NELSON MONTANA....a clean discussion platform

[Thaibox]

Mr. Montana,

I have provided this thread for you and I(and others) to exchange thoeries and ideas, as well as a clean platform in which to debate ideas professionally and maturely. The other thread turned to garbage, wasting board space. There will be NO bullshit on this thread. If I sense anything that looks like slander or other off topic games, I will delete it myself. I actually agree with you on many topics. There are only a few…six that I addressed here, that I would like to understand better.

Despite how I think the other thread began, I will apologize for allowing myself to be caught up in the unnecessary slander and such. We are both bodybuilders sharing similar goals in both knowledge and experience, so we should act as such.

I understand that you did not want to write a "dissertation" to answer questions, so I simply ask for clear, short answers adequate enough to support claims and that's all. I respect the fact that you have a book to sell and are therefore hesitant to release too much information. I can appreciate that. However, since you placed these statements on these boards, I think it is only fair to follow up ON THE BOARDS. You also said that the questions given to you were "vague" and unclear. I have written them in a very clear, simple manner which can be easily understood. I believe that we are both relatively intelligent individuals I look forward to hearing your responses. I thank you in advance for providing support to your claims in a professional manner which all can learn by. Let us shake hands and bring this to an end in a manner which satisfies all.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question #1........
In response to your statement regarding ab work, Freakmonster asked the following:

"I'm curious then, what is the most effective way to work your abs?"

I actually agree with you on this one Nelson. In my opinion abdominals are stimulated far better by weighted excercise than by traditional sit-ups(hitting the hip flexors) and leg lifts. But I'd still like to hear your answer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question #2

"Insulin, DNP, Synthol,and Nubain have no place in real bodybulding."

Why is this? Since many members on this board use these substances, I'm sure everyone would be interested in hearing your rational, including myself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question #3

"Nutrient timing will have no effect on how you look in the long run."

Why is nutrient timing so ineffective in the long run? This goes against a widely understood principle of nutrient uptake. I would like to hear why you believe this is.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question #5

"The effect of the glycemic index of a food is way overstated."

I would like to know why this is? If this is true, wouldn't eating candy or drinking a slurpy after training be just as beneficial as dextrose or maltodextrin?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question #6

"GH is the most over-rated drug in the sport."

Why do you believe it is over-rated? Since you also believe that insulin has no place in bodybuilding, does this mean that the massive amounts of growth we see in todays pros is not at all attributed to insulin and GH?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question #7

You said glutamine and creatine are worthless. Why is that? Many people belive the opposite and have supported this with a significant amount of support. I spend a considerable amount of money each month on supplements, and if I was wasting it on glutamine and creatine, I'd like to know so I can save some money. Your thoery intrigues me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thank you

 

[Thaibox]

My apologies, I actually forgot one question.

You said that you advocated 3 week cycles of either Sustenon and Anavar.....or Pimobolan and D-bol. Please explain the benefits of this. As I understand it, these would not be effective. I am intriqued by short cycles, and would like to hear more.

 

[Golfer18--old]

I disagree with Nelson on the 3 week cycles and glutamine and creatine. Bump for Nelson. We can all learn and come to a conclusion.

 

[Nelson Montana]

Wow, that's an about face.

I'm probably going to regret this, but here goes.

Your answers:

1...Yes, there's no reason why the abs can't be worked with weight. They will not get "too big." That's a myth. They're very shallow muscles. The abs are best stressed when being stabilized. I give an excellent exercise in the book that acomplishs this.

2...Because every one of those compounds post a significant health risk. I'm old fashioned. I believe in bodyBUILDING. Not compromising one's health to achieve some temporary cosmetic advantage. Nubain is for pain. If you can't take pain, find another sport.

3...Hypothetical scenario. Take 2 clones who live and train under the same exact conditions, but one times every nutrient and the other eats normal well balanced meals. At the end of the year, how much more muscle will the first one have over the other? The entire concept of nutrient timing is a farce since nutrients are available for many, many hours after ingestion.

5... Well, dextrose is a simple sugar so there isn't much difference. Maltodextrin has almost as high a GI as sucrose but it's half as sweet so you'll need twice as much to get the same flavor. The misunderstanding wth GI foods is that they are judged by themselves. Who eats just sugar for a meal? Fats will slow down the absorption of sugar and the release of insulin. I understand this is a basic explanation but it's the basis why GI doesn't matter that much as long as you eat sensibly.

6...Everyone talks about GH in conjunction with steroids. But that makes it impossible to gauge its effectiveness. I, and many other people I've worked with, have used GH by itself extensively and the results were piss poor with everyone. Yet on AAS cycles that cost a tenth of the price, everybody made gains. GH also carries certain risks. The massive amount of growth among pros is due mostly to massive amounts of gear. Insulin and GH will increase overall size but the results are also a big distended belly. If you like that look, use GH and insulin and take your chances. I prefer the Arnold, Zane, Paris, Howorth, Nubret look. They were gods. The guys today look like clowns to me.

7...I worked for the magazines. I know how certain theories are just "made up" to promote interest in a supplement. Glutamine is such an example. There isn't a single study to show that oral digestion of glutamine will enhance muscle growth in advanced athletes. It's always in trauma patients, or in cases of immune deficiency, and it's always intraveneous administration. Glutamine is garbage. I'm sorry that you wasted your money. Nobody likes to admit they've been scammed. But glutamine is a rip-off.

That's it.

 

[genarr3]

A study to back up Nelson's view on GH:

Growth Hormone vs. Testosterone: A Retrospective Based on the Latest Research
by Karlis Ullis, MD with Josh Shackman, MA

I was one of the first private practitioners in the country to dispense growth hormone as part of an overall anti-program hormone replacement program for adults that fit the criteria of the "Adult Onset Growth Hormone Deficiency Syndrome". Like many other anti-aging physicians, I was extremely impressed by the initial research on growth hormone showing dramatic improvements in body composition, kidney function, skin, mood, well being, etc. I have been a member of the Growth Hormone Research Society for many years and have closely followed all the latest research on growth hormone and other adult hormone replacement therapies. As the number of studies on growth hormone as well as testosterone has piled up since I first began prescribing testosterone, I believe now is the time to look back at the research and see if growth hormone and testosterone have lived up to their promises.

