Anabolic steroids and cardiac muscle

[NEMSZ]

I personally don't really think you can give an exact dose of a drug for an entire population. Many have a different response due to numerous factors. Just the same as a 300 pound man may require more of x to treat a mild illness than a 100 pound man. To say they can't go above 70mg to me is wrong. What if 70mg has their test levels too low. What if they need 120mg (for example) to be in the middle of the "healthy" range?

Exactly, I mean, I definitely approve of the approach to start around that and then go up IF NEEDED where as some docs put people on 200mg straight away or people self dose at that amount with no bloodwork... I’ve gotten blood work on 120mg EW (30mg EOD) and my levels came back at 952.. I’d love to run a comparison on Pharma Test though and see where I’m at because that was on UGL Test... But I felt really good at that number and I don’t think it’s too high as some labs have the high range at 850 or so and others have it at 1100...

 

[emeric delczeg]

I personally don't really think you can give an exact dose of a drug for an entire population. Many have a different response due to numerous factors. Just the same as a 300 pound man may require more of x to treat a mild illness than a 100 pound man. To say they can't go above 70mg to me is wrong. What if 70mg has their test levels too low. What if they need 120mg (for example) to be in the middle of the "healthy" range?

OK if your total is in the middle, long as you free is in high normal range.

 

[xpoc]

TRT should be 70mg peer week max, not more.

70mg or less is pretty exact. What do you consider the ideal total test? Free test? And what is your criteria? Longevity? Is your ideal test number specifically to live longer?

If your goal is the "middle range" and the higher you get you creep more toward performance benefits...would it then be more beneficial to be toward the lower range of normal to live longer?

Honestly, I FEEL much better walking around with my total T around 1050 (200 mg week) rather than 550 (75 mg week). Do you feel 550 is better for longevity?

 

[maldorf]

I personally don't really think you can give an exact dose of a drug for an entire population. Many have a different response due to numerous factors. Just the same as a 300 pound man may require more of x to treat a mild illness than a 100 pound man. To say they can't go above 70mg to me is wrong. What if 70mg has their test levels too low. What if they need 120mg (for example) to be in the middle of the "healthy" range?

There definitely is some variance in people's responses. Joltan here in this thread shows us his level was 1495 on just 100 mg/wk! That's crazy high on such a dose. Im at about 850 or so on that dose and most guys ive seen are as low as 600 on that.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-69CavMT4...cJB0/s1600/Adrienne+Barbeau-Large+Breasts.jpg

Definitely no excuse though in guys taking 200 mg/wk and calling that HRT, unless it is really crappy UG stuff that is underdosed bad.

 

[Pissbrainiac259]

Plus constantly having the MTOR and IGF pathways constantly open, due to excessive Protein and Carbs (and compounds). It's definitely not a healthy hobby.

Ha! Someone actually brought up mTOR (mammalian target of rapamycin).

 

[Pissbrainiac259]

The heart is a muscle and it too is affected by anabolic steroids.

A better study run here showed:
"Echocardiography revealed that 71 percent of current AAS users had a lower-than-normal LV ejection fraction, a measure of how much oxygenated blood the heart delivers to the arteries with each contraction"
71% of their population, that is large.
Study showed some recovery, which is good:
"Half of current AAS users exhibited slower-than-normal LV expansion, indicating that reduced amounts of oxygenated blood flowed in to refill the LV during the relaxation phase of the heartbeat. These impairments likely were related to thickening of the LV muscle wall in the AAS users. Former AAS users had a larger LV ejection fraction than current users, suggesting that their LV had recovered some pumping strength."

This is not reversible:
"AAS users also had significantly more atherosclerotic plaque in their coronary arteries than did nonusers (see Figure 2). This effect was more pronounced the longer they had taken AAS and did not seem to be reversible after discontinuing AAS use. "

The control group showed no differences in heart:

"The researchers found no differences in cardiovascular structure and function between AAS nonuser weightlifters and nonusers who were not weightlifters. This observation confirmed that none of the observed changes could be attributed to weightlifting itself."

the study is here: https://www.drugabuse.gov/news-even...androgenic-steroids-may-damage-heart-arteries

I just spent about 3 minutes and found those articles. There are many more out there. Maybe if you find a good study you can add it to this thread.

