Regarding the study that said LGD-4033 had to be stopped because it caused cancer in rats- the dosage they were giving the rats was enormous. It was far, far, beyond the 25 mg general vicinity that a person would take. As other persons have already stated - dosage is key.
Also, here is a study found at the National Institutes of Health website called "The Safety, Pharmacokinetics, and Effects of LGD-4033, a Novel Nonsteroidal Oral, Selective Androgen Receptor Modulator, in Healthy Young Men." The conclusion: LGD-4033 was safe, had favorable pharmacokinetic profile, and increased lean body mass even during this short period without change in prostate-specific antigen. Longer randomized trials should evaluate its efficacy in improving physical function and health outcomes in select populations.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4111291/#!po=42.9054
3
The idea of targeting specific androgen receptors to produce selective effects on muscle anabolism, bone density, strenght, recovery, without attaching to other receptors that would induce prostate enlargement or hair loss, for example, is a great one . Research is advancing and it IS promising. However, doses used in the few human studies are far lower than athletes use. I am a sports doctor ( MD, CSCS) , and from I witnessed in many users, higher doses tend to cause the same effects as an anabolic steroid. Yes, it increases muscle mass, strenght, and many other desired effects. But it DOES worsen the cholesterol profile, and affect your own testosterone production, can raise liver enzymes, creatinine , although marketers sells Sarms as " a safe alternative to steroids". That is just not the case.
3
The "inconvenient truth" about SARMs are that, in a pure form, they probably work as billed. As an article which complements well the earlier outstanding NYT feature on the semi-illicit PED mill working out of Arizona (search for the link), athletes, both pro and amateur, and pretty much anyone looking hard enough for a 'fountain of youth' will ultimately find a path to concoctions such as this. And, in a tale as old as time, some will take that leap of face in spite of the risks and warnings. As a physician, I used to be highly critical of the users of steroids and subsequently the growing array of other precursor PEDs. But in retrospect, the cynic in me has been unfortunately been proven right. The faux outrage from everyone from the FDA to professional sports is ultimately all about who gets to profit from these drugs. Legitimizing these chemicals under a big name manufacturer means billions in revenue, while for pro sports the uneven playing field created by players using these enhancements brings uncertainty to the gambling markets. To believe that any of these groups care a whit about the "health and well being" of the athletes has no substantive basis in reality. Unfortunately.
3
DHEA has been available OTC for many years and is a steroid precursor to testosterone. It requires a prescription in Canada, but not in the US. Check your health food store. However, with 1/7 American males developing prostate cancer, you should know that testosterone increases its growth. Good luck!
2
If you are concerned about promoting prostate cancer, then look at 7-Keto-DHEA, a naturally occuring metabolite of DHEA that is also available in the US OTC. It is not directly converted to testosterone or estrogen and is thought as a useful alternative to DHEA for the other beneficial effects without unwanted sex hormones. However, not for professional athletes, since the World Anti-Doping Agency lists 7-keto-DHEA as a prohibited anabolic agent.
1
Tell me, did the drug shave his chest too? Every man I've ever known has had hair on his chest. Is this to be the new male grooming standard? It's even showing up in Target ads. I think it's downright bizarre.
2
" Every man I've ever known has had hair on his chest."
I don't and never have. None on my legs either. Just on my head and one other place and I can grow a decent beard. My wife of 46 years hasn't complained about it except for the beard every time I grow one.
1
Well it was sounding good until "diminished sex drive, hair-loss, and acne"
7
To self-described "bio hackers": You can't make an informed decision about using SARMs since their long term effects are unknown. But if you want to roll the dice with your own health you should have that right... as long as your health insurance doesn't have to cover the costs of treating any disease that results because that cost is passed along to everyone else.
9
Sarms are bad news for human consumption as sold on the internet as documented in this article. Do not buy or use.
