Anyone know the anabolic ratio of M1 Alpha?

dvw

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
 
CompoundLifts31

CompoundLifts31

New member
Awards
0
Can you provide your source from this? And no, it's not derived from test, it's derived from boldenone initially. But, it's basically DHT-Boldenone so it has no conversion to estrogen whatsoever.
I thought this was the Prohormone of methyltest. My mistake. Just trying to give a guess of some sort.

Obviously, you **** with this PH ****...

Grab a syringe buddy...
 

dvw

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
P.S. starscream66 you a straight up frot loop. You have yet to learn how to use anabolic minds search tool. Go far away dude
 

dvw

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Dymethazine was a FDA approved prescribed drug at one point 50 years ago
 
Smont

Smont

Legend
Awards
5
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
Dymethazine was a FDA approved prescribed drug at one point 50 years ago
This is true, I believe it was sold under the name roxIlon, or roxilin. Something like that
 
StarScream66

StarScream66

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • RockStar
He's a real steroid chemist you're a real joke
So, I dug around and found the original article that henryv was referencing on that post, and it can be found here:



The source he used to make his determinations was Androgens and Anabolic Agents by Julius Vida. You can see it right there as source number 2 linked multiple times. So, again, that's looking at the anabolic and androgen ratio BASED on the in vitro tests of rat's levator ani and prostate organs. And I have to reiterate: THIS IS NOT RELEVANT TO REAL LIFE SITUATIONS.

You can look at that as a general guideline for possibly it's strength, but the levator ani and prostate's were specifically used because they are super dense in androgen receptors. Skeletal muscle does not have that same level of androgen receptors. So, these number does not translate to real world results. They only give you an idea of how potent they might be.

Again, there were no specific studies on these compounds, only simple lab tests.

He's a real steroid chemist you're a real joke
P.S. starscream66 you a straight up frot loop. You have yet to learn how to use anabolic minds search tool. Go far away dude
It is the pro hormone to methyl 1 test. Starscream66 has no idea what he's talking about
You can continue to insult me all you want if it makes you feel better, but I'm not going to stoop to your level. When I talk to people, I try my best to have a civil debate. If you want to engage in these strawman arguments with me, so be it. I'll continue to post what I know to be true.

Furthermore, I am not and have never claimed to be a chemist. I, like 99% on this forum, are self taught and have learned what they know through many years of experience. We're amateurs posting and sharing results, asking questions about what we don't know and sharing what we do know with others to help them.
 
Smont

Smont

Legend
Awards
5
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
There should be a heated debate section on anabolicminds where mofos can just keyboard warrior eachother to death without consequence lol
 

dvw

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
What are real world results? Androgens should list aprox amount of lean muscle tissue gained in trained athletes? What the fuark are you talking about dude? Seriously what are you on. These are pharmaceutical drug androgenic anabolic ratios documented by a pharmaceutical drug company. Go away dude
 

dvw

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
The irony is fuarking real world results are documented in the hundreds of accounts here on hundreds of threads from people who are trained athletes taking these compound right here are anabolic minds forum. You're a strange fellow starscream66
 

dvw

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Another thing there is no civil debate. It's not a debate. Post facts or real world personal experience as your source of knowledge. Incoherent incorrect conjecture doesn't help or answer a simple question buddy.
 
StarScream66

StarScream66

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • RockStar
What are real world results? Androgens should list aprox amount of lean muscle tissue gained in trained athletes? What the fuark are you talking about dude? Seriously what are you on. These are pharmaceutical drug androgenic anabolic ratios documented by a pharmaceutical drug company. Go away dude
When you look at studies for AAS or anything, you want to find them used on the population that it would apply to. For us, we would want to see studies of AAS on weight trained males. And yes, some of those studies do exist. But, we don't have studies for any of the drugs you mentioned. I'll try to explain this simply because I can tell you're having trouble following.

The book Androgens and Anabolic Agents by Julius Vida (which I'm going to refer to as the Vida book further) was looking at rats. Rats are good for the very first animal study when you're testing a new drug, but you can't compare a rat to a human being. Obviously, right? But not only that, these studies were in vitro - meaning they removed two organs from the rats, injecting them with the substance, and then looked to determine how much of the steroid bound to the androgen receptors in these two organs.

