T Nation

Latest NSCA Journal Issue


#1

Anyone else get a look at the new journal issue for August? It featurs a fairly well-written article on AAS and GH use. They cover the common steroids used: from test to tren to deca to anavar. They also touch on ancillaries, serms, and hcg.

The interesting part is that a lot of it is supported by variou studies throughout the years. And while there is an obligatory portion concerning health risks, they highlight how some of the fears behind AAS use could be wrong/exaggerated. All in all, a very good read. Esp. for newbies.

One thing I did want to draw attention to was thier discussion of Clenbuterol. Now I'm sure we've all heard about clen possibly having an anabolic effect on the body. Up until now I've been in the camp that believes that while the tests done on rats show it is anabolic...for rats, in humans it can be slightly catabolc. The article disagreed with that, stating that clenbuterol "has been shown to increase muscle hypertrophy and strength."

They then sited four sources. The first two were the usual rat tests. The second two, however were using humans.

The first article was titled "Clenbuterol increases lean muscle mass but not endurance in patients with chronic heart failure" in the Journal for Heart Lung Transplant 27: 457-461, 2008.

The second was "Changes in skeletal muscle gene expression following clenbutero administration." BMC Genomics 7:320, 2006.

Is anyone familiar with either of these two studies? I am cautiously optimistic, but I don't know if people with heart failure equate to bodybuilding, lol.

Either way, it was a surprisingly balanced article covering the range of AAS and GH use.


#2

Thanks :slight_smile:


#3

I vaguely remember seeing the first paper last year but I can’t find it atm. I seem to recall a discussion elsewhere…

The second paper (“Change in skeletal muscle gene expression…”) is an interesting one, identifying increased transcription and subsequent translation of a number of muscle differentiation genes, but it is in fact a mouse study, not human. It’d be a little surprising if the authors haven’t put out any follow up publications to it since 2006.


#4

[quote]whotookmyname wrote:
I vaguely remember seeing the first paper last year but I can’t find it atm. I seem to recall a discussion elsewhere…

The second paper (“Change in skeletal muscle gene expression…”) is an interesting one, identifying increased transcription and subsequent translation of a number of muscle differentiation genes, but it is in fact a mouse study, not human. It’d be a little surprising if the authors haven’t put out any follow up publications to it since 2006. [/quote]

Thanks man, good to know. I’m gonna try to dig up the first paper, but let me know if you stumble across it as well.


#5

got a link to the Journal?


#6

http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/toc/2009/08005

It’s entitled position stand on Androgen and Human Growth Hormone use.


#7

I did not get to read the article as I let my membership run out, but I have been at NSCA conferences where one of the authors of that article has spoken very positively about steroids, which of course freaks out some in the field. It was mentioned very openly that US Soldiers and cops should have the option of doing cycles when in certain specialty units and situations.


#8

“It was mentioned very openly that US Soldiers and cops should have the option of doing cycles when in certain specialty units and situations.”
If that happens one day, I think they will have to sign some kind of waiver, and possibly be denied for medical insurance.


#9

I cant ever see it happening officially. The people making the decisions at the top are not typically the boots on the ground type warriors…most of them would never “get it”. As well unless they had some high speed doctors overseeing it, all it would take is a few people being stupid about abusing things and it would all stop.

Maybe at some high level secret squirrel type units its happening with a blind eye from admin, but otherwise our world here in the US is way too politically correct.