When it comes to anti-estrogens, the best bet may be not in occupying the receptor sites, as does Clomid, but to compete with the testosterone/estrogen balance. At one time, Proviron was deemed a valid choice as an anti-estrogen agent until some of the sophomoric steroid students argued that it didn't have any direct anti-estrogenic properties. True, but it still looks as if it's the best choice if you feel the need to guard against estrogen build up. It does so because DHT acts as a gyno antagonist. (Yet another thing that has been oddly overlooked.) Even when DHT is applied topically it's been shown to reduce gyno in cases where the gyno hadn't been a chronic condition.

Beyond the direct effect of DHT, Proviron has distinct benefits, the first being that as a derivative of DHT it isn't capable of forming estrogen, yet it has a much higher affinity for the aromatase enzyme (which converts testosterone to estrogen) than does testosterone. That means administering it with another aromatizable compound will prevent estrogen build up due to the fact that DHT binds to the aromatase enzyme so strongly. There's also been some suggestion that Proviron may downgrade the actual estrogen receptor, thereby making it twice as effective at reducing circulating estrogen levels. And because DHT has such a high affinity for SHBG it leaves more free testosterone to impart its anabolic effects.

It makes sense that the use of Proviron is a more practical and rational method of dealing with the possibility of excess estrogen than the aforementioned method of attempting to add a weaker estrogen in the hopes that it will prevent aromatization. William Llewellyn touches upon this in Anabolics 2000. He says..."(Proviron) is in contrast to Nolvadex which only blocks estrogen's ability to bind and activate receptors in certain tissues." (such as breast tissue) In other words, the World Anabolic Reference was right when it stated; "Proviron cures the problem of aromatization at the root while Nolvadex simply cures the symptoms." Proviron in moderate doses has been shown to be remarkably safe and free of side effects in most men. If you must use an anti-estrogen, Proviron is the way go.

To this day, I don't feel completely comfortable talking about drugs. It's kind of like talking about sex, or religion, or politics. Opinions are varied and very personal and if one's perspective is in contradiction to anothers, it's a fair bet that it isn't going to be readily embraced. Be that as it may, this is The Bottom Line. And there are some indisputable facts about steroids, irrespective of anyone's personal opinions about their use.

They work.
They will be used.
They aren't as dangerous as some people claim.
They aren't as benign as some people claim.

I've been attacked on both sides of the fence on this issue. I've been accused of encouraging the use of steroids (which is absolutely not true). I've been accused of using steroids extensively (which is absolutely not true) and I've also been accused of being a total weenie and recommending pussy dosages and playing it way too safe. (Which may or may not be true.) I will say, my conservative use has given me a more accurate perspective than that of someone who uses high dosages and combinations of whatever he can get his hands on and then starts evaluating the effects of one or the other. Another reason, maybe the main reason, I don't like talking about drugs is the fact that so
many people don't really listen to what's being said.

They hear what they want to hear. I had one 18 year old guy write to me asking my advice on what was a better stack; Deca and D-bol or Sustanon and Winstrol. I felt this guy needed a reality check so I let him have it. I said; "Here's some advice. Quit bodybuilding! If you can't make gains now, you never will. Real bodybuilding takes guts and hard work and you sound like you don't have it in you, so save yourself the time and trouble of injecting a substance of dubious origin into your bloodstream and take up an easier hobby."

His response?

" I do work hard, I just maxxed out my gains. So should I go with the Deca and D-Bol?"


As awkward as the drug topic may be, I have no problem giving my opinion on the laws surrounding steroids. Make no mistake about it; the so called "war on drugs" is a farce. It cost the taxpayers billions. It doesn't work. It never has. It never will. Don't believe it? All one has to do is take a look at the countries that have adopted a policy of less oppression toward drug users. Drug use is down! Violence and theft stemming from the need for drugs is non-existent. The money once used to incarcerate is now used for rehabilitation. Compare that to the condition as it now exists in the United States.

And just as an aside, there is horrific destruction of property in foreign lands (burning crops, bombing poppy fields) by the U.S. government which may be more responsible for the dissent and disdain against our country than anything else. In those cases, the destruction is designed to stop the import of narcotics which possess a threat to society, although I don't know of anyone who would take a narcotic unless they wanted to. These lip service laws are just a convenient way of grouping everything into one melting pot of government issued morality.

