheadSam *_
> From an epidemiologic viewpoint, the anabolic-androgenic steroids do not appear, at this point, to have the same potential for causing death or disability that cigarette smoking, cocaine use, or chronic alcohol abuse has. Nevertheless, anabolic-androgenic steroid hormones have well-recognized side effects.



A woman on Anadrol for 6 years in a row at 300mg a day is not long term? Interesting viewpoint.


----------



## Mudge (Dec 24, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by MeatheadSam *_
> In fact, I would hope the studies are wrong and everything is harmless. This would mean none of my friends here on IM will be at risk if they use them. But I don't beleive they are harmless.



Studies are to be taken with a grain of salt my friend, one study will refute what another claims is fact or observed truth. Science is wrong on a regular basis until someone unbiased comes along or finds better methods for observation or interpretation of data, like the 4 minute mile being impossible.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 25, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> Studies are to be taken with a grain of salt my friend, one study will refute what another claims is fact or observed truth. Science is wrong on a regular basis until someone unbiased comes along or finds better methods for observation or interpretation of data, like the 4 minute mile being impossible.



It's not that science is wrong on a regular basis, it's that the scientific community constantly challenges its  own conclusions on a regular basis.   A feature that is unique to scientific inquiry that is  extraordinary but makes science  in the eyes of the public, so fallacious.   

 Nowhere is this more true than the field of human physiology and biology.  As for finding an unbiased reasearcher, I would probably look at the safety claims of these anabolic supplements being marketed by marketers who have a vested interest in pushing what they sell.  Most medical researchers and medical epidimiologists, as a whole, do not get any subsidies from the conclusions they draw when they study the effects of these supplements.  (many get their funding from the NIH, National Institute of Medicine.) 

My take on the whole thing.... like any other powerful drug, you cannot expect everything for nothing, there is a price to be paid for using a drug that can reap powerful rewards, unfortunately, it cannot be monitered in a controlled seitting like some other prescription drugs.


----------



## Mudge (Dec 25, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by bandaidwoman *_
> My take on the whole thing.... like any other powerful drug, you cannot expect everything for nothing, there is a price to be paid for using a drug that can reap powerful rewards, unfortunately, it cannot be monitered in a controlled seitting like some other prescription drugs.



Blood tests are up to the invidividual user. As for dangers, they primarily come with those who abuse, you aren't going to shrivel up and die from short term use.

If this were a problem the pros would be dropping like flies, and yet the thing that kills them is diuretics.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 25, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> Blood tests are up to the invidividual user. As for dangers, they primarily come with those who abuse, you aren't going to shrivel up and die from short term use.
> 
> If this were a problem the pros would be dropping like flies, and yet the thing that kills them is diuretics.




Let's look at doping in pro bicycling.  It kills, but its still rampant.  The price of winning and fame supersedes any safety concerns.  This is a naive conclusion.  

Also, what is short term usage.   Because there are no formal clinical trials, so deaths are not being reported.   These young guys having heart attacks and strokes at a young age...are they telling their docs they are taking roids?  No.  

We can look at its counterpart, hormone replacement therapy in women in the famous Womens Health Initiative Study.  After only five years, studying hundreds and thousands of women,  the study was stopped in the combined estrogen progesteron arm due to the higher incidence of strokes and heart attacks incurred by the women on Hormone replacement therapy versus those who weren't..  Five years is not a long time, and this is just for hormones being used to replace deficiency, not for over replacement.

Besides, most of the complications such as brain tumors, liver problems, accelerated arthresclerosis, etc. are not immediate complications of anabolic steroid use but complications that can occur years after stopping its use.
If you are an athlete making it big here and now, who gives a shit.


----------



## Mudge (Dec 25, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by bandaidwoman *_
> These young guys having heart attacks and strokes at a young age...are they telling their docs they are taking roids? No.



Everyone we know of who has died in the community, has died from painkiller addiction, or a mixture (cocktails) of recreational drugs, or insulin.

I am not making excuses for profesional athletes, they are on completely another level of use and abuse than someone like myself, there is NO comparison at all. I wont touch diuretics, and there are many other compounds that I refuse to touch at all - even if it wont kill me, things that are attributed to drying out the joints or degenerating connective tissue I have zero interest in using. Insulin I likewise have no need for using, hGH no use and expensive, the list is a mile and a half long of things I wont mess with, how many years in a row I will never use things, etc


----------



## Mudge (Dec 25, 2003)

Side effects
http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18638

Your heart
http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23901

Understanding liver values
http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23142

Death by statistics - nothing on steroids! Amazing isn't it
http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23005

The darker side
http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22779

The fallacy of roid rage
http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21536

American drug companies overpricing thier goods
http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20800

Recovery after calling it quits
http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21053

See also
http://www.liverdoctor.com/

"The lack of scientific data has not deterred so-called medical experts, the media, and others from making unsupported and unsubstantiated claims about the damage and dangers of all anabolic steroid use." -Dr. R Scruggs


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 25, 2003)

You confuse  the media with scientific experts.  

True medical clincians will tell you there is no data that exxonerates or completely implicate the anabolic steroids  in doing what they do.  The best way to do that is to conduct a randomized , double blinded placebo controlled clinical trial, much like whats been done with estrogen hormones. None have been done to determine the long term effectsof anabolic steroids.  So both parties can argue till they are blue, but to ignore the potential for harm is sticking your head in the sand.

As for the studies above* they are laughable*.  I will dissect the one regarding the heart.  I never trust anyone to interpret scientific data for me, that's why the media always screws up.


Regarding the study done at Prince Alfred Hospital in Australia.  First of all, how long was their follow up in terms of coming to their conclusions that there were no significant changes in arterial structure or cardiac abnormalities.?   Did they do cardiac catherizations, echocardiograms serially for just 6 months, 12 months, five years or up to ten years?   (Remmber, if we suspect long term side effects this is important.)  For instance, if you conducted a study on cholesterol drugs and followed people out for only six months you can conclude they confer absolutely no benefit  (they don't show benefit until usually after 6 months).  In addition, what was their study size, 12 people, 100 or thousands.  There may be an error in clinical research called sample size error.

Then there is the crap about the MRFIT study.  

