help me understand steroids

[Captain.Heroin]

ok why was my post tooken out?

You can ask this by private messaging a moderator, it is the most polite way to go about asking this question.

however they shud not be considered extremely safe.

It's not right to keep a stigma behind any one drug for any one reason. Many drugs have their uses.

 

[BEEF/N/BROKLY]

regardless of the matter they should not be considered EXTREMELY SAFE, you are missing the point regardless of any stigma behind it.. I could of gotten killed fighting dusted against tooooo many niggas, but I still smoke it... from first bad hand experience, so the stigma aint shit, it is the principle of how contradicting it is where all my posts seem to be alterd for reasons such as this is a harm reduction site and im inducing negativity, yet mods are agreeing steroids are "extremely" safe... Had you said "safe" given proper procedure I would have agreed, but extremely safe is just ignorant, and extremely safe gives me the idea like nothing will go wrong, when a lot in fact does.. It is not the point it can be done well, it is not the point it can be safe, it is the point my posts are constantly edited for one reason or another yet idiots cud make such bold statements and mods(granted their fucking roidheads demselves) agree. . A bit hypocritical seeing as my freedom of speech or txt is being alterd, yet others can make these statements and get backed up ya dig

 

[maakshif]

I am fully aware of that, however, anyone being 14 or 30 who reads "steroids are extremely safe" may misinterpret that for more than it's worth.. As in in they may believe it is extremely safe in the sense weed could be extremley safe cause you cant OD from it and they may take more then they shud u kno. Im not saying with proper precautions, proper steroids, diet, etc,,,, they cant be safe but saying they are extremely safe is plain retarded imo... and anyway I aint neva need no type of roids, and am well built, and one thing is for sure roid strength aint seein natural strength so imo there dumb and for weak bodied people who can not acheive results naturally.. Y I wouldnt say that for every drug is because other drugs like dust or w/e give you alterd results u can not reach naturally, however steroids seem just to be for weak minded/bodied people who need instant fake stature instead of actually achieving real mass, so imo it is an uneneccesary form of endangerment which in no way should be concidered extremely safe, and once again I am not going against other drugs as they have affects in which you basically will only be able to achieve thru taking them(like you cant naturally get an mdma high right, but u can naturallly and by far healthier results as well as persistant results thru working out as opposed to imo the dumb quick fix roids) . So in a way Im not for them but to each is there own, however they shud not be considered extremely safe.

Just so you know it is impossible to gain the type of mass/strength naturally that you can with steroids because the body does not produce enough naturally to achieve that, steroids take us past our genetic limits...steroids are in no way shape or form a quick fix and most of the people that I know that use them work out 10x harder and have 10x better nutrition than guys that are natural, AAS are not magic and you have to work hard to make them work for you...AAS overdose is extremely rare and would take a massive amount to do it, at least in the sense of overdose that you are referring too...if somebody were to come here in search of information on steroids, I'm willing to be that they will be able to find information about proper dosing and whatnot well before they see the statement about them being extremely safe.

As for things like dust giving you 'results' that can't be achieved naturally doesn't constitute it's safety and actually makes it more dangerous in my mind, because it is more likely to be abused, much like it actually is. Most steroids are made naturally in the body to some degree, which is just one more reason that they are safe. And for the record I've done massive amounts of many drugs in my past, so I have a pretty good background.

It's unfortunate, though completely understandable, that you have the outlook on steroids that you do, but you have no clue what you are talking about. It's usually better to present arguments when you have a good understanding of the subject, which you do not about steroids, especially when you come into a steroid forum full of people that do have a deep knowledge of the subject.

I stand by my comment and will continue to say that STEROIDS ARE EXTREMELY SAFE. Like with anything proper education in the form of research should be done first.

Also I forgot to ask, but if you don't mind what was the official cause of death of your friend? You only said that you believe the cause of death was steroids and that it was a heart attack. Did the coroner actually say that it was a heart attack due to steroid use? I'm sure he didn't because that is most likely not what caused it. I'm not saying they didn't play a factor, but I'd be willing to bet my house that the heart attack was caused by something else totally unrelated to steroids and the coroner would have put that down.

