Guest viewing is limited

A RAD sponsored log feat. Olympus UK's Radar1ne

I'm in for this as well!
Always learn so much from your logs/posts.
 
warpyfunch said:
This is fantastic info and very helpful, thanks.

For the sake of comparison to rad, do you know the ratios for osta and lgd off hand? For some reason I'm finding it difficult to find that info online. I've seen osta written as 3:1 and lgd as 10:1, but how does that really stack up compared to test at 100/100? I don't think that osta is only 3% as anabolic as test. Am I talking about two different measurements or something?

The 90:1 figure is widely circulated regarding rad140, but when I look up the studies that show that result, they are specifically discussing the ratio of levator ani growth vs prostate growth in rats. I see no mention that the "90" directly correlates to the "100" for test, only that the muscle grew 90x more than the prostate. I feel like the oft quoted 90:1 ratio is using a different metric than the 100/100 reference value. Relative to test at 100/100, for all I know, it could be 90000/1000, or 180/2.

Also, if I understand correctly, the lower the androgenic factor, the less suppression would be expected. However, what little blood work is so far available for rad140 showed that it was significantly suppressive after a very short time on a very low dose. (This was posted in the radarine thread in the anabolics section.) If rad is only 1% as androgenic as test, that doesn't seem to make sense. Am I just misunderstanding something here, or is that blood work suspect?
Click to expand...

That could be the case since SARMS are not androgens they may use a different way to use it, I mean in the quote below they refer to testosterone as 1:1 and drop the 100ths, in which case would mean that mg per mg it is 900/100 by androgen standards so shut down would make sense. The very design of a SARM is to be less androgenic, or at least to the prostate. However for anabolic puproses most people arent concerned so much with the shut down than the effects and legality. You also have to consider this is mg per mg comparison. Most people typically never take massive doses to see the big gains. Curious how running at a high enough dose that it should really display itself.

"None of the SARMs yet developed are truly selective for anabolic effects in muscle or bone tissues without producing any androgenic effects in tissues such as the prostate gland, however several non-steroidal androgens show a ratio of anabolic to androgenic effects of greater than 3:1 and up to as much as 10:1, compared to testosterone, which has a ratio of 1:1.[2][3][4]"

So testosterone is still being used as the standard but they just aren,t using it as a base of 100 but 1. Very interesting.
Dma378 said:
Can you say, "change of plans"?
Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
Lucky dog!!!!
 
MrKleen73 said:
That could be the case since SARMS are not androgens they may use a different way to use it, I mean in the quote below they refer to testosterone as 1:1 and drop the 100ths, in which case would mean that mg per mg it is 900/100 by androgen standards so shut down would make sense. The very design of a SARM is to be less androgenic, or at least to the prostate. However for anabolic puproses most people arent concerned so much with the shut down than the effects and legality. You also have to consider this is mg per mg comparison. Most people typically never take massive doses to see the big gains. Curious how running at a high enough dose that it should really display itself.

"None of the SARMs yet developed are truly selective for anabolic effects in muscle or bone tissues without producing any androgenic effects in tissues such as the prostate gland, however several non-steroidal androgens show a ratio of anabolic to androgenic effects of greater than 3:1 and up to as much as 10:1, compared to testosterone, which has a ratio of 1:1.[2][3][4]"

So testosterone is still being used as the standard but they just aren,t using it as a base of 100 but 1. Very interesting.

Lucky dog!!!!
Click to expand...

Kleen we're all going to be smarter by the end of this log. I freaking love it.

And yeah, pretty lucky indeed. Super grateful.
 
Dma378 said:
Invalid Link Removed
Proats before bed. Man building muscle is so much more fun than cutting. A little Dymatize Elite XT Fudge Brownie in some rolled oats.
Click to expand...

That's what I am talking bout bro!

I demand more food porn!
 
