Jump to content

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, HokieHWT said:

The amount of naïveté on these boards is astounding. Personally, I believe his story, it lines up perfectly with what the results and doctors stated.

Sorry to break it to you all BUT most of your sports heroes, took something at least once in their lives. Just think about this for a moment, andro, what Sosa, McGwyer, and Bonds took...was sold at GNC up until the early 2000s. ANYONE could buy it. Anyone. And guess what?! Most did. Then, in the early age of the internet, you could still buy it online.

You can google any steroid you want, right now, and have it delivered to you home via FedEX or UPS and it will never be searched, only USPS does that.

So the board is incredibly naive, but most of our sports heroes took something, but also you believe Fix?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jchapman said:

 

Ok, this old biology and chemistry major will try to dust off his brain...

Oral steroids are very tough on the liver, as they pass through the liver before finding their way to target tissue.  Injectable steroids has a wide array of known side effects owing to the fact that they are not specific to one type of tissue.  Some of these unwanted effects include up-regulating liver protein sysnthesis and decreasing HDL cholesterol, both of which are secondarily bad for the liver.  SARMs are peptides, not steroids, and if taken oraly will not pass through the liver on their way to target tissue.  And, specific SARMs are selective for specific tissue, such as skeletal muscle.  They can avoid effects on the rest of the body.  This is why there is so much interest in them.

Except ostarine isn’t a peptide or a steroid.  I think most SARMs aren’t peptides either. These were being administered orally, so should absolutely be subject to liver toxicity. I think injectable drugs are as well, just to a lesser extent. The liver metabolizes most drugs that we take, and liver toxicity is one of the main things that kills many drug candidates.  I would be extremely worried taking something like ostarine regularly, since it is not approved for human consumption and has not gone through proper testing. 
 

Here is a link that said SARMs can cause liver damage.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7049679/
 

 

Edited by Billyhoyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Billyhoyle said:

Except ostarine isn’t a peptide or a steroid.  I think most SARMs aren’t peptides either. These were being administered orally, so should absolutely be subject to liver toxicity. I think injectable drugs are as well, just to a lesser extent. The liver metabolizes most drugs that we take, and liver toxicity is one of the main things that kills many drug candidates.  I would be extremely worried taking something like ostarine regularly, since it is not approved for human consumption and has not gone through proper testing. 
 

Here is a link that said SARMs can cause liver damage.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7049679/
 

 

It's all relative.  There may be liver damage with SARMs.  It's just that theoretically there is a chance they will not do as much harm as steroids.  I personally would not take them, nor would I want my sons to take them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jchapman said:

It's all relative.  There may be liver damage with SARMs.  It's just that theoretically there is a chance they will not do as much harm as steroids.  I personally would not take them, nor would I want my sons to take them.

I also found it interesting at the end of that study where they call into question the selectivtivity for specific tissue.

"These off‐target effects question the so‐called tissue selectivity of SARMs, which has been their main selling point."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, jchapman said:

It's all relative.  There may be liver damage with SARMs.  It's just that theoretically there is a chance they will not do as much harm as steroids.  I personally would not take them, nor would I want my sons to take them.

But would you leave it in an unmarked bottle in the fridge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, jchapman said:

It's all relative.  There may be liver damage with SARMs.  It's just that theoretically there is a chance they will not do as much harm as steroids.  I personally would not take them, nor would I want my sons to take them.

Why would they theoretically cause less liver damage than steroids? As I explained, they are administered orally and metabolized by the liver. They could just as easily cause more liver damage-the fact that they are orally administered means more of the drug may be filtered by the liver compared to injectable steroids, so if anything id be more worried rather than less.  Most importantly though, they are not allowed for human consumption, so the safety data is unknown (to my knowledge) in a large trial setting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Billyhoyle said:

Why would they theoretically cause less liver damage than steroids? As I explained, they are administered orally and metabolized by the liver. They could just as easily cause more liver damage-the fact that they are orally administered means more of the drug may be filtered by the liver compared to injectable steroids, so if anything id be more worried rather than less.  Most importantly though, they are not allowed for human consumption, so the safety data is unknown (to my knowledge) in a large trial setting. 

