Dione better than Diol?!?!

Page 2 of 2 First 12

  1. Originally posted by John Benz

    Thanks, jweave. I felt the need to jump in there because everyone attacked poor pjorstad and he was CORRECT. I will always defend someone who is flamed like that for no reason, especially when they are right. pjorstad's a very knowledgeable bro, and gets way too much flak.

    Yea, like smoking fina

    Read some of his posts here, no wonder everyone gives him ****.


  2. ok, like i said, sorry if i came off strong, i wasnt intending to flame pjorstad. anyways, seeing as how the person who originally posted this thread has had his question answered, i see no need to stop this discussion, and i think we should lay down some guidelines as to what we consider steroids versus prohormones. in my mind i always had 4-ad marked as a prohormone, just like 19-nor, 1,4-ad, and plain old andro, because thats how they were marketed, and they have specific target hormones to which they convert by enzymatic processes. u guys argued that since 4-ad in its standard unconverted form has inherent anabolic activity within the bloodstream, it should be labeled as a steroid. my only problem with that as a guideline is that hormones r not the only things that r in the bloodstream with anabolic properties. now as i see it, theres more pointing in the direction of a prohormone, but u guys r obviously convinced its a steroid, so there has to be somewhere to draw the line and say either it is, or it isnt. this is what i have so far:

     

    FOR PROHORMONE:

    marketed as one (although this is kinda faulty)

    has a target hormone

    not technically a hormone as is

     

    FOR STEROID:

    inherent anabolic activity

    referred to as a steroid by some AAS gurus
    •   
       


  3. Here is the actual definition for steroid:

    Any of numerous naturally occurring or synthetic fat-soluble organic compounds having as a basis 17 carbon atoms arranged in four rings and including the sterols and bile acids, adrenal and sex hormones, certain natural drugs such as digitalis compounds, and the precursors of certain vitamins.

    steroid

    n 1: any of several fat-soluble organic compounds having as a basis 17 carbon atoms in four rings; many have important physiological effects 2: any hormone affecting the development and growth of sex organs [syn: steroid hormone, sex hormone]


    And a little more precisce
    A group name for lipids that contain a hydrogenated cyclopentanoperhydrophenanthre ne ring system. Some of the substances included in this group are progesterone, adrenocortical hormones, the gonadal hormones, cardiac aglycones, bile acids, sterols (such as cholesterol), toad poisons, saponins and some of the carcinogenic hydrocarbons.

    I think anything won't show its full steroidal properties and potential until it is adminstered intramuscularly. Clearly, testosterone does not work when taken orally, but 4ad does. However, if we inject 4ad, we might get anabolic and androgenic properties similar to that of testosterone, but that gets into theory and not fact.
    Twitter: @pogue25
    Email: http://scr.im/pogue

  4. Originally posted by drfly
    ok, like i said, sorry if i came off strong, i wasnt intending to flame pjorstad. anyways, seeing as how the person who originally posted this thread has had his question answered, i see no need to stop this discussion, and i think we should lay down some guidelines as to what we consider steroids versus prohormones. in my mind i always had 4-ad marked as a prohormone, just like 19-nor, 1,4-ad, and plain old andro, because thats how they were marketed, and they have specific target hormones to which they convert by enzymatic processes. u guys argued that since 4-ad in its standard unconverted form has inherent anabolic activity within the bloodstream, it should be labeled as a steroid. my only problem with that as a guideline is that hormones r not the only things that r in the bloodstream with anabolic properties. now as i see it, theres more pointing in the direction of a prohormone, but u guys r obviously convinced its a steroid, so there has to be somewhere to draw the line and say either it is, or it isnt. this is what i have so far:

     

    FOR PROHORMONE:

    marketed as one (although this is kinda faulty)

    has a target hormone

    not technically a hormone as is

     

    FOR STEROID:

    inherent anabolic activity

    referred to as a steroid by some AAS gurus
    4-AD wasn't marketed as a pro-hormone. Read the T-Mag articles. Biotest has always listed 1-test and 4-AD the first two legal anabolic steroids in their ads. 4-AD doesn't need to convert to a target hormone any more than 1-test. Are you saying 1-test is not a steroid as well? The main reason these have gotten branded as prohormones is all the teen morons at bb.com lumping them together with the andro products and 1-AD. Boldione is a prohormone, 3-Alpha is a pro-hormone. 4-AD is as much a true anabolic steroid as is 1-test. Dan Duchaine was the undisputed authority on steroids and he labeled it as a class II androgen. He could just as easily have said "an androgen precurser."




