brittishbulldog
Member
im going to be doing my next cycle of SD soon last cycle i only got some ellbow pains but i got really bad nightmares on it has anyone here had the same problem?
superdrol
- Thread starter brittishbulldog
- Start date
brittishbulldog
Member
why has my post been moved and where to?
Irish_Rogue
Member
Elbow pain yes, your joints tendons do not grow in strength as quickly as your muscles do.
I found that stretching after every workout helped.
I found that stretching after every workout helped.
brittishbulldog
Member
As far as i now is still legal where i am England where are you?
brittishbulldog
Member
Pioneer said:
i have been reading about and from what i read PH are ban in the united states, just dont get caught
Smokey69
New member
I get pain in my wirsts more than elbows but I get this occaisonally anyway. the extra weight i push when on "ON" just makes it worse / more frequent. Cissus helps I find if it gets bad.
I don't get nightmares but Superdrol does give me bad insomnia, I can't stay asleep for more than an hour without waking up on the stuff!
I don't get nightmares but Superdrol does give me bad insomnia, I can't stay asleep for more than an hour without waking up on the stuff!
pistonpump
Banned
nightmares might just be personal life problem or something.
brittishbulldog
Member
'xxtruxx1 said:
i will increase the fish oils and EFA to help the joints, i just got found something to help the nightmares because they made me paranoid
pistonpump
Banned
whats that that you found? ambien or watching porn right before bed? :twisted:brittishbulldog said:
pistonpump
Banned
i know i dont think you do dream on it or at least you dont remember. I washed a whole bottle of ambien in the washer and i miss it. comes in handy, raises GABA levels in sleep too.
Im with the theory about more EFA's and alot of water to lube the joints if its a problem during cycle.
Im with the theory about more EFA's and alot of water to lube the joints if its a problem during cycle.
Pioneer
Registered User
no no, SD was released post ban and was the start of designer orals. but a letter was released to companies making SD and said to stop or else.brittishbulldog said:
but does this mean they are illegal to have in your posession? can you take SD without being in violation of any laws in the US? i cant find the damn answer to this seemingly easy question! its driving me nuts!:blink:
TeamSavage
Registered User
Pioneer said:
I run a supplement company (not fitness related) and so have some experience with the FDA's regulation of dietary supplements. Even if Superdrol is not illegal for possession (and I don't believe it is... yet), the FDA can still write warning letters to companies marketing Superdrol OTC as a nutritional supplement and threaten to shut them down or pursue legal action unless they stop making or distributing it. Generally, only naturally-occuring compounds are eligible for sale as dietary supplements, and since Superdrol is synthetic, the FDA can use this fact as a basis for their warning letters. (They can also cite how the supplement is being marketed, as they did for RYR extract standardized for monacolins and marketed explicitly for cholesterol.) It's important to note, however, that the FDA "banning" or removing a substance from the OTC supplement market does not make it illegal to possess. An act of Congress or a state government is necessary to do this (as happened in the PH ban that made 4AD, M1T and others illegal).
This is just my educated guess, though, based on how the FDA usually handles such circumstances. I haven't actually read the warning letters or talked to anyone from the companies that were/are making Superdrol, so I can't say for sure.
There are analogue laws on the books that allow law enforcement to prosecute for possession of substances that are not explicitly illegal if they are functionally or chemically equivalent to a scheduled (explicitly illegal) substance. But prosecutions under the analogue laws are rare and almost always involve a large-scale manufacturer or distributor, not individual consumers. (And since whether a substance is truly an analogue is open to interpretation, these prosecutions often fail.) So I wouldn't worry about this.
Hopefully this helps you understand the situation. Just my .02 cents, however, and I'm not an attorney.
pistonpump
Banned
I was talking about ambien. But it is interesting how superdrol seems to effect dreams, bad or good, there have been a handful of people who said this.MattHines said:
TeamSavage
Registered User
B5150 said:
Sweet, thanks. Looks like a very standard warning letter to me. I've seen similar ones for a variety of supplements in different segments. So again, I don't think these warning letters have any implication for the legality of personal possession.
brittishbulldog
Member
Well as least im not the only one that has suffered from bad dreams, I read the warning letter and think its crazzy that they can issue such a warning and openly allow genetically modified foods to be sold when several genetic scientists have warned that they GM foods can cause serius health problems that are still not understood, The WHO and the FDA allow the sale of many toxic things that are allowed to be eaten by young chidren and even babies who do not now what the risks are. In the UK Prohormones are legal and I think as long as the people who choose to use them are aware of the risks involved then they should be allowed to use these products. Tobaco products are far worse but they remain legal.
