ok, before you try grilling me like a fuckin chicken breast, check this out.
I talked to a few doctors. ( open minded ones). They said that their concern with steriod use is not with the liver or even the hardening of the heart ventricles ( which can happen) BUT the possibilty of cancer.
WHY?
Even though no studies have been shown a direct link between AAS and cancer, they have a legitimate point.
The theory is that mainly when excess hormones are floating through the body around regular cells the chances of getting cancer INCREASES because hormones can act as a catalyst for a cell to mutate. The whole point is, if the material is around to throw a cells “normal activity” off, your chances increase. Its like drinking and driving. Even though you are pounding beers in a car DOES NOT mean you will have a accident BUT the chances do INCREASE.
Also that is why there is controversy over birth control or estrogen pills given to women for menopause, they believe this is whats causing the increase in the cancer rate in women.
Probably goes with the theory that an excess of free radicals can cause cancerous growths. Augmenting protein synthesis (wich steriods does) augments free rads levels…you can correlate anything these days…
I study cancer as a PhD student. I can see some of their points, but the increase in chance of getting cancer is very minimal, if not null. First, you need a mutation of a critical gene or sequence. Then you need that sequence to be expressed (if it is a cancer enhancer) or downregulated (if it is a tumor suppressor). Then, on top of that, there are 100’s of different proteins in 100’s of differing pathways that you need to let this mutant pass. Most of the time, and I’m talkin 99.9999% of the time, the cell will just die and be replaced by a normal cell. You have mutations in you naturally, some good, some bad. Most of the time, you still live a normal, functional life. Increasing the amount of hormones in your body for brief periods of time will barely affect your overall system, especially if you take care of yourself, which I know you guys do just from reading your posts.
The moral of the story: Worry about cancer in all areas of life and take precautions, but don’t let it ruin your life. You are more at risk for skin melanomas than any other cancer, don’t worry about it.
Yea I have an opinion… it’s nonsence. I demand studies and there are none. Yes, when there exist mutant cells and there are growth catalysts introduced, there are chances that cancerous growths develope. However, androgenic and anabolic steroids are not such growth catalysts. IGF-1 would be an example of such a growth catalyst. There is little to fear with day to day steroids. I’m calling bullshit.
Squatty, you are wrong. If androgens aren’t growht catalysts, then why are you growing? They mimic testosterone and other hormones in your body and will bind to the same receptors as test does, therefore causing growth.
i dont mean to be a simpleton here. but, anything, and i mean anything can be linked to cancer these days. i know alot of the reports are meant to be helpful but its gotten to the point where one cant tell a carcinogen(sp?) from a safe product. i read a newspaper article recently talking about fiberglass insulation and its links to lung cancer in the factory workers. turns out there was no link. but the article made a big deal out of the fact the when rats are implanted with the insulation it causes cancer. no shit sherlock. turns out if you implant just about anything into these rats, cancer forms. anyways, just my .02
I agree with Drago1 on this. There are chemicals out there that are known carcinogens. Anabolic steroids is not on that list. There are no studies out there that show a direct link, unlike lung cancer in smokers, to steroid use. Steroids have been around for a long time as well. However, that been said, I don’t think it would be a good idea to continue taking steroids if you had cancer.
squatty, doesn’t high testosterone levels increase IGF-1 in the blood stream?
And nandrolone is known for it’s effects on reducing IGF-1 binding protein.
The AAS trigger increased levels of IGF-1 (or reducing its binding hormone, causing increase free amount of it), and it acts as a growth catalyst.
Hypothetically, you would think that taking steroids while having cancer is a bad thing, it may be benificial in terms of muscle sparing effects. Think about it: AIDS patients do it, so why can’t cancer patients do it? It just depends on the type of cancer. If it’s a muscular sarcoma, then obviously you won’t take AAS while you have cancer, but if it’s a skin cancer or lung cancer, AAS or even HGH in combination with specific drugs may maintain your body while ridding yourself of cancer. While this has yet to be done, I’m sure it could be.
Oh, and I work with mice, and not everything injected into the mice or implanted into the mice causes cancer. MICE are 90% similar to humans, RATS are a little different and much harder to work with. Right now, my project is to understand the mechanisms and stoppage of platelet aggregation to deter metastases to bone. Basically, don’t want other cancers to mobilize to bone and blood platelets help that and we’re trying to figure out why.
