/fraud/ steroids are awful and you're an idiot for considering them

The sub got shut down. I get that it's against the rules but honestly people are gunna do it anyway they might as well do it safely

SEA south east asia. How can you not know this

I did several cycles of oral designers and a 12 week cycle of test e and my balls are just as big as they've always been.

It's like all illegal drugs, they don't care if it's dangerous to the user providing that it's less popular among the public, or in this case, the board.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pro drug legalization and the illegal aspect is basically free advertising, but I can see why most people want it out of sight. At the end of the day, you cannot use steroids safely unless you get them from a doctor, and even then it's not completely safe. Most UGL stuff is pure shit.
I don't know, it's not a term I've heard before and Google didn't bring up anything. When someone says sea monkeys, I think of the little pets I used to have as a kid.
Unless you can measure down to the ml of volume, there's no way of knowing if they're slightly smaller. Most likely, they are, but not small enough that you notice.

Why do you care?

People use them if they want to anyway, and pro bodybuilders will always use them.

Nuttymeg, what would you personally say are the design flaws of the Rasmussen study you posted, if any?

A beautiful remix of both the fraud OP and standard nutman graph posting. Honestly I'm not even mad, bravo nutman.

Because steroid users encourage lying in the fitness industry, muscle dysmorphia, cheating in sports, and help encourage the popularity of them so naive people end up damaged from them.

I don't really care about pro bodybuilders, beyond that steroid use completely ruined the sport. I'm just sick of steroid users saying shit like 'just take test, faggot' and downplaying the harm. It's all so pointless when you consider that most people, including steroid users, only lift for a fews and permanently damaging yourself isn't worth it when you're not going to retain the muscle anyway.
I haven't gone over it with a fine tooth comb, but there's a few issues. One being that the sample size is small and the trend with increased time of steroid use and lower testosterone isn't that strong. The averages test and testicle size is much more compelling.
Thanks fren!

Attached: nuts.png (474x513, 205K)

for a few years*

Oh, while I'm on the subject, I would have liked to see them ask how many of the steroid and former steroid group used traditional PCT drugs. They only asked about HcG, which makes sense, but there's a lot left out like if they always ran proper PCT and what type of cycles they did.

I can't see there being a lot of interest in this type of research and it's the best we got at the moment. Better than nothing.

How many years post last aas use was this graph of testicle size made?

1.7

Jesus fucking Christ what was happening in that last thread LMAO

This is actually not a bad OP. I am beginning to accept nutman as an integral part of these threads.

It was 2.5 years, on average, since the former steroid group last used.

The 95% confidence interval was 1.7-3.7 years. So long enough that most people would have returned to normal function.

Gonna be in japan all july, any frauders there?

Attached: 1529018172776.webm (640x800, 1.67M)

this thread is a disaster

Do you find it significant that the control group average age is 31 and the former aas user group is 35? Do you believe that testosterone levels decrease with age?

On what basis do you claim that this time period is sufficient to return to "normal function" when the levels of hormones are clearly lower relative to the control group? Isn't that a self contradictory statement? If the levels aren't at control equivalent then either it wasn't enough time or they will never return, but we don't have the information here to assert which is true. Also, I wonder if the investigators questioned the subjects about low test symptoms prior to their initiation of aas use. Do you believe that a person with low t would have a greater propensity to self select for aas use? That makes sense to me.

No, I don't find it significant. The control group wasn't perfect, but you don't, on average, have your testosterone levels drop 30% in just a few years. Most of the former steroid users were near the lower reference limit with only one of them higher than the mean levels of the control group.

>Do you believe that testosterone levels decrease with age?
Of course.

The free test levels are 410 and 480. Given a nearly four year age difference I'm not that impressed. Furthermore, low t men are much more likely to begin using in the first place. It's like a study that correlates poverty with heroin use. Does using heroin make you poor or are poor people more likely to use heroin? In that case, both are important factors but a uni directional hypothesis will neglect one or the other.

