Ask Patrick Arnold #4

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.