Forma stanzol as a STAND ALONE AGENT?

[dylangemelli]

this is straight from mrsupps and should answer your questions... also... 10 pumps a day... 5 in the a.m. and 5 twelve hours later... chest and abs are the application areas...

because of the formestane and new added compounds Its anabolic/androgen effects are similar to that of the steroid Primobolan Depot. It also increases IGF-1 levels by an amazing 26%. It also increases HPTA activity and testicular activity similar to a combination of HCG and Clomid! All of this is backed up by "human" studies. Yes Real human studies done by well known Universities and agencies. Because for the longest time Lentaron I.M. Depot® was a prescription drug. This was not a drug that got scrapped because it did not work or because other drugs worked better. No this drug lost favor because many years ago the only way to use the drug was through injections. Do to the advancements in Trans dermal delivery formestane is back.

FORMA-STANZOL decreases SHBG 34% thus increasing androgen activity, which basically makes androgens/steroids in your systems MORE effective WITHOUT any increase in dosage.

FORMA-STANZOL increases IGF-1 levels by a whopping 26%, doing so creates the perfect anabolic muscle building environment on cycle, off cycle and during pct.

FORMA-STANZOL decreases the number of progesterone receptors (inhibits the trenbolone and “deca-dick” type side effects and increases fat loss.

 

[Headholio]

From Wikipedia:

It also acts as a prohormone to 4-hydroxytestosterone, an active steroid which displays weak androgenic activity in addition to acting as a mild aromatase inhibitor.

 

[dylangemelli]

just so we are all clear, its not ever good to take things from wikidpedia because anyone can write whatever they want on there... this is why college professors have never allowed its usage in any bibliographical way... there is a reason its not able to be utilized in this perspective... while some of the info there may be accurate, there is A LOT of inaccurate info there...

 

[Headholio]

just so we are all clear, its not ever good to take things from wikidpedia because anyone can write whatever they want on there... this is why college professors have never allowed its usage in any bibliographical way... there is a reason its not able to be utilized in this perspective... while some of the info there may be accurate, there is A LOT of inaccurate info there...

Actually, Wikipedia is an excellent resource. The information on it is usually footnoted, as was the info I posted above. True, if there is not a credible citation linked to the info, take it with a grain of salt, because Wikipedia does contain incorrect info. The wiki factoid I posted was taken from a medical study and the Pub Med abstract is linked.

Normally, I use Wikipedia to get basic facts, and use the references to confirm and get more info. If I want to share the info with someone, I will normally link to the reference source, rather than the wiki page.

 

[dylangemelli]

if wikidpedia is so great then why can't you use it in factual papers? Anyone can edit what is written on there... like i said, there is some good facts there but the shit written there is often inaccurate... its not a good place to be quoting and using information to help others... not at all...

 

[Headholio]

if wikidpedia is so great then why can't you use it in factual papers? Anyone can edit what is written on there... like i said, there is some good facts there but the shit written there is often inaccurate... its not a good place to be quoting and using information to help others... not at all...

If I was a professor I wouldn't accept Wikipedia references either. Why? Because Wikipedia is collection of information that comes from other places. In most cases, the sources of the information are noted, so the reader can verify the info AND verify the quality of the source.

For example, I was just on Wikipedia and found that the US national debt is about 16.4 trillion dollars.
Should I believe it? Yes. Why? Because the information is linked to a US Treasury website and also linked to a Boston Business Journal article. 2 good sources.

So the bottom line, if you see a Wikipedia reference, you shouldn't dismiss it as being unreliable. All you have to do is look at the wiki page and determine for yourself if it is good info or not.

I don't usually link to Wiki pages. If I wanted to prove to you what the national debt is, I would link to the US Treasury page (that I got off Wikipedia). But whether I link to the Wiki page or the Treasury page, it is still up to the reader, to actually read, and then decide if I am telling the truth or not.
United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

 

[Headholio]

But back to Formastanzol, did I post good info from wikipedia? Yes. Formestane is a precurser to 4 hydroxy testosterone in vivo.

Metabolism of 4-hydroxyandrostenedione and 4-hydrox... [Steroids. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI

I wouldn't have known that if I didn't check Wikipedia, and hence, it is a valuable resource (for a responsible user, of course).

 

[ballslee]

woah i wrote that wrong. my fault

wikipedia blows dude.....shoulda just quoted the article, like u did later

 

[Headholio]

woah i wrote that wrong. my fault

wikipedia blows dude.....shoulda just quoted the article, like u did later

Wrote what wrong?

Well, I explained why Wikipedia doesn't blow. But if you like that other link better, I'm glad I could help.

 

[JoeBlob]

Wikipedia is a great resource for a basic understanding. You wouldn't want to rely on it for an entire research paper with detail... But like Headholio said, you can tell what's real (taken from reliable sources) and what is bullshit. There's TONS of good info on it, especially if you are just trying to get a grasp of the concept.

On that note, I'm not really sure why we are talking about this...