Talk:Anabolic steroid/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Proper Nomenclature

The proper nomenclature is anabolic-androgenic steroid, with a hyphen. I believe this should be changed throughout. GetAnabolics 20:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that makes much of a difference. The top classifies them as such but it's sort of redundant to put it like that all throughout the article.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

On recent edits....

There have been a few drastic edits recently which basically removed the entire section on misconceptions and mangled the references and added faulty scientific studies that don't even say what is presented of them. I have been away from wikipedia for a few days and did not spot this but I have returned. I want to explain why many of the edits are faulty and nonsensical here.

Citations needed??? The recent edits added a "citations needed" tag at the top and actually removed several citations in the aricle and replaced them with "citation needed" tags.

Changes in use in highschool, injection practices, teenagers etc The change from 2.7% to "is anywhere from three to nine percent" cited a news organization in place of a scientific study. The scientific study is more reliable. Unless you can find the actual study that states this then don't change it. Please post it here if you do find it so I can examine it. The same goes for injection practices and use among teenagers (who's sources was actually removed).

Dangers of AAS The recent edits removed most of the scientific studies showing the mortality rats among AAS users are fairly low compared to other drug users and no casual links exist. Not only removed the sources but mangled them as well. The mentions of the side effects in the "use and abuse" section are also redundant as they are mentioned in the "Side effects" area. The same goes for "Suicide". The logic behind the "suicide" hypothesis is fallacious and the vast amount of studies trump it an

Aggressive behavior The recent edits seemed to of made the assertion that a study from "Project EAT"(found here[[1]]) had shown aggressive behavior in teenagers who used steroids. This may be true, however the assertion that anabolic steroids cause aggressive behavior in teenagers has nothing to do with adults. Numerous upon numerous studies have shown NO angry behavior from AAS. One single study done on teenagers hardly proves otherwise. The recent edits even removed this..."however more comprehensive and recent studies have brought into question their methodology and conclusions. The majority of recent studies done on "angry behavior" and anabolic steroid use show no psychological effect, implying that either "roid rage" doesn't exist or that anabolic steroids' effects on aggression are too small to be measured. Harvard researcher Harrison Pope, M.D. stated “With regard to the ‘roid rage’ issue, my first reaction as a scientist, obviously, is that ‘roid rage’ is a meaningless term that simply arose in popular parlance”." and replaced it with "Many scientists and medical professionals have concluded anabolic steroids have no real effect on increased aggressive behavior.".

Lack of studiesThis is one of the most absurd claims yet. This article references DOZENS of scientific experiments and studies done on anabolic steroids users especially those who are healthy and have normal testosterone levels. Please read all of the references before jumping to conclusions.

Please read the talk page before making future edits to this article. Also, Please learn about proper formating before making such edits as well. Talk things out with the people here and see what they have to say before making such dramatic edits to the article again.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Chantoke, Please read....

I am a currently practicing physician and I have to point out that I was shocked by the gross errors in the "popular misconceptions" section. Most notably, the article fails to take into account the EAT trial as well as the consensus panel of the American Society of Endocrinologists. In using steroids to treat patients with AIDS as well as wasting syndromes, the drug also possesses erythropoietic properties, something which I have seen cause strokes in users above the age of 40. Some of the articles used to support points are case studies, which have been long outdated by larger cohort studies and clinical trials. This is an extraordinarily biased discussion of anabolic steroids and it is disheartening to see a misrepresentation of the current medical consensus on such a great site. I will gladly provide copies of the studies as well as include my references when editing the errors in the current text. TT 03:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC) chantoke

Thank you for your concern but I can assure you that the information is as accurate as is possible. I have been studying Anabolic steroids for several years now and I have studied the "EAT" trial as well. Most of the studies posted in this article are actually more recent. Moreover "Project eat" deals exclusively with adolescents.[[2]] The effects of AAS on healthy adult men compared to those on adolescents are vastly different. It's true that over use of AAS can cause strokes but this is very dose dependent. Studies done on adult healthy men (as referenced in the article) actually prove that the side effects are minimal if existent. This article only seems bias to you because you have been convinced that AAS is always dangerous or deadly and have not actually read the relevant studies out there. This article goes into extensive detail explaining how steroids ARE dangerous in many cases and lists all of their side effects. Please don't claim this article is Bias. Your recent edits were highly flawed and faulty. I could not find any studies you referenced due to the mangling of the citations but the only reference I did see was from a recent ABC article explaining how teenage use of AAS can cause various side effects. This is actually already explained in the study. If you do have newer studies that are not mentioned in this article then please do post them on this talk page for them to be reviewed for their relevancy. But please don't make edits like you recently did again because it's clear you do not know wikipedia policy or know how to properly edit and format wikipedia pages. If you have any studies that you think would be relevant then please post them here and I will do my best to fit them into the article. This article has been rated a "Good article" and I would like to keep it that way and even make it a featured article one day soon. Mangling it up because you think it's "bias" won't help a bit.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

