Hey Patrick: research, prohormones and apoptosis
Lyle McDonald
First, your research:
1. Where's the real world data (published) on humans showing that your
productgs do anythign but increase water weight? I mean, the studies on
andro (piss poor as they are) show little but increased estrogen levels.
and, except for massive doses (what was that one guy taking, like 4000
mg/day) nobody is reporting real long-term muscle gains. Yeah a lot of
I recover betters, more libido, more CNS drive, but it's not translating
into real world gains which is what really matters. I'm hearing more
reports (well, several in any event) of folks putting on 10 lbs with
your androspray, and losing 10 lbs when they go off. Wow, amazing. I
can do that with salt loading and it's a lot cheaper than your stuff.
So, if you're doing such wonderful research with all these universities
and have this wonderful fucking $100k lab, where are the results? Put
differently, how come the only people reporting anything but rapid water
gains and loss are the folks selling the stuff? I'm also still curious
as to how religiously you use the stuff yourself since you ostensibly
seem to believe in it so much.
2. When are you going to admit that using data on real steroids has no
relevance to your products, at least until you can show real world (in
humans, mind you) that your products raise testosterone to the same
levels as real anabolics? I mean, it's wonderful and all to dupe the
dum-dumbs with arguments of 'anabolics do this and prohormones are like
anabolics', but people with a brain like me don't buy your bullshit. We
both know that it takes pretty significant increases in testosterone (on
the order of doubling free levels) to significantly impact muscle mass
(unless someone is severly hypgonadal in the first place) and we both
know that your products don't even come close. Unless you have data to
the contrary, which I can only assume you'd post if you did.
3. Perhaps we should discuss the relevance of studies on rat levator
ani, etc to humans in terms of making claims about anbolic and
androgenic effects. I'm sure that the rest of mfw would love to hear
about it, I know I would since it's not my real area of expertise. I
know enough to know that such studies on anabolic/androgenic ratios have
*limited* relevance to humans since rat muscle is somewhat different
(tends to be more homogeneous, and no that's not a crack about your
sexuality it means that the muscle fiber types tend to be all of one
type or another, than human muscles) in a lot of regards. But this is an
area where you know far more than I and can really illuminate all of mfw
with your brilliance. Please feel free to do so, I for one always like
to learn new stuff.
Now mine:
4. With regards to the topics I'm researching (research here meaning
reading the literature on Medline on a nearly daily basis and following
up on leads on top of having talked to my pharmacology professors in
depth): the data I'm (with others) looking at on fat cell apoptosis is
mostly being done on humans in vivo. Some in vitro work to figure out
mechanisms but it has been shown to occur under certain conditions in
vivo in humans.
Making it leaps and bounds beyond any of the shit you're using to back
your placbo effect prohormones. I should note taht I am also lookign at
animal research since there's relatively more of it out there, but I'm
clear on when the models apply and when they don't. Something you seem
incapable of distinguishing in your prohormone work (love those early
studies on prohormones in ovarian slices, real relevant to healthy
bodybuilders aint they?).
C'mon Pat, I even unkillfiled you again, and didn't even call you names
in this post. Be interesting to see what kind of rationalizations you
can come up with for 1-3 above to argue my criticisms away for everyone
to see.
WRT: #4, I don't have to rationalize anything because I'm alwys honest
in the first place and don't try to dupe the dum dums with shitty logic
and bad extrapolations from rat research and in vitro work. I'm not
totally sure I or anyone else can make real fat cell apoptosis work
without a needle (I know I could do it that way), and even then it may
kill the person, which is bad for business.
But I'm still looking into it and think it may be possible done
correctly. But the safety issue concerns me. When I get to that point,
I'll experiment on the one person with the most to lose: me. I won't
experiment on some poor neighborhood cat out of some sick, twisted
desire to play god like someone I know.
I don't want anybody to get sick from trying it (except me) so if I
don't feel I can make apoptosis work safely, I'll ditch the project and
move on to other stuff.
Balls back in your court, Patrick.
I've warned you repeatedly to let this go, but if you won't.....
Lyle
Eckiller
"Lyle McDonald" <lyl...@onr.com> wrote in message
news:3AE4BB6F...@onr.com...
Victor Conte
Have you ever trained or provided consultation for any athlete that anybody has
ever heard of? Do you have any scientific publications to your credit? I ask
you these
questions in a previous post and you did not respond. You present yourself like
a world renowned expert, however, I have yet to see any world class
accomplishments
by you or by anyone that you have trained. What's up?
patrick arnold
>
> Since you seem intent on keeping this up, let's talk a little about research.
>
> First, your research:
> 1. Where's the real world data (published) on humans showing that your
> productgs do anythign but increase water weight?
Tim Ziegenfuss performed one that showed LBM increases and strength
increases from a androdiol containing product. He presented it at the
2000 ACSM meeting in Indianapolis. At the same meeting, James Tolliver
from the DEA made a presentation where he outlined the DEA's policy on
prohormones. Tolliver made it clear that they were looking for data to
confirm that prohormones were anabolic, and that they planned on using
existing literature as well as funding their own studies to prove this.
I don't think I have to explain to you why funding of studies examining
the anabolic potency of prohormones has ceased since then.
I mean, the studies on
> andro (piss poor as they are) show little but increased estrogen levels.
You are only aware of the androstenedione studies I guess then. Studies
on both oral and sublingual cyclo androdiol have been performed at EMU,
and the data have been presented at conferences. The estrogen increases
seen with a-dione were not seen with a-diol
> and, except for massive doses (what was that one guy taking, like 4000
> mg/day) nobody is reporting real long-term muscle gains. Yeah a lot of
> I recover betters, more libido, more CNS drive, but it's not translating
> into real world gains which is what really matters. I'm hearing more
> reports (well, several in any event) of folks putting on 10 lbs with
> your androspray, and losing 10 lbs when they go off. Wow, amazing. I
> can do that with salt loading and it's a lot cheaper than your stuff.
You are not paying attention then to what many others have reported
here. So tell me then Lyle, if someone gains 10 pounds on androdiol
then why is it different then 10 pounds from a testosteorne prescription
product? If you believe it is the same (which it is), then you are
saying here that steroids do nothing. Which puts you right back there
30 years ago with those ignorant out of touch doctors.
>
> So, if you're doing such wonderful research with all these universities
> and have this wonderful fucking $100k lab, where are the results? Put
> differently, how come the only people reporting anything but rapid water
> gains and loss are the folks selling the stuff?
You have no idea what people are reporting. Or a very distorted and
self serving interpretation. This argument is worthless with you
because of your prejudiced attitude.
