ExcelMale
Menu
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Videos
Lab Tests
Doctor Finder
Buy Books
About Us
Men’s Health Coaching
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Clinical Use of Anabolics and Hormones
Clinical Use of Anabolics and Hormones
Androgenic Steroids Use and Abuse
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="PeterBond" data-source="post: 241217" data-attributes="member: 44747"><p>I'm aware of the distinction made by some authors, especially in the field of hematology. Each to their own, personally I don't see the use of making the distinction in this context. Importantly, increased red cell mass measurements are rarely, if ever, performed in studies administering AAS - or even in an outpatient setting. We're always relying on hemoglobin or hematocrit levels as surrogates (which is perfectly fine). Therefore, strictly speaking, it's a suspected or unconfirmed erythrocytosis. Depending on which hematologist you run into, polycythemia might be defined as either an increase in the number of <em>any</em> of the blood cells or an increase in the number of <em>all</em> blood cells. The latter would always imply polycythemia vera (a definition adhered to by Williams Hematology; with the sidenote that they mention that there's no consensus on terms and that erythrocytosis and polycythemia are used interchangeably). The first, an increase in the number of <em>any</em> of the blood cells, would include the erythrocytosis as induced by AAS, as it's a secondary absolute increase. In any case, in practice, hematocrit or hemoglobin levels are measured, and both will be increased with either polycythemia or erythrocytosis. We therefore choose to use them interchangeably and, to prevent confusion, we explicitely define them in the paper; an increase in hematocrit or hemoglobin levels.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Thank you!</p><p></p><p>I'm not too fond of using the term continuously either, I find it rather useless, although it would be the correct term to employ from a medical point of view. It's pretty much the reason why we included this sentence in the introduction:</p><p></p><p>In the rest of the paper we only mention the word 'abuse' once, because it was functional to make a clear distinction with TRT.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PeterBond, post: 241217, member: 44747"] I'm aware of the distinction made by some authors, especially in the field of hematology. Each to their own, personally I don't see the use of making the distinction in this context. Importantly, increased red cell mass measurements are rarely, if ever, performed in studies administering AAS - or even in an outpatient setting. We're always relying on hemoglobin or hematocrit levels as surrogates (which is perfectly fine). Therefore, strictly speaking, it's a suspected or unconfirmed erythrocytosis. Depending on which hematologist you run into, polycythemia might be defined as either an increase in the number of [I]any[/I] of the blood cells or an increase in the number of [I]all[/I] blood cells. The latter would always imply polycythemia vera (a definition adhered to by Williams Hematology; with the sidenote that they mention that there's no consensus on terms and that erythrocytosis and polycythemia are used interchangeably). The first, an increase in the number of [I]any[/I] of the blood cells, would include the erythrocytosis as induced by AAS, as it's a secondary absolute increase. In any case, in practice, hematocrit or hemoglobin levels are measured, and both will be increased with either polycythemia or erythrocytosis. We therefore choose to use them interchangeably and, to prevent confusion, we explicitely define them in the paper; an increase in hematocrit or hemoglobin levels. Thank you! I'm not too fond of using the term continuously either, I find it rather useless, although it would be the correct term to employ from a medical point of view. It's pretty much the reason why we included this sentence in the introduction: In the rest of the paper we only mention the word 'abuse' once, because it was functional to make a clear distinction with TRT. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Share this page
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Sponsors
Forums
Clinical Use of Anabolics and Hormones
Clinical Use of Anabolics and Hormones
Androgenic Steroids Use and Abuse
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top