Dione better than Diol?!?!

u4ik_rage

New member
It goes against everything I've read in the last 2-3 years involving PHs, but maybe it's possible. Bill L. sites a study comparing 4-Dione and 4-Diol and Pat Arnold attempts to refute it. Gets pretty ugly...

Link Removed
 
I don't trust either of these guys, they're both in it for the money. They're both smart, but they act like children.
 
actually most people will defend the dione version of 1,4 as opposed to the diol, correct me if im wrong, but i think it has a higher bioavailability than its diol counterpart. for a definitive answer talk to BDC, curt, or yj, they should be able to help u out.
 
I think the 1,4diol vs 1,4dione is up in the air. Their discussion has to do with 4diol vs andro though.
 
well if p.a is still saying that the diones r not more bioavail..why doesnt someone ask why he releasde 1-adione first
 
wojo said:
well if p.a is still saying that the diones r not more bioavail..why doesnt someone ask why he releasde 1-adione first
Click to expand...

Actually, PA is siding with the Diol of course since 4-Diol was his patented product. I think that he's since lost the patent.

In the study it shows the 4-Androdione produced more test than the 4-Diol. Of course, you also have much more estrogen conversion from the Dione.

It's just one study and doesn't prove anything to me, but it's very interesting, none the less, because it goes against what most people on these boards have accepted as a given.
 
u4ik_rage said:


It's just one study and doesn't prove anything to me, but it's very interesting, none the less, because it goes against what most people on these boards have accepted as a given.
Click to expand...

How's that for a run-on sentence? :D
 
who gives a **** which one converts better. Have you ever thought that the diol's have inherent activity???? That makes them NOT prohormones but steroids. 4-AD is not a prohormone. 4 -dione im sure wouldn'thave inherenent activity(as far as i know).
 
pjorstad said:
who gives a **** which one converts better. Have you ever thought that the diol's have inherent activity???? That makes them NOT prohormones but steroids. 4-AD is not a prohormone. 4 -dione im sure wouldn'thave inherenent activity(as far as i know).
Click to expand...

I was just summarizing. If you don't care, you could always hit the back button on your browser.
 
Originally posted by pjorstad
<B>who gives a **** which one converts better. Have you ever thought that the diol's have inherent activity???? That makes them NOT prohormones but steroids. 4-AD is not a prohormone. 4 -dione im sure wouldn'thave inherenent activity(as far as i know). </B>

actually, 4-ad is not a steroid, it is in fact, a prohormone. just because it has anabolic properties, does not make it a steroidal hormone. its a precursor to one, therefore, its a prohormone.
 
pjorstad said:



Actually why don't you keep your input out until you know what your talking about. Testosterone has "anabolic" propertires but guess what! Its a prohormone because it converts to dht and estrogen!

Like i said 4-AD is an anabolic steroid.
Click to expand...

Please delete this before people read it.....
 
you need to think about what you say pjorstad. its without a doubt ok to lay out your views and opinons, but comments like that aint necessary and you should know that. Sage
 
sage said:
you need to think about what you say pjorstad. its without a doubt ok to lay out your views and opinons, but comments like that aint necessary and you should know that. Sage
Click to expand...

Dont worry about it, this comes from the same guy who wants to know if you can smoke fina.....
 
oh my god pjorstad, i cannot believe what u just said, that has to be one of the single most ignorant things i have ever heard someone say on this forum. im not gonna screw up this thread because it actually has a valid point, so after this, our little argument is over, but there r a few things i have to clear up for u, and i'm gonna do it in terms u can understand. first off, do u even know what a steroid is? its a hormone, so there for testosterone is a steroid. second, 4-ad is not a hormone, so therefore it is not a steroid, and last, lets say u were correct, then how do u explain 4-diol being a steroid, but 4-dione not? christ, i thought this was gonna be a forum without bullshit, for more educated people. its one thing to be a newbie and ask questions, but to blatently state false info, then lash out at people who try to correct u, thats just stupid.
 
Well said.

ManBeast
 
drfly said:
oh my god pjorstad, i cannot believe what u just said, that has to be one of the single most ignorant things i have ever heard someone say on this forum. im not gonna screw up this thread because it actually has a valid point, so after this, our little argument is over, but there r a few things i have to clear up for u, and i'm gonna do it in terms u can understand. first off, do u even know what a steroid is? its a hormone, so there for testosterone is a steroid. second, 4-ad is not a hormone, so therefore it is not a steroid, and last, lets say u were correct, then how do u explain 4-diol being a steroid, but 4-dione not? christ, i thought this was gonna be a forum without bullshit, for more educated people. its one thing to be a newbie and ask questions, but to blatently state false info, then lash out at people who try to correct u, thats just stupid.
Click to expand...
Back off here! Pjorstad is correct. 4-AD is an anabolic steroid, like 1-test, and is found naturally occuring in the blood, just like testosterone. It is a hormone, and thus a steroid, not a PRE-hormone. Doesn't need conversion, like 1-AD.

