December 29, 2000
Issue #27

Q&A WITH PAT ARNOLD

Q:   I hear that there are two classes of steroids.  Class I bind to the androgen receptor to impart their activity and they include nandrolone and testosterone.  Class II do not bind to the androgen receptor but impart their actions by as yet undetermined means.  Class II steroids include d-bol and 4-AD and these are supposed to stack awesomely with Class I.  Do I have this right?

A:   There are not two classes of anabolic steroids.  This theory has no acceptance, let alone mention, in the scientific literature, but is instead the belief of the exceptionally outspoken dudes over at Testosterone.net.

This theory can be blown out of the water by one simple fact.  D-bol, 4-AD, anadrol and the other  so called“Class II” steroids have very high androgenic activity.  Androgenic activity is manifested through the classic androgen receptor and there is no argument about that.  Therefore these “Class II” compounds, like the “Class I”, are exerting at least some part of their effects through the androgen receptor. 

You want proof?  Consider the following article:

Effect of steroids with antiandrogenic properties on androgenic and myotrophic activity of testosterone and some of its derivatives.   Neurosci Behav Physiol.,1980

May-Jun;10(3):227-31.

In this article they use an anti-androgen (receptor antagonist) to test
effects on various tissues when taken along with a variety of
anabolic steroids.  The effect with dianabol is described as follows:
"The results obtained upon joint administration of dianabol and the
antagonist were somewhat unexpected.  The latter in doses of 2.5 and
7.5mg/rat/day caused a decrease in the response to dianabol only on the
part of the muscle and inhibited the stimulatory effect of dianabol on
the mass of the accessory (androgen sensitive) organs only in the
maximum dose."

Dianabol is described by the T-Mag theorists as being a classic "Class
2" (acts anabolically not by the androgen receptor).  This study
completely contradicts their theory because when administered with an
androgen receptor antagonist, dianabol's anabolic activity was vastly
reduced.  Reduced even more so than it was with testosterone (a
purported "Class 1" steroid).  I mean, these results are the total opposite of what
would be expected from the “Class Theory” of steroids!!

There is a very simple explanation why some steroids do not bind much to the androgen receptor in-vitro, yet exert strong anabolic / androgenic effects in-vivo.  Hey,  I did not make up this explanation, it is the one accepted by the scientists themselves.  You see, many drugs do not exert their effects in their original form but are instead metabolized into the active compounds.  Such drugs are termed “prodrugs”.  So even though these Class II compounds have negligible binding to the androgen receptor in their parent form, they have metabolites that do bind very well.  For instance, oxymetholone (anadrol) metabolizes into 17alpha methyl-DHT (mestanolone) which binds very strongly to the AR.  Furthermore, 4-AD metabolizes into testosterone doesn’t it?  Well duh!!

No, there are not two classes of anabolic steroids.  The evidence does not suggest this at all.  So why did such a theory get proclaimed with such confidence?  Why did it get accepted by the lame ass public just because “they said so”?  I dunno! 

Q:   Is taking vitamins or minerals that can help recovery through minimizing muscle damage from training (i.e. vitamin C), something that can give noticeable results for regular weight trainers?

A:   I think, and this is a controversial thing to think, that doing all you can to limit muscle damage (nutritionally or otherwise) might in some cases be counterproductive for gaining muscle.

Look at people with Duchennes muscular dystrophy, they lack a structural
protein that results in the muscles constantly undergoing damage simply from
everyday usage.  Often people with this disease end up with abnormally
hypertrophied muscles (that is, before their muscles just give up and die).  That
makes me think whether training styles and nutritional supplementation
that go overboard in protecting muscle from damage might limit the
hypertrophic response (in some cases).

Maybe something that helped induce muscle damage might be of limited benefit even. But depending on the nature of that damage it may or may not induce hypertrophy.  For hypertrophy to occur, the damage has to be of a certain quality and extent to induce the hypertrophic response (introduction of new myonuclei from satellite cells, followed by the incorporation of new structural proteins), but not so much damage that the muscle cells just degenerate. 

