# Chemical Solution Q&A



## K1 (Dec 3, 2012)

by Bill Roberts

*Feels Like Sustanon? Yeah,right!

Okay, I've seen it all: Boron, Smilax, HMB, and nowAndrosol. All supposed to be incredibly amazing. Roberts, I thought you established some credibility overthe last few years with your articles on Mesomorphosis. But now that you have your own product to sell,you're obviously just a sellout. Prohormones don't work. Feels like Sustanon? Yeah, right! Obviously, I'mnot going to be reading your articles anymore.

Karl*

"Feels like Sustanon" was a strongstatement to make for Androsol. It was my idea to describe it that way, and I stand behind it. But"bumper sticker" statements can't tell the whole story — obviously, there's more to be saidabout it.

TheBehind the Scenes column that you're talking about went onto say Androsol was comparable in effect to "one or two" Sustanons per week, and to a"mild" steroid cycle — not to a heavy cycle.

So if you've got your panties all in a twist with theidea that, "T-mag lied, saying Androsol is like a gram of Sustanon per week," get overit! It's a legal way to get results that are similar to a mild cycle. A gram per week of Test, however, willblow Androsol away. Let there be no mistake, I never said differently.

What we've seen in tests with Androsol sincestill agrees with our original description. Test subjects have all gained between five and nine poundsin LBM in a couple of weeks on Androsol, with arm circumference increases of up to one-half inch, with oneguy gaining a full inch. This is no less than what most people get from one or two Sustanons aweek.

But as far ashow it literally feels, not just the result ? it's different than Sustanon, at least by my standards.Tim Patterson personally thought it felt more like trenbolone acetate, but in my book I really thought itwould have been more accurate to say "Feels like Dianabol," though that isn't a precise matcheither. This feeling must come from the androstenediol (4-AD) itself, rather than from whatever amount isconverted to T.

Thelibido increase is amazing and must be experienced to be believed, and there's also a very strong "feelgood" aspect to Androsol. It's definitely lightly euphoric.

From the practical standpoint of how to stack it withother steroids, no, it isn't like Sustanon. For example, if you're already taking Dianabol and you add inSustanon, you'll get quite an added kick. They work somewhat synergistically together.

This isn't true withAndrosol. If Dianabol use is fairly high, like 50 mg per day, adding Androsol will give little added benefit,and no more benefit than additional Dianabol would. They don't work synergistically, which is whatmight happen when things work by different mechanisms instead of by the same mechanism.

Specifically, while Dianabol iseffective in muscle, it doesn't work well at the androgen receptor, having very poor binding to the AR(anabolic receptor). The benefit it gives must come from another mechanism. I believe the same is true for4-AD. This is unlike testosterone, which does have good binding to the AR.

As a side note, nandrolone is a steroid witheven better binding to the AR, which explains why the Deca/Dianabol stack works so well. Currently, anathlete I'm working with is testing the Deca/Androsol stack, and I'll be quite interested to learn ifnandrolone and Androsol work synergistically as expected.

So, if you wanna' be precise, nope, Androsol isn't a"double" for Sustanon any more than any of the non-Testosterone pharmaceutical steroids are.They're different animals. And Androsol isn't an anabolic steroid. It's a legal prohormone.

Maybe you would've preferredthat I said:

"It feels like I'm on some kind of juice, givingresults like a mild dosage, but it's not identical in feel to any specific kind of juice, being most similar infeel to Dianabol but with much more libido increase and a little more euphoric effect"?

That might have beenmore precise! Kind of wordy, though.

*How Does Androsol Work?

It looks likeyou are supposed to just spray on Androsol, and it dries in a couple of minutes. Does that work? How is itcarried through the skin? It can't be that easy.

Vern*

Description of transport through the skin can be madevery complicated, if one wants to really get down to the specifics. For example, I have a 35-page articlecurrently submitted to J Pharm Sci on a novel method of modeling transdermal delivery, and anearlier published one of maybe half that length. They're dense reading and I don't really recommend themfor entertainment. If you want to read all the literature out there, it'll take you quite some time, and youmay drop into a boredom-induced coma.

The description can also be made pretty simple. It'swhat's called a diffusion process, rather like adding a drop of ink to the top of a glass of water, andwatching it gradually mix with the water. When you dissolve a compound in the top of the skin, it works itsway through the skin in a similar way. The amount that gets through the skin (the flux) depends onfour things:

1) Solubility of the compound in theskin

The more compound that can dissolve in the skin, themore compound will diffuse through the skin. If you've already decided what compound you want to use,then you can't do much to increase the amount that gets through the skin. It has a certain solubility, and thebest you can do is to saturate the top surface of the skin with the compound.

2) Molecular weight ofthe compound

Diffusion is slowed down somewhat as compounds getlarger. Again, if you've already decided on a compound, you can't do much to increase the amount that getsthrough the skin.

3) Permeability of the skin

The skin can becomemore permeable (easy to get through) by use of permeation enhancers. These typically work bymaking the waxy lipids in your skin more liquid. While it's not difficult to get several times the flux persquare inch with such techniques, those square inches tend to be real pains in the ass. You might have towear a patch and end up with skin irritation. No one can tolerate permeation enhancement over a wide area.The percentage of drug transported versus the amount applied isn't necessarily improved atall. The improvement is in allowing smaller skin areas to be used.

4) Area of theskin

The larger the area of the skin that's saturated withcompound, the more the total flux. If you can apply the compound to 100 times the area, you can get 100times the flux.

My idea was to make a product that was so convenientto use that you could happily apply it to several square feet of skin and achieve very high flux, more fluxthan you could get from any tolerable amount of a penetration-enhancement technology. (Do you really wantto wear a one square foot patch, 24 hours a day, seven days a week?)

So, this is what happens when you apply Androsol: asthe alcohol evaporates, much of the 4-AD transfers into the skin, saturating it. The remainder dries to anextremely light, essentially invisible amorphous film. This film tightly adheres to the skin, and readilyresupplies 4-AD to the top layer of the skin, keeping it saturated as the prohormone diffuses down throughinto the deeper layers.

The result is a sustained, very high total flux for atleast 16 hours. The scientific literature shows sustained flux for 24 hours for a similar method usingtestosterone and ethanol, and from personal use, I can definitely tell that 4-AD is still at high levels after24 hours.

Byallowing a large area of application, the Androsol technology makes it possible to apply up to a gram of4-AD per day while obtaining efficient transdermal delivery. This gives far more flux than what canpractically be achieved with creams, gels, or patches. It really is that easy!

*Women andAndrosol?

How much Androsol do you recommend for women?I'm guessing about 1/3 of what men use, so maybe 20 or 25 sprays twice per day? Is it safe forwomen?

