What PH is out now that is like Dbol?

Godstrength said:
Unfortunately dbol has the reputation it has because there really isn't anything like it. In terms of strength, wetness and feel good. There are plenty of good compounds out there. What are your goals and what are you looking for in a compound?
Click to expand...

Dry gains like anywhere from 10-15 lbs with minimal sides. I mean that's like everyone's goals though lol. I'm 230 lbs right now, a little bit of a gut from bulking but with a shirt it's not noticeable at all. I just want something I can make some lean gains off of. I've taken oral Tren, Tren ace with test cyp and loved it
 
Tomcatlegacy said:
Dry gains like anywhere from 10-15 lbs with minimal sides. I mean that's like everyone's goals though lol. I'm 230 lbs right now, a little bit of a gut from bulking but with a shirt it's not noticeable at all. I just want something I can make some lean gains off of. I've taken oral Tren, Tren ace with test cyp and loved it
Click to expand...

Maybe look into a 6 weeker of epistane and topical trest?
 
Tomcatlegacy said:
Yes because I would take Dbol with an injectable test. I'm not going to waste Dbol with a oral base. How does this not make sense?
Click to expand...
It makes zero sense. Why would you take a oral base with something else but not dbol. You have zero clue what your doing
 
Tomcatlegacy said:
Dry gains like anywhere from 10-15 lbs with minimal sides. I mean that's like everyone's goals though lol. I'm 230 lbs right now, a little bit of a gut from bulking but with a shirt it's not noticeable at all. I just want something I can make some lean gains off of. I've taken oral Tren, Tren ace with test cyp and loved it
Click to expand...

If you want dry gains, then Dbol is the opposite of what you want.
 
These things like superdrol and pheraplex are just as strong as dbol if not stronger. Why is it ok to use a oral base for one but not the other? It's all the same.
 
And if you never used dbol how are you looking for something that compares to it. You don't know how dbol compares to anything.

Dry gains from something like dbol?

Im so confused
 
Tomcatlegacy said:
Yes because I would take Dbol with an injectable test. I'm not going to waste Dbol with a oral base. How does this not make sense?
Click to expand...

Because you don't need inj test as a base... you could use an oral that converts to test or even trest (would go TD) or even just skip the base altogether and just do a shorter cycle.
 
Tomcatlegacy said:
Dry gains like anywhere from 10-15 lbs with minimal sides. I mean that's like everyone's goals though lol. I'm 230 lbs right now, a little bit of a gut from bulking but with a shirt it's not noticeable at all. I just want something I can make some lean gains off of. I've taken oral Tren, Tren ace with test cyp and loved it
Click to expand...
Bro I think your a little confused... Dbol is one of the wettest orals out there. I will say for 10-15 lbs and dry gains I would look at dmz. It's a great versatile compound and not bad on the sides for what you get. I would definitely run it with a base and if you want to add something wet to the mix I would definitely throw in something like transdermal trest as others have suggested. Just a fair warning though a trest/DMZ cycle will shut you down pretty hard. I would definitely make sure you have legit PCT.
 
AnabolicGuru said:
Methdrol is a superdrol clone. Msten is pretty good imo; it's comparable to epistane, but less lean and more strength. Halodrol does not beat epistane from what I've seen/heard. Cynostane doesn't have enough feedback for me to comment on.
Click to expand...
Holy Crap, Methdrol sure is SDrol. I glanced at it and saw the beginning of the name and just assumed DMZ!!! Agreed on the results of MSten and Epistane, but to me the sides from MSten are worse, especially BP. Sso to me Epistane is surperior.

I definitely wasn't saying that Halodrol was as strong as Epistane, but run at higher doses it easily keeps up with MSten or Epistane and the sides are stil minimal. Also I mentioned running it for 6-8 weeks to get those gains.

On the Cynostane, If I remember correctly it has been out for a long time CEL had it out several years ago, and I think so did IML. Maybe I am wrong and it is just one that has almost the exact same name.

