Anabolic-Androgenic Steroids: worse for the heart than we knew?

**TKO Performance** · 08-06-2010, 05:02 AM

Thanks for proving my points. A sample size of only 26 people, and half of the steroid users had prior history of Edited or other drugs use. Those are the important points. As I suspected conclusions were reached with no discussion of how these other variables were controlled.

Also, though these people may not themselves had had a history of high blood pressure, ect. what about family history? Research has shown that genetics do not guarantee a certain condition, but they do predispose people to them. Engaging in other risk factors is what can push them over the brink into the condition. Edited use is notorious for causing heart problem. I know people personally who have experienced the lasting after effects.

Research like this needs to be done, but it needs to be controlled. I'd like to see a study that tracks at least 100 people (half users, half not), all serious weight trainers, and without genetic predisposition to heart conditions. Age could vary, but all should be in perfect health. All users should take the same steroids and dose, and steroids should be taken with liver support and proper PCT. The study should track these people for at least 10 years, and preferably for the rest of their lives. Diet would need to be strictly controlled. Drug testing would be needed to ensure no other compounds were being taken. Alcohol and tobacco use would have to be monitored and limited as well. That's a proper study, with results that I could get behind. No such study exists. The medical establishment would never allow it for a variety of reasons. However, until such research is conducted we will never know the truth about the long term side effects of taking steroids, period.

**shafts basson** · 08-06-2010, 06:32 AM

Well damn.. I've done it all mentioned.. I guess I will die right after my cycle

**zabster151** · 08-06-2010, 09:21 AM

well if one thing doesn't kill ya another thing will. How old do people really want to get. i think i would be fine kicking the bucket at 60 or so. if had a great life taking juice looking great all the time stronger then most were others are fighting there whole lives to look good and be strong mentally beating themselves up ED. i think live it up dont stress on the little things.

**shafts basson** · 08-06-2010, 10:28 AM

Yea but you can't know for sure u will live till then. Didn't some iranian bb just die in his mid 30s?

**tjax03** · 08-06-2010, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by Swifto

I will.

I think the opoid or alcohol dependance is important though (50%). Opoids are notoriously hard on the heart and circulatory system.

I'm curious as to where you found that opioids are bad for the heart. After looking on pubmed I only saw a few articles about methadone and its effects on qrt time. I just wonder about this because these chemicals are so prevalently prescribed, I would think there would be some more concrete information.

**Bertuzzi** · 08-06-2010, 11:52 AM

Awesome post.... Thank you!

I look forward to more posts like this from you!

**Norwich Muscles** · 08-06-2010, 12:34 PM

The report makes reference to 'lifetime weeks' of like 500, so that is 500 weeks on the juice right?

So if someone doesnt do anywhere near that, they the risk is considerable less right?

The fact that 50% of the AAS users were cocaine users etc also isnt conclusive.

Interesting read for those of you on ful time gear, but myself being a part-timer, I dont really have any worries.

**LGM** · 08-06-2010, 06:48 PM

MD had a blurb on this study recently, and all but trashed it as I recall. I'm assuming that they are likely as unbiased as the test was, but still. To use such a small study with so many uncontrolled variables is at best, reckless and deceptive.

Of course, there are a number of better studies that tell us that this is risky business anyway.

**TKO Performance** · 08-07-2010, 05:27 AM

Originally Posted by LGM

MD had a blurb on this study recently, and all but trashed it as I recall. I'm assuming that they are likely as unbiased as the test was, but still. To use such a small study with so many uncontrolled variables is at best, reckless and deceptive.

Of course, there are a number of better studies that tell us that this is risky business anyway.

Exactly!

BTW, I've never read or heard anything about the negative effects of opiates on the heart. They will trash your liver for sure, but I don't see how they would affect the heart, especially since they tend to slow down your heart rate, which is why junkies sleep all the time. It's the cocaine use that would concern me. Any stimulant can affect the heart because it increases the base heart rate. Throw in strenuous exercise and you're just asking for problems.

