Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

an analysis of chemical nomenclature of jungle warfare

Status
Not open for further replies.
FitnFirm said:
I would be happy to send you a bottle of JW to test PA, email me your address to [email protected] I will ship tomorrow and you will have it tuesday or wed at the latest.
Click to expand...

Wow, in the automotive industry, we have to go through a whole long process of cross-referencing part numbers with the car components, ordering those car components through local car dealerships, and stripping them appart to test competator components.

In the supplement industry, all you have to do is email a rep.
 
MakaveliThaDon said:
I've been taking JW for a a few weeks now, and I'm not by any means a chemist, so I'm a little confused as to what you are all disputing here.

Are you disputing the effectiveness of the product itself, as in is this just a placebo product? Or are you disputing the saftey of it, implying ALRI throws in some dangerous ingredients and kind of covers them up by not really listing what they are?
Click to expand...

It's hard to dispute the fact that the product actually works, based on a ton of anecdotal evidence. It's just as hard, however, to verify claims of what is actually in the product, and just what ADED is, because as Patrick mentioned, the nomenclature is misleading at best. If ADED is mATD, or a metabolite of ATD, it's probably not dangerous, whether it is truly methylated or not.

The main points of dispute here are:
1. What is ADED?
2. Why is the nomenclature printed on the bottles of Jungle Warfare grossly inaccurate?
3. If it is mATD, why? It appears as though tests show that mATD is actually LESS EFFECTIVE than ATD.
 
thesinner said:
Wow, in the automotive industry, we have to go through a whole long process of cross-referencing part numbers with the car components, ordering those car components through local car dealerships, and stripping them appart to test competator components.

In the supplement industry, all you have to do is email a rep.
Click to expand...

Hell - we could get stuff in Wal-mart if we wanted to test someone else's oil.
 
jmh80 said:
I just wanted to say Hi to all 30 people reading this thread now! :cheers:
Click to expand...

:wave: Great info PA:thumbsup:

I used 12 bottles of this and gained 25 pounds LBM!! Does this mean I am going to loose it all soon!!!!!!!??:confused:





:icon_lol: all jokes aside.. I am glad somebody wakes us up now and then..I know many of us do not even know what a supplement is mad eof and just take it because it has good reviews..

All the respect for Alri's products..and PA's great knowledge:thumbsup:
 
jmh80 said:
Hell - we could get stuff in Wal-mart if we wanted to test someone else's oil.
Click to expand...

You guys are lucky. A lot of the parts we want to test aren't individually sold for a few years after the new car has hit the market, so we're stuck buying entire control arms, etc. to obtain test parts. It's a long, annoying, and expensive process so, of course, they have us co-ops doing it.
 
MakaveliThaDon said:
I've been taking JW for a a few weeks now, and I'm not by any means a chemist, so I'm a little confused as to what you are all disputing here.

Are you disputing the effectiveness of the product itself, as in is this just a placebo product? Or are you disputing the saftey of it, implying ALRI throws in some dangerous ingredients and kind of covers them up by not really listing what they are?
Click to expand...


What is being disputed is what is ADED. ALR created the compound and since its never been seen before it causes curiosity. Because of this it makes it hard for competitors to copy the product.
 
Did I just step into B-B.com? Why does this feel like PA 1) trolling for publicity (ie no such thing as bad publicity), or 2) carrying over another long standing argument from another forum? I'm not saying either is true; I AM saying that's the way it appears to me, just stepping in now.

It seems hypocritical for him to do this, especially since (as he admits) he did it with AMP. IMO, not only did he do this, but when he switched the description, he switched the ingredient, too, as there were definate differences in how I felt on early versions vs later ones. The later ones sucked.

I'm going back in hiding now.
 
poison said:
Did I just step into B-B.com? Why does this feel like PA 1) trolling for publicity (ie no such thing as bad publicity), or 2) carrying over another long standing argument from another forum? I'm not saying either is true; I AM saying that's the way it appears to me, just stepping in now.

It seems hypocritical for him to do this, especially since (as he admits) he did it with AMP. IMO, not only did he do this, but when he switched the description, he switched the ingredient, too, as there were definate differences in how I felt on early versions vs later ones. The later ones sucked.

I'm going back in hiding now.
Click to expand...

Haha, I see where your coming from Poison...now go back into hiding!...kidding..

Nah, imho this whole topic/discussion has been very civil, soooo much more than it would be at other places. I, for one am enjoying learning a TON of new stuff...

PA seems to me to just be calling it as he sees it.

REALLY waiting to hear ALR's response, bc right now it aint lookin too good.
 
B5150 said:
Don't keep the lady waiting. :)
Click to expand...