As far as whether the dione or diol form of 1,4-Androstadiene is more potent, the competition has already proven Bill's point. Sci-Fit, just knew Bill was wrong and came out with a DIOL version of Boldione called Andro-Poise. A lot of people jumped on this diol product, and everyone was dissappointed. It doesn't come close to the dione.
 
sage said:
you need to think about what you say pjorstad. its without a doubt ok to lay out your views and opinons, but comments like that aint necessary and you should know that. Sage
Click to expand...
Now you've done it. You've got my "dream woman" in your avatar! :)
 
quote:

Back off here! Pjorstad is correct. 4-AD is an anabolic steroid, like 1-test, and is found naturally occuring in the blood, just like testosterone. It is a hormone, and thus a steroid, not a PRE-hormone. Doesn't need conversion, like 1-AD.

i know i said that i wasnt gonna hijack this thread any further, but im just a little obsessive on matters such as this. first, id like to apologize if i came off kinda strong, its jsut i can get kinda riled up about these things. anyways, what im actually posting to say, is that i have set the record straight on this, 4-AD is not an anabolic steroid. although it does have inherent anabolic activity in the bloodstream, and is naturally occuring, this does not classify it as a steroid, the simple fact that it is not an actual hormone is the reason. it is (as i have stated at least twice now) a pre-cursor to a hormone, hence the reason why people talk about its conversion rate to testosterone. thats exactly what it is, a pre-cursor to testosterone. and if u still dont believe me, ask BDC, or Curt, or YJ, and if that still does not convince u, take a look at Big Cat's prohormone profiles on bb.com, or even at the thread on this board that describes the marketed prohormones. if it wasnt a pre-cursor to a hormone, it would be labeled as a pro-steroid, and wouldnt have a conversion rate.
 
Once again testerone is a prohormone by your same logic since it converts to estrogen and dht which are both hormones that have an effect on strength and muscle building.


I believe patrick arnold wasn't aware of 4-AD's inherent activity or at least probably thought there wasn't enough evidence at the time when it first came out so it was marketed strictly as a prohormone.

I believe 1-AD also has this inherent activity too which is why both of them work so well over the diones and other prohormones for that matter. In fact im not sure if a TRUE prohormone can really work at all since 1-AD and 4-AD aren't strictly prohormones and they are they are considered the best besides 1-test, but that doesn't convert to anything.
 
Below I reprint part of a lengthy steroid article written by one of the renowned steroid "gurus." And nowhere in the entire article were the words Andro, 1-test, or prohormone metioned-EVER! I have highlighted the area wherin he refers to 4-AD as androgenic steroids! This was an article about anabolic steroid cycles, plain and simple. I left out lthe top and bottom thirds. Don't want to impart too much info to the impetuous teenagers. Can't stop 'em from researching on their own, but refuse to condone or help in any way. If anyone over 21 wants to view the entire article, pm me for a URL.

As I explained in my article, the main two mechanisms are via the androgen receptor (AR) and the estrogen receptor (ER). However, two other factors that can play a role, depending on the particular androgen, are the PR (Progesterone Receptor) and whether the androgen inhibits Testosterone production at the testicular level.

Nandrolone decanoate is one androgen which can suppress LH via more than one mechanism. It has the ability to interact with the PR in addition to its avid binding to the AR. While there's some evidence supporting the idea that it affects Testosterone production at the testicular level, the decrease in LH seen in various studies indicates that this probably isn't the case. This is essentially why deca is such a suppressive androgen in terms of endogenous Testosterone production.


Obviously, we can't use androgens that bind extremely well to the AR, aromatize to estradiol, or inhibit Testosterone production at the testicular level, as this too will cause suppression. Essentially, the only androgen which I can say without a doubt inhibits endogenous Testosterone production at the testicular level is fluoxymesterone. This is simply because studies have demonstrated a reduction of Testosterone without any concurrent reduction or suppression of LH levels.

