Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: oldtimer1 on April 30, 2020, 07:38:34 AM
-
In 2019 Tres taco combo put up a thread about Piana's feeder reps protocol. It seemed to gather a lot of interest on this site. Just wanted to know how guys were doing with it that gave it a fair chance. I tried it for couple of days but abandoned it. The pumps were insane. Since I'm a low set trainer I don't experience the pumps that volume trainers get. Just wondered if I abandoned the training tool too soon.
-
::)
I get you don't train. You're just interested in muscular guys.
-
In 2019 Tres taco combo put up a thread about Piana's feeder reps protocol. It seemed to gather a lot of interest on this site. Just wanted to know how guys were doing with it that gave it a fair chance. I tried it for couple of days but abandoned it. The pumps were insane. Since I'm a low set trainer I don't experience the pumps that volume trainers get. Just wondered if I abandoned the training tool too soon.
Sounds like you suck the training tool and swallow the man gravy.
-
Why is it called "Feeder" set?
-
Why is it called "Feeder" set?
I think that oil bodybuilder Piana named it that. It's an old technique that used to be called muscle spinning in the old Weider magazines in the 60's. I think Piana said it's feeding the muscle hence feeder. If you're not familiar with it's doing an extra mini workout for a body part like arms before going to bed every night. It involves very light weights like 10lbs or 15lb for a high rep sets like 50 to 100 reps for triceps and biceps. Maybe two sets. Piana swears it works wonders to increase muscle. It's not a substitute for your regular weight work out for arms. Last year there was a thread about it that went on for 9 to 10 pages. I started this thread to find out what was the consensus of those that used the technique.
-
Best thing would be to test it out and see how it went.
-
Complete nonsense. Lots of studies showing submaximal high volume does little. Besides- Piana injected plastic in his arms. Yeah- those “feeder” sets do miracles
-
It was a think back in the 60's way before he renamed it to Feeder sets.
-
Complete nonsense. Lots of studies showing submaximal high volume does little. Besides- Piana injected plastic in his arms. Yeah- those “feeder” sets do miracles
There are no facts in exercise physiology. Only theories. If there were facts we would be training on the same split using identical protocols. Sometimes the best "scientists" in bodybuilding look like crap and the guys that can't remember what they did for chest the day before look great. In the words of the late Jeff Everson, "Until pigs fly you don't have to be scientist to be a bodybuilder."
Greg Zulak who has seen so many pros train in person said almost all train with volume and moderate weights. He also said when he trained his thighs with eight reps per set he got nowhere. When he trained thighs with 50 reps for four sets in the leg press his thighs started to grow. A stronger muscle is a bigger muscle but I think what really gets hypertrophy is training for muscular endurance for lack of a better term. Making a muscle adapt to training for muscular endurance is the key. If strength was the magic bullet we would all be training with sets of one rep to get stronger. I think a pump plays a vital role in the growth of muscles. So feeder sets might actually be based in a very scientific principal of training the muscle for muscular endurance. If you do say 5 sets of 12 the first three sets can be accomplished without failure. Set four maybe you fail at 10. Set five at 8. A hit guy would say why not up the weight and do one set of eight to failure? I don't think failure is a the magic bullet for muscle growth without combining it with muscular endurance.
I think feeder sets have value. How much is what I'd like to know. That's why I want to hear from guys that have used it. Empirical knowledge is more important than poorly designed studies by a chubby exercise physiologists at this point.
-
There are no facts in exercise physiology. Only theories.
You lost me at your first sentence. Every hear about ATP? That's in exercise physiology. I guess it's existence was a theory until researchers actually measured the concentration in the muscle post exertion. Same with citrase synthase and a host of other substances directly responsible for muscle growth. That's not theory. It's fact.
The laughable part about bodybuilding is it never amounted to anything until steroids hit the market. DeLormes' method for hypertrophy was the state of the art in exercise physiology and it isn't a theory. It worked on lots of soldiers recovering from war injuries. The old 5x5 method used by Reg Park was pretty much a parallel system to Delorme's and it still works well. As well as can be expected given that all physical adaptations still follow endocrinological cycles discovered by Hans Selye. That's no theory either. You can measure cortisol levels precisely as a function of stimulus and response.
As soon as Dianabol hit the gyms everybody had this "magic" routine to get bigger. They just failed to mention Mother's little helper. It was created by a bunch of chubby guys in Switzerland.
