Talk:Anabolic steroid/Archive 4

Aww, damn.

The history section's a copyvio of [1], and where there's one copyvio, there's usually others. I have no choice but to delete the page. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That's totally false. The supposed copyrighted section reads:

Performance enhancing substances have been used for thousands of years by societies around the world and have included natural and traditional substances whose aims were to promote vitality and strength. Comments on professional athletes in ancient Greece suggest that a wide variety of natural anabolic substances were used to promote androgenic and anabolic growth. These ranged from testicular extracts to plant materials including fungi toxins.

This is hardly a copyright violation as it simply paraphrases what the source says. What in the world have you done? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, Removing an entire article along with it's history simply because you believe 1 or 2 sentences are copyrighted is totally against wikipedia policy. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

History section, before my recent trimming:

Performance enhancing substances have been used for thousands of years by societies around the world and have included natural and traditional substances whose aims were to promote vitality and strength. One of the earliest descriptions of performance enhancing substances dates back 5,000 years and was described by Shennong who was a Chinese emperor around 2700 BC and is often regarded as the father of Chinese medicine. He is thought to have introduced the technique of acupuncture. One of the first written records about herbal performance enhancers, compiled around 1065–1771 BC, is Shen Nung Pen Ts'ao Ching’s "Divine Husbandman's Classic of Materia Medica", considered the earliest example of Chinese pharmacopoeia. Comments on professional athletes in ancient Greece suggest that a wide variety of natural anabolic substances were used to promote androgenic and anabolic growth. These ranged from testicular extracts to plant materials including fungi toxins. The word "doping" is thought to of originated from the Dutch word doop which means ‘sauce’ and the verb doopen means ‘to dip, or immerse.’ The Boers frequently dipped their bread into strong drinks before hardships or tough challenges.

http://www.dopingjouren.se/page.asp?page=history

Performance-enhancing substances have been used in societies from time immemorial. This was described as early as 5,000 years ago by Shen Nung, Chinese emperor around 2800 BC, and venerated as the Father of Chinese Medicine. He is believed to have introduced the technique of acupuncture. The first written record about herbal medicine was compiled in 1065-771 BC, Shen Nung Pen Ts’ao Ching, “Divine Husbandman’s Classic of Materia Medica”, the earliest Chinese pharmacopoeia.

In ancient Greece different fungi poisons were used.

The word “doping” is believed to originate from the Dutch language, where “doop” means sauce and the verb “doopen” means to dip, or immerse. It is known that the Boers dipped bread in strong drinks before tough hardships.

The first paragraph of the source, plus its comments on doping, are practically identical - except the first paragraph is missourced in our version to something completely different. We can't just presume an article is safe after finding a copyvio like that, that's been in there for years. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Adam, You don't know what you're talking about. Firstly, I personally added that 1st part and paraphrased it from the source. That's NOT an example of a copyright. I added that about a month or so ago, It HAS NOT BEEN THERE FOR YEARS. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down WD, I'm sure this can be resolved quite easily. Adam, your actions, although I'm sue good-intentioned, are not really following the policy. Please read the Wikipedia:Spotting possible copyright violations. If somebody substantially re-writes the text so that it is not a direct quote of the source, this is not a clear copyright infringement and does not allow speedy deletion. In addition, deleting an entire article due to concerns about one paragraph is not really a good way to proceed. Can we talk about this on the article page, rather than just deleting everything? Tim Vickers 16:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm very calm. I'm just wondering what Adam was possibly thinking. Please see [[2]] for a review of the deletion. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Adam, have you considered the possibility of the source you cited having copied from WP? If the text has been here years, that's certainly possible. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If this isn't a Wikipedia mirror, the problem can probably be solved most easily by reworking the text some more so that it is more our own words. At the moment it is clear this is not a cut-and-paste copy, but some of the changes are pretty minor and the text still is very close to the original. We can sort this out very quickly. Tim Vickers

The text is a vague paraphrase of the source, which isn't the same as a copyright. It also hasn't been there for "Years", I added it in April of this year [[3]]. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a wikipedia mirror, nor is it a "vague paraphrase" - this is barely different than the original. As well, if Wikidudeman can't see this is a copyright problem... well, that's very disturbing, given how much of this article seems to be his work. I'm made all the more worried by him admitting to it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, WD, but that's a different thing entirely. I suggest we delete again and selectively restore without the revision where the copyvio was added. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fvasconcellos, You can't erase a users edits for the past 2 months because you believe one part might infringe upon copyrights. The paragraph in question has already been removed and if you believe any of my edits infringe upon copyrights I suggest you read the entire article along with it's sources and find such an instance. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If a source says "Performance-enhancing substances have been used in societies from time immemorial." and I write "Performance enhancing substances have been used for thousands of years by societies around the world and have included natural and traditional substances whose aims were to promote vitality and strength." then it's not a copyright. If the source says "This was described as early as 5,000 years ago by Shen Nung, Chinese emperor around 2800 BC, and venerated as the Father of Chinese Medicine." and I write "One of the earliest descriptions of performance enhancing substances dates back 5,000 years and was described by Shennong who was a Chinese emperor around 2700 BC and is often regarded as the father of Chinese medicine." it is not a copyright. I really have no idea what you're basing your assertion that it is a copyright violation to vaguely paraphrase a source on. The two versions are hardly "identical" as you claimed on the articles talk page and could easily be changed even more if you believe they are too similar and would rather be on the safe side. AT WORST I failed to paraphrase it more and it should be reworded. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Take it easy. Possible copyright violations are usually deleted with extreme prejudice and little discussion. As this appears to have been a legitimate "error", I'll defer to Tim's decision of restoring the content and see how the DRV turns out (shouldn't take long anyway). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fvasconcellos, I'd suggest you browse through the article and take a look at it's sources to see whether or not any red flags come up. I assure you that they won't. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If people hold off from editing or reverting on the article for a while, I will re-write the section of concern so that is is clearly not close to the original. While I am doing this, could other editors check over the remainder of the text to see if there are any other sections that need working on? Thanks. Tim Vickers 17:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed re-write

Here is a rewrite I have proposed. This is even more unsimilar from the source it is taken from, not even 3 words in any order are similar as far as I can tell. Everything is re-worded and paraphrased, though there weren't any problems with the first version to begin with.

Performance enhancing substances have been used for thousands of years by societies around the world and have included natural and traditional substances whose aims were to promote vitality and strength. One of the earliest descriptions of performance enhancing substances dates back 5,000 years and was described by Shennong who was a emperor in China around the year 2700 BC and is sometimes regarded as the father of Chinese medicine and is said to have introduced acupuncture. Comments on professional athletes in ancient Greece suggest that a wide variety of natural anabolic substances were used to promote androgenic and anabolic growth. These ranged from testicular extracts to plant materials including fungi toxins.

Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It's still off-topic. That article is about doping, of which steroidal use is only one type. Unless a convicing case can be made that the proposed material is actually on steroids, leave it out. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of the first paragraph of the history isn't on "Anabolic steroids" persay but on performance enhancing substances in general. I believe that at least a few of the first sentences should explain a little bit about performance enhancing substances in general since Anabolic Steroids are the most well known of such substances. Moreover, Do you have any objections to it on COPYRIGHT grounds? You deleted the entire article because you thought that one paragraph was copyrighted and my new version isn't even that different. Or do you admit that you might have jumped the gun in deleting the entire article simply because it's vaguely similar to the source. If you claim it's more than vaguely similar then take a look at my differences above.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment that testicular extracts would contain steroid hormones, principally testosterone. 17:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Tim Vickers

That's correct. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but I'm not sure the Chinese part is on-topic, without knowing what the performance enhancers are. The Greek bit is surely on-topic, though it needs a cite. Copyright's fine. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification on changes

Here is where Adam Cuerden can clarify his objections and tags placed on the article. Firstly... Why was this removed?:

• Testosterone therapy is effective in improving libido for elderly hypogonadal males.

