D-Bol By Itself?

Pharma / TRT
21

I know some steroid author, not choosing to do much if any research, wrote that Ziegler invented Dianabol and following authors have repeated this endlessly, but it’s simply not true.

First, pharmaceutical companies NEVER have outside MD’s invent drugs for them. Even within the company it’s scarcely ever an MD. A company certainly doesn’t reach out to some doctor who works with athletes and says “Gee can you invent a drug for us? We don’t know how.” This is not the way the business is done. Such a doctor may well be involved in trials, but not in inventing the drug.

Second, one glance at Ciba’s US Patent, No. 2900398, proves that the inventors are Wettstein, Hunger, Basel, Maystre, Arlesheim, and Ehmann.

No Ziegler.

And incidentally it’s grounds for patent revocation to fail to name an inventor. It makes no sense Ciba would have risked that. Ziegler is a doctor who used it, not an inventor. Maybe he told someone he was, I don’t know, but the patent is as positive evidence as there ever could be on that.

That minor point aside, it’s not a very good drug as a standalone though there are a few good responders to it used alone. Not most, though.

22

Actually CIBA used seized nazi physician journals given to them by the US State Dept following WW2. CIBA contracted Zeigler after his nuerology residency at Ocshner Hospital in New Orleans. The “by atheletes for atheletes” is totally correct.

It’s very interesting the timing of the release of Dianabol and the 1956 Olympics isn’t it? Anybody know who the last american gold medal super heavy wgt olympic weightlifting champion was…his first name was Paul. And who was the coach of that team…a guy who’s last name was Hoffman…ring any bells?

Look up John Fair at Auburn Univ and his Dianabol article.

23

I gotta disagree w/ ya billy and that “not good alone”. Bill March used it to go from 188 to 237 in like 2 yrs. If not Dbol as a stand-alone drug what is better? Nothing.

Test has way more sides, Tren is too harsh, Deca shuts u down hard, Anavar is a joke in comparison, Primo is 1/3 as anabolic, only thing close is Winstrol V by Winthrop. Strange how Mick Hart really loves Dbol & Winstrol. ^ Becuz they’re the best…period. Before any supposed “physician” chimes in on “C-17 Akyl” crap, regular partying
is way more liver toxic than 15mg/day for 6 weeks.

Above comments are my opinion.

24

http://www.aafla.org/SportsLibrary/JSH/JSH1993/JSH2001/jsh2001b.pdf

25

[quote]Garage Squatter wrote:
Above comments are my opinion.[/quote]

Lol, it didn’t really need clarification.

26

[quote]Diana Bolann wrote:
DBOL is dirty-ass motherfuckin shit. It’s nasty and anything that makes you feel that bad MUST be bad for you.[/quote]

So therefore you thought it would make a great username?

27

[quote]Garage Squatter wrote:
http://www.aafla.org/SportsLibrary/JSH/JSH1993/JSH2001/jsh2001b.pdf[/quote]

So where in that does it say Ziegler “invented” it?

In fact the text reads, “He recalls that CIBA asked Ziegler if he wanted to try these steroids on athletes, since they knew he got involved with the lifters. He gave me one of those half-bushel baskets with the pills to try and get some of the lifters to try them. No one would. And Hoffman was against anything of that sort at the time, mainly because this was late ?59 and everyone was geared up for the ?60 Olympics.”

So CIBA had “these steroids” already, rather than waiting on Ziegler to invent them. (In fact CIBA had them earlier than 1956, the date of their patent application. The actual date of first synthesis was 1953 or earlier.)

It’s one thing to have read something that wasn’t right from some steroid author that was less than careful in research, and not having further more correct information, repeating it. That sort of mistake is going to occur, the fault being the original author not the person believing it in good faith.

However that doesn’t mean we should repeat the misinformation forever. Hopefully that isn’t the case here.

28

Anyway, on the main and more important point of whether it’s especially good as a standalone drug:

  1. The good results from the Golden Age (I suppose) lifters were nowhere near the level of results routinely attained today with stacks or with testosterone alone,

  2. These men were unusually (relative to the general population) large and strong without added androgen, which makes it likely that many or all of them were unusually androgen-responsive in the first place, as some individuals are, enabling results with drug protocols that would do little to nothing for you or me,

  3. There’s at least one study on ordinary athletes – that is to say, not bodybuilders or competitive weightlifters – that showed almost no results from 6 weeks at 50 mg/day,

  4. I have consulted with more than 1000 athletes and individuals using anabolic steroids and have NO cases of outstanding results with Dianabol alone. Several that were not bad but nothing ever outstanding, not once,

  5. Dianabol being as cheap as it is, and not needing injection, isn’t it obvious that if it, alone, were as good as a good stack or testosterone that this would be a very popular protocol among advanced users instead of NEVER being used by any advanced user when the intent is maximal gains?