2kvette said:
Trest is so much more androgenic than DHT it's not even funny.
Click to expand...
You do realized that just because trest is hihgly androgenic that does not mean that it acts the same on the androgen receptors as the natural hormone DHT. Plus not having any DHT which binds to breast tissue better than just about anything out there including estrogen is asking for gyno issues running Trest. Sure you can crush most of the estrogen from Trest but the methyl estrogens, are still going to be there, and on top of that cutting estrogen too low has been proven to retard gains, and mess with libido. Having adequate levels of DHT help with so many other things, it is just not the same... It's kind of like having the right tool for the job instead of just using an adjustable wrench... DHT is the right tool. Trest will get the job done better than nothing but Trest AND DHT is the way to go if you are truly trying to mimic a testosterone base...
Godstrength said:
Bro I think your a little confused... Dbol is one of the wettest orals out there. I will say for 10-15 lbs and dry gains I would look at dmz. It's a great versatile compound and not bad on the sides for what you get. I would definitely run it with a base and if you want to add something wet to the mix I would definitely throw in something like transdermal trest as others have suggested. Just a fair warning though a trest/DMZ cycle will shut you down pretty hard. I would definitely make sure you have legit PCT.
Click to expand...
Yeah DMZ is one of my favorites for being a jack of all trades but at higher does the gains can be intense!
 
MrKleen73 said:
You do realized that just because trest is hihgly androgenic that does not mean that it acts the same on the androgen receptors as the natural hormone DHT. Plus not having any DHT which binds to breast tissue better than just about anything out there including estrogen is asking for gyno issues running Trest. Sure you can crush most of the estrogen from Trest but the methyl estrogens, are still going to be there, and on top of that cutting estrogen too low has been proven to retard gains, and mess with libido. Having adequate levels of DHT help with so many other things, it is just not the same... It's kind of like having the right tool for the job instead of just using an adjustable wrench... DHT is the right tool. Trest will get the job done better than nothing but Trest AND DHT is the way to go if you are truly trying to mimic a testosterone base...
Yeah DMZ is one of my favorites for being a jack of all trades but at higher does the gains can be intense!
Click to expand...

I do realize your wrong. I also realize my A.S. in General & Inorganic Chemistry, B.S. in Biomedical Chemistry w/ focus in pharmaceutical chemistry, and my Doctorate in Pharmacy & Pharmacology(two more years left tbh) with a personal research focus in androgens and anabolic agents qualifies me as an expert in this area.

Okay, I'm done being a d1ck. I don't mean to be rude. Your confusing a lot based on effects. What I mean is your attributing causes to the wrong effects, confusing binding affinity with intrinsic activity(they're totally different), and your confusing a lot on how trestolone causes breast growth, how DHT retards it, and how receptor-ligand binding works in general.
 
Smont said:
It makes zero sense. Why would you take a oral base with something else but not dbol. You have zero clue what your doing
Click to expand...

Because Dbol is stronger than any PH. I would rather inject testosterone with Dbol than take it with an oral base. Injections are not an option because I'll be in a unsanitary environment for a while. I wanted something as powerful as Dbol, but it looks like there's nothing that will compare. So I'm just going to continue running mk677 until I can run the gear I've already purchased
 
Tomcatlegacy said:
Because Dbol is stronger than any PH. I would rather inject testosterone with Dbol than take it with an oral base. Injections are not an option because I'll be in a unsanitary environment for a while. I wanted something as powerful as Dbol, but it looks like there's nothing that will compare. So I'm just going to continue running mk677 until I can run the gear I've already purchased
Click to expand...

dbol is not stronger than any ph. that is dose dependent.

also, why would a test BASE need to be strong??? its strictly meant to replace normal test levels/functions in the body, not to be "strong"
 
I wish rhadam and I would have never started this test base ****.. now its all you hear. also to be clr.. when we first came up with it, it was meant to help users feel better during a heavy steroid cycle. particularly ones that make a user lethargic. these days people have lost the OG meaning and use the term frivolously. also it was reffering to a ph used in adjunct, at the time it was m1d basically 5DHEA. anyone will tell you that is NOT a strong PH. it doesn't need to be. conversely if one uses real test it doesn't need to be a high dose either.
 
