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

121–128 of 128 posts

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

#121

Post by LegitShady »

perardi wrote: post #67
LegitShady wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

more current test treatments are recommending much more frequent injections to more closely mimic the 'constant' production your body actually creates. Rather than injecting once a week, injecting multiple times a week eliminates a lot of the really highs and lows from injecting on schedules like you recommend. The issue is compliance - nobody really wants to inject themselves every day or every other day.

I’m surprised that doctors are prescribing TRT, with testosterone enenthate, but then only having the patient inject once a week. That half-life is really sputtering out by the end of the week. (Well, I know why—like you said, compliance. But c’mon, left cheek on Monday, right check on Thursday, easy enough.)

I think a lot of it has to do with Doctors relying on old knowledge and not investigating too closely.

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

#123

Post by brigandish »

amai wrote: post #109
symlinkk wrote: post #16

Why are steroids even a controlled drug? If a man wants to use them and knows the risks he should be able to. Same with any drug I guess.

Why do you need to wear a safety belt in a car? If a man doesn't want to use them and knows the risks he should be able to. Same with any belt I guess.

> Why do you need to wear a safety belt in a car?

Because a body moves and can come to harm and harm others when it does. How would taking a steroid or something of that ilk harm others?

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

#124

Post by uptown »

moron4hire wrote: post #23
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.

These athletes play in leagues that make their own rules and have their own governing bodies. What does the civil government have to do with that?

You do realize there's literally sports at all ages, right? High school, elementary school?

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

#125

Post by uptown »

jacksonkmarley wrote: post #62
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.

> We’ll, for one it’d ruin sports Do you mean ruin professional sports? And for the professional sportspeople only? If so that doesn't seem on its own like a restriction that would need to apply society-wide.

Sports at all ages. High school. Elementary school. College.

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

#126

Post by FDSGSG »

uptown wrote: post #19
symlinkk wrote: post #16

Why are steroids even a controlled drug? If a man wants to use them and knows the risks he should be able to. Same with any drug I guess.

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.

Everyone is already using PEDs, sports can't possibly get more ruined

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

#127

Post by moron4hire »

uptown wrote: post #124
moron4hire wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These athletes play in leagues that make their own rules and have their own governing bodies. What does the civil government have to do with that?

You do realize there's literally sports at all ages, right? High school, elementary school?

Maybe we should ban sports, then. I don't know anyone who doesn't play sports who abuses steroids. Sounds like sports is a gateway drug.

OMG! WOULD SOMEONE! PLEASE! ANYONE! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!>?!?!

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

#128

Post by bigwavedave »

southeastern wrote: post #98
qwerty456127 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At that point you still have a natural production, it's just less than at your lifetime peak. You can still destabilize your hormone signaling further and get symptoms like hypogonadism and gynomastia-- to say there's nothing to lose isn't quite right.

> At that point you still have a natural production, it's just less than at your lifetime peak. You can still destabilize your hormone signaling further and get symptoms like hypogonadism and gynomastia-- to say there's nothing to lose isn't quite right.

Sure, there isn't "nothing to lose", but let's not kid ourselves- if you're past retirement age and in a position to essentially be on TRT for the rest of your life, hypogonadism isn't a big deal unless for some crazy reason TRT becomes unavailable. As for gynecomastia, it's very easily managed with an aromatase inhibitor like exemestane or anastrozole.

I'm not saying there aren't risks or possible side effects, but exogenous testosterone shouldn't be dismissed out of hand because of the FUD surrounding steroids. If you haven't seen the documentary "Bigger, Stronger, Faster", I highly recommend it.

Post reply on HN