Dats right ! :aargh: You know I think he cannot find his way back to this thread :eek: I should of known, I bet he didnt leave any bread crumbs :toofunny: You gotta do that for a man, they cant read a map to save their life :D
 
bLacKjAck. said:
Haha, I see where your coming from Poison...now go back into hiding!...kidding..

Nah, imho this whole topic/discussion has been very civil, soooo much more than it would be at other places. I, for one am enjoying learning a TON of new stuff...

PA seems to me to just be calling it as he sees it.

REALLY waiting to hear ALR's response, bc right now it aint lookin too good.
Click to expand...



ALR's response was to let him test it, Im waiting to ship :)
 
FitnFirm said:
Well your talking above my head so............ Well I know it does have Anti-Aromatase effects because I have used it and experienced it as well. But as you know I am no chemist so I cannot comment on why it does work.
Click to expand...

If you are a woman, why would you be using a product with AI effects?

Just asking, I have no idea what effect this would have, it just sounded odd to me.
 
Rogue Drone said:
If you are a woman, why would you be using a product with AI effects?

Just asking, I have no idea what effect this would have, it just sounded odd to me.[/QUOTE



Been taking JW for a good 2 and a half weeks now and loving it. As for reading this thread, and others before it talking about JW being methylated and such, i went out and purchased bulk milk thistle as a precation and i urge anyone who has reservation on the saftey of JW on the liver to pick up a bottle.

As of ALRI's response, i trust ALRI will all their supplements having used many of them. Keep it UP
Click to expand...
 
Well, I will subscribe to this thread and wait. This thread seems familiar to me. I saw it on another board few months ago. ;)

Last time, Sledge, BK and a few other science guys chimed in. Maybe, they could come back to discuss science again.(Except BK :))
 
Bloute said:
Well, I will subscribe to this thread and wait. This thread seems familiar to me. I saw it on another board few months ago. ;)

Last time, Sledge, BK and a few other science guys chimed in. Maybe, they could come back to discuss science again.(Except BK :))
Click to expand...



No, this is not like "the other" thread, these people act like adults here.
 
FitnFirm said:
No, this is not like "the other" thread, these people act like adults here.
Click to expand...

I think the first thread start on legitimate questions. Do you remember all the bashing we received about getting chemical classes ? I read this thread and I see the same conclusion and the same questions that I read in the other thread.

Maybe, this thread is more civilized but the same questions are asked. I dont want to start any drama here. I am tired of this as the majority of the users who posted in the other thread. Let's just wait for the answers and I will glady apologize if I was wrong since the beginning in the other thread. :)
 
Bloute said:
I think the first thread start on legitimate questions. Do you remember all the bashing we received about getting chemical classes ? I read this thread and I see the same conclusion and the same questions that I read in the other thread.

Maybe, this thread is more civilized but the same questions are asked. I dont want to start any drama here. I am tired of this as the majority of the users who posted in the other thread. Let's just wait for the answers and I will glady apologize if I was wrong since the beginning in the other thread. :)
Click to expand...



I post ALR's responses, if you are offended by them you can take it up with him :) I am the messenger.
 
FitnFirm said:
I post ALR's responses, if you are offended by them you can take it up with him :) I am the messenger.
Click to expand...

Lol, I Know that's why I never shot the messenger ;). Anyway, now we have PA to discuss science so I sit and try to learn as much as I can. :)
 
FitnFirm said:
I would be happy to send you a bottle of JW to test PA, email me your address to [email protected] I will ship tomorrow and you will have it tuesday or wed at the latest.
Click to expand...


its not necessary for me to test it really. this is a debate on nomenclature, not whether the product meets label claim

if i test it though i guess i can confirm if it is what i think it is
 
SCDiesel23 said:
It's hard to dispute the fact that the product actually works, based on a ton of anecdotal evidence. It's just as hard, however, to verify claims of what is actually in the product, and just what ADED is, because as Patrick mentioned, the nomenclature is misleading at best. If ADED is mATD, or a metabolite of ATD, it's probably not dangerous, whether it is truly methylated or not.

The main points of dispute here are:
1. What is ADED?
2. Why is the nomenclature printed on the bottles of Jungle Warfare grossly inaccurate?
3. If it is mATD, why? It appears as though tests show that mATD is actually LESS EFFECTIVE than ATD.
Click to expand...


the current knowledge on aromatase leads one to conclude that mATD probably would be less effective

but mATD could be doing stuff we don't know. good or bad.

if you like the results and you are remaining healthy and don't mind being a test dummy than nothing wrong with using it
 
poison said:
Did I just step into B-B.com? Why does this feel like PA 1) trolling for publicity (ie no such thing as bad publicity), or 2) carrying over another long standing argument from another forum? I'm not saying either is true; I AM saying that's the way it appears to me, just stepping in now.