-
Sounds like you suck the training tool and swallow the man gravy.
Coming from the guy who looks at shirtless photos of Shizzo every day.
-
You lost me at your first sentence. Every hear about ATP? That's in exercise physiology. I guess it's existence was a theory until researchers actually measured the concentration in the muscle post exertion. Same with citrase synthase and a host of other substances directly responsible for muscle growth. That's not theory. It's fact.
The laughable part about bodybuilding is it never amounted to anything until steroids hit the market. DeLormes' method for hypertrophy was the state of the art in exercise physiology and it isn't a theory. It worked on lots of soldiers recovering from war injuries. The old 5x5 method used by Reg Park was pretty much a parallel system to Delorme's and it still works well. As well as can be expected given that all physical adaptations still follow endocrinological cycles discovered by Hans Selye. That's no theory either. You can measure cortisol levels precisely as a function of stimulus and response.
As soon as Dianabol hit the gyms everybody had this "magic" routine to get bigger. They just failed to mention Mother's little helper. It was created by a bunch of chubby guys in Switzerland.
Misspoke. I should have typed training protocols instead of exercise physiology.
-
You lost me at your first sentence. Every hear about ATP? That's in exercise physiology. I guess it's existence was a theory until researchers actually measured the concentration in the muscle post exertion. Same with citrase synthase and a host of other substances directly responsible for muscle growth. That's not theory. It's fact.
The laughable part about bodybuilding is it never amounted to anything until steroids hit the market. DeLormes' method for hypertrophy was the state of the art in exercise physiology and it isn't a theory. It worked on lots of soldiers recovering from war injuries. The old 5x5 method used by Reg Park was pretty much a parallel system to Delorme's and it still works well. As well as can be expected given that all physical adaptations still follow endocrinological cycles discovered by Hans Selye. That's no theory either. You can measure cortisol levels precisely as a function of stimulus and response.
As soon as Dianabol hit the gyms everybody had this "magic" routine to get bigger. They just failed to mention Mother's little helper. It was created by a bunch of chubby guys in Switzerland.
If 5 x 5 is the best way to train than you will have a big problem with all the successes using high reps. Champs have been made using high sets and lows sets. Champs have been made using low reps and high reps. I have a problem with anyone who says they have the answers. We have training theories and not training facts. To claim anyone has the optimal way to train is a charlatan. What we have is empirical knowledge. It says volume is the optimal way to train.
-
You lost me at your first sentence. Every hear about ATP? That's in exercise physiology. I guess it's existence was a theory until researchers actually measured the concentration in the muscle post exertion. Same with citrase synthase and a host of other substances directly responsible for muscle growth. That's not theory. It's fact.
The laughable part about bodybuilding is it never amounted to anything until steroids hit the market. DeLormes' method for hypertrophy was the state of the art in exercise physiology and it isn't a theory. It worked on lots of soldiers recovering from war injuries. The old 5x5 method used by Reg Park was pretty much a parallel system to Delorme's and it still works well. As well as can be expected given that all physical adaptations still follow endocrinological cycles discovered by Hans Selye. That's no theory either. You can measure cortisol levels precisely as a function of stimulus and response.
As soon as Dianabol hit the gyms everybody had this "magic" routine to get bigger. They just failed to mention Mother's little helper. It was created by a bunch of chubby guys in Switzerland.
I have to call attention to a couple of flaws in your otherwise insightful comment: John Ziegler was neither fat nor from Switzerland.
-
There are no facts in exercise physiology. Only theories. If there were facts we would be training on the same split using identical protocols. Sometimes the best "scientists" in bodybuilding look like crap and the guys that can't remember what they did for chest the day before look great. In the words of the late Jeff Everson, "Until pigs fly you don't have to be scientist to be a bodybuilder."
Greg Zulak who has seen so many pros train in person said almost all train with volume and moderate weights. He also said when he trained his thighs with eight reps per set he got nowhere. When he trained thighs with 50 reps for four sets in the leg press his thighs started to grow. A stronger muscle is a bigger muscle but I think what really gets hypertrophy is training for muscular endurance for lack of a better term. Making a muscle adapt to training for muscular endurance is the key. If strength was the magic bullet we would all be training with sets of one rep to get stronger. I think a pump plays a vital role in the growth of muscles. So feeder sets might actually be based in a very scientific principal of training the muscle for muscular endurance. If you do say 5 sets of 12 the first three sets can be accomplished without failure. Set four maybe you fail at 10. Set five at 8. A hit guy would say why not up the weight and do one set of eight to failure? I don't think failure is a the magic bullet for muscle growth without combining it with muscular endurance.
