1-T Ethergel/Boldione cycle: Results

[ISN_Man]

Starting this past Saturday (the 13th), I started a Molecular Nutrition cycle, consisting of 1-T Ethergels and Boldione. This cycle will consist of 200mg of 1-T ED and 400mg of Boldione ED for 8 weeks, with a 2 week taper. During the length of the cycle, I won't be taking creatine so I can really get a sense of how the two products work. I stopped creatine a week prior to begining this cycle. I will be taking 2 tablespoons of flax daily, along with at least 1 gram of protein per pound of body weight (some days may be more). My plan is to make posts once a week to this so that way people have some idea of how these two products work, especially the 1-T Ethergels, seeing a few people are interested. So here's where what I'm starting with and if anyone has suggestions or comments, please post away. I even take well to constructive critisism, as long as it's definitely going to benefit me!

Starting Stats: - 6'1'', 197, roughly 12% BF (I'm not concerned with BF measurements, so I won't be keeping track of this)
(Note: Just took 8 days off from training)

 

[Big Arnold]

INS_MAN,
I have been interested in these 2 products myself, glad to read someone is going to give them a shot. Your plan sounds pretty good but I'm wondering if your sticking with a,....for you..."Normal workout" or if your going to be changing your workout also? I'm also 6'1" but weigh 240 and am looking for something else besides 1-AD, for putting on alittle more mass/strength. Good Luck, keep us informed.

 

[ISN_Man]

Alrighty, well today marks a week of being on my 1-T Ethergel/Boldione stack. Everything's going along great and I have no complaints. Not noticing anything yet, other than huge increase in my appetite and slight body temp. increase, which is a sign of hormonal changes. No stomach upset, no painful urination, no insomnia, etc. So far, I'm happy with how things have been going. Hopefully by the end of the second week, I'll have started noticing the stuff.
Funny side note though. In my fitness appraisal class today, we were doing body compostion testing, including body fat %s using calipers. I had my % configured and I got roughly 4%!!! Now, I'm lean, but not that lean. Even with the 3% margin of era, that would only put me at 7%. Personally, I feel I'm roughly 10%, seeing as my abs aren't even fully in. Any how, I just felt that was funny and wanted to share it.

 

[ISN_Man]

Today marks the end of the 2 week mark. It's been exactly 14 days that I've been on and I'm up roughly 6-8 pounds, which that's all water weight I'm sure. But the kicker is, I'm off creatine. I've been off for 3 weeks. I wanted to do this cycle free from creatine so I could tell how potent this stack was or wasn't.
Though the weight's up a bit, I haven't experienced any solid strength gains as of yet, but perhaps it's still too early.
Workouts have seemed to be more intense. Pumps are good and my endurance is up, just as if I was on creatine. My vascularity is just as evident as ever. I'm veiny as it is, but during my workouts, I have veins coming out in every direction possible. I think the vascularity may be giving way the fact that I'm on stuff.
Well, I'm hoping that in the next week of working out, I will start to notice a decent increase in strength. If not, then perhaps the 1-T Ethergel/Boldione combo isn't very effective at increasing muscular strength....or, it just takes more time to kick in. I guess we'll see....

 

[40butpumpin]

Give it some more time and keep the updates coming. I'm not surprised at all that you haven't noticed much in only two weeks. Give it 6 to 8 weeks of consistency and then we'll see.

-40

 

[wojo]

bump this i am definitely interested in this

 

[riskybizz007]

I'm planning on a very similar cycle myself... bump

 

[young guns]

i don't know much about how quick results are seen from 1-test, but i know boldione SHOULD take several weeks, since the steroid it converts to won't give real quick results, and usually someone runs boldenone for at least 8 weeks, usually 10. i've seen many people who compare boldenones mucsle building effect to deca, and somehwat use the two interchangably for that (not in all its effects), so you can see it's not a fast acting blow you up quick drug, so boldione wouldn't either.

i'd say in a couple more weeks you should really see if this combo is workin.

as far as your 6-8 pounds being water....don't sell youself short man, 1-test should not give water retention (no conversion to estrogen), and the steroid boldenone (don't know if the prohormone itself aromatizes) aromatizes only slightly....and you said the vascularity is up....sounds like you've put on some solid mass......


have you taken 1-test before by itself? i'm tryin to find out more about the effectiveness of boldione by itself, solet me know if you think it has made a big difference over 1-test alone.

 

[ISN_Man]

Mid 2 Week Mark Update
As of Monday, the strength kicked in big time. Monday was pecs and biceps, and all my lifts were up, as well as my endurance. And the same thing happend yesterday during legs, my strength was up and heavier lifts still felt like hard work, but running through the resp felt like a walk in the park at times.
I'm definitely excited about this now and can't wait for the weeks to come.

originally posted by young guns
have you taken 1-test before by itself? i'm tryin to find out more about the effectiveness of boldione by itself, solet me know if you think it has made a big difference over 1-test alone.

No, I've never used 1-Test by itself, only 1-AD by its;ef and I was impressed. I gained roughly 10-12 pounds and got a lot more vascular and strength increased some what.
My take on using this stack is that using them together yields this synergistic effect. See, with the 1-T, I'm getting a pretty strong androgen with no estrogenic properties, while with the 1,4-ADD, I'm getting a strong anabolic that has slight estrogenic properties, so together, they'll work to increase lean mass and muscle strength.
I've used 1,4-ADD alone and I wasn't very impressed. I feel this will be a different story and using the two products together will yield terrific results. So far I can't complain at all. I hope it only gets better!

 

[2KVetteMan]

TTT

 

[young guns]

i kinda figured boldione wasn't real impressive by itself since its been out awhile and there still weren't alot of threads on it.

keep us updated though.....glad to hear its goin well

 

[ISN_Man]

Hey all. I'm back for my week 3 update!
Yesterday marked 3 weeks of being on this cycle. No new advances really in weight or strength really, but as I said, the strength increase just kicked in this week.
Yesterday I trained back and my intensity was definitely through the roof, along with my vascularity, as I've already said. Great pumps too! I could only imagine what it would be like to use it with creatine with this cycle, because for me, I get awesome pumps on creatine, so it would be insane with this stack!
If anyone else out there has feedback, I'd love to hear it.

 

[ISN_Man]

Pecs/Biceps tonight. Good workout. Great pumps!! Held strength through out the length of the workout as well. Wasn't expecting a good workout seeing my training partner took off for a week long cruise!!!
Any how, I got a question for the people out there who have done heavy PH cycles, similar to what I'm doing. Did you guys use Clomid post cycle to help restore your endogenous test levels??? I'm thinking I should do it, but I wanted to get some feedback from some others first. Any helpful comments are welcome. Thanks!

 

[Old Guy]

I would say definitely if you're doing an eight week cycle.
1-Test shut me down pretty hard in four weeks.

 

[ISN_Man]

Bump.....anyone else????

 

[lovetoeat]

I'm on day 11 of a 30 day cycle of the ethergels. Today is the first time the strength kicked in and it was pretty impressive. I'm on a CKD, but I did bump my calories up to maintenance level. On incline press I was able to put up my normal 1RM for 3 reps and my usual 1RM was done before I started dieting. So basically after losing 35 pounds, I'm stronger now then when I started the diet. First week I noticed increased vascularity and towards the end of the week I got some incredible pumps. Actually the pump in my biceps today lasted 30 minutes after my workout. No side effects so far and I'm taking 8 or 200 mgs a day. Only other supps I'm taking are whey, glutamine, ala and multivitamin. Also taking bioperine 30mg a day with the ethergels, not sure if it's helping at all but for the price I figured it was worth a shot. I'll try to remember to post weekly on my progress.

