The Androsterone Thread

[Al Shades]

There isn't.

It's just stupid for companies to call their products steroids for legal reasons.

How are they legal if they require no conversion to be active?

If you tell me they're not legal, then here's the next question.

A company decides it's going to put out an illegal steroid.

Why bother with epistane, superdrol, and other "unknown" compounds? Why don't they cap d-bol, a50, deca, and all the other good stuff, throw it in a bottle with a marketing label and see how much they can sell before getting shut down?

If what has been written in this thread is true, there would be no fundamental difference between doing the above and selling superdrol. Yet superdrol is still being sold. None of the post-04 PH's/DS have been banned (though some have been pulled by their manufacturers without explanation).

Somehow, I'm incline to believe that compounds like epistane and superdrol are not quite in the same class of "actives" as real gear. Otherwise, why haven't we seen actual Dbol selling on nutra?

Something doesn't add up. There must be a difference between the current gen of designers and both the first gen PH's (pre-04) as well as real gear.

 

[Hyde12]

How are they legal if they require no conversion to be active?

If you tell me they're not legal, then here's the next question.

A company decides it's going to put out an illegal steroid.

Why bother with epistane, superdrol, and other "unknown" compounds? Why don't they cap d-bol, a50, deca, and all the other good stuff, throw it in a bottle with a marketing label and see how much they can sell before getting shut down?

If what has been written in this thread is true, there would be no fundamental difference between doing the above and selling superdrol. Yet superdrol is still being sold. None of the post-04 PH's/DS have been banned (though some have been pulled by their manufacturers without explanation).

Somehow, I'm incline to believe that compounds like epistane and superdrol are not quite in the same class of "actives" as real gear. Otherwise, why haven't we seen actual Dbol selling on nutra?

Something doesn't add up. There must be a difference between the current gen of designers and both the first gen PH's (pre-04) as well as real gear.

Actual Dbol is for sell. I believe M-1,4 AD is Dbol.

 

[Al Shades]

Actual Dbol is for sell. I believe M-1,4 AD is Dbol.

No, it's a precursor. In other words, a PH.

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/steroids/20956-where-cheapest-place.html#post195400

1,4 AD Bold = boldenone = equipoise PH

tren xtreme/clones = methyl trenbolone PH

All of them are PH's.

None of them are actual tren, actual equi, actual d-bol.
This is how I've understood it for a long time, and that's why I'm getting very confused now with this talk of "superdrol and epistane don't need to convert".

I'm willing to bet that all of the current designers need to convert. Otherwise, nutra and every other retailer would be getting raided by DEA, and every person posting on here would be on a list of suspects.

 

[ozarkaBRAND]

No, it's a precursor. In other words, a PH.

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/steroids/20956-where-cheapest-place.html#post195400

1,4 AD Bold = boldenone = equipoise PH

tren xtreme/clones = methyl trenbolone PH

All of them are PH's.

None of them are actual tren, actual equi, actual d-bol.
This is how I've understood it for a long time, and that's why I'm getting very confused now with this talk of "superdrol and epistane don't need to convert".

I'm willing to bet that all of the current designers need to convert. Otherwise, nutra and every other retailer would be getting raided by DEA, and every person posting on here would be on a list of suspects.

People can produce designer steroids that really don't require any conversion because they aren't on any list of scheduled compounds.. Therefore, they are legal.

 

[3clipseGT]

No, it's a precursor. In other words, a PH.

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/steroids/20956-where-cheapest-place.html#post195400

1,4 AD Bold = boldenone = equipoise PH

tren xtreme/clones = methyl trenbolone PH

All of them are PH's.

None of them are actual tren, actual equi, actual d-bol.
This is how I've understood it for a long time, and that's why I'm getting very confused now with this talk of "superdrol and epistane don't need to convert".

I'm willing to bet that all of the current designers need to convert. Otherwise, nutra and every other retailer would be getting raided by DEA, and every person posting on here would be on a list of suspects.

This is not correct because SD is an actual steroid. No conversion to anything is required. Epistane is an actual steroid, no conversion required. And also all of the tren PHs arent PH's to tren, they are PHs to dienolone. If im not mistaken Phera is an actual steroid, i dont beleive that has to convert to anything.

 

[Hyde12]

No, it's a precursor. In other words, a PH.

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/steroids/20956-where-cheapest-place.html#post195400

1,4 AD Bold = boldenone = equipoise PH

tren xtreme/clones = methyl trenbolone PH

All of them are PH's.

None of them are actual tren, actual equi, actual d-bol.
This is how I've understood it for a long time, and that's why I'm getting very confused now with this talk of "superdrol and epistane don't need to convert".

I'm willing to bet that all of the current designers need to convert. Otherwise, nutra and every other retailer would be getting raided by DEA, and every person posting on here would be on a list of suspects.

When you methylate 1,4 AD is changes the compound. Methylated boldenone converts to Dbol. It is hard to find. Most places that had is are out of stock.

 

[Hyde12]

This is not correct because SD is an actual steroid. No conversion to anything is required. Epistane is an actual steroid, no conversion required. And also all of the tren PHs arent PH's to tren, they are PHs to dienolone. If im not mistaken Phera is an actual steroid, i dont beleive that has to convert to anything.

This is correct

 

[EasyEJL]

How are they legal if they require no conversion to be active?

If you tell me they're not legal, then here's the next question.

A company decides it's going to put out an illegal steroid.

Why bother with epistane, superdrol, and other "unknown" compounds? Why don't they cap d-bol, a50, deca, and all the other good stuff, throw it in a bottle with a marketing label and see how much they can sell before getting shut down?

If what has been written in this thread is true, there would be no fundamental difference between doing the above and selling superdrol. Yet superdrol is still being sold. None of the post-04 PH's/DS have been banned (though some have been pulled by their manufacturers without explanation).