Carole*

I don't recommend Androsol for use by women.There's so much individual variability that it's impossible to predict how much of any androgen a givenwoman can use without experiencing problems such as facial hair growth or hoarsening of thevoice.

In a maletest subject, we've seen sustained elevations of over 30 times normal levels of T from a single applicationof only 28 sprays of Androsol. So I have to wonder, would even one spray be too much for a woman if usedon a regular basis? It seems possible. It's also possible that as much as seven sprays might be okay, but wehaven't tested this and I wouldn't bet on it.

If you're a woman who's concerned about safety, theonly recommendation that I can give is to not use Androsol.

*When and How to ApplyAndrosol

I've ordered three bottles of Androsol and want tomake sure that I use them right when they arrive. Do I have to take a shower before each application? Whatabout if I want to use it before a workout? What time of day should I use Androsol, and how do I apply it?The ad says "thighs, torso, and/or arms." Any one of these, or all of them?

Nick*
It's very important that your skin not be the slightestbit wet, damp, or sweaty at the time of application. If it is, the solubility of 4-AD in your skin will bereduced because 4-AD is practically insoluble in water. The results could be mixed or, worse yet,nonexistent.

Afterthe Androsol is applied, though, sweating or getting wet won't matter. Rubbing wet skin with a towel,however, would be likely to remove Androsol. You don't have to shower before each use, as long as the skinis clean and dry.

The time of day you apply it probably isn't thatimportant because the delivery is quite sustained. If using twice a day, the most efficient thing would be forthe applications to be twelve hours apart, but I doubt that it would make much of a difference if you're offby a few hours.

You should apply to the widest area possible using thethinnest coat possible. Personally, I distribute 70 sprays over the calves, thighs, front and sides of torso,and arms.

*"Two On, Four Off" Cycle, Why Not EightWeeks?

I know that you were involved with Androsol and havewritten a lot of articles advocating "two weeks on, four weeks off" cycles. But I don't think that Androsolusers should cycle it that way just because you said so! I'd make much better gains going for eight weeksstraight. But before I do that, is there a reason why I shouldn't?

Alex*
We recommend "two weeks on,four weeks off" cycles for Androsol because this is a way for people to use the product while minimizingthe effect on natural Testosterone production. Sure, HCG and Clomid would permit longer cycles withouttesticular atrophy, but can we really recommend that our supplement product be used in a way thatcould also necessitate black market drugs? No.

Now, if your number-one goal is to have the mostimprovement possible eight weeks from now, then being on Androsol for eight weeks straight will, ofcourse, give more improvement than you'd get from a plan that had you "off" for four of thoseweeks.

But thisisn't a fair comparison. If you're going to count the "off" weeks of the "two weeks on, fourweeks off" cycle against it, you ought to do the same for eight-week cycles: you're still going to need"off" weeks. Without drugs to boost Testosterone production, you really ought to have abouttwice as many weeks "off" as "on" so that you don't decrease average Testosteroneproduction too much over time.

So let's count the "off" weeks in eithercase. Will you have better results after 24 weeks from eight weeks on and 16 weeks off, or from four "twoweeks on, four weeks off" cycles? With steroid cycles, the short cycles will give the better results. Withprohormones, I'm not sure, but I'd still bet on the short cycles.

And with the eight-week cycle, there's a much moresignificant chance you might have problems recovering your natural production afterward.

I'd suggest using Androsol in asafe way. If you want to take substantial health risks by being "on" the majority of the time orfor long periods of time, chances are you'd prefer to get the extra gains you'd acquire from a seriousanabolic steroid cycle. You would probably want to use either entirely pharmaceutical steroids, or you'dwant to stack Deca or Primobolan with the Androsol. Not that you should do anything illegal!

*Accidental Transfer of Androsol toOthers?

How can I be sure that Androsol isn't going to transferto children, or to my girlfriend during sex? It sounds to me as if it could, since it makes a film on yourbody. And isn't the film annoying? Why doesn't it rub off onto your clothing?

David*

This film is virtuallyimperceptible after drying and is so well-bonded to the skin that it definitely won't come off with just thetouch of a hand or even from all-day contact with clothing. It isn't bothersome in the slightest bit. Even ifyou go looking for it, it's hard to tell that it's there. Your girlfriend can even lick you, and she won't be ableto tell that you applied Androsol. It's completely discrete.

(If you find that it's perceptible, either by taste orsight, then you applied it too thick! The same number of sprays should've gone over a widerarea.)

To be 100%sure that no transfer to another person occurs, choose a body part that won't come into contact withanother person. For example, if you have a toddler who grabs your legs a lot and whom you hold frequently,restricting use to parts of your torso or legs that are covered by clothing will guarantee safety. Actually, Ithink it's very unlikely that there could be any problem even if you don't follow these precautions, just solong as you allow your skin to become thoroughly dry.

As an experiment, try applying seventy sprays (500mg) of Androsol, wait ten minutes, and then try to rub it off your skin. I guarantee that you won't be able toproduce a small pile of 4-AD shavings, even though the original 500 mg contained in that 70-spray dosagewould be quite a large pile.

And even if you could remove it readily, solid 4-ADwouldn't transfer well to another person's skin. Try taking 4-AD powder from a capsule and rubbing it onyourself. How much would get into the skin? About zero.

Here's another comparison: after ink dries on paper,try rubbing that piece of paper onto another one. Can you transfer even one percent? I really doubtit.

As for transferby sweat, 4-AD is practically insoluble in water, so that mode of transfer is unlikely also. We haven't,however, proven that there's no chance of significant transfer in some sweaty m?nage ? deux (ifthat phrase even makes any sense). If there's any such transfer, the immediate sign of it would bethat your girlfriend will become a total nymphomaniac and will leave you for someone with a biggerdick.

*Avoiding Inhibition WithAndrosol?

Instead of using the high doses of Androsol talkedabout on T-mag, I want to try using steady lower doses that will "supplement" my levelswithout causing much inhibition. How much Androsol can I get away with?

Rob*

This is something we're studyingright now. I'm guessing that seven sprays per day wouldn't be very inhibitory, since that's only 1/20 ofour maximum dose (140 sprays per day), but this is something that needs to be verified before anyonecontinues on this long-term. We should have results in a couple of weeks.

Here's our reasoning. Since our maximum dose is lesseffective for gains than one gram per week of Testosterone, then 1/20 of our maximum dose shouldbe less inhibitory than 1/20 of of a gram per week of Testosterone, and that amount isn't very inhibitory.However, there's a problem with this logic. Androsol isn't Testosterone, so a direct comparison likethis one may not be valid.

Making an argument in the other direction, recall howonly 28 sprays gave elevations of over 30 times, though this elevation probably consists of both 4-AD andTestosterone, not just Testosterone. That seems to imply that even one spray (7.1 mg) might doublelevels, and that amount could plausibly cause some inhibition. This seems unlikely, but it can't yet be ruledout. So, this is something that we're researching right now. We'll report on the results as soon aspossible.

