GnastyMcNasty
Member
And why not 3 compounds? You think that's too many?
Unreal's Guide to Superdrol
- Thread starter UnrealMachine
- Start date
TheDarkHalf
Well-known member
:banghead: :thumbsdown: :chairshot: :dunce: :tool:
I think those smileys about cover it.
Ju1cedUp
Active member
bahaha come on man the guy's lost.
hardknock
Well-known member
...
Hmmm, a friend of mine told me today about William Llewellyn’s ANABOLICS 7th Edition (2009).
He said it mentions about "clones" and the possible tainting with dangerous metals. Well the UG isn't to blame as much as the sources are.
I need to get that book asap.
I never thought about metals not being removed from products or anything else, I've only had things tested for concentration of mg vs mg.
So much interesting info going around.
Hmmm, a friend of mine told me today about William Llewellyn’s ANABOLICS 7th Edition (2009).
He said it mentions about "clones" and the possible tainting with dangerous metals. Well the UG isn't to blame as much as the sources are.
I need to get that book asap.
I never thought about metals not being removed from products or anything else, I've only had things tested for concentration of mg vs mg.
So much interesting info going around.
hardknock
Well-known member
By who?
You mean the original suppliers or once it hits the lab that is selling it?
There were SEVERAL companies that had their product tested. Many of these company's were the popular places to gather product from in the mid 2000, say, 2002-2007.
I can't remember specifically the number or what was tested but I KNOW Tcyp, Tprop was in there and masteron/methyl but it was 14 that had product tested .
Several of the product tested as below:
Heavy dangerous metals above the allowed threshold.
Under dosed which isn't that bad other than wasting money and being lied to
Over dosed which is pretty dangerous considering the type of drugs there were.
Food oils being used instead of pharma grade (concerning the powder substances)
I would send items off to be tested to see if a pill contained the MG per pill which was supposed to be there but they didn't offer metal testing for FREE. That cost EXTRA. And, honestly, I've never thought about it until Anabolics 2009 book hit.
hardknock
Well-known member
I would be willing to put a large wager on the assumption that MOST of the smaller companies, the "good bro" companies, do not even test for anything, just mix and sell.
Now, I cannot speak specifically on many companies but like i said in another thread (comapny shall remain nameless) I can VOUCH FOR ONE COMPANY specifically which I approached and told that their pills were way under dosed and some were even way over dosed, showed them the test results...problem was said to have been "fixed"
Do I know this to be true? I have no earthly idea. My credit/check card was continuously denied from that point on. Rather than go to the trouble of borrowing my wife's card or someone's and sending product to another address, i figured, If it is that important to lie to ONE PERSON to hide a lie then so be it. NO ONE in my circle orders from them now though.
Now, I cannot speak specifically on many companies but like i said in another thread (comapny shall remain nameless) I can VOUCH FOR ONE COMPANY specifically which I approached and told that their pills were way under dosed and some were even way over dosed, showed them the test results...problem was said to have been "fixed"
Do I know this to be true? I have no earthly idea. My credit/check card was continuously denied from that point on. Rather than go to the trouble of borrowing my wife's card or someone's and sending product to another address, i figured, If it is that important to lie to ONE PERSON to hide a lie then so be it. NO ONE in my circle orders from them now though.
GnastyMcNasty
Member
Dark Half, I have done my research. Why don't you just give a straight answer instead of acting like a douche?
TheDarkHalf
Well-known member
If you had done your research......you would have came to the conclusion that what you are doing is not smart.
I'm not here to spoon feed, you could have came to the conclusion on your own had you actually spent time reading in this forum.
And you did get a straight answer. Were my smileys not clear enough?
KgTomCat
Well-known member
GnastyMcNasty
Member
This is my research. I am bridging the methyls and tren is not liver toxic. Unreal said the only thing wrong with it is test suppression, but since I'm on TRT that's not an issue. I'm also preloading cycle support two weeks prior to the cycle and will be running it all the way through, as well as tripling my fish oils to futher improve my cholesterol profile. Now, there is my reasoning. So tell me what's wrong with it. Why is it a bad idea? Btw, I've run phs and epi before, this isn't my first cycle.
