Where's All the Non-Methyl's?

zootreeves

zootreeves

New member
Awards
0
I'm not sure if this topic has been discussed before, apologies if it has.

Pre Ban 2005 pro hormones seem to come in all sorts of delivery systems cyclodextrins, transdermal, ether-gels and even sterile vials for injection (although of course they were advertised as orals).

It seems nowadays the new generation of PH's only only come 17 alpha-alkylated. Personally (I don't have any experience with other methods) but this seems like the worst method possible. Why make the product more harmful than it already? Don't they have enough sides as it is without all that extra liver toxicity?

Possible reasons it thought why..

1) I've read that the FDA doesn't like companies selling transdermals and certainly not injectables. Are the new companies trying to avoid another ban?

2) Supplement companies really don't give a Sh*t about the health of their users. They know people will buy their product if it works and they know a lot of their market is un-educated about the possible side effects.

3) People won't pay the extra cost. I know HPCD for cyclodextrins are expensive, but surely transdermal costs warrant the extra benefit?

4) Todays Pro-Steroids/PH's are only potent enough when they are methylated. I understand Methylating some compounds can make them stronger (e.g. M1T compared to 1-T). Are todays PH's simply not strong enough without the the methyl group?​

I'm not saying that companies shouldn't sell methyl's, but it would be really nice to see some alternatives. I'm sure some others would agree?

Wouldn't it be really nice to run a Epistane cycle 6 Weeks+ transdermal without worrying about your liver? Or Having a superdrol cyclo as a pre workout stim?

I know there are a few board Reps who make some current PH's, i'd be interested in seeing your take on this.
 
EctoPower

EctoPower

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
I'm not sure if this topic has been discussed before, apologies if it has.

Pre Ban 2005 pro hormones seem to come in all sorts of delivery systems cyclodextrins, transdermal, ether-gels and even sterile vials for injection (although of course they were advertised as orals).

It seems nowadays the new generation of PH's only only come 17 alpha-alkylated. Personally (I don't have any experience with other methods) but this seems like the worst method possible. Why make the product more harmful than it already? Don't they have enough sides as it is without all that extra liver toxicity?

Possible reasons it thought why..

1) I've read that the FDA doesn't like companies selling transdermals and certainly not injectables. Are the new companies trying to avoid another ban?

2) Supplement companies really don't give a Sh*t about the health of their users. They know people will buy their product if it works and they know a lot of their market is un-educated about the possible side effects.

3) People won't pay the extra cost. I know HPCD for cyclodextrins are expensive, but surely transdermal costs warrant the extra benefit?

4) Todays Pro-Steroids/PH's are only potent enough when they are methylated. I understand Methylating some compounds can make them stronger (e.g. M1T compared to 1-T). Are todays PH's simply not strong enough without the the methyl group?​

I'm not saying that companies shouldn't sell methyl's, but it would be really nice to see some alternatives. I'm sure some others would agree?

Wouldn't it be really nice to run a Epistane cycle 6 Weeks+ transdermal without worrying about your liver? Or Having a superdrol cyclo as a pre workout stim?

I know there are a few board Reps who make some current PH's, i'd be interested in seeing your take on this.
I'm not "in the business," so I can't say for sure. But Number 1 sounds right. And as a consumer, I bet Number 2 has some truth to it as well. Though I'll add to that one that if there are methylated PH out there that everyone buys, then they need to buy something else to protect their liver, right? It creates another product line to sell. And for Number 3, cost may be an issue, but convenience is too. As a society, we're all much more inclined to pop a pill than do the transdermal dance. It's just easier.

Not saying it's right, but that's my take on it.

Good questions! I'm interested to see what others think.
 
Rodja

Rodja

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Transdermal delivery is also not covered by DSHEA.
 
zootreeves

zootreeves

New member
Awards
0
if there are methylated PH out there that everyone buys, then they need to buy something else to protect their liver, right?
Interesting point, i had not thought of that.

Theres still a couple non-methlys on the market
Yeah i know there is a few (overpriced) orals, but i was more talking about alternate delivery systems rather than oral

Transdermal delivery is also not covered by DSHEA.
I haven't done any research on this. But if it was introduced in 1994, how come companies where able to produce transdermals in 2005? or was it ammended?
 
Rodja

Rodja

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I haven't done any research on this. But if it was introduced in 1994, how come companies where able to produce transdermals in 2005? or was it ammended?
I can't remember the exact reason, but I know that a transdermal system can be a parameter to classifying a supplement as a drug.
 
Rodja

Rodja

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
How does Avant sell napalm then?
Hormones and NH supplements fall into different categories. Avant got out of the hormonal biz after the FDA requested them to cease production.
 
fatsuperman

fatsuperman

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
good thread....

We should all start to worry about the liver damage all these 17a compounds are doing and ask "Are there other delivery methods?"

It seems likes some company could introduce a non methylated compound that is in capsule, but is more suited for (wink wink) TD use to avoid FDA scrutiny.

I think orals are just an easier sell to the injection averse, "TD's are a hassle" crowd.

btw: this sure beats the "my 1st (insert sd clone) cycle " threads that dominate this forum anymore
 
sweet-physique

sweet-physique

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
good thread....

We should all start to worry about the liver damage all these 17a compounds are doing and ask "Are there other delivery methods?"

It seems likes some company could introduce a non methylated compound that is in capsule, but is more suited for (wink wink) TD use to avoid FDA scrutiny.

I think orals are just an easier sell to the injection averse, "TD's are a hassle" crowd.

btw: this sure beats the "my 1st (insert superdrol clone) cycle " threads that dominate this forum anymore
This board actual started as a discusion forum on compounding raw powders into transdermal recipes and injectable coversions from what at the time were legal prohormone bulk powder sources and bovine implant sources.

guys like chemo and curt-to-go.

anyone remember those days?
 
eatingisfun

eatingisfun

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
I think the main reason that's mostly what there is for sale is because that's all the Chinese sell. Most of the companies just buy raw powders from China and package it without even testing it. If it's mostly methylated products that they can buy then that's what they'll sell and people will still buy it. There's probably not much pressure on the suppliers to come up with anything else because they methylated PS are cheap to produce.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
many non methyls are available in the UK + europe..
 

Similar threads


Top