designer steroids article (lets try again)
- 08-26-2008, 10:01 AM
designer steroids article (lets try again)
PLEASE don't delete this thread right away. Lets ee if we can discuss this article. Not religion, not even evolution, none of that. Nobody cares what each of us believe in so just understand nobody can win that argument and nobody is going to change anybody's mind.
To article...i really liked it, had some cool ideas and had some obvious stuff in there that I am sure already a lot of knew. But one thing struck me that I thought was very interesting. When the chemist said:
CK: The $18-billion dollar dietary supplement industry in America includes off-the-shelf prohormones. Any comments?
JT: Prohormones are a joke. Prohormones are a slightly altered form of testosterone or other true designer steroids; i.e, one or more bonds are changed. The manufacturers suggest that, once inside the body, these compounds will convert to active testosterone. Although, theoretically possible, the human body doesn't follow this agenda. In fact, far less than one percent of the ingested dose actually converts to testosterone. And this number is for the "best" prohormones such as the one Mark McGuire was using. Scientists are skeptical that such a low increase in serum testosterone levels would cause any increase in muscle size or performance. Bottom line is they don't work. However, I am speaking about the anabolic properties. The reason some prohormones are being banned (with others soon to follow) is because they still have negative side effects This is because the compound is similar enough in chemical structure to testosterone that they bind to both the androgen and aromatase receptors causing the side effects typical of testosterone: acne, balding, aggression, bloating, etc. Prohormones essentially give you all the negative effects with none of the anabolic effects — all for a price comparable to that of true steroids. The reporter who broke the story should have looked deeper inside McGuire's locker.
Any thoughts? And PLEASE keep this to the article. Otherwise I am sure this will just get locked again...we can have a seperate thread for neverending arguments
Edit: This is discussion of the DESIGNER STEROIDS: SPEEDING EVOLUTION (AND FILLING STADIUM SEATS for those who are confused.
- 08-26-2008, 04:59 PM
08-26-2008, 05:13 PM
08-26-2008, 05:37 PM
there has to be some variable. i did a cycle of m-drol and epi back in december and my bench literally shot up 50 lbs in two weeks. no real side effects either other than lethargy. my diet didn't change from how it was pre-cycle. so something has to work about them.
08-26-2008, 05:47 PM
08-26-2008, 05:58 PM
Anyone that makes reference to Mark McGuire and andro cannot be taken too seriously. Not to mention that this "interview" sounds like it is very old.
08-26-2008, 06:00 PM
They are going to base it off some lab tests. But no way all these products who people getting such great results are having the same effect as a sugar pill. I know for a fact if a pulse cycle epi for 8 weeks it WILL have an effect on me, not maybe....If I use it normally, it will have an even more profound effect on me.
Has anyone looked into the new supplementation being experimented where it actually attacks part of the DNA and either inhibits or destroys the gene that limits muscle growth?
I will look up the article about it so I can get what its called and find some articles on the net. Its what I guess is supposed to be the next level up from steroids. Kinda relates to the whole steroid phenomena.
I got the link to the article still, I left it up. Too good of a read.
DESIGNER STEROIDS: SPEEDING EVOLUTION (AND FILLING STADIUM SEATS)
08-26-2008, 07:17 PM
08-26-2008, 08:57 PM
I don't know jack about organic or biochem. I hate to break it to you but his comments are not genius. I don't even know who he is but it is common knowledge that Androstenedione is ridiculous.
Androstenedione (4-androsten-3, 17-dione) has a target conversion to testosterone of about 6% and that is after an oral availability (oral absorption) of probably less than 10%.
So taking 1g of Androstenedione will result in 100mg being absorbed and them 6mg converting to testosterone. I am no genius either. Prohormones, especially Androstenedione, 19-Norandrostenedione, Androstenediol and Norandrostenediol (btw - the diols have a target conversion of about a whopping 15% after absorption) are indeed junk. They do have undecipherable anabolic properties inherent but a tremendous amount of aromatization when dosed high enough to get sufficient target hormone levels.
What you have on the market today are not prohormones. They are active steroids and most consumers have no idea the difference or what they are taking for that matter.
08-26-2008, 09:05 PM
I'm in on this one just for the information as I've always been a bit skeptical of over the counter testosterone boosters or whatever you may call them.
08-26-2008, 11:50 PM
08-27-2008, 11:28 AM
If you read the entire article it seems pretty obvious to me he was referring to Androstenedione - which is well known for not being too effective - especially by referencing Mark McGuire. He was knowledgable enough about legit steroids to give him some credibility.
If he wasn't, then he definitely needs to check out what are currently stocked on shelves because SD and PP are legit.
Although, he seemed to downplay Tren - which I think most people would consider to be the Holy Grail when combined with test.
