Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

PA1AD or Par Deus question on inj. 4ad and 19nordiol

P

Pityocamptes

New member
I have been inject. 1cc of 4ad and 1cc of 19-nordiol (100mg/ml each) ED. I was wondering if it is possible for the PH's to "overwhelm" the enzymes in the body used for conversion. Or is their a difference between conversion when it comes to oral vs inject. (inject uses all of PH)? Basically, will the total amount be used (like AS) or is enzyme saturation possible? Also, would it be wise to stack these two PH's or should they be taken individually per cycle? I had some questions regarding this awhile back and I remember you saying that flu like symptoms would take place. Funny thing is during the first cycle 19-nordiol only, I didn't experience any flu symptoms. Now with the intro. of 4AD I thought I was going to die the first few days, but that has cleared up. Only sides at this time are heavy night sweats (few times per week). I have also heard some say that 4ad/19nordiol only increase libido, strength but no mass. I have only been on this cycle for about a week so I can't say anything regarding mass at this point. Is that true regarding no mass? Or can I expect (hopefully) to see some significant mass gains down the road? Thanks for your help.

P.S. - first time around on the 19-nordiol I gained 15 lbs in 6 weeks lost weight around mid section and became more vascular.
 
Last edited:
Not flaming but lemme put it this way theres a reason why 4ad and nordiol arent on the DEA'S list because they really arent strong
 
Thanks isn man...

They do work very well (when injected). I was just trying to get some info. on conversion, etc. Hopefully one of the PH guru's can help on my previous post.
 
Once again im not flaming , All im saying is that they were reaserched as steroids and theres a reason why They werent sold or on the DEA'S list. ISN have you tried injecting? And pityo you even said 4ad is not good atadding mass
IM NOT FLAMING just stating the obvious
 
Well this is my second week and have gained 3-4 pounds. So hopefully I'll start kicking in within the next week or so. I know the 19-nordiol worked on the first cycle - 15lbs in 6weeks (not all fat and water as I had to buy new shirts and my waist got smaller and I looked more vascular). I have heard that this could be compared to deca. I know they work and like everything it takes a little time for your body to adjust.
 
MIKERAZ said:
Once again im not flaming , All im saying is that they were reaserched as steroids and theres a reason why They werent sold or on the DEA'S list.
Click to expand...

If people could get Parabolan at Wal-Mart, you would have a legitimate point.
 
Par Deus said:


If people could get Parabolan at Wal-Mart, you would have a legitimate point.
Click to expand...

Huh you missed my point, im saying All the andros were originally reaserched as anabolic steroids but never brought to market along with many other compounds. Now my point is almost every single steroid ever synthesized is on the DEA'S list but 4ad and other androstendiol's arent on the list , theres a reason why because there not strong.
 
MIKERAZ said:

Now my point is almost every single steroid ever synthesized is on the DEA'S list but 4ad and other androstendiol's arent on the list , theres a reason why because there not strong.
Click to expand...

Sorry to correct you, but the 22 steroids included in the Anabolic Steroid Control Act are only a very small fraction of total number synthesized. This list is for the most part comprised of those agents that are or were at one time sold commercially.

- Bill Llewellyn
 
Not flaming , big fan of yours bill ,loved anabolics20002 , but stuff like methyltreinolone, clostabol most steroids are on the list .
 
oF course all the ones ever syntheiszed arent on the list only the potent ones that were synthesized are on the list
 
MIKERAZ said:
oF course all the ones ever syntheiszed arent on the list only the potent ones that were synthesized are on the list
Click to expand...


There are androgens MUCH more potent than anything that was ever on the market. PA has specifically mentioned one that is like 1000 times as anabolic as test.
 
Yes im not saying that all the potent ones were on the market im saying all the potent one's are on the DEA'S list
 
MIKERAZ said:


Huh you missed my point,
Click to expand...

