Talk:Anabolic steroid/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Anabolic steroid. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

I believe the clitoris will grow even in an adult woman

Even an adult woman will experience growth of the clitoris, just as she would deepening of the voice. There will also be scrotal type alterations in the outer labia, the clitoris would not grow indefinitely, but would stop probably at about the size of an adult male glans penis, which I believe is the analogous tissue, the inner labia are analogous to the shaft of the male penis. HGH, although it cannot lengthen adult bones, will cause most soft tissues to grow including the nose, penis and clitoris. Since there is exposure to HGH throughout life, this one reason for larger noses among the elderly and possibly the depiction of old witches as having long noses.--Silverback 01:44, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

yes androgens cause clitoral hypertrophy in women of any age. im not sure HGH would cause penis growth in an adult, i think i would have heard of that in the bodybuilding world - i expect it would have been at least reported a few times. all i can find on pubmed is two studies involving HGH and _children_ with micropenises, with this finding "it seems that not all the hGH or, rather, somatomedin effect on sex organs is androgen mediated." --Weightshead 12:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Growth hormone causes thickening of skin and other soft tissue, rather than lengthening of the phallus. The classic example is that fingers get thicker (not longer) so a person's ring stops fitting. I also did a quick search on Pubmed and could find no discussion of effect of excess GH on phallus size (either penis or clitoris). If excess GH actually made an adult phallus grow, I suspect it would be a very well-known effect. The growth effect of GH on a young child's micropenis is a modest effect, and most (not all) of boys with micropenis due to hypopituitarism also lack testosterone. The exact mechanism has not been well-studied. alteripse 21:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View needed(resolved)

This page is in serious need of NPOV, all it talks about are the positive effects, HELLO performance enhancing drug here! Known side effects... Roleypolinde 07:24, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anabolic steriods are also natural components of the body and have roles in medicine. Many of the side effects are more likely with abuse rather than mere use, although direct effects such as virilization, would be considered side effects in woman, assuming they are not taking them for that reason. That said, what side effects are not mentioned in the article?--Silverback 11:33, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Giving the article a good lookover, it is more balanced than I originally thought, I'll call this resolved for now-- Roleypolinde 17:38, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I believe more needs to be said on this page about how steroids are a very bad and increasing problem in all athletics and sports. I mean people who them use dont seem to care about the negatives of increased usage, especially those atheletes who are popular role models for younger generations. I bet these same type of screwed-up atheletes will be the first to use genetic engineering to alter their natural composition to give them a "physical advantage" when such dangerous scientific developments become available over the following decades. In a way, people who would alter themselves in such a way couldnt really be called "human" anymore. Right now its steroids, eventually it will be genetic engineering, where does it end ? Some people really are a waste of skin. 69.157.121.76 17:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

- And why exactly are you pissod-off about people you consider a waste of skin endangering themselves? For that matter why are you pissed-off (as opposed to shocked or worried) about anyone choosing to endanger their health? It doesn't hurt you.

Annonymous 6:28 9 March 2006

credited his physique to years of steroid use

changed back to "admitted to years of steroid use" actually IIRC he released a publication that was advertised in the back of muscle magazines. in this he actually played down the role of steroids, claiming that he took dianabol to prevent muscle loss whilst dieting for a competition. Weightshead 18:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV text removed, references needed

The "dangers" have all but disappeared when applied on a personal level. In the meantime, the drugs remain C-III. They are the only compounds on the list of the DEA compounds which have neither psychological or physical addictive properties - the very criteria for having any compound fall under the auspices of the DEA.

While I am not offering a personal opinion on the matter (as I am not a doctor), the first and last sentences here are clearly disputed. I assume "C-III" means Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. It could be mentioned that these facts are disputed, though that may be best accomplished somewhere else.

I merged the history paragraph above this with the history section. The section on the initial hazards of injection does not have references. It should, and so should any claims that these dangers have passed.

-- Beland 03:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Minimising the side-effects

This section ends with "the use of anabolic steroids is much safer than what the majority of the public assumes." This comes dangerously close to both giving medical advice and advocating for the use of anabolic steroids. This entire section is unreferenced. A good place to start redeeming this statement would be to reference authoritative sources on the safety of these substances when used under the supervision of a doctor, and to polling data indicating just how dangerous "the public" in whichever country(ies) we're talking about here, think they are. If the rest of the section had references, it would be a lot easier to know whether or not it's accurate. It could certainly result in personal harm to someone if they took it to be true and it was not. People should not really be doing that anyway, of course. (I added a link to Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer, but it is currently not very prominent. I don't see it prominently placed on most medical articles, though maybe it should be.) Again, I'm not a doctor, and I, like most readers, have insuffiencient expertise to opine one way or the other on the veracity of the various claims made. -- Beland 03:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

for what its worth the section is farily accurate, and its clear some experienced users of anabolic steroids have contributed. the problem is that you _wont_ find up to date methods of minimising the side effects in the medical literatute - as a result of that the average user is likely to know far more than most doctors on the subject. furthermore, there are two or three competing ideas as to the optimal PCT protocol as well as conflict as to whether or not taking SERMS/AI/HCG during the cycle is beneficial. one doctor who certainly is knowledgable and helps out AAS users on the bodybuilding forums is Swale (aka Dr John Crisler) his website is www.allthingsmale.com. StrengthCoach 13:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Unquestionably, steroid users in the "gym culture" have more practical experience and knowledge than nearly all doctors. However most of it is word-of-mouth, folklore quality: a mixture of real facts with "folklore facts". The latter is especially a problem because there is no good feedback loop with published research. I am an endocrinologist with lots of experience with growth hormone and some limited experience with anabolic steroids. I have a copy of the Underground Steroid Handbook from pre-internet days; I have read some of the hormone articles in some of the muscle mags at the local gym; I have looked at some of the anabolic websites; and I have watched the information that has been contributed to this article over the last 2 years. All of those sources have 3 kinds of information: (1) scientifically accurate info that I could find references to support if necessary, (2) inaccurate info that is refutable by the scientific literature, (3) unpublished info that cannot be verified or refuted by the scientific literature. If we disagree over what I consider "accurate info" we can look it up and you can convince me with published research that I am mistaken. However the unpublished folklore is very hard to verify or refute. This article would gain from including some of the unwritten gym culture knowledge, but it would need to be "presented" as the type of knowledge it is and distinguished from verifiable material, and it would have the hazard of being partly nonsense with no way to settle arguments that might arise. If you could get Swale to contribute and help us to properly describe the info, this could be great a great article. alteripse 14:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I dont doubt your knowledge of the field one bit alteripse and I absolutely agree that that it is a very experimental area which draws from the published medical literature as a _basis only_ (you are in a more qualified position than I to judge how well it draws given the links below). However, there are a handful of knowledgable (wrt endocrinology) people who are well respected within the BB community with regard to PCT. Combined with this knowledge they have their clients bloodworks to attest to the efficiency of their PCT programs - theres not many of them but they do exist, Swale being one of them. Anthony Roberts is another such respected figure, although he has slightly differing views on PCT from Swale. Here are the outlines of their respective PCT protocols:

Dr John's PCT, http://www.allthingsmale.com/word_docs/AASrecovery.doc

Anthony Roberts PCT, http://www.avantlabs.com/magmain.php?pageID=431&issueID=35

-- StrengthCoach 14:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 14:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I should also add here that many AAS users get their bloodwork done and experiment with the different PCT protocols themselves as to what works best. Obviously this type of knowledge isnt worthy of any journal but it does add some substance to "myths and folklores" as the BB community is very interconnected given the various forums/boards.

-- StrengthCoach 14:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 14:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

A very strong critique/negation of the anti-steroid posts in this section and others, having to do with medical research and especially its absence, has been made by British, European, Australian and other overseas doctors: namely, that the US laws against steroid use have inhibited the progress of medical research and the development of more streamlined, safer drugs (a la nandrolone dec vs, say, test suspension). In other words, the reason that there has not been effective research, especially research focussing on "dedicated users" (in professional or amateur sports, or as recreational/vanity or self-rehabilitative use, as in my own case), is that the criminalization of the pharmaceuticals in question has not only led to the black market in counterfeits and fakes (a major public health risk caused by the law) but also made it impossible for doctors to communicate with users, for users to seek monitoring and education/information (other than "don't use 'em, which is all a GP will give, unless you pay him lots for a scrip I guess), and for scientists to carry out the appropriate usage on the actual user community. British doctors have a pragmatic approach; side-stepping any laws, they invoke the Hippocratic Oath in the interests of their patients, so that they can be adequately monitored, and also report on progress, issues, side-effects and more in a realistic (and not fearful) way; this applies to GH use, insulin use, as well as AAS and prohormones. The US has created a pharmaceutical/medical dark age - which is why, in fact, the new and improved "designer " steroids come from France, Belgium etc.....Skookum1 07:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

question about study

a 1998 Pennsylvania State University study found that 175,000 high school girls nationwide reported taking steroids at least once in their lifetime.

