|
Sour Grapes posted:Care to expand or link me something? I haven't read that much, but I thought the effects of anabolics tapered after a while off-cycle due to a number of factors (i.e.; decreased capacity for training, eating, lowered aggression/focus, etc.). http://www.mn.uio.no/ibv/english/research/news-and-events/news/2013/kortvarig-dopingbruk-kan-ha-permanente-effekter.html
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 18:55 |
|
|
In Olympic weight lifting, they have been using steroids since 1954, the Russian were probably on it already, see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bosley_Ziegler For blood transfusion, Franck Beckenbauer were doing it in the 70, there are some rumours that a team were using transfusion in the tour de France as early as 1930 but they kind of forget the practice or didn't work that well back then. The first with good evidence is Gastone Nencini in 1960. There is a video on youtube about Cannavaro getting a transfusion before the final against O.M : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf8Ro3eJsjY
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
vaginal culture posted:http://www.mn.uio.no/ibv/english/research/news-and-events/news/2013/kortvarig-dopingbruk-kan-ha-permanente-effekter.html Pretty interesting. How relevant/reliable is this without actual human study?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Is this more or less unusual, do you think, than several exceptional power hitters happening to break power hitting records during the greatest league-wide power hitting era in the history of the sport? You really should have kept the trolling more subtle as you really jumped the shark here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Sour Grapes posted:Pretty interesting. How relevant/reliable is this without actual human study? Difficult to say. We use mice as an acceptable model organism pre-clinical trials for most things because of their genetic similarity (genome and genomic organisation, synteny etc), and minimal differences in signal transduction and immune system. Usually when drugs testing etc, the overall results (ie. what is affected) in mice are what we expect to see replicated in humans, with minimal differences. But there's quite often differences in efficacy, binding affinity etc, which can lead to less prominent results in a human.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Blood transfusions are still allowed in football aren't they? Its so stupid
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
tbp posted:To the doctor in the thread: does long term abuse of PEDs necessitate life-long mitigation thereafter? Someone mentioned in the thread earlier "low t therapy", is this always the case? Yes. If your body is exposed to outside sources of a protein it generally stops making its own (something you can potentially track for a blood passport). We see this in medicine where someone on long term steroids eventually stops making their own and we get a manifestation of Addison's disease caused by a medical therapy. There is talk of some of the cyclists from its worst periods having to be on long term EPO as their bodies no longer makes its own. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the MMA athletes on testosterone genuinely need to be on it due to steroid abuse which causes your balls to atrophy. Many of the East German athletes have the bones of pensioners due to long term steroid use and some have managed to get compensation. What's really scary is the abuse of GW501516 which is going probably to lead to young athletes getting killed by cancer as it is extremely carcinogenic. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW501516
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 12:02
|
|
|
Jose posted:Is it possible to scam a blood passport? Like dope yourself with EPO/blood doping right at the start when its taken so they measure enhanced levels and think its normal? Yes. Because the burden of proof is so high to avoid false positives you can get round it. By using small frequent doses of something like EPO you an make the changes small enough that they don't flag up. A good example is Christian Horner.  These are his blood passport values he released to 'prove' he was riding clean when he won the vuelta. Unfortunately for him they are actually quite suspicious. I won't go in to detail as it's analysed very well here:http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/63542182838/analysis-horners-biopassport-data
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 12:16
|
|
|
One thing I'm curious about when it comes to PEDs is the possibility of making stuff that has similar effects to some the most commonly used PEDs, but without nasty side effects. As someone totally ignorant of science, I don't know if this is feasible, though it seems like it might have already happened if it were possible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 12:29
|
|
|
dilbertschalter posted:One thing I'm curious about when it comes to PEDs is the possibility of making stuff that has similar effects to some the most commonly used PEDs, but without nasty side effects. As someone totally ignorant of science, I don't know if this is feasible, though it seems like it might have already happened if it were possible. I don't know enough about it, but I think thats what they're hoping these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_androgen_receptor_modulator will do. Is it possible to take small amounts of PEDs for minor benefits without really getting the side effects or long term damage? I've got a friend who put on a load of weight and decided to use I think just small amounts of testosterone when he started lifting to basically improve as fast as possible but wanted to avoid the worst problems associated with using steroids
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 12:37
|
|
|
Jose posted:I don't know enough about it, but I think thats what they're hoping these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_androgen_receptor_modulator will do. yea, just chug aromatase inhibitors and clom if you don't want to end up female.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
Jose posted:Is it possible to take small amounts of PEDs for minor benefits without really getting the side effects or long term damage? I've got a friend who put on a load of weight and decided to use I think just small amounts of testosterone when he started lifting to basically improve as fast as possible but wanted to avoid the worst problems associated with using steroids Sounds immoral. You should tell him Steroids Are Wrong and Cheating.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