I think feeder sets have value. How much is what I'd like to know. That's why I want to hear from guys that have used it. Empirical knowledge is more important than poorly designed studies by a chubby exercise physiologists at this point.
How has this principle worked for you?
-
Ziegley did not invent D-bol. He had nothing to do with the creation of D-bol. He did give it to York lifters and report to Ciba on its effectiveness.
>
"Metandienone was first described in 1955. It was synthesized by researchers at the CIBA laboratories in Basel, Switzerland. CIBA filed for a U.S. patent in 1957 and began marketing the drug as Dianabol in 1958 in the U.S. It was initially prescribed to burn victims and the elderly. It was also prescribed off-label as a pharmaceutical performance enhancement to weight lifters and other athletes. Early adopters included players for Oklahoma University and San Diego Chargers head coach Sid Gillman, who administered Dianabol to his team starting in 1963."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metandienone
-
I think it has merit...
Increases bloodflow so increases nutrient and hormone delivery, therefore improves recovery rate.
-
Ziegley did not invent D-bol. He had nothing to do with the creation of D-bol. He did give it to York lifters and report to Ciba on its effectiveness.
>
"Metandienone was first described in 1955. It was synthesized by researchers at the CIBA laboratories in Basel, Switzerland. CIBA filed for a U.S. patent in 1957 and began marketing the drug as Dianabol in 1958 in the U.S. It was initially prescribed to burn victims and the elderly. It was also prescribed off-label as a pharmaceutical performance enhancement to weight lifters and other athletes. Early adopters included players for Oklahoma University and San Diego Chargers head coach Sid Gillman, who administered Dianabol to his team starting in 1963."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metandienone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bosley_Ziegler
John Bosley Ziegler (ca. 1920–1983) — known as John Ziegler and Montana Jack — was the American physician who originally developed the anabolic steroid Methandrostenolone (Dianabol, DBOL) which was released in the USA in 1958 by Ciba.[1][2] He pioneered its athletic use as an aid to muscle growth by bodybuilders, administering it to U.S. weightlifting champion Bill March of the York Barbell Club in 1959 when he was the physician to the U.S. Weightlifting team.[3] It was banned by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the Controlled Substances Act. In later life he was outspoken against its use in sport, saying "It is bad enough to have to deal with drug addicts, but now healthy athletes are putting themselves in the same category. It's a disgrace. Who plays sports for fun anymore?"[4] Ziegler suffered from heart disease, which he partially ascribed to his experimentation with steroids,[citation needed] and he died from heart failure in 1983.
-
Ziegley did not invent D-bol. He had nothing to do with the creation of D-bol. He did give it to York lifters and report to Ciba on its effectiveness.
>
"Metandienone was first described in 1955. It was synthesized by researchers at the CIBA laboratories in Basel, Switzerland. CIBA filed for a U.S. patent in 1957 and began marketing the drug as Dianabol in 1958 in the U.S. It was initially prescribed to burn victims and the elderly. It was also prescribed off-label as a pharmaceutical performance enhancement to weight lifters and other athletes. Early adopters included players for Oklahoma University and San Diego Chargers head coach Sid Gillman, who administered Dianabol to his team starting in 1963."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metandienone
Wrong!
-
https://slate.com/culture/2005/02/the-doctor-who-brought-steroids-to-america.html
So, who’s responsible for bringing steroids into the sports world?
The godfather of steroids was a rough-and-tumble Maryland physician named John Bosley Ziegler. Ziegler practiced medicine in Olney, Md. and conducted chemistry research at a company called Ciba Pharmaceuticals. A big, fleshy former Marine who answered to the nickname “Montana Jack,” Ziegler loved to pump iron. During his long sessions at the gym, he befriended several bodybuilders associated with the York (Pa.) Barbell Club.
Upon returning to the United States, Ziegler started administering straight testosterone shots to selected York weightlifters. But these experiments proved unsatisfactory—strength gains were negligible, and the bodybuilders complained that the shots made them feel strange. Ziegler kept tinkering in an attempt to synthesize a substance with testosterone’s strength-building attributes but none of the pesky side effects. In 1958, Ciba Pharmaceuticals unleashed his creation: methandrostenolone, which the company marketed as Dianabol.
