Michael scally liver suggestion

And the studies that show UDCA just masking liver damage without actually preventing/reversing it, and in some cases accelerating it? Honestly the stuff kind of scares me.

My liver is a champ so I don't sweat it that much, but I really feel like the best coarse of action is just minimizing intake, and if you're the type of person who's liver enzymes hit the roof with orals; you should probably just jab all your juice. There's always TNE.

I'm more scare of tren than I'm scare of winstrol. You know how many trenbolone metabolites you can identify in the human body? 3: trendione, epi trenbolone and...TRENBOLONE [:o)]..that tells you something. I've seen more than enough research indicating trenbolone to be just as hepatotoxic as any other. Hepatotoxicity has nothing to do with 17alfa alkylation, it's about metabolic resistance. 17alfa alkylation is just one way to induce metabolic resistance on an androgen. Your body don't wanna fuck with tren once it gets in you.

Unless of course you're referring to TESTOSTERONE no ester? OUCH Pinning straight powder right in my ass? I pass.
 
Life Extension Retail - Magazine Article Detail

The seed extract of the common milk thistle, rich in silymarin and its active component, silybin, has now been thoroughly proven to mitigate and, in some cases, reverse liver damage. These compounds have efficacy in liver disease caused by alcohol, by diet and inactivity, by viruses, and by exogenous toxins. They can slow the deadly progression to cirrhosis, the end-stage of all liver diseases.

Researchers have found that when silybin is combined with phosphatidylcholine, the absorption and bioavailability of an oral dose of silybin is increased 10-fold.11 This breakthrough improves the delivery of the benefits of milk thistle extracts for liver health.

Silybin and the liver: From basic research to clinical practice

http://www.liversupport.com/Studies.htm

http://www.enzysante.be/resources/chardon-marie.pdf
Silybin and Silymarin – New and Emerging Applications in Medicine

http://www.altmedrev.com/publications/10/3/193.pdf
A Review of the Bioavailability and Clinical Efficacy of Milk Thistle Phytosome: A Silybin-Phosphatidylcholine Complex
 
Life Extension Retail - Magazine Article Detail

The seed extract of the common milk thistle, rich in silymarin and its active component, silybin, has now been thoroughly proven to mitigate and, in some cases, reverse liver damage. These compounds have efficacy in liver disease caused by alcohol, by diet and inactivity, by viruses, and by exogenous toxins. They can slow the deadly progression to cirrhosis, the end-stage of all liver diseases.

Researchers have found that when silybin is combined with phosphatidylcholine, the absorption and bioavailability of an oral dose of silybin is increased 10-fold.11 This breakthrough improves the delivery of the benefits of milk thistle extracts for liver health.

Silybin and the liver: From basic research to clinical practice

http://www.liversupport.com/Studies.htm

http://www.enzysante.be/resources/chardon-marie.pdf
Silybin and Silymarin – New and Emerging Applications in Medicine

http://www.altmedrev.com/publications/10/3/193.pdf
A Review of the Bioavailability and Clinical Efficacy of Milk Thistle Phytosome: A Silybin-Phosphatidylcholine Complex

I'm aware of that one, I just thing udca/ tudca being naturally occurring would , hopefully, provide more bang for the buck for preventative measures
 
I'm aware of that one, I just thing udca/ tudca being naturally occurring would , hopefully, provide more bang for the buck for preventative measures

Its benefits in patients suffering from biliary cirrhosis and it improvement in choleostasis are more than enough anecdotal evidence for me to consider udca more than prudent when it comes to liver support , function and treatment, The reason that we cannot attribute direct cases due to aas use where it made a difference it obvious but so are the positive effects udca has on the liver in other circumstances. To assume these positive effects would miraculously not occur due to aas administration is not prudent imo. Yeah no direct case studies but enough anecdotal and solid evidence of these positive effects on liver ( as well as kidney function when it comes to NAC) make it foolish imo to dismiss them as useless. Sadly in this game we have to rely on some speculation until science catches up. Hell in the case of NAC its conversion to glutathione, an extremely powerful anti oxidant and the benefits that come along with its administration OUTSIDE of liver protection and function make it a prudent staple supplement choice...and I am far from a supp junkie. In fact I have been banned from more forums for trashing garbage supps than I can even count or recall.
 
What you mean doc? I get the Zane look from tribulus terrestris :p
When it comes to marketing , that's the funny part...the names of the supplements..super pump maxx extreme? what?? [:o)]
 
And, that is what makes the Multi-Billion $ supplement industry.

Marketing, NOT Evidence!!!

Well its pretty hard to collect evidence from the scientific and medical community on people taking what they consider obscene amounts of exogenous hormones. No one will run a study that way and case studies are few and far between where the circumstances exactly match. I agree most supps are garbage but I do feel some bear looking into. Im starting a cycle now...perhaps ill do more blood work than normal and see if I can, for myself , see any benefit in my liver enzymes from using the above mentioned supps. I mean in the case of these 2 substances its not like the medical community does not make use of them for liver issues already..they do. That in and of itself elevates them over the grass clippings most supp companies sell and claim work wonders when it comes to at least considering their potential benefit.
 