You don't find it significant based on what? Surely you can quantify the expected drop in free test for a man between the ages of the control and former groups. Do we have this data or are we just guessing?

I meant that the time period was long enough that most people would have returned to normal function, if they were going to. Now it's possible that it takes longer, but HcG works over the course of weeks, most steroid users don't get shut down that long without rebounding and I think they would also agree it should have been enough time.

>Do you believe that a person with low t would have a greater propensity to self select for aas use?
No, I don't. People that go to the gym are a self selected group of people. Usually they're a bit more athletic than the general population. They people that stay in the gym seem likely to be stronger than average. Most steroid users don't use off the bat, they already put on some muscle which and if that's possible, I think they would likely have decent test levels. Furthermore, the vast majority of steroid users don't seem to get blood work done. They would have had know way of knowing that they were low test and started taking steroids for mostly vanity reasons.

No, you don't drop 30% both in testosterone levels and testicle size between 31.5 and 34.8, that's ridiculousness and I'm sure you can find the average levels for the ladder group should have been at. I would expect a few percent, which is why I don't think it is significant nor did the researchers think so. You can also see the other symptoms increasing quite a lot.

What is the usual time period you refer to that a normal person retains their pre aas use baseline? You keep referring to some amount of time but I haven't seen your source yet. Are you just guessing?

Your second paragraph contains several errors. Men with subclinical hypogonadism will still be able to build muscle in the gym, your assumption was wrong. Then you mention that since they haven't had a free test measure they wouldn't know they have lower than average test, but that's irrelevant. The question is whether they have a greater propensity to use aas, not whether they have a greater propensity to test their levels. Men who already experience ed and have slowed progress will have greater incentive to use aas. You haven't disputed that assertion.

What's your source? Is this a guess?

ridiculous*
Damn auto correct. Now I look stupid.

From what I can tell, the average test levels for someone 30-34 is 621 ng/dl. The control group was lower than it should have been.

But that's why I like it

Why do you think the control group is significantly lower (nearly 25%) than expected? Zero members of the aas group are college graduates whereas 30% of the never use group are. Do you believe that diet and socio economic status affects hormone levels? To what extent? Can this be quantified?

That age range does not include the ages of the former aas group. What is the expected free test level for the former aas group? That age range is quite wide, what would be the expected drop from 31.5 to 34.8? Why do you think the authors failed to discuss this in the study?

There's no scientifically accepted source, but the general consensus, both among doctors and steroid users is that it's enough time. Usually doctors will give you HnG, which most people in the former steroid users tell you to take. No one makes you wait it out, they just start you on test if you're below the limit.

>Men with subclinical hypogonadism will still be able to build muscle in the gym
I never said that, I said it's a selected group and the men in the gym are likely are able to build more muscle than average. Testosterone is the main hormone for muscle building. It's king. Where is your evidence that steroid users are more likely to be low test from the start?
>What's your source? Is this a guess?
Based on this chart, 30-34 was 621 ng/dl. 35-39 was 597 ng/ dl. Which is only, what, a 4% decrease when you double the age of group?
I don't know. It's a danish study, there could be regional differences or it just speaks to the type of people willing to be study subjects.
>Do you believe that diet and socio economic status affects hormone levels? To what extent?
Yes, not to a that great an extent.
>Can this be quantified?
I don't think so.

Where are you going with these passive aggressive comments? Do you disagree with the trend that the users with the most use had the lowest levels of testosterone and the smallest size? Is that not a fair association, on top of the differences in mean? There's nothing that jumps out as a major problem with the study. It's well accepted that lots of steroid users have decreased test levels, even after stopping use.

Furthermore, some of the highest test people are those low on the socioeconomic ladder. I believe the prison population has higher test levels than average. It could be that more wealthy people are inactive and are exposed to more things that would decrease levels.

TFW no one to argue with

Attached: sad.png (673x637, 307K)

Sorry too busy shrinking our balls

Steroid users are retarded, you are too smart for them my friend.

