1-T Ethergel/Boldione cycle: Results

[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?