It's just a special case of "Used in hormone replacement therapy for men with low levels of testosterone", isn't it? Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It clarifies that it's used for libido. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could combine the two. "Used in hormone replacement therapy or to restore the libido in men with low levels of testosterone."?

Secondly, Why do you keep tagging sentences as POV when the scientific sources themselves say what is posted? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Things like "it is thought it prove to be a useful, safe, reversible, effective method of male hormonal contraception in the near future" is speculative, and somewhat advertising-copy in tone. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not speculative, It's based on the scientific studies cited in the scientific paper that is sourced. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we cut the adjective list a little bit - "useful, safe, reversible, effective" might be a bit over the top - and fix the grammar? How about "it is believed that in the near future it could be used as a safe, reliable, and reversible male contraceptive"? Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections to that. You can re-add it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What is POV about this?

• Anabolic steroids have been shown to help fight many age related problems in elderly men including increasing lean body mass and decreasing bone resorption.

Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Tone, again. It reads a little advertisement-like. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it reads like an advertisement. Could your clarify? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's the "help fight" (a phrase very often used in pseudoscientific supplement advertisements), combined with the overly-vague "age related problems" - which is surely much broader in meaning than what it can actually treat. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Should I specify which age related problems? "Helps fight" is a very common term used by numerous people from numerous backgrounds, I don't think that's a very good criticism of it being POV. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If the problems are better-specified, I'd have no problem with "helps fight". It's only with both that there's a problem. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What is unclear about this?

• Growth stimulation: Anabolic steroids were used heavily by pediatric endocrinologists for children with growth failure from the 1960s through the 1980s. Availability of synthetic growth hormone and increasing social stigmatization of anabolic steroids led to discontinuation of this use.

Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, that's not so bad, but "pediatric endocrinologists" is a little more complex than it needs to be. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The majority of the doctors who prescribed anabolic steroids to promote growth in children in North America and Europe from the 1960s through the discontinuation in the mid-1980s were pediatric endocrinologists. The words "pediatricians" and "endocrinologists" nearly always refer to entirely different types of doctors. This is not unnecessarily complex-- this is precise. This is an encyclopedia-- consider yourself to have just learned something. alteripse 20:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, but we could probably use something like "paediatric endocrinologists (specialists in the treatment of children with hormones)" if we wanted to make it easier. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Renamed section

I have renamed the section that was called "Popular misconceptions" to "Misconceptions and controversies". I did this since while the section does contain some ideas that are clearly untrue, there is the possibility that the suicide and/or aggression links might have some basis in fact. The balance of evidence might suggest one particular view, but to label areas of continuing research as simple misconceptions is a little inaccurate. Tim Vickers 21:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove the quote from Harrison Pope? He is a highly respected researcher of performance enhancing substances who has authored dozens of relevant studies and who is a researcher for Harvard. I think his opinion is very relevant to that section. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A question of balance, you had two quotes on two different areas of popular concern. Both were quotes saying that no risk exists. I thought that either we should add a quote of somebody who does believe that the risks are significant, or remove one of the existing quotes. As removal of content is usually less contentious than adding it, I removed the quote from the already long paragraph on "roid rage". We could add it back and if we do, could you suggest a quote that could be added to illustrate some of the concerns about steroids? Tim Vickers 22:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't create a false sense of equality. I could drum up some quote from some doctor or scientist saying "roid rage" is real but I hardly doubt they would be as credentialed on the study of AAS and aggression as Pope is. The paragraph does mention some studies showing a positive correlation between aggression and AAS use however among those who study it, I think the paragraph is very representative of the the scientific consensus. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Reading the source, which doesn't seem reliable enough to attribute a quotation of a living person to, the full quotation from the source is “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” to describe manic symptoms. This doesn't seem to me to say that manic symptoms do not exist, rather that "manic symptoms" is the better way of describing this condition than the media term of "roid rage". When you quoted this in isolation, missing out the words after the quote that provided context. The quote became ambiguous: “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”. That wording removed the context that he was talking about real symptoms and to me implies that "roid rage" itself does not exist. We need to find the entire interview to see what is really meant by this. Tim Vickers 23:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the source (which is the only one that exists online as far as I know) it says:

“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” to describe manic symptoms. Citing a 1994 paper which is “the closest thing to a quantitative answer” on prevalence, Dr. Pope points out that less than 5% experienced manic symptoms -- and all of them were taking >1,000mg per week. Of those consuming less, 0% (zero) experienced manic symptoms.

Which seems to support the contention that Pope is pointing out that "Roid rage" doesn't exist and that less than 5% of those taking over 1,000mg of the drug experienced manic symptoms. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. If just one million people are taking high-dose steroids, an incidence of even a 1% side-effect will be 10,000 cases. You can't go from "low incidence" to "does not exist" - his data seem to show that it does exist, but that it is rare. Also if you want to include this quote you need a more reliable source that includes the rest of the interview to be sure he is not being misquoted. Tim Vickers 23:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to understand that the popular conception of "Roid rage" is totally different from what medical experts consider the side effects of AAS to be. Take a gander at the Chris Benoit controversy and you'll see what I mean. Numerous media sources are postulating that he murdered his wife and son then committed suicide. All over a 3 day period and was pre-intended. The popular conception of "roid rage" is total psychosis and lack of connection to reality which can happen at any dose and can last days and involves intent and planning during the so called "rages". The medical literature shows that up to 5%(lower or non-existent in many studies) show signs of "manic symptoms" which doesn't equate to what the media or popular culture thinks of "roid rage". Pope is saying that such a conception is nonsense. I don't know of any other sources and I don't see how that specific source can be considered reliable. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Less than 5% is still up to 5%. That means that there is very likely a lot of steroid users displaying manic symptons or "Roid Rage". Why are you so adamant that "Roid Rage" doesn't exist Wikidudeman? You are too protective of this article, you do not own it and you should definitely stop your POV pushing.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.238.76.199 (talk • contribs).

Anon user, I would urge you to assume good faith. I am saying that "roid rage" doesn't exist as it is defined as the media and popular culture. There is a big difference between "roid rage" (uncontrollable outbursts where victims do things they would never normally do including murdering their families and committing suicide) and "slight manic symptoms" exhibited in small numbers in a small number of studies. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Roid rage is definitely real. I've experienced it. Just because you have not doesn't change a thing. In the end it is just your POV that you are pushing.

