This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Trenbolone article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Trenbolone.
|
What the **** is going on with this "usage in bodybuilding"-rubbish? This shouldn't be a how-to for a usage by humans, since it's forbidden for human use at least in some countries! So there's quite a chance that there are negative side effects and therefore an encyclopedia shouldn't be a guide how to use such substances.
Think about it, now people knows something about this steroid and then they know what the hell they are shooting in to there body´s, its better knowing in steed off they shoot them selves with some shit and die of it ??? Nikolaj Hegaard pedersen. Denmark, Randers
P.S. Exactly what mistakes are you reffering to? Cavell 04:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
This is the english Wikipedia, and the information presented tells the reader about side effects and merely provides a ballpark range of bodybuilding dosages. You were correct about the syntax errors, which have been fixed. I stand by the article and have contributed many hours of time to expand the fields of strength training and anabloic steroids. Any further dispute will need a mediation. Thank you, Cavell 23:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
62.203.174.186 14:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to get in the insane discussion above about what content belongs in the article. However, I am concerned by phrasings such as "dosages should commonly be split into injections at least once every two days." By saying it should be done, the article moves to instructions, which are not encyclopedic, and more importantly is encouraging illegal behaviour. Perhaps "dosages are commonly split" etc. would be more appropriate. -- 64.235.198.242 ( talk) 10:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Think about it, now people knows something about this steroid and then they know what the hell they are shooting in to there body´s, its better knowing in steed off they shoot them selves with some shit and die of it ???
It seems like this could open the doors to discuss many related issues. Since the drug is not approved for human use there won't be verifiable data that supports a particular amount as being a "normal" dose. Drugs approved for use do even use the term "normal" with respect to dosing. Anabolic steriod use associated with illicit use of the drugs results in blood levels above what is considered either normal physiologically, or medically indicated for some reason. So the likelihood of locating such information for the sake of reference seems unlikely.
In my opinion, WP should approach this subject carefully because what is considered "standard" in terms of clinical evidence between human use and non-human use. Remember too that agriculture makes the non-human category more complex.
FDA approval is required when a manufacturer seeks to put a certain claim on a label. (By omitting such claims, makers of a nutritional supplement have usually avoided the need to seek approval).
On the other hand, if the numerous websites that sell such products are considered as "verifiable", perhaps such marketing information can be used as a means of removing bias. WP may then wish to consider whether or not there are legal risks by quoting information from an online pharmacy. Consider, for example, using information about Viagra from a site that claims to sell it but had no connection at all with Pfizer. Would this pose either legal risk or reflect a lack of neutrality?
In general the question not answered by WP policy, I don't think, is what constitutes "verifiable". That is, information collected by what are genreally considered unethical means are not accepted as "clinical" evidence. Not accepting such information would be prohibited by medical ethics. If it already exists, it would still be unacceptable if it is not replicable today. Where does WP sit regarding this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kernel.package ( talk • contribs) 01:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Whoever wrote this part of the article: " Trenbolone has proven popular with anabolic steroid users as some believe it is not metabolized by aromatase or 5α-reductase into estrogenic compounds such as estradiol, or into DHT; however, studies on this are mixed with some studies showing a potential increase in both" has misinterpreted the studies they cited for that. Specifically references 8 and 9. Especially the latter.
"At the time of castration, two groups of animals were given implants of either 45 mg OE2 or 200 mg TBA. Another group received equivalent to 30 mg daily injections of DHT." Different groups were given different drugs. It would be incorrect to use this as reference to suggest Trenbolone can increase estradiol or DHT, as that is not what was found.
Reference 8 does not suggest this at all. It's a study looking at Trenbolone as a potential alternative or adjunct to testosterone therapy. There is zero mention made of Trenbolone stimulating an increase in Oestradiol or DHT.
Furthermore this would smack in the face of the far more numerous studies suggesting that trenbolone explicitly is not metabolized by aromatase or 5-aR - another point, this is not a belief held by illicit drug users, it's a fact stated in various research and medical literature on the drug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.88.61 ( talk) 08:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Since trenbolone is both a veterinary drug and a bodybuilding drug (legal or not), doesn't it make sense to discuss these two uses in separate sections? Kortoso ( talk) 17:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Can I second this. The use of trenbelone is hugely important and woefully under reported here.
Just listening to BBC Inside Science program and there is an estimate that 90% yes 90% of all US beef cattle are given a trenbelone pellet injection for a lifetime of trenbelone intake.
Trenbelone is banned in Europe (the program failed to make it clear that ALL growth promoting steroids are banned in Europe (see Risk Regulation in Europe: Assessing the Application of the Precautionary Principle (SpringerBriefs in Political Science) page 55 Google books).
The program highlighted alarming research that trenbeleone poses a much greater danger to aquatic life than had been suspected as, after destruction by sunlight, it is reactivated in the dark. If this turns out to be true, farm runoff will be having devastating effects on aquatic ecosystems. REF: BBC Inside Science Oct 3rd 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03bs0z6 or search BBC Radio 4.
I am not familiar with how to edit things and this is a fairly big change I am proposing - the dangers of trenbelone in beef production etc. I think it is important. Very grateful if someone wise could take this up.