 

[ISN_Man]

Sounds pretty good lovetoeat. Definitely post your results. As far as I know, the two of us and Bill are the only ones who have tried the 1-T Ethergels, and I'm sure there are plenty of people out there interested in them, it's just that they don't want to be the test subjects!

 

[u4ik_RAGE]

bump HP

 

[macrophage69alpha]

seems like a # of people, at least on some boards are reporting GYNO from 1-test... as well as major suppression of HPTA and sex drive..

has anyone noticed this with the 1-t ethergels or with 1,4add?

it may be the 1-t or it may be the source of 1-t (as many chinese batches have tested below 90% purity)....

any thoughts? or experiences?

 

[lovetoeat]

So far no side effects and sex drive is the same.

 

[Big Arnold]

I have been on the 1-TEthergel/Boldione cycle for 1 week now and will be starting the 2nd week on Saturday. So far no significant mucscle strength increase. However, reading the postings here, sounds like I have to wait at least 10 days. Right now I have enough of the 2 products to go a month at least. If the strength kicks in soon, I'll purchase enough for a 8 week cycle.

 

[ISN_Man]

originally posted by macrophage69alpha
seems like a # of people, at least on some boards are reporting GYNO from 1-test... as well as major suppression of HPTA and sex drive..

has anyone noticed this with the 1-t ethergels or with 1,4add?

it may be the 1-t or it may be the source of 1-t (as many chinese batches have tested below 90% purity)....

any thoughts? or experiences?

I haven't heard anyone speak of gyno when taking 1-Test, nor with 1,4-ADD. As far as I know with the 1-Test, there's no increase in estrogen, so no estrogenic sides associated.
As far as HPTA suppression and sex drive is concerned, I wouldn't doubt it screws some people up pretty bad. As for me, I still have a sex drive. It's not overpowering in any way, but it's still present. And I haven't noticed any shrinkage in my testes, so I assume my endogenous test production isn't down too low as of yet. Though I'm not going to take any chances. I'm going to use clomid post cycle for sure.
The source of the 1-Test that Molecular uses I heard was far superior to the competition. Whether or not there's any truth to that, I don't know. Though I'm sure that the purity has a huge part in the gains you can expect, as well as whether or not you'll experience any negative sides. I'm sure that with the unpure shit out there, they probably have a lot of fillers in there that can really screw things up. It's just speculation though.

 

[pa1ad]

I haven't heard anyone speak of gyno when taking 1-Test, nor with 1,4-ADD. As far as I know with the 1-Test, there's no increase in estrogen, so no estrogenic sides associated.
As far as HPTA suppression and sex drive is concerned, I wouldn't doubt it screws some people up pretty bad. As for me, I still have a sex drive. It's not overpowering in any way, but it's still present. And I haven't noticed any shrinkage in my testes, so I assume my endogenous test production isn't down too low as of yet. Though I'm not going to take any chances. I'm going to use clomid post cycle for sure.
The source of the 1-Test that Molecular uses I heard was far superior to the competition. Whether or not there's any truth to that, I don't know. Though I'm sure that the purity has a huge part in the gains you can expect, as well as whether or not you'll experience any negative sides. I'm sure that with the unpure shit out there, they probably have a lot of fillers in there that can really screw things up. It's just speculation though.

All the 1-test ether pretty much originates from the same factory in china, despite what importers/exporters you buy it through. This same factory makes the ethyl carbonate esters, and most other common prohormones as well. I met the principals of this factory in person not too long ago.

 

[ISN_Man]

originally posted by Big Arnold
I have been on the 1-TEthergel/Boldione cycle for 1 week now and will be starting the 2nd week on Saturday. So far no significant mucscle strength increase. However, reading the postings here, sounds like I have to wait at least 10 days. Right now I have enough of the 2 products to go a month at least. If the strength kicks in soon, I'll purchase enough for a 8 week cycle.

You should be noticing an increase in your vascularity, as well better pumps during your workouts. Don't expect any solid increases in strength for at least 2 weeks, if not more. With that, definitely try to stay on for 8 weeks, so you can experience the full effect of the product, before you have to get off of it.

 

[Bill Llewellyn]

The source of the 1-Test that Molecular uses I heard was far superior to the competition. Whether or not there's any truth to that, I don't know.

The U.S. importer was telling everyone early on that the ether material was coming from a completely different manufacturer than the one who supplied some of the contaminated 1-T base and ester lots in question. I tend to doubt it as the manufacturer in China they deal with does sell both the carbonates and ethers, but can't say for sure.

The only thing I do know for sure is that I have had the 1-Test THP materials I am using tested for purity, as well as testosterone, boldenone and dihydrotestosterone contamination. Purity is high and no steroid contaminants are detected. It very well may be that they have cleaned up the process from the early lots of material.

I can say with certainty that there is more than one big prohormone manufacturer in China though. I think it likely that if there is only one company making 1-Test right now, that will not be the case for very long.

- Bill

 

[1fast400]

"seems like a # of people, at least on some boards are reporting GYNO from 1-test.."


Can you provide a link to these post?

 

[Cheeseburger]

The U.S. importer was telling everyone early on that the ether material was coming from a completely different manufacturer than the one who supplied some of the contaminated 1-T base and ester lots in question. I tend to doubt it as the manufacturer in China they deal with does sell both the carbonates and ethers, but can't say for sure.

The only thing I do know for sure is that I have had the 1-Test THP materials I am using tested for purity, as well as testosterone, boldenone and dihydrotestosterone contamination. Purity is high and no steroid contaminants are detected. It very well may be that they have cleaned up the process from the early lots of material.

I can say with certainty that there is more than one big prohormone manufacturer in China though. I think it likely that if there is only one company making 1-Test right now, that will not be the case for very long.

- Bill

It does not take too long before the vultures try to cash in!

 

[pa1ad]

The only thing I do know for sure is that I have had the 1-Test THP materials I am using tested for purity, as well as testosterone, boldenone and dihydrotestosterone contamination. Purity is high and no steroid contaminants are detected. It very well may be that they have cleaned up the process from the early lots of material.


- Bill

the steroid contaminants would not show up in your material upon analysis because if they were in there they will all be in the ether form. I don't think that presents as much as a legal problem though then if you were selling esters.

 

[Bill Llewellyn]

the steroid contaminants would not show up in your material upon analysis because if they were in there they will all be in the ether form. I don't think that presents as much as a legal problem though then if you were selling esters.

Good point. But I still think we would see something if the material was not cleaned up, as there is always a small percentage of free base with the ethers. Either way, it is nothing for us to worry about, legally or otherwise (gyno).

- Bill

 

[PlateheadJim]

W H O?

"seems like a # of people, at least on some boards are reporting GYNO from 1-test.."

Can you provide a link to these post?

I don't mean to sound like a prick but........:

- They're probably fucking morons

- They're probably fat already with puffy little bitch tits already forming

1-Test will NOT cause Gyno.

 

[1fast400]

Well, I would personally like to see these post. I post on bb.com, syntrax.com and here at elite. I have yet to see a post like that. I'm just wondering if I missed something.

