Written by justis berg
21 July 2011

 

Designer Steroid Injury Report

 

A paper appearing in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology (“Prolonged Intrahepatic Cholestasis and Renal Failure Secondary to Anabolic Androgenic Steroid-Enriched Dietary Supplements”) is sure to bring some unwanted government attention to the U.S. designer steroid market. It concerns a collection of potentially very serious injury reports following the use of over-the-counter (OTC) designer steroids, specifically with patients hospitalized for significant liver and kidney toxicity.

First, a little background for those unfamiliar. Steroids are indeed back in U.S. supplement stores, and in a big way. And your father’s (OK, big brother’s) prohormones they are not. I am sure it is to the dismay of many people morally or ethically opposed to the use of steroids, but these drugs did not go away when the prohormone ban of 2005 went into effect. In fact, the ban succeeded only in shifting the supply from the milder, naturally-occurring prohormones like ‘andro’ and ‘norandro,’ to a class of ‘designer’ steroids that is far more potent.

Basically, when the prohormone market was eliminated back in 2005, supplement companies were left with a ‘high demand’ market and no inventory to sell. The prohormone ban was compound-specific, so the trick was finding new hormones to sell. Four years and one dusty old steroid book from a guy named Vida later, we have a full collection of highly potent synthetic designer steroids— the companies just looked up some of the stronger old steroids and had them newly synthesized.

You won’t find them in GNC, but these drugs are widely sold on the Internet and in some of the more ‘aggressive’ bodybuilding-focused supplement stores and gyms. No, they might not be quite legal, but the FDA is very busy and lacks a large police force. This has actually gone on for so long that it has become an almost-accepted part of the industry at this point. It frustrates me when people insist these supplements cannot possibly be the same thing as ‘real’ steroids. Indeed they are the same thing.

But let’s get back to the new paper. It concerns a collection of six injury reports, three from the past 12 months and three that are newly published. The common factor in all cases was significant liver toxicity, including severe itching, yellowing of the eyes, and jaundice. This was accompanied by a variety of other symptoms including an enlarged liver, enlarged spleen, malaise, nausea, vomiting, weight loss, abdominal discomfort, and/or discolored stool. Two of the cases also involved severe kidney toxicity or kidney failure.

The supplement involved in three of these cases was Superdrol (methasteron), the very first of the ‘post-prohormone era’ designer steroids. In another case, DMT (desoxymethyltestosterone) was blamed, which is one of the infamous BALCO designer steroids, also very popular on the supplement market. One remaining report involves dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), which has no known liver toxicity. This may be the result of a complete error on the part of the physicians involved, or it may be mislabeling. The last case lists the steroidal substance as ‘unknown.’

I will be honest in saying that these injury reports are not necessarily a surprise. These designer steroids are nearly all 17-alkylated, which gives them inherent liver toxicity like other oral steroids. In most cases, these drugs are extremely potent, often many times that of some of the prescription steroids like methandrostenolone and stanozolol. So you have some of the most potent and liver-toxic steroids ever used, available over-the-counter. Most consumers are educated about what they are taking, and use reasonable dosages and short intake periods, avoiding injury. Others may be lulled into a false sense of security, however, and use much more than they should. And even if you are careful, we must always remember that these are still potent, liver-toxic steroids. Injury is bound to happen in some people just by sheer numbers and how widely the steroids are used.

Overall, the incidences of injury with these designer steroids are not very great when you consider the popularity of these supplements. In four years, it is very likely that many hundreds of thousands of bottles of the various designer steroids have been sold and used. Most people, therefore, never develop such problems— otherwise we would hear much more about them. And thankfully, of the five patients in this report who were followed after their initial hospitalization, all recovered. So I don’t want this to completely stress out anyone who has been taking DMT, methasteron, or any of the other designer drugs. Still, be careful, and most of all, respect the risks involved in what you are doing. These drugs are liver- and cardiovascular system-toxic. For all intents and purposes, you should assume that the OTC designers are no different than Anadrol or a high dose of D-Bol.

 

Spiked Supplements and Nandrolone Failures

We’ve all read or seen the news reports. They are usually the same thing. “Such and such athlete tested positive for anabolic steroids. Such and such athlete denies using steroids, and believes this is the result of a contaminated nutritional supplement.” This almost seems to be the standard response to a drug-testing failure these days.

If you are like many people, you have probably been wondering how feasible this explanation is. Is it really possible that some of these athletes have failed completely by mistake, or is the ‘tainted supplement’ excuse really the doping equivalent of ‘the dog ate my homework’— possible, but very far from likely? Researchers at the School of Sports and Exercise Sciences in Loughborough University in the UK, working in cooperation with the Drug Surveillance Group in Cambridgeshire, UK, have just completed a paper that may help answer this question once and for all (Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2009 Mar 7).

