Nandrolone may not be the answer for your joints...

[Jozifp103]

I'm not a doctor or scientist and I sometimes have a difficult time interpreting scientific articles. However after reading up on Nandrolone lately it seems pretty clear...

From what I've been reading it appears that there are (limited) studies indicating that Nandrolone may have a masking/relieving effect on joint/bone/muscular pain.

HOWEVER

I'm also reading that the use of Nandrolone may actually HINDER the healing process. So while it may make your joints feel better, it may also be slowing the healing.

Keep in mind, these studies were a bit specific on their parameters as you'll see. They are certainly not definitive but there is definitely evidence pointing towards the theories above.

The first study was done on hypogonadal men to assess the joint relieving properties of Nandrolone. Below is a copy/paste of the RESULTS and CONCLUSION of the experiment:


Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7108994/

Now here is a second article performed on rabbits. They were using local/spot injections on rabbits' rotator cuffs to determine if Nandrolone had any healing effects. Turns out the opposite is true in this case. The copy/paste of the conclusion is below:


Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20690845/

So it appears that while Nandrolone may assist with pain relief, it may also be hindering healing and repair...

[MONSTRO]

If this is truth , this is really bad news far all us athletes because as we know we dont have alot of tools to help on joints ( this new peptides TB500 and BPC157 , but is to new for market ) . I born listening thar nandrolone was prescripted by doctors to all athletes with injuries in almost all sports. I will keep isong because it builds mucle and at same time can maybe help on joints . Why not use over bolde and primo if you are older or have injuries?

[anabolichow2]

I think it really depends on the actual injury and how significant the injury it is. Honestly, when I found out I had a small "Slap Tear" in my front delt I tried inflammation shots and physical therapy but it wasn't helping. I gave it 60 days and then I got tired of it and I threw some NPP and Test with HGH at the issue and within a couple of weeks, I was seeing changes and feeling less pain. I feel 100% better now that I constantly run HGH and cycle on and off BPC157/TB500.

So I think it just depends on the injury and how major the injury is.

[Jozifp103]

I think it really depends on the actual injury and how significant the injury it is. Honestly, when I found out I had a small "Slap Tear" in my front delt I tried inflammation shots and physical therapy but it wasn't helping. I gave it 60 days and then I got tired of it and I threw some NPP and Test with HGH at the issue and within a couple of weeks, I was seeing changes and feeling less pain. I feel 100% better now that I constantly run HGH and cycle on and off BPC157/TB500.

So I think it just depends on the injury and how major the injury is.

But could it be that the nandrolone was simply masking the pain and not actually healing the injury?

Also...I believe the article is only mentioning connective tissue and joint/cartilage repair. I'm sure nandrolone would work well for muscular injuries.

[MONSTRO]

I know some soccer doctors that said Nandrolone is amazing to heal injuries , so why dont use it if is beneficts are much more than that ( grow muscle, recovery ) .

[Vision]

anabolic-steroid-chatter-box-f4/nandrol ... -t866.html

this topic has been bounced around so many times, I even posted about it here back in September.. and I've seen it posted numerous times and it never seems to get the attention that it deserves.. now I believe mostly because there is a lot of information that contradicts itself, and people have a hard time deciphering what they are reading and they interpret things by the way other readers respond, if people are heavily supportive naturally you'll see others fall in line however when someone goes against the grain where it seems to be the most unpopular statement people are reluctant to chime in.

we can go all day about anecdote reports, and we can go all day with pilot studies, and I do personally feel in my opinion there's plenty of room to even mention animals because in fact this is where a lot of studies derive from and begin to get more funding..

it is true that AAS usage whether it's therapeutic or supratherapeutic they will have effects on the body with degrading bone mass, joint and ligament strength and integrity. these observations have been made when there is continuous usage for years and years. the majority of medicines and especially hormones they are intended to treat symptoms, they are intended to relieve something, they are never designed or promoted to heal or cure.
no one will argue the fact that at some point they will be counterproductive, but I think what gets lost in translation is people are always seeking for a validation, a reason to continuously implement and support the usage.
we can do the same about cannabis, we're advocates strongly support and endorse supposed healing properties or even the reduction of cancer, when in fact their studies out there that support just the opposite. the people that are The advocates spend more time trying to convince the masses to see things through their perspective.

when people do research they need to consider well designed experiments, this will include all sorts of conclusions that will lead to experiments or studies that people are able to distinguish the different types of questions in the typical reason for the research....

from the majority of studies that I have personally seen it has been cited and strongly supported that it will relieve and help rejuvenate and help repair damage. but at some point this is going to come at a cost and at what point do they discontinue these studies because the returns are no longer promising?

that's like putting a study out there if someone takes an aspirin every day for their life it will be unhealthy.. in lieu of doing the study for taking it everyday, look at the benefits of short-term usage or therapeutic usage..

the reality is if we touch any of these compounds for long durations there's going to be a piper to pay..

there is no magic serum..

if there was a magic serum the closest thing that would come to it aside from testosterone would be nandrolone.. some hormones will agitate and provoke injuries while others will mitigate.
the individual response will vary..

