The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
so you're not going to give a child testosterone who has you know like a burn patient you're not going to give him test because you might masculinize the hell out of a female child for example so you have to come up with novel Alternatives that are going to be anti-catabolic preserve tissue keep somebody from wasting away in a state of you know fill in the blank without causing extreme um viralization
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
the ideal scenario would be you're trying to segregate the anabolic from androgenic activity because testosterone is essentially equal at least based on rodent studies you would find an equal amount of anabolic activity in muscle relative to Androgen like activity masculinization so you would try and take the compound manipulate it to give maximum anabolic outcomes with a relative lack of androgenic outcomes to create something that men women children anybody could take for muscle wasting purposes and tissue and they never successfully did it