More evidence that high dose AAS is bad for our brains...

[G.I.Bro]

We know there is strong evidence that long term high dose AAS use often causes heart enlargement and left ventricular remodeling. That is along with the other sides such as high BP and horrible lipid profile. It is now starting to appear clear that anything beyond TRT dosages will have an impact on long term brain function and cognitive decline as the already hindered meathead specimen ages.

Supraphysiological doses of performance enhancing anabolic-androgenic steroids exert direct toxic effects on neuron-like cells

The androgens tested were dianabol and methyltestosterone (methyl test was worse, obviously). Conclusion: the toxicity results from binding to the AR and likely alters gene transcription to affect cell survival. They noted a short-term increase in neuritin expression as an adapative response to neuron injury.

They limited the study design to morphology and cell death utilizing the PC12 cell model. PC12s are a common and well characterized in vitro model for evaluation of chemical neurotoxicity from certain compounds/exposures.

We have known for some time that AAS has neurological sides, mostly related to long term reduction and disruption in visuospacial memory. Cognitive Deficits in Long-Term Anabolic-Androgenic Steroid Users

In addition, Trenbolone has been casually linked to a potential increased risk of Alzheimer's while, interestingly, trestolone possibly causes myelin regeneration. (Myelin facilitates electrical impulses along axons in the brain and spinal cord, transmitting neuronal signals to and from muscles, sensory organs and cognitive centers. People with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) have damaged myelin function.)

In sum, the dumb get dumber. Enjoy your body and youth while it lasts, boys!

 

[bieberhole69]

A major flaw I see in this study is their claim that neuritin is increased, saying that in combination with other mechanisms described that it causes a direct toxic effect.

A quick search on google turns up

Neuritin produces antidepressant actions and blocks the neuronal and behavioral deficits caused by chronic stress

which suggests the neuritin has a protective effect against the other things caused by AAS mentioned in the paper. Further searches will add further evidence that perhaps the authors got something wrong on what neuritin actually does.

Furthermore, only a single statistical analysis was performed and since there is no mention of a 3rd party, it must be assumed that it was performed in-house (as 3rd parties always want credit on published papers).

Good scientists get a 3rd party to perform their statistical analysis.

Lastly, the studies were all performed in vitro, with "short term" exposure being defined as 24hrs and "long term" as 48hrs. I would like to see a future study that uses live rats exposed to the drugs and then THEIR cells taken and examined for differences between a control group at different time periods.

Anyhow, interesting subject. I hope research is continued in this area, with more scrutiny and with cells in vivo.

 

[little slice]

what does alcohol consumption do to the brain?

 

[G.I.Bro]

what does alcohol consumption do to the brain?

I see what you did there, Mr. Slice. You're a slippery little guy. Point taken, but most people living the "fitness" lifestyle are not alcoholics.

Ethanol has direct toxic effects on neuron-like cells and is widely used by society in small doses. Acetyldehyde, the neurotoxic metabolite, is not too dangerous if you do not consume large amounts. In addition, this area of impact has been studied much more than effects from AAS on the brain. That said, zero doubt that alcoholism enhances and speeds up age related dementia and cognitive decline.

I'd rather be addicted to Test and Primo.

bieberhole69: hardly any of these types of studies are done in vivo. Not really following you on your neuritin point, i think thats an oversimplification.

 

[LK3]

and why do aas users get such great results form antioxidants....

:welcome:

 

[metabz]

Supraphysiological doses of performance enhancing anabolic-androgenic steroids exert direct toxic effects on neuron-like cells

Meh, in vitro data is pretty meaningless. Expose some cells to anything from OJ to LSD and you can find chromosomal damage. Unless the exposure levels are comparable to what you would actually find via androgens circulating in the bloodstream it is really just supposition.

More importantly, cardiovascular disease is going to kill you long before you need to worry about neurodegenerative disorders.

 

[bieberhole69]

I see what you did there, Mr. Slice. You're a slippery little guy. Point taken, but most people living the "fitness" lifestyle are not alcoholics.

