Luan Pra bang

Licensing of substances is often more about politics than anything else. Reading the side effects of an Ibuprofin would make you think all sorts of bad things will happen but just the same as an ecstacy tablet, millions are taken every week with no bad effects.

jef

iTrader: (13)

some articles to rubbish for you john

http://www.musculardevelopment.com/a...tonio-phd.html

http://www.musculardevelopment.com/a...-steroids.html

http://www.musculardevelopment.com/a...llewellyn.html

http://www.musculardevelopment.com/a...-adjuncts.html

http://www.musculardevelopment.com/a...tonio-phd.html

http://www.musculardevelopment.com/a...-gwartney.html

there are a total of over 200 articles highlihhting the risks/beneits in your preffered medial fashion , through clinicla trials, with positive and negative articles inclcude for a non biased twist.
many many articles are in referance to your doube blind, palcebo group included., many by MD's with training in sport scince and endocrinology.
covering a absolutley huge array of studies and articles from percieved population opinon, medical communties reasons for there status, to actula harmful effects found, also i may add the correlation between nutrition and aas. to extreme toplevel competitive bodybuilders cycles and aas effects present in a clinical study for serious criminlas and aas users.

im sure your about to tell me there all nonsense, biased, come from a magazine called, muscular development and hold no credance - i wouldnt expect anything less from you.

Even athe results of what?

but john thats not the real world??!!

thats not the way things are - what part of that are you not getting,,

you can tell people till your blue in the afce not to drink, smoke, take drugs, ecesise more ect ect ect.

so if they say no, ill still smoke endlessley and eat ****e, youd then respond with ok mate, do as you wish. or advise try cutting down incorporate some healthier diets and some excersise?

tbh you lost my respect and any credance i gave you and your advice (which im sure youll be infinatley upset about )
when you refferred to the relationship between nutrition and AAS as "sporadic"

furthe to that you deemed a dose of between 3-4 times that of an medicaly acceptable possibel trt dosage of testosterone for life as an example to be more damaging to a persons health - even if the user lead a healthy lifestle, with a healthy diet and regular excersie , in comparsion to some one that does the exact opposite. - and frankly john no your response didnt surprise me - thats the answer i expected youto give.

in spite of the nationwide evidece of the harm of a typical diet and lifestlye i highlihted, and ignoring this well documented "medical gold standaerd" analaysied data , you then used a handful of "non medical gold standard" studies along with half truths and lies to back up your reasoning.

you then have continued to copy and paste quotes from articles which include sensational sounding information, but are not relevent to the topic we were discussion.inc female AAS side effects, large dose cycles of undisclosed hormone or cyclelengths, diuretic use and cocaine?

i beleive most profession nowadays carry a code with regard to health and saftey where the person is responsible for there own health and saftey and those the work with,

i carry that moral obligation into human life, you appear to be dispalying tactics and techniques along with an almost arrogannt approach that ive seen replicated so many times

throughout this thread ive continuay thanked you for you time, input and information, apaologised where ive worded phrases wrongly, or dismissed information - you dont even recognise that some people may indeed have benefited, by recommendations - and dismiss almost everything ive said
AGAIN apologies if its just my perceived perception - but it is my current perception.

john banks

The first link in your series when assessed against the standards I posted from SIGN would be rejected. I am not wasting my time reading the rest. You have fallen into pseudoscience and quackery.

Leslie

Are you qualified in any way to advise others on medical prescriptions or the use of drugs.

If not, do you not feel that your advice to others could just be pretty perilous. A trained doctor will understand the real needs of a patient as well as the possible dangers of a particular prescription if that patient has a personal allergy or even that the drug involved may well have a bad affect on the person concerned.

Do you not think that it is far safer to leave it to a medical practitioner to prescribe for anyone and how would you feel if your advice caused a serious reaction in the person concerned. You can do all the reading you want, but that would not necessarily cover effects of certain drugs which have been discovered in practical trials. The combination of certain drugs can also be dangerous of course! You also say that a patient should be able to make up his own mind by studying the characteristics of various drugs for himself. Now you really are "pushing" it!

If you are indeed unqualified, it is strange to see someone without any formal training inferring that he is able to prescribe as effectively as a doctor if that is indeed what you are proposing.

I wonder how impressed your own GP is when you tell him what he should be prescribing for you!

If it turns out in fact that you have had full medical training as well as in the prescribing of drugs then of course the above points do not apply.

Les

Luan Pra bang

Les a qualification means bugger all, a piece of paper does not automatically make you know something and the large number of ignorant doctors out there proves the point. I pick actual knolwedge and experience over the 'drugs are bad mmm kay' mentality of a gp who has no where near enough first hand experience to make a descision. The entire industry of black market drugs seems to get by just fine on the advice of keen amateurs and the steriod market in particular benefits massively from people with experience giving out info for free, to help stop people making very bad chioces. A gym goer who is going to try steriods IS going to wether a gp likes it or not and the same with an 18 year old and an E or 6-apb pellet. They can either do this with good advice from experienced users or they can do it on some half assed knowledge and do themselve harm.

jef

iTrader: (13)

all completeley wrong mate

i was talking about my own recommendations to my own gp for my own medication

i never have or would interfere with soemones medication.and john ive read all 2oo articles along with many 100s more - and your reply - wow, just as i expected lol

im out

john banks

The mistrust of medical practitioners comes across loud and clear from people that prefer alternative sources of information, whether that be from homeopaths, dowsers, reflexologists or illicit drug users. We see it in this thread, I experience it personally, but more importantly it is also featured in peer reviewed medical literature (I think at some point we had a reference to a study about AAS users mistrust of doctors, if not it can be provided). When confronted with good information it seems (using that word because I haven't searched for the literature to support it) difficult to change their opinion or practice, and they continue to prefer other sources that suit their world view or lifestyle. I've never seen any quality information (that would meet the SIGN criteria I referenced earlier) in the literature or on internet forums or from personal discussion to properly support what most of the medical profession consider quackery, otherwise it would be welcomed into the fold. None of that bothers us much because thankfully the law is there to protect against quacks and our practice is not in jeopardy. Our concern is for patient safety and for people only to be offered treatment based on the best evidence that has been shown to the best of our abilities to produce more good than harm. Whilst there is robust legal protection for controlled substances, like all laws, it arguably doesn't succeed in prevention but drives practices underground. I suppose it is a separate debate whether laws should not aim for the ideal even if that is relatively unenforcable.

It is interesting that when the same patients who mistrust doctors get really ill who they turn to, but it woud seem (using that word again because I've not searched the literature and am stating an opinion based on experience) they can further twist their experience of medical practitioners and tend to think that mistakes are being made more often than they are. An example being a drug user who claims nothing has been done for them and the doctors at the hospital made a mistake and when you actually look you find they had exhaustive investigations, careful treatment which they refused, they self discharged and then rubbished the whole episode. One drug user whose respiratory arrest I managed when I was in hospital medicine (on my first night running the arrest team) told me my treatment was rubbish and I'd done nothing for him. He was not breathing when he was pushed out the back of a taxi by his "mate" at the entrance to A/E. He sustained no further brain damage that we could detect and we managed to avoid his attempt at assaulting us after the naloxone went in.

The most difficult bunch to deal with are the ones who have no insight into what they are doing, but with a little knowledge think they do. In the same way, the most dangerous doctors and those who we are particularly keen to alter their course as students when we teach them, are those that don't recognise their limitations, don't know when to ask for help. Nearly all the other students we can do something with.

