posted March 22, 2000 09:19 AM         

The Steroid Summit, Part I
New perspective on anabolic enhancement
by Nelson Montana, with Brock Strasser

Serendipity. It's another word for "dumb luck." It's also the premise behind this report.

Originally, I had intended to do a follow-up of the Steroids For Health article from Issue 18 of Testosterone. I wanted to address certain issues, clarify a few points, and correct some inaccuracies that were based on the then-limited information.

When that infamous piece was written, I had no idea how much scrutiny it would receive. Overall, I consider SFH successful in the regard that it gained acclaim by raising issues that had been overlooked by scientists and gym rats alike.

Still, it had its flaws�a point that has been brought up to me in no uncertain terms by several leaders in the field of biochemistry and pharmacology. I know enough to realize that if you want to challenge conventional thought, you're going to find some detractors. You take the good with the bad. The accolades are easy, the criticisms less so. At least it got everyone's attention.

My dilemma with writing a reprise to SFH was that this time, I wanted to back up any information and/or assumptions with proven scientific data. If this is to be something that's going to be examined by the scientific community, I want evidence as to why a theory is valid, or proof as to why it isn't.

The problem with that endeavor is purely financial. It's obvious that I can't personally fund the studies needed to verify everything, and the available studies�as they relate to athletes�are limited.

The only feasible recourse was to collaborate with a reigning authority in the field, someone with both topnotch credentials and extensive personal experience in the area of steroid use. That left but a handful of potential candidates. Then again, one of the great perks of this job is that I can pick up the phone at any given time and speak to a variety of experts.

I narrowed my choices down to three people, and one of them was Brock Strasser. Although Brock and I have communicated on a casual basis, I wasn't sure if he would be up to researching some of the wacky notions regarding steroid use that had been rummaging through my consciousness. I held off on contacting him.

Then, a few weeks back, out of the blue, I received an email from Brock. He was commenting on the premiere issue of Testosterone magazine and how great he thought it looked. He made specific mention to the reprinting of "Steroids For Health," stating that he liked and agreed with the basic premise but was wondering if I'd be willing to co-write a Part II that would include some corrections, along with some of his own recent findings.

This was perfect! Yet, there was some concern that Brock and I wouldn't be "on the same page," so to speak. After all, we're completely opposite ends of the spectrum: he, the pure scientist, and me, the antagonistic pragmatist (think of it as Will Rogers meets Mr. Peabody). Still, we got together to debate and discuss the benefits of steroid use from our perspective angles.

Oddly enough, although there was some conflict, we found cohesion for the most part. And along the way, we touched upon some information that we believe may change the way that bodybuilders perceive steroid use from here on in. That may sound like a bold statement, but the following conversation confronts and clarifies some "yet to be addressed" issues concerning real-world steroid use. It also presents some new insights and precautions that can further help people make safe and effective decisions while obtaining optimum muscle mass, and I think that's pretty cool.

Whether you're a full-fledged steroid veteran or contemplating popping that first pill, if maximum muscle growth along with personal health is a main concern, don't even consider that next cycle until you read this information. There are new rules to the game�who wants to play?

NM: Brock, let me start by saying that I know you science guys love the "tech talk" but, to me, that's an elitist thing. I want to get to the practical, applicable information for the average bodybuilder who wants to use anabolic enhancement to build a better body. I'm not a scientist, so if you don't mind, talk to me in English!

BS: No problem. Right off the bat, I should mention one mistake in your SFH article. Steroids are a schedule III drug, not schedule II.

NM: Oh, no! You're hitting me with legal technicalities? You must be a bureaucrat! Forget all hopes for a friendly conversation. This is war!

BS: I work in an FDA-regulated industry. I'm the total bureaucrat!

NM: Actually, steroids are schedule II in New York, but I don't want to get hung up with this. Let's stick with the issues that the people want to know. Is there something specific concerning steroid cycles that you'd like to address?

BS: Well, when dealing with the topic of anabolic steroids, it's important to understand items pertaining to the drugs themselves. For example, the amount of SHBG (sex hormone-binding globulin) that a person has in his blood will determine how much steroid is "freed" up to cause growth. The amount of receptors per centimeter squared of skeletal muscle is also a factor, as is the affinity that the steroid itself has for SHBG.