I'm admittedly outside my area of expertise here.  I was under the impression that: A) oral steroids are tough on the liver because they are methylated to increase bio availability, but because of this they make several passes through the liver.  B) Steroids (injectable or oral)  can be bad for the liver because they don't discriminate tissues, including liver  C)  SARMs have the potential for decent bio availability without methylation and therefore don't make multiple passes through the liver.  D) SARMs have the potential to select anabolic effects specifically on muscle and bone, without targeting all tissues, including liver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2020 at 2:02 PM, jchapman said:

I'm admittedly outside my area of expertise here.  I was under the impression that: A) oral steroids are tough on the liver because they are methylated to increase bio availability, but because of this they make several passes through the liver.  B) Steroids (injectable or oral)  can be bad for the liver because they don't discriminate tissues, including liver  C)  SARMs have the potential for decent bio availability without methylation and therefore don't make multiple passes through the liver.  D) SARMs have the potential to select anabolic effects specifically on muscle and bone, without targeting all tissues, including liver.

Methylation of what functional group?  I don't understand what you are talking about there-something being methylated in itself doesn't really mean much. Ostarine and steroids are two completely different types of molecules in terms of structure.  These things have to be tested to determine toxicity, and the liver toxicity is going to be separate from their function as drugs.  Every drug you take, especially when taken orally, is going to be metabolized by the liver-this is why liver toxicity studies are always such a critical part of drug development.  So if you want to say anything about SARM liver toxicity you need to actually find a study on it-you can't just make an assumption.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Billyhoyle said:

Methylation of what functional group?  I don't understand what you are talking about there-something being methylated in itself doesn't really mean much. Ostarine and steroids are two completely different types of molecules in terms of structure.  These things have to be tested to determine toxicity, and the liver toxicity is going to be separate from their function as drugs.  Every drug you take, especially when taken orally, is going to be metabolized by the liver-this is why liver toxicity studies are always such a critical part of drug development.  So if you want to say anything about SARM liver toxicity you need to actually find a study on it-you can't just make an assumption.  

I’m clearly not saying it.  I’m saying this is the theory.  SARMs have not been extensively studied.  
 

methylated steroids (at C17) have been studied extensively, and they are very hard on the liver.  

Edited by jchapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2020 at 10:09 AM, jchapman said:

 

Ok, this old biology and chemistry major will try to dust off his brain...

Oral steroids are very tough on the liver, as they pass through the liver before finding their way to target tissue.  Injectable steroids has a wide array of known side effects owing to the fact that they are not specific to one type of tissue.  Some of these unwanted effects include up-regulating liver protein sysnthesis and decreasing HDL cholesterol, both of which are secondarily bad for the liver.  SARMs are peptides, not steroids, and if taken oraly will not pass through the liver on their way to target tissue.  And, specific SARMs are selective for specific tissue, such as skeletal muscle.  They can avoid effects on the rest of the body.  This is why there is so much interest in them.

To be clear - I am not making this up.  I'm an engineer, no medical background.  What I read was that at "Body building" dosage , i.e. >20MG / day the anecdotal effects include jaundice and liver damage almost immediately, in some self-reported cases.   The clinical dosage for Wasting in cancer patients was 1-3 MG / day. 

The concept sounds very interesting.  I expect the devil and damage is in the details.  I'm going to stay a little chunky for now. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TFBJR said:

To be clear - I am not making this up.  I'm an engineer, no medical background.  What I read was that at "Body building" dosage , i.e. >20MG / day the anecdotal effects include jaundice and liver damage almost immediately, in some self-reported cases.   The clinical dosage for Wasting in cancer patients was 1-3 MG / day. 

The concept sounds very interesting.  I expect the devil and damage is in the details.  I'm going to stay a little chunky for now. 

