- Jun 25, 2006
- 5,045
- 1
- 38
The Steroid Safety Debate
Studies with REAL Dosages
If you so much as mention anabolic steroids to the average person, you usually get some pretty cross looks in response. State that you are actually considering a cycle, and you are likely to be lectured to about the tremendous heath risks you’re about to undertake; how your hair might fall out and your testicles might disappear; or how your body will be eaten away by cancer. Or maybe you will just lose you mind to uncontrolled fits of psychotic rage, or suffer a life-threatening heart attack. You’ll probably hear something like, “Is all that really worth it— to build a little more muscle?” Clearly, the American public has been given a very strong message about steroids: Stay far away from them; they are deadly! You can’t convince too many people that smoking a joint will really cause a 16-year-old kid to pull out his dad’s gun and shoot his friend in the face, but for some reason the “over-the-top” anti-drug message with steroids seems to have worked. Most people are legitimately terrified of them.Those actually taking anabolic steroids usually see things very differently, however. They believe the dangers are terribly exaggerated in the media. These athletes will routinely point out that the medical literature for the past 50 years fails to make much note of any serious consequences of steroid use, with most clinical studies looking quite favorably on these drugs, in fact. Steroid opponents, on the other hand, will still make sure you know that bodybuilders take much larger doses of steroids than those used in medical situations, and are therefore are in much greater danger than the patients using them. Who is right? Is that occasional cycle really a serious health risk? I would like to touch on this debate by looking closely at three medical studies that were published recently. They concern not small clinical doses, but a level of steroid usage that any recreational bodybuilder would recognize as sufficient for building muscle. Many markers of safety are assessed in these papers, giving us a pretty good indication of what dangers, realistically, are presented.
600 Milligrams/Week of Testosterone
The first is a testosterone dose-response study published in the American Journal of Physiology Endocrinology and Metabolism in July, 2001, which looked at the effects of various doses of testosterone entanthate on body composition, muscle size, strength, power, sexual and cognitive functions, and various markers of health.[1] Sixty-one normal men, ages 18-35, participated in this investigation. They were divided into five groups, with each receiving weekly injections of 25, 50, 125, 300 or 600 milligrams for a period of 20 weeks. This treatment period was preceded by a control (no drug) period of four weeks and followed by a recovery period of 16 weeks. As would seem obvious, markers of strength and lean body mass gains were the greatest with larger doses of testosterone, with the 600-milligram group gaining slightly over 17 pounds of fat-free mass on average over the 20 weeks of steroid therapy. There were no significant changes in prostate-specific antigen (PSA), liver enzymes (liver stress), sexual activity, or cognitive functioning at any dose. The only negative trait noted was a slight HDL (good) cholesterol reduction in all groups except those taking 25 milligrams. The worst reduction of nine points was noted in the 600-milligram group, which still averaged 34 points after 20 weeks of treatment. All groups except this one remained in the normal reference range for males (40-59 points).
600 Milligrams/Week of Nandrolone
Next we can look at a study conducted with HIV+ men, which charted the lean-mass-building effects of nandrolone decanoate.[2] Thirty people participated in this investigation, with each given the same (high) weekly dose of this drug. Half underwent resistance training so that two groups (trained and untrained) were formed. The dosing schedule was quite formidable, beginning with 200 milligrams the first week, 400 milligrams the second, and 600 milligrams for the remaining 10 weeks of peak therapy. Doses were slowly reduced from weeks 13 to 16 to withdraw patients slowly from the drug. Potential negative metabolic changes were looked at closely including cholesterol and lipid levels (including subfractions of HDL and LDL), triglycerides, insulin sensitivity and fasting glucose levels. Despite the high dose used, no negative changes were noted in total or LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, or insulin sensitivity. In fact, the group also undergoing resistance exercise noticed significant improvements in LDL particle size distribution, lipoprotein(a) levels and triglyceride values, which would all indicate improved cardiovascular disease risk. Carbohydrate metabolism was also significantly improved in this group. The only negative impact noted during this study was a reduction in HDL (good) cholesterol values similar to that noted with the testosterone study, with an eight to 10 point reduction noted between both groups.
