Lyle McDonald's response to my theory on usenet  

  RSS

JGUNS
(@jguns)
Trusted Member
Joined: 4 months  ago
Posts: 87
11/10/2018 5:59 am  

I was going through an old post of mine on usenet from several months ago and I realized that Lyle McDonald "steroid guru" had responded to my post. I felt that I would crosspost his responses here for debate. I realize that my own theory in this regard is by no means "solid" but Lyle attacks it without backing any of his statements up,nor making much sense to me. I also emailed him with a response, which I have also posted. We will see if he comes here for a friendly debate.

We have all heard about how Tren supposedly has magic fat burning
capabilities, but have been with very little information as to how
this supposedly takes place.
One of the biggest factors is the Androgen Receptor. Specifically, an
Anabolic Steroids ability to bind to the AR plays a role in how much
adipose tissue is reduced.

Most androgens interact with the AR and the GR (glucocortisoid
receptor). The AR is present in not only muscle tissue, but in fat as
well.

"In conclusion, this study clearly demonstrates the presence of AR in
human preadipocytes and adipocytes and suggests that androgens may
contribute, through regulation of their own receptors, to the control
of adipose tissue development."

Androgen receptors in human preadipocytes and adipocytes: regional
specificities and regulation by sex steroids.
Am J Physiol. 1998 Jun;274(6 Pt 1):C1645-52.

This next study shows that the more AR's , the more lipid uptake is
inhibited:
Androgen hormone binding to adipose tissue in rats.
Biochim Biophys Acta. 1995 May 11;1244(1):117-20.

The first study shows that the more affinity and androgen has for the
AR the more the AR in adipocytes upregulates. Theus the greater the
AAS binds to the AR, the more upregulation of AR in adipcytes occurs
(my leap). This would be a primary reason why tren seems to work so
well in this regard, and would lead to a significant reduction in sub
cutaneous adipose tissue.

Another reason that Tren And other AAS that bind tightly to the AR
could help with fat loss is that that decrease LPL lipoprotein
lipasel) which is an enzyme that causes lipid accumulation

The effects of androgens on the regulation of lipolysis in adipose
precursor cells.
Endocrinology. 1990 Feb;126(2):1229-34.

They may also decrease acetyl-CoA Carboxylase and Fatty Acid Sythetase
Effect of anabolic steroids on lipogenic and lipolytic enzymes in
sheep tissues.
Horm Metab Res. 1982 Jan;14(1):52-3.

As for how the GR comes into play: The binding of cortisol to the GR
can cause an increase in LPL. Thus, certain androgens may prevent
lipid accumulation by binding to the GR.
Characterization of regional and gender differences in glucocorticoid
receptors and lipoprotein lipase activity in human adipose tissue.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1994 Jun;78(6):1354-9.

The effects of cortisol on the regulation of lipoprotein lipase
activity in human adipose tissue.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1994 Sep;79(3):820-5.

Effects of physiological hypercortisolemia on the regulation of
lipolysis in subcutaneous adipose tissue.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1998 Feb;83(2):626-31.

Studies have shown that Tren binds to the AR even more tightly then
test or nandrolone, so this is one reason why tren is good at fat
loss. The thing that makes it unique is that it has been shown to
bind avidly to the GR as well, which makes it even better.
Binding of glucocorticoid antagonists to androgen and glucocorticoid
hormone receptors in rat skeletal muscle.
J Steroid Biochem. 1986 Feb;24(2):481-7

Evidence for sex-dependent anabolic response to androgenic steroids
mediated by muscle glucocorticoid receptors in the rat.
J Steroid Biochem. 1988 Jun;29(6):575-81


ReplyQuote
JGUNS
(@jguns)
Trusted Member
Joined: 4 months  ago
Posts: 87
11/10/2018 6:46 am  

His response:

Well, let's see.

1. Information changes, with that change comes changes of opinion. If
guess if you consider 'Updating your beliefs to keep up with new
information' with 'eating crow' that's your own problem.

2. None of what this guy posted explains why tren would have a specific
effect above and beyond other AAS. If it's simply an effect mediated
through the AR, it shouldn't matter. Well unless you believe Nelson
Montana's cat receptor (i.e. different steroid receptors for different
steroids) idiot theory.

Point being that differences in androgenic effects (noting that
side-effects of androgens include significant and severe water and
mineral retetntion and removing them would lead to a massive loss of
same) are a more likely explanation for the 'weight loss' from switching
drugs. If nothing else, that severe water loss certainly clouds the
issue of what's being lost.

