A couple of weeks ago, we got a letter from a figure of the bodybuilding past named Anthony Almada. For those of you who don't know him, Anthony Almada is one of the guys who helped bring us two of the biggest supplement duds ever to roll down the pike: vanadyl sulfate and HMB. I'll just bet that a bunch of us would like to have back some of those tens of millions of dollars we paid good ol' AA and company for these two virtual placebos (VS and HMB).

Almada also assisted in launching the rude little scheme that mixing creatine with a special blend of table sugar and a few expensive amino acids is somehow more effective than mixing creatine in grape juice and heating it up a little.

Ahh, but his accomplishments didn't stop there. He also helped father the infamous "let's come up with one ingredient and then bombard the market with various versions of the ingredient so people think we're innovative sons of bitches" product development plan. Creatine drinks, creatine protein powders, creatine candy bars, and creatine gumdrops sprung forth from the fertile mind of Anthony Almada. Now, we can't swear to this, but we think that there were plans for a joint marketing effort between Anthony and Massengill to produce the first creatine monohydrate "cell-volumizing" douche.

Of course, the fortune he amassed with his supplement propaganda bought him a number of sports cars, a former Miss America for a wife, and an early retirement (or so we thought).

For a while, the supplement world rested easy. The mags were gloriously free from poorly planned studies, all of which were conducted by the same group who, no doubt, plan to name a wing after Almada some day. Take a look at some of those early creatine studies from the University of Memphis. Almada's name is tacked onto the end of most of them?kind of like the credits at the end of a 50s TV show:

"...and Jerry Mathers as the Beaver."
"...and Walter Frawley as Bub."
"...and Anthony Almada as the name we tack on at the end of the author's list out of obligation."

Well, it looks like he's back. The supplement world must have felt a collective sphincter tightening when Almada clicked the send button and emailed us the following (we've added some explanatory notes where appropriate). Responses from both Biotest CEO Tim Patterson and prohormone guru Pat Arnold follow AA's letter.

Enjoy.

From Anthony Almada

18 Dec 1998 10:52 PST

Dear Gentlemen:

Why the continued obsession with serum testosterone concentrations when the index of action lies in the performance of muscle and its actual mass? Increasing the concentrations of a hormone is not the issue?eat carbs and protein, and boost insulin, but do we see type II diabetics or obese subjects with exceptional muscle mass or reduced net proteolysis? The key is hormonal action from the molecular to the whole body level.

The Chiesi patent (animal) data on ipriflavone fly in the face of the observed outcomes in all of the intervention trials, and likely will be borne out in the results from the three-year, multi-center trial near completion: women receiving ipri do not show increases in fat-free soft tissue mass, and the bone mass augmentation persists for no more than 1-1.5 years in a two-year period of supplementation (another reason we are anxious for the three-year data to emerge). If indeed ipri is anabolic in the extra-skeletal compartment, why doesn't it manifest in any of the bone trials? Why don't you put some real data out there, rather than resting upon the speculations of animal data? Such a study would cost between $15-20,000 US and provide you with a powerful arsenal of marketing leverage and demand creation potential. I do hope that you fund some independent research to validate the claims and assertions that you have been promulgating. You are well poised to capture a new niche and create some significant product demand....

EDITOR'S NOTE: Ipriflavone is one of the active ingredients of Biotest's Tribex-500 formulation. The original patent and date was filed by a drug company named Chinoin, not "Chiesi."

So much effort and capital has been dedicated to increasing testosterone over the past two-plus years, yet still no data has been presented (nor published) regarding the ability (or inability) of various androgenic agents to elicit the effects consumers truly buy them for: increased muscle mass and/or muscle performance. Our study at the University of Memphis, and those of colleagues at another universities, apparently will be the first to unveil the true effects of oral androgens on body comp and performance in weight training males. Charles alluded to "studies being done in Europe on your product"?we are all anxious to see the outcomes.