The study involved giving 20 volunteers creatine supplements that were contaminated with varying levels of the nandrolone-precursor norandrostenedione (‘norandro’). The norandro was added in extremely small (trace) amounts. Each drink specifically contained 5 grams of creatine, 500 mL of water, and either 1 mcg, 2.5 mcg, or 5 mcg of norandrostenedione. The studies found that the 1 mcg dose was not sufficient to cause a positive test result under current World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) guidelines in any of the subjects. The 2.5 mcg dose, however, resulted in a positive result in 20 percent of the subjects. The 5 mcg dose was more troubling, shown to be sufficient for a positive result in 75 percent of the subjects. For the sake of perspective, a microgram is the smallest weight measurement commonly used in medicine. It is only 1/1000 of a milligram. The doses used in this study were far too small to be visible by the naked eye.

The studies make very clear that adding only trace amounts of norandrostenedione to a supplement is capable of resulting in a positive nandrolone doping violation, under current WADA guidelines. As little as 2.5 mcg mixed in with a creatine drink was sufficient to cause a failure in one out of five people, which represents a contamination level of only .00005 percent. Even the 5 mcg dose is so slight as to arguably be very easy to achieve by cross-contamination.

While it is important to point out that norandrostenedione is no longer sold as a legal dietary supplement, and therefore is unlikely to be readily involved with a cross-contamination issue today, this paper does make very clear just how sensitive a doping test can be. In the case of norandrostenedione, we can see this excuse as credible, especially a few years ago when norandrostenedione was widely-used in sports supplements. The fact that many other prohormones are still currently sold underlines the fact that drug-tested athletes need to be very careful before taking any supplement. Perhaps the public should be a little less quick to judge when we hear the ‘tainted supplement’ excuse as well. In some cases, the dog may very well have eaten the homework.

 

The Medical Community May Consider PCT, Finally!

The medical community is responsible for nearly all of the advances in the therapeutic use of drugs. This is undeniable. But every once in a while, the bodybuilding/athletic community tends to be a bit ahead of the medical curve on a particular application. For example, in 1977 the American College of Sports Medicine concluded that steroids were ineffective at promoting increases in strength, muscle size, or athletic performance. It did reverse this position in 1984, when it stated that gains might be better with steroids, only in some individuals! Remember, this was a swift 25 years after athletes were first introduced to Dianabol, and a solid 20 years into a thriving black market for steroids. Clearly, the athletes were far ahead of the doctors in this particular aspect of steroid use.

It seems that now, in 2009, the medical community may again be on the verge of recognizing another aspect of steroid use that bodybuilders and athletes have known for decades. The issue is the need for ‘PCT,’ or ‘Post Cycle Therapy.’ For those not immediately familiar, this refers to the need for testosterone-stimulating drugs such as HCG and antiestrogens at the conclusion of a steroid cycle. Physicians have traditionally prescribed steroids alone, even when they are used for brief cycles in an attempt to increase the lean bodyweight of a patient. The patient would simply stop taking the drug at the appropriate time and hope for the best. Bodybuilders and athletes have long understood that when you take steroids, the anabolic on-cycle period is followed by a catabolic post-cycle ‘crash,’ where hormonal imbalance (low androgen and high/normal corticosteroid) can rapidly reduce the gains made during drug therapy. To keep your gains, you need to get through this PCT crash.

In a paper published online in the February issue of Medical Hypotheses, Texas physicians Michael Scally and Robert Tan propose that the post-steroid-administration crash be given its own medical diagnosis (“Anabolic steroid-induced hypogonadism: Towards a unified hypothesis of anabolic steroid action,” Feb 19, 2009). Moving forward, the doctors suggest that this issue be identified as ASIH (Anabolic Steroid Induced Hypogonadism), and addressed appropriately.

If you’ve read my ANABOLICS 9th Edition, you probably recognize the name Dr. Michael Scally. Scally was instrumental in developing the HPGA Normalization Protocol, which involves the combined use of HCG, Clomid, and Nolvadex to help stabilize the post-cycle hormone levels more quickly. This HPGA Normalization Protocol is (to date) the only medically-proven PCT program, and therefore was highlighted in my book. With the continued work of Scally et al., the medical community may finally ‘get the message’ on this, catching up to the bodybuilders who’ve known for decades about PCT.

 

Know your gear! William Llewellyn’s ANABOLICS 9th Edition (2009) is available now. Order your copy of this monster steroid reference guide today by calling 888-828-8008 or by visiting www.AnabolicsBook.com.