Ethanol has direct toxic effects on neuron-like cells and is widely used by society in small doses. Acetyldehyde, the neurotoxic metabolite, is not too dangerous if you do not consume large amounts. In addition, this area of impact has been studied much more than effects from AAS on the brain. That said, zero doubt that alcoholism enhances and speeds up age related dementia and cognitive decline.

I'd rather be addicted to Test and Primo.

bieberhole69: hardly any of these types of studies are done in vivo. Not really following you on your neuritin point, i think thats an oversimplification.

If you think it's an oversimplification, please feel free to find evidence supporting otherwise. I looked. There isn't a whole lot out there on neuritin--which likely explains why the researchers seem to have its role wrong.

And you're right, hardly any are done in vivo. But plenty of studies on other things (artificial sweeteners, for instance) that affect brain chemistry has been done in vivo. There is no reason that it cannot be done.

 

[d-red]

idk...about you guys but i didnt need a study to tell me that,

 

[G.I.Bro]

If you think it's an oversimplification, please feel free to find evidence supporting otherwise. I looked. There isn't a whole lot out there on neuritin--which likely explains why the researchers seem to have its role wrong.

And you're right, hardly any are done in vivo. But plenty of studies on other things (artificial sweeteners, for instance) that affect brain chemistry has been done in vivo. There is no reason that it cannot be done.

Nevermind, you're right. The researchers are obviously confused and you're ahead of them. The entire premise of the study is thus flawed. LOL.

 

[HimRoid]

Not a problem. I only need 10% of my brain. If my IQ drops I'll get by on looks alone with my beautiful body. Hahaha

 

[bieberhole69]

Nevermind, you're right. The researchers are obviously confused and you're ahead of them. The entire premise of the study is thus flawed. LOL.

In peer-reviewed science, it's up to EVERYONE to question the integrity of the study and what they see as flaws. Just because something gets published, doesn't mean it's fact. As a scientist that has done research myself, these are flaws I see with the study.

Never once did I state that the "entire premise of the study is thus flawed." I merely stated issues I had with the article and what I would like to see in future studies--even stating that I'd like to see future studies done.

I searched quite awhile before posting my thoughts--therefore, since you stated it was an oversimplification, the onus is on you to provide evidence to support your criticism.

Your response sound like you think I'm insulting you personally for even posting the article. I assure you I'm not.

 

[d-red]

In peer-reviewed science, it's up to EVERYONE to question the integrity of the study and what they see as flaws. Just because something gets published, doesn't mean it's fact. As a scientist that has done research myself, these are flaws I see with the study.

Never once did I state that the "entire premise of the study is thus flawed." I merely stated issues I had with the article and what I would like to see in future studies--even stating that I'd like to see future studies done.

I searched quite awhile before posting my thoughts--therefore, since you stated it was an oversimplification, the onus is on you to provide evidence to support your criticism.

Your response sound like you think I'm insulting you personally for even posting the article. I assure you I'm not.

it just sounds more like you are denial. the odss are is that the study is true....steriods aint good for you. we banging 1 gram of test...another gram of other stuff.....this shit aint good for you in any way. this is just one study...no telling the other studies we havent done....just accept it.

 

[bieberhole69]

it just sounds more like you are denial. the odss are is that the study is true....steriods aint good for you. we banging 1 gram of test...another gram of other stuff.....this shit aint good for you in any way. this is just one study...no telling the other studies we havent done....just accept it.

Never once did I state steroids are good for you, or even state that the article was bad. I stated flaws I saw in it, and what I would like to see done in the future. Did people simply skip over that part?

I reviewed / criticized the article from a scientific standpoint. I want to see more studies done like this, but with more scrutiny and in vivo. How many times must I state this?

 

[waterscholar]

A major flaw I see in this study is their claim that neuritin is increased, saying that in combination with other mechanisms described that it causes a direct toxic effect.

A quick search on google turns up

Neuritin produces antidepressant actions and blocks the neuronal and behavioral deficits caused by chronic stress

which suggests the neuritin has a protective effect against the other things caused by AAS mentioned in the paper. Further searches will add further evidence that perhaps the authors got something wrong on what neuritin actually does.

