EQ and 1-test

[Big Cat HH]

I think you are missing alot of knowledge in this area and you make incorrect deductions from what facts you do know. The in-vitro blood study showing 15% conversion really means little in regards to what activity the 4-AD has in the body. It disregards conversion at target tissues and intrinsic activity. The assays of 4-AD done on rats showing high activity tends to suggest that things are going on with the compound that are not obviously apparent from simple testosterone conversion in the blood.

But it does allow for a decent comparison between different compounds, no ? Otherwise why use such studies to document anything ? ok, question : Since the other prohormones convert by similar pathway, would they not show similar conversions (as 4AD) in other tissues as well ? And what else can we possibly go on, because I doubt anyone will take it upon themselves to measure the conversion in ALL tissues.

Your determination of 14% bioavailablity from urinary excretion studies also displays ignorance of pharmacology on your part. What shows up in the urine is not what determines bioavailablity, rather, it is the percentage of compound which makes it to the blood. What shows up in the urine is often completely irrelevant to bioavailablity

ok, bad choice of words, but it does show how much of the stuff makes it through the liver and into the blood after hepatic breakdown and it does once again offer a base of comparison.

You may also want to think that a good transdermal delivers alot of steroid, but unless you can offer some evidence of that beyond telling us that your delts swelled up then please stick to what the scientific literature tells us

Fine, but two can play that game. You may think that 4AD has a higher conversion in other tissues, but unless you can offer some evidence of that beyond telling us that, then please stick to what the sicentific literature tells us ? (I may be "ignorant" and "lacking knowledge" in your book, but I do pay attention.

so back to the books Big Cat

I guess the same holds true for you I await your reply to my question.

 

[pa1ad]

>But it does allow for a decent comparison between different compounds, no ? Otherwise why use such studies to document anything ? ok, question : Since the other prohormones convert by similar pathway, would they not show similar conversions (as 4AD) in other tissues as well ? And what else can we possibly go on, because I doubt anyone will take it upon themselves to measure the conversion in ALL tissues.

[/b]
-----------

It does allow for comparison between different compounds. And all the compounds tested in that study use DIFFERENT enzymes for conversion. And all tissues have unique levels of each enzyme, so outside of blood who knows what happens? Sounds like you totally missed the point of that article Big Cat.

---------

>ok, bad choice of words, but it does show how much of the stuff >makes it through the liver and into the blood after hepatic >breakdown and it does once again offer a base of comparison.

[/b]


--------

You are very confused. How can a study that demonstrates the conversion of the compounds in incubated blood say ANYTHING about first pass liver degradation?



Fine, but two can play that game. You may think that 4AD has a higher conversion in other tissues, but unless you can offer some evidence of that beyond telling us that, then please stick to what the sicentific literature tells us ? (I may be "ignorant" and "lacking knowledge" in your book, but I do pay attention.

[/b]


No Big Cat, I do NOT state that it has higher conversion in other tissues. I merely offer that as one possible explanation as to why 4-AD demonstrates similar bioactivity to testosterone when assayed in animals. The other explanation is that it has intrinsic activity. Try to follow the discussion




I guess the same holds true for you I await your reply to my question. [/B]

Ugggghhh!!!

 

[Big Cat HH]

It does allow for comparison between different compounds. And all the compounds tested in that study use DIFFERENT enzymes for conversion. And all tissues have unique levels of each enzyme, so outside of blood who knows what happens? Sounds like you totally missed the point of that article Big Cat

No point at all, I was documenting that you were merely guessing when you say that 4AD has more to offer than its 15% conversion. For all you know conversion in other tissues may actually be lower and what you are seeing is a placebo effect. I don't mean anything by it. Its just hard for me to swallow that you tell me I'm so "dumb" and "hypocritical" when you can pull theories out of your, well you know, and assume they are true.

You are very confused. How can a study that demonstrates the conversion of the compounds in incubated blood say ANYTHING about first pass liver degradation?

On this one I think you are confused. We weren't talking about the conversion, but about the urinary excretetion. I assume you know that everything absorbed orally goes through the liver before it is excreted in the urine ? Therefor it documents the rate of hepatic breakdown, to some, admittedly not accurate, extent.