It is well established in bodybuilding circles that testosterone is superior to growth hormone for gaining muscle. However, growth hormone still is enormously popular and generally has a better reputation than testosterone both in bodybuilding and in anti-aging circles. The general impression is that testosterone will make you big, but at the price of acne, puffiness, temper tantrums, prostate enlargement, and possibly "gyno". Well it is acknowledged that growth hormone is not as anabolic as testosterone, people still think of growth hormone as a hormone that will make you lean and toned with almost no side effects. Growth hormone also has a reputation as being the "fountain of youth" among anti-aging enthusiasts, whereas testosterone is still considered somewhat dangerous. The purpose of this article is to see how the research on testosterone and growth hormone from the last few years has supported or disputed the public’s view of these two hormones.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is Better for Body Composition?
New research has shed some light on the anabolic effects of growth hormone. Several studies in the past have shown an increase in lean body mass in subjects taking growth hormone. However, lean body mass does not necessarily mean muscle, but anything that is not fat and this includes water, organ tissue growth, bone mass, and connective tissue growth. My friend Michael Mooney (author of Built to Survive and editor of the Medibolics Newsletter) has helped publicize the fact that not much, if any, of the lean mass gained while on growth hormone is actually muscle. One recent study on HIV positive test subjects showed no significant change in skeletal muscle mass after taking six milligrams (about 18 units) per day of growth hormone for 12 weeks.(1) Another study, also on HIV positive test subjects, also showed a lack of muscle growth when doses of nine milligrams (roughly 27 units) per day were given.(2) Keep in mind that HIV positive individuals are often suffering from muscle wasting conditions, which should make them more responsive to any possible anabolic effects of growth hormone. Growth hormone is probably equally ineffective in healthy individuals.

One study on young (aged 22-33), highly trained athletes did show a significant increase in lean mass after six weeks of taking 2.67 milligrams (about 8 units) per day.(3) However this increase was only 4%, and may have not included any muscle mass at all. It seems overwhelming clear that growth hormone is either non-anabolic or very weakly anabolic for skeletal muscle when taken by itself, and it definitely not worth the large price if you are taking it solely for gaining muscle. The only real use in gaining muscle may be as a synergistic agent with testosterone. A synergistic effect of taking growth hormone with testosterone has been reported for increases in lean mass, but further research needs to be done to see if this synergistic effects holds for skeletal muscle. Keep in mind that some increases in lean mass are not desirable. Growing some organs too big such as kidneys can produce some embarrassing effects seen in some professional bodybuilders. You do not want your "guts" sticking blatantly out of your body.

But enough on growth hormone for muscle gain. For information, see Bryan Haycock’s article in this issue or go to Michael Mooney’s web site. If you are going to spend the money on growth hormone to try to improve your body, your best bet is to use it as a fat loss or "sculpting" agent. The previously mentioned study with growth hormone on trained athletes did show an impressive 12% decrease in bodyfat. So well it is well established that testosterone is far, far better for building muscle than growth hormone, is growth hormone the better choice for fat loss? The research on this issue is mixed, and there is no easy answer to this question.

One recent study put growth hormone head to head with testosterone and measured its effects on fat loss. In this study, men on growth hormone lost an average of 13% of their bodyfat compared to 5.8% in the group taking testosterone.(4) But before you jump to conclusions, there are a couple of reasons why this study doesn’t settle the question. For one thing, this study was on very old individuals (aged 65 to 88) who had low IGF-1 and testosterone levels. Another problem is that the doses of the hormones haven’t been reported yet (the study is only in abstract form right now) which also makes the comparison difficult to make. Most interesting about this study was that a synergistic effect was found in a group taking both testosterone and growth hormone, as they lost an average of 21% of their bodyfat. This is more than the averages of the testosterone alone and growth hormone alone groups combined.

Not all studies have shown this dramatic of an effect on body fat. One study using fairly large doses (adjusted by weight, but roughly 5 mg per day) on obese women failed to show any significant effects on body fat.(5) The growth hormone group lost less than two pounds more than the placebo group over a one month period. The main significant result was that the growth hormone group lost much less lean mass (an average loss of 1.52 kg compared to 3.79 in the placebo). While this may seem impressive, the same results could be achieved with a caffeine/ephedrine formula at a fraction of the price. While there are a good number of studies showing growth hormone to be effective for fat loss, testosterone may be almost as good for this purpose.

Testosterone was recently found to be effective for fat loss in young men even in small doses. One recent study showed that men given only 100 milligrams per week of testosterone enanthate lost an average of six percent of their bodyfat after eight weeks.(6) 100 mg per week is generally considered a very low dose by bodybuilding standards. Most impressive about this study was that the result was obtained in young, normal healthy men (aged 18 to 45), not obese or testosterone deficient. Most of the studies showing positive effects with hormone replacement therapy are on subjects who are obese or hormone deficient – i.e. the very subjects most likely to respond. While the amount of muscle gain reported in this study was not reported (it is still just in abstract form), another study showed 100 mg per week of testosterone enanthate was not anabolic.(7) It appears that testosterone has a strong mechanism for fat loss other than increased metabolic rate from increased muscle. Considering how much cheaper testosterone is than growth hormone, it may well be the cost-effective choice for burning fat even if it is slightly less effective overall.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Safety of Growth Hormone and Testosterone
Testosterone is widely believed to be far more dangerous than growth hormone. However, recent research is rapidly showing that much of these dangers have been exaggerated. For instance, the hypothesis that testosterone causes prostate cancer has never been established. In fact, one study even showed a slight negative correlation between testosterone levels and prostate cancer! A study on young men given supraphysiologic doses of testosterone showed no change is prostate specific antigen (PSA), which is one measure of prostate cancer risk.(8)

Growth hormone may also be less dangerous to the prostate than previously believed. One study showed strong positive correlation with prostate cancer and IGF-1 levels.(9) Since growth hormone stimulates IGF-1 synthesis in the liver, this study and others bring up the possibility of a link of growth hormone and prostate and breast cancer. Keep in mind that statistical correlations do not necessarily prove causality, i.e. IGF-1 has not yet been proven to be a cancer-causing villain. Actually IGF-11 may be one of the culprits in the cancer story, and not IGF-1. At the Serano sponsored Symposia on the Endocrinology of Aging in October, 1999 and at the Endocrine Society Meeting in June, 1999 there was an informal consensus that patients on growth hormone did not increase their risk of breast or prostate cancer. Several other recent studies have also cast doubt on the role of growth hormone as a cancer-causing villain.

Testosterone may have also gotten a bad rap for its effects on blood lipids. Since testosterone and other anabolic steroids have been shown in some studies to lower HDL cholesterol levels, it was believed that testosterone may increase the risk for heart disease. This was refuted in one recent study on testosterone that showed some positive results. A study on 21 hypogonadal men (aged 36 to 57) showed a replacement dose of testosterone using the Androderm transdermal patch to reduce blood clotting.(9) While HDL levels did drop slightly, blood coagulability is believed to be the more important marker of heart disease risk. Another study showed a very strong negative correlation with testosterone levels and heart disease.