Somehow, I'm incline to believe that compounds like epistane and superdrol are not quite in the same class of "actives" as real gear. Otherwise, why haven't we seen actual Dbol selling on nutra?

Something doesn't add up. There must be a difference between the current gen of designers and both the first gen PH's (pre-04) as well as real gear.

The answer is about whether the compound has ever

a) been sold as a prescription drug and never approved for over the counter

b) been specifically added to a list of banned compounds/drugs like LSD

The trick is that even if neither of the above is true, a product can be sold as a "supplement" (which is what all of our designers are sold as) only if they are compliant with the DSHEA - Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994

Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994

the basic synopsis is that something can be sold as a supplement only if

"(ff) The term "dietary supplement" -
"(1) means a product (other than tobacco) intended to supplement the diet that bears or contains one or more of the following dietary ingredients:
"(A) a vitamin;
"(B) a mineral;
"(C) an herb or other botanical;
"(D) an amino acid;
"(E) a dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake; or
"(F) a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of any ingredient described in clause (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E);
"(2) means a product that -
"(A)(i) is intended for ingestion in a form described in section 411(c)(1)(B)(i); or
"(ii) complies with section 411(c)(1)(B)(ii);
"(B) is not represented for use as a conventional food or as a sole item of a meal or the diet; and
"(C) is labeled as a dietary supplement; and
"(3) does -
"(A) include an article that is approved as a new drug under section 505, certified as an antibiotic under section 507, or licensed as a biologic under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262) and was, prior to such approval, certification, or license, marketed as a dietary supplement or as a food unless the Secretary has issued a regulation, after notice and comment, finding that the article, when used as or in a dietary supplement under the conditions of use and dosages set forth in the labeling for such dietary supplement, is unlawful under section 402(f); and
"(B) not include -
"(i) an article that is approved as a new drug under section 505, certified as an antibiotic under section 507, or licensed as a biologic under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), or
"(ii) an article authorized for investigation as a new drug, antibiotic, or biological for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted and for which the existence of such investigations has been made public,
which was not before such approval, certification, licensing, or authorization marketed as a dietary supplement or as a food unless the Secretary, in the Secretary's discretion, has issued a regulation, after notice and comment, finding that the article would be lawful under this Act.

which boiled down to simpler terms means it has to be something in the food chain that you could eat, even if it is a highly concentrated form of it.

the trick and loophole is based on the enforcement. Basically the FDA has to ask a company to provide proof of DSHEA compliance. If they can't, the FDA can potentially seize raws, and get an injunction against them selling more, and fine them heavily if they do sell more. Up until the point where they get that letter tho, there is no provision for fines or punishment.

Any 3 of us could incorporate, invest enough money to buy few kilos of superdrol, phera and trena powders and have it shipped to a jobber who is GMP (good manufacturing process) certified to have it capped and bottled. The worst that could happen at any point is that those bottles get siezed. otherwise we could sell em, and continue doing so batch after batch till we got "the letter". AX has gotten those letters a few times.

So in theory yes, superdrol, phera, epistane, etc are all not legal. some products are, like 6-bromo in hyperdrol x2, a few others that can be shown to be found in microscopic amounts in some live tissue.

Androsterone is DSHEA compliant

 

[IBE]

well said buddy.

The answer is about whether the compound has ever

a) been sold as a prescription drug and never approved for over the counter

b) been specifically added to a list of banned compounds/drugs like LSD

The trick is that even if neither of the above is true, a product can be sold as a "supplement" (which is what all of our designers are sold as) only if they are compliant with the DSHEA - Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994

Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994

the basic synopsis is that something can be sold as a supplement only if



which boiled down to simpler terms means it has to be something in the food chain that you could eat, even if it is a highly concentrated form of it.

the trick and loophole is based on the enforcement. Basically the FDA has to ask a company to provide proof of DSHEA compliance. If they can't, the FDA can potentially seize raws, and get an injunction against them selling more, and fine them heavily if they do sell more. Up until the point where they get that letter tho, there is no provision for fines or punishment.

Any 3 of us could incorporate, invest enough money to buy few kilos of superdrol, phera and trena powders and have it shipped to a jobber who is GMP (good manufacturing process) certified to have it capped and bottled. The worst that could happen at any point is that those bottles get siezed. otherwise we could sell em, and continue doing so batch after batch till we got "the letter". AX has gotten those letters a few times.

So in theory yes, superdrol, phera, epistane, etc are all not legal. some products are, like 6-bromo in hyperdrol x2, a few others that can be shown to be found in microscopic amounts in some live tissue.

Androsterone is DSHEA compliant

 

[Al Shades]

Good posts. Finally clears things up a bit.

 

[DaveWalton]

I'm pretty sure this falls under Androsterone...I've just started my first ever cycle of PHs and am taking 4-AD (4 Androstene 3, 17-Diol) and I am currently taking 4 caps a day at 250 mg/cap = 1 g/ day (1 cap every 3-4 hours)

Is 1g/day enough for my first ever PH cycle using Oral 4-Ad as a standalone?

 

[Craigmatthew]

Interesting read, lead the knowledge continue!

 

[Delita420]

the t911 supp lists 'androsterone' in its ingredients. is that not the actual ingredient, are they choosing to with hold the actual chemical makeup? or is there a regular 'androsterone' being used?

 

[wheels]

Bump

 

[MAxximal]

Ohhh yeah!!

http://www.ergo-log.com/androstenedionesexhormone.html

 

[MAxximal]

Formadrol Extreme XPLO CAPS (60 Capsules)

has this:

Anti-Aromatase Complex 27mg

Androstan-3-alpha-ol-17-one
Androstan-3-beta-ol-17-one

@ 4 caps daily is suppresive?