The opposite holds true for women.  As we age, our HDL decrease and LDL increase in direct correlation  with our decrease in production of our endogenous estrogen.      However, when we artificially replace it  (as shown in the well designed Women's Health Initiative invovling hundreds and thousands of women and in a randomized,. double blinded, placebo controlled manner so doctors and patients were not biased) ,  the opposite occured.  Contrary to medical opiniion, hormone replacement increased the heart attack and stroke risk.  There needs to be a similar Men's Health Initiative trial to determine if exogenous testosterone replacement will protect against heart disease.  

In addition, Another study only studied 22 men for only a year and measured their cholesterol after testosterone enanthate supplementation.    How this translated to lowering cardiac risk is ludicrous.   It lowered LDL and did not change HDL but now with knowledge of subfractions of LDL and HDL (DO google on VAP) how do we know the subfractions were not shifted in a more unfavorable manner?


I can keep going.  The next study looked at twelve body builders  (University Of North Texas) etc. etc 

The sample sizes were small, they only followed them for a year.  They only looked at cholesterol numbers.  All it says that testosterone may affect cholesterol numbers in a favorable manner, wether that correlates with clincical protection (once again depending on the subfractions of HDL either HDL1 or HDL2, LDLA, LDLB etc.) is a whole different ball game.


----------



## MeatheadSam (Dec 25, 2003)

I will just excuse myself from this debate and hire bandaidwoman to keep at it for me.

But my main concern was to convey a need to be very careful and get medical consultation. And of course not to overdose any substance. 

Naturally if one has decided to use a substance then nothing will stop them. They have already decided the risks mean nothing. Any argument of the risks results in a state of denial of those risks based on poorly done studies designed to promote the use of the substance.

Also, just a hypothetical situation here but lets say drug manufacturer A decides it needs "good" feedback to help its product sales.

It is easy to get. You hire a non biased organization such as a university and fund them to do research which will benefit the education program. You define the limits of the study within boudaries which will almost assuredly produce an end result which will not be negative, ie, short term study or too few participants. Shazam! You will have a peice of "good" press to make the product seem benign to an uninformed victim.


----------



## Mudge (Dec 25, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by bandaidwoman *_
> None have been done to determine the long term effectsof anabolic steroids. So both parties can argue till they are blue, but to ignore the potential for harm is sticking your head in the sand.



I have already mentioned the woman who was on anadrol for 6 years straight using 3-6 times more than most bodybuilders have used. I have also already posted other data on anadrol:

http://medibolics.com/german2.htm



> A new study shows that one of the most powerful oral anabolic steroids improves lean muscle mass with no significant side-effects in HIV-positive men and women. (1) Oxymetholone, formerly sold in the US as Anadrol-50, was given for thirty weeks at a 150 mg/daily dose.
> 
> ................
> 
> While oxymetholone is considered to be a harsh steroid with a high potential for side-effects, the subjects were reported to have no significant problems with liver function, water retention, virilization, and several side-effects thought to be associated with its use, at a dose that is three times what many bodybuilders would use, for considerably longer than they would generally use it.



Now as for the woman, who had a pre-existing liver issue, these wonderfully stupid doctors discovered after this treatment that she had lesions all over the body of the liver after this. Most people use 50-100mg a day for 4-6 weeks, not years, and not 300mg. There are very large people who probably weighed an easy 2-2.5x what this woman did, who use 300mg a day for a couple months at a time.


----------



## oaktownboy (Dec 25, 2003)

u know why this thread is comical...? we got a member arguing the studies don't mean crap, and she probably doesn't take anything yet she is arguing against bb who actually do and know the results and the overblown "roid rage" and shit like that////


----------



## MeatheadSam (Dec 25, 2003)

or she is just too smart to use something that couild cause her harm...


Shoot up everyone, the juice is on me tonight!

It is no wonder there is huge debate as to whether body bulding is actually a sport or even has merit as an athletic activity.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 25, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> I have already mentioned the woman who was on anadrol for 6 years straight using 3-6 times more than most bodybuilders have used. I have also already posted other data on anadrol:
> 
> http://medibolics.com/german2.htm
> ...




They studied one woman, HIV positive  for thirty weeks. No long term studies will be ongoing for her if she already has AIDS cachexia.   Yeah, in my books that makes for great long term study. 

  The cholesterol drugs that can cause liver damage must be used  on 1-2  years before they were found to cause liver problems in people in large, large trials.  

I don't need to try cocaine or meth to know the effects it has.  Just because I don't use it, doesn't mean shit.  I tear apart the measly handful of bogus studies to show that in clinical medicine, the answer is not that simple and nobody on this forum can claim droids do more benefit than harm since there is absolutely no data either way.


----------



## prolangtum (Dec 25, 2003)

No one is saying they are side effect free, but the sides like liver hepatoxicity and roid rage are overblown.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 25, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by prolangtum *_
> No one is saying they are side effect free, but the sides like liver hepatoxicity and roid rage are overblown.



Not overblown, but over simplified.  

You are right about the roid rages.   Even the psychiatrists concede that there usually is an underlying personality disorder that predisposes someone to the psychiaric complications of steroids.   Unfortunately, no doctor is screening them for these disorders before placing them on steroids.  Much the same way a person with manic depressive disorder cannnot be put on certain antidepressants willy nilly since they can flip into mania.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/408595_5



> Several reports of mental status changes associated with AASs have been published. These include acute paranoia,[32] delirium,[33] mania or hypomania,[34,35] and homicidal rage.[36,37] Studies comparing AAS users to nonusing weight lifter controls have found significantly more episodes of depression, anxiety, hostility, paranoia, and aggression in users of AAS.[38, 39] One study comparing AAS users on vs off AASs reported a higher rate of aggressive feelings, verbal aggression, and aggression toward objects, but not physical aggression toward people, while on the agents. AAS users have also been observed to have a significantly greater rate of personality psychopathology compared with community controls.[40,41] As none of these studies are randomized, causality is difficult to establish in the association of AASs and psychiatric changes, including aggression and hypomania.
> *At least 5 studies have administered supraphysiologic doses of testosterone in a placebo-controlled design to psychiatrically "normal" subjects.[42-46] Overall, these studies indicate that the majority of normal individuals will not experience psychiatric changes with testosterone doses up to 500-600 mg/week. However, this response is not uniform and individual patients will experience marked affective changes, particularly as the dose increases beyond 500 mg/week. Furthermore, the majority of real-world AAS abusers will use doses greater than the equivalent of 500 mg of testosterone. Patients with underlying psychopathology (eg, antisocial personality disorder) or a general predisposition toward anger are probably more likely to experience an increase in angry or aggressive behavior. This relationship is important because these individuals are probably more likely to use anabolic steroids illicitly, compared with "healthy, psychologically normal men." *
> 
> The potential for addiction to the AASs has been investigated. In interviews with 49 AAS users, at least 1 DSM-III-R symptom of dependence was reported by 94% of the sample, while 3 or more symptoms were reported by 57% of the sample.[47] The authors concluded that AASs were addictive and suggested that dissatisfaction with body size and increases in size and strength obtained with AASs may lead to patterns of dependent use.




