No Doping, PLEASE!
Question: I sent in this empty box of Testovis for you to look at. It's supposed to be from Italy, but looks a little funny to me. It has a "No Doping" symbol on the side; that wasn't on the last box I had. I also didn't see you mention this in Anabolics 2004.
Answer: This is one for the "you just gotta laugh" file. First off, yes, your product is real Testovis. This change in their packaging was fairly recent, so you'll read about it in Anabolics 2005. Italy has started placing these markings on their steroid boxes, no doubt in an attempt to appease its American allies in the steroid war. Italy is really one of the few European countries that have been legitimately succumbing to the agenda of the American "anti-doping" machine. Most European nations still view steroids as a relative non-issue. But we definitely have Italy's ear and have been encouraging changes in the way steroids are sold in that country for years. And the politics have been paying off. It's now actually much harder to find gear in Italian pharmacies than it used to be and Italy is no longer considered a good place for the steroid vacationer. The new anti-doping symbols on their steroid boxes are just a comical side note to this trend. You have to wonder what they were thinking. As if these are going to work like no smoking signs. They probably have a stamp, "not for Intoxication," on their liquor bottles, too. Thanks for sending the box in. Keep an eye on your mailbox. Your copy of Anabolics 2005 is on me.
Formestane vs. HCG
Question: I recently read an article that said formestane works so well as an aromatase inhibitor that it does the job of both HCG and Clomid during post-cycle recovery. Is that right? Should I drop the HCG and just start taking formestane since it's available over the counter?
Answer: Oh boy, here we go again. I must stress that just because there are medical references at the end of an article, doesn't mean the author actually understands them. In this case, the comparison between formestane and HCG is asinine, at best. Formestane addresses the same issue as Clomid, namely the suppressive activity of estrogen toward testosterone production. It blocks the estrogen message (in this case by inhibiting estrogen synthesis) and under normal conditions tricks the brain into thinking it needs more testosterone. HCG, on the other hand, acts as an exogenous (external) form of LH luteinizing hormone, which directly stimulates the testes to produce testosterone. The two drugs work toward that same goal, namely raising testosterone, but they do so via two totally separate mechanisms. Post-cycle, the anti-estrogen approach of formestane or Clomid is not highly effective, as it cannot mimic the high level of testicular stimulation that a bolus dose of HCG provides. The body also notices the lower-than-normal estrogen levels when your cycle is over and responds very quickly with increased LH release. Basically, estrogen is not the main focus post-cycle, testicular atrophy is. HCG is probably the most key drug here, and no anti-estrogen or aromatase inhibitor is going to replace it.
Dianabol is a Prohormone?
Question: My friend just explained to me that methandrostenolone itself is a very weak steroid, and that most of its muscle-building power comes from conversion to other compounds. If Dianabol is really a "prohormone," do you know what steroid it actually converts to? I'd like to know what that mystery steroid is.
Answer: The mystery steroid you are searching for doesn't exist. The "Dianabol as a prohormone" theory is an incorrect concept borne of another series of incorrect concepts that I'd rather not frustrate over now. Staying focused on your question, there is no evidence to suggest any of the major metabolites of methandrostenolone are going to be more effective than the original compound. If you look at how this steroid breaks down in the body, you'll see that virtually all its known metabolic transformations result in the formation of metabolites with significantly low or no potency. The only pathway that makes a stronger androgen would be the 5-alpha reduction of Dianabol (to methyl-dehydroboldenone), but we know from studies that this enzyme does not affect Dianabol in humans to any appreciable degree. We therefore see such little methyl-dehydroboldenone that it's difficult to suggest that it has any notable physiological impact. It would be utterly impossible to say that this metabolite accounts for the muscle-building effect of Dianabol. All the data we have on this agent (and we have a good deal) suggests that as with most anabolic steroids, the parent compound itself is the main actor.
Short or Long Cycles?
Question: I need to know how to best use the gear I picked up. I have three 10-milliliter vials of testosterone enanthate (200mg/ml) and want to use it all for my next cycle. What would work better for me? Would it be best to do 600 milligrams (3ml) per week for 10 weeks, or 400 milligrams per week for 15 weeks? I want to get the most out of my cycle in terms of gains. I'm not too worried about side effects at either dose.