Justin, isn’t lung cancer the most metastatic cancer you can have? and isn’t melenoma a very dangerous cancer which spreads very easily as well?
I did a literature search and I see that there are very few studies in this area. I did find one which studied the use of Deca (50mg/week)for appetiete stimulation in patients recovering from esophageal cancer/ surgery but the results were inconclusive and stated that higher doses of steroid were needed. They should have used equipoise.
Well, it’s really difficult to say which cancers are MOST metastatic, but you can have comparative values, such as saying melanomas are more metastatic than, say, testicular cancer.
In men, I would say that prostate cancer is the most metastatic. In women, it’s usually breast cancer. Bones also harbor cancer very well, because of the constant resorption of bone. A normal person usually recycles their entire skeleton every 7-10 years. Constant breaking down and building of the bone is a GREAT site for cancer metastases because growth factors are constantly released and resorbed. These include TGF Beta, VEGF, etc.
The lungs RECEIVE a lot of metastases from other cancers because of the way the arterial system works. Since the lungs are basically very very thin epithelial cells, they harbor cancer very well.
Site of cancer–> growth—> angiogenesis(blood vessel formation)–> break off of some cancerous cells–> Veins–> heart(R ventricle/atrium)–> pulmonary artery–>lungs—>pulmonary vein—> heart(L ventricle/atrium)—> aorta.
Yes, melanoma spreads quickly as well. This is the reason it’s the number one overall cancer killer (I believe, but I’m not checking on it). Most people don’t notice the little bumps they get, as they mistake them for moles or whatever. If it changes colors or pops up in odd places, get that shit checked out.
Cancer can also spread via the lymph system, and then you’ll get lymphomas. That’s bad, and hopefully it will only be localized to 1, maybe 2 lymph nodes. If not, you will be covered in cancer.
I agree that androgens are growth catalysts but I don’t feel that they work with a mechanism that would stimulate fater growth in cancerous cell blocks. IGF-1 does work via that mechanism. Furthermore, if steroids increase IGF-1 levels, that’s fine because it is your body’s own IGF-1, you are not exceeding your supraphisiological levels and therefore are not at a much greater risk. Though IGF-1 levels increase, it is a relatively small increase, nowhere near what an exogenous introduction of the chemical would cause.
Lung cancer is the number one cause of death from cancer, followed by prostate and breast in men and women, and third is colorectal cancer. Melanoma is not even close, accounting for ~1% of all cancer deaths.
We know that certain male and female reproductive cancers are hormone sensitive. That is the premise for giving a patient anti E’s or anti-androgens. Binding at the hormone receptor causes increased transcription of protein products required for tumor growth.
Now, the distinction that we’re talking about is whether or not hormones can actually CAUSE these, or any other cancers, in the first place. Some say yes, others say no. It’s controversial. There’s no question about whether or not hormones cause growth in hormone receptor positive tumors, but we also know that hormones can cause hyperplastic changes in normal cell lines. Benign prostatic hyperplasia is caused by elevated levels of DHT, and recently estrogens have been implicated. The underlying cause of prostate cancer is most likely due to alterations in tumor-suppressor genes, but hormone levels have also been “associated.” Same goes with breast, ovarian, and endometrial carcinomas. We know that one has an increased risk or developing a malignancy simply by having an earlier onset of menses or late menopause. This means that the potential sites of cancer are exposed to hormones for longer periods of time and the risk is increased. Whether the hormones cause the process or just help speed it along, I’m not sure.
Basically, we’re constantly being bombarded by potential carcinogens, such as chemicals, radiation, and viruses. Most of the time, when mutations do occur, our body is able to repair the defect or signal the cell to die. Most of the growth factors required for tumor cell proliferation are cell membrane receptors, versus hormone receptors which are intracellular. It just seems intuitive that by increasing the amount of circulating androgens, and as a result causing increased protein synthesis and cell growth, can potentially create an environment conducive to tumor growth. Whether or not this actually correlates to an increased risk of expressing a mutated cell cycle regulatory gene, again I don’t know. Hopefully in a few years I’ll be better able to answer these questions. Maybe Justin will discover something huge and win a Nobel Prize in the meantime.