Bill Roberts: 'Big Muscles, Lots of Hair'

Pharma / TRT
1

Regarding the following article that you wrote (apparently- I couldn’t find the original anywhere) I’m assuming you still stand behind this. Why is this knowledge not a mainstay here on T-Nation? Practically everything I’ve researched says compounds like winny and mast will be harsher on the hairline- but this article indicates that Test is far more damaging.

I’ve never heard this and I would think that it would benefit a lot of people (or maybe just those who sell Stanazolol, lol) here as there seem to be a great many who are concerned with their hair.

"Wanted: Big Muscles, Lots of Hair

Q: I want to do a steroid cycle, but all the men in my family have gone bald and I think I’m losing some hair too. I’m thinking that winstrol is the steroid I should use, but not if it converts to dihydrotestosterone! Please help!

A: winstrol doesn’t convert to dihydrotestosterone, but regardless of what anyone else says, when it comes to synthetic steroids, converting to dihydrotestosterone has absolutely nothing to do with hair loss. All androgens at sufficient doses will speed male-pattern baldness if you have the genetics for it. It’s that simple, and there’s no exception.

Steroids fall into three categories here:

  1. More potent in the scalp than in muscle â?? bad news.

  2. Equally potent in the scalp as in muscle â?? less of a problem.

  3. Less potent in the scalp than in muscle â?? good.

testosterone, if finasteride (Proscar or Propecia, 1 mg/day) isn’t used, falls into the first category. Most synthetics fall into the second category, as does the testosterone/finasteride stack. nandrolone falls into the third, desirable category with regard to hair loss.

So, if it’s important to you to delay your apparently inevitable hair loss as long as possible, the best choice of steroid is nandrolone, at moderate doses such as 200 mg. You’d get more results at 400 mg, but it would be somewhat harder on the hair than the lower dose. winstrol isn’t a terrible choice for the hair, but will speed hair loss, as will all of the synthetics or testosterone."

2

Yes, I wrote it, though not recently. If it was on Meso I’d expect it was clearly stated that I wrote it; there are other sites who cut and paste what Meso has paid for and sometimes credit me as the author and sometimes not, or worse in some cases intermix paragraphs by me with paragraphs from someone else. But anyway this one is by me – all but the title – but it looks old.

I wouldn’t give the article any great deal of importance. In steroid consultations there have been very few cases where there really was such high priority given to the hair. I only remember three: as it happens all were stage actors, where it makes sense that major compromises in muscle gain are okay and increased hair loss can be seen as a threat to income.

Also if I were writing it today and I had the above as a draft, I would decide that it overemphasizes the degree of difference. “Bad news” sounds really awful but moderate dose testosterone is not awful on the hair, and for many individuals with the genetics for MPB even high dose does not necessarily cause great acceleration compared to their own normal levels of testosterone.

Many times an individual’s normal testosterone is already doing what is for them about as great a rate of hair loss as they are going to have anyway, whether that is a high rate or low. It seems to be more of a threshold thing for many individuals than an matter of amounts, once past the threshold.

Really, a 200 mg/week nandrolone only cycle is a poor cycle.

In most of my stuff that is in a Q&A format, there was a whole lot to the question that has been cut out. I certainly don’t remember at this point but I am guessing it probably was very clear that the person asking was just really extremely concerned about the hair and really not aiming for much muscle gains. Again if I were looking at this now as a draft, I’d say “it needs to be made clear that this person is not looking for much gains.”

Only in that context does the 200 mg/week Deca recommendation make any sense at all.

3

(Previous post hasn’t appeared yet so can’t edit)

Well, actually there are a few individuals who are surprisingly high responders and do get very substantial benefit even from that. But it’s not the norm and I never assume it will be the case and only very rarely suggest that it would be worth seeing if it might, by chance, happen to be the case for the individual.

That is really a special-case recommendation rather than being general advice for everybody.

4

It wasn’t on Meso, I found it on another forum- somebody had copied and pasted it. The title being wrong probably explains why I couldn’t find the original.
It’s good to know though. Hair is very important at this “job” I’m trying to get, so on this cycle I was considering taking a reduced amount of stanazolol or dropping it altogether, but now it looks like I don’t have to worry about it at all.

I always come across your older writings very randomly, but they all share a common trait in that they are concise, to the point, and easily absorbed. It’s the best kind of writing, seriously. I see too many authors in your field that don’t take their audience into account and their point becomes lost in a sea of PHD level chemistry and explanation. Perhaps this is because they aren’t writers?

5

I was benefited greatly in this regard by three men: a professor at UF who taught technical writing, my professor in medicinal chemistry, and Dan Duchaine.

When writing in forums I totally fail to employ what Dan taught me, but in articles when I take the time to combine what I was taught with regard to technical writing with Dan’s insistence on economy of words (and with his even greater insistence that I avoid my trademark parenthetical statements) the result is better.

So there are definitely others to thank in those cases where my writing is particularly clear. Thank you for the compliment!

What I wish I could do would be to write technical material as Isaac Asimov did. He was simply the greatest of all time at it. But I believe that only he could as he did. Others can only try to be as clear.

6

[quote]Toby Queef wrote:
Perhaps this is because they aren’t writers?[/quote]

Perhaps it may be because they are covering up the fact that they are typing garbage…

7

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I was benefited greatly in this regard by three men: a professor at UF who taught technical writing, my professor in medicinal chemistry, and Dan Duchaine.

When writing in forums I totally fail to employ what Dan taught me, but in articles when I take the time to combine what I was taught with regard to technical writing with Dan’s insistence on economy of words (and with his even greater insistence that I avoid my trademark parenthetical statements) the result is better.

So there are definitely others to thank in those cases where my writing is particularly clear. Thank you for the compliment!

What I wish I could do would be to write technical material as Isaac Asimov did. He was simply the greatest of all time at it. But I believe that only he could as he did. Others can only try to be as clear.[/quote]

You can clearly tell you have a fairly extensive background in writing. I think it’s hard for writers to ever hide that- or maybe it’s just easier for me to see than it is for others.

I actually appreciate the way you participate in forum writing. It allows us to see another side other than just author Bill Roberts. It adds a personal touch which in turn I think people respect more.

I hear you on the parenthetical phrases. I often catch myself overdosing on them not just here, but on ALL forums I frequent (possibly due to my satirical nature?).

I enjoyed the last phrase of yours there too. Well said, well said.