Anavar study....,...............

[golfer34]

Oral anabolic steroid treatment, but not parenteral androgen treatment, decreases abdominal fat in obese, older men.

International Journal of Obesity and Related ********* Disorders : Journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity [1995, 19(9):614-624]

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of testosterone enanthate (TE), anabolic steroid (AS) or placebo (PL) on regional fat distribution and health risk factors in obese middle-aged men undergoing weight loss by dietary means.

DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, carried out for 9 months with primary assessments at 3 month intervals. Due to adverse blood lipid changes, the AS group was switched from oral oxandrolone (ASOX) to parenteral nandrolone decanoate(ASND) after the 3 month assessment point.

SUBJECTS: Thirty healthy, obese men, aged 40-60 years, with serum testosterone (T) levels in the low-normal range (2-5 ng/mL).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Abdominal fat distribution and thigh muscle volume by CT scan, body composition by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), insulin sensitivity by the Minimal Model method, blood lipids, blood chemistry, blood pressure, thyroid hormones and urological parameters.

RESULTS: After 3 months, there was a significantly greater decrease in subcutaneous (SQ) abdominal fat in the ASOX group compared to the TE and PL groups although body weight changes did not differ by treatment group. There was also a tendency for the ASOX group to exhibit greater losses in visceral fat, and the absolute level of visceral fat in this group was significantly lower at 3 months than in the TE and PL groups. There were significant main effects of treatment at 3 months on serum T and free T (increased in the TE group and decreased in the ASOX group) and on thyroid hormone parameters (T4 and T3 resin uptake significantly decreased in the ASOX group compared with the other two groups). There was a significant decrease in HDL-C, and increase in LDL-C in the ASOX group, which led to their being switched to the parenteral nandrolone decanoate (ASND) after 3 months. ASND had opposite effects on visceral fat from ASOX, producing a significant increase from 3 to 9 months while continuing to decrease SQ abdominal fat. ASND treatment also decreased thigh muscle area, while ASOX treatment increased high muscle. ASND reversed the effects of ASOX on lipoproteins and thyroid hormones. The previously reported effect of T to decrease visceral fat was not observed, in fact, visceral fat in the TE group increased slightly from 3 to 9 months, although SQ fat continued to decrease. Neither TE nor AS treatment resulted in any change in urologic parameters.

CONCLUSIONS: Oral oxandrolone decreased SQ abdominal fat more than TE or weight loss alone and also tended to produce favorable changes in visceral fat. TE and ASND injections given every 2 weeks had similar effects to weight loss alone on regional body fat. Most of the beneficial effects observed on ********* and cardiovascular risk factors were due to weight loss per se. These results suggest that SQ and visceral abdominal fat can be independently modulated by androgens and that at least some anabolic steroids are capable of influencing abdominal fat.

 

[halfwit]

SUBJECTS: Thirty healthy, obese men, aged 40-60 years, with serum testosterone (T) levels in the low-normal range (2-5 ng/mL).

Before I say anything about the study, I just HAD to have a great chuckle at this excerpt. HEALTHY, but oh... They're hypogonadal and obese. Oops! I guess some folks need to reevaluate their definition of "healthy". (I know what they meant, but still - cracked me up. )

Here's the problem with this study. They don't give actual numbers (at least not in what was quoted), but use the word significant quite a bit. Define significant for me. Are we talking 5% reduction being significant, or just the fact that they were able to extrapolate quantifiable numbers?

Significant is a VERY broad term I see in research papers far too often, and unfortunately it never means the same thing. I remember a study discussing the up regulation of IGF from free testosterone versus estradiol serum concentrations. They stated that the free test impact was significant, but the estradiol wasn't. The difference between the two was literally in the hundredths of percentiles. Granted, I was able to find a better study that showed more information, but it struck me odd that such a statement was given without first setting up parameters for what was significant or not relative to the data gathered.

Does oxandrolone reduce body fat? Yes. But how much are we looking at here, and more importantly - are the results of such use in a controlled environment where the metabolism and caloric intakes are relatively similar?

