"Doping" in rugby?

[fourthirtythree]

I never experienced a loss of impulse control. I was silently seething and it was really weird. I was so angry that I didn't "get" angry or manifest it at anything because it was pretty much a constant state.

Unpleasant.

[leinster4life13]

Strong source^, very impartial article that, given that it starts with Chris Benoit of all people, doesnt mention the different types of steroids one can use and their differing effects. There is no "steroid", you buy, test, dbol, winstrol etc, all have different properties, for example, tren is the only steroid anecdotally linked with mood changes, there is no scientific date that "roid rage" exists beyond some tren users on anonymous forums, I have never heard of it outside the realms of fiction and tumescent newspaper editors looking to shock the sheeple. My take on it is the same with drink, you are an aggressive arsehole before you start and then you are an aggressive arsehole with muscles, you are an aggressive arsehole either way, its not the substance, its you, and until science says different why would you buy into the government/pliant media spin. Its the same with all(hyperbole alert) drugs, the government deems them illegal and dangerous even though the scientists involved say they are not, media follows government spin and they stay illegal.

[Alternative Ulster]

was another roid rage case in news today, guy in Cork beat the cr@p out of his girlfriend and throttled a woman who tried to help her; so ya know the more people doing steroids the better

yeah, but still, better than being 'natty', n'est pas? at least he wasn't average!

I'm confused ted. I get the impression that there is a third meaning of the word "natty" other than "natty dresser" or Natty Dreadlock"

sounds like it's not a good thing....

[Broken Wing]

Strong source^, very impartial article that,

I did a quick google and that was the only report I could find that didn't come from either a pro or anti steroid site.

E.g.:
http://www.steroidabuse.com/steroid-myths.html
Vs
http://www.anabolics.com/pages/Roid-Rage

It was nice of you to provide a link to a more balanced report though.

It's very hard for us mere sheeple to find an unbiased opinion on roid rage. If you bothered to read it you'd have seen that the report was a direct response to the Benoit story and was produced at the time.

The opening paragraph/sentence is

Pro wrestler Chris Benoit, his wife, and his son were found dead in their home in Fayetteville, Ga. near Atlanta earlier this week.

The third sentence is

Authorities have reportedly found anabolic steroids in Benoit's home, spurring speculation that so-called "'roid rage" may have been a factor.

And the fourth is

In an interview with WebMD, Gary Wadler, MD, answered questions about 'roid rage and anabolic steroids, which are synthetic substances related to male sex hormones.

So the context of the report was set in just 4 sentences but somehow you missed it. Or chose to ignore that just to discredit it.

Of course Wikipedia is always good for source based reports but because this goes against your belief I'm sure you'll dismiss it as nonsense (try not to get too angry).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolic_steroid

A 2005 review determined that some, but not all, randomized controlled studies have found that anabolic steroid use correlates with hypomania and increased aggressiveness, but pointed out that attempts to determine whether AAS use triggers violent behavior have failed, primarily because of high rates of non-participation.

A 2008 study on a nationally representative sample of young adult males in the United States found an association between lifetime and past-year self-reported anabolic-androgenic steroid use and involvement in violent acts. Compared with individuals that did not use steroids, young adult males that used anabolic-androgenic steroids reported greater involvement in violent behaviors even after controlling for the effects of key demographic variables, previous violent behavior, and polydrug use.

A 2006 study of two pairs of identical twins, in which one twin used anabolic steroids and the other did not, found that in both cases the steroid-using twin exhibited high levels of aggressiveness, hostility, anxiety, and paranoid ideation not found in the "control" twin.

There are links to the scientific studies on the site but again, it's probably just media and government spin for the sheeple that can't see that it's OK to take drugs to get ahead in sport.

[fourthirtythree]

Strong source^, very impartial article that, given that it starts with Chris Benoit of all people, doesnt mention the different types of steroids one can use and their differing effects. There is no "steroid", you buy, test, dbol, winstrol etc, all have different properties, for example, tren is the only steroid anecdotally linked with mood changes, there is no scientific date that "roid rage" exists beyond some tren users on anonymous forums, I have never heard of it outside the realms of fiction and tumescent newspaper editors looking to shock the sheeple. My take on it is the same with drink, you are an aggressive arsehole before you start and then you are an aggressive arsehole with muscles, you are an aggressive arsehole either way, its not the substance, its you, and until science says different why would you buy into the government/pliant media spin. Its the same with all(hyperbole alert) drugs, the government deems them illegal and dangerous even though the scientists involved say they are not, media follows government spin and they stay illegal.

