5 ms·

The broscientist bodybuilders are wrong about almost everything they think they know about performance enhancing drugs. Also, to the degree endocrinologists and

by bedobi 6y ago

The broscientist bodybuilders are wrong about almost everything they think they know about performance enhancing drugs. Also, to the degree endocrinologists and doctors in general don't "know" about tren, dbol or what have you, it's because overwhelmingly those drugs aren't used or even approved for use in medicine and never have been.

perardi 6y ago
I have to disagree a bit. There have been plenty of laypeople who have advanced the general knowledge of anabolics for purposes of abuse. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Duchaine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Duchaine But: I’d be scared if I had a doctor who know anything about tren. Trenbolone was never approved for humans. It’s for making thicc cows. In fact, if your doctor does know about tren, check the diploma on the wall, because your HMO might have actually put you with a veterinarian to save money. (But then you might be able to score trenbolone and ketamine from that vet. Hmm. Ideas…)
- bedobi 6y ago
  It's kind of semantics but I guess it depends on the definition of "knowledge". I happily agree bro scientist bodybuilders have advanced our knowledge of performance enhancing drugs in some ways, if nothing else by simply abusing the drugs and observing their effects on body composition, blood markers etc. But most of that knowledge was already available from the clinical trials or animal studies for the drugs anyway. And while the bro scientist bodybuilders like to think they know a lot about what's actually going on in the body, how to combine the drugs and ancilliaries etc etc, their understanding and resulting advice is very often overly simplistic or just wrong. It's unfortunate and kind of important because it demonstrably leads to people thinking they're making informed choices knowing about the risks etc, but still end up making preventable mistakes with potentially very severe consequences for their health and lives.
  - smsm42 6y ago
    > But most of that knowledge was already available from the clinical trials Why would there be clinical studies of a drug that is never intended for human use? Clinical studies are expensive, and no drug company would do human study on a veterinary drug just to see what happens (leaving alone ethical issues with getting study subjects). > animal studies for the drugs anyway. Animal studies only go so far...
    - bedobi 6y ago
      The drugs in question are absolutely intended and trialed for human use. It's just that they don't pass the approval process, or they did back in the 60s-80s, saw virtually no legitimate clinical use, and were discontinued.
nsajko 6y ago
> overwhelmingly those drugs aren't used or even approved for use in medicine and never have been I just went to the Wikipedia pages for Dianabol and Trenbolone, and it so happens that both substances were, in fact, used in medicine, but not any more. Well, in case of Trenbolone some kind of derivative or related substance was used medicinally it seems: trenbolone hexahydrobenzylcarbonate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metandienone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metandienone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trenbolone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trenbolone Also, if you're trying to say that anabolics are too harmful for anybody to use them, you're wrong. E.g., testosterone is used for all kinds of conditions, and would be used even more if not for the "fear" of it being used off-label: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone_(medication) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone_(medication) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone_(patch) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone_(patch) The other anabolics could likewise be used in a healthy manner (such that the beneficial effects outweigh the side effects) in certain cases, here's one study: https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/86/11/5108/2849115 https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/86/11/5108/2849115 In general I'd say these drugs fall into the same space as many psychoactive drugs, they were presumably banned so that certain subcultures could be criminalized and stigmatized (not that this stops all the body builders and actors and police officers from getting their AAS anyway), with the excuse that they have harmful side effects. This argument is irrational and based on an appeal to emotion, it ignores that drugs (like any other technology) can be both abused and used for good. > The broscientist bodybuilders are wrong about almost everything they think they know about performance enhancing drugs. I don't disagree, but, for the sake of the discussion, could you give an example?
- bedobi 6y ago
  Granted, Dianabol and Trenbolone were both approved for a time, but neither was ever really in meaningful widespread use for any legitimate medical purpose, which is in no small part why they are no longer approved. And there are lots of performance enhancing drugs that have straight up never been used at all or even approved for use. As far as anabolic steroids go the only one that is in relatively widespread legitimate use is testosterone (and even then, there's no doubt some people who go on TRT don't truly need to) and maybe Anavar for very niche conditions like burn victims and people with muscle wasting etc. As for how wrong broscientists are, some of the most obvious ones are how high they think the doses need to be, how they combine steroids from the same branch of the family tree for a "cycle", how they switch steroids halfway through a "cycle", how they think SHBG and estrogen are bad and deliberately wipe them out using ancillary drugs, how they think milk thistle and other nonsense supplements will "protect the liver", how bad their understanding of the HPTA and "PCT" is etc etc. I'm all for people being allowed to use many drugs that are currently illegal, but I also think both for recreational and performance enhancing drugs, there's a lot of people who think they know enough about them and that they're making informed choices knowing about the risks etc, but actually don't, and end up making preventable mistakes with potentially very severe consequences for their health and lives.

