During the research for this article, the author could not find one definitive statistic that could categorically determine steroids as being the influential factor behind any single death yet, we are informed that smoking is the influential factor in 47,300 death’s, through various methods such as cancer, atherosclerosis and heart disease. Why is this linkage not possible with regard to AAS? The answer is simple. There is not enough research data available, as most governments will not allow such research to be carried out. Some research has been carried out regarding deaths from AAS use.

Darke, S. and Torok, M. (2014) researched the deaths of 24 males who all died at a mean age of 31.7 years. The characteristics, pathology and toxicology of the individuals were investigated.  Characteristically the causes of death were accidental drug toxicity (62.5%), suicide (16.7%) and homicide (12.5%). In terms of drugs profiles, the following AAS profiles were found. Abnormal testosterone epitestosterone ratios were reported in 62.5%, followed by metabolites of nandrolone (58.3%), stanozolol (33.3%), and methandienone (20.8%). A key fact herein is that 23 of the 24 individuals tested positive for ‘other’ chemical substances including psychostimulants. In about 50% of the individuals there was also testicular shrinkage. Several of the individuals had increased left ventricle hypertrophy and narrowed coronary arteries.

The issue with this research is not the method or subsequent findings, it is the way in which other agencies or individuals such as the media, bloggers and anti-steroid proponents have represented this work. Headlines such as ‘Sudden or un-natural deaths involving anabolic androgenic steroids’ deviate the findings in a massive way and totally discount all of the evidence that has been represented. For example, nearly 30% of the individuals died as a result of homicide or suicide. In what way is the blood steroid profile relevant to this ‘fact’? The other individuals died as a result of drug toxicity which can include anything from an overdose, allergic reaction or ‘bad’ drugs. The fact that many of these subjects used stimulants has been totally discounted from the headline. This is a spurious representation of research findings when that research stated that ‘psycho-stimulant toxicity was the direct cause of death in eight of the 24 deaths and opioid overdose was the direct cause in seven’.  The researchers have also not mentioned that stimulants can place a stress on the heart that can also increase left ventricle hypertrophy. Science is often misinterpreted to suit the agendas of individuals and not to divulge the truth.     

Another study on adult male mice did provide some quite damning evidence to the proponents of steroid use. Bronson F.H., Matherne C.M. (1997) carried out a study on mice. The test group were exposed to four AAS for a period of 6 months. They were given the AAS at 5 or 20 times the normal levels that would be expected for mice. One year later the mice were around 20 months old. The following markers were found as a result of this experiment. 52% of the mice who were given the higher AAS dose had died. This was compared to 35% who had been given the lower dose. The control group had a far lower 12% deaths. When autopsied the mice who were given’ the AAS were typically found to have tumours in their livers and kidneys and some heart damage. Some mice had all of these conditions.

This study clearly identified that AAS do have some negative health implications and might certainly, in this instance, have resulted in premature death rates of the mice. However, it might be assumed that any significant overdose of any drug might have similar negative effects. Also, would the dosage being administered orally or intra-muscularly make a difference to these results? The death rate was dose dependant i.e. the greater the dose the more damaging the effect.  This infringes on the premise of ‘use’ or ‘abuse’. Would a bodybuilder using smaller doses in a medically correct way, experience less physiological damage while reaping the muscular benefits? Finally, would the use of aromatase inhibitors such as Arimidex have reduced some of the negative health implications? Sometimes ‘answers’ require so many more questions. But this is the nature of science!