 

[maakshif]

regardless of the matter they should not be considered EXTREMELY SAFE, you are missing the point regardless of any stigma behind it.. I could of gotten killed fighting dusted against tooooo many niggas, but I still smoke it... from first bad hand experience, so the stigma aint shit, it is the principle of how contradicting it is where all my posts seem to be alterd for reasons such as this is a harm reduction site and im inducing negativity, yet mods are agreeing steroids are "extremely" safe... Had you said "safe" given proper procedure I would have agreed, but extremely safe is just ignorant, and extremely safe gives me the idea like nothing will go wrong, when a lot in fact does.. It is not the point it can be done well, it is not the point it can be safe, it is the point my posts are constantly edited for one reason or another yet idiots cud make such bold statements and mods(granted their fucking roidheads demselves) agree. . A bit hypocritical seeing as my freedom of speech or txt is being alterd, yet others can make these statements and get backed up ya dig

I'm only commenting on the bold underlined part here, as I'll leave the rest of your statement up to the mods.

How is it contradicting when the OP was clearly doing research? It is pretty much implied that with proper procedure and/or research they are safe or extremely safe. This would go for anyone that enters the thread as well, given that the title of the thread was "help me understand steroids", they would most likely be doing research. I would also venture to say that anyone who makes a thread or post asking questions would fall under this as well.

I will say one thing about the rest of your rant, there is no law dictating that you have freedom of speech of any kind on the Internet. That is completely up to the board's administrators and moderators, especially if the board is not based in the US or any other country that claims to allow freedom of speech or press. I can assure you that if you were to come to the board I moderate at, you would have been banned very quickly for talking about the mods in the fashion you have and we rarely ban because you must pay to be a member.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

regardless of the matter they should not be considered EXTREMELY SAFE, you are missing the point regardless of any stigma behind it.. I could of gotten killed fighting dusted against tooooo many niggas, but I still smoke it... from first bad hand experience, so the stigma aint shit, it is the principle of how contradicting it is where all my posts seem to be alterd for reasons such as this is a harm reduction site and im inducing negativity, yet mods are agreeing steroids are "extremely" safe... Had you said "safe" given proper procedure I would have agreed, but extremely safe is just ignorant, and extremely safe gives me the idea like nothing will go wrong, when a lot in fact does.. It is not the point it can be done well, it is not the point it can be safe, it is the point my posts are constantly edited for one reason or another yet idiots cud make such bold statements and mods(granted their fucking roidheads demselves) agree. . A bit hypocritical seeing as my freedom of speech or txt is being alterd, yet others can make these statements and get backed up ya dig

I still disagree with you.

Opiates, are extremely safe. There is an extremely large window between effective and lethal doses.

A lot of things can go wrong, especially when people become heroin addicts and start doing risky things to continue an addiction. But opiates, in themselves, are extremely safe.

Just because there are problems with things like drugs, or, driving, doesn't mean that it's not extremely safe. It just means you don't go into situations without common sense. You don't look at one sentence from one post on an internet forum and begin using steroids. No one does that.

So don't get upset that a moderator has said that using steroids is extremely safe. I am sure he understands what he's talking about, that's why he's the moderator.

 

[basskiller]

The difference with steroids is that to be in a position to "take them safely", takes vastly more time, learning and understanding than other classes of recreational drugs. If anything does ever go wrong with steroids (and it frequently does), board users will then all claim that they weren't "taken safely", when there is no: international association for meathead boards' guide to safe steroid use and everyone is a Monday morning quarterback in hindsight. Everyone's body is different and with hormones there is a greater unknown quantity than with the catecholamine mimetics.

Also, just missing one caveat of information with the pharmacodynamics or pharmacokinetics of steroids could potentially lead to a permanent side effect after a single 10 week course. There isn't as great a potential with a newbie doing this with other recreational drugs in a mere 10 weeks of use.

My advice would be to read google scholar or pubmed articles, as meathead boards lose a lot of nuance to steroids' mechanisms of action and their effects. They also usually dogmatically repeat their diluted "learning". A common claim that you will hear is that: "ALL steroids are HPTA suppressive". When in fact mesterolone (proviron) has been used at dosages of up to 150mg per day for 6 months continuously to actually increase fertility in men. In fact I have been considering proviron as a great candidate for HRT, without the estrogenic imbalance and HPTA suppression that sustanon will give.

