M-Drol not as strong muscle building chemical compound as original AX Superdrol?
- 11-10-2007, 06:16 PM
- 11-10-2007, 06:22 PM
There is no correlation between SNS and Competitive Edge Labs outside of my friendship with the owner. The owner of Comp Edge lives in the same area as I do and have known him for years. I actually introduced him to the person that he bought Competitive Edge Labs from (he is the second owner).
I was friends with him before SNS ever started. We will most likely compete with each other in the future on some items, but at the end of the day, we will still be friends.
Hope that clears that up for anyone wondering.
Wanted to edit for clarification - the owner of Competitive Edge is not the person that posts here for them; just didnt want any public correspondence between him and I to confuse anyone.
- 11-10-2007, 07:01 PM
But, what I wanted to know is this: Is MDrol actually a superdrol clone that is mislabeled, or is it the 5b isomer as the ingredient label on the back of the bottle suggests it is?
11-10-2007, 07:07 PM
11-10-2007, 07:13 PM
I assumed that's what he was talking about.
11-11-2007, 10:18 AM
11-11-2007, 12:56 PM
11-11-2007, 01:34 PM
11-11-2007, 01:51 PM
11-11-2007, 03:46 PM
11-11-2007, 05:04 PM
- 5'10" 205 lbs.
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Rep Power
soooooo then basically half of product labels have typos
11-11-2007, 06:44 PM
I still have a bottle of the VERY first run of designer supps superdrol. How does it compare to the AX SD or the others? It seems like alot of the old logs I have read about the original designer supps version don't report NEARLY the sides of the newer versions.
11-11-2007, 10:01 PM
Now maybe I just don't understand who makes these COAs, but why would the COA show that it tested for 99+% purity of the etiocholan if it indeed was the etioallocholan? I'm just confused.
Last edited by rpen22; 11-11-2007 at 10:05 PM. Reason: added COA
11-12-2007, 01:06 AM
IMHO if this was the 5b version of superdrol then the GC/MS data would not have matched because IMHO the steric strain of the 5b version would have resulted in a different fragmentation pattern in the MS. In addition, the only plausible "known standard" would be superdrol since, as was mentioned by Sldge on BB.com, the 5b isomer makes no sense and therefore would have probalby never existed in Alston Sykes reference database.
So, I'd say that everyone just took etiocholan to be the equivalent of etioallocholan, including Alston Sykes. Just because someone is an analytic chemist doesn't mean they know all the nomenclature, especially when its the not-so-conventional nomenclature being used. I'm pretty confident its a superdrol clone at this point.
Last edited by kwyckemynd00; 11-12-2007 at 02:22 PM.
11-12-2007, 02:56 AM
11-12-2007, 06:06 AM
- 5'10" 205 lbs.
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Rep Power
so we've all been victims of typos, but not of incorrect chemicals
11-12-2007, 07:11 AM
I'm wondering if there printing 5b so that if the feds come in and say "you knowingly produced anabolic extreme's superdrol which was to be ceased and recalled", then they could say "no, look its not the same it's 5b instead of 5a."
11-12-2007, 02:23 PM
11-12-2007, 06:29 PM
It is a very real possibility that in us naming it that way, that Competitive Edge Labs may have simply followed suit and grabbed the labeling of the way we named ours and went from there. It really wouldnt be a fault of theirs if they did because everyone openly acknowledged that ours was identical to SD and no one questioned it. Irregardless of the naming of the compound, it is widely accepted that Methyl Drol = Superdrol and Competitive Edge Labs has third party testing showing that M-Drol = Methyl Drol.
11-12-2007, 06:36 PM
11-12-2007, 06:37 PM
11-12-2007, 09:02 PM
Someone at the beginning of the thread said that they had a few bottles of H-drol. I gained about 6 pounds, dropped 1 or 2% bodyfat, and had relatively negligible sides. It was a great product.
11-12-2007, 09:10 PM
It wasnt any fault of CEL's at all; it was more like an original oversight on our part in that we were the ones that started labeling it that way. Methyl Drol was a Superdrol clone, M-Drol is a Superdrol clone.
Congrats off the H-Drol gains.
11-12-2007, 09:44 PM
I'm a bit slow so bear with me. So the COA states that CEL M-drol is the same compound as SNS Methyl Drol, correct?