4
20 years ago, there were similar types of articles going around about another supplement that was "killing wrestlers" and "killing kids" and "causing heart, liver, and kidney damage". Now, it's one of the most recommended supplements available. That supplement? Creatine.
3
There's a big difference between an amino acid and a hormone (replicator).
3
Buyer beware. I have had several patients in their 40's and 50's use testosterone and similar products, seduced by the claims of stamina and reversed aging. None found the benefits as promised, and one's LDL cholesterol and liver enzymes were threw the roof and another nearly died of pulmonary embolism. Frankly, it seems as though taking care of the basics, sufficient sleep, healthy diet, regular exercise, loving relationships, should be enough, and in the end, face mortality.
20
The "magic pill" narrative is a complete misunderstanding and frankly dismissive of the actual mentality people have when they are working to achieve a goal.
It isn't take this then magically get buff or your goals instantly get attained. It's much more akin to, "Hey I really want to achieve this goal, I want to be as efficient as possible while working on that goal". I want my rest times to decrease so I can work on my goal more frequently. I want my body to utilize nutrients better so the time I spend working on the goal is more effective . I want to spend as little mental energy motivating my self as possible so I don't stumble and not complete my goal.
This mentality can be applied to a multitude of things. People take these supplements to make it easier for them to work thus shortening the timespan. NOT people take these things expecting results with out working.
Consider a similar issue with students taking Adderall in college. These kids don't actually believe taking Adderall makes them smart or taking the pill means they instantly know their material. what it does do is help them believe they can work harder, longer, and faster. That belief is reinforced when they complete their goals on the substance. The incentive structure for this is pretty clear.
If we reframe the perspective towards identifying the incentive structure we can more accurately help people make better choices.
6
That's all well and good, and I agree with Mr. Owen, who "argued that informed adults should be allowed “to experiment on ourselves and improve our biology,” but added, “this is definitely a use-at-your-own-risk type of supplement.”
But: if that is the case, then (1) be open about it, and (2) give up all claims to current or potential use of Medicare, and likely health insurance in general.
You want to experiment on yourself? Go for it. But pay for the consequences. You. Not me, not the General Public.
Bet old Thaddeus wouldn't be cool with that. When his prostrate shrivels up, kidneys start to malfunction, liver turns a bit yellow, or he just starts having cancers pop up left and right, he'll want insurance, he'll want Medicare, and he'll say "it isn't my fault! you can't prove that it is due to my SARMs use!"
Exactly. Which is why the question should be avoided by allowing Mr. Owens, and the many others, to pay for their own healthcare.
1
I am with you except for the last thing...face mortality... Ok, just in 25 years or so...not now... I am 70...
3
If the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency has imposed sanctions on users, then the stuff must work.
17
They do work...personal experience. Given the reputation of the New York Times, this article doesn't surprise me. There are major movements to get these taken off the market. Wonder who funds those movements? And the sentence about the soldier who suffered liver damage and couldn't deploy with his unit "because he was hospitalized after using a product containing SARMs and other ingredients" - get real. One soldier...and "other ingredients". What were the "other ingredients"? And where did he get he get his SARMs? And which SARM was used? What dosage? Please...
2
The chief challenge is the FDA death grip on anything that works. Add the medical industry's focus on "fixing" you only when you break but anything that is preventive is of no interest. Additionally, precious few doctors know anything about male hormonal health, so much misinformation (evident throughout this article as well). Imagine if females were subjugated to the same restrictions as males are.... the feminists would riot.
Time to decriminalize PEDs and AAS, haven't we learned anything from Prohibition and our current neverending "war" on drugs?
10
The F.D.A. hardly has a "death gip". It's Big Pharma that has the death grip. But yes, it comes down to the same thing.
And Americans have plenty of "preventative" medications pushed on us. These are the ones that make money, like statins now, or the hormonal replacement therapy in the past which did so much damage to so many women. Again, the ones that make money.
