Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below Strong Hold
New member
If any of you'se guys heard or used any of these , lemme know what u think... any suggestion with supplementing or is it a waste of time? give me the inside 411 thanks
EQ and 1-test
- Thread starter Strong Hold
- Start date
riskybizz007
New member
EQ from most people i know who've used it think it's a waste compared to your other options. EQ i would use more for cutting than bulking, and there is a board member here who used 1AD successfully while cutting and claims he saved a lot of muscle in the process.
growin'
New member
To learn more about EQ search on the Anabolic Board. I think its a great drug. Solid gains, great vascularity, and huge appetite boost. Less water retention than deca which has +'s and -'s. A nice replacement for deca because you can control gyno with anti-e's, unlike deca's Progesterone induced gyno.
I should be trying 1-test in about 2 weeks.
I should be trying 1-test in about 2 weeks.
JokerJimmy
New member
If you are thinking to use EQ you open up the illegal options--which means that you have a long list.
Fina (tren) is a nice quasi-legal option.
IF you are doing any cycle of legal/quasi or other do some research to find out what works and what sides may be. It seems overwhelming at first but it is worth it.
I have buddies who have done numerous "cycles" of roids and got shit because they just did what they had readily available. They blew up and they lost most of it because they were stupid. If you plan right and have everything ready (and that also means diet and protein) you can gain big and keep most of it.
To be honest I think the current crop of topical prohormones out right now is really awesome--of course it's not as good as the real shit but it definately works and it's LEGAL and not that expensive.
I am on 1AD (oral) right now and I'm going to kick in some topical 1-AD/4AD mix (4AD keeps the Test levels high so you don't lose your sex drive plus its a nice anabolic stack).
Sorry for ramblin'--I'm bored at work
Fina (tren) is a nice quasi-legal option.
IF you are doing any cycle of legal/quasi or other do some research to find out what works and what sides may be. It seems overwhelming at first but it is worth it.
I have buddies who have done numerous "cycles" of roids and got shit because they just did what they had readily available. They blew up and they lost most of it because they were stupid. If you plan right and have everything ready (and that also means diet and protein) you can gain big and keep most of it.
To be honest I think the current crop of topical prohormones out right now is really awesome--of course it's not as good as the real shit but it definately works and it's LEGAL and not that expensive.
I am on 1AD (oral) right now and I'm going to kick in some topical 1-AD/4AD mix (4AD keeps the Test levels high so you don't lose your sex drive plus its a nice anabolic stack).
Sorry for ramblin'--I'm bored at work
J
Jeremy Carriere
Guest
EQ
I could be wrong but I think this guy is asking about 1-Test and EQ made by VPX Sports. Not Equipose but I could be wrong.
I could be wrong but I think this guy is asking about 1-Test and EQ made by VPX Sports. Not Equipose but I could be wrong.
JokerJimmy
New member
Jeremy I bet you are right--
If that is the case you can refer to "The Analects of Par Deucius"
"If a product uses a variation on the name of a real steroid, it is shite -- If it combines the name of two steroids......."
If that is the case you can refer to "The Analects of Par Deucius"
"If a product uses a variation on the name of a real steroid, it is shite -- If it combines the name of two steroids......."
2nd week on 1-test
During the first week my muscle mass and strength did not change, but my bodyfat dropped from 12% to 10% while eating 6 healthy meals per day like always. This week my food intake was increased by about a 1000 calories a day. Most of the increased came from red meats and fast food. My bodyfat is still at 10% but my weight has gone up 5 lbs and my power has also gone up on most lifts. Also alternating 5a2 and 1-test every 3 hrs.
During the first week my muscle mass and strength did not change, but my bodyfat dropped from 12% to 10% while eating 6 healthy meals per day like always. This week my food intake was increased by about a 1000 calories a day. Most of the increased came from red meats and fast food. My bodyfat is still at 10% but my weight has gone up 5 lbs and my power has also gone up on most lifts. Also alternating 5a2 and 1-test every 3 hrs.
