1,4 andro...diol????

[wojo]

okay maybe you've seen this before but i can't find it.both vpx and scifit claim to be selling the 1,4 diol, does it even exist . i don't know much about either companies ,but iam very interested.

par?
cat?
will llewelyn???

[Manteca]

Big Cat has already said that there is little to no advantage taking 1,4 androdiol over the dione version. His PH article is already becoming slightly outdated as he seems to have changed his opinion on several substances.

[w_llewellyn]

The diol does exhist, however it is INFERIOR to the dione of this hormone.

1) The 17 beta-hydroxy group of converted boldenone is extremely stable with ingestion of the 1,4 andro. There is no need to search for another enzyme pathway (3BHSD). The diol likewise should have a much lower active conversion rate in comparison, not better.

2) The diol MAY impart eastrogenic activity due to the fact that its partially unsaturated A ring resembles Estradiol closely). I have seen no documentation to support this however, but PA's suggestion of this seems plausable.

3) It costs more to manufacture. Funny, with the dirt bottom price SciFit is wholesaling selling their stuff for you wonder how in the hell they put 6 grams of a much more expensive (again but inferior) material in each bottle and make any money on it.. Hmmm...


-Bill Llewellyn

[w_llewellyn]

Thanks for the extremely kind welcome. But Sir and Mr. Llewellyn, ****, you are making me feel old. I'm not even 30 yet. Bill is fine...

Not sure about how my info was misconstrued to support tren being so much more anabolic than test. To give you a quick summary of my thoughts on tren:

1) It binds FAR more avidly to the AR than test, even moreso than nandrolone.

2) It is far more androgenic than nandrolone to spite being derrived from it, and may even be more androgenic than test in a given MG dosage.

3) Its lack of water retention however hurts its ability to build muscle mass. Tren is liekly the best "anabolic" of the non-aromatizable (sorry, non-estrogenic) steroids, however for mass I'd still put testosterone in front of it. A great steroid though, just sorely misunderstood.

-Bill

[w_llewellyn]

No Problem, but just to set the record straight:

I am a high-school dropout with a GED and a few years of college (Poly Sci). Thus far my knowledge of biochem has been self-taught, although I am thinking about pursuing that elusive degree now that I might have the schedule to do it.


-Bill

To the younger guys, please note that I am not making light of the value of a formal education!

[Big Cat]

Originally posted by w_llewellyn
3) It costs more to manufacture. Funny, with the dirt bottom price SciFit is wholesaling selling their stuff for you wonder how in the hell they put 6 grams of a much more expensive (again but inferior) material in each bottle and make any money on it.. Hmmm...

Guess you haven't read the lab assays on Sci-Fit then ?

The downside to a dione however is for the garden-variety chemists such as a few friends of mine who enjoy making esters of prohormones for injection. Then again, with those two companies selling it, where on earth would you get a batch that is certified pure ?

[Big Cat]

Originally posted by K (same)
I know you by reputation, sir. And it won't be exaggerating to state that the quality of the info at this board has gone up by a factor of 10 with your participation.

Never for the love of God would I have imagined you were such a suck-up K ...

[Big Cat]

Originally posted by w_llewellyn
3) Its lack of water retention however hurts its ability to build muscle mass. Tren is liekly the best "anabolic" of the non-aromatizable (sorry, non-estrogenic) steroids, however for mass I'd still put testosterone in front of it. A great steroid though, just sorely misunderstood.

I think the benefits of tren reach far beyond that. Its androgenically much stronger than testosterone, as you hinted at. Androgenically much stronger than most hormones and not deactivated as easily as DHT's, who are roughly in the same league. Fina is readily available and easy to obtain. It delivers fully in quality gains only and last but not least, its one of the few drugs, unlike testosterone, you don't need to stack with a bunch of other drugs to avoid side-effects.

What's your take on people claiming they got gyno from fina ? Recently got into a discussion on another board. The evidence is largely in my favor, but two people claiming they made the fina themselves are saying it gave them gyno. Any reason to believe fina is progestagenic ? Already scanned the lit and nada. All the evidence is in favor of fina not causing gyno.

