The errors and inaccuracies in the Carolyn Bryant interview

[Tatyana]

I thought that it is necessary to point out the errors in the Carolyn Bryant interview as it is essential for women to get accurate information to make an educated choice with regards to using or not using anabolic steroids, as well as what steroids to use.

I am going to start with the glaring errors, I may comment on some of the other inaccuracies later.



Starting with, "Winstrol is one of the worst three drugs on the planet for women?"
"Let's see...The medical community could not find any practical use for it so it was never approved. What we have available is a veterinarian compound, not meant for human consumption. This drug is given to animals to increase their appetites. Its basic chemistry suggests it would have to pass through the human liver twice before it will be utilized in our system. Find me a doctor who can explain exactly what this drug does in the human body and I might change my mind.


I used google and google scholar for this, it is not even a proper search really.

I am sure I have more recent abstracts on the medical usage of winstrol at work.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanozolol

Stanozolol, commonly sold under the name Winstrol (oral) and Winstrol Depot (intra-muscular), was developed by Winthrop Laboratories (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winthrop_Laboratories&action=edit&redlink=1) in 1962 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962). It is a synthetic anabolic steroid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolic_steroid) derived from testosterone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone), and has been approved by the FDA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration) for human use.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6341772

Stanozolol in postmenopausal osteoporosis: therapeutic efficacy and possible mechanisms of action.

Chesnut CH 3rd (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Chesnut%20CH%203rd%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Ivey JL (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Ivey%20JL%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Gruber HE (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Gruber%20HE%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Matthews M (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Matthews%20M%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Nelp WB (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Nelp%20WB%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Sisom K (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Sisom%20K%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Baylink DJ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Baylink%20DJ%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus).

To assess the efficacy of the anabolic steroid stanozolol in the treatment of osteoporosis, a 29-month double-blind study was performed with 23 treated and 23 control postmenopausal osteoporotic women.

Drug efficacy was assessed by serial determinations of total body calcium (TBC--total bone mass) by neutron activation analysis, regional bone mass (RBM) by single-photon absorptiometry, and by spinal roentgenograms.

Total body calcium increased 4.4% from baseline values (P less than 0.01) in the treated group and remained unchanged in the control group; the difference in the change in TBC between the treated and control groups was significant (P less than 0.03). The effect of the drug on TBC persisted throughout the 29-month period. In contrast to TBC, measurements of RBM indicated no significant differences between the treated and placebo groups, suggesting a possible differential response to therapy at various skeletal sites. No new spinal compression fractures were noted in the treated group (compared with three new fractures in the control group). Assessment of serum and urine values indicated a decrease in the level of urinary calcium and an increase in the level of total urinary cyclic AMP in the treated group. These changes were observed even though the level of serum iPTH was significantly decreased during the study. An analysis of changes in bone biopsy specimens revealed no significant differences between the treated and control groups.

Seventy-six percent of the treated subjects developed SGOT elevations or other side effects from the stanozolol therapy; at no time were these effects sufficiently severe to cause termination of medication. The data suggest that long-term use of stanozolol increases the net total bone mass above pretreatment levels.
PMID: 6341772 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3693762

Hereditary angioedema: a decade of management with stanozolol.

Sheffer AL (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Sheffer%20AL%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Fearon DT (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Fearon%20DT%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Austen KF (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Austen%20KF%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus).
Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.

Thirty-seven patients with hereditary angioedema, who, without therapy, had attacks of cutaneous angioedema, gastrointestinal colic, and/or upper respiratory symptoms at a frequency and severity sufficient to prompt treatment with an attenuated androgen, have been evaluated for the incidence of side effects and biochemical toxicity during various schedules leading to the minimal effective dose.

Stanozolol was administered in a 2 mg daily dose, initially, and after the symptoms and signs were adequately controlled for 2 months at this dose or at 1 mg per day, the drug was administered every other day at 4 mg.

Patients who responded adequately to this schedule were administered 2 or 1 mg every other day, and then the interval between doses was gradually increased to 1 week, after which the agent was stopped. Eighteen patients experienced adverse reactions to stanozolol while the minimal effective dose was attained. In each instance the side effect subsided with a reduction in dosage.

The most common adverse reactions were biochemical evidence of hepatic dysfunction and, to a lesser extent, hirsutism and menstrual irregularities.

Although 21 of 27 patients in an initial study of the minimal effective dose were maintained with daily therapy in 1980, by 1986 this group and 10 additional patients were distributed so that three patients were receiving daily maintenance, 18 were receiving alternate-day maintenance, and 16 patients were receiving no maintenance therapy [corrected].

Thus, stanozolol appears to be a safe and effective agent for management of hereditary angioedema when patients are continually monitored to define the minimal effective dose or the feasibility of stopping the drug.
PMID: 3693762 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Tatyana]

More on winstrol:



"Experts speculate that it may ignite the nitrogen in the muscles to make them appear harder.