What was the standard for the P-plex and H-drol COA to compare to? Is it possible that those got crossed up as well somewhere along the line? All this crossing up is confusing Please forgive the undertones as my intentions are to be an informed consumer. As I said before, the CEL clone worked well for me but I still have a desire to fully understand.
Edit: I think maybe I AM misuderstanding as Kwick posted that there's a known standard.
11-12-2007, 10:15 PM
COA stands for Certificate of Analysis. They are generally provided from a raw material vendor selling the raw material which makes them generally worthless.
Independant lab tests are done by 3rd party labs. They are what are relevent here in this case.
When we (SNS) released Methyl Drol, we had independant lab tests done to show that Methyl Drol was identical to Superdrol. AX also confirmed that Methyl Drol was identical to Superdrol. CEL has independant lab tests done to show that M-Drol is identical to Methyl Drol meaning that it is identical to Superdrol. I hope that puts that part to rest.
The debate as to the b isomer on the Superdrol compound seems to have started with Methyl Drol. We labeled it by the technical name that we did because we were told that was the correct 'technical' name of the compound. In fact, that seems to be wrong and we should have never labeled it by the B isomer. CEL as well as other companies followed suit as we were regarded as having a product identical to SD.
This would not apply to H-Drol because there is a clear standard of purity for that compound and CEL has presented an independant lab test confirming that it is what it is supposed to be.
For P-Plex, there is a clear standard as well. That compound clearly has two isomers, an a and a b isomer. Not only does CEL's independant lab tests confirm that the compound is pure, it confirms the percentage of A and B isomers present.
To summarize the whole mess with M-Drol:
CEL copied the name used on Methyl Drol (as did many other companies). The real issue that caused this was we were told to put the wrong name on there as the technical name.
Right compound, marketing correctly, wrong isomer stated on the name.
11-12-2007, 10:23 PM
Just a note to everyone, not all of the a(alpha) and b(beta) isomers cannot be directly correlated to the 5a-androstane vs. 5b-androstane! The 5a-androstane vs 5b-androstane is pretty unique because of how those refer to differences in the shape of the steroid backbone. It literally means the A ring of the steroid is pointing down.
In contrast, the 2a,3a-epithio group in Epistane couldn't be necessarily be considered more potent than the 2b,3b-epithio isomer in the same manner we can determine 5a to be more potent than 5b androstanes because its referring to constituents ON the ring, not the shape of the actual steroid ring itself.
Moral of the story, don't get it stuck in your head that alpha is greater than beta for these hormones, because that only "really" applies with regards to the 5a-androstane ring vs. the 5b-androstane ring in the general sense.
11-12-2007, 10:53 PM
11-13-2007, 10:19 AM
How hard would it be to correct the labels?
1. Its never too late.
2. Id say it is very important.
3. Me and people like me are not going to be 99 percent reassured unless CEL AT LEAST corrects the labels.
No offence, I am not trying to start a flame war here.... I simply own a couple bottles of M-Drol and I would never take it if it was a less effective clone (and if it is 94-100 percent identical to AX superdrol, then it should work just as well/be just as effective.
I am going to try it out... and the cycle I do with it should be a shock to my system... because it has been at least a good year since I did a cycle. And at that, I only did about 2 small cycles... so this will be the 3rd.
Not that anyone cares.. im just putting my 2 cents in... if I dont feel it is at least almost as effective as original AX superdrol, then I just wont believe what was said.
And let me say this... I think I am going to be pretty happy with the results... 76 good reviews IN A ROW at bulk nutrition .com!
I might pm my isomer question to Big Cat over at the BB.com forums... BUT THE OTHER DAY MY APPT. GOT ROBBED AND SOME1 STOLE EVERYTHING... YES, MY PC TOO...
So if you guys dont hear from me for awhile you'll know why. (Im on my cousin's PC at the moment of this post).
11-13-2007, 12:00 PM
Now, to address your questions:
How hard is it to change labels - well for us, being that we dont make Methyl Drol anymore, pretty damn hard, wouldnt you say? For CEL, I think that in light of this, they may do so, but ya know, its been what, all of 2 days since this got figured out? Labels do happen to cost alot of money to run and they do take time to run them.
The importance of it is there, but at the same time you know what you are taking, it was marketed correctly, and also they provided proof that their product is identical to Methyl Drol which in turn makes it identical to Superdrol.
