Mdrol batch 092107 mini-log

[Kristofer68SS]

he said 1 week bro

hes in week 1 now?

thank you, my dumbass missed it.

 

[UnrealMachine]

Next monday i start everything. The SD-1, the test, the mast. First 10 days I compare SD-1 to Mdrol. Next 14 weeks I just continue to blow up and get lean, hard and strong. It'll be fun for me to do. I'll post some progress pics and it'll be fun to watch. High doses of steroids should be fun for everyone.

 

[Kristofer68SS]

Next monday i start everything. The SD-1, the test, the mast. First 10 days I compare SD-1 to Mdrol. Next 14 weeks I just continue to blow up and get lean, hard and strong. It'll be fun for me to do. I'll post some progress pics and it'll be fun to watch. High doses of steroids should be fun for everyone.

ahh, thank you.

should be a blast, im in.

 

[MuscleBound1337]

Nice. Has anyone used sd-1 and ran a log? You're the first im seeing use it. I got 3 bottles of it myself so i'm very interested to see how it compares to the Mdrol

 

[boggs67ss]

You going to have a mini log/updates unreal? I know you can't do a full out log for 14 weeks, unless you wanted too, but thats a lot of days.

 

[UnrealMachine]

thinking about it

logging for 14 weeks is way way time consuming... i got a life outside the forums lol. No offense to loggers on this site but the majority suck hard, people put no time and thought into it.

To me a log is updated everyday, i have to write my weigh in everyday, i have to write my workout everyday, i have to write comments, effects, side effects, I have to answer questions. Last REAL log i was writing the entire workout everytime, and then i tried to format it so it was easy to read too. And then there's pictures. Work work work.

I'm planning on just doing picture updates every now and then. A picture is a thousand words. And I think any log on here should have pictures... I dunno what so many logs are doing without pictures, most people are doing bodybuilding which is 100% visual so the pictures are everything...

I could rant forever about pictures. I dunno if people are scared about putting up pictures on the internet, like someone is going to recognize them from a heavily cropped back double biceps on a steroid board that nobody else visits.... or if people are just way out of shape and embarrassed to post them. Or if they don't know how to upload pictures... I could rant forever. I take progress pictures of myself all the time. Any bodybuilder who wants to make progress should. You need to where where you're at in order to get to the next level. You need to be able to see what works and what doesn't. I have archives of my pictures over several years, an entire transformation and more, it's part of what keeps me going.

 

[Delta Force]

Next monday i start everything. The SD-1, the test, the mast. First 10 days I compare SD-1 to Mdrol. Next 14 weeks I just continue to blow up and get lean, hard and strong. It'll be fun for me to do. I'll post some progress pics and it'll be fun to watch. High doses of steroids should be fun for everyone.

I'm getting massive pumps just reading this intro! that should be a fun ride UM! :thumbsup:

 

[P4D2A022]

cant wait unreal!

 

[neverstop]

thinking about it

logging for 14 weeks is way way time consuming... i got a life outside the forums lol. No offense to loggers on this site but the majority suck hard, people put no time and thought into it.

To me a log is updated everyday, i have to write my weigh in everyday, i have to write my workout everyday, i have to write comments, effects, side effects, I have to answer questions. Last REAL log i was writing the entire workout everytime, and then i tried to format it so it was easy to read too. And then there's pictures. Work work work.

I'm planning on just doing picture updates every now and then. A picture is a thousand words. And I think any log on here should have pictures... I dunno what so many logs are doing without pictures, most people are doing bodybuilding which is 100% visual so the pictures are everything...

I could rant forever about pictures. I dunno if people are scared about putting up pictures on the internet, like someone is going to recognize them from a heavily cropped back double biceps on a steroid board that nobody else visits.... or if people are just way out of shape and embarrassed to post them. Or if they don't know how to upload pictures... I could rant forever. I take progress pictures of myself all the time. Any bodybuilder who wants to make progress should. You need to where where you're at in order to get to the next level. You need to be able to see what works and what doesn't. I have archives of my pictures over several years, an entire transformation and more, it's part of what keeps me going.

just a casual log with your weight and some pics would be bad a$$ and fun to watch, you are going to blow the F up on this one homey! I remember i did one higher dose 10+ week cycle a few years ago and it was nuts, people i hadn't seen in a year literally didn't even recognize me, i dropped 3 points of bodyfat AND put on like 15 lbs.

you getting bloodwork done before and after? Its expensive but PCT on those long cycles can be TERRIBLE and its always good to know you're back in action when its all said and done.

 

[Delta Force]

UM, clear your inbox..... I'm trying to reach you!