What about Sulfasalazine aka. "Livercure" from IP & Mao?

http://www.liversupport.com/wordpress/2008/03/sulfasalazine%e2%80%99s-potential-for-reversing-fibrosi/
 
Intercept Announces NASH Primary Endpoint Met: FLINT Trial Stopped Early for Efficacy Based on Highly Statistically Significant Improvement in Liver Histology
http://ir.interceptpharma.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=818119

NEW YORK, Jan. 9, 2014 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq:ICPT) (Intercept) today announced that the FLINT trial of obeticholic acid (OCA) for the treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) has been stopped early for efficacy based on a planned interim analysis showing that the primary endpoint of the trial has been met. FLINT is a multi-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial assessing the safety and efficacy of a 25 mg oral dose of OCA administered daily to biopsy-proven adult NASH patients over a 72-week treatment period. The trial has been sponsored and conducted by the National Institute of Diabetes & Digestive & Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), a part of the National Institutes of Health, at eight leading US academic hepatology centers comprising the NIDDK's NASH clinical research network (CRN).


NASH is a serious chronic liver disease caused by excessive fat accumulation in the liver that, for reasons that are still incompletely understood, induces chronic inflammation which leads to progressive fibrosis (scarring) that can lead to cirrhosis, eventual liver failure and death. There are currently no drugs approved for the treatment of NASH. Studies have shown that over a ten year period at least 10% of NASH patients will develop cirrhosis, and liver-related mortality due to this disease is ten-fold that of the general population. According to recent epidemiological studies, it is estimated that approximately 12% of the U.S. adult population has NASH, while 2.7% (potentially more than six million patients) are believed to have advanced liver fibrosis or cirrhosis due to progression of the disease. The proportion of liver transplants attributable to NASH has increased rapidly in past years and over the next decade the disease is projected to become the leading indication for liver transplant ahead of chronic hepatitis C and alcoholic liver disease.
 
NIH Says Patients on Intercept Drug Had More 'Bad' Cholesterol
Patients in Clinical Trial Also Showed Improvements in Their Liver Health
NIH Says Patients on Intercept Liver Drug Had More 'Bad' Cholesterol - WSJ.com

Patients who received Intercept Pharmaceuticals Inc. ICPT +61.61% 's experimental liver-disease drug in a clinical trial experienced more abnormal cholesterol levels than those taking a placebo, in addition to improvements in their liver health, according to the National Institutes of Health.

Patients taking the drug had "disproportionate lipid abnormalities"—including worsened cholesterol levels—compared with patients who received a placebo in the 283-person study, according to the NIH. The NIH's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases provided the information in a written statement sent to The Wall Street Journal Friday after the markets closed.

The NIH, which sponsored the clinical trial, said it was releasing the information to give "broader context for the findings" of the trial.

Intercept on Thursday said the trial was halted early after patients taking the drug, obeticholic acid, or OCA, showed a "highly statistically significant improvement" in measures of liver health versus placebo.

That news caused Intercept's stock to soar by 516% over the past two days, from $72.39 at Wednesday's close to $445.83 at Friday's close on the Nasdaq Stock Market. At the end of the week, the New York-based startup sported a market valuation of $8.6 billion, up from $1.4 billion Wednesday.

In a phone interview Friday, Intercept Chief Executive Mark Pruzanski said Intercept also received a statement from the NIH after the market's close Friday about lipid abnormalities. He said earlier in the week, before Intercept announced the positive clinical trial results, the NIH told the company that patients taking the drug had experienced "lipid effects," but the NIH didn't provide any detail.

When Intercept announced the positive study results in a statement Thursday, "we had no concrete data with respect to lipids," Dr. Pruzanski said. "All they gave us that was concrete that we could comment on was the level of statistical significance that was the basis for the decision to stop the study early for efficacy," he said.

In its written statement Friday to The Wall Street Journal, the NIH confirmed that treatment with OCA in the study was stopped early because an interim analysis showed the drug had a "significant beneficial effect on liver damage" in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, or NASH. The disease, estimated to affect 2% to 5% of Americans, involves fat accumulation in the liver that can cause inflammation and lead to more serious liver conditions.

The NIH described the lipid abnormalities as "increased total cholesterol," with increased low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, also known as LDL or "bad cholesterol," and decreased high-density lipoprotein, or HDL, also known as "good cholesterol." Elevated LDL is considered to be a risk factor for heart disease while decreased HDL also is a risk factor.

Dr. Pruzanski said previous studies have shown that OCA can raise lipid levels, and that the company is studying these effects. He said the results of some of this research are publicly available on Intercept's website. "It's very public that our drug, among other things, impacts lipid metabolism," he said.

