Anavar is the historical trade name associated with oxandrolone, a synthetic anabolic-androgenic steroid (AAS). Although oxandrolone is sometimes listed in peptide and physical performance-related substances catalogs, it is not a peptide. Its structure is based on a modified steroid ring system, rather than a chain of amino acids linked by peptide bonds. The official terminology of the substance combines the names Anavar and Oxandrin with oxandrolone. Therefore, the substance’s international name provides the most reliable starting point for searching the scientific literature. 1
This distinction goes beyond mere nomenclature. Peptides and steroids differ in molecular structure, analytical identification methods, and pharmacological context. Placing both groups in the same online store category does not change their chemical properties. Moreover, proper identification of a molecule does not automatically confirm the authenticity of the product being offered or its suitability for human use.
Oxandrolone has been studied in clinical trials involving humans, including patients with severe burns and older men. These observations should be analyzed in parallel with the safety results and the regulatory history of the substance in the United States. In 2023, the approvals for the relevant oxandrolone-containing tablets were withdrawn, and then the FDA issued a separate decision regarding safety or efficacy. Therefore, historical clinical studies and the current product approval are separate issues. 2 3
The article separates molecular identity, experimental results, limitations of the studies, and regulatory conclusions. Its goal is to explain the available evidence and not to recommend improving performance, choosing a product, or self-medicating with the substance.
What is Anavar? Names, synonyms and identity
A practical way to avoid mistaken identification is to start the search with the chemical name of the substance and then check whether the publication refers to a specific formulation or historical brand. Two articles describing oxandrolone may refer to different groups of patients, clinical situations, or tablet products. The active substance may be identical, even though the research questions differ significantly.
Anavar is the trade name historically associated with oxandrolone. Oxandrin is another historical name for a product containing this substance. When searching for scientific publications, it is worth using the name oxandrolone, because many important studies do not include the word Anavar in the title or abstract. 1
The active substance and the tablet are two different entities. Oxandrolone is a specific chemical compound, while the finished tablet also contains excipients and must meet the quality requirements for a specific product. The mere presence of the name Anavar in the online offer does not confirm the composition, the production history, or its equivalence to the product used in the studies.
The regulatory history also requires taking into account specific dates. In June 2023, the FDA withdrew approval of the application for Oxandrin and four applications for generic products after receiving voluntary requests for withdrawal. In September 2023, the agency separately determined that the indicated products were withdrawn from sale for reasons related to safety or efficacy. These were related but separate regulatory actions. 2 3
Older product specifications or labeling may remain available after the approval has been withdrawn. The archival document helps to understand the historical composition and warnings, but does not confirm the current marketing authorization. The legal status, availability, and prescribing guidelines for the substance require separate verification in the specific country.
How is Anavar classified? Peptide, protein, mixture, or another substance?
From a biochemical point of view, peptides consist of amino acid residues linked by amide bonds. Oxandrolone does not meet this structural definition. Its classification as an anabolic-androgenic steroid refers to a steroid molecule that acts on the biological pathways associated with androgens. The distinction remains valid regardless of whether the website lists oxandrolone alongside research peptides, growth hormone-related substances, or non-steroidal receptor modulators.
Oxandrolone is a low molecular weight anabolic-androgenic steroid. It has a modified steroid skeleton rather than an amino acid chain. Therefore, it is not a peptide or a protein. It should also not be classified as a non-steroidal selective androgen receptor modulator (SARM). 1 4
The term „anabolic” refers to the effect on tissue building processes, while „androgenic” refers to the biological effects associated with androgens. These terms do not mean that desirable and undesirable effects can be completely separated in the human body. The claim that a compound exhibits relatively strong anabolic properties does not mean a lack of androgenic activity or the risk of hormonal disorders.
Chemical identity should also be distinguished from a commercial mixture. A product advertised as a combination of oxandrolone with other substances is a multi-ingredient preparation, not a new definition of oxandrolone. The results of studies of a single active substance do not automatically confirm the properties of such a combination.
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) list for 2026 clearly lists oxandrolone among anabolic-androgenic steroids banned for all time. This classification is based on sporting regulations, separate from the pharmaceutical law in force in a given country. It also does not constitute confirmation of a safe or effective dosing regimen in bodybuilding. 5
The structure and composition of Anavar – what has been confirmed?