100 Milligrams/Day of Anadrol
Lastly, we find a study looking at the potent oral steroid oxymetholone (Anadrol).[3] This steroid is actually thought by bodybuilders to be one of the most dangerous around, and as a group they seem to treat it with a lot of respect and caution. It is not extremely common to find bodybuilders exceeding the doses and intake durations of this investigation, making it a very good representation of real-world Anadrol usage. This study involves 31 elderly men actually, all between the ages of 65 and 80. The men were divided into three groups, with each taking 50 milligrams, 100 milligrams or placebo daily for a 12-week period. Changes in lean body mass and strength were measured, as well as common markers of safety, including total, LDL and HDL cholesterol levels, serum triglycerides, PSA (prostate-specific antigen) and liver enzymes. Muscle mass and strength gains were again relative to the dosage taken, with the end results similar to those noted with 20 weeks of testosterone enanthate therapy at 125 milligrams or 300 milligrams per week (about 6.4 and 12 pounds of lean body mass gained for the 50-milligram and 100-milligram doses, respectively). There were no significant changes in PSA, total or LDL cholesterol values, or fasting triglycerides. However, there was a significant reduction in HDL cholesterol values (reduced 19 and 23 points for the 50-milligram and 100-milligram groups, respectively). Liver enzymes (transaminases AST and ALT) increased only in the 100-milligram group, but the changes were not dramatic and were not accompanied by hepatic enlargement or the development of any serious liver condition.
Adding it All Up
In these three studies, a total of 121 men participated. The studies involved the use of high doses of steroids for periods of three to five months. It may be shocking to most of the staunch opponents of steroid use, but all the men participating were still alive at the conclusion of their respective investigations. An unbiased assessment of the metabolic changes and health risks does not seem to reveal any short-term significant dangers. The main negative impact of steroid use in all three cases was a reduction in good (HDL) cholesterol values, which is a legitimate concern when it comes to assessing one’s risk for developing cardiovascular disease. It is uncertain, however, if a short-lived increase in this particular risk factor will relate to any tangible damage to one’s health. It is also unknown how much, if any, this is offset by the other positive metabolic changes that were seen to accompany combined steroid use and exercise. Logic would seem to suggest that the very periodic use of steroids, under parameters similar to these studies, should entail relatively minimal risks to one’s health overall. At the very least, it is extremely difficult to argue that an isolated cycle, as such, is tantamount to playing Russian roulette with your body, as most media campaigns against the use of these drugs would seem to suggest.
References
[1] Testosterone dose-response relationships in healthy yo0ung men. Shalender, Woodhouse et al. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 281: e1172-81 2001
[2] Metabolic effects of nandrolone decanoate and resistance training in men with HIV. Sattler et al. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 283: e1214-22
[3] Effects of an oral androgen on muscle and metabolism in older, community-dwelling men. Schroeder et al. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 284: E120-28
Black Market Update
The Mexican veterinary firm Quality Vet has been getting quite a bit of attention of late, so it’s no wonder counterfeits of this line have started to pop up. Pictured here is a copy of their boldenone injectable, called Bold QV 200 (the 200 signifying the per milliliter dosage strength). This is a particularly sought-after version of the popular veterinary steroid Equipoise, obviously because it is in a dosage much higher than the classic 50 milligrams per milliliter usually found in most other products. This fake stands out like a sore thumb for a few reasons. First, the labeling is very poor. The labels themselves were made too large for the vial they were applied to, and as a result, the ends overlap. This is immediately a very bad sign for any steroid product. The inking on the paper is also not at all crisp, as it is on the real QV bottle. This counterfeit also lacks an accompanying box, which is a very rare way to find Quality Vet products on the black market. It also lacks the required security QV hologram sticker, which is still the best method of differentiating the legitimate thing from bogus black market copies. Also this month we have a rarely seen version of synthetic human growth hormone from Brazil. This version is called Hormotrop, a brand name not readily crossed on the black market. This particular item is made by the drug manufacturer Bergamo and comes packaged in a box with 4IU of drug. This is a relatively small, but very common, amount of hormone to be found in a box of GH. It’s packaged in the typical way GH products are, with a dry powder (a lyophilized disc, actually) in one vial and a separate sterile dilutant (water based solution) in another. These two vials are mixed before use and must be refrigerated after reconstitution if stored. This version contains bacteriostatic water (treated with alcohol to kill bacterial contaminants), so it does keep for a few weeks in the refrigerator (much longer than versions that contain only sterile water without alcohol). It is actually not necessary to use bacteriostatic water for such a small amount of GH (sterile water is fine), unless you’re using a single IU or less per day. In any event, this is a legitimate and reliable GH product, although it is probably more expensive on the black market than larger-dosed kits like Serostim. —WL