Regarding the ratios...crudely, if test can be said to have an a:a ratio of 1:1, and some SARM has a ratio of 10:1, perhaps it is kinda right but kinda wrong to conclude from this that the SARM is 10x more anabolic than test. I would think that the anabolic potency of any compound is relative to its androgenic potential, rather than that of another compound, at least as far as these ratios are concerned.

In saying this though, how rigorous are the ratios? Ive come across varying inconsistent applications of them.
 
Dma378 said:
I do make a mean Southwestern Chili. That bowl would be topped with cheese and cornbread though.
Click to expand...

Thats where its at, right there. I can demolish some chili, something about it just makes you think one more bowl won't hurt.
 
Had every intention of hitting it today. I couldn't get to the gym until about noon, and I'm so tuned for the early morning workout, I did 3 sets of squats and walked out!!! Just one of those days. Came home and somehow took a nap with the pwo tingles still going on. What a sim-junky.

Will smash a Power Push / Legs Hyper split tomorrow morn.
 
Nothing like a shiitty spotter to blow your 1RM/PR attempt. Get all warmed up, pumped up, and just a little pause in the middle and they reach in and touch the bar despite saying ME ME ME. Guess they heard HELP HELP HELP.

Anyhow, solid workout. Not much to report 4 doses in. Although after 4500 calories, 500g of carbs, I woke up a pound lighter!!
 
Dma378 said:
Nothing like a shiitty spotter to blow your 1RM/PR attempt. Get all warmed up, pumped up, and just a little pause in the middle and they reach in and touch the bar despite saying ME ME ME. Guess they heard HELP HELP HELP.

Anyhow, solid workout. Not much to report 4 doses in. Although after 4500 calories, 500g of carbs, I woke up a pound lighter!!
Click to expand...

4500 calories
 
Dma378 said:
Nothing like a shiitty spotter to blow your 1RM/PR attempt. Get all warmed up, pumped up, and just a little pause in the middle and they reach in and touch the bar despite saying ME ME ME. Guess they heard HELP HELP HELP.

Anyhow, solid workout. Not much to report 4 doses in. Although after 4500 calories, 500g of carbs, I woke up a pound lighter!!
Click to expand...

Sure is hard to find a good spotter!
 
Misfit28 said:
Sure is hard to find a good spotter!
Click to expand...

This... I only want a spotter if I actually fail or specifically state. Don't touch it.

Before I do my rep I always say... "If I say yes, then help me, if I don't... Then don't".

People still don't get it haha
 
I mean I barely paused. Had the bar literally over halfway up and just had to regroup for that extension, then boom ruined. I saw him coming in and I was like ME ME ME.
 
I always ask someone how they like to be spotted before I do it for them. My best friend likes my hands to be on the bar the whole time but not help at all unless he says.

Some guy asked me to spot him on deadlifts once.. Lol
 
Want to post the link to the girl who got spotted on a deadlift... But I'm on my phone.

It's stupid, he literally pulls her neck up.
 
grinnell27 said:
Want to post the link to the girl who got spotted on a deadlift... But I'm on my phone.

It's stupid, he literally pulls her neck up.
Click to expand...

I think I've seen that video you're talking about, if it is then yea it stupid af lol but generally trying to spot a deadlifter is stupid.
 
I see idiot PT's like this all the time and it annoys the **** out of me.

Not to mention overweight PT's giving advice!!???

Yet because they have that piece of paper saying they are 'qualified' then people pay them actual money for useless advice.
 
I think there is a rule someplace that says you have to be a complete dbag to be a pt
 
grinnell27 said:
I see idiot PT's like this all the time and it annoys the **** out of me.

Not to mention overweight PT's giving advice!!???

Yet because they have that piece of paper saying they are 'qualified' then people pay them actual money for useless advice.
Click to expand...

yates84 said:
I think there is a rule someplace that says you have to be a complete dbag to be a pt
Click to expand...