[Jozifp103]

anabolic-steroid-chatter-box-f4/nandrol ... -t866.html

this topic has been bounced around so many times, I even posted about it here back in September.. and I've seen it posted numerous times and it never seems to get the attention that it deserves.. now I believe mostly because there is a lot of information that contradicts itself, and people have a hard time deciphering what they are reading and they interpret things by the way other readers respond, if people are heavily supportive naturally you'll see others fall in line however when someone goes against the grain where it seems to be the most unpopular statement people are reluctant to chime in.

we can go all day about anecdote reports, and we can go all day with pilot studies, and I do personally feel in my opinion there's plenty of room to even mention animals because in fact this is where a lot of studies derive from and begin to get more funding..

it is true that AAS usage whether it's therapeutic or supratherapeutic they will have effects on the body with degrading bone mass, joint and ligament strength and integrity. these observations have been made when there is continuous usage for years and years. the majority of medicines and especially hormones they are intended to treat symptoms, they are intended to relieve something, they are never designed or promoted to heal or cure.
no one will argue the fact that at some point they will be counterproductive, but I think what gets lost in translation is people are always seeking for a validation, a reason to continuously implement and support the usage.
we can do the same about cannabis, we're advocates strongly support and endorse supposed healing properties or even the reduction of cancer, when in fact their studies out there that support just the opposite. the people that are The advocates spend more time trying to convince the masses to see things through their perspective.

when people do research they need to consider well designed experiments, this will include all sorts of conclusions that will lead to experiments or studies that people are able to distinguish the different types of questions in the typical reason for the research....

from the majority of studies that I have personally seen it has been cited and strongly supported that it will relieve and help rejuvenate and help repair damage. but at some point this is going to come at a cost and at what point do they discontinue these studies because the returns are no longer promising?

that's like putting a study out there if someone takes an aspirin every day for their life it will be unhealthy.. in lieu of doing the study for taking it everyday, look at the benefits of short-term usage or therapeutic usage..

the reality is if we touch any of these compounds for long durations there's going to be a piper to pay..

there is no magic serum..

if there was a magic serum the closest thing that would come to it aside from testosterone would be nandrolone.. some hormones will agitate and provoke injuries while others will mitigate.
the individual response will vary..

Lots of good points here. I agree, which is why I was careful with how I worded the title of the thread to say Nandrolone "may not" be the answer. That way it doesn't seem like I'm saying these studies are conclusive because they are far from it. I imagine there really isn't much funding going into AAS research which I think is why we have so little credible information to work with. The term "bro-science" exists because us "bros" need something to believe in and fill the void with the lack of REAL science on these compounds. Bro-science is essentially the product of mixing what limited real science we have, with over-regurgitation causing distortion/skewing of the original message.

Take some real science, for example you could say "Taking Testosterone for extended periods without the use of HCG could potentially lead to varying degrees of testicular atrophy." - Now, tell that to one person, who tells it to three, who each tell it to three, and so on...and the words/information slowly get changed/distorted as it travels from person to person. By the time it makes it's rounds it turns into "Testosterone shrinks your dick and makes you sterile and makes your balls shrivel into nothing!"

[Vision]

anabolic-steroid-chatter-box-f4/nandrol ... -t866.html

this topic has been bounced around so many times, I even posted about it here back in September.. and I've seen it posted numerous times and it never seems to get the attention that it deserves.. now I believe mostly because there is a lot of information that contradicts itself, and people have a hard time deciphering what they are reading and they interpret things by the way other readers respond, if people are heavily supportive naturally you'll see others fall in line however when someone goes against the grain where it seems to be the most unpopular statement people are reluctant to chime in.

we can go all day about anecdote reports, and we can go all day with pilot studies, and I do personally feel in my opinion there's plenty of room to even mention animals because in fact this is where a lot of studies derive from and begin to get more funding..

