Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why can't we just give steroids to people with muscular dystrophy?

trevorklee.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 128 posts

Re: Why can't we just give steroids to people with muscular dystrophy?

#71

Post by qwerty456127 »

I go further and wonder why don't we do that (steroids, growth hormones, sarms, everything) in advance as people reach certain age (and their natural secretion of the hormones falls below certain level). I feel inspired by Dr. Life and feel like starting taking hormones (from the black market, European doctors will never prescribe this officially) as I reach 50-60.

AFAIK the growth hormone even rejuvenates the thymus, the immune system (and may prevent cancer this way, if not over-used) and is the only way to trigger regeneration of joints.

Re: Why can't we just give steroids to people with muscular dystrophy?

#72

Post by doix »

dillondoyle wrote: post #34
vimy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or BPC 157.

Has anyone here used it? Or TB-500? I have a tendon/pulley injury that doesn't seem to want to heal and I've been researching it. At least one relevant study. There is one Dr. in my area (a gyno of all things) that has a website promoting his practice using it. So has at least a sheen of professionalism. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21030672/

I used both BPC-157 and TB-500 for a grade 4 SLAP tear. There are different surgeries used for SLAP tears, and I could not find a surgeon that would do the surgery I wanted (in the UK). I can't remember the exact details, but one is more risky and has a higher chance of returning to pre-surgery performance (normally athletes would take this option). The other is less risky but screws up your performance (general population usually get this option). I could only get surgeons to agree to the latter in the UK.

Anyway, I went and injected both the peptides for 15 weeks, and after over a year of having a completely messed up shoulder, it fixed it well enough that I can surf.

I was going to transfer to a US office to get the surgery done, but covid fucked up my transfer. I'll probably never compete in a powerlifting event again, but I can surf and that's good enough for me.

I injected 0.25mg of BPC-157 twice a day(near the shoulder) and 3mg of TB-500 every 3.5 days (into belly).

Disclaimer: not a doctor, just my experience. I bought them off random websites which in hindsight was insane. I was depressed and desperate. If you can get it from a real doctor/clinic, it would obviously be much better.

Re: Why can't we just give steroids to people with muscular dystrophy?

#73

Post by Y-bar »

qwerty456127 wrote: post #71

I go further and wonder why don't we do that (steroids, growth hormones, sarms, everything) in advance as people reach certain age (and their natural secretion of the hormones falls below certain level). I feel inspired by Dr. Life and feel like starting taking hormones (from the black market, European doctors will never prescribe this officially) as I reach 50-60. AFAIK the growth hormone even rejuvenates the thymus…

Take this with a major grain of salt. But I learned that giving growth hormones will make the body produce less of its own. So the risk, as I understand it, is that by giving these hormones in advance may stump what little the body will produce on its own and "will definitely doom" these people to a full lifetime of hormones from external sources.

Re: Why can't we just give steroids to people with muscular dystrophy?

#74

Post by TurboHaskal »

slowmotiony wrote: post #63
cgh wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In men, there are complications with your body’s natural testosterone production. If you inject test (the most basic anabolic steroid) then in order to maintain a sort of homeostasis, your body will lower its natural test production. The same goes for any other anabolic steroid, as they are all test derivatives. As a result, when you end your cycle, your body needs to restart its natural test production. There can be…

Not all steroids will immediately shut down your HPTA like test would. There are drugs like Oxandrolone (Anavar) which will not have this side effect assuming a low dose and relatively short term of use - it was originally prescribed for burn victims but nowadays you can get it prescribed in regular clinics for heavy injuries too.

Oxandrolone is amazing. It's such a same there's a stigma around these substances because this particular one could improve so many lives.

Re: Why can't we just give steroids to people with muscular dystrophy?

#75

Post by qwerty456127 »

Y-bar wrote: post #73
qwerty456127 wrote: post #71

I go further and wonder why don't we do that (steroids, growth hormones, sarms, everything) in advance as people reach certain age (and their natural secretion of the hormones falls below certain level). I feel inspired by Dr. Life and feel like starting taking hormones (from the black market, European doctors will never prescribe this officially) as I reach 50-60. AFAIK the growth hormone even rejuvenates the thymus…

Take this with a major grain of salt. But I learned that giving growth hormones will make the body produce less of its own. So the risk, as I understand it, is that by giving these hormones in advance may stump what little the body will produce on its own and "will definitely doom" these people to a full lifetime of hormones from external sources.

This is why I'm only going to do this after the rate of their production actually falls significantly below the healthy adult level. When they are not produced anyway it seems nothing to loose.

I didn't know this is also the case with the growth hormone, however. I thought this only applies to testosterone, also tyroxine and some other hormones.

Re: Why can't we just give steroids to people with muscular dystrophy?

#76

Post by captainmuon »

qwerty456127 wrote: post #71

I go further and wonder why don't we do that (steroids, growth hormones, sarms, everything) in advance as people reach certain age (and their natural secretion of the hormones falls below certain level). I feel inspired by Dr. Life and feel like starting taking hormones (from the black market, European doctors will never prescribe this officially) as I reach 50-60. AFAIK the growth hormone even rejuvenates the thymus…

Let's set aside the obvious, that it probably has a lot of downsides and doesn't work well (like shrinking testicles and heart problems from steroids).