-
The laughable part about bodybuilding is it never amounted to anything until steroids hit the market.
As soon as Dianabol hit the gyms everybody had this "magic" routine to get bigger. They just failed to mention Mother's little helper.
This^^^
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bosley_Ziegler
John Bosley Ziegler (ca. 1920–1983) — known as John Ziegler and Montana Jack — was the American physician who originally developed the anabolic steroid Methandrostenolone (Dianabol, DBOL) which was released in the USA in 1958 by Ciba.[1][2] He pioneered its athletic use as an aid to muscle growth by bodybuilders, administering it to U.S. weightlifting champion Bill March of the York Barbell Club in 1959 when he was the physician to the U.S. Weightlifting team.[3] It was banned by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the Controlled Substances Act. In later life he was outspoken against its use in sport, saying "It is bad enough to have to deal with drug addicts, but now healthy athletes are putting themselves in the same category. It's a disgrace. Who plays sports for fun anymore?"[4] Ziegler suffered from heart disease, which he partially ascribed to his experimentation with steroids,[citation needed] and he died from heart failure in 1983.
Not only was Ziegler an MD with an off-the-charts IQ and work ethic he was a decorated Marine veteran of the Pacific Campaign. A great American and unsung hero of sport.
-
Wrong!
Exactly. To claim that Ziegler had "nothing" to do with the creation of dbol is just beyond ludicrous. How would he, or anybody else, even know a doctor named John Ziegler ever existed if it wasn't for his association with Dianabol?
-
It's bewildering to me that anyone would reference and/or give any cred to Rich Piano and his training "methods". The guy was fucking idiot.
-
Exactly. To claim that Ziegler had "nothing" to do with the creation of dbol is just beyond ludicrous. How would he, or anybody else, even know a doctor named John Ziegler ever existed if it wasn't for his association with Dianabol?
Ziegler obtained D-bol from Ciba. He didn't invent it. It takes a large pharmaceutical company to create a pharmaceutical like D-bol.
Ziegler became known as the source of D-bol because he supplied it to York lifters.
He was the first gym pusher.
-
If 5 x 5 is the best way to train than you will have a big problem with all the successes using high reps. Champs have been made using high sets and lows sets. Champs have been made using low reps and high reps. I have a problem with anyone who says they have the answers. We have training theories and not training facts. To claim anyone has the optimal way to train is a charlatan. What we have is empirical knowledge. It says volume is the optimal way to train.
It’s been said the best routine is the one you’re not doing
-
Dianabol was invented after the Soviet Union exploded in Olympic lifting. The American coach was in a bar with the Soviet coach and learned they were using straight testosterone injections. What was happening with the huge dosages was enlarged prostates. Some had to catherize them self to pee. Then the race was on to find a testosterone derivative that had increased anabolic properties with less androgen properties. Dianabol had way more anabolic properties than straight test and less androgen properties. The magic pill was invented and first used in Hoffman's York gym on Olympic lifters. Soon bodybuilders were using it in the sixties. Anabolic steroids were released into the lifting community. One of the most anabolic steroid pills that followed was Anavar. It has very little androgen properties. What they found out was if you eliminate too much of the androgen properties the drug just wasn't as effective as say a Dianabol. The most powerful oral was Anadrol 50. I have seen guys make insane drastic improvement in three weeks on this drug. One pill worked for the majority. Three was insanity with yellowing of the eyes. I severely doubt anything labeled Dianabol, Anavar, Winstrol, or Anadrol is the legit pill today. They are counterfeits and who knows how close they are to yesterdays drugs made in legit American pharmaceutical companies. I wouldn't doubt the crap available is made in China, Mexico or Russia.
-
All the “naturals” in this thread talking about what they read as opposed to what others have lived.