 

[UnrealMachine]

UM, clear your inbox..... I'm trying to reach you!

Sh1t i was wondering why my normal flood of PM's had dropped off the last couple days... cleared!

 

[Delta Force]

Sh1t i was wondering why my normal flood of PM's had dropped off the last couple days... cleared!

the only flood you got today was from this massive storm we've got going.. damn hwy 17 was a mess!

 

[stxnas]

As of yet no:wtf1: ... I really thought someone would immediately send one

Hmm...I have a sealed bottle :think:

 

[UnrealMachine]

Ok well i did 10 days and 43 pills on that Mdrol, net result was I didn't think i noticed anything definite, thought it was bunk.

CEL said my receptors just weren't responding for some reason

I have been taking Performance Design SD-1 for 4 days now (11 pills into it) and this is definitely working. I woke up today with a full body pump and muscle hardness that I only get on cycle.

There is an unmistakable difference between SD-1 and the Mdrol i've got, and the Mdrol is no good. Case closed.

 

[P4D2A022]

hey thanks for the update man, this sucks, i have that 092107 batch

 

[Yellow]

Thanks for the update bro...

Glad to see that Performance Design SD-1 is working. I am following your log...

It sucks man, I have 2 sealed bottles (unopened) of M-Drol too.
The batch/lot number of mine is 021008, which a friend of mine got nothing with it.
I am gonna try it on the 1st of november and keep updating the results.
http://anabolicminds.com/forum/steroids/135524-cel-m-drol.html

Due to being 13.2mg per caps, I am planning to take 1.5caps which is nearly 20mg for 3 weeks.
I think 20mg should be enough for me if it is indeed legit or real superdrol clone. BTW I haven't run any superdrol / clones in the past. And it's been 6 month post-last cycle.

 

[UnrealMachine]

Hey yellow yes I remember your other thread well. 1.5 caps is a bit of a hassle... I'd just take two a day and if it's legit, you'll know soon enough, and as soon as you can tell you can drop it down to 1 a day. 13mg of SD is a pretty decent dose for cruising and still making solid gains.

Ok now myabe I should put my graph in here so when people click on this thread they can SEE what i'm talking about

same diet, same routine, with the Mdrol dosed HIGHER:

SD-1: up 11 pounds in 7 days with full body pumps and hardness, decided to drop the dose
Mdrol: up 0 pounds in 7 days with no noticable effects

I just think it's sad that I had to go through all this work to prove my point. Here's my point: I am a Superdrol addict and I can tell when it's working and when it's not working.

 

[stxnas]

Thanks for the update bro...

Glad to see that Performance Design SD-1 is working. I am following your log...

It sucks man, I have 2 sealed bottles (unopened) of M-Drol too.
The batch/lot number of mine is 021008, which a friend of mine got nothing with it.
I am gonna try it on the 1st of november and keep updating the results.
http://anabolicminds.com/forum/steroids/135524-cel-m-drol.html

Due to being 13.2mg per caps, I am planning to take 1.5caps which is nearly 20mg for 3 weeks.
I think 20mg should be enough for me if it is indeed legit or real superdrol clone. BTW I haven't run any superdrol / clones in the past. And it's been 6 month post-last cycle.

You ever used SD before?

10mg was enough for me and at 20mg the sides were unbearable...

EDIT: Nevermind, lol...

 

[Yellow]

Hey yellow yes I remember your other thread well. 1.5 caps is a bit of a hassle... I'd just take two a day and if it's legit, you'll know soon enough, and as soon as you can tell you can drop it down to 1 a day. 13mg of SD is a pretty decent dose for cruising and still making solid gains.

Ok now myabe I should put my graph in here so when people click on this thread they can SEE what i'm talking about

same diet, same routine, with the Mdrol dosed HIGHER:

SD-1: up 11 pounds in 7 days with full body pumps and hardness, decided to drop the dose
Mdrol: up 0 pounds in 7 days with no noticable effects

I just think it's sad that I had to go through all this work to prove my point. Here's my point: I am a Superdrol addict and I can tell when it's working and when it's not working.

Many thanks for the info, unreal.

Yeah, right man. If it is legit or real sd clones, someone should notice the effects in the first week.
I know that you ran SNS methyl-drol XT and gained 10lbs in the first week in the past. It seems to be the same as SD-1 effects.

With m-drol, you gained 0 pounds and noticed nothing (I mean no anabolic effects).
I am curious to know about m-drol and I'll prove it by myself.

I think 2 caps per day (26.4mg) is a bit much man, since my m-drol is a overdosed batch (13.2mg) and this is my first superdrol run.
I am going to run it 20mg straight for 3 weeks.