Does anybody know what percentage this was? A link to the original paper would be ideal. --NeuronExMachina 07:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

My memory from 7 years ago. I think it was published in JAMA. I think the percentages were surprisingly high. If I remember correctly at least 5-10% of high school girls reported taking anabolic steroids. HOWEVER, there was no way to verify whether the boys and girls had any idea what was and wasn't a steroid, or whether they were telling the truth or exaggerating. I am very skeptical. alteripse 23:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"On steroids"

I'd like to add a note on the way steroids are generally associated with doping, and that "on steroids" has subsequently become an expression for any dramatically boosted thing, as in "Wikipedia is Linus' Law on steroids." I don't know where, though. --Kizor 09:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

About the highschool studies...

I've noticed that the study saying a particular percent of high school students in polls have admited to using steroids. I wanted to point out that I have heard that these studies simply asked the question "have you ever used steroids" or something like that where the person answering may not of known what exactly would of quallified as "steroids" and may of checked "yes,I have done steroids." when in fact he had just taken creatine or some other food supplement which he confused with anabolic steroids. Believe it or not,Most people believe that food supplements are anabolic steroids and often get them confused. So I think a source of the study along with what precise question was asked to the students was so that we can make sure there was no possibility of the students confusing a food supplement such as a protein shake or creatine with an anabolic steroid which often happens.

66.6.80.48 16:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC) It is also my understanding that the question was "have you ever used steroids?". If this was the question, then I believe the affirmative answers were well below what actually should have been reported. Every girl who had ever taken a birth control pill (estrogen/progesterone), every child who had ever taken a corticosteroid, or even rubbed some hydrocortisone cream on their poison ivy should have responded yes. I know as I child I was told I was taking steroids for my upper respiratory infections several times. Of course, I was taking prednisone, but I had no idea at the time corticosteroids were any different than anabolic/androgenic steroids. I would have rightfully said "yes" when posed that question. This study is so incredibly flawed in that respect that I cannot believe it's cited at all, anywhere.

Steroids in High School Athletics redirects here

Its AFD debate suggested a merge and redirect, but the content of the article merely repeated what this article states, so I merely redirected it. Johnleemk | Talk 12:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

reason for reversion

All other synthetic AAS are testosterone-derivatives which have both anabilic and androgenic properties, in different proportions.

Not all anabolic steroids are testosterone derivatives. They react with androgen receptors and many are modelled on testosterone, but that is not the same as being a chemical derivative.

Properly known as Androgenic/Anabolic Steroids or AAS are a ...

This phrase is a poor one to lead the article. It is an awkward contrivance that contradicts the article title. It refers to a very minority phrase. And who says what is "properly"? Farther down, if you want to say, sometimes referred to as "anabolic-androgenic steroids... I would not object. thanks alteripse 19:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Alteripse|alteripse; Your first revision to my article appreciated, however, you are incorrect on your second revision.

When you say "who says what is proper?", my answer to you would be the medical community. Perhaps it is a poor one to lead the article, but they are correctly reffered to as AAS, not just "anabolic: steroids. Please post back to me and tell me what you think. As you can see, I am new to posting here, so your help will b appreciated. Thank you, Cavell

I have heard the designation before, but few medical texts and journals use the combined designation. I have never heard a doctor use the phrase in speech-- we say androgens or we say anabolic steroid depending on context (they not interchangeable terms in many contexts), but we never actually say "androgenic/anabolic steroid". I have no problem mentioning it farther down in the article, but it is a minority usage, not a "proper" one. Does that make sense? alteripse 18:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Preservation of muscle mass

Alteripse, regarding "preservation of muscle mass", im curious is the current stance of the literature that AAS prevent protein breakdown? or is it a case of preserving net protein balance via increased protein synthesis? im not suggesting the article needs altering, its purely to satisfy my own curiousity. i always thought it was the largely the latter... StrengthCoach 22:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think there have been studies on this question published and I think it is a combination of the two effects, but I would not wager a large amount of money on the accuracy of that memory. This is not an area I have done research on or have a deep interest in, so I am not claiming unusual expertise. alteripse 23:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Enlargement of the heart

Left ventricular hypertrophy seems to be a medium term effect of steroid use and is dose dependant - this declines several years after discontinuation but remains slightly above baseline levels. StrengthCoach 10:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

An inferior paragraph in History section

The following paragraph, in my opinion, needs to be completely rewritten.

In addition, an entire market for counterfeit drugs emerged at this time. Never seen in the previous 30 years of their availability on the U.S. market, computers and scanning technology made the ease of counterfeiting legitimate products by utilizing their original label design, and the market was flooded with products that contained everything from mere vegetable oil to toxic substances which unsuspecting users injected into themselves, of which some died as a result of blood poisoning, methanol poisoning or subcutaneous abcess.

My points are these: (1) Did "an entire market" for counterfeit drugs really emerge in the early 1990's? Or, was it "an entire market for anabolic steroids" that emerged in the early 1990's? Was the writer trying to tell us something like "Counterfeit anabolic steroids became prevalent in the early 1990's"? (2) The second sentence, from its "Never seen..." introductory phrase to the phrase "original label design" is improper use of the English language.

Although I'm comfortable making minor grammar and spelling edits, changing an entire paragraph concerning a subject with which I have no expertise is beyond my arrogance. However, I might propose the following alternate version:

By the beginning of the 1990's, personal computers, scanners and printers made it easier for drug counterfeiters to sell their products with copies of legitimate product labeling. Counterfeit anabolic steroids therefore became more prevalent; some of these contained dangerous or toxic substances which unsuspecting users injected into themselves. A number of deaths resulted from blood poisoning, methanol poisoning, and subcutaneous abcess.

This proposed version seems to convey the information which the original version is intended to convey, I guess. Note that my introductory "By the beginning of the 1990's" is a placeholder, and probably needs to be replaced with something which better provides continuity.

But, I have no idea if the information presented in either version of the paragraph is really true, of course. Any input? Thanks. --GrouchyDan 06:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

muscle growth

Muscles do not grow by cell division. muscle cells do not divide during adulthood. The intro alludes to that. It should be changed and/or cleared up. And do steriods really directly cause cell division? Sources anyone?--152.20.189.21 20:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Steroids do not cause cell division (hyperplasia), rather they cause hypertrophy, or the enlargement of muscular cells. Upon reaching adulthood humans no longer "grow" new muscle cells, we have a set number.

Some slight changes

I made some slight changes to the article. I got rid of some vague stuff that was already addressed and changed "Severe acne" to just acne since the acne from Anabolic steroids is rarely severe. I also changed "Roid rage" to aggression since the area it was mentioned should not of had slang in it.

Unless I am very mistaken, there is a fairly glaring omission in the "Medical Uses" section as well as "presentation" and "Administration." These relate to testosterone, specifically, but even the page devoted to testosterone only makes a brief mention of its most common use. I did not see anything in the discussions about this omission, so I want to be sure it is considered in case this is not an intentional exclusion.

Regarding medical uses, AFAIK, the most common legal use of anabolic steroids in humans is for hormone replacement therapy, but this use is not even listed here. More specifically, both men and women with abnormally low testosterone levels have testosterone administered to bring the blood serum levels back to where they are needed. The reasons for having low testosterone in the first place are many, but they can include physical or chemical damage to the testes in men or various endocrine disorders in both men and women. The lack of sufficient testosterone means much more than lowered sex drive or possible impotence; it also leads to rapid bone density loss, extreme fatigue, depression, loss of secondary sex characteristics for men, etc. Information on this condition is quite easy to find, so I will not belabor it here. I am just astounded that some comparatively rare uses are listed while this major one is not.

For the presentation and administration sections, none of the transdermal compounds or methods used in administering testosterone are mentioned. These are much more common and popular than injections, as they tend to provide blood levels much more like those that naturally occur under normal circumstances. The injections are preferred by some, but most patients seem to find they have too much of a peak and valley effect compared to the transdermal methods. The transdermal products currently available include multiple transdermal patch forms (e.g., Testoderm) and also a gel form (trade name of Androgel). There are also subcutaneous implants used in Europe, not yet available in the US, and even a fairly new buccal (inside the cheek) oral formulation that . Again, there is ample information available regarding the details of these formulations and how they are used, so I will not even try to cover it here.

Anyway, I just wanted to bring it to everyone's attention.

Administration

I have re-added the information which Ashmoo has deleted. The Wiki:Not policy states Wikipedia should not be a "how-to" guide. This information is not "how to". It is warnings on the dangers associated with incorrect administration. Why would you want this information removed? More information is always better. That is the true essence of what makes Wiki so sucessful. The continuing growth of knowledge. Cavell 04:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Side effects from aromatization

Shouldn't the side effects due to aromatization be included under side-effects? Gynecomastia is only mentioned under Minimising the Side-effects. Jack Daw 18:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Then it would seem a propos that a discussion of the "clinical reality" resulting from illegalization be also included; the impact of criminal laws on health issues, i.e. fake and contaminated stuff, misadministration, lack of education because users can't speak to their physicians, the health impacts of taking someone off a cycle drastically when they are arrested for possession/use, and so on. See Four Pillars Strategy and Four Pillars Drug Strategy re heroin users; Harm Reduction, Prevention, Treatment and Enforcement, in that order. It's not a question of morality or what people should be doing, it's what they are doing that matters; and education, consultation and all the rest are much more serving the public interest through protecting health, rather than creating further problems by continued criminal treatment; it's a health issue, not a criminal one. And the relationship of "recreational" or personal rehabilitative use to the growth of hormone therapy in treatment of andropause and other aging-male issues is critical to a full treatment of this subject (speaking as a 50 year old whose life has been transformed after years of disabuse from medical-system negligence and indifference). Skookum1 01:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Other effects

What would happen as far as bone or muscle growth for someone who used steroids and only did cardiovascular intense exercising (as opposed to weight-training)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.76.136.149 (talk • contribs) .