NM: Okay, I guess that's good to know. But ultimately, what does it have to do with anything? Knowing that doesn't change what a drug is going to do. It's understood that everyone is different. We all have a different affinity for a drug's effectiveness, and we can't change that. But what does this mean to the guy with 50 D-bol and a couple of vials of Sustanon? That's the kind of stuff I'm concerned about.

BS: Fair enough, Monty. Let's get specific. One of the points of contention in the "Steroids For Health" piece was when you mentioned that stacking several steroids was just "more." But that doesn't necessarily have to be the case.

Stacking two or more steroids can cause a synergistic effect: 1+1=3. Why? Well, if one steroid has more of an affinity for SHBG, more of the other will be freed up. If one steroid has "preferential treatment" by the liver for metabolizing, the other will have that much longer to roam around and induce anabolism. Get the picture?

By stacking, you may increase both the duration of absolute half-life as well as the concentration of "free drug" in the serum. This is where you can start getting creative in your choices. You can use one drug that has a strong affinity for SHBG...

NM: Which are essentially the more androgenic compounds, specifically testosterone...

BS: Certainly. But there are others, as well. If you have a testosterone stuck to the SHBG, there's a good chance that the other steroid you're taking won't be. In other words, I believe that 300 mg of testosterone and 300 mg of Primobolan will be more effective than 600 mg of testosterone alone.

NM: I'll go along with that. I thought that it was for different reasons, but the conclusion is the same. This still comes down to using only two drugs. My assertion was that all of the elaborate stacks, mixing four or five injectables with a few different orals, are just "pretend" pharmacology on the part of most bodybuilders.

Before I forget, there's something else that I'd like you to clarify. I know that many of the metabolites of the more androgenic compounds will break down into DHT, therefore prolonging the androgenic effect. Yet the belief has been that Dianabol broke down to DHT, but you say that it doesn't.

BS: There's no testosterone molecule, so it can't break down into DHT. Anything that doesn't have a very active metabolite, like D-bol and Primobolan acetate, isn't going to last very long, effects wise, per dose.

NM: It's also a misconception that Primo causes hair loss because it's derived from DHT, but Primo is actually easy on the hair. If D-bol doesn't break down to DHT, why is it so tough on the hairline?

BS: Because it imparts such an androgenic effect�it binds tightly to the scalp receptors. Even with a short half-life, D-bol is tremendously powerful.

NM: Speaking of half-lives...this is a topic that a lot of people don't fully understand. The standard literature states that a drug like Deca is effective for 14 days or so, but isn't there a dispersion of potency? I mean, is a drug as powerful on Day 13 as it is on Day 3? They say that it takes a drug a few days to circulate, but I've always "felt" it within a few hours, whereas after a week or so, I feel as if the "kick" is gone.

This is purely empirical on my part, so tell me the scientific explanation, if you can. Am I wrong, or are the half-lives of steroids misunderstood? I guess that the simplest question should be, isn't a steroid incrementally less active after a while?

BS: It's incrementally less active every second! A lot of people get this wrong. A steroid's potency starts degrading almost immediately. The scientific reality is that a drug enters the half-life stage the moment it hits the bloodstream. The "half-life" is simply the time when 100 active milligrams breaks down to 50 active milligrams, to 25 active milligrams, and so on. The half-life may come after a few days, or a few hours, depending on the drug.

Effectiveness is dose-dependent. If you take only 200 mg of something, it will stop being effective pretty quickly, even if it's a long-acting ester. But if you were to take 1,000 mg of the same thing, then you still may have enough drug in your system two weeks later to be effective, because you'll still have 500 mg floating around.

NM: Another good reason to hit it hard�then get out.

BS: In terms of playing it safe, absolutely! This issue has yet to be addressed in scientific terms�and it's a big one. Everyone who decides to take steroids should know about this.

NM: So in a way, steroids are self-tapering. Extending a cycle with small doses is just a waste of receptor site acceptance. You might as well get out and clean out.

BS: In that sense, your "Steroids For Health" approach was on the money�except that a taper of the dosages that you recommended probably wouldn't be necessary.

