Question about taking prohormones before steroids

[Bill Llewellyn]

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.

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.

 

[Nelson Montana]

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.

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.

 

[OMEGA]

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~

 

[Bill Llewellyn]

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.

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.

 

[Bill Llewellyn]

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~

Well put.

 

[Nelson Montana]

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[Nelson Montana]

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

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.

 

[Bill Llewellyn]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I know you want to plug UNLEASHED, but please let's stick to the topic at hand.

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.

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".

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.

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.

 

[Bill Llewellyn]

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.