-
Dianabol was invented after the Soviet Union exploded in Olympic lifting. The American coach was in a bar with the Soviet coach and learned they were using straight testosterone injections. What was happening with the huge dosages was enlarged prostates. Some had to catherize them self to pee. Then the race was on to find a testosterone derivative that had increased anabolic properties with less androgen properties. Dianabol had way more anabolic properties than straight test and less androgen properties. The magic pill was invented and first used in Hoffman's York gym on Olympic lifters. Soon bodybuilders were using it in the sixties. Anabolic steroids were released into the lifting community. One of the most anabolic steroid pills that followed was Anavar. It has very little androgen properties. What they found out was if you eliminate too much of the androgen properties the drug just wasn't as effective as say a Dianabol. The most powerful oral was Anadrol 50. I have seen guys make insane drastic improvement in three weeks on this drug. One pill worked for the majority. Three was insanity with yellowing of the eyes. I severely doubt anything labeled Dianabol, Anavar, Winstrol, or Anadrol is the legit pill today. They are counterfeits and who knows how close they are to yesterdays drugs made in legit American pharmaceutical companies. I wouldn't doubt the crap available is made in China, Mexico or Russia.
Anapolon in the mid 90s came in a pink and white box, cant remember the lab name, you could buy them over the counter in Spain, cant even find a photo of the box online at all
they were brutal, 2 a day knocked people for 6, I did know one guy who took ten a day, he believed he could stop a bus driving at him, I advised him not to try it
-
Anapolon in the mid 90s came in a pink and white box, cant remember the lab name, you could buy them over the counter in Spain, cant even find a photo of the box online at all
they were brutal, 2 a day knocked people for 6, I did know one guy who took ten a day, he believed he could stop a bus driving at him, I advised him not to try it
abdi ibrahim ones were around in the 90s?
-
abdi ibrahim ones were around in the 90s?
I know people who used to travel to Andorra on the Spain France border to buy them, it was one of the last places that sold them over the counter.
-
I know people who used to travel to Andorra on the Spain France border to buy them, it was one of the last places that sold them over the counter.
they're turkish made now I think. I brought some last about 4-5 years ago.
You can get some decent stuff at turkish pharmacies. They have legit pharma primo and anadrol. It'd be golden if they had schering testovirons there as well, but for some reason they don't (despite having schering primo). I believe it's probably because the testovirons are made in pakistan
-
The myth of Ziegler inventing D-bol:
https://thinksteroids.com/articles/dianabol-john-ziegler-myth/
-
Ziegler obtained D-bol from Ciba. He didn't invent it. It takes a large pharmaceutical company to create a pharmaceutical like D-bol.
Ziegler became known as the source of D-bol because he supplied it to York lifters.
He was the first gym pusher.
A "company" doesn't create or invent anything. It's a person or a group of people. In this case of Dianabol, it was John Ziegler that invented it and Ciba manufactured and distributed it. But believe what you want.
-
A "company" doesn't create or invent anything. It's a person or a group of people. In this case of Dianabol, it was John Ziegler that invented it and Ciba manufactured and distributed it. But believe what you want.
Funny that Ziegler's name is nowhere to be found on the list of chemists and scientists who developed d-bol.
https://thinksteroids.com/articles/dianabol-john-ziegler-myth/
"So who really created Dianabol?
The following illustrious and prolific steroid hormone chemists at CIBA Pharmaceuticals (Switzerland) all share credit for its invention: Albert Wettstein, Alfred Hunger, Charles Meystre, Ludwig Ehmann, Ernst Vischer, Hans Peter Frey and Walter Voser. They were all part of the team that first outlined the synthesis of methandrostenolone in the Swiss-founded scientific journal Helvetica Chimica Acta.
Vischer E, Meystre C, Wettstein A. Herstellung weiterer 1-Dehydrosteroide auf mikrobiologischem Wege. Helv Chim Acta 1955;38:1502-6.
Meystre C, Frey H, Voser W, Wettstein A. Gewinnung von 1,4-Bisdehydro-3-oxo-steroiden. HeIv Chim Acta 1956;39:734-42.
The inventors of record in the United States patent for methandrostenolone (US 2900398) are listed as Wettstein, Hunger, Meystre, and Ludwig Ehmann of CIBA. The patent application only references the aforementioned 1956 Helvetica Chimica Acta study.
The CIBA researchers were no lightweights. Wettstein collaborated with the Leopold Ružička’s research team that won the 1939 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their remarkable work on the synthesis of testosterone. The discovery of Dianabol was just another feather in his cap. "
-
Funny that Ziegler's name is nowhere to be found on the list of chemists and scientists who developed d-bol.
https://thinksteroids.com/articles/dianabol-john-ziegler-myth/
"So who really created Dianabol?