I'm delighted to be argued into a corner by someone that is more skilled in an area than myself. Usually it isn't necessary as I'm readily willing to learn from them, but it is enjoyable to have my view changed. However, if I "opened my mind" to the "arguments" presented here, I'd be idiotic.

jef

iTrader: (13)

1. Kochakian C. Anabolic Actions of Steroids and Remembrances. University of Alabama Press, Birmingham, AL;1984. ISBN-13: 9789994291205.

2. Hoberman J. Testosterone Dreams: Rejuvenation, Aphrodisia, Doping. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA;2005. ISBN-13: 9780520221512.

3. Dotson JL, Brown RT. The history of the development of anabolic-androgenic steroids. Pediatr Clin North Am, 2007 Aug;54(4):761-9.

4. Lexchin J. Bigger and better: how Pfizer redefined erectile dysfunction. PLoS Med, 2006 Apr;3(4):e132.

5. Evans-Brown M, Dawson RT, et al. Use of melanotan I and II in the general population. BMJ, 2009 Feb 17;338:b566.

6. Cohen J, Collins R, et al. A league of their own: demographics, motivations and patterns of use of 1,955 male adult non-medical anabolic steroid users in the United States. J Int Soc Sports Nutr, 2007 Oct 11;4:12.

7. Shah J. Erectile dysfunction through the ages. BJU Int, 2002 Sep;90(4):433-41.

8. Kobler J. The Reluctant Surgeon. The Akadine Press, Pleasantville, NY;1999. ISBN-13: 978-1888173963.

9. Freeman ER, Bloom DA, et al. A brief history of testosterone. J Urol, 2001;165:371-3.

10. Medvei VC. The History of Clinical Endocrinology. Parthenon Publishing Group, Pearl River NY;1993. ISBN-10: 1850704279.

11. Brown-Séquard CE: Note on the effects produced on man by subcutaneous injections of a liquid obtained from the ********* of animals. Lancet, 2:105-107:1889.

12. Henderson J. Ernest Starling and 'Hormones': an historical commentary. J Endocrinol, 2005 Jan;184(1):5-10.

13. Karlson P. Adolf Butenandt (1903-1995). Nature, 1995 Feb 23;373(6516):660.

14. Hoberman JM, Yesalis CE. The history of synthetic testosterone. Sci Am, 1995 Feb;272(2):76-81.

15. de Kruif P. The Male Hormone. Permabooks, New York;1948. ASIN: B000KD7ECO.

16. Lambert G. Conquest of Age. The extraordinary story of Dr. Paul Niehans. Rinehart & Company Inc., New York; Clarke, Irwin & Company Limited,Toronto;1959. ASIN: B001UC6GDM.

17. Gao W, Dalton JT. Expanding the therapeutic use of androgens via selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs). Drug Discov Today, 2007 Mar;12(5-6):241-8.

18. Ryan J. DEA Announces Charges in Largest Ever Steroid Probe. ABC News 2005 December 15. Available at: http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=1411333, accessed April 9, 2009.

19. Schmidt MS. U.S. Arrests 124 in Raids on Global Steroid Ring. The New York Times, 2007 September 24. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/sp...tml?ref=sports, accessed April 9, 2009.

Diel P, Friedel A, Geyer H, et al. The prohormone 19-norandrostenedione displays selective androgen receptor modulator (SARM) like properties after subcutaneous administration. Toxicol Lett, 2008;177:198-204.

Piu F, Gardell LR, Son T, et al. Pharmacological characterization of AC-262536, a novel selective androgen receptor modulator. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol, 2008;109:129-37.

Hoffman JR, Faigenbaum AD, Ratamess NA, Ross R, Kang J, Tenenbaum G. Nutritional supplementation and anabolic steroid use in adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2008;40:15-24.

Wagner KR, Fleckenstein JL, Amato AA, et al. A phase I/IItrial of MYO-029 in adult subjects with muscular dystrophy. Ann Neurol, 2008.

Oner J, Oner H, Sahin Z, Demir R, Ustunel I. Melatonin is as Effective as Testosterone in the Prevention of Soleus Muscle Atrophy Induced by Castration in Rats. Anat Rec, (Hoboken) 2008;291:448-55.

Rajender S, Pandu G, Sharma JD, Gandhi KP, Singh L, Thangaraj K. Reduced CAG repeats length in androgen receptor gene is associated with violent criminal behavior. Int J Legal Med, 2008.


Reference:

1. The Dark Side of Testosterone Deficiency: III. Cardiovascular Disease. Traish AM, Saad F et al. Journal of Andrology, April 2, 2009. ePub, Ahead of Print.



References:

1. Feldkoren BI, Andersson S. Anabolic-androgenic steroid interaction with rat androgen receptor in vivo and in vitro: a comparative study. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol, 2005;94(5):481-7.

2. Schanzer W: Metabolism of anabolic androgenic steroids. Clin Chem, 1996;42(7):1001-20.

3. Wasserman P, Segal-Maurer S, Rubin D. Low sex hormone-binding globulin and testosterone levels in association with erectile dysfunction among human immunodeficiency virus-infected men receiving testosterone and oxandrolone. J Sex Med, 2008;5(1):241-7.

4. Zhao J, Bauman WA, Huang R, Caplan AJ, Cardozo C. Oxandrolone blocks glucocorticoid signaling in an androgen receptor-dependent manner. Steroids, 2004;69(5):357-66.

5. Sheffield-Moore M, Urban RJ, Wolf SE, Jiang J, Catlin DH, Herndon DN, Wolfe RR, Ferrando AA: Short-term oxandrolone administration stimulates net muscle protein synthesis in young men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 1999;84(8):2705-11.

6. Sheffield-Moore M, Wolfe RR, Gore DC, Wolf SE, Ferrer DM, Ferrando AA: Combined effects of hyperaminoacidemia and oxandrolone on skeletal muscle protein synthesis. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab, 2000;278(2):E273-9.

7. Barbosa J, Seal US, Doe RP: Effects of anabolic steroids on hormone-binding proteins, serum cortisol and serum nonprotein-bound cortisol. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 1971;32(2):232-40.

8. Schroeder ET, Zheng L, Ong MD, Martinez C, Flores C, Stewart Y, Azen C, Sattler FR: Effects of androgen therapy on adipose tissue and metabolism in older men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2004;89(10):4863-72.

9. Vega GL, Clarenbach JJ, Dunn F, Grundy SM. Oxandrolone enhances hepatic ketogenesis in adult men. J Investig Med, 2008;56(7):920-4.

(Journal American Society Nephrology, in press; published online December 2009; The New York Times, December 10, 2009)

What happens when you combine triglycerides with testosterone?