Such a substance that helped to induce such damage might be a double edged sword however, and would have to be used judiciously  

Q:  What is all this crazy shit about insulin usage?  It has no practical medical use outside of diabetes, and is extremely dangerous for non-diabetics to use.  Don’t you agree?

A:  Well, someone finally took a look at insulin.  I think this speaks for itself:

Insulin Therapy Increases Weight Gain, Well Being in AIDS Patient WESTPORT, CT (Reuters Health) Dec 11 - In an adult non-diabetic AIDS patient, "that insulin administration promoted weight gain and improved a sense of well-being," researchers report in the November 2000 issue of AIDS Patient Care and STDs.

Dr. Udaya M. Kabadi, from the University of Arizona College of Medicine, in Tucson, and colleagues from the VA Medical Center in Phoenix treated a 47-year-old male patient with 6 months of daily insulin injections, 0.3 U/kg, after the patient reported progressive fatigue, weakness, anorexia, and a 20-pound weight loss. The patient had been diagnosed with AIDS 4 years previously and was being treated with several antivirals, according to the researchers.

Monthly intramuscular vitamin B12, daily oral megestrol, and testosterone treatments every other week for several months had "failed to induce a significant improvement in [the patient's] well-being," Dr. Kabadi and colleagues write.

The patient's body weight increased from 132 pounds at baseline to 140 pounds at 3 months and 147 pounds at 6 months of insulin treatment, the researchers report. Hemoglobin, hematocrit, total white blood cell count, CD4 counts and glycohemoglobin all improved during insulin therapy.  

During the subsequent 3 months of insulin withdrawal, the patient reported weight loss and worsening well-being. The patient's "white blood cell count and CD4 fractions declined along with prompt worsening of the chemistries while continuing anti-AIDS drug therapy," the researchers write.

"The patient requested going back on insulin because he felt so much better," Dr. Kabadi told Reuters Health. Again the result was marked improvement in the patient's weight gain, white blood cell and CD4 counts after 3 months of insulin therapy. The patient reported no negative side effects from the insulin treatments.

There is "no better anabolic agent than insulin" to induce hunger and Weight gain, Dr. Kabadi told Reuters Health. "Insulin administration in conjunction with antiretroviral therapy should be further evaluated as an anabolic therapeutic in HIV/AIDS," the researchers conclude in the journal.

AIDS Patient Care STDs 2000;14:575-579.

Q:  Is Andro really as dangerous as they say it is? 

A:  There is a thing at the FDA called the Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS).  This is set up for physicians or the lay public to report adverse medical situations that they believed arose from the ingestion of a drug or food or supplement.

Through the Freedom of Information Act, anyone can obtain copies of these reports.  So I obtained copies for all the adverse events recorded since 1997 for androstenedione.

Interestingly, there were only four adverse event reports ever filed for androstenedione. 

The first one had to do with bruising, bleeding, and low platelet count.  Well guess what?  Along with androstenedione the subject was also taking aspirin and prednisone.  Anyone who knows anything about medicine can see that these other two medicines were the likely culprits.  So scratch event number one off the list.

The second event involved a breast neoplasm, gynecomastia, and cellulitis.  This one obviously may have indeed been partly caused by the Andro.  The subject was taking Soy as well, which has phytoestrogens in it, so that too may have been a culprit.

This case does stand up.

The third one involves a skin infection and dermatitis, along with nausea, fever, and weakness (probably secondary to the infection).   But this case had to do with an androstenedione cream, applied to the skin.  Androstenedione itself  does not cause infections and dermatitis, that I know.  Therefore, I have to conclude that this was due to something else, perhaps some contaminant in the cream (chemical contaminant? feces?)  

Finally, there is the case with the hard-on that would not go away.  The technical term is priapism, and it can be painful and dangerous to the penis.  It is theoretically possible that androgens can cause sexual excitement, and that this in turn can cause a priapism.  But come on!!  How rare can that be?  I give this one a 50% chance of being legit.

In conclusion, we have 4 cases of adverse events reported, and 1.5 cases that seem possibly for real, over the lifetime of androstenedione being on the market.  Do you want a comparison?  Ephedra based products have gotten over 240 reports during the same time period.  Seems to me the Andro toxicity thing predicted by the “experts” just ain’t happening.