As for Pat, yes he has definitely championed androgens. However, he could have directed the money he and Scott gave to Tim Ziegenfuss at Eastern Michigan University, intended for quantitating serum endocrine changes, and rather had Tim or some other lab evaluate the effects of his "mystical" compound upon body comp and performance, banked the blood to analyze for a later date, and brought out to the world the real data?(hopefully) androgens effect an increase in skeletal (and maybe bone) mass and increase power and strength. Pat's chemical "secret" is quite old and obvious to those who have read the recent oral testosterone literature. Adding this "secret" carbohydrate complex to many low molecular weight, fat soluble substances can indeed increase the blood concentrations, but the pharmacodynamics?what happens to the agent and what the agent does?are another story. By the way, two other companies have already done the same magic and have the products being tested as described above. Pat just happens to launch his product before real confirmatory data existed.

Respectfully,

Anthony L. Almada, B.Sc., M.Sc.
IMAGINutrition and MetaResponse Sciences
Aptos, California

EDITOR'S NOTE: AA is referring to Pat Arnold's recent article about the interesting possibilities of combining 4-andro-diol with cyclodextrin to allow the product to be absorbed through the mucus membranes of the mouth, thereby bypassing the digestive system and avoiding a first pass through the liver.

Batting First: Patrick Arnold, LPJ Research President

With all due respect, Anthony, I think that you are out of line calling cyclodextrin complexes of steroids a "mystical" compound. These substances are well researched and well documented in the literature. There's no "voodoo" going on?this is bona fide science being applied to prohormones.

I agree that body composition studies need to be done on prohormones. This study should take into consideration dose-dependency, different prohormones, and various modes of administration. However, suggesting that we should have skipped first proving that cyclo complexes provide a more efficient means of raising testosterone and gone right to body composition studies is inappropriate. Science?real science, and not the type generally associated with marketing-driven supplement designers?always takes things one step at a time, Anthony.

Additionally, I truly believe that these testosterone elevations are substantial enough so as to provide an ergogenic effect if taken multiple times during the day. I believe that this (using your own words) constitutes "real confirmatory data."

Now, I'm not for a moment suggesting that anyone forgo lab testing in lieu of real-life experiences. Quite the contrary. I'm merely suggesting that, for instance, the steroid experiences of pro bodybuilders like Dorian Yates and Ronnie Coleman might not match the steroid experiences of a couple of pencil-necked test subjects, regardless of whether or not the testing was done under bona fide laboratory conditions.

I have to tell you, too, that I'm dismayed at the bitter, angry tone in your letter. Never once did I claim that these complexes were a chemical "secret." I specifically stated that these compounds were well known to those versed in the art. The only secret I alluded to was the manufacturing process that I developed which allowed them to be made cheaply enough for sale as a supplement.

You also stated that we don't know what happens to the hormones from these complexes and whether they affect any biologically significant changes. I suggest that you read the following articles; they all concern sublingual testosterone cyclodextrin complexes:

Sublingual testosterone replacement improves muscle mass and strength, decreases bone resorption, and increases bone formation markers in hypogonadal men?a clinical research center study. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1996 Oct;81(10):3654-62.)

Testosterone replacement therapy improves mood in hypogonadal men?a clinical research center study. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1996 Oct;81(10):3578-83.)

Pharmacokinetics, bioefficacy, and safety of sublingual testosterone cyclodextrin in hypogonadal men: comparison to testosterone enanthate?a clinical research center study. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1995 Dec;80(12):3567-75.)

These studies demonstrate that sublingual cyclodextrin complexes are a very effective way of administering testosterone as indicated by increased muscle mass, increased bone density, and increased mood parameters. Therefore, it should be safe to assume that this mode of administration would be very effective for testosterone precursors as well.

I look forward to the cyclodextrin data that the other two companies are doing in regard to body composition/strength. LPJ Research would love to work with these companies to provide them with the least expensive high-purity cyclodextrin complexed prohormones, should they choose to carry these on their private labels.

Sincerely,

Pat

Batting Clean-Up: Tim Patterson, Biotest Chief Executive Officer

Mr. Almada, I really can't take your inference that androgen-stimulating compounds aren't beneficial in building muscle mass seriously. Come to think of it, I don't think anyone else can, either. In fact, a compelling study was presented in November at an ACSM meeting in Las Vegas. The study shows that subjects?all university football players?who took a zinc and magnesium supplement called ZMA had 2.5 times greater strength gains than a placebo group. Furthermore, their testosterone levels increased by 30%, while the placebo group's decreased by 10%. Okay, so strength gains don't correlate absolutely with muscle gains, but it's close enough in my book.