I'm also still curious
> as to how religiously you use the stuff yourself since you ostensibly
> seem to believe in it so much.
Religously? I dip my fingers in andro spray every sunday and do the
father son and holy ghost thing on my face.
>
> 2. When are you going to admit that using data on real steroids has no
> relevance to your products, at least until you can show real world (in
> humans, mind you) that your products raise testosterone to the same
> levels as real anabolics?
If the levels of androgens are increased by a metabolic precursor, why
are they different than from the active compound itself?
I mean, it's wonderful and all to dupe the
> dum-dumbs with arguments of 'anabolics do this and prohormones are like
> anabolics', but people with a brain like me don't buy your bullshit. We
> both know that it takes pretty significant increases in testosterone (on
> the order of doubling free levels) to significantly impact muscle mass
> (unless someone is severly hypgonadal in the first place) and we both
> know that your products don't even come close. Unless you have data to
> the contrary, which I can only assume you'd post if you did.
Many people here know for a fact, first hand, that prohormones in the
right dosages and the right forms are potent enough to give profound
effects on strength and muscle mass. People that have no financial
interest in the product.
>
> 3. Perhaps we should discuss the relevance of studies on rat levator
> ani, etc to humans in terms of making claims about anbolic and
> androgenic effects. I'm sure that the rest of mfw would love to hear
> about it, I know I would since it's not my real area of expertise. I
> know enough to know that such studies on anabolic/androgenic ratios have
> *limited* relevance to humans since rat muscle is somewhat different
> (tends to be more homogeneous, and no that's not a crack about your
> sexuality it means that the muscle fiber types tend to be all of one
> type or another, than human muscles) in a lot of regards. But this is an
> area where you know far more than I and can really illuminate all of mfw
> with your brilliance. Please feel free to do so, I for one always like
> to learn new stuff.
Rat levator ani assays were integral in the development of every
anabolic steroid that made it to the market. They are not perfect, but
they DO have relevance. I do not dupe anyone by using them. I use them
because that is what is in the literature. We can get into this as deep
as you like Lyle. I don't think you are going to end up scoring any
points against me, but go ahead.
>
> Now mine:
> 4. With regards to the topics I'm researching (research here meaning
> reading the literature on Medline on a nearly daily basis and following
> up on leads on top of having talked to my pharmacology professors in
> depth):
Reading medline and talking to your FORMER professors?
the data I'm (with others) looking at on fat cell apoptosis is
> mostly being done on humans in vivo.
What others Lyle? Who are your collaborators? I would like to speak to
them. Maybe they can give us all a more objective view of the
sophistication of your so called "research"
Some in vitro work to figure out
> mechanisms but it has been shown to occur under certain conditions in
> vivo in humans.
Who performed this research? You, or one of your collaborators? Or is
this just stuff you read on medline again?
>
> Making it leaps and bounds beyond any of the shit you're using to back
> your placbo effect prohormones.
So I can read medline stuff on the upcoming version of viagra, or a new
version of IGF-1 that is being developed, and then claim that i am
researching it and that it is leaps and bounds over anything that you
developed?
I should note taht I am also lookign at
> animal research since there's relatively more of it out there, but I'm
> clear on when the models apply and when they don't. Something you seem
> incapable of distinguishing in your prohormone work (love those early
> studies on prohormones in ovarian slices, real relevant to healthy
> bodybuilders aint they?).
You are reading animal research that is on medline. Is that what you
mean by "looking into it?"
Not only have you never introduced a single product, but you never even
theorized about a single product (at least not specifically). I can't
see how you can even compare your "work" to mine, since you have nothing
viable to even present!
>
> C'mon Pat, I even unkillfiled you again, and didn't even call you names
> in this post. Be interesting to see what kind of rationalizations you
> can come up with for 1-3 above to argue my criticisms away for everyone
> to see.
>
> WRT: #4, I don't have to rationalize anything because I'm alwys honest
> in the first place and don't try to dupe the dum dums with shitty logic
> and bad extrapolations from rat research and in vitro work. I'm not
> totally sure I or anyone else can make real fat cell apoptosis work
> without a needle (I know I could do it that way), and even then it may
> kill the person, which is bad for business.
>
> But I'm still looking into it and think it may be possible done
> correctly. But the safety issue concerns me. When I get to that point,
> I'll experiment on the one person with the most to lose: me. I won't
> experiment on some poor neighborhood cat out of some sick, twisted
> desire to play god like someone I know.
Well at least when you get to that point you will have something to
present to me and the rest of us. Until then you should not even talk.
Oranthal Juice Simpsons
>Dear Lyle:
>
>Have you ever trained or provided consultation for any athlete that anybody has
>ever heard of? Do you have any scientific publications to your credit? I ask
>you these
>questions in a previous post and you did not respond. You present yourself like
>a world renowned expert, however, I have yet to see any world class
>accomplishments
>by you or by anyone that you have trained. What's up?
Dear Conte:
How do we know that you are not really Mike Lane?
-OJ
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Garrett M. Shepherd
"Oranthal Juice Simpsons" <oj_sim...@fnord.yahoo.com-spam> wrote in
message news:slrn9e9tp8.2q8...@buckwheat.aspiringtech.net...
> In article <3AE47841...@balcolab.com>, Victor Conte wrote:
> >Dear Lyle:
> >
> >Have you ever trained or provided consultation for any athlete that
anybody has
> >ever heard of? Do you have any scientific publications to your credit?
I ask
> >you these
> >questions in a previous post and you did not respond. You present
yourself like
> >a world renowned expert, however, I have yet to see any world class
> >accomplishments
> >by you or by anyone that you have trained. What's up?
>
> Dear Conte:
>
> How do we know that you are not really Mike Lane?
How do we know you are not Victor or Lyle? WHO CARES?
Oranthal Juice Simpsons
>
>"Oranthal Juice Simpsons" <oj_sim...@fnord.yahoo.com-spam> wrote in
>message news:slrn9e9tp8.2q8...@buckwheat.aspiringtech.net...
>> In article <3AE47841...@balcolab.com>, Victor Conte wrote:
>> >Dear Lyle:
>> >
>> >Have you ever trained or provided consultation for any athlete that
>anybody has
>> >ever heard of? Do you have any scientific publications to your credit?
>I ask
>> >you these
>> >questions in a previous post and you did not respond. You present
>yourself like
>> >a world renowned expert, however, I have yet to see any world class
>> >accomplishments
>> >by you or by anyone that you have trained. What's up?
>>
>> Dear Conte:
>>
>> How do we know that you are not really Mike Lane?
>> OJ,
>How do we know you are not Victor or Lyle? WHO CARES?
