Jump to content

Talk:Oxandrolone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jytdog (talk | contribs) at 04:25, 18 June 2016 (→MEDRS-compliant sources: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconPharmacology Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Class I and Class II steroids

What are the differences between these classes? Are there more than just two classes of steroids? —Brim 06:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is any of this "Abuse being one major problem most bodybuilders consider a normal dose for a novice being 20-30mg's per day when in fact 10 mg is more then enough for someone who never had used" stuff really nessasary. It's becoming quite common on the wikipedia, it pretty useless without some research and there's no evidence to support any of the statements .. lets keep it serious! --81.179.110.164 08:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Besides the obvious health risks (liver and coronary), the biggest problem with Oxandrolone (and with any anabolic steroid) is of course abuse and addiction. Addiction rate for steroids is so high that the U.S. Controlled Substances Act considers anabolic steroids a Schedule III drug therefore even possession is a felony." Since the American Medical Association, Drug Enforcement Agency, and NIFA are testified to congress that anabolic steroids are not addictive I this information is incorrect.

There are numerous unreferenced statements and statements that make this sound more like a "how-to" article. The Class 1 vs Class 2 argument is not an accepted scientific theory and should be removedSettersr (talk). —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Some grammar issues

"Studies have showed" appears in this article and a few other steroid articles. Maybe my grammar is wrong, but I have always seen, read, and heard, "Studies have shown". I don't think "showed" is proper English. JasonSims1984 (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced

Too much unsourced stuff here

Biological effects

In contrast with some other steroids with a methyl group in the 17-alpha position, the liver toxicity of oxandrolone is low.[medical citation needed] Studies have shown that a daily dose of 20 mg oxandrolone used in the course of 12 weeks had only a negligible impact on the increase of liver enzymes.[1][2] As a DHT derivative, oxandrolone does not aromatize, and thus does not cause gynecomastia.[medical citation needed] It also does not significantly influence the body's normal testosterone production (HPTA axis) at low dosages (20 mg).

When dosages are high, the body reacts by reducing the production of luteinizing hormone after perceiving endogenous testosterone production as too high; this in turn eliminates further stimulation of Leydig cells in the testicles, causing testicular atrophy.[medical citation needed]

References

  1. ^ Schroeder ET, Zheng L, Yarasheski KE, Qian D, Stewart Y, Flores C, Martinez C, Terk M, Sattler FR (March 2004). "Treatment with oxandrolone and the durability of effects in older men". J. Appl. Physiol. 96 (3): 1055–62. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00808.2003. PMID 14578370.
  2. ^ Grunfeld C, Kotler DP, Dobs A, Glesby M, Bhasin S (March 2006). "Oxandrolone in the treatment of HIV-associated weight loss in men: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study". J. Acquir. Immune Defic. Syndr. 41 (3): 304–14. doi:10.1097/01.qai.0000197546.56131.40. PMID 16540931.

- Jytdog (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS-compliant sources

@Jytdog: There are depressingly few MEDRS-compliant sources on oxandrolone because of its spotty and largely historical pharmaceutical availability. However, I have little experience finding primarily medical sources. Does anyone have leads? I shouldn't have problems getting access, but I could use help finding things. William Llewellyn's Anabolics doesn't cite anything particularly useful. Exercisephys (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the very top of the beige (mustard?) box above is a section that provides the link to find reviews at pubmed - it sets you up with a preformatted search that finds reviews published in the last five years. there are plenty! if you need any that are behind a paywall you can ping me with the PMID and I can get it (most, anyway) for you... Jytdog (talk)

Further reading

@Jytdog: Is there a reason why primary sources (all clinical studies, I think) are listed in the "Further reading" section? I'm tempted to remove the entire section. I doubt that the list is meaningfully curated in any way; it's probably just a random sample of oxandrolone clinical studies. Exercisephys (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support removing all that. Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oxandrolone&oldid=725829537"