Lets say a guy took a blend of herbs it reduced water retention. Would you believe it?
Can I make up hypotheticals to prove my point too?
New to prohormones
- Thread starter aandy93
- Start date
Lets say a guy took a blend of herbs it reduced water retention. Would you believe it?
Can I make up hypotheticals to prove my point too?
dave39
Active member
Who's to say, except the guys who were actually using the drugs during these times?
And thats what they say...they have nothing to hide, it was all legal then.
A number of guys have talked about how much the stuff today is mainly under dosed fake crap and that you will get larger from 5-10mg of pharm grade dbol vs. the underground 50mg tabs.
Demgainz
Member
I have read the entire thread thus far and there are many points being made, but this statement is simply not true. Or like others have stated, maybe you haven't looked hard enough.
Or maybe they aren't taking Epistane because when it came out, it didn't put on 10-12lbs. It was viewed as extremely mild.
LG Sciences
Board Sponsor
On cycle estrogen issues can be fixed by putting a dime of progesterone cream on your wrists.
Progesterone reduces ER activity (forget the exact mechanism here). Of course I am going to get flamed but it works and works well.
Progesterone reduces ER activity (forget the exact mechanism here). Of course I am going to get flamed but it works and works well.
Demgainz
Member
I highly doubt it. It was first described in 1966 got lost then emerged from research obscurity in 2006 by Performance Nutrition who introduced it to the US market under the trade name "Havoc". There have been many tests done on the compound sent out to independent laboratories to confirm it was indeed methepitiostane. There are also many logs run on the said compound with gains in excess of 10 pounds and significant fat loss during a six week cycle.
You highly doubt raws from China containing something different? Oh boy.
And there are logs showing it causing gyno which is funny considering its structure. And there are also conversations about old stock of superdrol being put into epistane bottles. I know the history of the drug but what you are describing is Epistane in a pharmaceutical environment, not raws bought and bottled form China.
There are also logs showing 2-4lbs as it was advertised to do....when it came out, as I said before, it was deemed mild compared to what was already out...superdrol and M1T. Patrick Arnold tested many batches and hinted at problems.
Audioph1x
Well-known member
Tuned Sports used to be an extremely informative website. They did not sell anything. They outlined specific DS products including their effective dose, cycle length, and expectations.
They have since been bought out or something because they push the new "andros" hard as f*ck.
Sorry to get off track, but I don't trust Tuned Sports to give me ANY unbiased information anymore.
And it was RPN who marketed Havoc. They were a sponsor here and owned by dsade who now owns and runs Evomuse.
LG Sciences
Board Sponsor
I couldn't find the actual study. It was done by a University. I will find the study. Ergo-log had it too.
Audioph1x
Well-known member
Thank you. Finally someone said something with credibility about the "andros". Calling these products 1AD and 4AD pisses me off. It is a disgrace to the originals.
LG Sciences
Board Sponsor
Yeah 10lbs in six weeks isn't very compelling. Not bad but in no way superdrol gains.
The early batches were pretty dubious quality from what I recall. Even the testing revealed that...
The originals had ****ty absortion. Please stop with the supplement outrage.
LG Sciences
Board Sponsor
The current 4 andro and 1 andro are superior to 1-diol and 4-diol IMHO. Two step conversion is superior to one step because you have two enzymes in the system. We had this debate when I introduced epiandrosterone to the market. I was called name after name... Epiandrosterone is a good prohormone due to the two step conversion. 
ma70
Well-known member
Texas A&M.
Demgainz
Member
I agree that some bottles will unintentionally and intentionally be tainted with other compounds but as I have stated before there have been independent tests done on the compound which did indeed confirm the said chemical when sent for testing. Obviously with quality control almost non existent, there most likely have been other chemicals involved with various different compounds. However, still doesn't refute independent tests done on the compound and the subsequent gains and fat loss.
The said compound is still deemed relatively mild pre ban(especially with DMZ). Compared to what is out now and available in the US market, not so much.
