Methyl 1-Test far inferior to regular test according to TMag--is this true?

Herakleitus

New member
****, this is a repost - well, the other title wasn't helpful if you don't care to know who Cy Wilson is...

Obviously the boys at T-Mag are Biotest pimps, and so they are bound to lose sales of Mag-10 to Methyl 1-Test, since they don't carry this, but is there anything to their allegations? 25% the anabolic potency of Test prop, and 50% the adrogenic activity?! But at what dose? They also don't reference the bioassays which purportedly show this. What should we make of this?

Invalid Link Removed
"Methyl 1-Test: The True Story

Q: What is Methyl 1-test? Is it potent? Is it legally sold as a supplement or what? I'm so confused!

A: First, Methyl 1-Test isn’t even proper nomenclature. As for it being potent, Counsell, et al., found that C-17 alkylation of 17B-hydroxy-5a-androst-1-en-3-one (also incorrectly referred to as 1-Testosterone) decreased anabolic and androgenic activity in bioassays. It had about one-fourth the anabolic potency of Testosterone propionate and about half the androgenic activity.

The androgen found in MAG-10, 5a-androst-1-ene (1-Testosterone), was shown to be as androgenic as Testosterone propionate but had twice the anabolic activity. So, in reality, with this so-called methyl-1-Testosterone, you're getting the potential liver toxicity while getting much less benefit.

I think people were excited when they first heard of it as they thought, "Oh, okay, well alkylating 1-Testosterone will solve the problem of oral bioavailability and thus we'll have one kick-ass compound." In reality, adding that methyl group creates not just a methylated version of the androgen, but an entirely different molecule, period!

People need to understand that adding a methyl group or a double bond (or really any number of functional groups and atoms) creates an entirely different androgen. For instance, methandrostenolone (D-bol) only differs from Testosterone by a methyl group at the C-17 and an additional double bond between the C-1 and C-2. But can you honestly say D-bol and Testosterone impart the same effects? Even disregarding bioassays, which have demonstrated substantial differences between the two androgens, it’s still obvious to anyone who’s used them."
 
Last edited:
For someone who is smart enough to be the first to realise the earth spins I am surprised you are reading anything by t-mag let alone reposting some nonsense from then.

Lets not cheapen this forum with adverts disguised as questions/research.

:gore:
 
Someone called his b.s on the study he posted at the end of his article. When he said "It had about one-fourth the anabolic potency of Testosterone propionate and about half the androgenic activity" I guess it wasn't true in the study he posted. So he posted that rebuttal on that other thread. I don't know if you can still find it in the t-mag forum because they censor their posts. My user name and password were banned when I pointed out that a one month supply of m-1-t cost 43 dollars on dps and a one month supply of mag-10 would cost close to 300. Why anyone still listens to them is beyond me.........one word myostat or myocrap.
 
mag 10 is a fucking joke, i'd like to see this thread removed just for the stupidity in this t-mag ****. 1-ad is better than mag-10 and that isnt half as potent as m1t.
 
What an ASS!!!

90% of a steroid molecule' Androgenic/Anabolic properties come from alterations to ring 1 and 2 NOT RING 4. Fucking scumbags trying to sell their bullshit mag 10.

The alterations to ring 4 are purely for half life adjustments and biochemical protection.

Ring 3 is rarely adjusted.
 
Back
Top