It seems hypocritical for him to do this, especially since (as he admits) he did it with AMP. IMO, not only did he do this, but when he switched the description, he switched the ingredient, too, as there were definate differences in how I felt on early versions vs later ones. The later ones sucked.

I'm going back in hiding now.
Click to expand...


i never switched the ingredients in AMP.
 
Patrick Arnold said:
its not necessary for me to test it really. this is a debate on nomenclature, not whether the product meets label claim

if i test it though i guess i can confirm if it is what i think it is
Click to expand...

I had sent ALR your initial post of this thread and here is his response to you.




Message to PA from ALR
PA: Thanks for the offer on structure naming but the label and name you used is 1-2 years ago. Since we have informed all of the sites long ago you either have a cached page or the site you searched has not caught up with the rest of us yet. Thanks for the heads up. Let's help make it easy for you this time so you can waste less time on basic chemistry (which you are correct on of course) . We appreciate your input as between BALCO and AMP you would be the go to guy for FDA experience these days and we will certanly have our FDA lawyer take another look. Thank you very much for the caustic but accurate digestion of old labeling. Here is the current label


Invalid Link Removed

ADED (5a-dehydro-etiocholane-4,6-dien-3-one-17-ol A.K.A 17a-methyl-5a-dehydro-etiocholane-4,6-dien-3-ene-ol) Many are aware of both the positive and negative physiological issues relating to the naturally occurring aromatase inhibitory ATD. Most of the benefits are the result of one of its physiological 17-OH metabolites. ADED is a natural non-androgenic metabolite of ATD with improved oral bio-availability. Please, do not confuse this with ATD itself as the difference is very important both in structure and action: Some may recall this one (Refering to the info that follows, not the compound itself) from our Ultra H.O.T.ter matrix but to recap…By modulating estrogen build-up the negative feed-back loop to the hypothalamus is put in check. The result is that the body optimizes natural testosterone production. We use our favorite aromatase inhibitor. One we feel is superior to the MATD we created for Ultra HOTter. to do this and it works pretty well to modulate, instead of obliterate, estrogen. So we still have the right amount of estrogen for optimal growth of lean tissue and positive libido, without the excess water weight and fat feeding aspect.
 
FitnFirm said:
No, this is not like "the other" thread, these people act like adults here.
Click to expand...



i have some news for you

according to vida, 17alpha-methyl-androst-4,6-dien-17beta-ol-3-one is 25% as androgenic as methyltest and 60% as anabolic

if that is indeed the compound then you are not taking an anti-aromatase. you are taking a designer prosteroid
 
FitnFirm said:
I had sent ALR your initial post of this thread and here is his response to you.




Message to PA from ALR
PA: Thanks for the offer on structure naming but the label and name you used is 1-2 years ago. Since we have informed all of the sites long ago you either have a cached page or the site you searched has not caught up with the rest of us yet. Thanks for the heads up. Let's help make it easy for you this time so you can waste less time on basic chemistry (which you are correct on of course) . We appreciate your input as between BALCO and AMP you would be the go to guy for FDA experience these days and we will certanly have our FDA lawyer take another look. Thank you very much for the caustic but accurate digestion of old labeling. Here is the current label


Invalid Link Removed

ADED (5a-dehydro-etiocholane-4,6-dien-3-one-17-ol A.K.A 17a-methyl-5a-dehydro-etiocholane-4,6-dien-3-ene-ol) Many are aware of both the positive and negative physiological issues relating to the naturally occurring aromatase inhibitory ATD. Most of the benefits are the result of one of its physiological 17-OH metabolites. ADED is a natural non-androgenic metabolite of ATD with improved oral bio-availability.
Click to expand...


this is not non-androgenic

vida is clear that it has substantial activity. 20:60

gonna shut down the HPTA, not rev it up
 
Patrick Arnold said:
i have some news for you

according to vida, 17alpha-methyl-androst-4,6-dien-17beta-ol-3-one is 25% as androgenic as methyltest and 60% as anabolic

if that is indeed the compound then you are not taking an anti-aromatase. you are taking a designer prosteroid
Click to expand...


Excuse my lack of chemistry knowledge please, but why doesnt the compound above look the same as either of these ?


ADED (5a-dehydro-etiocholane-4,6-dien-3-one-17-ol A.K.A 17a-methyl-5a-dehydro-etiocholane-4,6-dien-3-ene-ol)
 
FitnFirm said:
Excuse my lack of chemistry knowledge please, but why doesnt the compound above look the same as either of these ?