OVRTrainer
New member
pa1ad...
I understand your feelings on questions about other competitors products, which are 100% justifiable. But, can you tell me if my conclusion is correct? ...that if the above is true, then Biotest's products would be effective to a more significant degree than originally anticipated, regardless of the use of their EC ester and a transdermal would not be that much better.
pa1ad said:
I understand your feelings on questions about other competitors products, which are 100% justifiable. But, can you tell me if my conclusion is correct? ...that if the above is true, then Biotest's products would be effective to a more significant degree than originally anticipated, regardless of the use of their EC ester and a transdermal would not be that much better.
Re: pa1ad...
If they used the free steroids instead of the esters than maybe I could say that. But the esters are an unknown and they may even make the product worse by ruining the solubility. I made a sample of 1-test EC ester and its solubility properties were very poor
OVRTrainer said:
If they used the free steroids instead of the esters than maybe I could say that. But the esters are an unknown and they may even make the product worse by ruining the solubility. I made a sample of 1-test EC ester and its solubility properties were very poor
notpuff said:
Only about 10-20% of a steroid makes it through the skin transdermally usually (most never absorbs). Probably greater than 80% makes it into the body orally however. The catch though is that transdermally the steroid makes it into the body mostly unmetabolized, while by oral most of the steroid is metabolized before it hits the blood stream
The unique thing about 1-test and 1-AD however is that the metabolism (specifically oxidation to 17keto steroids) is greatly reduced. Therefore the balance (transdermal to oral efficacy) changes compared to other steroids like testosterone, nandrolone and their precursors.
I have found that in contrast to 4-AD, 1-AD works better as an oral than as a transdermal. I would expect that the same is the case with 1-test also.
notpuff said:
People are spraying on 400 to 800mg of 4-AD a day. So if ten percent gets through into the system you are getting 40-80 mg of 4-AD a day.
40-80 mg of a steroid a day is alot of steroid. 4-AD does not have to be super potent to have a discernable effect at this daily dosage.
OVRTrainer
New member
PA...
Well other than it being extremely uncomfortable, would it be worth it to try powdered 1-Test in capsule orally, or would you anticipate it being less bioavailable than 1-AD. Thanks.
pa1ad said:
Well other than it being extremely uncomfortable, would it be worth it to try powdered 1-Test in capsule orally, or would you anticipate it being less bioavailable than 1-AD. Thanks.
fhg43
New member
notpuff said:
Are gains site specific w/transdermals? Meaning, if I apply Androspray to my legs and do a full body workout (working all body parts equally) will I notice better gains in my legs (since thats where the transdermal was applied)? Or do you absorb the substance and it works its way into your bloodstream and it is used throughout the body?
FHG
OVRTrainer
New member
Thank you PA...
Thank you for your honesty. It seems that everyone is under the impression that you would need a transdermal. Anyway, I bet you're sitting around laughing at us everyday, watching us spend rediculous amounts of money on all these different delivery systems that are essentially unnecessary. Well when the hammer drops, I hope all these other companies didn't screw it up for you and the rest of us. I don't see why the FDA would mess with 1-AD, but I hope it outlives this fiasco. It's the most effective prohormone to date. Please keep 'em coming! Thanks.
Thank you for your honesty. It seems that everyone is under the impression that you would need a transdermal. Anyway, I bet you're sitting around laughing at us everyday, watching us spend rediculous amounts of money on all these different delivery systems that are essentially unnecessary. Well when the hammer drops, I hope all these other companies didn't screw it up for you and the rest of us. I don't see why the FDA would mess with 1-AD, but I hope it outlives this fiasco. It's the most effective prohormone to date. Please keep 'em coming! Thanks.
Re: Thank you PA...