The laws against steroids do not protect anyone. Not you, or me, or our children, or Mom or apple pie or democracy or the republic for which we stand is at risk if someone decides to increase his or her musculature. If someone is caught using steroids, it does not help them or anyone else if they are imprisoned along with murderers and rapists. It's a disgrace that it can happen in this country. But it does.

The anti-drug herd is as clueless as it gets. Their best mode of operation is to try and frighten people but anyone over the age of eleven knows that scare tactics never work. And the more they're used, the more people become anesthetized to them. I all too often hear parents lamenting on how they can keep their kids off of drugs. I think it's pretty simple. A kid will listen to a friend he admires and trusts. Be that friend. But guidance and education aren't enough, apparently. People want the government to raise their kids for them.

Here's the bottom line: In the case of drug laws, for the most part they're designed to insure that no one receives revenue without paying taxes. That's the crime. But it's shrouded by this smokescreen of arrogant indignity and bogus piety. Isn't the government protecting our health, you say? Get real.

And another thing...

If I want to go down into my basement, drink a quart of Vodka, and then juggle a couple of flaming chainsaws...that's my right. As long as nobody else gets hurt, who cares? It's my choice and I'll suffer the consequences.

The health issue regarding steroid use is one that is brought up the most often. A lot of people don't realize this, but the AMA was AGAINST the criminalization of steroids!

But the politicians needed a whipping boy and choosing one that wasn't popular with the general public was the perfect choice. (Only crazy people who want muscles would ever use steroids, right?) This is why I believe it'll be a long, long time before the prohibition against anabolics is revoked. There simply aren't enough people who want it repealed, as was the case with the prohibition of alcohol. Then candidate for President Franklin Delanor Roosevelt knew it was unpopular and by revoking it, he would improve his standing among the populace. Roosevelt went on the win the election. But don't wait for the same thing to happen with steroids. Meanwhile alcoholism is rampant, even among teenagers.

There's also a lot of media generated propaganda surrounding anabolics. Let's face it, it's hard to defend something that has the potential for disaster. Still, I get infuriated when I see ads that say; "Buying drugs supports terrorists." Hell, buying gasoline supports terrorists. It's the illegality of drugs which makes them a viable black market for anyone, maybe even terrorists. So, if anything, it's the inane laws that are put into place that support terrorism. But the honchos in Washington D.C. love to place the blame elsewhere -- and you're as good a place as any.

At the core of all this idiocy is the fact that steroids aren't understood very well by the public. One of the negative stigmas concerning steroid use is the myth of "roid rage." I say myth because I don't believe anyone has ever exhibited violent behavior because they were on steroids. Being a malcontent, mentally unstable asshole on steroids -- that's a different story. But the way I see it, it's like alcohol. You know how some people are "nasty drunks?" Well, it isn't the alcohol that makes them nasty. The alcohol just lowers inhibition. They were nasty all along. The booze just gave them an excuse to be more at ease with being their assholy-selves. It's the same thing with anabolics. If you're an overly aggressive person with all sorts of issues which I really don't care about, the increased strength and heightened sense of well being from additional androgen might turn you into a raging, hostile prick. Don't blame the drugs -- but they do make a handy excuse for coping a plea in court.

It's only natural to side with a conviction based on one's personal preferences, and the issue of steroid use is no different. If you decide not to use steroids...great. But that doesn't mean it's wrong or immoral and those who choose to partake are evil. Yet many people equate morality with legality (which I find more than a little disturbing). And for all of the people who are outraged by unfair laws, there are just as many people who are just fine with them. The truth is, many people want laws. They provide a clear cut guideline. They're safe. Follow them and everything will be alright. (And may you sleep soundly in your beds tonight dear citizens.)

It works the other way too. Those who enforce the laws are by nature bureaucratic thinkers -- in other words, they don't think at all. Their job is to act in a regulated manner and a law is permission to do so, even for atrocities such as slavery or the holocaust. If those references are too abstruse for you, let's bring it a little closer to home. If someone makes a right turn after stopping at a red light in a deserted part of town at 3:00 in the morning, according to the law set forth by the Department of Motor Vehicles, it's no different than someone who runs right through a red light at 3:00 in the afternoon across the street from a schoolyard. Now anyone with an ounce of sense knows that the first person shouldn't be bothered and the second person should have his testicles chopped off with a rusty hatchet. But on the books, it's the same crime. So don't expect to talk any sense into those who enforce it.

