Talk:Trenbolone

Usage in Bodybuilding

What the **** is going on with this "usage in bodybuilding"-rubbish? This shouldn't be a how-to for a usage by humans, since it's forbidden for human use at least in some countries! So there's quite a chance that there are negative side effects and therefore an encyclopedia shouldn't be a guide how to use such substances.

Think about it, now people knows something about this steroid and then they know what the hell they are shooting in to there body´s, its better knowing in steed off they shoot them selves with some shit and die of it ??? Nikolaj Hegaard pedersen. Denmark, Randers

• You are wrong. The drug is also used in this way. Just because something can be illegal in some countries information should not be available?? It is not "a guide", it is merely presenting common dosages in bodybuilding usage. More information and expansion are what made/makes Wikipedia so good. The side effects of using the drug are clearly presented. I am re-adding the information one last time before a request for mediation.

P.S. Exactly what mistakes are you reffering to? Cavell 04:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• • I don't think I am [wrong; inserted later]. I don't see why there has to be an information on dosage, just because it's used in bodybuilding. The Information that it IS used in bodybuilding is enough. Following the link "trenbolone profile" one can easily find dosages (which start at 50mgs, by the way, another point for not mentioning any dosages!). Maybe that's a bit different here, but I'm convinced that in the German Wikipedia such kind of information would be deleted instantly.
  • The mistakes I'm referring to: Obviously it should be "due to its relatively short...", because it's stand for "it is", but here "its" should be used since it's a genitive! Secondly I'm quite sure that either bodybuilding or body-building is correct (I would say the first one) but not both of them, so one of them must be wrong. (Though, I may be wrong on this, since I'm neither a native speaker nor a student of English.)
  • If I can't see any better arguments here, I'll again delete the part at issue, since in a mediation the article will get more attention from other people, which could contribute to the discussion. --81.62.173.212, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• I stand by the information, which is both relevant and correct. You says "the dosage starts at 50mgs". 50mgs per how long?? The maximum strength you can make trenbolone in an ester is 75 mgs/cc. Any stronger and the benzol alcohol content will be above 10% and will cause tissue damage. A dose of 50mgs/weeek would be completely redundant from a bodybuilding standpoint. As for the german wikipedia, who knows??