Not as retarded as you sweetie

Attached: ca1.png (1800x1578, 199K)

>There's no scientifically accepted source, but the general consensus, both among doctors and steroid users

So you just made up a number? This is broscience and it is not a substitute for real science. Don't try to appeal from authority to me about "doctors" without a source because doctors use EBM.

>Based on this chart, 30-34 was 621 ng/dl. 35-39 was 597 ng/ dl. Which is only, what, a 4% decrease when you double the age of group?

Neither of those groups are the same age as the two groups found here, so you still aren't getting there. For example your two groups there apply to a 34 year old and a 35 year old just as much as a 30 and 39. This is far too broad for our purposes here. You found a 4% decrease, yet both control and AAS groups were more than 25% below those numbers quoted. What's going on? Is there an error in measurement? Are the tests used by this research team different from other teams? We need to find out what is going on, because right now these numbers have some unresolved questions.

>I never said that, I said it's a selected group and the men in the gym are likely are able to build more muscle than average.

What are you trying to say here? Right now that sentence isn't coherent and doesn't apply to the statement it was in reply to. Can you try again?

>Where is your evidence that steroid users are more likely to be low test from the start?

I'm asking about confounding variables that were ignored by the researchers. I'm putting forward the hypothesis that men with low T (unproven or subclinical, doesn't matter) will be more likely to use AAS because the benefits AAS provide to a hypogonadal man are far greater than those provided to a eugonadal man. This is a point that has been proven in the literature beyond dispute (hypogonadal vs. eugonadal). It's not a stretch to suggest that people who have more to gain from a certain activity will have greater propensity to engage in that activity.

Is that picture you? Because I don't understand. I said steroid users are retarded, do you roid?

>asking me what the picture is
Yep you're totally retarded.

>I don't know. It's a danish study, there could be regional differences or it just speaks to the type of people willing to be study subjects.

25% is too significant to hand wave away. It's a major fundamental flaw in the paper and calls into question their entire methodology

>>diet and socio economic status affects hormone levels? To what extent? Yes, not to a that great an extent.

Quantify. We're dealing with a quantified drop here, we need to use real numbers to look at the confounding effects. Provide a source with quantification. Is it 2%, 10%, 50%? This is important.

>>Can this be quantified? I don't think so.

If you can't quantify it then on what basis do you ignore it? You have no basis to ignore it, and the research is compromised.

>Where are you going with these passive aggressive comments?

Don't take it personally, I criticize research for a living, I'm just doing what I always do. This research has significant flaws I'm just asking about them. The fact that you're getting emotional in response to questions about data indicates you're not impartial.

> Do you disagree with the trend that the users with the most use had the lowest levels of testosterone and the smallest size? Is that not a fair association, on top of the differences in mean?

I have several concerns with this paper, and it does not convince me on its own, no. Is that what this picture shows you? Testis size is a secondary measure, an indirect way to assess gonadal status. What you really are concerned with is serum free test level. Why didn't you use this picture initially? I'm curious.

Attached: journal.pone.0161208.g002.png (3837x2856, 203K)

Athletes and people who needs trt are retarded. Got it

Are you roiding? Because you seem retarded, unfortunately I believe not even stopping the roiding will help you.

Do you roid for medical reasons? Because otherwise you are retarded.

>herp durr im so retarded that simple pictures confuse m
>i should shift the subject to not look too retarded
Hi retard

Not an argument.

