As you know, there ain’t nothing more anabolic than androgens. But like carbs, protein and fat, not all androgens are created equally. Some are more androgenic (they make you lose hair, or gain hair if you’re a she; and they give you enough zits to make the makers of Stridex proud) while others are more anabolic (promote gains in tissue protein). And another intriguing aspect about using androgens is that it might affect “muscle quality.” 

For now, let’s define muscle quality as the ratio of muscle strength to a given amount of muscle mass. In a study hot off the presses, the relationship between strength and muscle area (i.e., muscle quality) was determined in HIV-positive men (study #1) and older (72 years) healthy men (study #2) taking different androgens (anabolic steroids).

In study #1, nandrolone versus nandrolone plus weight training was studied in HIV-positive men. They strength-trained for 12 weeks, both lower and upper body. The dose of nandrolone was as follows: 200 milligrams the first week, 400 milligrams the second week and then 600 milligrams for weeks three through 12. The investigators stated that they wanted to “acclimate” the subjects to the study therapy (whatever that means).

In the nandrolone study, lean body mass (LBM) increased by 8.6 pounds in the nandrolone group and 11.4 pounds in the nandrolone plus weight training group (a 29 percent difference). Maximal strength (measured as a
1-RM) increased in both groups after 12 weeks with the exception of the leg extension exercise in the nandrolone-only group. More specifically, increases in strength for the upper and lower body ranged from 10 to 31 percent in the nandrolone group to 14 to 53 percent improvement in the nandrolone plus weight-training group. Thus, even though both groups got stronger, the steroid plus weight training group improved much more.
As far as muscle quality (strength per unit muscle size) is concerned, the nandrolone-only group did not improve; however, in the nandrolone plus weight training group, leg press strength relative to total thigh area increased significantly. 

Summary of study #1. It’s clear that combining weight training with nandrolone administration is more effective than nandrolone alone in producing gains in strength, muscle mass and muscle quality. But what’s also intriguing is that you don’t have to work out in order to get gains in muscle or strength. This can occur with taking nandrolone by itself.

In study #2, older men (60-85) took either oxandrolone (oral dose of 20 milligrams per day) or placebo for 12 weeks. No exercise was involved. 

After 12 weeks, the oxandrolone group gained 6.6 pounds while the placebo group did not change. Also, muscle strength (in the leg press and leg curl) increased approximately 6.3 percent in the oxandrolone group with no change in the placebo group. Muscle quality did not improve in the oxandrolone or the placebo group, however.
Summary of study #2. It’s clear that taking oxandrolone by itself is anabolic! And taking a placebo is not. Duh… But to me, the more interesting comparison is oxandrolone and nandrolone (with no exercise). Keep in mind that the nandrolone plus exercise group alone improved in muscle quality.  Well, that’s because they were exercising! They were making strength gains in part due to neural learning (you know, motor unit recruitment, rate coding… blah blah). Instead, the real question is: Which is better— oxandrolone or nandrolone? Of course, part of the problem with the comparison is that one study used HIV-positive young men while the other used old folks. But either way, you don’t need to exercise to make gains in lean body mass or strength.  In fact, gains of six to nine pounds can be realized. So if gaining weight is your goal, nandrolone and oxandrolone are certainly effective in this regard. Why this isn’t a normal part of therapy for HIV patients and age-related loss of lean body mass escapes me. (Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab in press, Mar. 11, 2003).

Testosterone Plus Progesterone— An Anabolic Duo?
This is from the wacky world of science. Is it possible that if you combine testosterone enanthate with the female hormone progesterone (in this case, levonorgestrel— a form of progesterone involved in conception), that you can make even greater gains in lean body mass? Sounds strange indeed. In fact, the notion that you’d want to consume any female hormone is enough to make you hide in the corner and stick a fork in your eye. 
First some background. You all know what testosterone is, but what’s this levonorgesterel (LNG) used for? It’s actually an emergency contraceptive used to prevent pregnancy after contraceptive failure (oops, my hat fell off) or unprotected intercourse (oops, I forget to put on my hat). This drug prevents ovulation, disrupts the fertilization process and prevents the implantation of the egg into the uterus. This is all good if you have no plans on adding bambinos. 