Growth hormone has shown mixed results on its effects on heart disease risk. One study on elderly men and women (aged 65-88) showed that growth hormone administration to lower LDL levels, but raised triglyceride levels.(10) Since high LDL and triglyceride levels are considered measures of heart disease risk, growth hormone’s effects on heart disease risk are ambiguous. However, long-term use of growth hormone as been shown to decrease the thickness of the carotid artery lining – i.e. increased room for blood flow.

While much more research needs to be done, I am convinced right now that testosterone replacement therapy in hypogonadal men may be safer than excessively large doses of growth hormone. The long-term studies have not yet been done to test the true long-term effects of these hormones, but the research seems quite clear at the moment. Michael Mooney has reported similar results on safety and side effects of these hormones:

While none of the studies on testosterone or anabolic steroids used for HIV have documented any significant health problems associated with their proper therapeutic use, Dr. Gabe Torres' data on his patients who experienced a reduction in symptoms of HIV-related lipodystrophy with Serostim growth hormone showed that at the standard 5 and 6 mg doses, 80 percent of his HIV patients experienced significant side effects, that included elevated glucose, elevated pancreatic enzymes, or carpal tunnel syndrome. (1)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion
Don’t get me wrong – I still use both growth hormone and testosterone as part of overall anti-aging programs in my patients. This article is not meant to say one hormone is "good" and another is "bad". It is just my opinion at the moment that the overall benefit/cost ratio for improving body composition is higher with testosterone than growth hormone. By cost, I mean both the monetary price – testosterone is far cheaper than growth hormone, and the side effect/safety profile – testosterone is safer than high-dose growth hormone use.

Since growth hormone is extremely expensive and perhaps riskier than testosterone, I screen patients very carefully and only recommend it to those who either have very low IGF-1 levels and fail growth hormone stimulation tests, or those who have failed to respond to testosterone or other therapies. The new research has also made me confident in encouraging more and more patients to go on testosterone. However, we must keep constant track of the new research to better refine both anti-aging and bodybuilding programs. The science of hormone supplementation is still in its infancy, and there is still a lot more questions that need to be answered.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References
1. Mooney, Michael, HIV Study Shows No Muscle Growth From Serostim Growth Hormone, Medibolics, July, 1999

2. Yarasheski KE; Campbell JA; Smith K; Rennie MJ; Holloszy JO; Bier DM. Am J Physiol Effect of growth hormone and resistance exercise on muscle growth in young men. Am J Physiol, 262(3 Pt 1):E261-7 1992 Mar

3. Crist DM, et al. Body composition response to exogenous GH during training in highly conditioned adults. J Appl Physiol. 1988 Aug;65(2):579-84.

4. Blackman, MR, et al. Effects of growth hormone and/or sex steroid administration on body composition in healthy elderly women and men, Presented at 1999 Endrocrine Society conference, San Diego, California

5. Tagliaferri M, et al. Metabolic effects of biosynthetic growth hormone treatment in severely energy-restricted obese women. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1998 Sep;22(9):836-41.

6. Anawalt, BD, et al. Testosterone administration to normal men decreases truncal and total body fat . Presented at 1999 Endrocrine Society conference, San Diego, California

7. Friedl KE, et al. Comparison of the effects of high dose testosterone and 19-nortestosterone to a replacement dose of testosterone on strength and body composition in normal men. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 1991;40(4-6):607-12

8. Cooper, C.S., MacIndoe, J.H., Perry, P.J., Yates, W.R. and Williams, R.D.: The effect of exogenous testosterone on total and free prostate specific antigen levels in healthy young men. J Urol, 156:438, 1996.

9. Wallace, J., et. al (1998) Growth Hormone and IGF Res (abstract) 8(4): 329, 348

10. Christmas, C. et al, Effects of growth hormone and/or sex steroid administration on serum lipid profiles in healthy elderly women and men, Presented at 1999 Endrocrine Society conference, San Diego, California




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[liftsiron]

Bump

 

[genarr3]

""Nutrient timing will have no effect on how you look in the long run." - A few months ago I'd have completely disagreed with this statement. But recently<past two months> I have not be eating as regularly as I've done in the past. I'm not eating garbage, but just not every 3 - 4 hrs as I was always said is necessary. My physique hasn't changed a bit. I think it might have actually improved<less fat>.

Nubian is a "get high" drug. Let's not kid ourselves.

 

[bebaumax]

Nelson Montana,

I'm thinking I'm going to regret this, but after the previous thread, if there was something negative I could think of to say, I would have said it to you. I could not have thought of you as less articulate. Your last post was nothing short of incredible. I agree with pretty much everything. I may even buy your book, just to support you for having been a stand-up guy.

One thing, you still haven't supported the 3-week cycle claim. I cannot see any efficacy in this... it just doesn't make sense, not on the drugs you mentioned. I could see prop/suspension and dbol/var or something like that, but sust? I'm sure you see where I'm going with this.

Anyways, thank you for standing up.

Thaibox, thank you too, bro. You've both come out of this professionally. This is what EF should be about more often.
-B

 

[Thaibox]

Actually its not an about face, my first original post was the almost the same. Anyway, Thank you. That wasn't too hard eh?

1. Like I said, I agree with you 100% on this one.

2. I agree with your stance on synthol. And, I'm not sure why you included bain here. But, I know why BB's use it(not the idiots that just use it to get fucked up). I use percodan and other things sometimes because I train with 2 crushed discs, a blown knee, and a bad rotator. Somedays I can't walk without a cane because of my back. If I have to take meds to help me get to the gym, then I certainly will. I believe insulin to be one of the most beneficial substances a bodybuilder can use. I have used insulin several times with nothing but great results. I told my doctor what I was doing and had him check me out at the end with a big thumbs up. I have had more side effects and health concerns with substances in your recommended cycles than I have with insulin.

It is my opinion that AT THIS TIME insulin is looked upon as a dangerous drug because of unknown variables considering its relatively recent arrival onto the BB scene. Knowledge and intelligence make this drug an amazing asset, with (I believe) fewer health risks than a typical cycle.

However, I do see what you're getting at with regards to each of these being a health risk. A valid argument now that you said you were basing it on a health risk standpoint.

3. Disagreed. Many things absorb and are utilized at different rates, and those rates are affected by the conditions we place our bodies under. The only way to yield opitmal results is to understand these different rates and place them into our system accordingly.

