Hercules: Hello, Doctor! We've had an idea to give a series of articles in our magazine on the use of pharmaceuticals in bodybuilding. What would you think about becoming a consultant for this column?

Dr. Luber: It is tempting, of course, to play the role of an educator, Cyril and Methodius" of bodybuilding. But in our country there is a certain aspect that significantly limits good intentions. Article 234 of the Criminal Code is in effect in the Russian Federation, and it's not hard to become a target under it. Therefore, the format of the information given can only be extremely streamlined. Well and regularly need to repeat the spell that we do not recommend the use of stands and other doping. So it's like this...

D G : Okay, let's consider the necessary lyrical digression done, we can move on to the specifics. Tell us, Doctor, how big is, in your opinion, the role of pharmaceutical products in achieving serious results on the podium?

D.L.: Achievement of the conditions demanded today in competitive bodybuilding without pharma-support is IMPOSSIBLE. Well God hasn't given the person huge relief muscles by nature, evolution "Homo sapiens" went a little bit the other way. Yes, in itself "pharma" without competent training and diet will give a little. But we should not discount its importance either. If we take a percentage ratio, then, in my opinion, a correct "chemical" preparation for competitions is 40% of success.

G K: Only 40? Some gurus believe that "pharma" is everything. Without it, you cannot achieve serious results. But it depends on what you consider "serious results".

D.L.: It's good that a lot of information on the use of "pharma" has appeared on the Internet. But thanks to it there was a considerable bias in bodybuilding. The accent has shifted from search of some training methods to adherence to the precepts of some "gurus". When I read the revelations of these "experts", my hair stands on end. Because the recommendations to inject insulin before training, eat clenbuterol and dexamethasone, "put" this and that after training somehow do not please me. And when, in fact, is there time to work out? Not to mention the rest of my life. Following the precepts of these "gurus" a person lives just to throw pills and injections into himself. But the end result of those who follow these "precepts", for some reason, is not impressive. I will say more: pharmo-supplementation of many competitors (and successfully) on competitions makes, God forbid, half of what basement users stuff themselves with. And the people who compete in European and World Championships, the dosages that are discussed on the Internet, not even dreamed of. The most amazing thing is that when I give them the REAL numbers, people look at me wildly. I don't know what the hell that has to do with it. Apparently everyone is a maximalist. Apparently everyone has a lot of extra money... Except that the shape of the athletes who performed in the 90s was not too much inferior to the athletes who perform now, and in terms of "dryness" it was even better. I mean amateurs, not pros. Now athletes have more meat, but back then the "drying" was deeper and more enjoyable. So: at that time the dosage of 1000 mg of testosterone a week was considered excessive, and now it is about nothing, the dosage of an ordinary basement visitor. The victorious steps of civilization, in spite of all the crises...

G K: When you say, about a 40% success rate, you mean working drugs. And how do you tell the difference between the working ones and the fake ones? Are there any prescriptions?

D.L.: I think it is extremely incorrect to mention any specific brands. And in the context of what is happening in our country - it's just stupid. So I will have to limit myself to generalities. How do you check if a drug is working or not? That's the thing: you can't, only through your own ass. Because even those brands that belong to the so-called "drugstore" periodically allow themselves to release batches of "empty" drugs. Likewise, in the "underground" a brand gets promoted, and then products of inadequate quality begin to appear under this brand name. No one is immune to anything. Using "pharma" is a lottery. It's a little easier for me and my charges to live. I have some techniques and some statistics, with the help of which I can select what exactly this or that athlete needs. But of course, I can't give any global recommendations to anyone. Because there is nothing stable and is not expected... Roulette (sighs).

G : What do you think of the idea that there are drugs that work for some people and not for others?

DL: Let me start by saying that Dr. Luber was one of the first people in Russia who made this statement. It's really true. Each person is individual and each person's reaction to one drug or another is different. There is, unfortunately, no drug that is right for everyone. With the exception of testosterone, however, there are athletes who react to it with fever, pressure spikes...