 

[macrophage69alpha]

http://boards.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=129338

Someone sent me copies of couple of posts from BB.com.. though at least one of them was from 1-test/4-ad user.. though searched over there and only found one 1t/4ad post(may have been the same one).. no longer have the email or search might have been more fruitful.

pro-hormones is a topic I spend little or no time on.. but 1-ad and 1-test seem interesting.. as they do seem to be an improvement on the earlier PH (which at the time seemed promising as well)

Part of the reason for my earlier post was that after having recently to spoken to ((perhaps the primary)) a importer of PH.. given his comments that contamination levels have at times been very high.. and considerable amounts of raw material are/were in detention or had to be reprocessed.. was wondering if this was part of the reason for some of the sides experienced..including but not limited to gyno.

btw- since no one actually knows what kind of binding 1-test has, regardless of whether it aromatizes, it could potentially cause gyno. it is not exactly well studied.. isn't there only one study from about 30 years ago??

 

[Bill Llewellyn]

http://boards.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=129338

I've seen a couple of complaints also. One guy just emailed me in fact, and said he got this from a dermal (nipple puffiness and itching), and Viratase (aromatase inhibitor) cleared it up for him. I'm confused actually.

Part of the reason for my earlier post was that after having recently to spoken to ((perhaps the primary)) a importer of PH.. given his comments that contamination levels have at times been very high.. and considerable amounts of raw material are/were in detention or had to be reprocessed.. was wondering if this was part of the reason for some of the sides experienced..including but not limited to gyno.

None of my materials ever had purity problems, but again, I did not jump on the first lots of material. None of the material now should have a problem though. And the only way gyno would be a problem is if a dermal was using older material that had a good amount of testosterone in it. I don't think was ever the case, as we are talking low level contamination, not large percentages of illegal steroid.

Pat may know how bad some of the earlier materials actually were.

- since no one actually knows what kind of binding 1-test has, regardless of whether it aromatizes, it could potentially cause gyno. it is not exactly well studied.. isn't there only one study from about 30 years ago??

As rare as it is, and as much as I hate to say it, macro has actually made a correct statement here (well, except for the one study 30 years ago comment). We know quite a bit about the anabolic and androgenic properties of 1-Test actually, however we don't have studies looking at estrogen receptor binding. We have no reason to look at the structure and think it is likely, however anything is possible so we can't exclude it. It would have to be a problem with people using high doses of 1-AD though (all the metabolites are the same), and that has been around for a while now. I'm not seeing too much feedback on that..


Interesting side note. Vida cites 2 references in his book for 1-androstenedione actually aromatizing to estrogen (to spite no known pathway for this to occur). The problem is the first is an old study showing 9% estrogen formation or so, the other is a latter, more detailed, study refuting the first. I don't think it is possible, but you never know if somehow that first study actually had it right....

But again, where are the high dose 1-AD users?

- Bill

 

[Bill Llewellyn]

[No message]

 

[1fast400]

With dealing with the general public so much, I've gotten used to people not telling you the whole story. I'll have customers tell me how X product is total crap and doesn't work, yet they took cell-tech and gained 30lbs. I'm often times customers find a way to screw up a good product. As I'm writing this, I'm listening to a guy talk about how 6 1-AD a day didn't do anything for him. Upon the end of the conversation he took little protein, trained twice per week and didn't drink shakes post workout. Yet, when someone else came into the store, he told them that stuff was "crap" and didn't work. Sorry for sounding so defensive on the post macro. So far I've yet to have complaints of gyno with 1-AD/1-test ether/ONE. I've sold around 600-700 1-AD, about 100 ONE's and just a vew 1-test ethers (I just got them in). That is why I questioned the comment.

 

[Cheeseburger]

Macro does not know what he is talking about...he learned everything at GNC!

 

[Par Deus]

The first batch of 1-test had pretty high levels, but all of them since have been 98%+ pure, so these reports are not due to contaminants.

There are enough reports to make a person curious, but they represent a very small % of users -- probably 1/2 of 1% at most.

 

[macrophage69alpha]

The first batch of 1-test had pretty high levels, but all of them since have been 98%+ pure, so these reports are not due to contaminants.

these are not the figures that have been quoted to me... 95% purity is considered to be VERY good for 1-test.. if you mean 98% of the "steroids" contained within that 95% then ???.. but it may be that the source of information is wrong.. but that is doubtful.. since he had more to lose by being honest..

the real question is whether gyno is from these small percentage of other "steroids"?

or from 1-test due to binding to ER or PR?

or some other cause?? prolactin, liver abnormalities, etc.etc..

 

[Bill Llewellyn]

these are not the figures that have been quoted to me... 95% purity is considered to be VERY good for 1-test.. if you mean 98% of the "steroids" contained within that 95% then ???.. but it may be that the source of information is wrong.. but that is doubtful.. since he had more to lose by being honest..

Now here is the old Macro.

Everyone has been testing their materials for DHT, Test and Boldenone for fear of having legal problems. Pat did one good thing, in that he shook everyone up about it. No steroid contaninants are being found now at all, and the purity of 1-Test is extremely high.

Any my last batch was over 99% pure 1-Test THP BTW.

the real question is whether gyno is from these small percentage of other "steroids"?

Again not possible.

or from 1-test due to binding to ER or PR?

or some other cause?? prolactin, liver abnormalities, etc.etc..

Possible. I would guess estrogenic activity myself it is true. But I really want to get more feedback from people taking only 1-Test or high 1-AD doses.

 

[1fast400]

How do you define high doses? Something like 9-12 a day or less than that?

 

[Bill Llewellyn]

How do you define high doses? Something like 9-12 a day or less than that?

Well, really any dose. But judging on the potecy difference between an effectively delivered 1-Test product and oral 1-AD, I assumed we'd really only see it in people taking higher amounts.


- Bill

 

[macrophage69alpha]

Now here is the old Macro.

Everyone has been testing their materials for DHT, Test and Boldenone for fear of having legal problems. Pat did one good thing, in that he shook everyone up about it. No steroid contaninants are being found now at all, and the purity of 1-Test is extremely high.

Any my last batch was over 99% pure 1-Test THP BTW.

[/B]

Again not possible.

[/B]

so DHT, test and boldenone are the ONLY three steroids that are by products of the manufacture...

have you considered the possiblity of other by products... and their possible effect..

btw- you have PM

comments as to purity were more in reference to 1t-base..

 

[Bill Llewellyn]

so DHT, test and boldenone are the ONLY three steroids that are by products of the manufacture...

That are illegal steroids, yes.

have you considered the possiblity of other by products... and their possible effect..

I'd love to hear your suggestions as to what else could be in there? Estrogen?

 

[Bill Llewellyn]

To be more specific, and Pat can correct me if I'm wrong as I am not the chemist, the process goes something like:

5-alpha androstanedione is converted to 1-androstenedione by adding the delta-1. Then the 17b-oh group is added to form 1-Test.

The potential contaminants in this process are testosterone and boldenone (if a 4 bond is accidentially added) or DHT (if some unresolved androstanedione is left to form DHT. What else do you think is going to be in there macro?

 

[pa1ad]

http://boards.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=129338

Someone sent me copies of couple of posts from BB.com.. though at least one of them was from 1-test/4-ad user.. though searched over there and only found one 1t/4ad post(may have been the same one).. no longer have the email or search might have been more fruitful.

pro-hormones is a topic I spend little or no time on.. but 1-ad and 1-test seem interesting.. as they do seem to be an improvement on the earlier PH (which at the time seemed promising as well)

Part of the reason for my earlier post was that after having recently to spoken to ((perhaps the primary)) a importer of PH.. given his comments that contamination levels have at times been very high.. and considerable amounts of raw material are/were in detention or had to be reprocessed.. was wondering if this was part of the reason for some of the sides experienced..including but not limited to gyno.

btw- since no one actually knows what kind of binding 1-test has, regardless of whether it aromatizes, it could potentially cause gyno. it is not exactly well studied.. isn't there only one study from about 30 years ago??