4. oops, jumped one, sorry

5. I was about to refute this when I realized that you don't believe in nutreint uptake timing. Well, if you don't believe thaty , then its difficult to examine the importance that GI plays within it, since they parallel one another.

6. Again I agree with several points here. I think that todays pros look like shit compared to the greats of the past mostly due to this compound. I also agree that its near impossible to gauge the effectiveness of a substance amongst a myriad of other substances and variables. The only true way to measure the effectiveness would be to isolate the substance. The problem here is that everyone knows GH doesn't work worth a damn alone. This is nothing new. That is why no one takes it by itself, thereby creating this pool of substances that mask the effectiveness of one another. I have had many aquaintences add GH and slin to a cycle and report a dramatic difference in results compared to the cycle alone.

genarr, I just read parts of the study, so I apologize if I missed something. But, you can't compare GH to another compound, then say its worthless because it doesn't measure up. Thats sort of like saying Deca isn't as good as D-bol at cartain things. Well, they're two different drugs that have different properties and work well when combined, like test and GH.

By the way, I'm not a big fan of GH for many reasons, but I do think it is a very beneficial thing, and it is not over-rated, just over-priced.

7. Agreed that supplements get hyped to hell in media to promote them. However, there are many studies that show Glutamine intake in 'healthy' individuals orally. Yes, most studies have been done with IV administration, which are clung onto and hoorah'd by the magazines. But, glutamine has shown decent results in controlled studies under the conditions relative the BBing. I'll look for some if neccessary. Also, you didn't address creatine's ineffectiveness. This is a pretty big thing.

One thing that I thoroughly disagree with that you didn't talk about was the 3 week cycles. Please do.

Thank you Nelson

 

[bbkingpin]

I probably missed something but what makes Nelson Montana an authority, other than having printed his own book?

 

[jboldman]

Would it be possible to more clearly define what everyone is referring to here in terms of "nutrient timing"? Would that be meal frequency, meal composition, or juxtaposition of meals with exercise or some combination of all of the above? I'm sorry if that was confusing but all these aspects are different and potantially important(or not).

 

[genarr3]

genarr, I just read parts of the study, so I apologize if I missed something. But, you can't compare GH to another compound, then say its worthless because it doesn't measure up. Thats sort of like saying Deca isn't as good as D-bol at cartain things. Well, they're two different drugs that have different properties and work well when combined, like test and GH.

By the way, I'm not a big fan of GH for many reasons, but I do think it is a very beneficial thing, and it is not over-rated, just over-priced.

The synopsis of the study basically showed that GH alone produced little actual muscle gained. Not that it didn't improve overall BF/muscle ratio; it does due to its fat loss benefits. It's claim is that's it's a poor muscle builder. It does allude to a possible synergistic effect when use with test, but doesn't go into detail.

Yes, it's way overpriced.

For a real world opinions search or email IronMaster/M.O.D. I believe these two have used GH extensively.

 

[Nelson Montana]

Like I said...talk to me like a gentleman, and I'll do my best to respond.

To jbolman: Never once did I say "I said so" though you use that as an attack toward me. Correct yourself and we can continue.

To BBkingpin: What makes anyone an authority? Is it a degree in biochemestry or academic credentials in pharmacology? If so, then Dan Duchaine was not an autority since he didn't have either. The Wright Brothers didn't attend aviation school but they were the ones who invented a machine that flew while no one else could. Should their accomplishments have been ignored becuase they didn't have "credentials?"

I have 30 years experience in this sport and have had over 300 published articles. (Yeah, I know: ANYBODY can do that. Give it a shot sometime) I've walked the walk by proving my methods on myself and hundreds of others. I've pissed off a lot of people in the industry for exposing their bullshit yet have received acclaim from some of the most presdigeous icons in bodybuilding. Bottom line: I think I offer something of value. That's my credentials. Take it or leave it.

Concerning 3 week cycles. I'm getting a little burned out here so I'll make this brief. (I've addressed this topic elsewhere on the board)

Even a long acting compound like sus loses considerable effectiveness after a few weeks. So if several shots are taken up front (not necessarily front loaded but over a period of a few days) it's conceivable to use it for a "3 week plan." The benefits of 3 week cycles is a lengthy disscusion in itself, so I respectfully request everyone cut me some slack and allow me to address this at another time -- or do a search-- or ask RealGains, since he's adopted the practice (even though we disagree on a few points). This has been tiring and I have some other commitments to attend to.

Thank you. Glad we got to do this.

 

[marx]

Nelson, i was wondering if you could touch on why you beleive creatine is useless? You guys have a good debate going on here, and i just wanted to get your take on this point...thanks...

 

[jboldman]

Ok, it seems like you are not willing to let things go. i just asked a legitimate question and you respond by referring back to the other thread. I am sorry if I misquoted you since you never said "i said so", what i was referring to was making statements backed up by nothing other than your opinion, hence the allusion to "i said so". I would rather move forward in the spirit of thaibox's request and not rehash old news here, would you? I am willing to give a more formal apology if you require it otherwise perhaps we can move on like mature adults. And I suppose you could call me jb if I call you nelson.

jb

j-b-o-l-d-m-a-n

 

[bbkingpin]

No offense, but the Wright Brothers could not have gone to aviation school because there wasn't any aviation before their first flight. If you are an authority than let's settle this debate about progesterone gyno from fina or deca and whether it is possible to get gyno while taking tamoxifen w/ Fina or Deca(assuming tamoxifen works for you when using test, d-bol, etc.) If tamoxifen is not going to be effective with fina/deca, then what will work and WHY??? And is Bromo going to prevent gyno while taking Fina and, if so, then HOW? Thanks.

 

[Nelson Montana]

JB baby, I love ya old-timer.

marx: Never said creatine was useless, just that it doesn't grow muscle. It retains water, thus providing a temporary increase in strength.

BB: That "If you're an authority" sounds a lttle provocative, but I'll try to address your questions anyway.

Of course it's possible to get gyno while taking tam with Deca or Fina.

Since tam prevents estrogen at the breast and Deca produces puffy nips from prog, not estrogen, it's two separate issues.

What will work? Proviron and Winstrol will supress some of the prog. But there are better choices than Deca so it's a moot point.

Can't comment on Bromo-- haven't used it and probaby never will. The safety is still a big question mark. As I said, I'm into building my body, not using it as a playground for science experiments. All I know about Bromo is what I've read which is probably no more than a lot of guys here. In the meantime. all I can give is advice, and my advice would be forget about Bromo and Deca.