HG: ... and gynecomastia?

DL: Gynecomastia is something else. It's a consequence of wrong dosages or liver malaise. And just bad health from testosterone is observed periodically, although, again, this drug, which can suit almost everyone. For other drugs, the variation is pretty strong. For example, I know a lot of people who are happy with methandienone from any manufacturer, no matter oral or injectable. And there are those who have the result of using methane - zero point zero point zero. Though they say that methane is "an athlete's bread", as it turned out, the bread is not for everyone...

And it's the same for every other position. Some drugs after the age of thirty are best not used at all. There are drugs that should not be touched by non-competitive athletes. There are a lot of restrictions. They forget about them for some reason, and then they cry: gynecomastia has risen, pimples have gone, the "bolt" does not stand. This is their own fault. First of all, you have to accumulate a certain amount of knowledge, at least a minimum of it. And only then try to eat something. And it is certainly not worth fantasizing and "constructing" some inconceivable "supercourse" - because this is not the destiny of dilettantes.

G : Some "gurus" argue that a man on steroids can grow continuously for a long time. And if he doesn't grow, it's only because he doesn't follow the rules of the game. But there is another opinion that taking steroids for a long time clogs the receptors of muscle cells and muscle growth stops. And so you have to take breaks and refresh the receptors and stuff like that. What's your opinion on that?

D.L.: It's a little bit different. You cannot grow continuously. Growth happens by leaps and bounds: bounce - plateau - bounce - plateau. Switching from one preparation to another is done to survive this plateau with minimal losses, and to get in as good shape as possible for the next leap. In the past, taking drugs for an unlimited period of time was considered wild, now it is the norm. All the pros are on steroids year-round. And after the age of forty, there's nothing wrong with taking steroids all the time. This is substitution therapy, which allows you to keep Testosterone in the body at a high level and to feel good, young and fresh all year round, without any jumps and falls. In the West, this is widespread, and not only in relation to sports. Why do we shy away from it so much? Because we live in captivity to stereotypes: "Steroids are poison," "your liver will fall off", "you'll lose an erection", "your kids will become retarded", etc. Moreover, the achievements of Russian official medicine in the field of AC use are at an embryonic level. All of this is what is spurring the negative hysteria around steroids, which has been raging for the last two or three years on the pages of the print media and on TV. Alas, they simply do not allow any objective information concerning the use of this rather harmless class of pharmaceuticals, and in all programs and publications they present AC users as such morons and socially dangerous elements... I'm distracted, but I'm aching...

Let's get back to the subject. Going on steroids year-round, especially at a mature age, can put an end to your own hormonal system...

D.L.: And by the age of forty, it is, in fact, dead. And there is a dilemma: stay on your hormones, which means one sexual intercourse a week, or continue to live as at 25. If someone at age 40 believes that life is over and there is only a slow decline ahead, it's his choice. Everyone decides for themselves - I'm not agitating for anything. Personally, I am not morally ready for a conscious fading. Apparently, I haven't had that much joy in my life. I remember a hungry childhood, wooden toys and not being full of love looking at classmates (laughs). I want to live fully, even at 70. And I have examples of such a full life at 70 - the same Valentin Ivanovich Dikul, or the famous weightlifter Igor Borisovich Goldman. As long as possible I do not want to turn into a manic sniveling, pot-bellied, hairy monster.

D.L.: And if you approach the question in terms of building muscles, what schemes are more effective: short courses and short breaks, long courses and long breaks, something in between?

DL: Let's prioritize. Often athletes' problems with gaining muscle mass are not due to courses per se, but to poor nutrition. When a person is on steroids, the body needs the building material to kick-start anabolism. When a person does not consume enough food, the body starts to use proteins from the internal organs: the liver, kidneys, and spleen. Often voiced health problems on long courses are related to this. It's simple: the AC user needs to eat more - this will save him a lot of trouble.