**martinez44** · 08-07-2010, 11:22 AM

right i might be able to add something here, im 4 weeks into my cycle, was 100% healthy before starting 500mg test and 50 mg dianabol dropped down to 30mg last week, i had a blood test done tuesday gone, and my blood pressure checked,and pulse rate, blood pressure was normal,but pulse rate was, 104, so went to get my results friday and everything came back ok, so the doc checked my pulse again and it was up to 118,so she was abit worried so she booked me in to an ecg scan this morning, now bare in mind this was 9.30am no dianabol in my system,my pulse read 89, so i thought clearly the dianabol increasing pulse rate,which is expected right? but then the doc reviewed my scan (excuse my lack of scientific knowledge) but my left chamber of the heart is enlarged,and not pumping the blood as efficiently around my body,i had to to another urine sample and im booked in again for monday where i,ll have a 24hr scan to show a better picture, now i wasnt scared untill i was asked have i any relatives that have suffered from sudden cardiac arrest, which i havent,ive been told if i experience any pain or discomfort around my heart,to get myself to a&e as soon as possible, now i,ll be honest my doc has no knowledge about AAS so she cant really say the cause as of yet, but to the experienced guys on here, is it fair to say this is caused by the AAS????? im a 27 relatively healthy old male,a little unfit and this is my 2nd cycle. and if this condition is due to this is it more the orals then the injectables????? please shed some light . many thanks

**TKO Performance** · 08-07-2010, 11:33 AM

What was your heart like before this? My guess is that you never had it checked as thoroughly. This makes for no point of comparison, and that means saying this was caused by steroids is going to be impossible.

How many years have you been training? Part of what you have described is common in weight trainers, especially those who lift heavy, so that's a partial explanation too.

Also, normally I have regular BP and pulse. When I get it checked at the doctors both are usually elevated. It's a nervous reaction that I have to being in a doctor's office. If I take a minute and focus my mind, slow my breathing, etc. I can make both return to normal, and have done this in a doctor's presence several times. You might want to consider that part of this may be your knowledge that you are on the juice and the fear, conscious or subconscious of getting called out on it by your doctor.

Finally, a word on family history. It starts somewhere, and in this case it could be starting with you. People die every year from various cancers with no family history of them. Heart conditions are no different. Remember what I said about the 50/50 split between genetic predisposition and environmental causes (read back a few posts it's on here)? You may have had relatives that had the predisposition, but never the environmental conditions to make the condition manifest.

**martinez44** · 08-07-2010, 11:53 AM

i have been training for 7 years, given being on and 0ff for personal reasons, i was honest with my doc about my steroid use , in uk its legal for personal use, and answer to ur question,no it hasnt been checked to this extent, maybe 5 years ago yes, which didnt show anything up, if u say this is normal would u cease the steroid use,or just the dianabol or if this is common nature is it safe to stay on

**TKO Performance** · 08-07-2010, 04:31 PM

For your age anything over 83 BPM for resting heart rate would be considered bad. Average would be 73-76, Good would be 65-68, and for an athlete you'd expect 54-59. I'd consider a resting heart rate above 100 to be cause for concern. The problem is that if that is your base rate what happens when you exert yourself? At your are you are looking at a max heart rate of 193 BPM. Hard exertion would push an average person, even a trained athlete into the 160 range. If your base rate is already over 100 you could risk pushing your heart past the safe limit during exercise. Consequently I'd consider this cause for concern, especially if you do any hard cardio.

What's your cycle history?

**grumpee** · 08-07-2010, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by dec11

oh dear, ah well gota kick the bucket sometime i spose lol

wondering how safe trt is?

I'm wondering the same. They say low test levels are dangerous as well.

**TKO Performance** · 08-07-2010, 05:12 PM

I don't believe that for a minute. TRT is just seeking to get an abnormally low test level back into the normal range. Your body is already accustomed to having a normal test level it's just that production has dropped off with age. It's like saying that insulin replacement therapy is dangerous to a diabetic. Granted TRT is not that extreme, but we are certainly playing in the same ballpark.