I assume it would be similar to a cutting cycle for a weight trainer, the person would lose body fat while retaining lean mass (assuming appropriate caloric intake). --Bk0 (Talk) 17:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Might that amount to an increase in bone mass?71.76.135.102 21:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I would think it depends on the kind of cardio; light-impact probably not, but heavy-impact probably. Thing is muscle growth in my experience has more to do with your diet, which the steroids simply allow you to eat more of; taking steroids by themselves, even with weight training, will not get you bigger unless you eat accordingly. If you don't, it'll be like a cutting cycle; but I wouldn't think walking is as good for bones as something involving more tension; conversely, running's fairly bad for bones because of the shattering effect from impact (depending on surface, and your age, I'd think).Skookum1 01:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC) And on the drug; oxymetholone is prescribed as a counter bone-wasting treatment in AIDS and other wasting diseases, for example; and that's without weight training involved.Skookum1 01:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Things that should be added....

In a few drug articles such as on Marijuana they address numerous issues that exist for anabolic steroids as well. For instance this article should include common 'myths' concerning the use of anabolic steroids. Including how the media demonizes anabolic steroids and only mentions them in negative contexts. Whenever we see any mention of Anabolic Steroids in the media, It's in a negative context. Despite anabolic steroids are being safely used by the medical community and others on a daily basis. Despite the fact that anabolic steroids are extremly benefitial to the medical community. The complete demonization of Steroids should atleast be mentioned partialy here. As well as absurd mentions of steroids in hollywood such as in 'fightclub' the movie where meatloafs character has breasts larger than most women supposedly from steroid abuse. In reality no victim of gyno in the world would have breasts that look like that. The absolute worst case scenerios that aren't even caused by steroids but genetics make the male breast about the size of a tenis ball. No steroid user could possibly get formation of breasts the size portrayed in the movie, It's a physical impossibility.

Also concerning the 'side effects', There should be sources from scientific studies for all of the side effects mentioned. I see none.

And there are, in fact, none; for many of the scarier scare myths; Aussie and German doctors did tons of blind studies on 'roid rage for example, and couldn't prove it; American doctors say they have proof, but their papers were, I believe, not peer reviewed. Then there's the legions of horror stories about deaths and permanent organ damage, but on http://www.andropause.com, the British doctors who run that site maintain that in thirty years of steady testosterone use in therapy in Europe and elsewhere, even at high doses, no such deaths or damage have been recorded. As for balding and gynos, well, let's compare those to the side-effects of SSRIs and Vioxx and ritalin and and and, which are pushed at the public like candy by doctors looking for a quick fix for their patients' personal problems (well, not Vioxx so much, but you get the idea; dangerous pharmaceuticals are given out like candy). In this context, a mention of the recently-increased criminal penalties for simple possession in the US deserves mention/critique: the critique being "WHY?". "Because this is a war on drugs" isn't a valid answer, when the doctors are pushing far more dangerous drugs at their patients, even children, every day....Skookum1 07:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As for Meatloaf's breasts, those are from lifelong obesity, fer chrissake.Skookum1 07:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's not make claims we can't back up, Skookum.

I strongly doubt that you can cite two blinded Austrian/German studies on "roid rage" let alone "tons".

I can find an Australian one and I think a German one - a European one, at any rate. I found them during research for a legal case. And OK, "tons" is hyperbole in this case, although it does apply to the amount of ritalin, prozac/paxil/zyban/whatnot, valium, oxycontin and other crap that doctors will much more easily write you a scrip for, and which are far more dangerous. It'll take me a while to find my notes on those studies again but they do exist...I think I found the Australian one via a link off www.andropause.com. I'll dig these out later when I get a chance.Skookum1 17:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And please tell me where "American doctors say they have proof", since all the American doctors and sources I know of simply say it is hard to study and the stories about roid rage are mainly promulgated by folk medicine sources (gym lore, urban legends, sportwriters, well-intentioned coaches, newspaper accounts of legal defences, etc).

"American doctors who are part of the anti-steroid propaganda/disinformation community" should be a qualifier there; or American/Canadian doctors who pander to the IOC's anti-doping hysteria/witchhunt (see Talk:Bodybuilding and search "Kelly Guest" to find my post about this. Poin here is that the doctors in general, who you point out find it hard to study, find it hard to study because of the paucity of materials available AND because the illegality of the product lines makes it hard for users to come forward; this was the point about British doctors overriding any restrictive laws there (which are not as strong as in the US) by invoking the Hippocratic Oath; they monitor their patients and compile data on heavy users. And yeah, roid rage is folk culture; in my estimation it has a lot more to do with the psychology of the sort of person who gets involved with steroids because of their illegality, i.e. who already may have insecurity or temper problems (the number of b.b.ers I know who were either bullied and/or sexually abused when young is overwhelming; sorry guys don't mean to say you all are, but it's common enough to be worth commenting on; jokingly one of the 6'8" guys I knew, a professional wrestler, said to someone else on the film set we were working on about some homophobic fear or other "Look, we were all f**ked by our uncles, but get over it, OK?"). How does that tie into the illegality? Well, the tough-guy thing is often rooted in that, and tough guys are the ones who like to get involved in crime, either because it's "cool" or it makes them feel powerful; and so the correlation crime+steroids=goofs comes into play. Sure, bodybuilder steroid users before crimnalization were still often insecure and prone to tantrums, but they weren't connected to the heavy-drug and gangster crowd, not intrinsically as they can be now; so are people in traffic; but after criminalization a lot of the truly psycho found out the stuff could help them be even more psycho, and BIG to boot. It's all pretty complicated; not enough proper research and analysis of the phenomenon has been done; the studies I read maintained that there was no direct cause-effect, that there were too many other factors at play. And in my experience, I'll submit that because of illegalization it's a certain kind of guy who has the connections to get the stuff; and those guys are already prone to outbursts and nastiness. Steroids just make you more confident that you can get away with it, or at least that you don't care what people think. I know I'm already a cranky old fart; it's just before I'd be more likely to turn my being pissed off at someone trying to push me aside (as is often the case with short, assertive people, as big guys know) inside, i.e. to either choke it down or introvert it somehow, whereas "now" I'm more likely to say "what the f**k is your problem?" Deal is I'm 6'5" 240lbs (skinny by bb standards) and, even without steroids, people react to you as if you'd intimidated them when all you're doing is standing up to their passive-aggressive bullshit; even a slight edge on my voice has people thinking I'm yelling or threatening them; the same tone of voice that they used on me....that's a personal experience and obviously subjective; but again, the reason roid rage CANNOT be studied and either proven or disproven is because the laws make it difficult for researchers and doctors and shrinks to communicate with users, and for users to feel comfortable being part of such studies, or being able to talk to medical people AT ALL. That's what I meant by "clinical reality" - the effect the law has on research and public health is DECIDEDLY NEGATIVE.Skookum1 17:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And, third, let's not conflate "andropause" replacement use with the enormous doses published in lots of bodybuilding accounts-- the majority of the toxicity issues with hormones are dose dependent, and anyone who discusses toxicity without specifying the dose range is pretending expertise or being deliberately misleading.

Fine, but because of the laws and the DEA/IOC stigma campaign, even andropause doses can't be easily obtained; again this is the clinical reality issue. Actual health needs and uses are being restricted "because Ben Jonson ran too fast"; the IOC, to me, is particularly guilty of pressing for criminalization because of use in their high-and-holy sports venues, but the brush they've used is wide; it's because of their propaganda that I spent five years barely able to walk, when a good shot in the ass or two would have had me up and walking (see Talk:Bodybuilding if I haven't discussed that here).Skookum1 17:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thirty years of recording no deaths is only meaningful if you have confidence in their denominator and their ascertainment. What do you imagine a "steroid-related death" would look like? If, for example, testosterone use in nondeficient men in their 50's tripled the heart attack and prostate cancer rates, how do we know their registry would detect it? If they depend on voluntary reporting by survivors of all causes of death, they would simply miss this hypothetical really major effect.

AGAIN, this is because no records are kept because of the legal taboos; and the cite again is from www.andropause.com (I'll find the exact page later) and other European sites,; but here's a counter-question: list me some of the deaths due to steroid abuse. And isolate out of those the individuals who weren't also alcoholics, coke users, bain/heroin users, pill takers etc etc etc; and those bb'ers like Benaziza who died were not steroid-caused, but diuretic (which is the fault, to me, of the shift in bodybuilding judging parameters from aesthetics to rippedness and megamass...blame it on Weider's tastes, in fact....)Skookum1 17:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments are weakened by your logic lapses. Show me a single authoritative source whose argument or reason for criminalizing possession of anabolic steroids is "because this is a war on drugs." Inventing silly supporting arguments for positions you disagree with leaves intelligent people suspecting you can't counter the real arguments.