Also referencing William llewellyn's Anabolics, 10th edition: the ratio of androgenic :91 anabolic 1100. The muscle gains and fat loss are highly attainable with proper diet and metabolic factors.
dave39
Active member
I would love to hear about some experiences regarding this use of progesterone cream. Please share your experience if you have personally used it LG. Or maybe you have some third party experiences that you could share?
Demgainz
Member
Yes it was a typo and forgot to put "Recomp" in front of performance nutrition hence "Rpn".
LG Sciences
Board Sponsor
I once had a really bad gyno flare up. Nothing was helping so I remembered the Progesterone treatment and literally in one hour problem solved. Progesterone reduces ER activity and works like the dickens for gyno flare ups.
Demgainz
Member
You, yourself said you don't see 11 pound gains with 4 pound fat loss anymore. Which is it? This seems to be contradicting your earlier statement.
dave39
Active member
If that's the case I hope that others get to see this information. Would save some people a lot of money and worry.
LG Sciences
Board Sponsor
Adv Exp Med Biol. 1987;230:49-78.
Progesterone-modulation of estrogen action: rapid down regulation of nuclear acceptor sites for the estrogen receptor.
Leavitt WW1, Cobb AD, Takeda A.
Author information
Abstract
Our previous studies demonstrated that progesterone down regulates the occupied form of nuclear estrogen receptor (Re). Using the density shift method, we discovered that progestins stimulate the turnover of nuclear Re within 3 h of treatment, and Re synthesis is suppressed subsequently. Thus, the primary site of progestin action in down-regulating Re is the stimulation of nuclear Re turnover followed by the inhibition of Re replenishment. A major breakthrough in our understanding of how progestin controls Re turnover was made by studying nuclear acceptor sites for Re that were found to decrease markedly within 2 h of progestin treatment. These and other results indicate that progestin induces a factor called the Re regulatory factor (ReRF) which acts to block nuclear Re acceptor sites, and this in turn decreases nuclear Re retention on chromatin acceptor sites, leading to an enhanced turnover (or processing) of nuclear Re.
Progesterone-modulation of estrogen action: rapid down regulation of nuclear acceptor sites for the estrogen receptor.
Leavitt WW1, Cobb AD, Takeda A.
Author information
Abstract
Our previous studies demonstrated that progesterone down regulates the occupied form of nuclear estrogen receptor (Re). Using the density shift method, we discovered that progestins stimulate the turnover of nuclear Re within 3 h of treatment, and Re synthesis is suppressed subsequently. Thus, the primary site of progestin action in down-regulating Re is the stimulation of nuclear Re turnover followed by the inhibition of Re replenishment. A major breakthrough in our understanding of how progestin controls Re turnover was made by studying nuclear acceptor sites for Re that were found to decrease markedly within 2 h of progestin treatment. These and other results indicate that progestin induces a factor called the Re regulatory factor (ReRF) which acts to block nuclear Re acceptor sites, and this in turn decreases nuclear Re retention on chromatin acceptor sites, leading to an enhanced turnover (or processing) of nuclear Re.
LG Sciences
Board Sponsor
I will find more but I personally have had amazing luck.
Not tainted, straight up superdrol. And it wasn't RPN's.
Which is what was said...
Which is based on rat data...
Demgainz
Member
There are still logs all over using RPN with gains in excess of 10 pounds with significant fat loss.
LG Sciences
Board Sponsor
Invalid Link Removed
RPN hans't produced anything in many many years. If you are seeing RPN Havoc, its fake.
There are also logs showing oral IGF-1 with a 10lb increase.
LG Sciences
Board Sponsor
Like I said 10lbs in 6 weeks isn't all that compelling. Not that I was a fan of suoerdrol but one had to admit there wasn't much like it on the market. You want to gain a quick 20lbs of water before spring break...it was the bomb.
