>>35060229
>unbiased documentary
nobody (not even the government) makes documentaries on things they don't feel strongly about in one way or another

your best bet is a medical journal or DEA yearly report

It's got a pretty good balance of pros and cons go it, although the cons are generally not based on current scientific understandings.

There are long term effects, but they are dependent on various factors on top of steroid use.

Nothing's unbiased. It's a good documentary. Steroids probably do have long-term effects, but the nature and magnitude of those effects is uncertain, and essentially everything we know about them is anecdotal and based on the experiences of individual users since clinical trials using performance-enhancing doses of gear for any period, let alone for extended periods, are essentially nonexistent. Do your research, triangulate, and good luck.

>>35060266
>your best bet is a medical journal or DEA yearly report
Ah, yes, the US government and the medical establishment certainly have no agenda whatsoever with regards to drugs! Those sure are some trustworthy, bias-free sources, anon.

>>35060300
I'll take empirical evidence with a slant over just the slant every day of the week

>>35060310
>empirical evidence
Sure. The thing is, the vast majority of empirical evidence on steroid use is in fact anecdotal and comes from users. There are literally around three studies that involved performance-relevant doses of gear, none lasting longer than eight weeks IIRC, and I don't think any of them even used multiple compounds. (IIRC one was anadrol, one was test, and I don't remember the third one.). And these studies are useful. But 1) the DEA won't go near them since their results were not "steroids are evil, will make your dick shrink" and the DEA has an agenda, and 2) if you rely solely on peer-reviewed research you'll be deliberately ignoring a lot of useful information. And 3) most peer-reviewed/medical establishment research on steroids after about 1990 is generally terrible. Man cannot live by peer review alone.

>>35060357
>the DEA won't go near them since their results were not "steroids are evil, will make your dick shrink"

I think its more "to get people to participate in these trials would require them to admit they're on sterons, which would invalidate their ability to compete and/or sell merch"

You can't exactly get double-blind volunteers for roid testing

>>35060385
Are you kidding? I'd volunteer any day of the week.
But anyway, they're not using pro athletes. Typical methodology is in fact a double-blind placebo-controlled trial, sometimes with a quite elderly subject population. The problem is not finding subjects, the problem is finding grants and getting approval from ethics boards.
See, e.g.,
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/284/1/E120.short
http://jap.physiology.org/content/96/3/1055.short
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/281/6/E1172.short

>>35060459
So steroids shrink your balls? Can you fug with your balls shrinked?

>>35060615
Well, I don't know about you, anon, but when I fuck, my balls just kind of hang there, maybe bounce around a little. Draw your own conclusions as to the effects of shrunken ones.

no, it's heavily slanted toward pro steroids.

it's essentially a pro-steroid propaganda film

not even joking.

Just watched this because of boredom, now I'm interested in doing a cycle or two.

>>35060663
this

>>35060663
/thread

One of his brothers died after the film, I wonder if the film would be so pro steroids if his brother died before or while shooting the documentary

>>35062750

Mad Dog had... issues. Its highly unlikely steroids had much to do with his death.

For what its worth, both brothers are still fairly pro steroid. In a fairly considered fashion, at least in my non-using view.

Just use SARMS brah