Where the F.D.A. and the laws relevant to it fail abysmally is in not having an effective system for reporting side effects. Someone can get physically wrecked by an approved prescription drug (let alone a supplement), and no one is likely to report it. Doctors aren't required to report and don't.
You really should read the New Yorker article I mentioned elsewhere in comments. The guys working on these supplements/drugs are athletes. They're infatuated with the possibilities of pills for athletic power, and in addition to being mainstream scientists at prestigious institutions, they're also athletes. None of them take the pills now. Maybe in the future, but they don't consider the risk/reward to be worth it.
At age 70, I was training to return to trek in the Himalayas where I'd trekked two years before. This time I was headed to Everest Base Camp. Instead I had a "preventative" medication pushed on me, a statin drug. 1/4th of Americans over 45 are on this drug. For most of us there's no proof of benefit. If you're healthy, don't take. Regret with no remedy is tragic. StatinVictims.com
5
is there a difference between protecting americans from unwanted and dangerous complications from medicines and "having a death grip"? i don't see anyone arguing these supplements don't do what they say, the question unanswered is, what else do they do? once they are studied, and that people can trust that what is claimed to be in the pill actually is in the pill, then we can begin to discuss whether they fit under the category of prohibition or disease prevention. We regulate lots of dangerous things in this country without cries of prohibition.
4
while alot of what you say I agree with, dont even begin to conflate statins and anabolic steroids. they are two COMPLETELY separate animals. statins are required for some conditions like what I have and they work, ridiculously well. my total went from 240 to 135 and ratios improved as well. you can counter the tiring effects by using CoQ and Vit K too. it lets me at 60, still do crossfit with kids a third my age.
1
Crossing an NYC street can kill you. 2nd hand smoke can kill you. Being to Fat can kill you. Living in the Country can kill you!
So adding another substance isn’t that much of a concern.
People are constantly looking for that quick fix “magic pill” .... forget all the gym time, healthy lifestyle, proper sleep & hydration. Stop smoking and over alcohol consumption.
Bring on the “Magic Pills” you too can be buff & beautiful in less than 30 days!
2
It is a shame that there isn't a pill for basic Statistical Epidemiology knowledge that would inform users that probabilities are cumulative and not distributive.
7
"misbranded and tainted with unlisted ingredients" For this, we can thank Orrin Hatch, who led the legislative naifs in ensuring that supplements were free of regulation.
57
+1 on your comment. Hatch and Co. kept dietary supplements free of supervision, and full of nasty surprises. This is why we play "Utah Roulette" every time we use a supplement (the force is strong with them in Utah! - not joking, BTW) You can basically collect whatever your lawnmower spits out, dry it, grind it down, put it in capsules, and you're manufacturing a herbal supplement.
Regardless of whatever hopes and promises attached to it, a supplement should, at minimum, be required to contain the ingredients as listed on its label, and only those. Basically, regulate it like dog food, which has to adhere to these requirements.
7
Question1 : Does anyone report, or is anyone required to report, the side effects (adverse effects) of these supplements to the F.D.A? If not, how can we know how dangerous they are (or aren't)?
Question 2: Does anyone report, or is anyone required to report, the adverse effects of prescription drugs (statins, opioids, Vioxx, etc) to the F.D.A?
The answer is the same to both questions: no.
We hear that bad side effects (adverse effects) are very rare from many of the drugs we take. Those of us who've been wrecked by statins, for example, hear all the time that our cases are "one in a million".
This is nonsense. The correct description, since none of it is reported, is "zero in a million".
The United States is in desperate need of a system for reporting the bad side effects of the drugs we take.
When I got trashed by a statin, the first thing I innocently asked my doctor was why doctors didn't warn patients of early signs, like foot cramps and tightening of Achilles tendons. My doctor shot back, "That's right, all your doctors are bad."
Well yes, my doctor was clearly bad: he was defensive, thinking of himself, not his patient. But no, all my doctors aren't bad: the system is bad. We need a formal method for reporting the side effects of drugs.
