View Poll Results: So what do you think?
- 1035. This poll is closed
Stacking methyls is OK.
- 06-29-2004, 12:28 PM
Originally Posted by Bobo
- 07-05-2004, 05:46 PM
- 07-18-2004, 10:00 PM
Originally Posted by Strateg0s
Your point shows you have no idea how the liver operates.
Metabolites are usually more toxic than the actual substance itself. With one substance you have metabolites from 1 substance whether its a low dosage or not. Add another substance to that mix and you double the amount of active metabolites. You also double the amount of nutrients needed by the liver (mainly glycine, cysteine, glutamine, methionine, taurine, glutamic acid and aspartic acid).
Also if this occurs you can have Phase I and Phase II of liver detoxification that are out of balance and a build up of intermediate metabolites can occur which in turn can lead to tissue damage and eventually disease.For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
07-18-2004, 11:35 PM
wouldn't that depend on the specific metabolite? Than that statement of ph toxicity would go right back to the actual compound or ph. So on the question of toxicity, i think it's more important to look at the specific ph in use and it's metabolite(s) rather than the blanket statement that stacking is worse than single ph use. for example, is 20mg M1T less toxic to the liver than stacking 10mg M1T with 10mgM4OHN?Originally Posted by Bobo
07-18-2004, 11:39 PM
All methyls are damaging, and stacking them is not prudent, but the hepatotoxicity of a stack is still related to the choice and dosages of methyls (how could it possibly be otherwise?). So it just isn't the case that any stack of methyls (no matter how low the dosages) is worse than the use of any single methyl (no matter what the dose). The point is obvious.
Stacking methyls far from A-OK, but it is hyperbolic to liken every case to bathing in plutonium. I understand that you are trying to encourage people to err on the side of caution, but my point is that some (stupid) people may walk away with the impression that they're better off taking 20mg of M1T than taking 5mg of M1T + low doses of say M4OHN and MD. I'm pretty sure that we're in agreement that the former choice is much worse than the latter. So I may as well leave it at that.
07-18-2004, 11:45 PM
A certain substance doens't have just one metabolite, it usually has many. And you don't even know what the metabolites for any of these are because there has been ZERO clinical data published on these.Originally Posted by lancelot
As for your latter question, yes it could be as the number of metabolites the liver had to deal with could doulbe and maybe triple. Even though the dose is low you can create an imbalance in different phases of detoxification and a buildup of certain metabolites could occur.
For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
07-18-2004, 11:53 PM
Yes, it does. All combonations of methyls could be stacked responsibly but the toxicity of the individual metabolites and the ratios that would be generated from each parent steroid would need to be determined before deciding the dose of each in the stack. It's easier than it sounds, because often, some of the intermediates are shared and many of the end metabolites are identical or of similar toxicity (DHT relateds)Originally Posted by lancelot
07-18-2004, 11:54 PM
Originally Posted by Strateg0s
Its related to choice and dosage of methyl? How about conversion rate of metabolites and also the number metabolized? Do yo know how potent they are on any of these? No. M4OHN is could have 1 potent metabolite whle M1T could have 10. It could be the complete opposite too. Just because the target hormone isn't "potent" in terms of gains is far from saying its "less toxic". M5AA could be harsher than M1T but since everyone thinks M1T is so "potent" because of the gains they see they assume its the harshest. The point being is that you or anyone on these boards do not know how potent they are because there is zero clinical data. Increasing the substance increases the chances of those metabolites to be toxic. Its ridiculous to tell anyone that stacking them isn't that bad and its only the dosages that are invloved.
For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
07-19-2004, 12:29 AM
Given that we have zilch for data regarding methyls at this point, Bobo's conclusions are not only wise and pragmatic but based on known observations of metabolite interactions of known methylated steroids. Interactions of Dbol metabolites anyone?
High doses of M1T are never ok in my book. Comparing that to stacking methyls is kinda like saying that mixing a little of Mystery Substance X and Mystery Substance Y "should" be ok because we know Mystery Substance Z is probably worse than X and Y. We don't really know for sure but what the hell, life's too short to wait for data. lol
Unfortunately I think we'll be seeing clinical data from methyl PH users who went overboard. By the sound of things the first subjects should be sparking the interest of the research community any day now.