Bill Roberts advocated a similar safe program with slightly higher dosages and a two-week cycle. He came about his conclusions more from a clinical perspective, whereas you were using a more reader-friendly, "common sense" approach. Actually, I've also advocated a two-week cycle plan for years now�two weeks on, two weeks off. More recently, Brian Batcheldor advocated a similar plan.

NM: I think that the cycles are safer and more productive if you take a little more time off than that, but I'm admittedly on the conservative side in this regard. It looks as if the days of the ten-week cycles may hopefully be a thing of the past.

Let's talk about some of the viable options when constructing a healthy cycle. I understand that you feel Anadrol 50 isn't as unsafe as some people, myself included, make it out to be.

BS: I don't think it's that bad. They give up to 150 mg a day to AIDS patients.

NM: Sure, it's better than dying! But how can you say 50 mg of any oral isn't liver toxic?

BS: Tylenol is pretty liver toxic.

NM: True, as is Ampicillin, and doctors prescribe that stuff like it's cough drops.

BS: It's interesting. Everyone thinks that Anavar is harmless, but clinical trials have shown that, at 50 mg a day, it's more toxic than 50 mg of Anadrol!

NM: That's interesting, but it doesn't surprise me. It's another case of people judging a drug per pill instead of on a "milligram per milligram" basis. My big beef with Anadrol is that the effects are so temporary which, to me, translates into it not being very effective.

BS: I gained 30 pounds on Anadrol and kept most of it.

NM: The only way I can imagine that happening is if you ate like a ravenous pig!

BS: You've got me there�I ate everything in sight!

NM: Which alone can be incredibly anabolic, but that's a story for another time. At any rate, concerning Anadrol, I think that we just see the risk:benefit ratio differently.

BS: Let's agree to disagree.

NM: That works for me.

Back to specific stacks, I've always liked the Winstrol/Deca stack. As it turns out, it's a good combination for a reason that was previously unknown to me. Deca causes bloating, not due to aromatization, as once believed, but due to increased progestenic effects. Winstrol, in fact, may act as a progesterone antagonist.

People used to say that Winstrol was a "cutting" drug. Well, that never made sense to me, but I couldn't explain why Winstrol seemed to have a "leaning" effect. It turns out that it's probably because it reduces progesterone and prevents bloating, making it the perfect adjunct to Deca. Because of what we now know about Deca, I wouldn't use it without using Winstrol along with it.

BS: We all thought that Deca was so benign because it doesn't have typical androgenic side effects like hair loss and prostate enlargement. But Deca will suppress endogenous testosterone production, as well as straight testosterone. The only problem is that, at least with testosterone, you're replacing what you're suppressing because it's more androgenic.

NM: In layman's terms, testosterone occurs naturally, and nandrolone (Deca) doesn't.

BS: Right. That's also why Deca can severely affect erectile function. I don't know anyone who can tolerate more than 600 mg of Deca a week without side effects. That seems to be the cutoff point. Any more than that will lead to moodiness, depression, and a suppressed libido. I've seen guys act like women with PMS when they take too much Deca!

No matter what steroid you take, I think that it's essential to take Clomid�not after the cycle, but throughout the entire cycle, as well as after.

NM: Here's one out of left field. Does Clomid increase sperm count and ejaculate volume?

BS: Oh, yeah! You'll definitely be blowin' bigger loads while on Clomid. It can make a noticeable difference in ejaculate volume�judging from personal experience, up to three times as much! That's my assertion, but it's not like anyone is doing double-blind crossover studies of cum shots!

NM: The image that you just placed in my mind is very disturbing.

BS: I have some inside information from people in the porn industry that all the guys take Clomid to enhance their "money shots."

NM: Now this is the kind of information that our public wants to know about!

BS: Of course, there's no guarantee that Clomid will turn you into Peter North...

NM: He really is talented, isn't he?

BS: He certainly is.

Note: In case you aren't as deviant as most of our staff, we should explain that Peter North is an adult film star who's famous for his "bursts" of dramatic tension.

NM: With a name like Brock Strasser, I'm not surprised that you have insight into the porno business.

Anyway, allow me to digress a bit. I know that Clomid and Nolvadex are chemically related. However, I think that they're somehow different. They're formulated to do different things�Clomid to stimulate ovulation, and Nolvadex to suppress estrogenic tumor growth in the breasts. Any thoughts?

