Chemical Solution
The lowdown on the latest in bodybuilding chemistry
by Bill Roberts

Finding a PhD candidate in pharmaceutical science isn't all that hard. There are hundreds of them working around the country, mostly in the white, sterile, back rooms of drug company giants. Finding one, however, who's interested in all the chemicals and drugs that bodybuilders and strength athletes find so spay-shul is a little harder ? why, you could count them on one hand — a hand that was involved in a horrible chemical accident and lost a couple of fingers in the process.

Luckily, we've got one of those mangled digits working with us. His name is Bill Roberts, and he may just be one of the country's leading thinkers in the fields of supplementation and bodybuilding drugs. If you can swallow it, inject it, or spray it on, Bill knows about it! In fact, he's pretty darned knowledgeable in just about every area, including training and nutrition.

Bill's agreed to start writing a Q and A column for us, and although he might occasionally handle some of the same ground as Brock Strasser, it's always cool to get a second opinion, especially since Bill's area of specialization is delivery systems and drug design.

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.

© 1998 — 2009 Testosterone, LLC. All Rights Reserved.