Since anabolic steroids enhance bone building do they also accelerate arthritis and calcification of tendons?

[headtrainer]

Since anabolic steroids enhance bone building, do they also accelerate arthritis and calcification of tendons? It seems to me that wear and tear of my tendons and cartilage greatly accelerated when I started using steroids. I realize the extra wear and tear could be from the extra strength gained from taking steroids. But steroids like winstrol and/or Tren definitely seem to take a toll on my joints, even when using lighter weight for higher reps.

 

[Type-IIx]

This question is far more nuanced than you're going to find in any reply here, and the assumption that bone anabolism is a class effect of androgens is convoluted by the predominance of nandrolone AUC in the aggregate data. The data-set from the single study that retrospectively analyzed 14 AAS to conclude that high AAS doses enhance soft tissue collagen metabolism (but not bone collagen turnover) is comprised largely of proportionally greater nandrolone effective dose than that which reflects common modern AAS use. We know that nandrolone ameliorates joint pain (as we have multiple studies demonstrating such) via some putative mechanisms worthy of further exploration.

Unlike AAS, rhGH absolutely enhances type I collagen (bone) metabolism and does accelerate arthritis and calcification.

I may write an article on AAS & tendon & bone. I am working on this.

 

[pickapeck]

They skew hormone balance and probably proper hormone balance is required for connective tissue repair and maintenance. I know estrogen has an important role in bone and joint tissue health. Stanozolol boosts C1 esterase inhibitor. That is why it is used in hereditary angioedema. C1 esterase inhibitor has a role in the bradykinin pathway among other functions. Botom line is it slow partitions the tissue fluid away from some compartments leading to that dry look that is sought after. That sort of dysregulation can led to joint pain.

 

[headtrainer]

This question is far more nuanced than you're going to find in any reply here, and the assumption that bone anabolism is a class effect of androgens is convoluted by the predominance of nandrolone AUC in the aggregate data. The data-set from the single study that retrospectively analyzed 14 AAS to conclude that high AAS doses enhance soft tissue collagen metabolism (but not bone collagen turnover) is comprised largely of proportionally greater nandrolone effective dose than that which reflects common modern AAS use. We know that nandrolone ameliorates joint pain (as we have multiple studies demonstrating such) via some putative mechanisms worthy of further exploration.

Unlike AAS, rhGH absolutely enhances type I collagen (bone) metabolism and does accelerate arthritis and calcification.

I may write an article on AAS & tendon & bone. I am working on this.

I’d love to read the article.

 

[OuchThatHurts]

I have some pain and stiffness in my fingers and toe joints. Larger joints seem fine though. Knees, hips, back, and elbows all seem fine. Had both my shoulders done but that was definitely scar tissue from rock climbing. But when I ask myself, "Why?" The question just has too many moving parts.

First off, I'm 50.
I've been over 200lbs since my senior year in HS even without lifting.
I have trained in the gym pushing and pulling some relatively hefty poundages most of my adult life.
I've had frostbite on hands and feet more than once.
I've had years upon years of wear and tear on rock faces with beat up fingers and toes.
I've done a fairly decent array of high and low dose anabolics and growth factors over the years.
Bad genetics?
Poor circulation?

But even all these considered, it only serves to make determination of one specific thing impossible. Why do we have 70-yr-olds out there completing 26.2-mile marathons while their younger siblings have arthritis and the posture of a jumbo shrimp? Why is it that some 65-yr-olds are out there squatting and deadlifting huge weight while 20- and 30-somethings right here on this board can't even do them at all? I can eat a hot and spicy Szechuan dinner with sake bombs and feel great while one beer or a sprinkle of black pepper will have my own brothers popping Tums and PPIs all night?

Replacement dosages of T and GH actually improves my joints while too much makes them worse. A little anabolics improves my athletic performance while too much makes me feel like lying around all day.

The single biggest factor to which I attribute my continuing good health is staying athletic. Do some sprints. Hit the bag for a while. Go climb something. No impact exercise seems as bad to me as very high impact exercise. Do some mountain biking. Hell, just get on a real rolling bicycle. Eat whole meals. Stretch. Meditate, pray, yoga, etc (I meditate, screw the rest). Have a lot of sex. If you drive by the courts and there's a pick-up game going on. Pull your shit over and go hop in the rotation.