On steroid boards they will always advise in upping dosages, claiming that less than 500-600mg of AAS per week is a waste even as a first cycle. This is not true, many rely too greatly on AAS rather than training technique and once they are on the AAS track they cannot gain without it. Check out "hypertrophic specific training" in google, most steroid boards will laugh at it, but it works, I've done a few programs with it and the results were better than any other program I've done, it is based on scientific research.

I've done 3 cycles in my life, never more than 500mg per week total AAS, (first one was 275mg andropen per week and the results certainly got a reaction from people that knew me). The acquaintances that sourced the andropen for me, insisted that I take nandrolone with it as it "would be a waste without it". They were very impressed with my results on just the andropen. Even with a background in biology I found the amount of reading required to be fully informed before using them to be a large undertaking and I have doubts that ANYONE would ever do this (unless you are an endocrinologist). I generally advise against steroid use. Try the HST training. I got 5kg in 8 weeks without an increase in waistline.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be an A$$, But I hate being limped together with inaccurate information as I own one of those so called Meathead boards..

You have to be kidding right? No bodybuilder would use proviron as a steroid. While it is techically a steroid, Bodybuilders will only used it due to it's anti-estrogenic properties and increase libido. It could be used pre contest .. but even then, it's used for the same thing estrogen control ..thats it. Other than that..

It's only used inconjunction with other steroids as a counter measure. . Thats why in that study you described it didn't show any estrogenic imbalance. and was used in the first place with the men with limited libido .. Not sure about the exact study your talking about as you used the word infertile.. There is a difference between active sperm production and lack of libido.

I also Love the way you lump the "meathead boards" into one lump sum. This one post sums up your lack of knowledge of steroids and their uses along with people and boards you think you know but don't.
Not all steroid type boards push high doses and in fact. Many guys when talking to just regular gymrats attempt to push the lower dose when discussing gear for the first, second, third time.. You keep them low until they don't work anymore. There is a difference between use and abuse. Using gear to get past a plateu for instance
If you knew anything about any of us, you would come to realize that we're more likely to push a corrected diet than we are to suggest using steroids.

And HST is not anything to laugh at.. But there are other training methods that are far superior.. Why do I say this.. Because we have tried allot of these training method to determine which best suits us. Some looking for power will follow the routines of guys like Date Tate or Jim Wendler or maybe Louie Simmons..
These are the guys who routinely work with weights that would make you or I cry. We're talk in excess of 500 or 600lbs on the bench..
Other Guyslike Dante's doggcrapp methodology.. Great for size and strength.. many will go for bill starr's 5X5.. which can be way more effective that HST.. But they all have their place.. You first have to look at the person's goals.. You just don't make blanket statements.
What you have done here is exactly what your saying about others..

 

[maakshif]

Big Bass made it here!

 

[beamers]

No bodybuilder would use proviron as a steroid.

They do use it as a steroid (it is a steroid). I never made the claim that it was used on its own by bodybuilders or that it is ideal for building mass, you keep making assumptions.

This one post sums up your lack of knowledge of steroids

I made no scientifically incorrect claim.

And HST is not anything to laugh at..

I never did laugh at it. Meathead board members frequently do, especially when it first came on the scene (2005ish), because it doesn't fit their training dogma. Think about that, laughing and ridiculing scientific research. It was an incredible uphill battle for Dan and Bryan to get the bodybuilding community to just give it a try and leave the splits alone for a while.

Because we have tried allot of these training method to determine which best suits us. Some looking for power will follow the routines of guys like Date Tate or Jim Wendler or maybe Louie Simmons..

I never made the claim that HST is universally the best training program, but for "hypertrophy" it should be the first one to try.

So nice try, but you got your panties all in a bunch over nothing.

 

[maakshif]

The difference with steroids is that to be in a position to "take them safely", takes vastly more time, learning and understanding than other classes of recreational drugs. If anything does ever go wrong with steroids (and it frequently does), board users will then all claim that they weren't "taken safely", when there is no: international association for meathead boards' guide to safe steroid use and everyone is a Monday morning quarterback in hindsight. Everyone's body is different and with hormones there is a greater unknown quantity than with the catecholamine mimetics.

while it is true that everyone is different and will react differently to the same compounds, there are many base effects, good and bad, that compounds cause for everyone or have the potential to cause for everyone that uses them...not sure about where you get that things frequently go wrong with steroids, that is just a complete BS statement made by someone that, imo, has very little actual understanding of AAS, same as your so called 'meathead boards'....9 times out of 10 if something goes wrong that is directly related to the AAS use, something was done improperly or in an unsafe manner