>So you just made up a number? This is broscience and it is not a substitute for real science.
Oh shut the fuck up. It was a gentleman argument until this point. You've made tons of assertions you cannot prove. The biggest being >a person with low t would have a greater propensity to self select for aas use
and you refuse to defend it. Why would testicle size and hormone function take years to restore themselves when you can already mostly restore size through hCG within months?
>Neither of those groups are the same age as the two groups found here, so you still aren't getting there
You're right, they're more, which speaks to the fact that a 30% decrease is significant when the decrease should have been something around 2%.
>This is far too broad for our purposes here.
Go answer your own question then. There has been dozens of studies on testosterone levels. The reason why you won't Google it is because you don't want the answer, you just want to make passive aggressive comments about a study that is as sound as we are likely to get. It's pathetic.
>What are you trying to say here?
Just because you can't understand it, doesn't mean it's not coherent. People with low testosterone levels are more likely to be overweight and inactive in the first place. Conversely, the people who go to the gym are likely to be active and at a healthier weight, which speaks the the average testosterone levels of gym goes being at least decent, if not much higher than average. I figure that people with low testosterone levels probably wouldn't have the energy to go in the first place. I never stated you couldn't build muscle with lower testosterone levels, I state I don't think that's a likely situation for most people in the gym. If you can't build muscle, you most likely quit going to the gym, not suddenly gain access to steroids and use them.
>I'm putting forward the hypothesis that men with low T
Prove it, prove your claim. Your logic is completely flawed.

> I like to pull numbers out of my ass and when questioned I cry like a bitch while my shit tier research gets eviscerated in front of me

lmao

> so we have this study, and for some reason literally every single person in our control group has a below average test level. We actually don't even measure test correctly because we're so retarded. Oh also test varies with age and our groups have different ages but we don't even mention it in our discussion section because we're actually that stupid and bad at our jobs. Also we don't cull outliers because if you look at our shit tier data, you'll realize that without the two outliers our data set shows the opposite of our conclusion, that serum free test actually increases with increasing duration of self reported AAS use.

Lmao

>25% is too significant to hand wave away.
Is it a 25%? We don't know. Go find the average danish test levels for that age and make sure that the testing was done the same way. It's not a fundamental flaw because the testing was relative to the other group, not to a hypothetical control group you have yet to define.
>Provide a source with quantification.
I don't need to provide a source. You made the assertion that socioeconomic differences were part of the reason. I partly agreed. Your point is completely nonsensical because the former steroid users had a higher income.
>Don't take it personally, I criticize research for a living, I'm just doing what I always do. This research has significant flaws I'm just asking about them.
I doubt that. If you did it for a living, you wouldn't need me to hand feed you information. You seem like a steroid user that doesn't want to believe that steroid use is harmful so you nitpick a study to death to help with your mental gymnastics.
>indicates you're not impartial.
Neither are you, but you won't own up to it because you're too busy being a pseudo intellectual.
>Testis size is a secondary measure, an indirect way to assess gonadal status
Being that almost all testosterone is produced from them and size is highly correlated, I don't see your problem with this, beyond the nitpicking I already mentioned.
>Why didn't you use this picture initially? I'm curious.
What picture?

Attached: inspectornut.png (433x361, 124K)

jesus christ is nutman gonna be the next god and have to disappear forever after getting btfo this bad LOL

>I like to pull numbers out of my ass and when questioned I cry like a bitch while my shit tier research gets eviscerated in front of me
Awful strawman. What number did I pull out of my ass? I said that I believe that most steroid users and those in the medical community believe that if normal function is to return, it would be before the time period mentioned in the study. I don't think that's an unreasonable claim. These were people already taking hCG.
> below average test level
Compared to a completely different population with possible different testing.
>We actually don't even measure test correctly because we're so retarded.
Citation needed.
>our groups have different ages but we don't even mention it in our discussion section
Yes, and it's insignificant. No control is perfect, that doesn't change the association.
>we don't cull outliers because if you look at our
Completely wrong. What do you think 95% confidence interval means?

God, some of you steroid users get so triggered. Is it really to much to accept that steroid use is harmful and that you permanently affect your testosterone levels?

lmao you dont know how stats works if you think an alpha of 95% means that they handled outliers correctly HAHOFASOHIFASOIHFASHOAH stop posting you fucking retard holy fuck

More moving the goal posts and refusing to answer all the other points, including your claims you can't prove.
>if you think an alpha of 95% means that they handled outliers
I didn't say that. There's still a clear trend if you take out the "outliers", which is stupid because you're taking away 1/16th of the group in order to make the data fit your stupid idea that prolonged steroid use wouldn't increase damage.

