Serious question.. are there some roids only detectable through blood?

Another thing, there is much data to believe that elevated HGH levels will actually reduce YORE STAMINA.

Drawbacks

Acromegaly patients, who suffer from natural growth hormone levels of up to 100 times higher than normal, have lower stamina towards physical activity than people with regular levels.[4] When the patients are treated and their growth hormone levels decrease, their stamina improves.[4] This knowledge is part of the evidence behind the new belief that athletes who use supplemental HGH to raise their levels far above average could actually decrease their exercise tolerance, and thus hurt their athletic performance.[4] Further backing was provided in a study done by the Danish Institute of Sports Medicine. They found cyclists of good health and endurance “were unable to complete accustomed cycling tasks after administration of exogenous hGH” and concluded that HGH can inhibit recuperation from exercise.[4] Participants have also been found to have lower stamina after HGH treatment along with higher rates of fatigue.[2]

Yea that's a good one, chuckles.

 

Unless you have a source I would say you are the one that is mistaken.

"Claims that growth hormone enhances physical performance are not supported by the scientific literature. Although the limited available evidence suggests that growth hormone increases lean body mass, it may not improve strength; in addition, it may worsen exercise capacity and increase adverse events."

Annals of Internal Medicine- http://www.annals.org/content/148/10/747.long

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

You are right about the metabolism of the steroid and the differentiation between urine and blood. However, we are talking here of synthetic steroids, steroids that basically do not resemble naturally occurring in our bodies and the problem with testing of these drugs is not because it is not detected in the urine or blood but because the testing procedures are not yet established for such drugs.

Basically, all known (that which we are aware of) steroids are detectable by urine method, both as unchanged steroid or its by-products. Masking agents are actually mbeing tested as well using urine samples. Now, those that we are not aware of (possibly designer steroids that only a big company with multimillion dollars of resources can produce), wether we take a blood or urine sample, it is irrelevant because it can not be detected anyway with currnet testing procedures so results are negative.

The ones that are hard to detect are the ones that the body actually produces naturally like EPO and HGH, as these are detected indirectly. But urine and blood samples could be used to test for suspicious samples.

 

Thats the important part here. Add in my main comment:

Quote:

This content is protected

This content is protected

And I fail to see how we disagree and I fail to see how you address my concerns.

 

Wityh nregards to EPO or HGH, their half-life is so short that in order to detect them, you must be exactly very near the time they took it. But then again, because these substances are naturally occurring as well, the mere fact that they are there is very hard to prove that it was illegally taken and not naturally derived like altitude training which also increases EPO. or sleeping which increases HGH as well. That is why WADA, who incidentally is the only goerning body who has the extensive experience doing this, has very strict criteria taht a first positive sample is not automatically a doping incidence, but a second sample is required after that.

However, because of the pharmacology of the drug, the drug is iundirectly measured using its breakdown products, which can be detected by both urine and blood test. Therefore, urine would actually suffice instead of an invasive blood test. It is just a matter of what testing procedure to use.

The real issue is whether URINE in itself would be adequate???? No one here actually gave scientific fact based of actual medical journal the supremacy of blood over urine yet people are blurting out as if it is a gospel that blood is superior to urine. Based on journals, urine seems adequate, although with limitation, similar to blood as well. And that limitation is not because urine does not detect those substances but rather whether test for designer substances exist at that time of the test, which is also what limits blood test. Now, if technology advances and 5 years from now, Pac was found to be using something ultra-secret drug using stored specimens (both urine and blood are actually stored as well by WADA), then what does it tell us other than the fact that he cheated. But the fight would have still happened.

Certain journal would probably clear up some concepts :

http://www.rexatwork.com/Services_a...atory_Services/Bulletins/LB2006/Nov2006LB.pdf

 

GOOD STUFF MAN! CAN YOU POST MORE SO WE CAN GET MORE "FACTS" (NOT THAT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH, ESB IS TURNING INTO A DOPE DISCUSSION)...

