Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

M-Drol not as strong muscle building chemical compound as original AX Superdrol?

Well fwiw the CEL guy is fully aware of this thread. So either they are preparing a statement or just choosing not to respond...
 
kwyckemynd00 said:
If people report it working, it's worth taking at $19.99. That's a good deal. But, if they're advertising it as Superdrol IMHO they should either stop advertising it or fix it. Maybe they just didn't know 5a is really differenat than 5b, who knows?
Click to expand...

That's true too, they might not even know.
 
hmm thats interesting, and alot of pple seem to swear it's the same as the original... I ran the original solo about 1.5 years and worked up to 30mg, and no stack or doseage of anything i have run since comes anywhere near that stuff
 
Lukass said:
... I may up the dosage by 10-20 mg, so I might end up taking 40 mg or even more because I really want 6lbs out of it!
Click to expand...

Just remember that yes it may be a different compound than the original,but that dose will probably destroy your lipid profile.
 
TripDog said:
Just remember that yes it may be a different compound than the original,but that dose will probably destroy your lipid profile.
Click to expand...

Yea I wont go higher than 30. Im a heavy guy though... I needed about 40 AX SD (towards the end of the cycle).

Hey have you took M-Drol?

If so... did you gain off it? (And was it definitely the M-Drol?)

The reason I ask is because I thought I saw a post in Dr.D's section, from you, saying you did a M-Drol pulse cycle.

I probly confused you with some1 else though.
 
Lukass said:
Yea I wont go higher than 30. Im a heavy guy though... I needed about 40 AX superdrol (towards the end of the cycle).

Hey have you took M-Drol?

If so... did you gain off it? (And was it definitely the M-Drol?)

The reason I ask is because I thought I saw a post in Dr.D's section, from you, saying you did a M-Drol pulse cycle.

I probly confused you with some1 else though.
Click to expand...

No i haven't used m-drol. I pulsed the orig AX before. I doubt i will ever run a straight superdrol cycle,as it's just to toxic for my liking. I have a few bottles of the AX,and M-drol,and a methyl dx3. I will run a pulse with my next test/eq cycle rather that the 3-4 week frontload.
 
Movin_weight said:
hmm thats interesting, and alot of pple seem to swear it's the same as the original... I ran the original solo about 1.5 years and worked up to 30mg, and no stack or doseage of anything i have run since comes anywhere near that stuff
Click to expand...
If the compound is what the label claims it is, and what the results of Alston Sykes purity test confirm, then its definitely different than the original superdrol.

Most people claim its the same because the nomenclature is almost identical, and it was advertised as an SD clone. I didn't notice until someone pointed it out to me. Now that I looked at it though, the label is stating its a different substance than the original SD.
 
Just a heads up..the BCI powerdrol gave me ALMOST the same results on a 3 week..20mg a day cycle...i'm 215lb's so i think i dosed it low enough to where i didn't do overkill. Gained 16lb's lean on AX and 13lb's on BCI...However my next cycle will be tried and true Test-E...got my feet wet with the designer stuff now i'm waiting for my down time to be over.FWIW--buddy of mine ran AX superdrol and got delayed gyno 3 months later after a 6 week 40mg a day cycle:fool2: ..getting surgery this monday...B careful with that ****..Legit post cycle therapy is a must and he wouldn't listen to me...now he regrets it.
 
Unless I just keep seeing websites with wrong label facts, Powerdrol is missing the 17beta-hydroxy in its nomenclature.
 
Wilderbeast said:
SNS was a very good clone of superdrol, actually you can't even call it a clone.

The owner or AX told a vitamin store owner the truth was that the original AX superdrol and the SNS superdrol clone came from identical raw materials.

So, as to agree with you, SNS superdrol was good yes.
Click to expand...

Interesting thread. I cannot speak for M-Drol, but was tempted to reply from the perspective of M-Drol being the same listed active as our old Methyl Drol product.

When we first came out with Methyl-Drol, we had it tested for purity and also had it tested against AX Superdrol. We were told by the lab that there were actually a couple different ways that we could label the product and that the way we chose to was technically the correct way. Keep in mind, we had the product not only tested for purity, but also tested against AX Superdrol.

To take that a step further, for those that remember when we first came out with Methyl-Drol, AX stated that they tested it themselves and then openly posted on AM (and maybe here, I cannot remember) that Methyl-Drol and their Superdrol were identical.

Now, how does that relate to M-Drol - 2 ways - 1. Labeled the same as our Methyl Drol was and 2. on their independant testing done by RTP, it shows the compound listed on the lab report the same way.

Keep in mind, I am no chemist so I cant offer any explanation further than what I just gave, but we had the compound itself tested for purity, we had it tested against Superdrol and the lab said it was the same, then AX acknowledged themselves that they were the same.

Hope that helps.
 
I find it interesting that it was always acknowledged that Methyl Drol was the same as Superdrol yet M-Drol has independant lab confirmation of testing the same as Methyl Drol did and people are saying its different.
 