If you got this far, just remember - you're going to wake up tomorrow and you're going to be 65. Bounce back into life now early while you can.

 

[Type-IIx]

I’d love to read the article.

Pärssinen, M., Karila, Kovanen, & Seppälä. (2000). The Effect of Supraphysiological Doses of Anabolic Androgenic Steroids on Collagen Metabolism. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 21(6), 406–411. doi:10.1055/s-2000-3834

 

[TrippplePPP]

I have some pain and stiffness in my fingers and toe joints. Larger joints seem fine though. Knees, hips, back, and elbows all seem fine. Had both my shoulders done but that was definitely scar tissue from rock climbing. But when I ask myself, "Why?" The question just has too many moving parts.

First off, I'm 50.
I've been over 200lbs since my senior year in HS even without lifting.
I have trained in the gym pushing and pulling some relatively hefty poundages most of my adult life.
I've had frostbite on hands and feet more than once.
I've had years upon years of wear and tear on rock faces with beat up fingers and toes.
I've done a fairly decent array of high and low dose anabolics and growth factors over the years.
Bad genetics?
Poor circulation?

But even all these considered, it only serves to make determination of one specific thing impossible. Why do we have 70-yr-olds out there completing 26.2-mile marathons while their younger siblings have arthritis and the posture of a jumbo shrimp? Why is it that some 65-yr-olds are out there squatting and deadlifting huge weight while 20- and 30-somethings right here on this board can't even do them at all? I can eat a hot and spicy Szechuan dinner with sake bombs and feel great while one beer or a sprinkle of black pepper will have my own brothers popping Tums and PPIs all night?

Replacement dosages of T and GH actually improves my joints while too much makes them worse. A little anabolics improves my athletic performance while too much makes me feel like lying around all day.

The single biggest factor to which I attribute my continuing good health is staying athletic. Do some sprints. Hit the bag for a while. Go climb something. No impact exercise seems as bad to me as very high impact exercise. Do some mountain biking. Hell, just get on a real rolling bicycle. Eat whole meals. Stretch. Meditate, pray, yoga, etc (I meditate, screw the rest). Have a lot of sex. If you drive by the courts and there's a pick-up game going on. Pull your shit over and go hop in the rotation.

If you got this far, just remember - you're going to wake up tomorrow and you're going to be 65. Bounce back into life now early while you can.

I think the above is the key. I would just highlight to stretch a lot especially before activity.

 

[Type-IIx]

I have some pain and stiffness in my fingers and toe joints. Larger joints seem fine though. Knees, hips, back, and elbows all seem fine. Had both my shoulders done but that was definitely scar tissue from rock climbing. But when I ask myself, "Why?" The question just has too many moving parts.

First off, I'm 50.
I've been over 200lbs since my senior year in HS even without lifting.
I have trained in the gym pushing and pulling some relatively hefty poundages most of my adult life.
I've had frostbite on hands and feet more than once.
I've had years upon years of wear and tear on rock faces with beat up fingers and toes.
I've done a fairly decent array of high and low dose anabolics and growth factors over the years.
Bad genetics?
Poor circulation?

But even all these considered, it only serves to make determination of one specific thing impossible. Why do we have 70-yr-olds out there completing 26.2-mile marathons while their younger siblings have arthritis and the posture of a jumbo shrimp? Why is it that some 65-yr-olds are out there squatting and deadlifting huge weight while 20- and 30-somethings right here on this board can't even do them at all? I can eat a hot and spicy Szechuan dinner with sake bombs and feel great while one beer or a sprinkle of black pepper will have my own brothers popping Tums and PPIs all night?

Replacement dosages of T and GH actually improves my joints while too much makes them worse. A little anabolics improves my athletic performance while too much makes me feel like lying around all day.

The single biggest factor to which I attribute my continuing good health is staying athletic. Do some sprints. Hit the bag for a while. Go climb something. No impact exercise seems as bad to me as very high impact exercise. Do some mountain biking. Hell, just get on a real rolling bicycle. Eat whole meals. Stretch. Meditate, pray, yoga, etc (I meditate, screw the rest). Have a lot of sex. If you drive by the courts and there's a pick-up game going on. Pull your shit over and go hop in the rotation.

If you got this far, just remember - you're going to wake up tomorrow and you're going to be 65. Bounce back into life now early while you can.

