« Perfectionists | Main | The Horror »

Steroids, Gains and Costs

December 5, 2007 01:16 PM

From the New England Journal of Medicine comes this authoritative assessment of the benefits and costs of steroid use. Previous studies have had a number of faults in failing to control for caloric intake, dissimilar subjects, and so on. This study controls for the most important of these factors. I just want to highlight the quantitative measures of improvement in this table.

The subjects were about 28 years old and were experienced in weight training. They were around 5 feet 8 inches tall and had a body mass index of 24 to 26.


First note hormone profiles of the subjects under the four treatments: no exercise with placebo and testosterone, and exercise with placebo and with testosterone. With no treatment, their testosterone is in the mid to upper range around 500. The first finding is the drop in testosterone among the placebo group who did not exercise. Given that they were experienced lifters, the lack of exercise caused their testosterone to fall. Their free testosterone did not fall, though their SHBG did. This is not suppossed to happen according to the conventional free versus total T theory. But, we know that is flawed.

The exercise/no T group had an increase in T and an increase in Luteinizing hormone. The real news is the rise in T in the exercise with T injections group and the scary fall in Follicle Stimulating and Luteinizing hormones. The testicals of these guys are shutting down and their sex drive is plummeting. The sex hormone binding globulin falls substantially in both the groups of men who received T injections, another sign of emasculation.

Table3.jpg


So, the guys in the experiment who are receiving T injections are being emasculated. Are they getting bigger and stronger?

Snapshot%202007-12-04%2015-32-46.jpg

Yes, but not by so much. The exercise with T group gained, on average, 6 kilograms of lean body mass, just over 12 pounds. The exercise with no T group gained 2 kilograms of lean mass. The exercise with T group increased their bench press just a little more than the exercise only group. And their squat improved a bit more than the no T group, but they remained less strong. An odd aspect of the experiment is that the exercise/placebo group (no T) was quite a bit heavier than the exercise/testosterone group. They started out stronger and stayed that way through out the experiment. There is a possiblity that they were a more experienced, older group and that their slightly smaller gains compared to the T group are for that reason. At least some of the effect of T ought to be assigned to the difference in body mass among the groups.

So, is using testosterone, even under medical supervision, worth it? Are the slightly bigger, stronger, but emasculated guys who used testosterone more masculine at the end of the 10 week experiment than when they began? Oh, and did I mention 3 of the 10 test subjects on testosterone developed pain in their breasts. And, another 2 developed acne.


· Evolutionary Fitness ~ · Sports

Comments

Wilmorej -- The omega-3 fatty acids are in the brain and nerves, the omega-6 fatty acids are in organs like the heart and kidneys, the muscles are almost entirely saturated & monounsaturated fats in a 50-50 ratio, and those fats appear in all tissues abundantly.

People have worried about eating brains due to prions / mad cow disease. Cold water fish may be a less risky method, though brains were eaten by our hunter-gatherer ancestors.

If the meat is lean, just add oil. Olive oil works great.

Posted by: pj [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 6, 2007 6:36 PM

With all due respect, Dr. De Vany, I must disagree with some of the conclusions you draw from those figures.

First, the fact that the LH and FSH drop in testosterone groups merely shows that the body perceives high levels of testosterone and therefore is lowering is own production. The HTPA works on a negative feedback loop by which higher levels of T result in a corresponding decease in the body's urgency to make it. We would also expect to see lower LH and FSH values in males with naturally high T (e.g., 1000 ng/dl). This does not mean that these men have no sex drive. High LH and FSH values are not necessarily a good thing. Often it can be quite the opposite, in fact. Moreover, a drop in LH and FSH can be mitigated by combining hCG with exogenous testosterone use.

Second, the men are not being emasculated in the sense that they look and feel feminine. They are in the sense that their testicles are shrinking and less effective. But I'm sure these men are more muscular and have higher sex drives than the non-testosterone groups.

Third, as you note, the SHBG dropped in both testosterone groups. This is a good thing. Although you disagree, it is clear that the less SHBG circulating, the less T that is tightly bound. The result is that more T is free to bind to tissue receptor sites. As you point out, the relationship between SHBG and T is not linear, but is definitely present. Thus, having high T and low SHBG is an ideal androgenic situation.

Finally, you made some reference to breast pain. I'm confident that this stems from gynocomastia or a disorder related to high estrogen. Without question, when testosterone is elevated to such extreme degrees, the body will convert some to estrogen. When T is that high, even a small amount being converted to E will result in abnormally high levels of E in men. Hence the gyno. The question is what would have happened if these men were using substances to prevent the T from being converted to E through aromatase activity.

In sum, this is not a fair comparison. When administered by a knowledgeable professional, testosterone combined with estrogen lowering substances and hCG will result in very high levels of androgenic hormones with a corresponding increase in sex drive, muscle mass, and a sense of well being. I dare say nothing natural can match that.

Posted by: EIC [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 6, 2007 4:27 PM

I am struggling with a "healthy fats" issue: here in the Midwest, there are very few types of high omega-3 fatty fish available, so I am looking at an alternative source, namely grass-fed (or naturally raised) beef, chicken, turkey, pork, lamb and goat. One of local farmers appears to be willing to grind up all of the edible parts of the animal(s) to make patties. This would seem to provide a food source that would closely approximate the food available to our ancestors. I assume the omega 3/omega 6 ratios would be good for this type of meat, but haven't been able to find a good analysis of it on the web. I also would worry about excess protein, since these are pretty lean animals. Any thoughts out there?

Posted by: wilmorej [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 6, 2007 2:28 PM

I just read the following text in Runners's World; it boils down to that you don't need to take anti oxidants to increase your lifespan if you're eating low carb:
"Treatment of nematodes with different antioxidants and vitamins prevents extension of life span"
Glucose Restriction Extends Caenorhabditis elegans Life Span by Inducing Mitochondrial Respiration and Increasing Oxidative Stress
Summary
Increasing cellular glucose uptake is a fundamental concept in treatment of type 2 diabetes, whereas nutritive calorie restriction increases life expectancy. We show here that increased glucose availability decreases Caenorhabditis elegans life span, while impaired glucose metabolism extends life expectancy by inducing mitochondrial respiration. The histone deacetylase Sir2.1 is found here to be dispensable for this phenotype, whereas disruption of aak-2, a homolog of AMP-dependent kinase (AMPK), abolishes extension of life span due to impaired glycolysis. Reduced glucose availability promotes formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), induces catalase activity, and increases oxidative stress resistance and survival rates, altogether providing direct evidence for a hitherto hypothetical concept named mitochondrial hormesis or “mitohormesis.” Accordingly, treatment of nematodes with different antioxidants and vitamins prevents extension of life span. In summary, these data indicate that glucose restriction promotes mitochondrial metabolism, causing increased ROS formation and cumulating in hormetic extension of life span, questioning current treatments of type 2 diabetes as well as the widespread use of antioxidant supplements."

surf to and I am interested what you think: http://www.cellmetabolism.org/content/article/abstract?uid=PIIS1550413107002562

Posted by: Oerloper [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 6, 2007 6:05 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?