T Nation

Edit the Description for the Pharma Forum


I’d propose changing the last sentence under the Pharma section description to:

This forum is intended for the discussion of effective and least harm methods of using anabolics and managing post-cycle therapy (PCT).

There are no safe methods for AAS abuse and the current phrasing above gives ignorant and AAS naive individual the impression there are. For clinical anabolic therapy, the user can follow their physicians instructions hence most (almost all) aren’t coming on this forum looking for guidance for their clinical therapy.

As an alternative you could change the word safe to safer. This would be the least amount of work but not the best approach. By invoking the word harm in the description you provide the reader a better disclaimer on what they may be getting themselves involved in.

1 Like

I get what you’re saying, but I believe you’re reading too much into the specific wording. The message still comes across clearly without a more technically accurate change in word choice.

It’s like the BSL About description says, “Becoming bigger, stronger, and/or leaner is what 95% of us are looking for.” I pulled out the 95% statistic of thin air. I’m sure there could be a more technically accurate phrasing (“what most of us are looking for”, “what the majority of lifters want”, etc.), but it’s unnecessary because the point still comes across clearly.

But there are safe methods for AAS use, even in recreational/non-clinical situations. The (sometimes fine) line between use and abuse, or safe and safer, is best taken on a case-by-case basis in individual threads.

Correct. That’s what the T Replacement forum is for.


AAS: Convey the difference between the act of harm reduction vs thinking recreational use is safe (free of adverse events).

there are NO safe methods for recreational AAS use (which is Abuse in medical terms). The standard of care from any reputable medical provider (which is made by evidence-based consensus statements) confirms this.

Many times, we (myself included) like to think we can construct a safe way to recreationally use (abuse) AAS. Let’s be clear. That thinking is flawed. It’s wishful thinking.

The newbies and other AAS-naive individuals need to understand that AAS abuse (recreational use) come with very high risk of adverse events at the doses required to elicit cosmetic and performance enhancement. The impact of those events can vary based on genetics, time used, and AUC. Hence, this usage is not safe. I agree it should be up to the individual to determine if the risk is worth it (“safe” vs safe, see below).

Although the current phrasing for the Pharma description provides an adequate yet medically flawed message, the right thing to do (and factually accurate thing to do) is to inform and warm potential AAS abusers (recreational AAS users) that this practice is not safe. This message could be shared in an effective way with either method I shared above.

See discussion of terms “safe” vs safe below.


Thanks for your response. Rather than typing a long-winded wall of text, this reference lays out the terms quite well for those that may be interested:

See this chapter:

Thanks for bringing this up. No, really there aren’t safe methods for recreational AAS use. That was my whole purpose of starting this thread. See below.

Discussion of safe vs "safe"

Simple dictionary:

Excerpt from chapter linked above:

In the case of the recreational user (my observation is this is vast majority of Pharma forum posters), they are not treating a medical problem. They are either using AAS for cosmetic or performance purposes (sometimes both). Once they do their research they may decide the efficacy / effectiveness of AAS outweigh the adverse effects (safety) associated with them. Hence in this recreational form of the term, they may deem the risk is acceptable and that AAS in their particular case is “safe” and there is a benefit. But of course there is no benefit in the clinical and medically proper use of the term.

My understanding what that the T Replacement forum is for discussing TRT. Of course, it’s also used to discuss the so-called TOT option as well.

But just so we don’t confuse the reader, there are other clinical anabolic therapies that are legally prescribed and used for legitimate medical purposes (e.g., oxandrolone, stanozolol, nandrolone, etc.). Not very often, but still used for other medical purposes besides GAINZ. But again, there aren’t may folks coming onto the Pharma forum looking to make sure their physician’s prescription for 0.5 mg/day of stanozolol to treat HA is safe or “safe”.

In contrast, there are AA clinics (so called Anti-Aging or more accurately Accelerated-Aging I call them) that will provide a legal prescription for AAS for cosmetic/ PED purposes. Is this use beneficial or safe in medical terms? Absolutely not.

