<div>
(drpierredebs @ May 17 2007,00:39)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Aaron_F @ May 16 2007,05:08)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">provide some literature to support your claims around lectins or androgens for htat matter, then it can be discussed
otherwise its pointless garbage</div>
ah yes, references for my massive claims that lectins are not that healthy.
you have access to pubmed.
type in lectins AND blood or AND H. pylori or AND any number of topics.</div>
No, You make the claims, you provide evidence to back them up.
Its nice when people follow the typical internet side-step of "you do it, you have access"
Explain to people what foods provide lectins to the human diet.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">as far as steroids are concerned, I would rather believe the sports cardiologist than any website called testosterone nation, you or bucket head bbrs roided out and ready to beat on everyone who even dares to call into question steroid use. what a joke. I have no intention debatting AAS, androgens, steroids or whatever other growth hormone related substances you want to call it. The advice to get your heart checked is not a topic for discussion and it is not debate. It was a suggestion that needs no references from my part. it was just some kind helpful advice. good luck.</div>
I dont follow any of those websites, maybe you should pull your head out from between your buttocks and understand research, rather than relying on the opinion of a "sports cardiologist"
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">but for starters you can check : or buy yourself a current sports cardiology textbook: otherwise posting pubmed references to journals you have no access to is pointless and I am not going to synopsis everything everytime I spit something out.</div>
I have one sitting beside me. Most sports cardiology text talking about androgenic/anabolic steriods make the same half assed extrapolation from abuse situations (case studies) to any and all cases of androgen useage. This is a logical fallacy.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">good luc
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez...._DocSum
</div>
its always nice when somebody provides references that I have copies of. You understand the assumptions required for extrapolating observational data onto everyone?
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez...._docsum</div>
Once again, observation is fun. Even better when its a letter to the editor complaining about somebody's elses work from the same authors in the previous piece.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez...._docsum[/</div>
wow, who would have guessed there would be observation again....
Here goes a simple point for you.
What is the difference between use and abuse?
What risk is there related to androgen replacement at normal doses?
What other things can cause health issues when abused?
I could go on but its really boring.