Is Anadrol more liver toxic than Dianabol?

[DreDay187]

Like Austinit said previously, the toxicity concerns of oral AAS are often severely over-exagerated. Eve Anadrol, which has at times been made out as the "liver killer" is a relatively safe drug for the liver. If oral AAS were so dangerous, they would have never made as presription drugs for long-term use. Anadrol was prescribed for decades in the treatment of anemia...and people would use 100-150 mg/day for months straight. 1,000's of people used Anadrol in this fashion and out of all of them, not a single one ever died from liver failure...not a single one. It was prescribe to men, women, and children for this purpose. One one 12 week study subjects were given 100 mg of Anadrol per day for 12 weeks and at the end of this study, which involved dozens of people, none of them showed any signs of serious liver damage. In the final analysis, Anadrol was deemed safe and well tolerated and was subsequently produced as a prescription drug.

Dianabol, per effective dose, is less toxic than Anadrol, but is likely more toxic per mg. However, only a small percentage of people will ever use 100-150 mg of Diaabol daily, as 50 mg is more than adequate for basically everyone. I have seen people use 60-70 mg per day for about a year straight and at the end of the time period, liver enzymes were not pretty, but the they were not in any imminent danger of liver death. I know one 165 lb world champion powerflifter who has used 10 mg per day for many years straight and his liver readings are near perfect. In my estimation, it is extremely likely a BB'rc could administer 20 mg of d-bol per day 'permanently' and not ever experience any serious liver issues. The point of all this talk is to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the claims that are repeatedly uttered around BB'ing forums today.

These days, we see tons of guys advising people not to run Anadrol or Dianabol for longer than "4 weeks" without a break, or (as they claim) the individual will place himself in harms way due to excessive liver strain. LOL. Many of these guys have no idea what they are talking about. For decades BB'rs would use orals like Dianabol for 8-12 weeks (or longer) and this was considered "normal". No one prior to the advent of OTC designers/PH's recommended orals be used for 4 weeks. After the release of our first OTC designers, which recommended 4 week cycles (ultra-conservative recommendations), it seems as if all the "newbs" and less knwoledgable guys started thinking that this recommendation applied to all oral steroids. Before you know it, we started seeing guys saying that steroids like Dianabol, Anadrol, etc. could not safely be run longer than 4 weeks...and if you were lucky, they would tell you that you "might" be able to push it to 6 weeks. LOL.

The following guidelines are "WELL" within reasonable limits...no questions asked...and are still considered somewhat conservative.

Dianabol: 50 mg for 8 weeks.
Anadrol: 100 mg for 8 weeks.
SD: 20 mg for 8 weeks.
Anavar: 100 mg for 8 weeks.
Winstrol: 75 mg for 8 weeks.
Turinabol: 50 mg for 8 weeks.
M1T: 10 mg for 8 weeks.
Epistane: 50 mg for 8 weeks.
Dimethazine: 45 mg for 8 weeks.
Methylstenbolone: 40 mg for 8 weeks.
Halotestin: 30 mg for 8 weeks.

I'm only directing this to the bolded part as you probably have far more experience than me when it comes to running cycles, but that bolded part is not a valid argument. If it was we wouldn't have class action lawsuits against any sort of medication or drug that's ever been prescribed.

 

[robbiek426]

^^^^ this plus mg for mg comparisons aren't always accurate since chemical structure and the pathways of metabolism have a large part to do with required dosages. 50mg of one C17aa is not the same toxicity of another C17aa bc of the enzymes necessary to break down each.

Another way of putting it in real world examples would be 50mg Anavar (var) is not as toxic as 50mg of dbol just bc you need a higher dose of one doesn't mean it will be more toxic or have more negative consequences. I would think a degree in chemistry or medicine would help with finding answers to this unless your comparison is for the same compound at Anavar (var) ying dosages.

Robbie, I'm not saying Drol is better than dbol bc you need more or less of each, but have you ever ran liver enzyme tests to Se the effects of both?

