Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Repost-Stacking opposing classes of anabolics for maximum efficiency...
- Thread starter HUCKLEBERRY FINNaplex
- Start date
Buffalo Joe
New member
bump it for good karma
Texas Ranger
New member
Bump for important info everyone should know, Vets and Newbies!!!
Like the thread guys, however, I would like to jump in with my .02. The theory of Class I and II steroids is one of those from Bill Roberts that I do disagree with. Here is a quote from BR discussing Dianabol on meso:
"Contrary to what many would expect, this compound is actually only a weak agonist of the androgen receptor (AR), with poor binding. It follows, then, that its value must mostly come from non-AR-mediated effects. It is therefore a Class II steroid. "
This line of thinking, although a good attempt at explaining the potency of a steroid like this, fails to take into account some important things about weaker AR binding/c17-AA steroids such as Dianabol and Anadrol (Note, all of the class II androgens in the list are C-17aa's). These steroids are extremely potent, to spite weakened AR binding, because they have extremely long half-lives next to non-methylated steroids and bind poorly to serum proteins. These traits more than compensate.
This is the same reason Dianabol is more estrogenic than boldenone (non-methylated Dianabol). C-17AA actually LOWERS aromatase affinity, so boldenone converts to estrogen at a higher rate than Dbol does. However, dbol converts to 17-alpha methyl estradiol. 17-A-ME binds to the ER with lower affinity than estradiol, however is much more potent an estrogen because, again, it has a very long half-life and is less bound to serum proteins.
I am not discounting non-receptor mediated steroid activity, as indirect mechanisms of steroid action clearly do exist; however I am the bold classification of direct and indirect steroids. All bind the AR, and likely all exert most of their anabolic activity here.
- Bill Llewellyn
"Contrary to what many would expect, this compound is actually only a weak agonist of the androgen receptor (AR), with poor binding. It follows, then, that its value must mostly come from non-AR-mediated effects. It is therefore a Class II steroid. "
This line of thinking, although a good attempt at explaining the potency of a steroid like this, fails to take into account some important things about weaker AR binding/c17-AA steroids such as Dianabol and Anadrol (Note, all of the class II androgens in the list are C-17aa's). These steroids are extremely potent, to spite weakened AR binding, because they have extremely long half-lives next to non-methylated steroids and bind poorly to serum proteins. These traits more than compensate.
This is the same reason Dianabol is more estrogenic than boldenone (non-methylated Dianabol). C-17AA actually LOWERS aromatase affinity, so boldenone converts to estrogen at a higher rate than Dbol does. However, dbol converts to 17-alpha methyl estradiol. 17-A-ME binds to the ER with lower affinity than estradiol, however is much more potent an estrogen because, again, it has a very long half-life and is less bound to serum proteins.
I am not discounting non-receptor mediated steroid activity, as indirect mechanisms of steroid action clearly do exist; however I am the bold classification of direct and indirect steroids. All bind the AR, and likely all exert most of their anabolic activity here.
- Bill Llewellyn
No Flames please! This is just for your info....
BILL Llewellyn DOSE NOT believe in class 1 and class 2 roids classifications. He believes all roids work via the Androgen receptor, but at different degrees of effectiveness.
Bill Roberts does believe in class 1 and 2 class, and was the founder of this theory.
I believe as Huckand bill R do too
BILL Llewellyn DOSE NOT believe in class 1 and class 2 roids classifications. He believes all roids work via the Androgen receptor, but at different degrees of effectiveness.
Bill Roberts does believe in class 1 and 2 class, and was the founder of this theory.
I believe as Huckand bill R do too
Buffalo Joe
New member
bump
Pioneer Justin Bogswell
New member
question..
This is for bill l. or Hucky.. or anyone with experience with stacking the 2 drugs, Tren and Test.
I heard stacking tren and test is a bad idea. I dont remember why.. Whats the positives and negatives about stacking the two?
This is for bill l. or Hucky.. or anyone with experience with stacking the 2 drugs, Tren and Test.
I heard stacking tren and test is a bad idea. I dont remember why.. Whats the positives and negatives about stacking the two?
Similar threads