As for you not being 99 percent sure until they correct the labels, heres where the flaw in your logic lies. They used what they thought was the technical name and they took the time to have their products lab tested at RTP to confirm the quality of them. You know what you are taking, its a stated fact. On the other hand, they could have chosen not to test the product and named it whatever the hell they wanted to on the label - so you are telling me that a correct label means something? Look at the M1,4ADD stuff that just happened. Not to pick on BCS, but their bottle was labeled properly and it didnt contain what it was supposed to.
As far as you believing what was said, sorry if you dont choose to believe something, thats your right; but what was stated was a fact. I think its very clear how it happened and that most everyone agrees thats how it happened.
As for you pm'ing BC about the isomer issue, Sledge addressed it already and no disrespect to BC, but I think Sledge is probably the most knowledgable person there is on that. The b isomer technically doesnt even exist and isnt available on the raw material side of this industry.
Hope that helps clarify things further.
11-13-2007, 12:15 PM
11-13-2007, 01:23 PM
You said "I cant speak for CEL", well, CEL is the compny I really wanted to hear from, because the product I own is M-Drol.
So to address your reply, If I think M-Drol is bogus, that is my opinion... Nobody on this whole darn forum has to agree with me... I dont care if they disagree, and im not going to push it, either. But you cant change my opinion... and I cant change yours... and that's my 2 cents.
11-13-2007, 01:35 PM
Lukass - you quoted my post and expected someone other than me to reply? I think that is where we may have gotten off base a little.
CEL has posted proof in various places what their product is. Where things got off base is that they labeled it wrong and they did so because they followed the example that we at SNS had set. I spoke up taking responsibility for the original error because I was told that was the 'technical' way to state the compound name.
As for me knowing I'm write and my opinion, I stated the facts on the issue. The fact is that Methyl Drol was identical to Superdrol as proven by independant lab tests and confirmed by AX themselves. It has then been independantly proven that M-Drol is identical to Methyl Drol.
To summarize things:
- Superdrol = Methyl Drol = M-Drol; proven by third party testing
- Labeling issue was created because originally we were told the wrong thing as to how to label the compound; Everyone openly acknowledged that Methyl Drol and superdrol were identical so other companies including CEL logically concluded that we had labeled it right.
- There seems to not even be a 5b in existence. Sledge explained this elsewhere.
BTW... you have every right to your opinion. It just seems that there is no pleasing you on this issue even when stated with the facts of the situation.
11-13-2007, 04:29 PM
11-13-2007, 08:53 PM
- 5'10" 205 lbs.
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Rep Power
true story, i've only taken sns methyl-drol so far as a superdrol (as a pulse) and saw noticeable difference in just 3 20mg pulse workout days. a good 1.5 lbs for the week each of 3 weeks I did that.
11-13-2007, 09:24 PM
11-14-2007, 09:51 AM
11-14-2007, 09:54 AM
Look at the top of the page. I posted the link and Kwyck quoted it in the first reply of this page.
11-14-2007, 10:55 AM
Oh it's the one at the BB.com forum... OK I already read it. I forgot that his name was'nt Sledge, it's Slge or something short for it like that.
I just want to say that they sell 2a,17a di methyl etiocholan 3-one, 17b-ol (5b isomer) at a couple online sciencelab chemical suppliers. Did'nt mention anything about being anabolic.
So SNS and thereafter CEL got the labels confused and made a mistake. OK. They're 100 percent valid/legit.
But if we asked a newer clone company, I'll use I-Force as an example..
are THEY actually buying etioallocholane(5a)and calling it etiocholan(5b) by accident? I personally think it is very possible that they actually use etiocholan, since it is available, and everyone (I-Force for example) thinks that it is the good stuff anyway Due to some mistakes from SNS or whoever ... so therefore... the newer clones may actually be using etiocholan.
Think about it.
11-14-2007, 01:37 PM
11-14-2007, 01:43 PM
Similar Forum Threads
- By foland in forum SupplementsReplies: 26Last Post: 05-26-2010, 01:29 PM
- By WannaGro in forum Training ForumReplies: 0Last Post: 07-05-2005, 11:52 AM
- By firebird in forum Training ForumReplies: 5Last Post: 06-15-2005, 05:45 PM
- By chi_town in forum Weight LossReplies: 2Last Post: 05-22-2003, 02:32 PM
- By Carl Willingham in forum Weight LossReplies: 0Last Post: 02-26-2003, 04:03 PM