Oxyguno  

Page 2 / 2
  RSS

virtualcyber
(@virtualcyber)
Active Member
Joined: 2 months ago
Posts: 16
30/08/2019 7:06 pm  
Posted by: @Benson
We've already got one don't we?

If Oxyguno turns out to be that side effect free, I can imagine it becoming popular with high school athletes.

An abuse is bound to happen. Some smart Congressmen will probably re-raise issues with steroids.

Ji-Yong David Chung


ReplyQuote
Benson
(@benson)
Member Moderator
Joined: 2 months ago
Posts: 15
30/08/2019 7:24 pm  
Posted by: @virtualcyber
If Oxyguno turns out to be that side effect free, I can imagine it becoming popular with high school athletes.

An abuse is bound to happen. Some smart Congressmen will probably re-raise issues with steroids.

Lets hope they are too busy with real issues like war and re-election.

"Being smart is like being a lady, if you have to tell people you are, you aren't" - Margaret Thatcher (paraphrased)
"The tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." T.H. Huxley

Quis nos es non potens ut muto, nos es postulo perfero. Illegitimis non carborundum!


ReplyQuote
GhostfaceKillah
(@ghostfacekillah)
Active Member
Joined: 2 months ago
Posts: 7
30/08/2019 7:54 pm  

I wish the first generation prohormones had been methylated orals. Maybe these would have been banned and we would have ended up with safer transdermals, rather than the other way around.


ReplyQuote
virtualcyber
(@virtualcyber)
Active Member
Joined: 2 months ago
Posts: 16
30/08/2019 8:10 pm  
Posted by: @GhostfaceKillah
I wish the first generation prohormones had been methylated orals. Maybe these would have been banned and we would have ended up with safer transdermals, rather than the other way around.

I understand what you are saying and I agree with the idea behind your comments.

As an ancillary point, I am not sure if methylation/oral delivery necessarily makes something toxic.

For clarification, consider liver enzyme values and lipid profiles.

Per liver enzyme, I don't know if oral delivery contributes to raising the liver enzyme value. The main argument against that theory (so I have read) is that whatever one takes into one's body has to be metabolized, and therefore, it doesn't make any difference how one takes the steroid. The liver takes the hit. The rebuttal is that, because different tissues (e.g. gut v. skin) are involved in different modes of delivery, it is entirely possible that the oral route places greater burden on the liver due to different biochemical pathways involved. Having thought about both arguments, I suspect that if M1T were injected, it would be as just as bad for one's liver as if one orally administers it (assuming the same bioavailability). I suspect that the strength of androgenic effect of a given steroid, and therefore, its A:A ratio, is correlated with how hard the liver has to work to rid of the substance.

Per lipid profiles, I believe what screws this up is the imbalance in hormones caused by the steroid binding to androgen receptors. If the body senses there is too much of a particular hormone (via androgen receptors), it tries to rebalance hormones (which in turn affects lipid profiles). By this reasoning, we want to see high A:A ratio in a steroid.

In summary, the A:A ratio of a steroid is probably more relevant to its toxicity than its method of administration or whether it is methylated or not.

Ji-Yong David Chung


ReplyQuote
Benson
(@benson)
Member Moderator
Joined: 2 months ago
Posts: 15
30/08/2019 8:30 pm  
Posted by: @virtualcyber
I understand what you are saying and I agree with the idea behind your comments.

As an ancillary point, I am not sure if methylation/oral delivery necessarily makes something toxic.
In summary, the A:A ratio of a steroid is probably more relevant to its toxicity than its method of administration or whether it is methylated or not.

I suspect you are very much correct VC.

The other thing to keep in mind that the toxic effects of 17a-alkylated oral steroids, or any steroids really, are largely proportional to the length of administration. The LD50 for methyltestosterone is something like 3-5 GRAMS/kg...

"Being smart is like being a lady, if you have to tell people you are, you aren't" - Margaret Thatcher (paraphrased)
"The tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." T.H. Huxley

Quis nos es non potens ut muto, nos es postulo perfero. Illegitimis non carborundum!


ReplyQuote
geigertube
(@geigertube)
New Member
Joined: 2 months ago
Posts: 3
30/08/2019 8:56 pm  

If this is a stupid N00B question, my apologies, but will this have the same "rapid gain/rapid loss" effect that a lot of the stronger steroids have?


ReplyQuote
Benson
(@benson)
Member Moderator
Joined: 2 months ago
Posts: 15
30/08/2019 9:23 pm  
Posted by: @geigertube
If this is a stupid N00B question, my apologies, but will this have the same "rapid gain/rapid loss" effect that a lot of the stronger steroids have?

The rate of loss is more a function of how much beyond your natural limit you use the AAS to achieve.

So a stronger (more anabolic) steroid that allows you to pack on 30-40# of lean mass that you could not have produced naturally will lend itself to more rapid and dramatic losses once the drug is withdrawn.