I think we need a reliable source defining what it is that the media usually calls "roid rage", if this is different from the aggression and mania discussed as a serious possibility by researchers, this doesn't come across clearly at the moment in the article. Tim Vickers 00:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the whole Chris Benoit controversy and then take a look at what most of the medical literature says and you'll see what I mean. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes I know I could go and find out. The point is that this information isn't in the article. As a result, people reading who have a science background such as myself who have never heard of Chris Benoit will assume "roid rage" means mania and aggression, and people with no science background will assume that the "Chris Benoit" effect is described by scientists as mania and aggression. At the moment it is not at all clear from reading the article that the two are different. Tim Vickers 01:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you suggest we link to a few news organizations who make such assertions? To show that that's what "roid rage" is? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a quote from a news story that describes something clearly different from the scientific terms of mania and aggression? Tim Vickers 20:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Would a link to a news article about Benoit suffice? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Has "roid rage" ever been cited by the defence in a court case? That would be a much more reliable source and avoid the charge of "speculation" which people will attach to any comment about the supposed state of mind of somebody who is now dead. Tim Vickers 21:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It has I believe, however if we cited a news article speculating that Benoit killed his family and then himself over 3 days due to "roid rage" then it would simply be a cite to the assertion that the popular idea of the side effects from AAS dealing with the psychological is vastly different from what the scientific studies yield. It would be speculation on the media's part, but that would be the point. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

True, but a court case would be much more solid, as this would involve the testimony of the person involved. Are there any names or cases that come to mind? I really know little about life outside my ivory tower, so I'm at a loss on this one! Tim Vickers 22:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The first one that comes to mind was a case with a pedophile who was shot by an officer on steroids. The police rushed the pedophiles house who was suspected of molesting and or murdering a child, the pedophile drew a weapon and the police opened fire on him. The attorney of the pedophile claimed that one of the police who fired was using steroids and thus fired because of "roid rage" not due to the fact the pedophile drew his weapon after being told to get on the ground. I don't know if the case ever went to court or if there was ever a trial either. I'll look into it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Great! I think this will improve the section a great deal. Tim Vickers 02:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review by User:LaraLove

What started as a general GA/R review turned into a full, Lara-esque nit-pick fest. I'm notorious for these. Anyway, I call it a peer review because not all issues listed fall under the GA criteria, however, I point them out anyway for the betterment of the article. I will post a GA/R recommendation with argument with the ongoing discussion at GA/R pulling relevant issues from this review.

I made some changes myself, and I may continue to assist in improving the article, providing the custodians of this article are active in addressing the issues constructively. As listed tasks are completed (some may have already been done as most of this review was done several hours ago and I've waited to post it until I completed it), strike-through (starting after the *) and add {{done}} after the recommendation. If you disagree with a recommendation, please comment below it using two *s.

• The article is very redundant in places. Certain aspects of the topic are mentioned in multiple sections. This seems unnecessary to me. Some of these sections could possibly be merged into one.
• There are some potential issues with words to avoid. They are acceptable depending on the context, but I think there may be some areas for improvement, particularly with the use of the word "however". This is something that needs to be looked at carefully as it is a NPOV issue. As noted in the MOS, words like "however" and "although" can sometimes imply one POV is more favored than another. In such instances, it is more appropriate to word in a more neutral manner.

Specific comments

The lead

• "Anabolic steroids were first discovered in the early 1930s and are now used widely in medicine to stimulate bone growth, appetite, puberty, and muscle growth. ... Anabolic steroids produce increases in protein synthesis, muscle mass, strength, appetite and bone growth." - Is it really necessary that these be listed twice in the same paragraph?
• "Anabolic steroids can also produce side effects when administered in excessive doses : these include elevated cholesterol (increase in bad cholesterol, decreased good cholesterol levels), acne, elevated blood pressure, liver damage, and dangerous changes in the structure of the left ventricle of the heart." - The colon is out of place. Not only because there is a space before it that shouldn't be, but a semi-colon or period would be more appropriate here. I'd recommend creating two sentences separated by a period. I'd also reword the text in parenthesis to be consistent. For example, "(increased bad cholesterol and decreased good cholesterol levels)" is an improvement of prose.  Done

• Please change "bad cholesterol" and "good cholesterol" to "LDL cholesterol" and "HDL cholesterol", respectively. The LDL article itself calls the tag "bad cholesterol" "a misnomer". Note this use is repeated in the "Adverse Effects" section.

History

• The wikification of United States and the use of "U.S." is off. It should be written out and wikified in its first occurrence. If not in the lead (to avoid over wikification), then the use should be switched here in the History section. Additionally, if U.S. is used subsequently, there should be a consistency with this throughout the article. It should also be noted that, along with the inconsistent use of "United States", "U.S.", and "US" (inappropriate usage) (I fixed that), there is redundant wikilinking. The style guide allows for the same terms to be wikilinked more than the first occurrence for longer articles, however, United States is wikified randomly throughout the article. Wikilinking, in regards to GA, is not a disqualifier as it is not one of the MOS issues covered in the criteria, however I offer these suggestions for the further improvement of the article. This is also an issues with other blah blah blah. I ramble. Anyway, I fixed it myself.  Done
• "In the 1950s, scientific interest was rekindled, and methandrostenolone (Dianabol) was approved for use in the United States by the federal Food and Drug Administration in 1958 after promising trials had been conducted in other countries." - Copy-edit for punctuation and grammar.  Done (and rewritten for factual accuracy too)

Biochemical mechanisms

• "It has also been hypothesized[8] This reduction in muscle breakdown may occur through..." - There is either a period missing before the reference or "that this reduction" should follow the ref.  Done
• Possibly hypothesized should be wikified. I'm not sure, though. It's a common word for me, but I'm not sure how it is for the majority of readers. I recommend it, however, as it relates to the context of the article and it would not cause the paragraph to be overly linked.  Done
• The second paragraph needs a copy-edit. Particularly the second half. I'm noticing a trend of missing commas and improperly used colons.  Done
  • The reference [8] was in the wrong place, I've copy-edited the last paragraph. Tim Vickers 02:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Anabolic and androgenic effects

• "These effects are caused by steroids binding to androgen receptors and causing changes in gene expression or activating the conversion of cellular signals through the modification of proteins due to the addition of phosphate." - That is one long run-on sentence. Commas should be present before prepositions.

  Commas would not have saved this incomprehensible sentence. I rephrased it before this review: there are still no commas, but I hope it is an improvement anyway. I'm sure it could be made better still. Geometry guy 22:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• "Most anabolic steroids work in two simultaneous ways. First, they work by binding to the androgen receptor and increasing the cellular production of proteins. Second, they also reduce recovery time by blocking the effects of the stress hormone in the body, cortisol, on muscle tissue." - I recommend a minor rewording to "Most anabolic steroids work in two simultaneous ways. First, they bind to the androgen receptor and increase the cellular production of proteins. Second, they reduce recovery time by blocking the effects of stress hormone in the body, cortisol, and muscle tissue." My reasoning is to remove unnecessary redundancies, including the use of "work", and "also" after "Second". Also for consistency as the second sentence uses "binding" and "increasing", while the third sentence uses "reduce recovery" as opposed to "reducing recovery". I also believe "on muscle tissue" should be "and muscle tissue", as I noted in my suggested edit. This all makes for better flow and clearer prose.  Done

  This material belongs in the "Biochemical mechanisms" section anyway. I will try to fix it tomorrow if no one else does. Geometry guy 22:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Side effects

• This needs a good copy-edit. Again, there are missing commas.
• "Another male specific side effect which can occur is testicular atrophy,..." (emphasis mine)- I recommend the italicized wording be removed/reworded. Considering it's regarding testicles, it's clear that it's male-specific. I recommend adding a comma after "males" in the previous sentence and changing the italicized portion to "as well as".
• Following the previous is "...which is a temporary side effect that is due to decreases in..." - I recommend removing "that is".
• The last paragraph needs a copy-edit. There is a misuse of a semi-colon which could cause the prose to be possibly unclear to some. Consider, instead, using mdashes when expanding on listed affects.