KgTomCat
Well-known member
running two methylated compounds that aren't liver toxic...which compounds are you talking about? if a compound is methylated it is processed by your liver, if its unmethylated it isn't processed by your liver..but EVERYTHING passes through your liver...:trout:
how are your lipids? blood pressure? gyno history?
taking alot of fish oil/omega 3 will not promise improvement of cholesterol, it'll help but not promise anything...
phs and epi...epi is a ph..what have you done before?
jbryand101b
Banned
okay, i'll try to help here.
and I think you are saying in a previous comment, you are basically running two methyls (sd and epi which you know to be hepatotoxic) and also a non methyl (the dienolone precursor).
so I would say for the dienolone ph, run between 60-90mg depending on sides you get from it.
and 3 weeks of sd at 20mg bridged into 3 weeks of epi ran at 30-40mg shouldn't be a big problem.
if it was me, i'd just be worried about the sides from the dienolone (tren) ph.
knowing nothing about you i'd say for you to use w/e support supplements keep you safe based of your personal knowledge of your current health.
you will be shutdown from a cycle like this.
your liver enzymes will be raised to unhealthy levels.
bp will be in higher than normal.
this is all the info i'm giving you. the rest I expect you to find on your own from searching and reading.
jbryand101b
Banned
they probably wont if he really is on it, if he really shouldn't be, well, he will most likely cause himself to be on hrt permanently d/t the damage that will be done.
but if he's on it hrt he wont need pct. his test levels should stay up d/t the outside test he's getting to put in his body. easiest way to keep gains besides getting them naturally.
GnastyMcNasty
Member
Thanks, that helps. Also, I'm curious, why are you more worried about the sides from the dienolone precursor? Are they worse than superdrol?
TheDarkHalf
Well-known member
Just depends on how you respond to SD. You may or may not see any added benefit. If you've never taken it before just do the 10/20/20
jbryand101b
Banned
for me, I dont get any sides from sd besides increased bp and at 30mg back pumps. these i can deal with.
the dienolone, for me, dosed at 100mg, is like spraying hair spray over a lighter, and my dormant gyno is the lighter. small w/o the hair spray, but you know what happens when you spray it over the lighter.
but if i didn't have that problem, oh man, gains were nice. sucks. always a trade off. :dunno:
the liqui version is supposed to be easier on sides. i'll see someday.
jbryand101b
Banned
exactly, and it also depends on the brands quality of their sd.
im running mastavol by aps at 10mg, and it is plenty, im feeling like it's enough for the full 4 weeks, well, m-f @ 10mg in the morning.
some brands aren't as potent, and can be ran higher, so like dark half said, start at 10, and judge from there.
TheDarkHalf
Well-known member
and that's why we plan these things out...I mean we can say on paper that we are gonna run an epi cycle at 40/40/40/40 and it could be too much or just not enough at all. You just have to judge how your feeling and how your body reacts and increase/decrease dosages as necessary.
:werd:
TheDarkHalf
Well-known member
Yea man I wouldn't take any PH past 5pm. But that's just me and I'm usually heading to the gym around then so it works out. I usually head to bed about 11 or 11:30 so yeah 6 hours before bed should do it but ultimately user dependent. Get yourself some melatonin or ZMA.
UnrealMachine
Well-known member
lol man... I know you read the guide and know better than to dose that late, that's to be expected!
and Jbryand, Dienolone is the same for me, was like throwing fuel on the gyno fire, ****ing burning flareup, was bad... won't touch that stuff ever. And I dunno about the liquid version being easier on sides... that doesn't make any sense to me, it's the same thing just dissolved in a solution, I don't see how that would effect sides that arise from the steroidal activity.
hardknock
Well-known member
..
PP was stating that one would be able to take a much smaller dose, less than 5mg, I think 2.5mg or even smaller. With pills one would have to chop it up so many times and risk even distribution.
TheDarkHalf
Well-known member
Seems fine to me.
UnrealMachine
Well-known member
PP is gonna have to explain that to me because i don't understand how 2.5mg of dienolone is going to do anything. The idea of less sides still doesn't make sense... you take X amount of dienolone and the extent of sides will be proportional to the extent of gains, the variables are tied together and scale with dose, you can't get more anabolic effect while keeping sides constant or else everybody would be doing 200mg of dienolone. Taking less just means getting less anabolic effect. Anybody can get this from taking a low dose like 60mg.
hardknock
Well-known member
..
To rehash what I typed, I believe he was saying that you could have more options with dosing. Now that I think, I do not know for sure if it was to lessen sides.
GnastyMcNasty
Member
i could be wrong, but I am assuming Hardknock was maybe referring to the upcoming Superdrol Liqua-Vade PP is coming out with and confused it with the dienolone. obviously that low a dose of dienolone would do very little. the liquvade claims to have up to 3X better absorption than a pill alone, so 2.5 mg x 3 would still be nothing.
GnastyMcNasty
Member
I've used clen and am actually using it right now. I am trying to slim down some before I run this cycle, in an effort to improve my lipid profile and blood pressure as much as possible (I am dialed in on diet already)
hardknock
Well-known member
It was gain 20lbs of MUSCLE in 30 days i believe...