More sources are always welcome, a useful tool to generate properly-formatted citations is this tool. Just submit the PubMed ID and copy and paste the resulting output (xxxx) into the page between <ref> xxxxx </ref> Alternatively, if you use Internet Explorer or Firefox (2.0+), then Wouterstomp's bookmarklet can automate this step from the PubMed abstract page. Hope this helps. TimVickers 18:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, But make sure to post them here before adding them to the page. Many studies have been refuted by more recent studies and many studies are referenced in this article under different names. So please do check with us on the talk page before making any other major edits to the article.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This is getting perilously close to WP:OWN! TimVickers 19:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur, WP:OWN problems are hurting this article.--Chrisbak 16:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on his previous edits,I would prefer he not make other edits until we're able to discuss them here. That's what talk pages are for. I'm not declaring ownership of the article. I'm just saying it would make more sense to discuss potential changes here rather than making them just so they will get reverted because they violate one or multiple rules.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Chantoke, I have added the actual study about AAS use in adolescents from "Project EAT" to the relevant area on AAS side effects in adolescents.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Chrisbak, Perhaps you should take a look at how cooperative I am with people helping to improve this article. I hold no pretenses of owning this article in any form. Look at the edit history and how willing I am to work with people on editing the article. The ONLY time I take a stance is when someone is actively harming the article with their edits, as was the case here. This person mangled the article and the references by removing a lot of material that he didn't agree with. I reverted him and pointed out how what he did was wrong. Check his talk page. I made it clear that I would be willing to explain to him how to properly edit as well as take any advice from him on how to improve the article. I even added the study he mentioned concerning the affects on youths. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I see a lot of editors working on this article, so WP:OWN isn't applicable. However I checked one of the studies listed, "Effects of Supraphysiologic Doses of Testosterone on Mood and Aggression in Normal Men" which concluded that "testosterone treatment significantly increased manic scores on the YMRS (P=.002), manic scores on daily diaries (P=.003), visual analog ratings of liking the drug effect (P=.008), and aggressive responses on the Point Subtraction Aggression Paradigm (P=.03)." However the article says "many scientists and medical professionals have concluded anabolic steroids have no real effect on increased aggressive behavior". Also the article summarizes studies which is I believe considered original research under No Original Research. This article also must stick to verifiable facts or it becomes an "essay", which is how I view some sections.--Chrisbak 03:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, You're thinking of this study. [[3]]. The study makes it clear that the standard deviation isn't high enough to be conclusive. The study was referenced to show that the standard deviation was too low to make a conclusion about whether psychological changes occur or not. The standard deviation in this study seems to be less than Sigma1. Only 4% of the participants became became markedly hypomanic which is too low. 84% of them exhibited minimal psychiatric effects. Read the rest of the studies to see what I mean. Secondly, Summarizing studies isn't considered Original research by any definition of the term. Nowhere in WP:OR does it say you can't summarize studies. If this were the case then referencing studies would not even be allowed because one must summarize them in order to even reference them, otherwise they're meaningless. The fact that I cite sources for everything that is said in the article excludes the possibly of Original Research.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed sentence from possible side effects section

I have removed this sentence because nowhere beforehand is 'project EAT' elucidated within the article. A rewrite of the sentence would, possibly, make it fit back in.

A study done as part of the 'project EAT' found that anabolic steroid use in adolescents is generally associated with poorer health habits.

Cryptophile 08:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote it and didn't mention the name of the study.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Student reviews

I've asked several of my students who read the book Testosterone Dreams (much of which covers the history of testosterone and other anabolic steroids) to critique the history section of this article and offer suggestions about how it could be improved.--ragesoss 04:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nick's review

The history section leaves out the use of testosterone for sexual rejuvenation and the restoration of youth. The use of testosterone for these two purposes has grown into American culute and is important in understanding the growth in popularity of the drug. The experimental medical uses were also not mentioned. The history section may want to mention some other uses other than sports to give a complete understanding in what the drug used for and how it worked its way into American culture.

Eric's review

I think the history portion of the article should focus a little more on athletics within the last 30 years. Prior to the ban on steroids in the Olympics, the Germans developed a system in which their athletes could take anabolic steroids three days before the "Testosterone: Epitestosterone test", which was designed to test for all types of performance enhancing drugs, and not get caught. Even with the relatively small size of Germany, their athletes were able to compete with the best in the world. I feel as though this paved the way for companies around the world to create undectable substances that could in fact increase muscle mass.

The steroid debate has received tremendous attention within the last 25 years or so because of its role in athletics. More attention needs to be paid to this aspect of the drugs' history in order to grasp the gravity of its consequences. For instance, the United States fell into shock when it learned that many of the superstars in major league baseball we essentially unnaturally created. Companies, such as BALCO, finally came under scrutiny and has since been shut down. However, the history section sheds very little light on this. Professional sports are very popular, espescially in the United States, and once they were tainted by steroids, momentum for the ban of these drugs really increased. In short, my main critique of the history section, although it is very complete, would be that it does not touch enough on the use of steroids in professional athletics. Its role in professional athletics around the world is one of the main causes for its attention and should be discussed accordingly.

Taylor's review

Although this article covers may areas of anabolic steroids, I feel that there is some information left out of the history section. Anabolic steroid treatment may have begun when Charles Brown-Sequard in 1889 informs the public that he is doing experiments with the secretion of the testicles of dogs and guinea pigs. Max Thorek uses a different method and transplants sexual organs for rejuvenation purposes. Max used the organs of animals and transplanted them into human donors.

Anabolic steroids were not only used for performance enhancing purposes. Doctors prescribed anabolic steroids to patients for what they called "male menopause" and claimed to rejuvenate men. As Paul de Kruif stated in 1945 about the male hormone testosterone, it "is now ready for the possible power to extend the prime life of men." It was also thought to cure female menopause and homosexuals.