Minimization of side effects

• There is an inconsistency in the bullet list. The first and third listed protocol are expanded on; the first in parenthesis, the second following a comma. These should be structured the same.

Medical uses

• Decades should not be wikilinked. Fixed myself.  Done
• I'm not clear on why there is a neutrality disputed tag here. It's a cited claim that is worded no differently than any of the other listed effects.  Done

Non-medical use and abuse

• "...studies on steroid users have shown them to be the most educated drug users out of all users of controlled substances." - Strong claim sourcing "studies" but only referencing one (which involved just 100 users).  Done However, I still question this statement considering it was only one study and it only involved 100 users. That's not adequate enough to support such a claim, IMO. LaraLove^T/_C 05:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• "Male students used more than female students and those who participated in sports used more often than those who did not on average." - I recommend rewording to "Male students used more than female students and, on average, those who participated..."  Done
• "The demographics of steroid users tend to be mostly males generally around the age of 25..." - Previously in this section, the average age is stated to be 27. Regardless, this information is redundant.  Done
• The last sentence claims "a recent study", but the reference is a "survey", which is much different. Polling of message board members on popular AAS-user websites does not constitute a study.  Done

In the Misconceptions and controversies section

• "One possible origin of the idea that steroids are extremely dangerous is from claims that Lyle Alzado died from brain cancer caused by anabolic steroids. Alzado himself had claimed that his cancer was caused by anabolic steroids.[63] However, although steroids can cause liver cancer,[64] there is no published evidence that anabolic steroids cause either brain cancer or the specific type of T-cell lymphoma that caused his death.[65][63] Indeed, Alzado's doctors stated that anabolic steroids did not contribute to his death.[66]" - This needs to be copy-edited for better flow.
• "Other examples include the misconception that anabolic steroids can ‘shrink’ the male penis..." - This information is already included previously in the article. For this reason, I believe the information included after this sentence should be limited to the mention of Testicular atrophy, which is wikilinked as well as being previously explained.
• "Here, only 50 individuals were studied, with two showing signs of marked hypomania." - Here? I assume that's a cut and paste from the references. "Here" should be removed.

Legal status

• "Anabolic steroids are controlled in some countries, while relatively uncontrolled in others. Some countries have stricter controls on the use and prescription of anabolic steroids than other countries." - These two sentences say practically the same thing.  Done
• "In the United States, the U.S. Congress placed..." - I recommend removing "In the United States," and having it read "The U.S. Congress placed..."  Done
• "U.S. Congress" need not be wikified in this paragraph as it is wikified in the paragraph above. Did it myself. ((done))
• "However, the U.S. Congress in the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990 placed anabolic steroids into Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act." - This was just stated in the previous paragraph.  Done
• "In addition, an entire market for counterfeit drugs emerged at this time. Never seen in the previous 30 years of their availability on the U.S. market, computers and scanning technology made the ease of counterfeiting legitimate products by utilizing their original label design, and the market was flooded with products that contained everything from mere vegetable oil to toxic substances which unsuspecting users injected into themselves, of which some died as a result of blood poisoning, methanol poisoning or subcutaneous abscess." - This needs a reference.  Done

  I've removed the redundancy from this paragraph. The last point doesn't really belong here: I've moved it to the "illegal" section and added a fact tag. Geometry guy 22:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Illegal trade in anabolic steroids

• "...other smuggling efforts (including other illegal drugs)..." - That seems implied. Especially when also considering the following sentence. Am I wrong?
• "The majority of those using illegally obtain the drugs through this black market,..." - Shouldn't that read "the black market"? And are the "pharmacists, veterinarians, and physicians" part of this black market?

Distribution

• Wikification of countries needs to be corrected in this section. United States and Canada are mentioned in the first sentence. While they have been previously wikified in the article, because of length, it is appropriate to wikify again, however it should be in the first occurrence in the section. Additionally, the introduction of countries not previously mentioned, i.e. Mexico and Thailand, should be wikified. Did myself.  Done
• "In addition to the recreational use of anabolic steroids, users in Great Britain have been shown to consume illicit drugs as well, such as cannabis, and cocaine." - Is this really relevant to the article?  Done

Movement for decriminalization

• There are many redundancies from the Distribution section here.

See also

• Some of these have been previously linked in the article, therefore should not be listed here.

I think that's it. In my opinion, this article clearly does not meet GA standards, however, it has the potential to easily be improved. Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 05:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerning LaraLove's review

I've changed the article according to most of your criticisms except for a few. For example, You say that:

"Other examples include the misconception that anabolic steroids can ‘shrink’ the male penis..." - This information is already included previously in the article. For this reason, I believe the information included after this sentence should be limited to the mention of Testicular atrophy, which is wikilinked as well as being previously explained."

This is incorrect, The article previously says that "the adult penis does not grow even when exposed to high doses of androgens" but it does not dispels the notion that AAS actually "shrinks" the penis. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this point. There is, however, still a lot of redundancy left in the article. I have fixed some of it, but there is more to do. I have also replaced some tertiary references with secondary ones, and as a result found more accurate and detailed historical information about the identification and synthesis of testosterone. Geometry guy 22:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, Wikidudeman. I was recalling the information of the decrease in sperm production causing the testicles to shrink. Upon re-reading that section, I think that testicular atrophy could be better explained. It states, "As most of the mass of the testes is developing sperm, the size of the testicles usually returns to normal within a few weeks..." - While it is implied, the article doesn't actually state that the steroids cause the testicles to shrink. I recommend expanding the part after testicular atrophy to briefly explain what it is as has been done with other side effects.

Past that, I'm very pleased to see that changes are being made to the article. It has great potential. LaraLove^T/_C 06:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it GA material yet? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Just WP:LEAD to meet now in my view. First, though, I will go over the pharmacology section. Geometry guy 13:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Pharmacology reorganised: I may have introduced some biological mistakes in the rearrangement, but Tim has been on the case as well, so I'm sure he will spot any egregious errors on my part. Geometry guy 18:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't find a good reference for the side effects in adolescents section. I can't find any mention of penis enlargement as a consequence of high levels of androgens, and the term "hypervirilization" only returns one hit in PubMed on fungicide toxicity in rats. I'm consequently dubious as to if all these "side effects" are genuine. Tim Vickers 18:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've now given the lead a shot. Comments and copyediting welcome! Geometry guy 19:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

Shouldn't the etymology of Anabolic Steroids be right after the word "Anabolic Steroids" in the first sentence of the lead? That's how I've seen it in all articles with etymology of the words. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is important. I put it after "anabolic-androgenic steroids", but Tim moved it — I guess he thought it would be less cluttered that way. If you want to move it back, that is fine with me. Geometry guy 12:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll let Tim comment on it then. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Do you really think the article needs numerous repeated links for muscle for instance? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No I don't, but a blanket edit using AWB isn't the way to do it. I would have gone through the diff by hand picking which links to keep and which to drop, but I was in a lazy mood! Geometry guy 13:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

AWB can do that. It can hand pick which links to keep and which to delete, Which would you think should be deleted? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, looking at the latest diff, I guess bone and muscle certainly only need to be wikilinked once. I would keep all of the other links up until the "Misconceptions and controversies". From here on, I would also delete the links to testosterone. There are a few others which could be deleted, such as appetite, but this is a matter ot taste really. Geometry guy 17:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding what you had done. I had a go myself at eliminating a few redundant wikilinks using AWB. It is partly a matter of taste, but technical terms and words like "wasting" (with a technical meaning) should be wikilinked unless they have been wikilinked earlier in the same section. Geometry guy 20:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