As the article I linked to above put it

"We have no idea how doping affects athletes, because we have no idea what they take, how much of it or for how long. They won't tell. Researchers won't run clinical trials because giving test subjects the amount of drugs believed to help performance would be unethical.
...
The dilettante "Just Say Yes to Doping" crowd always seems to forget that health care is not distributed equitably. I once participated in a televised panel discussion with young athletes in the audience, posing questions. A slight football player from one of the most disadvantaged high schools in San Francisco implored the adults to remember athletes like him and protect his right to compete clean."

If you pop on over to, say pubmed, and run a search there you will notice a preponderance of rat research for just this reason. That said the general consensus is that AAS use has serious effects on aggression and mental health for humans particularly adolescents. If you go and look through the social research you will see some interesting stuff like the selectivity regarding evidence among steroid users and their self-delusion and creation of a false expert group of peers and distrusting actual medical expertise. It is a contested area, largely due to the impossibility of doing thorough ethical research, but your opinion is fantasy.

[leinster4life13]

Strong source^, very impartial article that,

I did a quick google and that was the only report I could find that didn't come from either a pro or anti steroid site.

E.g.:
http://www.steroidabuse.com/steroid-myths.html
Vs
http://www.anabolics.com/pages/Roid-Rage

It was nice of you to provide a link to a more balanced report though.

It's very hard for us mere sheeple to find an unbiased opinion on roid rage. If you bothered to read it you'd have seen that the report was a direct response to the Benoit story and was produced at the time.

The opening paragraph/sentence is

Pro wrestler Chris Benoit, his wife, and his son were found dead in their home in Fayetteville, Ga. near Atlanta earlier this week.

The third sentence is

Authorities have reportedly found anabolic steroids in Benoit's home, spurring speculation that so-called "'roid rage" may have been a factor.

And the fourth is

In an interview with WebMD, Gary Wadler, MD, answered questions about 'roid rage and anabolic steroids, which are synthetic substances related to male sex hormones.

So the context of the report was set in just 4 sentences but somehow you missed it. Or chose to ignore that just to discredit it.

Of course Wikipedia is always good for source based reports but because this goes against your belief I'm sure you'll dismiss it as nonsense (try not to get too angry).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolic_steroid

A 2005 review determined that some, but not all, randomized controlled studies have found that anabolic steroid use correlates with hypomania and increased aggressiveness, but pointed out that attempts to determine whether AAS use triggers violent behavior have failed, primarily because of high rates of non-participation.

A 2008 study on a nationally representative sample of young adult males in the United States found an association between lifetime and past-year self-reported anabolic-androgenic steroid use and involvement in violent acts. Compared with individuals that did not use steroids, young adult males that used anabolic-androgenic steroids reported greater involvement in violent behaviors even after controlling for the effects of key demographic variables, previous violent behavior, and polydrug use.

A 2006 study of two pairs of identical twins, in which one twin used anabolic steroids and the other did not, found that in both cases the steroid-using twin exhibited high levels of aggressiveness, hostility, anxiety, and paranoid ideation not found in the "control" twin.

There are links to the scientific studies on the site but again, it's probably just media and government spin for the sheeple that can't see that it's OK to take drugs to get ahead in sport.

Why open your article with Chris Benoit, a simple no, roids had nothing to do with it, end of story, and then, why wheel out a doctor of all people, what would a doctor know about steroids? doctors are not scientists. the entire article is a waste of time, not one medical study cited.

Again, you would do well to read your own sources,

but pointed out that attempts to determine whether AAS use triggers violent behavior have failed

As I said above, there is no scientific proof beyond some anecdotal evidence from Trenbolene users online, that is it

anabolic-androgenic steroids reported greater involvement in violent behaviors

Ah, yes, self reporting, convenient way to blame something for your own problems, "Its not me that beats my wife, ITS THE DRINK, sorry, steroids that do it." Utterly unscientific, next.

