T Nation

Steroid Research Paper


#1

I am doing a research paper on steroids for my biology class.

I basically am writing a 6 page paper defining and explain what indeed is STEROID (make the distinction between birth control and anaobolics.) Then talk a little about how they are percieved in society, then why they are used, and the opinion of those who do use and do not use, and then try to find the balanced truth in between the anti-steroid argument and the pro-steroid argument, all the while unveiling the misconceptions and ignorance that surrounds the subject.

What would be some good journal entries, books and research papers you guys might suggest?
I understand the UK government did an investigation on steroids use that unveiled it to be far less dangerous than many other government's have claimed.

Any help and guidance appreciated, thanks guys, feel free to put in your 2 cents.


#2

hey go check out the stickies on the over 35 forum, there’s 2 good articles linked there. Essentially they found that those with higher testosterone levels lived longer and also that high testosterone does not increase risk of cardiovascular disease. Or something like that lol, it’s been a while since I read them, go have a look.


#3

I wrote a speech on this a few years back. I don’t have it any more, but one of my arguments was [in few words] how can something be dangerous if we can get a prescription for it from our doctors.

Obviously, there are some things doctors can prescribe that are unhealthy in one way or another, but you get the point…


#4

Paramount:

The effects of supraphysiological doses of testosterone on angry behavior in healthy eugonadal men–a clinical research center study.
Tricker R. Casaburi R. Storer TW. Clevenger B. Berman N. Shirazi A. Bhasin S.
Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 81(10):3754-8, 1996 Oct.
[Clinical Trial. Journal Article. Randomized Controlled Trial. Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, P.H.S.]

The effects of supraphysiologic doses of testosterone on muscle size and strength in normal men.[see comment].
Bhasin S. Storer TW. Berman N. Callegari C. Clevenger B. Phillips J. Bunnell TJ. Tricker R. Shirazi A. Casaburi R.
New England Journal of Medicine. 335(1):1-7, 1996 Jul 4.
[Clinical Trial. Journal Article. Randomized Controlled Trial. Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, P.H.S.]


#5

Thanks so far guys. I’m really looking forward to the whole, roid rage thing. As I want to make that look as stupid as it really is, what about booze rage or pms? Those are permissiable forms for rage?


#6

[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
I wrote a speech on this a few years back. I don’t have it any more, but one of my arguments was [in few words] how can something be dangerous if we can get a prescription for it from our doctors.

Obviously, there are some things doctors can prescribe that are unhealthy in one way or another, but you get the point…[/quote]

That is probably the worst ‘pro’ argument i have ever heard.


#7

[quote] Brook wrote:
rrjc5488 wrote:
I wrote a speech on this a few years back. I don’t have it any more, but one of my arguments was [in few words] how can something be dangerous if we can get a prescription for it from our doctors.

Obviously, there are some things doctors can prescribe that are unhealthy in one way or another, but you get the point…

That is probably the worst ‘pro’ argument i have ever heard.
[/quote]

LOL. It worked for the teacher. I got an A.

That said, care to explain?


#8

[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
Brook wrote:
rrjc5488 wrote:
I wrote a speech on this a few years back. I don’t have it any more, but one of my arguments was [in few words] how can something be dangerous if we can get a prescription for it from our doctors.

Obviously, there are some things doctors can prescribe that are unhealthy in one way or another, but you get the point…

That is probably the worst ‘pro’ argument i have ever heard.

LOL. It worked for the teacher. I got an A.

That said, care to explain?
[/quote]

It’s just funny because most of these silly prescription drugs in the ads cause a host of side effects. Lots of them are worse on your body than banned substances.


#9

[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
Brook wrote:
rrjc5488 wrote:
I wrote a speech on this a few years back. I don’t have it any more, but one of my arguments was [in few words] how can something be dangerous if we can get a prescription for it from our doctors.

Obviously, there are some things doctors can prescribe that are unhealthy in one way or another, but you get the point…

That is probably the worst ‘pro’ argument i have ever heard.

LOL. It worked for the teacher. I got an A.

That said, care to explain?
[/quote]

Clearly it was a ‘teacher’ who knew little about the area in depth, or at least expected you to or was marking grammar or something.

Prescription drugs are absofuckinglutely dangerous. The idea that because they are legal and prescribed makes them safe even at the prescribed dose is bollocks.
Simply plain old wrong mate.

Unlike in the UK, a large proportion of those requiring long term drug counselling and medical treatment in the US have never used Heroin or Tar in their life, they just used the Oxycodone, Hydromorphone and Hydrocodone given to them by prescription, used in the prescribed doses and for the prescribed period.

Benzodiazepines are highly addictive and withdrawal can lead to death and often leads to convulsions at least. they are massively prescribed to all age groups in the West - without checking they are one of the most commonly used prescription drugs of all time (Valium anyone?)

Anti-depressants are physically addictive with a few of the newer SSRI’s giving withdrawal effects that feel like electric shocks which shoot from the feet to the brain as you walk… not to mention that certain SSRI’s when given to depressed teens will exacerbate the condition and increase the chances of suicide (no longer prescribed but they were this decade).