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

 

[pa1ad]

so DHT, test and boldenone are the ONLY three steroids that are by products of the manufacture...

have you considered the possiblity of other by products... and their possible effect..

btw- you have PM

comments as to purity were more in reference to 1t-base..

those three contaminants are known to be formed as side products in the dehydrogenation reaction to form 1-test. There is no reason to expect other steroids to be present

 

[pa1ad]

To be more specific, and Pat can correct me if I'm wrong as I am not the chemist, the process goes something like:

5-alpha androstanedione is converted to 1-androstenedione by adding the delta-1. Then the 17b-oh group is added to form 1-Test.

The potential contaminants in this process are testosterone and boldenone (if a 4 bond is accidentially added) or DHT (if some unresolved androstanedione is left to form DHT. What else do you think is going to be in there macro?

That is essentially correct. An alternative method is to make the 1-test from DHT, however you would still end up with the same side products. I have a flowchart from the chinese manufacturer though and it indicates that they do indeed go through the dione

 

[macrophage69alpha]

There are several studies on 1-test.

CITATIONS??

 

[Fortes]

I strongly believe 1-AD/1-Test suppresses estrogen to a great degree.

1-AD made me look more cut, even in conjunction with 4-AD.

I got the tired eyes/bitterness syndrome after every dose of 1-AD. Towards the end of my 4 week cycle, my fatty gyno and lovehandles (which I've had since I was 11) had gone down to the point where I really felt like I could take a picture of myself naked and be proud.

BUT . . . as Pat mentioned . . . post cycle I experienced SEVERE rebound of estrogen. How do I know? Simple. I now have stretch marks around my nipples and all over my love handles because they got a LOT fatter post cycle. I didn't taper, and I didn't use any Anti-E's or Clomid . . .

Go figure.

All in all, I'd do 1-AD/1-Test again if

1) It didn't make my hair fall out

2) I was properly equipped with a powerful Anti-E for post-cycle.

Other than the sides, it is the most worthwhile supplement I have ever used, no joke.

 

[pa1ad]

CITATIONS??

1.Counsel et al., “Anabolic Agents. Derivatives of 5alpha-Androst-1-ene”, J. Org. Chem., 27 (1962), 248-251
2. Galletti and Gardi, “Metabolism of 1-Dehydroandrostanes in Man”, J Steroid Biochem, 3 (1972), 933-936
3. Langecker, “Beziehungen Zwischen Substitution im Ring A und Abbau im Stoffwechsel bei Verwandten des Testosterons”, Acta Endocrin, 41 (1962), 494-506
4. Lieberman et al., J. Biol. Chem, 182 (1950), 299


There are several more too in addition to this, many dealing with in-vitro metabolism. The aforementioned deal with in-vivo activity and metabolism

 

[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..

 

[Fortes]

Wouldn't it be more relevent to talk about the DIOL version of 1-AD? I mean, can you even find the less effective and potentially aromatizable DIONE on the market anymore?

Isn't it kind of a rule of thumb that DIOLS can't aromatize?

 

[Bill Llewellyn]

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..

You have a lot of opinions on the faults of steroid researchers, yet clearly don't even make it to the library to read these papers.. I find that truly funny.

- Bill

 

[Bill Llewellyn]

Wouldn't it be more relevent to talk about the DIOL version of 1-AD? I mean, can you even find the less effective and potentially aromatizable DIONE on the market anymore?

Isn't it kind of a rule of thumb that DIOLS can't aromatize?

The metabolites of all of these dione/diols/active steroids are the same. If 1-androstenedione aromatizes, so should 1-Test. 1-AD won't, but if 1-Test does, we have an issue with 1-AD also.

- Bill

 

[Bill Llewellyn]

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..

Weren't you the idiot who just said this was just discovered last year? Prior to my article on tren this belief was not held in the BB community (actually BR's opinion to the opposite dominated), and I cited references that BR did not. When you made the statement about you did about the PG activity of tren, it was me who spent the hours in the library to give you the reason to believe it. I did not "just put it in my book" asshole, but you "just put it in your head" and pretend to know what you are talking about, thanks to me. You didn't do the research, I did, and that is all I know.

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

Yes, using steroids synthesized 40 years ago. There is extremely little research going on into finding or marketing new agents.

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??

They didn't entirely. They added a 1-methyl group to make it a little more orally active and sold it as Primobolan. There are many steroids more effective that any agent on the market in fact, yet were never sold. It is NOT A CONTEST MP!

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

Yes, Idiotic, as that is NOT a fact. 1-Test was synthesized, like thousands of other compounds. The fact that it was shown to occur in small amounts naturally is a totally separate subject. Your statements are quite comical, as you clearly know little about the development of these agents yet speak quite boisterously about the subject.

- Bill

 

[macrophage69alpha]

Weren't you the idiot who just said this was just discovered last year? Prior to my article on tren this belief was not held in the BB community (actually BR's opinion to the opposite dominated), and I cited references that BR did not. When you made the statement about you did about the PG activity of tren, it was me who spent the hours in the library to give you the reason to believe it. I did not "just put it in my book" asshole, but you "just put it in your head" and pretend to know what you are talking about, thanks to me. You didn't do the research, I did, and that is all I know.

[/B]

- Bill [/B]

a small mind must rely on words like idiotic and asshole to attempt to give their rantings validity..

I have never read your book.. so I really cant thank you... so dont take credit where none is DUE.

and a little FYI---have been posting for AT LEAST THE LAST TWO YEARS that TREN is a progestin..(which btw- is long before I ever even heard your name) based on both research(cattle studies.. there are lots of them), which is available online, and the anecdotal responses of users.. and freely admit that Duchaine's writings influenced that opinion.. and spurred my interest..

btw- "discovered last year" was actually in reference to the fact that it was proven CONCLUSIVELY that TREN binds to the PR. And that it in fact has a higher affinity to the PR than progesterone itself.

 

[macrophage69alpha]

Yes, Idiotic, as that is NOT a fact. 1-Test was synthesized, like thousands of other compounds. The fact that it was shown to occur in small amounts naturally is a totally separate subject. Your statements are quite comical, as you clearly know little about the development of these agents yet speak quite boisterously about the subject.

- Bill [/B]

it is a fact.. the PRODUCT was not DEVELOPED.. I never said anything about synthesis??? so dont know where you are going with that.... Since it was not developed into a PRODUCT.. it was PASSED over.. is that too complicated for you?

 

[macrophage69alpha]

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..

You have a lot of opinions on the faults of steroid researchers, yet clearly don't even make it to the library to read these papers.. I find that truly funny.

- Bill

I am not faulting anyone.. I was once again stating a FACT.. the PR was not discovered until 1970.. thus research prior does not ascertain PR binding, affinity nor activation..