As to why I have not provided any sources, no reputable ones exist, only anecdotal evidence either way, therefore its up to the people who claim "steroids" cause aggression to prove it, they haven't been able to, therefore as far as anyone with a brain is concerned, steroid use does not cause aggression according to all available scientific literature.

[Broken Wing]

Why open your article with Chris Benoit, a simple no, roids had nothing to do with it, end of story, and then, why wheel out a doctor of all people, what would a doctor know about steroids? doctors are not scientists. the entire article is a waste of time, not one medical study cited.

Do you understand how news works?

Again, you would do well to read your own sources,

but pointed out that attempts to determine whether AAS use triggers violent behavior have failed

As I said above, there is no scientific proof beyond some anecdotal evidence from Trenbolene users online, that is it

Selective quoting there.

but pointed out that attempts to determine whether AAS use triggers violent behavior have failed, primarily because of high rates of non-participation.

anabolic-androgenic steroids reported greater involvement in violent behaviors

Ah, yes, self reporting, convenient way to blame something for your own problems, "Its not me that beats my wife, ITS THE DRINK, sorry, steroids that do it." Utterly unscientific, next.

More selective quoting.

anabolic-androgenic steroids reported greater involvement in violent behaviors even after controlling for the effects of key demographic variables, previous violent behavior, and polydrug use.

Steroids were the only difference after the controls. We've established that the workings of news is alien to you but do you understand how science works?

As to why I have not provided any sources, no reputable ones exist, only anecdotal evidence either way, therefore its up to the people who claim "steroids" cause aggression to prove it, they haven't been able to, therefore as far as anyone with a brain is concerned, steroid use does not cause aggression according to all available scientific literature.

The third study seems to go a long way to disproving your claim that it's only anecdotal evidence either way but I can understand why you ignored that, what with it creating a crack in your little delusion about steroids being harmless. I only selected three reports on roid rage but from that same Wikipedia article there are many, many more on the damage caused by steroid abuse.

- A 2005 review in CNS Drugs determined that significant psychiatric symptoms including aggression and violence, mania, and less frequently psychosis and suicide have been associated with steroid abuse.
- A 13-month study, which was published in 2006 and which involved 320 body builders and athletes suggests that the wide range of psychiatric side-effects induced by the use of AAS is correlated to the severity of abuse
- Cooper, Noakes, Dunne, Lambert, and Rochford identified that anabolic–androgenic steroid (AAS) using individuals are more likely to score higher on borderline (4.7 times), antisocial (3.8 times), paranoid (3.4 times), schizotypal (3.1 times), histrionic (2.9 times), passive-aggressive (2.4 times), and narcissistic (1.6 times) personality profiles than non-users.
- Kidney tests revealed that nine of the ten bodybuilders developed a condition called focal segmental glomerulosclerosis, a type of scarring within the kidneys. The kidney damage in the bodybuilders has similarities to that seen in morbidly obese patients, but appears to be even more severe
- High doses of oral anabolic steroid compounds can cause liver damage, as the steroids are metabolized (17α-alkylated) in the digestive system to increase their bioavailability and stability.
- Peliosis hepatis has been increasingly recognised with the use of anabolic steroids.

All anecdotal, right?

[Peg Leg]

As to why I have not provided any sources, no reputable ones exist, only anecdotal evidence either way, therefore its up to the people who claim "steroids" cause aggression to prove it, they haven't been able to, therefore as far as anyone with a brain is concerned, steroid use does not cause aggression according to all available scientific literature.

Jeez calm down there L4L you seem very angry about all this....
Given your last paragraph would it be safe to assume that steroid use is still potentially very dangerous given the unknown later life side affects? Whilst they have their obvious benefits to the physical ability of a fully grown person- the use of these things in some people whose careers peak is probably 18 (gymnastics) is probably going to completely f%~k them up in later life?
So regardless of there been evidence for one thing or the other, right now- steroids that have been on the market for years have shown crazy side effects and have not been approved. But the stuff lads are taking now may not have the same long term risks and may end up being approved just in time for use to get into the hunger games/rollerball season? Ergo, if your doing it now you're taking a big leap into the unknown & cheating.

[leinster4life13]

Do you understand how news works?


Selective quoting there.

but pointed out that attempts to determine whether AAS use triggers violent behavior have failed, primarily because of high rates of non-participation.