Another recent study?published in the Journal of Human Movement Studies 1997;32:253-265?confirms that men with higher levels of free testosterone absolutely build muscle mass faster than those with lower levels.

The Chinoin patent?the name's "Chinoin," not "Cheesy-stick," or whatever you wrote?on ipriflavone (7-isopropoxyisoflavone, one of the active ingredients in Tribex-500) does include human trials, as well as animal studies. Admittedly, they weren't too interested in the physical aspirations of athletes, so they restricted their inquiries into animals and non-athletes.

They conducted all of the usual tests: weighing the levator ani muscles, weighing the seminal vesicles (to see if ipriflavone had androgenic effect in addition to anabolic effect: it didn't). They found that it had very strong cortisol-blocking effects. In fact, to paraphrase their own words, identical doses of anabolic steroids didn't exert cortisol-blocking effects stronger than ipriflavone. But, like steroids, it caused a variety of different species to gain mind-boggling percentages of lean body weight:

? 8 to 15% in calves
? 7 to 10% in cattle
? 7 to 10% in hogs
? 8 to 20% in poultry
? 10 to 20% in rabbits
? 8 to 12% in guinea pigs

They also checked ipriflavone's effects on calcium and phosphate retention, two indicators of anabolic activity. As a result of taking 20 mg/kg of bodyweight, the calcium and phosphate retention of young sheep skyrocketed. (These findings resulted in ipriflavone being used throughout parts of Europe as an anti-osteoporosis drug.)

And, when they finally gave ipriflavone to humans, they gained between 2 to 3 kilograms of lean mass in just a few weeks.

The researchers guessed that nitrogen retention was the cause of all of this additional muscle gain, so they did additional studies using animals. Nitrogen excretion decreased on the 20th and 30th day by a statistically significant degree. Furthermore, examinations using radioactively labeled methionine showed that increased levels of the amino acid were being transported to the muscles of treated animals.

Additionally, many European world-class athletes have been using ipriflavone for years for its ergogenic properties. It's common knowledge that it is clearly anabolic. In short, we believe that there's ample scientific and empirical evidence to show that ipriflavone is anabolic.

(For more information on ipriflavone, refer to the Super Flavone article in Issue 22 of Testosterone.)

Obviously, even though something like your claim to fame, vanadyl sulfate, may have caused a greater influx of glucose into muscle cells (at least in test-tube experiments), I can tell you without hesitation that there are no bodybuilders out there that have benefited noticeably from using vanadyl sulfate.

Although you assert that ipriflavone's effects were inconclusive in the particular study you cite, no one ever said that it would turn non-training menopausal or post-menopausal women into muscle-bound super athletes. Why, they'd have to use vanadyl sulfate, HMB, or creatine and sugar water to do that.

Your angst chatter about "real" data is confusing the issues. We can say the same thing for just about every other nutritional supplement. There isn't a single compound that should be excluded from "needing more investigation." So, stop targeting your vents of outrage on any one particular product and try helping bodybuilding for once. If you want to target a couple of real bombs, look around on your own lab bench, or better yet, under the front seat of your Jaguar.

You've made enough money from bodybuilders, why not give something meaningful back to them? If you really want to help, let's see what kind of research you're producing. I wonder, though, does it just happen to be associated with nutritional supplements that you're planning to sell? Or, is it designed to rip products that have been cutting into your market?

Furthermore, I think you'd command a lot more credibility if you worked, on occasion, with an institution other than the University of Memphis. Why? Remember chromium piccolinate? It, too, was going to change the world. All of their studies were done in conjunction with one university?a university that, at least in my eyes, has lost almost all of its credibility.

I'm delighted to see that you're concluding a three-year, multi-center trial on various potential ergogens. I'll be sure to read every word of your study carefully before summarily condemning it, as is your habit.

In closing, if you still doubt the connection between testosterone and building muscle, why don't you put a tourniquet on your balls for about six weeks and let us know what happens?

Thanks for all of your contributions to our sport,

Tim Patterson

Why does this feel like a WWF battle royale? We half expect a team of Korean midgets to enter the fray at any moment and put Arnold, Almada, and Patterson in their deadly version of the "sleeper hold."

Will anyone else enter this cage match? Stay tuned.

T