Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
anadrol vs dbol?
- Thread starter Kasperr7
- Start date
IMO there is a lot of varriance in people's responses to Anadrol. Some need quite a bit to really start gaining. There is less variability of dbol. When looking at them mg for mg (meaning not 30mg of dbol vs. 50mg of anadrol) I'd give the edge to dbol in effectiveness for the vast majority of people and that's a good way to look at it for liver toxitity, on a mg dosage level. Also, the varriance in response to Anadrol is also wide. For some reason, some people find it a lot easier to drop weight with and keep water retention down while others have the full moon face. The one area where Anadrol is supperior is recovery and endurance during exercise. I found that I could go a lot longer in the gym and was fully recovered much faster from my workouts.
That's about as much as I can give. Due to A50's varriance in required dosage and how people respond to it, I'd be hesitant to make any claims about how it will work for someone unless they have some experience with it. Dbol is a sure thing and most people can take less dbol than anadrol and get results. Hope that helps.
That's about as much as I can give. Due to A50's varriance in required dosage and how people respond to it, I'd be hesitant to make any claims about how it will work for someone unless they have some experience with it. Dbol is a sure thing and most people can take less dbol than anadrol and get results. Hope that helps.
TheAssholeFomerlyKnownAsDBBT
New member
DIVISION said:OH FUCK!!!!!!!!
This thread has been done countless times by countless fuckfaces.....
Why can't you kids search instead of asking the same questions over and over?
DIV
LOL....
Anadrol is superior for strength. And size in my opinion.
You know, the mg per mg argument is fucking stupid. Different chemical structures are NOT meant to be compared on a mg per mg basis. Femara comes in 2.5mg increments while arimidex comes in 1mg increments...does that mean arimidex is better because it is supplied as 1mg tabs? Gimme a break.
You know, the mg per mg argument is fucking stupid. Different chemical structures are NOT meant to be compared on a mg per mg basis. Femara comes in 2.5mg increments while arimidex comes in 1mg increments...does that mean arimidex is better because it is supplied as 1mg tabs? Gimme a break.
LVTitan
New member
yo yo my brotha, not all of us can search as we are still NP's..give the little nugga a break.. oh yeah, and fuck you too division..DIVISION said:OH FUCK!!!!!!!!
This thread has been done countless times by countless fuckfaces.....
Why can't you kids search instead of asking the same questions over and over?
DIV
good to hear from you man, i'm back after a few weeks.
P
Phaded
Guest
I agree with these guys. I am on my second week of qv drol 75 and I upped it to 150mg./ed and finally getting more aggressive, stronger, and bigger. I geuss I respond poorly to it but I am at the end of my cycle too though.
Unfortunately it is the mg/mg basis which has a lot to do with how much of a substance you are running through your liver which was part of the original poster's question. Still, if you don't take dosage into account how can you actually compare any substance? Hell, one could say anavar kicks the hell out of test because you can take 100mg of var ED and get better gains than 50mg of test per week. Although the effects of A50 can be very worthwhile, the total mg dosage that needs to be used may or may not be a significant factor for someone. Personally, I always had great results with very low dosages of A50, it made me ripped, super strong, and I had no issue keeping gains or with holding water. That said, it would be incredibly irresponsible stupid and careless to give him my experience and assume he's going to get the same effects on the same dosage - A50, while goog, has a lot of user variability.
LVTitan said:yo yo my brotha, not all of us can search as we are still NP's..give the little nugga a break.. oh yeah, and fuck you too division..
good to hear from you man, i'm back after a few weeks.
FUCK YOU, LVTitaNugga!!!!
Glad you back, son............now tell us what happened with your GF!!!
Did you throw her back out on the streets or have you let her back in?
I think it's a mistake.........in the future do not makes these decisions without first consulting me!
DIV
Madcow2 said:
This is still a fucking STUPID argument. Just because a chemical comes in a higher dosage increments does NOT MEAN that it is more liver toxic. Aromasin is not more liver toxic than dbol because it comes in a 25mg dosage. By your argument, it should be.