Steroids have also had a long history in the Olympics and not just the isolated case with Ben Johnson. As early as 1960 three weight lifters receive methandrostenelone from their physician and record dramatic weight gains. In 1968 one-third of the US track and field team says they are using steroids. In the 1972 Olympics a weightlifter is reported saying he cannot afford the pharmacy bill for steroids. The first tests were not put in place until the 1976 Olympic games. The officials tested 275 athletes and only found 8 to be positive. Ben Plunknett a US discus thrower was the first athlete ever to lose his medal because of steroid abuse in 1981.

There has also been growing literature about anabolic steroids. From the book Anabolic Steroids: What kind and How Many? in 1982 to books like Death in the Locker Room there is much more information in regards to steroids.

Although I think that this is a good start to the history section of Anabolic Steroids I feel that there is a lot missing that is necessary to the article.

Wikidudeman's reply.

---

I appreciate your reviews and I will try to make some changes in the future to reflect your criticisms however I want to point out that most of what isn't covered in the history section is covered in the other sections including "medical uses". I don't see the need to have the entire detailed history of AAS when most of the information is presented in other areas. Moreover, I don't think wikipedia articles should contain every ounce of information out there. I think they should do their best to outline the basics in a balanced way but I don't think they should collect all details on every aspect of the topic. For instance mentioning numerous other people who have used AAS in the Olympics doesn't make much sense. There are other articles that do that which are linked in this article. Overall, I appreciate the time you all took to read this article and critique it and I will and I am sure other editors will try to improve the article the best we can to reflect some of your criticisms. Thank you.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

A couple of points from personal experience

A couple of points from personal experience: Not all oral AAS are hepatotoxic. Neither Andriol nor oral Primobolan are C17 alkylated or methylated. Therefore, the usual skewed liver values associated with administering orals such as Anadrol and Dianabol do not present themselves or do not present themselves to the extent found when using those orals which are alkylated or methylated.

Second, in response to the manic-reported side effects from supraphysiological doses of T, this is primarily caused from increased circulating levels and binding of the catecholamines epinephrine and nor-epinephrine. The studies are out there that detail the connection between drugs like testosterone and nandrolone and biogenic amines. I suspect for most people, as with me, that this side effect will not materialize until several thousand mg's/wk of total androgens are used. Propranolol will be your best friend should you ever encounter this situation.

Third, regarding erythropoiesis, it is a mistake to lump all anabolic androgenic steroids into one pot and say they all increase erythropoiesis equally, therefore, the risk of stroke (or myocardial infarction) is similar when using any one of these drugs. This is completely false. Again, there are studies proving this point primarily conducted back in the 1960's when Big Pharma had to justify the existence of these drugs to the FDA because use in sports was not sufficient enough to keep them on the market. Turns out testosterone is actually a poor promoter of erythropoiesis when compared to synthetics like nandrolone (Deca Durabolin), methenolone (Primobolan), and oxymetholone (Anadrol).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.128.117.130 (talk • contribs).

Thanks. If you have any information you could provide as in scientific studies and specific changes you think I should make please detail them here. Also remember to sign your edits correctly. You didn't do it right, I had to fix it.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

More Facts

I don't knwo if this is usefull: http://www.abovetheinfluence.com/facts/drugs-steroids.aspx# 83.73.234.148 11:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)emilos

Question

Anecdotical evidence suggests that possible side effects of steroid use are the growth of the hearth muscle respective jaw area. Is there any scientifical evidence for that? Has a possible growth of the hearth medical implications? 89.12.122.167 13:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Some steroids used in excessive doses can cause left ventricular hypertrophy (increased size of the left ventricle) however Anabolic steroids can't increase the size of the jaw. The myth is that HGH can increase jaw size because people with pituitary gland problems have larger jaws usually associated with gigantism, however there's not much evidence even HGH can do that when administered.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

popular misconceptions

Is it only me or does the section "popular misconceptions" seem to be somewhat biased towards AAS not being harmful?

I agree that sensible steroid use for a single cycle or two will most likely NOT produce adverse effects, but in reality, especially in the BB/fitness environment, AAS use is not sensible and people measure "off" time rather than "on" time. Face it, gear works and most people, when subjected to the experience of a test high will eventually put the needle back in the butt

Several hints point at steroids in conjunction with borderline body image dysmorphia (megarexia) being able to induce severe psychological dependency.

Furthermore recent swedish, not published yet, material will show that androgen use is associated with enormously increased risks of committing crime in general, extreme violence and of being convicted with road rage crimes.

At least one longitudinal study displays increased mortality i a 12-year follow up on steroid using finnish bodybuilders and 100's if not 1000's of case reports abounds with steroid related deaths. Those are the victims of insensible use that the writer of of the aforementioned section did not take into consideration.

Steroids can be used safely to a certain degree, but that is not the way they are used in generel. Hence i find the "popular misconceptions" section way off.