by bedobi 6y ago

perardi 6y ago

I have to disagree a bit. There have been plenty of laypeople who have advanced the general knowledge of anabolics for purposes of abuse. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Duchaine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Duchaine But: I’d be scared if I had a doctor who know anything about tren. Trenbolone was never approved for humans. It’s for making thicc cows. In fact, if your doctor does know about tren, check the diploma on the wall, because your HMO might have actually put you with a veterinarian to save money. (But then you might be able to score trenbolone and ketamine from that vet. Hmm. Ideas…)

bedobi 6y ago
It's kind of semantics but I guess it depends on the definition of "knowledge". I happily agree bro scientist bodybuilders have advanced our knowledge of performance enhancing drugs in some ways, if nothing else by simply abusing the drugs and observing their effects on body composition, blood markers etc. But most of that knowledge was already available from the clinical trials or animal studies for the drugs anyway. And while the bro scientist bodybuilders like to think they know a lot about what's actually going on in the body, how to combine the drugs and ancilliaries etc etc, their understanding and resulting advice is very often overly simplistic or just wrong. It's unfortunate and kind of important because it demonstrably leads to people thinking they're making informed choices knowing about the risks etc, but still end up making preventable mistakes with potentially very severe consequences for their health and lives.
- smsm42 6y ago
  > But most of that knowledge was already available from the clinical trials Why would there be clinical studies of a drug that is never intended for human use? Clinical studies are expensive, and no drug company would do human study on a veterinary drug just to see what happens (leaving alone ethical issues with getting study subjects). > animal studies for the drugs anyway. Animal studies only go so far...
  - bedobi 6y ago
    The drugs in question are absolutely intended and trialed for human use. It's just that they don't pass the approval process, or they did back in the 60s-80s, saw virtually no legitimate clinical use, and were discontinued.

nsajko 6y ago

> overwhelmingly those drugs aren't used or even approved for use in medicine and never have been I just went to the Wikipedia pages for Dianabol and Trenbolone, and it so happens that both substances were, in fact, used in medicine, but not any more. Well, in case of Trenbolone some kind of derivative or related substance was used medicinally it seems: trenbolone hexahydrobenzylcarbonate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metandienone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metandienone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trenbolone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trenbolone Also, if you're trying to say that anabolics are too harmful for anybody to use them, you're wrong. E.g., testosterone is used for all kinds of conditions, and would be used even more if not for the "fear" of it being used off-label: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone_(medication) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone_(medication) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone_(patch) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone_(patch) The other anabolics could likewise be used in a healthy manner (such that the beneficial effects outweigh the side effects) in certain cases, here's one study: https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/86/11/5108/2849115 https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/86/11/5108/2849115 In general I'd say these drugs fall into the same space as many psychoactive drugs, they were presumably banned so that certain subcultures could be criminalized and stigmatized (not that this stops all the body builders and actors and police officers from getting their AAS anyway), with the excuse that they have harmful side effects. This argument is irrational and based on an appeal to emotion, it ignores that drugs (like any other technology) can be both abused and used for good. > The broscientist bodybuilders are wrong about almost everything they think they know about performance enhancing drugs. I don't disagree, but, for the sake of the discussion, could you give an example?

bedobi 6y ago
Granted, Dianabol and Trenbolone were both approved for a time, but neither was ever really in meaningful widespread use for any legitimate medical purpose, which is in no small part why they are no longer approved. And there are lots of performance enhancing drugs that have straight up never been used at all or even approved for use. As far as anabolic steroids go the only one that is in relatively widespread legitimate use is testosterone (and even then, there's no doubt some people who go on TRT don't truly need to) and maybe Anavar for very niche conditions like burn victims and people with muscle wasting etc. As for how wrong broscientists are, some of the most obvious ones are how high they think the doses need to be, how they combine steroids from the same branch of the family tree for a "cycle", how they switch steroids halfway through a "cycle", how they think SHBG and estrogen are bad and deliberately wipe them out using ancillary drugs, how they think milk thistle and other nonsense supplements will "protect the liver", how bad their understanding of the HPTA and "PCT" is etc etc. I'm all for people being allowed to use many drugs that are currently illegal, but I also think both for recreational and performance enhancing drugs, there's a lot of people who think they know enough about them and that they're making informed choices knowing about the risks etc, but actually don't, and end up making preventable mistakes with potentially very severe consequences for their health and lives.