As you know, part of the problem with ingesting testosterone orally is that when it first passes your liver, it’s like Mike Tyson biting off parts of Evander Holyfield’s ear. It eats it up and spits it out, thus inactivating the hormone to some extent. But a group of wacky scientists at the University of Washington in Seattle came up with a way of tinkering with this.[i] They attached a triglyceride molecule to a testosterone molecule (TTC or testosterone-triglyceride conjugate). They looked at single-dose pharmacokinetics in rabbits. You see, rabbits love taking testosterone; it makes their humping even more frequent (kidding). Rabbits are a good animal model for studying this. They gave the rabbits a dose of two, four or eight milligrams per kilogram body weight of TTC. Translate that for a 200-pound human being and the dose is roughly 181, 364 and 727 milligrams, respectively. Oral TTC was compared to testosterone undecanoate (TU). They found that oral TTC produced a fast and significant increase in serum testosterone. Furthermore, maximum serum testosterone concentrations were four and eight milligrams per kilogram doses. And to top it off, the AUC, or area under the curve, was 1.8 to 2.6 times greater with TTC than TU at both doses. So, if you’re not someone who likes the intramuscular stuff, perhaps an oral that has a triglyceride molecule attached might be more attractive.



Testosterone Good for the Heart?

In a study that will make you think twice about whether androgen administration is bad for the heart, German scientists looked at the effects of testosterone undecanoate (TU), 5 alpha-dihydrotestosterone (DHT), or placebo in heart muscles removed from rats. They used a model of damage called “ischemia-reperfusion” injury. You can think of this as follows: Imagine cutting off blood flow to part of your heart muscle (this is the ischemia) and then releasing it so you get an onrush of blood (that’s the reperfusion). This causes a great deal of injury to the heart muscle. What happens if an animal has been taking testosterone? In essence, it helps! That is, the rats were better able to recover contractile function of the damaged muscle if given the anabolic steroids. Thus, at least in this animal model, testosterone helps alleviate heart muscle damage.[ii]



Testosterone Dose Most Important

We now have conclusive evidence that taking testosterone can increase fat-free mass and muscle fiber cross-sectional area, reduce body fat, blah blah… But we also know it has an anabolic effect even if you don’t work out. The amount that this testosterone translates into a performance benefit was tested by my favorite androgen researchers at UCLA.[iii] Dr. Tom Storer, a well-respected exercise physiologist and Dr. Shalender Bhasin, MD, who spearheaded the initial landmark paper on testosterone’s anabolic effects a few years ago, looked at the dose-dependent effects of our favorite androgen.

To make a long, complicated story short and sweet, they took normal healthy men (18-35 years) and gave them weekly injections of 25, 50, 125, 300, or 600 milligrams of testosterone enanthate (TE) for 20 weeks. What they found was intriguing. Leg strength and power were related to the dose of TE. Meaning, the higher the dose, the greater the strength and power gain. However, fatigability of the muscles was not related to testosterone dose. Clearly, if muscle cross-sectional area goes up due to taking TE, then strength and power should go up.

Now, fatigability is a different story. Having more mitochondria (the part of the cell that generates ATP aerobically) should improve fatigability of skeletal muscle. However, unless these guys are doing regular lower body cardio, then there’s no reason that relative fatigability should change. There are a multitude of other factors that I’m sure affect strength, power and endurance.



Biking Bad for Below the Belt Partying

You’ve probably heard reports about how sitting on a bicycle makes your groin numb. It’s as if someone put his thumb on the wrong pressure point and ended up with a flag that can only go to half-mast. Leave it to scientists to study this wacky phenomenon. In the Journal of Andrology, a health assessment study was performed on a police bicycle unit.[iv] On average, they rode their bikes 5.4 hours per day (who are these guys— Lance wannabes?). Furthermore, 91 percent of them complained of occasional groin numbness. Each subject wore what they called a “RigiScan Plus Rigidity Assessment System” for one regular sleep session.

Here’s what they found. The percentage of the sleep session that the cyclists recorded a woody was 27.1 percent. Compare that number to the non-cyclists who were standing at attention 42.8 percent of the time! How long each subject maintained the woody was directly related to how much they sat on the bike. In other words, the more they sat on the bike, the fewer erections they got. I realize cycling is great cardio work and helps you burn fat, but if you value the function of your nether regions, keep the cycling to an hour a day. Also, as a substitute, the recumbent bike at your local gym does take some stress off the groin area. It’ll keep your family pride free of undue pressure; thus, performance anxiety will be less apt to be a concern.



Protein Elevates IGF-1, Promotes Nitrogen Retention

When University of Minnesota scientists put diabetics (type 2) on a high-protein weight maintenance diet, they found some pretty intriguing information. First, it was a five-week intervention in which the subjects went from a 15 percent to a 30 percent protein diet. The scientists found that calcium excretion went unchanged. They also found that serum growth hormone and IGF-1 were increased with a 30 percent protein diet. Furthermore, it seemed that at least in these subjects, eating more protein resulted in a greater retention of nitrogen (i.e., it was anabolic). So this adds another nail in the proverbial coffin of the theory that “all calories are the same.” Eating more protein, even without exercise, may have an anabolic effect.[v]



Jose Antonio, PhD, CSCS teaches at Florida International University in Miami. For more information: www.strong-research.com and www.supplementbooks.com.




[i] Amory JK et al. Oral testosterone-triglyceride conjugate in rabbits: single-dose pharmacokinetics and comparison with oral testosterone undecanoate. J Androl, 2003;24:716-20.

[ii] Callies F et al. Administration of testosterone is associated with a reduced susceptibility to myocardial ischemia. Endocrinology, 2003;144:4478-4483.

[iii] Storer TW et al. Testosterone dose dependently increases maximal voluntary strength and leg power, but does not affect fatigability or specific tension. J Clin Endo Metab, 2003;88:1478-1485.

[iv] Schrader SM et al. Nocturnal penile tumescence and rigidity testing in bicycling patrol officers. J Androl, 2002;23:927-34.

[v] Nuttall FQ et al. The metabolic response of subjects with type 2 diabetes to high-protein, weight-maintenance diet. J Clin Endo Metab, 2003;88:3577-3583.

By Thomas O'Connor, M.D.
Important "Medical Mistakes" to Avoid During Your Next Cycle!

Part 1

Hey folks, it's the Anabolic Doc coming at you for another information-filled article. Even though I have been with Muscular Development for only a few months, all I can say is that it has been super exciting. I would first like to thank Steve Blechman for giving me the opportunity to lead the "Anabolic Community" with true medical direction and guidance. For years our "Brothers and Sisters in Iron" have had to deal with a lot of their medical problems on their own. Getting valid information from a doctor even willing to monitor your anabolic steroid and performance-enhancing drug regimen and do their best to keep you healthy, has been nonexistent. This is where I come in, because I am willing to put it all on the line to make sure that you get the best medical care in the world when you are one of my patients.

I always get e-mails asking what kind of things should be avoided during a cycle from a medical perspective. We have all read these boring articles on basic ideas of what to do and not do during a cycle to help improve your results. But this series is going to take it over the top and won't be like anything you have ever read before. I am going to discuss with you the most important medical mistakes to avoid during your next cycle. I am going to touch on some very basic ideas first off, because many of our readers here at MD may be planning their very first cycle.

You may be familiar with some ideas that I present in this series, and many of them will not be so familiar. A lot of powerlifters and bodybuilders avoid these issues out of ignorance, or sheer laziness. Next, I will discuss some advanced information as well, to help those who may be doing more intricate stacks that even a top pro bodybuilder could relate to. I am going to cover the most important mistakes that I see in my clinical practice that athletes who do use performance-enhancing drugs are guilty of committing. I am going to give you the real deal here, people. I am not just going to sprout off some textbook info at you, hoping you can decipher heads or tails of what I am about to explain.