Oh yes, to be certain these effects of GH (promoting bony overgrowth, fractures, osteoarthritis) are associated with very high dose long term use of rhGH, and are really features of acromegaly. I'm very bullish on rhGH; but there are risks that many don't know about that should be part of a risk/reward balancing. If/when I release Bolus there's a good section on risk/reward balancing, enumerating the discrete benefits & costs, and each of these has its own section, whether a benefit (e.g., recovery from exercise, which encompasses several other subsections) or demerit (e.g., hyperglycemia).

 

[Type-IIx]

They skew hormone balance and probably proper hormone balance is required for connective tissue repair and maintenance. I know estrogen has an important role in bone and joint tissue health. Stanozolol boosts C1 esterase inhibitor. That is why it is used in hereditary angioedema. C1 esterase inhibitor has a role in the bradykinin pathway among other functions. Botom line is it slow partitions the tissue fluid away from some compartments leading to that dry look that is sought after. That sort of dysregulation can led to joint pain.

I was really intrigued by this previously unknown (to me) feature of stanozolol (though it is also shared by 17AAs generally, including methyltest & halo) to increase C1-INH. But I am not sure it follows that increasing C1-INH, thereby reducing bradykinin & thereby attenuating the increased vascular permeability (as characterized by angioedema) translates to "slow partitioning of the fluid away from some compartments" nor a "dry look."

What does seem likely is this mechanism being implicated in the joint pain associated with stanozolol in particular, as C1/C1-INH complexes are formed when C1-INH combines with and removes C1r & C1s from activated C1, and these complexes - representative of classical complement pathway activation - are associated with arthritic conditions & rheumatological conditions.

 

[OuchThatHurts]

It might also be particularly interesting to note, as we currently have a debate going as to how anabolic GH is and its effects on the body, that women secrete far more GH daily than men. While clearance times are almost identical in both sexes, men tend to be twice as GH sensitive while pulsing GH nocturnally while women pulse throughout the day as well. While women are half as sensitive to GH, they produce many-fold total GH (at least neurologically) as men.

This may account for pre- and pubescent females ability to grow statistically taller earlier until estrogen blunts the sensitivity while male children will eventually outpace females in growth (height) along with continued endogenous androgen production.

"We report the results of a placebo-controlled study in 36 men and women with GH deficiency who received the same dose of rhGH per body surface area (1.25 U/m2 per day) for 9 months. We observed significantly greater responses in male patients than in female patients with regard to the changes in serum levels of IGF-I, body composition and biochemical markers of bone metabolism. When these patients continued to receive GH replacement therapy for an additional 24 months, the dose of rhGH was adjusted to the serum levels of IGF-I. As a result, the dose administered to the male patients was reduced to nearly half that given to the female patients (1.0 vs 1.9 U/day) and the serum levels of IGF-I and of biomarkers of bone turnover increased to the same extent in patients of both sexes. However, an increase in bone density of the hip and the lumbar spine after a total of 33 months of rhGH treatment was observed only in the male patients"

Women received twice the amount of supplemental GH while only the males experienced an increase in bone density. To me, that's very odd.

Gender difference in growth hormone response in adults - PubMed

Several trials with growth hormone (GH) replacement therapy in adults with GH deficiency have been conducted during the last 10 years. Beneficial effects of treatment on bone density, physical capacity, body composition, lipid profile and quality of life have been reported. It has long been...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Neuroendocrine control of pulsatile growth hormone release in the human: relationship with gender - PubMed

Gender has multiple significant influences on the human GH axis in the premenopausal age group (Table 1), and attenuates by approximately 50% the negative impact of age on daily GH secretion rates, the inverse association between total adiposity and GH production, and the positive effect of...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Type-IIx]

It might also be particularly interesting to note, as we currently have a debate going as to how anabolic GH is and its effects on the body, that women secrete far more GH daily than men. While clearance times are almost identical in both sexes, men tend to be twice as GH sensitive while pulsing GH nocturnally while women pulse throughout the day as well. While women are half as sensitive to GH, they produce many-fold total GH (at least neurologically) as men.

This may account for pre- and pubescent females ability to grow statistically taller earlier until estrogen blunts the sensitivity while male children will eventually outpace females in growth (height) along with continued endogenous androgen production.

