I’ve read on other boards that the real story behind Bill Roberts Class I and Class II theory is that it’s just a ploy to sell more Biotest products. They say Roberts came up with it so as to be able to make people combine Androsol with T-17E or N-17E or to sell MAG-10 that has the stack. It seems like NO other steroid expert agrees with his theory… Not one. Llewelyn or however the hell you spell his name just published an article denying it, even Brock Strasser of T-mag doesn’t agree with it! Sounds bad to me!!!
Dont know dont care, do know mag10 works better than 4adec alone, even if I double the dose
Didn’t Bill come up with this classification system BEFORE he was affiliated with T-Mag? Kind of shoots holes in the whole theory.
While on the one hand I’m being tagged here as being pretty low in terms of intellectual honesty, on the other hand I’m being credited for amazing commercial foresight. Pretty much
as DD said, my first article on this was on Mesomorphosis well before any association with T-mag or Biotest and well before having any idea of designing supplement products.
I did not however use the terms “Class I” and “Class II” prior to writing for T-mag, though, instead using the more cumbersome terms “androgen-recptor-mediated” and “non-androgen-receptor-mediated.”
As to those not agreeing with the theory, well, I can’t understand their objections any better than they apparently understand my theory. If they deny that at least some androgens have non-androgen-receptor-mediated activities they’re wrong (see the Meso article or see for example the Abu-Shakra Annals NY Acad Sci article on stanozolol’s non-androgen-receptor mediated activity.)
If they think that any stacks comprised only of what I identify as Class I androgens other than testosterone are as good mass builders as anything else, let’s hear this stack. Ditto for only-Class-II stacks. If they have data that anything I identify as Class I actually has poor binding to the androgen receptor, or anything I identify as Class II actually has good binding, shout it to the world!
Or if they can show the system predicts certain combined Class I / Class II stacks should be good, but they actually suck, then
that would be a great thing for them to point out to refute the theory.
Or if they can ever substantiate statements such as “it’s all due to enyzme metabolisms not due to receptor binding” with actual specifics that are correct, again that would be good for their argument. However, fact is, citing for example (as has been done) that oxymetholone can be metabolized to methyl-DHT is no means of explaining the anabolic efficacy of oxymetholone despite oxymetholone’s low androgen receptor binding, seeing as how methyl-DHT is LESS potent than oxymetholone. (You can’t say that the good potency of a compound is actually due to its metabolism to a less potent compound: that makes zero sense.)
So to summarize, they may have reasons to disagree with my theory, but if any of them have merit I genuinely don’t know what they are (I have not read Llewellyn’s article but
I have tried to follow Brock’s statements) or I am just somehow missing the merit.
As for saying no other expert thinks the classification system has merit, this is not true. At least one does. I recently learned
that James Giordano, Ph.D, CSCS, who is an associate professor of of Physical Medicine and Pathology and is a certified exercise and aerospace physiologist, is giving a short
course at the Baylor Sports Medicine Institute
on Ergogenic and Anabolic Enhancement which includes discussion of androgens according to this classification method, which he apparently considers useful and/or correct. Which is flattering. So it cannot be said that no expert finds merit in the idea.
Really, whether the method of classification
has validity should be determined by usefulness and consistency with known facts,
not on what my motivation allegedly was, or by who agrees with it, anyhow. So if people want to attribute low motive (and amazing foresight and Machiavellian skills) to me, fine, but that should not color judgment of the classification method and recommendations regarding stacking. The method works, or it doesn’t, and the cited facts are accurate, or they aren’t.
Now that I think about it, if having a recognized expert agree is important, Duchaine agreed with it also, in phone conversations. By the time of the Meso article, though, he and I were on very poor terms however, due to disputes over being paid past-due money for articles written, and so we never discussed the specific article, though. However, I think I had begun discussing the general concepts, less developed though, in at least one article of his newsletter.