Does anyone else think that it's the pharmaceutical companies who want to prevent this from being implemented? StatinVictims.com
6
So there's this amazing new technology called the internet and using it, with a search that takes approximately a 2-second time commitment, you can learn all about FDA's MedWatch program for reporting adverse drug events which has been available since 1993.
4
I do know all about the FDA MedWatch reporting system. It's a system that depends upon a person who's become sick, disabled, or whatever the adverse affect might be to self-report what's happened to them.
Problems:
1. Self-reporting by patients, versus reporting by health care professionals, is given little credibility. Honestly, would you trust a patient's report as much as you'd trust a doctor's report?
2. Doctors and other healthcare professionals see many people on the same drug, and thus see patterns. One single patient may not even associate their foot cramps or headaches or whatever with the drug they'd had prescribed to them.
3. People with drug adverse effects, like those I have from a statin drug, are often sick and also older. I've heard one of them say, "The drug made me so sick that I don't have the ability, energy, or even motivation to report what happened. It's too late to help me anyway. It's not my job to manage healthcare issues. I'm a patient."
4. Some people don't want adverse effects reported. The Supreme Court decision of 2011 says that generic drug companies don't need to keep current on warning labels. If a patient got an adverse effect mentioned on the label, they'd assume it was from the drug. If that adverse effect, common as it might be, wasn't on the label, they'd be less like to associate it.
5. The best argument: Adverse effects in the US are hugely under-reported. Our system doesn't work.
4
there are at least a few issues that should be analyzed separately:
a) adulteration with unsafe or ineffective ingredients, without the knowledge of the consumer
b) use/overuse of an effective drug with dangerous side effects. recall that dosage, results and toxicity can be represented on a continuum from zero to infinity. recall also that all drugs have side-effects. see for example, acetaminophen for liver toxicity and ibuprofen for a range of side effects.
c) age- and disease-related muscle degeneration (which carry their own risks) versus performance enhancement during one's physically prime years
d) illegal use of an effective drug under professional competition, which gives some competitors an unfair advantage
lumping everything into one article confuses readers and might make us discount the rigor in the analysis.
13
The conclusion: “We are trying to educate them.” Dr. Deuster said. Well, good luck, because the very desire to be "bigger, stronger, and fitter" by use of drugs tells us that the motive is shallow and egoistic, especially as in winning by all means licit or otherwise. This is in spite of the added danger from its use the author cautioning: “We don’t know whether these compounds are safe,” he said, “but we do know that some of them have side effects.”
Christopher Lasch in his book, the Culture of Narcissism, 1979, warned us about growing insidious need to feel good only by comparing ourselves with others, often in material possessions or celebrity status. This has only gnawed at our self-worth, which comes from doing the common good. The sense of fulfillment from a life where you pursue what you may be most gifted with is the way to feel good in your own skin, even if that means a bit poor health, a bit less wealth. or even a somewhat shortened life. THAT, my friend, is a good life to be proud of.
6
You do realize that the Council for Responsible Nutrition supports Herbalife, right?
Not sure why anything they say should be taken as unbiased. They are undoubtedly protecting their other interests - if SARMs funded them, they'd support them, too.
12
... a large part of this is visa-vis the internet, is that many people have difficulty distinguishing between casual opinions, anecdotal information, advertising (with pretty graphics), medical and scientific studies - details of studies, etc ... these are basic research skills ... also, its good to know something about regulation and claims in drug vs supplement industries ... as an example, Google the product Prevagen ...