Also, just missing one caveat of information with the pharmacodynamics or pharmacokinetics of steroids could potentially lead to a permanent side effect after a single 10 week course. There isn't as great a potential with a newbie doing this with other recreational drugs in a mere 10 weeks of use.

that potential is extremely low....it is damn near impossible to cause yourself permanent side effects...it is absolutely much much more likely that a newbie using other drugs for 10 weeks are going to suffer much worse side effects that are much more likely to be permanent, depending on the drug obviously

My advice would be to read google scholar or pubmed articles, as meathead boards lose a lot of nuance to steroids' mechanisms of action and their effects. They also usually dogmatically repeat their diluted "learning". A common claim that you will hear is that: "ALL steroids are HPTA suppressive". When in fact mesterolone (proviron) has been used at dosages of up to 150mg per day for 6 months continuously to actually increase fertility in men. In fact I have been considering proviron as a great candidate for HRT, without the estrogenic imbalance and HPTA suppression that sustanon will give.

you can read all of the pubmed articles and scientific studies that you want, but they don't tell the whole story...there are very few studies done on the types of dosages and the uses of steroids from a bodybuilding standpoint...most of the human studies are done for TRT purposes or for HIV/AIDS on patients that are already suffering other medical issues...this leads them to not typically being applicable to the lifestyle we are talking about here...scientific studies are also typically geared at finding one hypothesis and that is the answer that they will find if it is what they are looking for...quite simply put, there is not nearly enough research done on steroids for any of it to really be applicable to bodybuilding and the associated lifestyle

On steroid boards they will always advise in upping dosages, claiming that less than 500-600mg of AAS per week is a waste even as a first cycle. This is not true, many rely too greatly on AAS rather than training technique and once they are on the AAS track they cannot gain without it. Check out "hypertrophic specific training" in google, most steroid boards will laugh at it, but it works, I've done a few programs with it and the results were better than any other program I've done, it is based on scientific research.

this is completely and utterly not accurate...most of the boards that I frequent including the one that I moderate on, do not encourage doses above 500 mg/ew especially not for a beginning cycle....Like Basskiller said we also push diet as the absolute key to success and AAS as only supplements to aid the diet and training routines....I've tried HST and quite honestly I wasn't impressed, there are much better programs out there, but that is just my opinion of it...based in scientific study once again doesn't mean shit...I'd much rather take anecdotal evidence from other guys that have had success and then experiment myself to see what works for me...just like AAS, we all react differently to training as well

I've done 3 cycles in my life, never more than 500mg per week total AAS, (first one was 275mg andropen per week and the results certainly got a reaction from people that knew me). The acquaintances that sourced the andropen for me, insisted that I take nandrolone with it as it "would be a waste without it". They were very impressed with my results on just the andropen. Even with a background in biology I found the amount of reading required to be fully informed before using them to be a large undertaking and I have doubts that ANYONE would ever do this (unless you are an endocrinologist). I generally advise against steroid use. Try the HST training. I got 5kg in 8 weeks without an increase in waistline.

I've stated this before, but just because you've got a few cycles under your belt doesn't mean that you now know all there is to know about steroids. I'm not saying this is you necessarily, because you state that you have a background in Biology, though that isn't a a great qualification, it is a scientific background and I obviously don't know how much research you've done besides that...I've been doing research on steroids for around 10 years and do a lot of reading on pretty much an everyday basis and I'm far from being an Endo...I also know many people that have talked to Endo's and been told that they were more knowledgeable than the Endo...just because he has a medical degree and his specialty is includes AAS, doesn't mean that know more than the many of the people on these so called 'meathead boards'

comments in bold ^

get over your stigma of calling bodybuilding boards 'meathead boards', it is a very derogatory and inaccurate description by somebody that either had a bad experience and is holding a grudge or is completely ignorant...I will admit that there are some pretty bad ones out there, but still there is no reason to lump all bodybuilding boards into that mix

 

[beamers]

not sure about where you get that things frequently go wrong with steroids,

Studies on steroid abuse and you could even read a lot of the steroid forum users experiences themselves. mesomorphosis has a sub-forum where plenty of users have bad stories to tell.