You ever used SD before?

10mg was enough for me and at 20mg the sides were unbearable...

EDIT: Nevermind, lol...

No, I haven't used any superdrol / its clones before.
That's why I think that 1.5caps (20mg) should be enough for me to get good results if it is legit or real sd clone.

 

[Yellow]

Hey unreal,

I just started my m-drol to know and feel it by myself.

I log it here : http://anabolicminds.com/forum/cycle-info/138723-my-m-drol.html

 

[oak2429]

mdrol was always awesome for me

 

[Dragon13]

I read through the whole thread over at bb that someone provided earlier, talking about the isomers. The consensus from people in the know (i.e. Matt Cahill) was that there was/is no b isomer, as there would be no reason to produce raws for such a compound and, in fact, such a compound would be totally new and unknown. The isomer issue is explained as a labeling issue.

Bumping this thread (and quoting myself) as I've dug around a little more and have yet to get a poper explanation on the a/b isomer issue, and this thread (as well as an older one on MD Unreal quotes from) - http://anabolicminds.com/forum/steroids/141612-original-superdrol.html - got me thinking about this again, as we're winding down on the days of commercially available SD.

Original SuperDrol is as follows: 2a-17a-dimethyl-5a-androst-3-one. 5a-androst, as we know, can be re-written as etiallocholan, indicating the "a" isomer. It is important to note that it is not the same as etiocholan (or 5b-androst), which is obviously the "b" isomer. CEL repeated ad nauseum that the isomer issue was a non-issue, due to the fact that they tested against the "Superdrol standard", whatever that means, and the discrepancy on the label was due to an original nomenclature error. MmmmK.

Here's the thing, and I just realized this the other day. Take a look at the nomenclature for P-Plex, E-Stane, and M-drol.

P-Plex: 17a-methyl-etioallocholan-2-ene-17b-ol. This is the exact match of the original Phera. Notice they correctly indentified the "a" isomer.

E-Stane: 2a,3a-epithio-17a-methyl-5a-androstan-17b-ol. This is the exact match of the original Phera. Notice they correctly indentified the "a" isomer.

M-Drol: 2a,17a-dimethyl etiocholan-3-one, 17b-ol. This is not an exact match, due to the "b" isomer.

So CEL claims M-Drol is an exact clone, is tested against the SD standard, and the label was just a mistake. But yet they do appear to know the difference between etioallocholan and etiocholan, as evidenced by P-Plex and E-Stane.

The thread at MD about the guy who's run a ton of SD cycles, and used M-drol and found it completely different, simply cannot be dismissed. Neither can Unreal's experiences and a host of others. I think M-drol is simply NOT an exact clone of original SD, although it does usually still "work".

So why bump this thread like this? Well... mainly because I want to know if anyone has any experience with properly labeled clones like EST Methyl-Vol, or Microdrol, or any others, to compare to M-Drol. I realize this ius late in the game but one day I will try SD, and I want to make sure I get a clone of the real thing.

 

[bubsnt3]

Bumping this thread (and quoting myself) as I've dug around a little more and have yet to get a poper explanation on the a/b isomer issue, and this thread (as well as an older one on MD Unreal quotes from) - http://anabolicminds.com/forum/steroids/141612-original-superdrol.html - got me thinking about this again, as we're winding down on the days of commercially available SD.

Original SuperDrol is as follows: 2a-17a-dimethyl-5a-androst-3-one. 5a-androst, as we know, can be re-written as etiallocholan, indicating the "a" isomer. It is important to note that it is not the same as etiocholan (or 5b-androst), which is obviously the "b" isomer. CEL repeated ad nauseum that the isomer issue was a non-issue, due to the fact that they tested against the "Superdrol standard", whatever that means, and the discrepancy on the label was due to an original nomenclature error. MmmmK.

Here's the thing, and I just realized this the other day. Take a look at the nomenclature for P-Plex, E-Stane, and M-drol.

P-Plex: 17a-methyl-etioallocholan-2-ene-17b-ol. This is the exact match of the original Phera. Notice they correctly indentified the "a" isomer.

E-Stane: 2a,3a-epithio-17a-methyl-5a-androstan-17b-ol. This is the exact match of the original Phera. Notice they correctly indentified the "a" isomer.

M-Drol: 2a,17a-dimethyl etiocholan-3-one, 17b-ol. This is not an exact match, due to the "b" isomer.

So CEL claims M-Drol is an exact clone, is tested against the SD standard, and the label was just a mistake. But yet they do appear to know the difference between etioallocholan and etiocholan, as evidenced by P-Plex and E-Stane.