No Big Cat, I do NOT state that it has higher conversion in other tissues. I merely offer that as one possible explanation as to why 4-AD demonstrates similar bioactivity to testosterone when assayed in animals. The other explanation is that it has intrinsic activity. Try to follow the discussion

You still don't get that you aren't the only one playing this game. I AM following the discussion :

I do NOT state that transdermals have a higher efficacy rate,. I merely offer that as one possible explanation for the better results obtained with them, as well as the swelling of the shoulders which you named as increased androgen receptor concentration. Experienced, I repeat, with 600 mg of Nor-diol, but not with 1200 mg of oral 1AD.

Ugggghhh!!!

Don't stress it so much PA. Nobody is challenging your knowledge, merely trying to get some straight answers. You don't have to pull a sales-pitch on me. I spent 400 bucks on 1AD and I loved the stuff. But is it really so hard for you to fathom that 1AD and 1-test just might more effective orally ? And not just a little ?

 

[ErgoGal]

No point at all, I was documenting that you were merely guessing when you say that 4AD has more to offer than its 15% conversion. For all you know conversion in other tissues may actually be lower and what you are seeing is a placebo effect. I don't mean anything by it. Its just hard for me to swallow that you tell me I'm so "dumb" and "hypocritical" when you can pull theories out of your, well you know, and assume they are true.

[/b]


The aformentioned 4-AD assays on animals were done versus control so I have no idea what you are talking about with placebo effect. You have to try to explain why these assays provide almost equipotent activity versus testosterone yet in the blood incubation study there is only 15% conversion. I offer two possible explanations. Instead of getting all defensive you ought to try to learn from all this






On this one I think you are confused. We weren't talking about the conversion, but about the urinary excretetion. I assume you know that everything absorbed orally goes through the liver before it is excreted in the urine ? Therefor it documents the rate of hepatic breakdown, to some, admittedly not accurate, extent.

[/b]

You still don't get that you aren't the only one playing this game. I AM following the discussion :

I do NOT state that transdermals have a higher efficacy rate,. I merely offer that as one possible explanation for the better results obtained with them, as well as the swelling of the shoulders which you named as increased androgen receptor concentration. Experienced, I repeat, with 600 mg of Nor-diol, but not with 1200 mg of oral 1AD.

[/b]


You offer a theory that when steroids are absorbed through the skin that they selectively swell certain muscles? Excuse me but that is the dumbest thing I ever heard. Try to propose a mechanism for this phenomenon Big Cat.



Don't stress it so much PA. Nobody is challenging your knowledge, merely trying to get some straight answers. You don't have to pull a sales-pitch on me. I spent 400 bucks on 1AD and I loved the stuff. But is it really so hard for you to fathom that 1AD and 1-test just might more effective orally ? And not just a little ? [/B]

Believe whatever you want but I have had alot of people try both a transdermal 1-AD and oral 1-AD and all indications are that the latter is better

 

[Big Cat HH]

The aformentioned 4-AD assays on animals were done versus control so I have no idea what you are talking about with placebo effect. You have to try to explain why these assays provide almost equipotent activity versus testosterone yet in the blood incubation study there is only 15% conversion. I offer two possible explanations. Instead of getting all defensive you ought to try to learn from all this

I'm learning, but what sort of a student would I be if I took your word for it. I accept both theories as valid, but not as true necessarily. For all you know conversion in other tissues could be lower, you also can't prove 4AD has intrinsic activity. Your theories hold a lot of ground, they aren't gospel however.

You offer a theory that when steroids are absorbed through the skin that they selectively swell certain muscles? Excuse me but that is the dumbest thing I ever heard. Try to propose a mechanism for this phenomenon Big Cat.

Swell muscles ? Now that is the dumbest thing I ever heard. No, i stated that with transdermals there is a distinct swelling in the shoulders, arms, sometimes chest. The muscle ? Who knows, I always assumed it was sort of a water retention, perhaps linked to more estrogen receptors or higher aromatase concentration in the shoulders. Especially since there was no gain in weight despite a gain in size in these areas. I never attempted to explain it. Saw no need since it dissappeared after discontinuation.

Believe whatever you want but I have had alot of people try both a transdermal 1-AD and oral 1-AD and all indications are that the latter is better

Odd, I've seen otherwise. Nice of you not to adress the urinary excretion part in my last post and how it does offer a comparison in hepatic breakdown to some extent.