"Being smart is like being a lady, if you have to tell people you are, you aren't" - Margaret Thatcher (paraphrased)
"The tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." T.H. Huxley

Quis nos es non potens ut muto, nos es postulo perfero. Illegitimis non carborundum!


ReplyQuote
geigertube
(@geigertube)
New Member
Joined: 2 months ago
Posts: 3
30/08/2019 9:49 pm  
Posted by: @Benson
The rate of loss is more a function of how much beyond your natural limit you use the AAS to achieve.

So a stronger (more anabolic) steroid that allows you to pack on 30-40# of lean mass that you could not have produced naturally will lend itself to more rapid and dramatic losses once the drug is withdrawn.

Excellent, thank you.


ReplyQuote
GhostfaceKillah
(@ghostfacekillah)
Active Member
Joined: 2 months ago
Posts: 7
30/08/2019 10:12 pm  
Posted by: @Benson
The rate of loss is more a function of how much beyond your natural limit you use the AAS to achieve.

So a stronger (more anabolic) steroid that allows you to pack on 30-40# of lean mass that you could not have produced naturally will lend itself to more rapid and dramatic losses once the drug is withdrawn.

As a corollary, weight gain from aromatizing compounds that result in considerable water retention also tends to be less permanent.


ReplyQuote
Benson
(@benson)
Member Moderator
Joined: 2 months ago
Posts: 15
30/08/2019 10:33 pm  
Posted by: @GhostfaceKillah
As a corollary, weight gain from aromatizing compounds that result in considerable water retention also tends to be less permanent.

Excellent point.

"Being smart is like being a lady, if you have to tell people you are, you aren't" - Margaret Thatcher (paraphrased)
"The tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." T.H. Huxley

Quis nos es non potens ut muto, nos es postulo perfero. Illegitimis non carborundum!


ReplyQuote
b182
 b182
(@b182)
New Member
Joined: 2 months ago
Posts: 1
30/08/2019 10:57 pm  
Posted by: @virtualcyber
I understand what you are saying and I agree with the idea behind your comments.

As an ancillary point, I am not sure if methylation/oral delivery necessarily makes something toxic.

For clarification, consider liver enzyme values and lipid profiles.

Per liver enzyme, I don't know if oral delivery contributes to raising the liver enzyme value. The main argument against that theory (so I have read) is that whatever one takes into one's body has to be metabolized, and therefore, it doesn't make any difference how one takes the steroid. The liver takes the hit. The rebuttal is that, because different tissues (e.g. gut v. skin) are involved in different modes of delivery, it is entirely possible that the oral route places greater burden on the liver due to different biochemical pathways involved. Having thought about both arguments, I suspect that if M1T were injected, it would be as just as bad for one's liver as if one orally administers it (assuming the same bioavailability). I suspect that the strength of androgenic effect of a given steroid, and therefore, its A:A ratio, is correlated with how hard the liver has to work to rid of the substance.

Per lipid profiles, I believe what screws this up is the imbalance in hormones caused by the steroid binding to androgen receptors. If the body senses there is too much of a particular hormone (via androgen receptors), it tries to rebalance hormones (which in turn affects lipid profiles). By this reasoning, we want to see high A:A ratio in a steroid.

In summary, the A:A ratio of a steroid is probably more relevant to its toxicity than its method of administration or whether it is methylated or not.

**********
Great point. Most injectibles are not methylated, and most orals are, so the generalized and erroneous correlation between administration method and hepatoxicity was made in bodybuilding circles.


ReplyQuote
GhostfaceKillah
(@ghostfacekillah)
Active Member
Joined: 2 months ago
Posts: 7
30/08/2019 11:17 pm  

So this stuff was allegedly tested and found to contain "exactly what they claim on the box". However, it has been said that the box has two different labelings:

4 chloro 17a etioallochol 4 ene 17b ol 3,11 dione
4-chloro-17 -methyl- etioallochol-4-ene- 17 -ol-3,11-dione

The tester claims that the active ingredient is the former, ie, non-17 alpha alkylated. He says that doses of 100-200 mg of the compound are required to see results.

I'm feeling uneasy about this. Apparently, this individual is also talking about bringing this compound (the 17a alkylated version) to market.


ReplyQuote
Grassroots082
(@grassroots082)
New Member
Joined: 2 months ago
Posts: 3
30/08/2019 11:34 pm  
Posted by: @GhostfaceKillah
So this stuff was allegedly tested and found to contain "exactly what they claim on the box". However, it has been said that the box has two different labelings:

4 chloro 17a etioallochol 4 ene 17b ol 3,11 dione
4-chloro-17 -methyl- etioallochol-4-ene- 17 -ol-3,11-dione

The tester claims that the active ingredient is the former, ie, non-17 alpha alkylated. He says that doses of 100-200 mg of the compound are required to see results.

I'm feeling uneasy about this. Apparently, this individual is also talking about bringing this compound (the 17a alkylated version) to market.

Got a link to whoever is testing/discussion of this product? I agree with you GFK, would be real cautious.


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 2
Share:

Please Login or Register