Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
I was speaking to an anti-hormone activist in the gym today. I had to listen to the exact same things I always hear. A person who has no experiences or education about steroids begins scolding me like I was a child. First off, just because I sate facts about steroids that may at times seem to sound like I may support them, does'nt mean that I am a user or supporter of them. I feel everyone has the right to make their own decisions and opinions. If you want to take hormones to enhance your body....DO IT. Thats my attitude.
What I explained to him was that a scientific study was put out a couple of years ago which determined that *ALL* the "reported" liver damage that was caused by steroid use was *WRONG*. Apparently back in the early seventies and eighties they were studying an enzyme which was produced by the liver. This enzyme was what was used to measure liver damage. Unfortunately they did not know that the muscles also release this same enzyme when working out. So basically the numbers they were getting was determined to be from the mucles after intense workout which proved the past study of liver damage to be *TOTALLY WRONG*. This explains why all the "damaged" patients are still alive and healthy today....notice how they never print facts like that. Furthermore, this also points out why peole with aids, who are already predisposed to health issues to begin with, seem to become more healthier than without treatment of androgenic anabolic steroids. Which also is proof that when used with eucation, the hormones are not as stressful to the body as the doctors tried to imply. Finally, it also explains why all the people who used steroids in the past are just as healthy as anyone else their age. In my opinion, the individuals I know of who took steroids all through the 80's & 90's genrally are in better health than your average American citizen.
Im not saying that everything printed about steroids is wrong. However a lot of it is, and I find it disturbing they never print anything good about them even when a major study, such as this, is proven 100% wrong.
I put the article up about a year or two ago. If you do a search on the post and find it, read it. I quoted it and you can see the source of the article.
What I explained to him was that a scientific study was put out a couple of years ago which determined that *ALL* the "reported" liver damage that was caused by steroid use was *WRONG*. Apparently back in the early seventies and eighties they were studying an enzyme which was produced by the liver. This enzyme was what was used to measure liver damage. Unfortunately they did not know that the muscles also release this same enzyme when working out. So basically the numbers they were getting was determined to be from the mucles after intense workout which proved the past study of liver damage to be *TOTALLY WRONG*. This explains why all the "damaged" patients are still alive and healthy today....notice how they never print facts like that. Furthermore, this also points out why peole with aids, who are already predisposed to health issues to begin with, seem to become more healthier than without treatment of androgenic anabolic steroids. Which also is proof that when used with eucation, the hormones are not as stressful to the body as the doctors tried to imply. Finally, it also explains why all the people who used steroids in the past are just as healthy as anyone else their age. In my opinion, the individuals I know of who took steroids all through the 80's & 90's genrally are in better health than your average American citizen.
Im not saying that everything printed about steroids is wrong. However a lot of it is, and I find it disturbing they never print anything good about them even when a major study, such as this, is proven 100% wrong.
I put the article up about a year or two ago. If you do a search on the post and find it, read it. I quoted it and you can see the source of the article.