Humans are by nature a flocking species and some people aren't much more analytical than sheep. Tell them what to do, or what not to do, and they're just fine with it. Thinking is hard.

There's also the reactionary aspect to drug use. The media loves to sensationalize because that's what gets ratings. Here's an example: What if you saw the words "Child Molested!" as a headline in a newspaper or an opener of a news show? Chances are you'd think of a heinous and vicious crime. But what if the charge was against an 18 year old girl who had sex with an 17 year old boy? Technically, the charge is the same, but suddenly the dynamic is different. It isn't really a "crime" at all. Come to think of it, it's kinda nice. Yet it can be presented as the most vile and egregious act imaginable. Distortions such as this happen all the time. One would think that our founding fathers allowed for freedom of the press in order to insure that the public would get all the facts straight. But news is now entertainment, which means it's a business, which means it's governed by money, which means that any possible twisting of the facts that may lead to a more sensational story is fair game. And drug use makes good copy.

Let's not discount the feminists role in all of this. This nation has been pussified within an inch of its life. Turn on any news show, talk show or TV show in general and anytime you hear the word "testosterone", it's in a negative context. It symbolizes all that is evil about men -- aggression, belligerence, misogyny. Men are vilified if they so much as openly exhibit any masculine traits. Movies that are considered "cute" have women who are thieves, embezzlers or prostitutes and as long as she's presented as the heroine, she'll be so. Women love it. Yet men are depicted as incompetent boobs incapable of cooking, cleaning, child rearing or rational thinking. Women love that too. And men sit back and take it, as if they should somehow be apologetic for having balls. The irony of all of this is that women loathe these wimps whom they've psychologically castrated. Then they wonder; "where are all the real men?"

Think this isn't a feminist driven society? Then tell me this: Why is it that a man can take female hormones to become a woman and it's considered acceptable yet if he takes hormones to become more manly he's a criminal?

Enough politics, philosophy, psychology and sociology.

My original intention for a chapter on drugs was to compose an update of the "Steroids For Health" report which was written in 1997 (published in 1998). Instead, I thought it might be a good idea to look back at it and interject comments along the way. In this way, I could provide updates, insights and retrospection to the basic principles.

Keep in mind, this was six years ago. There wasn't much available information and we were all shooting from the hip back then. Dan Duchaine's original Underground Steroid Handbook is loaded with inaccuracies but that doesn't diminish its significance, nor does it detract from the fact that Dan's insights were nothing short of brilliant. Bill Phillip's Anabolic Reference Guide was a combination of medical text and empirical evidence -- often erroneous and less germane today, nevertheless, it helped people learn more about anabolics -- for better or worse. The Steroid Bible was read by thousands of people and it was little more than generic referencing of the various drugs. The World Anabolic Reference made a giant leap in detailed scientific information along with firsthand application recommendations for bodybuilding and athletic enhancement. Still, it was often guessing and guessing wrong.

According to a lot of folks in the industry, Steroids For Health is a part of that early catalog of steroid information, albeit a less technical one but one which offered another perspective. And for all its foibles and antiquated references, I have to say, it still holds up as pretty good advice.

So here, presented in its original text, as written on an old word processor (hence, no italics -- but hey, I thought I was so high tech that I wasn't using a typewriter!) is the original Steroids For Health article with interspersed epilogue. I trust that it may help you make intelligent decisions regarding the use of steroids.Note: Learn to use the law to your advantage. If you run into any trouble regarding possession of anabolics, call someone who knows your rights. I'd recommend reading LEGAL MUSCLE by Rick Collins. Never, NEVER, NEVER say anything without representation! Check out www.steroidlaw.com and let them do the talking for you. You won't regret it.

Oh yeah!

I will not be discussing every drug used for bodybuilding purposes for two reasons.

One: I don't use them and any advice would not come from firsthand experience,
therefore it would just be a rewording of other material, so you might as well find that
material in the first place if that's what you're looking for.

And Two: I believe substances such as Clenbuterol, Insulin, DNP, Cytomel, Nubain, Synthol, RU486, Dopamine and Diuretics are dangerous and unhealthy and have no place in bodybuilding.

  1. Anonymous 6 February 2008 at 01:54  

    It is nice to read such an informative blog. I thought to share with you about I'd recommend checking out www.thedailyskinny.com and
    the weight of evidence blog for other great posts. Those are two of my daily favorites

  2. Spider63 1 March 2008 at 18:07  

    Any of this stuff available over the counter in the USA?