This one is easy. It's M1A. Can't believe this drug continues to be overlooked.

30mg/day is probably comparable to 30mg D-Bol in terms of sides vs. gains. Strength gains on this compound are great, btw.

However, make sure you have a trusted source that offers a pure product. I know in times past, supplement companies had huge discrepancies in certain products' quality that really made black market AAS look reliable. I fear that after telling you how amazing M1A is, you'll get a bunk product or severely underdosed and realize lackluster results from it. Rest assured, if it is pure, the results are FAR from lackluster.

Search my other posts for recommended vendors for this product.
 
booneman77 said:
you can take an oral ph but not oral dbol? makes no sense...
Click to expand...

It makes plenty of sense for some of us with certain jobs that have bans on illegal and illicit drugs. Some jobs even have polygraph requirements. I'm in the same boat as the op. We have strict policies in drug use, including steroids, and we are subject to polygraph. Its simply not worth losing a job for me.
 
cstallion said:
It makes plenty of sense for some of us with certain jobs that have bans on illegal and illicit drugs. Some jobs even have polygraph requirements. I'm in the same boat as the op. We have strict policies in drug use, including steroids, and we are subject to polygraph. Its simply not worth losing a job for me.
Click to expand...

how is a ph that converts to an active steroid any different...
 
Smont said:
With the exception of Andros I would assume
Click to expand...

Typically though "steroid" tests look for hormone levels and not directly test for a particular compound. Its waaayyyy more expensive/difficult to test for specific compounds. This is usually the reason athletes get busted as they get aniled with high e levels or really out of whack other hormones. Once that has been found, then you can test for a specifc compound (if nec.)
 
cstallion said:
It makes plenty of sense for some of us with certain jobs that have bans on illegal and illicit drugs. Some jobs even have polygraph requirements. I'm in the same boat as the op. We have strict policies in drug use, including steroids, and we are subject to polygraph. Its simply not worth losing a job for me.
Click to expand...

What exact question do they ask you in this polygraph?
 
mike33511 said:
What exact question do they ask you in this polygraph?
Click to expand...

Questions my man, questions. Again, different gov jobs approach this dramatically different, but ours were along the lines of in no specific order:

1) Have you ever been arrested for drug or alcohol-related crimes?
2) Have you ever purchased illegal or illicit drugs?
3) Have you ever sold illegal or illicit drugs?
4) Have you ever consumed illegal or illicit drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, heroine, opiods or anabolic steroids?
5) How long ago did you consume the drugs and how often?

So it basically goes on and on like that. If you answer "yes" to any of those questions, then they proceed to dive into that topic and continue to ask questions. Being that I previously passed the plolygraph even though I admitted to using certain illegal drugs, i.e., steroids, it was over 10 years ago so I was given a pass.

So that's why I can't take illegal drugs because we are subject to annual screenings? Make sense?
 
cstallion said:
Questions my man, questions. Again, different gov jobs approach this dramatically different, but ours were along the lines of in no specific order:

1) Have you ever been arrested for drug or alcohol-related crimes?
2) Have you ever purchased illegal or illicit drugs?
3) Have you ever sold illegal or illicit drugs?
4) Have you ever consumed illegal or illicit drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, heroine, opiods or anabolic steroids?
5) How long ago did you consume the drugs and how often?

So it basically goes on and on like that. If you answer "yes" to any of those questions, then they proceed to dive into that topic and continue to ask questions. Being that I previously passed the plolygraph even though I admitted to using certain illegal drugs, i.e., steroids, it was over 10 years ago so I was given a pass.

So that's why I can't take illegal drugs because we are subject to annual screenings? Make sense?
Click to expand...