I find it very interesting that I bring up relatively simple points that you take as affront.. are you related to these scientists?

if you would like to get back to the topic and cease the personal attacks.. which correct me if I am wrong, you started..

the whole intent of this line of posts was to MAKE IT CLEAR. that there are a # of things not well researched with respect to 1-Ad and 1-t (as well as many other steroids)..

this is no fault of anyone.. 1-t was not developed AS A PRODUCT.. thus little further research.. most of the research was done prior to the discovery of the PR and likely all of it (even though the last paper was PUBLISHED in 1972).. thus it is not exactly thoroughly researched..

it now seems that YOU and PAT (both manufacturers of 1-ad or 1-t) are in disagreement over whether it/they aromatize...

MY QUESTION STILL STANDS REGARDING POSSIBLITY AND MECHANISM OF CAUSING/INDUCING/INFLAMING GYNOCOMASTIA..

any input on that?


btw- for the record... it seems that most people that have been using 1ad/1-t are getting good results.. the concern was over potential sides..

 

[Bill Llewellyn]

btw- "discovered last year" was actually in reference to the fact that it was proven CONCLUSIVELY that TREN binds to the PR. And that it in fact has a higher affinity to the PR than progesterone itself.

I was the one to cite this and a couple of other references, and take great offense to your statement that I just pulled someone else's idea and tried to take credit for it. I wrote a well referenced article, based on my own theories and research. BTW, one of the references in my MuscleMonthly article about tren binding to PG receptor was from 1978.

and a little FYI---have been posting for AT LEAST THE LAST TWO YEARS that TREN is a progestin..(which btw- is long before I ever even heard your name) based on both research(cattle studies.. there are lots of them), which is available online, and the anecdotal responses of users.. and freely admit that Duchaine's writings influenced that opinion.. and spurred my interest..

Glad to hear it. It still does not make your statement to me any less offensive.

 

[macrophage69alpha]

I was the one to cite this and a couple of other references, and take great offense to your statement that I just pulled someone else's idea and tried to take credit for it. I wrote a well referenced article, based on my own theories and research. BTW, one of the references in my MuscleMonthly article about tren binding to PG receptor was from 1978.



Glad to hear it. It still does not make your statement to me any less offensive. [/B]

perhaps a misunderstanding.. of your assertions.. if my understanding of your statements was in error.. i withdraw the comment.. though it did seem that you were claiming that you had introduced the idea to the BB community.. though perhaps it would be accurate to say that you introduced it to the offline community..


peace

 

[Bill Llewellyn]

I was once again stating a FACT.. the PR was not discovered until 1970.. thus research prior does not ascertain PR binding, affinity nor activation..

Where do you come up with this stuff? If you'd look in my book you'd see a study looking at the progestational nautre of several steroids published in 1960.

I find it very interesting that I bring up relatively simple points that you take as affront.. are you related to these scientists?

No actually, I was just making fun of the fact that you don't read research papers, yet have a lot of opinions about them. It is kind of humerous. It is like watching a guy who never even played baseball critisize the players on TV.

if you would like to get back to the topic and cease the personal attacks.. which correct me if I am wrong, you started..

I fuck with you because you are a pain in the ass. If you are too soft-skinned for it, I am sorry. I'll try to be more sensitive of your feelings next time. But your comment that I took credit for someone else's work was very uncalled for.

the whole intent of this line of posts was to MAKE IT CLEAR. that there are a # of things not well researched with respect to 1-Ad and 1-t (as well as many other steroids)..

The anabolic and androgenic properties of 1-Testosterone were evaluated under the same conditions as the agents that became commercial steroids, and we know clear its metabolic fate in the body. We know almost all we need to know about this compound to say it is a potent steroid, and that it was certainly not "passed over" because it was less effective than other agents. We don't know its PG activity, and have conflicting reports on its aromatization (but most favor it not aromatizing). The point you make here is valid, but the approach was tedious.

MY QUESTION STILL STANDS REGARDING POSSIBLITY AND MECHANISM OF CAUSING/INDUCING/INFLAMING GYNOCOMASTIA..

any input on that?

We are still trying to conclusively link this side effect to 1-testosterone. Right now we are just guessing as to what is/is not going on, and I think we went over the possibilities pretty well already.

 

[Bill Llewellyn]

perhaps a misunderstanding.. of your assertions.. if my understanding of your statements was in error.. i withdraw the comment.. though it did seem that you were claiming that you had introduced the idea to the BB community.. though perhaps it would be accurate to say that you introduced it to the offline community..

peace

There are always people with ideas. Like BR's theory of oxymetholone being progestational. Some people did not believe it. I was one of them. But it wasn't until Pat found a reference that we came to accept this in the BB community as fact.

I never claimed to be the first one to think this of trenbolone. Surely many people suffered some of the side effects before I ever thought of it. In fact, hearing the rare reports of side effects made me do the research. But I did write a well referenced article last year about it, finding several new (not cited by anyone) references to its PG nature (countering BR's generally accepted opinion that it is not), and changed many peoples opinions about this steroid. Obviosuly your statement "but you did put it in your book.. thats about it.. " was not well received.

 

[macrophage69alpha]

I was once again stating a FACT.. the PR was not discovered until 1970.. thus research prior does not ascertain PR binding, affinity nor activation..

Where do you come up with this stuff? If you'd look in my book you'd see a study looking at the progestational nautre of several steroids published in 1960.

[/B]

that steroids were shown to have progesterone like effects.. is very likely.. progesterone was discovered in 1938... as far as actually binding to the PR...

EXCERPTS::...

The field of steroid receptor biochemistry started in 1958
with the synthesis of tritium-labeled estrogens by Jensen (11)
and by Glascock and Hoekstra (12). Both of these laboratories
demonstrated selective accumulation and retention of tritium labeledsteroid in the reproductive organs of immature female
animals administered physiological amounts of hormone. Because
the [3H]estradiol extracted from the organs of injected
animals was the unmetabolized compound (13), it was thought
that the retention of steroid reflected binding to receptors located
within the cells of the uterus and vagina. This organ specific
retention of estradiol was arguably the first evidence for
binding of a hormone or drug to a receptor, yet even as late as
1968, some pharmacologists felt the use of the word “receptor”
to describe the estradiol-binding entity was inappropriate (14).

B. Progesterone receptors (PRs)
In 1970, PRs in cytosols prepared from chicken oviduct (46)
and guinea pig uterus (47) were shown to migrate as both
large (;9S) and small (4S) species in low-ionic strength sucrose
gradients and, in both cases, the large species was
converted to 4S at high-ionic strength.

D. Glucocorticoid receptors (GRs) GRs were first identified in rat thymic lymphocyte cytosol
by the Munck laboratory in 1966 (61), with detailed studies
being published by the laboratories of Munck (62) and
Schaumburg (63) in 1968. However, physical studies of the
receptor awaited the introduction of tritium-labeled high
affinity binders, such as dexamethasone and triamcinolone

btw- ERbeta was only discovered several years ago

 

[macrophage69alpha]

cites specifically related to progesterone receptor

46. Sherman MR, Corvol PL, O’Malley BW 1970 Progesterone-binding
components of chick oviduct. I. Preliminary characterization of
cytoplasmic components. J Biol Chem 245:6085–6096
47. Milgrom E, Atger M, Baulieu EE 1970 Progesterone in uterus and
plasma. IV-progesterone receptor(s) in guinea pig uterus cytosol.
Steroids 16:741–754
48. Rao BR, Wiest WG, Allen WM 1973 Progesterone “receptor” in
rabbit uterus. I. Characterization and estradiol-17b augmentation.
Endocrinology 92:1229–1240
49. McGuire JL, DeDella C 1971 In vitro evidence for a progestogen
receptor in the rat and rabbit uterus. Endocrinology 88:1099–1103
50. Reel JR, Van Dewark SD, Shih Y, Callantine MR 1971 Macromolecular
binding and metabolism of progesterone in the decidual
and pseudopregnant rat and rabbit uterus. Steroids 18:441–461
51. O’Malley BW, Toft DO, Sherman MR 1971 Progesterone-binding
components of chick oviduct. II. Nuclear components. J Biol Chem
246:1117–1122
52. Buller RE, Toft DO, Schrader WT, O’Malley BW 1975 Progesterone-
binding components of chick oviduct. VIII. Receptor activation
and hormone-dependent binding to purified nuclei. J Biol
Chem 250:801–808