[w_llewellyn]

I have two refs showing clear Progesterone receptor binding with trenbolone. Like its parent nandrolone, I suspect tren has notable progestational activity. In the absence of heightened estrogen levels this will not be enough to cause gyno in most individuals. But I think its PG activity still does sensitize a person to the effects of estrogens a little (PG is known to enhance the actions of E2), and for some this may be enough to trigger gyno. I can't say for 100% sure, but at this time it seems to be the most reasonable explaination.

- Bill

[Par Deus]

Originally posted by Big Cat


What's your take on people claiming they got gyno from fina ?

I have heard quite a few people who used "Finasol" experienced this -- I believe the other Bill postulated that there must be some differing enzyme activity in the skin vs. the blood.

However, Llewellyn's theory makes sense -- the PG activity being enough to put the 4-AD over the top vs. stacking it with test, in which the test would certainly be blamed for any gyno with no thoughts of a contribution from tren.

[OVRTrainer]

All I'm going to say is...they are arguing my point but using the correct scientific explanations...lol.

[Big Cat]

Ok, now say that tren is indeed a PR stimulant, which certainly is a structural possibility considering its origin. And PR is an estrogen agonist and we all agree that estrogen is the likely cause of gyno. But that's assuming there is estrogen present to agonize.

How then would this apply to these cases in which fina was used by itsself. Not aromatizing compound. After inhibition of natural test, wouldn't there be anything left to agonize ?

I guess what I'm asking, is PR stimulation enough to cause gyno without circulating estradiol. I doubt it since there is evidence that tren actually inhibits adipose gain when not competing with circulating E2.

Bringing us all the way back to question number, can fina and fina alone cause gyno ?

[w_llewellyn]

I have never seen fina alone cause gyno.

Is it possible? Not sure... According to the model Progesterone enhances estrogen's stimulation of mammary gland growth, so without tren converting to estrogen you would think you were safe. But this may be why tren is only infrequently blamed with gyno. We do note tha Deca causes this sometimes with sensitive individuals despite its low level of estrogen conversion, and its progestational activity is often suspect. Perhaps the little endogenous E2 that is left duruing a cycle is enough, dunno.

Much about the etiology of gynecomastia unfortunately is still unknown, although the progestational nature of certain steroids cannot be ignored. I think it is more plausable than assuming tren undergoes a unique path of metabolism when applied dermally. Enzyme distribution is clearly different in different regions of the body, but I find it hard to believe that here and only here tren loses its necessary Delta-9 group to allow for aromatization.

- Bill Llewellyn

[Big Cat]

That's roughly along the lines I was thinking. Thanx man.

[Par Deus]

Originally posted by w_llewellyn
Enzyme distribution is clearly different in different regions of the body, but I find it hard to believe that here and only here tren loses its necessary Delta-9 group to allow for aromatization.

- Bill Llewellyn

I have seen it reported in the literature that there is 90% homogeny between the enzyme activity in the skin and that of the blood/liver -- so, it does indeed seem a bit of a stretch, in light of no real data to back it up.

[OVRTrainer]

What I find interesting is reports of fina users claiming that adding winstrol to a cycle when they believed gyno was developing, actually "cleared up" the gyno. This is obviously based on the theory that the gyno is progesterone related as is the case with deca.

[w_llewellyn]

The anti-PG theroy about Winstrol is very loose, and I am extremely hesitant to jump on it based on my reading of the cited ref's. Possible though...

But in cases of avoided gyno the Winstrol could just simply be adding to the shift in the androgen to estrogen ratio as well.

- Bill Llewellyn

[Big Cat]

That reminds me, do you have any idea what Roberts means when he says winny has special physiological characteristics ? He keeps saying he'll discuss them in another article, but I've yet to see it.

[OVRTrainer]

Quick question...I went to your site but I couldn't figure out how to order Anabolics 2002. I know some other guys that are interested as well.

[w_llewellyn]

Big Cat:

There are some interesting studies looking at stanozolol in the literature, which indeed point to it having some unique properties. Interestingly Winstrol is one of the few developed steroids to lacks a classic 3-Keto group, which may give it some unusual binding properties such as was noted (loosely) with the progesterone receptor.