.9 times out of 10 if something goes wrong that is directly related to the AAS use, something was done improperly or in an unsafe manner

That backs up what I said and is true of all drugs. The difference with steroids is that to use them "safely" (a definition which changes greatly amongst recreational steroid users) there is a much steeper learning curve. Ask yourself, how many ancillaries do you need to take to take ecstasy on the weekend? If you are using a handful of drugs to counteract the side-effects of the first drug then that would lead one to assume that there is greater risk in the side-effects and a greater knowledge needed to understand the metabolism, interactions etc.. of all of the drugs being taken. Lastly on this, without monitoring of blood levels it really is flying blind, does a pot smoker need blood tests?

that potential is extremely low....it is damn near impossible to cause yourself permanent side effects

This just isn't true.

it is absolutely much much more likely that a newbie using other drugs for 10 weeks are going to suffer much worse side effects that are much more likely to be permanent, depending on the drug obviously

Can you name a commonly used recreational drug where newbie users suffer worse side effects in the first 10 weeks of use?

you can read all of the pubmed articles and scientific studies that you want, but they don't tell the whole story...there are very few studies done on the types of dosages and the uses of steroids from a bodybuilding standpoint...most of the human studies are done for TRT purposes or for HIV/AIDS on patients that are already suffering other medical issues...this leads them to not typically being applicable to the lifestyle we are talking about here...scientific studies are also typically geared at finding one hypothesis and that is the answer that they will find if it is what they are looking for...quite simply put, there is not nearly enough research done on steroids for any of it to really be applicable to bodybuilding and the associated lifestyle

Did you even read what you wrote?

most of the boards that I frequent including the one that I moderate on, do not encourage doses above 500 mg/ew especially not for a beginning cycle.

This may be your personal philosophy, my experience on meso, thinkmuscle, bodybuilding.com etc... was that forum members would usually recommend 500mg as a minimum first cycle dose and frequently stated that less will not be worth it.

but just because you've got a few cycles under your belt doesn't mean that you now know all there is to know about steroids.

No where did I claim so, I just gave my experience as an example and commented that steroid forums are often rabid echo chambers.

.I also know many people that have talked to Endo's and been told that they were more knowledgeable than the Endo

This is the part where steroid users start believing their own delusions. Take note kids, don't let this happen to you.
These are the type of urban legends that frequently are lauded on these boards. The only way that an endocrinologist would say this in a clinical context is to sympathise with the patient as he can probably see that the patient has rabidly been parroting on about something and in an attempt to settle him and move on he tells them this. In other words he's patronising the patient to guide the consultation in a more productive direction as you have no chance of reasoning with a meathead.

.I will admit that there are some pretty bad ones out there, but still there is no reason to lump all bodybuilding boards into that mix

An exception here or there does not disprove the trend (Dr. Dave on bodybuilding.com is a shining light, but then again he is a doctor). Most of the users merely parrot what another user claimed (it's largely cut and paste), each time it is repeated further nuance is lost. A new user without a scientific background has little chance in discerning what is true, since the parroting mob drown out all reason.

.just because he has a medical degree and his specialty is includes AAS, doesn't mean that know more than the many of the people on these so called 'meathead boards'

This is exactly the problem I've been talking about. Hearsay and anecdotes would know better than science and research and it's true because we all repeat as one.

 

[maakshif]

Studies on steroid abuse and you could even read a lot of the steroid forum users experiences themselves. mesomorphosis has a sub-forum where plenty of users have bad stories to tell.

the question is what caused them to have the bad experiences besides steroids, I can guarantee you that there were some other factors, not saying steroids didn't play a role, but I can almost guarantee they were not the sole cause.

That backs up what I said and is true of all drugs. The difference with steroids is that to use them "safely" (a definition which changes greatly amongst recreational steroid users) there is a much steeper learning curve. Ask yourself, how many ancillaries do you need to take to take ecstasy on the weekend? If you are using a handful of drugs to counteract the side-effects of the first drug then that would lead one to assume that there is greater risk in the side-effects and a greater knowledge needed to understand the metabolism, interactions etc.. of all of the drugs being taken. Lastly on this, without monitoring of blood levels it really is flying blind, does a pot smoker need blood tests?

honestly I've probably used more ancillaries taking ecstasy, back when I used it, than I do for most of my AAS cycles and that isn't far from the norm...many people do throw a lot of unnecessary drugs in when they use AAS, but the same could be said about rec drugs as well...also how many cases per year at US hospitals are actually attributed to AAS, on average over the last 10 years is only 3-5...for all other recreational drugs it is much much higher than that on a daily basis

I do agree that the research is more extensive that goes into the use of AAS, but that doesn't mean that they are more dangerous than say coke...it's just there is actually a community out there that pushes the research of AAS before using them...do you think that guys in the eras before the Internet actually did research before doing cycles, nope, and the Internet is actually why it seems that there are so many negative side effects associated with AAS...people hear that something can happen and then all of a sudden it happens to them, or at least they think it is happening to them.