Actually, though, so far as having people agree, personally it’s much more meaningful for me for men like
Spongebob (to name just one of many
on the Forum) to find merit in an idea, than having any number of most magazine writers agreeing; and also more important to me is
readers having success from implementing the ideas. So even if it were true that no “expert” agreed (meaning, bb’ing writer) that would not be so important to me personally, though perhaps it is to some trying to decide whether they should use the ideas.
That’s one of the stupidest conspiracy theories I’ve ever heard. How do they explain that for a long while the only two Biotest products Bill had anything to do with were Androsol and Nandrosol and his theory said that there NO extra benefit to combining them? He was always telling readers they didn’t need to buy both! how does that fit into the plot
And if it’s a conspiracy why is Brock disagreeing? Can’t these Biotest guys get their act together to sell stuff?
Cy Willson seems to agree with it. Of course, he works for T-mag, so that probably shoots his credibility down as far as you’re concerned.
Tell you what, JOSH, instead of worrying about what other industry “experts” are saying and who’s right based on nothing more than gossip, why don’t you take things into your own hands and run an experiment on yourself? Try two “Class 1” compounds, log the results, then the next time try a Class 1 and a Class 2. See if you get a synergistic effect. That way you’ll know for sure, and you won’t have to waste your valuable time posting stuff like this.
If this were a Biotest conspiracy wouldn’t Brock be agreeing with Bill? Also, I thought he came up with the Class I & II hypothesis before T-Mag?
Well Josh, I guess you better just stick to those other boards cause they MUST be right. We’ll miss ya big guy but have a nice trip.
This Class I and Class II stuff sure makes sense to me (degreed in Genetics). Also, the concept does not have to be perfect, only useful to us. The intracacies of the human body are far too complex to require any all-encompassing concept be so. I think of it as a useful way to start thinking of how various medications work, a framework for building general knowledge about steroids, and to help design cycles.
P.S. Which one of you is tougher, you or Mr. Strasser?
(Speaking tongue in cheek) Brock would have the physical advantage in grappling. I have the advantage in reach and I would expect hand-speed.
But actually Brock and I are close colleagues. He just doesn’t happen to agree on this particular point. No problem.
Bill do you know of any research where the effect of an androgen was carried out in a androgen receptor deficient animal or cell culture? If there were that would certainly help clear up the dispute of androgen receptor mediated versus non-androgen receptor mediated effects on growth and strength development.
Not with regard to muscle or strength, but it’s been done with immune cells: Mol Biol Cell 1999 Oct;10(10):3113-23.
Or you have
a similar situation with an androgen receptor blocker (flutamide) being used to see if that affects activity; if not then the activity is not via the androgen receptor. Again this
hasn’t been done with muscle cells or in strength tests so far as I know, but has been found in vivo for the epidydimis of, I think, the rabbit.
There are other evidences as well that there exist biochemical mechanisms for androgens to exert effect on cells not via the androgen receptor. I have on article on that on Meso (you will have to remove the space after "pharmacology/ " when pasting):
I don’t know bill I’m just going by what I’ve read on Meso and T-mag,
I think that the Bill bashing is ridiculous. Steroid authors before him wrote that “drol is for mass and winny is for cutting.” I think Bill is so far ahead of other people when it comes to steroid biochemistry they don’t even understand what he writes. Most steroid authors care about making recomendations that get results and to that effect anyone can be a steroid author, just take a gram of test a week for tweleve weeks. But if I want to know science behind steroids I trust Bill Roberts and his theory seems good. Maybe evidence will surface that will open up a new way of thinking about steroid activity and endogenous T restoration but if it does I bet he’ll find it and if he doesn’t I doubt he’ll refute it because it wasn’t his idea, he’ll accept or refute it based on the merits of the research. And that is what I’ve seen more than anything else, he seems to actually be a scientist before a salesman.
I agree with you scrappy. I’ve read some of Bill’s articles at meso and they seem to make perfect sense. I’ve only gotten to the first three articles since I’ve been so busy but his arguements regarding ingestion of AAS (for example) in relation to androgen receptor regulation is not only very interesting but sensible and seems to exist in real world practice. Check them out guys its a fascinating read.