*Nandrosol

When are you comingout with the nor version of Androsol? I always liked norandrodiol better than androdiol, so I think I wouldlike the nor better in the topical, too. I ordered some Androsol, but I'm hoping the nor version will come outsoon.

Ian*

Initially, we were reluctant to produce a 19-norversion of Androsol because the cost has to be so much higher, and we wondered whether it could really beworth it to the customer. The very best we can do is to match the price per gram of name-brand capsuleswhile providing a superior delivery system and giving you probably several times theefficiency.

Thething is, norandrodiol is expensive! For example, 12 grams of Substrate Solutions norandrodiol listsfor $240, and the best discount price seems to be $120. An equivalent amount of the Sports Oneproduct lists for $128, and the best discount price seems to be $93.50.

So there's just no way 12 grams worth of Nandrosolcan be anywhere near the "deal" as Androsol. Despite the extremely high materials cost, we'redetermined to keep the list price down to $135 or so, which would work out to roughly $90 per 12 grams ifyou "buy two, get one free." By comparison, Androsol lists for $49.95, which works out to$33.30 per 12 grams if you go for the "buy two, get one free" discount.

Will Nandrosol, at almost three times theprice, give you three times the effect per gram? No, But it should have fewer side effects in the skin andscalp.

Personally, Ilike providing a product that offers both great performance and a great price. Our planned price forNandrosol is excellent in terms of price per gram and even more so in price and performance,compared to every other norandrodiol product on the market, including the sublinguals. But compared toAndrosol, it's pricey.

After thinking about it, though, we all agreed thatwhether this price is or isn't worth the benefits is entirely up to the customer. For some people, the extraprice won't matter; they prefer using a prohormone that will give them an added boost in performance withthe least possible chance of side effects. Others, however, who perhaps want the most anabolic bang fortheir buck, and who aren't as worried about — or prone to — possible side effects, will prefer the Androsol.So, if the test market likes the product, we'll come out with Nandrosol in the next month ortwo.


----------



## K1 (Dec 3, 2012)

*Whadda' say we reschedule the drug test for next week?

Q: Was wondering if you could help me with a few points regarding clearance times for some "supplements." If a guy was going to take Testosterone enanthate at around 200 mg a week for 6 weeks, how close could he do this to a competition and test clean?

Also, if this same person was going to be tested randomly and possibly rung up at home for some out-of-season testing, is it possible to still occasionally take some Testosterone in small amounts and be reasonably confident of passing that friggin' test?

The Ripped One*

A: Testosterone enanthate has a half-life of 5 or 6 days. Let's say it's six days to be conservative. This means that six days later, half of what you injected will still be present, and twelve days later, one quarter of it will be present, etc.

So, if you're using T enanthate at the 200 mg/week level, 6 days will get you down to the 100 mg/week level, and 12 days will get you down to the 50 mg/week level. Your T levels will certainly not be too high to pass the test at this point. If your natural Testosterone production is restored, then you'll also be producing enough epitestosterone to be able to pass the ratio test. With this timing scheme, there are no worries.

If, however, you'd been using 400 mg/week, you'd need another six days of clearance, or if you used 800 mg/week, you'd need yet another six days clearance to be certain. These values are conservative.

Often, it isn't necessary to let levels drop all the way to the 50 mg/week level. You could save time by taking the test when at the 100 mg/week level, and this is usually low enough to pass. But if you're clean at the time of the competition, it really doesn't make a significant difference to your condition whether you came off a few days earlier or not (providing your natural T levels are good), so why risk pushing it that close?

All of this doesn't apply to steroids that aren't naturally present in the body. For them, you have to wait until levels are far, far lower than this. They can take dozens of half-lives before being undetectable.

Let's say, however, that you want to use something continuously, even while facing the possibility of a random drug test. If you can keep your natural Testosterone production up, for example with Clomid or HCG (if HCG is not being tested), you could get away with at least 50 mg/week of added injectable Testosterone. Many athletes, in fact, are able to get away with 100 mg/week. I am not advocating cheating, but ideally one would monitor results with self-tests. Without self tests, you're shooting in the dark.

Dianabol and Anavar, Good Dance Partners?
*
Q: Would d-bol and Anavar (oxandrolone) work well together as in an oral stack?

Dave*

A: I haven't tried that particular combination, except in tapers, where it's worked well. Even so, I'd think that these steroids would stack well for gaining mass since Anadrol definitely stacks synergistically with oxandrolone, and I've found Dianabol and Anadrol to be very similar in their action as androgens.

By synergistically, I mean that, for example, 75 mg/day each of oxandrolone and Anadrol are much more effective than 150 mg/week of either by itself, even though the total amount of steroid is the same. In this particular case, the difference is pretty dramatic.

Something to remember with oxandrolone, though, is that there's no miracle regarding its effectiveness per milligram. No commonly-available steroid does a great deal for a male athlete at doses much less than 200 mg/week, and it usually takes 500-1000 mg/week to get a pretty strong effect. Thirty milligrams per day of oxandrolone is actually a pretty small amount of steroid (210 mg/week) and it gives results that are reasonable for that low a dosage. It's not weak per milligram, but it's often incorrectly called weak simply because people tend to take small, or weak amounts.

It's really not a cost-effective drug for the male athlete or bodybuilder though, unless bulk powder is used. Even then it tends to be expensive.

Primobolan injectable would be a far more cost-effective choice. For the price of a small amount of oxandrolone, you could be using 400-1000 mg of Primo per week, and you'd get more results with less toxicity.

It's a commonly held notion that oxandrolone has no liver toxicity is, but that's incorrect.

*Nor-4-AD vs. Nor-5-AD, a Don King Production

Q: I remember Dan Duchaine seemed to think 19-nor-5-androstenediol was a better product than 19-nor-4-androstenediol, at least with injectables, which bypass the liver. Which prohormone will you be using in Nandrosol and why?

Jason*

A: Dan liked estrogenic steroids. He liked methandriol, which is quite estrogenic, and he also felt that the high estradiol levels experienced from aromatizing steroids might help gains. For cattle, it's certainly true that estrogens plus androgens give more weight gain than androgens alone, but with bodybuilders, I don't care for the side effects. Beyond that, it's just not necessary.

In fact, I've seen athletes gain 15 lb of LBM (retained) in two weeks while using antiestrogens, and many competitive bodybuilders use antiestrogens throughout their cycles with excellent results. Generally, normal body levels of estrogen are clearly sufficient and you don't need to take estrogenic or aromatizing steroids to make optimal gains.