This just isn't true.

most every side effect that is associated with AAS use is absolutely correctable and controllable...the only one that isn't totally correctable is left ventricle enlargement and this has been proven time and time again


Can you name a commonly used recreational drug where newbie users suffer worse side effects in the first 10 weeks of use?

cocaine, heroine, ecstacy, crack, mushrooms, acid, pretty much any other one but pot...and I have plenty of experience with many many drugs in my past and still dabble at times now with some stuff...the difference is for most of them I had this site as a reference for some research (I was under a different handle in those times)

Did you even read what you wrote?

research was the wrong wording there, I should have said clinical studies


This may be your personal philosophy, my experience on meso, thinkmuscle, bodybuilding.com etc... was that forum members would usually recommend 500mg as a minimum first cycle dose and frequently stated that less will not be worth it.

here in lies your problem...those boards you mentioned are the worst possible examples, imo, especially BB.com, which no longer has a AAS section BTW, unless they just recently put it back up...BB.com is one of the most useless boards around now...they used to be really good but seem to have fallen into the hands of nothing but teens

No where did I claim so, I just gave my experience as an example and commented that steroid forums are often rabid echo chambers.

wow way to cut off the rest of what I said and take it out of context...I said that I did not lump you in that because you have a scientific background in Biology and I don't know how much research you've actually done. I was using that statement you made to get a point across

This is the part where steroid users start believing their own delusions. Take not kids, don't let this happen to you.
These are the type of urban legends that frequently are lauded on these boards. The only way that an endocrinologist would say this in a clinical context is to sympathise with the patient as he can probably see that the patient has rabidly been parroting on about something and in an attempt to settle him and move on he tells them this. In other words he's patronising the patient to guide the consultation in a more productive direction as you have no chance of reasoning with a meathead.

sorry I completely disagree with this

An exception here or there does not disprove the trend (Dr. Dave on bodybuilding.com is a shining light, but then again he is a doctor). Most of the users merely parrot what another user claimed (it's largely cut and paste), each time it is repeated further nuance is lost. A new user without a scientific background has little chance in discerning what is true, since the parroting mob drown out all reason.

while this is partly true, it is still very ignorant to assume that every person on a board is an unintelligent uneducated parrot...that really isn't how the majority of the respected boards are, it is quite the opposite, that could be said, maybe because many of them are pay to be member boards, but it cuts down on the non-sense...check out thesourcecheck, basskiller's site, ironmanmagazine forums, outlawmuscle, sourceauthority.net, professionalmuscle, uk-muscle, etc...you'll find very quickly that the norm isn't what goes over the boards at bb.com, tnation, meso, elitefitness, etc and those boards are pretty much laughed at...just because someone is a doctor doesn't mean they know shit about steroids, enocrinologists and urologists are the only specialties that do in depth studying in the field of AAS...other people going through medical school are lucky if they even hear the word steroid outside of the context of corticosteroids

This is exactly the problem I've been talking about. Hearsay and anecdotes would know better than science and research and it's true because we all repeat as one.

anecdotal evidence in the bodybuilding world should be added to research and clinical studies...like I mentioned there is not enough clinical studies done in the context of how we use AAS, because it is not approved by the FDA for the US to do them, and many other countries, if they do them don't release the results

^^^^

 

[beamers]

honestly I've probably used more ancillaries taking ecstasy, back when I used it, than I do for most of my AAS cycles and that isn't far from the norm..

