"WARNING. Anabolic steroids do not improve athletic performance."
I can well remember back in the 1980's when this belief was so universally held by the medical profession that this warning was included in every package insert for Anadrol, Dianabol, and Deca Durabolin.
Guess what? Experienced bodybuilders and power lifters knew better. It stands to reason that they might better understand how to treat the basic side effects of steroids as well. Which is exactly why people come to forums like this for real world advice rather than running to some doctor who is just going to bleed them dry for money on lab tests and specialists.
You can probably still find those warnings today on the package inserts for AAS; however, the warnings usually stated something to the effect of "
the evidence hasn't shown anabolic steroids are effective at improving athletic performance." The syntax is significant because there is a difference between saying they don't work and saying there is no evidence showing they do work.
The fact is, using AAS for performance enhancement was uncharted territory in the '60's and '70's and even well into the 1980's. Experimentation was needed to learn how to use these medicines effectively and that experimentation led to some studies showing they worked and other studies showing they didn't. For example, while it is well known today that 6mg qd of stanozolol won't do anything for a male bodybuilder, that wasn't the case in 1975. So it's not surprising that some studies used those low dosages and it's even less surprising that they concluded that it didn't work. It took a while for the facts to emerge and to arrive at a consensus. That's how science works.
Regardless, none of that applies today. AAS have been around for over 50 years and in that time, the 19-nors, and in particular, nandrolone, have been studied extensively. And in all that time, there has been no evidence showing 19-nors affect PRL levels or act as a progestin to any significant degree. Think about that for a minute. Why do you think researchers using pharmaceutical grade medicines and having access to lab tests and the best of equipment have been unable to find an effect on PRL, but bodybuilders, who are using medicines of highly dubious quality, and instead of lab tests, rely on some subjective symptoms of "milky discharge," have?
Regarding your final comment:
"
Which is exactly why people come to forums like this for real world advice rather than running to some doctor who is just going to bleed them dry for money on lab tests and specialists."
The issue of 19-nors and PRL is one area in bodybuilding where the science has given bodybuilders a chance to avoid being "bled dry" by unscrupulous sources who are trying to sell unneeded ancillary medications to treat a side effects that only exist in the bro lore.
Finally, someone else suggested "leaving the paper work out of it," and instead, relying on anecdotal evidence. No thanks. While personal experience can be suggestive and often points to areas where further study is needed, relying solely on personal experience leads to the acceptance of nonsense like the bro phenomenon of AI rebound and trenbolone induced gynecomastia.
So I don't know about you, but if I'm going to expose myself to potential harm from using performance enhancing drugs, I want to base that usage on the best available scientific research and not rely on the advice from the "bros" on bodybuilding sites that is more often than not based on voodoo.
Regards
CBS
because its more accurate then medical literature and and guys chatting on a blog site about that literature
