Mr. Roberts,
Forgive me if this was previously mentioned, but I read through and don’t believe it was brought up. Would the anti-estrogenic effects of the Mast (albeit mild) offer an advantage over the use of Primo for maintaing the "optimal "endocrinological profile that you’re shooting for?
OK, this is odd. Got an email from someone who claims that Primobolan is a very poor bridging agent because it reduces gonadotropin significantly. He even gave a reference to a study:
Comparative Studies about the influence of MetenoloneAcetate and Mesterolone on hypophysis and male gonads. Arzneimittelforshung. 1970 20(4) 545-7
What do you think, Mr. Roberts? Any truth to this?
I have never read the article or seen the journal in question at any time. If it is in German, then though I was required to learn to read German, I have since forgotten everything. But if it is in German, then the UF Health Science Center Library would not have carried it unless it were a very important German journal.
Anyhow, I haven’t read it, and even if it is in English a copy may well not exist for quite some distance from me.
It would be helpful if the person gave the specifics of why he makes his claim rather than just naming the reference and providing his conclusion.
For example, the word “significant” has nothing to do, in scientific writing, with “substantial.” For example a 10% drop in free T, if the statistics were good enough, might well be significant – that is to say, chance alone would give that amount of difference less than 5% of the time to datasets with the same variability.
Mesterolone (Proviron) is generally considered low-suppressive. It may very well be the case that 50 mg/day methelone acetate per day is a little more suppressive, though still not much, than 50 mg/day Proviron.
Surely, I would hope, your correspondent is not claiming Proviron to be a better bridging agent? It does nothing for muscle worth mentioning at any dose, so how would it at low dose?
I see. Apparently, he got it off a steroid board. I got the link from him:
This is the part he wrote about:
"Although it is typically considered to be a very mild drug when inhibition of the natural hormonal profile is considered, this isnâ??t totally true. Men were given a 30-45mg dose of the oral version of Primobolan, experienced between a 15% and 65% decrease in their Gonadatropin levels (4).
Since weâ??re probably looking at double or triple that dose, for men to get any kind of results, itâ??s also probable that gonadal inhibition will also be increased."
Of course, seeing how this is a lone study from 1970 in German, I would hold off on criticizing Primobolan. I was actually the person who did a 3 months long cycle/experiment on 200 mg of Primobolan weekly with Clomid based on your suggestion a few years ago. I was left quite happy with the result of that cycle, so you know where I stand…