 

What you have read is probably correct if it is an actual study. The paragraph you quoted about SARMs being less harmful because they are peptides is inaccurate-they are absolutely not peptides. 

 

9 hours ago, jchapman said:

I’m clearly not saying it.  I’m saying this is the theory.  SARMs have not been extensively studied.  
 

methylated steroids (at C17) have been studied extensively, and they are very hard on the liver.  

Ok but steroids being methylated has nothing to do with whether SARMs are more or less harmful. The reality is neither you nor I know which is worse and the points you have made don’t make sense and don’t suggest anything either way. If you find a study that shows Ostarine does not cause liver toxicity at the 20-25 dose, that would be the basis for suggesting they may be less harmful. Not incorrectly calling them peptides or randomly pointing out that steroids can be methylated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Billyhoyle said:

What you have read is probably correct if it is an actual study. The paragraph you quoted about SARMs being less harmful because they are peptides is inaccurate-they are absolutely not peptides. 

 

Ok but steroids being methylated has nothing to do with whether SARMs are more or less harmful. The reality is neither you nor I know which is worse and the points you have made don’t make sense and don’t suggest anything either way. If you find a study that shows Ostarine does not cause liver toxicity at the 20-25 dose, that would be the basis for suggesting they may be less harmful. Not incorrectly calling them peptides or randomly pointing out that steroids can be methylated. 

What part of “in theory” don’t you understand?  
 

Just because my points don’t make sense to you doesn’t mean they don’t make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jchapman said:

What part of “in theory” don’t you understand?  
 

Just because my points don’t make sense to you doesn’t mean they don’t make sense.

This isn’t a discussion about whether “wrestler A” is better than “wrestler B” where you have your opinion and I have mine. You are making an argument about drug toxicity that makes zero scientific sense-I’m sorry to break it to you. You are using scientific words like “peptides” and “methylation,” but it’s clear you don’t know what you are talking about because neither apply to the question of whether Ostarine has liver toxicity. You say SARMs won’t pass through the liver if taken orally-what are you basing that claim off of? The liver metabolizes the drugs we take, especially if taken orally. Many drugs show liver toxicity-it’s a huge problem in drug development.
 

We already know that steroids are rough on the liver-that’s not in question. The question is whether SARMs are as well. They very well may be less harmful, but it has nothing to do with the points you have made, and to suggest this we need to see a study. 

Edited by Billyhoyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Billyhoyle said:

This isn’t a discussion about whether “wrestler A” is better than “wrestler B” where you have your opinion and I have mine. You are making an argument about drug toxicity that makes zero scientific sense-I’m sorry to break it to you. You are using scientific words like “peptides” and “methylation,” but it’s clear you don’t know what you are talking about because neither apply to the question of whether Ostarine has liver toxicity. You say SARMs won’t pass through the liver if taken orally-what are you basing that claim off of? The liver metabolizes the drugs we take, especially if taken orally. Many drugs show liver toxicity-it’s a huge problem in drug development.
 

We already know that steroids are rough on the liver-that’s not in question. The question is whether SARMs are as well. They very well may be less harmful, but it has nothing to do with the points you have made, and to suggest this we need to see a study. 

“methylation,”  is particularly scientific.  I had to look it up.  I also had to look up the exact role the liver plays in digestion.  You guys need to keep this discussion going.  I'm learning stuff! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Billyhoyle said:

What you have read is probably correct if it is an actual study. The paragraph you quoted about SARMs being less harmful because they are peptides is inaccurate-they are absolutely not peptides. 

 

Ok but steroids being methylated has nothing to do with whether SARMs are more or less harmful. The reality is neither you nor I know which is worse and the points you have made don’t make sense and don’t suggest anything either way. If you find a study that shows Ostarine does not cause liver toxicity at the 20-25 dose, that would be the basis for suggesting they may be less harmful. Not incorrectly calling them peptides or randomly pointing out that steroids can be methylated. 

Wasn't me  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...