Remember, I want to be scientific in my explanations, but I know that the majority of the readership at MD is not doctors or scientists but hardcore bodybuilders who want to know as much about the "Anabolic Science" and its medical application and health prevention. With this, you can expect me to help you understand the science of medicine in relation to anabolic steroid use and their side effects. I will be presenting things in layman's terms as well, so everyone can truly take advantage of all the information that I have to offer.

Time to Be Responsible

Now before I get to discussing the medical mistakes that I want cover with this issue, it is imperative to know that as a strength athlete who has decided to go to the dark side and incorporate performance-enhancing drugs into their program, I want you to be responsible. Now when I say responsible, I don't mean to be responsible to pay your cable bill on time or to make sure you take out the garbage. I am also not talking about being responsible about making sure you fork over half your paycheck every week for child support, due to that one-night-stand you had with that exotic dancer named Bambi, while you were blitzed into a Jager Bomb coma. I just hate those ****ing DNA tests; oops sorry— I fell off track there for a minute.

No, I am talking about being responsible for taking care of your health. When I say health here I am not talking about today or tomorrow, I am talking about thinking about the next 20-plus years of your life. Oh, I know the scene and what happens in the shadows of anabolic enhancement, so you should know that I am not one of those uptight ******* doctors who wears his smock around his office with his nose turned up at you. No, I am nothing of that sort. In fact, I detest that arrogant type of attitude and when you deal with me, you are guaranteed a warm smile and a true sincere doctor who wants the best for your competitive career and your long-term health.

The problem with many strength athletes, both bodybuilders and powerlifters, is the fact that they do not think about the long-term consequences of their actions. They only think of what is happening right now— today. Like I mentioned earlier, this is the wrong attitude to have because remember, you reap what you sow. The decisions you take today may come and bite you on the *** like a rabid pit bull tomorrow, so you have to make sure that you always think of the possible repercussions of choices.

Now, I don't want to sound like one of those guys who harps on things, but the reality is, as a patient of mine or even one who reads my columns, I want you to take responsibility for your health. With this said, let's now take a look at what the 'Anabolic Doc' has to offer!

Not Getting Blood Work Done

This right here is the most important piece of information that I am going to give you, bar none. This is the first and most critical thing you are going to do to keep yourself healthy. No, I am not saying this so you come and see me so I can bill you— not at all. This is not my intention in the least. No matter who your doctor is, you must get this done at least twice per year as a minimum. This includes a full panel of things like your cholesterol, both HDL and LDL. Your blood pressure, triglycerides, homocysteine levels, liver values, and kidney function should also be monitored regularly, among others.

This is the bare minimum that you should do to know how your organs are functioning. How do you know what is going on with your body and your organ health if you don't get checked at least a couple times per year? Now I know some bodybuilders who are more responsible do this, but I still know that it is not more than 20 percent of those who use steroids. The biggest offenders in this arena are powerlifters. I know you are my "Brothers in Iron," but the fact remains that way too many of you are lazy asses and don't get this done at all. Hell, I have had world-class powerlifters come into my office and they have been using steroids close to 14 years and not once have they ever got their blood work done. What the hell is that!? This, in my opinion, is the most irresponsible thing you could do. Now not only is this irresponsible for you— but what about your wife and kids? Don't you owe it to them to at least try and take care of your health?

Like I mentioned earlier, if you decide to tread down the "Anabolic Path," then you have to be responsible for your actions. You can't do something like go on 30 cycles over a decade of use and abuse and then think, "Hey maybe I should get some blood work done to see if my liver isn't bloated like a ****ing dead horse." I hate to say this, but if this is you or your current mental state, then you are going to pay the ****ing piper and pay him with your *** if you don't step up to the plate and be a true man about taking care of your health.

Now you may be thinking that the Anabolic Doc is some type of arrogant prude, but no, I am not. I truly care for your health and want you to be the best competitive athlete you can be— but at the same time, I want you to realize that you are taking prescription-strength drugs to enhance your performance. That 50 mg of Thai Dbol that you chugged down this morning with your oatmeal were not "Hot Tamales" (I just loved that candy as a kid), so you cannot take this lightly. These are serious medications, (some more than others, and you will see this when we start discussing insulin and thyroid drugs) so you cannot just think that you can just do whatever you want and get away with it for years on end. This is not the case.

You may think you are a bad-*** because you weigh 260 pounds with 8 percent body fat, but listen to me closely here for a minute. When one of your organs fails, or another major health ailment takes you down, then you will see right away that you are not made of molten steel, but flesh and bones. Even the biggest bad-*** can be brought to his knees when even a simple medical ailment hinders his body from functioning the way it should. So please, no matter if you can bench press 600 pounds or if your arms are 23 inches, don't let this make you think that you are indestructible. Because when reality hits you in the face like a bitch slap from a pimp on 125th and Highland Avenue, you will wish you listened to the Anabolic Doc and the important message he tried to convey!

Using Underground Steroids

Now I can see all of the cyber experts reading this now and saying, "This guy doesn't know the reality of the scene, man— he's out of his environment." No actually, I am not out of the scene, you 21-year-old ***-clown, because I have been in the underground trenches longer than you have been alive. I knew the ins and outs of anabolic pharmacology and the underground street scene when your mother was wiping your ***. So don't give me any of your ignorant rhetoric. Now you may be thinking how he can say that in a time like this, being the fact that most readers live in the United States. OK, let me explain.

I fully understand what is going on in the scene at the underground hardcore level. I know what happened with Operation Gear Grinder back in 2005; they put a major halt on much of the veterinary-grade gear coming out of Mexico that supplied 90 percent of the black market in this country. Quality Vet, Denkall, Animal Power, Brovel, Tornel, SYD Group and others were the major players in the U.S. steroid black market. This major bust ultimately caused the massive increase of clandestine labs to be set up and hence the underground craze that started in this country.

But first you have to look at the medical perspective. Do you really know where your stuff is being made? No you don't! You could have some guy making this stuff in his garage with an environment that resembles a slum in Calcutta. This is what you want to inject into your body? No wonder so many guys are getting abscesses like it is going out of style. Cleanliness is of utmost importance— not only so you don't get an abscess that erupts like Mount Vesuvius but also for you organ health. If you think you are doing your kidneys any favors by injecting dirty gear, think again, my friend.

Didn't you ever wonder what years of injecting dirty **** could do to your organs? Sterile prep conditions are only one of the problems you could run into. What about metals, carcinogens and contaminants? We all know that the majority of raw powders that these underground labs use come from China. Now, if you have watched the news over the last couple years, you know that they don't have the best reputation for quality control.

OK, let me see— the lead paint used in children's toys or the melamine in the baby milk formulas? Close to 300,000 Chinese babies were affected and became ill over this whole melamine scam that took place in the baby formula scandal. Six of these babies died with still several hundred in critical condition because of major kidney shutdown. If they are willing to cut corners to save money and risk a major health crisis like this in their own country, what is their compassion toward bodybuilders living in the U.S.?

MMM... if they don't give a rat's *** about all these contaminants that even go out to their own people, including babies, then are they going to care if they send Bob Smith living in "Butt-**** Idaho" some Test Enanthate powder laced with mercury, lead or PCBs? The answer is a big **** NO! Think about this for one minute here and take note, as this is a serious matter. PCBs, which are known as polychlorinated biphenyls, consist of close to 210 different chemicals that have similar structures. They were developed in 1929 and used for many different industrial purposes. The problem with this stuff is that it is super-resilient; it takes forever to break down.