The first organ they tested was the levator ani. This is a tiny organ inside your pelvis that has loads of androgen receptors in it, more androgen receptors than are found in skeletal muscle (e.g.: biceps, hamstrings, calves, triceps,etc).

The levator ani is a broad, thin muscle group, situated on either side of the pelvis. It is formed from three muscle components: the pubococcygeus, the iliococcygeus, and the puborectalis.


This is a picture of the levator ani to show you how small the organ actually is and the extremely minimal functional use it has in the body, esp. in terms of helping us determine whether a steroid is "strong" or not.


The second organ they tested outside of the rat's body was it's prostate. I'm sure you know what a prostate is, but again, it is a very small organ that has a lot of androgen receptors (which is why prostate cancer can be caused by increased androgens and people who have enlarged prostate or prostate cancers are put on anti-androgen or anti-DHT/DHT reducing medications). So, again, because the prostate is so high in androgen receptors, it's usefulness as a tool to tell us whether these same AAS are beneficial in skeletal muscle is limited.

Here's an overview of the prostate if you want to learn more about it:

Does that make sense? These were not studies where they took men who have been working out for years and put them on a AAS to see what the benefits were - some of those studies do exist, and I'll show you an example to demonstrate. This one isn't in weight trained males, but it's just an example.


Here's an overview of what type of studies there are, what the difference is, and a good explanation to get a fundamental understanding on it.


The irony is fuarking real world results are documented in the hundreds of accounts here on hundreds of threads from people who are trained athletes taking these compound right here are anabolic minds forum. You're a strange fellow starscream66
Again, you're conflating two different things. Anecdotal reports and actual studies. Because, as we've already established, there have never been real world studies on any of these new designer steroids or prohormones we can ONLY use anecdotal evidence to look at whether or not they work, how well they work, what the sides are, etc. With SARMs we have some real world data we can look at, but none of the DS/PHs.

The point I'm trying to make is that you're claiming there are studies on these DS/PHs and I am telling you no, there are not.
 
Last edited:

Megashark

Member
Awards
2
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
It's funny, all the replies on this thread and I don't think one person answered the OPP's question. I could be wrong as I haven't read EVERY reply but I'm just taking a wild guess
 
Smont

Smont

Legend
Awards
5
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
It's funny, all the replies on this thread and I don't think one person answered the OPP's question. I could be wrong as I haven't read EVERY reply but I'm just taking a wild guess
It got answered somewhere, there's just so much going on that its lost in the mix
 
StarScream66

StarScream66

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • RockStar
It's funny, all the replies on this thread and I don't think one person answered the OPP's question. I could be wrong as I haven't read EVERY reply but I'm just taking a wild guess
Actually, I'll give @dvw some credit here, because he answered the question by posting a link. I had to hunt down this article, but it's listed here:


The A:A ratio of M1AD according to the Vida book is 91:420.
 
CompoundLifts31

CompoundLifts31

New member
Awards
0
OP's answer to question is 420/91. That is real methyl 1 androstenediol
It seems it's about 4:1 ratio Anabolic to Androgenic ratio. At least M1T is. I would argue that the Prohormone is much, much weaker as the body has to actually change the PH to a steroid within your body, reducing the actual amount received.
 

dvw

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
It seems it's about 4:1 ratio Anabolic to Androgenic ratio. At least M1T is. I would argue that the Prohormone is much, much weaker as the body has to actually change the PH to a steroid within your body, reducing the actual amount received.
The pharmaceutical company that developed methyl 1 androstenediol states it's 420/91. That is the people who created it and synthesized the compound. That's not my guess that's from drug company that actually developed it
 

dvw

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
..... That being said, I don't place a useable value in that ratio for us.
Anabolic androgenic ratio of M1A was OP's question. I answered it. Starscream66 is posting paragraphs of nonsense and copy and pasting articles from web. I'm not sure why or what for. Simple question simple answer.
 
Smont

Smont

Legend
Awards
5
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
I dont even think the guy who was looking for the answer is still here...
 