(Incognito dk 09:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

I think your perception is correct about the section. A large part of the problem with this article is that it attracts editors who feel passionately that AAS are great or they are terrible. The worst of them assume no one else knows what they are talking about, especially if they dont hold exactly the same views, or they see this place as an arena to refight personal issues. The problem of course is compounded for this particular article by the dearth of reliable published information. When do you expect publishing of the "swedish material"? alteripse 10:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing bias about the "Popular misconceptions" area. I along with numerous editors have weighed the benefits and side effects of steroid use and the only thing I could come up with was such a section detailing the very pervasive misconceptions concerning steroid use. I couldn't integrate it into the article otherwise and it's very relevant material. The material itself is all factual and everything is cited more than adequately. This article details the side effects of steroid use, the benefits as well as the common misconceptions. If you can explain how you thing the area is "bias" then please do so, All it does is point out factual material and cite it's assertions. If you have a link to a study showing increased mortality due to steroid use I would like to see it. I've seen probably every single study out there and the majority of the newer more comprehensive studies show no increase in mortality among bodybuilders who use anabolic steroids correctly (with doctor supervision). Anabolic steroids can lead to numerous health problems when used incorrectly and cardiovascular disease, coronary artery disease, bad cholesterol, Acne, liver damage, as well as high blood pressure. These are all possible side effects when used in excessive doses however as the article makes clear, when used in non-excessive doses and monitored by a doctor the side effects seem to either be minimal or not exist at all. The "Popular misconceptions" article dispels numerous misconceptions concerning steroid use including the myth that they shrink the penis of users, that they cause "Brain cancer", that they cause "Roid rage", etc, etc. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I just reviewed the section and have to confess that my first response above was based on my memories of what the article was like last year, and of a couple of the now-departed editors who operated as I described above. I am impressed with the improvement of the section, which is way better and more balanced than it used to be. My apology and a "nice job" to those who have been working on it and especially those taking the trouble to find the references. alteripse 15:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have done a lot of the research into this article, spending time digging up dozens of scientific studies and compiling them together into a consistent article. Take a look at how it is now Anabolic steroid compared to how it was last year before I started working on it [[4]]. It had 2 bad citations from "steroid.com" then and it has almost 100 right now. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

steroids are linked to psychological effects

no evidence of "roid rage" and psychological effects? here's one study which even says about steroids as exhibiting different degrees of the anabolic and androgenic effects of the parental molecule, which is responsible for the production and maintenance of the male physical features, as well as the recognizable male psychological and behavioral attributes. [[5]]

Furthermore, "the use of the stratification of all athletes according to the severity of the abuse showed that the appearance and impact of AAS psychiatric/psychological side effects escalates as the abuse pattern intensifies."—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.233.59.71 (talk • contribs).

That study doesn't work for me. It leads to a pass word protected website. You're probably referring to this study [[6]] which studied 320 body-building, amateur and recreational athletes, of whom 160 were active users of AAS (group C), 80 users administering placebo drugs (group B) and 80 not abusing any substance (Group A). However considering these were prior bodybuilders and users of AAS to begin with, It could be confounded by the fact that AAS users tend to have cluster B personality disorders. This is explained in the article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"Popular Misconceptions"

This article frames the question of psychiatric complications from steroid abuse within a suprisingly biased register. The quality of this section is irresponsible as it dismisses an extremely large body of scholarship without serious comment. Moreover, the entire "popular misconceptions" section is poorly conceived; for example, the comments on the minimal adverse side effects secondary to prolonged administration are especially bizarre considering the unwanted side effects section within this very entry.

Simply picking and choosing scholarship which corresponds to one's ethos, and disregarding other erudite critique as though it does not exist, is intellectually bankrupt. Below, I provide some of the controlling articles on the psychiatric complications secondary to AAS abuse, which should (at the very least) find representation within any academically sound elaboration on the subject of AAS. [I'll try to keep these citations in something like NLM form]

K. A. Miczek, S. P. Faccidomo, E. W. Fish and J. F. DeBold. Neurochemistry and Molecular Neurobiology of Aggressive Behavior. In: Handbook of Neurochemistry and Molecular Neurobiology Behavioral Neurochemistry, Neuroendocrinology and Molecular Neurobiology. Springer US; 2006. p. 285-336.

Harry Rashid, Sara Ormerod and Ed Day. 2007. Anabolic androgenic steroids: what the psychiatrist needs to know. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment 13: 203-211.

Fia Klötz, MD; Mats Garle, MSc; Fredrik Granath, PhD; Ingemar Thiblin, MD, PhD. 2006. Criminality Among Individuals Testing Positive for the Presence of Anabolic Androgenic Steroids. Archives of General Psychiatry. 63:1274-1279.

W. Steven Pray. 2006. Anabolic Steroid Abuse. US Pharm. 8:16-29.

AJ Trenton, GW Currier. 2005. Behavioural manifestations of anabolic steroid use. CNS Drugs. 19(7):571-595.

Peter J. Ambrose. 2004. Drug Use in Sports: A Veritable Arena for Pharmacists. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association 44(4): 501-516.

Ryan C.W. Hall, M.D., Richard C.W. Hall, M.D., and Marcia J. Chapman. 2005. Psychiatric Complications of Anabolic Steroid Abuse. Psychosomatics 46:285-290.

Peter A. Chyka. 2003. Health Risks of Selected Performance-Enhancing Drugs. Journal of Pharmacy Practice 16(1): 37-44.

Dale M. Ahrendt. 2001. Ergogenic Aids: Counseling the Athlete. American Family Physician 63(5)913-22.

Carlos R. Hamilton. 2005. Medical Ethics and Performance-Enhancing Drugs. American Medical Association. <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/15633.html>.

N Galligani, A Renck, S Hansen. 1996. Personality profile of men using anabolic androgenic steroids. Hormones and Behavoir 30: 170-175.

