hushdrops
New member
- Awards
- 0
One thing that has confused me is the way Author L. Rea gives MOHN credit as the "best pro-steroid" ever created (whcih is saying alot, meaning MOHN is better than M-Dien, 1-Test, etc.) and most everyone on all of the message boards seem to resepct's Author L. Rea's opinion quite a bit.
What I'm confused by is if you read wht the moajroity of people that have used MOHN (even after raising the original doseage which was too low when MOHN was first instroduced) -most MOHN users state that it did very little for them with many lifters saying that it did "nothing" at all for them.
So the general consunses on MOHN (as well as M-Deien) is that it does NOT work very well. This real wqorld beliefe sharply contrasts the steament made by Author L. Rea on MOHN (see the original ErgoMax ads, it's still avialbnle on many store sites now that E...Max has been released).
How can the "favorite" pro-steroid of someone like Author L. Rea be so "low on the totem" pole compared to other pro-steroids when it comes to the "real world" opinoins / experiences of so many people that have actually used MOHN?
Either MOHN is being "underrated" by most of the board memebrs or it could be questioned as to why Author L. Rea makes such wonderful claims about MOHN when everyone doens't seem to agree?
I know some people have stocked up on MOHN & M-Dien and I HOPE that they are much better than what everyone has given them credit for and I also hope tht since Author L. Rea seems to "know what eh's tlaking about" that MOHN is also better than what it's reputation holds.
Why are we not seeing all osrts of postive posts on MOHN such as like with ErgoMax, Superdrol and the like? Most posts slam MOHN but yet those same people would agree that Author L. Rea "knows what eh's talking about"? It just doens't match up, that's all I'm getting at.
Anyone care to comment on maybe expalining how MOHN could be Author L. Rea's favorite Pro-Steroid (at least up until the ban when the ErgoMax ad was written) when it doesn't seem to hold a candle to any other cometing products according to the real world posters and users on the boards?
-Thanks (below is some of the text pasted from the ErgoMax ad in case some readers haven't read this before)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the ErgoMax advertisement by Author L. Rea:
One of my all time favorite prosteroids was commonly referred to in supplement circles as MOHN. Many of the more science-oriented lads knew of it by its chemical name 17aa-4-hydroxynandrolone. Here at ALRI we once we able to legally offer this amazing anabolic as a sterile oral product called Var, and many will recall it with muscular fondness as the well known product Oxanavar from our once sister company HM Gear. What was there not to love? It was as effective milligram for milligram as prescription anabolic steroid Oxandrolone (Also known under the trade name Anavar) and was well known for very few potential side effects!
What I'm confused by is if you read wht the moajroity of people that have used MOHN (even after raising the original doseage which was too low when MOHN was first instroduced) -most MOHN users state that it did very little for them with many lifters saying that it did "nothing" at all for them.
So the general consunses on MOHN (as well as M-Deien) is that it does NOT work very well. This real wqorld beliefe sharply contrasts the steament made by Author L. Rea on MOHN (see the original ErgoMax ads, it's still avialbnle on many store sites now that E...Max has been released).
How can the "favorite" pro-steroid of someone like Author L. Rea be so "low on the totem" pole compared to other pro-steroids when it comes to the "real world" opinoins / experiences of so many people that have actually used MOHN?
Either MOHN is being "underrated" by most of the board memebrs or it could be questioned as to why Author L. Rea makes such wonderful claims about MOHN when everyone doens't seem to agree?
I know some people have stocked up on MOHN & M-Dien and I HOPE that they are much better than what everyone has given them credit for and I also hope tht since Author L. Rea seems to "know what eh's tlaking about" that MOHN is also better than what it's reputation holds.
Why are we not seeing all osrts of postive posts on MOHN such as like with ErgoMax, Superdrol and the like? Most posts slam MOHN but yet those same people would agree that Author L. Rea "knows what eh's talking about"? It just doens't match up, that's all I'm getting at.
Anyone care to comment on maybe expalining how MOHN could be Author L. Rea's favorite Pro-Steroid (at least up until the ban when the ErgoMax ad was written) when it doesn't seem to hold a candle to any other cometing products according to the real world posters and users on the boards?
-Thanks (below is some of the text pasted from the ErgoMax ad in case some readers haven't read this before)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the ErgoMax advertisement by Author L. Rea:
One of my all time favorite prosteroids was commonly referred to in supplement circles as MOHN. Many of the more science-oriented lads knew of it by its chemical name 17aa-4-hydroxynandrolone. Here at ALRI we once we able to legally offer this amazing anabolic as a sterile oral product called Var, and many will recall it with muscular fondness as the well known product Oxanavar from our once sister company HM Gear. What was there not to love? It was as effective milligram for milligram as prescription anabolic steroid Oxandrolone (Also known under the trade name Anavar) and was well known for very few potential side effects!