Talk:Anabolic steroid/Archive 1Testosterone is the primary male sex hormone and an anabolic steroid. In male humans, testosterone plays a key role in the development of male reproductive tissues such as testes and prostateas well as promoting secondary sexual characteristics such as increased muscle and natural anabolic steroids wikipedia mass, and the growth of body hair. Testosterone is a steroid from the androstane class containing a keto and hydroxyl groups at the three and seventeen positions respectively. Natural anabolic steroids wikipedia is biosynthesized in several steps from cholesterol and is converted in the anabollc to inactive metabolites. On average, test finale primo soccorso aziendale adult males, levels of testosterone are about 7 to natyral times as great as in adult females.
Talk:Anabolic steroid/Archive 1 - Wikipedia
Even an adult woman will experience growth of the clitoris, just as she would deepening of the voice. There will also be scrotal type alterations in the outer labia, the clitoris would not grow indefinitely, but would stop probably at about the size of an adult male glans penis, which I believe is the analogous tissue, the inner labia are analogous to the shaft of the male penis. HGH, although it cannot lengthen adult bones, will cause most soft tissues to grow including the nose, penis and clitoris.
Since there is exposure to HGH throughout life, this one reason for larger noses among the elderly and possibly the depiction of old witches as having long noses. Growth hormone causes thickening of skin and other soft tissue, rather than lengthening of the phallus. The classic example is that fingers get thicker not longer so a person's ring stops fitting. I also did a quick search on Pubmed and could find no discussion of effect of excess GH on phallus size either penis or clitoris. If excess GH actually made an adult phallus grow, I suspect it would be a very well-known effect.
The growth effect of GH on a young child's micropenis is a modest effect, and most not all of boys with micropenis due to hypopituitarism also lack testosterone. The exact mechanism has not been well-studied. While I am not offering a personal opinion on the matter as I am not a doctor , the first and last sentences here are clearly disputed.
It could be mentioned that these facts are disputed, though that may be best accomplished somewhere else. I merged the history paragraph above this with the history section. The section on the initial hazards of injection does not have references.
It should, and so should any claims that these dangers have passed. This section ends with "the use of anabolic steroids is much safer than what the majority of the public assumes. This entire section is unreferenced. A good place to start redeeming this statement would be to reference authoritative sources on the safety of these substances when used under the supervision of a doctor, and to polling data indicating just how dangerous "the public" in whichever country ies we're talking about here, think they are.
If the rest of the section had references, it would be a lot easier to know whether or not it's accurate. It could certainly result in personal harm to someone if they took it to be true and it was not. People should not really be doing that anyway, of course. I added a link to Wikipedia: Medical disclaimer , but it is currently not very prominent. I don't see it prominently placed on most medical articles, though maybe it should be. Again, I'm not a doctor, and I, like most readers, have insuffiencient expertise to opine one way or the other on the veracity of the various claims made.
British doctors have a pragmatic approach; side-stepping any laws, they invoke the Hippocratic Oath in the interests of their patients, so that they can be adequately monitored, and also report on progress, issues, side-effects and more in a realistic and not fearful way; this applies to GH use, insulin use, as well as AAS and prohormones.
Does anybody know what percentage this was? A link to the original paper would be ideal. I'd like to add a note on the way steroids are generally associated with doping, and that "on steroids" has subsequently become an expression for any dramatically boosted thing, as in "Wikipedia is Linus' Law on steroids.
I've noticed that the study saying a particular percent of high school students in polls have admited to using steroids. I wanted to point out that I have heard that these studies simply asked the question "have you ever used steroids" or something like that where the person answering may not of known what exactly would of quallified as "steroids" and may of checked "yes,I have done steroids. Believe it or not,Most people believe that food supplements are anabolic steroids and often get them confused.
So I think a source of the study along with what precise question was asked to the students was so that we can make sure there was no possibility of the students confusing a food supplement such as a protein shake or creatine with an anabolic steroid which often happens. If this was the question, then I believe the affirmative answers were well below what actually should have been reported. I know as I child I was told I was taking steroids for my upper respiratory infections several times.
I would have rightfully said "yes" when posed that question. This study is so incredibly flawed in that respect that I cannot believe it's cited at all, anywhere. Its AFD debate suggested a merge and redirect, but the content of the article merely repeated what this article states, so I merely redirected it. All other synthetic AAS are testosterone-derivatives which have both anabilic and androgenic properties, in different proportions. When you say "who says what is proper?
Perhaps it is a poor one to lead the article, but they are correctly reffered to as AAS, not just "anabolic: Please post back to me and tell me what you think. As you can see, I am new to posting here, so your help will b appreciated.