Authoritative source? How's the IOC for starts? And don't pretend the criminalizatoin of steroids as "dangerous drugs" in the same years that the Reagan-instigated "War on Drugs" started is accidental; or that "drugs" has become some kind of near-religious shibboleth in American media witchhunting, as if it were the next best thing to bestiality. Logic? This has nothing to do with logic, but with media hype and IOC/DEA propagandizing; ask them for THEIR logic.Skookum1 17:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk about "demonization"! You have given a prime example of it right here: "pushed at the public like candy by doctors looking for a quick fix for their patients' personal problems" and "dangerous pharmaceuticals are given out like candy" can match anything concocted by Harry J. Anslinger for intentional misrepresentation. You think that makes your arguments more persuasive?

alteripse 11:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I do actually, and what I said about doctors pushing dangerous experimental pharamaceuticals at their patients for minor ailments (depression, aches, feeling out-of-sorts) is VERY TRUE. That's not demonization. What's demonization is having even marijuana-legalization and heroin-normalization advocates look at you concerning steroid use as if you'd committed bestiality or somehow become less than human; it's because of the media hype that "steroids are bad" and the fostering of ignorance about their proper use (even at high doses there's "proper use") by way of keeping the whole thing in the dark, and therefore under the control of the pushers and counterfeiters. The Four Pillars strategy I spoke of elsewhere (either here or Talk:Bodybuilding) should be brought to bear; bring things into the light of day so they can be studied, users can receive counselling, education and proper medical services, and so on. As with any contraband, continued illegalization means only more money for the criminal crowd, more risk of potentially dangerous counterfeits and fakes, and (interestingly enough) more use; and more unedcated use to boot. Take your head out of the sand. I meant to ask - you don't work for the Ministry of Disinformation do you?Skookum1 17:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Me have my head in the sand? Work for the ministry of disinformation? You have not actually offered information to counter a single one of my points or criticisms-- not a single one. Go back and actually read the words I wrote and the words you wrote. You bluster and attack strawmen, but do not directly respond to the points I made. There are no blinded studies on roid rage. Not German, nor Austrian, nor Australian, nor Martian, because it isn't possible to do a blinded, controlled study on bodybuilding doses. You have lots of excuses and accusations but that is the sum of what you have offered us. How about those facts and studies? I am not interested in opinion posts on an internet forum worth no more than your bluster here. Make your input here constructive and substantive. Drop the exaggerations, hyperbole and bullshit. Do you have substantiatable facts to contribute or not? alteripse 13:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The Ministry of Disinformation quip was a quip; find a sense of humour before you reply, and maybe read 1984 and consider the term "Newspeak". As for the rest of your reply, all I see is denial, denial, denial. "Exaggerations, hyperbole and bullshit" are the stock-in-trade of the anti-steroid lobby, just as they are of the anti-marijuana lobby and anti-everything else lobby. And yeah, didn't I say that there have been NO STUDIES on bodybuilder dosages, and this is the problem? And the problem is caused by their criminalization?? I'm not sure at this point if you're just being anal about cites and citability, which is fine, or whether you're trying to debunk my general argument: which is that the CLINICAL REALITY is that research into bodybuilder-level usage and other "recreational" (or in my case, self-rehabilitative) dosing has been held back by the stone-age mentality of US legislators and DEA propagandists; the health issues caused by criminalization are a LOT more serious than those posed by the substances themselves. I'd rather have gynos that a bottle of fake shit, that's for sure; I'd like to be sure that what I'm buying isn't just vegetable oil or repressed aspirin, and doesn't have contaminants in it, or as in one case in Calgary years ago, Armour-all (instead of Winnie; the recipient was a Mountie so it may have been a revenge-sale; he had to have part of his butt amputated). I do note, also, that someone here has belanket-denounced all the vast user forums on the internet as having no validity, even though many of the guys contributing are pharmacists or doctors or physios themselves, as well as experienced users; their knowledge and experience is being denied as having value, and therefore "not citable". But as long as US doctors and medical researchers either can't or won't do the necessary research, the pro-steroid, or at least neutral-steroid, position, will never be citable. Handy, huh? That's partly what Newspeak is about: if truth presents its head, discredit the source and, if possible, cause lurid scandal so as to not have to discuss the science. And, in this case, the clinical reality of what has happened because of illegalization - the burgeoning of the counterfeit/fake trade and the involvement of organized crime; same as what happened with marijuana (the biggest industry where I live; and every time there's a bust or crackdown, there's more money to be made, same as with alcohol Prohibition; and the policing establishment, at the behest/influence of the US and DEA, spends more time hunting down grows than it does on the escalation of property crime, dangerous driving, financial buggering-around and so on; the steroid trade's not as big although - because it's illegal - it's now also interconnected. So the social consequences of illegalization of ANY DRUG/substance are a reality, even though you may deny the citability of any disputative source to your own position. Denying the validity of evidence is an old legal technique, as well as a p.r./propagandist one. That's why my comment about the Ministry of Disinformation (in Orwell it was the Ministry of Truth, only slightly less feared than the evil Ministry of Love....)Skookum1 17:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This is frustrating. You do not respond to my criticisms or assertions directly, but instead rant against what you imagine other vague dark establishment forces out there are doing or saying. Do you understand what I mean when I describe your arguments as attacking a strawman? It means you assign a stupid, easily refutable position to your opponent and then of course easily demolish it. Can you not see that that is what most of your rants consist of? If I ask you to back up a claim you made, you blame doctors for not doing the research to back up your claim! The quip about the misinformation was no big deal but it was not accompanied by an actual refutation of a single fact I had offered, just arguments against things you apparently wish I had said. When you want to impute opinions or arguments to me that I have not asserted and do not hold, it suggests intellectual dishonesty, opinions unsupportable by facts, or educational and intelligence resources not worth debating. You accuse me of denying the validity of your evidence, but you didn't offer any evidence, just unsupported assertions and opinions. If you have nothing more substantive to offer, I have nothing else to say. alteripse 18:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm speaking from experience, and from the literally 5000+ users I've known in my life. You might try talking to some sometime, yourself, instead of puttering around in filing cabinets looking for evidence to support your negativity.Skookum1 19:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Misc

This is some research I found. here here here here Keep up the good work guys

All sources in the hip-pocket of the DEA and all American; got any European or British or Australian studies for us? Or only ones from the land of the free and the home of the brave? Skookum1 17:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone once said (a few inches above) "Denying the validity of evidence is an old legal technique, as well as a p.r./propagandist one." It seems very apposite here. Since you cannot possibly have any evidence that all of these authors are somehow in thrall to the DEA, it appears you are quite familiar with the tactic of simply denying the validity of any evidence that doesn't support your opinion. I am less and less impressed. alteripse 18:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please look up "irony" - you went for the bait, over-serious as you are. I don't really care if you're not "impressed" or not; I've raised issues you're clearly unwilling to discuss, despite your medical expertise and what should be - as a purported scientist - an OPEN MIND. I gather you support criminalization as a way to deal with what then can only be steroid abuse, and you're opposed to personal choice. I still maintain there are other studies than those compiling the following section, and I note that the recently-posted Australian study mentions two murders that fit the pattern of 'roid rage; but the study, for all its further citations and such, does not and CANNOT prove the cause-effect that those murders were CAUSED by steroid use. Were the murderers also cocaine users? Alcoholics? Had a history of violent aggression? This is the point - "pat" statements are made about events as if steroids were the only factor involved; as when hockey player John Kordyk died in his Montreal hotel room and the police pronounced it steroid abuse; never mind the six empty whiskey bottles, the pile of cocaine on the desk, the needles...it was steroids the media jumped all over, and ran with. Same as with these Aussie cases; that there's a correlation between criminalization and the incidence of steroid use among people connected to violent behaviour or criminal activity is because of criminalization. What's needed is education and monitored use and formal studies of bodybuilder dosages in an open, unpoliticized environment. All kinds of studies can be brought forward claiming global warming isn't happening, or that marijuana causes violence, or homosexuality causes insanity (as if heterosexuality didn't). My point is that the REALITY of the criminalization is that more health issues are caused, without recourse to appropriately neutral study, than legalization and controlled use would involve; the same argument applies to heroin and has been extended also to cocaine; as a medical person I would have thought you were aware of the Four Pillars Strategy. Apparently not, and apparently you don't want to know about it, either...As for not replying, and not caring, and not being impressed, big deal; what I'm hearing from you is formal denial and elicitation of studies friendly to your own anti- point of view. I'l eventually dig out those other studies I mentioned elsewhere; but studies such as the Aussie one cited make conclusions and statements that are not scientific; pointedly those in its opening paragraphs, which are not provable and belie the existence of other factors such as other forms of drug/substance abuse, personal history, and more. Unless you are willing to support the re-criminalization of alcohol and all the the health and social issues implied by that, I suggest you also look up hypocrisy.Skookum1 19:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The principal things that press my buttons and deter my sense of humor are (a) the use of inaccurate information or claims to support a position, (b) sloppy, illogical, or dishonest arguing, and (c) people who want to impute opinions or positions to me that I do not hold. Although I didn't set out to pick a fight and I suspect we might disagree on fewer things than you think, you have been transgressing in all three areas with at least as much force and humorlessness as I was. I can respect the position that rules should keep anabolic steroids out of sports, but it shouldn't be supported by exaggerated claims of toxicity. I can respect the position that society has an interest in restricting use of many drugs to certain people or conditions, or the opposite position that all drugs should be freely available to everyone, but not when the positions are justified by inaccurate exaggerations or minimizations of risks and medical or social consequences. It was a ridiculous inconvenience when anabolic steroids were made controlled substances by the DEA and a result of confusing the sports policy issues with health issues; I would vote to rescind that classification in a moment. The issues of safety and efficacy should not be confused with social policy (although they are relevant), and issues related to non-competitive bodybuilding are different than the issues arising from use to gain a competitive athletic edge. The debate over the andropause, the definition of deficiency, and potential benefit or risk of supplementing men our age is completely different from both. If you argue intelligently and honestly a debate can be both enjoyable and informative to all involved. I looked at your user page and the stuff you put here doesnt seem to match it. Start over if you wish, but read carefully and try less overstatement. alteripse 20:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Increased aggression might be a side effect of anabolic steroid abuse.[Haupt H, Rovere G. Anabolic Steroids: a review of the literature. Am J Sports Med. 1984;12:469-484.] This often affects normal daily activities. Anecdotal information indicates that the smallest, most insignificant instance can trigger an aggressive outburst in the user. Users might be precipitated into violent and angry outbursts of aggression referred to as "roid rages". Athletes who demonstrate this type of behaviour should be suspect.