  5. Originally posted by pogue
    I think anything won't show its full steroidal properties and potential until it is adminstered intramuscularly. Clearly, testosterone does not work when taken orally, but 4ad does. However, if we inject 4ad, we might get anabolic and androgenic properties similar to that of testosterone, but that gets into theory and not fact.
    1-test works just fine, orally. Ethergels and Mag-10. The SAN capsules have also gotten good reviews. Are you saying because 1-test works orally and actually has proven not to work well injected, it is not a steroid?

    The method of administration has absolutely nothing to do with it. Neither does the fact that some manufacturers refer to both 1-test and 4-AD as prohormones. This is referred to as CYA strategy. "Cover your ass," so feds don't see that S word on your labels. In tests on lab animals, 4-AD injected into the muscles worked much better than 1-test. I ask you again, is 1-test a true steroid or not?
    •   
       


  6. That's not what I meant, I was simply making an example out of testosterone. I think the reason Searle never pursued 1-test was because of its poor injection ability. Clearly, it is anabolic and it does not convert to an active hormone, it already is one.

    What I'm asking is to definite the fine line between anabolic potential and real world results. Clearly, the digestive track is not the best place to administer steroids. So, if something has the ability to be taken orally vs intramuscularly, it would come down to more of a question of preference than if you would get more results doing one or the other. (This is not the case with menthalyed steroids)

    So what I'm saying is 4ad is weaker when taken orally vs injecting it.
    Twitter: @pogue25
    Email: http://scr.im/pogue

  7. The classification of 4AD could go be argued either way and it dosn't really matter IMHO since its not gonna change what it does in the body.

    About the original topic, the study, while I am not convinced on its accuracy due to some items brought up by PA, the study dosn't mean much to me personally.  Its dealing with the oral administration and I don't think many people on this board would run either orally.

    On top of that the dione version brings up the issue of direct conversion to estrogen something that keeps many away from it.  I still believe that for the conventional use of most users the diol will win out over the dione.

  8. Originally posted by weissmuller
    The classification of 4AD could go be argued either way ...
    The only ones arguing this are 16 year olds with a science textbook, and no real world knowledge. You shouldn't even be discussing this stuff at your age. Be that as it may, misuse of common terminology is no argument pro or con steroidal status. The fact is 4-AD is considered a CLASS-II androgen. It is a steroid as much as 1-test.
    Originally posted by weissmuller
    About the original topic, the study, while I am not convinced on its accuracy due to some items brought up by PA, the study dosn't mean much to me personally.  Its dealing with the oral administration and I don't think many people on this board would run either orally.

    On top of that the dione version brings up the issue of direct conversion to estrogen something that keeps many away from it.  I still believe that for the conventional use of most users the diol will win out over the dione.
    Bill Llewellyn disagrees with you, but hey, who is he?

    Originally posted by Drewski
    I know that Big Cat suggested that a diol version would be unlikely but now that SciFit have produced ANDROPOISE, what do you think the properties of this supplement would be?

    I am no scientist but I am assuming that it being a diol version would reduce estrogenic activity, aromatisation...

    Is there much research on this product and what kind of results are expected? Bill, are you on to it also, or are you going to boycott the diol version?
    Originally posted by w_llewellyn
    Its been out for a while actually. The diol should be less orally active, not more. BC was a just a little stuck on the old 4-AD marketing info; 1,4 andro behaves very differently in the body. I filed patent on both the dione and diol compounds, and if I saw an advantage in the diol I would have done it a long time ago.
    Originally posted by w_llewellyn
    If the conversion to the 17hydroxyl group is documented to be so stable with the dione, why bother to look for another pathway for conversion? Those claiming it to be better are only blindly assuming it to be so because 4-androdiol is supposed to be better than its dione.
    Plus, with two open hydroxyl groups you should have a hormone more open to conjugation, no? Isn't that one of the reasons they originally experimented with androstenedione way back when? The bioavailability of the diol should be worse than the dione, but if it is more active in converting this may overcompensate (this is the assumption with 4-diol). But we have no reason to take that leap of faith here, IMO.
    On a personal note, I have several friends who used the Sci-Fit Andro-Poise, and found it totally worthless.