"We report the results of a placebo-controlled study in 36 men and women with GH deficiency who received the same dose of rhGH per body surface area (1.25 U/m2 per day) for 9 months. We observed significantly greater responses in male patients than in female patients with regard to the changes in serum levels of IGF-I, body composition and biochemical markers of bone metabolism. When these patients continued to receive GH replacement therapy for an additional 24 months, the dose of rhGH was adjusted to the serum levels of IGF-I. As a result, the dose administered to the male patients was reduced to nearly half that given to the female patients (1.0 vs 1.9 U/day) and the serum levels of IGF-I and of biomarkers of bone turnover increased to the same extent in patients of both sexes. However, an increase in bone density of the hip and the lumbar spine after a total of 33 months of rhGH treatment was observed only in the male patients"

Women received twice the amount of supplemental GH while only the males experienced an increase in bone density. To me, that's very odd.

Gender difference in growth hormone response in adults - PubMed

Several trials with growth hormone (GH) replacement therapy in adults with GH deficiency have been conducted during the last 10 years. Beneficial effects of treatment on bone density, physical capacity, body composition, lipid profile and quality of life have been reported. It has long been...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Neuroendocrine control of pulsatile growth hormone release in the human: relationship with gender - PubMed

Gender has multiple significant influences on the human GH axis in the premenopausal age group (Table 1), and attenuates by approximately 50% the negative impact of age on daily GH secretion rates, the inverse association between total adiposity and GH production, and the positive effect of...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Absolutely right. See Women and GH: dosages, effects of estradiol, IGFBP-1

 

[OuchThatHurts]

Absolutely right. See Women and GH: dosages, effects of estradiol, IGFBP-1

I now realize that my post above would have been far more accurate had I not applied "GH sensitivity" in males and females but rather the resultant IGF-1 production and sensitivity instead.

As well as the clear distinction that it may be far more productive in females to use a GH secretagogue (e.g. GRF 1-29 w/GHRP-2) than bioidentical rhGH.

 

[Reload]

Good question.
I started using steroids toward the end of my junior year in high school. I'm 53 now.
Used AAS, peptides, diuretics, thyroid meds, GH, various peptides but never insulin...into my early 40's.
I was a competitive BBer turned powerlifter turned old guy that's fighting
Father Time every second of the day now. The trauma/injuries I've put my joints through over the years
caught up with me in my late 40's. It's been a grind over the past 3-4 years.
Bilateral shoulder surgeries, disc herniations, R knee pain (bone on bone). DJD all through my spine.
Neck to lumbar. Irregardless of what I used at different phases of my life, the regular pounding on that
joint tissue is what ultimately leads to joint pain/failure. I've got a buddy spending thousands on PRP.
Hasn't made a bit of difference for him IMO.

I regret nothing.

 

[pickapeck]

If any of you truly want to know the complexity of bone homeostasis look here. https://www.fields.utoronto.ca/prog.../Liedert_signaling_in_mechanotransduction.pdf

 

[Type-IIx]

I now realize that my post above would have been far more accurate had I not applied "GH sensitivity" in males and females but rather the resultant IGF-1 production and sensitivity instead.

As well as the clear distinction that it may be far more productive in females to use a GH secretagogue (e.g. GRF 1-29 w/GHRP-2) than bioidentical rhGH.

Yes. I use the term "GH response" and it can refer to primarily the increase in (serum) IGF-I & also to growth response (the change in growth velocity). It is interesting that the secretagogues must be so much more effective in women. Perhaps a novel extrapolation. The more novel the finding (now I do NOT claim that there's anything novel in decreased GH response in women, this has been known for the decades) the more resistance I seem to get to the idea. Lately it's with the distinctions between exogenous & endogenous estrogens.

 

[Fa Seeshus]

Raloxifene helps bone density, collagen elasticity and allows you to use lower doses of AI. Highly recommend

 

[OuchThatHurts]

Raloxifene helps bone density, collagen elasticity and allows you to use lower doses of AI. Highly recommend

I haven't tried it. It does seem the most desirable of all the SERMs. Any experiences with it?

 

[Fa Seeshus]

Yeah, my doc gives me that with my trt instead of higher dose exemestane or other AI. I was having joint pain and leaching calcium on TRT +AI and the combo of TRT + lol lower dose AI and ralox has helped my joints and also i have better HDL levels