As for liver problems being overblown.... that is still to be proven either way, once again,  no good data to show its effects are that much safer or more dangerous than we think.

By the way, peliosis hepatitis, a liver condition of blood filled cysts that can rupture and cause internal hemmorage is almost exclusively associated with oral steroid use and maybe one or two chemotherapy agents.  Thus, though not a common condition, it is a devastating condition that can be easily prevented by avoiding the most common precipitating agent.


----------



## Mudge (Dec 25, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by bandaidwoman *_
> As for liver problems being overblown.... that is still to be proven either way, once again, no good data to show its effects are that much safer or more dangerous than we think.



We know that the liver bounces back, and we have had people taking 300mg anadrol and 100mg dbol together daily, and tested within normal a month after cessation.

I can point to two people who have taken blood tests after "crazy" oral stacks like this, along with of course injectables.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 25, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> We know that the liver bounces back, and we have had people taking 300mg anadrol and 100mg dbol together daily, and tested within normal a month after cessation.
> 
> I can point to two people who have taken blood tests after "crazy" oral stacks like this, along with of course injectables.




Transient hepatic toxicity is not what concerns me.  You are right about the liver being a relatively hardy organ.  The most dangerous drug on the liver isn't steroids, it's tylenol.  Ask any tranplant surgeon what's the top two reason why he transplants a liver and it is chronic active hepatis C and tylenol...not steroids.    However, I would not place too much trust in normal liver enzymes since people with cirrosis can also have stone cold normal liver enzymes (this includes ALT,AST,GGT,ALKphos, LDH etc.)  My main concern, besides the rare but devastating peliosis hepatitis, is the development of hepatocellular carcinoma.  The latter is what concerns most of the medical epidemiologists.


----------



## Mudge (Dec 25, 2003)

Most of us take it to be true that a 17aa is hepatoxic in terms of its mg dose, 50mg of one thing being as bad as 50mg of another - do you agree with this?

The Tylenol thing is almost funny, being OTC, BBs somewhat fear it as well. I just use asparin myself, although it is an NSAID I believe.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 25, 2003)

By the way, found a great long term study that looked at power lifters and followed them for 12 years and found almost five  fold increase in deaths vs. general population.



> Increased Premature Mortality of Competitive Powerlifters Suspected to Have Used Anabolic Agents
> Parssinen M, Kujala U, Vartiainen E, et al
> Int J Sports Med. 2000;21(3):225-227
> Misuse of supraphysiological doses of anabolic steroids is claimed to have serious side effects. The aim of the study was to determine the mortality, and the cause of premature deaths among a group of subjects who are strongly suspected to have used anabolic steroids for a non-medical purpose over several years. The mortality of 62 male powerlifters placed 1st-5th in weight series 82.5-125 kg in Finnish championships during 1977-1982 was compared with the mortality of population controls.* The mortality during the 12-year follow-up was 12.9% for the powerlifters compared to 3.1% in the control population*By 1993 eight of 62 powerlifters and 34 of 1094 population controls had died, thus*e risk of death among the powerlifters was 4.6 times higher (95% CI 2.04-10.45; p = 0.0002).* causes of premature death among the powerlifters were *cide (3), acute myocardial infarction (3), hepatic coma (1) and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (1)*ese findings add to the growing amount of evidence of an association between anabolic steroid abuse and premature death, and support the view that measures to decrease AAS misuse among both competitive and amateur athletes are justified.



Let's see, higher rates of death due to psychiatric disease, complications of liver failure, heart attack and a type of cancer...hmmm, looks like the school against steroid use have a reason to be concerned.

As for your  question, mudge, I don't know.  Will have to look into it since it isn't general knowledge for me.


----------



## Mudge (Dec 25, 2003)

It seems that they get asked to stop due to blood pressure, Grizzly was one such person, once in The Guinness Book of Worlds Records for the worlds largest (muscular) arms.


----------



## oaktownboy (Dec 25, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by bandaidwoman *_
> By the way, found a great long term study that looked at power lifters and followed them for 12 years and found almost five  fold increase in deaths vs. general population.
> 
> 
> ...


it might have benn nice to see what drugs, if any, they were taking and at what amounts...some powerlifters are perfectly healthy..people shouldn't draw stereotypes


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 25, 2003)

replying to the 17 alpha alkylated steroid...I'm not sure what your question is asking so I may be mistaken.  I interpreted it as...... in general the 17 alpha alkylated steroids are more dangerous since they are more orally bioavailable since they survive the first pass effect in the liver (degredation) so are therefore more toxic on the liver, ......but are they equally toxic?  

I don't think so because I don't think we have any head to head comparisons.  I may be interpreting you very  literally, so forgive me.  
It's like comparing naproxen to ibuprophen, both are  NSAIDS, both have equal propensity for causing ulcers but head to head trials show naproxen by far and away blows ibuprophen away in terms of inducing duodenal and gastric ulcers.


----------



## Mudge (Dec 25, 2003)

I was beginning to assume you were a doctor of some kind, the question was related to the toxicity of an oral steroid being independant of the substance itself, but rather dependant on total mg of the 17aa in question.

Example being, 50mg of dianabol being as 'bad' as 50mg of anadrol, not anadrol being worse.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 25, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by oaktownboy *_
> it might have benn nice to see what drugs, if any, they were taking and at what amounts...some powerlifters are perfectly healthy..people shouldn't draw stereotypes




I think the key was they only chose those who placed in the top 5.   It would be naive to think they were not using roids at this level of competative achievement and attainment.   They probably did use more than their "non winning"  peers and thus predisposed themselves to an early demise compared to their less accomplished powerlifters. 

