|
by Patrick Arnold
Pat is responsible for launching several major product and innovation in the prohormone industry
through LPJ Research and
Ergopharm, including the first to release androstenedione, 1-AD, 6-OXO, 4-androstenediol, and 19-norandrostenediol. In addition, he is responsible for bringing innovative delivery systems to the prohormone market including HPB cyclodextrin, bioadhesive technology for sustained release, and sustained release sprays.
Publication Date: September
1998
Prohormones and Fertility
Dear Pat,
I'm planning on adding a child to the
equation soon. Will taking the prohormones mess that up at all? It
seems based on the short half-life that there isn't a problem beyond
a short-term (3-4 hours?) low sperm count.
A: The gonadotropin suppression seen with prohormones is, as you
state, short term. Normal usage should therefore not unduly affect
sperm count. However if you want to maximize your chances of
getting your partner pregnant then I would abstain from the stuff.
That way you know for sure that you have all the sperm you can
possibly have ready to do the job. Good luck in your quest!
Pat,
What do you think about using DMSO with
pro-hormones? I have heard people talk about snorting them (which I
think is insane) and also taking them sub-lingual. It seems that it
is clear that simply swallowing them has become ineffective and cost
prohibited.
A: I think using DMSO with prohormones is a messy and inconvenient
way to take them. It is potentially more effective however but
probably not worth the hassle. Snorting the commercially available
capsules is not a good idea because they are formulated with
excipients such as corn starch or guar which you would not want in
your lungs. Sublingual would be worthless for these compounds.
I have developed a form of these prohormones which will
revolutionize the way they are taken and make all the aforementioned
ways of taking them obsolete and inferior. Look for this in the
next 6 months.
Dear Patrick,
I am a 33 year old who unfortunately didn't discover the benefits of
exercise & bodybuilding till I was 31. As a result I never took
advantage of all the testosterone running around in my system while
I was young to build some decent mass.(I did enjoy acne & thinning
hair however!) Being naturally thin, I have struggled in the last
two years to add about 40 lbs to my 5'11" frame and now weigh 185
lbs.
Most of my gains were made in the first twelve months and I feel
like my body is really resistant to being any bigger, despite
voracious eating, tons of protein powder, varied workouts etc, etc.
I am interested in trying a cycle of your Norandrodiol or maybe the
Diol stack to see if I can spur my growth another 15-20 lbs, But
reading generally about steroids has given me the impression that
any gains I make won't be permanent without continual use of these
substances. Is this correct? Is there any worthwhile permanent
gains to be made by doing a single cycle? What would you recommend?
A: I do not know what misinformation you have read about steroids
but it is quite common that people that do steroids, and that would
include the precursor compounds, do often retain a significant
amount of gains from their cycles. Ways to ensure this is to keep
up a good diet after discontinuing the compounds, continuing to
train consistently, and getting enough rest. I would recommend
either the nor stack or the diol stack.
Dear Patrick,
What evidence do you have - I mean
HARD, SCIENTIFIC evidence - that norandrostenedione and / or
norandrodiol (delta 4 version) are indeed converted into nandrolone
in the body - and that once converted - it is indeed anabolic?
I am certainly open to the idea and would purchase the norandrodiol
if I were convinced - BUT I am tired of seeing things like quotes
from
Duchaine or others with a typical "Well, the interesting thing about
norandrostenedione is that it lacks a carbon atom at ..blah, blah
position," that is really pretty boring to some of us......
I am looking for hard evidence that it DOES occur, not that it
should occur.
I appreciate your insistance on seeing hard proof that 19-nor
prohormones do indeed convert into 19-nortestosterone. And I will
be perfectly honest with you, there has yet to be any specific
studies to confirm this. Substrate Solutions is going to perform
this study in the months to come, however other studies are on the
burner before this one.
What we do know from the literature is that the metabolism of
19-norandrogens follows almost to a tee that of their C-19
(testsoterone based) counterparts. We also know that many people
have recently tested positive for nandrolone after ingesting these
precursors. Therefore I would venture to guess that there is at
least a 99% probability that indeed these compounds convert as
expected. However this does not mean that I am not eager to see the
hard evidence for myself as obviously you are too.