Studies show it lowers your good cholesterol, causes gastrointestinal problems, thins your blood and agitates the skin cells. Anavar is a much better choice. Any person of reasonable intelligence who has studied anatomy and physiology, biochemistry and kinesiology intensely can make educated guesses about such things. My guess is this drug ain't good for ya...male or female."


I am not sure what to say to this, but there isn't anything in your body that ignites.

[Tatyana]

Another statement, "Durabolin is the one I think is the devil and women should never use it, period." Explain why...

"Quite honestly, the person I credit for introducing me to bodybuilding, Robbie Robinson, told me that. I believed him and I never even took the time to research much more about it. I know now because of your article that there are two types. Robbie told me that it stays in the system for a long time, an estimated 18 months...could be more, could be less. After you get the desired muscle mass what else does it do while it is in your system?


You are confusing durabolin (nandrolone phenylpropionate or NPP), with deca-durabolin.

NPP is a very short action drug, and not a potent androgen.

This is in contrast to halotestin, which is more androgenic than testosterone, which you do not recommend for women.

Androgenic rating of halotestin = 1,900
Androgenic rating of NPP = 37
Androgenic rating of Deca = 37
Androgenic rating of testosterone = 100



I found it interesting that you have used Halotestin. How did that work for you?

"I'm not quite sure. It was on the list of drugs of choice for females to combat estrogen dominance issues. I broke the pills up in chips and put them under my tongue. I never take the full dose of anything. It is too toxic to the liver. But so is too much Grey Goose!"

[Lee Penman]

I thought that it is necessary to point out the errors in the Carolyn Bryant interview as it is essential for women to get accurate information to make an educated choice with regards to using or not using anabolic steroids, as well as what steroids to use.

I am going to start with the glaring errors, I may comment on some of the other inaccuracies later.



I used google and google scholar for this, it is not even a proper search really.

I am sure I have more recent abstracts on the medical usage of winstrol at work.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanozolol

Stanozolol, commonly sold under the name Winstrol (oral) and Winstrol Depot (intra-muscular), was developed by Winthrop Laboratories (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winthrop_Laboratories&action=edit&redlink=1) in 1962 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962). It is a synthetic anabolic steroid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolic_steroid) derived from testosterone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone), and has been approved by the FDA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration) for human use.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6341772

Stanozolol in postmenopausal osteoporosis: therapeutic efficacy and possible mechanisms of action.

Chesnut CH 3rd (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Chesnut%20CH%203rd%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Ivey JL (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Ivey%20JL%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Gruber HE (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Gruber%20HE%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Matthews M (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Matthews%20M%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Nelp WB (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Nelp%20WB%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Sisom K (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Sisom%20K%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Baylink DJ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Baylink%20DJ%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus).

To assess the efficacy of the anabolic steroid stanozolol in the treatment of osteoporosis, a 29-month double-blind study was performed with 23 treated and 23 control postmenopausal osteoporotic women.

Drug efficacy was assessed by serial determinations of total body calcium (TBC--total bone mass) by neutron activation analysis, regional bone mass (RBM) by single-photon absorptiometry, and by spinal roentgenograms.

Total body calcium increased 4.4% from baseline values (P less than 0.01) in the treated group and remained unchanged in the control group; the difference in the change in TBC between the treated and control groups was significant (P less than 0.03). The effect of the drug on TBC persisted throughout the 29-month period. In contrast to TBC, measurements of RBM indicated no significant differences between the treated and placebo groups, suggesting a possible differential response to therapy at various skeletal sites. No new spinal compression fractures were noted in the treated group (compared with three new fractures in the control group). Assessment of serum and urine values indicated a decrease in the level of urinary calcium and an increase in the level of total urinary cyclic AMP in the treated group. These changes were observed even though the level of serum iPTH was significantly decreased during the study. An analysis of changes in bone biopsy specimens revealed no significant differences between the treated and control groups.

Seventy-six percent of the treated subjects developed SGOT elevations or other side effects from the stanozolol therapy; at no time were these effects sufficiently severe to cause termination of medication. The data suggest that long-term use of stanozolol increases the net total bone mass above pretreatment levels.
PMID: 6341772 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3693762

Hereditary angioedema: a decade of management with stanozolol.

Sheffer AL (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Sheffer%20AL%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Fearon DT (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Fearon%20DT%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Austen KF (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Austen%20KF%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus).
Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.

Thirty-seven patients with hereditary angioedema, who, without therapy, had attacks of cutaneous angioedema, gastrointestinal colic, and/or upper respiratory symptoms at a frequency and severity sufficient to prompt treatment with an attenuated androgen, have been evaluated for the incidence of side effects and biochemical toxicity during various schedules leading to the minimal effective dose.

Stanozolol was administered in a 2 mg daily dose, initially, and after the symptoms and signs were adequately controlled for 2 months at this dose or at 1 mg per day, the drug was administered every other day at 4 mg.

