Interview with Author L Rea, Part 2
by CORE Performance
For the better part of the past two decades, only a
fortunate few had access to Author L Rea, arguably one of the top
experts in the field on anabolic pharmacology. With the
publication of Chemical Muscle Enhancement and Building the
Perfect Beast, Author L Rea has decided to share his vast
experience at creating bodybuilding beasts with the bodybuilding
public. His books provide a fascinating insight into the protocols
that have successfully been used to transform the professional and
top amateur bodybuilders that Author has worked with over the
years. The publication of his books has reinvigorated the
discussion of the practical aspects of bodybuilding chemistry and
has had ripple effects throughout the bodybuilding and the
supplement industries.
I had the opportunity to talk to Author about his
experiences with competitive bodybuilding, its participants, the
supplement industry, and of course, what exactly goes on during
those several months out of the year when he vacations in Mexico
and consults with his athletes!
Part 2 concludes my interview with Author L Rea
Since we published the first installment of our interview in
CORE (February 2005), there has been extensive publicity surrounding
Ergomax LMG on many popular bodybuilding message boards. But I've
just learned that ALRI has voluntarily recalled this promising
product? Why?
ALR: Yes, Ergomax LMG was awesome and we are still receiving
orders from our retailers for crazy numbers. We potentially had a
multimillion dollar hit. But we discontinued it and shipped the
remaining inventory to our South American distributor. We also
tried to recall what was left on shelves but it seems no one was
willing to give it back.
Simple matter of ethics. I do not want to make a living at the
expense of the rest of the industry that I love being part of.
I am not sure that I understand.
ALR: Several years ago we were researching the ideas of
alternative anabolic substances. We were looking for something safer and
more effective than anabolic steroids or even prohormones. There
was some pretty convincing research suggesting that specific
pheromones had the properties we were looking for. Later, when I
was designing the products for a company called HM Gear we worked
to patent one of the compounds, and later, after I opted to work
under my own label only (Applied Lifescience Research Industries,
Inc. or ALRI), I filed two subsequent patents on
other unique pheromone matrixes. The oral bioavailability of the
first one sucked (and was to closely related to one now banned
substance), though there does exist a great deal of potential
there still. Perhaps in another era though.
Pheromones are naturally occurring and a few are very similar
to some androgens. They exist in nature and in the food chain so are
therefore quite legal. But as most will recall, so were most of
the prohormones now classified as controlled substances. The BALCO
labs incident is the main reason for that happening.
After we released Ergomax LMG, there was quite a stir in the
supplement industry. The idea of using a unique pheromone matrix
for extreme recovery was unheard of. But here it was, people were
raving about the results, and we were very proud of the safety
profile. Of course everyone speculated what it was, and naturally
a few swore they had it first - yet still could not identify the
correct isomers and structure. This is evident in that the same
few in the industry began speculating that it was actually the
newly-discovered, so-called designer steroid DMT (desoxymethyltestosterone).
First, it should be noted that DMT itself is not technically
illegal yet, but neither was THG (tetrahydrogestinone) and look
where that lead: BALCO Labs, an andro ban and an industry trying
to recover.
The FDA can decide that even DMT is a drug, which they likely
will eventually, and link it to any related substance. The
Pherobolix matrix could erroneously fall into this category if so.
Then again, cholesterol would be related as well if the issue were
to be pushed by the media. The government tends to group large
numbers of compounds into one class, though they are sometimes
technically incorrect. Personally, I would not want to argue with
them.
William Llewellyn is one of the few who actually got the basic
compound correct and had some very insightful thoughts upon the
potential isomers. Then again, that does not surprise me. The lad
is sharp! Please do not get me wrong, so are several others in
the industry, but they were wrong nonetheless. We all are
sometime.
