Anabolic to Androgenic ratio
- 02-20-2004, 06:42 PM
- 02-21-2004, 12:18 AM
The anabolic/androgenic data in books has typically not been a good predictor of the actual behavior of an anabolic substance. Further, the androgenic effects are not "even" (one might be more prone to cause gyno and another more prone to cause hair loss). Stated simply, you are almost certain to arrive at a wrong conclusion by using only "book data." You are best off just reading about the results in the various cycle logs and judging the effects for yourself.
- 02-21-2004, 01:25 AM
I didn't necessarily want an exact number. Just an estimate. Like A is more anabolic than B. I've been reading through different peoples cycles, and have almost come to a conclusion. Thanks for posting.
02-21-2004, 07:40 PM
02-22-2004, 02:40 AM
02-22-2004, 09:35 AM
Quad, all of the phs (with the exception of m-4ad) you mentioned have got numerous logs and threads, info etc. I wouldn't rely on the a/a ratio on any of them to make a choice of what to use. Why is the a/a ratio so important to you??
02-22-2004, 12:32 PM
I don't react very well to high androgenic steriods/pro-hormones. I was going to try a cycle with compounds that are higher anabolic to lower androgenic and see how they work for me.
02-22-2004, 02:27 PM
Try any of these nordiol, 1/4 andr0, m 1/4 andro
stacked with 4ad trans
always always always use a test base
02-23-2004, 12:00 PM
02-23-2004, 01:31 PM
02-23-2004, 01:33 PM
I'm not saying you are wrong or I don't believe, just asking why always use a test base. I've heard people say this time and time again, just not why? ThanksOriginally Posted by maggmaster
02-23-2004, 01:53 PM
Because people have tried many different things over the decades and nothing works as well as testosterone (4-AD in PH terms). As a simple example, compare test to M 1-T. M 1-T supposedly has a better anabolic/androgenic ratio and most people do see great gains on an M 1-T cycle. However, the sides are worse than expected from M 1-T's A/A ratio, and most people lose most or all of their gains after they end an M 1-T only cycle--even with proper PCT. This makes M 1-T a poor "base." The same is true of many other substances.Originally Posted by Quad
02-23-2004, 02:49 PM
I agree, but everyone is different. I know a couple of bros who have quite a bit of cycles under their belts. Some of them swear by using Test in every cycle. A couple others will sometimes use Deca only b/c they don't react well to test and they have less sides and are able to keep just as much. I guess experience is the key and to know that what works great for someone else, doesn't mean it'll work for you. thanks for replying bro.Originally Posted by Cogar
02-23-2004, 03:26 PM
02-23-2004, 06:28 PM
Possibly 1AD, NorDiol, or 1/4 Andro.
After my last cycle of S1+ (8 weeks, 12 squirts 2x a day) I crashed hard even with PCT (6oxo). 6 months after my cycle ended I had some psychological issues (anxiety) and back pain. The doc gave me a prostate exam (only one) and pushed on my prostate and asked if it hurt. Well, I said yes, because I couldn't tell what was hurting b/c his finger in my ass was killing me anyway. So he diagnosed me with a prostate infection. Gave me some anti-biotics and eventually it went away. I don't really think that's what it was though, b/c I wasn't having any symptoms (urination and ejaculation were fine, just some annoying pain and pooping problems). Ever since then I have hesitated on anymore PH or AS cycles. That's why I wanted one low on the androgenic side to try to avoid some of the psychological sides (if that's what caused the depression) and other androgenic related side effects. I know no one is a doctor, well maybe, but does anyone think I should try a low dose ph? I really want to do another cycle. Thanks and sorry for the long ass post.
02-23-2004, 07:21 PM
1ad is definitely the most androgenic of the three being a precursor to 1-test - why are you considering it?? This is an example of why a/a ratio mean very little to real world results.
03-07-2004, 02:54 PM
03-07-2004, 02:55 PM
03-07-2004, 03:08 PM
Neurotic3 - did you use to post under the 'neurotic' handle? If so - you might want to revisit the androgenic thread in the steroids board where Bobo made it quite clear the bulk of anecdotal real world experience supports the fact that tren/1-test is more androgenic than test/4-ad.
03-07-2004, 03:44 PM
good thread quad. alot of us newbies would like to know rationale behind designing stacks. just my experience, but the nordiol/1,4ad transderm i did last 2 weeks gave me a nice noticeable "feeling of well-being"
03-07-2004, 05:21 PM
real life experiences might indeed be showing more androgenic side effects using 1-test than using 4AD but, when it comes to muscle gains, they also show 1-test to be far superior, so in the end, these people claiming 1-test to be more androgenic might be overlooking the fact that they also get much more gains and, hence, for a given anabolic effect they get less androgenic side effects with 1-test. I know Bobo feels that he gets less androgenity out of 4AD ... On the other hand, Pat Arnold himself has told me that I was right in my reasoning that 1-test gave less androgenic sides than 4AD for a given anabolic effect, although many people didn't realize.........
Similar Forum Threads
- By rooney111 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 3Last Post: 04-19-2013, 10:52 AM
- By protein24 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 6Last Post: 09-24-2012, 12:59 PM
- By JaredGalloway in forum SupplementsReplies: 0Last Post: 08-08-2009, 05:37 PM
- By swoody in forum AnabolicsReplies: 3Last Post: 05-16-2005, 12:10 AM