Now anadrol may very well be more liver toxic, but there are no studies demonstrating that. So drop the mg per mg argument? K thx.
17-aa steroids are all toxic for exactly the same reason as they all have the same methyl group in common. Of course there is an issue with molecular weight of the base before it is attached but if they are anywhere close to each other in weight, a good proxy for toxitity will be total mg dosage required.poantrex said:
I don't know why this is so hard to grasp for you and why you have such an attitude about it. I'm not an expert chemist by any means but basic high school chemistry sheds a lot of light on this as when we use 'mg' to describe a dosage we are talking about weight, not a volume. And weight can be calculated.
Also, we aren't talking about compounds that are wildly different here. If you want to open a chemistry book you can figure it out. If the equivalent of 50mg of dbol is 150mg of Anadrol (example - not true but easy numbers), the 17-aa chain is constant, so the difference will be the weight. Figure out exactly how many molecules you are throwing in at given dosages and you will find the amount of processing that the liver undergoes breaking down each 17aa chain. For the 50/150 to come out equal, dbol would have to weigh 33% of what a molecule of anadrol weighs to make the number of molecules in each dosage equivalent (and the number of 17-aa passing through the liver).
This may not end up 100% perfect but it's a very fair proxy for toxitity and these compounds are both fairly similar being testosterone derrivatives. This is apples to apples.
I don't know how else to explain it to you. It's not as if I'm pulling this out of my ass. The methyl group is the real toxic bastard on all of these compounds. Once you find out exactly how many you are passing through in a dosage you can get a good proxy. BTW - the reason A50 got a bad rap to begin with was because of the dosages physicians used when treating patients. I remember reading the daily dosages for patients treated for a specific anemia were given somewhere around 300mg daily over longer periods of time. Hence, all the issues they developed. Tough remembering back that far (I read it 12+ years ago) but that is what gave A50 the bad rap.
Last edited:
Madcow2 said:
Nice try at attempting an explanation, but its a bunch of shit. The dosage increment of a drug does not indicate its liver toxicity - I can point out dozens of examples of anti diabetics, high blood pressure meds, and so on and so forth where a lower milligram drug is higher in toxicity than something that comes in higher dosage increments.
To imply that the toxicity of a compound comes solely from its dosage - its fucking absurd and has no basis in reality. I'd ask you to show proof of that, a study stating matter of factly that a dosage of a drug indicates its liver toxicity. But I KNOW it doesn't exist.
P
Phaded
Guest
I agree, it depends on which drug it is that makes it more or less toxic
Bro, you are seriously ignorant. Test derrivatives themselves are not toxic to the liver (that means all the related compounds/all steroids in basic form etc...). Only the 17aa's and that's because they have the methyl group attached to make oral admin possible - it's the methyl group that is the issue (Ulter just did a post on this in another thread that I'm in so use the search - better yet here it is - now you owe me twice for educating you twice http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?t=361543&page=1&pp=20 ). Find how many of these chains you are passing through and you can proxy the toxitity (molecular weight of the base compound will be the only difference - hence using weight cause the chain is constant - how many individual molecules of a compound are in a given mg dose - very simply cause each has a methyl group attached). One of the reasons there has never been and will never ever be a formal study on toxitity between compounds like these, is because everyone who knows anything about this stuff knows this. Nobody needs to do a study on this because there is no doubt or objection. If 1 is toxic, then 1+1=2 which is double the original amound of toxitity. We're talking basic arithmetic.poantrex said:
Now the main issue is that you act like an asshole. I've been overlooking it up to this point but shit bro, simply because you don't have a clue, don't act like everyone else is wrong just because you don't know about a topic and aren't willing to apply some brain power. If post count or member since date is the only thing you accept then look up my old Madcow1 account from 2000-2001. This is common sense and explained in depth. At this point everyone with 1/2 a brain understands this except yourself - and I know what conclusion I draw from that and I certainly don't need a study to tell me you have less than 1/2 being applied here. If this isn't good enough for you, and it's explained at the logic for retards level here, you're just going to have to go take classes or something.