Just read the entire study published in the May 2017 issue of Circulation (a journal dedicated to cardiology, duh) and I see how the study design, methodologies, and parameters were deftly framed to skew the results to those untrained in the subtle art of statistical manipulation. Shame on them. If you all do not have access to Circulation, you may get a brief overview by reading the abstract at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28533317

 

[maldorf]

There definitely is some variance in people's responses. Joltan here in this thread shows us his level was 1495 on just 100 mg/wk! That's crazy high on such a dose. Im at about 850 or so on that dose and most guys ive seen are as low as 600 on that.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-69CavMT4...cJB0/s1600/Adrienne+Barbeau-Large+Breasts.jpg

Definitely no excuse though in guys taking 200 mg/wk and calling that HRT, unless it is really crappy UG stuff that is underdosed bad.

LOL. wrong link. this is the one with our member that had a 1495 total test reading off of only 100 mg/wk. Pharm prescribed testosterone.

https://www.professionalmuscle.com/...f-look-how-low-my-natural-testosterone-3.html

 

[maldorf]

Just read the entire study published in the May 2017 issue of Circulation (a journal dedicated to cardiology, duh) and I see how the study design, methodologies, and parameters were deftly framed to skew the results to those untrained in the subtle art of statistical manipulation. Shame on them. If you all do not have access to Circulation, you may get a brief overview by reading the abstract at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28533317

What kind of manipulation did they do? I don't have access to see the study and the abstract doesn't show much of anything. Can you cut and paste some of the relevant parts you found? Id like to see.

I think there is no doubt a negative impact on the things being measured, but it isn't right that they manipulated things to make it look worse than it might have been in their study. Is there something you picked up on in this link? https://www.drugabuse.gov/news-even...androgenic-steroids-may-damage-heart-arteries

 

[Pissbrainiac259]

What kind of manipulation did they do? I don't have access to see the study and the abstract doesn't show much of anything. Can you cut and paste some of the relevant parts you found? Id like to see.

I think there is no doubt a negative impact on the things being measured, but it isn't right that they manipulated things to make it look worse than it might have been in their study. Is there something you picked up on in this link? https://www.drugabuse.gov/news-even...androgenic-steroids-may-damage-heart-arteries

The link you posted is a more condensed version of the abstract link I posted. The entire study is 10+ pages but regardless of that, always consider the sponsor(s) of any supposedly unbiased study.

 

[maldorf]

Im able to see what appears to be the full paper here, the page you linked was only an abstract. Going to look through this then.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5614517/

 

[maldorf]

Ive not done any statistical studies in about 25 years so I am really rusty. I couldn't find anything in that study that seemed biased against steroid users. It looked fairly solid and at the end they even listed the things they saw that might confound things.

What is it specifically that you saw that made you feel that way?

 

[Stewie]

Ive not done any statistical studies in about 25 years so I am really rusty. I couldn't find anything in that study that seemed biased against steroid users. It looked fairly solid and at the end they even listed the things they saw that might confound things.

What is it specifically that you saw that made you feel that way?

It was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, in which has been accused by other organizations of studies to skew negatively. One that comes to mind is medical use of cannabis. I'm sure there's others if one digs deep enough.

 

[Pissbrainiac259]

It was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, in which has been accused by other organizations of studies to skew negatively. One that comes to mind is medical use of cannabis. I'm sure there's others if one digs deep enough.

That is correct Stewie. Do any of you recall the old school TV commercials claiming Opiates were completely safe and benign?

 

[Stewie]

Ive not done any statistical studies in about 25 years so I am really rusty. I couldn't find anything in that study that seemed biased against steroid users. It looked fairly solid and at the end they even listed the things they saw that might confound things.

What is it specifically that you saw that made you feel that way?

This may pique your interest, maldorf. It's challenging to weed through the rubbish of different clinical literature. More often than not, I'll see literature that someone posts that's either preformed in-vitro, abstracts, observational study or similar and they it flaunt around as the holy grail of truth--cuz pubmed saz so.

Nonetheless, I had to shorten the URL due to it being a PDF.


Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
https://bit.ly/2WraIov

 

[Pissbrainiac259]

Ive not done any statistical studies in about 25 years so I am really rusty. I couldn't find anything in that study that seemed biased against steroid users. It looked fairly solid and at the end they even listed the things they saw that might confound things.

What is it specifically that you saw that made you feel that way?

It helps significantly if you know how to interpret 2-D cardiac echos as well as design studies that appear completely unbiased yet are inherently skewed. Review the 14 page "supplemental material" pdf and tell me what you think.

 

[Pissbrainiac259]

This may pique your interest, maldorf. It's challenging to weed through the rubbish of different clinical literature. More often than not, I'll see literature that someone posts that's either preformed in-vitro, abstracts, observational study or similar and they it flaunt around as the holy grail of truth--cuz pubmed saz so.