Now this is where it gets juicy. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has stated several times that being exposed to PCBs can increase your chances for cancer and listen up here folks, specifically liver and kidney cancer! If this doesn't make you sit up and take notice, I don't know what will. From tests done that I have seen, many of the underground labs do contain an abundance of heavy metals and other contaminants and this was confirmed by our own Team MD writer William Llewelyn. Think about that for a minute, my friends. Not only do you not know the conditions in which your underground gear is made, you also don't even know the company the powder is coming from in China or the conditions in which it is manufactured. Maybe the same company that is pumping hormone powders on the black market is making a chemical that is carcinogenic in the same manufacturing equipment. How do you know? Then you are getting trace remnants of that carcinogen in your gear powder and then you guys back home in the heart of America are injecting this into your bloodstream. Scary, isn't it!? I bet you didn't think of that scenario the last time you bought a bottle of underground Deca from your boy "Big Mike" in the change room of your local gym.

Now I know you are going to break my ***** and tell me that it's hard to get real pharmaceutical gear and all that. I know the reality of the scene and the product that was available in the '80s and '90s that was American-made and all the goodies from Europe are no longer a viable option. So I understand that those who use steroids in America are between a rock and a hard place. But in the end, that doesn't change the fact that you could be introducing potent carcinogens into your system via injection because Mao Lee in Shanghai doesn't give a "flying Commie ****" if your raw hormone powder contains impurities that will give you cancer in 10 years. Nothing replaces real pharmaceutical gear for performance and health, and that is the bottom line!

Take My Words to Heart

Now with this installment, I covered some basic but very important mistakes that are critical for maintaining your health during your next cycle. Even though they are very elementary in nature, how many of you reading this who do use anabolic steroids avoid them? I know many of you and I am not talking about just the beginners, but also the veterans in the sport have fallen prey to these anabolic blunders. I hope that I have opened up some eyes with this issue and have actually made you think about what you are doing in your path to build that ultimate physique. Like I said from the beginning, if you take this path in life, you have to be fully aware of the consequences and you must do all that you can to prevent health conditions down the road.

Anabolic Doc 411

Now one of the additions to my regular column is the Anabolic Doc 411. This will be a nice little segment about me and my personal practice. Here you can take a glimpse inside what I am currently up to with my clients and personal life. Here I will give you some insight on what is going on with my training program to break yet another record in the bench press. You can look forward to my opinions on some different topics and what is currently going on in the media with the "War on Steroids" propaganda that is launched day in and day out in this country. So starting next month, get ready for some interesting hardcore snippets into the life and times of the Anabolic Doc!

References:

www.usdoj.gov,DEA Leads Largest Steroid Bust in History.

Buckley C, More than 54,000 Affected by Milk Scandal, National Post.

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) [CAS Number 1336-36-3]. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), 1997.

Llewellyn W, Counterfeit Analysis Report, Muscular Development.

Mayes, BA., McConnell, EE., Neal, BH., Brunner, MJ., Hamilton, SB., Sullivan, TM., Peters, AC., Ryan, MJ., Toft, JD., Singer, AW., Brown, JF, Jr.., Menton, RG and Moore, JA. 1998. Comparative carcinogenicity in Sprague-Dawley rats of the polychlorinated biphenyl mixtures Aroclors 1016, 1242, 1254, and 1260. Toxicol Sci, 41 (1): 62-76.

the above john is around 1% of the rticles available on this site alone - with hundreds others like it.

if you took more than 3 minutes to read soem of them, and the attached studies, carried out by proffessional with lifetilmes, experiences, scientific stdies, much more indrpth triaining than your own - then continue to assess the information appriatley.

remove the twist ect applied by the article publisher (who afterall is only asking questions about possibilities from resulting studies to apply to his own interests) - not making actual staements, but occasionally asking questions about why certain things are said and done or procticed. which itself is not harmful or criminal activity, and a common method for exploring new directions and possiilities used by scientists the wold over. remove his (joking referrances/ and silly comparisions - and occasional bias towards aas, along with some questioning of physcians advice)
at the same time highlighted throughout, is the reports of dangers from mis-use, with reports and studies to show them. -its not all one sided, steroids are fantastic web site

as with any internet literature, you have to take with a pinch of salt, read between the lines and look for further evidence elsewhere

you however read one article of the 200 on chemical enhancment, of which there are over 500 more articles with related studies on excersise, nutrition with reference to report and clinicla studies used.
and you then came to the almost instant conclusion - in its entirety its quackery, psuedo-science, and im a classic victim.

and for those skim reading or mis-reading posts.

I DO NOT ADVOCATE/PROMOTE THE USE OF AAS TO ANYONE. I NEVER HAVE AND NEVER WILL!! NEITHER DO I ADVICE PEOPLE ON MAKING MEDICINAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO THERE GP!!

just so we are clear on that.

Leslie

Glad to hear it.

You certainly do a lot of reading anyway. I thought I did but I am not in your class!

Les

jef

iTrader: (13)

so let me guess jonh even now

the best answer is still do not tkae anabolic steroids.

if you chose to do so, do it on your own unadvised and wholly uneducated., and most definatley dont take advice from anyone - as its most likley to lead to serious harm.

the likes of part 1 of "the docs" article should be common knowledge.

and blood test youd still say, play no part - of no use?

and current levels of education over media sensationalsim are adequte are they?

and eveysingle link/post/part of advice is still presumably quackery.

and unfortunatley i have little other medical knowledge on other complex conditions, so cant discuss with you your other post - but i can apply a burns kit

jef

iTrader: (13)

been devoring information on it for over 10 years now lol - only half way there before interest fades lol

Luan Pra bang

I mistrust some doctors because some are lazy and incompetent or cannot be bothered. Not long ago someone I know went blind in one eye becasue of a doctors stupidity and lack of effort, as a result he lost his job, spent weeks in hospital , lost his house and at one point was sleeping on the floor of a garage, he will soon recieve a large neglince payout but he would much prefer a competent doctor had seen him in the hospital and treated him properly.
Recently when a month before my child was due we had to go to Northampton hospital due to some complications and due to their staggering catalogue of errors and ineptitude checked out and went to Oxford obe treated by competent medical staff. I could repeat hundreds of stories of doctor errors based on people I know but the lesson has been well learnt that you have to take charge of your own and your families medical care as leaving it to the UK's doctors may well get you killed.

The difference is that AAS users have science behind their descisons and illicit drug users , unless stupid trade off the rates harm and damage against having a good time.


Potential AAS user goes to doctor and is told, AAS will do all kinds of harm, he then goes to the gym and meets lots of people with ten years of AAS cycles behind them and no significant health problems the only difference is they are happy and have achieved something they aspire to, who will he listen to ?

you have no way of establishing facts here seeing as you only know about he poeple you see not the ones you don't yet your personal experience is so much more valuable than anyone elses apparently.


I am not entirely sure what the point of this comment is, its a meaningless anecdote and yet you claim to only pay attention to peer reviewed scientific studies that meet strict criteria. What is the dispute here anyway ? What is it about the effects of recreational drugs or AAS that is in dispute ? AAS certainly work as do recreational drugs, everyone can agree on that .Also it is prefectly possible to take both with no problems I assume we can both agree on that so where do the personal knowledge of experts who have 'livied ' it and science disagree ?

john banks

To avoid an excessively long post, I'll quote the title of each section from post #68 where I can see a point you may be trying to make with a response:

The information provides conjecture based on an animal study. The suggested conclusion is spurious.