The molecular formula and molecular mass are useful identification parameters, but neither of them alone can confirm the full identity of a compound. Different atomic arrangements can have the same molecular formula, and the analytical signal can correspond to more than one potential substance if the method used does not provide sufficient specificity.
In the case of a finished pharmaceutical product, the identity of the active substance constitutes only one element of the quality assessment. It is also necessary to consider the homogeneity of the content, impurities, excipients, and stability.
Oxandrolone has a C₁₉H₃₀O₃ molecular formula and a molecular weight of approximately 306.44 g/mol. Its chemical name describes modifications to the steroid skeleton including the 17-methyl group and the 2-oxo type substitution. Unlike peptides, its structures are not determined by the sequence of amino acid residues. 4
The term „2-oxa” indicates the presence of an oxygen atom in the modified ring system. The complete stereochemistry of the molecule is also important. The overall formula itself does not allow for distinguishing all possible isomers. Chemical identification therefore requires appropriate analytical methods based on reference materials, and not solely on total mass consistency.
The formulation constitutes another level of evaluation. The strength of the tablet, the homogeneity of the content, dissolution, impurities, and stability are separate properties, independent of the identification of the active molecule itself. Even a correct confirmation of the presence of oxandrolone does not automatically determine all of these parameters.
For this reason, the label or percentage declaration of purity is not sufficient to confirm the pharmaceutical equivalence of the product with the preparation used in the clinical study. The analytical documentation should specify the sample being tested, the method, the reference material and the measured property. The origin of the product and the control of the manufacturing process remain essential regardless of the individual laboratory result.
Scientific studies on Anavar – evidence in humans, animals and in the laboratory
Clinical literature should be analyzed with consideration given to the medical indication and the measured endpoint. Recovery after severe burns, age-related changes in body composition, and sports performance are not equivalent research areas.
Even when the same substance is being studied, the effect observed during intensive hospital care does not necessarily have similar magnitude, duration, or risk profile in healthy people.
Studies in adults with severe burns
Length of hospitalization is an important outcome of medical care, but it can be influenced by the severity of injuries, complications, discharge criteria, and supportive treatment. Random allocation of participants helps to reduce the impact of confounding factors. However, the decision to terminate the study early requires special caution when assessing the precision and durability of the estimated effect.
81 adult patients with extensive burns participated in a multicenter randomized study. Oxandrolone was compared with placebo. A shorter hospital stay was reported in the group receiving the active substance. Recruitment was terminated after the planned interim analysis showed a difference between the groups. Earlier termination is of methodological significance because estimates derived from a small, prematurely terminated study may be less stable than the results of a larger study conducted according to a full plan. 6
The participants were in a state of intensified catabolism associated with severe injuries and remained under specialist care. Their nutritional needs, inflammatory status, rehabilitation, and medical monitoring differ from the situation of healthy individuals interested in increasing muscle mass. The study does not allow determining the same balance of benefits and risks in another population.
Long-term studies of children after burns
Longer observation provides information unavailable in short experiments, especially when growth and rehabilitation continue after the initial injury. However, children with severe burns have specific physiological and clinical needs.
The results regarding growth or bone parameters should be understood in this context. They cannot be generalized to healthy adolescents or to the use of the substance outside of medical settings.
In a randomized study conducted at one center, 222 children with extensive burns were observed. 70 participants received oxandrolone, while 152 people formed the control group. The treatment lasted one year, and assessments were conducted for up to five years after the injury. The researchers reported differences in growth, bone mineral content, and selected recovery parameters. Physical exercise also had significance for results related to lean body mass and strength. 7
Long-term observation is a strong aspect of the study, but the specific clinical context limits the possibility of generalizations. Children who recover from severe burns are not the equivalent of healthy teenagers, athletes, or adults using anabolic substances outside of such a medical context.
Nor should many publications from a single research program be automatically considered independent clinical studies.
Studies in older men
This study is particularly important because it also assessed changes after exposure to the substance has ended. An increase in a specific parameter during the study may indicate an effect that occurs during the treatment period, but it does not necessarily mean a lasting improvement.
Before describing the result as a long-lasting physical benefit, it is necessary to distinguish temporary changes in body composition from the sustained improvement in strength and functioning.