5
"A Better Body in a Pill" is surely a mate-made-in-heaven for a culture in which there is a chemical solution for actual, as well as non-existing, problems from conception, through complex, dynamic, multi-dimensional growth, development, deterioration, and death; life's trajectory- including execution. Imagine (nightmarish?) living in a sought after, enabled world-in-a-pill-box in which there was a pill for: awareness.Perceiving( looking and seeing; listening and actually attending and hearing). Sated expectations. Thinking, both thoughtful and thoughtless, capable to distinguish between facts, fictions and fantasies.And feelings-felt, for which words were inadequate, but which pharmacological actions would "express."Daily judgments, assessments and evaluations about ourselves, others, places and events challenging an opportunity to make a decision or not. Which can be learned from or not. And then one begins again. One's daily coping. Adapting, Functioning. Or not. For available well being. Or not. Ingesting the "pill," liquid, or whatever. Before, during or after each meal. A better pill-produced PERSON?
These drugs have so many potential uses medically, it’s unreal. This drug could save literally millions of lives without causing any adverse affects. This article talks about side effects on older SARMs when used at higher dosages. Newer formulas in trials now are showing very good results as far as side-effects.
Wasting disease, any debilitatation that knocks someone off their feet for weeks, weak bladders, etc.
SARMs are the future in helping many people get through many different medical issues.
17
It is precisely because of this great potential benefit that it is important that SARMS don't "get a bad rep" before they even reach approval stage just because some supplement maker sells God knows what as "SARM" and gets people sick.
1
"Many athletes and gym-goers are turning to a popular but potentially dangerous new pill...." This brings to mind four local older athletes who were prescribed an extremely "popular" pill that very quickly triggered some type of neuromuscular disease in each one. It's ironic these four people may now be looking with hope at yet another dangerous drug: yet with no other treatment known, and growing sicker and weaker day by day, we are desperate.
Are SARMs similar to GW501516, which was written about in the New Yorker in an article entitled "A Pill to Make Exercise Obsolete"? It sounds like this may be the case, and though the New Yorker article, which includes interviews with the scientists working with GW50516, wouldn't convince a healthy person to take such a drug, for those of us with little left to lose, why not?
I myself was trekking in the Himalayas as age 69. After 7 months on the drug that was pushed very hard on me, I can hardly walk around the block...and I'm getting worse. Another guy at age 76, did stair climb races, 20 floors and more. Another is a tree surgeon and marathon runner. And the last was a doctor, part of a group that prescribed the drug. All of us, not coincidentally, were older, athletic men.
Some of us took the drug to get life insurance or a license to drive commercially. Others believed the myth that severe side effects from the drug are rare. But if I personally know four people, how rare can it be? StatinVictims.com
1
These drugs are banned because they "potentially, might, maybe" cause some liver or other problems? Well, testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) also is known to cause problems, but that hasn't stopped the mass marketing of it on a grand scale. The thing that no one tells you about TRT is that the male body's feedback mechanisms continually read the level of estrogens in the system, and, if those estrogens are sufficiently high, the hypothalmus gland tells the pituitary to shut down the testicles' testosterone production. Estrogens in the male are created by the aromatase of testosterone, in essence converting it to estrogen (E2). The other way estrogens are created in the male body is they are secreted by fat tissue. So, the fatter you are, the less testosterone you will have. Men who are continuously on TRT risk having their testicles shut down PERMANENTLY. But no one ever tells you of that risk. Too much money to be made selling TRT to folks. If there is enough profit potential in SARMS look for them to become marketed whether there are health risks associated with them or not, as long as the risks are not either obviously connected or too widespread.
1
Look up HCG..... also, TRT is for those who don't make any testosterone on their own, it's not cycling. Your comments are confused and uninformed.
3
@ Thomas: there is no question that testosterone, often under the guise of TRT, is abused by many, as are SARMs and some of the old stand-by steroids. Leroy's comments are far from being confused and uninformed. One might, in fact, be asking why Big Pharma seems to have no particular problem with all the "fake" PEDs and other drugs that are so easy to get off the internet. One might wonder if they have actually sold/leased the formulas/patents to some of those "shameful" Chinese/etc., companies who manufacture and sell PEDs, and thus, are just profiting even more grandly off their legal drug business.
http://www.velonews.com/2016/06/feature/totally-amateur_408457
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/41-year-old-us-amateur-get...