Designer steroids are a very controversial media circus right
now. Due to the BALCO Labs/THG fiasco and eventual andro ban,
supplement manufacturers, athletes and crack dealers are all
viewed in the same shady light by mainstream America and most of
the world. This suggestion that Ergomax LMG was in anyway a
performance-enhancing substance even casually related to any media
hyped designer steroid could only lead to major interest from WADA
(World-Anti-Doping Agency). This would eventually result in
greater controls from the FDA set upon the supplement industry. So I pulled the
product. Making a large amount of income only to screw the
rest of the industry is not only short-sighted and selfish, it is
also unacceptable.
Okay, no more pheromones or replacements for the now controlled
items, so what's next?
ALR: Oh, I did not say that there were not other possibilities
being explored. We have a prime focus on HPTA
Supraphysiological overcompensation: The Holy Grail of optimized
natural human performance enhancement.
Picture the ability to allow the body to safely and naturally
produce testosterone at a level equivalent to injecting 400-600mg
of testosterone cypionate weekly. Not some stupid spurt or
increase of 400% that lasts for a few seconds. I mean all day long
for up to 8 weeks at a time. and there is no HPTA regeneration or
any other hormone use type side effects post protocol. I know,
hard to believe and I am sure someone said it before. But they
doubted Ergomax LMG and the power of a pheromone matrix a few
weeks ago too.
We need to approach human performance from a totally new stand
point of natural optimization at a scary level if we want to allow
athletes to perform at their best without fear of being banned. It
can be done and I think the industry is ready to do so. We are.
That is a very bold claim for a new supplement! I'm assuming
it will not only be legal but over the counter?
ALR: Of course, and not so hard to believe once you see it done
enough times. I had to laugh at just how jaded some of our test
subjects have become. One of our test lads total testosterone
pre-test came back at 522ng/dl. The first supplemented (Ultra HOT)
test return was at the 14 day mark and the return was 1255ng/dl.
Normal reference range for total testosterone is 250-850ng/dl,
depending on the lab. Anyway, the lad looks at me and said, "huh,
I thought it would be more". His results were that of an
individual who was administering 400-500mg of testosterone
cypionate weekly. Of course we have seen several results much
higher, but the lad missed the significance of having that much
legal natural testosterone in his body even though he was gaining
muscle and losing fat.
If it works as well as you say it will, then won't it just
be a matter of time (a very short time given recent trends) before
the ingredients are either disallowed by the FDA and/or added to
the doping lists?
ALR: Not likely in this case. We are discussing items in the
food chain that anyone would be hard set to show a mode of action
that is anything but health promoting naturally. It would be like
banning protein drinks. But of course in this crazy environment
anything can happen.
Will the "HPTA Supraphysiological overcompensation" produce
any banned metabolites or suspicious samples for drug-tested
athletes?
ALR: There are only the natural metabolites your body naturally
makes and those of the compounds. Since these are in the food
chain they too lack the potential. However I should warn that we
have had over 65% of our test subjects exceed 2000ng/dl of total
testosterone which is obviously pretty high by any standard. But
since we are discussing natural made by "The Boys" testosterone,
the testosterone:epitestosterone ratio should remain correct
unlike when a synthetic androgen is administered. There is also
that lack of carbon signatures to be of issue as well, meaning
nothing to suggest ay doping has occurred.
Will this have any adverse effects on one's health?
ALR: LOL, only is more lean tissue, less fat, and more sex is
now a negative health issue. This is not suggesting drug effects
of making drug-like claims, but just simple basic physiology. When
the body makes its own testosterone and other androgens it uses
cholesterol as a raw material. If more testosterone is naturally
made the result is better natural lipid numbers and profiles.
What happens to those who choose to use such a product year
round?
ALR: We have run tests up to 12 weeks. These have shown only positive
results and continued progress. However, I believe that athletes
should discontinue at 8 weeks to allow for alternate methods of
progressive supplementation to be better utilized. Consider this:
If you trained with the same work-outs, same weights, same diet,
same everything year round you would not only see an end to
progress you would see a loss of gains once had. Reason being that
the body achieves progress through adaptation. If the same
stimulus is used beyond the point of total adaptation, the body
goes backwards seeking a lower level of homeostasis.