So, that leaves us with essentially two androgens for our "ultra-safe" cycle, and those would be methenolone and 4-AD. The reason for this is that we ideally want an androgen that doesn't aromatize or is 17-AA, yet is able to bind well to the AR, yet not too well. Methenolone has been shown to bind less avidly than nandrolone (but more so than Testosterone), doesn't aromatize, and isn't 17-AA, nor is it thought to affect endogenous Testosterone production at the testicular level. It obviously fits the bill.

4-ADis thought to work via non-AR mediated mechanisms, and thus should also be used. It too doesn't aromatize nor is it 17-AA or thought to affect endogenous Testosterone production at the testicular level.

Both androgens also have quite a bit of anecdotal evidence supporting their lack of suppression upon LH secretion. However,if you wish to go with just a "safe" cycle instead of theaforementioned "ultra safe" cycle, then we can use any one,two, or three of the following steroids for five or six weeks. Simply pick and choose. (I've chosen to group them simply for informational purposes.)

17-Alpha Alkylated

Methandrostenolone
Oxandrolone
Stanozolol
Fluoxymesterone
Methyltesterone

Non-17-AA

Trenbolone
Nandrolone
Testosterone
Boldenone
Methenolone
4-AD

Binds Avidly to AR

Methenolone
Boldenone
Trenbolone
Testosterone
Nandrolone
Oxandrolone

Does Not Bind Well to AR

Methandrostenolone
Fluoxymesterone
4-AD

Binds to Microsomal AR

Stanozolol
 
This is how I see it... A pro-hormone is some thing that has to convert to the parent hormone to be active(steroid).. 4-ad is both.. It does convert to TEST making it a pro-hormone and it is active by itself making it a steroid... It is known in the industry as a pro-hormone so who realy cares thats what we call it. We know as users that is is active by itself and it converts to test so no big deal. Its not worth arguing about. Talk to ya..

 
 
I agree Curt :) Nice posts BTW Benz and Pogue. How we classify it isn't nearly as important to me as how we use it!
 
jweave23 said:
I agree Curt :) Nice posts BTW Benz and Pogue. How we classify it isn't nearly as important to me as how we use it!
Click to expand...
Thanks, jweave. I felt the need to jump in there because everyone attacked poor pjorstad and he was CORRECT. I will always defend someone who is flamed like that for no reason, especially when they are right. pjorstad's a very knowledgeable bro, and gets way too much flak.
 
John Benz said:

Thanks, jweave. I felt the need to jump in there because everyone attacked poor pjorstad and he was CORRECT. I will always defend someone who is flamed like that for no reason, especially when they are right. pjorstad's a very knowledgeable bro, and gets way too much flak.
Click to expand...


Yea, like smoking fina :rolleyes:

Read some of his posts here, no wonder everyone gives him ****.
 
ok, like i said, sorry if i came off strong, i wasnt intending to flame pjorstad. anyways, seeing as how the person who originally posted this thread has had his question answered, i see no need to stop this discussion, and i think we should lay down some guidelines as to what we consider steroids versus prohormones. in my mind i always had 4-ad marked as a prohormone, just like 19-nor, 1,4-ad, and plain old andro, because thats how they were marketed, and they have specific target hormones to which they convert by enzymatic processes. u guys argued that since 4-ad in its standard unconverted form has inherent anabolic activity within the bloodstream, it should be labeled as a steroid. my only problem with that as a guideline is that hormones r not the only things that r in the bloodstream with anabolic properties. now as i see it, theres more pointing in the direction of a prohormone, but u guys r obviously convinced its a steroid, so there has to be somewhere to draw the line and say either it is, or it isnt. this is what i have so far:

 

FOR PROHORMONE:

marketed as one (although this is kinda faulty)

has a target hormone

not technically a hormone as is

 

FOR STEROID:

inherent anabolic activity

referred to as a steroid by some AAS gurus
 
Here is the actual definition for steroid:

Any of numerous naturally occurring or synthetic fat-soluble organic compounds having as a basis 17 carbon atoms arranged in four rings and including the sterols and bile acids, adrenal and sex hormones, certain natural drugs such as digitalis compounds, and the precursors of certain vitamins.

steroid

n 1: any of several fat-soluble organic compounds having as a basis 17 carbon atoms in four rings; many have important physiological effects 2: any hormone affecting the development and growth of sex organs [syn: steroid hormone, sex hormone]

And a little more precisce
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.