As far as nor-4-AD and nor-5-AD, my guess is that nor-5-AD is estrogenic, because 5-AD itself is estrogenic and removing the 19 methyl is structurally going to make it even more similar to an estrogen. I don't have specific data proving that, though. Nor-4-AD is certainly the far more proven product, and that's the nordiol that will be used in Nandrosol.

*The Clenbuterol and Cytomel Diet for Rugby Players

Q: I am 5'7", 230 lb and about 20% body fat. Yup, definetely a fat bastard, but nonetheless, I've been training for about 5 years now. I'm just one of those guys that when you look at him, you can't believe that he actually weighs what he says, but it's true. I have a lot of strength, and since I'm training for rugby that's what I'm aiming for. However, I'm ready to shed some fat so I can be more mobile before season starts.

In season I'm usually a solid 200, but I've fallen out of shape about the same "distance" as a pile of trash dropped from the tenth floor of a project in the Bowery. I have decided to try a Clen/Cytomel cycle and was wondering what kind of diet I should follow. My source insists I should be able to lose around 6-8 lbs a week on the cycle he's selling me.

My training is usually 6 days a week, 10 times a week with 4/5 weekdays doing morning routines that involve some cardio. My question is this, should I follow his advice? Or do you have something better? I know what you're probably going to say? try and lose it without the drugs or with some MD6... I know. I'm not making this a lifestyle, but rather a push over the speedbump. If you could outline a rough diet and cardio routine I would appreciate it a lot.

Here is my cycle:

Both Clen and Cytomel, start with 1 tab per day, then increase an extra tab every day until 5 tabs per day. The Clen tapers back down the same way every 2 weeks, and thyroid tapers down at 6 weeks.

Ultimate Rugger*

A: Your clenbuterol program is pretty reasonable, though it isn't necessary to cycle down as your source is recommending. Levels naturally taper down — once you stop taking it — due to the long half-life of clenbuterol.

You may find that using ephedrine in the off days will help you a great deal, too — otherwise, you may lack energy due to downregulated beta receptors.

I'd also like to see lower thyroid doses than most other people are arguing. Brock Strasser tells me about guys who have theories that involve taking one mcg/day for every pound of bodyweight, so a 200-lb guy would be taking 200 mcg/day, or 8 tabs.

I don't think much of those doses. These guys are in the flat part of the dose-response curve for sure. I mean, a full replacement dose is only 25 mcg.

What you have to consider is whether taking 200 mcg/day gives 8 times the extra fat loss of 25 mcg/day, in effect causing the user to lose an extra 8-16 lb per week instead of an extra one or two? No, and it doesn't give four times the results either, or even twice the results. The dose response curve has flattened out long before reaching this dosage level.

Fifty mcg/day will cause somewhat more fat loss than 25 mcg, though it may be bothersome for many users and will shut down natural thyroid production almost completely. Seventy-five mcg/day will enhance the effect slightly, but beyond that, the curve's pretty much flat.

Personally, I radically advocate going in the opposite direction — I like to see doses as low as 12.5 mcg/day. Here, natural thyroid production isn't reduced much. You get most of the benefits, and almost none of the adverse effect. Using this dosage, you should be able to lose 3 lb of fat per week, or close to it, with no problem? if all else in the diet and exercise program is good.

Taking the 12.5 mcg/day dose level actually results in about 50 mcg of drug in your system, because T3 (Cytomel) has a long half life and your system doesn't contain just the amount you took today, but also about three times more than that left over from previous days. For this reason, I'd take a 50 mcg loading dose the first day (if I knew I handled T3 well), and then maintain that level with 12.5 mcg/day after that. If it were my first use, though, I'd let levels build up slowly instead of taking the loading dose.

If you want to lose fat faster than 2-3 lb per week, expect to lose LBM and expect it to be a brief crash program, like Brock's Fit Fast Diet. You could, of course, crash off 10 lb or so in the first week, but most of it would be water and glycogen loss. Sustaining a fat loss of 6-8 lb week after that, as your friend says you can do, isn't realistic.

Since strength is important to you, I'd keep calories up — 12 cal/lb/day, figuring your desired weight is 200 lb, so for you, that equals 2400 calories. Keep protein up, and either use an isocaloric diet or a cyclical or targeted ketogenic diet. I'd definitely do far less aerobics than mentioned, no more than 2 hours per week. Keep protein up to at least 200 g/day. MD6, added caffeine, and optionally added ephedrine will help. Don't combine the MD6 with the clenbuterol, though. That could be a very bad mistake, since both the clenbuterol and the yohimbine in MD6 have some action on the heart.

Keeping androgen levels up or elevated above normal would help greatly, especially when using thyroid hormone — use of the substance tends to cause a lot of LBM losses if androgens aren't used.

*Clomid for Life

Q: I have a question about the drug Clomid. It seems a good way to boost T levels. This seems much better to me than introducing a foreign substance into the body that will eventually shut down the testes' natural production of T. As men age, 50 mg/day for extended periods seem to be ideal to boost flagging T levels and increase one's quality of life.

Since Clomid is not a controlled substance — as anabolic steroids are — and with the U.S. law stating that a person may buy 90 day's worth of a drug for personal use, will a person break US law by buying Clomid from an overseas pharmacy?

Rich*

A: It's definitely legal for you to import Clomid for personal use.

Clomid is one of the safer prescription drugs available, but I wouldn't assume that it's necessarily quite as ideal as you are thinking. For one thing, it isn't known whether Clomid acts as an estrogen or as an antiestrogen in the prostate. If it acts as an estrogen, it might be very inappropriate for older men.

Clomid is chemically very similar to tamoxifen, and tamoxifen is reasonably safe for use over a period of a decade or more, yet there's evidence that it may sometimes induce resistance to its own effect. Perhaps Clomid has the same problem. Its safety in men has been shown for periods of up to a year, but not for lifetime replacement therapy.

I think it's an excellent drug for athletes as part of a cycled plan, but I am not sure it is the best idea to be on it 365 days a year for the rest of one's life. I'd look at other ways of keeping Testosterone up, and perhaps just use Clomid as part of a cycled program.

*Making gains out of thin air

Q: I'm about to do a cycle. If I can, I want to stack 400 or more mg/week of Primobolan depot with Androsol and get really good results, or if I can't get a hold of any Primobolan, I'll start with just the Androsol for my first one. I'll be happy with 5 lb of retained muscle mass and it sounds like I can get that.

But what do I have to do to make sure I don't blow it and miss these gains?

Rick*

A: The best way to ruin a cycle — whether it's Androsol-only or a full blown steroid cycle — is to fail to take in enough extra calories and protein to support muscular growth. Muscle simply can't grow out of thin air, and the body cannot convert fat stores to muscle protein. The protein must come from your diet.