dilbertschalter posted:One thing I'm curious about when it comes to PEDs is the possibility of making stuff that has similar effects to some the most commonly used PEDs, but without nasty side effects. As someone totally ignorant of science, I don't know if this is feasible, though it seems like it might have already happened if it were possible. Most of the research in illicit labs revolves around modifying ketone backbones, so that you have a less detectable anabolic product, to the level of a pro-hormone. That's not to say there isn't creation of entirely new steroid bodies, but just that there are far fewer people trying to make these sort of developments. And most of them do not care about the side effect, since these can be managed with other drugs (which they will also develop). Pharma research into targeted steroids is a slow, on-going process. It's not unimaginable that several of these molecules will/have leaked out into the world of athletes, but it's important to understand that so far, we still see a lot of the undesirable side-effects presented in animal models (eg. cessation of spermatogenesis, and associated testicular shrinkage in men), what is usually universally removed is the hepatic damage, as individual receptor classes are being targeted. Functional selectivity, and interactions with co-repressors and co-activators are predominant in receptor targeting as well. It's important to understand that there are thousands of different types of receptors spread throughout your body (the GPCR class alone has 800+) and that their functions can be membrane dependent, never mind cell dependent: a ligand which promotes cell apoptosis in a receptor in one type of tissue may promote endless proliferation in another. eg. Tamoxifen is a gold-standard treatment for breast cancer in women. Its action on the very same receptors in the uterus produces an increased chance of endometrial cancer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
EvanTH posted:Sounds immoral. You should tell him Steroids Are Wrong and Cheating. come on man. people in this thread have laid out a shitload of evidence for why performance enhancing drugs, steroids included, have extremely negative effects on people's long term health and often cause the death of athletes in their 30s and 40s. you said earlier that athletes have the right to take that risk upon themselves if they wish but the reality is that this creates massive pressure on other athletes to do the same and so yeah; it is immoral. I don't think you can just post snarky, contentless posts and sneer at the idea that protecting athletes long term health carries any meaning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
dilbertschalter posted:One thing I'm curious about when it comes to PEDs is the possibility of making stuff that has similar effects to some the most commonly used PEDs, but without nasty side effects. As someone totally ignorant of science, I don't know if this is feasible, though it seems like it might have already happened if it were possible. Not really. The poison is in the dose and pretty much anything will have side effects of some sort, oxygen toxicity is something that's being increasingly recognised in medicine so that shows there's not much hope for a side effect free drug with any significant performance enhancing effects.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
EvanTH posted:Sounds immoral. You should tell him Steroids Are Wrong and Cheating. I have no problems with personal use of any drugs. I don't see why steroids should be any different. I was just curious if only using small amounts, assuming thats all he still uses if at all, will have any noticeable long term impact on his health
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
lmaoboy1998 posted:come on man. people in this thread have laid out a shitload of evidence for why performance enhancing drugs, steroids included, have extremely negative effects on people's long term health and often cause the death of athletes in their 30s and 40s. you said earlier that athletes have the right to take that risk upon themselves if they wish but the reality is that this creates massive pressure on other athletes to do the same and so yeah; it is immoral. I don't think you can just post snarky, contentless posts and sneer at the idea that protecting athletes long term health carries any meaning. Nobody in this thread has posted any evidence that PEDs cause long term health risks, including the OP. Lots of people have talked anecdotally, and even pro-doping people have simply accepted it as true, but that's not the same thing as providing evidence. The only studies linked have been to prove PEDs work, not that they cause long term harm. I'm not saying PEDs don't cause long term health risks. I'm sure most of them do. But what if there are some that don't? (Even off-hand we can state absolutely that there are, unless your definition of long term health risk is increadibly loose - caffeine is considered a PED in some contexts.) Not saying guys should shoot roids into their dick, but maybe they wouldn't bother if they could get HGH over the counter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:Nobody in this thread has posted any evidence that PEDs cause long term health risks, including the OP. Lots of people have talked anecdotally, and even pro-doping people have simply accepted it as true, but that's not the same thing as providing evidence. The caffeine example only works if your definition of performance enhancing drug is incredibly loose. Edit: also, i googled "steroids long term health risks studies" and found http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2646607/. Happy now? Carrier fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Jul 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
It's a PED according to the NCAA. PED doesn't just mean steroids, and stuff isn't just banned because it has long term health impacts. It does get into morality and "fairness". I'm more interested in something like HGH, because anecdotally that seems to be pretty effective stuff, and it's starting to become widespread among the non-athlete population as an "anti-aging" treatment (whether this is legit or not I don't know enough about). I think that if you're just abstracting the concept of PED you can say that there are probably PEDs that will positively impact performance at a minimum health risk. The question of whether or not athletes should be allowed to take these isn't "will it hurt them down the road" but "does it damage the integrity of the sport".