In vitro study. To show the benefit in humans you'd have to do a trial in MI patients and not only show measurements of reperfursion, but short and long term relevant clinical endpoints and safety.

I hope you're not trying to extrapolate a study in type 2 diabetes to another situation, especially when discussing insulin-like growth factors.

You can tell that from the way it is written as you've also mentioned, although that of itself isn't a big problem, it reads very "scene".

The trouble is you can't be fully aware of the consequences as they have not been trialled properly.

His recommendations on blood monitoring are sensible in the absence of any trial data, but they are extrapolations based on known side effects. He has not trialled his advice to users to prove that it is better than telling them not to use steroids. It may be that users that follow his guidance get a false sense of security and it encourages their use? Again, it has not been trialled.

So the evidence is Grade 4 (referring back to post #23).

Do you have much training, experience or qualification in scientific method jef? Whilst qualifications are not everything (and I wouldn't question yours if you wrote like you were qualified in something relevant), and whilst you take information from the internet with a pinch of salt, how do you weigh evidence? When you have presented things in this thread, they are a poor facsimile of the way scientists handle evidence, yet when this is pointed out to you it does not change your opinion. A harm minimisation programme without evidence could at worst be harmful, and at best misguided unless it is properly researched.

I'm wondering if your extensive reading is putting the cart before the horse. If you had more of the basic science that underpins your reading and more critical appraisal skills I think your views would change.

However, we've engaged in the debate without you agreeing the fundamentals in post #3. I could have left it after post #26 as arguably there was nothing to debate and me staying out of a thread like you proposed where only personal experience is valued would have been the result, but I wanted to see if I could convince you to rethink. I think I've failed in that.

You would make a very interesting student on an epidemiology course.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

That is the freakiest thread I have ever (half) read on SN !

Just seems to me that John is a Doctor with experience and Jef, though you seem very knowledgeable in the realm of anabolic steroid usage, it's effects and the reality of it but all the effort seems to be around justifying people injecting growth hormones to enhance muscle growth, no medical practitioner is going to suggest Steroids are a good idea for recreational use so you and John will never agree, you have polar opposite aims.

john banks

The same diligence needs to apply to using any profession. Apart from your own diligence, the government and the profession are trying to devise ways to improve safety. The question is how to root out the bad doctors? Regular exams could catch some, but Harold Shipman would have sailed through them, and academically good, but uncaring or lazy doctors would too. Not excusing any negligence, a lot goes wrong because people inevitably get sick and die, and it is a very risk business dealing with it.

I disagree. They have pseudoscience, but I agree on the face of it they appear to look after themselves better than most illicit drug users. There are exceptions though.


He will value the short term benefits. Ten years is short term. There is also an obvious bias in that the selection of people he will receive information from are less likely to have been harmed because they will still be promoting AAS use and attending the gym.

Nonsense, unless you believe "facts" are based solely on personal experience, with the very limited sample size, lack of control group, no blinding, no randomisation and observer bias that leads to. If all professions carried on like that everyone would have to relearn their art. Bridge engineers would not use established calculations but use their individual experience and opinion. Doctors would have to have seen every illness personally to be able to diagnose and treat it. Personal experience, even that of an expert, is grade 4 evidence, the lowest, not the highest. Otherwise, you also are rejecting scientific method.

It was a meaningless anecdote, I thought you guys valued personal experience above scientific method? I will not pretend that it is any more though, whereas you guys might like to try to pass this level of evidence as a yardstick by which to make important decisions? My only important yardstick from this experience was to inject the naloxone and step back fast.

I'm also not entirely sure what is in dispute, initially, rightly or wrongly I had the impression jef was supporting the use of AAS, but he says he doesn't promote or advocate AAS, yet he makes a lot of arguments in their defence, and seems to justify his decision to assist people towards using them in what he hopes is a safer manner by arguing against them causing harm using non-evidence based methods.

jef

iTrader: (13)

i prefer that post john, its no where near as derogatory or dismissive as previous, it seems youve extended me a little courtesy, thnkyou.
i stated at the start of this thread the title wasnt really relevant to my discussion, but id input if people wanted - but the title is not representative of my discussion, tbh

the articles/links were selected at random, with a closed eye click of the mouse so to speak. they were just posted as a example - altho i made sure to include onces referancing the possible damaging effect of abuse.

they inclcuded an attached links of all the physcians,md's, and trained proffesionals invovled in the studies that your so blissfully dismissed as quackery, despite there clear medical qualifications and relevant backgroun.
not one article was posted to starta discussion on, eg your pick up on the triglyceride article - it was just a random selection with attached referances., iwas neither promoting or dismising the info in them.

there is a difference in opinion here, quite obviously, but its clear youve not read my posts thoroughly if you cannot tell my points.

firstly i pointed out the value of blood tests, to which you disagreed - although maybe you did not understand the context i was reffering to.

from then on my emphasis was on education, and the severe lack of relevant info.

i have not "made lots of arguments in there defence",ive made 1. which still stands. the education and lifestyle changes associated with many that use aas in sensible cycles can lead to an overall health improvemnt. in comparison to the local average sedentary life styles.
i then went on to say if i was approached , which i have been by mnay many time by guys that HAVE ALREADY DECIDED to use aas, depending on thre level of understanding i can go through the points ive mentioned many times
which always start with, you dont need steroids, please give me an example of your diet, tweaks with that mostly result in desired gains, and give a bae understanding of nutrition and its effect in the individuals goals.

in many many cases i here guys that have been give advice of use 1000mg test , 600-800mg nadrolone with often acoompanying consumption of an 17aa oralfor first four weeks, while waiting on the test esters to reach peak levels - so there told. usually by where ever they buy.

john would you say health effects of testosterone use rise with dosage level? maybe not exponetially. but still increase, so how can my advise of lowering that dose be more harmful?

you totally mis understand my correlation between aas and possible increased health - the link is not through direct pathwyas of the active hormone or its physiological effects - its related to the very common change in lifestyle associated with it.
im not stupid enough to beleive this to be the case in every example, but there will be a signifanct facto that increase there understnading of nutrition, and excersise, that they also pass onto children ect.

the current trend in information hand over from parent to child is where most nutritional problems lie.

your last paragraph is a total inslut to everything i have said, i get the impression you think i waltz around the gym telling guys, mate do a sensible ten week test e cycle and watch how much your health improves!!

im not and never ber ever have assisted people towards using them mate, how many times do i have to say the same thing,

my dispute is the lack of good information available for people that have already decide or are using, the half truths, from media sensationalism , and apparent lack of guidence from any gp.

what do you want me to re-think , aas use maybe harmful, carries associated side effects - that may or may not present themselves.
not using is healthiest?
ive agreed with that all along mate.

ive belive harm reduction through education is entirley possible.

and i also beleive in certain circumstances the sensible use of aas can offer benefits - that outweigh the possible negatives.i know you wont agree with that atall, but regardless, i do.

jef

iTrader: (13)

i agree in part with the potential for a never ending disagreement,

but john by his own admission has very limited experience and very little interest. his influence and thoughts come from his lengthy education. ofcourse theres no way he could justify anyone using these medicines for use other than medical treatmet.

john banks

Harm reduction is a nice idea, but since you value personal experience, I find that advice I give to patients in other areas that is "compromised" (due to adoption of a harm reduction model) doesn't work - such as reducing rather than stopping smoking, reducing rather than stopping alcohol (for alcoholics), replacement prescribing for opiate users (it gets traded and I get urine samples from dogs, or hilariously their mate who is supposed to have clean urine but actually has amphetamines and benzodiazepines in it - what a combo). It is that background that makes me particularly cynical about harm reduction methods and would make me want to see the evidence for what I find to be a compromised message. There is a risk of unintended harm compared to no intervention, or at least a risk of less harm reduction by the compromised message. However, because the three areas are addictions and not AAS, it would be very valid to argue that the experience is not relevant, and again I would argue that experience is the lowest quality of evidence, even though it is my own. However, there is a default position based on the law and also proving every intervention has an excess of benefit over risk and that the benefits and risks are well proven. Since the literature points to harm from AAS and doesn't demonstrate a safe way to take them (apart from the hypogonadism situation which isn't comparable as it restores physiological levels rather than producing supraphysiological levels) then that is further reason for my position.

