When do anabolics become an rational option?

bandaidwoman · 12-25-2003, 07:51 PM

Quote:

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 · 12-25-2003, 09:35 PM

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 · 12-25-2003, 10:02 PM

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 · 12-25-2003, 10:18 PM

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

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** · 12-25-2003, 10:22 PM

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 · 12-25-2003, 10:29 PM

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 · 12-26-2003, 01:32 AM

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 · 12-26-2003, 04:58 AM

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 · 12-26-2003, 05:39 AM

Quote:

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** · 12-26-2003, 06:25 AM

You were perfect until you said is married to one

am am am

MarcusMaximus · 12-26-2003, 08:09 AM

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 · 12-26-2003, 08:11 AM

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

Power Rabbit · 12-26-2003, 08:56 AM

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

**Mudge** · 12-29-2003, 01:56 PM

From Dr. "SWALE"

Quote:

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 · 12-29-2003, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mudge
From Dr. "SWALE"

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.

exactly

**Mudge** · 12-29-2003, 03:11 PM

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

bandaidwoman · 12-29-2003, 03:19 PM

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** · 12-29-2003, 03:21 PM

Quote:

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 · 12-29-2003, 03:52 PM

Ill show you what I mean:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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** · 12-29-2003, 04:00 PM

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 · 12-29-2003, 09:21 PM

Quote:

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 · 12-29-2003, 09:33 PM

Quote:

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 · 12-29-2003, 09:34 PM

not unless plouffe is a two year old girl.

maddog1 · 12-29-2003, 09:46 PM

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

**Prince** · 12-29-2003, 09:49 PM

Quote:

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.

12-25-2003, 10:02 PM	#63
MeatheadSam Member Elite Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Earth Posts: 169	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.
	Just a regular guy.

12-25-2003, 10:29 PM	#66
MeatheadSam Member Elite Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Earth Posts: 169	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
	Just a regular guy.

12-26-2003, 04:58 AM	#68
bandaidwoman inadvertant tree hugger Elite Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Posts: 601 Photos: 4	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.
	Official Race Member of the Crank Crushing Rednecks Eat more mud, mountain bike until you die! XX Feminine power

12-26-2003, 08:11 AM	#72
bandaidwoman inadvertant tree hugger Elite Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Posts: 601 Photos: 4	oops, got me there, that's why I wasn't an english major.
	Official Race Member of the Crank Crushing Rednecks Eat more mud, mountain bike until you die! XX Feminine power

12-29-2003, 03:11 PM	#76
Mudge Pizza the Hut Super Moderator Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 23,029 Photos: 1	FWIW he is also highly against abnormally high estrogen levels, for more important reasons than man-boobs.
	Kinesiology Vote @ Top 25 Deads Comp Bench Motivation Bench form MaxCalc Charles Poliquin When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. Lao-Tzu I don't know any sources so don't ask - thanks

12-25-2003, 09:35 PM	#62
Power Rabbit The Bunny Is Bulking! Elite Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Virginia Posts: 1,027 Photos: 3	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.)

12-25-2003, 10:18 PM	#64
Power Rabbit The Bunny Is Bulking! Elite Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Virginia Posts: 1,027 Photos: 3	Heh you and me both...I definately aint a smart guy :-) Hell. This forum is some major tech for me :-P 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.

12-25-2003, 10:22 PM	#65
Mudge Pizza the Hut Super Moderator Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 23,029 Photos: 1	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.

12-26-2003, 01:32 AM	#67
JerseyDevil GO Buckeyes! Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Southern, NJ Posts: 5,180	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....

12-26-2003, 06:25 AM	#70
Mudge Pizza the Hut Super Moderator Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 23,029 Photos: 1	You were perfect until you said is married to one am am am

12-26-2003, 08:09 AM	#71
MarcusMaximus Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 740	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'

12-26-2003, 08:56 AM	#73
Power Rabbit The Bunny Is Bulking! Elite Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Virginia Posts: 1,027 Photos: 3	Cool. :-) I guess I did misenterpret your intensions abit..... that aside...got any thoughts on how to make methal 1,4 andro?? :-P

12-29-2003, 03:19 PM	#77
bandaidwoman inadvertant tree hugger Elite Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Posts: 601 Photos: 4	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.
	Official Race Member of the Crank Crushing Rednecks Eat more mud, mountain bike until you die! XX Feminine power

12-29-2003, 04:00 PM	#80
Mudge Pizza the Hut Super Moderator Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 23,029 Photos: 1	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.
	Kinesiology Vote @ Top 25 Deads Comp Bench Motivation Bench form MaxCalc Charles Poliquin When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. Lao-Tzu I don't know any sources so don't ask - thanks

12-29-2003, 09:34 PM	#83
maddog1 Member Elite Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 313	not unless plouffe is a two year old girl.
	Success is measured not by the position that one has reached in life, rather by the obstacles which one has overcome while trying to succeed. Booker T. Washington

12-29-2003, 09:46 PM	#84
maddog1 Member Elite Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 313	Oh, and private information is to remain that way of course.
	Success is measured not by the position that one has reached in life, rather by the obstacles which one has overcome while trying to succeed. Booker T. Washington