Why do you spend several months out of the year in Mexico?
What exactly can you do that you are unable to do here in the free
United States of America?
ALR: In Mexico and Thailand, AAS and many other drugs can be
legally obtained and utilized while in other countries these same
drugs are seen as
something evil. Kind of like HMO's in reverse. It is not just an
issue of laws. it is a matter of ethics for me. If I am knowingly
doing something illegal then it is a loss of ethics and a betrayal
of sorts. Just because it is illegal somewhere else does not mean
that it is unethical where it is legal.
Think of prostitution. So many see it as evil yet there are
very few humans who are not actively seeking to get laid. Many pay
a fortune for dates and trips with prospective sex-partners hoping
to get laid. If they get it, is that prostitution? It is only
unethical if it is illegal where one is doing so...and from what I
see in the media, if one does so and gets caught. So is it the sex
or money? Or where one does their trade?
Given the current animosity towards androgens by the government
at home, it seems like a very wise move for bodybuilders seeking
performance enhancement to use products legally available within
the United States or travel to countries where the desired
products are legally available and can be used accordingly within
those countries.
What advice do you have for
bodybuilders who either have the luxury of taking 2-3 week
vacations in countries such as Mexico?
ALR: Assuming we are referring to protocols, countries and time
frames that allow for 3 weeks to legally use performance
enhancement drugs, a simple structure with a 28 day high activity
period would be of use. A quick creation of a constant plasma
level using orals and fast-acting ester injectables with a
compounded long-acting ester exit. Something like this:
Day
1. Test Propionate 200mg/Test Cypionate 400mg/Methandrostenolone
20mg 2xd
2. Methandrostenolone 20mg 2xd
3. Test Propionate 100mg/Methandrostenolone 20mg 2xd
4. Methandrostenolone 20mg 2xd
5. Test Propionate 50mg/Test Cypionate 400mg/Methandrostenolone
15mg 2xd
6. Methandrostenolone 15mg 2xd
7. Methandrostenolone 10mg 2xd
8. Methandrostenolone 10mg 2xd
9. Test Cypionate 400mg/Methandrostenolone 5mg 2xd
10.
11.
12.
13.Test Cypionate 400mg
14.
15.
16.
17.Test Cypionate 400mg
18.
19.
20.
21.Test Cypionate 800mg
*Arimidex 1.5mg/d
Of course if they were in the US or Australia I would advise
against totally due to legal issues.
My next question probably has some applicability for both
athletes who use AAS protocols and individuals who are on TRT. In
recent years, we've seen a variety of anti-estrogens appear on the
market. How does one decide the appropiate one(s) to use?
ALR: That is a rather vast question that could easily go into
book length for reply. But there are some general rules that
apply.
As a whole estrogen control often gets out of hand during AAS
use by many. The reason this applies is that estrogen in itself is
very synergistic to, and a co-actant of, androgen mediated protein
synthesis.
From the most basic perspective, consider that muscle repair
and building requires a great deal of ATP. ATP levels are greatly
regulated by available glycogen in cells and the liver. And
estrogen mediates the amount of potential glycogen synthesis and
resynthesis greatly. An increase in protein synthesis requires an
increase in glycogen synthesis. To support ongoing muscle growth
this is mandatory.
Estrogen regulation, huh? Hmmm...
This does not apply if the goal is maximized bodyfat loss such
as during pre-contest AAS protocols.
During mass lean tissue gaining periods, androgens that
aromatize to some degree are mandatory within the structure of any
protocol intended for maximum activity. It is more effective to
allow an increase in total estrogen to act in ratio to the
androgen level for the synergistic value. However, an athlete
would certainly not want this to get out of control to a point of
gynecomastia. This means employing first a moderate dosage of an
aromatase inhibitor to decrease total estrogen production to a
certain point. Unfortunately, this is not likely enough estrogen
control to avoid estrogenic negative side effects such as gyno and
female pattern fat deposits. The addition of a site blocker such
as clomiphene or tamoxifen citrate at moderate dosages will
usually keep this from occurring.