Another two studies note stan to induce a type of skeletal muscle injury, perhaps capable of triggering growth. Only stanozolol was looked at in the first though, and I don't have the full text of the second, so I am hesitant to say it is a unique effect.

J Neurosci Res 1997 Jan 15;47(2):186-97 Anabolic steroids induce injury and apoptosis of differentiated skeletal muscle.

Ann N Y Acad Sci 1995 Jun 12;761:395-9 Anabolic steroids induce skeletal muscle injury and immediate early gene expression through a receptor-independent mechanism.

Honestly I haven't given this steroid the full time and attention it is due. Perhaps I'll work on an article for Muscle Monthly or IRONMAN down the road, who knows.

OVRTrainer:

Thanks for the interest. I'm sure you'll like the new edition (finally got the pics in color). I'm not doing direct retail sales, these are all being handled by Muscle Monthly. Inventories should start arriving there and at various other stores and websites today..

- Bill Llewellyn

[MurphMan]

Excuse me for I am not nearly as educated in bio-molecular chemistry. My question is would there be any benefit to taking both the dione and diol version of 1,4 andro seeing as though they use separate enzyme pathways, thus allowing a higher combined conversion to Boldenone?

[Big Cat]

Originally posted by w_llewellyn
There are some interesting studies looking at stanozolol in the literature, which indeed point to it having some unique properties. Interestingly Winstrol is one of the few developed steroids to lacks a classic 3-Keto group, which may give it some unusual binding properties such as was noted (loosely) with the progesterone receptor.

Well I did pull this study quite a while ago and found it to be very much in favor of stan binding to the progesterone receptor, but I hardly found that to be a unique quality. Mr.Roberts also makes a good case for it not being altered by the progesterone receptor. But I find it a far too inconclusive jump to then assume its potent enough at binding to the receptor to be a progestine blocker that could be used in conjunction with nandrolone or anadrol.

Another two studies note stan to induce a type of skeletal muscle injury, perhaps capable of triggering growth. Only stanozolol was looked at in the first though, and I don't have the full text of the second, so I am hesitant to say it is a unique effect.

I'll have a look at these and see what sort of theories they profer. Even if this were true, I imagine it would be a hard thing to prove. I've seen to many contradictive studies on androgens either causing or stunting growth. I'm more inclined to believe the latter since there is actual documentation of androgens closing the epiphysial plates. And i've never heard of a bodybuilder getting taller. I find that most of them are below the average height. I mean noted winny users include Shawn Ray (who tested positive for it in 1990) and Lee Priest. Neither of those would suggest a growth spurt.

I assumed there would be more if Roberts was actually planning to discuss it in another article.

[Big Cat]

Originally posted by MurphMan
Excuse me for I am not nearly as educated in bio-molecular chemistry. My question is would there be any benefit to taking both the dione and diol version of 1,4 andro seeing as though they use separate enzyme pathways, thus allowing a higher combined conversion to Boldenone?

Well if you were planning on taking doses in excess of 3 grams, which is what I estimate enzyme capacity to be at, then perhaps. But as Bill noted earlier there may be some concerns as to whether the diol is as strong a precursor as the dione and of course the possibility that it may act as an estrogen of its own. Its the same as with the classic andro/4AD issue. In high doses there is a benefit, but do you really want to risk using more of the weaker compound (the dione in this case) and risk the side-effects that come with it ? You'd be better of using 1,4-andro at capacity and then stacking that with a more potent diol such as 4AD or 1AD.

[w_llewellyn]

The type of growth I was referring to was not height, but muscle tissue growth. The studies are interesting because they MAY suggest that there is a non-AR mediated growth promoting effect with this steroid. I agree with you overall though, a little early to make big judgements on Winstrol.

I'd like to read the article if it comes out..

- Bill

[Big Cat]

Me too, but that's if it comes out. I read that on his meso-rx profiles and they have to be well over a year old by now.

[MurphMan]

Good point BC. Thanks.