I got your point -- my point was that just because there are better, illegal, androgens in existence does mean the ones that are still legal are ineffective -- just that they have flaws of some sort compared to the ones that ended up being brought to market(for prohormones, they are weaker, for 1-test, it has irritant properties). And, since the better ones are somewhat unattainable, the fact that they are better has very little significance. All that matters is if the legal ones are effective, and they are.
 
Ok but the legal ones are much much weaker and thats why they arent on the DEA'S list all of those androgens that are 1000 ,5000 times as anabolic as test are on the list
 
Par Deus said:



There are androgens MUCH more potent than anything that was ever on the market. PA has specifically mentioned one that is like 1000 times as anabolic as test.
Click to expand...

Any chance youll make some of these transdermals like ONE?
 
MIKERAZ said:
Ok but the legal ones are much much weaker and thats why they arent on the DEA'S list all of those androgens that are 1000 ,5000 times as anabolic as test are on the list
Click to expand...

They are not on the DEA list, but if they are not naturally occurring, they would be covered by the analogue statutes.
 
Par Deus said:


They are not on the DEA list, but if they are not naturally occurring, they would be covered by the analogue statutes.
Click to expand...


1-test is naturally occuring why is that diffrent? also ghb's analogs arent illegal
 
MIKERAZ said:



1-test is naturally occuring why is that diffrent? also ghb's analogs arent illegal
Click to expand...

If they are naturally ocurring, and were never prescription or scheduled drugs, then they are covered by the DSHEA.

GHB analogues ARE illegal. Actually, here in California, things like acetone (finger nail polish remover) and alpha-hydroxy (exfoliant in lotions) are technically illegal under the letter of the law.
 
Par Deus said:



There are androgens MUCH more potent than anything that was ever on the market. PA has specifically mentioned one that is like 1000 times as anabolic as test.
Click to expand...


I find that hard to belive, It must be 17aa ,because there are no compounds that arent 17aa that are very potent
 
MIKERAZ said:



I find that hard to belive, It must be 17aa ,because there are no compounds that arent 17aa that are very potent
Click to expand...

So I guess tren doesn't do anything then? Guess again.


There's probably still a side-effects to benefits ratio, but the compund PA mentioned is effective in microgram dosages (as opposed to milligrams)
 
I'm talking about AAS that were never marketed , and theone PA talked about was prolly 17aa because theres no compound beter then test that isnt 17aa
 
MIKERAZ said:
I'm talking about AAS that were never marketed , and theone PA talked about was prolly 17aa because theres no compound beter then test that isnt 17aa
Click to expand...

That still doesn't make any sense. You originally said "potent" which would definately apply to tren, eq and deca.

If you're referring to compounds that were never marketed, then how would you know?
 
The whole point of this post was stating that the andros are weaker because they were reaserched as AAS and arent on the DEA'S list for a reason. And many more steroids were reaserched besides deca,eq , and its a common fact all these compoudns 1000 times more potent were all 17aa
 
MIKERAZ said:
The whole point of this post was stating that the andros are weaker because they were reaserched as AAS and arent on the DEA'S list for a reason. And many more steroids were reaserched besides deca,eq , and its a common fact all these compoudns 1000 times more potent were all 17aa
Click to expand...

I don't see how it's a common fact. alpha alkalation changes bioavailability. While this would make a difference in actual effect it has less bearing on the potency of the compound.

As far as that first sentence goes:

(certain) andros are weaker because they are weaker; this has nothing to do with deas list.

All of these compounds were researched, otherwise we wouldn't know about them. Not all were pursued for commercial use - which appears to be a key distinction.

the other distinction is whether it's naturally occuring. If I took a dump now and found a compound more anabolic than test, there would be nothing illegal about me selling it to you.

Well, I'm sure I'd have to sanitiize it first :D
 
MIKERAZ said:
The whole point of this post was stating that the andros are weaker because they were reaserched as AAS and arent on the DEA'S list for a reason.
Click to expand...