THANKS THOUGH...ANY MORE INFO IS APPRECIATED (ASSUMING UR TELLING THE TRUTH AND U DO WORK IN THE FIELD U SAY:thumbsup)

 

You see thats what I'm asking for. Some guy (I hope it wasn't you) on one of these threads kept talking about papers that compared both methods and the way he seemed to be talking it was like they were saying you didn't need blood testing at all. Now I know a **** ton (pardon my language) about the human body and I would considered myself a very good scientist. So with my knowledge of the human body I was simply making the point that just me thinking things through it would be much easier to beat a urine test then a blood test. And in order to test properly you would really have to test both blood and urine and the tests would have to be random. Infact if you read my post it ilustrates senarios where you would compensate for abnormal amounts of HGH by altering the urine content to get rid of excess amounts it the blood or ways in which you could alter your metabolism to keep your urine content low inspite of elevated blood levels. Now niether of these methods are actual methods (beating dug tests is not what I do. Nor am I going to be waistingmy vacation researching how) but it was a thought experiment designed to illustrate how the mear statement that urinalysis is just as good as blood testing isn't enough to convince me that this is the case.


This "Lab Bulletin" that you gave me doesn't address this issue. It cites no references and isn't even a scientifc article. The best part is that the only reference it makes to urine testing is by saying that Marion Jones got busted for EPO from a urine test. But then it goes on to say that the second Urine sample didn't pick up an elevated level of EPO. Wonder why? Cause could it be that urine sampling alone isn't good enough. The rest of the article talks about blood based methods of testing.

So I'll ask again does anyone have any real information that would appease my interest and back up the claim that urine sampling alone is good enough?

 

lol...you really are an imbecile...

 

Here is an article about HGH :

"There is a blood test for HGH that has been used at the

This content is protected

, but it is

This content is protected

This content is protected

,

This content is protected

This content is protected

."

The IOC is funding a research into the testing of HGH using urine sample. No matter what specimen is being used, the determining factor is actually how good the testing procedure. Attached article :

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/2009-02-26-usada-hgh_N.htm

So, using blood test today would not even catch HGH takers.

 

:good That's a more detailed expression of what I've been trying to put into layman's terms. Cheers!

Yeah, my main point has been that thoroughness is the key, regardless of testing sample & method. Each type of test has its pros & cons, in addition to unique masking methods. The analysts need to know what to look for, including all possible masking agents/markers & associated hormonal shifts/hormone markers/metabolites/enzymes & levels/etc.

1 point I wanted to make about what you said about urinalysis: IMO, you seem to grasp the general process of hormone production cycle & manipulation & its effects on metabolites present in urine, BUT I've got to point out that elevated levels of masking enzymes CAN be detected in the urine. If these possible enzyme combos & concentrations aren't even being looked for, the testers will think everything is negative.

I didn't post links to general urinalysis or blood analysis research papers. All I said was that I wasn't about to type up a research paper comparing the pros & cons of both.

Glad to see some1 speaking on the topic based off science & not a casual observer's conjecture.:thumbsup

 

Blood testing is the most thorough analysis that can be done. People that are saying that urine testing is all you need do not know what they are talking about. From a biological standpoint, your blood tells doctors WAY more than your urine does. That is an indisputable fact.

That is why they do randomized urine AND blood analysis to detect PEDs. You get the whole picture instead of a small piece.

Urine tests can also be fooled with masking agents easier.

 

Blood tells you what's in there AT THE POINT OF BLOOD BEING DRAWN. Urine shows you what has passed through/is still processing out of the body. Again, "superior"/"inferior" are relative terms, dependent on what substances & processes you're trying to detect. All of this talk in absolutes, by random laymen, is ******ed.

 

"There is no urine-based tested for human-growth hormone," Tygart said. "It doesn’t show up in the urine. It’s only a blood-based test. That’s true of a number of prohibited substances, particularly those that would enhance and aid a boxer.”

 

Any PED that would actually improve the performance of a boxer is detectable via urinalysis. As Victor Conte said, he had plenty of athletes that underwent Olympic testing and passed, the fact is that if either Manny or Floyd is using a PED it is a designer one that would not be detected.