According to the numbers, oral to transdermal is equal at best, probably better in favor of transdermal. But since there is no proof one way or the other, I have to agree there is no point in continuing this argument. As always it was a pleasure, and I did learn a lot

 

[pa1ad]

I'm learning, but what sort of a student
Swell muscles ? Now that is the dumbest thing I ever heard. No, i stated that with transdermals there is a distinct swelling in the shoulders, arms, sometimes chest. The muscle ? Who knows, I always assumed it was sort of a water retention, perhaps linked to more estrogen receptors or higher aromatase concentration in the shoulders. Especially since there was no gain in weight despite a gain in size in these areas. I never attempted to explain it. Saw no need since it dissappeared after discontinuation.

[/b]



You obviously do not understand how estrogens produce water retention. They work at the level of the kidney producing water and sodium retention and therefore the water retained is throughout the body. There is not "local" water retention from estrogens. Also, muscles have very little if any aromatase or estrogen receptors. You throw theories around without care big cat, or without the proper background knowledge, and that is why I think you are a danger to these boards

--------

Odd, I've seen otherwise. Nice of you not to adress the urinary excretion part in my last post and how it does offer a comparison in hepatic breakdown to some extent.


-------

You have not compared oral 1-ad to transdermal 1-ad nor have you compared oral 1-test to transdermal 1-test in any controlled fashion. Don't lie to me Big Cat

You are still completely wrong about the urinary excretion studies having any meaningful relevance to oral bioavailablity. You are in way way over your head with the subject matter you are trying to tackle

-------

According to the numbers, oral to transdermal is equal at best, probably better in favor of transdermal. [/B]

According to what numbers? There are numbers? Are you pulling stuff out of your ass again Big Cat?

 

[Big Cat HH]

You have not compared oral 1-ad to transdermal 1-ad nor have you compared oral 1-test to transdermal 1-test in any controlled fashion. Don't lie to me Big Cat

Oh my god, you are delusional. Do you think it is that hard to open up 60 caps, dump the powder in a glass, mix with water, run it through a coffee filter and add the residu to a 120 ml mix of 60% ethanol,30% IPM and 10% octyl salicate ? A child can do that Pat. Dump the contents in a left-over Nor-andro spray bottle and spray away. Jezus, you think you need a chemistry degree for that ? No, I haven't tried 1-test orally, its a bit harder to convert a transdermal to an oral.

You are still completely wrong about the urinary excretion studies having any meaningful relevance to oral bioavailablity. You are in way way over your head with the subject matter you are trying to tackle

Its painfully obvious I'm not learning much from you other than how to disrespect others...

According to what numbers? There are numbers? Are you pulling stuff out of your ass again Big Cat?

If all else fails, the numbers on the scale don't lie. Lets face it, you don't have anything to stand on. You don't know the conversion of these hormones in every tissue, you don't know their oral or transdermal bio-availability. Might as well rely on the only numbers left right : the results of trial and error. They tell me I'm right.

Look, contrary to what you believe I'm not here to hound you, if it wasn't the case i'd take your word and let it go. What on earth do I have to gain from proving this otherwise ? I'm a student, any money I get and I stand to LOSE my scholarship. You are the one that has everything to gain by claiming the opposite. You are the one that makes your money off of oral 1AD because your whole ad campaign is based on "oral" bio-availabilty.

Now tell me again why I'm a danger to these or any boards. Explain to me how mistakenly assuming that shoulders swelling was estrogenic water retention endangers anyone. I'm particularly curious. And when you are done with that you can finally answer my question why 600 mg or Nor-androspray made my shoulders swell and 1200 mg of oral 1AD did not. If its so orally effective...

 

[pa1ad]

Oh my god, you are delusional. Do you think it is that hard to open up 60 caps, dump the powder in a glass, mix with water, run it through a coffee filter and add the residu to a 120 ml mix of 60% ethanol,30% IPM and 10% octyl salicate ? A child can do that Pat. Dump the contents in a left-over Nor-andro spray bottle and spray away. Jezus, you think you need a chemistry degree for that ? No, I haven't tried 1-test orally, its a bit harder to convert a transdermal to an oral.