 

[bbkingpin]

I'm not trying to provoke you. deca and tamoxifen caused me no trouble. I like Deca. I have 50ml of homemade Fina which I will use next with Tamoxifen. I guess we'll see.

 

[Thaibox]

Sorry, had to go do legs.

Nelson, with regard to your comment to jboldman....we're disregarding that old thread and starting new. Please keep it clean.


1----------------------------
"Never said creatine was useless, just that it doesn't grow muscle. It retains water, thus providing a temporary increase in strength."

Even if the only thing creatine did was to give a temporary strength increase induced soley by increased water retention, that would still be something useful. However, creatine also facilitates the regeneration of phosphocreatine(PCr), the depletion of which prevents adenosine triphosphate from being remanufactured at the rate demanded by an activity. Since PCr increases adenosine triphosphate, it releases a phosphate molecule and becomes adenosine diphosphate(energy). The amount of ATP in your body is influenced by the amount of creatine, hence the usefullness of creatine supplementation. More creatine = more fuel. This is clearly a huge advantage to the bodybuilder.

2------------------------------------

"Concerning 3 week cycles. I'm getting a little burned out here so I'll make this brief. (I've addressed this topic elsewhere on the board) "

Please refer me to where this information is, or paste it here. It still makes no sense to me. How much Sustenon are we talking here? Does "Several shots" mean 750mg, 1g, what? Since there are multiple esters in Sustenon (including a long acting ester), I don't see how this is beneficial to stop administration at the time when it has begun to work. I don't understand how you can say that it "loses considerable effectiveness after a few weeks" when a few weeks is when it begins. You even classified it as a "long acting compound." This statement makes it very questionable. I could see if you said acetate or propianate maybe, but not sustenon. I don't think this is too "lengthy"of a discussion. Please provide some sort of support for it, as I believe it still makes no sense, nor does the primo/D-bol cycle(albeit a little more sense, but still not enough). You said Primobolan as an injectable(not an oral) which makes it an enanthate ester correct? Giving it..what, 10-14 days? How could that possibly be productive in a 3 week cycle? You may as well use a test with laurate.

 

[Thaibox]

bump for a response

 

[bebaumax]

Thaibox, it appears as though Nelson is tired of trying to address the 3-week cycle question. I don't blame him, really. Regardless of whether we think it makes sense or not (I don't), he's given a basic explanation of why he thinks what he thinks. If we want more, we should search as he recommends or purchase his book which probably goes into detail. As long as he drops it and doesn't continue to push and push about 3-week cycles (which it sounds to me at this point he's willing to let it go altogether from here on out), why can't we? It's like one of those agree to disagree points that should just be left alone, ya know?

I understand your curiosity and wanting a better explanation, but I'm thinking at this point it might just be best to let it go.

Nelson? Would you agree?
-B

 

[Thaibox]

I hear what your saying bro. But he has only touched lightly on all subjects and failed to truely answer a couple. Sure he finally gave quick answers to my primary questions which I appreciate, but I have presented him with small refutations for most and he has yet to address them. He certainly hasn't supported his 3-week cycles. A link to where his prior information is would be fine. I don't think that's asking too much.

He is the one that wanted a decent discussion, and a discussion is a dialogue, not a monologue. This is what this board is all about. I certainly hope we aren't going to play games again.

 

[DrJMW]

Question #1........
In response to your statement regarding ab work, Freakmonster asked the following:

"I'm curious then, what is the most effective way to work your abs?"

I actually agree with you on this one Nelson. In my opinion abdominals are stimulated far better by weighted excercise than by traditional sit-ups(hitting the hip flexors) and leg lifts. But I'd still like to hear your answer.

I AGREE WITH WEIGHTED EXERCISE AS WELL. INTERESTINGLY, I KNOW A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO NEVER WORK ABS BUT HAVE GREAT DEVELOPMENT. SQUATS, LEG PRESSES, ETC WILL CONTRIBUTE TO AB DEVELOPMENT.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question #2

"Insulin, DNP, Synthol,and Nubain have no place in real bodybulding."

Why is this? Since many members on this board use these substances, I'm sure everyone would be interested in hearing your rational, including myself.

THE PROS NEED INSULIN, FOR THEIR PANCREAS' CANNOT PRODUCE ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THEIR PHYSIQUE. YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING, FOR IMPROPER USE CAN BE FATAL. I HAVE NO EXPERIENCE WITH SYNTHOL, SO NO COMMENT THERE. PAIN MEDS--OBVIOUSLY ABUSE IS NO GOOD. I HAVE WORKED WITH LOTS OF PEOPLE WITH JOINT/MUSCULAR PROBLEMS AND CHRONIC PAIN. I HAVE THEM TAKE VIOXX OR CELEBREX BEFORE THEIR WORKOUTS AND FOLLOW UP WITH A DOSE AFTER. THESE FOLKS DO VERY WELL WITHOUT THE NEED FOR NARCOTIC MEDICATION. ALSO, THE USE OF DECA AND HGH HELPS WITH JOINT PROBLEMS AS WELL. NARCOTIC MEDS CAN BE JSUT AS DANGEROUS AS INSULIN IF USED IMPROPERLY PLUS THEY CAN BE ADDICTING IF USED CHRONICALLY.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question #3

"Nutrient timing will have no effect on how you look in the long run."

Why is nutrient timing so ineffective in the long run? This goes against a widely understood principle of nutrient uptake. I would like to hear why you believe this is.

I BELIEVE THAT THE MEAL AFTER THE WORKOUT IS THE MOST CRITICAL. I BELIEVE MEAL COMPOSTION IS IMPORTANT BASED ON THE TIME IT IS EATEN. SO, I DO AND DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CONCEPT OF NUTRIENT TIMING.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question #5

"The effect of the glycemic index of a food is way overstated."

I would like to know why this is? If this is true, wouldn't eating candy or drinking a slurpy after training be just as beneficial as dextrose or maltodextrin?

PERHAPS. DAN DUCHAINE WAS PRETTY SPECIFIC IN HIS BOOK "BODYOPUS" WHEN REFERRING TO TIMING AND COMPOSITION. SAME WITH LYLE MACDONALD. I BELIEVE THERE IS SOME VALIDITY HERE, BUT IN THE LONG RUN, IT MAY NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE GLYCEMIC INDEX PER SE.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question #6

"GH is the most over-rated drug in the sport."

Why do you believe it is over-rated? Since you also believe that insulin has no place in bodybuilding, does this mean that the massive amounts of growth we see in todays pros is not at all attributed to insulin and GH?

