Hi!
I volunteered on a trial study about occlusion training. I have to train 3 times a week with their setup. Before and after every training they will take a biopsy from my quadriceps. The guy asked me if i was on steroids. Obviously that would influence the results so they wouldn’t want that. I’m not on steroids, but i did one cycle 2 years ago. Will this influence their studies? Will they be able to tell that by the muscle biopsy?
Thanks
here’s a thought. Be honest with them and let them decide?
Hmm interesting.
Have always operated under the assumption that use of anabolics results in permanent physiological changes to muscle that don’t disappear after you go off cycle.
Presumably a muscle biopsy would then pick up athletes even after the drugs had cleared their system or years later. Either there’s a conspiracy in anti doping to keep drug use hush hush or the impracticalities of getting muscle samples off active athletes keeps it from widespread use.
Tell us how you go.
And don’t lie pls. It’s fucking hard enough already with regurgitated broscience, fuckboy fake natties and an industry of snake oil salesmen sponsoring bullshit studies to get some real science going. Dont fuck up their study
Yes it is interesting K.I definitely don’t have a scientific background, but I would have thought once the metabolites are fully out of your system, that there would be no way of telling whether the muscle had been exposed to steroids. I have heard of the permanant physiological change idea from steroids, but what exactly are the changes and and how would they show up?
I have heard that an MRI could pick up scar tissue from injections that would strongly suggest a history of an athelete injecting steroids rather than say vitamin B. However that probably wouldn’t be an actual change in muscle structure or composition, just a strong indicator of probable steroid use. What do you reckon?
Probably not with straight test with sub 500 mg doses
I would tell them in any case, but even more if you tooks things like high dose tren, dbol, deca or whatever else. I find it hard to believe that the muscles would go back to exactly how they were when you were natty when you were once ultra bloated in a very unatural way
Sorry mane I got nothing on that. Have no idea what changes you see under the microscope and couldn’t understand or explain them anyways.
All I got is multiple sources on the efficacy of muscle biopsy for detection but invariably commenting that the invasive nature of the test makes it impractical and athletes would kick up a fuss. WADA and other agencies have no reason to push hard for it because it’ll turn out badly for them. Either they start up a shit storm with athletes worldwide or half of them test positive and WADA gets embarrassed.
If you can make sense of it:
Effects of anabolic steroids on the muscle cells of strength-trained athletes.
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/285/1/E197.full
http://www.anabolicsteroidcalculator.com/resources/articles/review/article6.pdf
Interesting links K. Made some sense of them, looks like its possible. Still more specific studies could be done. It would be pretty difficult, but if you could take muscle biospies before a person ever used steroids, and compare them after several cycles, then compare them again after several years of stopping anabolics.Not an easy thing to control with a group large enough to make it statistically valid.