Jamie_L

Well, I certainly haven't heavily researched the topic. However, I've heard enough on both sides that I don't think I would trust any one source of information. Being a cautious person, especially when it comes to my health, I tend to err on the side of conservatism when faced with an overload of infomration about a subject.

Generally, my "steroids are bad" stance has not come through the media at large. It's come through sources closer to the issue. Obviously, one shouldn't pass final judgement without some good research. As yet, I haven't found much "good research" on the topic. But, again, I haven't been looking.

One confirmed drawback of steroids is that they are expensive and required for maintaining the benefits the provide. The same is true for supplements, even if they are effective. One nice aspect about more natural training is that the results, though hard gained, are easier to maintain and much less expensive to achieve. Though some of us (like me) are not blessed with the genetics to achieve as much as others using this approach.

But I'm content. I've got better things to spend my money on.

Jamie

Dr Rick

"<a href="http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/20/5/520" target="_blank">These data</a> from Brown et al., Journal of the American College of Nutrition, Vol. 20, No. 5, 520-528 (2002), "Endocrine and Lipid Responses to Chronic Androstenediol-Herbal Supplementation in 30 to 58 Year Old Men," indicate that ingestion of androstenediol combined with herbal products does not prevent the formation of estradiol and dihydrotestosterone..."

Furthermore, and contrary to "marketing claims that androstenediol ingestion enhances the effects of resistance training, Broeder et al. found that androstenediol ingestion does not increase serum free testosterone concentrations or enhance muscle mass or strength gains associated with resistance training in men" nor does it appear to be any safer than androgenic steroid use:

"The Andro Project: physiological and hormonal influences of androstenedione supplementation in men 35 to 65 years old participating in a high-intensity resistance training program."

Archives of Internal Medicine, November, 2000

Broeder et al. The Human Performance Lab, East Tennessee State University, Box 70654, Johnson City, TN 37614-0654, USA. broeder@etsu.edu

"BACKGROUND: Since the passage of The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act in 1994, there has been a flood of new "dietary" supplements promoting anti-aging benefits such as the enhancement of growth hormone or testosterone levels. Androstenediol and androstenedione are such products. This study's purpose was to elucidate the physiological and hormonal effects of 200 mg/d of oral androstenediol and androstenedione supplementation in men aged 35 to 65 years while participating in a 12-week high-intensity resistance training program. METHODS: Fifty men not consuming any androgenic-enhancing substances and with normal total testosterone levels, prostate-specific antigen, hemoglobin, and hematocrit, and with no sign of cardiovascular or metabolic diseases participated. Subjects were randomly assigned to a placebo, androstenediol (diol), or androstenedione (dione) group using a double-blind study design. Main outcomes included serum sex hormone profile, body composition assessment, muscular strength, and blood lipid profiles. RESULTS: During the 12 weeks of androstenedione or androstenediol use, a significant increase in the aromatization by-products estrone and estradiol was observed in both groups (P =.03). In the dione group, total testosterone levels significantly increased 16% after 1 month of use, but by the end of 12 weeks, they returned to pretreatment levels. This return to baseline levels resulted from increases in aromatization and down-regulation in endogenous testosterone synthesis based on the fact that luteinizing hormone was attenuated 18% to 33% during the treatment period. Neither androstenediol nor androstenedione enhanced the adaptations to resistance training compared with placebo for body composition or muscular strength. However, both androstenediol and androstenedione supplementation adversely affected...[serum]cholesterol
CONCLUSIONS: Testosterone precursors do not enhance adaptations to resistance training when consumed in dosages recommended by manufacturers. Testosterone precursor supplementation does result in significant increases in estrogen-related compounds, dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate concentrations, down-regulation in testosterone synthesis, and unfavorable alterations in blood lipid and coronary heart disease risk profiles of men aged 35 to 65 years.[emphasis added]"

Rick

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Dr Rick

The available research indicates that prohormones offer no advantages over anabolic steroids. They have some of the same potential adverse effects despite being relatively ineffective as ergogenic agents.

Rick

JamesKrieger

Dr. Rick,

I saw the study you mentioned by Craig Broeder presented at last year's ACSM conference. This study definitely shows that low doses of oral androstenedione and androstenediol are ineffective. However, there are other prohormones out there. You won't find much research on them because supplement companies are afraid to fund such research. If research shows any product to be anabolic, then likely the FDA will come in and then want to classify the prohormones as drugs...something the supplement companies don't want.

There are more recent OTC steroid products that, at least based on anecdotal evidence, seem to be very effective. Unfortunately, anecdotal evidence alone is insufficient to make conclusions as to the effectiveness of a product, but because of the lack of research in this area, that is all we have to go on. Notably, 1-androste-3-ene and its precursor advertised as 1-AD, both oral and topical, seem to be very effective in promoting lean mass and strength gains. There is also a topical version of 19-nor-4-androstenediol which may also have some effect (19-nordiol is actually classified as an anabolic steroid in Japan, from what I understand).

Dr Rick

"Afraid;" why?
It seems there's always something "out there;" why is evidence of efficacy something to be feared?

<strong> ...and can easily avoid.
The supplement industry can bypass FDA oversight by loosely crafting its efficacy claims. US law favors unsubstantiated claims over accountability in the supplement industry.

<strong> Imagine the response and legal actions a legitimate pharmaceutical company would face if it tried to introduce a new drug to the market based upon "anectodal evidence" with the caveat that "because of the lack of research in this area, that is all we have to go on."

<strong> The number of organic compounds in the universe will probably always exceed the number of organic compounds tested.

Rick