The following illustrious and prolific steroid hormone chemists at CIBA Pharmaceuticals (Switzerland) all share credit for its invention: Albert Wettstein, Alfred Hunger, Charles Meystre, Ludwig Ehmann, Ernst Vischer, Hans Peter Frey and Walter Voser. They were all part of the team that first outlined the synthesis of methandrostenolone in the Swiss-founded scientific journal Helvetica Chimica Acta.
Vischer E, Meystre C, Wettstein A. Herstellung weiterer 1-Dehydrosteroide auf mikrobiologischem Wege. Helv Chim Acta 1955;38:1502-6.
Meystre C, Frey H, Voser W, Wettstein A. Gewinnung von 1,4-Bisdehydro-3-oxo-steroiden. HeIv Chim Acta 1956;39:734-42.
The inventors of record in the United States patent for methandrostenolone (US 2900398) are listed as Wettstein, Hunger, Meystre, and Ludwig Ehmann of CIBA. The patent application only references the aforementioned 1956 Helvetica Chimica Acta study.
The CIBA researchers were no lightweights. Wettstein collaborated with the Leopold Ružička’s research team that won the 1939 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their remarkable work on the synthesis of testosterone. The discovery of Dianabol was just another feather in his cap. "
Funny, I didn't think Millard Baker writing an article on an obscure website was the final authority.
Look, I don't care what you believe. Why do you care so much about what I believe? Let it go, brah. Be satisfied that you can go through life believing that you know so much more than others and what's the real truth about the history of Dianabol.
BTW, look up the patent mention by Baker. Doesn't show anything to do with the creation of Dianabol
Patent US2900398
United States
PROCESS FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF STEROID DEHYDROGENATION PRODUCTS
-
Let’s talk about how great D-Bol made you feel the first time you took it.
-
Let’s talk about how great D-Bol made you feel the first time you took it.
Dr Walczak prescribe three 5mg tabs a day and by the end of the first week, I felt like superman. I never got that feeling again until I tried one tab of Syntex Anadrol. But Dianabol made you feel much, much better.
-
Dr Walczak prescribe three 5mg tabs a day and by the end of the first week, I felt like superman. I never got that feeling again until I tried one tab of Syntex Anadrol. But Dianabol made you feel much, much better.
Russian D-Bol for me. Potent AF. Kept taking more and more until the BP headaches forced me to back down to a sustainable level.
-
Let’s talk about how great D-Bol made you feel the first time you took it.
15 mg pink thais for 3 weeks felt like bliss
-
Regarding the feeder sets...yes I've included feeder sets ever since reading the post...and yes it's worked very well for me..so much so that I do a feeder set for every bodypart now....Piana was very knowledgeable when it came to bodybuilding.
-
Regarding the feeder sets...yes I've included feeder sets ever since reading the post...and yes it's worked very well for me..so much so that I do a feeder set for every bodypart now....Piana was very knowledgeable when it came to bodybuilding.
Do you happen to have before and after pics?
-
You lost me at your first sentence. Every hear about ATP? That's in exercise physiology. I guess it's existence was a theory until researchers actually measured the concentration in the muscle post exertion. Same with citrase synthase and a host of other substances directly responsible for muscle growth. That's not theory. It's fact.
The laughable part about bodybuilding is it never amounted to anything until steroids hit the market. DeLormes' method for hypertrophy was the state of the art in exercise physiology and it isn't a theory. It worked on lots of soldiers recovering from war injuries. The old 5x5 method used by Reg Park was pretty much a parallel system to Delorme's and it still works well. As well as can be expected given that all physical adaptations still follow endocrinological cycles discovered by Hans Selye. That's no theory either. You can measure cortisol levels precisely as a function of stimulus and response.
As soon as Dianabol hit the gyms everybody had this "magic" routine to get bigger. They just failed to mention Mother's little helper. It was created by a bunch of chubby guys in Switzerland.
And Thanks Be To Those Chubby Men in Switzerland. 2nd best invention after Fit Big Boob Blondes. 👍🏻
-
Wrong!
Fortunately, in 2020 all the United States patents, from the 20th century, are a few clicks away.
So this can be settled one way or the other.