09-06-2008, 06:54 PM
Health News on Yahoo! Health
Le Magazine, December 2007 - Cover: The Textbook Of Bio-Identical Hormones
Testosteroneâ€™S Overlooked Role In The Treatment Of Diabetes In Men
they spent years telling us how bad steroids were. nasty side effects, very little gains, etc. now that everyone knows they're full of SH1T, they focus on the PH battle, because they already lost the steroid one. remember that a society that is docile, and needs the help of pharmacies in order to run their daily life, is a society that is easily controlled.
take oxycontin as another example. perdue pharmacy managed to make it tamper proof in the late 1990's. then they realized they couldn't get as many sales as they needed (because addicts couldn't abuse it), so they changed the time release to create the drug epidemic that we have today. meanwhile, there's nobody telling them to make it the way they used to, and perdue couldn't care less. meanwhile we give them billions of dollars to spend on altering federal policies in their favor.
how can we honestly still believe that pharmacies or the chemists that work for them have the american people's interest at heart? if they did, they would have asked for the government to subsidize their research on the HPV vaccine, or the HIV drug coctail. maybe they'd lower the cost if it would save lives. i wish i still had the link for what i read, but i distinctly remember reading that the cost of medication for obscure diseases has risen by, on average, 500% in the last two years. they claim it was because "manufacturing costs went up". here's the quote:
Many of the drugs are used to treat rare ailments, such as Ovation Pharmaceuticals' Cosmegen, which is prescribed exclusively to children with rare kidney cancer. The company raised the drugs' price more than 3,400 percent in 2006 to $593.75 from just $16.79.
link is: Drug companies increase cost of medications at a faster rate
i'm awaiting the "negged" firestorm about to come my way.
09-06-2008, 07:52 PM
09-06-2008, 08:04 PM
The drug companies are the biggest crooks in America - I think they have even taken first over insurance companies. Take something like Weed for example. If Merc could figure out a way to Patent it, Weed would be legal this time next year and everyone would be smoking it.
09-06-2008, 08:39 PM
The title of your thread suggests that your post is about Designer STeroids. However, the first post is about so-called "prohormones." None of the shyt popular today is a prohormone. You should rename your thread so you don't confuse people. (which it looks like you managed to do given the posts thus far - although a few posts made this fact clear.)
Designer steroids work.
09-07-2008, 09:06 AM
THe title of the thread was from an online article. It is posted in one of the first few posts. It is just a discussion of an article.
09-07-2008, 10:43 AM
09-12-2008, 07:46 PM
If you're gonna take steroids anyways just take the real stuff. Don't assume prohormones or whatever will have the same effect.
09-12-2008, 08:43 PM
that guy isn't a genius, he's an idiot and doesn't know what hes talking about
totally wrong, there are a good number of compounds stronger than testosterone.There isn't an anabolic steroid out there that is better than testosterone. The body has had all this time to make this "perfect" anabolic agent, this "perfect" muscle builder. Right now, no scientist has made anything stronger.
theres a number that dont aromatize availableSteroid chemists are trying to create a drug that doesn't convert to estrogen because estrogen has side effects that you see in women who take birth control: water retention, fat gain, and most spectacular: gynecomastia or development of breast tissue in men.
i could go on, but thats enough for me to prove he's an idiot
09-13-2008, 10:00 AM
I was going to say a lot of things mentioned in that article didnt make sense to me from all the reading I have done...but I can't argue with his credentials. Maybe he just simply isnt informed on whats out there now.
09-13-2008, 10:43 AM
Out there now? czech drops as have been around a long time. Oral Turinabol has been around forever and it doesnt aromatize and is stronger than testosterone mg for mg. So far as i'm concerned all his credentials prove is how little some credentials are really worth in terms of usable knowledge.
09-13-2008, 11:40 AM
09-14-2008, 10:37 AM
09-14-2008, 10:35 PM
Umm, I really can not see why this would be up for any type of sensible discussion?
There really isn't any article to discuss besides discussing if this guy is as mixed up as a mut dog.
Where did this article first appear?
---The internet is the father of the electronic lynch-mob---
09-14-2008, 10:53 PM
wow what idiot was this being interviewed???? I guess the only change in my routine diet and supplementation being a PH cant possibly be an explination for a 10-20lb gain in as short as 4 weeks
This is a really lame article, maybe if this doctor ever touched a weight hed know what he's talking bout.
10-09-2008, 05:59 PM
Running Prop and Hdrol and in my 4th week. Starting wgt
195- im now at 209. BF dropped 2% from 12 to 10. Cal's are between 3-3200 a day and protein is just a tad over 300.
100 mg of H and 300 of Prop-
i will admit that this is not the same as AAS or the old PH but for clones, I cant complain. You just have to wait a little longer for it to kick in.
all areas have gone up- wont bore anyone with that because as you can tell, im small and blue
Similar Forum Threads
- By rombusempire in forum AnabolicsReplies: 45Last Post: 09-27-2010, 11:52 AM
- By whirlwind in forum AnabolicsReplies: 2Last Post: 01-13-2010, 12:37 PM
- By mj34 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 58Last Post: 01-02-2009, 11:27 AM
- By Highlanda01602 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 37Last Post: 05-17-2006, 07:27 AM
- By drei in forum AnabolicsReplies: 0Last Post: 12-07-2003, 10:45 AM