I have heard the designation before, but few medical texts and journals use the combined designation. I have no problem mentioning it farther down in the article, but it is a minority usage, not a "proper" one. Does that make sense? Alteripse, regarding "preservation of muscle mass", im curious is the current stance of the literature that AAS prevent protein breakdown?
I think there have been studies on this question published and I think it is a combination of the two effects, but I would not wager a large amount of money on the accuracy of that memory. This is not an area I have done research on or have a deep interest in, so I am not claiming unusual expertise.
Left ventricular hypertrophy seems to be a medium term effect of steroid use and is dose dependant - this declines several years after discontinuation but remains slightly above baseline levels.
In addition, an entire market for counterfeit drugs emerged at this time. Never seen in the previous 30 years of their availability on the U. My points are these: Or, was it "an entire market for anabolic steroids" that emerged in the early 's? Was the writer trying to tell us something like "Counterfeit anabolic steroids became prevalent in the early 's"? Although I'm comfortable making minor grammar and spelling edits, changing an entire paragraph concerning a subject with which I have no expertise is beyond my arrogance.
However, I might propose the following alternate version:. By the beginning of the 's, personal computers, scanners and printers made it easier for drug counterfeiters to sell their products with copies of legitimate product labeling.
Counterfeit anabolic steroids therefore became more prevalent; some of these contained dangerous or toxic substances which unsuspecting users injected into themselves. A number of deaths resulted from blood poisoning, methanol poisoning, and subcutaneous abcess. This proposed version seems to convey the information which the original version is intended to convey, I guess. Note that my introductory "By the beginning of the 's" is a placeholder, and probably needs to be replaced with something which better provides continuity.
But, I have no idea if the information presented in either version of the paragraph is really true, of course. Muscles do not grow by cell division. The intro alludes to that. And do steriods really directly cause cell division? Steroids do not cause cell division hyperplasia , rather they cause hypertrophy, or the enlargement of muscular cells.
Upon reaching adulthood humans no longer "grow" new muscle cells, we have a set number. I made some slight changes to the article. I got rid of some vague stuff that was already addressed and changed "Severe acne" to just acne since the acne from Anabolic steroids is rarely severe.
I also changed "Roid rage" to aggression since the area it was mentioned should not of had slang in it. Unless I am very mistaken, there is a fairly glaring omission in the "Medical Uses" section as well as "presentation" and "Administration. I did not see anything in the discussions about this omission, so I want to be sure it is considered in case this is not an intentional exclusion.
Regarding medical uses, AFAIK, the most common legal use of anabolic steroids in humans is for hormone replacement therapy, but this use is not even listed here.
More specifically, both men and women with abnormally low testosterone levels have testosterone administered to bring the blood serum levels back to where they are needed.
The reasons for having low testosterone in the first place are many, but they can include physical or chemical damage to the testes in men or various endocrine disorders in both men and women. The lack of sufficient testosterone means much more than lowered sex drive or possible impotence; it also leads to rapid bone density loss, extreme fatigue, depression, loss of secondary sex characteristics for men, etc.
Information on this condition is quite easy to find, so I will not belabor it here. I am just astounded that some comparatively rare uses are listed while this major one is not. For the presentation and administration sections, none of the transdermal compounds or methods used in administering testosterone are mentioned. These are much more common and popular than injections, as they tend to provide blood levels much more like those that naturally occur under normal circumstances.
The injections are preferred by some, but most patients seem to find they have too much of a peak and valley effect compared to the transdermal methods. The transdermal products currently available include multiple transdermal patch forms e. There are also subcutaneous implants used in Europe, not yet available in the US, and even a fairly new buccal inside the cheek oral formulation that. Again, there is ample information available regarding the details of these formulations and how they are used, so I will not even try to cover it here.
I have re-added the information which Ashmoo has deleted. Not policy states Wikipedia should not be a "how-to" guide. This information is not "how to". It is warnings on the dangers associated with incorrect administration.
Why would you want this information removed? More information is always better. That is the true essence of what makes Wiki so sucessful. The continuing growth of knowledge. Shouldn't the side effects due to aromatization be included under side-effects? Gynecomastia is only mentioned under Minimising the Side-effects.
What would happen as far as bone or muscle growth for someone who used steroids and only did cardiovascular intense exercising as opposed to weight-training? In a few drug articles such as on Marijuana they address numerous issues that exist for anabolic steroids as well. For instance this article should include common 'myths' concerning the use of anabolic steroids.
Including how the media demonizes anabolic steroids and only mentions them in negative contexts.