One of the main ways AAS negatively affect the liver is via drug-induced cholestasis. Taking something like UDCA can help treat this particular disorder to some degree, in the case of Munzer it likely wouldn't have changed anything. And as PA pointed out, elevated LFT's can be caused by about 6000 different things. On the list of differential diagnoses, peliosis hepatis would be about number 5999.
I think treating this stuff after the fact and at such advanced stages is a bit beside the point of taking liver support though, at least for AAS users (or anyone on liver-toxic chemicals or medicines of any sort). How many of these liver conditions/diseases might never even present in the first place if someone is taking in substances that allow the liver to more easily & quickly detoxify and repair itself? Yes, it's a remarkably resilient and regenerative organ as someone else pointed out, but obviously those qualities in and of themselves aren't always enough, otherwise liver damage and disease would be unheard of, yes? So given that the liver does have its limitations, the point of liver support should be to try to bolster the liver's abilities above the norm so it can more readily cope with the "supranormal" toxins and stressors being thrown at it as seen with AAS use, etc. This is my point with Munzer. If he'd known to take steps to protect his liver (apart from giving it a break from all the crap he'd been using for so long, of course) then his liver might never have gotten to such an advanced stage of deterioration in the first place. That's the point. Of course he's an extreme case, so it's probable that even if he had taken liver support that he might only have been delaying the inevitable given his unrealistically-maintainable regimen of drugs. Heck, I know it wasn't even technically the looming organ failure that initially put Munzer down, it was dehydration, but one wonders if he might have recovered had his organs not subsequently gone into shutdown had they been in better shape...
I know I keep harping on it, but look at the study done with Essentiale Forte: the (Greek) study's authors purposely chose a varied pool of AAS users to test with, many different substances and in many different amounts among them. Compared to their control group of AAS users not on EF, the ones using their liver protectant displayed dramatically better liver values, which would appear to indicate their livers were not suffering at all even with their AAS use, as opposed to the AAS users in the non-EF control group (as you can see on the chart in the link). Note that: "During the eight-week period the researchers measured the athletes’ concentrations of the following enzymes: aspartate aminotransferase (AST/SGOT), alanine aminotransferase (ALT/SGPT), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), gamma-glutamyltranspeptidase (gamma-GT) and creatine kinase (CK)."
Frankly, I can't see any good reason for AAS/PH/etc users to NOT use cycle support substances (studied/proven ones, anyway) while on, assuming those substances don't themselves pose their own health risks. I mean, why risk any liver (or kidney, etc) damage at all if you can avoid it? Something's better than nothing, right? If it's a matter of money, well, the cycle support stuff really isn't all that expensive, and if it is really too much for someone to afford in the first place, then they may want to readjust their priorities when it comes to spending their money--could be they have more important things they should be worrying about than using AAS or whatever. <--apologies if that last part comes off as a bit high and mighty and preachy, but really, if someone has limited funds and they're putting gettin' swole above even maintaining their internal health, that can't be good.
Edited by SpiderJerusalem, 10 April 2014 - 10:23 PM.