One gram of protein per lb of bodyweight per day is a good maintenance level for the weight-training athlete. If you want to grow, the needed protein should come from amounts above and beyond this.

The body doesn't have 100% efficiency in converting either dietary protein to muscle or in converting caloric energy to muscle, and my observations are that about 240 grams of protein and close to 2000 calories are needed for each pound of muscle added.

So if you want to gain 5 lbs of muscle during your cycle, plan on eating at least 1200 grams of protein above and beyond the maintenance figure, and nearly 10,000 calories, certainly at least 7500 calories, over your usual maintenance. Carbs should be reasonably high, at least as high as protein, and fat doesn't have to be very high, but should include both saturated fats and essential fatty acids.

A good training program is a must, and it's certainly possible to choose the wrong time for the steroid use. For example, if you've been training heavy for the last 10 weeks and you've stalled out, more of the same kind of training, even with steroids, is quite likely going to give you much less gains than you might experience if you recouped, dropped the weights down to a lighter rep range, and then built up over a couple of weeks before starting the steroid cycle. Obviously, there are a lot of great training programs available. Check out Ian King's articles in particular.

You also want to make sure that you get a lot of quality rest and that you're not presently undergoing a disastrously stressful time in your life. If you are, again, you can expect gains to be greatly compromised.

Good luck! I think you should easily meet your goal, or even surpass it.

*Orally active? That's no way to talk about my sister!

Q: I have two questions that have stumped me, given the resources in my area.

1) If a "product" contains acetate, would that mean it is designed to be suspended in sterile water? And if it did contain acetate, is that what makes the product faster acting?

2) Is "orally active" (for the most part) defined by the addition of a methyl group at the 17 position?

Thanks

MM*

A: The name of the ester — for example, acetate, propionate, or enanthate — tells you how long a chain of carbons is in the ester. The longer the chain, the more the steroid ester tends to be dissolved in fat instead of water. This keeps it out of blood circulation a higher percentage of the time, and therefore the steroid is slower and longer acting.

Acetate is the shortest ester, and the half-life will be several days shorter than for an enanthate ester.

Generally speaking, acetate esters will be much more soluble in oil than in water. The only acetate esters of significance today are, I think, trenbolone acetate, which can be put into oil solution, but not water solution, and methenolone acetate (Primobolan acetate), which is not available as an injectable presently (only as an oral).

As far as oral bioavailability, your assumption is, for the most part, correct. Without a 17-alkyl group (alkyl can be methyl or a few other things), oral bioavailability is usually low. However, steroids that have a methyl in the 1-position can have partial oral bioavailability. Primobolan and Proviron are examples of such steroids.

By the way, the existence of a methyl group at the 17-position winds up changing the shape of the entire molecule: it's not just a small change in one part of the molecule. (Chemistry fanatics might want to know the reason: it's because the 17-alpha position is pseudo-axial and therefore substitution to this position induces a conformational change to make it closer to equatorial. Non-chemistry-fanatics can completely ignore this side note with no loss of quality of life whatsoever!)

So when people say, for example, that boldenone (Equipoise) is just like Dianabol except for the lack of the 17-methyl, that's true technically, but the molecules have such different shapes that the body won't necessarily metabolize them in the same way; nor will binding to receptors necessarily be similar.

Putting the methyl on the 17-position doesn't just give you oral bioavailability, it really gives you a whole new steroid.


----------



## K1 (Dec 3, 2012)

*Anti-Estrogens at GNC?

Q: What's up with all the over-the-counter "estrogen blockers" and anti-gyno supplements on the market these days? Are any of them worth it or is this just wishful thinking?*

A: I don't think any of them are successful. Brock and I have been working for a year now on trying to bring a good anti-estrogen to market. So far we've had to toss every idea. None of them — including products already out on the market — stand up to close scrutiny.

I do have a really radical new idea that may work. It's strictly on the drawing board at this point though, and as of now, while it's almost certain to be effective, my best guess is it has only a 50% chance of proving itself both practical and safe. Actually, those are very good odds for a new compound, but they're too low for us to be shouting about it yet. This one won't be available any time soon, if ever.

Right now, the only anti-estrogen compounds worth using are Arimidex and Clomid, and to a lesser extent, Cytadren and Nolvadex. Period. Sorry, but right now, you just can't find a good anti-estrogen at GNC!

*Is Dietary Fat Anabolic?

Q: Dan Duchaine once said that dietary fat was the most anabolic thing a person could "take." Do you agree? What else might the average experienced trainee be overlooking, diet wise?*

A: No, I don't agree, but I don't know the context in which he said it. For the average guy, comparing dietary fat to anabolic steroids would be ridiculous!

Now, if the question is, "What's the best improvement a drug-free guy could make in his diet," then that's a different story. If he's eating a very low-fat diet and doesn't want to use drugs, then what Dan said is very true. You're shooting yourself in the foot with a diet that's too low in fat. For the natural trainer, it's a mistake to go much under half a gram of fat per day per pound of lean body mass.

Others miss the boat by not eating often enough. No more than three hours should elapse between meals, all should have reasonable protein, and no meal should be way larger than others. As far as other aspects of diet like vitamins and minerals, if you take three servings per day of a meal replacement product like Grow! or MET-Rx, you shouldn't have any deficiencies.

*Wanted: Big Muscles, Lots of Hair

Q: I want to do a steroid cycle, but all the men in my family have gone bald and I think I'm losing some hair too. I'm thinking that Winstrol is the steroid I should use, but not if it converts to DHT! Please help!*

A: Winstrol doesn't convert to DHT, but regardless of what anyone else says, when it comes to synthetic steroids, converting to DHT has absolutely nothing to do with hair loss. All androgens at sufficient doses will speed male-pattern baldness if you have the genetics for it. It's that simple, and there's no exception.

Steroids fall into three categories here:

1. More potent in the scalp than in muscle — bad news.

2. Equally potent in the scalp as in muscle — less of a problem.

3. Less potent in the scalp than in muscle — good.

Testosterone, if finasteride (Proscar or Propecia, 1 mg/day) isn't used, falls into the first category. Most synthetics fall into the second category, as does the Testosterone/finasteride stack. Nandrolone falls into the third, desirable category with regard to hair loss.

So, if it's important to you to delay your apparently inevitable hair loss as long as possible, the best choice of steroid is nandrolone, at moderate doses such as 200 mg. You'd get more results at 400 mg, but it would be somewhat harder on the hair than the lower dose. Winstrol isn't a terrible choice for the hair, but will speed hair loss, as will all of the synthetics or Testosterone.

*Cheating, Lying, and Stealing
Nope, not the White House, It's the Supplement Biz!