Yes! I ran drol at 100mgs and dbol for 50mgs and the liver readings were close to even. I may have worded it wrong. I am saying that I always try to put the least amount of a product into my body to yield results. I know drol gives more strength or so it seems that way to me and many other user but I had some nasty side effects with it and I havent ran it since. As far as putting on size goes I think they are fairly even in this department. Mg for Mg I would say that DBol is probably more hepatoxic than drol but my main point was using less of any compound to achieve the results. Since I like size I have no need to use 100-150mgs of drol when I can get close to the same if not identical size gains from Dbol at 50mgs. I think the more we achieve with less compounds the better. Sorry if that was worded incorrectly, I hope you understand what I am saying now. Thanks bro,
Rob

 

[DreDay187]

Yes! I ran drol at 100mgs and dbol for 50mgs and the liver readings were close to even. I may have worded it wrong. I am saying that I always try to put the least amount of a product into my body to yield results. I know drol gives more strength or so it seems that way to me and many other user but I had some nasty side effects with it and I havent ran it since. As far as putting on size goes I think they are fairly even in this department. Mg for Mg I would say that DBol is probably more hepatoxic than drol but my main point was using less of any compound to achieve the results. Since I like size I have no need to use 100-150mgs of drol when I can get close to the same if not identical size gains from Dbol at 50mgs. I think the more we achieve with less compounds the better. Sorry if that was worded incorrectly, I hope you understand what I am saying now. Thanks bro,
Rob

Yea bro that cleared it up for me. I thought at first you meant you take whichever one required a smaller dosage but I agree with you now: always use the least amount of drugs whichever one you choose to get the desired effect. Thanks for the clarification bro!!

 

[Mike Arnold]

That statement isn't necessarily true there's lot of medication with severe long term side effects it doesn't stop them from selling it. Big pharm is all about the money. Just look at Tylenol (acetaminophen) its very bad for the liver in the long run and its not even a prescription. I see commercials during the day all the time by lawyers that are asking people if they had such and such side effects by certain medications to call them for a law suit.

Obviously, drugs like Tylenol and Anadrol raise liver values, but it is also obvious that BOTH drugs can be SAFELY used (as it pertains to the liver) long-term when dosed within reasonable limits. The point here is not that pharmaceutical drugs cannot be dangerous. The point is that Anadrol would not have been prescribed for long-term use if it was not well tolerated under those circumstances. Before Anadrol was released, numeorus clinical trials were conducted showing the drug to be safe and well tolerated by men, women, and children. Yes, sometimes the pharmaceutical companies "get it wrong" and need to recall a drug, but in the overwhelming majority of cases, phamacuetical drugs are administered within dosing and duration limitations which have been proven, using human clinical reserach, to be safe and well tolerated. They are not prescribed outside of these limitations...and if the drug cannot be effectuvely used without crossing those limits, it is not given the greenlight by the FDA. Yes, there is a small percentage of drugs which do pose a serious risk to one's health, such as certain cancer treatments, but these drugs are only administered because the benefits outweigh the side effects experienced. Steroids do not come anywhere close to possessing this level or risk and overall, are considered a mild class of drugs. Often, you can determine a drug's level of risk by looking at the reason behind their use. What are they prescribed to treat? In the case of AAS, they have been prescrived for purposes such as osteoporosis, wound healing, hormone replacment, etc. A drug will never be prescribed when the benefits do not exceed the side effects. Look at the benefits recieved by treating some of those maladies. Any drug with serious risks would NEVER be prescribed for those purposes, especially when there are other alternatives which also have a high safety profile. So, my statment should really read as follows..."If AAS were so dangerous, they would never have been made to treat those conditions". This was my point. Bottom line...steroids are far from the liver killers they have been made out to be.

mg to mg they should be just as hepatotoxic as they both have the same c-17alpha binding so they can pass through the liver without being metabolized. While some say that their toxicity is overstated, as a general rule they still shouldn't be run for longer than 6 weeks per cycle. In addition, other liver metabolized substances should be avoided while using a c-17a such as alcohol, acetaminophen, etc, etc.

With all respect, this is incorrect. There can be a massive difference in toxicity when comparing the various AAS on a mg per mg basis. To provide an extreme example, look at methyltrienolone and then take alook at Winstrol. Winstrol is well tolerated by the liver when administered at dosages of 100 mg per day, but such a dose of methyltrienolone would kill a person. MT is often dosed in the "mcg" range due to its toxicity, while Winstrol is often dosed 100's of times higher! If all oral AAs were of equal toxicity per mg, we would not have such a wide variation in dosing recommendations between the various oral AAS. We would see many people using steroids such as Halotestin, M1T, SD, etc...in the same range as Anadrol, but we don't...because they are more toxic per mg, which limits the dose one can safely administer.

In addition, there is NO reason why all oral AAS should be limited to 6 weeks. There is no evidence, derived from either a clinical or real-world setting, which supports this statment. However, there is a large amount of both clinical and real-world support for the belief that oral AAS, in general, can be safely run for longer than 6 weeks...often much longer.

Thanks Mike! Do you have a link maybe to material regarding that prolonged Anadrol use in clinical setting? I couln't really find anything.

