Lack of Biochemical understanding

[DiamondJim]

I have a masters in exercise physiology and am working towards a PHD. I am surprised and intimidated to a degree by the degree of biochemical knowledge on this board. As a exercise physiologist i have a crude understanding of biochemistry and in terms of the endocrine system just a basic understanding of the bodies hormones but not a understanding of hormones and their interaction to foreign substances....since they dont really teach roids 101.


So as a scientist looking to further my understanding can anyone refer me to a academic text that has its basis on science and not broscience. I have read William lwellwyn and am hesitant to take that as current dogmas since he has no academic presence and is a commercial writer.

-DJ

[songdog]

We just refer to Bonaparte if we get stuck on something

[Far from massive]

I would look at replies that site medical references then look to those references and try to find errors in the application of the medical reference to the "bro-science". Then take time to reinterperet the data and seek to modify or draw your own conclusions.

We have some very smart cookies on here, Swifto, Bonaparte etc. and on other sites you can find writings by supposed Dr's (no insult intended I just have never seen his credentials so I can neither confirm nor deny that he is a Dr.) so its up to you to find out who the smart guys are and then search out their writings and take what you can and discard, or take for what its worth what you are unable to validate.

The problem is that even using tools like pub-med and citation matcher the amount of actual studies of the effects of large amounts of AAS etc. is very small. Furher complicating the matter is that instead of having a study group who is only using one quantified compound you have a study group using an unquantified amount of an assumed compound often alongside AI's, Slin, Growth, etc so the ability to conduct valid research is very tough even for the best trained minds. So as I see it, you kind of have to wade through what there is out there and look at those with some good knowlege of bro-science backed by medical references and compare that to what is actually published in medical publications and draw your own conclusions.

Just like any other form of research, if you go back you will almost always find that medical opinion changes as time goes by. In a relatively new field like AAS usage with so little actual research done as well as all the problems inherint in doing research. IE: finding a control group, quantifying compounds used as well as all the problems of potency/purity/mislableing etc. it is very hard to get actual valid A-B data to work with.

[ScotchGuard02]

Half of the knowledge that I've gained is empirical, based on users sharing their experiences. The other half came from reading medical/clinical studies. Again, that is a form of empirical learning. I've also tried to find material to increase my knowledge but the problem I found was that I couldn't make the bridge between theory and reality. Even when I talk to my doctor (I never reveal I'm cycling) he only thinks he knows about the affects and side affects of AAS. I do think the best form of education on AAS is to read the experience of knowledgeable members and read case studies. IMO

[DiamondJim]

Im hesitant to base knowledge on one person's experience to a substance. I think we all know by now we are not all created equally and our bodies react differently to different training stimuli and chemicals.

Im just worried that with everyone quoting everyone else there may not be significant scientific proof.

There has been no research done on AAS in America as a means for hypertrophy to the extent in which people on this board will use them. I don't know if research has been done in other areas of the world however like New Zealand and Australia.

Also if no scientific studies have been done what are we basing these dosage cycles and pct cycles on?

I don't mean to offend posters on here who think they are knowledgeable on the subject. It is just my nature to be skeptical in regards to things that may not have significant backing by the scientific community.

Controlled substances because of their nature almost never get approved for human trials so most knowledge is first hand knowledge which is not good enough to be used as any sort of reference.

[Far from massive]

Im hesitant to base knowledge on one person's experience to a substance. I think we all know by now we are not all created equally and our bodies react differently to different training stimuli and chemicals.

Im just worried that with everyone quoting everyone else there may not be significant scientific proof.

Dosages of specific steroids generally fall within a range that is well documented based on the cumulative experieces of many. Most everyone who is smart simply starts at the low end of these ranges and slowly moves upward to determine their own needs. This is basic stuff and not rocket science.

There has been no research done on AAS in America as a means for hypertrophy to the extent in which people on this board will use them. I don't know if research has been done in other areas of the world however like New Zealand and Australia.

There have been many studies done on the effects of steroid use in athletes both short and long term within the US as well as other countries, the tools cited in my post will search medical studies worldwide. The search tools are hosted by and were developed for the National Library of Medicine this is the largest repository of medical information in the world and when needed will search other databases worldwide ( most of the medical info is searchable freely, however fees will be incurred to see many full text articles.