I BELIEVE THAT HGH IS GREAT FOR FAT LOSS AND JOINT LUBRICATION AND HEALING. AS MANY HAVE SAID, IT ISN'T A GREAT ANABOLIC, BUT IT DOES IMPROVE THE MUSCLE:FAT RATIO. MY COMMENTS ON INSULIN ARE ABOVE. INSULIN IS NOT REQUIRED WITH HGH IF YOUA RE USING IT TO LOSE FAT.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question #7

You said glutamine and creatine are worthless. Why is that? Many people belive the opposite and have supported this with a significant amount of support. I spend a considerable amount of money each month on supplements, and if I was wasting it on glutamine and creatine, I'd like to know so I can save some money. Your thoery intrigues me.

I BELIEVE THAT THE SUPPLEMENTATION OF GLUTAMINE AND CREATINE IS WORTHLESS. IF YOU EAT PROPERLY, YOU WILL GET SUFFICIENT AMOUNTS OF BOTH. RED MEAT CONTAINS TONS OF GLUTAMINE AND CREATINE. SOME OF THE WHEY-BASED PROTEIN DRINKS CONTAIN LOTS OF GLUTAMINE. REMEMBER, THE MEAL AFTER THE WORKOUT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT.

Pardon the caps, but it is easier to read. I like a great deal of Nelson's knowledge and thought. There are some "rights" and "wrongs" but there is much to debate. You can throw out experience and you can't throw out medical science either. There is no one right way, but there are lots of wrong ways. The idea is to work on and improve the "right" ways and avoid the "wrong" ways. My $0.02

BTW--Dostinex is the drug of choice for lowering Prolactin levels from DECA or FINA/TREN use. Bromo is not as effective and definitely not as safe as Dostinex.

 

[liftsiron]

Good post Dr. JMW also good post Thaibox and jb, I also agree with many of Nelson's Montana's views but not all of them, I to would like to see more of a percise response to many questions asked, other than a vague response or no response at all.

 

[gtaman]

Maybe you should hire Nelson for a personal consultation. I think he's acquitted himself well on the boards... but you may find one day that hanging around these boards is not the most productive use of time.

Until you've paid some kind of tuition fee or at least BOUGHT THE BOOK, I can't see why Nelson should be expected to answer question after question. Give the man a break.

 

[CLOBRO]

Maybe you should hire Nelson for a personal consultation. I think he's acquitted himself well on the boards... but you may find one day that hanging around these boards is not the most productive use of time.

Until you've paid some kind of tuition fee or at least BOUGHT THE BOOK, I can't see why Nelson should be expected to answer question after question. Give the man a break.

Well said. I like Nelson's ideas and feedback on the industry. It's especially interesting to me because I read his articles back at when I regularily read T-mag. Now I think Biotest is a bunch of scammers. I'm going to pick up the book as a Xmas present to myself.

 

[Nelson Montana]

Thank you gtaman.

DRJMW: Now that's a good post. You address the issues, put in some opinions, hand it off to the next person.

I'm starting to feel a little trepidacious about Thaibox again. He isn't getting abusive but it's leaning toward that "you haven't anwered my questions to my satisfaction" stage. But I'll keep it going. However, I'll keep it brief. If what I say stirs some conversation, great. But once again, I can't be expected to give full details about everything. That's for people who get the book.

Regarding creatine: Thai is 100% right about the information but a little off on the conclusion. More creatine will not create more ATP. The muscles can only accept so much.

Injectable steroids DO NOT take weeks to become effective. They are effective immediately. It just takes a while for the results to become visible.

 

[biteme]

Nelson do you mind answering this. I'm sure you do know a lot or you couldn't have written a book. Whether you got your information from studying, or however you got it dosn't matter as long as you are being factual and unbiased. There seems to be a lot of grey area in this sport and with the drugs. I don't know what you've said about the short cycles, but I've been researching on my own and a lot of others believe in long term moderate cyles as a base, such as testosterone. They say that if you stay on continually at 5oo mgs. that you will always be in an anabolic state and continue to make gains. This is the way the pros do it. If you keep blood levels monitored it shouldn't be a problem. I have been on over 4 months now and I'm finding this to be true. I keep making small gains. Can you give me your opinion on this practice? My health is paramount and I don't feel that i'm risking much on test alone as long as i keep blood monitored. Thanks

 

[Nelson Montana]

biteme: First of all, "what the pros do" is meaningless if you're at all concerned with health.

It sounds like you're essentially on a high dose replacement therepy. I have no doubt you're making steady gains. But chances are your HPTA has been shut down hard. It depends on your age. Don't expect miracles from HCG.

Look, ANYTHING will work when it comes to roids. Someone with absolutely no knowledge of drugs and even limited knowledge of training and nutrition can pop 10 d-bol and day and grow muscle. So when people say "it worked for me" it has nothing to do with the validy of a plan that is safer, smarter, more prodctive and longer lasting.

Dan teased me a bit about the short cycle program since it obvioulsy isn't geared for guys who want to be big at all cost. But he also validated its effectiveness for the more "health concious" bodybuilder. Incidentally, even though Dan was an audacious pioneer in this field, toward the end of his life, he became more conservative in his opinions on AAS use and remember, even in his most renegade days he recommended moderate dosages by todays standards. He was also willing to take big chances "in the name of science" that he admitted weren't the coolest things to do, but that was Dan.

 

[Zyglamail]

Question #1........
In response to your statement regarding ab work, Freakmonster asked the following:

"I'm curious then, what is the most effective way to work your abs?"

My position on this is that abs are just like any other muscle and high rep long workout due little for strength or size. I feel abs should be worked with strength as the primary focus which involves low rep, high intensity work. There are LOTS of exercises that can be done.

Question #2

"Insulin, DNP, Synthol,and Nubain have no place in real bodybulding."

Weather or not slin is needed is something im not prepared to comment on however I do agree that sinthol and pain meds are have no place. I have not researched synthol much but I am certian the gains are purely visual. As for pain meds, it has been clinically proven that they severely hamper the immune system and dealing with pain is not fixing a problem, its a bandaid for the symptom. I am the tye of person who seeks healing, not masking of problems.

Question #3

"Nutrient timing will have no effect on how you look in the long run."

Diet is definatly my weakest point, but then again I dont have any aspiration of competing so its not crucial for me either. Im think the above quote may have been taken slightly out of context but I do feel that in regards to training that a post workout meal is crucial for added size. Here is just one study to support my feelings.

Timing of postexercise protein intake is important for muscle hypertrophy with resistance training in elderly humans.

Esmarck B, Andersen JL, Olsen S, Richter EA, Mizuno M, Kjaer M.

