gear versus alcohol! what dose more dammage on the liver

[growboy]

Just curious anyone have any info on weather gear is more hard on the liver than Alcohol or vise versa. (Before someone asks I don't drink)

[AnimalGear]

they both kinda suck

[smokeyd]

depends on your usage i would say. a person who gets hammered couple times a week prob has higher values than someone who cycles couple times a year and doesnt drink.

[Amorphic]

both in excess will be equally damaging.

theres no way to quantify the damage, its dose and person dependant.

obviously if you run 200mgs dbol for 10 weeks you are going to roast your liver the same way an alcoholic would.

bottom line is that both are bad in excess.

[Jakspro]

Actually there are dozens of studies that look at toxicity on steroids and alcohol in mice, however, not paired up against each other. So there aren't any empirical evidence to suggest one is worse than the other. One could do a meta-analysis on the effect sizes on each of those studies and come up with an robust answer, but no one would do that. No labs have interest in those types of questions... I'll do if you pay me

Like the above responses, they both are pretty harsh.

[T_Own]

it would be hard to make a fair study on that i think. not only would it be very dependent on the person, but the quantity would make a huge impact as well. like comparing how much steroids it takes to gain a certain amount vs. how much alcohol it takes to get you a certain level of drunkeness. it doesn't seem even.

but just a guess, i would think steroids. if you go drink one or two nights a week, even in excess, it gives your liver 5 days to recover, which means about 72% of the time your liver can recover, or be fine. but if you ran frequent cycles, you would be closer to only 60% recovery time.

assuming equal damage while using, that would mean steroids are worse, just based on pure time on vs time off, also considering you drink for 2 entire days

[Jakspro]

it would be hard to make a fair study on that i think. not only would it be very dependent on the person, but the quantity would make a huge impact as well. like comparing how much steroids it takes to gain a certain amount vs. how much alcohol it takes to get you a certain level of drunkeness. it doesn't seem even.

You can equate for those in a meta-analysis, so long as there is sufficient data. And as far as individual differences, all medical studies (unless looking at a specific population group) are generalized, through sampling theories individual differences are washed out (without regards to outliers)... Remember the 'Bell shaped' curve in statistics class, 95% of the population fall within 2 SDs.

[T_Own]

thats all true, and i just finished high school so you're talking a little over my head haha. but wouldn't steroid users be a pretty specific population group?

but yes, i do remember the bell curves

[Jakspro]

Correct, Bodybuilders are one of those specific populations and alcoholics are as well. However, if the studies are done on 'normal' mice it would be strong suggestive evidence if differences did exist.

[T_Own]

yeah for a general idea, which is better than none. but if its only semi-relevant to a certain niche (BBers) it hardly seems worthwhile. but you seem to know MUCH more than i do in this area

btw, i like the ferrari driving shoes more than those blue ones

[Jakspro]

Your completely right, BBers are a sub-population, and there are high chances that they don't generalize. I do scientific research professionally (but not in nutrition or sports science, however experimental methods and stats are universal).

And the ferrari ones are tight too. I like Puma gear.