07-19-2004, 12:58 AM
Nobody else is going to do this in a clinical effort, unless somebody is trying to get new drug approval from the FDA. What this board should do is form a committee to investigate common drugs, metabolites, and try to extrapolate the best data we can using research info on the rest. Then, interactions could be predicted from a chart of qualitative compound metabolites and quantitative ratios based on fairly std doses. I don't have time to tackle it alone, but would be willing to take a portion of the assignment if Bobo saw fit to perform such a study. Or else we can just keep getting our enzymes checked and saying little prayers before we go off to another sleepless night.
07-19-2004, 01:20 AM
I wasn't basing my evaluation of M1T on its ability to pack on muscle, but the troubling results of bloodwork (SS, etc.). You are perfectly right that we have no idea of numbers or accurate estimates as to the relative toxicity of the metabolites.Originally Posted by Bobo
Indeed, it is better to err on the side of caution, especially when making general guidelines which anyone can come along and act upon them as though they were indisputable.
07-29-2004, 03:37 PM
Although enzymes do not necessarily tell the whole story. As it so happens, PA posted the following relevant article over at BB.com:Originally Posted by DR.D
For those who are interested, the thread is here:Title
Ultrastructural changes induced by anabolic steroids in liver of trained rats.
Gragera R; Saborido A; Molano F; Jimenez L; Muniz E; Megias A
Department of Cell Biology, Faculty of Biology, Complutensis University, Madrid, Spain.
Histology and histopathology, (1993 Jul) 8 (3) 449-55.
Journal code: 8609357. ISSN: 0213-3911.
The effects of anabolic steroid treatment in association with endurance training on biochemical serum parameters and liver ultrastructure have been investigated in male rats. Values of serum alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase and alkaline phosphatase were not significantly affected by administration of high doses of fluoxymesterone or methylandrostanolone. Electron microscopic examination of hepatic tissue from treated animals revealed ultrastructural alterations of hepatocytes. The most prominent changes were swelling of mitochondria, which presented electron-lucent matrix and slightly defined cristae, and a marked increase in the number of lysosomes. These changes were evident in both sedentary and trained treated rats, indicating that liver cell damage is produced by anabolic-androgenic steroids despite the simultaneous realization of physical exercise. The alterations observed were not detected by means of conventional biochemical liver tests.
09-01-2004, 03:06 PM
Sound like it turns into Nilevar. Hmmm, except Nilevar is 17a not 7a.whats 7a-methyl-19nordiol similar to?
If it is anything like Nilevar though I don't think it will be all that great:
09-01-2004, 09:49 PM
And of course we can preach this all day long, but those little pills are just too damn tempting to people looking to stay away from the needle, and they are going to suffer for it.Originally Posted by bioman
09-16-2004, 06:24 PM
Hey guys I really hate to bump this thread up since it seemed to go off in the wrong direction there but I have a concern for myself and for others about stacking M1t and M5.
Well first of all thanks for this thread i'm not personally going to stack these together. I did however order M5 in intentions of stacking it with M1T.
Why? Well read this description: http://customnutritionwarehouse.com/...products_id=29
(Mods please delete that link if that's not allowed)
This is why I thought it would be okay to use two methyl's together. Not much research involved there I admit , but it seemed to make sense. I was figuring at 10mg M1t ED and 10-20mg of M5 pre-workout, that would be safe enough. Though I retract my thoughts and agree it's just not worth gambling, it's harder to find a liver than it is to build muscle.Speaking of M1T, M5 can be stacked quite nicely with it. A unique property of M5 is that by stacking it with another anabolic such as M1T, one may be able to lower the dose of both M1T and M5, but still see synergistic effects (1+1=3).
Anyways, should someone maybe have that description changed on the website if that's absolutely wrong to do?
09-16-2004, 06:50 PM
your mind is in the right place, the muscle will come its not worth it if it feels risky. sometimes i think more people need to think that way.Originally Posted by StriKing_Cobra
09-16-2004, 10:50 PM
It's true though. Synergism is the whole argument for stacking methyls. If your taking a methyl that really works, why take another one at the same time? The point may not be to get greedy in wanting more muscle, but to actually be safer by being able to get the same effects with less of the more toxic one being used. If 1+1=3, you're really playing it smarter and getting a better deal, but if 1+1=2, then you don't have synergism and you could be taking a risk. The only way to find out is with educated choices, experimentation, and blood work values.Originally Posted by StriKing_Cobra
09-24-2004, 10:31 AM
i've shot up from 245lbs to 265lbs in a little over 2 wks on just 10mg ED on M1t, I don't think I need much more help.
If anyone does try stacking M1T and M5 , i'd like to see the results and how it worked and how safe it was.