LG Sciences
Board Sponsor
GY OF REPRODUCTION 49, 24-32 (1993)
Progesterone Regulation of Endometrial Estrogen Receptor and Cell Proliferation
during the Late Proliferative and Secretory Phase in Artificial Menstrual Cycles
in the Rhesus Monkey'
WILLIAM C. OKULICZ, 2 MELISSA BALSAMO, and JANET TAST
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Massachusetts Medical School
Worcester, Massachusetts 01655
ABSTRACT
Progesterone (P) down-regulation of uterine estradiol (E) receptor (ER) appears to be a general mechanism by which P
modulates E action in the uterus. Our present studies focus on the regulation of ER by P during the changeover from E to P
dominance during artificial menstrual cycles in the rhesus monkey. Because of differential cell-type response and the cellular
zonation of the primate uterus, we used immunohistochemical analysis in addition to biochemical assays to study the regulation
of ER by P. Ki-67 immunoreactivity was used as an index of endometrial proliferation. We performed our analyses on Days 13
(peak of E), 14 (declining E and rising P), 17 (basal E and rising P), and 21 (basal E and peak P). ER immunoreactivity was
present throughout the endometrium in luminal and glandular epithelia and stromal fibroblasts on Day 13. As E was withdrawn
and P rose on Day 14 there were few distinct changes in ER staining in stromal and epithelial cells. On Day 17, immunoreactive
staining showed a distinct reduction for stromal cells in all zones. Although luminal epithelial cells showed a decrease in im-
munoreactivity on Day 17, zones II, III, and IV retained positive staining for ER in glandular epithelia. ER staining in stromal cells
on Day 21 was similar to the pattern observed on Day 17, whereas epithelial cells in zones I, II, and III showed a reduction in
staining. Glandular epithelia in zone IV maintained strong positive staining for ER on Day 21. According to biochemical assays,
total and occupied nuclear ER and cytosolic ER were significantly decreased on Day 14 and remained suppressed through Day
21. Endometrial proliferation (Ki-67 immunoreactivity) occurred throughout the endometrium on Day 13, showed little change
on Day 14, and was dramatically suppressed in stromal fibroblasts and epithelial cells of zones I, II, and III on Days 17 and 21.
Proliferation continued in glandular epithelium of zone IV during the changeover from E to P dominance. Removal of secretory
estradiol (all E implants removed on Day 13) did not affect the proliferation pattern in zone IV on Day 21. Therefore, proliferation
of glandular epithelial cells in zone IV is not dependent on secretory E. These results describe the temporal changes in ER
immunostaining during the onset of P action in artificial menstrual cycles and demonstrate that not only are there zone-dependent
differences in response to P but also that the sensitivity of different cell-types within the endometrium is subject to temporal
differences in response. The coincident temporal and zone-dependent decrease in proliferation and ER in zones I, II, and III
suggests a close relationship between P-dependent down-regulation of ER and endometrial proliferation.
Progesterone Regulation of Endometrial Estrogen Receptor and Cell Proliferation
during the Late Proliferative and Secretory Phase in Artificial Menstrual Cycles
in the Rhesus Monkey'
WILLIAM C. OKULICZ, 2 MELISSA BALSAMO, and JANET TAST
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Massachusetts Medical School
Worcester, Massachusetts 01655
ABSTRACT
Progesterone (P) down-regulation of uterine estradiol (E) receptor (ER) appears to be a general mechanism by which P
modulates E action in the uterus. Our present studies focus on the regulation of ER by P during the changeover from E to P
dominance during artificial menstrual cycles in the rhesus monkey. Because of differential cell-type response and the cellular
zonation of the primate uterus, we used immunohistochemical analysis in addition to biochemical assays to study the regulation
of ER by P. Ki-67 immunoreactivity was used as an index of endometrial proliferation. We performed our analyses on Days 13
(peak of E), 14 (declining E and rising P), 17 (basal E and rising P), and 21 (basal E and peak P). ER immunoreactivity was
present throughout the endometrium in luminal and glandular epithelia and stromal fibroblasts on Day 13. As E was withdrawn
and P rose on Day 14 there were few distinct changes in ER staining in stromal and epithelial cells. On Day 17, immunoreactive
staining showed a distinct reduction for stromal cells in all zones. Although luminal epithelial cells showed a decrease in im-
munoreactivity on Day 17, zones II, III, and IV retained positive staining for ER in glandular epithelia. ER staining in stromal cells
on Day 21 was similar to the pattern observed on Day 17, whereas epithelial cells in zones I, II, and III showed a reduction in
staining. Glandular epithelia in zone IV maintained strong positive staining for ER on Day 21. According to biochemical assays,
total and occupied nuclear ER and cytosolic ER were significantly decreased on Day 14 and remained suppressed through Day
21. Endometrial proliferation (Ki-67 immunoreactivity) occurred throughout the endometrium on Day 13, showed little change
on Day 14, and was dramatically suppressed in stromal fibroblasts and epithelial cells of zones I, II, and III on Days 17 and 21.