I have been field testing a 1-AD topical spray, and while it is effective it does not seem to be as potent as the orals. I may still market it though, for the reason that it would give the few people who cannot tolerate the orals a chance to still use it
OVRTrainer said:
I have been field testing a 1-AD topical spray, and while it is effective it does not seem to be as potent as the orals. I may still market it though, for the reason that it would give the few people who cannot tolerate the orals a chance to still use it
OVRTrainer
New member
Re: Re: Thank you PA...
Sounds like a good plan. If it can be made as potent as the oral, that would surely alleviate the side-effects of burning pee and stomach discomfort. I had neither of those but I know that reports of the potential for these has deterred some potential users.
What else you got?
pa1ad said:
Sounds like a good plan. If it can be made as potent as the oral, that would surely alleviate the side-effects of burning pee and stomach discomfort. I had neither of those but I know that reports of the potential for these has deterred some potential users.
What else you got?
Re: Re: Re: Thank you PA...
It would relieve stomach discomfort but the urine problem could still be an issue. It collects in your urine no matter what way it got into your bloodstream in the first place
I am working on other stuff, but I do things from scratch myself and unfortunately only a few things that i attempt are successful. Someone has to be the first to do things so others can steal them!!
OVRTrainer said:
It would relieve stomach discomfort but the urine problem could still be an issue. It collects in your urine no matter what way it got into your bloodstream in the first place
I am working on other stuff, but I do things from scratch myself and unfortunately only a few things that i attempt are successful. Someone has to be the first to do things so others can steal them!!
OVRTrainer
New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Thank you PA...
LOL. I know it's not really funny though. In your defense, the Biotest guys really screwed you. They bashed 1-AD, then they come out with a product that's got the active hormone in it. This is the same product that they claimed to be working on for the last couple of years. Then poof, they scratch their original plans and incorporate 1-Test, or A1E, ha ha.
Pat, why did you not try and patent 1-Test in it's different delivery methods? I assume you cannot patent a hormone, but I know the Biotest guys have patented their delivery method. In fact, I don't understand how these other "esterfied" and "ether" products can pass the 'unobviousness' test for patentability.
pa1ad said:
It would relieve stomach discomfort but the urine problem could still be an issue. It collects in your urine no matter what way it got into your bloodstream in the first place
I am working on other stuff, but I do things from scratch myself and unfortunately only a few things that i attempt are successful. Someone has to be the first to do things so others can steal them!!
LOL. I know it's not really funny though. In your defense, the Biotest guys really screwed you. They bashed 1-AD, then they come out with a product that's got the active hormone in it. This is the same product that they claimed to be working on for the last couple of years. Then poof, they scratch their original plans and incorporate 1-Test, or A1E, ha ha.
Pat, why did you not try and patent 1-Test in it's different delivery methods? I assume you cannot patent a hormone, but I know the Biotest guys have patented their delivery method. In fact, I don't understand how these other "esterfied" and "ether" products can pass the 'unobviousness' test for patentability.
Biotest is not the only company. Seriously, besides Bill's Molecular Nutrition line, when it comes to PHs no one is doing anything original or their own R&D. Everyone is just waiting to see what Ergo is going to release or picks up the scraps that they don't and try to put some kind of marketing twist on it. I know PA has said that he hopes to have something new ready for release in the spring and that he has said as far as prohormones go that 1-AD is really the limit as they are covered in the current legislation. So about a month or so after his new release I'm sure we'll be reading about a 'revolutionary' non-hormonal product that Biotest is pioneering over at T-mag 
. Good luck, Jay
. Good luck, JayOVRTrainer
New member
pa1ad...