Yes. I was asking because I was genuinely curious.
 
mike33511 said:
Yes. I was asking because I was genuinely curious.
Click to expand...

Yeah brother. Its intense, at least where I'm at. But its the remedial tests that really get people. Somebody smokes a little weed on new years or something and then you fail a drug test, or the polygraph or both. Trust me, if I live to retirement, I'll be smoking herb every day.
 
cstallion said:
Questions my man, questions. Again, different gov jobs approach this dramatically different, but ours were along the lines of in no specific order:

1) Have you ever been arrested for drug or alcohol-related crimes?
2) Have you ever purchased illegal or illicit drugs?
3) Have you ever sold illegal or illicit drugs?
4) Have you ever consumed illegal or illicit drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, heroine, opiods or anabolic steroids?
5) How long ago did you consume the drugs and how often?

So it basically goes on and on like that. If you answer "yes" to any of those questions, then they proceed to dive into that topic and continue to ask questions. Being that I previously passed the plolygraph even though I admitted to using certain illegal drugs, i.e., steroids, it was over 10 years ago so I was given a pass.

So that's why I can't take illegal drugs because we are subject to annual screenings? Make sense?
Click to expand...

But is the issue with taking steroids or taking explicitly controlled substances such as the steroids listed in the Controlled Substance Act?

Consuming steroids is legal, btw. It's just illegal to mfg, sell, distribute or suggest use of steroids as a paid coach.

Anyways, so is it ethical for the government to filter potential candidates on what could be viewed as a personal choice that wasn't particularly illegal. The only thing you could be accused of from an ethical standpoint is contributing to a demand for activity that is illegal.

But as I've always said before, in my personal perspective, is that God (or some non-person, non government higher power) created and defined morality, not our faulty institution of corruptible men and women in power. Remember, this is the same institution that also deems it morally acceptible to strip the rights of unborn babies in favor of the convenience of the woman carrying it.

Now I know none of these fine arguments change how your employer handles steroid use today, but you could get started in having these sorts of conversations with others in that government department to one day change the philosophy and perception of others around you that could lead to granting you the freedom our Constitution meant for you to have anyways.
 
This is an interesting philosophical question that I always have for folks and I am genuinely intersted in:

If the government defines it as legal or illegal, does that translate to moral or immoral to you personally? I used to think that people on the left would generally say "yes, it does" and people on the right would say "no, it doesn't" but now, after seeing entire states go against federal law based on whether they like it or not (i.e. Marijuana legality and sanctuary cities/states), I've now concluded that people just do what they want to do and will obey laws they agree with and disregard laws they disagree with.

So in essence, people do what they want to do anyways. If we want people to change, we don't do it by force, we do it by influencing their values and beliefs.
 
Exactly. Gone are the days where a govnt is seen as some sort of instrument of God.
 
fueledpassion said:
But is the issue with taking steroids or taking explicitly controlled substances such as the steroids listed in the Controlled Substance Act?

Consuming steroids is legal, btw. It's just illegal to mfg, sell, distribute or suggest use of steroids as a paid coach.

Anyways, so is it ethical for the government to filter potential candidates on what could be viewed as a personal choice that wasn't particularly illegal. The only thing you could be accused of from an ethical standpoint is contributing to a demand for activity that is illegal.

But as I've always said before, in my personal perspective, is that God (or some non-person, non government higher power) created and defined morality, not our faulty institution of corruptible men and women in power. Remember, this is the same institution that also deems it morally acceptible to strip the rights of unborn babies in favor of the convenience of the woman carrying it.

Now I know none of these fine arguments change how your employer handles steroid use today, but you could get started in having these sorts of conversations with others in that government department to one day change the philosophy and perception of others around you that could lead to granting you the freedom our Constitution meant for you to have anyways.
Click to expand...

