Anyone know the anabolic ratio of M1 Alpha?
- Thread starter JoePaul39
- Start date
CompoundLifts31
New member
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
It is the pro hormone to methyl 1 test. Starscream66 has no idea what he's talking about
StarScream66
Well-known member
So, I dug around and found the original article that henryv was referencing on that post, and it can be found here:
Invalid Link Removed
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.
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 Invalid Link Removed 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.
dvw
Well-known member
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
StarScream66
Well-known member
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).
Invalid Link Removed
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.
Invalid Link Removed
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:
Invalid Link Removed
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.
Invalid Link Removed
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.
Invalid Link Removed
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:
Smont
Legend
It got answered somewhere, there's just so much going on that its lost in the mix
StarScream66
Well-known member
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:
Invalid Link Removed
The A:A ratio of M1AD according to the Vida book is 91:420.
Smont
Legend
There damn near useless.
CompoundLifts31
New member
dvw
Well-known member
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
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.
dvw
Well-known member
Hahaha you know it
CompoundLifts31
New member
dvw
Well-known member
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
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
Rad83
Well-known member
Smont
Legend
Gains son
StarScream66
Well-known member
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!"
Smont
Legend
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
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
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
I beg to differ. But maybe @dvw can come and clarify what he means.
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
Go away dude. You are still having a debate with yourself. Nobody cares.
dvw
Well-known member
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
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
Well-known member
Rad83
Well-known member
Rad83
Well-known member
More cowbell ?!
StarScream66
Well-known member
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
Legend
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
Well-known member
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
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?