CompoundLifts31

CompoundLifts31

New member
Awards
0
The pharmaceutical company that developed methyl 1 androstenediol states it's 420/91. That is the people who created it and synthesized the compound. That's not my guess that's from drug company that actually developed it
I didn't think it was a guess!!

What made you say that?
 

dvw

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I'm just so confused why people are talking about methyl 1 androstenediol as if it's some new exotic mysterious compound with completely unknown effects, results, or side effects. It's been sold for 15 years over the counter by retailers online. There's 100's of threads documenting the real world effects,results,side effects in trained men. Right here on this very forum.
 

dvw

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Unfortunately recently in last couple years companies are selling methyl 1 dhea and marketing it as a clone of Alpha 1 aka M1A. They list an organic chemistry nomenclature on label so people don't know it's not real methyl 1 androstenediol. Then people post they gained ZERO weight or size after taking M1A. They say "I'm a non responder". There's no such thing as a non responder to active oral methylated anabolic androgenic steroid. They just got fake stuff. That the truth. LOTS of companies sell bunk Designer steroids that don't actually contain the compound on label in their capsule's. That's the risk you take
 
  • Like
Reactions: UNX
StarScream66

StarScream66

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • RockStar
..... That being said, I don't place a useable value in that ratio for us.
That's the point I've been trying to make this entire thread.

The pharmaceutical company that developed methyl 1 androstenediol states it's 420/91. That is the people who created it and synthesized the compound. That's not my guess that's from drug company that actually developed it
Dude, you're obviously clueless to what I'm trying to explain to you. Those numbers are JUST for marketing purposes. Patrick Arrnold started this whole A:A ratio BS when he came across the Vida book and came out with Andro, 4 Andro, 1 Andro and 6OXO (amonst many other things).

But you can go back and find posts where have no real world significance and are just for marketing. That's why he said "1-testosterone is 500 times stronger than testosterone!"
 
Smont

Smont

Legend
Awards
5
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
That's the point I've been trying to make this entire thread.



Dude, you're obviously clueless to what I'm trying to explain to you. Those numbers are JUST for marketing purposes. Patrick Arrnold started this whole A:A ratio BS when he came across the Vida book and came out with Andro, 4 Andro, 1 Andro and 6OXO (amonst many other things).

But you can go back and find posts where have no real world significance and are just for marketing. That's why he said "1-testosterone is 500 times stronger than testosterone!"
I'm not taking sides here, but I'm pretty sure he is just answering a question by presenting the numbers that the company put on a product, I dont think hes implying that the numbers mean anything.
 
Smont

Smont

Legend
Awards
5
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
I think what this thread needs is a topic change. Everyone is getting too worked up over stuff that doesn't really matter that much. No1 in here is giving advice that's going to hurt someone, just a lot of harmless disagreements ( by the way it's ok to disagree guys, no1 has to die. )
 
Rad83

Rad83

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
I think what this thread needs is a topic change. Everyone is getting too worked up over stuff that doesn't really matter that much. No1 in here is giving advice that's going to hurt someone, just a lot of harmless disagreements ( by the way it's ok to disagree guys, no1 has to die. )
Agree...Meanwhile JoeP decided to and is currently running, Epistane....

StarScream has 3 fresh bottles of this stuff tho, curious when he will run it ?
 
StarScream66

StarScream66

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • RockStar
I'm not taking sides here, but I'm pretty sure he is just answering a question by presenting the numbers that the company put on a product, I dont think hes implying that the numbers mean anything.
I beg to differ. But maybe @dvw can come and clarify what he means.

I think what this thread needs is a topic change. Everyone is getting too worked up over stuff that doesn't really matter that much. No1 in here is giving advice that's going to hurt someone, just a lot of harmless disagreements ( by the way it's ok to disagree guys, no1 has to die. )
I'm just trying to break down and explain to people the origin of these A:A numbers and why they're useless for real world results. I hope my many posts help explain that.

Agree...Meanwhile JoeP decided to and is currently running, Epistane....

StarScream has 3 fresh bottles of this stuff tho, curious when he will run it ?
I don't know yet. I'm going into my doc soon to get a physical and blood tests, so I need to make sure everything is kosher before I think of adding anything else to my current stack.
 

dvw

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
That's the point I've been trying to make this entire thread.



