1-T Ethergel/Boldione cycle: Results

[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.