US Department of Health and Human Services: Healthy People 2010 (conference ed, 2 vol). Dept of Health and Human Services, 2000

Hickson RC, Ball KL, Falduto MT: Adverse effects of anabolic steroids. Med Toxicol Adverse Drug Exp 1989;4(4):254-271

Creutzberg EC, Schols AM: Anabolic steroids. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 1999;2(3):243-253

Narducci WA, Wagner JC, Hendrickson TP, et al: Anabolic steroids: a review of the clinical toxicology and diagnostic screening. Clin Toxicol 1990;28(3):287-310

F. C. W. Wu. 1997. Endocrine aspects of anabolic steroids. Clinical Chemistry 43: 1289-1292.

Indubitocogito 07:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)indubitocogito

Hello Indubitocogito, First of all, The "Popular misconceptions" area simply dispells popular misconceptions of anabolic steroids, It doesn't contradict the Side-effects area. Moreover no picking and choosing has been done. The section clearly explains the most cited studies concerning psychological effects of AAS and comes to a conclusion based on the studies out there. I've read all of the links you provided and maybe 2 or 3 are even case studies and those that are case studies don't actually show that AAS causes "roid rage". If you have any peer reviewed case studies with a considerable amount of citations then please provide their direct links, no need to format them here. You need to realize that I AM NOT claiming that AAS doesn't or can't cause irritability and aggression. What I am saying is that the concept of "roid rage" is a fantasy. Harrison Pope agrees. "Roid rage" is defined as incredible bouts of uncontrollable violent 'rage' caused by steroid use. This is what doesn't exist. There may be a slight casual effect between irritability and AAS use however this effect doesn't follow to the popular concept of "roid rage". Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, you have worked extremely hard on this article. So, respectfully, and truly I do not mean to be rude, adding, deleting, or precluding the addition of information based simply on your position on a subject does not provide an accurate representation of the scholarship. In fact, I'm not certain why your evaluation of peer-reviewed journal articles is a necessary and sufficient criterion for inclusion within this article; simply the fact of their receipt within the academic community confirms their importance within the conversation on this subject. This is, of course, not your personal webpage nor is it the page of any other individual wikipedia user. Therefore, presenting equal representation of each side of the controversy on this subject is the only responsible mode of presentation.

Indeed, as you elaborate above, drawing the distinction between increased irritability and aggression and the concept of 'roid rage' is extremely provocative. However, the literature that confirms the possibility of aggressive side effects demands representation and the contrasting position also needs a voice, which is certainly expressed within academia. Otherwise, it reads as biased and partial, at best, and irresponsible, at worst. 65.96.127.66 15:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)indubitocogito

We don't really have responsibilities here on wikipedia. However, we do have reliable sources. Present the sources you are citing and they can be discussed for inclusion. Given the topic, there should be a plentitude of peer-reviewed journals with information on the subject. If necessary, specific quotes can be extracted from the documetns to better inform the debate. Also, the definition of 'roid rage would have to be contrasted with increased irritability and aggression. A minor increase in aggression in some subjects is not the same thing as 'rage', and is particularly irrelevant if there is a correlation of steroid users and cluster B disorders reference 68 (Perry et al.) says. WLU 15:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I reworded the section on "roid rage" and stated that some studies show an increase in irritability. Secondly, I'm with WLU, Please present the peer reviewed case studies so that they can be discussed here and then we can work from there. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The peer-reviewed cases are listed in my original post. Indubitocogito 21:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Indubitocogito

Actually about 2 or maybe 3 are case studies which don't even claim that roid rage necessarily exists and at most simply show a slight link between AAS use and enhanced irritability. The others (the one published in Psychosomatics for instance) simply compile a meta-analysis of the existing studies at the time of the said study and usually rely on non controlled samples which can be confounded by the predisposition of AAS users to begin with. That's already mentioned in the article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources in controversial topics

In areas where there are disputes, the most reliable sources are not primary publications, but academic reviews or meta-analyses that make an expert assessment of the relative reliability of the various studies. Some reviews that may be useful in assessing if this article follows the WP:NPOV policy on undue weight are link1 link 2 link 3 link 4 link 5. Hope this helps. Tim Vickers 23:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Very true. Those are some great sources and I'll see if I can't put them into the article. I believe that at least some of them are already used but I'll re-check to make sure and place them where needed. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Popular misconceptions re-write for tone

I had a look over the popular misconceptions section - the tone was pretty apologetic in my mind so I'm having a go at re-writing it. I'm part-way done (here) if anyone wants to look at it. I'm breaking it up into sub-sections and adding wikilinks. Anyone who wants to comment, have a go. I'm mostly aiming at neutralizing the tone and making it more readable. WLU 11:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually your version makes it sound more apologetic. I would prefer it not be broken into subsections per say though. I'll wait until you finish your version before I add any more input towards it and before I try to tweak it as well. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of original research from Popular misconceptions section

In the United States the estimated use of anabolic steroids among high school students was 2.8% in 1999. On the other hand, in the year 2000 in the United States, suicide was the third leading cause of death among 15- to 24-year-olds. With the suicide rate this high among teenagers, concluding anabolic steroids are responsible for the suicides of teenagers who happened to be taking them prior to committing suicide is a post hoc logical fallacy.