Yes, I was especially interested as I am a law student and I have just completed a course on patent law. It seems to me that even if Biotest was able to patent their delivery method, which they claim they have, unless these other companies paid them for a license, Biotest would have an infringement action. If they have only filed a patent application, there is a possibility that their product will not be found to be unobvious over the prior art (1-AD)depending on their claims and specifications. I won't get into the whole test for patentability, but I'd love to know how this works.
pa1ad said:
Yes, I was especially interested as I am a law student and I have just completed a course on patent law. It seems to me that even if Biotest was able to patent their delivery method, which they claim they have, unless these other companies paid them for a license, Biotest would have an infringement action. If they have only filed a patent application, there is a possibility that their product will not be found to be unobvious over the prior art (1-AD)depending on their claims and specifications. I won't get into the whole test for patentability, but I'd love to know how this works.
they claim patents on their esters, not the raw 1-test. they cannot patent 1-test. they have no patents on the esters, check USPTO.gov
this is all really silly to even discusss cuz they have no patents, nor will they ever on esters of a steroid discovered 30 years ago. esterification of a drug to make a pro drug is not a new discovery
this is all really silly to even discusss cuz they have no patents, nor will they ever on esters of a steroid discovered 30 years ago. esterification of a drug to make a pro drug is not a new discovery
Big Cat HH
New member
pa1ad said:
Except only 15% of that 40-80 mg gets converted to test. Who ever got big on 6-12 mg of test a day ? And there is no evidence to suggest 4AD has anabolic activity of its own.
I think that absorption of a good transdermal is closer to 20-25% rather than 10-20%. In any case, 1AD and logically 1-test possess about 14% oral availability, so in the best case, a decent transdermal would still be a better choice over an oral. Unless I'm missing something. And as PA knows, I have been known to miss a few things
Big Cat HH said:
Except only 15% of that 40-80 mg gets converted to test. Who ever got big on 6-12 mg of test a day ? And there is no evidence to suggest 4AD has anabolic activity of its own.
I think that absorption of a good transdermal is closer to 20-25% rather than 10-20%. In any case, 1AD and logically 1-test possess about 14% oral availability, so in the best case, a decent transdermal would still be a better choice over an oral. Unless I'm missing something. And as PA knows, I have been known to miss a few things
I think you are missing alot of knowledge in this area and you make incorrect deductions from what facts you do know. The in-vitro blood study showing 15% conversion really means little in regards to what activity the 4-AD has in the body. It disregards conversion at target tissues and intrinsic activity. The assays of 4-AD done on rats showing high activity tends to suggest that things are going on with the compound that are not obviously apparent from simple testosterone conversion in the blood.
Your determination of 14% bioavailablity from urinary excretion studies also displays ignorance of pharmacology on your part. What shows up in the urine is not what determines bioavailablity, rather, it is the percentage of compound which makes it to the blood. What shows up in the urine is often completely irrelevant to bioavailablity
You may also want to think that a good transdermal delivers alot of steroid, but unless you can offer some evidence of that beyond telling us that your delts swelled up then please stick to what the scientific literature tells us
so back to the books Big Cat
notpuff said:
That is not how the literature should be interpreted. It did demonstrate that 4-AD had high biological activity, however there is no way to know if it acts directly at the receptor or whether it acts as a prohormone only, or combination of both. Although blood studies only show 15% conversion, conversion at target tissues may be very high.
Big Cat HH
New member
pa1ad said:
But it does allow for a decent comparison between different compounds, no ? Otherwise why use such studies to document anything ? ok, question : Since the other prohormones convert by similar pathway, would they not show similar conversions (as 4AD) in other tissues as well ? And what else can we possibly go on, because I doubt anyone will take it upon themselves to measure the conversion in ALL tissues.
ok, bad choice of words, but it does show how much of the stuff makes it through the liver and into the blood after hepatic breakdown and it does once again offer a base of comparison.
Fine, but two can play that game. You may think that 4AD has a higher conversion in other tissues, but unless you can offer some evidence of that beyond telling us that, then please stick to what the sicentific literature tells us ?
(I may be "ignorant" and "lacking knowledge" in your book, but I do pay attention.I guess the same holds true for you
I await your reply to my question.
Big Cat HH said:
>But it does allow for a decent comparison between different compounds, no ? Otherwise why use such studies to document anything ? ok, question : Since the other prohormones convert by similar pathway, would they not show similar conversions (as 4AD) in other tissues as well ? And what else can we possibly go on, because I doubt anyone will take it upon themselves to measure the conversion in ALL tissues.