Answer: Yours is the age-old dosing issue that each bodybuilder needs to work out for himself or herself. I'm sure you were hoping for an answer like "Take X milligrams every Y days for Z weeks and you will gain the most muscle," but unfortunately, not I, nor anyone else, can give you that answer. Well, at least if they know what they're talking about. The problem lies in the fact that there are just too many individual factors determining how each person will respond best to steroids, and what dose is going to provide optimal improvement in performance. The scope you're talking about is also far too narrow to make a definite judgment.
The question, "What will work better, 100 milligrams of Anadrol or 10 milligrams of Dbol?" would have been a lot easier to answer. The best I can do is give you my personal perspective on those three vials of testosterone. My own preference was always to run longer as opposed to harder. I felt that 400-600 milligrams per week was much more cost-effective than, say, 1,000 milligrams. I'd grow better on the gram dose, but not 40 to 60 percent more money better. But your proposed options are much more narrow than this comparison. I would say that for someone inexperienced with steroids, 400 milligrams per week for 15 weeks would probably be one heck of a productive cycle. I'd probably choose that if I were in your shoes, but then again, that's me. Your mileage may vary.
I Want My M.T.E.
Question: I was reading Anabolics 2004, and came upon mention of a steroid called methyltrienolone. It sounds nasty! I want some. Do you think there's any chance this steroid will come to the market again? Sometimes I think it sucks that I was born in the ‘80s. I missed out on some of the best steroids!
Answer: Did you really miss out? Maybe you did. Maybe you didn't. We live in a very unique time for steroids. On the one hand, most steroids are currently illegal, and the "user" of today tends to be looked at with more contempt than John Kerry at an NRA meeting. But on the other hand, the thriving U.S. "legal steroid" market and all-time high demand for illicit products have been breathing new life into the global steroid industry, which had been languishing for decades prior. For bodybuilders to get black market steroids in any volume, there needs to first be legitimate pharmaceutical companies producing them. The more companies geared up to make things like prohormones, the more will already have the equipment and incentive to produce other "obscure" steroids like oral Turinabol, Parabolan and drostanolone. The trend has already started in a big way. Before it peaks, we may very well wind up seeing more steroid variety than we ever have in history.
Now, with that said, methyltrienolone is really not one of the drugs I'd be waiting in line to try. This drug is a methylated (c17-alpha alkylated) form of trenbolone and is manufactured as a research material instead of a human drug because it was demonstrated long ago to be highly liver-toxic. In fact, it is probably the most liver-toxic steroid ever studied in a clinical setting. Even if for some reason one of the underground labs out there were legitimately crazy enough to bottle it (that may be the case right now), my advice would still be to forget MTE. Although chances are you wouldn't kill yourself with it, I'm sure there are a lot better things on the horizon if "new and unusual" is what you are after.
Anti-Gyno Dynamo
Question: I was wondering if you could tell me what is better for preventing gyno during a cycle, Arimidex or Nolvadex? I want to get advice on this straight from the source!
Answer: Both of these drugs are effective "anti-estrogens" when you're using aromatizable (capable of converting to estrogen) steroids. Arimidex, as an extremely powerful aromatase inhibitor, is definitely the more effective agent at preventing gyno, though. I will, however, mention that there are pluses and minuses to each that you might want to consider. Nolvadex, for instance, tends to increase HDL (good) cholesterol levels due to its inherent estrogenic activity in the liver. This can be a plus for those concerned about cardiovascular risk factors during steroid intake. Arimidex, on the other hand, is sure to lower good cholesterol, further exacerbating the negative lipid changes that steroid use tends to bring out. When it comes to cutting, Nolvadex is also lot less effective at hardening you up than Arimidex. The powerful estrogen-suppressing effect of the latter agent is highly favored by bodybuilders for pre-contest increases in muscle definition. It tends to be a fairly effective fat-loss agent and great for shedding excess water. Both agents should help you avoid gyno, so my advice would be to just take a minute and think about the other factors important in your particular situation.