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
EvanTH posted:Sounds immoral. You should tell him Steroids Are Wrong and Cheating. What's he cheating at? The highly competitive world of nothing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 19:39
|
|
Sash! posted:What's he cheating at? The highly competitive world of nothing? whoosh
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:I'm not saying PEDs don't cause long term health risks. I'm sure most of them do. O.K., so I'm sure you'll support banning the majority of these substances from use in competitive sports then; we're almost there Jordan7hm posted:But what if there are some that don't? if we can somehow prove that they are definitely and permanently harmless, then I still think they shouldn't be used, but for the other reasons which are being discussed in this thread. I will admit that these are more subjective. Jordan7hm posted:(Even off-hand we can state absolutely that there are well hold on cowboy. Caffeine has only a very small negative effect on your health but that's because (at least in the doses we take it) its a fairly weak drug. Any performance enhancing drug that has the desired large scale effects on health is far more likely to have large scale effects on other aspects of one's health than something as piss-weak as your morning coffee. However, I'm not a doctor and I'm not going to pretend I am. There may be drugs that are entirely positive and have no side effects; that seems too good to be true but I'm not saying there definitely aren't. But given that (as far as I can tell) you are no more a doctor or scientist than I am, for you to say 'well there definitely are' is just not something you're qualified to do. lmaoboy1998 fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Jul 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
lmaoboy1998 posted:O.K., so I'm sure you'll support banning the majority of these substances from use in competitive sports then; we're almost there Steroids, hgh, et all are used therapeutically without serious side effects. It's why they exist to be used for doping? With the right medically supervised regimen, with steroids specifically, your health is not threatened in any serious way. Steroids cause heart attacks is something from using steroids in stupid and totally illogical ways. Any drug will kill you if you take it irresponsibly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
WEREWAIF posted:Steroids, hgh, et all are used therapeutically without serious side effects. It's why they exist to be used for doping? With the right medically supervised regimen, with steroids specifically, your health is not threatened in any serious way. they're used therapeutically on those who suffer from a deficit of these hormones to begin with, so as to bring them up to a normal level. letting trainers pump steroids into healthy athletes who are already at the higher end for the healthy range of the relevant hormones is, from what I understand, something quite different from a doctor prescribing small doses of steroids to a man with low-t.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Therapeutic use of these drugs is to typically make up for some sort of deficiency right? The problem with using them in super-fit athletes is that they don't need them therapeutically, there is nothing wrong with them to begin with, they're looking to get a competitive edge. efb
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
WEREWAIF posted:Steroids, hgh, et all are used therapeutically without serious side effects. It's why they exist to be used for doping? With the right medically supervised regimen, with steroids specifically, your health is not threatened in any serious way. Steroids are actually one of the most problematic drugs we use in medicine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Loving Africa Chaps posted:Steroids are actually one of the most problematic drugs we use in medicine. And yet millions of people take them without experiencing serious side effects. I'm not saying that steroids are the only drugs without problems, I'm saying that they're not the mysterious deadly class of bad boy drugs that anti ped people want them to be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
WEREWAIF posted:And yet millions of people take them without experiencing serious side effects. I'm not saying that steroids are the only drugs without problems, I'm saying that they're not the mysterious deadly class of bad boy drugs that anti ped people want them to be. You're talking to a Doctor who prescribes these things on a daily basis.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:You're talking to a Doctor who prescribes these things on a daily basis. Thank you, I didn't catch that implication from the statement "drugs we use in medicine." If you're telling me as a way of shutting down the discussion, you'll need to try something else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
Loving Africa Chaps posted:Steroids are actually one of the most problematic drugs we use in medicine. In what sense? Aside from cholesterol levels, endocrine shutdown and liver toxicity from hepatically metabolised steroids, all of which are routinely managed by shadetree pharmacists in dirty locker rooms and, I assume, managed much more efficiently by real doctors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