Oral anabolic steroids often have a toxic effect on the liver cells and inhibit their normal function.[Wilson JD. Androgen abuse by athletes. Endocr Rev. 1988;9:181-199]

"The use of anabolic androgenic steroids (AASs) has escalated in teenagers and is associated with increased violence. Adolescent exposure to chronic high levels of AASs is of particular concern because puberty is a hormonally sensitive period during which neural circuitry for adult male patterns of behavior develop. Thus, teenage AAS use may have long-term repercussions on the potential for displaying aggression and violence. Animal models have contributed valuable information on the effects of AAS use. For example, studies in rodents confirmed that exposure to the AASs testosterone and nandrolone, but not stanozolol, does indeed increase aggression. A side effect of AAS use reported in humans is "'roid rage," characterized by indiscriminate and unprovoked aggression. Results of animal studies demonstrated that pubertal rats receiving AASs respond appropriately to social cues as they are more aggressive toward intact males than are castrates. Also, testosterone-treated males recognize appropriate environmental cues as they are most aggressive in their home cage. Thus, adolescent AAS exposure increases aggressive behaviors, but does not induce indiscriminate aggression. To assess whether AAS exposure increases aggression after provocation, rats were tested following a mild tail-pinch. In adolescent males, provocation increased aggression after withdrawal from testosterone, nandrolone, and stanozolol, an effect which persisted for many weeks. The data suggest that AASs sensitize animals to their surroundings and lower the threshold to respond to provocation with aggression. Thus, in humans, pubertal AAS exposure may not cause violent behaviors, but may increase the likelihood that aggressive acts will result in violence. This may persist into adulthood." -- found here also -- here

Psychological characteristics of adolescent steroid users. click here

"Anabolic/Androgenic Steroid Use and Aggression Part 1" click here

"Anabolic/Androgenic Steroid Use and Aggression Part 2" click here

Steroid-Abusing Athletes Risk Serious Gum Disease click here

Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, Jun2006.' click here

Gym users and abuse prescription drugs click here

Steroid Abuse Harms Gingival Tissues click here

ANABOLIC STEROIDS: Side Effects click here

Anabolic steroids and the mind click here

March 2006 Steroids Report click here

More resources click here

Resources 2 click here

--AF1987 17:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been meaning to review some of those papers but have been away elsewhere in WikiWorld for a while, and as mentioned elsewhere finally on a break in the yonder country (http://www.wellsbc.com). Dropping by just now with this link http://www.vancouver.ca/fourpillars/ for User:alteripse re alternative approaches to drug use/abuse than interdiction and criminalization. But as far as some of the papers above go, I noticed some biases built into the language and premises, or just bad logic, in more than one, and will be back at some point to comment.Skookum1 16:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Escalation of US penalties for steroid use/possession

The following is excerpted from a newsletter distributed by www.elitefitness.com:

The U.S. Sentencing Commission has published notice of temporary "emergency" amendments to the federal anabolic steroid sentencing guidelines and thing just got a lot tougher for American juicers! A LOT TOUGHER!

03.27.06 - U.S. Anabolic Steroid Punishments Increased!

The U.S. Sentencing Commission has published notice of temporary "emergency" (i.e., immediate) amendments to the federal anabolic steroid sentencing guidelines. Henceforth, injectable and oral steroids will be quantified for punishment in a 1:1 ratio to other Schedule III drugs, resulting in a twenty-fold measurement increase for injectable steroid units and a fifty-fold increase for oral steroid units. Steroids in other forms ("e.g., patch, topical cream, aerosol") will be reasonably estimated based on a consideration of 25mg as one unit. Additionally, sentencing enhancements will apply in cases involving distribution to "athletes" or where coaches use their positions to influence athletes to use steroids, as well as in cases involving "masking agents." While likely to impact dealers more than personal users, the new 1:1 ratio nonetheless ignores fundamental differences between steroid usage and volume patterns as compared to other Schedule III drugs. Other potential problems with the amendments include the lack of any reference to potency in oral or injectable steroids, potentially leading to black market adaptations to circumvent the amendment (e.g., the creation of high potency "mega-pills") as well as the lack of any knowledge requirement involving distribution (e.g., via the Internet) to unidentifiable customers who may turn out to be athletes. It is expected that the revisions will be made permanent by Congress in November. [For further information, see the written testimony of Rick Collins to the Sentencing Commission, the transcript of his appearance before the Commission, the Report of the USSC Steroids Working Group, and the Commission's Notice of Amendment to the guidelines.

Links (all PDFs) as in the newsletter.Skookum1 06:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Misc

i made minor chandes to this article but suspect sum1 may have deleted part of it while i was reading it 212.120.230.226 22:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

is there any proof that exogenous testosterone leads to enlargement of the phallus at any age? Jy

You changed your question! My previous answer was 1. 90% of the growth of the penis is due to testosterone & DHT 2. If a girl or a woman develops an androgen-producing tumor, her phallus grows.

It occurred to me that perhaps the point you wanted to make was that an adult penis doesn't keep getting bigger if a man takes extra T? Was that it? Just like growth hormone "makes a person grow," but this is actually true only if the person is still a child. GH won't make an adult grow taller. Is this the source of disagreement? Alteripse 01:14, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

but the point is its an article about anabolic steroids - listing an example of virilization such as growth of the phallus leads the user to assume that somehow AS also leads to growth of the phallus.

1) so although it is technically a correct example of virilization my problem with it is that it is misleading.

2) secondly a phallus is the male organ, if it can technically be used for the clitoris (perhaps for homologous reasons) then the clearer term clitoris should be used. Jy

OK, I think we understand each other. Let me see if I can make the article clearer that additional anabolic steroids do not increase size of an adult male penis.

You are correct that in most contexts phallus refers to penis. I've been spending too much time writing about the main context in which the word is used intentionally to refer to either penis or clitoris, which is in discussions about intersex conditions, ambiguous genitalia, and sexual differentiation. In the note above, I could have said clitoris. I guess I was emphasizing that both types of phallus respond to testosterone if they have not finished growing. I'll change the article. See what you think. Alteripse 02:05, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

very clear. good work on the article as a whole too. Jy

This article is in bad shape...

As was mentioned already, There is no section on the demonization of anabolic steroids and the psuedo science concerning their side effects like we see in the Marijuana articles. There are no scientific sources in this article supporting any of the claims being made. There is no discussion concerning scientific sources on the talk page. There is no section about the people who support anabolic steroids being descheduled in the united states as there is in the marijuana section.

Alot of changes must be made to this article by people who know the scientific facts.

Alteripse does, he just doesn't want to admit that his scientific facts are compatible with the social and political and criminal realities caused by the demonization/illegalization. Looks like I'll be the one writing an article about Vancouver's Four Pillars Strategy, which discusses substance abuse as a social and medical problem instead of as a criminal one. I've been accused of ranting about "dark establishment forces"...no, not dark ones, I'd say, but simply blind and arrogant ones. Arrogance and the medical profession go hand in hand; in this case it's "poppa knows best" - but what poppa wants has resulted in the broadening and deepening of the user-base; same as with anything you make illegal; you make it profitable, you make it pushable. This has happened with marijuana, it happened with alcohol, and it's happening with steroids. I'm over 40 (50) and have my own mind, and the medical profession wrote me off at 30 and told me I'd never walk again; when I asked about steroid rehab to rebuild my atrophied tissues and relieve me of the depression they'd rather pump me full of valium, xanax and SSRIs for (all incredibly dangerous drugs, the first two heavily addictive) and scold me for looking "unnaturally muscular"; what should I be instead? Unnaturally skinny/fat, unnatrually depressed, unnatturally lethargic and wishing I could do instead of having to live in the kind of pain and debilitation they'd abandoned me to? Yeah, OK, I've got a hate-on for doctors; but they earned it. And what I think is that once you're over 40 or 35, it should be your choice, and you should be able to buy things over-the-counter or import them for your own use; instead of having to approach guys from the local bike gang or tong for what you HOPE will be real product. "You don't need steroids to train and eat properly" some people will shoot back; but you haven't led my life, and lived in my body, and you don't have a clue. Alteripse wants evidence; I'm the evidence, as are the huge bulk of steroids users that the medical community either can't or won't talk to. That's not the users' fault. It's the law's.Skookum1 19:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

USA-centric

"It is only illegal to buy steriods, not to use them; it falls under the same line of conviction as Liquor did during Prohibition." -- We need to tweak this to remove the USA-centricity here (Per the {globalize} template: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view." http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup - 201.78.251.20 21:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding "Expert needed" template

An expert is needed to fix this article, Add new and more reliable information and add sources for the existing information. Many of the supposed side effects listed have no sources provided. If you are an expert...Please try to add sources and studies supporting the side effects listed. Such as Prostate cancer. I have seen no scientific studies supporting the claim that AAS causes Prostate cancer in humans. Also more information is needed on the medical uses as well as more information needed explaining the media demonization of anabolic steroids. For instance how EVERY TIME AAS is mentioned in the media it's in a negative context depsite the fact these are fairly safe drugs that are used by doctors everyday to help the ill. As well as used safely every day by thousands of bodybuilders.