Our society has a real discomfort with "improving" "healthy" people. We make a clear, but somewhat artificial distinction between healthy and diseased, and the diseased people can get recognition and treatment but the healthy ones cannot. That's why there is often a battle to have certain things recognized as a medical condition. For example if you have trouble focussing, you might be considered lazy, but if you get a ADHD diagnosis people will be more accomodating (and you can legally take amphetamins!).

I was never especially athletic. I would love to workout more, but find it really hard to make time for it between work and family. And found that many people in my social circle or at the gym don't encourage me but make me feel like I don't belong there. But if I had a "real" recognized medical condition that required physiotherapy, I would get time off work and would get the gym paid (in my country), and most important people would support me. But if you are "healthy enough" and just want to improve yourself, you are on your own.

I would love to have a world where everybody can strive to improve themselves - become more healthy, strong, beautiful, smart, and so on - and where you would get the resources and the support needed to do so.

Re: Why can't we just give steroids to people with muscular dystrophy?

#77

Post by henryaj »

perardi wrote: post #65
fortran77 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know they were used on people with AIDS.

As was Anavar, an anabolic-androgenic steroid. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8970686/ It was fairly commonly used in the Bad Old Days of HIV/AIDS, before there was anything resembling a real treatment. Got a lot of people out of bed.

I have a female friend with pretty bad muscle wasting from a long-term leg injury – have wondered idly if something like Anavar (or a SARM) would be a good option for her to help rebuild muscle to kick-start her recovery. Doubt anyone would prescribe it though.

Re: Why can't we just give steroids to people with muscular dystrophy?

#78

Post by amelius »

klevertree wrote: post #37
Dylan16807 wrote: post #10

I don't really understand. Clearly the muscles work to some extent, so isn't making more a lot better than doing nothing? > It’d be like if you had a construction project, and you found out that all of the wooden beams you were receiving from a supplier were rotten. Would you order more beams from that same supplier to fix the problem? If my other option is shrugging and doing nothing and being sad as the house falls…

In this analogy, I meant to indicate all the wooden beams were rotten to the core, in the same way that muscles die in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Quadrupling up the beams just means that you've spent a lot more resources on something that's fundamentally unusable.

They said: work to some extent, so not fundamentally unusable.

Re: Why can't we just give steroids to people with muscular dystrophy?

#79

Post by qwerty456127 »

captainmuon wrote: post #76
qwerty456127 wrote: post #71

I go further and wonder why don't we do that (steroids, growth hormones, sarms, everything) in advance as people reach certain age (and their natural secretion of the hormones falls below certain level). I feel inspired by Dr. Life and feel like starting taking hormones (from the black market, European doctors will never prescribe this officially) as I reach 50-60. AFAIK the growth hormone even rejuvenates the thymus…

Let's set aside the obvious, that it probably has a lot of downsides and doesn't work well (like shrinking testicles and heart problems from steroids). Our society has a real discomfort with "improving" "healthy" people. We make a clear, but somewhat artificial distinction between healthy and diseased, and the diseased people can get recognition and treatment but the healthy ones cannot. That's why there is often a b…

I agree to you 1000% :-) and share your concern.

I have always had severe ADHD (never diagnosed officially, also this doesn't give you legal amphetamines or any other benefits outside the US, nor does it convince people - people mostly say "in the US they drug kids to treat a condition that doesn't even exist", even though the condition actually is recognized officially), low muscles, and no free time/willpower for working out regularly.

I am a BLTC proponent too. Nevertheless, I speculate the probable downside of "a world where everybody can strive to improve themselves" is competition going even higher. If taking all kinds of meds this way would become a norm everyone would probably have to just to keep up with the new baseline. This (together with many ability-augmenting meds having adverse effects) supposedly is the logic backing the war on doping in professional sports.

But I think there is no point in caring about anything (like adverse effects, society's judgement) other than boosting your life quality by all means physically (and chemically) possible when you are old. And it seems logical to me to start in advance because doing so will probably give more effect, giving chance to actually prevent the decline instead of just helping to cope with it.

Re: Why can't we just give steroids to people with muscular dystrophy?

#80

Post by 0-_-0 »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #44
askvictor wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I heard an interesting ethical discussion about this; considering natural levels of testosterone vary considerably between humans, couldn't it be considered fairer to allow steroid use provided total levels are below a particular level? It's interesting considering that NSAIDs are used in pretty huge amounts to keep (for example) football players on the field despite injuries, so what you're talking about is already…

You could have the equality league where people's limbs are shaved down to the regulation length too, and they get dosed with just the right amount of alcohol and other things before the game to bring their reaction times and thinking skills down to the level playing field.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

"In the year 2081, the 211th, 212th, and 213th amendments to the Constitution dictate that all Americans are fully equal and not allowed to be smarter, better-looking, or more physically able than anyone else. The Handicapper General's agents enforce the equality laws, forcing citizens to wear "handicaps": masks for those who are too beautiful, loud radios that disrupt thoughts inside the ears of intelligent people, and heavy weights for the strong or athletic. "

Post reply on HN