Obviously another one of Mike's sick alter ego's. Butch(er) Up Mikey!
CButler
>
> I'm also still curious
> > as to how religiously you use the stuff yourself since you ostensibly
> > seem to believe in it so much.
>
> Religously? I dip my fingers in andro spray every sunday and do the
> father son and holy ghost thing on my face.
Patrick: I think the question is a viable one. Do you, personally use any or all of
the androdiol products produced by ErgoPharm and if so, in what quantities? I used
Andro Spray for 3 cycles and Psychodiol for 2 cycles and never found any
significant increase in either strength or mass. Since i stopped using them my
strength has continued to go up, so any increase in srength, i have attributed to
my diet and training techniques. In the meantime i have waited patiently to hear
any reports of 1-AD being promising but as of yet i haven't heard anything that
would make me buy it. Just my 2 cents.
Coy
Patrick Arnold
>
> patrick arnold wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm also still curious
> > > as to how religiously you use the stuff yourself since you ostensibly
> > > seem to believe in it so much.
> >
> > Religously? I dip my fingers in andro spray every sunday and do the
> > father son and holy ghost thing on my face.
>
> Patrick: I think the question is a viable one. Do you, personally use any or all of
> the androdiol products produced by ErgoPharm and if so, in what quantities?
OH no, its Mike Wallace
I have used large dosages (2 grams or so) of diols a day with excellent
results. I also use the intra-orals quite regularly before working out.
There are also products that i have developed that for one reason or
another (i.e. extraordinary expense) I cannot bring to market. I use
these quite a bit too, more than the prohormones that i sell. Tell me,
do you have some problem that i do that? Would the fact that i do this
make the prohormones that i do sell less effective?
I used
> Andro Spray for 3 cycles and Psychodiol for 2 cycles and never found any
> significant increase in either strength or mass.
You used it for 3 cycles, even though you did not get results after the
first? Why does that make no sense to me?
Since i stopped using them my
> strength has continued to go up, so any increase in srength, i have attributed to
> my diet and training techniques. In the meantime i have waited patiently to hear
> any reports of 1-AD being promising but as of yet i haven't heard anything that
> would make me buy it. Just my 2 cents.
So?
Steve Gallagher
>
> Many people here know for a fact, first hand, that prohormones in the
> right dosages and the right forms are potent enough to give profound
> effects on strength and muscle mass. People that have no financial
> interest in the product.
I'm just a mere n=1, but I'd have to offer myself as a "testimonial" on
that. 4-diol in nasal-spray format is Good Stuff. And the onlly
financial
interest I have in the product is when I willing lay out my hard-earned
$$ to buy the stuff.
--
"Links, zwo! Links, zwo! Links, zwo, drei, vier! Links!"
Rammstein, "Links 2 3 4"
Jack
: another (i.e. extraordinary expense) I cannot bring to market. I use
: these quite a bit too, more than the prohormones that i sell. Tell me,
oh my this makes me very jealous.
can you at least tell us about these products?
sounds fascinating!
MJL
>increases from a androdiol containing product. He presented it at the
>2000 ACSM meeting in Indianapolis.
Interesting. Can this study be found online somewhere?
>I don't think I have to explain to you why funding of studies examining
>the anabolic potency of prohormones has ceased since then.
That is fine but how about just one study, just one, (published) that shows
that ANY andro raises baseline test levels to a level that is useful BEYOND THE
FIRST DOSE. That would not show anabolism per se but would make it possible to
[wink wink, nod nod] at each other. If you provide such a study, which should
be fairly simple and rather cheap, I will never again give you grief nor will
any of the people over whom I have "control".
--
Great service, low prices on every supplement you want
http://www.netrition.com/cgi/goto.cgi?pid=42-0201&aid=708
Find the things YOU want
http://www.geocities.com/jertschub/clickland.html
Patrick Arnold
What you don't know can't hurt you. Or in this case, help you.
--
PA
http://www.ergopharm.net
http://www.lpjresearch.com
This and related e-mails contain PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL
information. The information contained herein is for the exclusive use
of the named addressees. If you are not the intended recipient, any
disclosure or use of this information is prohibited.
The opinions expressed above are not necessarily those of ErgoPharm or
LPJ Research Inc.
Patrick Arnold
>
> >Tim Ziegenfuss performed one that showed LBM increases and strength
> >increases from a androdiol containing product. He presented it at the
> >2000 ACSM meeting in Indianapolis.
>
> Interesting. Can this study be found online somewhere?
Probably.
But take it up with one of the two researchers if you want to find it
Tim Ziegenfuss (tz...@hotmail.com)
Lonnie Lowery (lon...@email.msn.com)
>
> >I don't think I have to explain to you why funding of studies examining
> >the anabolic potency of prohormones has ceased since then.
>
> That is fine but how about just one study, just one, (published) that shows
> that ANY andro raises baseline test levels to a level that is useful BEYOND THE
> FIRST DOSE.
Since there is no indication that this would NOT be the case I fail to
see why money should be thrown at such a study. Unless Mike, you know
of some precedent that would indicate an acute attenuation of
conversion. I have read mountains of literature on steroid metabolism
and I have never encountered any suggestion of such a phenomenon.
That would not show anabolism per se but would make it possible to
> [wink wink, nod nod] at each other. If you provide such a study, which should
> be fairly simple and rather cheap, I will never again give you grief nor will
> any of the people over whom I have "control".
>
Well, you would be the ONLY person that this study would serve Mike. No
one has ever suggested that such an attenuation would be possible, and
that includes highly educated individuals.
Patrick Arnold
>
> Since you seem intent on keeping this up, let's talk a little about research.
>
> First, your research:
> 1. Where's the real world data (published) on humans showing that your
> productgs do anythign but increase water weight? I mean, the studies on
> andro (piss poor as they are) show little but increased estrogen levels.
Gee, I almost forgot Lyle (and Lane too). Got a Merck Index handy?
Look up 19nor-4-androstenediol. Notice that there is an entry in
there? Notice that this substance is registered as an anabolic steroid
in Japan? If this prohormone were "shit" as you think, why would it
have ever been developed and marketed as an anabolic steroid? I don't
think Searle is another scamming supplement company are they?
MJL
>
>Probably.
So not in a peer reviewed journal then.
>> That is fine but how about just one study, just one, (published) that shows
>> that ANY andro raises baseline test levels to a level that is useful BEYOND
>THE
>> FIRST DOSE.
>
>
>Since there is no indication that this would NOT be the case I fail to
>see why money should be thrown at such a study. Unless Mike, you know
>of some precedent that would indicate an acute attenuation of
>conversion. I have read mountains of literature on steroid metabolism
>and I have never encountered any suggestion of such a phenomenon.