You are not being genuine.

many people do throw a lot of unnecessary drugs in when they use AAS, but the same could
be said about rec drugs as well..
.also how many cases per year at US hospitals are actually attributed to AAS, on average over the last 10 years is only 3-5...for all other recreational drugs it is much much higher than that on a daily basis

Firstly any statistic needs to be adjusted per 10 000 users to be meaningful and you are missing the mark in any case.
All new drug users do not read enough about the drugs or steroids they are taking. With steroids the potential of permanent side effects or side effects that require long term medical intervention occurring right off the bat to a new user is far greater than with other recreational drugs.

most every side effect that is associated with AAS use is absolutely correctable and controllable...the only one that isn't totally correctable is left ventricle enlargement and this has been proven time and time again

The thing is, that with other recreational drugs, counteracting side-effects is largely unnecessary. especially for new users, as I have previously mentioned. If you have jaw-shakes or eye wobbles from an ecstasy peak, these are transient and only last as long as the peak does. However, your lipid and hormone profile, even with "safe use" of steroids take much longer to correct and need to be massaged with ancillaries to move these parameters back to within non-disease state values. Sometimes these values take months and maybe never correct with enough use.

here in lies your problem...those boards you mentioned are the worst possible examples, imo, especially BB.com, w

The boards mentioned are amongst the most popular and hence my warning for new users like the OP.

anecdotal evidence in the bodybuilding world should be added to research and clinical studies...like I mentioned there is not enough clinical studies done in the context of how we use AAS, because it is not approved by the FDA for the US to do them, and many other countries, if they do them don't release the results

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method and clinical research. Anecdotal evidence is the anti-thesis of the scientific method, it rightly receives a few sentence footnote in any article.

.like I mentioned there is not enough clinical studies done in the context of how we use AAS,

What would you like to see researched, give me an example? and why do you think that the studies of the effects of anabolic steroids do not apply to bodybuilders?

While this is partly true, it is still very ignorant to assume that every person on a board is an unintelligent uneducated parrot...that really isn't how the majority of the respected boards are,

I never said every, in my experience the most used boards have proven this to be the case (I did give a specific example of an exception). Hence steroid "research" is a very dangerous endeavor for the layperson.

Regarding the claim that an experienced/knowledgeable home-schooled steroid user has a greater knowledge/understanding than an endocrinologist would, only shows a deep ignorance of the undertaking of a tertiary education in a specialised field. Can you tell me something that a steroid user worked out, that an endocrinologist wouldn't know? I can't believe I even need to ask this.

Can you name a commonly used recreational drug where newbie users suffer worse side effects in the first 10 weeks of use?

cocaine, heroine, ecstacy, crack, mushrooms, acid, pretty much any other one but pot...and I have plenty of experience with many many drugs in my past and still dabble at times now with some stuff...the difference is for most of them I had this site as a reference for some research (I was under a different handle in those times)

Let me put it this way as you keep moving the goal posts....if a new drug user had to pick between a random (but labeled) steroid and a random (but labeled) stimulant as their drug of choice and can then take it home and read about/do with it as they please. Who is more likely to run into trouble first? The stimulant user needs to do far less reading and procuring of side-effect antidotes to come out ok.

 

[maakshif]

You are not being genuine.

and how exactly do you know that? Were you with me when I used to take ecstasy? Are you with me when I set up and run my steroid cycles?

Firstly any statistic needs to be adjusted per 10 000 users to be meaningful and you are missing the mark in any case.
All new drug users do not read enough about the drugs or steroids they are taking. With steroids the potential of permanent side effects or side effects that require long term medical intervention occurring right off the bat to a new user is far greater than with other recreational drugs.

sorry to say that my statement is pretty much right on the mark
Drug-Related Hospital Emergency Room Visits...these are from 2006, steroids are not even mentioned on the lists at all


The thing is, that with other recreational drugs, counteracting side-effects is largely unnecessary. especially for new users, as I have previously mentioned. If you have jaw-shakes or eye wobbles from an ecstasy peak, these are transient and only last as long as the peak does. However, your lipid and hormone profile, even with "safe use" of steroids take much longer to correct and need to be massaged with ancillaries to move these parameters back to within non-disease state values. Sometimes these values take months and maybe never correct with enough use.

Chronic users of Ecstasy perform more poorly than nonusers on certain types of cognitive or memory tasks. Some of these effects may be due to the use of other drugs in combination with Ecstasy, among other factors.

Physical Effects: In high doses, Ecstasy can interfere with the body's ability to regulate temperature. On rare but unpredictable occasions, this can lead to a sharp increase in body temperature (hyperthermia), resulting in liver, kidney, and cardiovascular system failure, and death.

