Mike Arnold
Featured Member / Kilo Klub / Verified Sponsor
Featured Member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Verified Customer
Sponsors
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2011
- Messages
- 5,521
I've seen power lifters jacked on sdrol drop like a tree after a set of deadlifts. Many other times needing to sit down for a few moments b/c of nausea and dizziness... but they probably had the "bad" superdrol? I don't know what that means. Some androgenically inert substance created in production made you sick? The molecule itself wasn't methyldrostanolone?
Many SD poducts have been tested and were found to contain improperly compounded SD. Many of these productds made people sick--me included.
On the other hand, I've seen people need to sit down for a minute or nearly pass out not having taken a designer steroid/prohormone at all.
Exactly. It is doifficult to blame someone passing out after a set of deadlifts on SD..or any drug for that matter, especially when plenty of poeple have passed out without any drugs. "Passing out" is not a side effect of any steroid.
Prohormones more likely have a bad rep because those early steroids from the 50's and 60's WERE shelved precisely because the toxicity was so high.
100% completely WRONG! It is this belief which has led so many people to form an improper opinion of "designer" steroids. I copy & pasted my own article below. It is fairly long, but addresses this issue perfectly. The reality is that onlya tiny-teeny portion of steroids from that era were shelved because of toxicity.
Come 2000 and many companies looking to OTC a drug were looking through books just like Vida's and Kochackian’s and scouring the science sections of university libraries looking for relatively unknown and certainly unscheduled drugs previously synthesized that they could sell behind the counter and/or also use to sneak by drug tests. These were steroids that could be manufactured with little or no FDA oversight at all.
Correct--because the FDA didn't think--way back then--that any supp companies would ever be trying to sell these drugs legally.
I agree that probably not all so-called designer steroids/prohormones are more toxic than previously prescribed AAS but I would venture to say most of them are
Nope---not even close.-
often the reason they were never put into mass production in the first place.
No.
Lumping them all together with drugs put into production by companies like Syntex and Ciba pharmaceuticals is bad info.
See article.
Steroids are not all just one big bushel of apples. There are apples and there are also oranges.
Mike Arnold confronts Industry Expert
By: Mike Arnold
By: Mike Arnold
Instead of giving you guys to usual spiel about some new drug or how to use them I decided to do something a bit different this time around, the idea for which came to me during a conversation with another member of the online bodybuilding community. In the midst of our back and forth banter, it eventually became evident that I was dealing with someone who had been misled regarding the true place of non-traditional (non-script) AAS within a steroid user’s program. As the conversation progressed, he revealed that most of the information he was sharing had been provided by another well known writer within the industry.
After confirming the legitimacy of this claim through a video that had been posted on YouTube, my initial reaction was one of surprise, as I did not expect an individual with this degree of experience to have such little insight into a topic he had elected to teach on. However, my surprise quickly turned to disappointment as I was once again forced to come to grips with the fact that not everything we read or hear can be relied on, even when coming from supposed “experts”. While this realization came early for many of us, to see these kinds of inaccuracies come from those who are held up as the cream of the crop…well, it tends to bother me a little bit more. After all, if we can’t trust those who write for the top-level magazines, who can we trust?
Fortunately, there are plenty of brilliant men who have done a great service for the bodybuilding community over the years. However, those newcomers who are still struggling to discern truth from error may find their pursuit of knowledge made all the more difficult when they can’t even depend on the higher-ups for accurate information. It is with this in mind that I decided to address some of the comments made by this individual (who will remain anonymous out of respect for him. Hey, we all make mistakes at some point, so a little forgiveness is in order), as it deals with the designer steroid/prohormone industry; a subject that I have taken a great deal of interest in over the last 15 years.
In the text that follows you will find my initial reaction to this video, followed by a series of comments from Mr. Anonymous and my subsequent responses. In order for the reader to get a feeling for how this conversation progressed, my responses appear as they were originally provided.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Wow! So much inaccurate information in this video, but frankly, it doesn't surprise me. Allow me to begin by saying that prior to this post, I knew who Mr. Anonymous was, but could not bring to remembrance anything he had written; largely because I don't read the magazine he writes for. My point in saying this is so that you understand I have no bias for or against Mr. Anonymous in anyway. I am also aware he is an educated man on various topics within the industry, but this subject does not appear to be one of his strong suites, as the video clearly demonstrates a limited degree of knowledge regarding not only the actual compounds contained in Vida's book, but of the OTC drugs which have been released onto the market from 2004-until the present (Note: 2004 marks the date the first methyl was released onto the OTC market). Below are my responses to certain comments made within the video.
False Statement #1: All non-prescription steroids listed in Julius Vida’s book Anabolic and Androgenic Agents (from which the majority of today’s OTC orals are derived), were never considered for production due to excessive hepatoxicity and/or ineffectiveness.