--------


this method would leave you with a mess. The IPM and octyl salicylate are water insoluble and the whole mixture would form two layers with water on the bottom and the rest of the solvents on the top. YOu would have a substantial portion of undissolved 1-AD in between the layers. If you sprayed this on it would not do a goddam thing. So the answer is yes, a chemistry degree or some experience in the field of chemistry is necessary before you start fucking around with this stuff

-------


Its painfully obvious I'm not learning much from you other than how to disrespect others...



If all else fails, the numbers on the scale don't lie. Lets face it, you don't have anything to stand on. You don't know the conversion of these hormones in every tissue, you don't know their oral or transdermal bio-availability. Might as well rely on the only numbers left right : the results of trial and error. They tell me I'm right.

Look, contrary to what you believe I'm not here to hound you, if it wasn't the case i'd take your word and let it go. What on earth do I have to gain from proving this otherwise ? I'm a student, any money I get and I stand to LOSE my scholarship. You are the one that has everything to gain by claiming the opposite. You are the one that makes your money off of oral 1AD because your whole ad campaign is based on "oral" bio-availabilty.

Now tell me again why I'm a danger to these or any boards. Explain to me how mistakenly assuming that shoulders swelling was estrogenic water retention endangers anyone. I'm particularly curious. And when you are done with that you can finally answer my question why 600 mg or Nor-androspray made my shoulders swell and 1200 mg of oral 1AD did not. If its so orally effective...

You are a danger because you write articles about prohormones that are full of misinformation and many people on these boards read them and mistakenly take you as some authority with the background necessary to form sound scientific judgments. I have made my career studying prohormones and working with them in the lab and on production scale. I take the subject very seriously and try very hard to make sure people get accurate information on the subject. You are a threat because you are filling people's heads with alot of BS. That is my opinion.

I did not bother you when you were just on bodybuilding.com but now that you are coming on these other boards and saying your stuff it is starting to disturb me

 

[Big Cat HH]

this method would leave you with a mess. The IPM and octyl salicylate are water insoluble and the whole mixture would form two layers with water on the bottom and the rest of the solvents on the top. YOu would have a substantial portion of undissolved 1-AD in between the layers. If you sprayed this on it would not do a goddam thing. So the answer is yes, a chemistry degree or some experience in the field of chemistry is necessary before you start fucking around with this stuff

ANd it still works better than the oral. What does that tell you ?

Wait a minute, what am I saying. Fuck that, you liar. You tried to trick me. I didn't use water. I used ethanol. Read my post next time. So no problem. You were confusing me. I was thinking "why can't alcohol mix with alcohol ?"

Do you make this stuff up as you go along just so you can discredit me, so you wouldn't have to admit I was right ?

You are a danger because you write articles about prohormones that are full of misinformation and many people on these boards read them and mistakenly take you as some authority with the background necessary to form sound scientific judgments. I have made my career studying prohormones and working with them in the lab and on production scale. I take the subject very seriously and try very hard to make sure people get accurate information on the subject. You are a threat because you are filling people's heads with alot of BS. That is my opinion.

I did not bother you when you were just on bodybuilding.com but now that you are coming on these other boards and saying your stuff it is starting to disturb me

Then everybody in this frigging industry is a threat but you. My info is a lot more accurate than what most companies are spreading, and when people come to me its with questions about products and claims. I would say that's a substantial improvement listening to me over Muscletech, SDI, VPX, SAN and a whole host of other firms.

And for the record, I'm not coming on these boards and "saying my stuff". I stated an opinion, a theory and had the politeness to add a question mark at the end for you to fill in any mistakes I might have made. There is only one person here who spreads his words like they were gospel, and that's you ...

Its not so much that you are stubborn and rude that bothers me (I am the same way most of the time), its that you seem to operate under the largest scale of hypocrisy I have ever seen in my life.

BTW, love the way you only answer questions you can rebut. I take it you concede the other points ?

 

[macrophage69alpha]

well... while I have little interest in pro-hormones....

Pat is correct that there is little aromatase produced in muscle tissue... however the skin and adipose tissue are the main sources of aromatase production in males.. with transdermal application you will likely get local aromatization at the site(exposure to aromatase rich tissue through skin and sub-q-fat) a level of exposure that one would not likely get with oral intake(as hormone would likely be in lower concentrations, reduced, or not come into contact with tissue due to poor blood flow).. and potentially the reason for local water retention. (estrogens influence on water is also due to its direct action on the a2 adrenceptor)

just some random thoughts


peace