This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Oxandrolone 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 prone to spam. Please monitor the References and External links sections. |
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 Oxandrolone.
|
A fact from Oxandrolone appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 1 September 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What are the differences between these classes? Are there more than just two classes of steroids? — Brim 06:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
"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 removed Settersr ( talk). —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC).
"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)
Too much unsourced stuff here
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). medical citation needed 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
- Jytdog ( talk) 08:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@ 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)
@ 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)
@ Doc James: I partially reverted your edit and re-capitalized Oxandrin because it is a trade name. Also, all sources I could find capitalize it. Exercisephys ( talk) 22:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Doc James: I noticed that you replaced the dose ranges I added with the terms "low" and "medium". However, I don't think that these terms carry much meaning. Furthermore, I think that androgen dose ranges are fundamentally different for adolescents and adults (similar to the difference between androgen dose ranges for men and women), so I think using these terms between oxandrolone's use cases is misleading. Finally, I don't recall any indication in the journal articles of whether the doses were "low", "medium", or "high" — I just remember them sharing numbers.
I'm not trying to start an argument, though. Let me know what you think, and thanks for contributing. Exercisephys ( talk) 22:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Do not include dose or titration information except when they are extensively discussed by secondary sources, necessary for the discussion in the article, or when listing equivalent doses between different pharmaceuticals.
I replied to the first bit here. Every drug has a therapeutic window and side effects as you reach or exceed the upper edge of it. We can wait for others to weigh in here and if more folks don't, we can use a more escalated DR mechanism. In the meantime as consensus develops you should self-revert. You have one "no objection" and two solid opposes, which is definitely consensus for including this. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 00:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
AAS is a common initialism for "anabolic-androgenic steroid". It's convenient because the term "steroid" refers to a far larger class of chemicals, but "anabolic steroid" gets unwieldy and becomes confusing when we're discussing (for example) anabolic-androgenic ratios. AAS is used in many medical sources, so it isn't bodybuilding slang.
Are there any objections to introducing this term early on and using it where possible? Exercisephys ( talk) 21:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Oxandrolone 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 prone to spam. Please monitor the References and External links sections. |
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 Oxandrolone.
|
A fact from Oxandrolone appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 1 September 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What are the differences between these classes? Are there more than just two classes of steroids? — Brim 06:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
"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 removed Settersr ( talk). —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC).
"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)
Too much unsourced stuff here
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). medical citation needed 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
- Jytdog ( talk) 08:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@ 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)
@ 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)
@ Doc James: I partially reverted your edit and re-capitalized Oxandrin because it is a trade name. Also, all sources I could find capitalize it. Exercisephys ( talk) 22:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Doc James: I noticed that you replaced the dose ranges I added with the terms "low" and "medium". However, I don't think that these terms carry much meaning. Furthermore, I think that androgen dose ranges are fundamentally different for adolescents and adults (similar to the difference between androgen dose ranges for men and women), so I think using these terms between oxandrolone's use cases is misleading. Finally, I don't recall any indication in the journal articles of whether the doses were "low", "medium", or "high" — I just remember them sharing numbers.
I'm not trying to start an argument, though. Let me know what you think, and thanks for contributing. Exercisephys ( talk) 22:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Do not include dose or titration information except when they are extensively discussed by secondary sources, necessary for the discussion in the article, or when listing equivalent doses between different pharmaceuticals.
I replied to the first bit here. Every drug has a therapeutic window and side effects as you reach or exceed the upper edge of it. We can wait for others to weigh in here and if more folks don't, we can use a more escalated DR mechanism. In the meantime as consensus develops you should self-revert. You have one "no objection" and two solid opposes, which is definitely consensus for including this. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 00:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
AAS is a common initialism for "anabolic-androgenic steroid". It's convenient because the term "steroid" refers to a far larger class of chemicals, but "anabolic steroid" gets unwieldy and becomes confusing when we're discussing (for example) anabolic-androgenic ratios. AAS is used in many medical sources, so it isn't bodybuilding slang.
Are there any objections to introducing this term early on and using it where possible? Exercisephys ( talk) 21:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)