 These researchers were not stereotyping, they did a very good epidemiologic  follow through on their study population.  It is not to say that it wasn't some other environmental factor that contributed to their early demise but it only brings once more to the foreground data that cannot be ignored or dismissed about the one common  lifestyle link that these powerlifters had...steroids.  It is something to think about and it provides further proof that more needs to be looked into.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 25, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> I was beginning to assume you were a doctor of some kind, the question was related to the toxicity of an oral steroid being independant of the substance itself, but rather dependant on total mg of the 17aa in question.
> 
> Example being, 50mg of dianabol being as 'bad' as 50mg of anadrol, not anadrol being worse.




Since I used to be an organic chemist let me answer it from that perspective.



Although  both have the 17 alpha alkyl side chain, their base cholesterol ring (remember all  steroids basic chemical ring structure is chemically derived from the cholesterol ring)  are different.  In fact, looking at anadrol's base cholesterol ring, it has a more progesterone looking ring than dianabol.  This may not mean anything clinically, it may mean everything.  Does it mean anything in terms of the liver?  I believe so since different types of progesterones (over 12  available in different birth control pills) have slightly different liver metabolisms and toxicities,  so a 50 mg anadrol may be worse on the liver than dianabol.  Don't know since there are no data in terms of head to head data pitted against each other.  It's hard to predict what a compound is going to do in the human body just based on chemical analysis.

Thus, the answer is, 100 mg of either anadrol or dianabol is worse on the liver than 50 mg of each but 100mg of anadrol may be worse on the liver than the equivalent dose of dianabol but I can't prove it.


----------



## Power Rabbit (Dec 25, 2003)

Look bandaid..I dont like sounding like an ass, but out of sheer morbid curiosity I would like to know why you have all these studies etc to throw at Mudge?? Mudge has his info because he is smart about what he is doing. You clearly dont use gear(unless your the worlds biggest hippocrit). And Ochemist or not, thats alot of research. It almost seems like you came to pick a fight...

It comes to this.....People who sit down and decide they are gonna use gear, are gonna use gear....The smarter people that make this decision, decide to know everything they can about juiceing.

Remembering this, recall that this thread started with a guy tryin to figure out if some "chemical help" was right for him. At least meathead gave a decent enough arguement addressing this when he casted his vote against it. Your arguements are mostly not answering the question. They are typical warnings of health. Anyone knows that a drug of any form is going to hurt them in some way, whether its caffine or cocaine. Your beating a dead horse. Believe me the decision to use gear goes way beyond health risks.

Just hope that if he, or anyone, decides to use any thing that they are the smart type of people that researchs how to do it as right as possible.

Lastly your arguements are starting to get alittle nitpicky. Whether one thing hurts my liver %15 more than something else really dosent mean all that much. Since your a chemist, I would get soo much more out of your posts if you gave applicable tips on keeping liver damage to a minimum. Its nice to have a smart scientist like you on the board, just dont use the smarts to carry  on a crusade.(I really do think your intelligent in your arguments., just not appropriate in them.)


----------



## MeatheadSam (Dec 25, 2003)

Power rabbit, I wholeheartedly agree with being informed if you are gonna use gear. That is one of my primary points. Know what the heck you are doing and by all means if you research and find out a substance is potentially dangerous then stay away from it.

I feel we are in this for our health and not to undermine such.

Bandaid does not seem to be picking a fight to me but just responding to others challenges and doing a good job in my opinion. But I'm just an uneducated meathead who happens to just be afraid of roids.


----------



## Power Rabbit (Dec 25, 2003)

Heh you and me both...I definately aint a smart guy  Hell. This forum is some major tech for me 

I really am glad we got smarter people around to help us out. 

Just think. If there werent dumber people in the world like you and me, smart people would have no one to help.


----------



## Mudge (Dec 25, 2003)

She is obviously pretty schooled in the stuff and I agree is not picking a fight, its just discussion.

As for liver damage, cycling is definitely important, instead of putting a strain on the liver year round. People still debate if there is any use in running any of the liver protectants while cycling 17aas.


----------



## MeatheadSam (Dec 25, 2003)

Oh and by the by, I hope everyone had a great Christmas and will have a safe and happy new year.

Not a word about the dangers of fruitcake either


----------



## JerseyDevil (Dec 26, 2003)

I learned something important in this thread.  I was not aware of the harshness of acetaminophen on the liver.   As with aspirin, I thought it was the stomach that was the concern.  Three days into a M1-T cycle I developed a head cold. For a couple of days I took some cold medication which contained 325 mg of  acetaminophen.  Whoops.  Won't do that again....


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 26, 2003)

If I came off as picking a fight, I sure didn't mean to.  Just having a discussion about a topic alot of people on this forum feel passionately about and providing some op ed pieces. 


In addition, I am also always good for a lively debate.  

And I learned alot from Mudge and MeatheadSam. 


 I've dated alot of body builders and is married to one (also a mountain biker) so this stuff about using gear is not too far off from being personal.  (He doesn't use it by the way) although the others I dated did and they made their own intelligent choices and I did not dissuade them from using it.  

By the way, the liver toxicity of acetaminophen depends on wether other medicines and alcohol are being used.  General rule is no more than 4000mg  a day (that's 2 extra strenght tylenols four times a day) or 2000 mg a day if you are a drinker or take other liver stressing drugs.


----------



## JerseyDevil (Dec 26, 2003)

> By the way, the liver toxicity of acetaminophen depends on wether other medicines and alcohol are being used.  General rule is no more than 4000mg  a day (that's 2 extra strenght tylenols four times a day) or 2000 mg a day if you are a drinker or take other liver stressing drugs.



Thanks bandaidwoman.  I took 4 caplets one day, and 2 caplets the next.  So that was 1300 mg and 650 mg respectively, without alcohol but with 20 mg of M1-t, a 17 alpha alkylated substance. So I should live to tell the tale?  In hindsight, pretty ill responible of me... It clearly states the possibility of liver damage right on the package. 

BTW, I thoroughly enjoyed reading thru this debate and I think everyone involved learned something.  Let me be the first to say welcome to IM!


----------



## Mudge (Dec 26, 2003)

You were perfect until you said _is married to one_ 

am am am


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Dec 26, 2003)

the joke being ( among engineers ) that " it used it to be that I couldn't even spell enginnneerre but now i is one."..  prally wat she wuz doin'


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 26, 2003)

oops, got me there, that's why I wasn't an english major.