That was the one that got the arguments going...i could be wrong, I am over worked here.
UnrealMachine
Well-known member
Ahh that makes a lot more sense lol. SD is potent as hell, with a better absorption not much would be needed... Achieving absorption 3x better than pill is impressive, I'm curious to see how the product works if they do a SD-LV.
blazinminican
New member
where can i purchase this superdrol?
ammoarsenal
Member
cool thread. maybe you can tell me the difference between a isomer superdrol and b isomer superdrol. i know what the chemical difference looks like, but as far as acting effects does one differ from the other?
qwerty33
Well-known member
From Primordial Performance Feb 1st. The A isomer is the original more toxic, but also more gains SD. the b is less harsh on sides and produces less gains. Altho i know people who have gained a solid 25lb off of 4 weeks of methadrol (b isomer) and 20-30mg a day. But this is not advised.
some also speculate that there is no difference b/w the b and a. So no one truly knows but the A seems to be exactly like the original AX Superdrol
some also speculate that there is no difference b/w the b and a. So no one truly knows but the A seems to be exactly like the original AX Superdrol
KgTomCat
Well-known member
how do you cycle it?...Im thinking about doing 2 on 2 off (weeks) with benadryl on off weeks, I was going to do EC but Ive read your receptors are dead
TheDarkHalf
Well-known member
They work on the same pathways. So your receptors will adapt to both over time. 2 on 2 off with benadryl is good. I wouldn't go over 120 mcg. Start low at like 40-60 to assess tolerance and work your way up.
AND I'm also sure there is a separate thread for this if not multiple....lets stick to the SD discussions.
jbryand101b
Banned
the only logical reasoning behind a liquid dienolone p.s. having less sides is possibly from the mucus membranes absorbing it before it gets into the stomach.
there is said to be some estrogen conversion on this product, and the only place I can think that would happen is in the stomach, or liver.
so if you got more into the blood, idk.
--------
anyhow, before, i never understood why anyone would want 5mg dosages of sd.
but now that im actually using a quality sd product, 5mg caps, or liquid, would def be easier than trying to split up a 10mg capsule of powder, which I gave up on trying to do on the first day and just decided to take 10mg in the morning.
i must say, it is hard to not bump it to 20mg. knowing the gains that will come from that. but im seeing nice recomp effect, strength gains from only 10mg. who would of thought? not me.
---
on the a and b isomers, oh there is most def a difference. but the reasoning behind the difference is the structur of the molecule. the a isomer binds strongly to the androgen receptor, and this is why you have such strong gains, and sides from it.
now the b isomer (this is the confusion) either is able to bond to the androgen receptor, but weakly, and this would be why there are slightly less gains, and side effects (and the most logical in my opinion)
or as some speculate ( like p.a.) it shouldn't be able to bond to the a.r. at all, and so it must be a misprint on the label, and all the manufacturers claiming b isomers are really using a isomers.
so then (hope I have unreals attention) this brings up discussion for the most popular brand of sd, c.e.l.'s mdrol.
it is labeled as a b isomer of sd.
and then we have the topic of "bad batches" and certificate of analysis saying it is 99% something pure sd.
okay, so im thinking, maybe the arguement is right on some point, maybe it binds less well (b isomer) in some people, and in other wont bind to the a.r. at all? or possibly if their supplier sometimes sends a isomer sd powder, and sometimes they get some b isomer powder, and this would account possibly for in effective batches (due to b isomer not binding to the a.r.)
the idea in bold is what I think is most plausable, because after all these years mdrol has been around, if they had a mislabeling problem, im pretty sure c.e.l. would of fixed it by now.
and like we all know, everyone reacts differently, so possibly, it binds weakly to some, others not at all.:dunno:
that is my hypothesis on a and b isomers of superdrol.
there is said to be some estrogen conversion on this product, and the only place I can think that would happen is in the stomach, or liver.
so if you got more into the blood, idk.
--------
anyhow, before, i never understood why anyone would want 5mg dosages of sd.
but now that im actually using a quality sd product, 5mg caps, or liquid, would def be easier than trying to split up a 10mg capsule of powder, which I gave up on trying to do on the first day and just decided to take 10mg in the morning.
i must say, it is hard to not bump it to 20mg. knowing the gains that will come from that. but im seeing nice recomp effect, strength gains from only 10mg. who would of thought? not me.
