View Full Version : Mass gain, cholesterol, statins, and steroids
06-05-2007, 12:58 PM
Thought this article was interesting...
From the conclusions:
* With regards to muscle hypertrophy, It is a good idea to follow a high cholesterol diet (at least 3 whole eggs a day).
* This is especially true if your training is both intense and traumatic.
* Be careful during a low calorie diet as cholesterol intake usually is reduced during this period.
* Cholesterol level tends to decline in summer, so be careful at that time, too.
* Whole eggs are very appropriate and recommended following a workout.
* Steroid users should closely monitor their blood cholesterol level as a decrease may reduce muscle growth.
* Steroid users with high cholesterol levels should consult a physician and may consider the use of statin drugs in order to grow even more rapidly.
While I totally agree with a majority of the dietary recommendations (I had my two raw eggs in my PWO shake this morning, it was a rare morning were I actually was feeding around my workout), I have to wonder if BBers realize that they are actually TRYING to kill themselves with the latter advice (take steroids, get really high cholesterol, then take statins to reduce the cholesterol AND increase muscle damage to stimulate hypertrophy). I'd be very interested to see what their blood markers of inflammation are.
Love to hear more feedback on this subject...
06-05-2007, 01:50 PM
Well when you think about it, what is sarcoplasmic hypertrophy but wild systemic inflamation. It couldn't be any less healthy!
06-05-2007, 02:56 PM
I'm kinda confused. Statins decrease CoQ10 production...they DO decrease inflammation...I'd have to really think about the mechanism there.
06-06-2007, 07:56 AM
Pierre, I think you're on to something there. I'm so glad I gave up the quest to be hyoooge years ago.
Robb, as you said, statins do decrease CoQ10 production. They also increase inflammation. I believe the author's point (which I believe is a mechanism borne from his own black box observations) is that due to the SAID principle, BBers muscles have adapted to a massive amount of inflammatory input, making it difficult to "damage" the muscles enough to promote hypertrophy (obviously only in high-level, drug-abusing pageant competitors). Thus the statins are brought in to add chemical damage to the muscle fibers--quite possibly by the exact mechanism you mentioned--reducing CoQ10 systemically. Too bad their cardiac muscle will (and likely already is) paying the price...
06-08-2007, 11:42 AM
Several theories out there; metabolites and transporters, variations in p450 activity and pharmacokinetics, drug-drug interaction, ubiquitin proteasome pathway problems, etc. etc. Just off the top of my head, Iím sure there is more information out there, probably on wikipedia by now.
I think youíre right Robb, statins appear to have anti-inflammatory effects in several systems. Very interesting research going on in that realm, but Iím sworn to secrecy.
Cytochrome p450ís, skeletal muscle machinery/biochemistry...Ö mixing steroids and statins..... that is just really stupid.
06-08-2007, 11:44 AM
Wonder if they realize their cardiac muscle won't repair like their huuge guns? Poor bastards.
06-08-2007, 02:44 PM
It's all about what's on the *outside* that counts...
Didn't you get that memo?
As for statins being anti-inflammatory in several systems, as you mentioned, have they also been shown to be pro-inflammatory in others? The rhabdo, liver, and other side effects would seem to show some leaning that way...
Considering the lists of sides for nearly any modern pharmaceutical, I actually find it funny that some are even called "anti-inflammatory". Aren't side effects simply inflammation in unintended places? That's just my opinion...
06-08-2007, 03:56 PM
Yea...there are a few markers that rate as "inflamatory" that are mitigated with statin use...but then you need to not exercise, or get in a car accident or shoulder punch-out lest you face rhabdo.
I guess it's safe to say the effects are "broad reaching and frequently unintended".
06-08-2007, 09:36 PM
"Side effects simply inflammation in unintended places"... many of my colleagues would say that is a huge oversimplification of a very complex set of processes.
However... hmm... I seriously kinda like that description. Though, it probably does not cover all the bases (toxicity bases).
As a toxicologist for a big ole statin company.. I have to go on record saying those guys are nuts if they mix statins with roids.. hoping to gain something from a tripple whammy; chemical (statin), mechanical (resistance), hormonal (roids).. is suicide. Not to mention the butt-loads of other supplements they are likely swallowing.
06-08-2007, 09:37 PM
"I guess it's safe to say the effects are "broad reaching and frequently unintended"...
06-09-2007, 07:57 AM
You must be one in a million in your field.
This board is great.
06-11-2007, 07:52 PM
The credit goes to you folks… Robb, Glassman, the old school Crossfit message boarders, Doc. G., and all yall on these message boards.
You’re all so fricking smart it pissed me off to the point that I started reading the literature you were debating. You got me to break out of my text-book-science-pharma-biotech box.
I took the red pill.
Sadly, I wish I would have met you all much, much earlier, so that my mother could benefit from your knowledge and ideas. All current evidence suggests her quality of life could be significantly improved, more so in the near (hopefully not too near) future, if she followed better dietary advice than what she receive from her doctors.. which was none, until very recently.
vBulletin v3.6.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.