by Josh Hodnik
Oh, what a mess we weave. The Internet, also known as the World Wide Web, contains at least 6.23 billion pages, millions of which focus on bodybuilding and fitness. We could narrow it down as we dial in on performance-enhancing supplements and medications, and the content would still have millions of pages. The content on the Internet is huge, to say the least, and it's very easy to get involved in everything the Internet has to offer if you're not careful.
The myriad of bodybuilding blogs are often copied and pasted from another blog or website. Often the blogger will change the wording a little to look a little original. This can be problematic. Let's just assume that the original content that was copied or referenced was actually correct. Then we have a blogger who decides to copy this information as he changes it to give the impression that he is the original author. In this scenario, we rely on that person's ability to collect and share the information so that it is still correct.
There is a popular international children's game called Chinese Whispers where players line up. The first person in line whispers a message to the second person. The second person whispers to the third person and so on until they reach the last person. The original message is then compared to the final version. No wonder that there is always a big discrepancy between the first and the last message. This is what the Internet looks like these days. Facts are passed on again and again until they are no longer facts. Information about anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs is so twisted that it is difficult to trust anything you see or hear today. The thing is, a lot of people believe everything they see and hear, even if it comes from a YouTube video. The saying, if it is on the Internet, must be true, seemed to have started as a joke. People often don't see this as a joke and rely on everything they see on YouTube. For example, I recently came across a self-proclaimed 21-year-old SARM expert on YouTube. He posted a video about SARMs, side effects, and indicators in the blood test. This person's claims were so far from the base that it was hard to believe that PED users would look here for their information. The icing on the cake was that this person's YouTube channel had about 12,000 subscribers. In other words, there are over 12,000 people who rely on very misguided information while taking performance-enhancing drugs. This is just one example of countless blogs, YouTube channels and forums that publish the same type of content. The blind lead the blind, with no scientific data to support their claims. I have no respect for this type of misdirected information that is careless and potentially dangerous. However, I respect people who research meticulously before content is published, and Victor Black is one of the few people who research scientific data on anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs.
I recently met Victor after reading some of his social media posts about PEID usage. At first glance, I thought big deal, another person copying and pasting a PubMed article. After a closer look, I noticed that Victor was really digging and using legitimate studies to gather information about and graph how people responded to performance-enhancing drugs. I did a lot of research and came across data in his posts that I had never seen before. Then I realized that this guy is doing something right and he's someone I had to talk to. One thing I've noticed in Victor Black's segments time and time again is that he seems to take a neutral stance on performance-enhancing drug use. He's not pushing it as the end of everyone, but as bodybuilding, and he never downplayed the consequences of consuming these drugs. He seems to have an agenda to tell the reader or listener what to expect; the good the bad and the ugly. After several messages on social media, we decided to set up a Skype call. After all, one of the reasons I wanted to put this article together was because of his brain selection.
Josh Hodnik: Victor, would you please tell us something about your educational background and how it went beyond your current location?
Victor Black: At the age of 52 I participate as a bodybuilder in the Grandmaster Class over 50. I started training 34 years ago and intensely started researching anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs at the age of around 40.
Josh Hodnik: Much has changed in this world in the last 34 years when you started training. How has PEID usage changed during this time?
Victor Black: In 1970 the PED discussion was really limited to 10 or 12 anabolic and androgenic steroids. In 2020 there are literally hundreds of different compounds in dozens of different classes that could be considered for building the Super Natural Human.
Starting with AAS to SARM, from recombinant growth hormone to secretagogues, from glucose disposal and sensitizers to human insulin analogues, from peptides to chemical decouplers, there are literally so many potential PIEDs that there are both beginners and the amount of "really." Bro Science is overwhelming ”in the area of performance and image enhancing drugs is at an unprecedented level in our tribe.
Josh Hodnik: As you mentioned, there is an almost endless selection of PEDs today that are the easiest to get on the Internet. Do you think this is the trigger for PED to be misused and abused regardless of today's health consequences?
Victor Black: History has shown us that people have always looked for the magic pill and run the risk of being anything but average. DNP was used extensively in diet pills in the 1930s after a Stanford University reported its ability to increase metabolism. Then there was the Goldman dilemma that interviewed athletes in the 80s and 90s and showed that an astonishing number of them would take a pill that guaranteed success, even if it meant an early death. The person who takes risks has always been there. You currently have medications that were previously only available to certain bodybuilders and athletes and are now available to the masses.