You have certainly made me more interested in the area, although I don't know what good may come of it because I don't have a good evidence base on which to practice. That makes it feel precarious and uncertain, which of course it is in my eyes, even if I found a physician that had 20 years of experience trying to do harm reduction with AAS users. However, hopefully they'd have trialled and proven their interventions rather than just giving me anecdotes. Legal constraints may prevent it being formalised in this way, but it has been done with opiate use so I don't see why it couldn't be.

Don't take the polemic personally, it is part of a debate. Apart from not having the time, the thread could go on endlessly without anything I say ever needing moderation as none of my 16518 posts on here have required. I stay only just on the right side of you wanting to punch me, unless you're quite a chilled and contained guy (your avatar is scary or impressive depending on how you view it though). It would be quite fun to try to argue it from the other side of the table though. Prof Nutt did that with his ecstasy and equasy controversy, I need to read what he actually said. I wondered if you'd bring it up, and it is one reason I didn't argue with Luan Pra bang when he mentioned ecstasy. However, I believe Prof Nutt was only comparing deaths attributable to ecstasy vs horse riding. You couldn't license a prescription drug that didn't help a disease and was only proven just to cause no more deaths than horse riding as you'd need morbidity data as well as mortality data. In the same way, I would get into trouble if I harmed my patients through negligence and then said in court that it was OK because I didn't kill them. The compensation awards are higher for disablements of various kinds than they are for death.

john banks

Here is the link, excuse the odd website, but it gets the full text:

http://www.synchronium.net/2009/11/02/equasy/

I think it is amusing, but also well written and makes many good points. I've not read about how he was got rid of as drug advisor, but I don't think this paper is a good reason.

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

Sorry to maybe jump in and go off on a tangent, but I was just wondering...

As this thread title is prescription vs non-script, how does it stand with vitamin and mineral tablets? There is alot of information on the web, but I prefer to speak to actual people who may know what they are talking about. Without going into the ins and outs of just having a perfect diet, are vitamin and mineral tablets any help to people if they feel they aren't getting enough through diet? Are they safe, even though many will state they are 100%+ the rda?

john banks

Forgot to reply to this. Yes, most harmful effects for drugs are dose related, and I think we discussed some work earlier that showed they were for at least some AAS, so I would agree that you would expect some benefit from lowering the dose, if this was the only result from the advice to do so.

How do you word it, do you tell them that the best is to stop entirely, but "if you must" limit yourself to "x", use safe injection technique (or advise not to inject?), advise on diet and training methods, source and choice of drugs and their combination, blood monitoring? If there was a short term endpoint you could measure in different groups and give different advice to each, randomly selecting them to each group with their consent and then measuring the endpoint to see which method had the most success it wouldn't be that difficult as long as you got good numbers for follow up. It may even be possible to get funding to support the project, but it would make it more formal. It would have to get past an ethical committee, but I doubt it would actually have too many problems. It would be useful work and as far as I can tell no one has done it before.

What could be a good endpoint to measure over a short follow up interval that would be a good marker for a successful effect though? It could be mitigation of a side effect, or reduction in a symptom score for a combination of short term side effects.

I say short term because that would make it feasible. Depending on what you were testing for "success" that could influence the cost.

It might not be as difficult as you think, especially if you have any academic contacts.

If I was in a city area I could probably coordinate a fair bit of it, but the pool of local users I suspect is far too small to get a sample size.

If you want help designing the study, I'm up for it, I have previously published in the field of health promotion materials. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1313224/

john banks

It is a hot topic and I don't want to go too off topic, but there is a tendency in some circles to use unproven massive doses, which falls into quackery again, especially when they are sold with near magical claims.

Vitamin D is a rising star for all sorts of morbidity especially in Northern climes.

Vitamin A is teratogenic however. Worth reading about its toxicity to appreciate just how dangerous vitamins can be.

My present advice for someone who has no problems and is not a vegetarian is to take a healthy diet. I don't want to dig up your particular history in public, but there is a routine indication for 5mg of folic acid in pregancy (and pre-pregnancy compared with the usual 0.4mg or 400mcg) for people with epilepsy +-anticonvulsants, and I don't remember how your situation turned out in the end and I'm not asking you to say either. Also avoiding vitamin A because of its teratogenicity is important in pregnancy, so I routinely make sure that women who are not using contraception are advised to take folic acid and avoid vitamin A and unknown/unproven vitamin supplements generally.

There is lots of other discussion about vitamin E and heart disease, and niacin and lipids.

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

Not going off too much further, but should I be taking folic acid as I was diagnosed with epilepsy and now take meds for that? There is no intention to get pregnant anytime soon, if ever.

Turbohot

Fantastic thread IMO. Just been to see A Dangerous Method. Very disappointing portrayal of Jung Vs Freud on Psychoanalysis (before he came up with Analytical Psychology) Vs Psycho-analysis. I'd rather read Jef Vs John Banks on steroids.

PS: I don't mean they are on steroids. You know what I mean.

john banks

Lisawrx - it would only be when/if pregnancy is planned. Talk to your doc if this ever arises or at your next review.

Luan Pra bang

You seem to have misunderstood me here, you made a pretty vague claim about how many people come to you having previously discounted the advice of doctors and seeing as the millions of people who do not come to you are excluded from your study its a silly statemnt to make. Its like me claiming that 90% of people I meet are criminals and extrapolating that to the whole world ignoring the fact that I work as a custody sargent.
As for Pseudo science, what part of steroid use is pseudo science , we agree they work we agree that many people who use moderate doses have no negative health effeccts and we agree that users sensitive, or those who use excessiver doses can **** themselves up pretty badly if not careful.

john banks

I don't think we agree on all the things you claim we do, especially the notion that people who use moderate doses have no negative health effects. There is no evidence for that that has been presented that is of sufficient quality and there is evidence of ongoing biochemical abnormalities. The present processes that people use to justify or devise supposedly safe steroid treatment plans are a shot in the dark because good trials have not been done. So putting a scientific veneer on it is quackery and pseudoscience.

I'm underplaying my own claims from experience as experience is poor evidence because of the problems mentioned. I should not have weakened my argument by using it.

