Bill Roberts, Q regarding Cl I vs. Cl II steroids

[Fulano]

Mr. Roberts. I have observed your use of the terms "class I" and "class II" with regard to steroids, and I have a couple questions for you.

-- What criteria do you use for categorizing a steroid as either Class I or Class II? At first I thought that you based the categorization on whether the mechanism of action was primarily AR or non-AR, but I have read some of your essays that seem to disconfirm that guess.

-- I have noticed that William Llewellyn, Phillip Roberts, and others disagree with your whole concept of Class I and Class II. What is the basis of their disagreement? Why don't they feel steroids can be classified as you do?

 

[Bill Roberts]

I can't speak for why others say or do what they do.

The system is based on stacking behavior and whether or not synergistic behavior is shown.

E.g., let's say that two steroids are, used alone, similarly potent (effective per milligram). Any number of milligrams per day of one of them will give about the same muscle gains as the same number of milligrams of the other.

Let us say for the sake of argument, and I don't think it's vastly wrong although it's unlikely to be exactly right, that Dianabol and trenbolone are similarly potent.

If they work in exactly the same way, as is the case with say NSAIDs, or PDE5 inhibitors, or many other drug classes, then it wouldn't matter whether they were combined or not. And let us keep estrogen levels equal, by controlling excess aromatization if present, or keeping estradiol low-normal with a small amount of HCG if having no aromatizing steroid.

If they worked in the same way, then for example 100 mg/day of Dianabol alone (not a great cycle) would give the same muscle gains as 100 mg/day of trenbolone alone (also not a great cycle) AND the same gains as 50 mg/day of each.

But that is not so. The last is greatly superior.

If other authors deny that there is synergy with some combinations and not others -- I don't know if they do -- that is their business. Then the only concern would be differing side effects between steroids: so far as gains go, it would be a question only of milligram amount. No need to combine to get better results, if the mechanism does not differ between them.

There is now evidence that there are non-genomic activities of the AR in addition to genomic actions, and so the difference in mechanism may be related more to whether an androgen is more efficient at the former than at the latter, or (as with testosterone) is effective all-around. Mechanisms previously described as "non-AR-mediated" we now know to include "no genomic action of the AR."

Class I and Class II describe stacking behavior in that steroids categorized in one Class are observed to stack synergistically with those of the other class.

Prior to the Class I / Class II system, synergy was known but was thought to be oral/injectable or sometimes aromatizing/non-aromatizing but those systems definitely miss the mark and are not based on any actual difference related to what is going on in the muscles themselves.

 

[Fulano]

Thank you for that excellent and thorough response!

 

[Fulano]

Another question: Where did you learn of this classification system? Is it standard mainstream pharmacology with regard to steroids? Have you ever done any research on it? I ask because I'm pretty sure Llewellyn and Philip Roberts mention your name specifically in association with it, which gave me the impression that it was a classification system you helped create..

To be honest, I don't care about any disagreement people might have with you on the subject. I care nothing about any controversies or any such thing. As always, I just want to understand the concept as thoroughly as I can.

 

[Bill Roberts]

Yes, I created it as a result of practical experiments on steroid stacking. It had been known for a long time that some combinations were synergistic and others were not, but there was no general plan or method that people could follow other than "combine an oral and an injectable."

That actually does work well much of the time but then you have "joker" problems such as that oxandrolone doesn't stack in the same manner that say Dianabol does, or that Primobolan may be taken either orally or by injection and gives the same stacking behavior either way, or that if already using a testosterone base, actually one can usually get about as much improvement by stacking an injectable synthetic as by stacking an oral. So it was okay for beginner advice as a rule of thumb, but had more limitations than the Class I / Class II system.

The best objection to the system, though I've never seen anyone say it, is that it is a tautological system. Steroids are classified as Class I or Class II depending on observed stacking behavior: do they stack synergistically with steroids categorized in the other class?

Well, since that is the way they are put into the classes, of course they stack synergistically when combined that way!

So the system could come under excellent criticism that way, if one wanted.