Patients who responded adequately to this schedule were administered 2 or 1 mg every other day, and then the interval between doses was gradually increased to 1 week, after which the agent was stopped. Eighteen patients experienced adverse reactions to stanozolol while the minimal effective dose was attained. In each instance the side effect subsided with a reduction in dosage.

The most common adverse reactions were biochemical evidence of hepatic dysfunction and, to a lesser extent, hirsutism and menstrual irregularities.

Although 21 of 27 patients in an initial study of the minimal effective dose were maintained with daily therapy in 1980, by 1986 this group and 10 additional patients were distributed so that three patients were receiving daily maintenance, 18 were receiving alternate-day maintenance, and 16 patients were receiving no maintenance therapy [corrected].

Thus, stanozolol appears to be a safe and effective agent for management of hereditary angioedema when patients are continually monitored to define the minimal effective dose or the feasibility of stopping the drug.
PMID: 3693762 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
I gave Carolyn a platform to address some of the statements she made on the forums. The article is her opinion on these issues.
NPP is the best form of Deca for women in my opinion.
Winstrol is also drug of choice for many women.

[Carolyn Bryant]

Ok, Tatyana. We can argue about every single detail of what I said till the cows come home. Well, you can. My position is final. I live in the U.S. And you live in the U.K., I believe where the opinions and laws about steroids are much more laxed than they are here.

As a biochemist, of course you will find discrepencies in the article. You were looking for them. How about you feed this stuff to your kids if you believe in what you write. I will stand by my opinions and the reports and studies I have read, the numerous doctors, street pharmacists, competitors and everyone else I have interviewed about this.

For every study you dig up that shows any of these drugs are safe to take for non-menopausal women, teens, people with pre-existing health issues in excess of what is normally prescribed by a doctor (I'm still looking for a doctor who will write a prescription for Winstrol here), I can show you that many and more which will conclude they are not safe.

So what is your point? This gets us nowhere. Because it still boils down to personal decision. I do believe this was based one woman's opinion.

In the meantime, I will find you the current technical information about winny, the original maker and brand and get back to you on why it is not readily used HERE to treat health problems. I stand corrected on NEVER approved.

Since you want to challenge me, first I need to know are we talking about drugs that are pure, pharmacuetical grade or compounds that was made in an underground lab or someone's bathtub or basement? The stuff that many bodybuilders get their hands on?

FYI, I used the word "ignite" like marketers use the word fatburner. Leigh and I were talking about Deca-Durabolin even though that didn't come across in question.

[Tatyana]

My point is that with such obvious glaring errors, it puts everything else you say into question.

Science is science, it doesn't vary from country to country. It is a constant.

There are a number of drugs that are no longer commonly used in the medical community, even though they might be of phenomenal benefit to patients, because of bad press.

I request you do your research, there is enough heresay, bad marketing, urban myths and bro-ology in this community as it is without adding any more.

[kraken]

street pharmacists, competitors and everyone else I have interviewed about this.
But they say something else.

[Carolyn Bryant]

How many pages can we use for this discussion? There is an FDA office near my house. I will be there Monday morning. I didn't realize I had to put my investigative reporter hat back on for this. I will have them pull as many stacks of paper as possible on Deca Durabolin, Stanozolol and every other steroid that was marked (DISCONTINUED) by the FDA.

I placed a call to two prominent endocrinologists, one who is an OB-GYN Oncology specialist at MD Anderson.

Let the games begin!

[Tatyana]

How many pages can we use for this discussion? There is an FDA office near my house. I will be there Monday morning. I didn't realize I had to put my investigative reporter hat back on for this. I will have them pull as many stacks of paper as possible on Deca Durabolin, Stanozolol and every other steroid that was marked (DISCONTINUED) by the FDA.

I placed a call to two prominent endocrinologists, one who is an OB-GYN Oncology specialist at MD Anderson.

Let the games begin!


There is no limit Carolyn. :)

[Carolyn Bryant]

Are you calling bodybuilders patients?

[Carolyn Bryant]

It is an urban myth that Winstrol can lower your HDL and increase your LDL with only 6mg? Is it a myth that drastic changes in your cholesterol levels can lead to HPB, stroke, heart attack, aterial disease, brain aneurysms? It is an urban myth that alot of the stuff we get over here is fake or veternarian? It is a myth that it can and will thicken female vocal cords with even moderate use?

The question was posed to ME why do "I" think, not know it's bad. Steroids do have medical use. But I'm confused. I thought Leigh asked me to discuss what I thought about female bodybuilders taking certain drugs, people who have no medical issues related to the use of the drug. And, the possibility of what problems they can create simply because of that.

Can you say for a fact that you know that short or long-term use of any of these drugs will have no health affects on pre-menopausal women? That's what the discussion was about. You are turning it into something else by trying to pick me apart. I'm not about to say ''yeah it's all safe" and neither are you. My article was simply a warning to take at your own risk.

[Carolyn Bryant]

How dare you, Tatyana, miscontrue my intentions with this article. Find a problem with the fact that I want female bodybuilders to be healthy, to better understand what they are taking so that when they get my age they are not broken down and suffering. I love my sport. And it's dying because of drug abuse. Do we need some women to fall off the face of the planet before we stop and say, maybe too much winny is bad?