The gym I used to train at years ago had a ton of trainers, including me, but I had the most clients. One of the far trainers asked me how was able to pull in so many clients. I simply said "look at me, and look at you". That was finally the motivation he needed to get into shape and he started getting more clients. And yes Yates, you need up be a DB to be a trainer. :-P
 
The other day some new PT asked me if I wanted a free session. I politely said "No Thank You".

His reply: "OK, tough guy"

Whatevs!
 
GNO said:
The other day some new PT asked me if I wanted a free session. I politely said "No Thank You".

His reply: "OK, tough guy"

Whatevs!
Click to expand...

Bwaaahahahah!!

When I started at the gym I'm at now, I declined the 2 free sessions they offered and the dude was beside himself why I would decline. He began telling me his credentials, and I responded with a "that's nice, no thanks"
 
NewAgeMayan said:
Regarding the ratios...crudely, if test can be said to have an a:a ratio of 1:1, and some SARM has a ratio of 10:1, perhaps it is kinda right but kinda wrong to conclude from this that the SARM is 10x more anabolic than test. I would think that the anabolic potency of any compound is relative to its androgenic potential, rather than that of another compound, at least as far as these ratios are concerned.

In saying this though, how rigorous are the ratios? Ive come across varying inconsistent applications of them.
Click to expand...
There really seem to be some ranges. It is the same with when i get my bloodwork for my TRT. If I go to Quest the high range is 1100, if I got to this other lab it read high over 900. However being that the comparison is still based off of Testosterone the ratios do not change. Also the anabolic means muscle growth characteristics. Androgenic is sexual side of things. You can and often do have high anabolic ratios with minimal androgenic that are effective for adding mass without messing with the androgenic side of things. Like Anavar is 24 Androgenic and 322-630 on the Anabolic, even women can take anavar safely. You run 50mg anavar a day for 8 weeks you are going to see some nice gains. Equal too or better than the lbm gains from 8 weeks at 700 + mg of test. Not weight gain IE water weight and what not but the actual LBM gained.

Bottom line here is that we don't know exactly what the ratio means because they could be going by the old standard, or just simply saying it is a ratio of the effects. Either way I would be hard pressed to expect better results from this than a cycle of anavar. However it would be extremely impressive if so.


yates84 said:
I think there is a rule someplace that says you have to be a complete dbag to be a pt
Click to expand...

Ouch Yates! You know you only notice the ones doing something stupid, or something new to you. The rest don't draw attention to themselves in the gym because they are doing this they way they should and no one notices. I will say that many just starting out in the big gyms are not qualified and do some seriously stupid things. However there are plenty of good ones out there. Yeah i am a lil bias since I have my CPT, but I doubt I will ever be one of those big gym PT's unless I just need the cash and extra exposure.
 
MrKleen73 said:
Bottom line here is that we don't know exactly what the ratio means because they could be going by the old standard, or just simply saying it is a ratio of the effects.
Click to expand...

My suspicion is that it is the latter. Given the points you made in your post, and remembering the clinical motivations for developing SARMs in the first place, it would make more sense to me that the researchers used the ratio to signify the compounds relative anabolic:androgenic effects. Assuming the clinical/pharmaceutical goal to be selectivity (and that the a:a somewhat reflects that selectivity).
 
NewAgeMayan said:
My suspicion is that it is the latter. Given the points you made in your post, and remembering the clinical motivations for developing SARMs in the first place, it would make more sense to me that the researchers used the ratio to signify the compounds relative anabolic:androgenic effects. Assuming the clinical/pharmaceutical goal to be selectivity (and that the a:a somewhat reflects that selectivity).
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. The ratio seems to be the relative value of anabolic:androgenic effects, and thus gives no indication of the absolute values in relation to 100/100 test that you would normally see noted for traditional AAS. The referenced 90:1 ratio for radarine could mean 270/3 or 180000/2000 or 9/0.1 for all we know.
 
