Luke530
New member
- Awards
- 0
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.
Alterations such as these and others in a steroid ring system can easily change the shape or the way in which the steroid molecule interacts with a given receptor, thus we get drastically different effects. Once and for all, will people please understand that a methyl group at the C-17 creates an entirely new androgen and is different from 17 beta-esterifcation as those esters are generally cleaved prior to systemic circulation, whereas the methyl group can’t be cleaved via the esterase enzyme!
As for its legality, I wouldn’t think it would be legal. As far as I’ve always been told, C-17 alkylation isn't something our laws allow in terms of a legal steroid supplement. When I visited the various sites selling this product, it became clear that it likely isn’t legal. Every disclaimer stated that the product was for "research purposes only" and intended for animals, not humans.
They stated in no uncertain terms that if you buy and use the product they aren't liable as they're assuming you’re a licensed researcher using the compound on animals. I’m guessing people think that by claiming this "for research purposes only" they’ll evade the law. Well, unless the people who are buying this product have a DEA license to possess such materials, it's technically illegal. You can claim you’re a "researcher" all you want but without a DEA license, or a very close friend who has one, you don’t have much of a case.
I can’t see this stuff being around for long. Even if it is legal, this is most certainly not something our government agencies would look too highly upon, and in general it makes everyone else in the industry look bad.
The worst part is that it’s actually less potent than the parent steroid molecule! So, let’s see, you get all of these drawbacks and less benefit as compared to the parent molecule. Doesn’t make much sense to me. It’s lowlifes who bring out products like this that give the entire supplement industry a bad name. (15)
I think it's a plug for Mag-10... probably due to a drop in it's sales.
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.
Alterations such as these and others in a steroid ring system can easily change the shape or the way in which the steroid molecule interacts with a given receptor, thus we get drastically different effects. Once and for all, will people please understand that a methyl group at the C-17 creates an entirely new androgen and is different from 17 beta-esterifcation as those esters are generally cleaved prior to systemic circulation, whereas the methyl group can’t be cleaved via the esterase enzyme!
As for its legality, I wouldn’t think it would be legal. As far as I’ve always been told, C-17 alkylation isn't something our laws allow in terms of a legal steroid supplement. When I visited the various sites selling this product, it became clear that it likely isn’t legal. Every disclaimer stated that the product was for "research purposes only" and intended for animals, not humans.
They stated in no uncertain terms that if you buy and use the product they aren't liable as they're assuming you’re a licensed researcher using the compound on animals. I’m guessing people think that by claiming this "for research purposes only" they’ll evade the law. Well, unless the people who are buying this product have a DEA license to possess such materials, it's technically illegal. You can claim you’re a "researcher" all you want but without a DEA license, or a very close friend who has one, you don’t have much of a case.
I can’t see this stuff being around for long. Even if it is legal, this is most certainly not something our government agencies would look too highly upon, and in general it makes everyone else in the industry look bad.
The worst part is that it’s actually less potent than the parent steroid molecule! So, let’s see, you get all of these drawbacks and less benefit as compared to the parent molecule. Doesn’t make much sense to me. It’s lowlifes who bring out products like this that give the entire supplement industry a bad name. (15)
I think it's a plug for Mag-10... probably due to a drop in it's sales.