In a placebo-controlled study involving 32 older men, body composition, muscle size, strength, and durability of effects were evaluated after the end of treatment. During the use of oxandrolone, an increase in lean body mass and an improvement in some strength parameters were observed. However, in this study, the increase in lean body mass and strength did not persist after discontinuation of the substance. This result distinguishes the effect observed during treatment from a lasting change. 8
Lean body mass also includes components other than muscle tissue responsible for contraction. Body composition measurements are influenced by, among other things, water and other lean tissues.
Therefore, the change in lean body mass should be evaluated along with strength, physical fitness, and clinical significance, rather than being equated with an identical amount of new functional muscle tissue.
Evidence from animal and laboratory studies
Mechanistic and toxicological experiments address narrower questions than clinical studies. They can identify biological pathways and potential hazards, but translating the result obtained in one species or in a single test to the likelihood of a specific adverse effect in humans requires additional evidence.
When assessing the practical significance of the risk, the available data from human studies and the determinations of regulatory authorities should take precedence.
Preclinical studies may address androgenic activity, tissue responses, metabolism, and toxicity. The product's historical documentation also includes information on reproductive toxicity observed in animals. Such results help characterize the risks, but do not allow for precise estimation of the risk in humans for any type of exposure. 9
Since human studies are also available, the mechanistic reliability derived from cell or animal experiments should not be used to ignore clinical limitations.
Laboratory results can explain why a specific substance was tested. However, they do not invalidate regulatory negative findings or confirm the safe use of the substance for non-medical purposes.
Regulatory interpretation of evidence
The two FDA actions from 2023 should be described separately: the withdrawal of approvals and the subsequent determination regarding the reasons for withdrawing products from sale.
The chronology prevents a common error of treating the availability of an old leaflet as proof that the product is still approved.
Regulatory decisions concern the specific product and the evidence gathered, and not solely whether the active substance can elicit a measurable biological response.
In its 2023 decision, the FDA concluded that the balance of benefits and risks of the product was unfavorable in the absence of sufficient evidence of efficacy. The agency pointed to the serious safety concerns described in the historical documentation. This conclusion should be presented alongside the older favorable study results, rather than treating the earlier approval as still valid confirmation of the product's usefulness. 3
This does not mean that every published observation of biological activity is false. It does mean that the activity shown in selected studies and the sufficient set of evidence required for regulatory assessment are separate standards.
The indication of the specific product, the research project and the totality of the available evidence are of importance.
The mechanisms of action of oxandrolone studied scientifically
The mechanism associated with androgens can affect many tissues and physiological systems. It cannot be reduced to a single desired outcome, such as an increase in the amount of tissue proteins.
The feedback of the hormonal system, lipid changes, effects on the liver, and androgenic responses help to explain why the biologically plausible anabolic effect does not independently confirm a favorable overall balance of benefits and risks.
Oxandrolone acts on the biological processes associated with androgens. Historical documentation of the product describes the effect of anabolic steroids on protein metabolism and indicates that the anabolic and androgenic effects cannot be completely separated. These mechanisms constitute the context of studies conducted in catabolic states, but do not allow predicting the complete clinical outcome in a particular individual. 9
It is worth distinguishing between the mechanism, measurement, and clinical benefit. Protein metabolism is a mechanistic issue; body mass index is a measurement parameter, while improvement in self-sufficiency or recovery is a clinical outcome.
Each of these levels requires appropriate evidence. Achieving a favorable result on one level does not automatically confirm success on the next.
Hormonal feedback mechanisms are another reason not to treat the anabolic effect as an isolated phenomenon. Historical documentation describes the inhibition of gonadotropin-related functions during exposure to anabolic steroids.
The warnings also include virilization, and some of the associated changes may be irreversible. These effects remain significant even when the substance is presented as being relatively mild. 9
A short-term study in older men shows why the durability of the effect must be measured directly. A transient change during exposure does not indicate permanent tissue adaptation.
Researchers need to observe patients after the end of treatment, rather than assuming that all observed changes will persist in the future. 8
Limitations of scientific evidence regarding Anavar
One source of uncertainty is the repeated use of the same data. Different articles may analyze the same participants, additional endpoints, or later observation periods.
Treating each publication as an independent study would lead to inflating the number of confirmed results. Therefore, a reliable synthesis should take into account the overlap of groups of participants, the choice of a comparator, the definitions of the results, the duration of the observation period, and the totality of the evidence regarding safety.