See the policy on Wikipedia:No original research, this states that an edit is OR if "it introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." Tim Vickers 00:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You added a citation need tag after the sentence "However, there is no evidence that anabolic steroids cause either brain cancer or the specific type of T-cell lymphoma that caused his death." How can this be proven exactly? You're asking a negative to be proven. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, we need to find a source that states "there is no published evidence that steroids cause brain cancer." If this is indeed such a common misconception, there must be sources debunking this myth. I'll have a look, but this is an important point, so should be fully-referenced. Tim Vickers 00:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I provided a reference for it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

So did I! However, the piece about using steroids in cancer therapy to control symptoms such as nausea is original research again, the policy page explains the more clearly than I can, but this is something to watch out for. Also, a lot of anti-cancer drugs are carcinogenic themselves - such as the sulphur mustards and methotrexate, so this isn't a comparison you want to make! Tim Vickers 01:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Should the title be "Side effects" or "Possible unwanted side effects"? "Possible unwanted side effects" is a lot clearer for a few reasons. Firstly, Anabolic steroids don't necessarily always cause side effects. The side effects occur in a percentage of the users depending on the specific side effect, dosage, use of other drugs, age, sex, etc, etc. Secondly, "Side effect" has multiple definitions and some can include therapeutic consequences of drugs. I wanted to make it clear that the side effects listed below were unwanted. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to discriminate between wanted and unwanted side effects. Wanted side-effects are usually classified as part of the therapeutic profile of a drug - side effects are almost by definition unwanted. The word "possible" is also unnecessary, as in almost no case are side effects seen in all a patient population. Tim Vickers 01:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Wanted side-effects are usually classified as part of the therapeutic profile of a drug? What does this mean? You also say almost no case are side effects seen in all a patient population. What does this mean? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Definition Side effect - "A peripheral or secondary effect, especially an undesirable secondary effect of a drug or therapy." or "An effect (usu. for the worse) of a drug or other chemical other than that for which it is administered;" link. Just use the phrase in its normal meaning and there is no need to say "unwanted". As to "possible", of course side effects are "possible", just as the main intended effect is "possible", there is a probability associated with any effect of a drug. These two words just don't add any information to the heading that isn't in the usual meaning of the phrase side effects. Tim Vickers 01:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

For comparison, look at the pages Aspirin, Tricyclic antidepressant, Benzodiazepine, Diazepam or Beta blocker. An alternative is "Adverse effects", but side effects is the more common term and might be better for this audience. Tim Vickers 02:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it should correspond to the other pharmacology articles. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:GA/R nomination

The below discussion was inappropriately listed at WP:GA/R with the recommendation that it be delisted from Good Articles. The issues made obvious below need to be worked out here, not GA/R. If necessary, seek assistance from WP:DR. LaraLove^T/_C 05:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This article needs attention does not meet the standards for a good article. It is neither broad in its coverage nor is it neutral in its expression. Whereas verifiable citations exist within the article, a considerable amount of recent scholarship is excluded, especially as concerns the apocryphal popular misconceptions section. Demands for the inclusion of a broader range of scholarship are often denied, as is evinced by the discussion page. This is sincerely troubling as anabolic steroid abuse is a matter of serious health concern and wikipedia should provide a serious avenue for the responsible dissemination of information on the medically responsible administration and potentially destructive consequences of these substances.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Indubitocogito (talk • contribs).

It looks fine to me. Better than most Wikipedia articles in fact. You seem to be accusing me of bias. You assert that "Demands for the inclusion of a broader range of scholarship are often denied" but this is blatantly false. Firstly, I would urge you to assume good faith WP:AGF and secondly I would urge you to read the entire article and the talk page before jumping to conclusions. If you want to help improve the article, going on some crusade against it won't help. If you have any case studies that you believe could be used in the article then please clarify it on it's talk page. Attempting to get it's GA status removed because you don't like it's content is actually harmful to the article itself as well as Wikipedia.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine to you, because you are the one limiting the breadth and depth of the article's coverage. That is why there needs to be an independent review of this article. I hope other, experienced Wikipedia users will consult the discussion page and provide unbiased scrutiny of it. As one finds within the page's talk section, for some reason, your opinion of peer-reviewed journal articles seems to be a necessary and sufficient criterion for inclusion within the article. Therefore, articles published within extremely reputable journals are dismissed solely because they do not conform to your opinions on "roid rage." Accordingly, this article is neither broad in its content nor is it neutral in its expression, which are defining characteristics of a good article. Indubitocogito 15:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Indubitocogito

When I have numeorus peer reviewed case studies with dozens of citations supporting what the article is currently saying then you need the same or possibly even more. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources as wikipedia policy clearly states. We've made clear on the talk page that if you can provide reliable peer reviewed case studies showing "roid rage" (not simply irritation or aggression) then we would consider them for inclusion into the article. However Secondary sources are preferred over tertiary sources. A scientific study coming to a conclusion as presented by the scientists who did the study is a secondary source while posting something from some agency which may or may not have gotten their information from a reliable source is a tertiary source. All of the sources cited in that section are directly from peer reviewed scientific studies published in reputable journals where the scientists came to a distinct conclusion. We're simply asking you do the same. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked at this article today in the wake of the Benoit affair, and I am astonished by how different it is from what is being stated in the press by many medical doctors. Rather than stating both sides of the controversy over anabolic steroids, the article downplays all possibility of harmful effects. All attempts to add harmful effects have been shot down by one or two editors - even when actual medical doctors intervene in the discussion and try to argue the contrary. It may in fact be correct that the harmful effects of steroids are minimal - but there is enough controversy on the other side that both sides need to be put forward in an evenhanded way. As it is now, this article shames Wikipedia.Jmkleeberg 20:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed scientific articles have been presented for addition, but have been excluded on largely the basis of a single individual's opinion. Again, this is not a personal webpage nor should your opinion of peer-reviewed scientific articles, and how well they fit into your argument, provide the basis for inclusion or exclusion criteria. This merely demonstrates that this article does not meet "good article" criteria as it is neither broad in scope nor neutral in expression. Moreover, the exclusion of important scholarship undermines entirely the credibility of the article.