Studies with REAL Dosages
If you so much as mention anabolic steroids to the average person, you usually get some pretty cross looks in response. State that you are actually considering a cycle, and you are likely to be lectured to about the tremendous heath risks you’re about to undertake; how your hair might fall out and your testicles might disappear; or how your body will be eaten away by cancer. Or maybe you will just lose you mind to uncontrolled fits of psychotic rage, or suffer a life-threatening heart attack. You’ll probably hear something like, “Is all that really worth it— to build a little more muscle?” Clearly, the American public has been given a very strong message about steroids: Stay far away from them; they are deadly! You can’t convince too many people that smoking a joint will really cause a 16-year-old kid to pull out his dad’s gun and shoot his friend in the face, but for some reason the “over-the-top” anti-drug message with steroids seems to have worked. Most people are legitimately terrified of them.Those actually taking anabolic steroids usually see things very differently, however. They believe the dangers are terribly exaggerated in the media. These athletes will routinely point out that the medical literature for the past 50 years fails to make much note of any serious consequences of steroid use, with most clinical studies looking quite favorably on these drugs, in fact. Steroid opponents, on the other hand, will still make sure you know that bodybuilders take much larger doses of steroids than those used in medical situations, and are therefore are in much greater danger than the patients using them. Who is right? Is that occasional cycle really a serious health risk? I would like to touch on this debate by looking closely at three medical studies that were published recently. They concern not small clinical doses, but a level of steroid usage that any recreational bodybuilder would recognize as sufficient for building muscle. Many markers of safety are assessed in these papers, giving us a pretty good indication of what dangers, realistically, are presented.
600 Milligrams/Week of Testosterone
The first is a testosterone dose-response study published in the American Journal of Physiology Endocrinology and Metabolism in July, 2001, which looked at the effects of various doses of testosterone entanthate on body composition, muscle size, strength, power, sexual and cognitive functions, and various markers of health.[1] Sixty-one normal men, ages 18-35, participated in this investigation. They were divided into five groups, with each receiving weekly injections of 25, 50, 125, 300 or 600 milligrams for a period of 20 weeks. This treatment period was preceded by a control (no drug) period of four weeks and followed by a recovery period of 16 weeks. As would seem obvious, markers of strength and lean body mass gains were the greatest with larger doses of testosterone, with the 600-milligram group gaining slightly over 17 pounds of fat-free mass on average over the 20 weeks of steroid therapy. There were no significant changes in prostate-specific antigen (PSA), liver enzymes (liver stress), sexual activity, or cognitive functioning at any dose. The only negative trait noted was a slight HDL (good) cholesterol reduction in all groups except those taking 25 milligrams. The worst reduction of nine points was noted in the 600-milligram group, which still averaged 34 points after 20 weeks of treatment. All groups except this one remained in the normal reference range for males (40-59 points).
600 Milligrams/Week of Nandrolone
Next we can look at a study conducted with HIV+ men, which charted the lean-mass-building effects of nandrolone decanoate.[2] Thirty people participated in this investigation, with each given the same (high) weekly dose of this drug. Half underwent resistance training so that two groups (trained and untrained) were formed. The dosing schedule was quite formidable, beginning with 200 milligrams the first week, 400 milligrams the second, and 600 milligrams for the remaining 10 weeks of peak therapy. Doses were slowly reduced from weeks 13 to 16 to withdraw patients slowly from the drug. Potential negative metabolic changes were looked at closely including cholesterol and lipid levels (including subfractions of HDL and LDL), triglycerides, insulin sensitivity and fasting glucose levels. Despite the high dose used, no negative changes were noted in total or LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, or insulin sensitivity. In fact, the group also undergoing resistance exercise noticed significant improvements in LDL particle size distribution, lipoprotein(a) levels and triglyceride values, which would all indicate improved cardiovascular disease risk. Carbohydrate metabolism was also significantly improved in this group. The only negative impact noted during this study was a reduction in HDL (good) cholesterol values similar to that noted with the testosterone study, with an eight to 10 point reduction noted between both groups.