I'm not a chemist by any means, but if there is a difference between the original AX Superdrol and the newer clones, like M-Drol, is there differences between other original compounds and their cones, such as AX's Pheraplex and P-Plex?
 
sns8778 said:
Interesting thread.
Click to expand...
So you had it tested against the original SD and it came back legit and you labeled it the same as MDrol?

I had considered that this may be the case, simply a mislabeling of the product.

Any way to confirm that you've actually got the 5a-androstane isomer and not the 5b-androstane isomer?
 
stxnas said:
Hmm, that one slid right past me...very interesting observation. Has anybody reading this ran the original and one of the new clones? I know people loved SNS's superdrol clone, and Methyl DX3 has a great following too...CEL obviously has a following or there wouldn't be so much attention being paid to M-Drol right now...

I'm not doubting that there are still gains with the clones or the Beta versions, but I'm really wondering how the sides differ? With DMT (PP vs Ergo) the Beta seemed to have a more apparent sides for most. I wonder if the same goes here?
Click to expand...

Ours is the exact same ingredient listing and also tested out the same as SNS's Methyl Drol.
 
Travis said:
Well fwiw the CEL guy is fully aware of this thread. So either they are preparing a statement or just choosing not to respond...
Click to expand...

Not sure how to interpret the tone there so let me just state that I just started posting on AM so alot of people here may not know me as well as some on other forums. I work full time for the company and have alot of responisbilities in day to day operations there. I try to devote as much time as I can to the forums, but if I dont reply, its not that Im not avoiding anything, its that I dont necessarily have time everyday to do so. I am sorry for that, I do the best I can.
 
sns8778 said:
Interesting thread. I cannot speak for M-Drol, but was tempted to reply from the perspective of M-Drol being the same listed active as our old Methyl Drol product.

When we first came out with Methyl-Drol, we had it tested for purity and also had it tested against AX Superdrol. We were told by the lab that there were actually a couple different ways that we could label the product and that the way we chose to was technically the correct way. Keep in mind, we had the product not only tested for purity, but also tested against AX Superdrol.

To take that a step further, for those that remember when we first came out with Methyl-Drol, AX stated that they tested it themselves and then openly posted on AM (and maybe here, I cannot remember) that Methyl-Drol and their Superdrol were identical.

Now, how does that relate to M-Drol - 2 ways - 1. Labeled the same as our Methyl Drol was and 2. on their independant testing done by RTP, it shows the compound listed on the lab report the same way.

Keep in mind, I am no chemist so I cant offer any explanation further than what I just gave, but we had the compound itself tested for purity, we had it tested against Superdrol and the lab said it was the same, then AX acknowledged themselves that they were the same.

Hope that helps.
Click to expand...

Thank you so much for that acknowledgement.
 
CompEdgeLabs said:
That is my line of thought. AX even acknowledged that Methyl Drol was identical to Superdrol. Ours is not labeled exactly the same as SNS's was and also it tested out identical to it.
Click to expand...
So, is MDrol just mislabeled? If so, any plans on fixing the labels in the coming future?
 
Botch said:
Oh my bad anEVOL is one of those ridiculous double methyls. It also has Phera-Plex. But the Superdrol in it is still 5a. Here is what the label says: 2a,17a-dimethyl-17B-hydroxy-5a-etiocholan-1-ene-one 17a-methyl-17B-hydroxy-5a-etiocholan-2-ene
Click to expand...

Just an FYI, a double methyl isn't a big deal. Methyl groups aren't inherently bad for you, its SPECIFICALLY the methyl group that protects the C17 beta hydroxyl group that causes your liver enzymes to go crazy.

So, if it says 17a-methyl in the chemical name of the steroid hormone THEN its the type of methyl that will cause you problems. The methyl groups elsewhere aren't necessarily an issue, although there are other factors, of which I'm not educated enough to speak of, that contribue to toxicity of hormones.
 
EasyEJL said:
well, heres another question. how differently do the a + b isomers appear in a GC ?
Click to expand...

That's a question that I don't know the answer to, but I'd guess that the 5a and 5b androstane's would have different fragmentation patterns in a mass spectroscopy because there is more steric strain on the 5b isomer, so if the GC's are matching up between the original superdrol And MDrol, etc, I'd say its likely that these are the same products and that simply the incorrect nomenclature was used to describe MDrol (and similars).
 
Last edited:
kwyckemynd00 said:
Just an FYI, a double methyl isn't a big deal. Methyl groups aren't inherently bad for you, its SPECIFICALLY the methyl group that protects the C17 beta hydroxyl group that causes your liver enzymes to go crazy.

So, if it says 17a-methyl in the chemical name of the steroid hormone THEN its the type of methyl that will cause you problems. The methyl groups elsewhere aren't necessarily an issue, although there are other factors, of which I'm not educated enough to speak of, that contribue to toxicity of hormones.
Click to expand...