WEREWAIF posted:And yet millions of people take them without experiencing serious side effects. They really don't. In the long term the unnatural muscle mass gained can wreak havoc on your skeletal and nervous system, not to mention the heart. In any case for non-sportsmen I think its generally their decision as private individuals to make, its up to them if they want to sacrifice their future health and comfort to look buff (though they should ideally be aware that this is what they're doing). But for an athlete it isn't o.k. because it leads to ambivalent trainers putting massive pressure on other athletes, and particularly those in disadvantageous economic positions, to take the same steps to keep up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
lmaoboy1998 posted:They really don't. In the long term the unnatural muscle mass gained can wreak havoc on your skeletal and nervous system, not to mention the heart. In any case for non-sportsmen I think its generally their decision as private individuals to make, its up to them if they want to sacrifice their future health and comfort to look buff (though they should ideally be aware that this is what they're doing). But for an athlete it isn't o.k. because it leads to ambivalent trainers putting massive pressure on other athletes, and particularly those in disadvantageous economic positions, to take the same steps to keep up. Not all steroids do this. You don't see people with an inhaler getting mad muscles bro. There is a world of difference between a corticosteriod and an anabolic steroid. Or are all you nerds who have asthma getting yoked as gently caress thanks to not being able to breathe. Ramadu fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Jul 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Loving Africa Chaps posted:Steroids are actually one of the most problematic drugs we use in medicine. I'm genuinely curious and its not really been answered, is my mate putting himself in major future health risk by taking small amounts of steroids, what I think is only test? I know its nowhere near what bodybuilders use but can't remember the specifics. He seemed certain that he was taking so little meant any permanent damage wasn't likely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
use of steroids for recovery from injury or for maintaining a sensible weight is of course more ambiguous but there's still evidence that it leaves a permanent effect on the working of your body, in some ways positive, in some ways less so. use of steroids for those purposes is probably less damaging to your health than using them to attain muscles of sizes unsuited to the frame of your body but the question remains whether it gives certain athletes who react to the steroids more strongly an advantage over other athletes (the evidence suggests it does), and whether this contradicts the spirit of the game.
lmaoboy1998 fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Jul 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Ramadu posted:Not all steroids do this. You don't see people with an inhaler getting mad muscles bro. There is a world of difference between a corticosteriod and an anabolic steroid. Or are all you nerds who have asthma getting yoked as gently caress thanks to not being able to breathe. this is basically like the coffee argument. the claim that 'well normal people take small doses of stimulants/weak steroids and the effects are mild so why can't athletes pump huge doses of them?' is not very convincing
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
lmaoboy1998 posted:they're used therapeutically on those who suffer from a deficit of these hormones to begin with, so as to bring them up to a normal level. letting trainers pump steroids into healthy athletes who are already at the higher end for the healthy range of the relevant hormones is, from what I understand, something quite different from a doctor prescribing small doses of steroids to a man with low-t. I feel like this post has been missed for people wondering why normal people use these drugs and athletes shouldn't
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
lmaoboy1998 posted:this is basically like the coffee argument. the claim that 'well normal people take small doses of stimulants/weak steroids and the effects are mild so why can't athletes pump huge doses of them?' is not very convincing Well I guess have fun trying to get to elite levels of fitness on prednisone without understanding the differences in categories of steroids and how they affect the body. But hey, caffeine is a good start for your plans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Ramadu posted:Not all steroids do this. You don't see people with an inhaler getting mad muscles bro. There is a world of difference between a corticosteriod and an anabolic steroid. Or are all you nerds who have asthma getting yoked as gently caress thanks to not being able to breathe. http://www.mayoclinic.org/steroids/art-20045692?pg=2 http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Corticosteroid-(drugs)/Pages/Sideeffects.aspx Cortico steroids are completely safe, nothing to see here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Byolante posted:http://www.mayoclinic.org/steroids/art-20045692?pg=2 All of those effects seem like they would be useful to making an athlete better. Are you just unaware that every drug has side effects or something silly?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 18:55 |
|
|
Steroids = anabolic steroids in this context. Steroids are just chemical compounds and all steroids are not anabolic steroids, therefore not all of them have an effect on the endcrine system. Jesus, are we really talking about hay fever remedies (corticosteroids) now?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 23:52
|
|