There is the opportunity to devise a study, the resources need not be that great if a valuable end point can be easily measured in a relatively short period of time. It would not prove long term safety but it could prove that a key objective of a harm reduction model was statistically significant.

jef

iTrader: (13)

john -it is dragging on, my wife is endlessley nagging me for time spent on here rather than with family , she thinks im having some kind of bro-mance!! lol.

althugh im pretty sure 99% of people would consider me an exceptionally laid back, placid individual - as a character traight example - laughter to me is one of if not the most important part of life - thats why im very rarley offended, even by jokes some consider sick, ect ect, dont get me wrong theres limits, but im not "an offendable person" have you the seen the amount of ROID RAGE posted comments ive had on here lol.

as much as id love to get invovlved in any kindof formal testing set up scheme, the limitations would almost inevitabley end my invovlvment, i have 2 jobs, a family with 1 young child, and a child through a previous relationship whose mother has opiate addictios/im fighting a battle with social services and her to try and protect my child. - with frustrating little/slow results.
firstly im almost sure there would not be enough willing subjects to carry out a test due to associated stigma, potential emplyment jepordy ect ect.

in an ideal world with funding, idve liked to have dedicated a large portion of my working life to invovlment - but thats not reality.

your right saying you cant compare other addiction reducing methods with that of AAS because of the severe associated withdrawl symptoms of for eg opiate derived medicines. - and the potential for harm they have alone. although physcologically aas can become addictive - withdrawl or immeniate cessation can for some be very very well tolerated (for sensible users), for others not so easy, but not in the same league as other dependacy drugs

my avatar is from a few years back and was the result of a, ten year muscle building programme (massive learinging curve, with many mistakes along the way) -but it changed the person i was. from a bit of a young c*nt, binge drinking, smoking, and occassioanl negative social impact. who had an especially agressive tendancy when drunk on buckfast.
that "bulking changed me from 8 stone, calorific intake of mostly alcohol and chips saturated fats, to at my heaviest 18 stone - with considerable body fat. neither of which are examples of health imo.
then a series of 2x 14 week, regimented diet and excersise programe, 1 per year.

that shot was near competiton day and included water maniultaion, and glycerol use to help with vascularity. it was after a glycogen deppleting diet followed by a carefully timed,controlled carb/water intake.
these are all extremes follwed by competitive athletes without even touching on peds.
and the whole 14 weeks would be very boring to read, regardless - i raised everysingle morning at 5.30 WITHOUT FAIL to get to gym at 6 and do my a.m cardio - and sacraficed all nutritional luxuries most take for granted - my food was repetitive and boring, but covered the balance of nutrients required for optimum health - (whilst in a mildy calorifc defecit)
but as soon as people see pics guess what they say - STEROIDS DID THAT, lol.

and that is still the message out there today, steroids are an easy/safe option to eliminate the hard work people have traditionally had to do reach there physical goals. ive seen both sides of the fence - i truly beleive testosterone and its derivatives can have positive effects that out weigh the possible negatives.
i make no apology for this. and i most cetainly do not carry this onto every single user., infacte its applicable to a minute % imo.

and ultimatley its the message im trying to reverse - on a minute scale, and all be it with no meical training whatsoever, unless st johns anbulance and first resopnder care counts lol - im also trained in the dark arts of defibullator use lol.

your offer is kindly welcomed, but refused. - ten years ago in my excitment and youth idve cut off my left finger to have met soemone like you willing to help at those lengths.

you are indeed a trained physciciain, legally, and etheically you hold the upper hand.

i am a "gym rat" with nothing but my persoanl experiences, including those of the roughly 400-600 users ive known through my time and an internet education.
ive ten years of hearing incorrect and dangerous advice banded about to guys, mostly to generate income, but a whole load of b.s about growth hormone resulting in excess bone growth to intestinal growth, from gh passing cjd as its still extracted from cadavers, from people reporting drinking whey protein shakes giving them roid rage - then the absolute mass b.s in current nutritional/health publications with the wildest claims in fat reduction.


the current nonsense about "toning", and females afraid of nutrition becuase they dont want to be come "too big", thats smae for some males -they ask what steroids wont make them too big??? lol

in conclusion - its been interesting lol

and hopefully if even 1 steroid user reads this thread, itll be of some benefit

and for others watching from the sidleines - maybe have passed on some informationa nd understanding.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

This thread does make me realise that there shoudl be a role somewhere for Jef, ok he isnt a trained doctor or anything but there cannot be that many people on that side of the fence, i.e. a Bodybuilder with that amount of insight that are interested and articulate enough to express their knowledge.

I would imagine that for every Jef there are 1000 bodybuilders totally fixated on A/getting big and B/Not killing themselves just yet, not generalising that all bodybuilders are dumb as they arent by any stretch but there does seem to be a hard core of meatheads.

On the other side in the medical profession I cant imagine there are many people who actually participate in the bodybuilding world, I have never seen a monster GP, consultant or nurse, sure they are out there.

I dont know if the government actually pay any attention to Steroids other than banning them and prosecuting people but surely people not understanding and getting it wrong must be costing lives or at least causing life changing medical issues. People will always use steroids so perhaps there is a role for Jef as the Steroid Tsar !

jef

iTrader: (13)

pmsl at tsar - but thanks

there are a number of well educated users out there tbh, and beyond doubt with regard to bodybuilders nutritional understanding -its beyond that of the average joe, who has a media education, but there still is a massive amount that dont.

and thats an increasing number, esp as aas are so publicly percieved as an easy option. again the press have played a massive role in mis-education. so any user sees the lies regularly spouted and can therfore develop a mis-trust of any public opinion as to risk level. even if it be from trained professionals.
therefore potential users can possibly lower any percieved risk.

people should know the correct risks invovled before embarking, not the gym talk ive so often heard.
my point has always been about education, and its so very difficult in such a niche market like bodybuilding - where already public opinion is so derogetory of the sport and the look of peoples bodies, which htey just dont find appealing - many associate the sole reason is for actractivness, and im forever hearing "you look disgusting , how can anyone find that attractive" ect ect - the truth is when it comes to compettive bb anyway, sexual appearance and any associated links are the furthest possibel thing from the individuals mind.
that being said theres many that emabrk with fully the intention of increasing physical attractivness, and have no intention of competition.

from the begining of time slecting a partener comes from deep ingrained instincts. where physical condition was a sign of health, and with that came a good indication of the likleyhood of genetic traights that would be passed onto off spring - many other things include symmetry ect - esp in facial appearance, again as a reflection of potential health or a dispaly of gentic flaws that may be passed on

of course society and science now play much more important roles.

but for some appearance, infact for many appearance is all important. competitive bodybuilding is not relevant as its extrme for most.

and btw there are mny many many far more knowlegable people than me invovlved, whove documented there almost entire lifes use, along with health implications and healths monitoring alaong the way, but with associated taboos and legality status - much info remains out of public domain.

PED use is prevelant in almost every competitive sport i can think of from snooker and darts, rugby, cycling and bodybuilding - it shows the the nature of human beings, and in part is a reflection of why weve pbeen so successful as a speices - and proves that despite risks in some cases - they will be used regardless

and tbh , its in no way going to decline.

ive a very strong attitude towards drug policing, legality and "wars on drugs" that are political tools used for not the benefit of people, but for other reasons. the legality of some drugs through history, tradition and social acceptance - over rule health implications. imo free educated choice should be investigated - but directly following on from that my strong feelings towards the lack of media regulation and how far there allowed to go. - in pursuit of pure and total income generation - and then the tactics emplyed to give them credance.

anyway another totally o.t tangent entirley lol.