Also including the links to the US DEA is extremly bias and "USAcentric". It's well known that the DEA uses unreliable information as propaganda in their 'war against drugs' so using it as a scientific source of any kind is absurd. Please include only scientific sources that don't include a particular countries propaganda.

I made a few small changes to clean up the article as well as this talk page. We still need an expert willing to spend time improving this article and providing sources for everything claimed.

I also just added some "citation needed" points in the article needing sources. In some places where it seems to contradict itself due to increased/decreased sexual function.

Removing "Prostate cancer" and "Gingival overgrowth" until sources are provided.

I am removing "Prostate cancer" and "Gingival overgrowth" until sources are provided. Once someone provides scientific studies supporting the claim that these are side effects then it can be put back up. Until then it doesn't belong on the page unsourced. I've never heard of AAS causing "Gingival overgrowth". Provide a source.

I am adding prostate cancer again. The reason AAS can lead to prostate cancer is simple. Many types of AAS will convert readily to DHT. An over-abundance of DHT has been proven to affect tissues sensitive to it, for exaple the prostate. DHT can also be responsible for accelerating male pattern baldness.Cavell 20:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Explaining how it could possibly do it isn't the same as a scientific study concluding the same thing. Provide a scientific study as a source.--Wikidudeman 14:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Re Prostate and Gingival comments above and general tone of papers cited on talk page

This is an example of the media-myth, false-information concerning steroid use/abuse; I hear the prostate cancer thing all the time; on the other hand, I also hear testosterone used as a treatment. Gingival overgrowth strikes me as a synonym for acromegaly of the jawbone, although gingiva- is IIRC the gums and not the jawbones per se; acromegaly is associated with pituitary GH overproduction, not AAS. Hype, hype, hype and paranoia, same as Alzado's unsubstantiated claim that his brain cancer was steroid caused, despite no epidimiology to that effect whatsoever with his form of brain cancer. Sources please, yes. I've also had a look at the roid rage sources posted above, which I'll excerpt some interesting lines from with my responses and comments later on; contradiction and obfuscation and the occasional bit of moralizing and self-justification are the order of the day, even in peer-reviewed scientific papers. The one on animal AAS studies concerning aggression was particularly interesting, as it showed that it was only after steroid use had ended that increased tendencies to violence were noted....hmmm, somewhere I came across something that it's estrogen that makes men bitchy, not testosterone; it's when the latter aromatizes and turns to estrogen that the piece I'm thinking of commented that rage-like tendencies were observed; testosterone is associated with elation and buoyancy, as well as assertiveness....it's when it's absent from the body that anger and rage etc become an issue; and despite the ominous title of that piece, i.e. re effects on adolescent violent behaviour, the paper indicates that steroid use does NOT induce violence or aggression; ending it does. Weird, huh? But take a line or a title and run with out-of-context and you can say nearly anything, as any good political spin doctor knows (ref. the current White House or 34 Sussex in Canada regimes). Kind of reminds me of the much-publicized study indicating brain damage and violent psychosis in baboons given MDMA (ecstasy); only two years later did it come out that they "made a mistake and gave the baboons crystal meth" instead....makes you wonder who the baboons were, huh?Skookum1 18:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Research from Turkey published in the Journal Periodontology, 77:1104-1109, 2006; showed that prolonged use of anabolic steroids increased the risk of gum tissue enlargement. Comparisons of 27 bodybuilders who used AAS for more than a year, and 20 that never used AAS showed greater gum encroachment and gum thickness on the bodybuilders that used AAS. Yankees76 19:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Fact is, a lot of more recent studies show that steroid use does NOT (specifically, testosterone use does NOT) cause or lead to prostate cancer. Check out Dr. Richard Spark from Boston... he wrote the book on it.

Expert still needed, 1st source baseless.

Whoever removed the "Expert needed" and "Citations needed" should put it back ASAP. This page still needs an expert and 99% of the claims are sourceless. Also the 1st sourcelink is baseless and doesn't itself reference studies for the claims IT makes.DustinKP

You should understand that Gresham's law applies to expertise on Wikipedia. Bad "expertise" will drive away good expertise if they both have equal authority. Be cautious when the "expert" will not cite sources and responds to requests with personal attacks and irrelevant or questionable generalizations from his own experience. alteripse 11:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds vaguely like a veiled accusation. If it's me you're talking about, I never claimed expertise, and don't recall personal attacks (certainly not like those I'm capable of, to be sure); and as for finding promised cites, there are time issues; and I think you picked up from my userpage I have an extremely broad range of interests and am all over the place on Wiki. If it's not me that you're talking about, I'll take the shoe off as it didn't fit anyway.Skookum1 14:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I also removed the "It is only illegal to buy them" because in America atleast this is false. It is illegal to possess Anabolic Steroids in America without prescription. And if it applies to some other country it doesn't specify.DustinKP

"Popular Misconceptions" area added.

I've added an area called Popular Misconceptions which details popular misconceptions concerning anabolic steroid use. Please add onto this with more popular misconceptions concerning anabolic steroids.--DustinKP 20:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

More reliable sources added.

I've added some more sources to direct scientific studies on a few of the things mentioned in this article. However alot more work needs to be done on this article. Those of you who have the time. Please search the web for scientific studies done on anabolic steroids that I can review and use for this article. As many scientific studies as possible.

please sign your post (above)Skookum1 00:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: SteroidLaw.com

The reason I posted this site was in the course of writing Rick to see if he would come on board to do some edits concerning steroid laws; his expertise is only U.S. and not Canada or elsewhere: I don't know if you've looked at his page but here's a sample of recent articles written by him:

08.28.05 - The Truth about Steroids and Suicide
06.30.05 - Girls Gone Steroids?
05.28.05 - Of Terrorism and Steroids
04.29.05 - "Pumped-Up Hysteria" over Steroids
04.29.05 - Steroids and Sports? Yes! An Interview with Norm Fost, MD
04.21.05 - The Psychological Effects of Anabolic-Androgenic Steroids
04.20.05 - Cops on Steroids
04.20.05 - Adulterated Androstenedione: What FDA's Action Means for Industry

Now, I can appreciate the desire for medical expertise here, but you'd think legal expertise was also of concern to the content of the page; especially because in its current form it's so US-biased (like so much of the internet, and wiki, sigh...). OK, you can say he has a bias; so will a lot of the medical expertise that may come on board; be it someone from the AMA or Dr. Colgan. Maybe external links wasn't the right place to put the SteroidLaw.com link; but it belongs here somewhere, as it's not a product-sales bulletin board/website like so many (mesomophorsis, absolutelyhuge, elitefitness, ironman, musclemag etc). Rick may be marketing his legal services through his website; but he also provides informed commentary on various issues/hype that the major media revs up to full gear without knowing diddly-squat (like the recent/ongoing baseball investigations.....yawn....). I'll try and get the specifics on Canadian and British steroid law, as well as links to CBC and BBC documentaries and interviews with ethicists, medical practitioners and researchers on clinical realities as well as the this-or-that of the sports ethics, and try and get together a listing of what's legal where and under what circumstances; there's a difference in many countries between what's on the books and what you can get over the counter, needless to say; and there are ongoing changes, like Italy's recent criminalizing of steroid/enhancement use (including erythropoetin) in order to kiss up to the IOC prior to the Winter Olypmics. Rick's only one steroid-specialist lawyer, but he's the only one I know of; if you know of another that may be interested (as he may) in taking part, please invite them, whichever side they're on. And I would imagine you'd welcome participation by Michael Colgan or Dan Duchaine, under pseudonyms or not, yes?Skookum1 00:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment on text of Distribution section

Increased awareness has caused the government to take a harder stance to steroid traffic and the increased seizures of high quality gray market alternatives such as IGF-1 would be likely to lead to a decrease in traditional anabolic steroid usage.