It isn’t that good by itself. It’s a great addition to for example nandrolone, trenbolone, boldenone, dromostanolone, or even testosterone, but it’s just not the case that by itself it compares well with a good stack or with testosterone.

29

[quote]jwillow wrote:
Diana Bolann wrote:
DBOL is dirty-ass motherfuckin shit. It’s nasty and anything that makes you feel that bad MUST be bad for you.

So therefore you thought it would make a great username?[/quote]

Yea, unfortunately “jwillow” was already taken.

30

I noticed U didn’t delve too deeply into the timing of the marketing of Dbol OR the Oly champion OR Hoffman association w/ Zeigler AND his known administering steroids to the atheletes. U seem hung up on the admitted wrong point of Zeigler designing Dbol for CIBA.

I’ll admit that was wrong. Zeigler was the Lee H. Oswald of the steroid world…a patsy. The State Dept was very determined to beat the made up Soviet enemy and were hoping Dbol could accomplish that for them. They simply didn’t know how to properly use it.

If u have a drug which is 2x as anabolic as testosterone and 1/2 as androgenic …U have for athletic purposes…a superior drug.

31

I think we place different importance on the sources/causes of gains in strength/size. I currently am around 240lbs @ I’d guess to near 15% bodyfat @ a height of 5’8. I obtained the majority of my gains naturally before ever trying TestOnly then experiencing all the worthless sides U get w/ test I moved to a less androgenic MORE anabolic substance…Methandrostenolone.

If u get it naturally then u keep in inversely U lose it w/ drugs.

32

I wonder if SwoleCat is still watching Me… or if he’s being watched.

33

(With regard to the “anabolic” and “androgenic” figures) Well, that is very plausible and reasonable theory and indeed is exactly what the scientists were hoping for but actually it generally doesn’t work that way.

The “androgenic” and “anabolic” figures are based on an assay method devised by Hershberger, in which the dosage required for given increase in rat prostate mass and levator ani mass – this isn’t a skeletal muscle by the way, but a sex-specific muscle most similar to the human PCG – is compared to the dose of testosterone required to do the same thing.

There are all kinds of drugs that have fabulous “anabolic” values many times that of testosterone, but in practice in man they are not that potent mass-builders by themselves in skeletal muscle.

It would be interesting to know the course of events had a different, later assay developed by the Russians been used in the developmental days of anabolic steroids: this assay involved cutting the equivalent of the gastrocnemius in the rat, requiring exercise of the rat (I don’t know they required this: male rats don’t like to run on wheels so that part is a bit of a mystery to me; perhaps they did it on female rats which do like to run on wheels?) thus forcing overload of the soleus, which is a skeletal muscle. Thus maybe making a better predictor of what would happen to muscle in man.

So yes, the value by the Hershberger assay would make one think that say 50 mg/day Dianabol would be equal anabolically to 700 mg/week testosterone, and 100 mg/day to 1400 mg/week testosterone, this isn’t in practice the case.

34

As u know Methandro does not bind well to the AR and therefor is less suppressive to SHBG thereby dramtically increasing the amt of free test. from an avg of 2% to probably 5+% while still significantly decreasing cortisol production which would increase nitrogen levels which would increase protein synthesis. That “might” increase the unit:unit production of a workout.

Not that all steroids don’t accomplish the above to some degree. Dbol just accomplishes this better, at least for me. U give me a 100% natural lifter who works up to squatting doubles w/ 300% of bw AND a juice head who only uses machines (and we both know the Dillet like freaks who do)…I’ll put my money on Mr Squat every time.

35

[quote]Diana Bolann wrote:
jwillow wrote:
Diana Bolann wrote:
DBOL is dirty-ass motherfuckin shit. It’s nasty and anything that makes you feel that bad MUST be bad for you.

So therefore you thought it would make a great username?

Yea, unfortunately “jwillow” was already taken.[/quote]

Hey, blame my parents for that one.

Seriously, if you hate dbol that much you could have gone with Anna Varr.

36
  1. There’s at least one study on ordinary athletes – that is to say, not bodybuilders or competitive weightlifters – that showed almost no results from 6 weeks at 50 mg/day.

^ This is totally rediculous and a disapointment coming from someone from as respected as U are bro.

Regardless of a person supposed potential that wouldn’t change each individual reaction to exogenous steroids. They’re personal systems might…yes. 50mg/day is insanity. I use at most 100mg per freakin week and I get incredible results.

To finally end this thread…Dianbol’s fame is becuz of its widespread use by strength atheletes. Ziegler was initally consulted in hopes it would enable american oly. atheletes to beat the evil russians at the 1960 Olympics. It was initally invented to help recovering US GI’s.

This was iniated becuz of seized nazi doctor’s journals who had taken urine samples of aggressive german policemen and isolated a form of testosterone. < This was widespread tested on concentration camp prisoners who showed quicker recovery from injuries, increased muscle mass/strength, etc. while using it.