3. The effects of Testosterone are more complex than what this guy made
it out to be, perhaps not so much in subcutaneous fat but definitely in
visceral fat (which have more ARs than human sub-q fat). Both low and
high levels of testosterone lead to increased fat storage in visceral
fat so it's not simply a 'testosterone burns fat' issue.

Lyle


ReplyQuote
JGUNS
(@jguns)
Trusted Member
Joined: 4 months  ago
Posts: 87
11/10/2018 7:20 am  

My email:

I was going through old posts of mine and google, and I saw that you had responded to my post about Tren and Fat burning. It appears to me that you totally missed the point of my post. I never stated that tren's actions on lipolysis were solely mediated through the androgen receptor, but postulated that an increase in binding capability would lead to receptor upregulation and a decrease in sub q bodyfat as well as a decrease in lpl. Also, trens interaction with the GR would prevent accumulation of lipoprotein lipase.

"In conclusion, this study clearly demonstrates the presence of AR in
human preadipocytes and adipocytes and suggests that androgens may
contribute, through regulation of their own receptors, to the control
of adipose tissue development."

Androgen receptors in human preadipocytes and adipocytes: regional
specificities and regulation by sex steroids.
Am J Physiol. 1998 Jun;274(6 Pt 1):C1645-52.

This next study shows that the more AR's , the more lipid uptake is
inhibited:
Androgen hormone binding to adipose tissue in rats.
Biochim Biophys Acta. 1995 May 11;1244(1):117-20.

The first study shows that the more affinity and androgen has for the
AR the more the AR in adipocytes upregulates. Theus the greater the
AAS binds to the AR, the more upregulation of AR in adipcytes occurs. This would be a primary reason why tren seems to work so
well in this regard, and would lead to a significant reduction in sub
cutaneous adipose tissue.

As for how the GR comes into play: The binding of cortisol to the GR
can cause an increase in LPL. Thus, certain androgens may prevent
lipid accumulation by binding to the GR.
Characterization of regional and gender differences in glucocorticoid
receptors and lipoprotein lipase activity in human adipose tissue.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1994 Jun;78(6):1354-9.

The effects of cortisol on the regulation of lipoprotein lipase
activity in human adipose tissue.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1994 Sep;79(3):820-5.

Effects of physiological hypercortisolemia on the regulation of
lipolysis in subcutaneous adipose tissue.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1998 Feb;83(2):626-31.

Studies have shown that Tren binds to the AR even more tightly then
test or nandrolone, so this is one reason why tren is good at fat
loss. The thing that makes it unique is that it has been shown to
bind avidly to the GR as well, which makes it even better.
Binding of glucocorticoid antagonists to androgen and glucocorticoid
hormone receptors in rat skeletal muscle.
J Steroid Biochem. 1986 Feb;24(2):481-7

Evidence for sex-dependent anabolic response to androgenic steroids
mediated by muscle glucocorticoid receptors in the rat.
J Steroid Biochem. 1988 Jun;29(6):575-81

Your response that "none of what [I] said would explain this phenomenon, and then you went on some tangent about water weight that makes absolutely no sense. Maybe you have never tried Tren, but it is quite clear that it tends to promote more fat loss than other AAS, and you have cited no studies which would lead me to believe that "water and mineral loss" is the culprit.

You: " The effects of testosterone are more complex than what this guy made
it out to be, perhaps not so much in subcutaneous fat but definitely in
visceral fat (which have more ARs than human sub-q fat). Both low and
high levels of testosterone lead to increased fat storage in visceral
fat so it's not simply a 'testosterone burns fat' issue."

At no point do I state that testosterones effects are mediated through one specific action. There are clearly many mechanisms of action through which an AAS act. There certainly is a reason why testosterone "burns fat" so to speak, and you have not offered any valid explanation as to why.

I welcome you to come to my board www.cuttingedgemuscle.com for a real debate on any issue related to AAS. Keep in mind that there, your opinions will not simply be accepted as fact. This board is known for taking "steroid gurus" opinions and picking them apart. I welcome you to pick apart mine, but please do not insult my intelligence by making a statement which you do not back up. Maybe I missed your point completely, and if that is the case then my apologize. However, I try not to make statements without backing them with some research.

I will be crossposting this email to the board as well as your response in usenet. We would love to have you come over and visit, and I welcome you to join us for intelligent debate.