----------



## Power Rabbit (Dec 26, 2003)

Cool.   I guess I did misenterpret your intensions abit.....
that aside...got any thoughts on how to make methal 1,4 andro??


----------



## Mudge (Dec 29, 2003)

From Dr. "SWALE"



> One of my beloved trainers lectured a couple of years ago about a study which showed that for a doctor to keep current on new scientific studies, he/she would find themselves 50 years behind after only twelve months. And that most of what ate up all that time would later prove to be of no clinical significance. This is because most of what passes for the scientific method, isn't. It is far too common to see leaps in logic to unwarranted conclusions, studies done on females applied innappropriately to males, in vitro experiments which later cannot be repeated in vivo, etc.



This is why alot of these so called "studies" are refuted by another in the same time period or to come later, take them all with a grain of salt.


----------



## oaktownboy (Dec 29, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> From Dr. "SWALE"
> 
> 
> ...


 exactly


----------



## Mudge (Dec 29, 2003)

FWIW he is also highly against abnormally high estrogen levels, for more important reasons than man-boobs.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 29, 2003)

Not that studies refute each other but the answer provided may be due the way the question is phrased.   *People, media,etc. make grand sweeping statements about something when really, the study was done to address a very specific question, using very specific control variables.*

I will use one of the studied again.  The MRFIT study only shows that men's cholesterol numbers worsen with natural aging decrease in testosterone level.  The reviewer, non md or phd, decided it meant that artificially replacing it would decrease their chances of having heart problems and better cholesterol numbers.   This was a fallacious assumption because when we artificially replaced aging women with outside hormones, the opposite occurs  (the same pattern of worsening cholesterol happens with decreasing estrogen levels).  Doctors and clinicians don't make such a quantum leap in such conclusions.  However, they are probably more qualified to analyze the data and know which controls, variables, and other mitigating factors may be affecting the outcome and conclusion of the study.  Thus, what seems like conflicting studies to an outsider, is just different study population (maybe true  for men but not women say), different control variables (what type of hormone replacement...transdermal vs. oraletc.), time period of the studyetc.


----------



## Mudge (Dec 29, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by bandaidwoman *_
> The MRFIT study only shows that men's cholesterol numbers worsen with natural aging decrease in testosterone level. The reviewer, non md or phd, decided it meant that artificially replacing it would decrease their chances of having heart problems and better cholesterol numbers. This was a fallacious assumption because when we artificially replaced aging women with outside hormones, the opposite occurs (the same pattern of worsening cholesterol happens with decreasing estrogen levels).



He touched several times on the fact that men and women are different, and he would never ever touch HRT issues with women because he does not know enough.

On the outset the cholesterol issue for men does look simple, testosterone aromitizes and becomes estrogen which helps control our HDL/LDL ratio. Of course beyond that simple outset what really happens, I have no idea - I'm not a doctor and I'm not working with HRT patients.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 29, 2003)

Ill show you what I mean:



> The authors concluded that decreases in Testosterone levels as observed in men over time are associated with unfavorable heart disease risk. (2) Sounds to me like a good reason to get T support/replacement therapy in the middle age years!



How do we know that other factors of aging did not contribute?  Growth hormone levels, age itself,etc.The older you get, the more likely you are to have heart disease anyway.  A good control group may have been young men who had early castration due to testicular cancer.   This was an observational study, not intervential.  see below.  



> In a similar study, researchers in Poland examined if Testosterone replacement therapy in aging men positively effected heart disease risk factors. Twenty-two men with low T levels received 200 mg of Testosterone enanthate every other *week for one year*. Throughout treatment, Testosterone, estradiol, total cholesterol, HDL and LDL were measured.
> 
> The researchers determined that T replacement returned both Testosterone and estradiol levels back to normal and acceptable levels. They also found that T replacement lowered cholesterol and LDL (the bad cholesterol) without altering HDL (the good cholesterol). Furthermore, there was no change in prostate function or size.
> 
> The take home message from this study is that T replacement doesn't appear to raise heart disease risk and it may actually lower your risk.



I could replace the above with, estrogen replacement lowers LDL and raises HDl .....but  E replacement does not substantially lower your risk of heart disease as shown by the WHI (Women's health initiative)!

* Just because the hormones lowers the numbers, we cannot extrapolate to clinical protection. *  The reviewers are making the same mistake the medical community did with estrogen replacement.   * For years, it was thought estrogen would protect one from heart disease due to its good effects on the cholesterol, but it didn't!*  This showed up after 5 years (so the above which was carried out only 1 year may not have been carried out long enough to see the negative effects after prolonged replacement.)

i know this may seem nit picky, but these are drastic conclusions for any reasearch scientist or physician to draw.  The only conclusion is that after one year of T replacement, the cholesterol numbers show a beneficial effect.  

The other is, as men age, cholesterol numbers worsen with lower testosterone level.   Is this a causal association or serendipity?  We  don't know until placebo controlled, randomized, prospective trials are done.  

Once again, very specific conclusions based on very specific study conditions.  No generlaizations can be made.  When the media does this, and another study "refutes" it, it's probably because the same experiment was done with different study variables.


----------



## Mudge (Dec 29, 2003)

Ahh, now I see what you are saying, and I agree. It is a little absent minded to think that life is always so simple.


----------



## maddog1 (Dec 29, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> I was beginning to assume you were a doctor of some kind, the question was related to the toxicity of an oral steroid being



See Mudge you can figure these people out quite easily. As for me, I had to work a bit harder, took her photo, used some facial recognition software, cross-linked it with some DB's and ....whoala she is a Doc down in Atlanta at a certain medical school (Associate Prof.). Grew up in Malaysia, spent time at a Navajo reservation, name address, etc. 
Isn't information a beautiful thing. 
If she were actually smart, I think she would protect her privacy much better than that.  
And now she comes on a gear forum and tries to educate the masses of the unenlightened.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 29, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by maddog1 *_
> See Mudge you can figure these people out quite easily. As for me, I had to work a bit harder, took her photo, used some facial recognition software, cross-linked it with some DB's and ....whoala she is a Doc down in Atlanta at a certain medical school (Associate Prof.). Grew up in Malaysia, spent time at a Navajo reservation, name address, etc.
> Isn't information a beautiful thing.
> If she were actually smart, I think she would protect her privacy much better than that.
> And now she comes on a gear forum and tries to educate the masses of the unenlightened.




