What is CEL Methyl Alpha? The Answer, here, now.

[jbryand101b]

edit*** so it looks like bill was right originally on what it is, a member of cel confirmed it is 17a methyl, and is a diol. Bill originally is quoted as saying it was 17a methyl, then later corrected himself and said he thinks it is actually 7a methyl.
All Quoted from W. Llewellyn....

17a-methyl-5-a-androst-1-en-3b,17b-diol
VP/SV (AND) 82-100 LA (ANA) 420
Standard: methyltestosterone (oral)
--------------

My guess is it still has decent, albeit far from 17a-methyl, oral potency. 1-AD has inherent anabolic activity, and the 7 methylation should increase oral BV, half-life and oral free % to some extent. I don't see this steroid needing to convert to a 3-one to be active. Would be better, but not necessary for activity. My guess based on structure anyway. Can't find any info on this specifically, and don't feel like digging.
--------------

The few instances you find of it, 7-methylation generally increases steroid potency considerably. Since 1-AD is inherently active, this product should have noticable potency. If it compares to things like Superdrol and Ergomax is anyones guess. I would think it isn't likely, but still expect it to be better than some 1st-2nd gen prohormones.

The thought that it would require several steps of conversion before it does anything is extremely unlikely.
------------------------------------

 

[jbryand101b]

So no conversion is needed to be active, like m14add.

but what does convert of m1alpha, will be converted into 7a methyl 1-testosterone.

and to make it clear, not the more toxic 17a m1-t.

quoting j.berto "Adding a 7a-methyl improves the oral-bioavailability of the compound but without the risk of the hepatic toxicity of the 17a, and prevent 5a-reductase"

making it safer suposedly.

 

[stankyleg]

sub

 

[MPFit]

mod edit: rules is the awesome..

 

[dpfisher]

So what risks does the 7-a methylation carry compared to 17a methylation

 

[jbryand101b]

So what risks does the 7-a methylation carry compared to 17a methylation

im not sure, but it def. will be less of a risk, and should also have less sides than the 17a methyl 1 test.

users seem to have decent gains, with very limited sides.


being already active before converting the two steps to 7am1t, is also a plus.

 

[crowbar46]

So, is the only advantage of this over Super-Drol that it may be less toxic with fewer side effects?


Crowbar

 

[jbryand101b]

So, is the only advantage of this over Super-Drol that it may be less toxic with fewer side effects?

Crowbar

I would think so. sd is def still king for now.

 

[TheDarkHalf]

subbed.

 

[alexx33]

he's only on the first week so give it sometime to see some results.



Originally Posted by w_llewellyn
My guess is it still has decent, albeit far from 17a-methyl, oral potency. 1-AD has inherent anabolic activity, and the 7 methylation should increase oral BV, half-life and oral free % to some extent. I don't see this steroid needing to convert to a 3-one to be active. Would be better, but not necessary for activity. My guess based on structure anyway. Can't find any info on this specifically, and don't feel like digging.

 

[dumbhick3]

looks like someones already got some. they started taking their first caps on jan first. they say they are logging it. still have to read through pages of "oh cool brah" and sh*t to find compound results.

here is a pic

6 days in and no results yet. (for the dude logging it over at bb.com) btw

You mean this log?

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/142642-becoming-alphaone.html

Learn is running it and posting the results on AM, PHF, and BB.com. The thread on AM is only 2 pages long and he is on day 8 now (so up to date and not too wordy).

 

[jbryand101b]

bump

 

[Testosterone666]

All Quoted from W. Llewellyn....

7a-methyl-5-a-androst-1-en-3b,17b-diol
VP/SV (AND) 82-100 LA (ANA) 420
Standard: methyltestosterone (oral)
--------------

While I appreciate your digging to get to the nature of the compound in question, you needed to not alter the quote as well as read the entire thread. That data above was for 17a in his post in the thread as shown in page 1. forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=530165

 

[Testosterone666]

LLewellyn realizes by page 2 in the thread that the compound is actually a 3-ol,17-one and not a diol. Androgens usually need a ketone off carbon 3, but it isn't necessary as seen in madol. On the other hand, the hydroxyl at 17 is a necessity for receptor binding; a ketone there prevents this. Hence it not having any possibility of intrinsic activity. It would need a hydroxyl off 17 for that, as well as another conversion for a ketone at carbon 3 for full activity.