>
There are mountains of data on conversion of supraphysiologic doses of
prohormones in humans???
Can you list a couple?
Patrick Arnold
>
> >> Interesting. Can this study be found online somewhere?
> >
> >Probably.
>
> So not in a peer reviewed journal then.
>
It was presented before peers at the ACSM conference. He has tried to
get it published but journals will not publish it because of prejudice
against prohormones. It was a good study IMO. OTOH, very poor studies
that portray prohormomnes in a bad light have been published. It is
political, and I cannot change that
> >> That is fine but how about just one study, just one, (published) that shows
> >> that ANY andro raises baseline test levels to a level that is useful BEYOND
> >THE
> >> FIRST DOSE.
> >
> >
> >Since there is no indication that this would NOT be the case I fail to
> >see why money should be thrown at such a study. Unless Mike, you know
> >of some precedent that would indicate an acute attenuation of
> >conversion. I have read mountains of literature on steroid metabolism
> >and I have never encountered any suggestion of such a phenomenon.
> >
>
> There are mountains of data on conversion of supraphysiologic doses of
> prohormones in humans???
I see you phrase this as a question. Well, the answer is no, at least
insofar as androgens are concerned
>
> Can you list a couple?
>
Nice try
MJL
>have ever been developed and marketed as an anabolic steroid? I don't
>think Searle is another scamming supplement company are they?
Proviron is a steroid too.
Prohormones may have their place but I doubt they are much use for hypertrophy.
lysis_gr
Patrick Arnold <parn...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>against prohormones. It was a good study IMO. OTOH, very poor studies
>that portray prohormomnes in a bad light have been published.
The JAMA study was lamentable: I still wonder how such a reputable journal
published such a poorly done study.
Patrick Arnold
>
> >If this prohormone were "shit" as you think, why would it
> >have ever been developed and marketed as an anabolic steroid? I don't
> >think Searle is another scamming supplement company are they?
>
> Proviron is a steroid too.
>
> Prohormones may have their place but I doubt they are much use for hypertrophy.
What is it about prohormones that makes them not good for hypertrophy?
Is it their legal status? Or the fact that i developed them?
MJL
>> prohormones in humans???
>
>I see you phrase this as a question. Well, the answer is no, at least
>insofar as androgens are concerned
Would you compare testosterone esters to prohormones in the sense that test
esters need to be metabolized to become active? My feeling is that test esters
just need to have a piece of the molecule broken off for it to become
testosterone and that happens as a natural process of metabolism. Prohormones,
on the other hand, need to add to their structure a molecule in the body to
become active testosterone.
Is that essentially correct?
Patrick Arnold
>
> >> There are mountains of data on conversion of supraphysiologic doses of
> >> prohormones in humans???
> >
> >I see you phrase this as a question. Well, the answer is no, at least
> >insofar as androgens are concerned
>
> Would you compare testosterone esters to prohormones in the sense that test
> esters need to be metabolized to become active? My feeling is that test esters
> just need to have a piece of the molecule broken off for it to become
> testosterone and that happens as a natural process of metabolism. Prohormones,
> on the other hand, need to add to their structure a molecule in the body to
> become active testosterone.
>
> Is that essentially correct?
First of all, i would like to thank you for providing me fodder for
upcoming QandA's for the websites i write for.
Both use enzymes. The esters use esterases while the prohormones use
oxidoreductases (also known as dehydrogenases). The ester reaction is
basically a one way reaction, while the prohormone conversion is an
equilibrium. That is where the difference really lies between the two.
Esters are beneficial primarily because they increase the lipophilicity
of the steroid, which allows it to be dissolved in oils for injection.
the ester than slowly releases, but as soon as it is hydrolyzed in vivo
its half life is very short. Esters do not have activity in their
un-hydrolyzed form.
But while we are on the subject, let me mention that one of the benefits
of 1-AD is that the 1-androstenedione / 1-testosterone oxidoreductase
equilibrium (regulated by the 17beta-HSD enzyme) lies much farther
towards 1-testosterone than it does for Adione / testosterone. This
prolongs the half life of the 1-testosterone in the body.
There is some interesting data from an old study (Bartosek I et.al.
"Oxidation of 17beta-Hydroxyandrostane Derivatives by
17beta-Hydroxysteroid Dehydrogenase from Guinea Pig Liver", Collection
Czechoslov. Chem. Commun, 34, 1829-1831). In this study, the authors
explain that the inhibition of the oxidation of the steroids to the keto
derivatives (by 17beta-HSD) is a likely contributor to protracted
anabolic/androgenic action of certain steroids.
Here is an edited table from the study looking at the rates of oxidative
inactivation (measured by inverse of Km value) of various active
steroids by the 17beta-HSD. Remember, the rate is inverse of the number
Testosterone 2.63 +/- 0.35
19-Nortestosterone 0.70 +/- 0.20
DHT 2.55 +/- 1.04
1-testosterone 4.24 +/- 0.69
Two very interesting things are revealed here. First of all,
1-testosterone is significantly less quickly oxidized to the inactive
keto form than the other steroids. Furthermore, nortesosterone is much
more quickly deactivated.
So this speaks very good for 1-testosterone prohormones, but not very
good for 19-nor prohormones. Of course, speed of oxidative metabolism
is much less of an issue if the prohormone is administered in a
sustained release form (i.e. topical).
But then again, i could just be completely bullshitting you
ha...@antispam.sandiego.mine.nu
<something so hard to parse out of his piss-poor quoting it wasn't worth
the bother to read>
Garrett, when are you going to learn to quote and post in a way that
is readable?
Snip a little. Open up some whitespace around what you type.
Surely you see enough other people do it the correct way that you can
learn by example?
Hank
August Pamplona
news:3AE5DBA1...@ix.netcom.com...
> MJL wrote:
> >
> > >If this prohormone were "shit" as you think, why would it
> > >have ever been developed and marketed as an anabolic steroid? I
don't
> > >think Searle is another scamming supplement company are they?
> >
> > Proviron is a steroid too.
> >
> > Prohormones may have their place but I doubt they are much use for
hypertrophy.
>
>
> What is it about prohormones that makes them not good for
hypertrophy?
> Is it their legal status? Or the fact that i developed them?
What is it about a steroid that makes it a prohormone? Is it the
legal status?
August Pamplona
--
"Today, at the dawn of the 21st century, the global village is finally
complete. At last it has a global village idiot."