My edits

I've made mostly copyedits, but a few points related to my edits I wanted to explain further. The article states a few times that anabolic steroids are "widely used" in medicine. This is true in that testosterone is fairly widely used, but other synthetic anabolic steroids, while they have their place, are not very widely used (but that's a minor quibble). More importantly, the article states that the drugs are safely used in the medical setting. This is completely true, but an important caveat is that people taking prescribed anabolic steroids are carefully monitored for possible complications and are taking them for a medical indication. I'm a little wary of extending that data to suggest that people who take non-prescribed or recreational steroids will be equally safe. Finally, I don't see a mention of one of the most significant potential side effects in men: the promotion of prostate cancer. Any male patient being given prescription testosterone will generally have his PSA monitored regularly because of the increased risk of promoting prostate cancer. I'll dig up some refs, but this should probably be mentioned. MastCell ^Talk 16:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I should add that perhaps the section on roid rage and psychiatric effects could use a bit of work. It seems to summarize the evidence as indicating that there's probably no such thing. Studies that found an association between steroids and aggression are kind of dismissed, although they include several of the strongest (randomized double-blind) trials. There's definitely a controversy, and no consensus, as to whether it exists or how big of a deal it is, but I don't think the "majority of studies" indicate there's no such thing (though perhaps I'm missing a review article or other secondary source which draws that conclusion). I also added what I think is an interesting addition to the literature: a study of 2 sets of identical twins, one who used anabolic steroids and the other who did not (PMID 16529916). MastCell ^Talk 16:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A few notes. Firstly, There's no need for the sub heading "Psychiatric effects" since the only ones mentioned are aggression and the same heading includes Arnold Schwarzenegger purported health problems from AAS. I removed that subheading. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I was trying to break up a fairly long paragraph into chunks, but you're right, the subheading I applied didn't really fit. MastCell ^Talk 19:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Arnold Schwarzenegger and steroids

Arnold Schwarzenegger is the subject of an urban legend regarding the side effects of anabolic steroids. There is no mention of Arnold Schwarzenegger or anabolic steroids in urban legend. Brian Pearson 00:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? Do you mean that the article urban legend doesn't mention Schwarzenegger or anabolic steroids? The article doesn't mention numerous other Urban legends either in that article. Perhaps the best term isn't "urban legend" perhaps "popular misconception" or something similar, though the fact that it isn't mentioned in that specific article isn't really relevant. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

At 00:00 my brain had turned into a pumpkin. Brian Pearson 00:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would hardly call it an "urban legend". It's a public speculation, and since Schwarzenegger doesn't disclose personal medical details to the public, it remains an open one. --Rhombus (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

PDB resource

The PDB molecule of the month series covered anabolic steroids this month (Link). Should be a great resource and it is all public domain if the source is cited. Tim Vickers 13:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The image is public domain if we cite the website? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's an image I've taken off there before, just copy the tags and citation. (Link). Tim Vickers 17:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What should I say about the image when it's in the article? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it. If I made any mistakes feel free to correct them. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I've Linked directly to sex hormone binding globulin in the caption. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think it had it's own article. Interesting that you used the same image for that article as well. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I only added it there after seeing it here :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Benefits for elderly men

The study cited in the summary found here link is actually dealing with DHEA which is just a single "quasi" anabolic steroid which is a sort of "steroid precursor". Numerous other studies have shown benefits for elderly men dealing mostly with testosterone. Links:

[[4]]
[[5]]
[[6]]
[[7]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidudeman (talk • contribs) 21:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. I understand the difference between DHEA and testosterone; the NEJM study (PMID 17050889) tested both DHEA and low-dose testosterone, in different patients. Neither was beneficial. Of the articles you cite, some suggest a benefit in bone density for short-term T supplementation. I can't access the 2007 review because it's apparently not on my online system yet. One of your citations states: "Based on these results, testosterone supplementation cannot be recommended at this time for older men with normal or low-normal testosterone levels and no clinical manifestations of hypogonadism." (PMID 12534854). Another attests to concern over rises in PSA with testosterone. In general, testosterone has been hyped quite a bit as an elixir of youth, and we need to be careful that our claims closely follow the available literature. These citations, in sum, don't support claims that testosterone supplementation has "numerous benefits" for older men or against common aging-related conditions, and the NEJM article in particular, as the most recent and robust piece of data, shouldn't be ignored. MastCell ^Talk 22:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on what I've seen, The study you cited is also done on Women, So that might make some difference. The studies I've seen don't recommend testosterone therapy for men without hypogonadism simply because they aren't sure of the potential side effects, not because it doesn't do what the article says it does. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a close look at the abstract. The women were only given DHEA vs. placebo; the men were divided into groups and given testosterone, DHEA, or placebo (that is, only men received testosterone supplementation). These male subjects also had hypogonadism ("low levels of bioavailable testosterone"). MastCell ^Talk 22:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The editorial (PMID 17050897) accompanying the NEJM study made some interesting points as well, for example:

• "Association studies have linked all of these age-related changes in hormone levels to some of the phenotypic changes of aging... However, association is not causation; efficacy studies require appropriately powered, placebo-controlled clinical trials."
• "Elderly men with total testosterone values below the 15th percentile in a normal young cohort were given transdermal testosterone sufficient to raise their testosterone levels from a median value of 357 ng per deciliter (12 nmol per liter) at baseline to 461 ng per deciliter (16 nmol per liter). Again, no significant functional changes in any of these measures were observed, and increasing evidence suggests that physiologic testosterone replacement should not be given to otherwise normal aging men." MastCell ^Talk 22:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I find the study pretty odd though. The number of studies showing benefits of Test therapy for men and especially men with hypogonadism are vast. It seems likely that there was some aspect of this study that made it different from the others that caused the men to show no benefits. I think it's best to put this in the aspect of weight. The number of studies from what I've seen that support the idea that test therapy has numerous benefits (especially for elderly men or men with hypogonadism) vastly outweigh the studies that show no effect. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree we need to apply WP:WEIGHT, but to do so we need to determine what experts in the field recommend with regard to T supplementation in the elderly. You and I could easily look at the available studies, weight them according to our individual ideas about them, and come to different conclusions (for example, I assign the NEJM study much more weight because it was fully randomized and placebo-controlled, methodologically robust, and had long-term (2 years) rather than short term (~3 month) follow-up). That's all well and good. But to apply WP:WEIGHT, rather than rely on our evaluation of the sources, we need to sample opinions of experts in the field. Many of the studies suggest that "further study is needed" before T supplementation can be recommended in the elderly. The NEJM editorial I cited, from late 2006, states that there is "increasing evidence [which] suggests that physiologic testosterone replacement should not be given to otherwise normal aging men." I'm sure there are more expert-committee or position statements on the topic which I'm as yet unaware of. MastCell ^Talk 22:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, Nearly all studies conclude that "further study is needed" regardless of how comprehensive their specific study was. I'm not suggesting that this article should "recommend" T therapy to the elderly, but should simply point out what benefits exist for those who do indeed use it. Sure the one study that you mentioned was randomized and placebo controlled, but so are numerous others which I could dig up which conclude that T therapy has various benefits for elderly men. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Another good recent summary of studies link. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting - I read that review article you mentioned (PMID 17343664), and was truly puzzled as to why the authors failed to mention or cite the NEJM study (I mean, it was in the frickin New England Journal, after all - pretty major omission for a review article). Then I realized - the authors of that review looked at articles published through April 2006. The NEJM article was published in October 2006 - therefore, the review does not take its findings into account. That explains a lot about the conclusions they reached, I think. In any case, while I agree that's a good summary of studies through April 2006, it is a bit outdated in that it leaves out a major NEJM study which has had an impact on our understanding of testosterone supplementation. MastCell ^Talk 22:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That's assuming you put more weight into the NEJM study than the dozens that came before it, some of which had similar experimental measures. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I do put more weight on it, not only for the methodologic reasons I mentioned and for the much better long-term followup as compared to other studies, but also because a) it's more recent, b) it was published in a top-impact journal. Both of those suggest that it adds something new and significant to our understanding. But again, it doesn't really matter how much weight you or I put on it; it would be useful to look at how these things are weighted by experts in the field. MastCell ^Talk 23:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well It's worth thinking about why that one study would find no benefits when so many other previous or later studies have. Studies such as this one or this one are also very convincing. The latter one was also a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial which lasted 6 months. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think some of the confusion may come from a misinterpretation of the studies you're citing. In your second citation (the randomized controlled one), there was no benefit from testosterone supplementation alone (the significant benefits were observed largely with growth hormone plus testosterone). So it actually reinforces the negative findings of the NEJM study with regards to testosterone-only supplementation. As regards 6 months of follow-up, the authors themselves noted that "...the main limitation of this study was its short duration." As regards WP:WEIGHT and expert opinion on T supplementation, the authors wrote that "Neither rhGH nor Te yet has an established clinical role in older men without frank deficiency."