So far as I know it remains true that where synergistic effects are seen, it is because of differences in action. As it happens, with anabolic steroid so far as I can tell stacking behavior can very effectively be summed up in this manner. It potentially could be the case that something might have to have three or four or more categories: for example, if wanting to talk about combining phytonutrients to improve blood lipid levels, we would need more than two classes. But in the case of anabolic steroids, I find by practical experience that we need only two, and to have it that some steroids particularly testosterone have mixed properties and therefore stack well with either class.

 

[Fulano]

Thank you once more for a very thorough response.

I have had no problem finding your classification of the steroids I am most interested in (testosterone, dianabol, anadrol, tren, anavar, etc.), but I have been unable to find where you say how you class Winstrol.

Do you place Winstrol into Class I or Class II?
Also, do you have a single document anywhere where you list the classification of all the various steroids?

 

[Bill Roberts]

I don't know! I'd think so, but can't say for certain how much of a list there might be.


Class 1:

Trenbolone
Oxandrolone
Primobolan
Masteron
Nandrolone
Boldenone

Class II

Dianabol
Anadrol
Winstrol (possibly somewhat mixed)


Mixed

Testosterone
Probably Oral Turinabol, but I haven't done adequate trials with it.


For example, to determine how Oral Turinabol should be categorized:

One way is to see first how much a dose such as 50 mg/day (doesn't have to be that exact figure) improves 50 mg/day trenbolone acetate.

Then see how much that amount of OT improves Dianabol 50 mg/day.

If adding to TA gives a big jump in gains but adding to the Dianabol gives only a rather modest improvement, then OT would be Class II. If the other way around, Class I.

If it gives similar improvement to either drug, then it is mixed.

Another way is to compare say 60 mg/day total drug either as all-trenbolone, all-Dianabol, all-OT, 30 mg/day each trenbolone and OT, and 30 mg/day each Dianabol and OT.

If OT is strongly in either the Class I or Class II category there will be synergy seen with only one compound, and so OT would be in the other class. If it's mixed, there will be some synergy with either compound.

I have only used OT myself a few times and not under controlled conditions. It seemed to me that it had moderate stacking benefit (compared to adding more of the same drug) for either trenbolone or Anadrol, so my impression was that it had mixed activity. But more work ought to be done to nail that down.

 

[Fulano]

Also a fantastic response. I have learned a lot of really great new information on this thread. I'm glad I asked, and i thank you for taking the time to write such long and informative replies.

 

[Bill Roberts]

You're very welcome!

 

[psicopablo]

Excellent topic. From my own experience, Mr. Roberts' explanation of classes I and II makes complete sense.
The only question I have is about to the classification of D-Bol and boldenone ... If boldenone was an attempt to create an injectable D-bol, the receptors of the two steroids would not be essentially the same (despite the fact that D-Bol is much stronger)?

 

[Type-IIx]

I don't know! I'd think so, but can't say for certain how much of a list there might be.


Class 1:

Trenbolone
Oxandrolone
Primobolan
Masteron
Nandrolone
Boldenone

Class II

Dianabol
Anadrol
Winstrol (possibly somewhat mixed)


Mixed

Testosterone
Probably Oral Turinabol, but I haven't done adequate trials with it.


For example, to determine how Oral Turinabol should be categorized:

One way is to see first how much a dose such as 50 mg/day (doesn't have to be that exact figure) improves 50 mg/day trenbolone acetate.

Then see how much that amount of OT improves Dianabol 50 mg/day.

If adding to TA gives a big jump in gains but adding to the Dianabol gives only a rather modest improvement, then OT would be Class II. If the other way around, Class I.

If it gives similar improvement to either drug, then it is mixed.

Another way is to compare say 60 mg/day total drug either as all-trenbolone, all-Dianabol, all-OT, 30 mg/day each trenbolone and OT, and 30 mg/day each Dianabol and OT.

If OT is strongly in either the Class I or Class II category there will be synergy seen with only one compound, and so OT would be in the other class. If it's mixed, there will be some synergy with either compound.

I have only used OT myself a few times and not under controlled conditions. It seemed to me that it had moderate stacking benefit (compared to adding more of the same drug) for either trenbolone or Anadrol, so my impression was that it had mixed activity. But more work ought to be done to nail that down.