--some article at The Guardian (20, Jan., 2001 )
a.a. # 1811
To email replace 'necatoramericanusancylostomaduodenale' with
'cosmicaug'
MJL
>
You could be. But if you are I might find out and post about it. But of
course no one will care
It must be good to be you in terms of MFW. Yer made of teflon. No matter what
shit you do and say it don't stick to you! hehe
--
Great service, low prices on every supplement you want
http://www.netrition.com/cgi/goto.cgi?pid=42-0201&aid=708
CButler
> CButler wrote:
> >
> > patrick arnold wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I'm also still curious
> > > > as to how religiously you use the stuff yourself since you ostensibly
> > > > seem to believe in it so much.
> > >
> > > Religously? I dip my fingers in andro spray every sunday and do the
> > > father son and holy ghost thing on my face.
> >
> > Patrick: I think the question is a viable one. Do you, personally use any or all of
> > the androdiol products produced by ErgoPharm and if so, in what quantities?
>
> OH no, its Mike Wallace
>
> I have used large dosages (2 grams or so) of diols a day with excellent
> results. I also use the intra-orals quite regularly before working out.
>
> There are also products that i have developed that for one reason or
> another (i.e. extraordinary expense) I cannot bring to market. I use
> these quite a bit too, more than the prohormones that i sell. Tell me,
> do you have some problem that i do that? Would the fact that i do this
> make the prohormones that i do sell less effective?
PA: No, i don't have a problem with it, why, should I? My problem was with what i
characterize as a flip response to what was essentially a valid question, regardless of
WHO asked it.
> I used
> > Andro Spray for 3 cycles and Psychodiol for 2 cycles and never found any
> > significant increase in either strength or mass.
>
> You used it for 3 cycles, even though you did not get results after the
> first? Why does that make no sense to me.
I gave it 3 shots. When i didn't see any gains that were out of the norm i stopped using
it. What's weird about that? I gained some weight and was happy with that but i was also
massing at the time and i was unsure whether the gains in size were due to the androspray
or just my eating habits. Since my lifts were going up but not by any more than they were
normally i decided to see if not using the Andro and Psycho wouldhave any effect. When i
stopped using it and the gains continued to come i concluded that the andro and psycho
had had no or very little effect. I don't see anything weird here at all. I also don't
have any axe to grind i just think that they didn't work for me, that's all.
> Since i stopped using them my
> > strength has continued to go up, so any increase in srength, i have attributed to
> > my diet and training techniques. In the meantime i have waited patiently to hear
> > any reports of 1-AD being promising but as of yet i haven't heard anything that
> > would make me buy it. Just my 2 cents.
>
> So?
I think i already explained this.
Coy
djr
patrick arnold wrote (in response to Lyle McDonald)
> Many people here know for a fact, first hand, that prohormones in the
> right dosages and the right forms are potent enough to give profound
> effects on strength and muscle mass. People that have no financial
> interest in the product.
I would like to add some relevant data that while is not overwhelmingly
scientific, could be used as a basis for what Pat states above.
For those of you who don't know me, I live in Asia and have the opportunity
to work with a fairly large group of competitive bodybuilders with regards to
dieting & contest prep. Anabolics and most other 'questionable' products are
perfectly legal here, so it is accepted practice for the competitors to use AAS
and I can discuss them freely in an open forum without repercussion.
Most people's AAS usage here is limited by economics and availability (as
is the same for any part of the world I imagine). There is no local
manufacturing in country so current product availability is limited to imported
Australian Veterinarian anabolics. The economic scale dictates that most
people can only afford to use 2-400mg/week of total injectible AAS (the only
oral steroid available is test undecoanate). However, even at these low
dosages, most have very respectible physiques and could do well in their weight
classes in the United States at local or state shows competing against others
using 3-4 times this amount. I have been privvy to a lot of competitor's
dosages because of my former BB coach, and can tell you that one of the
lightweight TX state winners from a few years ago used over a gram of inj. test
and 12 iu of gh/daily. I would put a few of these guys, without question, ahead
of him. (Competitors here that I refer to are in the 70-85 kilo range stage
weight and are 5'2-5'9).
Given a sample of N=25, these lower dosages I state they use are completely
accurate. Most of these individuals compete at least twice a year, and two
have won larger scale international Asian competitions so we are not discussing
'wannabe' posers.
I apologize for the lengthy background, and for the sake of future brevity I
will only discuss two individuals. However, realize their results are
indicative of a larger group.
-----
Essentially individuals compared their current stacking practice with Andro
or Norandrospray. In addition to switching to the sprays, the two individuals
below were taking varying amounts of oral aldactone daily throughout both
cycles. The aldactone was to try and approximate a more precise amount of
muscle loss/gain. Diets were unchanged through the seperate cycles, the goal
was to gain 1 to 1.5 lb/week.
Ind 1 (currently been training 5 years with no more than 2 weeks off at any
one time, 6 months since last break):
Stack #1: 325 mg/sust weekly 4 week duration 3 week off period
Starting Weight: 170 Ending Weight: 176 Cessation weight: 174
Change in BF (from start to end of cess): 9.74 -> 9.17
Stack #2: 10 sprays androspray, 2 times/daily 4 week duration 3 week off
period
Starting Weight: 174 Ending Weight: 181 Cessation weight: 179
Change in BF: 9.17 -> 8.58
----
Ind 2 (currently been training 2 years, 3 months ago was last break)
Stack #1: 250mg/deca weekly 4 week duration 4 week off period
Starting weight: 165 Ending Weight: 168 Cessation weight: 167
Change in BF: 0
Stack #2: 10 sprays norandrospray, 2 times/daily 4 week duration 4 week off
Starting weight: 168 Ending Weight: 172 Cessation weight: 171.5
Change in BF: 8.29 -> 8
3 site calipers were used for the BF measurements and I will admit I am not the
best in the world at this. I do not have an issue conceding that bodyfat
losses were 0% because of my ineptitude with calipers. However, even conceding
this point, it is interesting to note gains equivalent or exceeding non-trivial
AAS dosages. With concomittant aldactone, weight gain seen from the above
should be primarily NON WATER WEIGHT.
Conclusion: I don't write conclusions, written conclusions are for people who
don't think for themselves.
djr
Patrick Arnold
>
> Patrick Arnold wrote:
> >
> > There are also products that i have developed that for one reason or
> > another (i.e. extraordinary expense) I cannot bring to market. I use
> > these quite a bit too, more than the prohormones that i sell. Tell me,
> > do you have some problem that i do that? Would the fact that i do this
> > make the prohormones that i do sell less effective?
>
> PA: No, i don't have a problem with it, why, should I? My problem was with what i
> characterize as a flip response to what was essentially a valid question, regardless of
> WHO asked it.
>
I answered that way because he has asked it before AD NAUSEAM and I have
answered it before. Still he keeps asking it.
MJL
>oxidoreductases (also known as dehydrogenases). The ester reaction is
>basically a one way reaction, while the prohormone conversion is an
>equilibrium.
I just really wanted to be sure the two are different because I know there
seems to be no limit on the conversion of say enanthate and I still cling to
the possibility that prohormone conversion is "attenuated" as you say, after
the first few doses.
>Esters do not have activity in their
>un-hydrolyzed form.
Right, took me some time before I figured that out. Esters are useless for
bodybuilding until the body does whatever the fuck it does to the molecules and
they become testosterone. This process seems to be without limit and it
different from prohormone conversion.
>But while we are on the subject, let me mention that one of the benefits
>of 1-AD is that the 1-androstenedione / 1-testosterone oxidoreductase
>equilibrium (regulated by the 17beta-HSD enzyme)
Which leapfrogs the question of how much 1AD actually converts to 1-test after
the first dose but does explain, perhaps, why 1AD may have effect even if the
attenuation is great.
At worst you may have to only admit adiol and adione is useless. =-)
Let me ask another question. Do you know of any drugs used that have been
approved by the FDA that use an enzyme in the body to become their active form?
If so can you name a few?
MJL
>Is it their legal status? Or the fact that i developed them?
By your own admission 1-AD is a shiity steroid for building mass.
Patrick Arnold
>
> >Both use enzymes. The esters use esterases while the prohormones use
> >oxidoreductases (also known as dehydrogenases). The ester reaction is
> >basically a one way reaction, while the prohormone conversion is an
> >equilibrium.
>
> I just really wanted to be sure the two are different because I know there
> seems to be no limit on the conversion of say enanthate and I still cling to
> the possibility that prohormone conversion is "attenuated" as you say, after
> the first few doses.
>
Everything is possible Mike. Its possible that God is a Frog. But
usually we don't go around yelling that such things are fact until we
have some evidence to suggest they are
> >Esters do not have activity in their
> >un-hydrolyzed form.
>
> Right, took me some time before I figured that out. Esters are useless for
> bodybuilding until the body does whatever the fuck it does to the molecules and
> they become testosterone. This process seems to be without limit and it
> different from prohormone conversion.
>
> >But while we are on the subject, let me mention that one of the benefits
> >of 1-AD is that the 1-androstenedione / 1-testosterone oxidoreductase
> >equilibrium (regulated by the 17beta-HSD enzyme)
>
> Which leapfrogs the question of how much 1AD actually converts to 1-test after
> the first dose but does explain, perhaps, why 1AD may have effect even if the
> attenuation is great.
>
> At worst you may have to only admit adiol and adione is useless. =-)
>
> Let me ask another question. Do you know of any drugs used that have been
> approved by the FDA that use an enzyme in the body to become their active form?
> If so can you name a few?
>
The process is called bioactivation and their are alot of drugs which
are activated in-vivo by enzymes. Valium is activated by a hydroxylase
for example. There are tons of others
Patrick Arnold
>
> >What is it about prohormones that makes them not good for hypertrophy?
> >Is it their legal status? Or the fact that i developed them?
>
> By your own admission 1-AD is a shiity steroid for building mass.
>
No I didn't. now shut up
lysis_gr
>cycles. The aldactone was to try and approximate a more precise amount of
>muscle loss/gain. Diets were unchanged through the seperate cycles, the goal
>was to gain 1 to 1.5 lb/week.
>...
>AAS dosages. With concomittant aldactone, weight gain seen from the above
>should be primarily NON WATER WEIGHT.
This is ridiculous. Spironolactone is a quite potent anti-androgen in
addition to its diuretic action.
>Conclusion: I don't write conclusions, written conclusions are for people who
>don't think for themselves.
Thinking is not that bad, provided one knows some pharmacology.
lysis_gr
Patrick Arnold <parn...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> The process is called bioactivation and their are alot of drugs which
>are activated in-vivo by enzymes. Valium is activated by a hydroxylase
>for example. There are tons of others
Enalapril is another. Prodrugs come a dime a dozen.
Sal C
:>What is it about prohormones that makes them not good for hypertrophy?
: By your own admission 1-AD is a shiity steroid for building mass.
Nope he didn't. He said that 1-AD doesn't give any water weight,
due to aromatization. There are sched III substances such
as winnie, trenbolone, and masteron that have similar effects
to 1-AD. DO you think that they are shitty steroids as well?
Why not try it for yourself and see? I did and was very
happy with the results.
: --
Patrick Arnold
>
> In article <3AE672A3...@nowhere.com>, djr <w...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >cycles. The aldactone was to try and approximate a more precise amount of
> >muscle loss/gain. Diets were unchanged through the seperate cycles, the goal
> >was to gain 1 to 1.5 lb/week.
> >...
> >AAS dosages. With concomittant aldactone, weight gain seen from the above
> >should be primarily NON WATER WEIGHT.
>
> This is ridiculous. Spironolactone is a quite potent anti-androgen in
> addition to its diuretic action.
>
This is what confused me too. But I know Dave and he would not lie
about these results. So perhaps the dosage of aldactone was below the
threshold of interfering with anabolism, but above the threshold of
promoting diuresis
lysis_gr
Patrick Arnold <parn...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>This is what confused me too. But I know Dave and he would not lie
>about these results. So perhaps the dosage of aldactone was below the
>threshold of interfering with anabolism, but above the threshold of
>promoting diuresis
It's the rationale that's ridiculous, not the actual results. These I take
to be true as a working hypothesis. Aldactone can interfere with androgens
both at the synthesis level and at the AR level. Clinically speaking, it
can cause both diuresis without endocrine side effects (gyno, impotence
etc) and the side effects without significant diuresis. It all boils down
to individual variability.
MJL
>due to aromatization.
Pat knows damn well that estrogen is a big part of what makes any steroid good
for hypertrophy.
MJL
>are activated in-vivo by enzymes. Valium is activated by a hydroxylase
>for example. There are tons of others
No no, drugs that depend on one specific enzyme to become active.
MJL
Prodrugs are but how many depend on one specific enzyme for their action to be
effective over multiple doses?
MJL
>answered it before. Still he keeps asking it.
Don't you think being able to say that andros raise your baseline testosterone
levels indefinately if you keep using them would be a good selling point? You
CAN'T say that now. Why won't you do the simple test that would let you be
able to make those claims? It is that inexplicable behavior, more than
anything else, that makes me think this attenuation you alluded to is in fact
quite a real possibility.
That plus the fact that the human body tends to react to attempts to disturb
its homostasis. In the case of esters the body is unable to stop the
....hydrolysis was it..of the ester into the active test so the body instead
shuts down the HTPA.