I should be clear that I'm not opposed to citing studies showing short-term benefits of T supplementation on lean body mass, bone loss, etc - so long as they're presented in the context of significant negative studies and expert opinion on T supplementation, and so long as we avoid the "fountain of youth" hyperbole that has sometimes associated with androgen supplementation. MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should avoid the "fountain of youth" hyperbole, but I also think that if there are a significant amount of studies out there showing benefits for T-therapy then we need to mention them fairly. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you there - I just think that we need to be careful about how we present the studies (i.e. not overstating their conclusions), and present important negative as well as positive findings. MastCell ^Talk 17:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Other concern

I'm very uncomfortable with the following passage:

One common misconception in popular culture and the media is that anabolic steroids are highly dangerous and users' mortality rates are high. Anabolic steroids are used widely in medicine with an acceptable side-effect profile, so long as patients are monitored for possible complications.

It seems to set up a target (that "the media" portrays steroids as dangerous) and then knock it down by pointing out that steroids are used in medicine. Yes, they're used in medicine - for patients with specific abnormal conditions which are known to benefit from testosterone supplementation. They're not used in medicine for healthy young adults - but this is what the article suggests. I mean, high doses of radiation and chemotherapy are also widely used in medicine with an "acceptable" side-effect profile - in patients with cancer. Extrapolating that to suggest that the side-effect profile is no big deal in healthy young people is quite a stretch. Does that make sense? MastCell ^Talk 22:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, If Anabolic steroids are used for unhealthy adults or healthy adults, the side effects would generally be the same. Side effects don't just all of a sudden pop up when used on healthy opposed to unhealthy individuals. The article mentions the side effects that do exist however the contention that AAS are somehow "very deadly" is a popular misconception. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but "acceptable" side effects are not the same - "acceptable" for a sick person who will have a proven medical benefit is not the same as "acceptable" for a young, otherwise fully healthy person. That was my point. For what it's worth, I agree that anabolic steroids are not "very deadly" by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't think they're necessarily portrayed that way in the media - it feels a little strawman-esque, and a source describing the media's portrayal of steroid use would be helpful to alleviate that concern. MastCell ^Talk 23:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well you must not watch the news as often as I do. Generally the Media asserts that AAS causes "brain cancer", "sudden death" as well as "bouts of rage" that can cause users to murder their families when otherwise they wouldn't have. See Lyle Alzado or Chris Benoit for further info on that can of worms. Generally the side effects that young healthy men experience when using are "acceptable" to them when they use them in moderate doses. Acne, Blood pressure, Cholesterol, Liver damage etc. There seems to be numerous ways that the users minimize these effects to an 'acceptable" level, acceptable enough that they take them for years, sometimes decades without any health problems. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait - the side effects may certainly be acceptable to users, or they wouldn't use them. The text I cited above, though, implies that medically there's no real problem with young health folks using steroids, because doctors give them to specific patients for specific abnormal conditions. That's the leap I'm talking about. MastCell ^Talk 23:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well it would be a leap if there were somehow additional side effects occurring in healthy individuals that don't occur in unhealthy ones. Sure, Doctors consider the side effects less severe than the illnesses they are attempting to treat, however users also consider the side effects to be not very severe regardless of their health. I'm not sure what the objection is exactly. As pointed out above, the media does indeed overstate the side effects of AAS. Though we could always alter the sentence about the 'acceptable side effect profile" to make it a bit better. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My objection is that the passage cites the medical use of androgenic steroids, in a controlled and monitored setting to treat specific abnormal conditions, to suggest that safety concerns are overblown. But medical use is a very different setting than relatively unmonitored use by young, healthy people for cosmetic or performance-enhancing purposes, and using the imprimatur of "but doctors use it safely" to justify such recreational use is an improper synthesis. I think it's fair to say that the side effects of AAS have sometimes been overblown by the media (ideally with sources describing the hyperbole), but I don't think you'd find any major medical authority suggesting that steroid use in young healthy people has an "acceptable" side effect profile - yet the passage suggests just that. MastCell ^Talk 17:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Generally AAS users take the most care and concern when using the drugs and are among the most educated of any controlled substance users. The article cites this as well. AAS users have actually come up with numerous methods for decreasing the side effects prior to the scientific community knowing about them. While it's true that irresponsible AAS use can exacerbate the side effects, I think the article is pretty clear about how and when specific side effects do occur. If the article is claiming that AAS use without a doctors supervision is as safe as with a doctors supervision then that should clearly be changed. But I don't think the article implies that. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The passage implies that recreational use of AAS is as safe as medical use. I don't think that's supported by any sources that I can see. Yes, users of steroids are generally more responsible than users of meth, but that's a curious metric. I appreciate your point of view, but I don't see reliable sources supporting the idea that steroids can be used recreationally but safely so long as one is "responsible" - yet the article strongly implies this. Even the most responsible recreational user of steroids generally can't monitor his own PSA, lipid profile, LVH, etc - implying that "responsible" use or an awareness of the side effects is equivalent to medical supervision is unsourced/OR. MastCell ^Talk 17:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Recreational use doesn't exclude the supervision of a doctor. AAS users frequently have doctors monitor them while using and include monitoring of their blood pressure, cholesterol, etc. The idea is that Recreational use (when monitored by a doctor) is as safe as medical use (When monitored by a doctor). Please tell me what part of the article gives the impression that recreational use not monitored by a doctor is as safe as medical use monitored by a doctor and we can fix it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Recreational use when monitored by a doctor is as safe as medical use" is WP:OR, unless there's a reliable source drawing this conclusion that I'm missing. If we're in the realm of personal speculation, I think most recreational users don't tell their physicians (in fact, I believe I can dig up a ref to support this) - nonetheless, the assertion needs a source or it's OR. MastCell ^Talk 17:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it's original research. It's basic deduction. Unless other variables are added then the effects would be the same. Let me say this, We really aren't getting anywhere with this vagueness . Just find a sentence or sentences that you think should be changed and propose a substitution and we can discuss it that way. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Be sure to make the proposed change here prior to implementing it so that we can discuss it and reach an agreement on it, which is easier. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest removing this passage entirely, then finding reliable sources documenting the media's hyping of steroid side-effects, then reinserting it using those sources to back it up. I would leave out any suggestion that safe medical use equals safe recreational use unless supported by a reliable source that directly draws this conclusion. WP:SYN is using sources supporting statement A ("Steroids, in a medical setting, have acceptable side effects") to advance position B ("Recreational use is also safe"). MastCell ^Talk 19:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't delete it. Let me elaborate on the passage itself:

One common misconception in popular culture and the media is that anabolic steroids are highly dangerous and users' mortality rates are high. Anabolic steroids are used widely in medicine with an acceptable side-effect profile, so long as patients are monitored for possible complications.

