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

Post by leroy_masochist » Thu, Aug 26, 2021, 1:24 PM UTC

doix wrote: post #72

dillondoyle wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 popu…

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Aug 26, 2021, 1:26 PM UTC

nikita wrote: post #2

A different question. As someone who had to recover from Achilles tear and had to rebuild an atrophied calf muscle. Why don’t we just give anabolic steroids to people if their muscles atrophied after wearing a cast?

Post by klipt » Thu, Aug 26, 2021, 1:29 PM UTC

BadCookie wrote: post #28

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…

I don’t think the author of the linked article understands either. Why is it obvious that myostatin inhibitors would ameliorate muscular dystrophy in mice but not humans? Nothing in this essay answers that question. Some people with certain types of muscular dystrophy spend years or even decades at near-normal muscle strength, so if you could return them to their previous muscle mass somehow, presumably it would do s…

Post by southeastern » Thu, Aug 26, 2021, 1:32 PM UTC

qwerty456127 wrote: post #75

Y-bar wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by southeastern » Thu, Aug 26, 2021, 1:49 PM UTC

askvictor wrote: post #27

uptown wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’ll, for one it’d ruin sports. If it’s legal and up to the athlete to decide — then in order to remain competitive all athletes would need to take steroids. You’d basically be telling athletes that they’d need to subject their bodies to the side effects of steroids if they wanted to remain competitive in their sport. That seems like an unfair obligation to place on athletes.

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…