The NIH said while treatment is being stopped early, "the study is not over." The NIH will continue to collect information on patients until they complete their final follow-up visit 24 weeks after stopping the study drug, including on whether the "lipid problems" return to levels before patients started treatment. Lipid abnormalities are common in people with NASH, according to the NIH.

The NIH said it would make additional information available when the trial is complete and all data have been analyzed and presented to the broader scientific community, which it said would happen in 10 to 12 months.
 
Here's an example of liver protective supplements outperforming an expensive pharmaceutical.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/09/13/most-epic-drug-failure.aspx
A conservative triple antioxidant approach to the treatment of hepatitis C. Combination of alpha lipoic acid (thioctic acid), silymarin, and seleni... - PubMed - NCBI

Taurine is probably a good one to take if you're taking oral steroids as it does increase bile secretion and there are studies showing it reversing fatty liver, improving blood lipids and is a factor in muscle growth.

Also there's a lot of evidence that turmeric extracts can be helpful to prevent liver damage.

Maybe some some of the medical professionals here would be interested in running a study on the effect liver protective supplements on people taking dbol or some shit like that.
 
I dunno I read all this and that about things doing nothing then I see that certain substances are used in the medical community for treating various liver issues (albeit them not aas induced hepatic damage) so I personally decide to incorporate them when I am in a situation with elevated liver enzymes and on cycle to prevent this from occurring.
Now I am just one guy and the effect on one person means little to nothing, I have no proper "controls" in place etc....so no way can I say definitively that my supplement choices work. I will say this, when much liver damage is caused by aas induced choleostasis and the things I am about to mention PREVENT or reverse choleostasis in my mind that made them obvious worthwhile choices to at least try.
First off I like NAC for prevention. Now my liver enzymes elevate every cycle always have, orals included or not, just more so when I incorporate orals. Since I have begun supplementing with NAC on cycle I have seen, in my blood work, that on almost all cycles my liver enzymes are either within range or elevated slightly, so slightly that it is not of concern to me. This says to me NAC is doing something. Now understand I feel that NAC is a good, safe supplement regardless. It converts to the powerful anti oxidant glutathione in the body and is a good general health supp IMO anyway so I have no prob taking it at 1200mgs/day on cycle. I also take it for general health puposes at a dose of 600mg/day all the time (off cycle & pct).
This brings me to UDCA. Now the cycles where NAC didnt cut it, (btw both included orals) I decided to try UDCA. Now UDCA is used in the medical community to treat primary biliary cirrhosis. Now it is not 100% clear on the effectiveness of this sup for those NOT suffering from that condition however UDCA seems to induce a reduction in the markers associated with this disease, coincidentally some of the same markers we take issue with when we are looking at aas induced hepatic stress. So anyway, when NAC didnt prevent the elevation of liver enzymes from going high and out of range to the point where a red flag was raised I began taking UDCA at a dose of 250mg/day. I continued my NAC administration at a dose of 1200mgs/day as well. Within weeks my liver enzymes were, once again, back within range.
Coincidence, very possibly. I have no controls in lace, no scientific data, nothing to show for certain that these 2 supplements work OTHER THAN my pre, during and post administration blood work.
In NAC's case I have a good bit of blood work from numerous cycles showing that my liver enzymes remained within clinically normal range or close enough that I was not concerned when previous to its use that was never the case.
In the case of UDCA, when NAC alone did not prevent my liver enzymes from elevating to the point of concern (2 occasions) within weeks of using UDCA my liver enzymes were , once again, back in range.
Now is the explanation for this merely time or some other factors? I do not know but when I look at the big picture and see the uses and effects these 2 compounds exhibit within the medical community as far as effects on the liver and its function and overall heath markers, and the effect they had on me in my specific circumstances (ones shared by most all of us using aas), I do not find it a stretch for me to personally feel these compounds are of use. They certainly appear to be for me, or you know what maybe not. Maybe its coincidence or other factors but you know what considering NAC is a good overall general health supplement and powerful anti oxidant with no deleterious effects and UDCA is something I rarely ever need but appears to be safe in the short time periods and dosage within which I use it, I will roll the dice and continue to use these compounds for this hotly debated topic.
Do I KNOW they work for sure? Well they sure as hell seem to for me based on as much as I can do to make that determination but can I make the blanket statement that they are the answer for liver protection or treatment based on what would be considered sound scientific method - no.
Are they safe? Yes
Will I run a cycle without NAC in the future- no I take it everyday anyway I just increase the dose on cycle.
Would I hesitate to use UDCA in the event my liver enzymes got to a place where I feel they need be addressed despite my NAC usage- no I wouldnt.
I see a lot of crap with unsound broscience spouted off supporting various liver supps and much more all over the place in this lifestyle. That being said the ancillary uses for these compounds (NAC & UDCA) within the medical community combined with their inarguable positive effect on certain scenarios that are known to be detrimental to the liver (ie choleostasis), stacked on top of my personal blood work that seems to indicate for me at least they are providing some positive benefit is enough for me to continue their use and also to share my above experience with anyone who asks me a question about liver supps etc.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top