 

[Testosterone666]

Also, the product was later advertised as converting to M1T, a 17a methyl as opposed to the 7a methyl it was identified as. which brings up another issue much like the alpha or beta isomer issue with superdrol. It is an issue not only of correct nomenclature for the compound, but of the labeling itself. While there are many ways to write the different structures, small changes can alter the isomer, methylated carbon, etc. My guess? It was 17-a and the 1 got lopped off. Sounds pathetic but I can't count the number of times I've read nomenclature that was impossible (can't exist, carbons with too many valence, etc) and also seen PA have to correct other companies' nomenclature for their labels on a damn forum. Also, I'm betting the superdrol for all companies isn't made to be either a or b isomer (costs too much to separate), but is whatever percentage of racemic mix produced by the particular Chinese manufacturer's synthesis used to produce it.

 

[spartan300]

subbed

 

[jbryand101b]

i changed that original quote because he then posted next he looked at it wrong, and it was actually 7a, not 17a methyl, and so I just quoted it correctly instead of putting the error, and then the correction, wich would be a waste of reading.

all signs point to 7amethylation. even p.a. states it is 7a.

now wether it is 17b-ol, or 17-one i dont think ever got answered. but wife is getting pissed, i have to go, i'll be back to track down the answer.

 

[lyfespan]

subbed, need more break down explainations like this one, nice

 

[mmk64]

No offense bro but you mention price and a source...but you did abbreviate so that's good

 

[futrochem]

There is not much info on what this actually is. I did a write up in my blog which i posted the link to on the other alpha one thread... take a look let me know what you guys think .

supplementsciencenews.blogspot.com

 

[TheDarkHalf]

There is not much info on what this actually is. I did a write up in my blog which i posted the link to on the other alpha one thread... take a look let me know what you guys think .

supplementsciencenews.blogspot.com

Nice blog you've got going there. Also like the article about The One and Suppress-C.

 

[Testosterone666]

anabolicminds.com/forum/competitive-edge-labs/143492-introducing-alpha-one.html The Epietiocholanolone in the name is what causes the confusion with regards to the hormone being a diol or a 3-ol-17-one. The Epietiocholanolone would indicate it being 3-ol-17-one. However, the testing done by RTP for the company indicates using more regular (though still incomplete and incorrect) nomenclature the product being a diol. They leave out what carbon the methyl is on, and in the thread here at AM, they don't want to reveal it. However, at phf, prohormoneforum.com/prohormone-forum/22874-official-alpha-one-cheat-sheet-5.html em-dubya says that it is a prohormone to 7a-m1T. Unfortunately, they didn't put this in the nomenclature. Yet on the report pdf, 17a is indicated. Also, odd that RTP lets the nomenclature for two different compounds be listed (Epietiocholanolone indicating 3-ol-17-one, and the second time listed as diol) as if they are the same. Then again, it was odd when they (RTP) tested m1,4add back in the day without a reference standard and positively confirmed DHEA as m1,4 so who knows with them. I find this all very odd.

 

[jbryand101b]

There is not much info on what this actually is. I did a write up in my blog which i posted the link to on the other alpha one thread... take a look let me know what you guys think .

supplementsciencenews.blogspot.com

good post, great info, but still after all that, you have what was already in the thread, im going to post that in the thread later.

is it a diol?
is it 7a m, or 17a m?

i guess we wont know until someone we can trust has it tested.

for now im going to go with Llewellyn and say it's a two step ph to 7a-m1-t.

and i do think it's weak. reports dont suggest this from the old version, or still available est methyl xt.

so if this is the same compound, it should be good at 60, and great at 80mg.

 

[jbryand101b]

www.anabolicminds.com/forum/competitive-edge-labs/143492-introducing-alpha-one.html
The Epietiocholanolone in the name is what causes the confusion with regards to the hormone being a diol or a 3-ol-17-one.
The Epietiocholanolone would indicate it being 3-ol-17-one.
However, the testing done by RTP for the company indicates using more regular (though still incomplete and incorrect) nomenclature the product being a diol.
They leave out what carbon the methyl is on, and in the thread here at AM, they don't want to reveal it.
However, at phf, www.prohormoneforum.com/prohormone-forum/22874-official-alpha-one-cheat-sheet-5.html
em-dubya says that it is a prohormone to 7a-m1T. Unfortunately, they didn't put this in the nomenclature.Yet on the report pdf, 17a is indicated.
Also, odd that RTP lets the nomenclature for two different compounds be listed (Epietiocholanolone indicating 3-ol-17-one, and the second time listed as diol) as if they are the same.
Then again, it was odd when they (RTP) tested m1,4add back in the day without a reference standard and positively confirmed DHEA as m1,4 so who knows with them. I find this all very odd.

there, made that a little easier to read.