The first sentence could easily be referenced by pointing out examples of the media hype or perhaps with sources such as this or this one. Both are written by fairly reputable individuals, the latter (Dr. Frost) having worked closely with AAS. The second sentence points out that AAS is used widely in medicine with limited side effects. The following sentences also point out the low mortality rates etc. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the second ref (the op-ed from the AMA site) is a good one and we should use it. It could be used to support the statement that the media overhypes the risks of steroid use, certainly. As to safety, it seems to argue that a) steroids are much safer than they're made out to be in the mass media, and b) even if they're not totally safe, adults should be allowed to assume whatever risks are involved if they so choose. Does that sound like an accurate summary (I'm looking at the author's point #4)? MastCell ^Talk 19:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That's basically correct. I don't know if Frost is saying that adults should be free to use AAS if they choose or not, but I do know that he is pointing out examples of the media bias and over sensationalizing of AAS. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Some additional refs

Some potential additional refs for consideration (apologies if some of these are already cited in the article):

• PMID 17512138: Trends in non-medical use of anabolic steroids by U.S. college students: Results from four national surveys.
• PMID 16585446: Body image and attitudes toward male roles in anabolic-androgenic steroid users.
• PMID 15317640: Anabolic steroid users' attitudes towards physicians. Regarding medical supervision of recreational steroid users, "Forty percent of users trusted information on AAS from their drug dealers at least as much as information from any physician that they had seen, and 56% had never revealed their AAS use to any physician." MastCell ^Talk 19:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I added them all to the article. Concerning the last one though, I notice you italicized the part about 56% not revealing their AAS use to their physicians. This is likely due to the fact many AAS users believe that their physicians would simply echo the media misconceptions about AAS and in some cases this seems to be the case. In my time on AAS message boards I've noticed that many of the people who do visit their physicians every week or so while on AAS have pointed out that even their physicians have tried to claim that AAS has such side effects as shrinking ones penis etc. While there are no sources for this obviously, I just thought it should be pointed out. AAS users can still get their stats checked weekly or bi weekly by a physician without ever disclosing their AAS use. Though, In my obviously both users and physicians need to be educated further about the use of AAS and it's effects. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think the take-home points from the last study were that users tended to conceal use from their physicians, in many cases because they believed that the physicians would be uninformed. I find it a bit surprising that a physician would agree to frequent monitoring of a young person's lipids, PSA, BP, etc without asking any questions about steroid use, but maybe some do. Sure, more education would be good for everyone, and there's probably a bias toward overplaying the dangers in the popular media (and maybe among physicians as well). But there is equally a bias in many sources toward minimizing the side effects. The challenge here is to try and find the balance. MastCell ^Talk 20:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Other additional refs to consider:

• Effects on cognition in normal elderly men and those with dementia:
  • PMID 15985573: Testosterone improves spatial memory in men with Alzheimer disease and mild cognitive impairment.
  • PMID 17726086: Intramuscular Testosterone Treatment in Elderly Men: Evidence of Memory Decline and Altered Brain Function.
• Cardiovascular and renal side effects:
  • PMID 16210452: Testosterone supplementation in aging men and women: possible impact on cardiovascular-renal disease.
• Is there an increased risk of prostate cancer?
  • PMID 16006887: Prostate cancer in men using testosterone supplementation.
  • PMID 17113983: Prostate cancer risk in testosterone-treated men.
  • PMID 14634413: Testosterone replacement therapy in hypogonadal men at high risk for prostate cancer: results of 1 year of treatment in men with prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia.
  • PMID 12399540: Prostate-specific antigen changes in hypogonadal men treated with testosterone replacement.
• A very good, though somewhat outdated, review article from JCEM:
  • PMID 15472164: Clinical review 171: The rationale, efficacy and safety of androgen therapy in older men: future research and current practice recommendations.

We should probably also mention the Institute of Medicine's report on androgens in the elderly from 2003; they didn't really take a stand, but discussed the lack of useful evidence and directions for future research. MastCell ^Talk 21:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of those refs might be useful, but to really cover that whole thing we should probably use most of them on the Testosterone article or possibly create an article called Testosterone replacement therapy and have the whole discussion there. We can briefly mention the debate but I don't want to add to much info on this page debating whether or not TRT is effective for helping elderly men. Know what I mean? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's a good point. I thought I'd just list the refs here on the talk page, and we can decide what (if anything) should go in the article. Most of these focus on T replacement in the elderly (because that's where much of the medical focus has been), and are arguably less relevant to the issue of recreational anabolic steroid use. MastCell ^Talk 22:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it's ready for an FA nomination? Would you support it? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I still have some pretty major concerns about the use of sourcing in the sections on "Minimization of side effects" and "Misconceptions and controversies". The first section describes the use of SERMs or AI's to minimize side effects - but the cited sources are studies dealing with pubertal gynecomastia or low sperm count. They say nothing about using these drugs to counteract the side effects of exogenous testosterone. It's a bit of a leap to cite them in this context. It's also sort of a how-to guide, which would be fine if the practices described were sourced to anything reliable - but they're not.

The Misconceptions section, I think, pretty strongly advocates the view that steroids are not really that bad. This is certainly a notable view which should be covered, but the section seems to go beyond that to outright advocacy. Particular concerns include the statement that "the risk of premature death from the use of anabolic steroids appears to be extremely low." I was actually thinking of tagging this with - the cited sources are:

• A 1-year study of various doses of testosterone. First of all, 1 year is far too little to conclude anything about the risk of premature death in a young age group. The study itself certainly draws no such conclusions. Even the 20 or so patients who got the highest T dose received 600 mg, a dose which many/most recreational users routinely exceed. I don't see how this study can possibly be cited to back the claim that "the risk of premature death from steroids appears to be extremely low."
• A smaller study by the same authors with only 10 weeks of follow-up, again saying nothing about the overall risk of premature death so far as I can see. Again, it is completely impossible to conclude anything about the risk of premature death from a study of 40 patients (half of whom received placebo and the other half of whom received a smaller dose of T than most recreational users inject) with only 10 weeks of followup.
• The last citation followed 7 (!) steroid users for 1 year. At least in this case, the reported pattern of use matched that of recreational users, but again, 7 users followed for 1 year do not allow us (or the authors, note) to draw any conclusions about the overall risk of premature death in steroid users.