Lots of abuse, including horses, dogs, etc. I'd wager most any male over 40 could walk into a Dr office and get a "legal reason" for TRT.
As for what testosterone does in the male body when one does not really need it, tons of research papers on that.
Drugs are profitable. They do worlds of good for many people who need them, certainly. But that's not from where the major profits come, you can bet on that (the many legal prescriptions for drugs not particularly needed by folks, notwithstanding; an excellent reason to, again, BAN all drug advertising).
Drugs sell, man. Big Pharma is simply legal dope for many.
An accompanying article about the insecurities, personality disorders, greed or other detrimental mental health issues that lead to conscience, unhealthy lifestyle choices would be productive for all. Or, are SARMs simply to become the next proclaimed, "addiction."
1
While the dangers of SARMS may not be known yet, the dangers of anabolic steroids are well known. These drugs which are currently being used by at least 4 million Americans from all walks of life, can have serious effects on many systems...most notably cardiac and reproductive systems. Yet one is hard pressed to find a study funded by our government on anabolic steroids. These drugs do build muscle and that could be a boon to many patients with muscle wasting diseases and to the elderly who lose too much muscle as a result of aging. It's tragic when something like these drugs have become so politicized that we are denied their potential benefits Whether one has a right to use steroids is another issue of human rights I won't get into. But I do believe we have the right to know more about drugs which can endanger us. This is especially true re teens. These kids have no idea what they are putting into their bodies. And over 1 million high school kids are using both anabolic steroids and human growth hormones now. Some are supported by coaches and parents in order to compete better As dr O'Connor says in his book,"steroids are now where opioids were 15 years ago ."
"He argued that informed adults should be allowed “to experiment on ourselves and improve our biology,” but added, “this is definitely a use-at-your-own-risk type of supplement.”
Why shouldn't this logic be extended to DIY pain relief and mood improvement with synthetic opiates?
17
Just give me the smart pill.
2
Get in line gov, we all need more intelligence and memory. Add "patience" or "chill out" and our society would improve.
3
This stuff is usually pure junk. You should just flush your money down the toilet. It would do just as much good and be a whole lot safer.
8
Agree, a lot of the health supplements sold over the counter, when tested by a reputable lab are found not to contain the product on the label or it is in very small amounts, not the strength advertised. Worse, some contain fillers or chemical that are known to be harmful. The US FDA is hard-pressed to keep up regulating the prescription drugs so adding these supplements to the mix is not an easy fix. If you use supplements, talk to your own doctor to get answers on usage.
1
Except, no, that's not the problem. If a product is listed as a food or a drug, then that product must have what the label says it has in it. Supplements don't have this requirement. Thank you deregulation. It causes all sorts of problems.
39
It's not deregulation that's the problem it's that the FDA is overreaching. The FDA is only legally authorized to assess the efficacy, and safe dosage of medications. But look at what they do - they want to control everything under the sun. They'd want to control water if it were invented tomorrow. The FDA is out of control, take them back to their original mission, let adults but what they want - just make sure they get products with good quality control and clear instructions.
1
I'm in my mid 50's. I should have a right to use performance enhancing substances to make up for my declining testosterone levels such as a person can turn to plastic surgery to improve their appearance. Congress in their attempt to stop cheating in sports denied me of many legal options via steroids prescribed by a doctor or FDA monitored prohormones manufacturers. Hopefully congress will loosen their ban on some of these drugs. I hope they never ban the Andro Products (DHEA) they are mild and work. Use was also vilified by the press creating negative stigma and knee jerk legistration. Where can a recreational bodybuilder turn with so much legal prohibition? Diet and training can only take an older guy so far. Sometimes we need supplemental help to push farther.
15
Silly to shorten your life for some extra muscle. Why? It’s not going to get you more sex or respect. If you are a professional mover or bodybuilder then maybe it makes sense, but those guys tend to die younger than average. Maybe it makes more sense to take a different direction with your life?