ADED (5a-dehydro-etiocholane-4,6-dien-3-one-17-ol A.K.A 17a-methyl-5a-dehydro-etiocholane-4,6-dien-3-ene-ol)
Click to expand...


because the names below are completely f'ed up. But i have a pretty good idea what the intended compound is.

if you are sending me a bottle then i can probably verify
 
Patrick Arnold said:
because the names below are completely f'ed up. But i have a pretty good idea what the intended compound is.

if you are sending me a bottle then i can probably verify
Click to expand...


OK, I see :) I will ship tomorrow and I hope in between now and your testing people dont drive you nuts !!!!!!! :aargh:

Thank you for being considerate throughout this process Patrick !
 
ALRI good job

I just wanted to voice my applause to ALRI.

I do not know anyone who would surrender a product for testing without asking that a person be present to guard against tampering, incorrect testing, other irregularities or just to protect the integrity of the testing.

Based on what I am seeing, I do have to applaud ALRI in their response, professionalism and fair play regarding this issue. I just do not know of any other companies or reps that would have responded this well or professionally.

I also have to thank PA for this post as it does bring a certain amount of consumer protection to the forefront.
 
poison said:
Did I just step into B-B.com? Why does this feel like PA 1) trolling for publicity (ie no such thing as bad publicity), or 2) carrying over another long standing argument from another forum? I'm not saying either is true; I AM saying that's the way it appears to me, just stepping in now.

It seems hypocritical for him to do this, especially since (as he admits) he did it with AMP. IMO, not only did he do this, but when he switched the description, he switched the ingredient, too, as there were definate differences in how I felt on early versions vs later ones. The later ones sucked.

I'm going back in hiding now.
Click to expand...

I don't know what the heck you're talking about. Amp seems the same to me as when it came out. Great product. Gotta disagree with you. Also, he brings up a good point in that we all should demand clearer descriptions on the product we buy. I'll stand up for that argument any time.
 
FitnFirm said:
Because it lowers estrogen in women and raises test, so you can build muscle.......... DUH :)
Click to expand...

I kinda figured that, the shemale thing. Guess I was using up my Monthly Dumbass Question Quota so I can go back to being a Smartass elsewhere.

Carry on.
 
Rogue Drone said:
I kinda figured that, the shemale thing. Guess I was using up my Monthly Dumbass Question Quota so I can go back to being a Smartass elsewhere.

Carry on.
Click to expand...



What girls are not allowed to build muscle ? Ahh I get it, oh well you do what you want and I will do what I want ok !
 
Naturally, yes. With Test, no.

I'm not into hairy hormonally deranged chicks with overgrown clits and mannish faces and voices.

That's probably not you, but that's a breed who played that game too excess, IMO, and became way too fake masculine for me and many others.
 
Rogue Drone said:
Naturally, yes. With Test, no.

I'm not into hairy hormonally deranged chicks with overgrown clits and mannish faces and voices.

That's probably not you, but that's a breed who played that game too excess, IMO, and became way too fake masculine for me and many others.
Click to expand...

haha, dude, you need to come to a Pro Show sometime then. I found myself talking with some very nice ladies and saying " I wish I had your traps" :D Of course their voice was deeper then mine, and they prolly sported more wood as well :rant:
 
There's some pretty cool buff buff chicks. Female BBer's are always fun to talk to, sometimes not as much fun to look at though (since sometimes it makes me feel less of a man to see a chick that's built more than I am).
 
The "Pretty Cool" part is the Manly Man in them :twisted:

I Figure Fit is going to swing on me, that's ok, I have a real One hanging and Two clankin'.

Just toying with you, Fit. Peace, Brother.
 
Rogue Drone said:
The "Pretty Cool" part is the Manly Man in them :twisted:

I Figure Fit is going to swing on me, that's ok, I have a real One hanging and Two clankin'.

Just toying with you, Fit. Peace, Brother.
Click to expand...

Don't you mean Sister?

Is it just me, or did this chemical debate just turn into a sexism debate?
 
Damn, 40 min in and I just realized I was only on page 4......break time.
 
Respect to ALR for supplying a bottle for PA to test.

I think it would be great for the board to have an Ergopharm subforum. PA is a valuable resource that would benefit us all. Having him around to discuss his own products, as well as others would be awesome.

Back to lurking.
 
Patrick Arnold said:
i have some news for you

according to vida, 17alpha-methyl-androst-4,6-dien-17beta-ol-3-one is 25% as androgenic as methyltest and 60% as anabolic

if that is indeed the compound then you are not taking an anti-aromatase. you are taking a designer prosteroid
Click to expand...

If this is a PS - then it's not very strong (or not dosed nearly high enough at 3 caps/day).

It didn't seem like anything I've taken (which isn't a whole lot - SD, 1-test, 4-AD, TST/TRN - those 2 sucked).

Or, it's completely possible that I'm too much of a studly nerd for Jungle Warfare's powers. :bb:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top