PROCESS FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF STEROED DEHYDROGENATON PRODUCTS Albert Wettstein and Alfred Hunger, Basel, Charles Mey stre, Arlesheim, and Ludwig Ehmann, Basel, Switzer land, assignors to Ciba Pharmaceutical Products Inc., Summit, N.J.
Application for patent: June 11, 1957
Patented Aug. 18, 1959
Patent number: 2,900,398
https://patents.google.com/patent/US2900398A/en (https://patents.google.com/patent/US2900398A/en)
(example 3 - the manufacture of 1-dehydro-17a-methyl-testosterone (ie dianabol) is the relevant part)
(click on download pdf to see the photocopy of the original document)
-
This patent application on one of the effects of this new drug ,as noted by the Swiss research team, is kind of interesting too:
INCREASING ANABOLIC ACTIVITY WITH 1-DE HYDRO-17α-METHYLTESTOSTERONE Albert Wettstein and Ernst Vischer, Basei, and Charles Meystre, Ariesheina, Switzerland, assignors to Cita Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., Summit, N.J.
Application June 4, 1958
Patented Mar. 22, 1960
Patent number : 2,929,763
1-dehydro-17α-methyl-testosterone is a potent anabolic agent without sex-specific androgenic action. It is known that androgenic hormones have an anabolic action and are therefore used clinically in cases where increased protein synthesis is required. However, the sex-specific action of such hormones may have undesirable effects. 1-dehydro-17o-methyl-testosterone represents a genuine advance in that it has an anabolic action with virtually no sex-specific properties and can be very advantageously used in place of the androgenic hormones, for this reason,
….......………………
The independence of the anabolic action of 1-dehydro 17α-methyl-testosterone from its sex-specific effects can also be demonstrated in human being...….
https://patents.google.com/patent/US2929763 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US2929763)
....................
Ziegler was involved in research with CIBA to improve the manufacture of dianabol ,but the original sources do not credit him the first synthesis of dianabol.
PURIFICATION OF 1-DEHYDRO-17α-METHYL. TESTOSTERONE CONTAMINATED BY SE BLENUM Alfred Hunger, Basel, Switzerland, and John Benjamin Ziegler, Summit N.J., assigners to Ciba Corporation, a corporation of Delaware
Filed Dec. 3, 1959, Ser. No. 856,901
Patented Aug. 7, 1962
Patent number: 3,048,603
https://patents.google.com/patent/US3048603A/en (https://patents.google.com/patent/US3048603A/en)
-
Fortunately, in 2020 all the United States patents, from the 20th century, are a few clicks away.
So this can be settled one way or the other.
PROCESS FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF STEROED DEHYDROGENATON PRODUCTS Albert Wettstein and Alfred Hunger, Basel, Charles Mey stre, Arlesheim, and Ludwig Ehmann, Basel, Switzer land, assignors to Ciba Pharmaceutical Products Inc., Summit, N.J.
Application for patent: June 11, 1957
Patented Aug. 18, 1959
Patent number: 2,900,398
https://patents.google.com/patent/US2900398A/en (https://patents.google.com/patent/US2900398A/en)
(example 3 - the manufacture of 1-dehydro-17a-methyl-testosterone (ie dianabol) is the relevant part)
(click on download pdf to see the photocopy of the original document)
I just posted that website a few posts up. And methyl-test is not Dianabol (Metandienone).
-
I just posted that website a few posts up. And methyl-test is not Dianabol (Metandienone).
You are right. Methyl testosterone is not dianabol .
However, 1-dehydro-17α-methyl-testosterone is the chemical name for methandienone or metandienone or methandrostenolone ie dianabol.
As Ziegler and his co-authors stated in the link above:
" It has been found that 17α-methyl-testosterone can be converted in high yield to 1-dehydro-17α-methyl-testosterone, a highly active anabolic agent known under the generic name methandrostenolone…."
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/40/23/6a/b6cb062373bd95/US3048603.pdf (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/40/23/6a/b6cb062373bd95/US3048603.pdf)
https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sigma/d8031?lang=en®ion=GB (https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sigma/d8031?lang=en®ion=GB)
-
You are right. Methyl testosterone is not dianabol .
However, 1-dehydro-17α-methyl-testosterone is the chemical name for methandienone or metandienone or methandrostenolone ie dianabol.
As Ziegler and his co-authors stated in the link above:
" It has been found that 17α-methyl-testosterone can be converted in high yield to 1-dehydro-17α-methyl-testosterone, a highly active anabolic agent known under the generic name methandrostenolone…."