Why don't you tell us bodybuilders, not patients, about what's going on at the cellular level that allows this drug to give us humans that dry look.

Celebrex was an FDA approved drug. So what does that mean? It was pulled a few years ago. It killed only a few people out of the millions who it helped. It's back now. Perhaps they changed the formula. When is Stanozolol coming back to the U.S? Or did we simply find other compounds that caused fewer problems?

[-BLP-]

well im far way from scientist but i had the honor to give shitload of cycle in my life to many girls lol anw i seen every positive and negative reaction.. sadly... you know even a natural figure after 10 years she will have a somewhat of semi masculine frame when she bent over , which i like and dont mind so both ways , natural or not depend on genetic of course , some mascunalisation will appear , all to say that testosterone on a girl make miracle i mean for the bodybuilding field like real light 100mg a week enan for real short time then boom , i think to harm the health of a girl with steroid will be hard i never meet one who abuse so ??? i even think iris kyle or lenda murray never abuse steroid since they look so wonder woman and feminine.. still today.. just wow pretty


the trend lately is actually lesbian queer who take steroid for a lil gender bender tom boyish look ! no bullshit

[Carolyn Bryant]

My point is that with such obvious glaring errors, it puts everything else you say into question.

Science is science, it doesn't vary from country to country. It is a constant.

There are a number of drugs that are no longer commonly used in the medical community, even though they might be of phenomenal benefit to patients, because of bad press.

I request you do your research, there is enough heresay, bad marketing, urban myths and bro-ology in this community as it is without adding any more.

We are all self-proclaimed scientists when showtime comes around. And our weird science does vary from person to person.

Is it bad marketing that alot of the gear that comes from Mexico is garbage? Is it heresay that bodybuilders will pretty much take whatever they can get their hands on come showtime? Kinda like smoking dirt weed when there's been a shakedown and the hydro ain't available.

Is it bad press that Winstrol is one of the most counterfeited compounds out there and you have slimy mofos putting ArmorAll in bottles and selling it? That the bottles are often mislabeled at times and you really don't know what you are getting?

Is it bro-ology that winny burns and hurts like hell at the injection site and you have to use a buffer? That the crystals get lodged in the syringe and causes swelling? Is it bro-ology that repeated injections causes scar tissue to develop, occassionally bad enough to require surgery?

I did my research talking to real people about real issues. I have been lied to before but I don't think the folks are lying about what they have experienced.

I quoted someone saying Winstol never was approved. It was approved but discontinued. The doctors I spoke to said they didn't find much medical use for it.

You never did answer any of my questions because you're too busy trying to discredit me. Perhaps Leigh can interview you and you the expert can tell us what you think about certain drugs.

[Tatyana]

How dare you, Tatyana, miscontrue my intentions with this article. Find a problem with the fact that I want female bodybuilders to be healthy, to better understand what they are taking so that when they get my age they are not broken down and suffering. I love my sport. And it's dying because of drug abuse. Do we need some women to fall off the face of the planet before we stop and say, maybe too much winny is bad?

Why don't you tell us bodybuilders, not patients, about what's going on at the cellular level that allows this drug to give us humans that dry look.

Celebrex was an FDA approved drug. So what does that mean? It was pulled a few years ago. It killed only a few people out of the millions who it helped. It's back now. Perhaps they changed the formula. When is Stanozolol coming back to the U.S? Or did we simply find other compounds that caused fewer problems?

I know your intentions. You want women to either not do steroids or not abuse steroids.

That is not what I am addressing.

I am addressing the parts of your interview that are in error, inaccurate or very unclear.

I also question the method of delivery.

For example, I have posted a few scientific abstracts, clarifications of terms, androgenic ratings and the response is 'how dare you' and it is viewed as a confrontation and challenge.

How do you think women who take steroids are going to feel when it is insinuated that they bear a resemblence to Jeffery Dahlmer, monsters, self-mutilating and that they have body and gender dysmorphic disorder?

[Carolyn Bryant]

Whatever, Tatyana. I feel like Ms. California right about now. FYI. I believe in God. I'm not backing down from that either no matter how many studies you find that might suggest a superior being doesn't exist. All of your scientific mumbo jumbo means absolutely nothing. I'm in the trenches. You are standing on the sideline waiving your pieces of paper.

While you medling, the discussion was about females taking massive amounts of male hormones and whether or not they put themselves at a health risk. Do us a favor. Summarize the abstracts and point out the places where women taking 100-400mg of test a week is reccommended just because they want bigger muscles.

Highlight the areas where it says even small amounts of test given in HRT is an area of controversy and continues to be in the U.S.


How do you think women who take steroids are going to feel when it is insinuated that they bear a resemblence to Jeffery Dahlmer, monsters, self-mutilating and that they have body and gender dysmorphic disorder?