Nonetheless, I had to shorten the URL due to it being a PDF.


Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
https://bit.ly/2WraIov

Who needs facts when you have alternative conjectures?

 

[Pissbrainiac259]

There definitely is some variance in people's responses. Joltan here in this thread shows us his level was 1495 on just 100 mg/wk! That's crazy high on such a dose. Im at about 850 or so on that dose and most guys ive seen are as low as 600 on that.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-69CavMT4...cJB0/s1600/Adrienne+Barbeau-Large+Breasts.jpg

Definitely no excuse though in guys taking 200 mg/wk and calling that HRT, unless it is really crappy UG stuff that is underdosed bad.

Guys (and gals), the official therapeutic dose range for USP Grade Depot Testosterone Enanthate is 70-400 mg every 2-4 weeks. Why the wide range in dosage? Different clinicaly indications and individual-specific responses. Q.E.D.

 

[maldorf]

It was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, in which has been accused by other organizations of studies to skew negatively. One that comes to mind is medical use of cannabis. I'm sure there's others if one digs deep enough.

I do see that now, wasn't aware of that reputation they have. Looking at the study though I cant see where it was run so as to have a negative bias on steroid users, unless somehow the tests were run skewed somehow.

Im not sure where the supplemental info, 15 pages, is located at. Don't see that.

I know from simple empirical evidence that there is a definite negative effect on the heart from taking steroids as bodybuilders do, in the doses and the kinds being used for the duration they are done. I don't really find the results from this research to be very surprising at all. The degree of severity seems a bit much but it isn't beyond the stretch of the imagination. You guys seem like youre saying that they claim the earth is flat. What do you think a "fair" project would show, no difference at all between the steroids users and non users?

 

[maldorf]

Another study

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1768197/

This one is ok.

"In this issue of Heart, Urhausen and colleagues report the results of a cross sectional study of cardiac morphology in relation to AAS use.13 Male bodybuilders/powerlifters currently using AAS or ex-users who had abstained from AAS exposure for over 12 months (U and ExU, n  =  17 and 15, respectively) were compared to 15 weightlifters who denied current or past use of AAS (WL). Left ventricular wall thickness and cavity dimensions were assessed using echocardiography, and muscle mass (LVMM) calculated using the Devereux equation. Absolute LVMM measures (mean (SD)) were significantly greater for U than ExU or WL (281 (54) g v 232 (42) g v 204 (44) g for U v ExU v WL, respectively), with differences between ExU and WL only reaching significance after adjustment for body surface area or fat-free mass. These results suggest that AAS use increases the LV hypertrophic response to exercise, an effect which might last for well over a year."

 

[maldorf]

Good look here, very balanced view of the subject. Talks about how there is limited scientific evidence linking AAS directly to heart problems. It is the nature of the issue that makes it hard to have a true scientific study. I wonder if anyone has run a good study on rats. Id like to see that.

the study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3827559/

This is like what happend to me. From this study:

"The risk of sudden death from cardiovascular complications in the athlete consuming anabolic steroids can occur in the absence of atherosclerosis. Thrombus formation has been reported in several case studies of bodybuilders self-administering anabolic steroids (Ferenchick, 1991; Fineschi et al., 2001; McCarthy et al., 2000; Sahraian et al., 2004). Melchert and Welder, 1995 have suggested that the use of 17α-alkylated steroids (primarily from oral ingestion) likely present the highest risk for thrombus formation. They hypothesized that anabolic steroid consumption can elevate platelet aggregation, possibly through an increase in platelet production of thromboxane A 2 and/or decreasing platelet production of prostaglandin PgI 2, resulting in a hypercoagulable state."

I had no atherosclerosis.

Just added this, looks like rat studies have taken place and show LV hypertrophy and heart problems:

"Left ventricular function and anabolic steroid use/abuse has been examined. Climstein and colleagues (2003) demonstrated that highly strength-trained athletes, with no history of anabolic steroid use exhibited a higher incidence of wave form abnormalities relative to recreationally-trained or sedentary individuals. However, when these athletes self-administered anabolic steroids, a higher percentage of wave form abnormalities were exhibited. Further evidence suggestive of left ventricular dysfunction has been reported in rodent models. A study on rats has shown that 8 weeks of testosterone administration increased left ventricle stiffness and caused a reduction in stroke volume and cardiac performance" It goes on to explain some problems with this study however.