What if the body COULD downregulate the amount of the conversion enzyme used to
convert prohormones. It only makes sense that it would after a few days of
mega doses of andros.
JW
>>Enalapril is another. Prodrugs come a dime a dozen.
>
>Prodrugs are but how many depend on one specific enzyme for their action to be
>effective over multiple doses?
No need for you to channel Bill on this one, Mikey. I'm sure he could
email Lysis directly. Put your psychic abilities to rest, li'l fella.
--
JW
Patrick Arnold
Dave may not have known about the anti-androgen action of aldactone. I
think he did know that it has a good history of working just fine with
androgens in bodybuilders. At least, at the appropriate dosages
Patrick Arnold
>
> >Nope he didn't. He said that 1-AD doesn't give any water weight,
> >due to aromatization.
>
> Pat knows damn well that estrogen is a big part of what makes any steroid good
> for hypertrophy.
>
Pat knows that estrogen plays a small role in maximizing the anabolic
effect from certain androgens. Pat has never said more than that, so
quit trying to alter the facts to suit your anti-prohormone, anti-PA
agenda Mike.
Patrick Arnold
>
> >The process is called bioactivation and their are alot of drugs which
> >are activated in-vivo by enzymes. Valium is activated by a hydroxylase
> >for example. There are tons of others
>
> No no, drugs that depend on one specific enzyme to become active.
Specific enzymes are exactly what I am talking about here Mike
YOu are way over your head trying to argue these subjects Mike
Patrick Arnold
>
> >I answered that way because he has asked it before AD NAUSEAM and I have
> >answered it before. Still he keeps asking it.
>
> Don't you think being able to say that andros raise your baseline testosterone
> levels indefinately if you keep using them would be a good selling point? You
> CAN'T say that now. Why won't you do the simple test that would let you be
> able to make those claims? It is that inexplicable behavior, more than
> anything else, that makes me think this attenuation you alluded to is in fact
> quite a real possibility.
>
> That plus the fact that the human body tends to react to attempts to disturb
> its homostasis. In the case of esters the body is unable to stop the
> ....hydrolysis was it..of the ester into the active test so the body instead
> shuts down the HTPA.
>
> What if the body COULD downregulate the amount of the conversion enzyme used to
> convert prohormones. It only makes sense that it would after a few days of
> mega doses of andros.
>
Then how come you cannot provide any evidence of this phenomenon?
Surely if it existed, there would be some data backing it up, in some
form or another
lysis_gr
Patrick Arnold <parn...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Dave may not have known about the anti-androgen action of aldactone. I
>think he did know that it has a good history of working just fine with
>androgens in bodybuilders. At least, at the appropriate dosages
Oops! It's not Dave Reid I hope. If so I apologize for treating him
harshly. Still, it is precisely because Dave Reid knows his sh*t that he
should not have missed that one.
MJL
>Surely if it existed, there would be some data backing it up, in some
>form or another
You know why. Why would any medical study be done to show this when
prohormones have no medical use in healthy men?
MJL
>
Enzyme, no s
>YOu are way over your head trying to argue these subjects Mike
I don't, I just ask questions.
Patrick Arnold
Yeah, Dave Reed formerly of Dallas, now living in the Phillipines.
Patrick Arnold
>
> >Then how come you cannot provide any evidence of this phenomenon?
> >Surely if it existed, there would be some data backing it up, in some
> >form or another
>
> You know why. Why would any medical study be done to show this when
> prohormones have no medical use in healthy men?
>
How about some SUGGESTIVE evidence then Lyle?
And if your hypothesis were true, then wouldn't your body also severely
UP-regulate the enzymes to DEACTIVATE real anabolic steroids, just like
you say it DOWN-regulates the enzymes used to ACTIVATE prohormones? If
your answer is yes, then tell me why do anabolic steroids work at all?
lysis_gr
Patrick Arnold <parn...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Yeah, Dave Reed formerly of Dallas, now living in the Phillipines.
In that case: apologies again, Dave, but you should really know this. :-}
MJL
>
Jesus christ....
Don't call me Lyle.
>And if your hypothesis were true, then wouldn't your body also severely
>UP-regulate the enzymes to DEACTIVATE real anabolic steroids, just like
>you say it DOWN-regulates the enzymes used to ACTIVATE prohormones?
Are you sure the body does not?? Could that not be why it takes 3 times the
body's natural test level to see any dramatic effect from test injections and
as much as 5 times as much to really get the max benefit?
Yuno Hu
>>How about some SUGGESTIVE evidence then Lyle?
>
>Jesus christ....
>
>Don't call me Lyle.
Pat really likes it when you call him Jesus Christ, though.
--
JW
djr
Someone had asked me about potassium sparing diuretics used in conjunction with
ACE inhibitors in a recent e-mail and for some reason I had aldactone on the
brain.
The actual diuretic used was furosemide. 40mg BID used on a 2 on, 1 off
scheme.
And BTW, I would speculate the 'anabolic interference' of aldactone (based on
dosages recommended for hirsutism resultant from androgen excess being
identical to the dosages used to treat edema) to occur at the same point as
effective diuresis, so Lysis is completely well based in using the word
'ridiculous'.
Actually, I'm surprised he didn't realize the above and use much harsher words
than just that. Thanks for pointing out my error, L.
djr
djr
Patrick Arnold wrote:
>
> lysis_gr wrote:
> >
> >
> > It's the rationale that's ridiculous, not the actual results. These I take
> > to be true as a working hypothesis. Aldactone can interfere with androgens
> > both at the synthesis level and at the AR level. Clinically speaking, it
> > can cause both diuresis without endocrine side effects (gyno, impotence
> > etc) and the side effects without significant diuresis. It all boils down
> > to individual variability.
>
> Dave may not have known about the anti-androgen action of aldactone. I
> think he did know that it has a good history of working just fine with
> androgens in bodybuilders. At least, at the appropriate dosages
>
I've explained my mistake and agree that the rationale is ridiculous. I have
first hand experience in fact, in learning this lesson.
I find this fairly ironic, because it happened to be one of the points in
contest prep that I nearly mangled my former coach over.
For most of his clients, aldactone worked well as a diuretic at a set
dosage. When I first began using it and found it was difficult to 'perform',
I assumed it was due to pre-contest stress. However,
I did not experience pronounced diuresis at this dosage, and subsequently
raised it to find a concomittent degradation in 'performance'. (For the kids
out there, we call this a correlation.) And no additional diuresis, btw.