ER and general steroid hormones

11. Jensen EV 1960 Studies of growth phenomena using tritium labeled steroids. Proc 4th International Congress Biochem, Vienna
1958, vol 15:119
12. Glascock RF, HoekstraWG1959 Selective accumulation of tritiumlabeled hexoestrol by the reproductive organs of immature female goats and sheep. Biochem J 72:673–682
13. Jensen EV, Jackobson HI 1962 Basic guides to the mechanism of
estrogen action. Recent Prog Horm Res 18:387–414
14. Wurtman RJ 1968 Estrogen receptor: ambiguities in the use of this
term. Science 159:1261
15. Noteboom WD, Gorski J 1965 Stereospecific binding of estrogens
in the rat uterus. Arch Biochem Biophys 111:559–568
16. Jensen EV 1968 Estrogen receptor: ambiguities in the use of the
term. Science 159:1261
17. Toft DO, Gorski J 1966Areceptor molecule for estrogens: isolation
from the rat uterus and preliminary characterization. Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA 55:1574–1581
18. Toft D, Shyamala G, Gorski J 1967 A receptor molecule for estrogens:
studies using a cell-free system. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
57:1740–1743
19. Gorski J, Toft D, Shyamala G, Smith D, Notides A 1968 Hormone
receptors: studies on the interaction of estrogen with the uterus.
Recent Prog Horm Res 24:45–80
20. Baulieu EE, Alberga A, Jung I, Lebeau MC, Mercier-Bodard C,
Milgrom E, Raynaud JP, Raynaud-Jammet C, Rochefort H,
Truong H, Robel P 1971 Metabolism and protein binding of sex
steroids in target organs: an approach to the mechanism of hormone
action. Recent Prog Horm Res 27:351–412
21. Jensen EV, DeSombre ER 1972 Mechanism of action of the female
sex hormones. Annu Rev Biochem 41:203–230
22. Jensen EV, DeSombre ER 1973 Estrogen-receptor interaction. Estrogenic
hormones effect transformation of specific receptor proteins
to a biochemically functional form. Science 182:126–134
23. O’Malley BW, Means AR 1974 Female steroid hormones and target
cell nuclei. The effects of steroid hormones on target cell nuclei
are of major importance in the induction of new cell functions.
Science 183:610–620
24. King RJB, Mainwaring WIP 1974 Steroid-Cell Interactions. University
Park Press, Baltimore, 440 pp
25. Jensen EV 1991 Steroid hormone receptors. In: Seifert G (ed)
Cell Receptors. Current Topics in Pathology. Springer-Verlag,
Heidelberg, vol

 

[Bill Llewellyn]

that steroids were shown to have progesterone like effects.. is very likely.. progesterone was discovered in 1938... as far as actually binding to the PR...

Binding to the PR does not necessarily make a steroid progestational. You may be correct in regards to understanding more about receptor mechanics, but our old references are just as, if not more, relevant here, as they elucidate PG activity. If similar studies were done in the 60’s with 1-Test you can bet we would be referencing them now more so than a later one showing it only to bind the PR.

Therefore your statements about 1-test being too old for us to know anything of value about it are still quite off base.

 

[ISN_Man]

OK GUYS!!!!! E N O U G H

Alright, no offense to either Bill or MP, but I didn't start this thread for you two to argue the whole time. I started it so that way there was some reliable feedback on Bill's new product, 1-T Ethergels. So........how about we go back to the point of this thing, and burry the fued. Thanks guys.

So, Sat. was the end of week 3 of being on the cycle. No new improvements really. I'm rather pissed off at myself though, because this past weekend was a rather piss-poor eating weekend for me. I didn't consume nearly enough calories, though I guess I shouldn't beat myself up over it and just try to get back on track.
I'm seeming to stay steady, weight wise that is, right around 206-208, which I'm happy about, because I've been maintaining this weight for the past 2 weeks now. I'd like to increase my caloric intake above what I've normally been at to see if I can get up to a solid 210. Hopefully that's a reachable goal. Only time will tell!
As always, more posts to come, as time progresses.

 

[pa1ad]

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

Many did not "make the cut" for reasons totally unrelated to whether they were good anabolics or not. And the research done back then was very sound, with the same techniques used today to assay anabolic steroids. You simply do not know the facts bro. I am sorry, but you are grasping at straws just to win this argument. Don't try to win, try to LEARN

1-test was synthesized by the researchers. not isolated. Its natural occurence is something unrelated to its development as an anabolic.

 

[pa1ad]

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..

1-AD and 1-test do not cause gyno, at least not directly through estrogen formation. That i guarantee you.

ONe possible reason that 1-test/1-AD did not make it to market was its irritant effects. Another possibility was these did not have a great anabolic/androgenic ratio, and the ratio was much more important to pharmaceutical companies than absolute anabolic activity.

Also you are completely wrong about the progesterone binding and anabolics. There was ALOT of research on binding of steroids to progesterone receptors 30,40,50 years ago.

You keep saying things that are incorrect, and you are demonstrating that you have not researched this area very well. You really should try to refrain from making conclusions, especially when talking with people who have done lots or research in the area

 

[macrophage69alpha]

Also you are completely wrong about the progesterone binding and anabolics. There was ALOT of research on binding of steroids to progesterone receptors 30,40,50 years ago.

You keep saying things that are incorrect, and you are demonstrating that you have not researched this area very well. You really should try to refrain from making conclusions, especially when talking with people who have done lots or research in the area

well apparently I have researched it better than you.. and I have little interest in PH... nor until these erroneous assertions much interest in the history of hormonal research...

you are trying to say that as early as 1952 that research was published regarding the progesterone receptor.. if so please post a citation.. I posted about 20 of them.. showing quite the opposite.

it was not until the late 50's that any research was done regarding the various hormone receptors and not until 1970 that the PR was even discovered.. it may have been theorized prior to that.. the progesterone molecule itself was not discover until 1938..

peace

 

[pa1ad]

well apparently I have researched it better than you.. and I have little interest in PH... nor until these erroneous assertions much interest in the history of hormonal research...

you are trying to say that as early as 1952 that research was published regarding the progesterone receptor.. if so please post a citation.. I posted about 20 of them.. showing quite the opposite.

it was not until the late 50's that any research was done regarding the various hormone receptors and not until 1970 that the PR was even discovered.. it may have been theorized prior to that.. the progesterone molecule itself was not discover until 1938..

peace

I should not have said binding to the progesterone receptor. I should have said demonstration of progestational activity - which is more relevant to us anyway.

I personally think the significance of progestational activity of anabolics in males is quite overblown.