**tjax03** · 08-08-2010, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by TKO Performance

I don't believe that for a minute. TRT is just seeking to get an abnormally low test level back into the normal range. Your body is already accustomed to having a normal test level it's just that production has dropped off with age. It's like saying that insulin replacement therapy is dangerous to a diabetic. Granted TRT is not that extreme, but we are certainly playing in the same ballpark.

I think grumpee meant that having abnormally low test is associated with health problems, not low dosages of exogenous test.

**Swifto** · 08-08-2010, 01:19 PM

I dont believe TRT is bad for the aging male, infact, I think the opposite.

I was talking about a certain white powder.

I dont want to mention the various words or post studies as ww have Rules here not alloweing/permitting recreational drugs. So I will post a link with a fair few studies on the subject.

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sourc...880e0c34638eae

**dec11** · 08-08-2010, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by Swifto

I dont believe TRT is bad for the aging male, infact, I think the opposite.

In regards to opiods and the heart, I was talking about a certain white powder, not so much what smack heads inject/smoke.

I dont want to mention the various words or post studies as ww have Rules here not alloweing/permitting recreational drugs. So I will post a link with a fair few studies on the subject.

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sourc...880e0c34638eae

yeah, there was a well known case of a model, Katy French, over here who died aged 24, it was well known she was on clen and using tht certain white stuff at the same time, result = heart attack

**TKO Performance** · 08-08-2010, 04:21 PM

Uh, what? The white powder your talking about, which I will assume is Edited, is not an opiate. It's a stimulant. That's why it's dangerous to the heart.

Opiates are things like Edited, etc. These were all originally used as pain killers (some, if prescribed, still legally are).

I'm not trying to violate board rules, Try Harder but I think it's important to understand this distinction without having to speak in hushed tones. No one is advocating or discussing the active use of these drugs by anyone that has posted. We are simply mentioning them as they pertain to the research being discussed, which pertains to the affects that steroids may have on cardiac function.

**Swifto** · 08-09-2010, 05:09 AM

Originally Posted by TKO Performance

Uh, what? The white powder your talking about, which I will assume is cocaine, is not an opiate. It's a stimulant. That's why it's dangerous to the heart.

These were all originally used as pain killers (some, if prescribed, still legally are).

I'm not trying to violate board rules, but I think it's important to understand this distinction without having to speak in hushed tones. No one is advocating or discussing the active use of these drugs by anyone that has posted. We are simply mentioning them as they pertain to the research being discussed, which pertains to the affects that steroids may have on cardiac function.

I can see my original post is confusing.

I (as a staff member) have purposely avoided saying the relevant names because of the Rules in place here.

You (as a regular member) have then taken it apon yourself to use the names of the drugs/compounds in question, after I have avoided using them and stating the Rules in my post.

Edit your post and dont break the Rules here again. We keep the actual names of the drugs OFF the board as it brings the wrong attention (LE).

**TKO Performance** · 08-09-2010, 06:13 PM

I have clarified my point, and consequently do not need to use the names of any "forbidden" substances again.

However, and I say this with all due respect, re-read your posts on this thread. They contain the very words you are chastising me for using. I certainly do not want the unwanted attention of which you speak to be attracted to these boards, but fair is fair isn't it?

**Zygote** · 08-09-2010, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by Swifto

Well, here is a study stating AAS can make the problem worse (to put it simply).

Long-Term Anabolic-Androgenic Steroid Use Is Associated With Left Ventricular Dysfunction.

Original Articles

Circulation: Heart Failure. 3(4):472-476, July 2010.
Baggish, Aaron L. MD; Weiner, Rory B. MD; Kanayama, Gen MD, PhD; Hudson, James I. MD, ScD; Picard, Michael H. MD; Hutter, Adolph M. Jr MD; Pope, Harrison G. Jr MD
Abstract:
Background-: Although illicit anabolic -androgenic steroid (AAS) use is widespread, the cardiac effects of long-term AAS use remain inadequately characterized. We compared cardiac parameters in weightlifters reporting long-term AAS use to those in otherwise similar weightlifters without prior AAS exposure.