BigMattTx
Active member
brittishbulldog said:
Although this country is full of travesties, I still say marketing a steroid as an OTC supplement is dangerous and unethical.
I'm very liberal and I think that people should be able to put whatever they want in their bodies but still, what AX did was risky and I'm almost surprised they got away with it.
BigMattTx
Active member
Pioneer said:
Ofcourse its not illegal to use or posess. There are tons of SD clones sold on big name supplement store websites. If the product was illegal, these supplement stores and companies would surely get shutdown quick. It got discontinued, not banned...theres a big difference.
TeamSavage
Registered User
Pioneer said:
The first part is correct. The warning letter has no impact on the legality of possession or consumption.
As for the second sentence, it has less to do with the "Superdrol" TM per se than the compound being marketed and how it is being marketed (regardless of whether it is called "Superdrol" or not). But basically, yes, the warning letter just impacts the manufacture and marketing of Superdrol for OTC sale as a dietary supplement.
B5150
Legend
Your maybe missing the point and intent of this letter. It applies to anything by anyone. Clones, knock-off or anything that chemically modifies your body chemistry. The ones that are out there or are yet to be produced, marketed or distributed will fall under this ruleing as soon as they are dicovered by the governing bodies of the FDA. Not if, but when.Pioneer said:
"is not a vitamin, mineral, amino acid, herb or other botanical, or dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake, nor is it a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of any dietary ingredient described above."
"Under Section 201(g)(1)(C) of the Act [21 USC 321(g)(1)(C)], products that are intended to affect the structure or function of the body are defined as drugs. The description of your product as "anabolic" on your product label and website, together with the other claims quoted above, establish that your product is intended to affect the structure or function of the body by building muscle, increasing strength, and inducing weight gain. Based on these claims, FDA considers Anabolic Xtreme Superdrol to be a drug."
"Moreover, your product is also a new drug under Section 201(p) of the Act [21 USC 321(p)] because this product is not generally recognized as safe and effective for the uses claimed in its labeling. Under Section 505(a) of the Act [21 USC 355(a)], a new drug may not be introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce unless an FDA-approved new drug application (NDA) is in effect for it. Because your product is not the subject of an approved NDA, it may not be marketed in the United States and its continued distribution violates Section 505(a) of the Act. Section 301(d) of the Act [21 USC 331(d)] prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any article in violation of Section 505."
BigMattTx
Active member
B5150 said:
It's obviously a blanket statement for all steroids that are sold as dietary supplements but being marketed with claims of being anabolic and severely changing body composition.
Surely, it does apply to all but not really because each company would have to be warned or the substance itself would have to be banned. Like you said, when, not if.
B5150
Legend
I believe there is a clause in the law that allows an addendum to be added as each new 'violating substance' is discover by the FDA. So a 'superdrol' is now documented. Each subsequent discovery gets documented. So I gather there will be one shot wonders for quite some time. But consider that this will discourage a developer from investing significant expense and time to develop (discover) a chemical that will see very short life on the market, providing no profit or return on their investment.MattHines said:
BigMattTx
Active member
B5150 said:
I agree. I remember back in the prohormone ban...I read a clause that was something to the effect of "...or anything similar in nature or function"
This would mean any steroid. So yea, its pretty controlled but you still see these little companies popping up and distributing generics. Like you said, the chances of a big guy investing in R & D for a new designer like was done with SD originally is nil.
TeamSavage
Registered User
MattHines said:
The "anything similar in nature or function" refers to an anologue clause. This is to allow criminal prosecutions of obvious copycats of illegal substances (which is still quite difficult if the substances are even slightly different), but isn't relevant to the regulatory framework that the FDA is citing in the warning letters (established by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994, among others).
But you're correct that virtually all steroids would be subject to warning letters and subsequent removal from the market by the FDA. This is because, as discussed in the warning letter, (a) they are not derived from natural or nutritional sources such as plants, vitamins, amino acids, etc., and (b) in general, the companies offering these compounds employ marketing language that presents them in such a way that the FDA can classify them as a drug. (Note that "A" would apply to all, being based on the chemical itself, whereas "B" is dependent solely on how the substances are marketed. In the case of the "Superdrol (TM)" warning letter, both violations were cited.)
B5150 is correct that further Superdrol clones, being marketed by different companies under different names, are likely. This is because the warning letters apply on a company-by-company/product-by-product basis, and generally these warning letters are required before the FDA pursues legal action under the laws regulating dietary supplements. If (once) the chemical in Superdrol is scheduled (made criminally illegal) by Congress, however, then the FDA regulation be irrelevant since the substance itself will be explicitly illegal.
brittishbulldog
Member
im gratefull that there is no ph ban in Britain