Q: I read on another web site that N-17E will never be able to be sold legally because there's no way to prevent it from containing free nandrolone. Furthermore, they claimed you stole the idea for N-17E from them! What's the story?*

A: The individual in question who wrote this is the owner of a supplement company that attempts to compete with Biotest. This individual spends a tremendous amount of time writing phony posts under various names blasting Biotest all over the Internet. I wouldn't take anything he says seriously.

Very simply, we were informed that after switching manufacturing companies, the first company "leaked" the info about what we'd been doing. He now tries to claim the idea as his own, but fact is, we've been working on it for almost a year now. And furthermore, since I have four years of graduate education in pro-drug design — and N-17E utilizes that technology — I hardly think I needed to steal it from a guy who has no knowledge of any kind of chemistry, let alone this specialized field.

The only information he has is what he obtained from the leak and what's appeared on the Testosterone website. He very simply doesn't know what he's talking about when he claims N-17E will be contaminated with free nandrolone. This is a problem we solved some time ago. Basically, in the supplement industry, I'd disregard commentary from would-be competitors. Their commentary tends to be self-serving or even false.

*Clomid for Endurance Athletes

Q: I'm an Ironman triathlon competitor, which involves endurance running, swimming, and biking. My muscle mass always goes down the toilet during months where I do heavy endurance work, and my libido disappears as well. What can I do? My Testosterone levels are at the very bottom of the normal range, but my doctor won't prescribe Testosterone replacement since they're still normal. My coach tells me I could disqualify myself if I went that route anyway*.

A: The most proven treatment is Clomid. Not only is it effective in increasing Testosterone levels in endurance athletes, but it's also effective in reducing muscle damage caused from such exercise. Though I haven't checked lately, last I heard the IOC had not banned the use of Clomid. I'd advise all athletes reading this to check out the rules of your particular governing body before using Clomid.

I'd also recommend HCG at 500 IU per day. This, however, is a banned substance so if you're subject to random drug tests, it wouldn't be appropriate. Tribex-500 has also proven useful to endurance athletes.

*Proviron or Winstrol? Both?

Q: I've just scored 100 tabs of Proviron. How do I make a steroid cycle out of this? Or should I use the Winstrol I already have? How about stacking the two?*

A: Unfortunately, Proviron is completely worthless as an anabolic. It's believed that this results from metabolism in muscle tissue to a related non-anabolic diol steroid. Whatever the reason, no one gets gains from it. Some bodybuilders use Proviron because it's somewhat antiestrogenic, but not very much so.

On the other hand, Winstrol can give you excellent results. There would be no real reason to add Proviron to the Winstrol.

*"Free" Meal Too Costly

Q: When dieting, do you think it's okay to have a "free meal" or two per week, you know, where you eat everything in the fridge and then start eyeballing the cat and the outdoor grill?*

A: Absolutely not. You'll have much better results by having the same total calories per week, avoiding the pigouts and allowing yourself more calories per meal the rest of the time.

The metabolism doesn't, in my opinion, reset to normal from the dieting mode from just one meal. Alternating normal (not excessive) calories with submaintenance calories for fat loss is a good idea, but the periods of alternation should be more on the order of two or three weeks of dieting and then a week of maintenance calories, rather than alternating dieting with pigout meals. Pigging out on "cheat days" is one of the best ways to compromise results on a diet, I think.

*Is GH Worth It?

Q: Assuming a guy has no plans of competing and just wants to look good, is growth hormone worth the cost? I've heard it's not that great by itself, but may help a little with fat loss. Seems pretty damned expensive just to lose a few pounds. Your thoughts?*

A: GH by itself is not that great for the younger guy. But if someone is over age 40 and is financially successful, one IU per day by prescription is probably well worth it, and it may be worth if for someone in his thirties, too. For younger guys, no, other things are better. For fat loss, low-dose thyroid hormone is superior for fat loss, whether Cytomel or T2. For gaining muscle, androgens or supplements with good anabolic properties will give better results for the dollar than GH.

[editor's note: for a more comprehensive look at growth hormone, take a look at John Berardi's article, "The Fountain of GH" in this week's issue]

*Will Oxandrolone Screw Up My Cycle?

Q: I just managed to acquire some oxandrolone. Mostly I got it because it seemed like such a good deal — I already had what I thought I needed for my cycle, namely Deca and Stanazolic. I'm thinking of adding in oxandrolone at 25 mg/day, but I'm concerned that since it's a weak steroid, it may just bring down what the other steroids can do. Should I add it in or would my cycle actually be stronger if I held off on it?*

A: There are classes of drugs which work the way you're talking about, i.e. where adding a "partial agonist" or weak drug can actually reduce the effect of a "full agonist" or strong drug that's already being used. So your idea is a logical one.

In the case of anabolic steroids, though, it's never an issue because they're all full agonists. Yes, some are more effective (potent) per milligram than others, but all of them, when bound to their receptors, have the exact same effect. Adding another anabolic steroid, even one that isn't very potent, never takes away effect.

And besides that, it isn't true that oxandrolone is a "weak" steroid. It's a rather potent Class-I steroid, about as effective per milligram as Deca. What seems to happen here is that people notice it doesn't contain many mg per tablet and translate this as "weak." Actually, that's more likely to imply that the manufacturer considers it rather strong!

So, add the oxandrolone in there if you like, but since 25 mg/day is only 175 mg/week, the added effect will be modest.

*What's the scoop on the "anabolic/androgenic ratio"?

Q: I've read about "anabolic/androgenic ratio" and how you ought to use both an androgen and an anabolic, or how you ought to avoid androgens. What exactly is this ratio, and how do I use this information in planning a cycle?*

A: The "anabolic/androgenic" ratio is a relic of the 1950s and 1960s, and has only very limited application to bodybuilding. It's based on a wrong idea.

Let's understand the wrong idea, though, so we can see what these ratios really mean.

When you're developing new drugs, very often you have a "lead compound," an already-known drug or natural product, and this lead compound has more than one activity. You decide that it might be really cool to make a new drug that has only one of those activities but doesn't have the other.

For example, Testosterone has activity both as a skeletal muscle anabolic and as a sex steroid. In some patients, you won't want the sex steroid activity — you don't want your lady patient to grow a beard, or to give your male patient a receding hairline — but you may want the anabolic activity.

So you try making analogues and derivatives of Testosterone, trying all kinds of different tweaks to the molecule. You then test them all and see if any do what you want.

But how do you test them? That's the problem.

In the 1950s, Hirshberger came up with the idea of measuring the effect of Testosterone derivatives on the levator ani muscle and prostate of the rat. Growth of the levator ani would, he hoped, be a good predictor of desired therapeutic activity, and growth of the prostate would be a good predictor of undesired activity.