This is the english Wikipedia, and the information presented tells the reader about side effects and merely provides a ballpark range of bodybuilding dosages. You were correct about the syntax errors, which have been fixed. I stand by the article and have contributed many hours of time to expand the fields of strength training and anabloic steroids. Any further dispute will need a mediation. Thank you, Cavell 23:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• • OK, you're right about the dosage I mentioned, it was per day, not per week. But still: We don't mention the different usage of other substances in cycling, running, boxing, swimming... neither, so I can't see the relevance of this part. Furthermore, as I mentioned above, this information can be found easily on other sites. Thirdly, this part of the article is a stub with only few informations anyway, so there's not really much going lost. I appreciate you worked many hours on steroids, but I'm sure these two sentences weren't a big part of your work. --81.62.173.212 22:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see the issue with the "use in bodybuilding" section. This information is general at best and since this drug is common;y used in this fashion, that relevant info is presented here. To all those who keep removing it... Who are you?? Why don't you sign in and present a logical argument. More information is always better. Please do not vandalize this articleCavell 20:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• • "More information is always better" is a really ridiculous argument. When you hear the news, I suppose you're glad not to hear the storys in every detail. For instance the historical background, the political circumstances, a rise in the oil price,... which lead to a stock market crash. Even if this was interesting, it means you would have to listen to the news the whole day to cover only a small part of what's going on in the world. But because of the flood of information you could probably remember less than when just the most important facts would be presented. So - why don't YOU first give any good arguments? If you think this is really this important, we should probably also mention common doses of EPO for road cycling professionals since it's really widely used, shouldn't we? --85.0.98.204 12:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• This is an encyclopedia, not the evening news, buddy. In fact, the examples that you refer to are poor. You don't hear those stories on the evening news due to time constraints. However, on many news websites, you can find in depth stories and journalism on such topics as you described. Wikipedia is not a newscast, it is supposed to be a wealth of information created by the intellectual community. The small part of this atricle to which you are reffering allows readers more info, oppesed to less. Since the drug is used in this way, this part of the atricle addresses that. I am trying to expand Wikipedia, and you -whoever you are- are trying to restrict info on here. Get a hobby, and maybe some knowlegde on something, anything, and start to be a contribution here instead of removing info that has rubbed you the wrong way Cavell 15:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I understand very well what wikipedia is, thank you. Even if it's not the evening news, more information is not always better (how ridiculous!). The news thing was only an example to demonstrate this. So I'll make another example, maybe you'll finally get it that "more information is always better" is actually poor argumentation. Look at wikipedia articles like "History of [insert country]". This are often really long articles. But, as you can probably imagine, one could make the articles even much longer, mentioning more facts. So why is the length of these articles not constantly expanding ad infinitum? Firstly, because also in wikipedia there are time constraints... of the readers who only want to read the most important facts, but not everything related to a some kind of issue (sometimes this additional information is covered with external links or other articles). Secondly, the additional information would be less relevant in the most cases and even readers who would have really much time wouldn't be very interested in the additional information. So much for that.
  • You also argue, of course, that the information about the bodybuilding usage is relevant, which would mean it should stand in the article even considering the fact that more information is NOT always better. I doubt this, especially because this information is mentioned clearly in the external link "trenbolone profile". Secondly, as I mentioned above (but which you failed to counter), there are many other substances in the articles of which we could mention the usage in ... and I'm really serious about the thing that if we base the mentioning of (dosages of) substances on such things like "widely used", we should also do it in the article of EPO and in other similar situations. Thirdly, trenbolone is/was also used as cattle feed additive, so how about information (on dosages or other relevant things) on that? I'm sure there's enough information around. Now it's only mentioned in one sentence, but it was really widely used. Furthermore, like you say yourself, it's a small part of the article. But looking at the article, it seems to be something enormously important, since it's the only subtitle which is followed by content (the second one is for the links). So I don't get around the conclusion that you're trying to make something much more important than it is. Otherwise you could have inserted it easily in the rest of the text, without a subtitle for merely two lines of text.
  • Your statement that I should get a hobby and some knowledge is again a really ridiculous one. When someone starts to argue on this personal level, despite not knowing anyhthing about the other person's life, it's generally considered the former's got a lack of arguments. So, thank you for the suggestion, but I'm already very satisfied with the couple of hobbies I have, one of which is to care about the QUALITY (which is not always the same as the quantity) of different wikipedias.
  • I noticed your concern about me not logging in and writing with a name... well, just the fact that you do it that way doesn't make you any better, especially considering that you try to avoid replying to a couple of my arguments. I'm not deleting without any notice but arguing here, so beware of drawing the conclusion that I'm a troll or something. --

62.203.174.186 14:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not trying to 'avoid issues' you bring up, I just don't agree with you. You say that trenbolone is used as cattle feed additive, which - to my knowlegde - is inncorect. It is implanted under a cow's skin and absorbed this way. Due to the fact that my knowlegde on this usage is virtually non-exsistant, I have not written about it. Instead, I have written about something which I do have knowledge on. You are right about personal insults, and I apologize, I just don't see why two small relevant sentances cannot be left at the bottom of an article. In this case more information is better. So, I am adding the info again, and I'll tag it with a med-stub and wait till someone else can add to it Cavell 23:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Well, now you only considered the one thing where I was wrong (I mixed it up with other hormones, which are not used as implants, but really as feed additives) - that's what I mean with not replying to my arguments.
  • I still can't see (and you didn't give any argument...) why this two sentences should stand below the only subtitle of the whole article (apart from the external links, which is different because it's not followed by text). So now I moved the whole information way up where there's already information on bodybuilding.
  • I don't think the stub-block is very useful because it's not that short that one would generally consider it as a stub. Some kind of quality-control block would be better (I don't know how it's called in the english wikipedia). --62.203.174.186 11:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Style

I don't want to get in the insane discussion above about what content belongs in the article. However, I am concerned by phrasings such as "dosages should commonly be split into injections at least once every two days." By saying it should be done, the article moves to instructions, which are not encyclopedic, and more importantly is encouraging illegal behaviour. Perhaps "dosages are commonly split" etc. would be more appropriate. --64.235.198.242 (talk) 10:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Think about it, now people knows something about this steroid and then they know what the hell they are shooting in to there body´s, its better knowing in steed off they shoot them selves with some shit and die of it ???

NPOV and required citations

It seems like this could open the doors to discuss many related issues. Since the drug is not approved for human use there won't be verifiable data that supports a particular amount as being a "normal" dose. Drugs approved for use do even use the term "normal" with respect to dosing. Anabolic steriod use associated with illicit use of the drugs results in blood levels above what is considered either normal physiologically, or medically indicated for some reason. So the likelihood of locating such information for the sake of reference seems unlikely.

