Can someone please explain....?

vicmack777

Member
To me why a methylated PH is considered a steroid. I was just curious and wanted to read up on it. If someone could quickly explain or give me a link, i'd appreciate it.
 
vicmack777 said:
To me why a methylated PH is considered a steroid. I was just curious and wanted to read up on it. If someone could quickly explain or give me a link, i'd appreciate it.
Click to expand...
I don't think all methylated Ph's are considered steroids. The reason M1t is considered a steroid is b/c 1 test doesn't need to convert to anything in the body. This is also true in regards to regular 1 test.
 
vicmack777 said:
so regular 1-test is considered a steroid?
Click to expand...
1-test is a steroid.
It always has been considered a steroid. It just slipped through some hoops. It has been around for awhile. Since the 60's to the best of my knowledge.
 
Billy the kid said:
1-test is a steroid.
It always has been considered a steroid. It just slipped through some hoops. It has been around for awhile. Since the 60's to the best of my knowledge.
Click to expand...
I would just like to know why it is considered a steroid.
 
Like pjflynn said, there is no conversion process like there is with prohormones. 1-test is a hormone, rather than something that the body converts into a hormone (prohormone).

Obviously, 1-test is still generally regarded to be in the same 'class' as prohormones, probably because a) it's currently legal, and marketed alongside PHs, and b) it doesn't tend to yeild gains that match it's illegal cousins. i.e. if you were to go onto some other board's steroid forum and post a log about your 1-test cycle, you'd be flamed to hell and back! ;)

That's about all I've got - if you need a more technical answer, I'm sure there are plenty of members here that can deliver.
 
it's largely semantical and legal.

fwiw, ALL prohormones ARE steroids. heck, so is CHOLESTEROL.

however, under the LAW, prohormones are not steroids.

so, one has the chemical definition, the legal one, the layman's one, etc.

and they may intersect.

for the purposes of chemistry, m-1-t IS a steroid.

for the purpose of legality, it is not.

hth
 
The basics are: a compound is a prohormone or prosteroid if it has to convert via enzymes in the body to an "active" steroid. If it doesn't have to convert, it is a steroid. It really is that simple.

ManBeast
 
it is really not THAT simple. it depends on which definition one is using.

legal, chemical or what
 
I thought that PROSTEROID meant just that it is the legal version of a hormone that doesn't require conversion, in contrast to the PROHORMONE that requires conversion.

Am I wrong on this?
 
N4cer. basically, yes.

but these terms are as much about marketing as they are about chemistry.

let's be clear. CHEMICALLY speaking, ALL prohormones are steroids.


here is the definition of steroid from a medical dictionary...

"A group name for lipids that contain a hydrogenated cyclopentanoperhydrophenanthrene ring system. Some of the substances included in this group are progesterone, adrenocortical hormones, the gonadal hormones, cardiac aglycones, bile acids, sterols (such as cholesterol), toad poisons, saponins and some of the carcinogenic hydrocarbons. "

CHEMICALLY speaking, prohormones ARE steroids. as are steroids "proper". as are prosteroids. heck, so is cortisone (corticosteroid).

it's a matter of which definition you choose to use. yes, andro is a steroid (chemically speaking). so is CHOLESTEROL. better ban eggs. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top