Better yet, why don't you specifically explain to me how this all works since I'm lying to you for some reason known only to yourself. Put it all down in science since you obviously have a huge depth of knowledge and experience to pull from. Explain to me, why the 17aa group is attached, how its attached, why it's toxic, what is toxic about the base compounds (tricky), and why a base compound suddenly quagmires into something so toxic as to require an additional study once the methyl group gets attached, Post back when you have answers.
Edit:
BTW - For anyone reading this, do not think I am arguing that this can be applied accross the board to all compounds meaning outside of testosterone and it's derrivatives - and it's damn clear that I am not. The definition of a poison comes to mind.
Last edited:
Madcow2 said:
Blah, blah, blah. Testosterone is processed by the liver and CAN be toxic to the liver. That is a fact! It is not as toxic as 17-aa, but it is toxic in some individuals. That is why all androgens prescribed in the USA have warnings about possible liver enzyme elevations (androgel, delatestryl, depo-test.). So wrong on one count.
And I appreciate the fact that you think you know what you're talking about, but the fact of the matter is...you haven't posted a bit of proof. You probably heard about this somewhere else and took it as gospel...well, tell me this: Like I mentioned earlier, I can name tons of examples of various anti diabetics, hypertension meds, and so forth where a lower mg drug is more toxic than a higher mg drug. So obviously there is more to it than meets the eye. Some of these drugs are in the same family of drugs, as well...most of them actually.
P
Phaded
Guest
the toxicity of testosterone is pretty low. The chances of yo uhurting yourslf with it is unlikely unless you abuse it.
poantrex said:
You know what bro - never once did I say it was perfect - I said it was a proxy. The methyl group is toxic. Find out how many you are passing in either dosage to find a proxy for making them equivalent. These are not so far removed where you are going to find that the toxitity will differ in any significant way relative to the variation you see with a methyl group. It's going to come down to the number of molecules going through your liver (i.e. every moledcule of either has a methyl group - so fricking count them up and see how many are going through). You can figure that by weight.
Are you telling me this is bullshit? That there is some super secret thing about either dbol or anadrol that is hugely more toxic than the methyl group and that it is going to skew all of this so far out to make the impact of the methyl group insignificant or even a secondary factor in toxitity. I don't think so. This is by far and away the most important factor and providing the molecular weights are not drastically different, it will drive the toxitity. It is that simple.
Here's a brief article that I found in a 2 sec google search (it only takes 2 seconds because I am not the only one who holds the opinion). Specifically note the impacts on liver enzymes and then the final paragraph on 17aa's and the words "burden the liver in a dose-related manner".
http://www.medibolics.com/qa2.htm
Here is another - I'll give the link and then quote below to save you the hardship of reading.
http://www.uspharmacist.com/index.asp?show=article&page=8_1127.htm
There are three formulations of testosterone available: oral, intramuscular, and transdermal. There are advantages and disadvantages to each. Oral formulations tend to exercise liver enzymes beyond their normal limits. Over a period of time this may have serious consequences on the cytochrome oxidase system. Intramuscular preparations tend to bypass the liver and do not have as severe an effect on liver enzymes. This lack of first-pass metabolism is also noted with transdermal preparations.
Now of course, I'm sure you know of this mysterious factor that is the major impacter of liver enzymes. I'm sure it totally outweighs the oral methyl group by such a huge margin that we all need to know. I mean, you could possibly identify the one test derivative that is super liver toxic regardless of whether it is oral or not. Wow, fucking groundbreaking. What if we accidentally took it. Here I though I was getting test cyp but someone gave me dumbshitalone injectible (which has no methyl group). It killed my liver and made me grow a second set of balls. Had I only come to you first.