In my opinion, WP should approach this subject carefully because what is considered "standard" in terms of clinical evidence between human use and non-human use. Remember too that agriculture makes the non-human category more complex.

FDA approval is required when a manufacturer seeks to put a certain claim on a label. (By omitting such claims, makers of a nutritional supplement have usually avoided the need to seek approval).

On the other hand, if the numerous websites that sell such products are considered as "verifiable", perhaps such marketing information can be used as a means of removing bias. WP may then wish to consider whether or not there are legal risks by quoting information from an online pharmacy. Consider, for example, using information about Viagra from a site that claims to sell it but had no connection at all with Pfizer. Would this pose either legal risk or reflect a lack of neutrality?

In general the question not answered by WP policy, I don't think, is what constitutes "verifiable". That is, information collected by what are genreally considered unethical means are not accepted as "clinical" evidence. Not accepting such information would be prohibited by medical ethics. If it already exists, it would still be unacceptable if it is not replicable today. Where does WP sit regarding this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kernel.package (talk • contribs) 01:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• The statement that Trenbolone does not cause DHT needs to be cited. The only medical article I could find on the subject said Trenbolone is 3 times as androgenic as testosterone. I also agree that since true clinical trials have not been conducted that statements reference Trenbolone's actions in the human body are at best, unverifiable. Absent citation, any references to specific actions, other than its anabolic nature, should not be in the article.

• The first reference is to an unsigned and unverifiable article. The second references link is no longer usable. I will update it. Based on the information available in the second reference, this article appears basis and leaves out the majority of potential risk of illicit use that the article researches were basing the article on. This article should be more balanced in the approach to illicit use based on the available evidence, or the illicit section should probably be deleted. Legion211 (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Article was edited. I would appreciate some feedback, especially reference the current tags and whether or not they can be removed.Legion211 (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Research

Whoever wrote this part of the article: " Trenbolone has proven popular with anabolic steroid users as some believe it is not metabolized by aromatase or 5α-reductase into estrogenic compounds such as estradiol, or into DHT; however, studies on this are mixed with some studies showing a potential increase in both" has misinterpreted the studies they cited for that. Specifically references 8 and 9. Especially the latter.

"At the time of castration, two groups of animals were given implants of either 45 mg OE2 or 200 mg TBA. Another group received equivalent to 30 mg daily injections of DHT." Different groups were given different drugs. It would be incorrect to use this as reference to suggest Trenbolone can increase estradiol or DHT, as that is not what was found.

Reference 8 does not suggest this at all. It's a study looking at Trenbolone as a potential alternative or adjunct to testosterone therapy. There is zero mention made of Trenbolone stimulating an increase in Oestradiol or DHT.

Furthermore this would smack in the face of the far more numerous studies suggesting that trenbolone explicitly is not metabolized by aromatase or 5-aR - another point, this is not a belief held by illicit drug users, it's a fact stated in various research and medical literature on the drug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.88.61 (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Although the study does not test for aromatization in humans, I could not find a study that did. If you know of such a study please include it in the article. I am not a doctor, but from what I understand a rise in LH in a castrated mammal suggests a non-castrated mammal could expect a rise in estrogen levels. If you want to edit the article with cites to various research and medical literature please do, constructive editing is what Wikipedia is all about. Legion211 (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Use and effects

Since trenbolone is both a veterinary drug and a bodybuilding drug (legal or not), doesn't it make sense to discuss these two uses in separate sections? Kortoso (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Can I second this. The use of trenbelone is hugely important and woefully under reported here.

Just listening to BBC Inside Science program and there is an estimate that 90% yes 90% of all US beef cattle are given a trenbelone pellet injection for a lifetime of trenbelone intake.

Trenbelone is banned in Europe (the program failed to make it clear that ALL growth promoting steroids are banned in Europe (see Risk Regulation in Europe: Assessing the Application of the Precautionary Principle (SpringerBriefs in Political Science) page 55 Google books).

The program highlighted alarming research that trenbeleone poses a much greater danger to aquatic life than had been suspected as, after destruction by sunlight, it is reactivated in the dark. If this turns out to be true, farm runoff will be having devastating effects on aquatic ecosystems. REF: BBC Inside Science Oct 3rd 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03bs0z6 or search BBC Radio 4.

I am not familiar with how to edit things and this is a fairly big change I am proposing - the dangers of trenbelone in beef production etc. I think it is important. Very grateful if someone wise could take this up.

TIA Steve Stevehomeruk (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Production and source

Can anyone explain the commercial source of Trenbolone -- i.e., if it is an entirely synthetic substance or if it is extracted from animals? Bricology (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)