 

[futrochem]

I just don't think they would have dosed a 3-ol 17-one or a non-17aa diol @ 20mg's.

 

[jbryand101b]

I just don't think they would have dosed a 3-ol 17-one or a non-17aa diol @ 20mg's.

i think the latter would of been dose higher.
but they could of just been going off of what all the other m.f.'s in the past dosed it at.
I think Llewellyn had it right in the begining, wish S.Roberts would chime in with his opinion.

but we can only keep our fingers crossed that someone respectable will have it tested and inform us all. lol. yea right.

 

[dumbhick3]

i think the latter would of been dose higher.
but they could of just been going off of what all the other m.f.'s in the past dosed it at.
I think Llewellyn had it right in the begining, wish S.Roberts would chime in with his opinion.

but we can only keep our fingers crossed that someone respectable will have it tested and inform us all. lol. yea right.

Yeah, the only compound in Seth's book that is a possible contender is the diol prohormone to M1T (17a methyl-1-test).

I wouldn't say that it is weak based on what I've read so far. Learn had gained 9.8 lbs in 15 days as of yesterday in his log at PHF, and he only recently went to the 60mg dose which he will continue for another 10 days. Those gains are pretty consistent with a typical dose of M1T. So while I can't clarify the nomenclature (duh), I think that whatever it converts to is close enough to M1T that the differences are minimal. That's speculative, but based on my old M1T cycles and following learn's log.

I think that the lack of confirmation from people that know what it converts to (CEL) and the archaic nomenclature on the label tells me that it is most likely the diol prohormone to M1T. The dosing of 20-60mg/day is consistent with the conversion rates of 10-20% to M1T estimated by Seth Roberts for the diol PH.

Of course I am no expert, and it would be swell to get some official confirmation as to what the hell it is (is it mislabeled; is the analysis right or wrong; etc). I don't see what CEL has to lose by just telling us since it is discontinued. The diol PH to M1T is not a controlled substance or anything (yet).

Sorry, I probably didn't say anything new...

 

[dumbhick3]

I am about 100% positive that it is the M1T-diol PH (100% in my mind).

http://www.prohormoneforum.com/prohormone-forum/22874-official-alpha-one-cheat-sheet-5.html

Towards the bottom after CEL provides the links for M-LMG and Alpha One's COAs, em-dubbya says this (after previously saying 7a-methyl...):

Nomenclature for Alpha One is one the report for those previosly asking
__________________
Competitive Edge Labs Rep

Possibly missing a preposition, but he seems to indicate that the COA is accurate; hence the prohormone to M1T.

 

[mw1]

I honestly skimmed thru half of this thread and did'nt read much....could someone just ask the straight up question they want answered???

 

[mvrk1]

I skimmed most of it also, but think the question on everybody's mind is whether or not it converts to M1T. Thanks for your input, mw1, I appreciate it!

 

[futrochem]

I honestly skimmed thru half of this thread and did'nt read much....could someone just ask the straight up question they want answered???

If you could post a pic of the molecule or give us an IUPAC name or a layman's description of alpha one, that would put everyones mind at ease.

 

[phL8Tme]

Subbed, I'm watching this one.

 

[jbryand101b]

I honestly skimmed thru half of this thread and did'nt read much....could someone just ask the straight up question they want answered???

what is it a pro hormone to. is it 17a methyl or 7a methyl?

just posting up the nomenclature in a easier to read format would help too.

but people are confused, and debating on what it converts to. we know it converts into a form of methyl 1 test. but where is the methyl located, does it need to convert to be active?

 

[jbryand101b]

If you could post a pic of the molecule or give us an IUPAC name or a layman's description of alpha one, that would put everyones mind at ease.

exactly. this would allow us to know more, and speculate more.

 

[mvrk1]

Bummer. I've been excited all day to get home tonight and see the answer...

 

[jbryand101b]

Bummer. I've been excited all day to get home tonight and see the answer...

yea, it's like waiting for the tooth fairy to come. :dunno:

 

[mw1]

The nomenclature is 17a-methyl-5a-androst-1-ene-3b,17b-diol and listed in VIDA as A-15 which gives it a 100/420 Androg/Anabolic rating when compared orally to methyl-test

 

[futrochem]

YESSS... nice product

 

[dumbhick3]

The nomenclature is 17a-methyl-5a-androst-1-ene-3b,17b-diol and listed in VIDA as A-15 which gives it a 100/420 Androg/Anabolic rating when compared orally to methyl-test

This is the diol PH to M1T based on Seth Robert's book if I remember correctly. He said the parent compound (M1A) had an A:A of ~400:100 and a conversion rate to M1T of 10-20%. That's substantial, and a potent combo effect, with likely less sides than straight M1T due to the smaller dose received (which is still plenty).