Go practice your cognitive dissonance elsewhere while you pretend that you're a professional researcher, yet amazingly, have no idea what you're talking about. You may be worse than that idiot who pretended to be a doctor a few threads ago.
You're the type of person to get your ass kicked and pretend you won. Cringe.

Attached: nutman.png (496x495, 261K)

The association is clearly positive between weeks of AAS use and serum total test (green line), except for two outliers (red circle) one of whom has less than 50% of the values of every other subject. Those are called outliers, and in good research you discard them. These authors didn't because they need those flawed samples to corrupt the data so they can prove a point. Look at the group of users between weeks 130 and 300 weeks (blue circle). They have a SIGNIFICANTLY greater than normal free test level. And then we get two outliers at 512 weeks who are extremely suppressed. It's possible their samples were processed incorrectly because they fall so far outside the other data points, or it's possible that long term suppression happens to users who use for 5x as long as the average. However to take these two data points at face value shows either deep retardation or intentional misrepresentation of the data. Considering that outlier analysis is a standard part of writing up your paper and these authors strangely skipped it, I'm leaning towards the later. But either way it's very bad research and your lack of expertise in this area is clearly on display by the fact that you were so taken in by it.

Attached: journal.pone.0161208.g002.png (3837x2856, 279K)

Just drink pomegranate juice everyday and your test levels will come back to normal, easy

Are you going to maintain you weren't the other person shit posting, or are there somehow two idiots who somehow managed to make a trend minus two outliers independently?
>Look at the group of users between weeks 130 and 300 weeks (blue circle). They have a SIGNIFICANTLY greater than normal free test level.
Yes, and it's still "SIGNIFICANTLY" lower than the control group. It could be that prolonged use damages testosterone production but longer users somehow manage to have more free testosterone.
>And then we get two outliers at 512 weeks who are extremely suppressed.
You didn't throw out the outlier at 30 before making your association? WAAAAAH BAD SCIENCE!
>However to take these two data points at face value shows either deep retardation or intentional misrepresentation of the data.
Does it? You're asserting that they intentional misrepresentation the data? For what reason? How come the review, or any other actual scientist doesn't have a problem with this?
>But either way it's very bad research and your lack of expertise in this area is clearly on display by the fact that you were so taken in by it.
Ad hom, pseudo intellectual. Very rude. You're just strawmaning your way with only part of the study. How does this disprove the means between the two group? The association of time of use isn't what is interesting.

You're still refusing to prove:
>a person with low t would have a greater propensity to self select for aas use
Which was the main thing your argument hinged on for the explanation of differences of mean levels between the former group and the control and you refuse to prove that the control group testosterone level is lower than it should be in that population.

>Are you going to maintain you weren't the other person shit posting, or are there somehow two idiots who somehow managed to make a trend minus two outliers independently?

Are you really one of those autists that requires frequent screenshots to verify that there are in fact more than one person arguing with them on Jow Forums. Get it together you fucking loser.

youtube.com/watch?v=rACYJO3FERU

Two people specifically talking about the same cherry picked data point independently of each other at the same time? You don't think that raises an eyebrow?

I don't know if one person did the graph and shared it with the other person before posting, but even an idiot would find it to be quite coincidental. It's not like I think it's impossible for two different people to reply back "fag" at the same time, this is obviously different.

Can't you separate your differences? I'm about to die of liver poisiong. At least my balls still look big thogh

No, ball size and test production is the only thing that triggers steroid addicts. There's mountains of studies on different side effects, yet they are willing to dispute the ball size one to the death instead.

im the other guy drive by shit posting to nutman rn, there are infact 2 people responding to nutman currently

>people responding to nutman currently
>currently
I thought you gave up, it's been over an hour. I'm going to assume you and the other idiot decided to stop pretending you were doctors, medical researchers, have fathers that work for Valve or whatever bullshit to justify you trying to cherry picking parts of a study in order to maintain you know better than dozens of actual scientists and peer reviewed research because you have the ability to make an MS paint graph and dispute something unrelated to the main point of the study.