Pat,
I'm a 32 year old female that's been bodybuilding for the past 5
years. I have hit a plateau in strength and can't seem to get off it
even with the different powerlifting routines that I do. So, which
of the stacks would you recommend for women? What would the dosage
be? I train three non-consecutive days a week. I've read the
information from Substrate Solutions and both supplements and they
both sound great. Thanks for any help you could give.
A: The Diol Stack would be too androgenic for you. I would
recommend either Norandrodiol (1 to 3 caps a day) or the Nor Stack
(1 to 2 caps a day). Keep an eye out for any signs of virilization
(hoarse voice, increased facial hair) and if noticed stop the
compounds immediately. You may also want to experiment with
Ipriflavone (3 X 200mg daily).
Mr Arnold:
Hi, my name is Jeff Knapp. After reading your article for August
1998 stating that no one has discovered a growth hormone releasing
peptide (GHRP), I decided to do some of my own research. So, I went
to the following site -
http://web.archive.org/web/20010121124300/http://www.infotrieve.com/freemedline
- and did a search for Growth Hormone. The perameters were english
only, and humans only. As a result of this search there was an
abstract of an article titled "Growth hormone-releasing hormone and
growth hormone releasing-peptide as theraputic agents to enhance
growth hormone secretion in disease and aging." In the abstract of
this article, it was stated the a GHRP was discovered in 1981; and
that there are several oral GHRP on the market. I have pasted a
copy off of the website, please feel free to go check it out for
yourself.
A: The authors of this article mislead you. The GHRP that was
discovered in 1981 was a synthetic compound and not the natural
ligand for the GHRP receptor. That peptide was called the Momany
peptide and was discovered by F.A. Momany (Endocrinology,
108,31(1981)). All the subsequent GHRP and non-peptidyl GHRP
analogs that have been discovered since then have been synthetic
compounds. Once again I reiterate, and will bet my mothers life on
the fact, that the natural ligand for the GHRP receptor has yet to
be identified.
Hey Pat,
Is sodium acetate necessary in the
formation of
semicarbazones?? Please share your wealth of knowledge????
Is this not the most unlikely question for a fitness board? Anyway
the methods I have seen for the preparation of semicarbazones
usually use semicarbazide HCL with sodium acetate in a solvent such
as ethanol. The sodium acetate is probably there to make the
solution slightly basic to ensure the semicarbazide is in the free
base form and therefore available to react with the ketone. I
suppose other weak bases can also be utilized. My question to you
is, what do you have against sodium acetate?
BTW, for those of you who do not have a clue as to what
semicarbazones are, they are chemical derivatives common in the
synthesis and purification of steroid compounds. I am not gonna
ask this person what he is planning on doing, nor do I want to know.
Dear Pat,
My local supplement guy Ecdysterone
(more specifically, 5 mg of 5a-hydroxy laxogenin bound with a bunch
of sugar in a 150 mg pill), a plant sterol. The literature he gave
me purports that in 30-40 mg doses per day it is a potent
anabolic. "Unlike testosterone derivatives, which increase
messenger RNA synthesis, ecdysterone has no effect on RNA. Rather,
it increases the rate at which RNA is translated." It notes it is
not andro or estrogenic; and will take 4-5 weeks of everyday
use to generate an effect. Anyone have a clue on this one?
As he was the first in my hood to push
the prohormones, I give him more credence than most. But, a quick
Medline search yielded few studies except some usage with insects.
There was some Russian research, however, which is where
he and his partner got the idea for this product.
A: I think I know the person that finds and develops this esoteric
stuff. He is supposedly an intelligent fellow though in my opinion
I think he is way mislead in alot of his theories. These Russian
studies concerning these weird compounds, and I have read alot of
them, do little to impress me. I would never consider them as
sufficient evidence to go ahead and manufacture and market the
compounds. I would maintain and EXTREMELY high level of skepticsim
concerning this stuff as:
- 1) it is probably very expensive and
- 2) would most likely not perform any wheres near to what the
Russian studies promise.
You are free to try the stuff but I would not expect anything if
I were you. |