Jesus this log is BLOWING up haha. so much info and convo I can barely keep up... onc the gains come... look out
 
NewAgeMayan said:
My suspicion is that it is the latter. Given the points you made in your post, and remembering the clinical motivations for developing SARMs in the first place, it would make more sense to me that the researchers used the ratio to signify the compounds relative anabolic:androgenic effects. Assuming the clinical/pharmaceutical goal to be selectivity (and that the a:a somewhat reflects that selectivity).
Click to expand...

warpyfunch said:
My thoughts exactly. The ratio seems to be the relative value of anabolic:androgenic effects, and thus gives no indication of the absolute values in relation to 100/100 test that you would normally see noted for traditional AAS. The referenced 90:1 ratio for radarine could mean 270/3 or 180000/2000 or 9/0.1 for all we know.
Click to expand...

All of these ratios are the exact same just multiples of the same numbers. Which I am sure is kind of your point. The only hole in this thought process is that just giving a ratio means absolutely nothing without a control measure or number like what is used in the Androgenic/Anabolic ratios . A compound could be 90x more anabolic than it is androgenic and still not be a strong enough anabolic to have an effect at all even in extremely high doses. Without a point of reference the ratio is useless to us. I am certain that there is indeed a point of reference for how they came up with that, or it is just hype.

Given the study I pulled that ratio from and quoted earlier indeed said they were using Testosterone on a 1:1 basis for the comparison. I thought I would look at something else. Here is where things don't match at all...

This is quoted from Whatsteroids.com for the write up on RAD140

"For example, we inject testosterone to cause an androgenic effect in certain tissues but do not want it to cause an androgenic effect in all tissues like your prostate. Ideally the ratio of Anabolic Steroids to Androgenic should be 20:1.

Certain products differ:

- Norbolethone 16:1

- Oxandrolone 12:1

- Norethandrolone 16:1

What's the RAD-140 ratio ?

RAD-140 has a ratio of 90:1 which is visibly different to Oxandrolone, Norbolethone and Norethanadrolone. RAD-140 is also one of the many magical steroids that are powerful enough to limit the androgenic effect of testosterone on the prostate and other unwanted areas."

Now if those ratios above were supposed to be based off of the Androgenic / Anabolic ratio then they are way off with the numbers listed.

Oxandralone AKA Anavar is 24:322-630 so the equation should be easy here, divide by 24 and see if the numbers even come close to meeting. that leaves Oxandrolone at 13.4:1 - 26.25:1 so both are higher than the 12:1 ratio listed here.

With the Norethandrolone is 22-55 : 100-200, even going as big a range as possible using the lowest of the androgenic, and highest of the anabolic still does not even come close to a 16:1 ratio. Using 22:200 it is still only 9:1.

I really have no idea what the hell type of numbers they are throwing out here... if they were ratios of anabolism to virilization as the typical A:A ratio is then dividing them down by singling out the androgenic to 1 and dividing the anabolic by the original androgenic number the ratios should come down and meet or be close at some point. However as you can see the ratios do not even come close to matching.

So in the end the question is not so much what does the ratio mean but where is the baseline. If testosterone is not the baseline for it then what is? Seems the numbers are more likely just hype. I mean coming into an area where all the Anabolic & Androgenic measurements are based off of testosterone and throwing out words like anabolic ratio they should definitely be going by the normal standard and not some new made up system that doesn't make any sense with the current one and does not explain what the control is.

The good news is that so long as DMA doesn't add too much else we should be able to see how this thing works in the real world with someone who is training and eating right.
 
Nothing else will be added, or increased, for the sake of getting a good feel on the RAD itself. Only it will be increased.
 
I also find it funny that he says the ideal ratio for a steroid is 20:1... who the heck decided this? People training for strength but don't want to grow a ton would be pissed off with a 20:1 ratio!!!!! The ideal androgenic : anabolic ratio is the based on the goal for that cycle and changes with each goal.
 
JeremyNG25 said:
Is RAD 150 very suppressive or no?
Click to expand...

According to some bloodwork done in another log (different forum), it seems to be. At least in that person's case. I don't know what to use as an example for comparison's sake, but I'm going to say, Yes, significantly suppressive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top