AAS Effects on the Heart...A Study

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Naughty Nurse

    AAS Effects on the Heart...A Study

    OK, I tried to fix the chart, but it didn't work....but the 3 numbers going across from what was studied correlate with Control, Steroids, Steroids + GH


    Anabolic Steroids, Growth Hormone, and Hypertrophy of the Heart
    It Takes Two to Tango


    by Willem Koert, M.Sc.


    The debate on the effect of anabolic substances on the structure of the heart reached another phase, since Finnish scientists studied twenty local bodybuilders who had just finished their cycles. Steroids don’t damage the heart, the researchers found. But the combination of steroids and growth hormone does.

    Context

    Since the eighties scientists have been discussing whether steroids enlarge the heart, when several sports investigators learned steroid use was associated with enlargement of the left ventricular mass – the part of the heart that pumps oxygenated blood through the body. An overdeveloped left ventricle causes arrhythmia and, in severe cases, death. In 2001 Australian physicians found the hypertrophy in clean strength athletes and postulated that this condition was caused by weight training, not steroid use. They also found that the hypertrophy didn’t impair their subjects’ health.

    The new Finnish study, published in the International Journal of Sports Medicine in the summer of 2003, doesn’t contradict the Australian study. Nevertheless, it provides insight into the relationship between anabolic substances and heart hypertrophy.

    Study

    The Finnish ran an advertorial in a bodybuilding magazine on their project. Twenty bodybuilders, who had planned to do a cycle and bought their medication on the black market, responded. Before their cycle started the bodybuilders had their medication checked and analysed by the pharmacological department of the university. Not unnecessary, because up to fifty percent of the European black steroids may be counterfeited, according to the latest estimates.

    Sixteen bodybuilders used steroids only. The weekly doses varied from a few hundred milligrams to more than thousand milligrams.

    Four athletes stacked their steroids with growth hormone. All four used moderate dosages of two, three or four IU’s during four to six weeks. The growth hormone was injected once daily, mostly in the evening. In this group steroid doses were 1,3 times higher than in the steroids only group.When their cycles ended, the bodybuilders had their hearts examined. The table below summarizes some results. The control group consisted of fifteen young males with active life styles who didn’t engage in weight training.

    Results

    Control (15) Steroids (16) Steroids + GH (4)

    Heart rate 66 bpm 65 bpm 65 bpm
    Systolic blood pressure 131 mmHg 131 mmHg 130 mmHg
    Diastolic blood pressure 77 mmHg 76 mmHg 89 mmHg
    Left ventricular weight 167 g 257 g 342 g
    Ratio left ventricular weight: length
    93 g/m 141 g/m 191 g/m
    Relative wall thinkness 0,37 0,42 0,53
    Ratio early peak flow velocity: peak atrial flow velocity (E/A ratio)
    1,66 1,72 1,29



    Steroids and the combination of steroids and growth hormone change the structure of the heart, the table suggests. But that doesn’t have any consequences for the cardiovascular health of at least the steroid users. Their diastolic blood pressure – reported to rise phenomenally in some steroid related medical horror-stories – was fine, and more interestingly, their E/A ratio improved. Cardiologists use the E/A ratio to measure the hearts efficiency. According to the table, in the steroids only group deterioration of the heart muscle didn’t occur.

    But growth hormone, well, that is another story. The table speaks for itself. The higher steroid doses that the GH-users took can only explain a small part of the serious ventricular hypertrophy, the Finnish stress. They suspect that the lowering effect of androgens on the IGF-1-binding protein 3 concentrations causes the ventricular growth.

    Discussion

    So far not so good. But there is more. The Finnish discovered something very interesting about the nature of the relationship between anabolic aids and hypertrophy of the heart: it’s direct. For example, the Finnish asked their subjects for how many years they had been using steroids. The answers varied from one to twelve years. Statistically the relationship between lifetime steroid use and the E/A ratio was weak. On the other hand, the mean steroid dose of the present cycle was a strong predictor of variables like E/A ratio, ventricular weight of relative wall thickness.

    This means that cycles don’t have a cumulative effect on heart hypertrophy. The Finnish discovered that even the pronounced impact of cycles with added growth hormone wears off. That became evident when they investigated an athlete three times: when he just finished a five weeks cycle of steroids and growth hormone, after a wash out period of 237 days, and just after he completed a steroids only cycle.

    Of course a study with twenty users is not conclusive. But the study suggests that
    just like the Australians proved before, steroids are not as disastrous for the heart morphology as some agencies want you to believe;
    the combination with growth hormone does however add considerable cardiovascular risks to steroid cycles; and
    the deleterious effects wear off during wash out periods.
    Especially athletes in their late thirties and older should take their wash out periods seriously. The age of the subjects in the Finnish study ranged from 25 to 43. In this population age was the strongest predictor of the E/A ratio. The older they were, the lower their ratio ratio. (The Pearson’s correlation coefficient was –0.70. The coefficient of mean steroid dose and E/A ratio was –0.42.)



    From mesomorphosis.com
  • liftsiron
    Administrator
    • Nov 2003
    • 18443

    #2
    The study is full of holes the boys in the study hearts were compared to non weight training controls. Previous properly done studies prove that the left ventricle enlarges in athletes with or without steroid use. Also an enlarged left ventricle from exercise (athlete's heart) is far differant from a heart enlarged from disease. Athlete's heart more ofter than not poses no health threat.
    ADMIN/OWNER@Peak-Muscle

    Comment

    • CO-B16
      Vet
      • May 2004
      • 1905

      #3
      why did they give the bber's that took the gh 3 times the amount of steroids??? they should have given them the same amount with the gh....if you give three times the amount of steroids, how can you say it was the gh that did the enlarging???
      THIS POST IS FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY

      YO MOMMA

      Comment

      • liftsiron
        Administrator
        • Nov 2003
        • 18443

        #4
        Originally posted by CO-B16
        why did they give the bber's that took the gh 3 times the amount of steroids??? they should have given them the same amount with the gh....if you give three times the amount of steroids, how can you say it was the gh that did the enlarging???

        Good point, I don't think that the above study was done in the best interest of science, but rather to prove a preconcieved idea. Many, many studies are such, depending on where the funding for the study comes from.
        ADMIN/OWNER@Peak-Muscle

        Comment

        • Naughty Nurse

          #5
          Originally posted by liftsiron
          The study is full of holes the boys in the study hearts were compared to non weight training controls. Previous properly done studies prove that the left ventricle enlarges in athletes with or without steroid use. Also an enlarged left ventricle from exercise (athlete's heart) is far differant from a heart enlarged from disease. Athlete's heart more ofter than not poses no health threat.
          Unfortunately, I noticed this as well...but it gives some ideas to think about.

          Comment

          • Naughty Nurse

            #6
            Originally posted by liftsiron
            Good point, I don't think that the above study was done in the best interest of science, but rather to prove a preconcieved idea. Many, many studies are such, depending on where the funding for the study comes from.
            This is what I'm studying right now....stats and how to verify if studies are legit, etc. It's eye opening how many studies aren't carried out correctly...as you said, it's often who is funding...and often the results are going to reflect a high positive.

            Comment

            • liftsiron
              Administrator
              • Nov 2003
              • 18443

              #7
              Originally posted by Naughty Nurse
              This is what I'm studying right now....stats and how to verify if studies are legit, etc. It's eye opening how many studies aren't carried out correctly...as you said, it's often who is funding...and often the results are going to reflect a high positive.

              It's really good to know how to pick studies apart. Remember the first published on cigs, showed them to be harmless. Money speaks.
              ADMIN/OWNER@Peak-Muscle

              Comment

              Working...