I don't have any saved to my PC. However, you may want to look on Pub-med. Most of the research done on Anadrol was conducted 50 years ago, when it was first released. At that time, extensive research was done to determine its safety.

I'm only directing this to the bolded part as you probably have far more experience than me when it comes to running cycles, but that bolded part is not a valid argument. If it was we wouldn't have class action lawsuits against any sort of medication or drug that's ever been prescribed.
See above.

.....

 

[killler]

I don't have any saved to my PC. However, you may want to look on Pub-med. Most of the research done on Anadrol was conducted 50 years ago, when it was first released. At that time, extensive research was done to determine its safety.



.....

Lots of interesting read on Pubmed regarding Oxymetholone.

20 year old girl treated for 6 years non-stop with 30mg Anadrol daily before suffering benign liver tumors-
Multiple hepatic adenomas caused by long-ter... [J Gastroenterol. 2000] - PubMed - NCBI

 

[killler]

Just for the purpose of a study
,not as treatment,
old men aged 65-80
were given 50 or 100 mg Oxymetholone daily for 3 months

Effects of an oral androgen on... [Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2003] - PubMed - NCBI

 

[imdennis]

i think the whole liver toxicity thing is over rated, granted its toxic but ive ran 50mg dbol and 20mg superdrol back to back and i still dont have jaundice

 

[Mike Arnold]

Lots of interesting read on Pubmed regarding Oxymetholone.

20 year old girl treated for 6 years non-stop with 30mg Anadrol daily before suffering benign liver tumors-
Multiple hepatic adenomas caused by long-ter... [J Gastroenterol. 2000] - PubMed - NCBI

Wow...this really shows how overexagerated the liver toxicity claims of oral AAS are. This girl was able to use 30 mg daily for 6 freakin' years without experiencing excessive liver toxicity. It took 6 years to experience any noteworthy side effect and it wasn't even a general side effect...it was one specific to Anadrol...and non life-threatening. Benign liver tumors, although very rare, have only been documented to occur with Anadrol (to my knowledge) after periods of extreme abuse, as is the case here. However, it is not nearly as serious as it sounds.

So, if this 20 year old girl can run Anadrol for 6 years straight without experiencing unacceptably dangerous liver enzymes, what does this say about the claims which state that Aandrol can't be used for more than 6 weeks? 6 weeks vs. 6 years. Big difference, don't ya' think.

 

[Mike Arnold]

Just for the purpose of a study
,not as treatment,
old men aged 65-80
were given 50 or 100 mg Oxymetholone daily for 3 months

Effects of an oral androgen on... [Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2003] - PubMed - NCBI

Thank you for posting all these links. Here we have another study using OLD MEN as test subjects, who were administered 100 mg of Anadrol per day for 3 months without experiencing any significant problems. These studies are actually very common...and if Anadrol, being one of the Top 2 most toxic oral AAS released by U.S. pharmacies, can be safely run for 3 months (which has been proven many, many times) then what does that say about our less toxic drugs, such as Dianabol?

Like I said earlier, I have known guys who have run 60-70 mg of Dianabol per day for over 6 months...and they were all fine. At NO point where any of them in danger of killing their liver...LOL. Anyone who says drugs like Diaabol should be limited to 6 weeks has no clue what they are talking about. They are just throwing out an arbitrary number that is not based on any type of factual observation indicating excessive toxicity beyond that duration of use. They are simply repeating the same ignorant bullshit they read from 20 other ignorant people...all of whom continue to repeat what they have read without taking even one minute to find out if these claims are based in reality.

Just look at how many people in this thread authoritatively stated that Dianabol should not be run for longer than 6 weeks. If you ask them how they came up with this number, they will tell you (if they are honest) that they read it online from someone else...and they sure as hell won't have any evidence to back up these claims. On the other hand, we can show 100 different studies proving indisputably that these drugs can safely be run for far longer than 6 weeks, in terms of liver toxicity.

Like I have been saying for years now, it is NOT the liver we need to concern ourselves with when using oral AAS (assuming the person doesn't severely abuse them)...it is the cardiovascular side effects. This is why you see a TON of AAS users in poor cardiovascular health (some of whom end up having premature heart attacks and/or strokes), but when is the last time you've heard of somoene needing a liver transplant because they decided to run their D-bol for 10 weeks. LOL...never.

 

[Mike Arnold]

i think the whole liver toxicity thing is over rated, granted its toxic but ive ran 50mg dbol and 20mg superdrol back to back and i still dont have jaundice

See bold above: ...and you never will.