The rest of the section is actually not bad from a POV standpoint; I think it's relevant to mention Alzado and Schwarzenegger and their (non-steroid-related) ailments. But the above is pretty troubling to me. I'll look to see if there are good population-based studies of mortality in recreational steroid users, though I doubt it. Until then, though, we really need to be more careful about making sweeping generalizations based on these sort of citations - I think it pretty clearly violates WP:SYN/WP:NOR to use medical studies to support unrelated practices in this manner. MastCell ^Talk 18:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I remember seeing a study somewhere where they elaborated on the prevalence of AAS use in Professional Bodybuilding and Professional Athletics and the fact that the mortality rate is nearly the same and most of the deaths noted were unrelated to AAS use but other drugs. Don't know where it is though. Please see if you can find it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll look for it. I should emphasize that my hunch is that you're correct and that mortality rates are very similar; I don't think steroids are Certain Death or anything. I just want to find a better reference and learn something. MastCell ^Talk 02:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Name change

This article has always been called "Anabolic steroid" however I think it would be better suited to be called "Anabolic steroids" or "Anabolic Steroids" (with a capital S). I would like some input on this prior to changing it. The article deals with all Anabolic Steroids and not just one so I think "Anabolic steroids" would be a better name for the article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think such a change would fly in the face of WP:NAME and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). This article tells the reader what an anabolic steroid is, just as cat tells the reader what a cat is. Geometry guy 14:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I guess we should leave it as is then. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Experts opinions

I disagree that we should not include experts opinions. The experts opinions are very relevant and are often based on the evidence. If an expert has an opinion then it's very relevant, and especially from Mauro Di Pasquale who is one of the foremost experts in the field. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine to cite relevant experts, though we should probably be careful not to over-represent specific views in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. I don't know who Di Pasqaule is; he may be an expert, but "former assistant professor" is actually not much in the way of academic credentials. That doesn't mean he's not an expert, just that describing him in those terms is not particularly impressive. MastCell ^Talk 20:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well some of his credentials are listed here:Mauro Di Pasquale and here. I'm not saying that he's the most certified expert out there on the subject but based on his experience, professional and otherwise, he seems to be reputable enough to quote. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If it is true what he says, then there should be better sources to cite. I think we should not just include the opinion of one expert. There are probably other experts that could be quoted stating the opposite. --WS 20:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well several additional sources for experimental studies are also provided. I just thought that an experts quote added to the article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

POV?

It's a very informative article with many references, but I did feel I detected an undercurrent of POV "in favour". EdX20 00:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It just discusses the relevant facts and doesn't take the tone of "Steroids bad, Steroids bad!" and thus is indeed NPOV. This doesn't make it POV, It discusses the facts in the context of the topic. It discusses all of the most relevant side effects and doesn't leave any thing out as far as that goes. There is often a difference between how some news organizations report issues and how they really are and that might give the impression of POV when in actuality it's very NPOV. Generally news organizations don't report how scientists and the scientific community sees a subject, as in this case. News organizations generally rail and rail about how bad Anabolic Steroids are but that's not how the scientific community does it or sees them. Even though they do have numerous side effects, many of which can be serious, Most Scientists don't see them in the same light as news anchors or talk show hosts do due to simple knowledge of how they actually work and what the effects actually are. This article takes into account both the mainstream views and misconceptions as well as the scientific facts and balances them out very well in my opinion. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to reopen a can of worms, but I'd like to parse this a bit. The scientific/medical community doesn't consider the controlled, meidcally supervised use of anabolic steroids to be inherently bad. There is, however, a well-documented meidcal view, particularly in the pediatric/adolescent medicine community, that the recreational or unsupervised use of anabolic steroids is a significant problem and poses very real health risks. It's fair to say that people aren't dropping dead left and right from steroids, or that the news media has in some instances overplayed their risks. But I've expressed similar concerns about the article tone above; I think they've largely been addressed, but we should be careful about saying that the medical view of recreational steroid use is more benign than the popular view. I don't think the sources necessarily support that. MastCell ^Talk 17:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The popular view seems to be quite different from the medical view of AAS. Essentially the popular view is that AAS causes you to murder your family and die from brain cancer, which is clearly different from the scientific view. It's true that the scientific community considers , in general, the unsupervised use of AAS to pose health risks, however this is true for even supervised AAS use. Health risks (side effects) are associated with AAS regardless of whether it's medical use, recreational use, supervised or unsupervised use. The difference are in the prevalence of the side effects and their severity. Obviously using AAS without medical supervision is a lot more dangerous for clear reasons than without medical supervision, though side effects occur even with medical supervision. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of those points. MastCell ^Talk 17:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Misconceptions and Controversies section is all about denying adverse effects; red meat thrown

to true believers who prefer to ignore the Adverse Effects section. pov tag added.Rich (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this criticism is too vague. What change are you proposing, exactly? What are your sources? It's not reasonable to slap a "pov" tag on a section and justify this only by saying that the section is biased: you need to be specific. Eubulides (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Euybulides, This article is one single article and works as a whole, Just because one section discusses one single thing does not mean much of anything. This article as a whole goes into great detail about all of the most notable side effects associated with Anabolic Steroids and is very well sourced. The "Misconceptions" section deals with legitimate misconceptions associated with Anabolic steroids and is also very very well sourced. All of the popular misconceptions listed are real and legitimate misconceptions concerning Anabolic steroids and all assertions are throughly sourced. Unless you can propose some actual changes then you can't add a tag. The way that Wikipedia articles are written is in "sections" where each section discusses a different topic associated with the main topic. In this article there is a section for the side effects and a section for popular misconceptions. Neither section contradicts each other so that's not a problem either. If anyone chooses to ignore the side effects section then there is absolutely nothing that we or anyone else can do about it. This applies to all wiki articles, the vast vast majority of which are segmented into various subsections. If a reader chooses to ignore other sections then there is nothing that can be done about that at all. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe what user Rich is suggesting is that this section makes a POV argument, suggesting that the issues presented in this section regarding steroids are outright myths, and this is what it seems to do. For example, that roid rage is not real. In fact on another wiki discussion page, it may have been the Benoit page actually, someone referred to this article as evidence that roid rage is a myth, and reading this section, this is what I would conclude as well. However, each point in this section has for and against arguments in the medical community. Again, with the whole Benoit issue, roid rage has come to the forefront of media discussions on steroids and many in the medical community agree that steroids do cause psychological damage that can lead to "roid rage" and other criminal activity. For example, this article by Dr. Marla Shapiro tends to support the roid rage argument, and the article cites several other studies such as this one by the Archives of General Psychiatry. Also, there is this brief take on steroids by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Ontario. Also the article doesn't seem to make any mention of steroids possibly contributing to certain cancers, as discussed, for example, here and here. Perhaps this section should simply be called "controversies" with each issue presented in order, each with sources that argue in support and against whatever issue is talked about. The most that can be said is that the debate around these issues have not been resolved one way or another; but as it stands this section seems to argue that these "myths" have been proven to be just that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.54.31 (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Punishments

Effort should be initiated to create a new section covering not the effects of steroids but standard punishments for steroid use in major sports leagues, colleges, etc. It's important that all consequences for steroid use are presented.

DUbblecoMB 18:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Without getting into all of the specifics of each individual sport, school and or county for criminal punishment, which I don't think is necessary, I would say that the info could be sprinkled through the article without adding much more than a few sentences here and there. The real issue is coming up with good sources for such info. If you can find some then I'll see if I can find a good place for it somewhere. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)