As to aromatase inhibitors, it is best to use those that do not
negatively effect IGF-1 production such as anastrozole unless hGH
is used within the protocol structure. Actually, this is true of
tamoxifen citrate as well.
For non-GH inclusive protocols, exemestane and clomiphene are
actually better combined options.
If you look on bodybuilding forums on the internet, there
are a million and one different PCT protocols. Is there a one size
fits all protocol? How does one design an effective PCT protocol?
ALR: No, there is no one size fits all perfectly if the goal
were to only respond to the specific issues each AAS user realized
from each different protocol. Accounting for all of the
Action/Reaction Factors that the given AAS protocol either caused
or was part of would be required for perfect PCT each time.
Protocols that include a great deal of aromatizing AAS will
require greater post-cycle estrogen control to clean up the
Estrogen Negative Feed Back Loop. estosterones and
methandrostenolone are infamous for this. Nandrolone or trenbolone
long term use even more so.
Those that are very high androgens with low aromatization
overstimulate and desensitize the androgen receptors in the
hypothalamus resulting in a shut down in GnRH - the first level in
natural testosterone production. Halotestin and M-1-Test are good
examples here.
Of course, M-1-Test and Halotestin both tax the neuro-net
pretty severely as well adding to the shut down.
But for a one-size-fits-all approach addressing each of these
issues would suffice for an effective HPTA regeneration protocol
in almost all cases.
For those using AAS protocols for bodybuilding purposes, are
there some antiestrogens that are better used while "on-cycle" and
others that are better used while "off-cycle"?
ALR: Dose dependant formestane is one of the better "off-cycle"
anti-estrogens due to its potentiating effect upon IGF-1 release
and excellent ability to decrease estrogen while stimulating HPTA
activity. Some seem to feel that it readily converts to
testosterone-OH and therefore has HPTA suppressive effects itself.
This is not so.
First, it would do so by way of the 17-beta-hydroxysteroid
dehydrogenase enzyme - the same
one that was supposed to turn all of the gyno causing oral
androstenedione into "amazing amounts of testosterone". And how
did that one work out? Pretty poor as there is a very unlikely
potential and even less available 17-beta-hydroxysteroid
dehydrogenase to do the deed.
My current personal favorite at this time is the martrix in our
new Ultra HOT, but lets skip the interview that turns into an ad
this time.
We know that certain AAS can adversely affect LDL and HDL
cholesterol. How do antiestrogens affect blood lipids? Can they
exacerbate the negative effects by lowering estrogen too much?
ALR: That more depends upon the products and drugs used. A
correctly formulated supplemental product for estrogen control
would take this into account and aid HDL/LDL ratios favorably.
As to drugs I have noted, the long-term use of anastrozole
often leads to very low HDL (the good cholesterol). This can
usually be corrected or off-set by co-commitant use of tamoxifen.
© Copyright 2005 Applied Lifescience Research Industries, Inc. (ALRI) and/or its content providers.
All rights reserved. No duplication or reproduction of CORE is allowed in
any form without explicit written permission from ALRI. The views
expressed are those of the individual author(s) and are not necessarily
shared by the editors of CORE. The service does not provide specific
medical advice, and is not engaged in providing medical or professional
services. This information is not intended to be a substitute for
professional medical advice. You should not use this information to
diagnose or treat a health problem or disease without consulting with a
qualified healthcare provider. The articles contained in CORE are for
informational purposes only and CORE (i.e. the editors and publishers)
accept no responsibility for how the contents are used. Products and
companies referred to herein are trademarks or registered trademarks of their
respective companies or mark holders. These statements have not been
evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, or
prevent any disease.