MikeRaz,

We all get your point I think, but it is clearly not a valid one. What is or is not on the DEA list in terms of steroids has absolutely nothing to do with potency. Scientists synthesized hundreds of steroids during the peak years of research. Only a small number made it to market. You are trying to make a case that the remaining hundreds of steroids were ignored because they were essentially useless, but that is simply not true. The Anabolic Steroid Control act included those steroids that were known by the lawmakers to be available, plain and simple. The laws were written by lawmakers, not chemists, which is why we are lucky enough to have a prohormone market today.

- Bill Llewellyn
 
Last edited:
MIKERAZ said:

I find that hard to belive, It must be 17aa ,because there are no compounds that arent 17aa that are very potent
Click to expand...

17-alpha alkylation just makes more of the drug make it past the liver, it has nothing to do with potency at the androgen receptor.
 
Par Deus said:
17-alpha alkylation just makes more of the drug make it past the liver, it has nothing to do with potency at the androgen receptor.
Click to expand...

Hey Par,

Actually, as much as I hate to say it, Mikeraz is a little correct here.

Methylation typically = Weaker AR Binding but a highly-extended half-life, which in most cases creates a more biologically active androgen. The most potent are typically C-17aa, however T is NOT the most potent non-c-17AA steroid.

- Bill Llewellyn
 
MIKERAZ said:
So why werent these more powerful steroids marketed?
Click to expand...

They probably had some wicked side effects and/or health risks. Drug companies produce lots of potent drugs that never get to market. Sometimes the supposed benefits are outweighed by the side effects. Look at a theoretical AIDS vaccine: it could prevent AIDS or it could infect the vaccinated person! Drug companies have probably devised some really, really scary stuff but they could never sell it. What if they created a steroid that caused muscle to visibly grow, but one of the side effects was uncontrollable bleeding of the liver! They could never market such a drug so there would be no need to regulate it. In fact such an experimental drug would only exist in small batches in a research lab somewhere and few would know of its existence-so why do a lot of work to regulate it!? It won't ever be used by anyone. Kinda see the point. Dudes like PA might discover and patent a super anabolic substance, but if they couldn't sell it as a supp or script drug-what good is it other than just as a research tool?

FHG
 
OK a recap, correct me if im wrong

The anabloic control act only contains roids(and esters etc) that were commercially available ever, There are many potent steroids synthesized but not many we made

Just out of curiosity how many where synthesized , and how come they never made a dht commercially available
 
Originally posted by MIKERAZ
OK a recap, correct me if im wrong

The anabloic control act only contains roids(and esters etc) that were commercially available ever, There are many potent steroids synthesized but not many we made

Pretty much, depending on how you define commercially available.

Just out of curiosity how many where synthesized , and how come they never made a dht commercially available

Not sure of the exact count, but hundreds at the very least. DHT was and is still made, but not readily.

- Bill Llewellyn
 
MIKERAZ said:
define commerically? and dht is on the list right ?
Click to expand...

A drug like methyltrienolone may not be sold as a prescription, however is available and used commonly as a reference androgen for research purposes. I include a drug like this in my definition.

DHT is on the list.

- Bill Llewellyn
 
sO EVEN though methytrienolone, and dht werent prescription drugs they still are considerd commercially avaliable and are on the list
 
w_llewellyn said:


Hey Par,

Actually, as much as I hate to say it, Mikeraz is a little correct here.

Methylation typically = Weaker AR Binding but a highly-extended half-life, which in most cases creates a more biologically active androgen. The most potent are typically C-17aa, however T is NOT the most potent non-c-17AA steroid.
Click to expand...

That is why I specified "potency at the receptor" (an injected undecanoate ester, for example, would have a much longer half-life still) -- also don't orals also have positive effects on IGF-1 in the liver...???
 
Par Deus said:


That is why I specified "potency at the receptor" (an injected undecanoate ester, for example, would have a much longer half-life still) -- also don't orals also have positive effects on IGF-1 in the liver...???
Click to expand...