More selective quoting.

anabolic-androgenic steroids reported greater involvement in violent behaviors even after controlling for the effects of key demographic variables, previous violent behavior, and polydrug use.

Steroids were the only difference after the controls. We've established that the workings of news is alien to you but do you understand how science works?

As to why I have not provided any sources, no reputable ones exist, only anecdotal evidence either way, therefore its up to the people who claim "steroids" cause aggression to prove it, they haven't been able to, therefore as far as anyone with a brain is concerned, steroid use does not cause aggression according to all available scientific literature.

The third study seems to go a long way to disproving your claim that it's only anecdotal evidence either way but I can understand why you ignored that, what with it creating a crack in your little delusion about steroids being harmless. I only selected three reports on roid rage but from that same Wikipedia article there are many, many more on the damage caused by steroid abuse.

- A 2005 review in CNS Drugs determined that significant psychiatric symptoms including aggression and violence, mania, and less frequently psychosis and suicide have been associated with steroid abuse.
- A 13-month study, which was published in 2006 and which involved 320 body builders and athletes suggests that the wide range of psychiatric side-effects induced by the use of AAS is correlated to the severity of abuse
- Cooper, Noakes, Dunne, Lambert, and Rochford identified that anabolic–androgenic steroid (AAS) using individuals are more likely to score higher on borderline (4.7 times), antisocial (3.8 times), paranoid (3.4 times), schizotypal (3.1 times), histrionic (2.9 times), passive-aggressive (2.4 times), and narcissistic (1.6 times) personality profiles than non-users.
- Kidney tests revealed that nine of the ten bodybuilders developed a condition called focal segmental glomerulosclerosis, a type of scarring within the kidneys. The kidney damage in the bodybuilders has similarities to that seen in morbidly obese patients, but appears to be even more severe
- High doses of oral anabolic steroid compounds can cause liver damage, as the steroids are metabolized (17α-alkylated) in the digestive system to increase their bioavailability and stability.
- Peliosis hepatis has been increasingly recognised with the use of anabolic steroids.

All anecdotal, right?

Yes, thats why I ignore most of it, look at the reporting on Gaza for how the news works, fair and balanced right?

Exactly, it failed, the study is bunk, non participation or not, it is bunk.

Self reporting, establish whatever controls you want, self reporting is not scientific, next.

Look at the language in those studies, none of it is empirical, as they say they are mixing compounds, orals etc, that is utterly unscientific, imagine mixing any bunch of substances together, painkillers, say and then noting the sides and saying "ta da" they are all bad.

The last part about kidney and Liver damage I agree with, Oral steroids are bad for, that has been proven since the 70's, they are toxic as your liver has to convert them. Thats common knowledge. So far you have produced nothing a few random uncontrolled studies, the only thing with any weight or fact behing it, is that oral steroids cause internal damage, but that is true of painkillers and anti imflammatories also, which is why I would advise anyone to avoid them.

Strong source^, very impartial article that, given that it starts with Chris Benoit of all people, doesnt mention the different types of steroids one can use and their differing effects. There is no "steroid", you buy, test, dbol, winstrol etc, all have different properties, for example, tren is the only steroid anecdotally linked with mood changes, there is no scientific date that "roid rage" exists beyond some tren users on anonymous forums, I have never heard of it outside the realms of fiction and tumescent newspaper editors looking to shock the sheeple. My take on it is the same with drink, you are an aggressive arsehole before you start and then you are an aggressive arsehole with muscles, you are an aggressive arsehole either way, its not the substance, its you, and until science says different why would you buy into the government/pliant media spin. Its the same with all(hyperbole alert) drugs, the government deems them illegal and dangerous even though the scientists involved say they are not, media follows government spin and they stay illegal.

As the article I linked to above put it

"We have no idea how doping affects athletes, because we have no idea what they take, how much of it or for how long. They won't tell. Researchers won't run clinical trials because giving test subjects the amount of drugs believed to help performance would be unethical.
...
The dilettante "Just Say Yes to Doping" crowd always seems to forget that health care is not distributed equitably. I once participated in a televised panel discussion with young athletes in the audience, posing questions. A slight football player from one of the most disadvantaged high schools in San Francisco implored the adults to remember athletes like him and protect his right to compete clean."

