Reply to thread

These studies are interesting and can def serve as a warning to potential users.  What I dislike about these types of studies is that they usually say something like "AAS use/abuse is associated with (some adverse impact here)".  To me it is super annoying that scientific articles are written about this subject, with no quantification of dosages involved. 

Most of the studies I have seen never tell you that the test subjects took XX amount of YY substances.  No, instead they just say AAS use or abuse.  So sure, somebody taking a gram of Test C with 1/2 gram of nandrolone can expect to see some adverse impacts.  But is this really the same as a dude taking 75mg of Test C weekly?  I would think not.  But nevertheless, they both fall into the AAS user/abuser category.  BTW what is AAS abuse anyway?  Have any of these studies defined it? 

Sorry for the rant but it chaps my buns to see a study tell me that test subjects ejection fraction declined by 5.386% (to pull a precise number from my hat) from AAS abuse without defining the doses involved.  This always strikes me that the authors are trying to use the study as a scare tactic instead of getting at the truth. 

BTW, this criticism is in no way directed at [USER=38590]@readalot[/USER].  I always appreciate his perspective and hard-earned knowledge.