it is true that AAS usage whether it's therapeutic or supratherapeutic they will have effects on the body with degrading bone mass, joint and ligament strength and integrity. these observations have been made when there is continuous usage for years and years. the majority of medicines and especially hormones they are intended to treat symptoms, they are intended to relieve something, they are never designed or promoted to heal or cure.
no one will argue the fact that at some point they will be counterproductive, but I think what gets lost in translation is people are always seeking for a validation, a reason to continuously implement and support the usage.
we can do the same about cannabis, we're advocates strongly support and endorse supposed healing properties or even the reduction of cancer, when in fact their studies out there that support just the opposite. the people that are The advocates spend more time trying to convince the masses to see things through their perspective.

when people do research they need to consider well designed experiments, this will include all sorts of conclusions that will lead to experiments or studies that people are able to distinguish the different types of questions in the typical reason for the research....

from the majority of studies that I have personally seen it has been cited and strongly supported that it will relieve and help rejuvenate and help repair damage. but at some point this is going to come at a cost and at what point do they discontinue these studies because the returns are no longer promising?

that's like putting a study out there if someone takes an aspirin every day for their life it will be unhealthy.. in lieu of doing the study for taking it everyday, look at the benefits of short-term usage or therapeutic usage..

the reality is if we touch any of these compounds for long durations there's going to be a piper to pay..

there is no magic serum..

if there was a magic serum the closest thing that would come to it aside from testosterone would be nandrolone.. some hormones will agitate and provoke injuries while others will mitigate.
the individual response will vary..

Lots of good points here. I agree, which is why I was careful with how I worded the title of the thread to say Nandrolone "may not" be the answer. That way it doesn't seem like I'm saying these studies are conclusive because they are far from it. I imagine there really isn't much funding going into AAS research which I think is why we have so little credible information to work with. The term "bro-science" exists because us "bros" need something to believe in and fill the void with the lack of REAL science on these compounds. Bro-science is essentially the product of mixing what limited real science we have, with over-regurgitation causing distortion/skewing of the original message.

Take some real science, for example you could say "Taking Testosterone for extended periods without the use of HCG could potentially lead to varying degrees of testicular atrophy." - Now, tell that to one person, who tells it to three, who each tell it to three, and so on...and the words/information slowly get changed/distorted as it travels from person to person. By the time it makes it's rounds it turns into "Testosterone shrinks your dick and makes you sterile and makes your balls shrivel into nothing!"

This is a very good response you have, and to add to that a lot of the times the data that is collected with these studies and tests can be misinterpreted.. the majority of the time the studies are simply just making suggestions and people take them literally,when they make suggestions that is due to the fact that they lack a lot of key elements such as a controlled environment, how much funding was used, were the subjects all vetted equally and how similar were their environmental circumstances such as diet age, health and life. There is plenty of room for bro science because like you said these are actual real studies from individuals that are simply documenting their own experiences, but yet the documentations are not verified and considered by a series of Judges that determine good or bad research that ultimately gets publication. Bro science simply steps beyond the boundaries and doesn't require publication, because we are conducting our very own research, using feedback from individuals worldwide who arrange from a huge difference with environmental circumstances, genetics, age and so on.
scientists ultimately admit that they know very little about anabolic steroids, it hasn't been until recent years or at least the past decade that they have been stepping up and looking at old research and ultimately not being satisfied with the circumstances in which fashion the studies were structured and monitored basically leaving a lot of holes in gaps, that alone can leave the final conclusion and analysis suspect.

everything that we are using in this lifestyle has not been tested in studies for the way we use them, and the study that do exist with Supra physiological dosages were known as Supra therapeutical it's very limited, but it does exist.

Science simply does not have the funding, the majority of these tests are conducted by research and developers that have contracts with militaries from around the world, and a lot of these studies also come out of universities where young brilliant minds are tapping into sport medicine because they have the funding... The majority of studies that are dedicated to nutrition and sport medicine, and physical enhancement are in fact done by universities, they have produced some of the best material, in fact they have even engineered and designed supplements, training equipment, training protocols and almost anything else you can imagine that would improve the quality of life with athletes..

These universities have some of the finest athletes that are using beyond state-of-the-art equipment and facilities but the world has never seen before. These athletes are getting diets and supplementation information firsthand from their universities, they even have areas in their cafeterias designed for the athletes and what they are to eat, you have to see their gyms from the equipment all the way to the rest and recovery areas. These facilities are no joke. Although they're not giving them PEDs to our own understanding, but you can guarantee they are doing research. Especially universities at a notorious with providing the world with some of the finest endocrinologists, neuroendocrinologists and many other specialists.

[WilliamJefferson]

wow cool! thx