This test became the way to test anabolic steroids and decide which ones offered the most potential as therapeutic drugs. It would have been a valid test if adverse side effects had been caused by one kind of receptor that was in the prostate, and desired anabolic effects by another kind of receptor that was in the levator ani. Then the test would have found new drugs that bound to the "good receptor" giving the desired results, and not to the "bad receptor."

The problem is, that's not so with this test. The prostate and levator ani have the same androgen receptor! So differences in receptor binding weren't being measured at all.

The differences in "anabolic/androgenic ratio" compared to Testosterone are mostly just due to Testosterone being metabolized to DHT in the prostate, but this doesn't happen with the synthetics.

So this ratio is pretty much a dud. You definitely don't need to use it in your cycle planning. However, when the ratio is high, it does indicate pretty accurately that you can get the same anabolic activity with less effect on the scalp, skin, and prostate. And that's a good thing.


----------



## K1 (Dec 3, 2012)

*Eating Post-Cycle

Q: How should I train in order to keep my gains after a cycle of androgens? Heavy, but with less volume? Light to facilitate recovery? Should I take a few days off of training right after a cycle given the previously high volume when "on"?*

A: LBM retention seems clearly better when weights remain relatively heavy, say 80% 1RM or whatever percent you were using when the steroid cycle ended, whichever is higher. This is necessary for only one or two weeks, at which time the periodization plan may move to a relatively lighter weight such as 60% 1RM.

Volume should be cut about in half in the first one or two off weeks.

If body parts were trained twice per week during the cycle, then taking a few days off is fine, but if they were trained only once per week, I don't think added rest days (beyond 7 days) are beneficial for the upper body, but they can be acceptable for the lower body. Simply reducing the volume is all that's really needed.

*Value of Androgens When Dieting

Q: I'm thinking of trying MAG-10 during a diet phase. Is this a good idea? The articles seem to always talk about bulking. I'm assuming it will help me preserve muscle, too.

Stefan*

A: This depends somewhat on where your body fat currently is. If you're at say, 15% or 20% body fat and are looking to drop a modest amount like 10 pounds of fat, you can have excellent LBM retention without androgen supplementation, provided that you keep calories and diet reasonable, taking in at least 12 cal/lb LBM/day.

But if you're wanting to lose fat from a starting point like 8% or 10% body fat, or if you want to lose fat very rapidly with a more severe diet, then androgen supplementation makes a tremendous difference. With MAG-10, for example, calories can be reduced to about 8 cal/lb LBM/day, with about half coming from protein and the other half from carbs and/or fats.

I'd particularly recommend John Berardi's method of consuming principally protein and carbs in the earlier part of the day, and protein and fats in the later part of the day, while getting at least 6 grams per day of combined DHA/EPA from suitable supplements. Personally, I use Twinlab's Dale Alexander Super MaxEPA, which is so concentrated as to provide this amount in only 100 calories. There may be other good brands, however.

*Women Folk

Q: I hope I have a question worthy of an answer — a search of your site found nothing. I really haven't been able to find an honest assessment anywhere.

Here's the scoop: I would like to know your thoughts on supplementing with 19-norandrostenedione in women?

I have been a fairly high level athlete (triathlete,strength-endurance competitions - anything with sweat!) for many years and would like to see what a "mild" enhancer would do. I'd like to see if I can get to 8-9% body fat, normal off-season is 15%, competitive is 12ish. That translates to about 3 or 4 more pounds of body fat replaced by a few more pounds of muscle.

The female body really rebels against low body fat levels, as I am sure you know. My husband has some reservations about me using a pro-hormone - I think I may be on the verge of "too muscular" as it is!

Thanks kindly.

Leslie*

A: 19-norandrostenedione is an unusual prohormone.

In men it's often a horrible inducer of gyno, which quite likely is due to a progestagenic effect. So 19-norandrostenediol (nor-4-AD), which does not have this problem, is a superior compound. It's also superior because it's active all by its lonesome, without requiring conversion in the body, whereas the dione version does.

I'm not entirely sure whether a progestagenic side effect would necessarily be adverse to a female competitor, but I suspect it might be, and there's no reason really to add that complicating factor.

If you must use a prohormone, nor-4-AD would be a better choice. While Nandrosol (which contains nor-4-AD) is no longer produced, it's still available from some vendors. I'd recommend no more than 7 sprays twice per day, and that with the understanding that there still could be a risk of virilization.

An alternate would be no more than 200 mg/day of powder, perhaps from oral capsules, preferably divided into four doses per day so as to minimize "spikes" and reduce risk of virilization.

I certainly hope you have good success and no problems!

*Steroid Cycling On the Cheap

Q: I have one problem with MAG-10: the cost. Basically, even if it does what you say, $99 per two weeks seems like too much to pay. I do like the idea of avoiding the legal risks involved with black market steroids, and avoiding the risk of getting bogus stuff, but I don't like how much more money it's going to cost. What kind of injectables and or/orals steroid cycle would you recommend that ares 1) available and not usually counterfeited, 2) low in adverse side effects, and 3) economical?

Tim*

A: I'll gladly answer your question but I'd first ike to answer the part about the cost of MAG-10.

Most users wind up paying about $67 per bottle, either with discounts from some retailers, or "buy two get one free." So the cost, depending on dosage, is about $33 per week at one dose per day, $44 at 1.5 doses per day, or $67 at two doses per day. For most users, one dose per day is entirely sufficient for excellent results.

All that said, about the cheapest injectable and/or oral cycle would be Sustanon. This wouldn't meet all of your requirements, and would be typically be about $14 per 250 mg ampule. So this would work out to be $56 per week for a gram-per-week cycle, and this isn't counting the Clomid and Proscar (or Propecia) that would be desirable to counteract the estrogen and DHT side effects of the Sustanon.

A reasonable choice that would avoid the need for yet more drugs to counteract the side effects of the first drugs is trenbolone acetate for the Class-I steroid (binding well to the androgen receptor or AR) and Winstrol, Anadrol, or an effective 4-AD formulation for the Class-II steroid (working through other means than the AR.)

At 50 mg/day, the Humatren version of trenbolone acetate costs about $28 per week to use if buying three bottles at a time to get the discount,

and the most bang for the buck for a Class-II steroid is typically Androsol, at about $23 per week at the discount. So the total is $51 per week.

If you want an oral Class-II instead of the topical, the most cost effective choice to stack with your trenbolone would be Anadrol. I typically recommend 75-100 mg/day taken in divided doses for greater efficacy. If tablets are correctly dosed, 75 mg/day (in divided doses for greater efficacy) can be as low as about $26 per week, but unfortunately, underdosing is common so you might need to take three "50 mg" tablets to get an actual approximate 75 mg.

Primobolan and Winstrol are other steroids that would meet your requirements, except for the cost factor. They're dramatically more expensive.

