Overall: the English is really poor, makes it a horrendous read and sometimes I'm unsure what's meant. This on its own should already be a red flag: good quality papers are written in proper English. (It's also a low-tier journal in which it's published.)
The authors write: "Data were collected prospectively during medical inspection form the steroid schema, diet lists, blood and spot urine tests and ultrasound results."
I'm not entirely sure what they mean by "during medical inspection form the steroid schema", but regardless, where is this data? I can only find data measured at a single point in time. There is no prospective data. Only measurements at the end of the 12th week are reported.
Either way: this is cross-sectional, not prospective.
There are 2 groups who self-administered AAS, they were not prescribed. How big is the chance that you're gonna find 8 people doing the exact same cycle A and 7 people doing the exact same cycle B to participate in your study? If it's just 500 mg testosterone, sure, with some effort. But:
Group 1 - 12 weeks of:
500 mg testosterone enanthate weekly
400 mg nandrolone decanoate weekly
40 mg methandienone daily
or Group 2 - 16 weeks of:
500 mg testosterone enanthate weekly
300 mg nandrolone decanoate weekly
300 mg boldenone undecylenate weekly
?
Moreover, they did not test the compounds of the participants. The black market AAS is full of crap. They only tested serum testosterone and gonadotropin values. The first was increased and the latter was suppressed. So all we know is that both groups took AAS, including testosterone. But other than that..? God knows.
And how were the participants recruited? This is not reported (sigh). For all we know the subjects in the boldenone group were a group of friends who had something else in common that gave them big kidneys...
The authors also write:
"Twenty two healthy, resistance-trained male volunteers who were using anabolic steroids and feeding with high-protein diets were included in the study."
There were 8 subjects in group 1, 7 in group 2, and another 7 in group 3 ('control'). Does this mean the control gorup also used anabolic steroids? But just not when the measurements were taken or something?
And:
"Testosterone levels were over 15ng/ml and FSH and LH levels were both below 0.100 mIU/ml in all subjects supporting depression of pituitary-gonadal axis."
So the subjects in the control group DID take testosterone?
General signs of sloppiness; kidney volume was calculated by "length x width x depth / 2". Why not multiply by pi / 6 instead of dividing by 2? Like the rest of the world does and how it should be done. It doesn't make that much difference in the end result, but why on earth would you make your calculations less accurate by simplifying a simplified formula even further?
The provided reference range for BUN is "0-38 mg/dL", it's not
The provided reference range for creatinine is "0-0.9 mg/dL", it's not
The parenchymal thickness measurements were either done wrong or the subjects in group 1 and 3 have an issue. Parenchymal thickness is usually between 15 and 20 mm (where the boldenone group fit in). The other groups had a parenchymal thickness of 12 mm.
The renal volumes of the other 2 groups are on the low end as well, although obviously not abnormal. (Group 2 kidney volume is indeed abnormal.)
Finally, if this study made you believe boldenone causes kidney damage, then you should also be inclined to think it causes a lot of weight gain. The boldenone group was 11 kg heavier than the other AAS group while sharing the same height (albeit that this large difference was not statistically significantly different from the other 2 groups).
"BuT BaSeLiNe MeAsUrEmEnTs WeRe NoT rEpOrTeD", exactly, neither were they for all kidney measurements.
You cannot possibly attribute an effect to a certain steroid in a cross-sectional study in which the participants self-adminstered AAS without testing the substances they administer. Let alone in a poorly done study like this one. (I have more comments about this paper, but jesus.)
