| --> |
5) 391–400. 2005.
4) 908–917. 2004.
12) M1103–M1110. 2003.
2) 534–542. 2004.
7) 1262–1279. 1997.
17) 1861–1891. 2004.
8) 513–554. 2004.
7) 571–595. 2005.
7) 924–936. 1993.
6) 672–682. 2004.
2) 678–88. 2005.
2) 366–370. 1983.
4) 272–276. 1973.
1) 43–45. 1972.
5) 44–59. 1985.
12) 2682–2688. 1981.|
Have you read through this Funk? I find most articles on AAS usage are quite bias one way or another. How do you rate it?(if you have read it)
I'm sure S&C journal is legit, but with the legalities and all of AAS it is hard to find a good article that looks objectively. |
|
Have you read through this Funk? I find most articles on AAS usage are quite bias one way or another. How do you rate it?(if you have read it)
I'm sure S&C journal is legit, but with the legalities and all of AAS it is hard to find a good article that looks objectively. |
|
okay, just finished reading it.
Part 2 comes out next quarter. It was actually pretty good. Not biased at all (and actually was kind of pro-steroids....talking about the benefits, the benefits to athletic performance and dispelling myths about side effects that the media creates). |
vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008,
Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.