I think anything won't show its full steroidal properties and potential until it is adminstered intramuscularly. Clearly, testosterone does not work when taken orally, but 4ad does. However, if we inject 4ad, we might get anabolic and androgenic properties similar to that of testosterone, but that gets into theory and not fact.
 
drfly said:
ok, like i said, sorry if i came off strong, i wasnt intending to flame pjorstad. anyways, seeing as how the person who originally posted this thread has had his question answered, i see no need to stop this discussion, and i think we should lay down some guidelines as to what we consider steroids versus prohormones. in my mind i always had 4-ad marked as a prohormone, just like 19-nor, 1,4-ad, and plain old andro, because thats how they were marketed, and they have specific target hormones to which they convert by enzymatic processes. u guys argued that since 4-ad in its standard unconverted form has inherent anabolic activity within the bloodstream, it should be labeled as a steroid. my only problem with that as a guideline is that hormones r not the only things that r in the bloodstream with anabolic properties. now as i see it, theres more pointing in the direction of a prohormone, but u guys r obviously convinced its a steroid, so there has to be somewhere to draw the line and say either it is, or it isnt. this is what i have so far:

 

FOR PROHORMONE:

marketed as one (although this is kinda faulty)

has a target hormone

not technically a hormone as is

 

FOR STEROID:

inherent anabolic activity

referred to as a steroid by some AAS gurus
Click to expand...
4-AD wasn't marketed as a pro-hormone. Read the T-Mag articles. Biotest has always listed 1-test and 4-AD the first two legal anabolic steroids in their ads. 4-AD doesn't need to convert to a target hormone any more than 1-test. Are you saying 1-test is not a steroid as well? The main reason these have gotten branded as prohormones is all the teen morons at bb.com lumping them together with the andro products and 1-AD. Boldione is a prohormone, 3-Alpha is a pro-hormone. 4-AD is as much a true anabolic steroid as is 1-test. Dan Duchaine was the undisputed authority on steroids and he labeled it as a class II androgen. He could just as easily have said "an androgen precurser."
 
pogue said:
I think anything won't show its full steroidal properties and potential until it is adminstered intramuscularly. Clearly, testosterone does not work when taken orally, but 4ad does. However, if we inject 4ad, we might get anabolic and androgenic properties similar to that of testosterone, but that gets into theory and not fact.
Click to expand...
1-test works just fine, orally. Ethergels and Mag-10. The SAN capsules have also gotten good reviews. Are you saying because 1-test works orally and actually has proven not to work well injected, it is not a steroid?

The method of administration has absolutely nothing to do with it. Neither does the fact that some manufacturers refer to both 1-test and 4-AD as prohormones. This is referred to as CYA strategy. "Cover your ass," so feds don't see that S word on your labels. In tests on lab animals, 4-AD injected into the muscles worked much better than 1-test. I ask you again, is 1-test a true steroid or not?
 
That's not what I meant, I was simply making an example out of testosterone. I think the reason Searle never pursued 1-test was because of its poor injection ability. Clearly, it is anabolic and it does not convert to an active hormone, it already is one.

What I'm asking is to definite the fine line between anabolic potential and real world results. Clearly, the digestive track is not the best place to administer steroids. So, if something has the ability to be taken orally vs intramuscularly, it would come down to more of a question of preference than if you would get more results doing one or the other. (This is not the case with menthalyed steroids)

So what I'm saying is 4ad is weaker when taken orally vs injecting it.
 
The classification of 4AD could go be argued either way and it dosn't really matter IMHO since its not gonna change what it does in the body.

About the original topic, the study, while I am not convinced on its accuracy due to some items brought up by PA, the study dosn't mean much to me personally.  Its dealing with the oral administration and I don't think many people on this board would run either orally.

On top of that the dione version brings up the issue of direct conversion to estrogen something that keeps many away from it.  I still believe that for the conventional use of most users the diol will win out over the dione.
 
weissmuller said:
The classification of 4AD could go be argued either way ...
Click to expand...
The only ones arguing this are 16 year olds with a science textbook, and no real world knowledge. You shouldn't even be discussing this stuff at your age. Be that as it may, misuse of common terminology is no argument pro or con steroidal status. The fact is 4-AD is considered a CLASS-II androgen. It is a steroid as much as 1-test.
weissmuller said:
About the original topic, the study, while I am not convinced on its accuracy due to some items brought up by PA, the study dosn't mean much to me personally.  Its dealing with the oral administration and I don't think many people on this board would run either orally.

On top of that the dione version brings up the issue of direct conversion to estrogen something that keeps many away from it.  I still believe that for the conventional use of most users the diol will win out over the dione.
Click to expand...
Bill Llewellyn disagrees with you, but hey, who is he?