Actually, it's more like "are hoped to lead to a decrease etc."..."but increasing rates of seizure tend to escalate prices in any black market, and therefore profitability AND supply"; I won't put that in until I find a study about it, but it's a standard nostrum in non-police analyses of the drug trade, be it heroin, pot, cocaine, oxycontin, steroids or whatever. And actually, there's even poice chiefs, maybe even the Nat'l Assn of Police Chiefs, who hold this point of view; can't remember exactly but they're cited in our local press (Vancouver BC) all the time relating to our city's mounting hard-drug problems and its relationship to the escalation of the War on Drugs; which isn't provide a cure, rather is the problem itself. Create a black market, you create criminals by definition; crack down, and profitability goes up; with increased profitability, greater measures are taken to obtain supply. And the jails get fuller and fuller and fuller, at great expense to the taxpayer and requiring ever larger policing budgets; it's all a vicious circle. This is fairly easy to cite, although it's not an area where I'm familiar with web content; I'll do some emailing tomorrow to various Orgs, including the Four Pillars Strategy bunch in town here, and come back with a competing opinion the bit I quoted.Skookum1 06:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk page is too long. Should be moved to page 2 or something.

This article is far too long and someone should try to make it so it's seperated into various pages for easier browsing.--DustinKP 15:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing part of the research section.

"In a 1972 study [12], participants were informed they would recieve injections of anabolic steroids on a daily basis, but instead had actually been give placebo. They reportedly could not tell the difference, and the performance enhancement was similar to that of subjects taking the real anabolic compounds. According to Geraline Lin, a researcher for the National Institute on Drug Abuse, at the time of the books' publishing in 1996, the results of the study remained unchallenged for 18 years.[13]"

This is implying that a Placebo is just as effective as actuall anabolic Steroids. This itself is blatantly false. It's contradicted by the other sources referenced in this article. --DustinKP 12:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't remove it. The paragraph is an accurate description of a published, relevant study. Removal would be justified only if the citation did not accurately describe the study, had been retracted by the journal because it had been fabricated, or because it simply is not relevant or important enough for an encyclopedia article. Regardless of your opinion, there has been some controversy over the degree to which the athletic or bodybuilding effects of anabolic steroid may be a matter of subjective expectation or imagination. The study is relevant to this controversy and is not cited in a way that tries to force its conclusion on the reader of our article. I would agree with you that it stands awkwardly by itself and needs to be placed in context, perhaps by noting there has been such a dispute. If you disagree with its implications, cite the evidence that contradict this one. Nevertheless, other well-designed studies (cite, cite) have demonstrated (increased muscle strength or whatever) at similar doses. PS: Please don't put solid lines in the middle of your comments; they make the page confusing and difficult to follow. alteripse 12:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm also going to remove... "Much of the research into the use and abuse of anabolic steroids is usually based on anecdotal evidence. There is very little rigorous, objective evidence because users are doing something that is taboo, illegal, and sometimes highly dangerous."

For many reasons. First of all there is plenty of research into Anabolic Steroids. Hundreds of studies done that doesn't rely on anecdotal evidence. Second of all. It's USA centric. Anabolic Steroids are completly legal in many countries. They're also legal in USA with a prescription and can easily be studied that way. Third of all, It's copied/pasted directly from another website.--DustinKP 12:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, the point being made has some validity: much of the published material about anabolic steroids is based on anecdotes of questionable validity, and some of the published studies were of poor quality. You make your point by modifying the sentence to read something like, Much of the published information about the use and abuse of anabolic steroids is based on anecdotal evidence. Well-designed research on athletic, bodybuilding, and anti-aging use has been hampered by social taboos or legal restrictions on use in the United States and many other areas. Do you see the difference? alteripse 12:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not removing the above mentioned piece but moving it to the History area opposed to the "research" area.--DustinKP 12:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What I did was move it to the history section. I put it in context explaining how it was often believe AAS had no real physical effect other than from placebo. However I also mentioned how that was refuted.

I also removed the "Research" section completly and added what was left there to another section.--DustinKP 12:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

For the "Sold lines" they make it easier to follow. They seperate my post from your post. Otherwise it's near impossible to tell where my post ends and your post stops. That's what they are there for.--DustinKP 12:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The lines are a style issue. They are not common usage at wikipedia. You havent even taken a user name yet. Your contributions are good and I would encourage you to contribute, but please pick a name, and learn the style and custom here rather than trying to impose your preferences on the entire community. alteripse 12:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The lines are used to seperate my post from your post. It's nearly impossible to determine where my post ends and yours begins if we don't have lines seperating them. It may not be common usage in wikipedia but it should be. Please add them between your post and my post.

Thanks.--DustinKP 12:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

alteripse, In the United states and in most other countries where Anabolic Steroids are illegal without a prescription, You can get a prescription while doing a study on them. They are used in the MEDICAL FIELD so they use them all of the time. It isn't like Marijuana where you can't get them at all. People who are doing studies can get them. Also they are alot easier to get in many other countries where there are studies done on them. To state "most of the studies are based on anecdotal evidence" is false.--DustinKP 12:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You misquoted me. There is a big difference between "published information" and "research studies". The statement is true. alteripse 12:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What difference is there between "Published info" and "Research studies"? Are you refering to info published by the media? If so...It doesn't really make a difference in any section about "research" anyway.--DustinKP 12:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Dustin, if you dont understand the difference between published information and research studies, please stop editing on medical/technical/scientific topics. I mean it, you have no business re-interpreting or re-arranging this information if you do not understand the distinction. Secondly, don't thumb your nose at the style customs here. You are going to find yourself in unnecessary, avoidable conflict with experienced editors real fast. alteripse 18:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Alteripse, We're talking in a scientific context. In a scientific context "Published information" is the same as "Research". There is no published info that isn't researched. You made the claim that "Most research into anabolic steroids is anecdotal". This is as i've stated numerous times before..Blatantly false. There are HUNDREDS of scientific studies done on anabolic steroids since they are so widely used in the medical field. You're being too vague by arguing about "published info" vs "Research info". I asked if you were refering to info published in the media opposed to info published by scientific studies in scientific journals and you didn't specify. You just insulted me.

Second of all.. I don't care what these so called "Experienced editors" do or how they talk on the talk pages. All I know is it's much simpler and easier to do it with lines seperating posts and i've already explained why. If you want to be a baby about how the talk page is formated or how I format my posts then we can do it your way. No skin off my chin. If simplicity isn't what you like then I say "whatever".--DustinKP 22:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Take it as an insult if you must, but don't misquote me. Read the damn note above: I did not say "most research is anecdotal" and in this context there is certainly a huge difference between research and "published material": on this point I am 100% in agreement with Skookum. Much of the problem with this article that people criticise was created precisely by well-intentioned editors who dont understand the difference between published material and good research. And use whatever style you want. I was trying to be helpful, but if you already know better than everyone here, I will gladly cease and butt out. It's all yours. alteripse 23:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Alterprise. What's the difference between "Published material" and "Research"? You seem to be changing the goal post. Since first you said "Published research" and "Experimental Research" were the same. Now you're saying"Published 'material'" and "Research". Not that it even matters. I think you're just trying to complicate things.

If you have a problem with the article then start a new topic and we can discuss it there. Otherwise I don't see the purpose in continuing this little discussion.--DustinKP 23:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I assure you I am not "just trying to complicate things". Briefly, published material about anabolic steroids includes antidrug propaganda, feature articles in sports magazines or muscle magazines or Time magazine, news stories about anabolic steroid scandals, "educational" material published for high school students, advertising copy, the Underground Steroid Handbook, 10,000 websites and discussion forums, government policy statements, legal reviews and editorials and commentaries by doctors, "consensus statements" by panels of doctors or scientists, an encyclopedia article, or even a Wikipedia article. In other words, published material can be accurate or inaccurate, based mostly on evidence or mostly on opinion. My claim is that much of the published material on the topics of athletic, bodybuilding, and anti-aging use, both pro-steroid and anti-steroid, relies heavily on anecdotes, opinion, and very weak evidence. In contrast, a research report is a paper published in scientific journal by someone who presumably tried to design the study to obtain some accurate information. Well-designed and good research, honestly conducted and reported, is the strongest evidence we have about "how the natural/material world works" Not all research is of the same quality, and research studies may be poorly controlled and tainted by bias. Sometimes they show something that appears to contradict "what everybody knows", and they must be replicated and confirmed and then they often force a revision of the conventional wisdom (obviously the study that offended what you are certain you know about steroids is a perfect example: it is either very important or flawed and misleading). Now do you understand why the difference is so important? You are welcome. I will be signing off this article for a couple of weeks of diabetes camp. Do what you will with it. alteripse 00:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I know what you're saying. However you're moving the goalpost from "research" what you said to begin with and "material" what you're saying now.--DustinKP 02:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

(patiently). No, I did not "change the goalpost". If you read what I said you will see that I have not mixed up the two. When I said published information or material I meant published information or material. When I said published research or research studies I meant published research studies. If you "know what I'm saying" you would not make that accusation. Both kinds of information have a place in an article like this, and both should be referenced, but it should be made clear to the reader what kind of source material is being described or alluded to. If you go back and look at my first messages to you, you will see that you were not distinguishing the two. Show us you can from now on. Good luck. alteripse 11:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I also erased the part about highschool use that you(I think) put in the "research" area. It was already in the article in the "use" area. There were 2 of them. So I just erased the one.--DustinKP 12:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Aggression in just male users or male/female users?

