I know I shouldnt read this but this shit always scares me:
What do you guys think?
By pushing E too low, you get a bad cholesterol profile and endothelial dysfunction. Both work together as part of arterial disease. When doing blood tests, you can also check for homocysteine and C reactive protein. If problems, supplements can help with those markers. Those findings were not surprising for me.
[quote]KSman wrote:
By pushing E too low, you get a bad cholesterol profile and endothelial dysfunction. Both work together as part of arterial disease. When doing blood tests, you can also check for homocysteine and C reactive protein. If problems, supplements can help with those markers. Those findings were not surprising for me.[/quote]
Need to add: SERMs, thinking nolvadex, acts like an estrogen in the liver and arteries. This improves HDL:LDH ratios and also improves endothelial function. So nolvadex can have a positive influence. In some situations, nolvadex can increase E levels.
Im dutch and maybe I didnt understand it correctly, but I thought this article ment steroids fuck up your veins no matter what you do .So also if the lipid profiles are fine?
[quote]hompie wrote:
Im dutch and maybe I didnt understand it correctly, but I thought this article ment steroids fuck up your veins no matter what you do .So also if the lipid profiles are fine?[/quote]
Steroids is a big world. Many different products and wildly different doses. But in general, for those with low T, restoring T levels to high range normal increases or maintains HDL, lowers LDL and triglycerides. And endothelial function also improves. So one might argue, for testosterone, that low T might be a bigger risk than higher T levels. When T levels increase, so does E, which is protective for these things. Those going for single digit body fat with very strong AI’s can create problems that are not cause by the testosterone that they are using. Strong orals and promones that stress the liver, might be a cause of cholesterol problems.
If lipid profiles are good, then E cannot be bogus at that time, so endothelial function should be ok as well. But, there are markers of CV health that can be done with blood work that will alert one to negative processes before one would become aware of negative structural damage.
[quote]hompie wrote:
I know I shouldnt read this but this shit always scares me:
What do you guys think?[/quote]
WOW…that article implies that long term steroid use is not good for your health.
Now who would ever have thought that?
Wow this is an answer we can work with…
Notice there is no reference to the dietary history of these men. Besides genetics, this is the single most important factor in the development of coronary calcification.
Eating “bad” fats will plug up your arteries faster than a lifetime of AAS ever will. This is just another study funded by a government source in order to demonize steroids.
[quote]Yo Momma wrote:
Notice there is no reference to the dietary history of these men. Besides genetics, this is the single most important factor in the development of coronary calcification.
Eating “bad” fats will plug up your arteries faster than a lifetime of AAS ever will. This is just another study funded by a government source in order to demonize steroids.[/quote]
The reported HDL levels were about 1/2 of what they should have been. That is consistent with excessive suppression of E from high amounts of AI.
One might argue that the results from “professional body builders” might have little to say about how most folks “abuse steroids”.
And no context. Can we compare to a group of men who eat fast food, smoke and drink too much and compare a broader range of risk factors. Where is the talk about alcohol abuse, tobacco abuse and fast food abuse? Are these pro BB guys at greater risk than a bunch of fat middle aged men who have low T and high E levels who are at high risk for type II diabetes?
But the study is what it is. It is how folks use that data that matters.