Personally, I listed 15 articles on the discussion section of the page. Let me state some of these here, so that others may get a sense of the type of scholarship being excluded from this article:

K. A. Miczek, S. P. Faccidomo, E. W. Fish and J. F. DeBold. Neurochemistry and Molecular Neurobiology of Aggressive Behavior. In: Handbook of Neurochemistry and Molecular Neurobiology Behavioral Neurochemistry, Neuroendocrinology and Molecular Neurobiology. Springer US; 2006. p. 285-336.

Harry Rashid, Sara Ormerod and Ed Day. 2007. Anabolic androgenic steroids: what the psychiatrist needs to know. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment 13: 203-211.

Fia Klötz, MD; Mats Garle, MSc; Fredrik Granath, PhD; Ingemar Thiblin, MD, PhD. 2006. Criminality Among Individuals Testing Positive for the Presence of Anabolic Androgenic Steroids. Archives of General Psychiatry. 63:1274-1279.

W. Steven Pray. 2006. Anabolic Steroid Abuse. US Pharm. 8:16-29.

AJ Trenton, GW Currier. 2005. Behavioural manifestations of anabolic steroid use. CNS Drugs. 19(7):571-595.

Ryan C.W. Hall, M.D., Richard C.W. Hall, M.D., and Marcia J. Chapman. 2005. Psychiatric Complications of Anabolic Steroid Abuse. Psychosomatics 46:285-290.

Indubitocogito 21:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Indubitocogito

Jmkleeberg, Side effects have been "Down played"? Take a look at the "Side effects" section that is over 3 paragraphs long listing the multiple possible side effects from Anabolic steroids. Yet you claim they are "Down played"? Please elaborate. "All attempts to add harmful effects have been shot down by one or two editors."? This is false. Anytime someone makes a suggestion concerning the addition of new harmful effects they are almost always added if adequately referenced. The article lists dozens of the possible harmful effects of Steroids. Please attempt to READ the entire article before jumping to false conclusions. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Indubitocogito, Only a small fraction of your articles are case studies and seem to be tertiary sources which dubious references. The ones that are actually case studies don't agree with your contention that AAS causes what is known in the popular media as "roid rage". Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

First, I did not contend any point besides adequate representation of the depth and breadth of available scholarship. However, I did present scholarship that contends points contrary to your position. As well, the Archives of General Psychiatry and Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, along with the other represented journals, are certainly not "dubious" references. They should not be excluded merely because of your interpretation. Moreover, even entitling the section "popular misconceptions" implies that the issue of 'roid rage' has been settled within the academic community. Clearly, it has not, despite your opinion.

Indubitocogito 23:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Indubitocogito

I disagree with the idea of delisting this article, as I think it conforms well to the GA criteria. Minor differences of opinion about how an article discusses a topic are best worked out on that article's talk page, not as a GA review. Tim Vickers 23:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

These are not only differences on the content of the article, but, rather, on the inclusion and exclusion criteria for scholarship related to AAS and the apparent ownership of the article which stifles the contributions or advice of other possible contributors. This is apparent on the article's discussion page. And that is precisely why independent opinions are sought. Moreover, the article clearly does not present a breadth of opinion or a neutral perspective, especially within the 'popular misconceptions' section.

Indubitocogito 23:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Indubitocogito

I want to mention that I encourage everyone with ideas on how to improve the article to post their ideas on the articles talk page. Including detailed explanations of what is wrong with the article and their detailed explanations of how to improve it including possible rephrasing of sentences or inclusion of new material with reliable references provided. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion. I think several good points are made by each of the editors above, and I see no evidence of bad faith or inability to discuss. The article is infinitely better than it was a year ago, mainly due to Wikidudeman's efforts. Nevertheless, despite the improvement, I think there is the misconceptions section is hypertrophied and suggests all the misconceptions and unbuttressed opinions are on one side, when plenty of past editors have provided proof by their own behavior that this is not the case. Nearly all of the criticisms should be objectively evaluatable-- so far not much ad hominem or insults. I second Wikidudeman's motion to move the discussion back to the article talk page and let's put some efforts into further improving the article rather than arguing about whether it is good enough to be listed here. I do not have a dog in this fight but I can help provide access to some of the articles and evaluation of the medical literature. See the talk page for my next concrete suggestions. alteripse 00:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

a suggestion for improvement

Here are most of the major questions that have been controversial.

1. What are some of the regimens used for athletic benefit?
2. How big is the athletic performance benefit in controlled research?
3. How big is the athletic performance benefit as perceived by professional athletes?
4. What are some of the anabolic regimens used for bodybuilding?
5. How big is the benefit for bodybuilding in controlled studies?
6. How big is the benefit for bodybuilding as perceived by bodybuilders who use steroids?
7. How prevalent is adolescent use and what do we know about how most adolescents use anabolic steroids?
8. What are some of the problems specific to adolescent anabolic use and how big are these problems in terms of likelihood, harm, or prevalence?
9. What are some of the regimens used for disease treatment?
10. How big is the benefit for disease treatment in controlled studies?
11. What are some of the perceived risks of anabolic steroids in popular culture?
12. What does published scientific research tell us about the magnitude of risk for typical medical use, typical athletic use, typical bodybuilding, typical adolescent use?
13. What are some of the social debates about the role of anabolic steroids in competitive bodybuilding, competitive athletics, and adolescent use, and what are the best arguments on each side for allowing it, forbidding it, or improving current policies and practices?
14. What are some of the rules, laws, and policies attempting to control each of these types of use?