100 Milligrams/Day of Anadrol
Lastly, we find a study looking at the potent oral steroid oxymetholone (Anadrol).[3] This steroid is actually thought by bodybuilders to be one of the most dangerous around, and as a group they seem to treat it with a lot of respect and caution. It is not extremely common to find bodybuilders exceeding the doses and intake durations of this investigation, making it a very good representation of real-world Anadrol usage. This study involves 31 elderly men actually, all between the ages of 65 and 80. The men were divided into three groups, with each taking 50 milligrams, 100 milligrams or placebo daily for a 12-week period. Changes in lean body mass and strength were measured, as well as common markers of safety, including total, LDL and HDL cholesterol levels, serum triglycerides, PSA (prostate-specific antigen) and liver enzymes. Muscle mass and strength gains were again relative to the dosage taken, with the end results similar to those noted with 20 weeks of testosterone enanthate therapy at 125 milligrams or 300 milligrams per week (about 6.4 and 12 pounds of lean body mass gained for the 50-milligram and 100-milligram doses, respectively). There were no significant changes in PSA, total or LDL cholesterol values, or fasting triglycerides. However, there was a significant reduction in HDL cholesterol values (reduced 19 and 23 points for the 50-milligram and 100-milligram groups, respectively). Liver enzymes (transaminases AST and ALT) increased only in the 100-milligram group, but the changes were not dramatic and were not accompanied by hepatic enlargement or the development of any serious liver condition.
Adding it All Up
In these three studies, a total of 121 men participated. The studies involved the use of high doses of steroids for periods of three to five months. It may be shocking to most of the staunch opponents of steroid use, but all the men participating were still alive at the conclusion of their respective investigations. An unbiased assessment of the metabolic changes and health risks does not seem to reveal any short-term significant dangers. The main negative impact of steroid use in all three cases was a reduction in good (HDL) cholesterol values, which is a legitimate concern when it comes to assessing one’s risk for developing cardiovascular disease. It is uncertain, however, if a short-lived increase in this particular risk factor will relate to any tangible damage to one’s health. It is also unknown how much, if any, this is offset by the other positive metabolic changes that were seen to accompany combined steroid use and exercise. Logic would seem to suggest that the very periodic use of steroids, under parameters similar to these studies, should entail relatively minimal risks to one’s health overall. At the very least, it is extremely difficult to argue that an isolated cycle, as such, is tantamount to playing Russian roulette with your body, as most media campaigns against the use of these drugs would seem to suggest.
References
[1] Testosterone dose-response relationships in healthy yo0ung men. Shalender, Woodhouse et al. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 281: e1172-81 2001
[2] Metabolic effects of nandrolone decanoate and resistance training in men with HIV. Sattler et al. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 283: e1214-22
[3] Effects of an oral androgen on muscle and metabolism in older, community-dwelling men. Schroeder et al. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 284: E120-28
Black Market Update
The Mexican veterinary firm Quality Vet has been getting quite a bit of attention of late, so it’s no wonder counterfeits of this line have started to pop up. Pictured here is a copy of their boldenone injectable, called Bold QV 200 (the 200 signifying the per milliliter dosage strength). This is a particularly sought-after version of the popular veterinary steroid Equipoise, obviously because it is in a dosage much higher than the classic 50 milligrams per milliliter usually found in most other products. This fake stands out like a sore thumb for a few reasons. First, the labeling is very poor. The labels themselves were made too large for the vial they were applied to, and as a result, the ends overlap. This is immediately a very bad sign for any steroid product. The inking on the paper is also not at all crisp, as it is on the real QV bottle. This counterfeit also lacks an accompanying box, which is a very rare way to find Quality Vet products on the black market. It also lacks the required security QV hologram sticker, which is still the best method of differentiating the legitimate thing from bogus black market copies. Also this month we have a rarely seen version of synthetic human growth hormone from Brazil. This version is called Hormotrop, a brand name not readily crossed on the black market. This particular item is made by the drug manufacturer Bergamo and comes packaged in a box with 4IU of drug. This is a relatively small, but very common, amount of hormone to be found in a box of GH. It’s packaged in the typical way GH products are, with a dry powder (a lyophilized disc, actually) in one vial and a separate sterile dilutant (water based solution) in another. These two vials are mixed before use and must be refrigerated after reconstitution if stored. This version contains bacteriostatic water (treated with alcohol to kill bacterial contaminants), so it does keep for a few weeks in the refrigerator (much longer than versions that contain only sterile water without alcohol). It is actually not necessary to use bacteriostatic water for such a small amount of GH (sterile water is fine), unless you’re using a single IU or less per day. In any event, this is a legitimate and reliable GH product, although it is probably more expensive on the black market than larger-dosed kits like Serostim. —WL