The half-life of the T ester is not relevant here, only the half-life of biologically active free test, which is measured to be only a few to several minutes. C-17AA's on the other hand have dramatically longer half-lives (hours) as active agents. Plus methylation usually reduces significantly binding to serum proteins as well, another plus. The most potent steroids tend to be those that have very long half-lives because they are very resistant to metabolism, and bind poorly with serum proteins, yet often do not bind the most actively to the AR.

I think the relationship between steroids and IGF-1 is overrated. The link between estrogen and G6PD is probably more significant in terms of non-AR mediated effects. But it is still technicaly a positive.

- Bill Llewellyn
 
MIKERAZ said:
Like i was saying almsot all the POTENT never marketed aas were methylated
Click to expand...

Change that to "the most POTENT never marketed AAS are typically methylated" and it is a correct statement. But when you used this line of thought in you initial argument against 1-testosterone being a potent steroid, you certainly were incorrect.

- Bill Llewellyn
 
MIKERAZ said:
Besides 1-test i dont think there are anymore non-methylated aas that are potent
Click to expand...

Knowing that you haven't a clue about the vast majority of the myriad of steroids that had been synthesized over the years, that is a very ignorant statement to make. And also a very incorrect one.

- Bill Llewellyn
 
MIKERAZ said:
So u know of non methylated potent aas that we never heard of?
Click to expand...

Yes, but I'm not going to take the time to look up the extensive list of potent non-methylated structures for you. Go to the library, do some research, then we can debate when you know a little bit more of what you are talking about.

- Bill Llewellyn
 
MIKERAZ said:
What books shoudl i look at ?
Click to expand...

I have had the most success looking through the research journals for this type of thing. But I wouldn't know how or where to tell you to start, just wish you luck.

- Bill Llewellyn
 
MIKERAZ said:
Like i was saying almsot all the POTENT never marketed aas were methylated
Click to expand...


You originally said they were 17-alpha alkylated. This is not my area of expertise (so I probably should have stayed out of it in the first place:), and Bill will correct me if I am wrong, but I think changes at other positions besides C-17 have these sort of effect -- for instance, the Segaloff steroid, which I think is methylated at the 7 position, is like 500 times as potent as test.
 
I dont believe in the segaloff steroid i checked the MERCK i did numerous online searches with no luck of a "seg" anything
 
Ok, fuck Mikeraz. I appreciate all the side line bull shit this fucker has asked for but if you want to post those questions start your own goddamn thread!!!!! If anyone, besides Mikeraz who appearently has his head up his ass - because inject. PH's DO WORK!!!!!!!!!, can simply answer my original post I'd be more than appreciative. Thanks again!
 
Par Deus said:



You originally said they were 17-alpha alkylated. This is not my area of expertise (so I probably should have stayed out of it in the first place:), and Bill will correct me if I am wrong, but I think changes at other positions besides C-17 have these sort of effect -- for instance, the Segaloff steroid, which I think is methylated at the 7 position, is like 500 times as potent as test.
Click to expand...

Not sure of the Segaloff steroid, but methylation at the 7 and 17 positions of both nandrolone and testosterone for example form extremely potent steroids (mibolerone and bolasterone respectively). This combination dramatically lowers the ability of the two steroids to interact with binding proteins, such that they exist in an almost entirely free state. And of course we have the added half-lives that are to be expected of a c-17a methylated synthetic. As in MENT (7-methylnandrolone), 7-methylation probably also interferes with the 5-alpha reduction of both steroids as well. There are a lot of ways to synthetically alter the receptor and serum protein binding affinities of steroids, and their resistance to various paths of metabolism. I guess that’s why so many steroids came to be synthesized over the years, always something new and interesting to find. With Pat’s background he can probably tell you more about this subject than I can though.

- Bill Llewellyn
 
I'd like to hear more about this bolasterone because back in the 80s I recall from connections I had at that time it was one of the kings of roids that some top level guys were using, and it supposed to have very few sides. Not sure where to find out more about it, just curious really to know the scoop, who made it, if it still available, etc.
 
MIKERAZ said:
I dont believe in the segaloff steroid i checked the MERCK i did numerous online searches with no luck of a "seg" anything
Click to expand...


What do you mean you "don't believe in it"??? Do you think I made it up or that it is like an urban legend???



BTW, here ya' go:

Steroids 1973 Jul;22(1):99-105

14-Dehydro-19-nortestosterone and its 7 -methyl derivative.

Segaloff A, Gabbard RB.
 
MIKERAZ said:
Wherd you find the chem name? ive been searchign could not find it so i figured it was not true
Click to expand...

It is referenced in a research paper I have.

BTW, this research paper has two other compounds that are just as potent, and they are both are orally active.
 
Ok i guess i stand corrected , if segaloff isnt 17aa how is it 100 percent orally active , or is it like 1-test activity
 
MIKERAZ said:
Ok i guess i stand corrected , if segaloff isnt 17aa how is it 100 percent orally active , or is it like 1-test activity
Click to expand...

The paper I have does not test oral bioavailability, it just compares its oral activity to a reference standard (methyltest).
 
w_llewellyn said:


MikeRaz,

We all get your point I think, but it is clearly not a valid one. What is or is not on the DEA list in terms of steroids has absolutely nothing to do with potency. Scientists synthesized hundreds of steroids during the peak years of research. Only a small number made it to market. You are trying to make a case that the remaining hundreds of steroids were ignored because they were essentially useless, but that is simply not true. The Anabolic Steroid Control act included those steroids that were known by the lawmakers to be available, plain and simple. The laws were written by lawmakers, not chemists, which is why we are lucky enough to have a prohormone market today.

- Bill Llewellyn
Click to expand...

Why is that fact have to do with pro-hormones?
 
One think i dont understand , these "potent" roids were so good why didnt the companys get them fda approved? Couldnt these "potent" roids prevent muscle wasting much better then lets say winstrol?
 
One think i dont understand , these "potent" roids were so good why didnt the companys get them fda approved? Couldnt these "potent" roids prevent muscle wasting much better then lets say winstrol?
 
MIKERAZ said:
One think i dont understand , these "potent" roids were so good why didnt the companys get them fda approved? Couldnt these "potent" roids prevent muscle wasting much better then lets say winstrol?
Click to expand...

It is not a contest where the best compounds win FDA approval Mikeraz. There are plently of effective steroids that were never marketed, and naturally so. The drug market in the U.S. has no need for hundreds of different effective steroid compounds.

- Bill Llewellyn
 
Thats true with ALL drugs. my uncle does ssri reaserch and a few years ago him and his team developed a great drug that was more effective then prozac, it didnt get marketed or fda approval because a few other guys on his team said there is no need for it because prozac,luvox etc are all doing a effective job, my uncle was shit pissed he was like in love with the drug

And 4ad and bolandiol are androgens
 
Par Deus said:



What do you mean you "don't believe in it"??? Do you think I made it up or that it is like an urban legend???



BTW, here ya' go:

Steroids 1973 Jul;22(1):99-105

14-Dehydro-19-nortestosterone and its 7 -methyl derivative.

Segaloff A, Gabbard RB.
Click to expand...

How is the great segaloff steroid 14-dehydro-19-nortestosterone

PA has said dht-nors make terrible anabolics
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
ugfreak para pharma is smooth!
Replies
10
Views
248
RoySimpson
RoySimpson
nathanblifts
Approved Log Road to the Bodybuilding Stage - Cycle Journal
2
Replies
117
Views
6K
nathanblifts
nathanblifts
P
Sus250+Tren+Masteron
Replies
23
Views
3K
SSFITNESS
SSFITNESS
P
my first steroid cycle
Replies
17
Views
2K
RoySimpson
RoySimpson
B
Feedback on long-term bodybuilding plan
Replies
3
Views
296
the_alcatraz
the_alcatraz
Top Bottom