We do not need any more answers of the "bigger than you think" or "less than you think" variety-- that is what is wrong with the Misconceptions section and much of the past dialog here. Here is the list again, separated. Could we put what we think are the best references under the relevant questions, along with what we think is the one sentence "executive summary" of the answer? Indubitocogito, could you sort your references above into the relevant questions, and can you give us PMID or http links to the abstracts. For the more recent articles, if any seem crucial, I have university access and can provide pdfs to those contributing the most here. alteripse 10:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll attempt to answer your questions below and explain whether or not there are even any sources that exist for the questions that would be usable for Wikipedia. You can add comments below my answers if you want. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

#What are some of the regimens used for athletic benefit?

There probably aren't many if any academic sources for this question though websites such as [[7]] and [[8]]. would have to be used if we attempt to answer this question. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, is this fair? "Despite the presumed widespread use of anabolic steroids for competitive advantage by athletes, there are few published "how-to" guides or authoritative descriptions. Available evidence suggests many different regimens of anabolic steroids, in enormously varying doses, for periods as short as days or weeks or as long as years, and in combination with a wide variety of other drugs and dietary supplements, diets, and training regimens have been used surreptitiously by athletes over the last 60 years. The huge array of variables must be remembered when attempting to make generalizations about either the risks or the benefits of athletic use. An internet search yields examples of rumored and recommended regimens: list of web sites." alteripse 23:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really. It's true we should mention the varying cycles used and there are sources we can cite for that. The "Side effects" section already clarifies that many of the side effects are dose dependent. I think your paragraph above is just a drawn out way of saying what's already being said. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really fair? Not really accurate? Are you disagreeing with my synopsis? I was trying to formulate a brief summary of the answer to the question that would be accepted as accurate and fair by all interested. I know that much of it is in the article already; I am trying to extract a core set of facts that everyone agrees on, since this article seems to attract criticism and complaint like a lightning rod, some of it intelligent and informed, some neither. But if my approach seems not worth the trouble I will go back to other articles. alteripse 00:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I thought you meant if your paragraph should be inserted into the article as it was and I didn't believe it should. If your question is whether or not what you say in the paragraph is true then it is, I agree. Your paragraph is accurate in it's estimate of the situation. I said "not really" because all of it is already in the article to begin with and I thought you were trying to insert it into the article someplace. Sorry. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

#How big is the athletic performance benefit in controlled research?

There is research on the muscle mass increases and strength increases which are cited in the current article already. Citations 14-16. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

#How big is the athletic performance benefit as perceived by professional athletes?

This can't be answered by anything other than original research to my knowledge. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This might be answered by quotes from professional athletes as to the value (or lack of value). Indirectly, we can assume those who have used steroids have thought there was enough performance value to risk their healthy, careers, and reputations by using them. I don't read much sports stuff, but surely there have been interviews by reporters or even ghosted books by some of the athletes involved, that have addressed this question which our culture considers so important. alteripse 23:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. I wouldn't have a clue as to where to find such sources. If you find any we can add them to the article obviously. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

#What are some of the anabolic regimens used for bodybuilding?

The same answer as the first question. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

#How big is the benefit for bodybuilding in controlled studies?

Same answer as question # 2. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

#How big is the benefit for bodybuilding as perceived by bodybuilders who use steroids?

Same as above. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

#How prevalent is adolescent use and what do we know about how most adolescents use anabolic steroids?

In the United States may be as high as 2.7%. Citation #55. I don't know of research into other countries. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

#What are some of the problems specific to adolescent anabolic use and how big are these problems in terms of likelihood, harm, or prevalence?

This is answered in the "Side effects" area. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

#What are some of the regimens used for disease treatment?

Answered in the Medical uses area. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

#How big is the benefit for disease treatment in controlled studies?

Answered in the Medical uses area. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

#What are some of the perceived risks of anabolic steroids in popular culture?

Answered in the Popular misconceptions area. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

#What does published scientific research tell us about the magnitude of risk for typical medical use, typical athletic use, typical bodybuilding, typical adolescent use?

Isn't this the same question as above? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a big difference between "perceived risk" and published evidence. The difference in the questions allows us to present all viewpoints, but to also present the evidence for the different perspectives. alteripse 23:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. As to the question, I think the "Side effects" section deals in great detail about that. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

#What are some of the social debates about the role of anabolic steroids in competitive bodybuilding, competitive athletics, and adolescent use, and what are the best arguments on each side for allowing it, forbidding it, or improving current policies and practices?

Answered in the "Movement for decriminalization" and "Legal and sport restrictions" area probably to the best as is possible. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

#What are some of the rules, laws, and policies attempting to control each of these types of use?

Answered in the Legal and sport restrictions area. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

next step with the questions above

Thanks for the constructive responses Wikidudeman. In the above questions I have tried to hit the questions that a reader will want answered. Have I left any major ones out? By separating the questions that seem similar or overlapping, I am trying to prevent misapplication of an answer to one question as an answer to another, because (in my opinion at least) these are distinctly different questions that might have very different answers. Some of the arguments of last year that seemed particularly pointless to me were between people offering answers to entirely different questions. Now we need to see what evidence we can find if we think the answers to any of the those questions in the current article are incomplete or unbalanced. alteripse 23:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As per above, many of the questions are already fully or partially answered in the article, some of them would be difficult to find sources for if sources even exist. I would be willing to attempt to incorporate them into the flow of the article if you found any novel sources that aren't already used that answer some of the questions above that the article doesn't already answer though. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

I've put this up for Good article review due to the excessive technical language and questionable focus of the history section. I hope it can be fixed. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The review of this article has been processed resulting in the article retaining GA. Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 20:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)