 

[mvrk1]

Sooooooooooo, I'm asking anybody with better grades in chemistry than I got....Do we really like this compound, and what do we think it will be similar to (in terms of results)?

 

[futrochem]

as i said in my blog it is to M1T as M-1,4-AD is to D-bol or H-Drol is to Turinabol

 

[mw1]

Sooooooooooo, I'm asking anybody with better grades in chemistry than I got....Do we really like this compound, and what do we think it will be similar to (in terms of results)?

Just look at user feedback so far

 

[mvrk1]

Rock and roll! Thanks futrochem!

I also just found this while doing some of my own internet searching. It supports your opinion:

"17a-methyl-5a-androst-1-en-3b,17b-diol

This is a direct metabolic precursor to methy 1-1 -testosterone. It should work almost as well as methyl-1-test but then again, it should also be almost as toxic. Methyl-1-test was perhaps the nastiest drug I have tested — it had me feeling like I could die. The water retention was severe as were the headaches, fatigue and chest pains. Of course, some were able to use methyl-1-test while avoiding many of the negatives but many more could not. So like I suggest with the regular methyl-1-test, I say avoid this prohormone version."

 

[mw1]

Rock and roll! Thanks futrochem!

I also just found this while doing some of my own internet searching. It supports your opinion:

"17a-methyl-5a-androst-1-en-3b,17b-diol

This is a direct metabolic precursor to methy 1-1 -testosterone. It should work almost as well as methyl-1-test but then again, it should also be almost as toxic. Methyl-1-test was perhaps the nastiest drug I have tested — it had me feeling like I could die. The water retention was severe as were the headaches, fatigue and chest pains. Of course, some were able to use methyl-1-test while avoiding many of the negatives but many more could not. So like I suggest with the regular methyl-1-test, I say avoid this prohormone version."

And what product was the author promoting at the time that was written

 

[jbryand101b]

edit*** so it looks like bill was right originally on what it is, a member of cel confirmed it is 17a methyl, and is a diol. Bill originally is quoted as saying it was 17a methyl, then later corrected himself and said he thinks it is actually 7a methyl.
All Quoted from W. Llewellyn....

17a-methyl-5-a-androst-1-en-3b,17b-diol
VP/SV (AND) 82-100 LA (ANA) 420
Standard: methyltestosterone (oral)

so looks like as had been said before, this will probably be like m14add, in a sense that it doesn't need to convert to be active. but it can still convert the more potent and popular m1t.

hopefully some crazy testing doesn't come out proving it is something else.

 

[lyfespan]

And what product was the author promoting at the time that was written

um ill bite superdrol?

 

[powerlinelift]

So which is a more potent product Alpha One or M-Drol. Which one will you put more mass on with/up your strength?

 

[Link24]

So which is a more potent product Alpha One or M-Drol. Which one will you put more mass on with/up your strength?

That is person dependent my friend. . . Different fokes different strokes

 

[jbryand101b]

mg for mg basis both isomers A & B of superdrol are stronger than alpha one.

 

[dumbhick3]

^^^That's true, probably owing to sdrol's dimethylation.

M1T on the other hand is mg-per-mg more potent than sdrol, but that's a side story.

As far as which is better, I think that people are going to find that they tolerate and respond to alpha one better than sdrol or vice versa. Huge gains in strength and size in either case at the proper dose, so really a question of the sides.

I ran M1T multiple times up to 20mg/day for 4 weeks which is slightly retarded (gained 21 lbs), but the side effects were never severe for me. The lethargy was less than that of a potent 1-test product like PP's 1-T. Aggression and hair shedding was a bit more apparent with M1T. Also some painful pumps at times, etc, but on the whole quite tolerable esp. given the absurd gains. YMMV, and I've never ran sdrol.

Whoever said that M1T caused significant water retention...both M1T and sdrol have essentially the same intracellular water retention effects. There is no apparent bloat as the water is all in the muscle via 11BSD inhibition. So they are both touted as "dry" compounds, but they are dry only in the sense of no apparent subcutaneous water retention. If you really want "dry", try Winstrol or Anavar.