Clinical evidence refers to specific populations. Severe burns, older age, and other medically-selected conditions are associated with physiology that differs from that of healthy individuals who are exercising.
The results should not be interpreted as universal claims regarding muscle growth, fat reduction or regeneration.
The research design also affects the interpretation. Small samples, selected endpoints, interventions involving physical exercise, earlier termination of the study, and incomplete observation can all change the estimates.
Further publications regarding one cohort may be valuable, but they do not increase the number of independent participants.
Safety assessment requires more than counting adverse events in a small study. Historical documentation warns of serious liver complications and adverse lipid changes.
A study that is too small or too short to detect a rare event does not allow its occurrence to be ruled out. 9
The history of product recalls in the United States in 2023 is significantly changing the way older materials are described. Responsible articles should provide dates for documentation and regulatory decisions, separate the current status from the historical use, and avoid suggesting that clinical studies confirm the authenticity of products sold under a known trade name.
Frequently asked questions about Anavar and oxandrolone
1. Does Anavar mean a specific substance?
The name Anavar historically refers to products containing oxandrolone, which is a specific chemical compound. However, a branded product or one offered online also requires evaluation of the formulation and origin. The name itself does not confirm the composition or its equivalence to the tablet being reviewed. 1 In identity-related comparisons, the name of the active substance and the independently confirmed composition are more useful than the packaging or brand. This is particularly important when online offers cannot be linked to a historical product subject to regulatory oversight.
2. What do the available studies on Anavar confirm?
The studies confirm biological activity and specific clinical effects in selected populations. Results should be interpreted taking into account methodological limitations, safety information, and regulatory history. They do not universally confirm a beneficial balance of benefits and risks or the appropriateness of recreational use. 7 3 A positive result regarding a specific endpoint should be presented together with the comparator group and the observation period. A broader conclusion also depends on the adverse effects, the quality of the studies, and whether the original indication still holds true.
3. Is Anavar a peptide?
No. Oxandrolone is a monocyclic steroid, not a peptide. Its structure is not composed of an amino acid chain, even though the substance appears alongside peptides in online catalogs. The chemical classification results from the structure of the molecule, not from the category chosen by the seller. 4 The structural difference is decisive: the structure of the steroid rings is not an amino acid sequence. The name of the commercial category cannot change the chemical structure confirmed in reliable databases of substances.
4. Are Anavar and Oxandrolone the same thing?
Anavar is the historical trade name associated with oxandrolone. The active substance name is more appropriate when searching for studies, because scientific publications usually identify the chemical compound under study. Brand claims on an unverified product still require independent confirmation of the actual composition. 1 Both terms function at different levels: oxandrolone identifies the active molecule, whereas Anavar is the historical commercial name. Scientific research must be combined with the specific substance and preparation used in the experiment.
5. Is Anavar a SARM-type substance?
No. Oxandrolone is classified as an anabolic-androgenic steroid. Its effect on a similar biological target associated with androgens does not mean that it is identical to non-steroidal selective androgen receptor modulators. These are different chemical categories, and none of the names confirm safety or clinical usefulness. 5 Activity related to the androgen receptor can occur in various chemical groups. The classification still depends on the actual structure of the compound, therefore the term SARM should not be used interchangeably with the term anabolic-androgenic steroid.
6. Does the old FDA documentation confirm the current approval of Anavar?
No. Archive labels and documents remain available even after regulatory changes. The relevant approvals were withdrawn in 2023, so historical documentation requires the date and proper interpretation. It is a useful source of information, but it does not independently confirm the current product approval. 2 Archival regulatory documents remain valuable historical evidence, but the date is part of their significance. Current approval should be verified in the current records of regulatory authorities.
7. Did the withdrawal of approvals result solely from a commercial decision?
No. Such a statement overlooks the subsequent decision of the FDA. Following voluntary requests for withdrawal of approvals, a formal determination regarding safety or efficacy was issued. Both events are part of the regulatory history and should not be confused with each other. 3 The chronology is important: the first action concerned the withdrawal of approvals for applications, whereas the later decision clearly related to the reasons for withdrawing the products from sale. The omission of the second action significantly changes the interpretation.