My Response: I got a big hearty chuckle out of that one, but before we move onto the evidence, let’s apply a little common sense. As Mr. Anonymous stated in the video, there were 100’s, if not 1,000’s of AAS developed from the 1940's-1960's. However, only a small percentage of these drugs ever went on to be tested for hepatoxicity in humans. This fact alone invalidates his claim, as it is impossible to know with a high degree of certainty just how toxic a drug is without actual testing. It is also worth notng that with such a large number of AAS developed during this time, it would be exceedingly unlikely for only a few dozen of them (a rough estimate of the number of ASS which went onto be sold as prescription drugs in the U.S.) to be suitable for human use from a toxicity standpoint.
The truth is that toxicity had very little to do with why the vast majority of these drugs were rejected as viable candidates for prescription status. Rather, the majority were discarded simply because they did not display characteristics deemed advantageous for the treatment of specific medical conditions, which was the primary reason for the development of AAS in the first place.
For example, if researchers (employees of pharmaceutical companies) were looking for a drug which could be used in women and children, one of the most pressing concerns would be the drug’s androgenic potency, as strong androgens are likely to lead to the development of male secondary sex characteristics; a side effect which would have been considered unacceptable given the target population. Right off the bat, this single prerequisite disqualifies the vast majority of AAS from consideration.
As another example, if researchers were looking for a drug to treat those afflicted with anemia, the steroid would need to exhibit above average proficiency at increasing RBC count, while simultaneously displaying a relatively weak androgenic component, in order to cut down on the severity of androgenic side effects in female patients. Or, if they were searching for a drug which could be used to treat short-stature children, one of the first priorities would be making sure the steroid does not aromatize, as estrogen is the hormone responsible for sealing the epiphyseal growth plates.
While I may have provided a few basic reasons as to why certain steroids were chosen and others rejected, the process was much more elaborate than this, with virtually dozens of potential factors evaluated, until the researchers were reasonably confident that the drug they selected possessed characteristics best suited for the treatment of a specific condition in a predetermined population.
It is an undeniable fact that many of the non-script AAS listed in Vida’s book are no more toxic than many prescription AAS, with a great deal being significantly less toxic, especially when compared to drugs such as Halotestin, Anadrol, and Myagen (all script drugs). At the same time, there are also quite a few which display greater toxicity. The point here is that the classifying the entire category of non-script AAS as too toxic for human use is not only wrong, but irresponsible, as the non-script drugs listed in Vida’s book are not necessarily any more or less toxic than prescription AAS.
I could provide dozens of examples right off the top of my head--and anyone who is familiar with the gamut of steroids in Vida’s book will readily attest to this fact. My guess is that Mr. Anonymous became aware of the few OTC steroids (ex. SD, M1T) which were more toxic than the average prescription AAS and automatically assumed that every steroid sold on the OTC market fit this same criteria. Had Mr. Anonymous possessed a deeper knowledge of the drugs within that book, as well as the more recently developed designer steroids, he would never have made such a ridiculous blanket statement.
Let's move onto the 2nd half of his comment, in which he brings up the effectiveness of non-script drugs. More specifically, Mr. Anonymous states that non-script AAS are "no more effective than currently existing prescription AAS". To that I say define the term “more effective". More effective for what? Building muscle? Increasing strength? For getting hard & dry? For increasing aggression? For burning fat? Also, what steroids are being compared? By failing to use the term “more effective” within a defined context, any comparison between these 2 categories of AAS is made impossible. Therefore, I am not going to spend much time on this statement other than to say that this term can only be accurately applied when referring specifically to the treatment of certain medical conditions, NOT the goals of a bodybuilder.
Many of the AAS listed in Vida’s book demonstrate increased myotropic potency (muscle growth) over prescription AAS, as concluded by pharmaceutical/government researchers and as proven by verifiable documentation. In many cases, these researchers even went so far as to directly compare the myotropic potency of common prescription AAS (testosterone, oxymetholone, methandrostenolone, stanozolol, methyltestosterone, etc) against many AAS which would later go on to be sold as OTC steroids, including 1-alpha, desoxymethyltestosterone (Pheraplex), methasterone (SD), methylstenbolone, M1T, and dimethazine...and guess what? Every single one of these OTC steroids exceeded the myotropic (muscle building) potency of all the prescription AAS listed above--many of which are considered "heavy hitters" in the world of script-AAS. That's right, when compared on a mg per mg basis, even the most powerful traditional, prescription muscle builders fell short of the muscle building potency of every single OTC listed here. These are not my words--they are the results of well-controlled university studies conducted specifically to find out which steroids built the most muscle!
Dimethazine (which is 2 SD molecules attached together), in one particular study, was compared directly against oxymetholone, test prop, methyltestosterone, and stanozolol on a mg per mg basis (oxymetholone & testosterone are arguably the most potent mass-building oral and injectable prescription AAS) and Dimethazine crushed them all! So, if I can list a handful of steroids just from the OTC market that surpass the muscle building strength of even the strongest script drugs, how many other non-script steroids do you think also surpass the myotropic potency of traditional prescription AAS? How many do you think equal prescription AAS? Let me put in this way--a hell of a lot.