[/b]
-----------
It does allow for comparison between different compounds. And all the compounds tested in that study use DIFFERENT enzymes for conversion. And all tissues have unique levels of each enzyme, so outside of blood who knows what happens? Sounds like you totally missed the point of that article Big Cat.
---------
>ok, bad choice of words, but it does show how much of the stuff >makes it through the liver and into the blood after hepatic >breakdown and it does once again offer a base of comparison.
[/b]
--------
You are very confused. How can a study that demonstrates the conversion of the compounds in incubated blood say ANYTHING about first pass liver degradation?
Fine, but two can play that game. You may think that 4AD has a higher conversion in other tissues, but unless you can offer some evidence of that beyond telling us that, then please stick to what the sicentific literature tells us ?
[/b]
No Big Cat, I do NOT state that it has higher conversion in other tissues. I merely offer that as one possible explanation as to why 4-AD demonstrates similar bioactivity to testosterone when assayed in animals. The other explanation is that it has intrinsic activity. Try to follow the discussion
I guess the same holds true for you
Ugggghhh!!!
Big Cat HH
New member
No point at all, I was documenting that you were merely guessing when you say that 4AD has more to offer than its 15% conversion. For all you know conversion in other tissues may actually be lower and what you are seeing is a placebo effect. I don't mean anything by it. Its just hard for me to swallow that you tell me I'm so "dumb" and "hypocritical" when you can pull theories out of your, well you know, and assume they are true.
On this one I think you are confused. We weren't talking about the conversion, but about the urinary excretetion. I assume you know that everything absorbed orally goes through the liver before it is excreted in the urine ? Therefor it documents the rate of hepatic breakdown, to some, admittedly not accurate, extent.
You still don't get that you aren't the only one playing this game. I AM following the discussion :
I do NOT state that transdermals have a higher efficacy rate,. I merely offer that as one possible explanation for the better results obtained with them, as well as the swelling of the shoulders which you named as increased androgen receptor concentration. Experienced, I repeat, with 600 mg of Nor-diol, but not with 1200 mg of oral 1AD.
Don't stress it so much PA. Nobody is challenging your knowledge, merely trying to get some straight answers. You don't have to pull a sales-pitch on me. I spent 400 bucks on 1AD and I loved the stuff. But is it really so hard for you to fathom that 1AD and 1-test just might more effective orally ? And not just a little ?
Big Cat HH
New member
I'm learning, but what sort of a student would I be if I took your word for it. I accept both theories as valid, but not as true necessarily. For all you know conversion in other tissues could be lower, you also can't prove 4AD has intrinsic activity. Your theories hold a lot of ground, they aren't gospel however.
Swell muscles ? Now that is the dumbest thing I ever heard. No, i stated that with transdermals there is a distinct swelling in the shoulders, arms, sometimes chest. The muscle ? Who knows, I always assumed it was sort of a water retention, perhaps linked to more estrogen receptors or higher aromatase concentration in the shoulders. Especially since there was no gain in weight despite a gain in size in these areas. I never attempted to explain it. Saw no need since it dissappeared after discontinuation.
Odd, I've seen otherwise. Nice of you not to adress the urinary excretion part in my last post and how it does offer a comparison in hepatic breakdown to some extent.
According to the numbers, oral to transdermal is equal at best, probably better in favor of transdermal. But since there is no proof one way or the other, I have to agree there is no point in continuing this argument. As always it was a pleasure, and I did learn a lot
Big Cat HH
New member
Oh my god, you are delusional. Do you think it is that hard to open up 60 caps, dump the powder in a glass, mix with water, run it through a coffee filter and add the residu to a 120 ml mix of 60% ethanol,30% IPM and 10% octyl salicate ? A child can do that Pat. Dump the contents in a left-over Nor-andro spray bottle and spray away. Jezus, you think you need a chemistry degree for that ? No, I haven't tried 1-test orally, its a bit harder to convert a transdermal to an oral.