Sincerely,

JGUNS


ReplyQuote
TAZ
 TAZ
(@taz)
New Member
Joined: 1 week  ago
Posts: 1
11/10/2018 8:17 am  

That was the response of a total jackass. Typically this is what you get when the individual has no idea what you are asking. Disproving a theory is one thing, trying to discredit someone�s question with terms like "idiot theory" is wrong. My opinion of him, while never high is certainly lower now.
-TAZ


ReplyQuote
october_red
(@october_red)
New Member
Joined: 1 week  ago
Posts: 1
11/10/2018 9:04 am  

Just for the record: I believe Lyle's known as the "keto guru" and not the "steroid guru."

Was it Dan Duchaine who was the "steroid guru"? Or was he the "bodybuilding guru"? I don't remember.


ReplyQuote
headdoc
(@headdoc)
Eminent Member
Joined: 3 months  ago
Posts: 21
11/10/2018 9:51 am  

Here is a tread from the Lyle. This one concerns his new book. I think you�ll find it amusing. As much as I�ve benefitted from using this guy�s works, there seems to be an endless supply of sarcasm and criticism which makes it difficult to appreciate the value of his work. This was one of reasons I stopped frequenting MFW and that other one (?) alt�.

This post was modified 1 week  ago by Admin

And we'll collect the moments one by one. I guess that's how the future's done. Feist, "Mushaboom", 2005


ReplyQuote
Big Cat
(@big-cat)
Estimable Member
Joined: 4 months  ago
Posts: 140
11/10/2018 10:23 am  

Well, in my opinion Lyle should stick to his diet theories and leave the AAS for what they are. But then what do I know ? Now I have my own side-notes with your post JGUNS, but some of it sounds acceptable.

quote:


1. Information changes, with that change comes changes of opinion. If
guess if you consider 'Updating your beliefs to keep up with new
information' with 'eating crow' that's your own problem.


Coming from a man who rehashes ketogenic dieting while every bodybuilder had it down cold 10 years ago ... proper, polite too. But then I guess that's the usenet attitude. And you guys thought I was bad.

quote:


2. None of what this guy posted explains why tren would have a specific
effect above and beyond other AAS. If it's simply an effect mediated
through the AR, it shouldn't matter. Well unless you believe Nelson
Montana's cat receptor (i.e. different steroid receptors for different
steroids) idiot theory.

Well, tren binds more avidly and more importantly shows little affinity for binding proteins. This has nothing to do with receptors, nor were different receptpors implied in JGUNS original post. The difference in affinity could most certainly account for a difference in action.

quote:


Point being that differences in androgenic effects (noting that
side-effects of androgens include significant and severe water and
mineral retetntion and removing them would lead to a massive loss of
same) are a more likely explanation for the 'weight loss' from switching
drugs.


Since when do androgens cause 'severe' water and mineral retention ? Water retention for the most part is caused by estrogenic upregulation of aldosterone. And this would account for jack shit, since the use of aldosterone blockers which is pretty common practice among top athletes who do a lot of guest posing still doesn't make up for the difference in effect.

quote:


If nothing else, that severe water loss certainly clouds the
issue of what's being lost.


See previous. If no water is retained to begin with, then this is not an issue. It also would not account for the differences between trenbolone and other non-estrogenic drugs.

quote:


3. The effects of testosterone are more complex than what this guy made
it out to be, perhaps not so much in subcutaneous fat but definitely in
visceral fat (which have more ARs than human sub-q fat). Both low and
high levels of testosterone lead to increased fat storage in visceral
fat so it's not simply a 'testosterone burns fat' issue.


Ever see a skinfold measurement of visceral fat ? How many bodybuilders do you know of that refer to visceral fat when they mention how much fat they lost ? When you suggest a diet to someone, do you base it on the results it has on visceral fat loss ? This is without a doubt the most absurd comment I have ever heard. And certainly not one I would have expected from someone held in high regard in the bodybuilding community.

Good things come to those who weight.

The Big Cat is a researcher and theoreticist. His advice must never be taken in the stead of proper advice from a medical professional, it is entirely intended for research purposes.


ReplyQuote
Big Cat
(@big-cat)
Estimable Member
Joined: 4 months  ago
Posts: 140
11/10/2018 10:56 am  
Posted by: TAZ
That was the response of a total jackass. Typically this is what you get when the individual has no idea what you are asking. Disproving a theory is one thing, trying to discredit someone�s question with terms like "idiot theory" is wrong. My opinion of him, while never high is certainly lower now.
-TAZ

Typically this is what you get at usenet. Sadly.