09-25-2004, 01:29 PM
search for Beezlebub thread he combined the 2 i do believe
My Little Site about Hair Loss & Anabolics-
hair loss from steroids dot com
09-25-2004, 03:14 PM
Thanks for your help guys.
BTW hello i'm SC, forgot to introduce myself, though I know a few guys over hear.
PS Laurie Dhue is hot.....nice DSL's.
09-25-2004, 03:29 PM
Yes, and in 4 weeks you will be 247, most of your gains are water - trust me.Originally Posted by StriKing_Cobra
09-25-2004, 03:35 PM
I'm aware of this, this is the 3rd time i've cycled with M1t.
247lbs? I think you're wrong on that guess.
10-12-2004, 11:58 PM
thers no way only 2 lbs of that would be muscle. I went from 150 -165 on a 3 week cycle of m1t and ended up staying at the same BF, and leveled off at 163 at the end of PCT.
10-13-2004, 12:11 AM
i beleive stacking methyls is ok except m1t.i used 4-ad cyp with mohn 28mgs and m-dien 24mgs for 8 weeks.liver enzymes were checked after 8 weeks and they were normal(ast 26, alt 32). i used nac 1200mgs ed for liver protection.the last 4 weeks i used 20mgs of m1t and 1800mgs ed nac and r-ala 600mgs ed. another blood test confirmed that my liver enzymes were good (ast 31,alt 25)
10-14-2004, 11:58 AM
Ok so me and a few buds are going to dive into our first methyl cycles. Well for at least 2 of us it is a first go around. All of the guys in question here range in weight from 275-325lbs. I mention this because I want to know how much we need to take our weight into consideration with methyls.
In addition we are looking to do something on the more hardcore side. Some guys we know had some tremendous success with stacking M1T, Methyl dien, and M5AA. If I remember correctly each of them did 3-5mg per day of the Methyl dien, 20mg per day of the M5AA, and the M1T ranged from 15-30mgs per day. The guys who were on the higher end of the range on each had the best results but all received results.
Anyway I just wanted to get some feedback on that before I go ingesting the stuff. I respect all your opinions so I will take it all into consideration. Thanks
10-14-2004, 01:08 PM
I stacked 5mg of M1t and 20mg of M5 together one day and my workout was insane, I don't think i've ever experienced that sort of power surge in the 12 years i've been lifting.
That was just for a day though.
Dietrich, you guys are some big fella's but it's about your liver, not your weight. Ya know? I don't think your liver can just change sizes.
11-01-2004, 12:41 PM
Cobra, my boy and I were just talkin about the saftey of stacking M5 and M1T. He's 2 weeks into M1T/4AD and has M5 on hand. Are you planning on running the M5 through your M1T's full cycle?
11-01-2004, 12:43 PM
11-01-2004, 01:00 PM
I know it's not like apon at this forum but the reaction I had of taking half M1t and half M5 was amazing. I would only do such for a couple weeks MAX though.
At the beginning of my cycle I was 242lbs, I am just now wrapping up my post cycle and i'm sitting at 258-260lb area and have been for a few weeks now (no creatine).
I peaked at 265lbs.
My cycle was:
Week1-3 = M1T and 4AD Transdermal (last few days I added M5 and M1t both at half dosage)
Week3-6 = M5 ,1T/4AD Transdermal
Week6-9 = Nolvadex, Tribex 500, ZMA
11-15-2004, 10:10 PM
What's up SC, how's life?
So what dosage of M1T were you taking? That is some serious weight gain. Was it all clean?
11-16-2004, 08:19 AM
Whats up TP! How you been?
I was taking 10mg ED, 20mg ED for week 3-4, and 5mg ED the last few days. I am at a steady 258lbs right now, that's a 16lb difference from finish to end. Came down from a 265lb peak when I was ON cycle.
Was it clean, i'm sure some bodywater got tossed in the mix from the M1t but that's gone now , i'm leaner/harder/more vascular and lost an inch or two in the waist, so i'm assuming it was pretty much all clean.
Similar Forum Threads
- By kevinhy in forum AnabolicsReplies: 8Last Post: 09-24-2010, 05:21 PM
- By TeamSavage in forum AnabolicsReplies: 46Last Post: 10-23-2006, 05:16 PM
- By chris1381 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 19Last Post: 06-07-2004, 05:20 PM
- By toty in forum AnabolicsReplies: 7Last Post: 03-24-2004, 09:12 PM
- By frofan in forum AnabolicsReplies: 52Last Post: 01-01-2004, 12:51 PM