Question: I sent in this empty box of Testovis for you to look at. It's supposed to be from Italy, but looks a little funny to me. It has a "No Doping" symbol on the side; that wasn't on the last box I had. I also didn't see you mention this in Anabolics 2004.
Answer: This is one for the "you just gotta laugh" file. First off, yes, your product is real Testovis. This change in their packaging was fairly recent, so you'll read about it in Anabolics 2005. Italy has started placing these markings on their steroid boxes, no doubt in an attempt to appease its American allies in the steroid war. Italy is really one of the few European countries that have been legitimately succumbing to the agenda of the American "anti-doping" machine. Most European nations still view steroids as a relative non-issue. But we definitely have Italy's ear and have been encouraging changes in the way steroids are sold in that country for years. And the politics have been paying off. It's now actually much harder to find gear in Italian pharmacies than it used to be and Italy is no longer considered a good place for the steroid vacationer. The new anti-doping symbols on their steroid boxes are just a comical side note to this trend. You have to wonder what they were thinking. As if these are going to work like no smoking signs. They probably have a stamp, "not for Intoxication," on their liquor bottles, too. Thanks for sending the box in. Keep an eye on your mailbox. Your copy of Anabolics 2005 is on me.
Formestane vs. HCG
Question: I recently read an article that said formestane works so well as an aromatase inhibitor that it does the job of both HCG and Clomid during post-cycle recovery. Is that right? Should I drop the HCG and just start taking formestane since it's available over the counter?
Answer: Oh boy, here we go again. I must stress that just because there are medical references at the end of an article, doesn't mean the author actually understands them. In this case, the comparison between formestane and HCG is asinine, at best. Formestane addresses the same issue as Clomid, namely the suppressive activity of estrogen toward testosterone production. It blocks the estrogen message (in this case by inhibiting estrogen synthesis) and under normal conditions tricks the brain into thinking it needs more testosterone. HCG, on the other hand, acts as an exogenous (external) form of LH luteinizing hormone, which directly stimulates the testes to produce testosterone. The two drugs work toward that same goal, namely raising testosterone, but they do so via two totally separate mechanisms. Post-cycle, the anti-estrogen approach of formestane or Clomid is not highly effective, as it cannot mimic the high level of testicular stimulation that a bolus dose of HCG provides. The body also notices the lower-than-normal estrogen levels when your cycle is over and responds very quickly with increased LH release. Basically, estrogen is not the main focus post-cycle, testicular atrophy is. HCG is probably the most key drug here, and no anti-estrogen or aromatase inhibitor is going to replace it.
Dianabol is a Prohormone?
Question: My friend just explained to me that methandrostenolone itself is a very weak steroid, and that most of its muscle-building power comes from conversion to other compounds. If Dianabol is really a "prohormone," do you know what steroid it actually converts to? I'd like to know what that mystery steroid is.
Answer: The mystery steroid you are searching for doesn't exist. The "Dianabol as a prohormone" theory is an incorrect concept borne of another series of incorrect concepts that I'd rather not frustrate over now. Staying focused on your question, there is no evidence to suggest any of the major metabolites of methandrostenolone are going to be more effective than the original compound. If you look at how this steroid breaks down in the body, you'll see that virtually all its known metabolic transformations result in the formation of metabolites with significantly low or no potency. The only pathway that makes a stronger androgen would be the 5-alpha reduction of Dianabol (to methyl-dehydroboldenone), but we know from studies that this enzyme does not affect Dianabol in humans to any appreciable degree. We therefore see such little methyl-dehydroboldenone that it's difficult to suggest that it has any notable physiological impact. It would be utterly impossible to say that this metabolite accounts for the muscle-building effect of Dianabol. All the data we have on this agent (and we have a good deal) suggests that as with most anabolic steroids, the parent compound itself is the main actor.
Short or Long Cycles?
Question: I need to know how to best use the gear I picked up. I have three 10-milliliter vials of testosterone enanthate (200mg/ml) and want to use it all for my next cycle. What would work better for me? Would it be best to do 600 milligrams (3ml) per week for 10 weeks, or 400 milligrams per week for 15 weeks? I want to get the most out of my cycle in terms of gains. I'm not too worried about side effects at either dose.