Some time back I created another thread and you stated this which I think is a great summary:

Thanks again for providing this forum for us and my comments are meant in a constructive manner.

I’ll repeat myself for emphasis.

Again, we don’t need to change the Strongman About description from “[…] how to best train for the balance of strength, speed, and endurance strongmen need.” to “how to train for the balance of strength, speed, and endurance strongmen need, since there is no ‘best’ method as individuals will respond to a variety of methods.”

We don’t need to change the Powerlifting About description from “[…] and get advice for training up to your next meet.” to “and get advice for training up to your next meet, with an understanding that meet lifts may exceed your current 1RM and therefore bring and increased risk of injury.”

Some stuff is simply assumed. Lifting weights can be safe, unless you do something stupid. Using gear can be safe, unless you do something stupid. It just happen that the stupidity line is much thinner with anabolics than it is with squats.

Disagree. Members in the training forums don’t need to be explicitly told to buckle their seatbelt when driving to the gym, members in the nutrition forum don’t need to be explicitly told to avoid drinking six gallons of water per day, and members in Pharma don’t need to be explicitly told that using (often illegal) drugs of questionable origin may not be entirely safe.

Assumptions can be tricky, but some things are perfectly reasonable to assume. And assuming that someone running a cycle has at least a basic understanding of safe is perfectly reasonable. Again, any glaring issues can be addressed in individual threads.

I get that your heart is in the right place with this, but we’re not going to dumb down the forum to flat-out tell people “FYI: Injecting things into your body might not be safe.” If they don’t know that as Foundation Step Number One, they’re on track to be royally fucked with or without any guidance from the vets here.

If you’d like to preface each of your posts in that forum with “Before proceeding, I choose to state that there are NO safe methods for recreational AAS use (which is Abuse in medical terms). The standard of care from any reputable medical provider (which is made by evidence-based consensus statements) confirms this. Now here’s my advice…” feel free.

But I think that’s gonna get real old, real quick. And will largely be overlooked and/or cause for a thread hijack debating a fundamentally philosophical debate between safe, relatively safe, and “safe”. Which, come to think of it, may be an interesting deep-dive thread worth starting on its own over there.

1 Like

Fair enough, thanks for taking the time to respond and provide your thoughts.

I’ll stick by my thesis that there are no safe methods for recreational AAS use. There are harm reduction methods or safer methods. I appreciate your time!

Maybe I’ll link this to a thread over there to get buried in the list that many never see since they can’t seem to search :-).

Take care.

When was the last time you read some of those threads over there? :thinking: :slight_smile:

I like the way you phrased this except the part about using gear can be safe. It can be used in a manner of least harm with some high degree of probability. I guess this is why AAS are schedule III controlled substances in the US. I’m on the fence with that personally but as you state it’s a thin line.

If we are being honest, nothing is safe, there are dangers with all actions and inaction, and, in turn, the word “safe” is meaningless.

But that’s pretty silly.


“Safe” in terms of how I used above is defined in my small rant (see above). From a dose response standpoint, there are plenty of drugs that are safe, demonstrate benefit, have a good TI. Food, clean water, etc.

Pharmaceutical drugs need to be discussed in terms of benefit (therapeutic effect minus adverse effect). A drug is typically prescribed when the therapeutic (medical treatment) reward outweighs the risk. Recreational use of AAS is vanity (the “reward”) vs adverse effects. This doesn’t include performance benefit where your livelihood may depend on it.

Water at 64 oz per day is safe for a pretty significant fraction of the human population. Aspirin is a different animal. On and on.

Chris and I spent a lot of words above. My point was there is no safe method for using AAS recreationally. The description in the Pharma section implies they exist. They don’t. That’s all. If one is fine with the risk, then go for it. But let’s make sure we use the term “harm reduction” methods instead of safe methods. The use of the later sends the wrong message and gives unwarranted confidence that adverse events are completely under the control of the AAS user. They aren’t.