Are you sure you didn't find plouffe's mom?


----------



## maddog1 (Dec 29, 2003)

not unless plouffe is a two year old girl.


----------



## maddog1 (Dec 29, 2003)

Oh, and private information is to remain that way of course.


----------



## Arnold (Dec 29, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by oaktownboy *_
> u know why this thread is comical...? we got a member arguing the studies don't mean crap, and she probably doesn't take anything yet she is arguing against bb who actually do and know the results and the overblown "roid rage" and shit like that////



that is not what I am reading.


----------



## Power Rabbit (Dec 29, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by bandaidwoman *_
> Ill show you what I mean:
> 
> 
> ...



Heh. Ill do my damedest to have all bases covered...when I hit 40 Ill do year round Test, GH, Beta antagonists, and some slin for good measure  

That way its jacked or bust


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 29, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Power Rabbit *_
> Heh. Ill do my damedest to have all bases covered...when I hit 40 Ill do year round Test, GH, Beta antagonists, and some slin for good measure
> 
> That way its jacked or bust




 

Let's hope your HMO let's you!


----------



## Mudge (Dec 29, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by maddog1 *_
> See Mudge you can figure these people out quite easily.



My mistake, I thought she said she was an organic chemist 

Anyhow, I dont think anyone is arguing here. I will say up front that I really dont know all that much and she is schooled where I am just a casual geek/reader. If you really want to understand something, you must be immersed in it. Only reading in your spare time may teach you much and you can surpass the schooled person at times but overall you will miss things that they have often not.

Example would be the computer security industry, which spawned mostly from nerds doing things in thier spare time (which pretty much means every waking hour behind a computer).

Like Swale pointed out to BIG CAT who is a geek, he simply can't understand fully most of the things that these Doctors know full well because they have spent roughly 10 years in school and another 20-30 in practice, where he is young and again only basically a geek.

Daniel Duchaine another example, smart guy, but we know (now) that he wasn't right about everything.

Still all said, look at the experts who are always disagreeing with each other.

Wether we disagree or not, I think its great that she is here.


----------



## MeatheadSam (Dec 30, 2003)

> One of my beloved trainers lectured a couple of years ago about a study which showed that for a doctor to keep current on new scientific studies, he/she would find themselves 50 years behind after only twelve months.



UMM, how does one fall 50 years behind in 1 year? This is the stupidest off the wall comment I think I have ever read.

An ignorant moron can see this as an impossiblity based on the fact that in 12 months how will a discipline progress 50 years into the future.


----------



## MeatheadSam (Dec 30, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by maddog1 *_
> See Mudge you can figure these people out quite easily. As for me, I had to work a bit harder, took her photo, used some facial recognition software, cross-linked it with some DB's and ....whoala she is a Doc down in Atlanta at a certain medical school (Associate Prof.). Grew up in Malaysia, spent time at a Navajo reservation, name address, etc.




How long was she at the Navajo reservation? Was she doing volunteer medical work? 

We (my wife and I) help out a Navajo school for kids with donations so I am just curious what she did there since you have done the research. Perhaps some of our contacts there know her.


----------



## Mudge (Dec 30, 2003)

How about you ask her instead of putting further details all over the boards unless she so chooses, we know enough already to be entertained.


----------



## oaktownboy (Dec 30, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Prince *_
> that is not what I am reading.


yah it was a stupid comment at the time, before i realized she was a former chemist and really knew everything i know now


----------



## oaktownboy (Dec 30, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by maddog1 *_
> See Mudge you can figure these people out quite easily. As for me, I had to work a bit harder, took her photo, used some facial recognition software, cross-linked it with some DB's and ....whoala she is a Doc down in Atlanta at a certain medical school (Associate Prof.). Grew up in Malaysia, spent time at a Navajo reservation, name address, etc.
> Isn't information a beautiful thing.
> If she were actually smart, I think she would protect her privacy much better than that.
> And now she comes on a gear forum and tries to educate the masses of the unenlightened.


dawg that is far past wrong..why did u go digging up personal info?


----------



## Mudge (Dec 30, 2003)

Apparently it was a joke of his.


----------



## maddog1 (Dec 31, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by oaktownboy *_
> dawg that is far past wrong..why did u go digging up personal info?


I agree that privacy is a crucial aspect on this board.
What is wrong is to disseminate personal identifying info, which I will not do.
A person posed the thought that this person was a Doc, since she seemed quite informed, but she would not affirm it.  And since she was offering opinions of clinical studies and their interpretation-to people she has never personally consulted with about their possible use of AS, it is pertinent to know if this person is a Doc or not.  I know that there are Docs on other sites and they identify themselves as such and they also have a sort of disclaimer saying that any type of correspondence does not imply or establish a doctor-patient relationship.  Instead of a disclaimer in her sig, it does read "eat mud until you die" or something like that.  I don't think that was part of the Hippocraticcal (sic?) oath that Docs take.

I do not know what the legal ramifications for this lady would be if say an HRT patient read her posts and formulated an opinion that wound up having detrimental effects on their health.  This may be a reason why she was trying to conceal the fact.

Also, if someone wants to use their face as an avatar and think they will have privacy because it is "a big world out there", they are quite misinformed or kidding themselves.
Regarding digging up, it really isn't since alot of info exists in legally accessible public databases.  This was the first time that I used facial recognition technology and used it as a bit of an experiment.
The only thing I wanted to confirm was the idea of a Doc or not, since I feel the people and members here should have the right to know that.  I have no interest in this lady, nor did I save any of her info. Since she is a strong willed independent professional, etc., I'm sure she'll take it in stride.

Having said this, I think it is good to have informed people offering educated opinions on matters that can improve the quality of life of all readers.
If the Mods want to erase my post on it, they are welcome to, but it contains no personally identifiable info.  
Peace bro.


----------



## MeatheadSam (Dec 31, 2003)

> I do not know what the legal ramifications for this lady would be if say an HRT patient read her posts and formulated an opinion that wound up having detrimental effects on their health. This may be a reason why she was trying to conceal the fact.



From what I have read on this board there can easily be legal ramifications against cartloads of the people here for their uninhibited support and promotion of drug use for muscle gains. Hell, this site and its owners could be wide open to all sorts of lawsuits if someone here used what is popularly regarded "gear" among the patrons here based on the simple fact it is the vehicle of communication for this bad advice.