I'm not the first person to suggest such. Furthermore, they really shouldn't care if they are truely happy with who they are and what they look like.

I think people are intrigued by anyone who exhibits bizarre behavior that has nothing to do with any medical anomaly.

Answer the questions I posed to you about Winstrol since you know so much.

[Lee Penman]

Did anyone ever see the old Dynasty episode where Joan Collins and Linda Evans got into a fist fight?
Just an observation (lol!)

[MsGuns]

Did anyone ever see the old Dynasty episode where Joan Collins and Linda Evans got into a fist fight?
Just an observation (lol!)

My $$$$ is on Carolyn...smile

[Por2gue]

the trend lately is actually lesbian queer who take steroid for a lil gender bender tom boyish look ! no bullshit
This was the funniest part of your whole post bro!:D

[SadFatty]

My $$$$ is on Carolyn...smile
My money is on her as well!!! I love her articles. I don't understand how a certain viewpoint/opinion can be inaccurate.

[sassy69]

My money is on her as well!!! I love her articles. I don't understand how a certain viewpoint/opinion can be inaccurate.

Opinions and viewpoints are often based on facts or selected facts, but often can get skewed w/ focus on different contexts and exaggeration in executing that opinion or viewpoint. So there's plenty of room for inaccuracies.

[SadFatty]

My point is that with such obvious glaring errors, it puts everything else you say into question.

Science is science, it doesn't vary from country to country. It is a constant.

There are a number of drugs that are no longer commonly used in the medical community, even though they might be of phenomenal benefit to patients, because of bad press.

I request you do your research, there is enough heresay, bad marketing, urban myths and bro-ology in this community as it is without adding any more.

Could you please elaborate on how much research you have done on the matter? Has it been a few hours of searching on the internet?

I'm also curious.....if the owner of this site Dave Palumbo had written that article would you have bothered to start a error and inaccuracy thread as well?

You could have emailed Ms Bryant before trying to smear her name in this thread.

You have an opinion and so does she. I want to know how much research you have done on this matter.

[Tatyana]

Could you please elaborate on how much research you have done on the matter? Has it been a few hours of searching on the internet?

I'm also curious.....if the owner of this site Dave Palumbo had written that article would you have bothered to start a error and inaccuracy thread as well?

You could have emailed Ms Bryant before trying to smear her name in this thread.

You have an opinion and so does she. I want to know how much research you have done on this matter.

B Sc Biology

B Sc Biomedical Sciences, honours degree, with the President's prize from the institute of Biomedical sciences

M Sc Clinical Biochemistry

Currently working on a B A in psychology.

One of the main focuses in clinical biochemistry is human biochemistry and physiology, and endocrinology plays a huge role in it.

I have a particular interest in sexual differentiation and the sex hormones, as well as anything to do with neurochemistry.

My light reading is New Scientist and Scientific American.

Other than that brain candy, weekly I read the British Medical Journal, The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, all of which are the foremost medical journals in the world.

I work as a clinical biochemistry laboratory.

I am currently working my way through a contemporary endocrinology textbook called 'Androgens in Health and Disease' as I have an interest in the use and abuse of steroids.

I think women should be given accurate advice about steroids.

I am not very keen on women using steroids unless they are pursuing a career/interest in professional sports, however, some do.

I think Carolyn has some very valuable points to make, however they are lost in the delivery.

She and I have spoken in PMs.

[Tatyana]

Oh yes, I forgot this.

I do seek the advice and guidance of several of the consultants in the hospital I work in.

They are very helpful and often give me fantastic advice related to particularily difficult problems some men and women have had related to medical issues that may or may not be related to the use of bodybuilding drugs.

I have corrected Dave Palumbo on one occasion that I can remember, and John Romano and I have also had post exchanges about the accuracies about some of his claims.

I have also been corrected when I have posted things that were unclear or inaccurate.

That is what a good researcher and scientist does, they seek out the facts to the best of their abilities and knowledge.

Science is meant to be objective. Obviously as humans, some subjective perspectives may creep in, however, that is why journals are peer-reviewed and we consult or defer to other experts in the area.

[SadFatty]

So a bunch of credentials in biology. I don't care what your "light reading" is or who you have seek consultation from who may have given you advice which MAY or MAY NOT have had to do with drugs related to bodybuilding.

It is clear you are trying to impress but there is no substance that applies to what we are talking about.

All I can say is forget about the haters Carolyn. People aren't stupid and they can seperate the bullshit from the good info.

Tatyana....science is meant to be subjective. The inaccurices and errors you have pointed out are not that.....just an opinion. A subjective one of course.

[sassy69]

So a bunch of credentials in biology. I don't care what your "light reading" is or who you have seek consultation from who may have given you advice which MAY or MAY NOT have had to do with drugs related to bodybuilding.

It is clear you are trying to impress but there is no substance that applies to what we are talking about.

All I can say is forget about the haters Carolyn. People aren't stupid and they can seperate the bullshit from the good info.