BS: Despite what some of my colleagues espouse, I think that the effects of Nolvadex and Clomid are dramatically different. They'll both lower net estrogenic activity, but Clomid will affect the FSH and LH much more than Nolvadex. This keeps your "balls 'o bouncing."

NM: When my balls are happy, I'm happy.

BS: For that reason, I prefer Clomid. Which do you prefer?

NM: To be honest, I've never been a fan of either. I've found Cyclofenil and Proviron to be much more effective at negating estrogenic effects.

Maybe I'm projecting here, but there's something about taking an "anticancer" drug (Nolvadex) that freaks me out! I can't pinpoint it, but the few times I've taken Nolvadex, I just didn't feel right. I bet there's something about its effects that aren't quite understood. Am I just being paranoid, or does Nolvadex negatively affect overall hormonal balance?

BS: I totally agree. Talking about cumming, when you're on Nolvadex, it's like, "Here it comes! Here it comes!" ...drip. Nothing. I've only used it once, and I, too, felt a little "weird." Something wasn't right.

It's so dependent on the individual, though. For example, I've never experienced gyno, even on 600 mg of test a week. Someone else can take a couple of D-bol, and they're sprouting double-Ds. Meanwhile, I easily lose hair, whereas other guys have no problem. That's why I've started taking Propecia�it's saved my hair.

NM: Did the Propecia affect your dick (how's that for being blunt)?

BS: Well, yeah, a little bit. My wife can't tell, but I can.

NM: You see, that makes it nonnegotiable! I wouldn't care if it gave me a head of hair like Tommy Lee Jones, I don't want anything messing with my dick! We can't seem to get off this subject, can we? How did I get back on the topic of my dick, anyway?

Okay, enough penile postulating�what's your ultimate steroid stack?

BS: If I could have access to anything that I wanted, I'd just use Primobolan�tons of Primobolan Depot.

NM: Don't you think that there needs to be a slightly elevated androgen level in the bloodstream for Primobolan to be effective?

BS: Nah, just take more Primo! Keep it coming!

NM: In theory, I like that idea. But I find that with doses up to even 500 mg a week of just Primo, it isn't very effective, and that's a lot of expensive oil. But if I add just a couple of D-bol to that...boom! It really kicks in! Hmmm, maybe it's because of what you referred to earlier in that the D-bol binds to the SHBG, thus allowing the Primo to be more effective.

BS: I bet that's what it is. Or it could be vice versa.

NM: Once again, different reasoning�same conclusion. Wouldn't it be wonderful if Primo came in a 250-mg vial?

BS: Please, don't even tease me! That would be great. If it came in a 50-cc bottle and was as cheap as testosterone, I'd never go off of it.

This ends Part I. Next week, we'll delve further into the optimum stack choices for the safest gains. We'll also address how many safe cycles are possible before results become ineffective�plus, a new look into the use of veterinarian steroids, and much more.

In Part I of this article, Brock and I discussed the benefits and the pitfalls of some commonly applied steroid practices. In Part II below, we pick up on the debate concerning a safe stacking protocol that involves "half day" dosing.

NM: I've been experimenting with a theory for a safe and healthy cycle. It involves using a low dose of Primo or Deca in order to have some "round the clock" nitrogen retention and taking either orals early in the day or testosterone patches, or cream, for half a day. This'll give the HPTA a chance to regenerate overnight.

BS: That would make a lot of sense for someone without a lot of steroid experience. It follows the circadian rhythm. Without some kind of anabolism for 24 hours a day, results would be marginal, so a little Primo is smart. Using orals or a patch for half a day in order to avoid suppression of the HPTA (hypothalamic pituitary testicular axis) is a good idea, in theory. But if you want to use even a low dose of Deca or Primo, you'd still be suppressing the HPTA.

NM: But it's a lot easier to bounce back from 100 mg a week than it is to come back from using 600 mg a week.

BS: Unless you're a relative newcomer, anything less than 400 mg a week won't do a thing.

NM: That's another point that I wanted to address. I agree. And that's the big bite in the ass when it comes to steroids. There's a genetic "cap," like with everything else. After a while, safe, healthy cycles will no longer work. In order to get any benefit from a cycle, it'll be necessary to take enough drug to shut down your endogenous testosterone completely, and then take enough on top of that, to induce growth.