---
on the a and b isomers, oh there is most def a difference. but the reasoning behind the difference is the structur of the molecule. the a isomer binds strongly to the androgen receptor, and this is why you have such strong gains, and sides from it.
now the b isomer (this is the confusion) either is able to bond to the androgen receptor, but weakly, and this would be why there are slightly less gains, and side effects (and the most logical in my opinion)
or as some speculate ( like p.a.) it shouldn't be able to bond to the a.r. at all, and so it must be a misprint on the label, and all the manufacturers claiming b isomers are really using a isomers.
so then (hope I have unreals attention) this brings up discussion for the most popular brand of sd, c.e.l.'s mdrol.
it is labeled as a b isomer of sd.
and then we have the topic of "bad batches" and certificate of analysis saying it is 99% something pure sd.
okay, so im thinking, maybe the arguement is right on some point, maybe it binds less well (b isomer) in some people, and in other wont bind to the a.r. at all? or possibly if their supplier sometimes sends a isomer sd powder, and sometimes they get some b isomer powder, and this would account possibly for in effective batches (due to b isomer not binding to the a.r.)
the idea in bold is what I think is most plausable, because after all these years mdrol has been around, if they had a mislabeling problem, im pretty sure c.e.l. would of fixed it by now.
and like we all know, everyone reacts differently, so possibly, it binds weakly to some, others not at all.:dunno:
that is my hypothesis on a and b isomers of superdrol.
UnrealMachine
Well-known member
the only logical reasoning behind a liquid dienolone p.s. having less sides is possibly from the mucus membranes absorbing it before it gets into the stomach.
there is said to be some estrogen conversion on this product, and the only place I can think that would happen is in the stomach, or liver.
so if you got more into the blood, idk.
--------
anyhow, before, i never understood why anyone would want 5mg dosages of sd.
but now that im actually using a quality sd product, 5mg caps, or liquid, would def be easier than trying to split up a 10mg capsule of powder, which I gave up on trying to do on the first day and just decided to take 10mg in the morning.
i must say, it is hard to not bump it to 20mg. knowing the gains that will come from that. but im seeing nice recomp effect, strength gains from only 10mg. who would of thought? not me.
---
on the a and b isomers, oh there is most def a difference. but the reasoning behind the difference is the structur of the molecule. the a isomer binds strongly to the androgen receptor, and this is why you have such strong gains, and sides from it.
now the b isomer (this is the confusion) either is able to bond to the androgen receptor, but weakly, and this would be why there are slightly less gains, and side effects (and the most logical in my opinion)
or as some speculate ( like p.a.) it shouldn't be able to bond to the a.r. at all, and so it must be a misprint on the label, and all the manufacturers claiming b isomers are really using a isomers.
so then (hope I have unreals attention) this brings up discussion for the most popular brand of sd, c.e.l.'s mdrol.
it is labeled as a b isomer of sd.
and then we have the topic of "bad batches" and certificate of analysis saying it is 99% something pure sd.
okay, so im thinking, maybe the arguement is right on some point, maybe it binds less well (b isomer) in some people, and in other wont bind to the a.r. at all? or possibly if their supplier sometimes sends a isomer sd powder, and sometimes they get some b isomer powder, and this would account possibly for in effective batches (due to b isomer not binding to the a.r.)
the idea in bold is what I think is most plausable, because after all these years mdrol has been around, if they had a mislabeling problem, im pretty sure c.e.l. would of fixed it by now.
and like we all know, everyone reacts differently, so possibly, it binds weakly to some, others not at all.:dunno:
that is my hypothesis on a and b isomers of superdrol.
I just don't know... I know that I've tried THREE types of SD that worked for me and one bottle of Mdrol that does nothing in any way. But i can't say what's in it. I came to the conclusion that SOME Mdrol is just a totally different compound or mixture of compounds, as I have read too many posts from people who have tried both Mdrol and SD and still make gains on Mdrol but get a completely different profile of side effects and gains (gains come late, good strength, lot of water, appetite loss, severe lethargy, gyno ON cycle). Superdrol does not usually cause these... does not cause water retention and never gyno on cycle.
This sounds like a labeling issue because no one is gaining 25 "solid" pounds in 4 weeks off any steroid or combination of steroids and that's certainly not happening with the weaker isomer.
What's the bottom line... It's that original SD is alpha, it's a different structure than the beta based on stereochemistry, so the beta form isn't Superdrol and if clones are using beta then they are big fat lies and not real SD clones. **** the beta form lol. I'm not even sure if the isomer issue is the problem (could be an issue with purity or incomplete reactions, contamination with anadrol that SD is synthesized from?) but yea it's prolly the best explanation we have although as i said i think some of it is just labeling issues and that's what CEL has said all along.