Good things come to those who weight.

The Big Cat is a researcher and theoreticist. His advice must never be taken in the stead of proper advice from a medical professional, it is entirely intended for research purposes.


ReplyQuote
prolangtum
(@prolangtum)
New Member
Joined: 2 months  ago
Posts: 4
11/10/2018 11:39 am  

Lyle can be an ass, but he is fairly knowledgeable, but he should stay to diet and nutrition. Not only do I not think he is very versed in it, he also has never used any AAS(or at least he looks like he hasnt) Not to say that it is a pre requisite to talk about steroids to have been a user, Big Cat obviously knows more than 99% of people on these boards w/o having used.


ReplyQuote
Fonz
 Fonz
(@fonz)
Eminent Member
Joined: 4 months  ago
Posts: 22
11/10/2018 12:21 pm  

The funny part is that he has never used Tren before. I never thought of testing my cortisol levels during my Tren cycles...it would have been nice to know just but how much Tren suppresses cortisol. Might get that done now to see.

Fonz


ReplyQuote
JGUNS
(@jguns)
Trusted Member
Joined: 4 months  ago
Posts: 87
11/10/2018 1:07 pm  

Please do Fonz, that would be awesome to find out about. Post your results here when you get them.

Well, as most of these "gurus" do they run and hide when challenged.. We won't see him here.

I really respect his diet knowledge, but to comment on AAS like he did, was just plain irresponsible.

I really like how he says that "aas have different mechanisms of action" NO SHIT SHERLOCK


ReplyQuote
Blade
(@blade)
Active Member
Joined: 4 months  ago
Posts: 18
11/10/2018 1:44 pm  

Lyle admits he knows jack shit about steroids, so your knowledge far outweighs his in that department, JGUNS. I also think you have some great ideas on the Trenbolone issue.

Other than that, I have the highest respects for the man, and although he can be pretty harsh and offensive at times, he is brilliant in his own field of knowledge. He didn't rehash the ketogenic diet, he wrote the bible on it - never claiming he invented it. Also, the UD2.0 is way different than the original UD, anyone claiming it is just a rehash is, honestly speaking, either stupid or didn't even bother reading the book.


ReplyQuote
Fifty Feet
(@fifty-feet)
New Member
Joined: 1 week  ago
Posts: 1
11/10/2018 2:23 pm  

Its way easier to talk nutrition, a subject with endless studies and abstracts, then to develop sound theories on previously vague and unknown mecanism of fairly recent addition to popular AAS compounds. Like the board says, this is cutting edge information and what usually happens when new info. is presented anywhere? The world is round? J this really helped me picture what is happening in my body while taking any AS more so with Tren. BTW Blade why does he get harsh and offensive? Im sure J knows how to diet as with every other person on this board, new info. is more valuable than the same old low carb song. The original problem was name calling and no backing or validation of arguements, i think your last sentence falls into that category Blade honestly speaking.


ReplyQuote
Big Cat
(@big-cat)
Estimable Member
Joined: 4 months  ago
Posts: 140
11/10/2018 3:21 pm  

I can actually get into the name calling, usenet is not moderated and it sort of makes you that way. I did my fair share of trashtalking on MFW as well, as did pretty much anyone who was anyone. The point is that he is trashing a theory on a subject he knows jack shit about and doesn't even try to validate his opinion.

And being childish I can forgive, I personally am not the most mature person in the world and I still believe my attitude is part of what makes so good at learning so much every day. Its evident in the fact that all the people the newbies hold in high regard like PA and Bill Llewellyn, Bill Roberts, Will Brink etc are all the same in that regard. What is beyond redemption however is that a man who calls himself a scientific mind would stoop to such unsubstantiated trashing of a valid theory. That's not just childish, it seriously damages his reputation and credibility.

Good things come to those who weight.

The Big Cat is a researcher and theoreticist. His advice must never be taken in the stead of proper advice from a medical professional, it is entirely intended for research purposes.


ReplyQuote
MuscleMass
(@musclemass)
New Member
Joined: 1 week  ago
Posts: 1
11/10/2018 4:15 pm  

a definate response of a jackass who disaproves do to the fact that he knows little about what the hell you were saying.


ReplyQuote
Share:
  
Working

Please Login or Register