Because Ecstasy can interfere with its own metabolism (breakdown within the body), potentially harmful levels can be reached by repeated drug use within short intervals.

these are just some of the effects of ecstasy and to me, from personal experience with both, these are all much worse than what can happen with AAS usage


The boards mentioned are amongst the most popular and hence my warning for new users like the OP.

can't argue that those are the most popular unfortunately

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method and clinical research. Anecdotal evidence is the anti-thesis of the scientific method, it rightly receives a few sentence footnote in any article.

I understand the scientific method very well, however there is very very little clinical research on AAS in realm of Bodybuilding, like I said all of the studies are done on TRT and HIV/AIDS in much lower dosages on people that typically already have other ailments or they are done on rats and I just don't trust rat studies, because imo there really isn't a crossover between rats and humans given that rats are able harbor diseases with no signs whatsoever that would kill a human

What would you like to see researched, give me an example? and why do you think that the studies of the effects of anabolic steroids do not apply to bodybuilders?

Honestly there needs to be legit scientific research done on AAS in bodybuilding dosages, both recreational and what the pros run...again refer to the TRT and HIV/AIDS statement, the people in those studies are given low dosages and many times they already have liver/kidney and other organ issues, immune system issues, lipid problems, etc....imo it skews the results dramatically when they are applied to healthy individuals

I never said every, in my experience the most used boards have proven this to be the case (I did give a specific example of an exception). Hence steroid "research" is a very dangerous endeavor for the layperson.

I'm neutral on this...I agree that it can be a dangerous endeavor, but doesn't have to be and isn't always a dangerous endeavor

Regarding the claim that an experienced/knowledgeable home-schooled steroid user has a greater knowledge/understanding than an endocrinologist would, only shows a deep ignorance of the undertaking of a tertiary education in a specialised field. Can you tell me something that a steroid user worked out, that an endocrinologist wouldn't know? I can't believe I even need to ask this.

Honestly, considering what I know about Med School programs, even the specialties, as I've applied to many and done research on them, yes I do believe that there are many many home-schooled steroid users that have a greater knowledge and understanding of steroids and the science behind them...I know plenty of Biochem majors that know a hell of a lot more than most any Endo could probably dream of, now granted they are not home-schooled users, but there is absolutely no reason that somebody sitting at their computer or that is interested in research can't go and find out the information that they want...not every intelligent person is able to get a formal education and a formal education doesn't always signify that a person has an in depth understanding of their particular "subject of expertise"

Let me put it this way as you keep moving the goal posts....if a new drug user had to pick between a random (but labeled) steroid and a random (but labeled) stimulant as their drug of choice and can then take it home and read about/do with it as they please. Who is more likely to run into trouble first? The stimulant user needs to do far less reading and procuring of side-effect antidotes to come out ok.

Honestly, there are way too many variables involved to make that claim.

we are going to have to agree to disagree obviously, you have your ideas and perceptions that clearly are not going to change and I have my ideas and perceptions that are not going to change

 

[beamers]

but there is absolutely no reason that somebody sitting at their computer or that is interested in research can't go and find out the information that they want

It would be like searching for a needle in a haystack. Have you seen the movie 'Lorenzo's Oil"? The reason it was made into a movie is only because it is such an unlikely event. You still haven't answered my simple question of what these home-schoolers know that an endocrinologist would not? You claim that the emperor has the finest clothes and that you have seen them...well then I'd love to see them also.... I've already had to teach you a basic lesson in using statistics in a clinically relevant manner.

The internet has indeed given rise to the cult of the amateur.

 

[TakeItAll]

I really hesitate to put my oar in the water between a difference of opinion that the two of you are so passionate about but I really couldn't let the following comment go by:

"most every side effect that is associated with AAS use is absolutely correctable and controllable...the only one that isn't totally correctable is left ventricle enlargement and this has been proven time and time again"

There was absolutely no comment made on it and from my perspective as someone who talks about cardiac disease every day at work this is a pretty big deal. Left ventricle hypertrophy (LVH) is some seriously bad shit that even if you're old and have lived a good life you don't want. As a young person in great health that is looking to be even bigger and/or stronger any risk of developing heart failure from LVH should be treated seriously.

Since the two of you are obviously fans of internet research as many of us here are I would encourage you to look into this serious condition further as part of your knowledge base.