For avid readers of Muscular Development, I think it’s a blessing that you are privy to the science of anabolic agents. There are too many instances when I’ve read nonsense about certain anabolic agents in the mainstream press and in some science journals. Let me report on the utterly irresponsible piece of work emanating from the Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan Health System.  This manuscript reviewed “non-steroidal” strength-enhancing aids. To quote a passage from the paper: 

“These agents, including Creatine, HMB, chromium, human growth hormone and insulin-like growth factor are popular, easily accessible, sometimes impossible to detect and (in some cases, i.e., Creatine) not banned by official sports organizations. They are purported to be natural and safe because they are not anabolic steroids, have at least a theoretic basis for potential benefit, and in some cases, have data suggesting athletic improvement in certain controlled conditions. They also have significant potential for causing at least bothersome, if not dangerous, adverse effects. Studies to date have generally addressed efficacy, with little data to support effectiveness in unmonitored, uncontrolled use. Human growth hormone is banned. In general, none of these agents can be recommended at present.” 

Wo! What a mouthful of gibberish. First, let’s try to figure out what the hell these authors are saying, point by point. As for the first sentence, when did human growth hormone and IGF-1 suddenly become “supplements?” Last time I checked, these were drugs, and they were not available at your local health food store. Whether a sports organization bans a substance only matters to the athletes who compete within the rules of the respective organization. Are these authors suggesting that because Creatine isn’t banned, somehow this implies

it should be? 

I really love the second sentence, that the agents are “purported to be natural and safe because they are not anabolic steroids.” There’s so much stupidity in this sentence that even my pet Beagle could bark it out to me. First of all, Creatine isn’t “purported” to be natural; it is natural. It’s found naturally in the meat you eat and the fish you fry. As Mr. T would say, “I pity the fool… (I’ll let you finish the sentence).” We do make HGH and IGF-1 endogenously in our bodies. So, they are “natural” also. What is this “purported” business?  As for safety, please read the recent papers by Drs. Mike Greenwood and Richard Kreider (Baylor University) on safety data on Creatine. One more point regarding this statement: Anabolic steroids, when used in the correct doses for the correct condition, are quite safe. See the upcoming reviews of androgen papers. 

I also like the statement that there’s “significant potential for at least bothersome, if not dangerous, adverse effects.” Besides the fact that Creatine, chromium and HMB have been shown to be safe and effective (when used properly), there is a huge difference between bothersome and dangerous. There’s a huge difference between use and abuse. Making this tenuous link that “bothersome” eventually results in “dangerous” is foolhardy. Bothersome is when your kid sister keeps playing Britney Spears songs while you are trying to watch a football game. Dangerous is swimming in the Everglades hoping to run into an alligator (okay, that’s stupid as well). 

Then there’s the statement that “studies to date have generally addressed efficacy, with little data to support effectiveness in unmonitored, uncontrolled use.” After I read it, I scratched my head and said, “Huh?” Let’s have a lesson in Science 101. By their very nature, studies are “controlled.” Thus, studies have addressed efficacy. Regarding “uncontrolled and unmonitored use,” have you ever gone to gym? Have you ever been around athletes? There are plenty of athletes and recreational bodybuilders who have used Creatine, HMB, etc. I guess what they’re suggesting is that scientists conduct studies in an “unmonitored and uncontrolled” setting. Such a study wouldn’t even get published in the Journal of Goofy Results. Why? Because it’s not a scientific study!

Enough said. 

Some Recent Studies
Let’s review a few studies published on androgens. Believe it or not, they don’t kill people. Androgens may, in fact, confer health benefits. But for the naysayers, don’t let the facts get in the way of your conclusions.
A study published in the journal Chest looked at the role of anabolic steroids on patients with COPD  (chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder). Sixty-three male patients with COPD received 50 milligrams of nandrolone decanoate (ND) via intramuscular injection on days one, 15, 29 and 43, or a placebo oil injection. The authors found that “a short-term course of ND had an overall positive effect relative to placebo… The use of low-dose oral glucocorticoids as maintenance medication significantly impaired the response to pulmonary rehabilitation with respect to respiratory muscle function and exercise capacity, which could be restored by ND treatment.”

Not bad for an anabolic steroid.

Another study performed at the Karolinska Institute examined 63 women who were post-op after hip fracture repair surgery.  They were treated for one year, either with calcium alone (control group) or calcium, vitamin D and anabolic steroids. The researchers found that “anabolic steroids, even in this moderate dose, given in combination with vitamin D and calcium, had a beneficial effect on muscle volume, bone mineral density and clinical function in this group of elderly women.” 

There you have it— yet another study showing androgen treatment having a positive clinical effect.  

Utopian Vision
I think the “problem” many individuals have when talking about “steroids” or “supplements” is that they frame their arguments in such a muddled fashion. Not that I want to teach you how to win the high school debating championship, but you’d think most science types should know the basics of clear thinking. Too often, those in the “anti-supplement” camp frame their arguments using non sequiturs, poor reasoning, or just plain ignorance of the data.

Here’s an often-used non sequitur. You might see an item in the newspaper like this (the names have been changed to protect the innocent): “Baseball player Pablo Escobar died yesterday after exercising for three hours in the Florida heat during spring training. He reportedly took Creatine. Thus, Creatine played a role in his death.” 

I’m sure you’ve seen this type of thing time and time again. “So and so had a bad reaction while exercising. And by the way, he ate bran flakes mixed with oatmeal, drank a gallon of half and half, and chewed on milk bone dog biscuits. Thus, scientific evidence shows this deadly combination of bran, oats, fatty milk and dog food must have caused his death.” Dumb, dumb, dumb. 

Then there’s the argument that goes like this: “Creatine (or make it the supplement of your choice) has not been shown to be totally safe.” Totally safe? Again, this dumb argument is from those with utopian visions where things are 100 percent safe. What world is that? The one for the “boy in the bubble?” You can drink too much water and kill yourself. Acetaminophen causes more deaths per year (in the hundreds) than anabolic steroids have in the entire history of anabolic steroid use. (Are there any deaths actually caused directly by androgen use?) 

Finally, don’t confuse correlation with causation. I won’t even explain this one. Go read a statistics book.