Besides, muscle building potency is not the sole concern of a bodybuilder. Pre-contest bodybuilders need to concern themselves with things such as muscle hardness, dryness, and density, while strength athletes are typically more concerned with strength and power. In conclusion, when Mr. Anonymous says that non-script drugs were discarded for no other reason than toxicity and/or lack of effectiveness, he is making a false statement on a grand level.
False Statement #2: Mr. Anonymous then presents us with a supposed list (which he doesn't show us) of non-script/OTC AAS that have resulted in liver inflammation/liver failure, inferring that these test results indicate a greater degree of hepatoxicity in comparison to prescription steroids.
My Response: Firstly, all methyls, including script AAS, can and frequently do cause liver inflammation. In fact, most modern day steroid users, especially with the dosages used today, experience some degree of liver inflammation with every cycle they run. This is a natural consequence of methylated steroid use.
When reviewing the lab work of individuals who have run prescription orals, it often reveals a dramatic elevation in liver enzymes/inflammation—in many cases greater than what users of OTC steroid experience. Some of the most extreme elevations actually took place under a doctor’s care, with numerous anemics being prescribed 200+ mg of Anadrol daily for several months consecutively. If you doubt this, look up some of the old reports of anemic patients who were prescribed up to 300 mg of Anadrol daily! That is something even the large majority of BB'rs won't do.
Every methyl causes liver stress to varying degrees. Show me a single man on a cycle of Dianabol or Anadrol who doesn't have elevated liver enzymes/inflammation and I will show you either fake lab work or a BB'r who is loaded up on liver protectants (why do you think there are so many liver supplements on the market these days?) The main point here is that it is misleading to imply that liver inflammation indicates above average hepatoxicity, which is exactly what Mr. Anonymous did here.
The liver is a self-rejuvenating organ designed to break down toxic chemicals, which is why the government has no issues legalizing things like liver toxic prescription and OTC medications, as well as recreational substances like alcohol. Many of these things are much more toxic than AAS. Even something as basic as Tylenol exhibits significant toxicity, with doses even 10% over the maximum recommended daily limit capable of causing liver death. More people die from Tylenol induced liver failure each year than all the steroids users who have died from liver failure in history (Wiki claims that the number of yearly deaths attributable to Tylenol overdose, in the U.S. alone, averages 150). Keep in mind this comparison includes the deaths of script and non-script/OTC steroids combined.
Let's post a few other neat facts for you. Mr. Anonymous mentions that one OTC steroid user died from liver failure; a guy who used SD. He also points out that the man claims to have used the recommended dose. Let me re-emphasize the number "One", as in one individual. Compare that to the number of people who have died from the same cause when using prescription orals and it doesn't even come close.
In addition, any review of the few documented cases involving liver injury from SD will often reveal the presence of other significant ricks factors, all of which could have easily, and likely, played a substantial role in the development of their condition. Many of these individuals were highly ignorant regarding the potential dangers of methylated drugs and therefore demonstrated extreme irresponsibility in regards to their health. While some of these men did indeed stick within the recommended dosing range (most did not), they often ran the product for longer than recommended, while also engaging in regular, heavy drinking. Even worse is that some of these same people were simultaneously running 2-3 other OTC methyls along with it (meaning their methyl dose was 3-4X above the normal limit), and some were popping liver-stressing NSAIDS like candy, as well. But of course, it was the SD’s fault. Never mind the 10,000’s of responsible users who never experienced any problems.
False Statement #3: Instead of using SD, just use Masteron, as Masteron is a clean version of SD.
My Response: So, Mr. Anonymous believes Masteron as "clean" version of SD? Come on. The two drugs are nothing alike. Clearly, Mr. Anonymous lacks even a basic understanding of steroid biochemistry, as even small molecular changes to a steroid, such as methylation, results in the creation of a completely different compound. Using this guy’s logic, we should start calling boldenone (EQ) a clean version of Dianabol. After all, Dianabol is simply methylated EQ in the same way that SD is methylated Masteron. I guess that also means we should we call testosterone a clean version of Bolasterone, being that Bolasterone is nothing but di-methylated testosterone? Actually, to back track a little bit, SD is actually di-methylated masteron, which means Dianabol is closer in chemical structure to boldenone than SD is to Masteron.
As expected, anytime we create a new compound, its effects will differ from that of the parent hormone, often times drastically. A great example is SD and Masteron. Aside from a few similarities, these drugs couldn’t be farther apart in terms of effects, yet we have Mr. Anonymous leading people to believe that they can just use the “clean version of SD” and get the same positive effects without the negative side effects. I don’t think I need to go any further with this one.
Closing: Although I chose to focus on just a few of the errors contained in Mr. Anonymous’s video interview, these points comprised the bulk of it. Still, there were at least 3-4 other inaccurate pieces of information provided in that video, making nearly the entire production a waste of time. It was brutally apparent that the individual had not only failed to dig deep enough into the research/clinical side of things, but that he lacked any real-world experience or connection with the athletes who use these drugs. If he had taken the time to properly prepare, he would have found plenty of reliable information to present to the public.