We have an agency policy that explicitly says employees are forbidden from consuming illegal or illicit drugs. So it doesn't matter if weed is legal in Cali or Colorado, we are still forbidden from partaking. Same with roids. This is pretty much the way all gov agencies, municipal, state and federal, operate. It's the same issue service members and law enforcement face in Cali and Colo: although weed is deemed legal in those states, these individuals are still barred from consuming them.
 
Exactly! Especially after seeing how bat$h!t crazy the political left has gone over the threat of losing power and influence on the hill, lol.

There are no standards or principles by which our pathetic government live by nowadays.
 
cstallion said:
We have an agency policy that explicitly says employees are forbidden from consuming illegal or illicit drugs. So it doesn't matter if weed is legal in Cali or Colorado, we are still forbidden from partaking. Same with roids. This is pretty much the way all gov agencies, municipal, state and federal, operate. It's the same issue service members and law enforcement face in Cali and Colo: although weed is deemed legal in those states, these individuals are still barred from consuming them.
Click to expand...

Man, the examples about states disregarding laws was extra food for thought on the philosophical aspect, not the specific topic of issue we're discussing here.

My question is whether the government is discouraging all "illegal" drugs or 'all things it doesn't agree with?' I say this because no matter how you spin it, if taking steroids is what they are really against, regardless of legality, and you decide to take a pro-steroid (a steroid that converts into another steroid), while perhaps not an unlawful offense, you'd be breaking the spirit of the law, I suppose.
 
fueledpassion said:
But is the issue with taking steroids or taking explicitly controlled substances such as the steroids listed in the Controlled Substance Act?

Consuming steroids is legal, btw. It's just illegal to mfg, sell, distribute or suggest use of steroids as a paid coach.
Click to expand...

That's the problem tho my dear... for starters, our employers deem it's not "legal" for us to consumer steroids for a multitude of issues. But even if we could consume them, we would most likely have to acquire the said substance through illegal means. See what I'm saying? But it's not a problem for me. I love doing what I do and wouldn't want it any other way. Same when I was in the service. Sure, I couldn't smoke weed, but I willingly signed up and waived that right. It's all good man. If people don't want to adhere by certain standards set in place with government employment, then they can go work somewhere else.
 
2kvette said:
I do realize your wrong. I also realize my A.S. in General & Inorganic Chemistry, B.S. in Biomedical Chemistry w/ focus in pharmaceutical chemistry, and my Doctorate in Pharmacy & Pharmacology(two more years left tbh) with a personal research focus in androgens and anabolic agents qualifies me as an expert in this area.

Okay, I'm done being a d1ck. I don't mean to be rude. Your confusing a lot based on effects. What I mean is your attributing causes to the wrong effects, confusing binding affinity with intrinsic activity(they're totally different), and your confusing a lot on how trestolone causes breast growth, how DHT retards it, and how receptor-ligand binding works in general.
Click to expand...

2kvette You definitely should be proud of your education and being considered an expert in this area. I just I wish you would have spent those words educating me on WHY I was wrong instead of telling me why you are sure that I am wrong... I would prefer to learn than just be told I am wrong.

I am going to take a few guesses and explain my thoughts on some of the things you mentioned I had wrong. Maybe you can tell me a little more as to why I would be wrong on them so I can learn from this.

1. DHT has a very high binding affinity to the AR especially in breast tissue it is up to 3 times more likely to bind to the AR than estrogen. When in higher amounts it will typically bind to the breast tissue, take up the space that estrogen would, causing less estrogen binding so less estrogenic activity at the breast tissue level. Is this not correct? It is why I said that DHT can help avoid gyno from trest. Yes, I also understand that a lot of the gyno from 19-nors is prolactin related as well, and I did not address that in my post but probably should have. Depending on dose I would recommend a supplement or compound that reduced prolactin as well to avoid gyno. At least have something on hand anyway...

From reading a little on intrinsic activity it is how effectively the Receptors can produce a response to the agonist, as opposed to affinity which is the likelihood of the agonist binding to the Receptor. I was only speaking to the affinity from this explanation.