8. Does increasing lean body mass prove greater muscle strength?
No. Lean body mass and strength are separate endpoints. Measurements of lean mass include water and other components, whereas strength depends on many physiological and functional factors. Studies should consider both parameters when formulating claims about significant improvement in muscle performance. For this reason, results regarding body composition and physical fitness should be analyzed separately. The apparent increase in lean body mass does not indicate the amount of tight muscles or confirm better daily functioning.
9. Do patient studies with burns confirm the benefits of bodybuilding?
No. Severe burns cause a specific clinical condition. Medical care, nutrition, rehabilitation, and the catabolism associated with the injury affect the results. These observations do not confirm the identical response or the same safety profile in healthy individuals seeking to change their body shape. Patients with extensive burns receive intensive medical, nutritional, and rehabilitative support. These conditions fundamentally differ from those experienced by a healthy person, which limits the possibility of transferring the results.
10. Are the observed increases always permanent?
No. Durability should be measured after the end of treatment. In a study of older men, some of the changes observed during substance use did not persist in subsequent observation. This result suggests that treating a temporary measurement change as a lasting effect is not appropriate. 8 Observing after the end of the exposure allows us to distinguish the transient effect associated with the substance from the ongoing adaptation. The study of older men provides a concrete example of why we should not promise lasting increases.
11. Does the term „mild steroid” mean a low risk?
No. „Mild” is not a validated safety category. Such a designation can mask serious adverse effects and differences between individuals, types of exposure, and outcomes. A reliable assessment requires specific evidence, not a relative marketing description. Risk information should relate to documented adverse effects, the studied population, and exposure. The reputation of a substance as relatively mild does not confirm a favorable safety profile.
12. Does the correct result of the liver test rule out all risks?
No. A single laboratory result cannot rule out all liver, cardiovascular, hormonal, or reproductive health risks. Different consequences require different assessment methods, and some may develop over time. A normal result refers only to what was measured and when it was performed. One test provides a limited picture of physiology at a specific time. Safety assessment is broader than a single liver parameter and includes risks that may not be revealed during short-term observation.
13. Is the risk of using oxandrolone the same for women and men?
No. Physiological differences related to gender and the reproductive context can influence the consequences of androgen exposure. The results of the study of older men do not confirm safety in women during pregnancy. Appropriate evidence must come from a proper population, rather than based on the assumption that results can be directly transferred. Gender-dependent and reproductive-related effects require studies of appropriate groups. Results obtained in one population do not confirm identical tolerance or consequences in another.
14. Does the cleanliness test eliminate the risk resulting from the action of the molecule itself?
No. Purity and pharmacological safety are separate issues. A properly identified substance devoid of impurities can still cause harmful biological effects. Analytical quality is important, but it does not eliminate the risk profile of the active substance. Chemical purity concerns impurities and composition, whereas pharmacological properties remain present even when the sample has been properly identified. These are two separate areas of assessment that cannot be treated interchangeably.
15. Is Anavar banned in sports?
Yes. The WADA list for 2026 lists oxandrolone among anabolic-androgenic steroids banned for all time. The sports prescription is separate from national law regarding medicinal products. It should not be interpreted as evidence of the efficacy of a specific off-label use. 5 Anti-doping classification relates to participation in sport in accordance with the relevant regulations and should be distinguished from marketing as a drug. Both issues also differ from the question of a favorable clinical balance of benefits and risks.
16. Can several scientific articles concern the same participants?
Yes. One clinical study may lead to publications that analyze different endpoints or observation periods. Treating such articles as separate studies can exaggerate the size of the evidence base. Study identifiers, recruitment dates, and participant descriptions help detect data overlap. Comparing recruitment dates, centers, and participant characteristics reduces the risk of counting the same individuals multiple times. Several publications can deepen knowledge about a single cohort without providing new, independent evidence.
17. What is the most important message for readers?
Anavar is a steroid with a history of clinical research and significant limitations in the evidence base; it is not a peptide. The results of the research should be interpreted in relation to the indicated indication and the specific product. Historical use, availability online, or a well-known brand do not confirm the current usefulness of the substance. Three questions must be distinguished: what is the molecule, what was actually observed in specific studies, and is there currently an approved clinical use? Combining these issues leads to misleading claims.