Lightyears ahead of his time.

Still, this crude methodology led him astray in his particular classifications, but not in his observation that there is synergy between some of these dichotomized androgens. Merely cutting (i.e., reducing body fat) in some instances, and merely bulking in others will lead to an impression of greater visual gains, as one obvious deficit of using this subjective method.

He was certainly correct in principle, as well as outstandingly perceptive, a visionary really, in his identification and understanding of non-AR-mediated mechanisms, and particularly that non-genomic effects – (way back, earlier than this thread) – contribute to synergistic (greater than additive) outcomes. Fortunately for us, there have been important more recent research findings that demonstrate other synergistic mechanisms.

 

[laclark89]

Lightyears ahead of his time.

Still, this crude methodology led him astray in his particular classifications, but not in his observation that there is synergy between some of these dichotomized androgens. Merely cutting (i.e., reducing body fat) in some instances, and merely bulking in others will lead to an impression of greater visual gains, as one obvious deficit of using this subjective method.

He was certainly correct in principle, as well as outstandingly perceptive, a visionary really, in his identification and understanding of non-AR-mediated mechanisms, and particularly that non-genomic effects – (way back, earlier than this thread) – contribute to synergistic (greater than additive) outcomes. Fortunately for us, there have been important more recent research findings that demonstrate other synergistic mechanisms.

Care to go in more on the other synergistic mechanisms ?

Or do u already have something written about u can share the link for?

 

[accidentaljedi173]

Care to go in more on the other synergistic mechanisms ?

Or do u already have something written about u can share the link for?

I also would like to see his take more indepth as well.

 

[Type-IIx]

Care to go in more on the other synergistic mechanisms ?

Or do u already have something written about u can share the link for?

I'll release an AAS book after the rhGH book that delves into my Principles of Cycle Design & provides worked examples of synergistic combinations (Cycle Templates).

The rhGH book (Bolus) does have a section & subsections that discuss rhGH synergy with certain AAS to accomplish certain objectives (e.g., bulking vs. cutting vs. recomp).

 

[laclark89]

That would be awsome thanks, ur highly appreciated around here.

I dident see it, I'll look for it, I found ur insulin effects on hypertrophy, looks like a interesting read I'm gana try a read that 1 also.

 

[laclark89]

I'll release an AAS book after the rhGH book that delves into my Principles of Cycle Design & provides worked examples of synergistic combinations (Cycle Templates).

The rhGH book (Bolus) does have a section & subsections that discuss rhGH synergy with certain AAS to accomplish certain objectives (e.g., bulking vs. cutting vs. recomp).

where can I find the rhgh 1?

 

[Type-IIx]

where can I find the rhgh 1?

It will be available from Ampouletude: Home of Type-IIx

 

[guestpics]

How does tren synergize with anadrol? @Type-IIx

 

[Type-IIx]

How does tren synergize with anadrol? @Type-IIx

There's a gap in known mechanisms with respect to oxymetholone's primary metabolite, 17α-methyl-5α-androstane-3α,17β-diol, to which it acts as a prodrug per Schänzer. While I have conducted preliminary target modeling for the drug metabolite, there's no in vitro data for it per se, not to mind in vivo human data, besides that which is inferred from oxymetholone trials.

However, from what we do know, the manner in which trenbolone combines with oxymetholone synergistically is unfavorable and relates to cardiovascular harms, like trenbolone's antagonism of MR & oxymetholone's inhibition of 11β-HSD2.

 

[laclark89]

I had high Hope's for test tren anadrol, turned in to higher likelyhood for heart failure lol.

How about this anavar and wound healing
I just cant come to a conclusion no matter how much I read or research, pud med eccetra. Many members could probably benefit from your input on the subject. I believe it still is prescribed?

Oxandrolone Efficacy in Wound Healing in Burned and Decubitus Ulcer Patients: A Systematic Review - PMC

Wounds with delayed or impaired healing represent a considerable challenge in medical practice. These patients develop a sustained hypermetabolic and catabolic state, directly impacting the wound healing process. The use of oxandrolone has been ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov