Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below Just wondering if prohormones do anything to the reseptors to where your first cycle isnt as good. I have taken 2 cycles of prohormones, and im just wondering if my resecptors will be fresh by the time i do the real stuff. I know you have to do higher doses after every cycle to see the same benefits, but does that include PH's? Like would a PH be your first cycle, or would test for 12 weeks completely shit on any PH you took and still possible to gain 20-25 lbs by training and eating hard?
Question about taking prohormones before steroids
- Thread starter immebz
- Start date
10001110101
New member
dude that whole fresh receptors deal is just kind of bullshit. your receptors are your receptors they haven't been fresh since they've existed in your body they've been used. ever since the womb your body has been exposed to testosterone, dht and other androgens it's not like using steroids is the first time you introduce these substances, everyone uses steroids, it's called puberty.
that being said yeah after each cycle you have to up the dosages, however there are mitigating factors generally the more you use with less time in between builds up a "tolerance" because your body tries to reach homeostasis by adjusting other metabolic factors to compensate for massive gear usage.
in other words if it's been a while (year or so) since you used a PH you might as well be a "virgin" and you can put 20+ pounds on your first cycle with 500mg test and maybe a dbol kicker or some deca, that is if you eat enough.
that being said yeah after each cycle you have to up the dosages, however there are mitigating factors generally the more you use with less time in between builds up a "tolerance" because your body tries to reach homeostasis by adjusting other metabolic factors to compensate for massive gear usage.
in other words if it's been a while (year or so) since you used a PH you might as well be a "virgin" and you can put 20+ pounds on your first cycle with 500mg test and maybe a dbol kicker or some deca, that is if you eat enough.
OMEGA said:
did one bottle of cyclotren, but thats enough for me. It was jus too good and being talked about on this site too much that i had to take it. But im trying to only rely on diet/training/intesity for now. Only thing im takin is gonna be some Amp02/Lipoflame/RawMCC!!
DJLegacy2k1
New member
OMEGA laying the law down! BOOOOM-Shakalaka!
-Legacy
-Legacy
B
Big_BK
Guest
Omega knows his shit guys, I'd listen to him on this one!
A young guy who has just done PH's is the perfect subject to show the superirity of supplements. Invest in a UNLEASHED/BIG BLAST/VIGOR stack using Lipoflame and ZIP during workouts, andAMp02 and Dermacrine afterward. WOW, I bet that would blow away an PH stack and it's 100% non suppressive.
Nelson Montana said:
Dermacrine is suppressive, but i imagine if i did UNLEASHED/BIG BLAST/VIGOR/Amp02/Lipoflame/RawMCC i would be at 195 in no time, im 180 right now 5'9" 10% BF. I might just do that, should be a good log.
Oh and idk which one it was but on POST-CYCLE/Sustain Alpha amd i felt GREAT, no crash, harder muscles, more/longer erections, hmm exactly what its supposed to do. Wouldnt of wanted to take anything else, so its good i can vouch for OTC supps for PCT.
10001110101 said:
BADDA BING BABY,,,,, WELL SAID.
immebz said:Dermacrine is suppressive, but i imagine if i did UNLEASHED/BIG BLAST/VIGOR/Amp02/Lipoflame/RawMCC i would be at 195 in no time, im 180 right now 5'9" 10% BF. I might just do that, should be a good log.
Oh and idk which one it was but on POST-CYCLE/Sustain Alpha amd i felt GREAT, no crash, harder muscles, more/longer erections, hmm exactly what its supposed to do. Wouldnt of wanted to take anything else, so its good i can vouch for OTC supps for PCT.
Yes, Dermacrine can be suppressive. I should have said Sustain. However, UNLEASHED/BIG BLAST/VIGOR are all non suppressive and yeah, will bring great gains.
Glad to hear POST CYCLE worked out for you.
OMEGA said:
Omega is the Man!!! These guys are right on as usual. I wouldn't worry too much about that cycle of Cyclo as it is about as mild of a DS as you can get. That being said you are just a youngster and the proper training(Omega), diet, and supplements will put you way ahead in your development. Save the high octane stuff until you are mid to late 20's.
Ok, thanks everyone, i guess my main concern was wether ill still be able to train natty and gain. I did a bottle of ACL tren and ah-89 before, but there stuff is legit and i dont notice anything that would be associated with low test levels.
Thank you NELSON: POST CYCLE worked. enough said
Omega: Cant wait to get ridiculous gains, gonna be patoent with it and give 110% in everything you tell me to do.
SL: Thanks for the advice as usual, this place is seriously fuckin awesome. IM gonna go drink some beers but once im on OMega its totally different. Im the next alpha/omega
Thank you NELSON: POST CYCLE worked. enough said
Omega: Cant wait to get ridiculous gains, gonna be patoent with it and give 110% in everything you tell me to do.
SL: Thanks for the advice as usual, this place is seriously fuckin awesome. IM gonna go drink some beers but once im on OMega its totally different. Im the next alpha/omega
OMEGA said:
treat this advice like gold bro--OMEGA will help you get to where you want to be, but don't substitute anyones' advice for his--and you will grow like a weed.
goku_kakarot77
New member
^^^Nelson Montana said:
best natural stack right here
GoldenDelicious
New member
pharmacist.
using prohormones is really stupid.
the bottom line is that no matter how you increase your androgen levels (prohormones or steroids) your body will resist that change by decreasing endogenous production of testosterone.
if you use prohormones, you cant acurately predict how much (or little) yorue going to increase your androgen levels by - but no matter how much you do, your body will CERTAINLY react by decreasing testosterone production, which means that yorue certainly going to face testicular supression when you stop using the prohormones
now does that sound like a smart thing to do? use prohormones and MAYBE end up with more androgens in your body, and therefore MAYBE benefit with a little growth, and in exchange for that, youll DEFINITELY get testicular supression?
if yorue going tlay with your hormones, use proper steroids. at least then you know what he hell is going on in your body, and can make some informed decisions.
oh and listen to omega. if you dont need them, dont use them.
cheerios
using prohormones is really stupid.
the bottom line is that no matter how you increase your androgen levels (prohormones or steroids) your body will resist that change by decreasing endogenous production of testosterone.
if you use prohormones, you cant acurately predict how much (or little) yorue going to increase your androgen levels by - but no matter how much you do, your body will CERTAINLY react by decreasing testosterone production, which means that yorue certainly going to face testicular supression when you stop using the prohormones
now does that sound like a smart thing to do? use prohormones and MAYBE end up with more androgens in your body, and therefore MAYBE benefit with a little growth, and in exchange for that, youll DEFINITELY get testicular supression?
if yorue going tlay with your hormones, use proper steroids. at least then you know what he hell is going on in your body, and can make some informed decisions.
oh and listen to omega. if you dont need them, dont use them.
cheerios
Prohormones are steroids. No difference but an official Rx on the bottle.
DJLegacy2k1
New member
Bill Llewellyn said:
19-Norandrosta 4,9 Diene 3, 17 Dione: From what I read is a Schedule III Steriod, I wonder if people would be bashing things like this if it was never marketed as a PH first and they heard is was a "Steroid" off the bat.
-Legacy
immebz said:
Being these are all in the same drug class, the risks and rewards are the same. The only real differences are in the potential quality of materials and perhaps unknown pharmacological aspects, as these are essentially unstudied research compounds (drug products) being sold in an unregulated supplement market without strict purity standards.
The main point I am trying to make is that there is no unusual aspect to these products, such as them producing less gains than "real" steroids with more risks. Risks and rewards the same, basically.
Bill Llewellyn said:
Sorry Bill, I must seriously disagree. I believe you can more readily gain 10 pounds of muscle using test and primo with less side effects than it would take to grow 10 pounds of muscle with any pro-hormone or pro-steroid or whatever you want to call them.
Nelson Montana said:
These designer steroids are oral steroids, most similar to Winstrol. So you really can't compare their risks vs. rewards to testosterone and methenolone. All c17aa orals will fail if held up to the safety standard of these two much safer injectables.
The point I am making is that these orals are really no different than other orals like Winstrol. Your argument falls apart mostly when you call them "prosteroids or prohormoens or whatever". These products are still chemically and pharmacologically oral anabolic steroids.
Bill Llewellyn said:
My argument falls apart because I don't use the correct "made up" termanology? Yeah, and dynamite and firecrackers are both listed as explosives. That doesn't make them the same.
Okay, let's call them steroids if that makes you happy. I'll use the same analogy. Whatever it would take to gain 10 pounds of muscle using winny will yield more side effects using these OTC compounds.
Nelson Montana said:
Why would this be? What mechanism would allow this? Effectiveness and side effects are often closely linked as they are often mediated via the same receptor (liver toxicity, for example, is closely tied to the potency of an oral steroid).
Please explain scientifically how these compounds could possibly be less efficacious yet more dangerous at the same time.
Nelson Montana said:
Prosteroids (or whatever they are incorrectly being called) share the same 4 ring carbon backbone and key functional groups as the drugs in the pharmacy. There is no difference, whereas there is a clear one with dynamite and firecrackers.
Bill Llewellyn said:
This line of questioning is faintly reminiscent of the MFW board circa 1997 when all the resident psuedo science geeks thought they knew the answer to everything and challenged anyone who dared qustion them to speak in scientific terms. (Incidentally, most of those self proclaimed geniuses looked like shit or wound up in jail).
You're not a scientist Bill. You even admit you never used these compounds. So let's stop playing games. You don't have to be a chicken to recognize an egg. If these compounds worked as well as FDA approved anabolics I'd be happy as all hell. But they don't. So stop with trying to prove how they're the same. I offered a comparison and you dodged the issue. Enough with this baloney already. Get real.
blooddrinker69
Banned
Somebody bump this. Good stuff.. lol. 
FRONT2BACKJACKED
Banned
LLELLWYN and NELSON are veterans and this thread is Amazing i have been waiting for a discussion between two ACTUAL gurus for a whlie
Nelson Montana said:
I am not going to get in a resume contest with you Nelson. I'd believe I am fairly qualified to assess the pharmacological nature of steroid products.
You state quite regularly that these compounds have the same side effects of pharmaceutical AAS, but less benefits. I posed a very basic question. Since the benefits and side effects of steroids are typically mediated via the same pathways, how can these designer steroids be stronger at producing the side effects of steroids but weaker at producing muscle gains?
You cannot differentiate these designer steroids from pharmaceutical AAS in any meaningful way. The only differences are in government red tape. They are chemically the same, period.
Bill Llewellyn said:
I don;t know how you can say that. The old prohormones did what steroids did to a slight degree but the side effects FAR outweighed the benefits. How can you say they must be in proportion to one another? Being BASICALLY mediated through the same pathways means nothing. Metyl test is BASICALLY medicated through the same pathway as Primobolan. That doesn;t make the benefit to side effect ratio equal.
I think the Biggest Flaw With Pro Hormones ( which is why I got upset)
Is the LACK of compiled data on their long term effects
thus Pro hormones in my view are just a bit more Dangerous and NOT in the same "safe camp" as other well research Steroids.
The only thing we truly know about Pro Hormones is their activity potentiality do to their structure........
Some are as Toxic as Halo ( at least some time back) and some are just weak forms of Pharm Grade proven compounds.........some YES are obviously good..... Just Add Muscle has / had some good ones
I am not here to takes side nor ague......simply stating my thoughts
Thank you
-OMEGA
~FIN~
Is the LACK of compiled data on their long term effects
thus Pro hormones in my view are just a bit more Dangerous and NOT in the same "safe camp" as other well research Steroids.
The only thing we truly know about Pro Hormones is their activity potentiality do to their structure........
Some are as Toxic as Halo ( at least some time back) and some are just weak forms of Pharm Grade proven compounds.........some YES are obviously good..... Just Add Muscle has / had some good ones
I am not here to takes side nor ague......simply stating my thoughts
Thank you
-OMEGA
~FIN~
Nelson Montana said:
Nelson, no offense but we had these talks long ago and you never really had a position I could understand on prohormones either. Many of them were validly effective compounds with good safety profiles (1,4 andro, 1-AD). Some were modest at best (andro). You really didn't want to hear any of it and always insisted these all just didn't work. I never agreed and still do not. But that is another argument, as these were all not active steroids but precursors to steroids.
Methyl-1-testosterone is indeed an exceedingly potent oral c-17aa steroid in the same category as oxymetholone, methandrostenolone, stanozolol etc. I am not sure what else you mean here. I never said side effects and gains must be in direct proportion to one another. I said they are typically mediated via the same pathways, so these OTC designers logically can't produce stronger steroid side effects (androgenic, hepatotoxic, cardiovascular) but weaker steroid gains.
Please think about this. I am trying to get you to realize the blaring disconnect in your logic.
OMEGA said:
Well put.
Bill Llewellyn said:
That is your opinion. I think it is YOU who is not realizing what I consider an obvious flaw in your thinking.
There were always products that made all sorts of claims but sooner or later they feel by the wayside. Then there was always something that was supposed to be better. But it always turned out to be the same shit yet you kept insisting the latest batch were so great.
Wouldn't pharmaceutical companies be manufacturing these compounds if they were so great? I mean, where is the fucking evidence? What Patrick Arnold says?!?! Give me a break.
Some people swear by this or that, but where are the blood tests? Damn, there's been more research done on UNLEASHED than these things and we're a tiny little company and UNLEASHED is 100% non supressive. I also tested it personally. Can you say the same for these compounds?
You say M1t was great, but it had some nasty side effects. And what really bothers me is that no one really knows WHY these side effects occur. It's like Tren. It may be effectiove but it does weird shit that can not be healthy. There haven't been any studies done on humans and that's why I'll never use it.
Look, if someone wants to try some of this stuff, I'd say recommend what you think has the best risk/benefit ratio. Maybe I'm a little conservative with this stuff whereas you're a little more willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. And of course, personal use is the biggest factor. From what I've experienced, none of this stuff worked very well, though I admit I haven't tried the latest bunch. (Though I've heard mixed reports). You say you haven't tried them either so what are you going on? Other peoples reviews? That's subjective. The molecular structure? As we both know, that doesn't necessarily mean shit in regard to real world results. That's all I'm saying.
FRONT2BACKJACKED
Banned
Nelson Montana said:
just becuase you do not see them patented or banned by FDA does not mean overseas pharmaceutical companies have not been producing them
METHYLMASTERON aka METHASTERON has been around and used in breast cancer patients for decades in china
you can pubmed it
FRONT2BACKJACKED said:
If it's used for breast cancer it would be an estrogen agonist which would mean a SHBG blocker which would mean a DHT derivative. They say Superdrol is a combination of Anadrol and Masteron. The Mast makes sense, but since drol can cause gyno there's a little conflict there. This would also suggest progesterongenic side effects. Does Superdrol supress libido? On paper, it may be the best choice, but my dick is very important to me. So once again, if you need test and PCT, hell, you might as well use dbol and primo. I never heard any conflicting reports on that combo.
Nelson Montana said:
I am not sure what this means. These compounds aren't steroids because the supplement market makes a lot of outlandish claims? I am sorry but this argument is not valid, as these are still steroids regardless of what disappointments you have seen in the past.
Superdrol was once sold in Europe as an azinated anabolic steroid (2 molecules of SD with an azine bridge that would break apart in-vivo). So this compound was actually an approved AAS at one time. All others were not approved, but this argument also is flawed as it suggests is that every effective compound will be pushed through market approval. This is not even remotely financially viable for the pharmaceutical industry.
I know you want to plug UNLEASHED, but please let's stick to the topic at hand.
I never said this. I said it was a steroid. That is all. The rest of this doesn't really fit - yes, maybe M1T has intrinsic progestational activity or something. That is really meaningless, as trenbolone also is an anabolic steroid (and FYI it was once approved for human use). I can't really address "does weird shit that can't be healthy".
I don't recommend these at all, just as I recommend people stay away from orals like Dbol and anadrol. They are somewhat toxic, and present too much cardiovascular strain IMO. Orals aren't necessary at all for most people.
I base my assessments first and foremost on published assays for anabolic and androgenic activity (all steroids underwent these early tests), an analysis of steroid structure, and many observations.
My analysis does just happen to be the truth - these are actually "real" steroids Nelson. You may not want to accept it, but this is just the way it is.
BTW - I want to add that I have absolutely no financial interest in the designer steroid market. To the contrary, it could be argued due to my interests in arachidonic acid that I would be much better served if these products were not sold at all. They actually do violate the law, and personally I believe they really shouldn't be sold OTC to tell the truth, but that is another subject.
I post the above because I study these drugs for a living, and it just drives me nuts to see people miscategorize them as somehow not steroids. I would guess it would be like trying to explain to a computer engineer with a straight face that the Macintosh is actually a toaster or a can opener, not a "real" computer.
And just some history.. The original company that synthesized superdrol also made Anadrol and several other potent synthetic steroids during the same set of experiments. The only thing that makes ANADROL any different is that Syntex invested the money to have it approved in the U.S. All of the others are just as "real". You can accept this or not but it is fact.
I post the above because I study these drugs for a living, and it just drives me nuts to see people miscategorize them as somehow not steroids. I would guess it would be like trying to explain to a computer engineer with a straight face that the Macintosh is actually a toaster or a can opener, not a "real" computer.
And just some history.. The original company that synthesized superdrol also made Anadrol and several other potent synthetic steroids during the same set of experiments. The only thing that makes ANADROL any different is that Syntex invested the money to have it approved in the U.S. All of the others are just as "real". You can accept this or not but it is fact.
Nelson Montana said:
Not to be nitpicky, but this doesn't make sense at all. A steroid does not have to be an estrogen antagonist (you meant antagonist right?) to be useful for breast cancer. It can block aromatase or simply impart strong anabolic/androgenic activity without estrogenicity, which helps block tissue growth by shifting the estrogen/androgen balance. It also doesn't have to be an SHBG blocker per say, nor does it need to be a DHT derivative.
FRONT2BACKJACKED said:
Actually, I believe you are thinking about mepitiostane, which is close in structure (but not identical) to "epistane". Mepitiostane is sold in Japan, not China.
Just FYI mepitiostane is actually weaker than epistane, as it is not c-17 alpha alkylated.
needtogetarmy
CEO of Project Mayhem
Bill Llewellyn said:
I agree 100% with this statement. I get tired of people not getting it right. Excellent post Bill.
FRONT2BACKJACKED
Banned
Bill Llewellyn said:
priiceless information
Well, I can address each point but at this point its splitting hairs. This has become an argument of semantics. Let's see what we've come away from with all this.
Neither one of use recommends this shit, so why are we arguing? Again, it's like the old MFW crowd who were more into debating minutea and typos than giving practical advice.
Secondly, it seems that Superdrol is the best of the bunch but what are the sides? Are they worse than a comparably effective dosage of other steroids?
That's what matters. I don't really care about how close the molecular structure is. How well does it work? What are the sides? Is it worth using? If not, it's a non issue AFAIC.
Neither one of use recommends this shit, so why are we arguing? Again, it's like the old MFW crowd who were more into debating minutea and typos than giving practical advice.
Secondly, it seems that Superdrol is the best of the bunch but what are the sides? Are they worse than a comparably effective dosage of other steroids?
That's what matters. I don't really care about how close the molecular structure is. How well does it work? What are the sides? Is it worth using? If not, it's a non issue AFAIC.
FRONT2BACKJACKED
Banned
Nelson Montana said:
IMO its better than any c17aa in the book in terms of gains. i have tried many, including oldies but goldies like nilevar, and methylated test, eq and deca tabs. its sides are menial, but i hear a lot of horror stories from newbies about gyno issues. I suppose if you do anything with proper consideration and care ie using an AI it can all be minimized. It gets me agressive. Oh shit, i forgot, one HUGE thing that draws me away from superdrol, IT MAKES ME GO HYPOGLYCEMIC !!!!!!!!!!!!! i always feel hypo after working out and im not sensitive to insulin. i never craved sugar treats before i tried that in my whole life, now i feel as i have to have one sometimes or i will pass out. diet is great, lifestyle is exceeding healthy, training regiment is intense. dunno.....but it always makes me go hypo. and similar to that of anadrol the LETHARGY is def ther!
I dont get how the designer companies can get away with selling the bottles like superdrol and cyclotren if it is steroids.
All in all i think if your gonna do anything, forget anything that hasnt been studied. You are messing with a lot of reactions and things that go in your body when you introduce exogenous test into the endocrine system. To me te endocrine system is the most important thing ud want to keep healthy, because there are so many things we dont understand about it. My dad was telling me something about how we dont know what triggers the baby to come out of the womb, or something like that.
Might as well take something that has numerous studies, and has a list of every single possible side effect. Not like a bottle of superdrol is going to kill you, but at least test is given to patients on HRT. Superdrol isnt, and thats because we have studied testosterone for 50 years.
All in all i think if your gonna do anything, forget anything that hasnt been studied. You are messing with a lot of reactions and things that go in your body when you introduce exogenous test into the endocrine system. To me te endocrine system is the most important thing ud want to keep healthy, because there are so many things we dont understand about it. My dad was telling me something about how we dont know what triggers the baby to come out of the womb, or something like that.
Might as well take something that has numerous studies, and has a list of every single possible side effect. Not like a bottle of superdrol is going to kill you, but at least test is given to patients on HRT. Superdrol isnt, and thats because we have studied testosterone for 50 years.
Nelson Montana said:
Actually, no, this discussion is really about one very basic and substantial thing. Are compounds like Superdrol, pheraplex, epistane etc actually "real" steroids. The fact is they all are, nothing "close" about it.
immebz said:
Every one of these copmpanies is violating a fairly big law. According to the Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act (DSHEA), in order to be sold as a "dietary supplement" a compound must be free of other regulation and identified as a natural part of food (people are already eating it). Old prohomrones were found in food. These new designer steroids, however, are 100% synthetic, and do not qualify. The potential penalties for this are very serious; a couple of years in federal prison per count. Thus far, however, the FDA has chosen to handle these matters itself (There is no FDA police) with mere warning letters.
At some point this is all going to have to give. There is way too much law breaking going on with these products. Sooner or later people are going to get locked up for doing this. The FDA has no other choice, otherwise this will go on forever.
immebz said:
There is a lot to be said for using only pharmaceutical AAS. For one, drugs like testosterone, nandrolone, boldenone, and methenolone can impart a strong effect without liver toxicity and less cardiovascular strain. Personally, I wouldn't go near these designer steroids at my age - I am too worried what potent C17aa's like these will do for my lipids.
I just want to make sure we are fundamentally looking at these compounds as what they are though - real steroids that simply were never marketed by drug companies.. There are hundreds if not thousands more in the books.
Bill Llewellyn said:
Yeah, like I said...who cares what they're called?
A
ALIN
Guest
immebz said:
I would have some blood work ran to see where your natural hormone levels are right now.
ALIN said:
Alright thanks is this too much to get tested?
Oh and Nelson, BIll, both have good points. I agree its just splitting hairs at this point, and it doesnt matter what theyre called, but they are steroids. Just not ones that got passed on by the pharmaceutical companies. Would any of the prohormones out today have any medical benefit if they researched it?
Ok heres what i would get for bloodwork..
a/g ration
albumin
bun
calcium
chloride
cholesterol
co2
cortisol levels
creatinine
estradiol / progesterone
globulin
glucose
hdl
hemoglobin
hormone levels including estrogen and prolactin
kidney values
ldh total
ldl
lh / fsh
liver values
lymphocytes
monocytes
phosphorus
platelet count
potassium
protein
red blood cell count
risk ratio (good to total)
sodium
thyroid levels
total and free testosterone (t3 and t4)
triglycerides
tsh
uric acid
vldl
white blood cell count
lookinfit75
New member
bump
rediculus
New member
fell the fu$% off my chair lmao
Similar threads