If you pop on over to, say pubmed, and run a search there you will notice a preponderance of rat research for just this reason. That said the general consensus is that AAS use has serious effects on aggression and mental health for humans particularly adolescents. If you go and look through the social research you will see some interesting stuff like the selectivity regarding evidence among steroid users and their self-delusion and creation of a false expert group of peers and distrusting actual medical expertise. It is a contested area, largely due to the impossibility of doing thorough ethical research, but your opinion is fantasy.

I agree, but if the research on rats was done correctly, eg with doses relative to what humans would take, I would read it without incredulity, its the same as rat research on MDMA, now there is a large possibility that MDMA is neurotoxic as shown in Rats on massive long term doses, but, we dont know due to how the research is conducted, therefore we can ignore it. Same with steroids, there is evidence of harm in studies on rats given massive doses, but none at a lower level, therefore we cant say for certain steroids are harmless, but, we cant prove they are harmful except at massive dosages beyond what even the most hardcore bodybuilders would even contemplate or even afford. you cant correalate unhealthy dosages of anything done with rats and say, "TA DAH" science says its bad, it doesnt work that way.

General consensus means nothing, show me empirical evidence.

Give it ten years and we will have the research, TRT and hormone replacement is a massive business in the US atm, that will give us some data as to the effects on older people, until then I would stay away from tabloid scare stories.

As for my opinion being fantasy? LOL, ok, do you have any experience of high level sports, training or science?

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/24082242 As an aside..

[Peg Leg]

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/24082242 As an aside..

His dad reckons this lesson will make him stronger.... the ironing!

[leinster4life13]

As to why I have not provided any sources, no reputable ones exist, only anecdotal evidence either way, therefore its up to the people who claim "steroids" cause aggression to prove it, they haven't been able to, therefore as far as anyone with a brain is concerned, steroid use does not cause aggression according to all available scientific literature.

Jeez calm down there L4L you seem very angry about all this....
Given your last paragraph would it be safe to assume that steroid use is still potentially very dangerous given the unknown later life side affects? Whilst they have their obvious benefits to the physical ability of a fully grown person- the use of these things in some people whose careers peak is probably 18 (gymnastics) is probably going to completely f%~k them up in later life?
So regardless of there been evidence for one thing or the other, right now- steroids that have been on the market for years have shown crazy side effects and have not been approved. But the stuff lads are taking now may not have the same long term risks and may end up being approved just in time for use to get into the hunger games/rollerball season? Ergo, if your doing it now you're taking a big leap into the unknown & cheating.

Aside from temporary testicle atrophy, (acne and baldness dose and hereditary dependant, only happens if you are genetically predisposed) and thickening of the left ventricle(that also happens with long term weightlifting so we cant seperate the two atm) they are the worst sides for injectables.
HGH and peptide derivatives, which are now de rigueur at most levels of sport, are unknowns, I would never claim they harmless as they have only really come on the market in the past 15 years (unlike steroids which have been around since the 60's), so they are an unknown quantity.

Steroids have not shown "crazy sides", orals will f%~k up your kidneys and liver, thats about it, now I cant comment on what will happen to a woman(as they are male hormones) as I dont know, so everything I am talking about is in a male context.
Ask Arnold or Ben Johnson or any weightlifter how they are feeling twenty odd years from their heyday, there is a difference between use and abuse, anyone abusing anything will hurt themselves, that is not up for debate, nor should you care about people who put themselves forwards for a Darwin Award, you cant legislate for the lowest common denominators otherwise Tort Law would literally become a joke.

[domhnallj]

I agree, but if the research on rats was done correctly, eg with doses relative to what humans would take, I would read it without incredulity, its the same as rat research on MDMA, now there is a large possibility that MDMA is neurotoxic as shown in Rats on massive long term doses, but, we dont know due to how the research is conducted, therefore we can ignore it. Same with steroids, there is evidence of harm in studies on rats given massive doses, but none at a lower level, therefore we cant say for certain steroids are harmless, but, we cant prove they are harmful except at massive dosages beyond what even the most hardcore bodybuilders would even contemplate or even afford. you cant correalate unhealthy dosages of anything done with rats and say, "TA DAH" science says its bad, it doesnt work that way.

General consensus means nothing, show me empirical evidence.