Tatyana....science is meant to be subjective. The inaccurices and errors you have pointed out are not that.....just an opinion. A subjective one of course.


Science is in fact, fact. Or at least to the degree that we currently understand a particular topic. It is completely objective. Its interpretation and complete discussion of it is what becomes subjective.

Ref: E=mc^2, y=mx+b, velocity = dx/dt, acceleration = dv/dt, etc.

[Skeptic]

Science is in fact, fact. Or at least to the degree that we currently understand a particular topic. It is completely objective. Its interpretation and complete discussion of it is what becomes subjective.

Ref: E=mc^2, y=mx+b, velocity = dx/dt, acceleration = dv/dt, etc.

Science and mathematics are the most objective tools that humans have. Their strength comes from the provisional nature they both take to claims. Use a model until it is disproved or refined. But they are models.



I have watched this whole thing for a week now and I have a serious question.

I believe that AAS, HGH, insulin, gene doping, whatever, are incredibly powerful tools. As such, it is my belief that the "CAREFUL! THIS SHIT IS DANGEROUS!" viewpoint needs to be stated loudly and clearly. Especially here at RX Muscle, a forum which is very receptive to pro-gear viewpoints.

So here is my question: why, out of all of the possible messengers for the very important "DANGER" viewpoint, was Carolyn chosen as the front-runner? I have no axe to grind with Carolyn personally here, but the interview as I read it completely from top to tail three times is so bizarre that any hope of anyone taking it seriously is virtually nil.

I can see some newb reading it and saying to themselves, "Well that makes no sense at all, Imma go talk to the pro-gear folk."

Couldn't we have found an anti-gear viewpoint that was a little less awkward?

[Sledge]

So a bunch of credentials in biology. I don't care what your "light reading" is or who you have seek consultation from who may have given you advice which MAY or MAY NOT have had to do with drugs related to bodybuilding.

It is clear you are trying to impress but there is no substance that applies to what we are talking about.

All I can say is forget about the haters Carolyn. People aren't stupid and they can seperate the bullshit from the good info.

Tatyana....science is meant to be subjective. The inaccurices and errors you have pointed out are not that.....just an opinion. A subjective one of course.


I'm sorry but I don't understand your attitude SF. There a bunch of women here both natural and AAS users. Some are very respected in the industry and have achived a lot and are full of usefull information and are more than happy to help anyone who asks. Caroline rocks up and tells everyone what she thinks. When someone disagrees with her or even proves her totaly wrong or inacurate she attacks them imediatly even resorting to name calling. Then when she gets back the same treatment she gets even more aggresive. And tells us that she's speaking the truth, thats why no one agrees.

Now I'd never heard of Caroline Brandt untill she logged onto this site and started trying to force her opinions onto people and god help anyone that disagrees with her. Now deep down she may think she's trying to help but the reality is, if you use fictional novels and internet propaganda as fact and you show over and over you only have a rudementry knowledge on the subject. When you come to a place like this and have to deal with people that know what they are talking about your going to get called out.. I guess the choice for you is simple. You can believe the things that a bunch of well educated experienced and qualified people say. Or you can believe Caroline who has been discredited at every turn. Hell i even knew she was full of shit when she first joined the site and most of these ladys have more knowledge on this subject in there little finger than I have in my head. Think about it for a sec and decide who is trying to help and who is rigid and inflexable in there opinions even when proven wrong.:)

[Skeptic]

I'm sorry but I don't understand your attitude SF. There a bunch of women here both natural and AAS users. Some are very respected in the industry and have achived a lot and are full of usefull information and are more than happy to help anyone who asks. Caroline rocks up and tells everyone what she thinks. When someone disagrees with her or even proves her totaly wrong or inacurate she attacks them imediatly even resorting to name calling. Then when she gets back the same treatment she gets even more aggresive. And tells us that she's speaking the truth, thats why no one agrees.

Now I'd never heard of Caroline Brandt untill she logged onto this site and started trying to force her opinions onto people and god help anyone that disagrees with her. Now deep down she may think she's trying to help but the reality is, if you use fictional novels and internet propaganda as fact and you show over and over you only have a rudementry knowledge on the subject. When you come to a place like this and have to deal with people that know what they are talking about your going to get called out.. I guess the choice for you is simple. You can believe the things that a bunch of well educated experienced and qualified people say. Or you can believe Caroline who has been discredited at every turn. Hell i even knew she was full of shit when she first joined the site and most of these ladys have more knowledge on this subject in there little finger than I have in my head. Think about it for a sec and decide who is trying to help and who is rigid and inflexable in there opinions even when proven wrong.:)

Wow, that was fast! What a great illustration of what I'm talking aboot. SadFatty is a newb here, but is learning quickly. (Hi there SF :wavey:) Look at what she is learning: her anti-gear viewpoint is being formed partially by the Bryant interview and the reactions to it. Ack!

[Curt James]

Text, text, text, blablablah.

It all comes down to...

[Curt James]

Ladies and gentlemen,

CHOOSE YOUR CHAMPION!