The thread at MD about the guy who's run a ton of SD cycles, and used M-drol and found it completely different, simply cannot be dismissed. Neither can Unreal's experiences and a host of others. I think M-drol is simply NOT an exact clone of original SD, although it does usually still "work".

So why bump this thread like this? Well... mainly because I want to know if anyone has any experience with properly labeled clones like EST Methyl-Vol, or Microdrol, or any others, to compare to M-Drol. I realize this ius late in the game but one day I will try SD, and I want to make sure I get a clone of the real thing.

EST Methyl-Vol was junk (their old stuff). EST Methanstane is legit (their new stuff). M-Drol that I got was not good but since they are getting sued over liver damage to users who have used it I assume that some of it was good. A lot of companies had hot batches which were documented by the FDA, where they tested a product to contain an active and the next time they bought the same product it did not contain the hormone. That, I believe, is why you get 2 credable users who have used the same product and one says it was good and the other bunk. They are probably both right. If you want to be %100 sure google "Designer Supplements Superdrol" and look on the first page for the guy selling the original AX SD and get that.. Otherwise I would have to recommend either Methanstane or Iforce Methadrol, I have not tried the Methadrol but the FDA testing confirmed it was real SD... Good luck.. If I wanted to be %100 sure I would spend the $78 for the AX SD. Otherwise look around and you can find the 60ct AX SD for $45 and then get a clone with it for the same price as 1 90ct bottle of the AX SD and compare yourself. There is really no point going into the Isomer thing, CEL has stated that it is an exact SD clone and that it is ALL legit despite me, Unreal, and several others getting oposite results.. Nothing against CEL but after I got the bad M-Drol I will stay away.

K-

 

[CompEdgeLabs]

So CEL claims M-Drol is an exact clone, is tested against the SD standard, and the label was just a mistake. But yet they do appear to know the difference between etioallocholan and etiocholan, as evidenced by P-Plex and E-Stane.

The thread at MD about the guy who's run a ton of SD cycles, and used M-drol and found it completely different, simply cannot be dismissed. Neither can Unreal's experiences and a host of others. I think M-drol is simply NOT an exact clone of original SD, although it does usually still "work".

So why bump this thread like this? Well... mainly because I want to know if anyone has any experience with properly labeled clones like EST Methyl-Vol, or Microdrol, or any others, to compare to M-Drol. I realize this ius late in the game but one day I will try SD, and I want to make sure I get a clone of the real thing.

This issue has truly been beat to death. M-Drol was labeled the same as Methyl Drol was by SNS. SNS, AX, and PA all stated that the way M-Drol is labeled is an acceptable way of stating the product name. AX confirmed that SNS's Methyl Drol was identical to their Superdrol. Hence, the same for M-Drol.

Raws for M-Drol batches have been tested by RTP, PA, and others and everyone agrees that it is a clone of Superdrol. If you do not believe that for some reason, then that's on you.

Also, you bring up EST, but they have admittedly had numerous quality issues with their past ph's.

 

[Dragon13]

This issue has truly been beat to death. M-Drol was labeled the same as Methyl Drol was by SNS. SNS, AX, and PA all stated that the way M-Drol is labeled is an acceptable way of stating the product name. AX confirmed that SNS's Methyl Drol was identical to their Superdrol. Hence, the same for M-Drol.

Raws for M-Drol batches have been tested by RTP, PA, and others and everyone agrees that it is a clone of Superdrol. If you do not believe that for some reason, then that's on you.

Also, you bring up EST, but they have admittedly had numerous quality issues with their past ph's.

OK, let me get this straight.

Original SD was labeled correctly. You guys labeled M-Drol incorrectly, although SNS, AX, and PA said it was OK (link please?). Then AX confirmed (I assume by testing) that SNS' Methyl Drol was identical to SD (again, link please). That does not mean M-drol was tested identical.

Now - everyone's seen the COAs posted everywhere. However, I have not seen any threads where PA tested M-drol, or anyone else for that matter, other than the ubiquitous Alston Sykes. If you have evidence of third-party testing somewhere out there, done by someone with no relationship with CEL (so this excludes RT Labs), I am all ears.

And you're right, this has been beaten to death... and yet the answers I'm looking for continue to elude me.

 

[CompEdgeLabs]

OK, let me get this straight.

Original SD was labeled correctly. You guys labeled M-Drol incorrectly, although SNS, AX, and PA said it was OK (link please?). Then AX confirmed (I assume by testing) that SNS' Methyl Drol was identical to SD (again, link please). That does not mean M-drol was tested identical.