Applications
The most justified summary begins with chemistry. Anavar is the historical trade name associated with oxandrolone, not a peptide. Human studies should be interpreted in the context of the medical conditions being analyzed. Neither the positive results nor the prior documentation of the product invalidate the regulatory determinations made in the United States in 2023.
This distinction helps to avoid confusion regarding the chemical identity, measurable biological activity, and currently approved, currently authorized medical use.
Anavar historically refers to oxandrolone, a synthetic anabolic-androgenic steroid. Research on this substance shows why the population, endpoint, duration of effect, and safety should be analyzed together. Regulatory actions taken in the United States in 2023 provide a necessary context when interpreting previous approvals and favorable publications.
Educational and medical warnings regarding safety and regulations
The article is purely educational in nature and serves to discuss available scientific evidence. It does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, therapeutic recommendation, or instructions for obtaining, administering, administering, or combining oxandrolone with other substances. Oxandrolone is an anabolic-androgenic steroid with documented risks, including serious liver adverse effects, adverse lipid changes, inhibition of hormonal functions, and androgenic effects, some of which may be irreversible. The results of a single laboratory study or a declaration of product purity do not preclude these risks. Results from studies in patients with severe burns or selected elderly adults should not be extrapolated to healthy individuals or used as confirmation of safety for use in bodybuilding, sports, or self-medication. Regulatory status and anti-doping regulations depend on jurisdiction and may change. The information provided relates to the activities of the FDA in 2023 and the WADA list for 2026 and does not constitute a complete description of regulations in force worldwide. Historical labels, trade names and clinical trials do not confirm the current marketing authorization of the product or the authenticity of preparations sold independently. For health-related questions, the appropriate source for individual assessment is qualified medical personnel. Citations have been taken from the provided source article; they have not been independently re-verified for the purposes of this study.
References
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Oxandrolone (UNII 7H6TM3CT4L) [Substance identity record]. Retrieved October 23, 2026. https://precision.fda.gov/ginas/app/ui/substances/7H6TM3CT4L
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2023, June 28). Gemini Laboratories, LLC, et al.; Withdrawal of approval of one new drug application for Oxandrin (oxandrolone) tablets and four abbreviated new drug applications for oxandrolone tablets. Federal Register, 88, 41970–41971. https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2023-13733.pdf
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2023, September 13). Determination that Oxandrin (oxandrolone) tablets, 2.5 milligrams and 10 milligrams, were withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. Federal Register, 88, 62799–62800. https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2023-19796.pdf
- National Institute of Standards and Technology. (n.d.). Oxandrolone. NIST Chemistry WebBook. Retrieved October 23, 2026. https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=53-39-4
- World Anti-Doping Agency. (2025). The 2026 prohibited list: International standard of the World Anti-Doping Code. https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/2025-09/2026list_en_final_clean_september_2025.pdf
- Wolf, S. E., Edelman, L. S., Kemalyan, N., Donison, L., Cross, J., Underwood, M., Spence, R. J., Noppenberger, D., Palmieri, T. L., Greenhalgh, D. G., Lawless, M., Voigt, D., Edwards, P., Warner, P., Kagan, R., Hatfield, S., Jeng, J., Crean, D., Hunt, J., … Saffle, J. (2006). Effects of oxandrolone on outcome measures in the severely burned: a multicenter prospective randomized double-blind trial. Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association, 27(2), 131–9; discussion 140–1. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BCR.0000202620.55751.4F
- Porro, L. J., Herndon, D. N., Rodriguez, N. A., Jennings, K., Klein, G. L., Mlcak, R. P., Meyer, W. J., Lee, J. O., Suman, O. E., & Finnerty, C. C. (2012). Five-year outcomes after oxandrolone administration in severely burned children: a randomized clinical trial of safety and efficacy. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 214(4), 489–502; discussion 502-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.12.038
- Schroeder, E. T., Zheng, L., Yarasheski, K. E., Qian, D., Stewart, Y., Flores, C., Martinez, C., Terk, M., & Sattler, F. R. (2004). Treatment with oxandrolone and the durability of effects in older men. Journal of Applied Physiology, 96(3), 1055–1062. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00808.2003
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2003). Oxandrin (oxandrolone tablets, USP) [Archived prescribing information; historical label]. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2003/13718slr022_Oxandrin_lbl.pdf