Going to have to call this study pseudoscience as they're just lacking way too much information to actually give us an idea as to what the true impact (other than liver issues) of oxandrolone vs test (silly comparison anyway) really is.

My .02c

Note: This isn't an attack on you at all golfer; I love reading new/clarified information about the drugs commonly used in this lifestyle, just had to point a few things out that bothered me.

 

[Repo]

Thanks for sharing this golfer...

I have to agree with halfwit on the generalization aspect... and appreciate the information from golfer as well, because
it keeps the conversations open for discussion and debate.

Whenever I look at studies or reasons for the purpose of the studies... I look for the - "why" - or "reason why" it is, or isn't working.

The purpose or use of oxandrolone when it was created (designed) was for the promotion of lean tissue growth during catabolic
illness... mainly from surgery drama, infection, or prolonged corticosteroid administration - or the support of bone density in
patients with osteoporosis.

If I was to guess based on the way it was oxandrolone designed, would be the possibility of any loss in fat would be from the
creation of lean tissue gains.

It does sound very possible, but would be minimal without the controlled environment as in what halwiit mentioned.

Just as a side note... I was in a very (VERY) catabolic state after a major surgery, and from having my mouth wired shut for
several months... then I found Ology (first time ever using gear).

The combination of - steroids fighting the catabolic state - blew my mind on how dramatic the transformation would be...

When I hit the "extreme catabolic state" - I was down to 159 pounds and when I went back for my yearly followup I was
at 220 ponds - I'm not sure what the body fat was... but I'm 5'11 with a 32 inch waist.

The reason for me adding this... is that there are factors that can drastically impact studies.... and in no way do I think this was
a factor in golfers post (not at all) - I'm just mentioning this to add some food for thought...

By the way my X-RAY's are awesome - I have 16 screws in my face I look like The Exterminator, but you would never know it without
seeing the E-RAY.

 

[tx045]

I think the fat burning properties of var are overstated alot of the time

 

[halfwit]

I think the fat burning properties of var are overstated alot of the time

As someone that bought the compound several times hoping it was a "magic bullet", I wholeheartedly agree. I DO like 'var, but I don't take it for those properties any more; now I just know how to eat properly. Anavar is one hell of a strength drug though!

 

[Megatron28]

Before I say anything about the study, I just HAD to have a great chuckle at this excerpt. HEALTHY, but oh... They're hypogonadal and obese. Oops! I guess some folks need to reevaluate their definition of "healthy". (I know what they meant, but still - cracked me up. )

I am sure they are using BMI to define obesity. In other words, Adrian Peterson is obese -- and as many of us know, he very likely may be hypogonadal too do to extracurricular activities.

 

[Megatron28]

Here's the problem with this study. They don't give actual numbers (at least not in what was quoted), but use the word significant quite a bit. Define significant for me. Are we talking 5% reduction being significant, or just the fact that they were able to extrapolate quantifiable numbers?

My understanding is that they are using it in the sense of Statistically Significant. So applying the concepts of standard deviation. But most of us here know how easy it is to play with statistics to show what we want to show...

 

[golfer34]

Just something I came across and was interested to read some thoughts for you all

 

[Megatron28]

Whenever I look at studies or reasons for the purpose of the studies... I look for the - "why" - or "reason why" it is, or isn't working.

It is extremely rare that studies will provide a cause or "why". Most of the time they will only show a correlation.

 

[juced_porkchop]

Just something I came across and was interested to read some thoughts for you all

thanks for the post!


but yeah i agree with the others. and if anthing its mild. avoiding a cookie a day could likely do the same ha. but i do love var.. mmm teste and var...... : P

 

[halfwit]

My understanding is that they are using it in the sense of Statistically Significant. So applying the concepts of standard deviation. But most of us here know how easy it is to play with statistics to show what we want to show...

Yep, and depends on how many deviations out one wants to go too. Math can't lie, but it sure can be used for some hocus-pocus.

thanks for the post!


but yeah i agree with the others. and if anthing its mild. avoiding a cookie a day could likely do the same ha. but i do love var.. mmm teste and var...... : P

I can has cookie?

Only 8 minutes to lunch omgomgomg!