Disclaimers are not worth the paper they are written on or the bit data that displays them when the shit hits the fan. It is merely an attempt at convincing people they have no right to pursue legal retribution.

What kills me is a person who will use drugs by choice regardless of the advice or deterance given and then try to take some legal action. In the end it is always a personal choice. But everything always seems to be someone elses fault. Find a sympathetic jury and anything goes.


----------



## Mudge (Dec 31, 2003)

Well, lets all hope that people take thier own health into consideration and dont blindly follow advice. Like the guy who stuck a drill up his nose to get rid of an itch, if it drills through wood at 5,000 RPM without trouble you would think he would have the common sense not to do this, but since there was no warning label mentioning such somehow this person thought it was "OK." Now how anyone not on PCP would think this would be OK is beyond me, but the point is we cant all be warned of this that and the other while being held by the hand, eventually you have to learn to digest what you read and hear crapping out the worthless parts.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Dec 31, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by maddog1 *_
> I agree that privacy is a crucial aspect on this board.
> What is wrong is to disseminate personal identifying info, which I will not do.
> A person posed the thought that this person was a Doc, since she seemed quite informed, but she would not affirm it.  And since she was offering opinions of clinical studies and their interpretation-to people she has never personally consulted with about their possible use of AS, it is pertinent to know if this person is a Doc or not.  I know that there are Docs on other sites and they identify themselves as such and they also have a sort of disclaimer saying that any type of correspondence does not imply or establish a doctor-patient relationship.  Instead of a disclaimer in her sig, it does read "eat mud until you die" or something like that.  I don't think that was part of the Hippocraticcal (sic?) oath that Docs take.
> ...



No one asked me directly if i was a doc.  I don't have any privacy issues, or else I would not have put my face on this forum or the others you were able to access the information from (the political and bike forums and physics forums)    If noone asks, i don't bother telling.  My posts cannot be construed as harmful when I have posted critical analysis and critique on studies rather than accepting things at face value.  I personally don't like throwing around my resume.  I don't bother asking if one is a personal trainer or nutritionist in order to validate their thoughts on nutritional or training information.  Regarding the  recent threads debating biblical interpretation , I did not ask if anyone was a theologan or rabbinic scholar in order for me to respect what they have to offer to the discussion.    

As long as a doctor does not treat a patient over the internet, we cannot be sued.  Doctors can suggest possible diagnosis, reccomend non prescription drugs, critique studies and disseminate information on particular clinical questions...kind of what the TV docs do.  


So yeah, I am a doc.  Here are some links so noone thinks I'm blowing air out my asshole.  But I was a chemist for a long time, also New York City paramedic, and so many other things.  I am now a clinical professor of medicine and in private practice at an affiliate hospital.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=christy+blanchford&ei=UTF-8&fr=fp-tab-web-t&cop=mss&tab=


http://www.mcg.edu/som/clerkships/Medicine/AHEC/3Rivers/covington1.htm

http://www.drblanchford.yourmd.com/


http://www.heartmdphd.com/best_md.asp


http://www.ngh.org/PressReleases/Internal Medicine.htm


Christy Blanchford


----------



## Twin Peak (Dec 31, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by MeatheadSam *_
> From what I have read on this board there can easily be legal ramifications against cartloads of the people here for their uninhibited support and promotion of drug use for muscle gains. Hell, this site and its owners could be wide open to all sorts of lawsuits if someone here used what is popularly regarded "gear" among the patrons here based on the simple fact it is the vehicle of communication for this bad advice.



Really Meathead?  And what would the causes of action be?  I can think of no legally cognizable cause of action for this, so I'd like to hear how this is possible.


----------



## Mudge (Dec 31, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by bandaidwoman *_
> Eat more mud, mountain bike until you die!



Now, I'm aware of clay containing minerals but is this really sage advice Doctor?


----------



## Mudge (Dec 31, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by MeatheadSam *_
> From what I have read on this board there can easily be legal ramifications against cartloads of the people here for their uninhibited support and promotion of drug use for muscle gains.



I can't recall seeing anyone, who is still a member, suggesting that anyone take or use illegal items. If you think about it better, I dont think you meant what you said.

Robbing a bank, or using drugs without a prescription is an individuals choice, nobody elses. Even if I were to encourage such things to people, or anyone else for that matter, am I somehow responsible?


----------



## maddog1 (Dec 31, 2003)

Thanks for being forthright Dr. B, although it was entirely unnecessary to post the links, trust me, we believe you.  It's obvious you were not some joker sitting in the basement of a public library typing away with some issues of J. of Biochem. sitting in front of you.


----------



## MeatheadSam (Dec 31, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> Really Meathead?  And what would the causes of action be?  I can think of no legally cognizable cause of action for this, so I'd like to hear how this is possible.



Twin peak, you are from NY. One of the most lawsuit happy places on the planet. I think you ca agree that some lawyer can dream up some reasons to go before the court and argue practically anything and with the right jury will win.

Silly nonsense lawsuits are a regular occurance and they would not be if people were not winning something from the deal. Lawyers do not work for free.

It can happen whether there is solid evidence or not.


----------



## MeatheadSam (Dec 31, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> Even if I were to encourage such things to people, or anyone else for that matter, am I somehow responsible?




Not the point. No you are not responsible. But do you trust the system to be flawless and find you harmless if such a case were to come up even in a stretch? I don't.


----------



## BigTex (Dec 31, 2003)

Best post by far.....bandaidwoman you're gooooooooooooood!


----------



## Mudge (Dec 31, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by MeatheadSam *_
> Twin peak, you are from NY. One of the most lawsuit happy places on the planet. I think you ca agree that some lawyer can dream up some reasons to go before the court and argue practically anything and with the right jury will win.



You asked the right man on that one.



> _*Originally posted by MeatheadSam *_
> Not the point. No you are not responsible. But do you trust the system to be flawless and find you harmless if such a case were to come up even in a stretch? I don't.



People who recently gave advice to a young person who committed suicide were not in any way found responsible. It can bring heat on the _source_ of the information meaning the message board, but information is out there free until someone decides to stop someones freedom of speech.

Or starvation dieters websites, that tell you it is more important to look good than be healthy. That ice cubes do make a meal.