Proliferation continued in glandular epithelium of zone IV during the changeover from E to P dominance. Removal of secretory
estradiol (all E implants removed on Day 13) did not affect the proliferation pattern in zone IV on Day 21. Therefore, proliferation
of glandular epithelial cells in zone IV is not dependent on secretory E. These results describe the temporal changes in ER
immunostaining during the onset of P action in artificial menstrual cycles and demonstrate that not only are there zone-dependent
differences in response to P but also that the sensitivity of different cell-types within the endometrium is subject to temporal
differences in response. The coincident temporal and zone-dependent decrease in proliferation and ER in zones I, II, and III
suggests a close relationship between P-dependent down-regulation of ER and endometrial proliferation.
LG Sciences
Board Sponsor
I mean for a methyl compound...for me methyl compounds to be worth the risks should be way better than the non-methyl counterparts.
LG Sciences
Board Sponsor
Sorry, 10lbs is great in general just not great for a methyl compound.
Demgainz
Member
10 pounds in 6 weeks with significant fat loss is pretty compelling to me. I am sure you will not be that hard pressed to find someone in agreement with me.
Demgainz
Member
For a methyl that at the time was legal? I disagree, same could be said for halo plus without the fear of rebound gyno.
LG Sciences
Board Sponsor
I thought halo sucked. So, clearly did Gaspari who felt the need to add in Pheraplex to it.
LG Sciences
Board Sponsor
They were never legal FYI epistane and halo were always illegal. Dshea requires the supplement be found in nature and fits the definition of a dietary supplement.
I thought halo sucked. So, clearly did Gaspari who felt the need to add in Pheraplex to it.
LOL
Bigdumogre
Banned
Must say for what it's worth some good old school Info came out of this thread
And for most it isn't. Its mild. I can gain 10lbs with winstrol if I ate enough but its not the compound.
Demgainz
Member
I agree that a lot has to do with diet. However, your 10 pounds on Winstrol/halo/epi are very easily kept. Unlike superdrol or dbol. To me that is pretty dam compelling.
Demgainz
Member
It is the compound when a lot of it is water weight or glycogen retention. I am not referring to you per se because I don't know your cycle history but on certain compounds with pct done right, hormones back to homeostasis, and eating at a new maintenance level it is not easily kept.
Then you aren't doing it right.
Demgainz
Member
No that is not what I am doing if you took the time to read my posts instead of making knee jerk reactions and statements.
What I am saying is that gains of 10 pounds on halo/epi/win are attainable and easily kept compared to harsher/potent compounds regardless of diet/training/pct.
Which sums up my original point: 10 pounds of quality muscle gain and significant fat loss is pretty dam compelling.
What I am saying is that gains of 10 pounds on halo/epi/win are attainable and easily kept compared to harsher/potent compounds regardless of diet/training/pct.
Which sums up my original point: 10 pounds of quality muscle gain and significant fat loss is pretty dam compelling.
You clearing have no idea what you are talking about. Not once did anyone mention a steroid that aromatizes (and/or its metabolites) nearly at the level of Anadrol.
I said I could gain 10lb with Winstrol if I ate enough and you then stated it WAS the compound then grouped Winstrol with Halo and Epi then quote Anadrol as a reference. You are comparing apples, to watermelons, to steak, to ****in cars...thats how all over the place you are.