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/40/23/6a/b6cb062373bd95/US3048603.pdf (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/40/23/6a/b6cb062373bd95/US3048603.pdf)
https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sigma/d8031?lang=en®ion=GB (https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sigma/d8031?lang=en®ion=GB)
I'm not sure why you just keep repeating what I just said. You repost the patent that I had already posted and you defined Dbol with the chemical label that I had just made clear in the very post you are replying to?
-
I'm not sure why you just keep repeating what I just said. You repost the patent that I had already posted and you defined Dbol with the chemical label that I had just made clear in the very post you are replying to?
Methyltestosterone (also known as 17α-methyltestosterone) is not the same as dianabol. You are correct,there.
However, 1-dehydro-17α-methyl-testosterone ,in the link we both posted, is dianabol. It seems you are wrong there.
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/79/1f/f4/e0f1a66ecace0c/US2900398.pdf (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/79/1f/f4/e0f1a66ecace0c/US2900398.pdf)
That's all.
-
We all know Big Pharma, or any big industry, would never try to take advantage of anyone by using their virtually unlimited legal and other resources to capitalize on someone else’s handiwork.
-
We all know Big Pharma, or any big industry, would never try to take advantage of anyone by using their virtually unlimited legal and other resources to capitalize on someone else’s handiwork.
X2
-
All I know is that CIBA D-Bol was an awesome drug even in low dosages.
I remember reading articles by Gironda stating that he trained forearms seperately from arms as the pump from wrist curls and reverse curls would "feed" his biceps.
Not direct biceps training but the blood flow caused by forearm training being in close proximity to his arms "fed" his biceps.
Just saying and oh yeah not to speak ill of the dead but Rich Piana ???
-
We all know Big Pharma, or any big industry, would never try to take advantage of anyone by using their virtually unlimited legal and other resources to capitalize on someone else’s handiwork.
You know what. I think I may have missed a little detail. I earlier quoted and linked to some dianabol research by John B. Ziegler ,who worked for Ciba ,during the 50's and 60's.
"PURIFICATION OF 1-DEHYDRO-17α-METHYL. TESTOSTERONE CONTAMINATED BY SE BLENUM Alfred Hunger, Basel, Switzerland, and John Benjamin Ziegler, Summit N.J., assigners to Ciba Corporation, a corporation of Delaware
Filed Dec. 3, 1959, Ser. No. 856,901
Patented Aug. 7, 1962
Patent number: 3,048,603"
https://patents.google.com/patent/US3048603A/en (https://patents.google.com/patent/US3048603A/en)
Seems Ziegler had multiple chemistry patents to his name.
https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Ziegler+John+Benjamin (https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Ziegler+John+Benjamin)
However the above individual, John Benjamin Ziegler(1917-2000), seems to be a different guy to John Bosley Ziegler(1920-1983) the man we are all discussing.
https://prabook.com/web/john_benjamin.ziegler/1695137 (https://prabook.com/web/john_benjamin.ziegler/1695137)
John Benjamin Ziegler graduated form the University of Rochester in 1939 ,taking a Bachelor of Science with distinction in Chemistry. Here is the commencement booklet for that year which mentions him:
https://rbscp.lib.rochester.edu/sites/default/files/atoms/files/1939.pdf (https://rbscp.lib.rochester.edu/sites/default/files/atoms/files/1939.pdf)
John Bosley Ziegler,according to wiki, graduated form Gettysburg College in 1942.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bosley_Ziegler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bosley_Ziegler)
-
Curious and curiouser. Certainly seems these were two different people.
Now, I wonder if people, back in the day, might have mistook John Bosley Ziegler for the Ciba researcher and inventor , John Benjamin Ziegler.
I can't find any evidence online of research or patents by John Bosley Zielger - certainly not in the fields of chemistry or pharmaceuticals . wtf ???
-
Good detective work, Fred.
Two different people. No wonder there is confusion.
-
Curious and curiouser. Certainly seems these were two different people.
Now, I wonder if people, back in the day, might have mistook John Bosley Ziegler for the Ciba researcher and inventor , John Benjamin Ziegler.
I can't find any evidence online of research or patents by John Bosley Zielger - certainly not in the fields of chemistry or pharmaceuticals . wtf ???
Interesting.