[Sledge]

Ladies and gentlemen,

CHOOSE YOUR CHAMPION!


Not a fair comparison. Tats is a nattie. :D

Caroline has a great butt though.

[Skeptic]

To all newbs or anyone trying to get info on gear: It is not a personality contest between Tat and CB.

This joke would only be funny if the fight wasn't so stacked.

[Tatyana]

Text, text, text, blablablah.

It all comes down to...


What it comes down to is that some people get very upset over the internet.

SadFatty, I realise that you have been quite annoyed with me since this post in the thread where WisconsinBB was critiquing Nic Paladino.

I request that we start over again, there is no point in continuing with internet grudges.




Originally Posted by SadFatty http://forums.rxmuscle.com/images/okay/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.rxmuscle.com/showthread.php?p=189954#post189954)
Just calling it like I see it. Whether you meant it or not he got OWNED. It's of his own doing and I'm glad...he is starting to get a bit cocky for his own good.



You know very little about bodybuilding and training. Comparing a 17 year old to a 30 year old is not a fair comparison, unless the 17 year old is a genetic freak.

That would be like comparing some of the women here who have been training for years and years to a female new to training.

[Tatyana]

To all newbs or anyone trying to get info on gear: It is not a personality contest between Tat and CB.

This joke would only be funny if the fight wasn't so stacked.

People are taking this very personally.

Ironically, I Carolyn and I have a very similar opinion on steroid use, I find it very disconcerting when women who haven't trained for longer than a few weeks to a year take steroids.

There are times I wish I could use scare tactics, and to be honest, I have on one board.

All it has resulted in is that people think I am anti-steroid and disregard any and all advice I have.

It is just bad science to use things that are not correct or opinion.

[Sledge]

People are taking this very personally.

Ironically, I Carolyn and I have a very similar opinion on steroid use, I find it very disconcerting when women who haven't trained for longer than a few weeks to a year take steroids.

There are times I wish I could use scare tactics, and to be honest, I have on one board.

All it has resulted in is that people think I am anti-steroid and disregard any and all advice I have.

It is just bad science to use things that are not correct or opinion.

So true. Scare tactics, especialy incorrect ones only turn people away from the underlying message. It's never worked. Good down to earth education is the answer and the only way people can make a real informed decision.

[Skeptic]

So true. Scare tactics, especialy incorrect ones only turn people away from the underlying message. It's never worked. Good down to earth education is the answer and the only way people can make a real informed decision.

Quoted for it's elegant simplicity. A Reefer Madness approach is nuts.

[Curt James]

It is not a personality contest between Tat and CB.

This joke would only be funny if the fight wasn't so stacked.

Pun intended?

[Curt James]

there is no point in continuing with internet grudges.

Clean your house!

[Curt James]

Not a fair comparison. Tats is a nattie. :D

Caroline has a great butt though.

It was just a gag.

No interest in a natural versus assisted debate. All people should have full information and access, imo.

And no argument from me on the booty assessment.

At all. :beerbang: :)

Wait. Other than to offer my opinion that no amount of juice will create that kind of impressiveness. That's Mother Nature!

[partsRheavy]

I have much less biochem or endocrinology background that Tatty, but having studied zoology many moons ago in college, I'm going to have to side with the concept of conducting discussions as close to scientific fact as possible.

The "Reefer Madness" comment was apt.

I find that when people use scare tactics, emotional language, and factual distortions in an argument that is about science, I tend to react very negatively.

For example, I have less than zero respect for creationists who try to subvert the biology curriculum in our public schools. These sorts of people have basically turned me off from religion. My rational mind tells me that not all religious people reject evolution, but the ones who do so have used such specious arguments that I want nothing to do with most any religion. Basically, I've rebelled against religion because of the behavior of certain of its proponents.....

I hate to bring up politics, and public affairs, but it's relevant in this discussion. I'm still pretty angry over what happened with a lot of scientific discourse during the Bush years - everything from the belittling of climate scientists by people like Oklahoma Sen. Inhofe, to the promotion of creationism in schools, to funding cutbacks for research. On January 20, I was very gratified to hear that "We will restore science to its rightful place..."

Going back to the topic under discussion (gear), it's a bad idea to use emotional, unscientific hyperbole against gear. This will make a certain percentage of people rebel against the arguments .... and go and jump on gear, possibly prematurely or inappropriately. It's a lot better to have a rational, fact-based discussion of the risks and benefits so that people can decide for themselves.

I also enjoy learning more about an area of biology that was pretty difficult for me in college. I was much more an ecology/evolution/field biology type than a biochem type....

So....Tatty wins the intellectual posedown. :D

(My situation is 2 years weight training, natural (except I tried DHEA once with few results), over 40 years old).