Its painfully obvious I'm not learning much from you other than how to disrespect others...
If all else fails, the numbers on the scale don't lie. Lets face it, you don't have anything to stand on. You don't know the conversion of these hormones in every tissue, you don't know their oral or transdermal bio-availability. Might as well rely on the only numbers left right : the results of trial and error. They tell me I'm right.
Look, contrary to what you believe I'm not here to hound you, if it wasn't the case i'd take your word and let it go. What on earth do I have to gain from proving this otherwise ? I'm a student, any money I get and I stand to LOSE my scholarship. You are the one that has everything to gain by claiming the opposite. You are the one that makes your money off of oral 1AD because your whole ad campaign is based on "oral" bio-availabilty.
Now tell me again why I'm a danger to these or any boards. Explain to me how mistakenly assuming that shoulders swelling was estrogenic water retention endangers anyone. I'm particularly curious. And when you are done with that you can finally answer my question why 600 mg or Nor-androspray made my shoulders swell and 1200 mg of oral 1AD did not. If its so orally effective...
Big Cat HH said:
You are a danger because you write articles about prohormones that are full of misinformation and many people on these boards read them and mistakenly take you as some authority with the background necessary to form sound scientific judgments. I have made my career studying prohormones and working with them in the lab and on production scale. I take the subject very seriously and try very hard to make sure people get accurate information on the subject. You are a threat because you are filling people's heads with alot of BS. That is my opinion.
I did not bother you when you were just on bodybuilding.com but now that you are coming on these other boards and saying your stuff it is starting to disturb me
Big Cat HH
New member
pa1ad said:
ANd it still works better than the oral. What does that tell you ?
Wait a minute, what am I saying. Fuck that, you liar. You tried to trick me. I didn't use water. I used ethanol. Read my post next time. So no problem. You were confusing me. I was thinking "why can't alcohol mix with alcohol ?"
Do you make this stuff up as you go along just so you can discredit me, so you wouldn't have to admit I was right ?
Then everybody in this frigging industry is a threat but you. My info is a lot more accurate than what most companies are spreading, and when people come to me its with questions about products and claims. I would say that's a substantial improvement listening to me over Muscletech, SDI, VPX, SAN and a whole host of other firms.
And for the record, I'm not coming on these boards and "saying my stuff". I stated an opinion, a theory and had the politeness to add a question mark at the end for you to fill in any mistakes I might have made. There is only one person here who spreads his words like they were gospel, and that's you ...
Its not so much that you are stubborn and rude that bothers me (I am the same way most of the time), its that you seem to operate under the largest scale of hypocrisy I have ever seen in my life.
BTW, love the way you only answer questions you can rebut. I take it you concede the other points ?
Last edited:
macrophage69alpha
New member
well... while I have little interest in pro-hormones....
Pat is correct that there is little aromatase produced in muscle tissue... however the skin and adipose tissue are the main sources of aromatase production in males.. with transdermal application you will likely get local aromatization at the site(exposure to aromatase rich tissue through skin and sub-q-fat) a level of exposure that one would not likely get with oral intake(as hormone would likely be in lower concentrations, reduced, or not come into contact with tissue due to poor blood flow).. and potentially the reason for local water retention. (estrogens influence on water is also due to its direct action on the a2 adrenceptor)
just some random thoughts
peace
Pat is correct that there is little aromatase produced in muscle tissue... however the skin and adipose tissue are the main sources of aromatase production in males.. with transdermal application you will likely get local aromatization at the site(exposure to aromatase rich tissue through skin and sub-q-fat) a level of exposure that one would not likely get with oral intake(as hormone would likely be in lower concentrations, reduced, or not come into contact with tissue due to poor blood flow).. and potentially the reason for local water retention. (estrogens influence on water is also due to its direct action on the a2 adrenceptor)
just some random thoughts
peace
Big Cat HH
New member
My theory still wouldn't fly then, because I was referring to shoulders and arms, two areas not particularly rich in adipose tissue.