Also if no scientific studies have been done what are we basing these dosage cycles and pct cycles on?
The cumulative experience of many. Keep in mind this sort of thing can be escapist or a head in sand way of thinking. Look how long it took the scientific community to realize that second hand smoke was harmful or that dumping pollution in the ocean could affect things. If you wait till there is scientic proof as opposed to making smart decisions based on the information at hand often the outcome will be poor.

I don't mean to offend posters on here who think they are knowledgeable on the subject. It is just my nature to be skeptical in regards to things that may not have significant backing by the scientific community.

No problem, but somethings you have to base your knowlege on probabilities otherwise you will fall far behind.

Controlled substances because of their nature almost never get approved for human trials so most knowledge is first hand knowledge which is not good enough to be used as any sort of reference.

A collaberation of first hand knowlege is often very useful, however if you are reluctant to base your research on this or anything else you knowlege on the subject is unlikely to increase.

[AnabolicBoy1981]

I don't mean to offend posters on here who think they are knowledgeable on the subject. It is just my nature to be skeptical in regards to things that may not have significant backing by the scientific community.

no offense but you sound like such a nerd. Im not flaming you but how many dudes in the scientific community are HUGE?

So you only listen to book worms and ppl with Phd's....ok. And how many of thEM possess physiques that you admire? Heck, as example some of the MOST educated personal trainers are the fattest or lankiest. Look DJ...most of us aren't Dr.s and most of the data on steroids from medicine is from medical usage. But you can't doubt the efficacy of some of cycles outlined here. There is a method to our "madness".
Steroids work, period. If your concrend about safety, that's a double edged swored. The poison is in the dose, and it's how you use it. Many of us follow our bloodwork and share results.
If your looking for medical data that shows how well specific compounds worked together for muscle size, forget it. The few studies that show that in medicne used one compound.
There are plenty of users here with expereince and knowledge, but as much as you learn, you really don't know till you try stuff on yourself. You can make an educated decision, but you will have to learn a little with your own body. If you wanna know exactly what will happen when you use certain things and can't use them if you dont know exactly how much muscle you gain, or what side effects you might expereince, then steroids are not for you. I say this because you strike me as a super anal retentive person academic type who paralyzes himself with overanalysis. You should definetly educate yourself, but realize that alot of the knowledge about how to use steroids comes from users and there expereinces mixed with some of the limited medical lit.

[AnabolicBoy1981]

I don't mean to offend posters on here who think they are knowledgeable on the subject. It is just my nature to be skeptical in regards to things that may not have significant backing by the scientific community.

no offense but you sound like such a nerd. Im not flaming you but how many dudes in the scientific community are HUGE?

So you only listen to book worms and ppl with Phd's....ok. And how many of thEM possess physiques that you admire? Heck, as example some of the MOST educated personal trainers are the fattest or lankiest. Look DJ...most of us aren't Dr.s and most of the data on steroids from medicine is from medical usage. But you can't doubt the efficacy of some of cycles outlined here. There is a method to our "madness".
Steroids work, period. If your concrend about safety, that's a double edged swored. The poison is in the dose, and it's how you use it. Many of us follow our bloodwork and share results.
If your looking for medical data that shows how well specific compounds worked together for muscle size, forget it. The few studies that show that in medicne used one compound.
There are plenty of users here with expereince and knowledge, but as much as you learn, you really don't know till you try stuff on yourself. You can make an educated decision, but you will have to learn a little with your own body. If you wanna know exactly what will happen when you use certain things and can't use them if you dont know exactly how much muscle you gain, or what side effects you might expereince, then steroids are not for you. I say this because you strike me as a super anal retentive person academic type who paralyzes himself with overanalysis. You should definetly educate yourself, but realize that alot of the knowledge about how to use steroids comes from users and there expereinces mixed with some of the limited medical lit.

[DiamondJim]

Anabolic Boy,

Woudn't it be safer if the cycle and procedures you got came from someone who has a chemical understanding of this stuff rather than a dealer or fellow bodybuilder. I get my financial advice from my broker not from my butcher...know what im saying? I think this website is invaluable in terms of the experiences shared by fellow users and a good source of information. That being said, some of the things that I have read on here are quite disturbing and extremely dangerous. People using their bodies as a science experiment claiming steroids are healthy in proper dosages.

