Which compound is “stronger.” or more effective?
4-Chloro-17a-methyl-androst-1 4-diene-3-17b-diol: 25mg
Estra-4, 9-diene-3, 17-dione 20mg
6,7 dihydroxybergamottin (DHB) 155mg
Or
19-Norandrosta-4,9- diene-3,17-dione.
any help would be appreciated. Thanks
The first one
neither
[quote]ubl0 wrote:
neither[/quote]
HAHAHA!!! Dude, this guy is always askin’ about “pro-hormones”, so I flipped a coin, and gave him a friggin’ answer. ‘’
What science is more reliable than that!!! LMMFAO!!! Your answer was what I was gonna give, but he tries to make himself seem more inteligent by using the chemical names, I find it rediculous…
[quote]shamus wrote:
ubl0 wrote:
neither
HAHAHA!!! Dude, this guy is always askin’ about “pro-hormones”, so I flipped a coin, and gave him a friggin’ answer. ‘’
What science is more reliable than that!!! LMMFAO!!! Your answer was what I was gonna give, but he tries to make himself seem more inteligent by using the chemical names, I find it rediculous…[/quote]
agreed, i already posted once about the diol prohormone of tbol, which is the first compound. people need to read some of Bill Roberts’ writings about how the useful ‘prohormones’ were actually steroids themselves and do not require conversion to work, ie 1-test and 4AD. not to mention all the progesterone based steroids that became available after the ban. nothing like more sides and less results.
You are 18, go eat and stop researching shitty drugs.
[quote]shamus wrote:
The first one[/quote]
My coin led me to believe the second one was the best choice.
Did you choose heads or tails?
I also used a Canadian quarter.
Perhaps our science is flawed.
[quote]thetruepitbull wrote:
shamus wrote:
The first one
My coin led me to believe the second one was the best choice.
Did you choose heads or tails?
I also used a Canadian quarter.
Perhaps our science is flawed.[/quote]
nonsense, just our quarter.
I think it’s because we have all the different states on the quarters now, so the differences in the shapes on the surface would probably cause variations in our scientific study. Wow, yours was the second one, we need to perform more studies. Wait, what if I use a penny, hmmmm… Any one use a nickle before? This is great! The possibilities are endless!
I think I may have found the flaw in our approach.
We did not take into consideration the exchange rate.
To correct this error and adjust for the exchange rate, I attached 3 and 3/4’s of a penny to my quarter with a super-glue that has no mass and performed the experiment within a vacuum.
My results indicate that the 1st compound would be a better choice, supporting Shamus’ (2007) findings that 4-Chloro-17a-methyl-androst-1 4-diene-3-17b-diol is the “stronger.” or more effective compound.
I haven’t had time to run a statistical analysis. Further research is needed in this area to apply these findings to ‘real world’ situations.
[quote]thetruepitbull wrote:
I think I may have found the flaw in our approach.
We did not take into consideration the exchange rate.
To correct this error and adjust for the exchange rate, I attached 3 and 3/4’s of a penny to my quarter with a super-glue that has no mass and performed the experiment within a vacuum.
My results indicate that the 1st compound would be a better choice, supporting Shamus’ (2007) findings that 4-Chloro-17a-methyl-androst-1 4-diene-3-17b-diol is the “stronger.” or more effective compound.
I haven’t had time to run a statistical analysis. Further research is needed in this area to apply these findings to ‘real world’ situations.[/quote]
But you dropped a minus sign so the answer is actually D-bol.
Just like the question of How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Pop, we may never know…