Not sure you claim that such-and-such a piece of research was done correctly or not. It was done for a reason and was peer reviewed, the hypothesis tested in the studies you mention is not perhaps relevant to this discussion.

If you can cite the research you have in mind I can ask some of my colleagues (Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University) that work with these sorts of compounds about it. We might be able to clear the air.

[Broken Wing]

Look at the language in those studies, none of it is empirical, as they say they are mixing compounds, orals etc, that is utterly unscientific, imagine mixing any bunch of substances together, painkillers, say and then noting the sides and saying "ta da" they are all bad.

What do you mean by empirical? I'm not being smart here, that's a genuine question. My understanding of the word is that it is something capable of being proved/disproved by experiment and observation.

A 2006 study of two pairs of identical twins, in which one twin used anabolic steroids and the other did not, found that in both cases the steroid-using twin exhibited high levels of aggressiveness, hostility, anxiety, and paranoid ideation not found in the "control" twin.

Can you explain to me what about this study lacks the empirical language you are looking for?

[fourthirtythree]

I agree, but if the research on rats was done correctly, eg with doses relative to what humans would take, I would read it without incredulity, its the same as rat research on MDMA, now there is a large possibility that MDMA is neurotoxic as shown in Rats on massive long term doses, but, we dont know due to how the research is conducted, therefore we can ignore it. Same with steroids, there is evidence of harm in studies on rats given massive doses, but none at a lower level, therefore we cant say for certain steroids are harmless, but, we cant prove they are harmful except at massive dosages beyond what even the most hardcore bodybuilders would even contemplate or even afford. you cant correalate unhealthy dosages of anything done with rats and say, "TA DAH" science says its bad, it doesnt work that way.

General consensus means nothing, show me empirical evidence.

Not sure you claim that such-and-such a piece of research was done correctly or not. It was done for a reason and was peer reviewed, the hypothesis tested in the studies you mention is not perhaps relevant to this discussion.

If you can cite the research you have in mind I can ask some of my colleagues (Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University) that work with these sorts of compounds about it. We might be able to clear the air.

As a for example: which one of these papers doesn't meet l4l's seriously high standard of scientific rigour? Maybe only the ones that he disagrees with the outcome of?
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en ... 5&as_sdtp=

[leinster4life13]

Look at the language in those studies, none of it is empirical, as they say they are mixing compounds, orals etc, that is utterly unscientific, imagine mixing any bunch of substances together, painkillers, say and then noting the sides and saying "ta da" they are all bad.

What do you mean by empirical? I'm not being smart here, that's a genuine question. My understanding of the word is that it is something capable of being proved/disproved by experiment and observation.

A 2006 study of two pairs of identical twins, in which one twin used anabolic steroids and the other did not, found that in both cases the steroid-using twin exhibited high levels of aggressiveness, hostility, anxiety, and paranoid ideation not found in the "control" twin.

Can you explain to me what about this study lacks the empirical language you are looking for?

For a study like that to be empirical, you need a bigger control group, tighter parameters, and diet etc has to be taken into consideration. All of the studies cited are not wide ranging and especially in the case of the twins one are way too small to have any weight. Empirical means facts, not subjective or abstract concepts like the language used in these studies.
http://www.jsams.org/article/S1440-2440 ... 3/abstract

Here is a double blind study of twenty one individuals, too small imo, but anyway.

a mild increase in libido over the first two weeks with a subsequent fall to normal, mild acne, subjective changes to personality including an increase in aggression, irritability and positive mood responses. Consequently, moderate doses of TE combined with weight training can result in short term significant changes in upper body strength and body composition, with corresponding changes to baseline health in some individuals.

This goes back to my post about hereditary effects, balding etc, all that stuff about aggression is subjective and did not happen to everyone, literally cite me a study that proves it.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

I thought most people became calmer when they got the roid.

[leinster4life13]

I agree, but if the research on rats was done correctly, eg with doses relative to what humans would take, I would read it without incredulity, its the same as rat research on MDMA, now there is a large possibility that MDMA is neurotoxic as shown in Rats on massive long term doses, but, we dont know due to how the research is conducted, therefore we can ignore it. Same with steroids, there is evidence of harm in studies on rats given massive doses, but none at a lower level, therefore we cant say for certain steroids are harmless, but, we cant prove they are harmful except at massive dosages beyond what even the most hardcore bodybuilders would even contemplate or even afford. you cant correalate unhealthy dosages of anything done with rats and say, "TA DAH" science says its bad, it doesnt work that way.