  9. Originally posted by John Benz

    Bill Llewellyn disagrees with you, but hey, who is he? 
    All I meant to imply was that I am not taking a single study as the word of God.&nbsp; But even if it were correct all it proves is that orally diones&nbsp;yield more test than diols.&nbsp; With all the factors involved from the second you pop the cap till the end of their active life we can't speculate how this would effect other applications.&nbsp; On a board built upon transdermals this would have to be considered in interpreting the data.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>

    About the classification I didn't mean to discredit anyone.&nbsp; Since it is converted by the human body many modern views on supplements would call it a prohormone.&nbsp; But by technical definition it is an androgen.&nbsp; Just depends whose rules you want to play by.<o></o>

    On a final note why is it you constantly seem to knock me about my age?&nbsp; I understand if you personally believe teens shouldn't be abusing hormones and Ií am cool with that, but it seems more like my pure discussion of these sciences seems to hit a nerve with you.&nbsp; No big deal to me, but I am doing wrong?<o></o>

    &nbsp;

  10. Originally posted by weissmuller
    On a final note why is it you constantly seem to knock me about my age?&nbsp; I understand if you personally believe teens shouldn't be abusing hormones and Ií am cool with that, but it seems more like my pure discussion of these sciences seems to hit a nerve with you.&nbsp; No big deal to me, but I am doing wrong?
    weissmuller, you seem like a nice and very well educated young man, but at 16 (ok, almost 17), you are still a kid, and far too young to be so deeply immersed in things you realistically shouldn't be using for years. I don't have anything against you, and I don't mean to sound so negative, but my stance on teens and ph is a firm one. Nevertheless, I wish I had known half as much at your age as you do. Peace.

  11. Originally posted by John Benz

    weissmuller, you seem like a nice and very well educated young man, but at 16 (ok, almost 17), you are still a kid, and far too young to be so deeply immersed in things you realistically shouldn't be using for years. I don't have anything against you, and I don't mean to sound so negative, but my stance on teens and ph is a firm one. Nevertheless, I wish I had known half as much at your age as you do. Peace.
    I definatley understand how this is knowledge that I shouldn't be applying for a long time and don't plan on.&nbsp; Even more importantly I don't wanna hurt this boards reputation as being a breeding ground for teen steroids use and completely understand how negative this could be.&nbsp; But the info is something that fascinates me and is probally gonna be a vital part of my future unless I wanna work in lab analyzing fabric dyes.&nbsp; Non the less I'll try to keep my posting to minimium on these topics.&nbsp; My last wish is to be a pesk or annoyance.

    I also appologize for highjacking this thread.&nbsp; Hope the discussion can get back to the centeral topic.

  12. hey weissmuller, dont let anybody tell u when to post, or what to post. i personally think its great that there r some teens out there who actually know there **** as well as u, and i think it just helps all of us. u probably know more than most of the people on this board, despite ur age. plus, knowing as much as u do, by the time u r old enough to make that leap into ph/aas use, providing u decide to, u will have years of research behind u. i hope u continue to keep posting and helping bros out around here. peace

    by the way, john, i think u and i both r too stubborn and stuck in our places to take one anothers point of view on this prohormone/steroid business, so we will just leave it at that. i hope i havent angered u with this, cuz i think we can help each other in the future.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 31
    Last Post: 09-24-2009, 08:30 AM
  2. Some exercise is better than none!
    By windwords7 in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-06-2003, 01:30 AM
  3. Women are better than men at... Pilates!
    By bigbadboss101 in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-26-2003, 04:53 PM
  4. Casein better than Whey?
    By Dwight Schrute in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-10-2003, 03:51 PM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-08-2003, 06:18 PM
Log in
Log in