I think for HRT patients sythetic testosterone can be wonderful. The line gets really blurry becuz as men as they produce less & less testosterone. Hence, a teenage thru the lates 20’s have NO business using steroids. Unless they’re hormone tests show abnormally low testosterone.

I do use Methandrostenolone at a THERAPUETIC level dosage and am “OFF” the same amt of time I’m on. I don’t stack, use insulin, GH, etc. in an attempt to gain more muscle/strength. I also am 39 yrs old AND have had a tested low test. level but the physc. refuses to prescribe. I use Dbol becuz after puberty the body’s need for the androgenicty component of natural test is almost longer needed.

Correct me if I’m wrong (Bill Roberts) but the circadian rhythm of the HPTA is not interrupted w/ a synthetic hormone which doesn’t bind as avidly to the AR due to less affinity for SHBG. The attempt here is less shock to the loop, in a negative way.

My whole rambling point is steroids are NOT the answer for “normal” bodybuilding goals. An average guy (of normal test level > 200 - 700ng/dl) (5’9", 160lbs) could definitely W/OUT steroids eventaully reach a 2x bodywgt squat for 20 reps AND a lower than original bodyfat level weight of around 220lbs which by ANY standard is BIG.

Steroids definitely WILL take U past ur normal genetics and much quicker but the gains are temporary and the side effects a person is exposed to just aren’t worth it for me personally. Remember Casey Viator won the Mr America at 218lbs (approx.) and there are very few IFBB pros who come close that physique. I’d damn sure take it over my present one. Viator at his strongest probably would have done 475lbs x 20 I’d guess.

Bodybuilding and the sports world in general is fucked up world due to the fact atheletes think they MUST use overdose levels of steroids to be competitive which just is not right. Sure Bonds is MUCH bigger, he got that way partially thru steroids and also thru HARD work.

Just as Strossen states in SUPER SQUATS - 150% of bw x 20 is the minimum. All these punks who know half-lives of EVERY drug in a\PDR need devote that energy to squatting.

37

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
(With regard to the “anabolic” and “androgenic” figures) Well, that is very plausible and reasonable theory and indeed is exactly what the scientists were hoping for but actually it generally doesn’t work that way.

The “androgenic” and “anabolic” figures are based on an assay method devised by Hershberger, in which the dosage required for given increase in rat prostate mass and levator ani mass – this isn’t a skeletal muscle by the way, but a sex-specific muscle most similar to the human PCG – is compared to the dose of testosterone required to do the same thing.

There are all kinds of drugs that have fabulous “anabolic” values many times that of testosterone, but in practice in man they are not that potent mass-builders by themselves in skeletal muscle.

It would be interesting to know the course of events had a different, later assay developed by the Russians been used in the developmental days of anabolic steroids: this assay involved cutting the equivalent of the gastrocnemius in the rat, requiring exercise of the rat (I don’t know they required this: male rats don’t like to run on wheels so that part is a bit of a mystery to me; perhaps they did it on female rats which do like to run on wheels?) thus forcing overload of the soleus, which is a skeletal muscle. Thus maybe making a better predictor of what would happen to muscle in man.

So yes, the value by the Hershberger assay would make one think that say 50 mg/day Dianabol would be equal anabolically to 700 mg/week testosterone, and 100 mg/day to 1400 mg/week testosterone, this isn’t in practice the case.[/quote]

Ur point of testosterone being more productive on a case:case comparison is no doubt correct. This is misleading due to fact U have to use 400% the amount of testosterone to get the same results from Dianabol. The # and severity of side effects of ^ that amt of testosterone would undoubtedly be MUCH more than Dianabol which is why they engineered Dbol to be much less androgenic.

U should bear in mind alot of impressionable teens read what U read and accept it absolutely. Steroids are NOT the answer to getting BIG…hard work IS.

38

[quote]Garage Squatter wrote:
U should bear in mind alot of impressionable teens read what U read and accept it absolutely. Steroids are NOT the answer to getting BIG…hard work IS.[/quote]

I knew you were full of shit from the very first post of yours that I read, but this shit is just stupid! Bill Roberts never made this claim that steroids are the answer to getting big. You are just a manipulative little asshole that sucks at argument!

39

Listen CAT I could give shit less what U think of me. My size speaks for itself regarding my knowledge. I never said roberts said that…kissass.

Live in ur fantasy world. I hope u fuck up ur liver/kidneys like the idiot Wheeler and end up just like him a broken down punk.

F/O!

40

Garage squatter do you take your dose once in the morning or split it up throughout the day? I was considering a similar dosing protocol: 10-20mgs a day for 4-6 weeks. Still might go higher cos of what everyone else says, but i wouldn’t want to go above 30mgs because of side effects.