PH/DS vs AAS

[morata9]

Why ph or ds like epistane or trestolone are less used than the classic aas? I ask because on paper epistane and trestolone are much more powerful than steroids like winstrol, anavar, tren, test.

Androgenic / Anabolic Ratio:
epistane 19 --- 1100
trestolone 650 - 2300
anavar 24 - 322/630
winstrol 30-320
tren 500-500

 

[Bunshichi]

Are they? Are you sure?
For users of injectables I would say its simply because they can use one source. But for oral only users, I don't think designers are used less often.

 

[morata9]

Are they? Are you sure?
For users of injectables I would say its simply because they can use one source. But for oral only users, I don't think designers are used less often.

Oral are less used than injectables because I live in Italy

 

[Bunshichi]

Yeah well I thought you meant why the classic orals like winny, anavar etc are more used than the newer like epi and halo...

That injectables are used more makes sense, since the strong orals are all hepatotoxic, most injectables not. Therefor they can be used for longer cycles and in higher doses resulting in more gains with a less taxed body.

 

[mike33511]

How things look on paper doesn't always translate to real life. Take Tren, for example, it's 500:500, so that's only 1:1. Epistane is about 12:1. Epistane must be more effective, right? Yeah, not likely.

Some of the newer designer steroids are absolutely more effective than some of the old classic orals. These came into the market because they were legal in countries where the old stuff was illegal. In some countries, all steroids are legal, so there was really no reason for them to ever become popular.

 

[hazard12]

I wish steroid profiles had better ratings, or rather, more useful.

For example, Epistane has a rating of 1100:19, which I believe tells you 1mg of epistane is as anabolic as 19mg of testosterone and about as androgenic as 0.19mg of testosterone. This would make you think, HOLY **** JACKPOT. And although yes, epistane is wicked good, there are other factors that prevent it from shinning that way. For example, liver toxicity which actually affect 2 more direct variables to anabolism, cycle length and daily dosage. Epistane dosage reaches about 60mg/d TOPs for really advanced users. At this dose ud be taking 420mg/week, if we convert to test, thatd be about 4620mg/test a week...thats rather absurd. However, its not as crazy if we add up some of the advanced cycles some people carry out (over a g test, over a g bold or whatever plus an oral). So yeah, maybe epistane at high doses can give you about the anabolism test can and maybe even more...whats the next problem? Duration. If you ran test for 4 weeks (what that epi dosage would allow you), even at ridiculous dosages, you wont get much. Youll get a lot, but not as much as a 12-16wk cycle. So here the problem becomes evident, although epistane can achieve great anabolism, its short lived.

So the truth about anabolics in my opinion, is that they should have a TOTAL number. This number would take into account anabolic rating per unit of time and multiply it by the length of time that compound can be ran, at the dosages your body can deal with.

Now this would be a neat number and more usefull than what we got so far but there are yet other factors...for example, a damaged liver cant synthesize IGF-1 and synthesize proteins in general, the same way as if it was healthy (this is why extremely strong kickers sound stupid to me). So thats another blow the orals take.

We could go on and on about this and find more and more factors. Unfortunately, the numbers we usually come across only tell us the intro of the story...the plot gets MUCH thicker.

 

[hazard12]

If enough people are interested, I could try to come up with a list of values like the one im talking about based on recommended cycle length/dosage for various anabolics and also for the natural testosterone in a male. Then a better comparison would be possible between compounds and the relative anabolism of a cycle vs that of natural testosterone. This is a good amount of work so im only gonna do it if I see some interest.

 

[Bunshichi]

The adrogenic/anabolic ratio in itself is not that bad of a rating number in itself. The problem is that the numbers are all recorded in mice, not human. While you can not do such experiments in human because of ethics the ratio at least gives a small hinch of reality in human.

I agree that its not this number by itself that should be used to evaluate anabolics, even if it was generated in human, but in conjunction with some other numbers it would still only be somewhat accurate if it was generated in human.

 

[hazard12]

The adrogenic/anabolic ratio in itself is not that bad of a rating number in itself. The problem is that the numbers are all recorded in mice, not human. While you can not do such experiments in human because of ethics the ratio at least gives a small hinch of reality in human.

I agree that its not this number by itself that should be used to evaluate anabolics, even if it was generated in human, but in conjunction with some other numbers it would still only be somewhat accurate if it was generated in human.

Yup, thats yet another issue with these numbers. Although, I dont like the androgenic rating, id rather have a "side effects" rating. A lot of people use it as a side effect number and thats far from the truth...Most of the dangers of AAS/PH/DS arent through androgenicity, this number means more to women than men as far as side effects go in my opinion. I feel like an estrogen rating would also be usefull for men (and women?).

 

[Bunshichi]

Yeah. Absolutely. Its not without reason some of the really androgenic compounds are incredible nice, like Mestanolone or Fluoxymesterone. Especially with the latter a toxicity rating would be a good addition.