Now - everyone's seen the COAs posted everywhere. However, I have not seen any threads where PA tested M-drol, or anyone else for that matter, other than the ubiquitous Alston Sykes. If you have evidence of third-party testing somewhere out there, done by someone with no relationship with CEL (so this excludes RT Labs), I am all ears.

And you're right, this has been beaten to death... and yet the answers I'm looking for continue to elude me.

As you may be aware, there are various different names for many ph's. When SNS made Methyl Drol XT, they labeled it the way we do our M-Drol. So, that is why we started naming it that way. AX tested Methyl Drol and stated that it was identical to SD and that that name was just another way to name it. That was posted years ago on this forum.

M-Drol is tested by the same standard as Methyl Drol was, and other Superdrol clones were.

Proviant (PA's company) did all of our testing for a very long time on all ph raws. That has been posted time and time again. And when we asked him if he felt that was an acceptable way to label it, he confirmed that it was. You can find many instances of it being stated that proviant did raws testing for us for the last several years.

You asked for third party testing, Proviant is a third party testing facility. Also, RTP is a third party facility as well. RTP was around this industry for years before we were even a company.

Just because you dont get the answer you want doesnt meant the answer isnt there. From your post, it seems like you just want to get something started and argue. No one is making you use M-Drol, and if you have doubts, I encourage you not to. M-Drol is the most tested Superdrol clone available, and there are tons of logs and feedback to support it. However, if you feel more comfortable using something else, feel free to do so.

We are the only ph company that I am aware of that has raws tested at one place before encapsulation, then had finished product tested at a different place to ensure proper quality and mg per cap.

Those are your facts. You can do the searches for yourself on the above information. If your goal is to do anything other than argue, I trust that you will take the time to do so.

 

[17amethyl]

http://images-cdn.anabolicminds.com/image404.jpg

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/steroids/136219-results-fda-supplement.html

This was found in the post labeled "results from FDA supplement test for BB.com raid so far". If you look, Mdrol was tested and it tested to be "Superdrol". This was done by the FDA- about as neutral a party as you can get on this issue.

There is still speculation of whether it is under dosed or what...but leave it as it may, it is Superdrol as far as I know.

 

[bubsnt3]

http://images-cdn.anabolicminds.com/image404.jpg

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/steroids/136219-results-fda-supplement.html

This was found in the post labeled "results from FDA supplement test for BB.com raid so far". If you look, Mdrol was tested and it tested to be "Superdrol". This was done by the FDA- about as neutral a party as you can get on this issue.

There is still speculation of whether it is under dosed or what...but leave it as it may, it is Superdrol as far as I know.

This is incorrect. If you notice it says LABEL for M-Drol and several other compounds listed. That means that it was seized based on LABEL CLAIMS. The only ones tested were the ones that say FCC ANALYSIS.

K-

 

[17amethyl]

noted...debate reopened

 

[bubsnt3]

As you may be aware, there are various different names for many ph's. When SNS made Methyl Drol XT, they labeled it the way we do our M-Drol. So, that is why we started naming it that way. AX tested Methyl Drol and stated that it was identical to SD and that that name was just another way to name it. That was posted years ago on this forum.

M-Drol is tested by the same standard as Methyl Drol was, and other Superdrol clones were.

Proviant (PA's company) did all of our testing for a very long time on all ph raws. That has been posted time and time again. And when we asked him if he felt that was an acceptable way to label it, he confirmed that it was. You can find many instances of it being stated that proviant did raws testing for us for the last several years.

You asked for third party testing, Proviant is a third party testing facility. Also, RTP is a third party facility as well. RTP was around this industry for years before we were even a company.

Just because you dont get the answer you want doesnt meant the answer isnt there. From your post, it seems like you just want to get something started and argue. No one is making you use M-Drol, and if you have doubts, I encourage you not to. M-Drol is the most tested Superdrol clone available, and there are tons of logs and feedback to support it. However, if you feel more comfortable using something else, feel free to do so.

We are the only ph company that I am aware of that has raws tested at one place before encapsulation, then had finished product tested at a different place to ensure proper quality and mg per cap.

Those are your facts. You can do the searches for yourself on the above information. If your goal is to do anything other than argue, I trust that you will take the time to do so.

I have to agree that with the raw materials available it would not make sense to use an alternate compound. Now whether or not the chinese made it correctly or whether or not they isolated only the alpha isomer (making it a %50/%50 mixture, which is generally the first round product produced before isolation) is another story which we could argue about.. but let's not.. this whole thing has been beat to death as you stated. I would not argue the nomenculture as a problem point though. I wish my M-Drol had worked out b/c you guys have lot's of products I would have liked to try.... I cannot recomend something that I have personal experience with and did not work like other of the same products I have tried though..