BS: That's right. But at what age do you see this happening?

NM: I don't think that it's necessarily age-dependent. Obviously, an older guy won't make gains that are as great or are as continual as a younger guy, but the older guy can benefit more, in some ways, from using steroids.

At any rate, I think that someone can do eight, maybe ten short cycles over a two or three year period before the quantity of drug necessary for gains simply becomes too high. At that point, it's just not worth it. You're destined to a life of dependency. I say, appreciate the fact that you're ahead in the game, and move on. I'm also not entirely comfortable accepting constant replacement therapy. I'd still take time off.

BS: I totally agree. You won't believe how much stuff it takes to keep these top pros growing. It's such a slippery slope. People write to me all the time asking advice on steroids and say, "I'm only going to do it once!"

NM: Yeah, right! Where have I heard that before?

BS: They're kidding themselves. Once you start, it's almost impossible to stop. You're going to feel fantastic. You'll look great. Then you crash. And nobody wants to be PeeWee Herman after they know what it's like to be Superman. It's unacceptable�so they go right back on. That's why I tell people that they have to make an honest assessment as to whether or not they can control their behavior. If they can't, they shouldn't start.

NM: But Brock, come on, those waters aren't tested until you're there. Nobody plans on getting hooked. Everybody thinks that they can control it.

BS: You've got a point. Nobody wakes up as an alcoholic. They have to get there...and it starts with that first drink. This is why prohormones are potentially dangerous. They're like "junior" steroids. They may feel a "little" bit, and it gets them wondering. It's a tease. It's "okay" because it's legal. But it's often a waiting ground for people who aren't yet ready for the real stuff.

NM: Luckily, the word is getting out about how ineffective they are. I feel badly that I recommended them to a few clients, way back when I was relying on the so-called "science" behind them. But real life is a different deal.

Speaking of the "real stuff," let's get back to some of the contentions regarding various steroids. One of the main discrepancies in the Steroids For Health article, and the issue on which I received the most flack, were the statements concerning veterinarian steroids. I'd like to clear that up right now. My intention was to warn people about the higher risk associated with vet steroids, due partially to the fact that there are added estrogens in some vet steroids, and how some people react poorly (fever, nausea) to certain drugs like Equipoise.

BS: Not so fast, Monty. In the case of Equipoise, it's more likely that it's a counterfeit that isn't clean.

NM: Granted, but my big mistake was when I made the comment that vet 'roids were designed for animal receptor sites. I was lambasted by a certain fringe of the scientific, as well as the "wannabe" scientific, faction. I'll admit, I fucked up. But, in my own defense, it wasn't as unforgivable a mistake as some people made it out to be.

There are many species-specific receptors, i.e. a medicine that works for a dog won't necessarily work for a human. Consequently, aspirin is poisonous to cats. However, a testosterone molecule is transferable. Dog test, human test, horse test�it's all test. Nevertheless, there are still differences of opinion as to whether or not a vet steroid is designed for a certain animal. I know that some, like Winstrol, are the same stuff, just with different packaging for vet sales.

BS: In some cases, they're identical. For instance, the testosterone enanthate found in Brovel T-200 is chemically identical to the testosterone enanthate in Upjohn's Delatestryl.

NM: On the other hand, you have Laurabolin that's supposed to be Deca, and Reforvit is supposed to be D-bol. But most experienced users will tell you that, milligram for milligram, they don't seem to have as much "oomph" as the human version.

Regardless, this is an issue that bugs some scientists because the "reality" doesn't match up with their hypothesis. What bugs me is that sometimes a "scientific" conclusion is based on information that's limited, but it's the only information available to the scientist. To me, information obtained in this manner is not conclusive evidence. Has anyone spoken to the people who design vet steroids, or are they judging from their own studies? Is it possible that antibiotics or dewormers can be added? They won't kill you, but do you want them? I'll admit, I'm not familiar with the guidelines for horse medicine.

BS: All ingredients still have to be listed, so there's usually nothing to worry about. There were other issues concerning vet drugs. There was also the point about vet steroids not being as sanitary. Vet steroids are made to be sterile. Sterile is sterile.