 

[Fortes]

Progesterone/Follistatin levels:

Here's some poor logic for you guys:

IN WOMEN:

Progesterone blood levels increase during pregnancy

Follistatin levels increase during pregnancy

Progesterone blood level increases MAY CAUSE increases in follistatin

AND IF ALL THAT IS TRUE (which it most likely is not):

Trenbolone/Nandrolone are "progestagenic compounds"

Trenbolone/Nandrolone tickle the PR

Trenbolone/Nandrolone MAY CAUSE increases in Follistatin!

And this, Ladies and Gents, is the reason why we like to use INDUCTION while dealing with science, and not so much DEDUCTION. Why? Because of VALIDITY. All my "may cause" conjecture doesn't mean shit unless it's proven.

Anyone here think there's any credence to this wild, paralogical syllogismic of mine?

 

[pa1ad]

Progesterone/Follistatin levels:

Here's some poor logic for you guys:

IN WOMEN:

Progesterone blood levels increase during pregnancy

Follistatin levels increase during pregnancy

Progesterone blood level increases MAY CAUSE increases in follistatin

AND IF ALL THAT IS TRUE (which it most likely is not):

Trenbolone/Nandrolone are "progestagenic compounds"

Trenbolone/Nandrolone tickle the PR

Trenbolone/Nandrolone MAY CAUSE increases in Follistatin!

And this, Ladies and Gents, is the reason why we like to use INDUCTION while dealing with science, and not so much DEDUCTION. Why? Because of VALIDITY. All my "may cause" conjecture doesn't mean shit unless it's proven.

Anyone here think there's any credence to this wild, paralogical syllogismic of mine?

I am not sure of the point you are trying to make here, but if you are poking fun at the horrible skills of some internet guys when it comes to deductive reasoning then I am with you. One thing about being educated/trained in science is that you learn to reason things out very efficiently and carefully.

 

[Fortes]

Pat, you know you want to hire me on to your staff. You just can't resist a mind so capable and convincing as mine.

Here, I'll strike a deal with you.

I'll let you give me a lifetime's supply of a new improved 1-AD which doesn't make your hair fall out, and then I'LL LET YOU pay for my B.A. at the university of MY CHOICE. ONCE I get my B.A. (In Philosophy) I'LL LET YOU then pay for my LAW SCHOOL, again from the school of my choice.

Maybe I'll feel merciful enough to be the ErgoPharm Staff Legal Advisor / Lawyer and LET you pay me a base salary of $300,000.00/year.

You know you want to . . .

Just kidding. I just wish I could be a Pro Football Player or a Pro Wrestler, instead of having to deal with all these money issues that college throws in my face. Maybe I'll let you provide me the chemical implements with which I could pursue a career in either field. Kidding, again.

 

[Fortes]

Seriously, though

Think of what a marketing force I could be!

Pat, you could make me into the ErgoKiller, Ergopharm's very own Pro Wrestling Mascot! I'm about 6', 245 lbs. and maybe 15-20% bodyfat right now, but I'm young enough to where I am confident I can gain 20 lbs. of muslce per year naturally. Give me some 1-AD and 4-AD stacked, 4 week on 4 week of cycles back to back . . . WHOA MOMMA! I could hit 300 lbs. and 10% bodyfat in 2-3 years time with that mix. My heart would probably explode from having to pump blood through more muscle then it was ever meant to think it could have, but hey, that's the price of glory, right?

Think about that! I could slam people and hold up a bottle of 1-AD after every match and yell OH YEAH! 1-AD would sell like crazy, I'm convinced. We just need to get rid of my bitch tits first.

I'm kidding again.

 

[1fast400]

I'm sure your parents are proud

 

[pa1ad]

Re: Seriously, though

Think of what a marketing force I could be!

Pat, you could make me into the ErgoKiller, Ergopharm's very own Pro Wrestling Mascot! I'm about 6', 245 lbs. and maybe 15-20% bodyfat right now, but I'm young enough to where I am confident I can gain 20 lbs. of muslce per year naturally. Give me some 1-AD and 4-AD stacked, 4 week on 4 week of cycles back to back . . . WHOA MOMMA! I could hit 300 lbs. and 10% bodyfat in 2-3 years time with that mix. My heart would probably explode from having to pump blood through more muscle then it was ever meant to think it could have, but hey, that's the price of glory, right?

Think about that! I could slam people and hold up a bottle of 1-AD after every match and yell OH YEAH! 1-AD would sell like crazy, I'm convinced. We just need to get rid of my bitch tits first.

I'm kidding again.

Did your mother drop you on your head when you were a baby or what?

 

[MIKERAZ]

Many did not "make the cut" for reasons totally unrelated to whether they were good anabolics or not. And the research done back then was very sound, with the same techniques used today to assay anabolic steroids. You simply do not know the facts bro. I am sorry, but you are grasping at straws just to win this argument. Don't try to win, try to LEARN

1-test was synthesized by the researchers. not isolated. Its natural occurence is something unrelated to its development as an anabolic.

On another thread PA explained to me how pharm companies determine potency ,take a AAS like 17a-4ad or methyl1-test The reason it was never released was because it had a horrible index meaning it isnt potent enough to be sold on the market , potency depends on the anabolic/androgenic index

 

[Bill Llewellyn]

On another thread PA explained to me how pharm companies determine potency ,take a AAS like 17a-4ad or methyl1-test The reason it was never released was because it had a horrible index meaning it isnt potent enough to be sold on the market , potency depends on the anabolic/androgenic index

Mikeraz,

Would you please slap yourself for me. Or ask someone close to you. I can't do it from here, and you REALLY need it!

- Bill

 

[pa1ad]

On another thread PA explained to me how pharm companies determine potency ,take a AAS like 17a-4ad or methyl1-test The reason it was never released was because it had a horrible index meaning it isnt potent enough to be sold on the market , potency depends on the anabolic/androgenic index

You still don't fucking get it. I explained it clearly. I have to conclude that you are just an idiot. I am sorry.

Do you know what ABSOLUTE values mean?

Do you know what a RATIO is?

Do you know what ANABOLIC and ANDROGENIC mean?

Jesus fucking christ dude, its not rocket science.

 

[MIKERAZ]

I was under the impression androgenic and anabolic are the same thing. Animal stated if somethigns very anabolic its automatically very androgenic like 1-test he says also is 7 times as androgenic

absolute value means its value and thats determined by the index

 

[pa1ad]

I was under the impression androgenic and anabolic are the same thing. Animal stated if somethigns very anabolic its automatically very androgenic like 1-test he says also is 7 times as androgenic

absolute value means its value and thats determined by the index

Well animal said..... Well animal said.........


anabolic means the ability of a compound to produce hypertrophy of skeletal muscle

androgenic means ability of a compound to increase weights of androgen responsive organs (in classical assay this is prostate and seminal vesicles)

The ratio of the first to the second determines its therapeutic index and its suitablity to use in clinical medicine - where the goal is as much differentiation between the two as possible.

So for methyl 4-AD, even though it assayed out pretty decent as far as anabolic potency goes, it had a bad index because it was also very androgenic.

Example of a product with a very good index is oxandrolone (anavar). This product is quite anabolic, while at the same time possessing very little androgenic activity.

this is BASIC ANABOLIC STEROID SCIENCE!! You should not even be discussing the subject unless you understand these concepts

Please do not talk to animal, he is a treasure trove of misinformation

 

[Par Deus]

I was under the impression androgenic and anabolic are the same thing. Animal stated if somethigns very anabolic its automatically very androgenic like 1-test he says also is 7 times as androgenic

absolute value means its value and thats determined by the index

Jesus.


It's 3.5 times as androgenic, BTW.