So, in this intriguing study, scientists at the University of Washington took normal healthy men and divided them into four groups: 

1) 100 milligrams testosterone enanthate (TE), im injection once per week plus 125 micrograms of LNG
2) TE plus placebo
3) LNG plus placebo
4) placebo and placebo

So they covered all of their respective bases. What happened? The TE plus LNG group increased total lean body mass at four weeks and eight weeks of treatment (3.5 percent and 4.2 percent, respectively). Also, they increased trunk lean mass after four and eight weeks of treatment (4.7 and 5.0 percent, respectively) compared to baseline and placebo. 

TE alone increased total and trunk lean mass significantly compared to placebo after four weeks (+3.3 percent), but not when compared to baseline. Fat mass decreased significantly in the TE group alone (-4.9 percent) while fat mass increased in the LNG group alone. So, in short, they found that if you take TE plus LNG, you get greater gains in LBM than if you take TE alone! Very interesting. But you won’t lose any fat. However, if you take TE alone, you’ll gain lean body mass (not as much as the TE plus LNG), but you’ll lose more fat. 
So I guess if gaining mass is your goal, TE plus LNG is best. If improving your appearance via lean mass gains and fat loss is your goal, TE alone will do the trick. I wonder how much they paid these guys to willingly consume progesterone. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2003 88:1167-73)

Huh, What’d You Say?
If you’re one of those who can’t remember a damn thing your wife, girlfriend, lover or all three say to you, then maybe low testosterone is your problem! In one study, 407 men were followed for an average of 10 years. They were administered a battery of mental tests and found the following: A higher free testosterone concentration was associated with better scores on “visual and verbal memory, visuospatial functioning, visuomotor scanning, and reduced rate of longitudinal decline in visual memory.” 
So, next time you visit the doctor, tell him you need a shot of test because you can’t remember where you left the remote and the grocery list your wife gave you. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2002; 87:5001-7)

Enough Already! Eating Protein Doesn’t Cause Bone Loss!
Unless you’ve been stuck in cave with Osama eating bat turds and mold, you’ve probably heard the age-old advice that you should refrain from eating “excess” protein because it’ll cause your body to lose calcium and therefore lose bone mass. Well, geez… everyone I know who eats a lot of protein seems to have mighty healthy bones. But of course, a supportive scientific study helps 

In a long-term, longitudinal study, 65 overweight or obese subjects were put on a six-month diet (controlled for fat content): they were divided into a high-protein versus a low-protein group. In the high-protein group, subjects increased intake from 91 grams to 108 grams daily. The low-protein group went from 91 grams to 70 grams daily. Total weight loss after six months was 20 pounds in the high-protein group and 11 pounds in the low-protein group. No changes were seen in a control group. Also, bone mineral content declined four percent and three percent in the high- and low-protein group, respectively.

However, this was not significant for either group. Interestingly, loss of bone mineral content was most correlated with loss of body fat mass rather than loss of body weight. Six-month weight loss, adjusted for differences in fat loss, was greater in the low-protein group than in the high-protein group, according to the scientists. Therefore, independent of change in body weight and fat during the intervention, it’s apparent that high-protein intake was associated with less loss in bone. (Obes Res, 2002; 10:432-8)

Whoa, Nellie, Pass the Carnitine
Four horses were given 10 grams of L-carnitine daily for 10 weeks while three horses served as controls. All horses exercised regularly every second day on a treadmill for five weeks (training period) and were then housed in individual rooms for five more weeks (detraining). Their training was eight high-speed and eight low-speed exercises. Sort of like interval training. From muscle biopsies taken from the gluteus medius muscle, they found that the L-carnitine-supplemented horses had an increased percentage of type IIA muscle fibers (these are fast fibers with lots of endurance). Also, their type I fibers (slow fibers) got smaller, and there was an increase in the capillary-to-muscle fiber ratio. All of these adaptations will help the horse have a greater cardiovascular capacity and therefore run longer!

So, if you’re interested in gaining endurance, a two-gram dose of carnitine daily might be worth it. And then of course, you gotta train like a horse!
(Equine Vet J Suppll, 2002 Sep(34):269-74)


Jose Antonio, PhD, CSCS is a co-editor and contributor to Sports Supplements (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins) and the Sports Supplement Encyclopedia (Nutricia); Supplements for Strength-Power Athletes (Human Kinetics) and Supplements for Endurance Athletes (Human Kinetics). For more information: www.supplementbooks.com or www.Humankinetics.com.