*Legality of Pro-Steroids

Q: How is it that prohormones and prosteroids are legal? According to the Hatch Act, aren't all these things supposed to occur in nature somewhere? Lastly, how on earth can these products be called pro-steroids, without calling down the wrath of the FDA?

IronDude*

A: It's basically correct that nutritional supplements need to be compounds found in nature, and these steroids do occur in nature.

For example, there's actually more 4-AD in human blood than Testosterone. It would have to be present in meat as well, though I don't have a specific reference.

Androst-1-ene is also present in man, though not in large amounts.

What you may be wondering about is why esters of a compound can be sold if the compound in question doesn't appear in nature as that particular ester. The FDA has long considered esters of a nutrient or food additive to be legally equivalent to the unesterified version occurring in nature, and esters are quite commonly employed to improve stability or absorption. For example, Vitamin A and Vitamin E are usually provided as esters.

In contrast, providing a prohormone or pro-steroid of one of the synthetic anabolic steroids would be illegal, since the parent steroid doesn't occur in nature.

As to the terminology of "pro-steroid," I can see where you might think it provocative to the FDA, but it's no issue. The term steroid simply refers to a type of chemical structure. For example, cholesterol, protodioscin (found in Tribex-500), guggulsterone (found in Prolab's Metabolic Thyrolean), and hydrocortisone are all steroids. So are 4-AD and Androst-1-ene. We could even put the word "steroid" on the bottle, instead of pro-steroid, and this would be completely accurate and no problem with the government.

We use the term pro-steroid, however, because so long as the ethylcarbonate ester is present, the compounds have no activity, but on removal by the body of the ethylcarbonate groups, they are converted essentially 100% to the parent steroids.

*Human Growth Hormone

Q: What's your take on GH? I know dozens of guys who take it, and yet it doesn't seem to do squat. However, when they combine it with roids, there seems to be some sort of synergy going on. What gives?

Oscar*

A: It's pretty much as you said. Past age 40, and to some extent past age 30, there can be a benefit, though not a dramatic one, to a hormone replacement approach at levels such as 1 or 2 IU per day. Such a dosing can help a little with body fat and perhaps with the appearance of the skin. For very clear results in adding muscle, however, combining GH with anabolic steroids is necessary. For most individuals, a dose of 2-4 IU per day is then appropriate. Not everyone can tolerate these doses, though there are some that can tolerate more.

A problem with high dose GH is that some of the side effects are irreversible. For example, once you've noticed that your face looks like Lou Ferrigno's or Kim Chizevski's, it's too late.

*Uses of Trenbolone Acetate

Q: Is Fina a mass drug, or a strength drug? It's the only steroid I can get, so what can I expect? Also, I'm intrigued by oxandrolone… it's supposed to be a great strength drug and to be very low in toxicity. Should I combine it with trenbolone, if I can get it?

Peter*

A: Trenbolone (Fina) can be very effectively used in a mass cycle, since androgen receptor mediated activity (which is how trenbolone works) is important to mass gains. But using it by itself to put on mass isn't the best approach since non-androgen-receptor-mediated mechanisms of muscle growth are apparently not being adequately stimulated.

A trenbolone-only cycle is like a Primobolan-only cycle in terms of mass gains. In other words, usually moderate. However, it differs from Primo in that it's effective as a CNS (central nervous system) stimulant, whereas Primo has little or no effect in this regard.

You can expect some good strength gains with nothing but trenbolone, if you're not already stronger than you could have gotten naturally. However, the amount of strength that can be gained without also gaining a lot of mass is limited.

I know that some steroid books on the market give an implication that oxandrolone has some unique properties with regard to strength, or even more inaccurately, with regard to phosphocreatine, but this isn't the case. It doesn't do anything trenbolone doesn't do, except for being toxic to the liver. Contrary to what had been believed a few years ago, oxandrolone is actually about as liver toxic as any of the orals.

*Two Week Cycles: Ivory Tower Theory?

Q: Bill, your two-week cycle method seems to have a serious problem with it. I've done many steroid cycles, typically at about a gram per week of Testosterone, and my results don't even start kicking in really until about the third week. If I'd quit at the end of the second week, I would have experienced hardly any growth. All your other advice seems highly practical and clearly based on experience, but this one, I dunno. John*

A: Most definitely the two week cycling method is based on experience. I can't take the credit for inventing it, however. Those honors go to Alexander Fillipidis, a colleague in Greece.

Having said that, I'd bet about anything that you didn't front-load your injectable steroid cycles. This is important with drugs that have a relatively long half-life.

Let's say it's the third week of your cycle and let's assume you'd just injected 500 mg. You have more in your body than the 500 mg you just injected. That's because you have a considerable amount remaining from previous injections, whereas in the first week and even into the second, you had little or no steroid in the system from previous injections, and therefore experienced slow gains.

To properly front-load a steroid cycle, inject the same amount you ordinarily would, plus an amount equal to the average amount you'd inject during the half-life of the drug. For example, let's say the half-life is 5 days, and your usage level is 1000 mg/week which works out to about 150 mg/day average, but is actually divided into two injections of 500 mg.

So on day 1, for your front-load you should inject 500 mg plus 750 mg (five times 150 mg), or 1250 mg total. If you inject only the 500 mg, your levels will be considerably less than what will be the case later on in the cycle.

A serious steroid cycle should show obvious results within 3-5 days.

*Why Choose Fat Over Carbs?

Q: Why do you always stress eating a lot of carbs and not much fat when on a mass-gain steroid cycle?*

A: While I wish everyone could eat all they liked while on a steroid cycle and not get fat, unfortunately, the fact is that for most men, fat gain remains possible while on androgens. For any given caloric intake, calories from carbs and protein contribute more to muscle gains than fat calories would, and therefore it's best for the dietary intake to be principally carbs and protein.

Or more importantly, practical results have shown that this is so.

An excellent approach is consuming about 2.0 - 2.5g protein, 2.5 - 3.0 g carbs, and roughly 0.5 g fats per lb LBM per day. It's not a disaster to allow somewhat more fat than this, but it may lead to more fat gains during the cycle.

Some may prefer reducing carbs below this somewhat, but reducing carbs too much definitely tends to hurt gains.

While dieting, protein and carbs can be reduced to values well below this. Furthermore, in my opinion, there's little or no value when dieting to maintain protein intakes over about 1.0 g per lb LBM per day.

*T3 for the Long Haul?

Q: You've written before about using low dose T3 for an extended period of time without side effects. How low and for how long?*

A: For long term use, by which I mean many months, 12.5 mcg/day is a dose which gives quite noticeable benefit with no noticeable adverse effects, and no problems of low thyroid on discontinuance.

Fat loss is somewhat faster at 25-50 mcg/day, but along with that comes more suppression of natural thyroid production, and such a dosage is inappropriate for long term use.


----------