So you are implying that we should not have freedom of speech, and frankly thats bullshit. Why? Because this is not heroin, this is not crack cocaine, this stuff is not going to kill someone instantly and long term health problems are the likely outcome of irresponsible use. Look at all the users of the past who are still around today, obviously it has a much nicer track record than heroin.


----------



## Power Rabbit (Dec 31, 2003)

well crap...political debates aint fun.....so to the change the subject ...   

Doc. B. , are you familiar with progesterone and the best substance for blocking it???

Best meaning cheap as well as effective


----------



## Mudge (Dec 31, 2003)

Bromocriptine is used in progesterone gyno blockage attempts, but the nolvadex argument is always present.


----------



## Power Rabbit (Dec 31, 2003)

Ya ive heard of Bromocriptine. I was hopeing she could think up a better "second gen" one...  like dex vs nolva 
A shot in the dark really


----------



## Mudge (Dec 31, 2003)

Dex and nolva dont do exactly the same things though, bad example


----------



## Power Rabbit (Dec 31, 2003)

bah  ....ill use your favorite then..... clomid vs nolva


----------



## PreMier (Dec 31, 2003)

Arimidex vs Nolvadex


----------



## MeatheadSam (Dec 31, 2003)

> So you are implying that we should not have freedom of speech, and frankly thats bullshit. Why? Because this is not heroin, this is not crack cocaine, this stuff is not going to kill someone instantly and long term health problems are the likely outcome of irresponsible use. Look at all the users of the past who are still around today, obviously it has a much nicer track record than heroin.



Absolutely not, I am a firm beleiver in freedom of speech and all our liberties/freedoms. I am merely trying to say be careful what kind of feedback and advice a person might give. That is all.

And if a boneheaded person can sue McDonalds over spilled hot coffee and win then anything is possible.


----------



## Mudge (Dec 31, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by MeatheadSam *_
> I am merely trying to say be careful what kind of feedback and advice a person might give. That is all.
> 
> And if a boneheaded person can sue McDonalds over spilled hot coffee and win then anything is possible.



I can agree with that, but I dont think I give bad advice. I would much rather someone NOT take anything if they dont care to educate themselves, just as people should know something about a supplement before partaking in its use.

How about the guy who stuck a drill up his nose to remove an itch, those were some gory pictures. Do we really need to put a warning that a 5,000 RPM steel drill bit does NOT go up your nose to remove itches?    Human flesh is NOT steel, and 5k RPM with even a crappy bit will tear through wood just fine. If this person was not on PCP he had no excuse, and if he was he still had no excuse because he is an idiot regardless.

Some people!!!    "If sense were common, everyone would have it."


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jan 1, 2004)

powerrabit...I'm slightly confused.  Many of the things mentioned are more estrogen antagonists or estrogen blockers.  

Tamoxifen (Nolvadex) is actually *both* a estrogen antagonist(antiestrogen)  and a estrogen agonist,(estrogen-like)  .  It is estrogen like on the bones, uterus and cholesterol and anti estrogen on the breast tissue and brain.  As for Arimidex, it is relatively new but   we are now using it in conjuction with Nolvadex in aggresseve breast cancer because it shuts off the one extra source of  estrogen not blocked by Nolvadex....the conversion of androgens to estrogen.  

As for bromocriptine, I was not aware of its property as a anti progesteron, only as a dopamine agonist and it shuts of production of prolactin and growth hormone production in those with acromegaly.  Strangely, it increases, transiently, the production of growth hormone in those without acromegaly. I wonder if some of its benefit in BB may not be this transient increase in growth hormone levels in normal non acromegalic people.    I will look into it.  By the way, what is dex short for?  I have to claim ignorance on that since it means about 20 different things to me.


----------



## prolangtum (Jan 1, 2004)

dex=arimidex

bromo has many sides. Although gyno has never proven to be caused via progesterone, if your worried about gyno from tren or deca, I would opt for dostinex. It is to bromo what aromasin is to arimidex. It is a suicide inhibitor. The side affect profile is much less than that of bromo.


----------



## Mudge (Jan 1, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by bandaidwoman *_
> shuts of production of prolactin



I believe that is why it is used, prolactin levels. As for actual progesterone gyno though you'd have to use a crapload of stuff IMO, so it would only be usefull (if it even works) if trying to suppress such levels.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jan 1, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by prolangtum *_
> dex=arimidex
> 
> bromo has many sides. Although gyno has never proven to be caused via progesterone, if your worried about gyno from tren or deca, I would opt for dostinex. It is to bromo what aromasin is to arimidex. It is a suicide inhibitor. The side affect profile is much less than that of bromo.




Thank you for the clarification, prolangtum.     I see the concerns are with the gynecomastia which are mediated by the cross affinity androgens (testosterone etc.) have for estrogen receptors.   In fact, there is a condition called complete androgen insensitive disorder where men are born (genetically XY) whose testosterone receptors are non existant.  These "men"
 have invaginated testicles and develop externally and socially for all purposes as very attractive females until they reach puberty when they don't menstruate.   In fact, these "women" are stacked since their own testosterone production cross reacts  with the breast estrogen receptor.  There is a famous actress who has this condition.  I see why estrogen receptor antagonists are being used (Nolvadex, arimadex) etc.  Both dostinex and bromo work by inhibiting prolactin secretion, which has effects on milk production in the breast tissue, but I am still not sure of its effect on preventing gynecomastia.


----------



## Mudge (Jan 1, 2004)

Some people claim to emit milky fluid from the nipples on deca/similar substances.


----------



## PreMier (Jan 1, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by bandaidwoman *_
> There is a famous actress who has this condition.



Jamie Lee Curtis? 
 

Thats what someone told me one time


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jan 1, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by PreMier *_
> Jamie Lee Curtis?
> 
> 
> Thats what someone told me one time



Snopes.com, the truthseeker site of urban legends,  can't determine if it's a false rumor or not.

http://www.snopes.com/movies/actors/jamie.htm

So what does that say to you?


----------



## PreMier (Jan 1, 2004)

I thought she was hot!  So I hope not  

So who were YOU referring to?


----------



## Mudge (Jan 1, 2004)

I think its none of our business, but I also think she may have been hinting dude.


----------



## Power Rabbit (Jan 1, 2004)

thanks bandaid.  

..Its just cool to have a more scientific person look at what alot of gear users take forgranted these days ...


----------



## god hand (Sep 15, 2005)

It depends on age.


----------