2
Enjoy your osteoporosis and other age related issues then. Leave those of us who want to prevent that alone.
6
OK, interesting article. But written by an individual who is obviously math challenged. So here is a quote: "Out of 44 products that were purchased online and analyzed, only about half contained an actual SARM, while 10 percent contained none at all." So, how does this work out mathematically? If you have 44 products and only %50 contain an actual SARM that leaves you with 22 products representing the remaining %50. Ok, I can go with that, it makes sense. But where does the magical %10 percent number come from. I mean if, as was clearly stated, only half contained an actual SARM how can this magically morph into %10 all in the same sentence. Is there something I'm missing? Is there some antecedent I'm missing?
Other than that, in general, no one should be surprised that ingesting largely untested chemicals will likely lead to less than desirable results. Might as well play russian roulette.
21
Half of the products (22) contained some amount of SARMs (in addition to other ingredients) while 10% (4) contained no amount of SARMs. The remaining 18 products presumably were not misbranded and were actually entirely what they claimed to be, SARMs. Thats at least how I read it.
10
50% (22) contained actual SARM
10% (4) contained no SARM
40% (18) contained some version or fake SARM, just not actual SARM
It ain't rocket science...
2
A product contains a SARM, or it doesn't.
They all claim to contain a SARM.
Half of those tested contained a SARM.
Half did not.
"Fake/not actual" SARM = No SARM
It may not be rocket science, but it could fit nicely in the brain surgeon to politician fast track program.
1
Fen-Phen was another miracle drug back in the 90's, that worked really well. It was later discovered a SMALL percentage of patients that took the drug developed heart valve issues. Without any documented cases of death or disability in connection to the drug or the heart valve issue, it was banned in 1997. The numbers of heart valve cases is shadowed by the 2.8 million people who die from obesity related illness each year, according to WHO. Ironically, they killed more people then they saved pulling Fen-phen off the market.
14
The FDA is about power, they don't want the general public to have any access to anything OTC that actually works.
I favor people being free to make their own mistakes, but this article reminds me that people will employ little caution to get an edge. Unfortunately, as is the case with the soldier, the costs are socialized.
3
all men and women strive for the perfect body. even arnold used steroids to reach his size, my take is they know the risks their adults let them do it! we tend to live today in a nanny state. where others get to tell you what you can and cannot do! put the warnings out and if they wish to ignore them then there loss! this article alone i am sure just boosted sales!
8
It is not only their loss, it is the Healthcare Cost and loss of money if they get sick with the side effects listed in this article. The #1 Insurance Company, would not insure members if they used SARMS, as described in this article. You say we live today in a nanny state. In the future, we are going to live in a #1 Insurance Company Rules state. That will be the only Insurance Company, in the future.
6
Kim, I didn't see any reference in the article to insurance companies or insurance claims being denied. I did some digging and I can't find anything that supports this claim anywhere in the news or on the internet either. Maybe you have a source that the rest of us could read more about this? I agree that insurance costs are out of control but I also believe in free markets and personal accountability. I would never expect you to pay for my mistakes so at least in that regard, our insurance regulations are out of sorts. I do agree also with Carl that we are becoming more and more of a nanny state. One Soldier doesn't support an argument to the efficacy of a drug (legal or otherwise). In the article, it argues against the use of SARMS due to cancer and heart concerns but goes on to say it's "safe and tolerable" probably because sensible people don't abuse drugs. This alarmist article is going to sell more SARMs in the end. Hell, I didn't even know about SARM until this popped up in my news feed. How many other 50 something men are now going to seek it out after they stumble on it in their news feed? Way to go Times!
1
I don't have a problem with people treating themselves like pharma lab rats so long as they sign a waver releasing their health insurance company from paying to treat any resulting health issues. I don't like subsidizing other people's risky behavior, be it smoking, texting while driving, etc.
11