- 05-01-2012, 07:58 AM
Also, why did IML double the price of Osta Rx?
- 05-01-2012, 11:37 AM
05-02-2012, 02:53 PM
05-02-2012, 02:58 PM
05-02-2012, 03:00 PM
we did not double the price of Osta Rx, we fixed the retail price at $99.99, retailers were not supposed to be selling it for $50.
05-02-2012, 03:02 PM
05-02-2012, 04:57 PM
05-02-2012, 05:11 PM
Your logic on the COA doesn't resonate with me as a consumer, but that's your call. Once I'm done with my bottle, I'll give you some honest feedback. I really like that IML had the nutz to come out with this product, but I just think it's a reach at that price point.
05-02-2012, 05:19 PM
05-02-2012, 08:06 PM
05-02-2012, 08:12 PM
05-02-2012, 09:16 PM
I think both sides need to agree though
No one wants their products whored out but u cant control what things are sold for ultimately. U can choose to sell to only certain distributors of course
Anabolicminds.com Featured Author
05-02-2012, 11:01 PM
05-02-2012, 11:06 PM
if you were so quick to send Patrick Arnold a bottle - why not just send him the couple caps and "shell out" the hundred bucks (as you put it, while referring to your customers buying osta at the "fixed" rate.
05-02-2012, 11:07 PM
05-02-2012, 11:09 PM
05-03-2012, 12:54 PM
I didn't know you could tell retailers what price to sell your product at. I thought your could suggest a price and then the retailer could choose what to actually sell it for. If IronMagLabs is so sure of the product they are selling, then why not send a few caps to PA for testing. People seem to trust him with this sort of thing and it will go a long way with your potential customers.
05-03-2012, 01:28 PM
05-03-2012, 01:33 PM
Side note: "Price fixing" is generally not allowed, but as previously mentioned you can control who you do business with. The company I work for has a "unilateral pricing policy" and anyone not willing to work within those confines, or who breaks this policy, doesn't get to sell our product. Completely legal. And there are ton of ways around it - "unrelated" total order discounts, or store credit for other products or freebies. whatever.
Side note: I'm not running the SuperDMZ RX yet, although I think I will pull the trigger on it in the next couple of months.
I am running the Osta RX, mainly because I have run mk2866 in the past - from what I believe was a reputable source - and saw significant effects in hardening and muscle sparing during a serious cut. I also had no significant sides during cycle, but had some serious shutdown, even with a two week taper. Clomid kicked everything back into gear, but I was hoping all the "No pct needed" hype was right....but my test levels were in the crapper for awhile. Good news was that I kept most of my muscle, and didn't see any jump in bf% afterward.
I'm only 12 days in on the Osta RX with nothing much to report right now. *shrug* I'm giving it a fair shot though, but definitely getting bloods done after this one too.
*edit* and I got it before the price hike, def. wouldn't have given it a shot @ 99$ when you I can get the other stuff for 49$ more
05-03-2012, 09:11 PM
05-10-2012, 03:37 PM
05-10-2012, 11:07 PM
05-10-2012, 11:14 PM
05-12-2012, 08:26 PM
05-15-2012, 04:47 PM
05-15-2012, 04:48 PM
05-15-2012, 04:58 PM
05-16-2012, 02:46 AM
07-07-2012, 02:42 AM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072879/"In general, SARMs are defined as tissue-selective AR ligands . An ideal SARM should also have (i) high specificity for the AR, (ii) improved oral bioavailability and a pharmacokinetic profile that allows once-a-day administration and, most importantly, (iii) desirable, tissue-selective pharmacological activities. The major discriminating criterion is tissue selectivity of the ligand in vivo, so both agonists and antagonists, and steroidal and non-steroidal ligands might be classified as SARMs. The major goal in the development of SARMs is to avoid the undesirable side-effects of treatment by improving the tissue selectivity of the ligands. This would greatly extend the clinical applications of these ligands beyond primary and secondary hypogonadism. Other potential applications for SARMs include hormone-replacement therapy, osteoporosis, muscle wasting, male contraception, BPH and prostate cancer"
Seems like SARMs would include all androgens with a q-ratio other than 1, and all anti-androgens as well. Ostarine fits the criteria for (ii) quite well since it has good oral bioavailability and a 24hr half-life...as does winstrol. Targeting growth in skeletal muscle while limiting growth in the prostate was the goal of developing lots of anabolics in past decades and seems to be one of the main goals of this new SARM category:
From that first link it sounds like the category "SARM" was invented to include the non-steroidal AR agonists. Of course these can still rightfully be called androgens...
I am wondering why there is some fundamental need for this category to exist. Better for getting funding for research when you say you are studying a receptor modulator instead of an anabolic steroid/androgen?
07-07-2012, 08:18 AM
Similar Forum Threads
- By Darron Bryant in forum IGF-1/GHReplies: 366Last Post: 04-05-2016, 09:10 PM
- By Meister in forum AnabolicsReplies: 4Last Post: 08-09-2011, 05:21 AM
- By johnrobert227 in forum Cycle InfoReplies: 1Last Post: 07-16-2011, 03:51 PM
- By schwellington in forum AnabolicsReplies: 5Last Post: 10-05-2010, 05:05 AM
- By jmun23 in forum SupplementsReplies: 7Last Post: 09-03-2008, 12:38 AM