Not to mention the fact that almost all prescription drugs have unwanted side effects.

It is just a bad argument. There are excellent arguments for AAS use - even in supraphysiological doses, and I am a proponent many - but yours was the worst i have ever heard of, and if it was published it would be used against those who use steroids backing up the myth that all bodybuilders are thick as two sheets of shit.

No offence…


#10

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#11

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
waylanderxx wrote:
hey go check out the stickies on the over 35 forum, there’s 2 good articles linked there. Essentially they found that those with higher testosterone levels lived longer and also that high testosterone does not increase risk of cardiovascular disease. Or something like that lol, it’s been a while since I read them, go have a look.

Not quite. This was done on hypoT patients. Within a normal physiological range the higher levels of T exerted a cardio-protective effect.

Unfortunately supraphysiological levels of T (and other AAS) cause an increase in homocystine, which has been strongly linked (but never conclusively proven) to increased incidence and risk of CHD.

The good news is that just 800mcg daily of folic acid will lower homocystine levels.

And omega 3 should reduce the levels of the pro-inflammatory marker ‘C-reactive protein’ which also increases in line with levels of AAS.

BBB[/quote]

You just had to steal my fire didn’t you bushy?!!?!


#12

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#13

[quote] Brook wrote:
Clearly it was a ‘teacher’ who knew little about the area in depth, or at least expected you to or was marking grammar or something.

Prescription drugs are absofuckinglutely dangerous. The idea that because they are legal and prescribed makes them safe even at the prescribed dose is bollocks.
Simply plain old wrong mate.

Unlike in the UK, a large proportion of those requiring long term drug counselling and medical treatment in the US have never used Heroin or Tar in their life, they just used the Oxycodone, Hydromorphone and Hydrocodone given to them by prescription, used in the prescribed doses and for the prescribed period.

Benzodiazepines are highly addictive and withdrawal can lead to death and often leads to convulsions at least. they are massively prescribed to all age groups in the West - without checking they are one of the most commonly used prescription drugs of all time (Valium anyone?)

Anti-depressants are physically addictive with a few of the newer SSRI’s giving withdrawal effects that feel like electric shocks which shoot from the feet to the brain as you walk… not to mention that certain SSRI’s when given to depressed teens will exacerbate the condition and increase the chances of suicide (no longer prescribed but they were this decade).

Not to mention the fact that almost all prescription drugs have unwanted side effects.

It is just a bad argument. There are excellent arguments for AAS use - even in supraphysiological doses, and I am a proponent many - but yours was the worst i have ever heard of, and if it was published it would be used against those who use steroids backing up the myth that all bodybuilders are thick as two sheets of shit.

No offence…[/quote]

Fair enough. I obviously worded my original statement poorly, or at the very least gave the wrong impression.

Obviously, prescription drugs can be dangerous, but how dangerous is too dangerous? Isn’t that the point of medecine? To compare risk/reward? I mean look at all of those commercials we see on TV, the last 10-15 seconds (sometimes more) are usually listing off all of the possible side effects, yet they’re still on the market.

Would you consider Testosterone in the hands of someone who knows what they’re doing to be dangerous?

Not to mention the fact that almost anyone above the age of 13 can get their hands on alcohol and tobacco…

What are some of your ‘pro’ arguments for steroid use. I’d be interested in hearing them.

(FWIW, since tone is hard to portray over the internet, I’m not trying to be a dick. I’m just trying to make this into a worthwhile discussion.)


#14

I wrote a paper on this (12 pages), I’ll paste my sources.

Rick Collins, “Anabolic Steroids, Bodybuilding and the Law,” Elite Fitness, (1999): 1, accessed April 20, 2009.

Bryan E. Denham, “Sports Illustrated, the “War on Drugs,” and the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990,” Journal of Sport & Social Issues, no. 3 (1997): 260-273.

Michael Janofsky, “Victory at Any Cost: Drug Pressure Growing,” The New York Times, November 21, 1988, national edition, A01.

Steroids Workings Group, "2006 Steroids Report,â?? United States Sentencing Commission, (2006): 4, http://www.ussc.gov/USSCsteroidsreport-0306.pdf, accessed April 20, 2009.

Wayne Wilson, â??Doping in Elite Sport: The Politics of Drugs in the Olympic Movement,â?? Human Kinetics (2001): 205-241.

Richard L.Worsnop, “Athletes and Drugs,” CQ Researcher Online, no. 1 (1991): 520.

The Rick Collins one is pretty great, though it’s not scholarly.


#15

You could first delineate the differences between corticosteroids and sex hormones.

Many people don’t understand the difference.

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steroid

then here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

or use what ever academic elite search engines your college has to offer. You should also check the “closed” stacks at the college library, under the heading Endocrinology. You may not be able to remove these books from the library or study area, but they are a very useful resource.

And be sure to use what ever citation methods are recommended by the professor.


#16

[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
Brook wrote:
Clearly it was a ‘teacher’ who knew little about the area in depth, or at least expected you to or was marking grammar or something.

