everything under the sun
Wow, what a can of worms. See what happens when you go against gym convention? I have a couple things to add to the discussion. Firstly, I don't agree with everything Andy says, or BR or Nelson or even DD. I have spoken at great length with all of them except Nelson but i have read almost all of his posts. While I do not agree with everything they say, I respect them all. I wouldn't expect anyone to agree with every word I say either. DD would refer to his mistakes all the time (especially those in the original USH). Also, just becaue someone like BR does not discuss his personal use (or abstention from the use) of illegal substances doesn't mean shit. Some people have careers outside of this topic and to admit to anything would be career suicide. DD always advised people to deny, deny, deny when it came to talking about personal use. He knew all too well of the hazards of being open about the illicit use of anabolics.
Anyway, I guess I will address some of the topics here and give my opinions for what they're worth.
As to whether or not it is useful to take methandrostenolone, or any steroid for that matter, before working out -- probably not. But, it probably wouldn't hurt and if it gives you a psychological boost, then more power to you. I think the point has been made that d-bol has a very short half-life and should be taken very often anyway to prolong its effect so I see no harm in one of those doses being taken before a workout. Andy's main point, that the effects of androgen receptor agonists (d-bol etc..) are protracted and occur long after receptor binding is a valid one and any short term effects (CNS boost, aggression, etc..) pale in comparison to the long-term effects of stimulation of the AR.
RIO 2001 has a very good point about mineralocorticoid activity of certain steroids which is actually very important, however, in my opinion not important in the short term effect d-bol but rather in its long-term effect on water retention.
I do disagree with Andy's statement that d-bol doesn't convert to DHT. More opinion than scientific fact so no reason to argue the point to strongly.
Panerai: I agree with you that AS are not only about increasing transcription, promoting nitrogen retention etc..., however, when it comes to anabolism (building muscle tissue), you must have improved nitrogen retntion and accompanying increase in the transcription, translation etc... of new proteins.
On cytadren: Nasty shit, reducing cortisol production that severely is a bad idea (nothing new there). Even more important is the suppression of mineralocorticoid production -- very dangerous indeed. Androgens do have antiglucocorticoid effects but it is more from promotor/repressor blocking that with actual GR antagonism (although this does occur to some degree).
Macrophage has a geat point about the estrogenic metabolites of dbol hanging around a lot longer than dbol itself. Half-life is a hard thing to nail down anyway, but 1-3 hours seems reasonable. But there are most-likely active metabolites that extend this somewhat.
Are we talking about pump or boat? Estrogens, progestins, androgens, glucocorticoids and mineralocorticoids all seem to increase bloat to some degree. The mechanisms for water retention are varied. Increased water retention (bloat) will contribute to the feeling of "pump" when working out. If memory serves me, it has been shown in the scientific literature that "pump" and muscle anabolism are not cause and effect.
Nandroloner (and others) it has been shown mutliple times that androgens can increase muscle hypertrophy in the absence of load (working out). The logical conclusion from this is that "tears" in the muscle are not necessary for growth.
Nelson: I see no problems with the facts you listed with the following exceptions: I have to assume that the increased testosterone statement was a mistype by the original author. Surely, androgens increase following dbol dosing, but testosterone likely will start to decline. Also, I wonder what the statement "Bill Roberts is an educated idiot" is meant to accomplish. He is educated but is obviously not an idiot. Again, I do not agree with everything the man says (especially the "class" theory of androgens) but he is very knowledgeable. this statement and others I have seen in the past makes me wonder if you have something against those who are educated? again, I want to repeat that I have a lot of respect for you and this is not meant as a flame.
I guess that leads into the argument of "theoretical" knowledge versus "real world" knowledge. I stated above that just because a prson does not flaunt their use does not mean that they have no "real world" experience. However, One must understand that a study conducted under rigorous conditions with multiple subjects who are blinded to treatment holds more water than one person (we call this an n of 1) saying I "feel". Yeah, some scientific studies suck ass. All I can say is, nobody has all of the answers. At the end of the day, you have to take in al of the info out there and make a determinatin for yourself. If you had te choice of listeing to one of the following, which would you choose: 1) an uneducated person who had never used anabolics 2) an uneducated person who had used anabolics for 10 years 3) an educated person who had never used anabolics 4) an educated person who had used anabolics for 10 years? I know who I would choose but we all have our biases.
Great posts hhajdo -- an often overlooked aspect of steroid pharmacology is the production and distribution of metabolites.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
You Thought you found a loophole eh? Wrong! 