Drewski said:
I know that Big Cat suggested that a diol version would be unlikely but now that SciFit have produced ANDROPOISE, what do you think the properties of this supplement would be?

I am no scientist but I am assuming that it being a diol version would reduce estrogenic activity, aromatisation...

Is there much research on this product and what kind of results are expected? Bill, are you on to it also, or are you going to boycott the diol version?
Click to expand...
w_llewellyn said:
Its been out for a while actually. The diol should be less orally active, not more. BC was a just a little stuck on the old 4-AD marketing info; 1,4 andro behaves very differently in the body. I filed patent on both the dione and diol compounds, and if I saw an advantage in the diol I would have done it a long time ago.
Click to expand...
w_llewellyn said:
If the conversion to the 17hydroxyl group is documented to be so stable with the dione, why bother to look for another pathway for conversion? Those claiming it to be better are only blindly assuming it to be so because 4-androdiol is supposed to be better than its dione.
Plus, with two open hydroxyl groups you should have a hormone more open to conjugation, no? Isn't that one of the reasons they originally experimented with androstenedione way back when? The bioavailability of the diol should be worse than the dione, but if it is more active in converting this may overcompensate (this is the assumption with 4-diol). But we have no reason to take that leap of faith here, IMO.
Click to expand...

On a personal note, I have several friends who used the Sci-Fit Andro-Poise, and found it totally worthless.
 
Originally posted by John Benz

Bill Llewellyn disagrees with you, but hey, who is he? 
Click to expand...

All I meant to imply was that I am not taking a single study as the word of God.  But even if it were correct all it proves is that orally diones yield more test than diols.  With all the factors involved from the second you pop the cap till the end of their active life we can't speculate how this would effect other applications.  On a board built upon transdermals this would have to be considered in interpreting the data.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

About the classification I didn't mean to discredit anyone.  Since it is converted by the human body many modern views on supplements would call it a prohormone.  But by technical definition it is an androgen.  Just depends whose rules you want to play by.<o:p></o:p>

On a final note why is it you constantly seem to knock me about my age?  I understand if you personally believe teens shouldn't be abusing hormones and I’ am cool with that, but it seems more like my pure discussion of these sciences seems to hit a nerve with you.  No big deal to me, but I am doing wrong?<o:p></o:p>

 
 
weissmuller said:
On a final note why is it you constantly seem to knock me about my age?  I understand if you personally believe teens shouldn't be abusing hormones and I’ am cool with that, but it seems more like my pure discussion of these sciences seems to hit a nerve with you.  No big deal to me, but I am doing wrong?
Click to expand...
weissmuller, you seem like a nice and very well educated young man, but at 16 (ok, almost 17), you are still a kid, and far too young to be so deeply immersed in things you realistically shouldn't be using for years. I don't have anything against you, and I don't mean to sound so negative, but my stance on teens and ph is a firm one. Nevertheless, I wish I had known half as much at your age as you do. Peace.
 
Originally posted by John Benz

weissmuller, you seem like a nice and very well educated young man, but at 16 (ok, almost 17), you are still a kid, and far too young to be so deeply immersed in things you realistically shouldn't be using for years. I don't have anything against you, and I don't mean to sound so negative, but my stance on teens and ph is a firm one. Nevertheless, I wish I had known half as much at your age as you do. Peace.
Click to expand...

I definatley understand how this is knowledge that I shouldn't be applying for a long time and don't plan on.  Even more importantly I don't wanna hurt this boards reputation as being a breeding ground for teen steroids use and completely understand how negative this could be.  But the info is something that fascinates me and is probally gonna be a vital part of my future unless I wanna work in lab analyzing fabric dyes.  Non the less I'll try to keep my posting to minimium on these topics.  My last wish is to be a pesk or annoyance.

I also appologize for highjacking this thread.  Hope the discussion can get back to the centeral topic.
 
hey weissmuller, dont let anybody tell u when to post, or what to post. i personally think its great that there r some teens out there who actually know there **** as well as u, and i think it just helps all of us. u probably know more than most of the people on this board, despite ur age. plus, knowing as much as u do, by the time u r old enough to make that leap into ph/aas use, providing u decide to, u will have years of research behind u. i hope u continue to keep posting and helping bros out around here. peace

by the way, john, i think u and i both r too stubborn and stuck in our places to take one anothers point of view on this prohormone/steroid business, so we will just leave it at that. i hope i havent angered u with this, cuz i think we can help each other in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top