You are so all over the map that my conclusion is that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about and the fact that you have to quote Bill's book is just a nail in the coffin.
Demgainz
Member
You clearly did not read my posts or misinterpreted what I said. Maybe you should ask for clarifications if you are unsure.
I did not state it was soley the compound. I agreed that diet plays a huge roll in those compounds which a gain in 10 pounds is attainable and in my opinion is pretty dam compelling.
Maybe you are not getting the point that I am trying to make here. Significant gains in muscle and significant reductions in fat are pretty dam good for any compound that was readily available at the time(epi/halo), and was not considered a CDS with any type of scheduling. The gains on these compounds are easily kept unlike harsher compounds with a lot of glycogen and water weight(even if you do everything "right"/ has nothing to do with doing it wrong)
Is I clear to you now? Does it make sense? These are serious questions. I am not trying to mock you or belittle you by hat is not my intention.
I quoted the book to give you a reference point. It is part of the knowledge that I have acquired over the years. Not the be all and end all but it is right there in black and white. Maybe you misunderstood me maybe you have not.
This is beating a dead horse over and over again. Maybe I have cleared things up for you if they needed clearing. Maybe not. Who knows. You can simply state I don't know what I am talking about and I am simply going to disagree. I don't know everything, no one does. If that was the case hen why would we be a part of this forum?
This branched off from me stating that an 11 pound gain with 4 pounds of fat loss on epistane is absolutely possibly and very likely.(it has happened several times).
You want to keep beating this dead horse then go right ahead. I will not be here to debate you. I have said what I had to say and that is that on my end. Have a great rest of our day and happy gains.
I did not state it was soley the compound. I agreed that diet plays a huge roll in those compounds which a gain in 10 pounds is attainable and in my opinion is pretty dam compelling.
Maybe you are not getting the point that I am trying to make here. Significant gains in muscle and significant reductions in fat are pretty dam good for any compound that was readily available at the time(epi/halo), and was not considered a CDS with any type of scheduling. The gains on these compounds are easily kept unlike harsher compounds with a lot of glycogen and water weight(even if you do everything "right"/ has nothing to do with doing it wrong)
Is I clear to you now? Does it make sense? These are serious questions. I am not trying to mock you or belittle you by hat is not my intention.
I quoted the book to give you a reference point. It is part of the knowledge that I have acquired over the years. Not the be all and end all but it is right there in black and white. Maybe you misunderstood me maybe you have not.
This is beating a dead horse over and over again. Maybe I have cleared things up for you if they needed clearing. Maybe not. Who knows. You can simply state I don't know what I am talking about and I am simply going to disagree. I don't know everything, no one does. If that was the case hen why would we be a part of this forum?
This branched off from me stating that an 11 pound gain with 4 pounds of fat loss on epistane is absolutely possibly and very likely.(it has happened several times).
You want to keep beating this dead horse then go right ahead. I will not be here to debate you. I have said what I had to say and that is that on my end. Have a great rest of our day and happy gains.
Yes, 10lb gain..not 10lbs of muscle. There is a huge difference. Nowhere did anyone prove they gained 10lbs of MUSCLE from Epistane. They have gained 10lbs and depending on the person it could easily be 4-6lbs of water simply by an increase in aldosterone production.
Once again, you are confusing "gains" with muscle. You will actually gain more and keep more muscle on harsher compounds. Anadrol is an amazing muscle builder. You just gain a ****load of water with it but when its all over with, you still keep more MUSCLE. Ask anyone that has taken it.
I don't need your reference points of Bill's book. I already know more than what that book states.
Because I run it.
Of course it COULD happen but nowhere does it state they gained 11 lbs of MUSCLE. They gained 11lbs and you could do that in 6-8 weeks with food ALONE. So you telling me its the compound is simply not accurate. You don't know. There are many more logs with the 4-6lbs WEIGHT gain than 11lbs. Its a mild compound by its own definition.
I'm not beating any horse. You simple don't understand the concepts you are talking about, which is fine...but you probably shouldn't debate those that do.