I noticed "matt" someone edited it to just male users as if to imply female users don't experience increased aggression while using AAS. It seems like i'm the only one editing this page who knows anything about the scientific research behind anabolic steroids, But I have to ask. Does anyone know of any Studies showing an increase of aggression in female users aswell? If no one provides a study then we'll just keep it like it is and specify just male users. --DustinKP 22:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Or add "no studies on female users have been done..." (if none can be found). I've sure known some bossy female bodybuilders in my time, no names named, but as with r-r it could have to do with pre-extant personality type than the effect of the drugs; and in either gender IMO a lot of the contest-prep bitchiness has a lot more to do with the diet than synthetic hormones....Skookum1 23:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if none have been done or not. I won't state "None have been done" just because I can't find any. That's why I asked if anyone knew of any. I'm sure some have been done. I just can't find them anywhere. --DustinKP 23:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Added new "misconception".

I just added a new misconception concerning Arnold Schwarzenegger's heart problem. Explaining how his condition was a genetic condition in which he was born with(2 cusps opposed to the normal 3 in his heart) which caused him to get surgery to correct it. People often claim Anabolic steroids caused his heart problems which is false. --DustinKP 23:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

True effect?

Is there any truth to the claim that steroid use can make your skull larger (a la Barry Bonds' allegations)? Is that a real result of using steroids? --cal, 7/28/06

No--DustinKP 01:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Excessive amounts of GH, though?Skookum1 16:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt administration of HGH will change your skull shape or size. I have never seen any studies concluding this and I know dozens of people who have been using excessive amounts of HGH for years without any change in their skull or jaw shape. So I would highly doubt it.--DustinKP 20:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, something causes skull/skeletal changes in advanced bodybuilders; I've seen guys faces change, and they often comment their hands/knuckles etc become thicker-boned, or seem to. Or is it just increased muscularity that transformed guys like Aaron Maddron and Branch Warren from their novice-condition appearance to their pro appearance? IGF-1, or some other "secret ingredient"?Skookum1 22:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

How did these people you are refring to change in a way you would suspect it was caused by HGH? Provide pictures of their facial features from when they were younger and current photographs.--Wikidudeman 03:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to hunt some down; Maddron I happen to have pics of at his second-last amateur show in 1993, but a lot of contest pics are public domain and some of them I've even got archived; so I should be able to find some Branch Warren and others. Will take a while, though.Skookum1 16:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Changing "Unwanted side effects" to "Possible unwanted side effects"

I am changing "Unwanted side effects" to "Possible unwanted side effects" since many of the side effects listed aren't found in some studies but are found in others creating a contradiction of the evidence supporting them. Some showing increase in bad cholesterol others showing no increase or others concluding the increase shown isn't casual. Changing it from what it was implies that the side effects don't happen in 100% of users opposed to happening 100% of the time in all users which was implied before. http://atvb.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/11/2/307?ijkey=c4a616ea1ca966021ee63232b1203dbb30d870d9&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha --Wikidudeman 04:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Internal contradiction in article...

The article says that AAS can stunt growth by fusing growth plates in children however it also says AAS is used to jumpstart delayed puberty in children. So which one is it? How can they both be true? If AAS causes fusion of growth plates and stunted growth how can it be used to jumpstart growth and puberty? Does anyone have any studies done on this? Are different substances used? Testerone doesn't fuse growth plates? --Wikidudeman 04:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Puberty in males is affected mainly by testosterone, that's how it's used. Estradiol (produced in men mainly by aromatization of T) fuses growth plates, or rather makes cartilage mature into bone. Jack Daw 15:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

So if Testosterone is used to increase puberty and growth in children, And if Testosterone also aromatizes into "Estradiol" which fuses the growth plates then shouldn't we conclude that use of testosterone for growth actually stunts growth? That doesn't really make a bit of sense.--Wikidudeman 02:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure it does. Testosterone promotes growth, the "by-product" estradiol fuses growth plates. I would assume then that testosterone used with aromatase inhibitors would not result in stunted growth. Try asking User:alteripse, a pediatric endocrinologist. Jack Daw 18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC) EDIT: As it says in this article or perhaps the testosterone article, AAS is not used clinically to promote increases in height; synthetic GH is used. Jack Daw 18:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No contradiction, both statements are true: you are confusing first and second derivatives of height (remember your calculus), as well as not understanding epiphyseal closure. A major conversion product of T is is estradiol (E2). Both T and E2 accelerate the rate of growth in a healthy child who is growing at a submaximal rate and is not near the end of puberty. T can be given to an adolescent male whose puberty is delayed to induce the onset of puberty; when this is done, his growth accelerates. E2, produced from testosterone, gradually causes maturation of epiphyseal cartilage and conversion into solid bone. At that point, the epiphyses are said to be "fused" and adult height has been reached. If a 6 year old male is given T his growth will accelerate and he will be the tallest, strongest 4th grader in the school. However, his bones will be maturing at a faster rate and he may have a bone age of 13 by the time he turns 10 years old. He finishes growth when his bones reach a bone age of 17.5, but at a somewhat below average adult height. alteripse 19:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So basically you're saying that giving a child Testosterone treatment will increase their height but only because it increases onset of puberty but increasing onset of puberty will intself limit his final adult height?--Wikidudeman 07:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Inducing puberty early will rob a child of a couple of years of prepubertal growth, thus preventing attainment of maximum adult height. alteripse 21:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop changing comment on "Gingival overgrowth".

Someone continues to change the comment on 'Gingival overgrowth' stating that the overgrowth in steroid users actually causes increased amounts of plaque in users. This is false according to the study as linked in the site posted.

I quote..."Results: Although there were no statistical differences between the plaque index (P >0.05) and gingival index (P >0.05) scores of the study group and the control group, the AAS abusers had statistically higher scores of gingival thickness, extent of gingival encroachment, and total gingival enlargement scores (P <0.001 each) compared to non-users."

Journal of Periodontology http://www.joponline.org/doi/abs/10.1902/jop.2006.050389

The study above is the study linked in the source posted on the page. http://www.perio.org/consumer/steriods.htm

Therefor I am removing the claim that the Gingival overgrowth in Steroid uses "Allows plaque bacterias to create periodontal infection."--Wikidudeman 02:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Wikidudeman, I should have read the source more carefully. That was me. We all make mistakes once in a while. Thanks for the enlightenment. Steroid Expert 00:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a problem.--Wikidudeman 06:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing of "World wide view bias" at the top of the page.

I am deciding wether the thing stating the article doesn't represent a worldwide view should be removed or not. Who thinks it should be removed? Who thinks it shouldn't? Those who think it doesn't..Please explain why and I will try to fix the problem of USAcentric bias.--Wikidudeman 02:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Are there no Objections?--Wikidudeman 23:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been away in other parts of WikiWorld, as well as in the high mountains....the internet and the northern lights just don't go together well. Anyway, yes there are objections; the laws discussed and much/most of the medical reports here are entirely USAcentric, as is the general tone of "steroids are bad for you" that's built into the article, as well as into the selection of scientific reports; those that are from outside tend to be IOC-biased (and the IOC is VERY biased). The complaint about scientific reports is more difficult to pin down as USAcentric, but clearly the absence of information on the breadth and variety of laws in "other" countries (I'm a Canadian, and even our laws our different, though still restrictive) is not represented; nor is the notion in many countries that what a person does with their own body is their business, i.e. where the steroid witch-hunt isn't so much of a national obsession as it has become in the US (the Canseco hearings et al).Skookum1 16:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all..The article and sources imply "Steroids are bad for you?" I don't see that at all. I've tried to make this article as unbias as possible. I've included a "misconceptions" area explaining how steroids are not as dangerous as is commonly believed ect ect. I don't know what you're talking about when you say the article is bias....Also just because we mention USA laws doesn't make it "USA centric". USA centric would mean we imply those laws are worldwide. On the contrary I clearly explain when we're talking about the USA and when we aren't. If you have real objections then be specific.Wikidudeman 13:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Also....If you think the laws of other countries should be mentioned then find a credible source for those laws and we'll add it to the article.--Wikidudeman 13:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Wikidudeman 14:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "Enlargement of the heart" unless citation is provided.

I am planning on removing the tidbit about the "Enlargement of the heart" unless someone provides a scientific study showing anabolic steroid use can cause an Enlargement of the heart. Right now I have been searching for several days and have found nothing.--Wikidudeman 23:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fairly well known that AAS can cause left ventricle hypertrophy. --Bk0 (Talk) 01:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well known based on what? Where is the scientific evidence? Where are the scientific studies? Ok Wikipedia we must provide evidence of claims in the form of "scientific studies". Unless something is cited with evidence, We can't take it seriously and must be skeptical of it. So unless somoene provides some scientific evidence that Anabolic Steroids do indeed cause "left ventricle hypertrophy", I say it should be removed.--Wikidudeman 06:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

30 seconds worth of searching turns up this: Karila TAM, Karjalainen JE, Mantysaari MJ, Viitasalo MT, Seppala TA. Anabolic Androgenic Steroids Produce Dose-Dependent Increase in Left Ventricular Mass in Power Athletes, and this Effect is Potentiated by Concomitant Use of Growth Hormone. Int J Sports Med 2003; 24: 337-343. I'm sure there's more but I don't have serval days to search. As was pointed out above, it's fairly well known that left ventricle hypertrophy can result from steroid/gh usage. Yankees76 15:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've already added a source for it. Do you have a link to this study?Wikidudeman 14:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[1]Yankees76 16:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)