Big Cat HH
New member
Not as bright as you look huh ? 60% of the solution. As in 60% ethanol SD40, same stuff you use, 30% IPM and 10% Octyl. Go check the back post.
Thank you. I'll have to go back and reread the back posts myself before I find them all, but you can start on this one, i'll edit the post as I find them :
1.Is there any proof to rebut my findings that 1AD is better as a transdermal than as an oral ?
2.Where is this 10-20% number on transdermals coming from, and what sort of carrier are you basing it on ? I find it a hard number to swallow because that would mean oral 4AD, Nor-diol, 5AA, and so forth would be very, very weak at that to see a 5 to 6-fold increase in results on similar doses.
3. I quote : 40-80 mg of a steroid a day is alot of steroid. 4-AD does not have to be super potent to have a discernable effect at this daily dosage. Is there any viable evidence that says 4AD has intrinsic activity ?
4.Straight facts only : IS there evidence of a higher conversion rate of 4AD in other tissues, and in any regard, wouldn't anything lower than 100% conversion completely rebut your theory of getting 40-80 mg of an active androgen in the blood ?
5.Again, just the facts please : Do you have any serious proof that the hepatic breakdown numbers are less than those of the urinary excretion study (as you indicated) and if so, why are both Ergopharm and Molecular nutrition using these excretion studies to document the oral bio-availability of their product ?
I leave it at that for now, if you could give me a straight answer on those I would very much appreciate it. Thanx.
Last edited:
Big Cat HH
New member
Wow, I'll take that as "No Big cat, I can't give you a straight answer", and draw my conclusions from that. Thanx for giving it a shot though.
Big Cat HH
New member
pa1ad said:
Last edited:
Big Cat HH said:
Actually your question made no sense to me. I am not sure what you were even referring to.
What I recall vaguely is that you quoted a percentage of steroid recovered from urine as an indication of bioavailablity. Urinary metabolites are not a good indication of bioavailability - if they were then you would have to determine that testosterone injections have very little bioavailability since very little testosterone shows up in the urine
In the case of the 1-androstenes however you can make a case by comparing the percentage of 17beta hydroxyl metabolites that are recovered in the urine versus those recovered from other prohromones. What you find is that a significantly greater amount is recovered. This indicates that more of the 1-androstenes are converting to active hormone, therefore the RELATIVE bioavailability must be greater. You cannot get a real number for the bioavailability from urinary metabolites of course, that can only be determined from blood sampling. A clinical study of blood hormone responses from 1-AD in humans is about to be completed. I will share the information so that other companies that don't do a damn thing but copy the innovators that actually fund research can use it to promote their knock offs
So are you ever gonna do a clinical study to support the claims you are making such as that your topical has magical properties that give it bioavailability over 20%? Or are you just gonna use your wonderful anecdotal methods of shoulder swelling as verification?
Just busting your balls.....
Big Cat HH
New member
So basically the urinary excretion shows an arbitrary comparison between prohormones based on both availability and conversion ? Wouldn't that mean that its possible that the 1-double bond doesn't do anything against hepatic breakdown but just assures a better conversion ? That too is a likely explanation.
As for sharing the data, there aren't a whole lot of people you can depend on for reliable information. Those of us who actually read the research will still see who sponsored it.
You know, that's not a half bad idea for a first published study. You sponsoring ?
Fair enough, I deserved it
As for sharing the data, there aren't a whole lot of people you can depend on for reliable information. Those of us who actually read the research will still see who sponsored it.
You know, that's not a half bad idea for a first published study. You sponsoring ?
Fair enough, I deserved it
Big Cat HH
New member
pa1ad said:
Big Cat HH
New member
pa1ad said:
True, since the saturation point is less due to the myristic acid, but still, most of it is alcohol and with similar properties to that of the ethanol.