Answer: Yours is the age-old dosing issue that each bodybuilder needs to work out for himself or herself. I'm sure you were hoping for an answer like "Take X milligrams every Y days for Z weeks and you will gain the most muscle," but unfortunately, not I, nor anyone else, can give you that answer. Well, at least if they know what they're talking about. The problem lies in the fact that there are just too many individual factors determining how each person will respond best to steroids, and what dose is going to provide optimal improvement in performance. The scope you're talking about is also far too narrow to make a definite judgment.
The question, "What will work better, 100 milligrams of Anadrol or 10 milligrams of Dbol?" would have been a lot easier to answer. The best I can do is give you my personal perspective on those three vials of testosterone. My own preference was always to run longer as opposed to harder. I felt that 400-600 milligrams per week was much more cost-effective than, say, 1,000 milligrams. I'd grow better on the gram dose, but not 40 to 60 percent more money better. But your proposed options are much more narrow than this comparison. I would say that for someone inexperienced with steroids, 400 milligrams per week for 15 weeks would probably be one heck of a productive cycle. I'd probably choose that if I were in your shoes, but then again, that's me. Your mileage may vary.
I Want My M.T.E.
Question: I was reading Anabolics 2004, and came upon mention of a steroid called methyltrienolone. It sounds nasty! I want some. Do you think there's any chance this steroid will come to the market again? Sometimes I think it sucks that I was born in the ‘80s. I missed out on some of the best steroids!
Answer: Did you really miss out? Maybe you did. Maybe you didn't. We live in a very unique time for steroids. On the one hand, most steroids are currently illegal, and the "user" of today tends to be looked at with more contempt than John Kerry at an NRA meeting. But on the other hand, the thriving U.S. "legal steroid" market and all-time high demand for illicit products have been breathing new life into the global steroid industry, which had been languishing for decades prior. For bodybuilders to get black market steroids in any volume, there needs to first be legitimate pharmaceutical companies producing them. The more companies geared up to make things like prohormones, the more will already have the equipment and incentive to produce other "obscure" steroids like oral Turinabol, Parabolan and drostanolone. The trend has already started in a big way. Before it peaks, we may very well wind up seeing more steroid variety than we ever have in history.
Now, with that said, methyltrienolone is really not one of the drugs I'd be waiting in line to try. This drug is a methylated (c17-alpha alkylated) form of trenbolone and is manufactured as a research material instead of a human drug because it was demonstrated long ago to be highly liver-toxic. In fact, it is probably the most liver-toxic steroid ever studied in a clinical setting. Even if for some reason one of the underground labs out there were legitimately crazy enough to bottle it (that may be the case right now), my advice would still be to forget MTE. Although chances are you wouldn't kill yourself with it, I'm sure there are a lot better things on the horizon if "new and unusual" is what you are after.
Anti-Gyno Dynamo
Question: I was wondering if you could tell me what is better for preventing gyno during a cycle, Arimidex or Nolvadex? I want to get advice on this straight from the source!
Answer: Both of these drugs are effective "anti-estrogens" when you're using aromatizable (capable of converting to estrogen) steroids. Arimidex, as an extremely powerful aromatase inhibitor, is definitely the more effective agent at preventing gyno, though. I will, however, mention that there are pluses and minuses to each that you might want to consider. Nolvadex, for instance, tends to increase HDL (good) cholesterol levels due to its inherent estrogenic activity in the liver. This can be a plus for those concerned about cardiovascular risk factors during steroid intake. Arimidex, on the other hand, is sure to lower good cholesterol, further exacerbating the negative lipid changes that steroid use tends to bring out. When it comes to cutting, Nolvadex is also lot less effective at hardening you up than Arimidex. The powerful estrogen-suppressing effect of the latter agent is highly favored by bodybuilders for pre-contest increases in muscle definition. It tends to be a fairly effective fat-loss agent and great for shedding excess water. Both agents should help you avoid gyno, so my advice would be to just take a minute and think about the other factors important in your particular situation.