Sports Medicine Research Unit, Bispebjerg Hospital, Denmark. [email protected]

1. Age-associated loss of skeletal muscle mass and strength can partly be counteracted by resistance training, causing a net synthesis of muscular proteins. Protein synthesis is influenced synergistically by postexercise amino acid supplementation, but the importance of the timing of protein intake remains unresolved. 2. The study investigated the importance of immediate (P0) or delayed (P2) intake of an oral protein supplement upon muscle hypertrophy and strength over a period of resistance training in elderly males. 3. Thirteen men (age, 74 +/- 1 years; body mass index (BMI), 25 +/- 1 kg m(-2) (means +/- S.E.M.)) completed a 12 week resistance training programme (3 times per week) receiving oral protein in liquid form (10 g protein, 7 g carbohydrate, 3 g fat) immediately after (P0) or 2 h after (P2) each training session. Muscle hypertrophy was evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and from muscle biopsies and muscle strength was determined using dynamic and isokinetic strength measurements. Body composition was determined from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) and food records were obtained over 4 days. The plasma insulin response to protein supplementation was also determined. 4. In response to training, the cross-sectional area of m. quadriceps femoris (54.6 +/- 0.5 to 58.3 +/- 0.5 cm(2)) and mean fibre area (4047 +/- 320 to 5019 +/- 615 microm(2)) increased in the P0 group, whereas no significant increase was observed in P2. For P0 both dynamic and isokinetic strength increased, by 46 and 15 %, respectively (P < 0.05), whereas P2 only improved in dynamic strength, by 36 % (P < 0.05). No differences in glucose or insulin response were observed between protein intake at 0 and 2 h postexercise. 5. We conclude that early intake of an oral protein supplement after resistance training is important for the development of hypertrophy in skeletal muscle of elderly men in response to resistance training.

Question #5

"The effect of the glycemic index of a food is way overstated."

The term overstated is ones perception. Whats is overstated to me may not be to someone else. I also feel the glycemic index importance also varies in importance from person to person. Some people can eat quite a few carbs and have little reaction to their effects while others are much more susceptable. So is it overstated? Maybe by Nelsons perception but not by someone elses, its a little tough to argue something that is purely personal perception so this topic is useless to argue.

Question #6

"GH is the most over-rated drug in the sport."

I dunno if its the most overrated but I do get a lot of questions on it. even at my age im finding its fat burning properties to leave little to be desired and its anabolic properties are almost nonexistant when used alone. However, it is great for healing, skin tone, quality of sleep etc. Thats why when someone asks me if they should do it I tell them if they can drop the $$$ for 3 months worth without batting an eye then go for it. To me its use is more a matter of having disposable income than anything.

Question #7

You said glutamine and creatine are worthless.

I find that pretty much everything I have used aside for a decent multivitamin/mineral supp are simply wasted money. Anit oxidents have their place but from a strictly muscle building standpoint I havent found anything to be of any noticable benefit, aside from protien of course.

 

[biteme]

biteme: First of all, "what the pros do" is meaningless if you're at all concerned with health.

It sounds like you're essentially on a high dose replacement therepy. I have no doubt you're making steady gains. But chances are your HPTA has been shut down hard. It depends on your age. Don't expect miracles from HCG.

Look, ANYTHING will work when it comes to roids. Someone with absolutely no knowledge of drugs and even limited knowledge of training and nutrition can pop 10 d-bol and day and grow muscle. So when people say "it worked for me" it has nothing to do with the validy of a plan that is safer, smarter, more prodctive and longer lasting.

Dan teased me a bit about the short cycle program since it obvioulsy isn't geared for guys who want to be big at all cost. But he also validated its effectiveness for the more "health concious" bodybuilder. Incidentally, even though Dan was an audacious pioneer in this field, toward the end of his life, he became more conservative in his opinions on AAS use and remember, even in his most renegade days he recommended moderate dosages by todays standards. He was also willing to take big chances "in the name of science" that he admitted weren't the coolest things to do, but that was Dan.

Thanks for your response. I'm not really worried about being shut down since I don't plan on ever stopping. I'm 38. My main concern is my health and I believe you share the opionion that the dosage I use is moderate and not highly risky. I have read that it's extremely rare to be shut down permanently from AAS usage, that it just takes a long while to come back sometimes.

 

[bebaumax]

Injectable steroids DO NOT take weeks to become effective. They are effective immediately. It just takes a while for the results to become visible.

My God hearing just ONE other person say this is worth it's weight in gold to me. Thank you.
-B

 

[FreakMonster]

BUMP

 

[THeMaCHinE]

Here's Nelson's original article on 3-week cycles, entitled "Steroids for Health" -- it was published in '98. The article goes into his rationale for short cycles (which basically, the title says it all).

During that time, I was new to steroids and was concerned about my health. I couldn't find the exact article from t-mag that I first based my 2-week cycle from (Nelson, do you remember who wrote the 2-week piece? Was it you or Strasser?)

Anyways, maybe 4 years ago or so, I did a 2-week cycle of primo @ 400 mg/wk + 35 mg/day of dbol; clomid was eod. Clomid was ed for the week post cycle (which in retrospect should have been started in week 4). The quick action of dbol put on some immediate size, the longer action of the primo contributed over a longer period of time and was self tapering by 2 weeks post cycle.

I can say unequivocally that this cycle did work -- I peaked at 9 lb and reatained 8 three weeks post-cycle. I still prefer longer cycles, but I can see how short cycles ran continuously would work well.

Actually, come spring I may do a couple short cutting cycles in the following pattern: 3-weeks on, 1 week off, 2 weeks on, off...

Anyways, here's the article:

http://www.testosterone.net/html/18stero.html

 

[nikolai_bolkov]

Thaibox...with all due respect...I think you need to relax a bit...getting way too bogged down in detail.

This thread will go on forever like this because there is no end-all be-all study that will prove any of these points either way.

My interpretation is this...and I have read Nelson Montana's book: his advice are excellent for the beginner and intermediate bodybuilder. If you're already 260 lbs at 8% BF, you probably would need all you can get your hands on to advance even further.

It's all about common sense and what works for the individual, and I think Nelson offers some good alternative advice for anyone to step back and go back to the basics.

 

[mvmaxx]

Excellent debate. This is what the board is all about. Props to Thaibox and Nelson for handling this in a professional matter.

 

[OKIE]

Glad to see you boys are getting along...and for BBkingpin, I don't think Nelson ever deemed himself an authority. He is just offering his opinion on the matter and many people have taken interest due to his theories and the fact that he has written articles and books on the subject of bodybuilding. I wasn't aware that someone had to be an authority to post their opinions on an Internet chat board. Although I do agree with you about his analogy of the Wright Brothers...I hadn't even thought of it until you mentioned it.