Nah, I’m good man :slight_smile:


Maybe attach a couple links to the various lifting forums too. Seems like a lot of people are looking to push a plunger before they ever think about touching a weight! :rofl:


Life is not safe. Alcohol consumption is not safe, at least the person needs to consider the risks when they consume alcohol, both short term and long term. It is definitely not safe to drive your car on the streets and highways, yet I can’t see the value of telling everyone I see that driving is not safe.

Does anyone believe there are potential AAS users that haven’t considered the risk? Biological science is complex. Ever heard any medical parameters of totally safe methods of taking AAS’s?

Is quality of life of no value? I had phenomenal quality of life for three decades using AAS’s. My life was robust with self-confidence. Does that have no value, because it was a safety risk? Are people capable of making benefit/risk assessments.

Sounds like we are all in violent agreement with my recommendation in initial post. Thanks for the feedback.

No where in the Pharma forum has there ever been shared or discussed a safe method for recreational AAS use. Hence the Pharma description should be revised to change the wording as I stated up top.

Yes I think the are plenty of AAS users who don’t understand the full extent of the risk of adverse effects. We still don’t know the full extent and probabilities at the individual level.

Go back and take a look at the first post. Are you asking rhetorical questions @RT_Nomad?

And as I shared I fully endorse people having the choice to use AAS recreationally. But let’s make sure we don’t lend credence or a false hope that there are safe methods for recreational AAS use.

There are safer methods and best practices. Besides those, one can hope for the best.

It has only recently become the consensus in that forum that there is any risk of harm at all!

Back in the day (mind you, I’ve been reading/posting here for 20 years now…:fearful:) you would be run off with torches and pitchforks for even SUGGESTING such a thing.

I’m thinking back around the pre-Operation Raw Deal days, when even whispers of prescription testosterone was laughed at as a pipe dream. :rofl:

1 Like

I’ve survived hundreds of posts back and forth with Danny Bossa, I’m stubborn. It would take a while to run me off :grin:.

1 Like

I, in no way, am in agreement with you.
It is very obvious you are well read on the subject of AAS’s.
I am well lived on the subject of AAS’s

My first use of Dianabol was a prescription from my family doctor for 10mg per day for 30 days every other month.

Yes fortunately my theoretical knowledge of AAS exceeds my practical experience with them. But I have both.

Yes, you have practical experience with AAS with you and anecdotes from your friends/associates. That experience doesn’t always carry over to the next guy. Therefore, the approach on a forum like this should be conservative and the intent should be to look out for the poor bastards who don’t have your genetics or drug tolerance.

There are no safe methods for recreational AAS use. The adverse events for an individual recreationally using AAS are partly determined by factors in their control (harm reduction methods/best practices) and partly by factors outside their control (genes, luck/quantum mechanics :grinning:).

Good luck out there Dear Reader and go in knowing that the more you learn and familiarize yourself with something, the less attractive it may be. With AAS there’s no way to know going in.

Ahhh, that’s feels better. Now I’ll get back to debating how far I am willing to go to “getbig or die tryin’.”

May the Dear Lord or whatever created our seemingly Infinite Universe bless you!! And if there isn’t a Creator and we are here by chance, bless you anyway.

I can see how this place keeps drawing one back.

1 Like


I’m sure there are a few others around, lurking, different usernames and whatnot. Every so often one pops up here and there.

I’ve visited off and on at TNation for 20+ years but only the last few lurking then posting on the forum. Given my nature I have to be careful not to get sucked in too much. It’s a challenge.

Besides I mainly post boring articles that almost no one reads :grinning:. It looks like a fun gimmick but I learn as well in the process.

Yeah it is!

I’ve let go of not getting sucked in and just went full on with meet ups and really getting to know some people.

Great bunch really. Kinda reminds me I have to give my ole buddy @Basement_Gainz a holler. :smiley:

1 Like