NM: Of course. Somehow, though, I can't help but think that if a cow gets a contaminated vial...who cares? What's he gonna' say?

BS: Not to mention that some of those Mexican vet companies like Brovel don't produce under the most sanitary conditions, or so it's rumored. Even the oil can be crappy. Then again, I like the effects of Reforvit, but it tastes like dog ass!

NM: Pour it in a capsule first.

BS: Nah, I just pour it into some Grow!

NM: Yum, a shellac milkshake! I like my Grow! unadulterated, thank you, sans the pet potion.

Dog ass notwithstanding, the bottom line with vet 'roids is that I can't, in good conscience, recommend their use in the name of "health" because I'm not sure about too many things. And I think, given the choice between a "human" brand and a vet brand, most people, despite all of the indignant posturing, will opt for the "human" brand every time.

BS: Sure. The main reason people take vet drugs is that they're more readily available and cheap.

While we're on the subject, we should mention that, unlike testosterone, protein-based hormones are usually species specific. Bovine growth hormone (found in some "supplements") or Simian growth hormone won't work in humans at all. In fact, they can be extremely dangerous, as their large protein molecules make excellent antigens and your body will look upon them as "hostile invaders," making antibodies to destroy them. These antibodies may also be active against your own (human) growth hormone. This can be catastrophic!

NM: Speaking of vet products, we should mention that vet supply houses are a great place to get syringes. Personally, I like the little "doggy" (one-inch, 25-gauge) pins. Some places will still sell Drive (methandriol diproprionate, bolderone undecylenate) through the mail to just about anyone. Again, I wouldn't take it, but there it is.

BS: Drive isn't very strong, but it works well in women.

NM: Will it work better than prohormones?

BS: Oh, yeah. Definitely. At least, it will in women.

NM: That's different. A lot of women seem to respond favorably to prohormones, too. Something else, it isn't a steroid, but another agent that's available through the vet suppliers is colostrum. Through a health food retailer, that stuff is on the pricey side, but you can get buckets of it, dirt cheap, through a farmer's catalog.

BS: Why would you want colostrum? That's for cows and babies.

NM: I think that colostrum was dismissed a little too quickly. When Bill Phillips came out and said that it was worthless, everyone forgot about it. Now, I know that Bill's information is always unbiased and accurate (cough...choke), but he jumped the gun on this one. I found colostrum to be effective. It was overhyped when it came out, but studies have shown that it's as good of an immunity enhancer as glutamine. Besides, ya' gotta' love that name�it just sounds like it'll get you big!

BS: Tell you what, Monty. I'll bet $500 to your $100 that there's no way the purported IGF-1 present in colostrum can get through the digestive tract.

NM: Well, start digging into your pockets, my friend. There's mounting evidence that the stuff is legit. In one study, it was shown that cow colostrum contains a glycoprotein that acts as a protease inhibitor which, indeed, allows the immunity and growth factors to survive destruction from digestive acids.

Doug Kalman and Dr. Colker over at the Peak Wellness research center are believers in the stuff, and Jose Antonio just finished a study showing that colostrum increases LBM and bone mineral uptake. That's good enough for me, especially if I can get it for 12 bucks a pound. Then again, I'm not real comfortable with the question of how sanitary something might be when it's marketed for animals.

BS: I'm still not sold, Monty. By the way, does anyone else call you Monty?

NM: Only you. That's what makes it so special.

BS: Hey, I hear that you have a script for Deca. You should explain how Mister Average can get legal 'roids. I want 400 mg a week!

NM: That's easy, get a blood test. Four hundred milligrams? You greedy bastard. Give the blood test a try. You'd be surprised at how many people are eligible for T replacement. At the time that I was tested, I was under tremendous stress (which lowers test levels), so I got in under the wire.

BS: I didn't think that Deca could be prescribed as a T replacement.

NM: It depends on if your doctor is liberal or not. The allowance is usually only 100 mg a week, but you can save a month's worth, then do the whole load in one shot. Maybe the doc will prescribe clomid for suppressed T, and you can use that in the "off" time. To ensure that your levels are low enough to make you a candidate for replacement, take some androstene for a couple of weeks before the blood test.

