Ask Patrick Arnold #9

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: April 1, 1999

Patrick's response to the 3alpha,17beta-androstenediol controversy

I read an article by Tim Patterson claiming that almost all 4-Androstenediol products currently on the market are "impure and contaminated". He asserts that the alpha isomers are worthless for testosterone elevation and possibly toxic. Is it possible that you made a mistake by producing 4-Androstene-3alpha,17beta-Diol instead of 4-Androstene-3beta,17beta-Diol? 

A: Recently completely baseless accusations have been made concerning the 3alpha,17beta-androstenediol fraction of LPJ’s androdiol product. In the LPJ process a 7:1 mixture of beta,beta to alpha,beta isomer is always formed. This has been admitted from the start and LPJ has never considered this a negative issue (on the contrary, LPJ has considered this an advantage).

The denigration of the alpha,beta isomer started by a rumor that this isomer was ineffective as a testosterone precursor and an androgen-stimulating precursor. Of course no evidence was given. Perhaps because the only evidence out there shows that this isomer is in fact very effective in both regards.

Here is some bona fide evidence as to the efficacy of 3alpha,17beta-androstenediol.

"Bioassay indicates that both the 3alpha,17beta-androstenediol and the 3beta,17beta-androstenediol have the same level of androgenic activity…"

"The two isomers are converted readily to testosterone by incubation with the supernatant fluid of rat or chick liver"

"When administered orally or by subcutaneous injection 3alpha,17beta-androstenediol and 3beta,17beta-androstenediol were equal in androgenic potency to testosterone in the chicks comb test"

OK then, I hope I have at least begun to clear up the issue that the two isomers have similar biological activities and potencies. But what about this crazy issue of toxicity? It took me a while to get to the bottom of this but what I have found is that there is no evidence whatsoever. What is even more disturbing is that it seems pretty clear that this whole lie was actually FABRICATED by certain individuals for their own financial benefit.

It took me a while but I got to the source of the toxicity rumor. I will not mention the man’s name but he runs a semi-well known analytical lab in the western United States. I asked him for his evidence. He faxed me a page full of quite detailed and technical information heavy on stereochemistry. It took me a while to decipher but it became clear to me that what I received was complete and total bull****!! This man used two examples of drugs that are somewhat toxic in regards to being antagonistic to the androgen receptor and certain enzymes. Perhaps this man did not think I was intelligent enough or resourceful enough to check his "facts". He thought wrong.

The first drug was one called Trilostane. Analyzing trilostane’s structure it did not take me long to see that this compound was NOT related to 3alpha,17beta-androstenediol in regards to stereochemistry of the 3alpha-ol group (even if it was the rest of the molecule is so entirely different that it would be immaterial anyway). The 3-ol group in trilostane is planar in that it is attached to a conjugated system. It is not alpha at all.

The second drug he quoted made clear even more to me that this person was without a doubt simply out to make a story up that he thought no one would check. This drug is another anti-androgen called Casodex. THIS DRUG IS NOT EVEN A STEROID AT ALL AND HAS ABSOLUTELY NO COMMONALITY WITH 3-alpha,17beta-ANDROSTENEDIOL WHATSOEVER.

My company is LPJ. I am the president. However I cannot help but take things like this very personally. I find that this sort of manufactured lie by a chemist, one who thinks so little of me that I am not smart enough to figure out his little deception, is a personal and professional insult. I have spent 3 years painstakingly researching prohormones and I take great pride in the knowledge I have obtained. I have always presented the facts as I have found them and provided the references to back them up. Unfortunately this sort of practice is very rare in this industry and often I am drowned out by those with more money or with the media power to reach the masses.

So what is my opinion over all of a mixed alpha, beta product? I think it is as good, if not BETTER than a pure beta, beta. That is because with a mixed isomeric product you are utilizing TWO enzyme systems for conversion to the active prohormone (3alpha-HSD and 3beta-HSD). By utilizing more than one enzyme system you allow for more prohormone to be taken before enzyme saturation is reached.

In conclusion, always remember that if someone writes something that presents new, controversial, and technically oriented information, DEMAND that they provide the appropriate references to back their statements up. Failure to do so is an abomination of publishing integrity.