D.L.: Is "pharma" more important for gaining "mass" or for "drying out"?

D.L.: The question is what tastes better: apples or oranges. But if you take a hypothetical situation where it is a matter of life and death to "chemtrain" on "leaning" or on the set of volumes, the answer is definitely leaning. In the conditions of "drying out" it is much harder to preserve muscles than to gain them. To gain, and quite weightily, is possible and natural. But drying out without "pharmacology" will not work. You can only turn into a skeleton. The worst thing is when people try to grow on 'chemicals' and 'dry out' without them. If a person consumes steroids, then the hormonal balance in his body is broken. And when he refuses from steroids, he must be ready for the fact that his estrogen level will go up, and he will get fat, which he will be able to get rid of only when his level of testosterone will return to the level which he had on the pills. And the only way to get back to that level is to start using the pills again. As long as he doesn't do that, he'll be stuck in place. And in general, the idea of practicing without steroids after you've taken them is, unfortunately, doomed to failure.

D.L.: But with the help of sports nutrition you can at least maintain the gains on "pharma"?

D.L.: Certainly "somehow" and "something" is possible. But it is necessary to understand about whom we speak - about competitive athletes or about simple amateurs. If we are talking about simple amateurs, then for them a course of taking steroids with long enough pauses, at minimal dosages, with active involvement of sports nutrition products is optimal. If we are talking about competitive athletes, pauses of 4-6 weeks are recommended. And, during these 4-6 weeks it is better not to go to the gym at all, because this way much more muscles will be preserved. This is done by athletes who want to progress, and not to repeat year after year the form that was five years ago.

G K: Do these four-week breaks make sense? What do they do? Help refresh the receptors?

DL: There are no receptors! Nobody saw them alive and did not touch them with a finger. And pauses in 4-6 weeks give the chance to have a rest from training. First of all the cardiovascular system and ligaments. Also during this time you rest from injections that give you "bumps" and your liver from oral medications. This pause gives you the opportunity to cleanse your body so that it can then respond in the best possible way to smaller doses. That is, unless you are tied to a competition, the pause is taken when the athlete feels there is no longer any effect from the drugs. After that, the athlete gets a new impetus and moves on.

D.L.: So when an athlete is preparing for a competition, he or she does not have to pause for a month to avoid wasting time on "drying off", which sometimes takes three to four months?

DL: I don't know what layer of fat an athlete has to be covered in to "dry off" for four months. Six to eight weeks of "drying out" is more than enough. If the lifter was gaining meat and not fat. Sometimes it happens so, when after the process of "drying", and then water removal, the athlete goes on stage absolutely "no", and then wonders why it happened so. And it's simple: in the off-season he didn't put on meat!

HJ: In that case a question: and what combinations are optimal to gain the "meat"?

D.L.: I will not be original here: testosterone - deca - methane, testosterone - trenbolone enanthate - methane, testosterone - prima - oxymetholone. Everything is standard. Nothing else has been invented yet. Testosterone goes in the background in the dosage of about 1500 mg/week. Of course, we are talking about competitive athletes.

H Kommersant: And what do you think about courses on the basis of testosterone only?

D.L.: At one time on forums I was often asked: "Did you reconsider your attitude to use testosterone solo? After all, it's so effective!" Certainly it is effective in lifting, where strength gains are required, and body weight gain is seen as a side effect. As for bodybuilding - an athlete has to build up quality meat, which you can't do taking testosterone solo even if you want to.

D.L.: Until when does it make sense to postpone acquaintance with "pharma"?