Furthermore, only a single statistical analysis was performed and since there is no mention of a 3rd party, it must be assumed that it was performed in-house (as 3rd parties always want credit on published papers).

Good scientists get a 3rd party to perform their statistical analysis.

Lastly, the studies were all performed in vitro, with "short term" exposure being defined as 24hrs and "long term" as 48hrs. I would like to see a future study that uses live rats exposed to the drugs and then THEIR cells taken and examined for differences between a control group at different time periods.

Anyhow, interesting subject. I hope research is continued in this area, with more scrutiny and with cells in vivo.

Completely false. I don't know where you came up with this but obviously you aren't in a research field. A scientist that is close with their data will do the analysis because they understand both the substantive area of research as well as what method to use to answer their research question.

 

[waterscholar]

If you think it's an oversimplification, please feel free to find evidence supporting otherwise. I looked. There isn't a whole lot out there on neuritin--which likely explains why the researchers seem to have its role wrong.

And you're right, hardly any are done in vivo. But plenty of studies on other things (artificial sweeteners, for instance) that affect brain chemistry has been done in vivo. There is no reason that it cannot be done.

One of the reasons is probably ethical issues. Steroids are illegal and arguably harmful. It would be extremely hard if not border-lining on impossible to randomize two groups to a treatment and control group in an effort to evaluate steroids effects.

There are naturally occurring groups of users and non-users but then the causal mechanism is potentially called in to question

 

[waterscholar]

it just sounds more like you are denial. the odss are is that the study is true....steriods aint good for you. we banging 1 gram of test...another gram of other stuff.....this shit aint good for you in any way. this is just one study...no telling the other studies we havent done....just accept it.

I very much agree with this. The evidence supports that it is unhealthy to use large amounts of AAS. It is perfectly fine to call into question any scientific endeavor or project but it is also important to understand that science is inherently flawed - there is no way to account for everything, it just isn't possible

 

[bieberhole69]

Completely false. I don't know where you came up with this but obviously you aren't in a research field. A scientist that is close with their data will do the analysis because they understand both the substantive area of research as well as what method to use to answer their research question.

So you are telling me a scientist in his field is more qualified to run statistics than a statistician employed by industry in the field solely to do statistics? I know what we did with our statistical analysis. Perhaps I am wrong in assuming that everyone does this--my apologies.

One of the reasons is probably ethical issues. Steroids are illegal and arguably harmful. It would be extremely hard if not border-lining on impossible to randomize two groups to a treatment and control group in an effort to evaluate steroids effects.

There are naturally occurring groups of users and non-users but then the causal mechanism is potentially called in to question

I don't see why it couldn't be done with living rats which were then processed immediately at time of sacrifice.

 

[waterscholar]

So you are telling me a scientist in his field is more qualified to run statistics than a statistician employed by industry in the field solely to do statistics? I know what we did with our statistical analysis. Perhaps I am wrong in assuming that everyone does this--my apologies.

a good scientist is both proficient at statistics and understands their substantive area. There are many times where an analysis is farmed out to an analyst who does not understand the theoretical or substantive background of the research he/she is employed to examine and this lack of understanding leads to lackluster analyses or methods which are inappropriate. This is obviously not always the case but I'm focusing on your description of what a good researcher does.

There are leaders in many fields who highlight the need of getting up close and personal with the data because it might facilitate new ideas or hypotheses. Obviously a statistical analyst not familiar with the field could not do this.

I don't see why it couldn't be done with living rats which were then processed immediately at time of sacrifice.

Good point. But then this calls into question whether the results from an animal model could generalize to humans - see, nothing can be perfect .

But I agree, this might be a more robust examination

 

[dragonfire101]

In vitro and with rats using methandienone and 17-α-methyltestosterone.

What if different AAS can possibly do different things or not damaging to neurons. what dosage is required of what specific AAS in humans may cause negative changes in neurons etc. Also what if someone who uses AAS uses something like idebenone or similar supplements that attenuates neuronal degeneration.

To many mitigating factors to make general claims.

 

[jewels13]

My wife would probably say i am a perfect victim example of a progressive brain erosion from aas..