Prescription drugs are absofuckinglutely dangerous. The idea that because they are legal and prescribed makes them safe even at the prescribed dose is bollocks.
Simply plain old wrong mate.

Unlike in the UK, a large proportion of those requiring long term drug counselling and medical treatment in the US have never used Heroin or Tar in their life, they just used the Oxycodone, Hydromorphone and Hydrocodone given to them by prescription, used in the prescribed doses and for the prescribed period.

Benzodiazepines are highly addictive and withdrawal can lead to death and often leads to convulsions at least. they are massively prescribed to all age groups in the West - without checking they are one of the most commonly used prescription drugs of all time (Valium anyone?)

Anti-depressants are physically addictive with a few of the newer SSRI’s giving withdrawal effects that feel like electric shocks which shoot from the feet to the brain as you walk… not to mention that certain SSRI’s when given to depressed teens will exacerbate the condition and increase the chances of suicide (no longer prescribed but they were this decade).

Not to mention the fact that almost all prescription drugs have unwanted side effects.

It is just a bad argument. There are excellent arguments for AAS use - even in supraphysiological doses, and I am a proponent many - but yours was the worst i have ever heard of, and if it was published it would be used against those who use steroids backing up the myth that all bodybuilders are thick as two sheets of shit.

No offence…

Fair enough. I obviously worded my original statement poorly, or at the very least gave the wrong impression.

Obviously, prescription drugs can be dangerous, but how dangerous is too dangerous? Isn’t that the point of medecine? To compare risk/reward? I mean look at all of those commercials we see on TV, the last 10-15 seconds (sometimes more) are usually listing off all of the possible side effects, yet they’re still on the market.

Would you consider Testosterone in the hands of someone who knows what they’re doing to be dangerous?

Not to mention the fact that almost anyone above the age of 13 can get their hands on alcohol and tobacco…

What are some of your ‘pro’ arguments for steroid use. I’d be interested in hearing them.

(FWIW, since tone is hard to portray over the internet, I’m not trying to be a dick. I’m just trying to make this into a worthwhile discussion.)[/quote]

No, you still believe that because a drug is legally prescribed it cannot be inhertently dangerous - even though i am talking about when they are used in the correct way by people who know what they are doing - whether that is death or addiction.

IME you have FAR too much trust and faith in the medical practitioners who prescribe drugs.

You should alos be aware that in the UK we dont have ads for prescription drugs in the same way you do in the US, so my information is not just something i heard on an advert or mused about between commercial breaks.

I am not sure where you live but in the UK and in the US it is not possible for anyone over 13 to get tobacco or alcohol at all… over 18 is closer to reality.

Lastly, as for my pro-steroid arguments, sorry mate but that is a long post i am not about to begin this morning! Needless to say your argument would not be part of it :wink:


#17

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
You could first delineate the differences between corticosteroids and sex hormones.

[/quote]

May be better said as cortico- versus anabolic-/androgenic-. Only mentioning, since the ones used for body building are both muscle building (anabolic) and have secondary sexual effects (hair growth, deeper voice, MPB, etc), the androgenic side. Much more than a ‘sex’ hormone.


#18

Also to add to that 5.0:

The androgen ‘part’ of the AAS is also vital in the whole anabolism of the compound, with the most anabolic products being high androgen and high anabolic. This is not to mention the CNS stimulation, which is very pro-growth through performance increases.

Especially when you consider that most of the steroids that are considered ‘anabolics’ rather than ‘androgens’ actually are strong binders to the AR (but generally do not have affinity for the reductase enzyme for one reason or another).

(This was AFAIK the main reason why we failed our attempt at synthesizing a pure non-androgenic anabolic but i seriously digress…)

I am not trying to correct you mate, just add on to… :slight_smile:


#19

[quote] Brook wrote:
Also to add to that 5.0:

The androgen ‘part’ of the AAS is also vital in the whole anabolism of the compound, with the most anabolic products being high androgen and high anabolic. This is not to mention the CNS stimulation, which is very pro-growth through performance increases.

Especially when you consider that most of the steroids that are considered ‘anabolics’ rather than ‘androgens’ actually are strong binders to the AR (but generally do not have affinity for the reductase enzyme for one reason or another).

(This was AFAIK the main reason why we failed our attempt at synthesizing a pure non-androgenic anabolic but i seriously digress…)

I am not trying to correct you mate, just add on to… :)[/quote]

Word.


#20

[quote]3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
Thanks so far guys. I’m really looking forward to the whole, roid rage thing. As I want to make that look as stupid as it really is, what about booze rage or pms? Those are permissiable forms for rage?[/quote]

Can’t speak to pms, but booze rage is largely due to an impairment of mental judgement and lowering of inhibitions, not booze itself. AAS don’t really lower inhibitions or impair judgement. It perhaps can allow one to be more assertive and confident in general. You could argue that it induces people to take more risks, but that is specious and I would argue rather that risk takers are more prone to take steroids–and do other things–rather than the reverse.