I have to go soon, but I'll eventually respond to any other "professional researchers" that want to passive aggressively ask me questions they would know if they actually read the study in hopes of finding something to hang me with and dispute the fact that, shocker, steroids are bad for you.

Attached: 272.png (680x446, 138K)

keep strawmanning you little muppet

What? I'm literally pointing out a strawman. You can't possibly be this stupid. You have no other defense than to ironically cry fallacy argument while making a fallacy argument.

Shhh, don't be upset I nutted on you.

what should i know getting hired for clincal trials for a lotion company?

Steroids confirmed for making you a brainlet
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871612004498

If you want free lotion, one of use can give you some.

Another one:
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632231632529X

what a great argument youve made here, i see your point now thank you for explaining your side so well

Shh, no tears, only your 70 IQ dreams, which I imagine consist mostly of you trying to fill out the captcha and you reliving that time your step father beat you so hard that you sustained brain damage.

not him but fuck you i have trouble filling out the captcha

damn letro

I really don't think Letro is the problem. It doesn't have any negative cognitive effect to my knowledge and they did a few studies on it. Maybe it's your hormone levels being all over the place.

Calling all fake doctors to answer this question.

>high dose long term use

I'm natty with low test but my balls are huge and I can gain and keep muscle well, what does this mean?

I am very jelly. Have a good time. Make sure to go to M's in Akiba and make your way up to the 7th floor to buy your used gachapon panties.

Go to Mandrake in Akiba, Shibuya and Nakano broadway for all the loli and sissy doujins you want.

Attached: images (75).jpg (461x319, 34K)

>install grindr
>phone vibrates non stop
>flood of "hey/hi/how you doin"
>flood of dick pics

so this is the life of an average girl on tinder?

where can i find schoolgirl bj's tho

Attached: 1529024836802.png (584x487, 350K)

Everywhere? School girls prostituting themselves is a problem there.

I hate my body and I hate my life. I've been lifting for a year and a half and have nothing to show for it. My muscle is dissapearing and Im just getting fatter. Every day I do worse at the gym. Despite my life revolcing around gym/nutrition. Meanwhile Tyrone doesnt know what calories are, has been lifting for 2 months and mogs the shit out of me. have a chest gap and no taper and I'll never have one. What little gains I made I'll lose as soon as I come off a blast. My upper abdomen protrudes the moment I eat anything and makes me look fat. Every day I wake up I look in the mirror and I want to kill myself. I want to die

Kys

You need some anime in your life.

Attached: Kiznai 13.jpg (350x299, 18K)

Want some honest advice?

go see a shrink and then hop on the juice

why does my face and body look better when i dont drink water? i also notice i stop slurring too

Don't worry bro you're with your genetic failure soulmates that are going to give you their constructive advice while looking like a fcking piece of shit as well. Lmao

>go to a shrink then shrink your balls
Compelling

>telling a shrink to go see a shrink
>a shrink shrinking his balls
Etc

Sure
Done x2

The sweet fucking irony.

Attached: Yuno 43.jpg (1280x720, 112K)

To further masts stupid post, as a genetic dead end myself who looks worse than I did 65 pounds ago(125>190) your shape won’t change much overall as you get bigger so a lot of times you look in the mirror and feel horrible but it’s all in your head just keep putting in the work. For me personally the bloating making me look facially ugly is probably the hardest part mentally because it brings my looks down like two points :_(

Drop the hgh, you're nowhere near needing it.
Drop the tbol, its pretty meh.

Just stick to test and npp, go the gym and enjoy yourself. Get another hobby alongside, your entire life seems to be just lifting.

If your gf is such a gains goblin, think, does she make you happy? If the answer is no dump her. Better to be alone then miserable together.

>tyrone mogs the shit out of me

Why is black physique fetish so prevelant in meridumb burger muttkingdom?