Reuters - There is little evidence to suggest that using anabolic steroids...

[Silent Method]

Re: Re: Reuters - There is little evidence to suggest that using anabolic steroids...

That's a confusing statement. There really isn't that much evidence that "using anabolic steroids alone promotes an increase in muscle strength in adult males" they only cause slight gains in lean mass. But, when combined with appropriate diet and exercise we all know what they do. Was it the intention of the article to say that, or did the article go on to argue that steroids were a useless adjunct?

I agree it is a shitily written statement. It does add "in adult males with development due to appropriate diet and exercise." I take this to mean that they say AAS does not increse strength in guys who train and eat appropriately.

Originally posted by Nelson Montana
You mean a reference of a conducted study posted on the internet turned out to be innacurate? How can that be?

Worse. No reference was even given to any study.

 

[nadr7891]

"There is little evidence to suggest that using anabolic steroids alone promotes an increase in muscle strength in adult males with development due to appropriate diet and exercise."
I see the folks at Reuters are at the top of their game.

what does this even mean? i've read this sentence 10 times and i still don't understand it. does Reuters not use "grammar check" before they release something?

Nadr

 

[The_Eviscerator]

The incorrect study was from the 70's, the Internet (defined as networks using TCP/IP) didn't officially come to life until Jan 1st 1983. Everything posted on the Internet remains gospel.

Amen brother... All hail the Internet and Al Gore for bringing us unsurpassed knowledge that is always 100% true!

By the way, I have a 14" penis... it is written on the internet and so shall it be known as a fact!

 

[stonecold54]

"There is little evidence to suggest that using anabolic steroids alone promotes an increase in muscle strength in adult males with development due to appropriate diet and exercise."

I see the folks at Reuters are at the top of their game.

I think they might be trying to say that steroid without diet and training are worthless. if that is what they are implying then I would have to say "NO SHIT". seems like they are with the rest of the population as far as thinking that steroids are a magic bullet.

 

[Spidey]

You mean a reference of a conducted study posted on the internet turned out to be innacurate? How can that be?

LOL Nelson; good one.

However, I think any scientist will tell you that there are serious flaws in many published studies. In the one quoted above, for instance, they only used 50 to 80 mg test a week and did not follow an appropriate diet or training routine. How much do you think the test helped those test subjects? Probably not much if anything at all. They apparently did not do a dose escalation study in order to find the most appropriate dose to begin with. With scientific studies, you have to separate the "chaff from the wheat".

One of the facets of being a scientist is to learn to think critically. Read every study with a critical eye and try to find inconsistencies and flaws. Did they do the correct controls? Do their conclusions logically follow from the data presented? It is true that there are serious flaws in some published studies that even invalidate the results in some cases. On the other hand, there are also well done studies that have solid data and have done the neccessary controls where the conclusion follows logically from the data presented. It is the reader's job to determine which kind of study they are reading.

 

[pharmguy]

it must be placebo effect then......

 

[Nelson Montana]

LOL Nelson; good one.

However, I think any scientist will tell you that there are serious flaws in many published studies. In the one quoted above, for instance, they only used 50 to 80 mg test a week and did not follow an appropriate diet or training routine. How much do you think the test helped those test subjects? Probably not much if anything at all. They apparently did not do a dose escalation study in order to find the most appropriate dose to begin with. With scientific studies, you have to separate the "chaff from the wheat".

One of the facets of being a scientist is to learn to think critically. Read every study with a critical eye and try to find inconsistencies and flaws. Did they do the correct controls? Do their conclusions logically follow from the data presented? It is true that there are serious flaws in some published studies that even invalidate the results in some cases. On the other hand, there are also well done studies that have solid data and have done the neccessary controls where the conclusion follows logically from the data presented. It is the reader's job to determine which kind of study they are reading.

Exactly my point. But evaluation of studies is rarely executed. I'd say 98% of the studies posted on this very board are so flimsy, they're essentially worthless yet they're presented as fact.

Also, there has to be a FIRST reference, doesn't there? Who do the first resarchers reference? In other words, when Sir Issac Newton discovered gravity, what were his references?

Seriously, I'm familiar with the steroid studies and yes, in some cases the dosages were too low and in other cases they tested ahletic ability. Obviously being juiced isn't going to make you more skillful at hitting a baseball. But if you do hit it, it's going to go a lot farther.

(One reason why Sammy Sosa isn't entitled to carry Mickey Mantles jock strap. But I digress).

 

[Spidey]

Exactly my point. But evaluation of studies is rarely executed. I'd say 98% of the studies posted on this very board are so flimsy, they're essentially worthless yet they're presented as fact.

I haven't seen these studies....

Also, there has to be a FIRST reference, doesn't there? Who do the first resarchers reference? In other words, when Sir Issac Newton discovered gravity, what were his references?

Most, if not all scientific discoveries build on past discoveries. It would be those previous discoveries one would reference to give credit where credit is due. I confess I have never read Newton's paper on the discovery of gravity so I can't comment on it. I can give an example of my first statement however. When EJ Cory first published his discoveries in the (until then) unknown field of organocopper chemistry, he referenced the paper in which the discovery of organolithium compounds were published. Why? Because organolithiums can be used to generate organocopper compounds. If someone else hadn't already discovered organolithiums (and organomagnesium halides), the discovery of organocoppers and their uses in synthetic chemistry may never have been made. Prof. Cory's discovery was based on someone else's previous discovery of organolithiums and organomagnesium halides (also called Grignard reagents, after the person who discovered them).

 

[Silent Method]

Also, there has to be a FIRST reference, doesn't there? Who do the first resarchers reference? In other words, when Sir Issac Newton discovered gravity, what were his references?

As long as were moving toward this subject - yes, there has to be a "first reference" of sorts. Sir Issac Newton provided extesive explination as well as evidence of his findings. Those who offer pure declaritive statement with no supporting evidence are foolish.

 

[BigAndy69]

Here's one of the studies, It's not the specific one I was talking about. They used test cyp and deca for 3 weeks

J Appl Physiol 1983 Feb;54(2):366-70 (ISSN: 0161-7567)
Crist DM; Stackpole PJ; Peake GT

The effects of androgenic-anabolic steroids on neuromuscular power and body composition were studied in
nine volunteers experienced with progressive-resistance weight training. By use of double-blind procedures,
testosterone cypionate, nandrolone decanoate, and sesame oil (placebo) were administered in a
repeated-measures design that counterbalanced treatment order. Duration of each treatment condition was 3 wk.
Supplemental protein was provided, and dietary records were maintained throughout the study. Subjects were
trained with progressive-resistance weight-training exercises. Isokinetic dynamometer testing revealed that peak
torque output was not significantly changed between treatments in 7 out of 10 isolated-joint actions. The hydrostatic
weighing results revealed insignificant differences in lean body mass and percent body fat. Significant changes in
some treatment means of three peak torque output tests were insufficient to identify any consistent treatment
alterations. Since protein and caloric intake was sufficient to elicit anabolic effects from the steroid treatments and
weight-training program, the lack of significant results could not be attributed to dietary considerations. Subjects
reported subjective feelings of increased strength after administration of anabolic agents, which may partially
account for their widespread use. In conclusion, anabolic steroids did not substantially change body composition
or the objective power measurements used in this study.