Subsequently, after using the few braincells I have and reading the words
'anti-androgen' in the PDR, I put two and two together, and brought the point
up that aldactone was probably a mistake and that we should try something
else. He just could not believe there was a correlation, but admitted that a
few of his competitors did fail to respond to aldactone even at extremely high
doses. At such a point, he would then move them to furosemide. Apparantly, he
was extremely concerned about using a potassium sparing diuretic, but knew
nothing further of the drug itself, primarily because it worked fine with most
of his clients.
I eventually found something that worked very well for me, was
non-traditional in bodybuilding circles, potassium sparing, was not
anti-androgenic, and had no adverse side affects.
Let's review:
1) Always know what the hell you are putting in your body, don't trust someone
else to know everything even if they are known as a successful coach.
2) Aldactone does work well for many without unwanted side effects, but the
point to be made is that it does not work well for everyone, so if you choose
to use it in your contest prep, be prepared!
djr
lysis_gr
djr <w...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>The actual diuretic used was furosemide. 40mg BID used on a 2 on, 1 off
>scheme.
Ok!
> And BTW, I would speculate the 'anabolic interference' of aldactone (based on
>dosages recommended for hirsutism resultant from androgen excess being
>identical to the dosages used to treat edema) to occur at the same point as
>effective diuresis, so Lysis is completely well based in using the word
>'ridiculous'.
Oh never mind. BTW there is a perfectly good possible reason why aldactone
would interfere with prohormone action but not with exogenously
administered AAS: aldactone blocks androgen synthesis as well as the AR.
These mechanisms are not fully elucidated, and no one knows who is
susceptible to which and to what degree. Nevertheless the synthesis
blockade is clearly irrelevant when AAS are taken exogenously, whereas it
may well be relevant in the case of prohormone conversion.
>Actually, I'm surprised he didn't realize the above and use much harsher words
>than just that. Thanks for pointing out my error, L.
I would have kept my mouth shut if I had realized it was you, Dave. :-)
lysis_gr
djr <w...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> I eventually found something that worked very well for me, was
>non-traditional in bodybuilding circles, potassium sparing, was not
>anti-androgenic, and had no adverse side affects.
Other potassium-sparing diuretics include triamterene and amiloride.
>2) Aldactone does work well for many without unwanted side effects, but the
>point to be made is that it does not work well for everyone, so if you choose
>to use it in your contest prep, be prepared!
Aldactone is an aldosterone blocker therefore it works better if the latter
is elevated (which is not uncommon). Its potency is nothing special, on
par with the run-of-the-mill thiazides whose action declines as
dehydration progresses. Furosemide, being a loop diuretic, is much
stronger, and will work even in dehydration. The combo of thiazides and
loop diuretics is synergistic, but so is its K+ depleting effect.
Fortunately K+ can easily be supplemented, even with simple stuff such as
orange or tomato juice, although this may interfere with carbing up or the
dehydration regimen.
lysis_gr
lysis@ee_xi.gr (lysis_gr) wrote:
>blockade is clearly irrelevant when AAS are taken exogenously, whereas it
>may well be relevant in the case of prohormone conversion.
And let me comment on my own post by adding that there might be a
difference at the AR level too, because exogenous AAS can reach levels
much higher than transcutaneous prohormones which are limited by the
maximum possible flux through the skin. Admittedly nasal prohormones do
not have this limitation, and I have gone on record saying that they work
very, very well, even compared to the "real thing".
djr
As I understand it, before prometrium was commercially available, pharmacists
would manufacture vaginal suppositories in their 'labs' made of progesterone
for patients to be used primarily as a treatment for infertility. I know that
in Hong Kong, while talking with one of the pharmacists there, they currently
still do this for some types of birth control.
You having brought up the afformentioned point of nasal prohormones would
make me think a suppository has great potential as a prohormone delivery
system.
I know that Pat has jokingly suggested 'analbol' products in the past, but I
think one could probably find a pharmacist who would be able to make them if
someone was so inclined to ask them to do so. Perhaps not in the U.S. . . .
djr
lysis_gr
> You having brought up the afformentioned point of nasal prohormones would
>make me think a suppository has great potential as a prohormone delivery
>system.
It does and I think Pat is aware of it but I guess he thinks it's not
marketable.
Kev
"lysis_gr" <lysis@ee_xi.gr> wrote in message
news:98829565...@athnrd02.forthnet.gr...
Awww, stick it up your ass.
Kev
Patrick Arnold
such a suppository. I even have a compounding pharmacists guide with
the ingredients for the recipe of such a thing
--
Patrick Arnold
laughing stock of the whole industry
--
Steve Gallagher
So basically you feel that intranasal, oops I mean "intra-oral" :) is
the
most AAS-like delivery method? How would you rank the transdermal route
compared to orals, say?
--
"Links, zwo! Links, zwo! Links, zwo, drei, vier! Links!"
Rammstein, "Links 2 3 4"
Patrick Arnold
I don't think Lysis has ever experimented with the transdermals, but i
did send him cyclo diol and i think he gave it to some athletes in a
nasal delivery and observed them
>
> --
> "Links, zwo! Links, zwo! Links, zwo, drei, vier! Links!"
> Rammstein, "Links 2 3 4"
--
lysis_gr
Steve Gallagher <jeng_...@NOmsn.SPAMcom> wrote:
>So basically you feel that intranasal, oops I mean "intra-oral" :) is
>the most AAS-like delivery method?
Yes. I have used up to 200 mg a-diol a day with excellent results (I
posted about it extensively several months ago) and feel that one can push
the dose even higher, especially with Pat's newer, more soluble
cyclodextrin complexing formulation. There is a lot to be said about
pulsatile delivery.
>How would you rank the transdermal route compared to orals, say?
If you mean transdermal prohormones vs. oral AAS, then it is not a
comparison that I have made. Based on indirect evidence I would say
that a transdermal would be weaker than an average daily dose of, say,
methandienone. The issue is more complicated than that. One has to take
into account not only what the effect per milligram is, but also the price
to pay in terms of axis inhibition, possible toxicity, not to mention cost,
legality etc. Maybe Pat has more info on his own product.
John M. Williams
>
>lysis_gr wrote:
>>
>> djr <w...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> > You having brought up the afformentioned point of nasal prohormones would
>> >make me think a suppository has great potential as a prohormone delivery
>> >system.
>>
>> It does and I think Pat is aware of it but I guess he thinks it's not
>> marketable.
>
>laughing stock of the whole industry
And Mike Lane would be pestering you for free samples. You know how
much he likes that delivery method.
--
John M. Williams jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com
------- http://www.enforcergraphics.f2s.com --------
------ Partnership for an Idiot-Free America -------
djr
people were so inclined, they could have them made. I know it could be done
in a pharmacy here with little issue.
djr