General consensus means nothing, show me empirical evidence.

Not sure you claim that such-and-such a piece of research was done correctly or not. It was done for a reason and was peer reviewed, the hypothesis tested in the studies you mention is not perhaps relevant to this discussion.

If you can cite the research you have in mind I can ask some of my colleagues (Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University) that work with these sorts of compounds about it. We might be able to clear the air.

As a for example: which one of these papers doesn't meet l4l's seriously high standard of scientific rigour? Maybe only the ones that he disagrees with the outcome of?
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en ... 5&as_sdtp=

Did you read any of them? Clicked on the first one. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 8494903514

These findings highlight the heterogeneity of AAS effects on the nervous system and behavior and indicate that the psychological effects reported by human AAS abusers may depend upon the distinct chemical structures of the abused steroids

In contrast, treatment with stanozolol at the dose used in this study was completely ineffective in eliciting aggressive behavior

Again what I said above, any reported aggression is not due to "steroids", abuse, select compounds(tren as I said above), etc may cause aggression.

Find me a solid study, you cant, none have been done.

Here is another one, Roid rage doesnt exist http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 6X01917064

This study examined the effects of anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) on aggression under different social and environmental conditions. Three AAS were tested in gonadally intact male rats: testosterone propionate (TP), nandrolone (ND), and stanozolol (ST). Doses of 5 mg/kg were given 5 times/week, with gonadally intact controls receiving vehicle only (propylene glycol). Animals received six weekly tests under each condition in a counterbalanced order. Results show that the three AAS differed in their ability to elicit aggression. Males receiving TP were more aggressive than controls, ND males were similar to controls, and ST males were less aggressive than controls. In the social and environmental provocation tests TP-treated males were more aggressive than other groups, but were able to discriminate between intact and castrated opponents and between their home cage and a neutral cage. In the environmental provocation test, TP males were also more aggressive against opponents when tested in the opponent's home cage. It is suggested that chronic exposure to high levels of TP does not eliminate the ability to discriminate between social or environmental cues, as might be expected if it induces a “ ‘roid rage.” However, TP does increase the likelihood that the animal will respond with aggression/dominance in a provoking situation. All three AAS variably affected serum testosterone and LH levels, as well as testes, seminal vesicle, and prostate weights. No effect on body weight was observed.

[Broken Wing]

Even taking into account the small sample sizes of the twins study and the one you mention, both report increases in aggression. Granted, the one you cite lists them as subjective.

To me that suggests the possibility of an increase in aggression from steroid use. Yes, it may only affect some but, just as with taking any drug with possible side-effects, how can a user know if they are one of that some? To give an example already drawn into this topic, maybe Benoit was one of the some. I would presume there's an ethics issue with running tests on large groups of humans so there's never likely to be a definitive report on the dangers, especially since without those larg scale tests, the reliance is on dopers admitting they dope and honestly dealing with the testers and that's just not going to happen.

When you come right down to it, your claims of safety also lack empirical data so they are just as anecdotal and, being anecdotal, you can't stand over them while dismissing all counter arguments.

[Broken Wing]

Here is another one, Roid rage doesnt exist http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 6X01917064

However, TP does increase the likelihood that the animal will respond with aggression/dominance in a provoking situation.

So what's that if not roid rage?

[leinster4life13]

Here is another one, Roid rage doesnt exist http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 6X01917064

However, TP does increase the likelihood that the animal will respond with aggression/dominance in a provoking situation.

So what's that if not roid rage?

They were giving the rats 5mg a kg five times a week which works out at around 400mg a day(for someone around 5'11, 80kg)! Regular doseages for humans would be 400mg a week! By giving the rats twenty times the recommended dose they also found.

" It is suggested that chronic exposure to high levels of TP does not eliminate the ability to discriminate between social or environmental cues, as might be expected if it induces a “ ‘roid rage.”

So, I think if anyone was on twenty times the regular dose and they respond with increased provocation that is to be expected, but its still not "roid rage", merely increased aggression in the face of provocaction. I dont see any issue, that is abuse, I am not defending abuse or misuse here, nor should that even be up for debate.