Actually, I believe he was saying that because it contains DMT as well. But I have no idea where that double bond came from in the nomenclature he posted for anEvol.
 
DMT refers to desoxymethyltestosterone, so I'm not quite too sure what that'd have to do with a dimethyl.

I believe, off the top of my head, DMT is 17a-methyl-5a-androst-2-en-17b-ol or something of that nature. Desoxy refers to "without oxygen" and that specifically is in reference to the loss of the ketone (C=O) at the third carbon. So, if you take testosterone, add a methyl group at the 17a position, and remove the ketone at the 3rd carbon, and throw in a double bond between carbons 2 and 3 you've got desoxymethyltestostoner (DMT), which has only one more methyl than the two that androstane already has one it.
 
antodrol said:
Interesting...
The feedbacks on m-drol, methyl drol (etiocholane....5beta) are good;same gains and same strength as original superdrol....
I've serached and I found that oxodrol12 and methyl-vol are the same of the original SD (alfa isomer....5a-androstan)
I've 2 cycle of oxodrol12 and I think it have a love dose of anadrol (possible???). I've gained lot of water weight on a ipocaloric/low chos diet...and I know SD is a dry anabolic steroids
Next I'll try methyl-drol SNS. Beta isomer? Yes I think (2a-17a di methyl-5-etiocholane-3 one-17ol).
Is the difference from the 2 isomers are like the pheraplex and ergo max lmg I think the beta isomer has more sides and is more androgenic...
Click to expand...


How did the oxodrol12 workout for you? I was thinking about trying that, and what did you do for PCT?
 
kwyckemynd00 said:
DMT refers to desoxymethyltestosterone, so I'm not quite too sure what that'd have to do with a dimethyl.

I believe, off the top of my head, DMT is 17a-methyl-5a-androst-2-en-17b-ol or something of that nature.
Click to expand...

The dimethyl's not part of the DMT nomenclature. Anevol is two compounds. The first which is supposed to be like Methas but the nomenclature he posted had a 1-ene in it.
 
CompEdgeLabs said:
AX said that their Phera Plex was 99% A isomer. They never provided confirmation on it, but it is generally regarded as being true.

We posted the lab assays on ours showing that it is 97% A isomer. SNS Methyl Plex I believe was 82% and alot of people loved that product.
Click to expand...

You are correct. Methyl Plex was approx 82%.
 
rpen22 said:
Are CEL and SNS connected(the same)?
Click to expand...

Alot of people have speculated on that and I have never really cared enough to comment to be honest.

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.
 
CompEdgeLabs said:
The post you quoted had a typo in it; I corrected it after I caught it. Meant to say not only labeled the same as but tested out the same as.....
Click to expand...

Sorry, maybe I should clarify. I know that MDrol's nomenclature suggests it is a different molecular than the original superdrol (the 5b isomer rather than the 5a isomer). And, I know that your product is labeled similar to the SNS product.

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?

Gracias
 
rpen22 said:
The dimethyl's not part of the DMT nomenclature. Anevol is two compounds. The first which is supposed to be like Methas but the nomenclature he posted had a 1-ene in it.
Click to expand...

Oh, so its a stack of two methyls? Is that what he meant by "two methyl"?
 
Botch said:
For what its worth, here is a list of the alpha and beta clones/originals:

5a-androstane
AX Superdrol
Powerdrol
Methyl Vol
anEVOL
Fast Action S-drol
Oxodrol-12

5b-androstane
Super Mastervol
Methadrol
Methyl Depot
M-drol
Methyl Drol

There are a few more like Methyl DX3 and DNA Testadrol that don’t put a full label on their products so I can’t tell which they belong to. I’m sure there are more clones out there that I’m not getting too.
Click to expand...

For some reason i found 2 Powedrols.(or at least dif labels) one says 5b the other...doesnt list that partof the chem sturcture.
 
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.
 
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. :think:

Invalid Link Removed
 
Last edited:
rpen22 said:
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. :think:

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
The COA shows that MDrol was extracted and tested against a "known standard" by GC/MS analysis and was confirmed to be 99% pure.

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:
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."
 
daniel35 said:
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."
Click to expand...

I would say yes, buuuut as soon as GC/MS results came back if its fragmentation pattern was a match with SD they'd just get :lol:ed at.
 
kwyckemynd00 said:
So you had it tested against the original superdrol and it came back legit and you labeled it the same as MDrol?

I had considered that this may be the case, simply a mislabeling of the product.

Any way to confirm that you've actually got the 5a-androstane isomer and not the 5b-androstane isomer?
Click to expand...

Yes, we had Methyl-Drol tested against the standard and also against AX's Superdrol. Furthermore, even AX acknowledged here that the products were identical. The reason we labeled it the way we did is that we were informed that was the 'technical' way to name it.

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.
 
EasyEJL said:
soooooo then basically half of product labels have typos
Click to expand...

Appears that way. Look at my above post for some possible clarification on how and why that got started with us as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top