TIA Steve Stevehomeruk ( talk) 21:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone explain the commercial source of Trenbolone -- i.e., if it is an entirely synthetic substance or if it is extracted from animals? Bricology ( talk) 15:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Trenbolone article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Trenbolone.
|
What the **** is going on with this "usage in bodybuilding"-rubbish? This shouldn't be a how-to for a usage by humans, since it's forbidden for human use at least in some countries! So there's quite a chance that there are negative side effects and therefore an encyclopedia shouldn't be a guide how to use such substances.
Think about it, now people knows something about this steroid and then they know what the hell they are shooting in to there body´s, its better knowing in steed off they shoot them selves with some shit and die of it ??? Nikolaj Hegaard pedersen. Denmark, Randers
P.S. Exactly what mistakes are you reffering to? Cavell 04:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
This is the english Wikipedia, and the information presented tells the reader about side effects and merely provides a ballpark range of bodybuilding dosages. You were correct about the syntax errors, which have been fixed. I stand by the article and have contributed many hours of time to expand the fields of strength training and anabloic steroids. Any further dispute will need a mediation. Thank you, Cavell 23:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
62.203.174.186 14:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to get in the insane discussion above about what content belongs in the article. However, I am concerned by phrasings such as "dosages should commonly be split into injections at least once every two days." By saying it should be done, the article moves to instructions, which are not encyclopedic, and more importantly is encouraging illegal behaviour. Perhaps "dosages are commonly split" etc. would be more appropriate. -- 64.235.198.242 ( talk) 10:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Think about it, now people knows something about this steroid and then they know what the hell they are shooting in to there body´s, its better knowing in steed off they shoot them selves with some shit and die of it ???
It seems like this could open the doors to discuss many related issues. Since the drug is not approved for human use there won't be verifiable data that supports a particular amount as being a "normal" dose. Drugs approved for use do even use the term "normal" with respect to dosing. Anabolic steriod use associated with illicit use of the drugs results in blood levels above what is considered either normal physiologically, or medically indicated for some reason. So the likelihood of locating such information for the sake of reference seems unlikely.
In my opinion, WP should approach this subject carefully because what is considered "standard" in terms of clinical evidence between human use and non-human use. Remember too that agriculture makes the non-human category more complex.
FDA approval is required when a manufacturer seeks to put a certain claim on a label. (By omitting such claims, makers of a nutritional supplement have usually avoided the need to seek approval).
On the other hand, if the numerous websites that sell such products are considered as "verifiable", perhaps such marketing information can be used as a means of removing bias. WP may then wish to consider whether or not there are legal risks by quoting information from an online pharmacy. Consider, for example, using information about Viagra from a site that claims to sell it but had no connection at all with Pfizer. Would this pose either legal risk or reflect a lack of neutrality?
In general the question not answered by WP policy, I don't think, is what constitutes "verifiable". That is, information collected by what are genreally considered unethical means are not accepted as "clinical" evidence. Not accepting such information would be prohibited by medical ethics. If it already exists, it would still be unacceptable if it is not replicable today. Where does WP sit regarding this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kernel.package ( talk • contribs) 01:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Whoever wrote this part of the article: " Trenbolone has proven popular with anabolic steroid users as some believe it is not metabolized by aromatase or 5α-reductase into estrogenic compounds such as estradiol, or into DHT; however, studies on this are mixed with some studies showing a potential increase in both" has misinterpreted the studies they cited for that. Specifically references 8 and 9. Especially the latter.
"At the time of castration, two groups of animals were given implants of either 45 mg OE2 or 200 mg TBA. Another group received equivalent to 30 mg daily injections of DHT." Different groups were given different drugs. It would be incorrect to use this as reference to suggest Trenbolone can increase estradiol or DHT, as that is not what was found.
Reference 8 does not suggest this at all. It's a study looking at Trenbolone as a potential alternative or adjunct to testosterone therapy. There is zero mention made of Trenbolone stimulating an increase in Oestradiol or DHT.
Furthermore this would smack in the face of the far more numerous studies suggesting that trenbolone explicitly is not metabolized by aromatase or 5-aR - another point, this is not a belief held by illicit drug users, it's a fact stated in various research and medical literature on the drug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.88.61 ( talk) 08:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Since trenbolone is both a veterinary drug and a bodybuilding drug (legal or not), doesn't it make sense to discuss these two uses in separate sections? Kortoso ( talk) 17:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Can I second this. The use of trenbelone is hugely important and woefully under reported here.
Just listening to BBC Inside Science program and there is an estimate that 90% yes 90% of all US beef cattle are given a trenbelone pellet injection for a lifetime of trenbelone intake.
Trenbelone is banned in Europe (the program failed to make it clear that ALL growth promoting steroids are banned in Europe (see Risk Regulation in Europe: Assessing the Application of the Precautionary Principle (SpringerBriefs in Political Science) page 55 Google books).
The program highlighted alarming research that trenbeleone poses a much greater danger to aquatic life than had been suspected as, after destruction by sunlight, it is reactivated in the dark. If this turns out to be true, farm runoff will be having devastating effects on aquatic ecosystems. REF: BBC Inside Science Oct 3rd 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03bs0z6 or search BBC Radio 4.
I am not familiar with how to edit things and this is a fairly big change I am proposing - the dangers of trenbelone in beef production etc. I think it is important. Very grateful if someone wise could take this up.
TIA Steve Stevehomeruk ( talk) 21:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone explain the commercial source of Trenbolone -- i.e., if it is an entirely synthetic substance or if it is extracted from animals? Bricology ( talk) 15:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)