 

[ISN_Man]

Saturday marked the end of week 5 on my stack. I have to say, the vascularity and mild, but steady strength gains and muscular endurance gains have been pretty sweet. Every week, squating becomes easier and easier, even though my working set of 8 reps gets heavier and heavier.
Any how, I've seemed to stay at 208, with out much change in weight. It may be something that I have control over, but aren't doing anything about. I really should think about kicking my caloric intake up, if I want to get over the 210 mark.
Other than that, my workouts are intense, pumps are great, and I really can't complain at all. Not to mention, I have experienced no side effects what so ever. I don't know, I feel like most of my entries are repetative, but everything is remaining good and isn't changing, which can be a good thing and a bad thing. So we'll see what is in store for me for this last 3 weeks. I can only hope it's great!

 

[MIKERAZ]

Well animal said..... Well animal said.........


anabolic means the ability of a compound to produce hypertrophy of skeletal muscle

androgenic means ability of a compound to increase weights of androgen responsive organs (in classical assay this is prostate and seminal vesicles)

The ratio of the first to the second determines its therapeutic index and its suitablity to use in clinical medicine - where the goal is as much differentiation between the two as possible.

So for methyl 4-AD, even though it assayed out pretty decent as far as anabolic potency goes, it had a bad index because it was also very androgenic.

Example of a product with a very good index is oxandrolone (anavar). This product is quite anabolic, while at the same time possessing very little androgenic activity.

this is BASIC ANABOLIC STEROID SCIENCE!! You should not even be discussing the subject unless you understand these concepts

Please do not talk to animal, he is a treasure trove of misinformation

Well i dont think animal's intellegence should be insulted i mean the man invented the Fina kit , And discoverd how to seperate test in synovex using methanol so he definetly has merit.


You said That methyl-4ad junk assayed out pretty decent , they dont release pretty decent assayed AAS i mean look at dianabol,Anadrol ,fina all these compounds assayed out INCREDIBLY Well anabolicly against testosterone thats why they got released.

I read some post that dianabol is the king of all assayed steroids

 

[pa1ad]

Well i dont think animal's intellegence should be insulted i mean the man invented the Fina kit , And discoverd how to seperate test in synovex using methanol so he definetly has merit.


You said That methyl-4ad junk assayed out pretty decent , they dont release pretty decent assayed AAS i mean look at dianabol,Anadrol ,fina all these compounds assayed out INCREDIBLY Well anabolicly against testosterone thats why they got released.

I read some post that dianabol is the king of all assayed steroids

The fina kit? What is that, a solvent and a filtration apparatus? That is genius?

He did NOT discover how to seperate the estradiol benzoate from synovex. You are just too stupid to realize this. The man has no means to test for estradiol benzoate so how does he know that he seperated it out? Cuz the final product did not give gyno? I got news for you my friend, many a folk take straight synovex and have no problems. You are a sucker for believing that bullshit. I have the means to test for steroids on GC/MS. I am very tempted to discredit him once and for all. But why bother? If i do then you will still believe him cuz you are fucking brainwashed. Will you drink the cyanide laced kool aid when he demands you too? methinks you will....

You still do not understand about anabolic steroids and the drug market in general. Many steroids assayed out just as good as the aforementioned steroids but never made it to market. Probably for economic reasons mostly or perhaps intellectual property concerns. Do you understand? No, of course you don't. Why do i bother?

Dianabol was actually a very so so steroid according to assays.
Why do you continue to make these idiotic statements? Will you not go do some real research? Do you not know how to use a fucking library?

 

[1fast400]

This is why I don't get into these conversations, I know when I'm in way over my head . I just try to sit back and learn. I wish I had the time to go read up on this particular subject.

 

[MIKERAZ]

The fina kit? What is that, a solvent and a filtration apparatus? That is genius?

He did NOT discover how to seperate the estradiol benzoate from synovex. You are just too stupid to realize this. The man has no means to test for estradiol benzoate so how does he know that he seperated it out? Cuz the final product did not give gyno? I got news for you my friend, many a folk take straight synovex and have no problems. You are a sucker for believing that bullshit. I have the means to test for steroids on GC/MS. I am very tempted to discredit him once and for all. But why bother? If i do then you will still believe him cuz you are fucking brainwashed. Will you drink the cyanide laced kool aid when he demands you too? methinks you will....

You still do not understand about anabolic steroids and the drug market in general. Many steroids assayed out just as good as the aforementioned steroids but never made it to market. Probably for economic reasons mostly or perhaps intellectual property concerns. Do you understand? No, of course you don't. Why do i bother?

Dianabol was actually a very so so steroid according to assays.
Why do you continue to make these idiotic statements? Will you not go do some real research? Do you not know how to use a fucking library?

Well first off chill out bro, This whole argument started when Notpuff asked about methyl-4ad , and i just told him that,
A) it's a dumb question because it would be inneffective
B)very hard to do
then we got into the argument about potency , which i based my arguments on my theory's , i do admit you know much more then me regarding AAS but even youd agree with me on the methyl-4ad because no Diol EVER assayed out better then its beta-hydroxyd counterpart. I'm sorry if i insulted you.

Animal tests for estrogen sing PA strips.

 

[voodoo]

Will you drink the cyanide laced kool aid when he demands you too? methinks you will....

Pat, I always like your posts (and products) but you just might be dating yourself with that comment

...damn I feel old

 

[ISN_Man]

Well, for those that are following my weekly posts, this past Saturday marked the 6th week of being on this stack. Unfortunately though, it seems that the fun is coming to an end.......about 2 weeks early!!
I was informed days ago that Molecular wouldn't be shipping any more 1-T Ethergels until some time in June. For what reason, I don't know. But never the less, we sold our last bottle the day before I found out the bad news, and I'm going to run out this week. So, I don't get to see the effects of an 8 week cycle like I originally planned.
Personally, I don't believe my results were going to get much better than what they are currently. As of now, I've went from 197ish to 208ish, which I've maintained for 3-4 weeks now. My strength has increased a little, though not much. My muscular endurance is up, and I'm very impressed with this aspect, just because I'm off creatine and typically the only times I'm able to train strong through an entire work out is when I'm on creatine. When I'm not on creatine, I get too tired too quickly. I just don't have the endurance to last sometimes. This stack definitely helped to change that.
And lastly, as I've said before, the pumps have been fantastic and I've been more than happy with the increased vascularity. All and all, I have good things to say about this cycle. I definitely would like to see if there's a big difference in results between a 1-T Ethergel only cycle and this cycle I've done.
So I'll make posts as I continue along with what I have left for doses. Once I'm out, I'll begin Clomid. Right around that same time period, I'll reload creatine and hopefully that there will help me to hold some of my gains. Wish me luck!

 

[ISN_Man]

Yesterday marked my last day of this stack. As I explained in my previous post, I'm unable to continue because I've run out and have no way of getting any more. So, today I started using clomid @ 100mg per day. It's not going to last me too long, but it's all I have and I have to make do with what I got.
I've also started taking in 20+ grams of glutamine daily and I'll start using creatine again in a few days. Hopefully, all of these things, coupled with a strict diet, I'll maintain my strength and weight.
Personally, I think it's a reasonable thing. I didn't gain all that much weight or strength, so I feel as though it's reasonable for my body to hold onto this new muscle and maintain my current level strength. So need less to say, I guess this thread is just about done. I'll put in one more post next week during my creatine load to tell people how I'm doing maintaining my new gains. Wish me luck!