Steroids

Originally posted by craiglll@yahoo.com I looked at about 20 case abstracts last night that I got by googling steroid and medical studies. I got well over 1000 studies but randomly looked at only 20. All 20 that I looked at well animal studies. Most of the studies used rats or mice, one study used guinea pigs. Almost all concluded that not only did they not find substantial nevgative health effects from steroid use, but also, there seemed to be no long term physical abiblities gained from the steroid use. One study found more negative effects from mice eating fatty diets than from taking steroids. One case did have more than 1% have bad effects from the steroids. In this study the mice were given very small doses. I thought that was very interesting because one study suggested that small doses would have very positive benefits. I guess we should all take this stuff if it does not have anything but positive effects, Just give up fat.

What I thought was odd was that every study i read said that although their conclusion found no real threat from steroids, they shoudln't be used. Personally, I think that we have yet to really find out how bad steroids are. After I read the studies, I telephoned my brother who does some research in weird medical stuff. He said that the data about the East German women swimmers wsa released a few years back. It, I think might be the only longterm data on steroid use & humans. I googled it this morning but couldn't find anything. Does anyone have any idea how to get. Germany has no freedom of information act for old East German government information.

I haven't read any of the articles, so I'll have to rely on your insight. Did they give a criteria for what would be considered "negative"? For instance, women swimmers looking like ZZ Top might be considered neutral, because it wouldn't affect the life-span... (I'm wondering how they would look at mice, and determine if there was excessive face hair growth.)

Craig, if your point is that we don't know the magnitude of the risk, I would agree. However, if you're trying to argue that it's uncertain whether there even is a risk, either you haven't researched this subject very well or you don't believe what you've read. Risk means potential for (not guarantee of) injury. Again, I would recommend pubmed.org, the National Library of Medicine. It's one of the resources health care professionals use to search the medical literature.

Originally posted by craiglll@yahoo.com I don't think that steroids should be used but I also think that we really need to get the science out there to prove this point. I agree with you, until people start doing some serious studies on the effects of steriods from various perspectives; ie acute effects, chronic effects psychological effects etc... the fight either for or against steroids will have no bearing. It is at the point now where people may be lured into taking steroids for personal gain without knowing the full effects of the drugs on their body. Of course if it turns out that steroids are liked to some sort of liver disease there will still be people willing to take them to succeed in their sports, but many others may think twice before using.... who knows.....

Originally posted by gull80 Craig, if your point is that we don't know the magnitude of the risk, I would agree. However, if you're trying to argue that it's uncertain whether there even is a risk, either you haven't researched this subject very well or you don't believe what you've read. Risk means potential for (not guarantee of) injury. Again, I would recommend pubmed.org, the National Library of Medicine. It's one of the resources health care professionals use to search the medical literature. My point is both. How to define risk is truly a medical tedder-totter. I believe that with soem of the recent medicines that have been pulled from shelves the risk was under .003%. Too often, I believe that many studies define a negative effect to broadly. When I was reading some of the cases I randomly, some argued that steroids ha dnegative effects of their subjects even though less than one percent had any bad effect. I do believe that anabolic steroids are very bad for human consumption. But is my belief one based on science or based on a few studies that have a negative interpretation?

I just now did a search on pubmed.gov. The number of studies on steroids is truly overwhelminig. I briefluy looked at titles to try to find one about steroid & atheletic behavior. Most concerned, oddly, detection. One about two body builders with liver prolbems come up (PMID 15849280). It says that body builders use large amounts of steroids. The other study said that trained rats performed better jumping into water than did untrained rats regarless of wether they took steroids or not. I believe their conclusion is that trained athelets always bet out nontrained atheletes. Those with steroids did better than their like rats without steroids. But overall the training seemed more important. I don't think that steroids should be used but I also think that we really need to get the science out there to prove this point.

well, I did just look for some research, and it does appear there has been a large amount of research done on the subject, you're right, and I didn't look it up initially which I should have done. However, If possible, (and I don't know how feasable it is), yes, I would like to see a long term study done on steroids. I realize many people know the risks and take them anyway, as I said, however, it is not exactly common knowledge that steroids are a specific threat to the liver, or other organs... at least not to me. I could have guessed as such, but have never noticed or heard of any specific studies until I searched them out.

So are you suggesting that we study the longterm effects of anabolic steroids on healthy "volunteers"? Look, these are controlled substances; the negative effects are well documented. Arguing that there is a lack of scientific evidence or "serious" studies is ludicrous. The athletes using these drugs, unlike you, are fully aware of the risk, but are willing to take that risk if they can gain some advantage.

The negative effects of steroids are only well documented through studies that use large doses. We are only looking at small doses now with in the last few years. Most studies done for the past 15- 20 years have been about detecting steroids not their effect. Right now there are two studies looking at low dosage for HIV/AID and wasting. I looked almost night, I couldn't find anything on low-dosage studies and atheltic abilities. This is how most high schoolers take steroids. We must know what is done when some one takes a relatively low dose so that we can know what we are talking about. Whenever I've mentioned steroids to teens (Adam & his friends) they say that it is okay because their friends take low doses. Adam has told me guys who take steroids. He has pointed them out at the gym. Adam is 6ft 5in &245 poiunds. He sees no reason to take them. Many other teens do. Also, very low dosage comsumption of some steroids are either very easily masked or aren't detected, it seems in my opinion. I see many of the common side-effects and no one says a thing. Skin strecthing, peck pulls & ruptures, groin ruptures (not groin pulls), and calf & arch collapses. These rarely happen to peole not taking steroids.