1-T Ethergel/Boldione cycle: Results

[macrophage69alpha]

none of these studies is even remotely recent.. which may be a factor in their accuracy and validity..

though it would certainly be interesting to see the body of the studies.. since they are not available online.

 

[Bill Llewellyn]

none of these studies is even remotely recent.. which may be a factor in their accuracy and validity..

The heyday for steroids research is long over bro. This is what we have, and I wouldn't expect to see a whole lot more. There is little financial motivation for companies to revisit this era.

though it would certainly be interesting to see the body of the studies.. since they are not available online.

I think I speak for Pat when I say, "Get off your ass and go to the damn library!"

- Bill

 

[Bill Llewellyn]

There are several studies on 1-test. HOwever only one that i am aware of concerning aromatization and it showed that it does not aromatize. I would not expect it to have any intrinsic estrogenic activity either.

However, a rebound imbalance of test/est post cycle is always a possibility, and at that point gyno can arise

Reread the front of Vida again. He actually states that is does aromatize, and lists two refereces. The first I hadn't seen, and it showed a 9% conversion. The second I already had, and refuted the first. Odd though, as Vida listed both of them to show it did aromatize..

 

[pa1ad]

Reread the front of Vida again. He actually states that is does aromatize, and lists two refereces. The first I hadn't seen, and it showed a 9% conversion. The second I already had, and refuted the first. Odd though, as Vida listed both of them to show it did aromatize..

I don't have the vida book. I also did not get my references for the 1-adione aromatization from Vida, but from chem abstracts. I am pretty convinced that it does not aromatize judging from the soundness of the study that shows that it does not, and from the chemical structure.

 

[pa1ad]

none of these studies is even remotely recent.. which may be a factor in their accuracy and validity..

though it would certainly be interesting to see the body of the studies.. since they are not available online.

Well then I guess winstrol, anavar, anadrol, and primobolan do not work either cuz they were developed in the same time period and in fact, primobolan was developed by the same researchers that developed 1-test (pretty much at the same time).

I guess they just got lucky with those other steroids. I guess pennicillin doesn't work either, cuz after all it was discovered and researched far too long ago.

If you want to see the studies then go to the library

 

[macrophage69alpha]

Well then I guess winstrol, anavar, anadrol, and primobolan do not work either cuz they were developed in the same time period and in fact, primobolan was developed by the same researchers that developed 1-test (pretty much at the same time).

actually HUNDREDS of steroids were developed during this period..

many of them did not "make the cut"..

the issue is not when it was developed.. or even whether they work.. it is related to the fact that the research on IT EFFECTS is DATED... and INCOMPLETE

for instance trenbolone was developed LONG AGO.. until just this year its PR binding was "undiscovered"..

btw- since you say that 1-test is naturally occuring.. it was not developed.. isolated perhaps

and it was passed over

 

[macrophage69alpha]

I guess they just got lucky with those other steroids. I guess pennicillin doesn't work either, cuz after all it was discovered and researched far too long ago.

there are over 54,000 studies JUST on medline regarding penicillin and its progeny.. and penicillin is still studied..

 

[Bill Llewellyn]

for instance trenbolone was developed LONG AGO.. until just this year its PR binding was "undiscovered"..

Actually, I was the one to make this "discovery", and I did it using the same old references everyone else overlooked. It was not new research, and I was not the first to know it. I just brought it to BB's attention. There is little steroid research going on now, actually.

Also, whethor or not a steroid made it as a commercial agent has little to do with "making the cut". Do you think the pharmaceutical market in the U.S. could support hundreds of effective steroid products? You would need a PDR just for steroids if you made every effective agent into a prescription drug. It is a business after all.

Your statements about 1-test being "passed over" are also idiotic.




- Bill

 

[macrophage69alpha]

Actually, I was the one to make this "discovery", and I did it using the same old references everyone else overlooked. It was not new research, and I was not the first to know it. I just brought it to BB's attention. then it would be more accurate to say that you did not make this discovery..(which you did not.. it was being discussed here at least 3 years ago.. and duchaine and bill roberts were arguing about it before that) but you did put it in your book.. thats about it..

There is little steroid research going on now, actually.and actually this was just confirmed by a study less than a year old.. guess that must be some of that "little" research.. actually with the rise of their use in treating HIV and in anti-aging there is a considerable amount of research on-going

Also, whethor or not a steroid made it as a commercial agent has little to do with "making the cut". Do you think the pharmaceutical market in the U.S. could support hundreds of effective steroid products? You would need a PDR just for steroids if you made every effective agent into a prescription drug. It is a business after all.
Yes it is a business and if 1-test were as effective as you "claim" it to be.. it would be an unwise business decision to pass it over.. especially since it is orally bioavailable and not 17aa.. odd that they would pass that over??

Your statements about 1-test being "passed over" are also idiotic.
IDIOTIC??? I stated a FACT.. 1-test was not developed.. it was therefore "passed" over.. this does not mean that it is not effective.. but it WAS passed over



- Bill

 

[macrophage69alpha]

btw- never said that they(1ad/1-t) were not effective..

my original question was whether they can/do cause gynocomastia?

and, if so, (potentially) by what mechanism? direct/indirect ER, PR or other..







part of the reason that older research is less telling is the inattention paid to the PR(which would make sense as it was discovered in 1970) and as well as, to a certain extent, the activity of metabolites..