Do you mind telling me the difference between binding affinity and intrinsic activity in your own words, and what that has to do with how DHT taking up a space on the breast tissue AR keeping estrogen from binding to it and expressing itself. Reason being I am only considering DHT as an estrogen blocker in this scenario, if it binds then estrogen can not, therefore the estrogen can not act on it. This is what I have learned inmy research and stiudies anyway, is this not correct?

Anyway, not trying to be a D1ck back, I would just rather be corrected than simply told I am wrong. Nothing can be corrected without learning why I was wrong. Help a brother out if you don't mind. I definitely don't have your education but love to learn.
 
Because if you're caught with a bag of vials of Test, syringes, and a shady bottle of pills like Dbol they're more likely to report you to the authorities. Having a "dietary supplement" is easier to explain and to the untrained eye looks like a supplement bottle for working out.
 
Tomcatlegacy said:
Because if you're caught with a bag of vials of Test, syringes, and a shady bottle of pills like Dbol they're more likely to report you to the authorities. Having a "dietary supplement" is easier to explain and to the untrained eye looks like a supplement bottle for working out.
Click to expand...

What likely scenarios are there where youd have your oils, syringes, needles and orals in a bag, and in a bag that might be seen inside by others?
 
cstallion said:
That's the problem tho my dear... for starters, our employers deem it's not "legal" for us to consumer steroids for a multitude of issues. But even if we could consume them, we would most likely have to acquire the said substance through illegal means. See what I'm saying? But it's not a problem for me. I love doing what I do and wouldn't want it any other way. Same when I was in the service. Sure, I couldn't smoke weed, but I willingly signed up and waived that right. It's all good man. If people don't want to adhere by certain standards set in place with government employment, then they can go work somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Then you shouldn't take any pro-hormones or pro-steroids which are bringing about the same, albeit less efficient, effect.

But it isn't illegal, simply because it is unconstitutional for a federal law to be applied directly to citizens within a state, unless the state embraces said federal "act" as their own state-sanctioned law. Interstate commerce? Sure, federal law supercedes. Non-commercial application of law within a single state? Nope. Need the state to agree with and enforce that law.

And to make this thread more useful, I'll add that not all states mimic the federal laws word for word.

As an example, some of them classify possession up to a certain amount as a misdemeanor, not a felony.
 
Tomcatlegacy said:
Because if you're caught with a bag of vials of Test, syringes, and a shady bottle of pills like Dbol they're more likely to report you to the authorities. Having a "dietary supplement" is easier to explain and to the untrained eye looks like a supplement bottle for working out.
Click to expand...


Now this is completely true.
 
booneman77 said:
Typically though "steroid" tests look for hormone levels and not directly test for a particular compound. Its waaayyyy more expensive/difficult to test for specific compounds. This is usually the reason athletes get busted as they get aniled with high e levels or really out of whack other hormones. Once that has been found, then you can test for a specifc compound (if nec.)
Click to expand...

Also one that is used a lot is the testosterone to epitestosterone ratio. (I assumed by e you meant estrogen, which can also be out of whack but I've never heard of that being used for positive or negative AAS testing status).

And in regards to jobs I don't know of many that test for hormones. They are rather expensive. Hell, most companies don't even want to include basic health insurance or routine blood work...
 
Nac said:
What likely scenarios are there where youd have your oils, syringes, needles and orals in a bag, and in a bag that might be seen inside by others?
Click to expand...

If you're in the military for instance. Where they can go through your ****, where they have random checkpoints that raid your vehicle. See what I mean? I don't understand how none of you except a few understand this.
 
Tomcatlegacy said:
If you're in the military for instance. Where they can go through your ****, where they have random checkpoints that raid your vehicle. See what I mean? I don't understand how none of you except a few understand this.
Click to expand...

Well sure, thats part of my point. Whats likely for you is unlikely for me, and vice versa. I didnt take into consideration your specific circumstances, which appear quite unique relative to the general population.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top