BS: I can lower my testosterone levels in one day! All I have to do is take one of my wife's birth control pills the day before the test. That'll show some low test levels!

NM: What a great idea! It's something that I would never do, but be my guest!

BS: Either would I, but if you're desperate, it'll work. Speaking of alternative methods of getting steroids, there are places on the Internet where you can get legit stuff at good prices.

NM: This is another area in which we differ. I think that it's safer to order out of the country. The DEA isn't going to bother with piddly little orders from a foreign nation, whereas it would be easier to track down a domestic source.

BS: On the other hand, there's a much bigger chance that a package from overseas will be stopped. Routine domestic mail isn't.

NM: True. In fact, anything that must go in a box is chancy. Vials are a risk because the dogs can smell the oil. I'd be worried about ordering anything that couldn't fit in an envelope.

BS: During this time of the year, the holiday season, they're most likely not bothering to check domestic packages. Overseas packages are a different story.

NM: But pills can fit in an envelope. As long as the order isn't so big to suggest "intent to sell," they'll just send you a notice requesting proof of purchase. But I wouldn't suggest showing up to ask for your drugs! Ordering over the Internet...well, if the place gets busted, they may have a file of customers. Then you're fucked.

BS: You have to know with whom you're dealing. I know that some are legit. A lot of places will just take your money and move on. The absurdity of all of this is that steroids are so inexpensive to make. In Russia, Omnadren 250 goes for 25 cents a vial�that's too tempting!

When it comes to mail-order drugs, look out for what's called the "friendly neighbor" scam. They get some old person�someone that you'd never suspect�or some hot babe with big hooters to say that they're a new neighbor and a package was accidentally sent to their home. If you accept it, five minutes later the narcs are busting down your door. Ordering GH through the mail is chancy in that, if it hasn't been properly refrigerated, it'll be inert. That's assuming that it's even real.

NM: I wanted to bring up the use of growth hormone for a moment. One thing that's rarely addressed is the fact that since GH utilizes carbs so quickly, it can create a low blood-sugar level. For someone like me who's hypoglycemic, that's a hell of a lousy side effect.

The fact that people mix insulin with GH to increase the effects is flat out insane. I know that we're supposed to be hardcore and all, and people love to hear about exploits that consist of pushing the envelope, but I'll go on record right now as saying that I think anyone who uses insulin is out of their mind.

BS: It's just more of what your body produces naturally.

NM: That's the point. Your pancreas produces specific amounts for a reason. Start including exogenous insulin, and you're fooling around with a very delicate system. You're telling it not to function by giving it the command "stop working, I'll take care of insulin excretion"�it's nuts! Unlike the HPTA, which is pretty resilient, the pancreas and the thyroid can be easily disrupted and damaged permanently. And for what, a few pounds of bloat?

BS: The problem with insulin that people don't take into consideration is the same concern with DNP, surgery, or flying an airplane. There's little margin for error. Mess up, and you mess up big. It's not like "oops, won't do that again"�it's "oops, you're dead." End of discussion.

NM: The verdict on insulin...stay away from it!

BS: We may have our differences, Nelson, but we're really not that far off on the important issues. I hope that I helped with some of the technical information.

NM: Absolutely. I'd like to call on your expertise again. For now, I think that we've given the folks a lot to think about.

BS: We can only hope.

Once again, the information that Brock and I have presented obviously isn't intended for the professional bodybuilder who's constructing a cycle for his next major show. Other publications, newsgroups, and journals will do so in an attempt to appear "hardcore," but it's mostly titillation.

Some people get a vicarious thrill by peeping into the dark world of drug use. What we've presented is real-world advice. It's meant to aid the bodybuilder whose goal is to be as strong and healthy as possible while creating the ultimate physique that his genetics will allow.

We believe that steroids can help accomplish this goal safely, if the proper precautions are taken. We also believe that it is the right of the individual to make his own choices. But choose wisely. If you decide to use steroids, read and reread this information, and make sure that you understand it completely.

If you have any questions regarding anabolic enhancement, feel free to write to us anytime. Good luck, and be careful.

posted March 22, 2000 12:01 PM            

that is a great read. I'm now going to that website

peace

------------------
-little huge honduran

posted March 22, 2000 06:06 PM            

------------------
Attitude...YEAH, I have that!