Methods and Results-: We performed 2D tissue-Doppler and speckle-tracking echocardiography to assess left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction, LV systolic strain, and conventional indices of diastolic function in long-term AAS users (n=12) and otherwise similar AAS nonusers (n=7). AAS users (median [quartile 1, quartile 3] cumulative lifetime AAS exposure, 468 [169, 520] weeks) closely resembled nonusers in age, prior duration of weightlifting, and current intensity of weight training. LV structural parameters were similar between the two groups; however, AAS users had significantly lower LV ejection fraction (50.6% [48.4, 53.6] versus 59.1% [58.0%, 61.7%]; P=0.003 by two-tailed Wilcoxon rank sum test), longitudinal strain (16.9% [14.0%, 19.0%] versus 21.0% [20.2%, 22.9%]; P=0.004), and radial strain (38.3% [28.5%, 43.7%] versus 50.1% [44.3%, 61.8%]; P=0.02). Ten of the 12 AAS users showed LV ejection fractions below the accepted limit of normal (>=55%). AAS users also demonstrated decreased diastolic function compared to nonusers as evidenced by a markedly lower early peak tissue velocity (7.4 [6.8, 7.9] cm/s versus 9.9 [8.3, 10.5] cm/s; P=0.005) and early-to-late diastolic filling ratio (0.93 [0.88, 1.39] versus 1.80 [1.48, 2.00]; P=0.003).

Conclusions-: Cardiac dysfunction in long-term AAS users appears to be more severe than previously reported and may be sufficient to increase the risk of heart failure.

(C) 2010 American Heart Association, Inc.

Again, brand spanking new (Jul 2010).

I dont like what I'm reading either to the other members who know AAS cause health concerns... Maybe I should stop now trying to research AAS and the heart...

Questions to ask here:

1. Are the AAS group and the Non-AAS groups professional, amateur, or a combination.

2. Does the 12 AAS users vs only 7 Non-AAS users skew the results?

a. It easily could.

3. Was the study performed while AAS users were on cycle or off cycle.

a. If on cycle, increased blood pressure / fluid retention could skew the results while these side effects would not be present in users off cycle.

4. While lower, does Ejection Fraction of the AAS group fall into the non-healthy range?

a. While this study claims "the accepted limit of normal (>=55%)" the lower limit of normal for Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction is 50%. The AAS median result is within the level of low normal.

5. Is the heart foundation non-biased toward AAS.

a. Pretty sure the answer is No.

**MrGreen** · 08-09-2010, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by TKO Performance

Thanks for proving my points. A sample size of only 26 people, and half of the steroid users had prior history of cocaine or other drugs use. Those are the important points. As I suspected conclusions were reached with no discussion of how these other variables were controlled.

Thats my point and as usual your johnny on the spot!

You cant mix them for sure!! AAS and the other white powder! That would be making your heart constant pump as if you are working out for hours on end while on gear?? Anyone can see this is not a fair comparison between the 2 groups. Hell the "non-AAS" users claimed to never had done any drugs period! Makes me wonder if they pulled out AAS members who are not concerned about their bodies and lives for this study. What healthy AAS user who is full of pride, compassionate, and on a quest to be the best they can be is going to stay "f*$#ed" all the time and party like that?

This study isnt exactly valid comparing grapes to watermelon here. IMO If you wanna talk apples then get enough apples for 2 groups. Dont get one group of oranges paint them red and call them apples.

DOnt get me wrong plenty of great info in there but the study was conducted with so many variables in place you cant help but question it as even the doctors cant go by this.

**TKO Performance** · 08-10-2010, 12:55 AM

Yes, and because of the current laws legitimate studies are not being done, as it presents the possibility to fly in the face of the medical establishment since it is linked to the political establishment. These "studies" are simply compiled anecdotal evidence, most of which cannot be verified, and some post-facto scientific testing.

The only way that these issues are ever going to be answered definitively is if proper experiments are designed and carried out with willing test subjects. This is the only way that proper controls can be implemented. Without proper controls any results are worthless.