PeterBond
Member
Oh god, I'll get back to this, but how on earth did this even get published. This is an extremely poor study.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Steroid types and categories
- Thread starter TSud
- Start date
MrBombastic
New Member
That would be great. I look forward to learning. Thanks for taking the time. This is yet another reason that Meso is such an outstanding community compared to the full retard bro-science sites out there.
Type-IIx
Member
That study is ludicrously shitty compared to the methods used in the HAARLEM study.... But, ultrasound!!!
Can't wait for Dr. Bond to eviscerate it!
That guru has a tendency to link to screenshots of studies and not cite the material he uses (scummy and intentionally designed to avoid direct challenge). To be somewhat fair, the initial impression one gets from the literature from a CURSORY glance at results for the query "boldenone" is that it is a poor choice for food sources (e.g., broilers, rabbits).. sources provide some justifications for its being internationally banned in agricultural sources.
Maybe it is for humans as well... But he doesn't seem to have the bona fides to reason through the human applications.
I hope to, one day, have 1/5th the versatility of thinking about AAS that you do!
Can't wait for Dr. Bond to eviscerate it!
That guru has a tendency to link to screenshots of studies and not cite the material he uses (scummy and intentionally designed to avoid direct challenge). To be somewhat fair, the initial impression one gets from the literature from a CURSORY glance at results for the query "boldenone" is that it is a poor choice for food sources (e.g., broilers, rabbits).. sources provide some justifications for its being internationally banned in agricultural sources.
Maybe it is for humans as well... But he doesn't seem to have the bona fides to reason through the human applications.
I hope to, one day, have 1/5th the versatility of thinking about AAS that you do!
Well I take issue with the method as far as grouping. As usual, it is really early in the morning so I may be missing something, however:
Participants were divided
into three groups according to the scheme of steroid usage:
- Group 1 (n=8, intramuscular 500
mg testosterone enanthate, intramuscular 400 mg nandrolone decanoate and oral 40 mg
methandrostenolone for 12 weeks),
- Group 2 (n=7, intramuscular 500 mg testosterone
enanthate, intramuscular 300 mg nandrolone decanoate and intramuscular 300 mg boldenone
undecylenate for 16 weeks) and
- Group 3 (n=7, no steroid intake).
It wasn't just boldenone, it was boldenone with 500 mg test E and 300 mg deca. That could skew the results significantly.
So, while I have never tried EQ, I am skeptical of basing all my facts on this single study...the subjects receives a large dose of steroids in general.
Also, I am not seeing any figures showing in the downloaded copy, so it is really hard to tell the different in renal values are. Overall this study is some gardage. I don't even know why researchers waste their time on such poorly designed studies..
PeterBond
Member
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.)
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.)
MrBombastic
New Member
Yes, I wasn’t defending the paper. It’s just something that I’ve heard from several “gurus“, and I posted the first link I could find.
Thank you for your in-depth response, and for taking the time!
Type-IIx
Member
Thank you for this review! If you delve into boldenone and have very negative things to say, we'll know you're not an ax-grinder. I personally do think it's actually a low grade androgen but that it packs on mass. For example, Jano has said it's very frequently impure and/or contaminated. Look forward to reading more about what you have to say on the particular compound.
Similar threads