 

[Radical Ice]

First of all, to quote mvmaxx, "excellent debate. This is what the board is all about. Props to Thaibox and Nelson for handling this in a professional matter".

Also, to Okie... Two wrongs don't make a right, but two Wrights made an airplane. (Just kidding... thought you'ld like that.)

To Nelson Montana... Thank you, thank you, thank you. I read your book the day I downloaded it and was exceptionally pleased with it. It really does go against the grain of what we are taught and lead to believe by the mags and supplement companies, but your views and insight are very, very sensible and difficult to refute.

Regarding fat loss, I was a fat child and fat teen, so I dove right into the whole cardio idea many years ago, but found it to be less and less effective as I lose and regain the weight, regardless of how well I try to maintain. I always questioned my marathon cardio sessions and continued lack of progress, or near non-existent returns. Now I understand why the results have diminished. You explained that well.

I found myself saying "Aaaaah, so that's why..." over and over again while reading your book.

Hats off to you for exposing and revealing to fair detail how the supplement companies work. I had the opportunity to work with Keith Klein many years ago and I remember his frustrations and grievances with some of the well-known manufactures at that time and way before that. By the way, he also suggests multiple meals spaced throughout the day, and 5-6 days of low intensity cardio (at least in my case). And yes, that worked, but I've put on about 25 pounds of fat since than and am in the beginning stages of getting rid of it.

I will begin the "cardio" program that you suggest as I have only recently begun a "cutting cycle". I admit, reducing the cardio is a welcome idea, but a tough pill to swallow, but I have done so in confidence as I have done a few searches and found some wonderful studies to back your theories. However, your writing does get me questioning some of the pro's practices and advice regarding cardio. I remember Lee Priest saying that he did an hour on the stationary bike, 3 times a day, in the final weeks of contest prep. And 1-2 hours a day for Lee Labrada... and I wonder if that was because they found that the extreme cardio durations was the ONLY way they could get ripped, or if this is only because they may not have pursued any other methods.

Still, your reasoning and viewpoint is quite strong and I will give it a month as you suggest with the diet, and see how things go.

I look forward to putting your ideas into place and will keep you informed concerning results.

 

[Rogue Warrior]

I would liked to have read your book Montana, but Elite never delivered. I ordered three months ago and it never showed. Sure, I got charged on my credit card statement.

I never thought I would get scammed by Elitefitness. I thought these guys were here to help us?

Anyway, if someone gets done with their book, send it to me and I'll buy it from you. I'm not ordering anything else ever again off the site. I only bend over and grab my ankles once, but never again. THANKS GUYS

 

[mvmaxx]

I would liked to have read your book Montana, but Elite never delivered. I ordered three months ago and it never showed. Sure, I got charged on my credit card statement.

I never thought I would get scammed by Elitefitness. I thought these guys were here to help us?

Anyway, if someone gets done with their book, send it to me and I'll buy it from you. I'm not ordering anything else ever again off the site. I only bend over and grab my ankles once, but never again. THANKS GUYS

You should really bring that up to Chris or George. I think there's a # to Elite somewhere.

Anyway, I'd also call my credit card company and tell them you never received. They will handle it for you in a much more forceful manner.

 

[Rogue Warrior]

If you are referring to the 212 area code # all that is machines taking messages never to return calls- all time run around.

As with any order, I sometimes get my card statement befor the delivery. Well, like a good boy, I promptly paid for the statement weeks ago. Don't think mastercard can do much for me now. Like I said, i never thought I would get screwed with no vasaline used.

The irony is we come here to alert each other of all different kinds of scams going on. This is really twisted.

 

[siceone]

I'm not trying to provoke you. deca and tamoxifen caused me no trouble. I like Deca. I have 50ml of homemade Fina which I will use next with Tamoxifen. I guess we'll see.

You can't use Nolva for progesterone induced gyno because it doesn't work on the progesterone receptor nolvadex is a synthetic estrogen which is weaker than Estradiol ( natural estrogen) so it binds to the Estrogen receptor but doesn't cause the fat gain because it's weak.. Bromo is a prolactin inhibitor prolacitin is intergral to e the production of progesterone, take away the prolactin you take away the conversion to progesterone.. you also shouldn't take nolva ed During cycle it lowers IGF-1 by 40%..

 

[Radical Ice]

Nelson's book is available for immediate download as well... maybe Elite's office can confirm/verify the charge and get the book to you online asap.

 

[CLOBRO]

Nelson's book is available for immediate download as well... maybe Elite's office can confirm/verify the charge and get the book to you online asap.

Or you can order directly from his site which is what I did a couple of days ago (hope the book is here soon).
www.nelsonmontana.com

 

[Nelson Montana]

Didn't like the Wright Brothers analogy, eh?
Okay, how about the fact that Van Gogh didn't attend art achool? Or that Lennon and McCartney never formally studied composition? The point is, in the end...all that matters is results.

Rogue: Are you aware that the book is downloadable and you should have had instant access to it? If you didn't get it, that is unacceptable. Check again. If you have any problems, let me know.

Radical: Glad to hear you had good results for the short cycle. Everyone does, if they follow it correctly.

The original Steroids For Health worked well but obviously has some flaws to it. In my new book I have a chapter entitled STEROIDS FOR HEALTH 2002 which is an updating of the principles along with corrections and some better methods of achieving the desired results.

Machine: Bill (The Shill) Roberts took the Steroids For Health concept and shortened it a week -- which doesn't really work well. Roberts gained a reputation for being knowledgable in pharmacology but his head was up his butt in terms of application. Many of his "scientific findings" have since been proven to be incorrect. These days he spends his time promoting the bogus MAG 10.

 

[CLOBRO]

Is the online version only available if you buy the book through elite?

 

[Nelson Montana]

A few other places are carrying it but I don't think its right to direct anyone who heard of it through Elite somewhere else.

There really shouldn't be any problems ordering it though elite. I think it was just a misunderstanding in that the promo wasn't totally clear. Again, if anyone can't access it immediately, please let me know.

 

[Rogue Warrior]

NM, you got mail! I'm ready to attempt a download. Talk me through the steps.

 

[jboldman]

if you make a purchase with your credit card and never receive the product simply contact your credit card company and they will refund your money. No problem. It may take a while to process but you WILL get your money back. If a vendor repeatedly has problems, the cc companies will pull their merchant status.

jb

 

[Rogue Warrior]

Thanks. I'll look into that.