Josh Hodnik: The research you do is very time consuming. What drives you to do this every day?
Victor Black: My educational background is in engineering and not in biochonsitry. But the data is out there if someone looks deep enough. It's not like it was years ago when Dan Duchaine read medical books in a university library. It is important to be able to understand and translate data that my technical background has helped me with. There is an unmet need in our community that led me to pursue the educational aspect of using PEID.
Josh Hodnik: What would you stop readers who may not know what you are doing or who you are?
Victor Black: I am passionate about helping men and women who are interested in better understanding the big, good, bad, and ugly PEID applications, and I believe in evidence-based practice that values anecdotes, observations, and experiences as much as clinical ones Evidence and the customer's personal choices.
Victor is a voice in a market overwhelmed by noise, worth hearing.
He actively seeks to strike a balance between the practical use of PIEDs by the user and an understanding of what we can learn and apply from clinical knowledge for our "safer use" of these compounds.
Here are 3 tips from Victor for safer use
* Start separating the compounds into PEDs for basal (or daily use) and PEDs for situational use.
Examples of the use of PED in situations can be the past few weeks leading to competition or breaking a plateau. Where we may be able to justify taking a higher risk for a short period of time, but do not really want to live in this escalated risk state for a long period of time.
** As a general rule of thumb, we would only place drugs that are approved for human use in the PED class for basal or daily use. These are the connections we will live with for most of our career.
Research chemicals and veterinary drugs then become PEDs for situational use by default, which doesn't mean as much as we should never use them because we should use them sparingly or under certain specific conditions over greatly shortened periods of weeks, not months and definitely not years of exposure.
Understand that unapproved, untested research chemicals and experimental drug candidates pose a greater plausible risk to you, not a smaller one. This misunderstanding has now reached almost epidemic proportions, which can only be attributed to the marketing of those who sell these drugs.
As a result, we now have people who truly believe that a drug that has never been tested in a rat model is "safer to use" than a drug that has been used in human clinical settings for 60 years and is safe and effective in use Hundreds of clinical studies have been studied to consider us.
Only understanding this simple fact has the potential to significantly lower your risk profile. Most people today do not understand that a drug that has been developed and evaluated for human use and subsequently abandoned has been abandoned for a reason, usually either for efficacy or safety reasons, or for toxicity profiles, or sometimes both.
There are drugs like Yk-11 that have never been tested in a rat model, and drugs like GW1516 that have been abandoned by developers because they have not passed standardized toxicity tests. Few people understand the facts here. I have lost the number of people who believe that GW1516 has failed a massive escalation of dose testing over inappropriate periods of time. Incorrect, it hasn't passed the standardized dose and duration of exposure toxicity tests that were "required" to progress through the approval process, and it failed and was therefore abandoned by developers.
That doesn't mean that you should never use GW1516 or YK-11. Just go with your eyes open and understand that this defines higher-risk drug use that is no less risk than drugs in clinical use in humans.
*** Finally, consider using dosages that are "close" to those at the clinical level. Many are surprised at the scope that allows us to do this and give us reasonable data that we can take into account from clinical applications and studies.
As a general rule of thumb, I'm using less and less doses for the clinical trial data we have. Some examples here are:
Test data up to 30 IU days
Clinically used on the 18IU day for muscle wasting diseases
Test data up to 600 mg per week
Clinically used at 200 mg per week for TRT
Test data up to 600 mg per week
Clinically used at 200 mg per week
Experimental data up to 1200 mg per week (for women)
Clinically used at 300 mg per week (in women)
Experimental data up to 350 mg per week (in men and women)
Clinically used at 300 mg per week (in women)
Experimental data at 80 mg and 150 mg per day (200 mg per day, but limited data for review, only one or two paragraphs)
Clinically used at 20 mg a day
Clinically used at a recommended dose of 1 – 5 mg / kg (up to 150 mg day)
Test data at up to 450 mg per day
Clinically used at 75 mg per day
Clinically used with up to 2000 mg per day
insulin – Analog dependent
As little as 5 IU per day is suitable for use as a PED or for anti-aging practices
In an industry where a PEID guru shows up too many times to be counted, I can say without a doubt that Victor Black is the real deal. We have relied too much on opinion-based concepts, and Victor only relies on data-based concepts. This alone makes Victor Black an asset for the information and education side of PEID usage.
Victor can be reached for online coaching and advice at www.victorblackmasterclass.com