Who's heard about "tren BRAIN"...????

[Mr.BB]

Interesting read:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...220?via%3Dihub

Bad science. Bunch of assumptions and relating hippocampus and AD has been shown in other studies not to be that important.
Also, maybe rats and humans have slightly different brains...

[cousinmuscles]

Bad science. Bunch of assumptions and relating hippocampus and AD has been shown in other studies not to be that important.
Also, maybe rats and humans have slightly different brains...

I'll read this one later but always keep in mind when it is a single study it is something new that will have very little chance of proving to be any good. Remember, academics are paid to be on the anti doping side of the game.

There was another study on how AAS causes "cognitive deficits". I used to read studies on IQ and the brain and this seems to be one of the worst studies conducted:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...8/#!po=25.0000

They made an assumption of what supraphysiological levels of hormones will do without showing it actually happens in the target tissue. Then their way of measuring was aptitude tests. Lol I have been a participant of these tests. They last hours from start to finish and have a low rate of participants finishing compared to starting. Until they prove this happens in some particular tissue in humans and the SAME experiment has been conducted by several independent universities, there is little reason to get excited. Most likely it will go forgotten in archives.

Now when real cases are presented there is reason to take it seriously, like this case:

https://link.springer.com/article/10...620-008-0457-x

[AlphaMindz]

I'll read this one later but always keep in mind when it is a single study it is something new that will have very little chance of proving to be any good. Remember, academics are paid to be on the anti doping side of the game.

There was another study on how AAS causes "cognitive deficits". I used to read studies on IQ and the brain and this seems to be one of the worst studies conducted:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...8/#!po=25.0000

They made an assumption of what supraphysiological levels of hormones will do without showing it actually happens in the target tissue. Then their way of measuring was aptitude tests. Lol I have been a participant of these tests. They last hours from start to finish and have a low rate of participants finishing compared to starting. Until they prove this happens in some particular tissue in humans and the SAME experiment has been conducted by several independent universities, there is little reason to get excited. Most likely it will go forgotten in archives.

Now when real cases are presented there is reason to take it seriously, like this case:

https://link.springer.com/article/10...620-008-0457-x

That must be why I'm always getting lost

Between the lady and my GPS I get around ok, though, so I can just focus on making gains while my visuospatial memory goes to shit lol!

The real problem is that we don't have more studies on this stuff and we pretty much have to learn from anecdotal evidence through other people's experiences. That's precisely why a platform like this can be so valuable!

[AlphaMindz]

Bad science. Bunch of assumptions and relating hippocampus and AD has been shown in other studies not to be that important.
Also, maybe rats and humans have slightly different brains...

I agree, until we have placebo controlled, double blind studies it's bad science. It's hard to tell which studies are accurate and which studies are a complete waste of time. Plus I'm sure the dosages they're using on rats to get these results are massive dosages and likely far beyond what a human would consume..