[SadFatty]

Wow, that was fast! What a great illustration of what I'm talking aboot. SadFatty is a newb here, but is learning quickly. (Hi there SF :wavey:) Look at what she is learning: her anti-gear viewpoint is being formed partially by the Bryant interview and the reactions to it. Ack!
I'm not anti gear at all. Tatyana handled this in a totally unprofessional manner. If somebody else had written what Carolyn had written this thread would not have even began and it would not have been stated in such a rude manner. The "errors" and "inaccuracies" are in Tatyana's opinion only.

It's obvious when somebody's agenda is to smear somebody instead of give an opinion. Bryant gave a fantastic interview and what I learned from it is to take the time to learn before I jump in. From Carolyn.

There are probably 10 threads that I can pick apart on this board with errors and inaccuracies. I would merely give my opinion instead of starting a whole entire thread in an incredibly rude manner.

[GirlyMuscle]

People are taking this very personally.

Ironically, I Carolyn and I have a very similar opinion on steroid use, I find it very disconcerting when women who haven't trained for longer than a few weeks to a year take steroids.

There are times I wish I could use scare tactics, and to be honest, I have on one board.

All it has resulted in is that people think I am anti-steroid and disregard any and all advice I have.

It is just bad science to use things that are not correct or opinion.

Because of Tatyana's stance on women and steriods AND her calm non-judgemental attitude, I find I LISTEN to her advice. I know she's a helluva a lot more educated than me and she also has an open mind. She'll give you the facts from all sides. She doesn't hide anything.

[SallyAnne]

OK - I finally caught up on this thread. lol

SF - I disagree that Tat is attacking Carolyn just for the sake of 'picking' on her. I have a huge amount of respect for Tatyana and her knowledge. I've e-known the woman for a couple of years now, and I have learned a lot from her posts. When she feels strongly about something, she's as tenacious as a bulldog. :) Tat is very direct - kind of like Carolyn. I honestly think she's here for a good debate, which she loves.

Carolyn can hold her own (which is something else I admire)...and I sincerely doubt she needs you to stand up for her.

[sba220]

You have all just witnessed the beauty of these forums...an article of opinion was posted and the interviewee expounded various pieces of misinformation and outright ignorance pertaining to the science of AAS.

Shorty thereafter a respected participant on the boards pointed out the inaccuracies of the article, supported her claims with ample scientific support, and left no question as the validity of her post.

Despite the feeble attempt to justify the bullshit, the majority of opinions on this thread supported the facts. People read, evaluated, and concluded in favor of truth. I would imagine the wait for the scientific data in support of Caroline’s opinion would be infinite and unnecessary.

I find this a priceless example of how a discussion board can work at its best. We posted an article - you read it and responded. People write bullshit everyday; you can find it in every newspaper, magazine, and all across the internet but finally you have all place to call that bullshit what it is.

[SallyAnne]

Well said, Dros. :)

[SadFatty]

I had to do my own research. There were tons and tons of articles supporting each theory. I couldn't believe it and I searched for a long time. Both are backed by scientific research in great great amounts. Both are backed by scientific research and studies. So technically both contain errors and inaccuracies and both contain truth. It just depends what you put into the search engine. I now know more about Stanozolol than I ever wanted to know.

I do not have a masters in any biology course but I do have a pHD in physics and was accepted to med school although I did not go. I am an opera singer....it is a long story as to why I chose that route but credentials mean nothing. The number of post mean nothing and anyone can go on to google scholar and find articles on pretty much anything. I can take any article and find contradicting research from a reputable source on almost anything. Even on something like cigarette smoking.

You can disagree with someone but the manner in which you present is important. I could say both posters are wrong.....I've seen tons of crap against both arguments. I could also say both posters are right.

Bottom line is to say something is an "error" simply because of a few studies is wrong. There will always be other studies disagreeing as I have found.

[SadFatty]

You have all just witnessed the beauty of these forums...an article of opinion was posted and the interviewee expounded various pieces of misinformation and outright ignorance pertaining to the science of AAS.

Shorty thereafter a respected participant on the boards pointed out the inaccuracies of the article, supported her claims with ample scientific support, and left no question as the validity of her post.

Despite the feeble attempt to justify the bullshit, the majority of opinions on this thread supported the facts. People read, evaluated, and concluded in favor of truth. I would imagine the wait for the scientific data in support of Caroline’s opinion would be infinite and unnecessary.

I find this a priceless example of how a discussion board can work at its best. We posted an article - you read it and responded. People write bullshit everyday; you can find it in every newspaper, magazine, and all across the internet but finally you have all place to call that bullshit what it is.

This is correct. I found a tons of arguments on both so technically both were wrong and someone could call both bullshit. The scientific data towards both was astounding.

Well said.

[tight booty]

Because of Tatyana's stance on women and steriods AND her calm non-judgemental attitude, I find I LISTEN to her advice. I know she's a helluva a lot more educated than me and she also has an open mind. She'll give you the facts from all sides. She doesn't hide anything.
Yes I agree GM. Tatyana is fair and gives the facts with no agendas.

[MRT]

Text, text, text, blablablah.

It all comes down to...

Pretty hard to beat that ass!!!!!!!!