D.L.: You should start taking steroids when a man has achieved certain results. And not so much strength as mental. At a minimum, he's learned how to work hard in the gym. And he knows that he needs it further. When a person comes to the gym for the first time and does not know whether he needs it at all, and he is handed a pack of methana, I think that for this it is necessary to punish. In this situation, people are not initially in the mood to work out in the gym - because after the publications of some authors there is a feeling that there is no need to train at all. It's enough to know what shots and pills to take. And it fails them. When I look at training schemes and splits, which are sometimes published on the Internet, I want to cry. How do people hope to achieve any results with this approach to training! An attempt to compensate for the lack of professionalism in building the training process by taking massive amounts of "drugs" is a road to nowhere. Taking these or those drugs should always be tied in with the training. If drugs change, training programs change. During a break from AC the training is not the same as during a break from drugs, because during a break the main task is to retain muscle mass. Any growth is out of the question. There are a lot of nuances... There are a lot of nuances... Again, the technique of doing exercises. You go into any gym, you see what instructors teach, and it makes the hair on your head spin. And when you see a genetically gifted competitive athlete - in most cases he achieved the result not because of something, but despite everything! Simply natural data could compensate for both the wrong training, and absolutely wild courses, and terrible technique of exercises, from which an ordinary person would simply break down. Accordingly, when they talk about some "miracles of Luber" in terms of training of competitive athletes, it does not correspond to reality - there are no miracles and nothing supernatural at all. We just put together for a specific athlete the RIGHT diet and pharmacological support + a training program with the definition of the technique of exercises. And with such a set of weapons it would be a pity not to "shoot"...

GЪ: Apart from steroids such things as growth hormone, insulin, insulin-like growth factor are in fashion now. How undervalued or overvalued are these things?

D.L.: If we're talking about ordinary amateurs, my personal opinion is that they don't need it. Not in any way or for any purpose. The only thing is that taking growth hormone is justified after 30-35 years of age or when there are problems with ligaments. Using insulin and IGF as an amateur seems to me like complete nonsense. Yes, these preparations work, but they are "tuned" for a certain level of training of athletes. At the amateur stage of training "for yourself" the tasks that are solved with the help of insulin or IGF are not necessary. It should be clearly understood that the pharma-support should clearly correspond to what you want. You should not overstep the bounds of reasonableness.

HG: What do you have to say about things like aminoglycoside or cytadren?

DL: It is the same drug. It is sold in pharmacies under the name "Orimeten". I would not say that it has any special anti-catabolic effect. Moreover: in spite of its enormous price, its effect in this respect is comparable to the effect of clenbuterol. There is no magic drug that can keep your results between cycles. And those athletes who say that they do not take anything in the off-season, but nevertheless keep almost in competitive condition - they are not telling the truth. Because as soon as you stop taking steroids, your estrogen and cortisol levels skyrocket, which results in a loss of performance and general lethargy. And even a low-calorie diet won't save you from gaining fat. It is similar to the desire to lose weight of some people - they diet and aerobically exhaust themselves regularly, but it's useless. Obviously, before thinking about getting rid of fat, you need to do blood tests. If you have a bad thyroid function or elevated levels of female hormones, no diet or exercise will have any effect.

HЪ: How important are the tests and how often should they be done?

DL: The dangers of steroids are exaggerated, and they do not lead to any global fatal consequences. Nevertheless, they lead to some changes in the body. And it is necessary to monitor these changes. If an athlete works with a competent trainer, there is no need to worry about this issue, because he will tell you everything. If, however, as it usually happens with us, everything is done by a "do-it-yourself mechanic" - it is an ass, and the question of health will have to be taken care of by yourself. Usually you have to do some tests in between courses. At least once every six months to take some steps if something in the body is not working right.

G K K: And the final question of today's discussion: in light of the persecution of doping. As you think, whether there is a future and prospects at so-called "natural bodybuilding"?

D.L.: There is, certainly... For those who are interested in it... Alas, with the departure of doping from the sport, it will lose all intrigue. Competitions of individuals who don't have much in common with ordinary, ordinary beer-loving people would only be attractive to a very narrow stratum of those same people, who consider themselves "bodybuilders" and fanatical "straight guys"... God help them. God help them... Taste is a matter of opinion...