Truth be told their have never been any long term studies done on the use of steroids as a performance enhancer and not as a medical need. So no one on here really knows the risks that may occur later on in life. While i am not of the "steroids should be illegal" doctrine, i do believe that the information being shared here needs to be taken with a grain of salt.


AB your post could have been made without any personnel assessments of myself, nextime try to refrain a bit.

[Far from massive]

Did you really not realize that there was not a forum run by doctors with well documented studies on AAS usage, or think somehow you would help us by making us aware that you can't believe everything on a bulletin board, or did you just come here to debate and knock the information available here?

I am sorry if I am wrong it just seems that you are not really asking anything rather just seeking to condemn what exists here.

[DiamondJim]

I just want to clarify. You are saying studies have been done on steroids? I'd say that observations were done amongst users who use steroids. Subjects would have to admit to using steroids and their use would not be consistent with the same subjects.


The IRB would never approve a steroid study done however. I think this is something people need to know about and understand the difference.

[spywizard]

so unless someone who has been to a school listening to others that have been to school with no 1st hand knowledge or experience is more important or weighted in knowledge in your opinion..

there are too many AIDS doctors and scientist that use these substances in order to keep people/subjects alive in order to further case studies and write papers for people..

If you are studying for your phd, you would have better access/direct to these case studies..

so good luck with that, you know what they say, those that can't do teach..

[DiamondJim]

so unless someone who has been to a school listening to others that have been to school with no 1st hand knowledge or experience is more important or weighted in knowledge in your opinion..

there are too many AIDS doctors and scientist that use these substances in order to keep people/subjects alive in order to further case studies and write papers for people..

If you are studying for your phd, you would have better access/direct to these case studies..

so good luck with that, you know what they say, those that can't do teach..

Case study done on patients with aids is one thing. I would assume 99 percent of the people on this board are not aids patients.

I am also not criticizing people with 1st hand knowledge , but its one thing to say "this guy at the gym told me do this cycle with pct and you will be fine" as oppose to "Dr. so so did a 5 year study cohort study on the effects of anabolic steroids as a means to achieve unnatural hypertrophy"

Wouldn't it be safer and more efficient if there was a scientific method to this application. All I asked is where are people getting their info from so I can research as well.

[oscarjones]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=academic+textbo...genic+steroids

[trschnei]

i REALLY dont like this guy. lol

[awms]

Welcome to the real world haha Joking but isn't it a shock how little they really teach you in school? I was also taking a kin./exercise science degree but dropped out...not because of poor grades but rather because most of the info I was being taught was useless or out dated and the only classes that I felt really would help me in my field (strength and conditioning) were anatomy physiology and biomechanics, the rest was out dated and I has no use for it....so instead I took a massive risk and invested my time and money into working with top level strength coaches in the trenches, and took courses in the specific area that I felt would further me and my career. You university will have books in the library on the topic you are looking to learn more about....some might be out dated but they should give you a solid foundation, if you understand basic science you can buy many books online on the topic as well! a simple google search should lead you right to what you are looking for!

[DanB]

this thread is done.

What is your previous username here? You can parrot info, I don't argue that, but what can you bring to this forum with your ''superior knowledge'' you claim to have?.

So far you have contributed fvckall and have 0 credibility

Contribute or fvck off its that simple

[Bobby B]

I have a masters in exercise physiology and am working towards a PHD. I am surprised and intimidated to a degree by the degree of biochemical knowledge on this board. As a exercise physiologist i have a crude understanding of biochemistry and in terms of the endocrine system just a basic understanding of the bodies hormones but not a understanding of hormones and their interaction to foreign substances....since they dont really teach roids 101.


So as a scientist looking to further my understanding can anyone refer me to a academic text that has its basis on science and not broscience. I have read William lwellwyn and am hesitant to take that as current dogmas since he has no academic presence and is a commercial writer.

-DJ

Try being the guy that doesnt know anything about biochemesty and trying to figure it out. I take chemestry next term and wasnt looking forward to it at first now I want to ace the class just so I can have a base to start from.

[Bonaparte]

Step 1: follow the posts of mods and vets. We won't steer you wrong.
Step 2: go to pubmed and research old human studies on AAS from the 70s.

If you still have questions, come back and ask them in a manner that isn't condescending.

And what do you actually want to know? Because the resource you're looking for does not exist. If it did, do you think we'd be on here debating AAS-related science? No, we'd all be experts of the same opinion and forums like this one would be useless.