I thought you'd be glad to find all this out. It proves why I got better results with a topical 1AD, while your tests don't. Simply a better carrier.
Big Cat HH said:
No, it has to do with the fact that as soon as you throw another variable into the sytstem the properties of the entire system change. You just don't throw in a bunch of different solvents into the mix and expect them to behave additively or synergistically. Your carrier may just as well be completely shittty. This is why pharmaceutical companies spend millions on this technology. It is ludicrous to think that an amateur like yourself could come up with something better by throwing all kinds of stuff into a witches brew. This is why my androspray base is copied after a simple and proven formula. If I wanted to improve the formula by adding other stuff then I would have to test each alteration of the formula to see what its unique properties are. Keep playing voodoo science and I will keep doing real science
supermanstanley
New member
pa1ad hey, I just wanted to get your take on boldione by molecular nutrition . Also I have gotten good results off 1-ad. I have been bodybuilding since 1987 and this is the first product off the shelf that I have made good gains off of. And I seen a guy at the gym who never gained muscle and is 40 years of age and gained 25 pounds in over two months, so kudos to your product. Well just wanted your take off BOLDIONE and if this stuff doesnt work Im jumping back on the 1-ad the only side effect is it makes my alt on my blood test go up a little bit, but it is amazing!
superman
superman
Big Cat HH
New member
pa1ad said:
Ok, but this one time my voodoo science obviously paid off as I was able to improve the results of 1AD transdermally and you were not. So yeah, you have a point, but looks like I got lucky on this one ...
Big Cat HH
New member
supermanstanley said:
That has got to be the nicest set-up I ever read !
riskybizz007
New member
Big Cat HH said:
That has got to be the nicest set-up I ever read !
lol...
Big Cat HH
New member
pa1ad said:
That's funny, because people know who I am, wheras you ... well, no need to go there. Still don't understand why you were so displeased with the transdermal theory, as it obviously proves you right on past points.
Big Cat HH
New member
pa1ad said:
Nice answer. Commendable. Have to admit I wouldn't have thought of such diplomacy.
I'm going to try and field this one from my "limited knowledge". Personally I think its a good prohormone. Its definitely the most efficient prohormone although not all that strong. Its biggest asset, at least from my experience and the feedback I hear is that it increases appetite drastically, providing you with the basic elements for growth rather than being a super-anabolic. This is a trait commonly described with boldenone, but I think it may be intrinsic (watch PA shoot lightning for having an unproven theory) because even doses as small as 50 mg seem to have a pretty amazing effect.
Stuff makes a good match for 1AD. The gains are lean, but it still provides some estrogen which has many benefits. Mainly upgrading the androgen receptor, increasing the gains of 1AD, and increasing GH levels. I believe PA commented, and I would deduce from the structure, that 1-test is actually dihydroboldenone, the 5-alpha reduced compound of boldenone. Now one may see little use in stacking a product it converts to, but boldenone has very poor affinity for the 5AR enzyme, so the two prohormones are very complementary.
Both PH's are also very efficient, so that 600 mg of each would provide you with gains few other stacks could rival. Boldione may also help relieving the loss of libido problem from 1AD. With Boldione at 3-times the efficiency of 1AD, and 1AD at three to four times the potency of Boldione they are worthy of each other as well.
How 'm I doing Pat ?
Big Cat HH
New member
pa1ad said:It didn't make me vomit so its an improvement I guess
Your sense of humor is improving over the beginning of this thread as well ... ;D
Big Cat HH
New member
pa1ad said:
All right, but don't shoot the messenger. How many people do you get daily asking "who is Big Cat ?" Cause every time I mention your name someone asks me "who is Pat Arnold ?" And since you are the prime source of information in this field, I mention your name quite a lot ...
Big Cat HH
New member
Haha, taking it a bit overboard huh ? My only point was that that whole thing about being a legend in ones own mind, is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. I mean no offense, but when it comes to ego, you are pretty well-endowed yourself ...