Dude, you're obviously clueless to what I'm trying to explain to you. Those numbers are JUST for marketing purposes. Patrick Arrnold started this whole A:A ratio BS when he came across the Vida book and came out with Andro, 4 Andro, 1 Andro and 6OXO (amonst many other things).

But you can go back and find posts where have no real world significance and are just for marketing. That's why he said "1-testosterone is 500 times stronger than testosterone!"
Go away dude. You are still having a debate with yourself. Nobody cares.
 

dvw

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Starscream66 has contributed absolutely nothing whatsoever to this thread. I gave my personal real world experience from taking the compound multiple times. Also I answered the OP's original question "what is the anabolic androgenic ratio of M1A. Go away you fuarking funny bunny
 

dvw

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I'm not taking sides here, but I'm pretty sure he is just answering a question by presenting the numbers that the company put on a product, I dont think hes implying that the numbers mean anything.
Exactly!!! I never said the anabolic androgenic numbers equate to x amount of muscle gainz. Starscream66 is a bug. Every couple years a guy like him pops up on here rambling on and "educating " everyone on androgens. All while spouting nonsense and incorrect info. He wants so bad to sound like an expert. It's comical at this point
 
StarScream66

StarScream66

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • RockStar
Starscream66 has contributed absolutely nothing whatsoever to this thread. I gave my personal real world experience from taking the compound multiple times. Also I answered the OP's original question "what is the anabolic androgenic ratio of M1A. Go away you fuarking funny bunny
Troll.Pls go.
 
StarScream66

StarScream66

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • RockStar
Exactly!!! I never said the anabolic androgenic numbers equate to x amount of muscle gainz. Starscream66 is a bug. Every couple years a guy like him pops up on here rambling on and "educating " everyone on androgens. All while spouting nonsense and incorrect info. He wants so bad to sound like an expert. It's comical at this point
You're the one who started this whole argument accusing me of being a "pseudoscientist" "fake chemist" and whatever else. I went through and proved point by point for EVERYONE (not just you) where the A:A numbers came from and why they can't be taken at face value.

Dudes’ been here since ‘09....don’t think he’s a troll
He seems be trolling me very obviously. He refuses to refute anything I said and just tells me to "go away" and nothing of substance.
 
Last edited:
Smont

Smont

Legend
Awards
5
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
He's obviously trolling with this post or absolutely clueless. A:A numbers equate to x amount of muscle gains? Cmon, that's either a person who's entirely clueless of all the science I've posted in this thread, intentionally brainwashed by the marketing numbers, or is just trolling.
Your not reading correctly, he said that the ratios "do not" equate to x amount of muscle gains. He is just saying those are the given numbers. 400-90 or whatever they were. We know they dont mean anything other then give a rough idea of how the compound SHOULD work.

I know you both mean well, you both should just agree to disagree and move on. The original thread is dead now. Theres nothing really useful to add at this point, pretty sure the op is not even active in the thread anymore
 
StarScream66

StarScream66

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • RockStar
Your not reading correctly, he said that the ratios "do not" equate to x amount of muscle gains. He is just saying those are the given numbers. 400-90 or whatever they were. We know they dont mean anything other then give a rough idea of how the compound SHOULD work.

I know you both mean well, you both should just agree to disagree and move on. The original thread is dead now. Theres nothing really useful to add at this point, pretty sure the op is not even active in the thread anymore
I reread it and edited my other post.

If people want this post to die a slow death, then I would suggest to stop responding to it. I think my information about why the A:A numbers are useless was extremely thoroughly researched and I tried to explain it in depth and even so a lay person could understand it.

I don't like being insulted for no reason while I post references and studies to back up my point and all I get is "Starscream is a fake chemist" and "go away". That's like a preschool argument.
 

JoePaul39

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
The original thread is dead now. Theres nothing really useful to add at this point, pretty sure the op is not even active in the thread anymore
I am the original OP. I am still following for the entertainment value I get between Starscream and DVW bickering. Back to the original topic, what did someone say anyhow the anabolic ratio of the compound is? I know the number is pretty much meaningless, but I am curious. Also, what was his source for the ratio because I did numerous google searches and couldn’t find anything?
 

Top