T Nation

MAG 10 question for Bill R.

If one serving of MAG-10 contains 150 mg of 1-AE which is 2-3 times more potent than T, then a single serving taken daily for a week would be the equivalent of 2 or 3 grams of T a week? I have no experience with steroids, but is MAG 10 that strong? That is not even counting the 4 AD-EC component. I’m not trying to be skeptical, just trying to understand.

No. The results are excellent but not quite that excellent :wink:

I’m averse to giving an approximation of how much pharmaceutical steroids MAG-10 is equivalent to in results, since those who know little about pharmaceutical steroids will interpret any such statement as unbelievable hype. But one dose per day is not equivalent to two grams of injected T per week. Depending on the individual, that would be an overstatement of somewhere around say 2 times.

That said, most steroid users who don’t follow my advice would deny that even pharmaceutical steroids can in just 2 weeks give the kind of gains that MAG-10 usually does in that time frame, insisting instead that longer cycles are required. (However, they’re wrong.) The results do speak for themselves.

The whole experience with Androsol, in this regard (comparing to specific dose of pharmaceutical steroids) left a sour taste in my mouth. Now, fact is, anyone experienced with steroids knows that 500 mg per week of Sustanon for 2 weeks gives only modest results. Results from Androsol usually significantly exceeded what you’d expect from that level of Sustanon over that short a time frame. However, when talking about longer cycles, e.g. 8 weeks, it’s more of an equal match between the two dosings (of course, I generally recommend a higher dose when doing a pharmacuetical steroid cycle!) I absolutely don’t think to this day that the milligram comparison I made was an overstatement or misleading. It still seems to me that the number I chose, 500 mg (actually, I said "one or two Sustanons per week though I though two was the correct number) was correct over longer term cycles, and over the shorter term Androsol actually performs somewhat better than this. I don’t know of users doing better on less Sustanon than what’s typical for Androsol, that’s for sure.

(Now, it does seem that some individuals do not do as well on Androsol as others, perhaps due to differences in skin permeability, but that’s the exception rather than the rule. We did have one individual in one of our studies that had markedly lower blood levels of 4-AD than others while applying the same amount by the same method, so it’s possible.)

Anyhow, the last time I made a direct comparison to a specific amount of pharmaceutical anabolic steroid, the comparison was poorly received (mostly among those who don’t actually know what 500 mg of Sustanon per week will do and what it won’t,
but still.)

So the last thing I want to do is say MAG-10 is equal to so many mg of testosterone per week. It’s a no-win estimation. But one ought to be able to estimate for oneself based on reported results. The loss is more theirs than mine, but still why have these imbroglios if they’re avoidable.

As for why a single dose per day of MAG-10 (totalling 2.1 grams per week of androgens) is not equal to more than 2 grams per week of testosterone despite the scientific data reporting androst-1-ene to be 2-3 times the potency of testosterone, one reason is probably that efficacy of an androgen as a skeletal muscle anabolic is generally not as much better than testosterone as the ratio determined in the scientific studies would suggest. E.g., Deca is not more effective than testosterone as a skeletal muscle anabolic though studies with the levator ani would indicate so.

You get a reasonably good comparison though when comparing androgens of the same type. E.g., if two steroids are both Class I and one tests more potent in the levator ani assay, it’s probably also a more potent skeletal muscle anabolic. But if one is a Class I and the other is a Class II, or the other is testosterone (which covers the full spectrum of activity) then that may not be so, or the difference may be less than the numbers suggest.

Another is that while relative to the absorption
of previous oral prohormone products MAG-10 is improved, I’d estimate, at least 10 times,
still it can only be approaching 100% rather than being 100%. For example, 70% would be excellent absorption. So long as the dosing is already chosen to give proper results (as it is) then that’s not an issue.

Good question! :slight_smile:

Bill, can you suggest any references regarding what you said about androst-1-ene. On Pubmed I found 2 unrelated articles only.

Thank you for both allowing this post and for replying in such a thorough manner.

You can find all of the references I know of
and have read if you can obtain a copy of Vida’s book, Androgens and Anabolic Agents. The values found for potency are typically two or three times. The best values, because the comparisons being made are the most direct – same prodrugs of androst-1-ene being compared to same prodrugs of testosterone, whereas other comparisons are of androst-1-ene itself, unesterified to an ester of testosterone usually – give 3.6 times.

This book is hard to find and I don’t have it with me currently. If you like, later I can post the specific references it cites.

In the meantime, one reference I have is
Journal of Organic Chemistry (1962), 27,248-251. Note that this reference, while it does have the single, unusual, outlier value of seven times potency of testosterone, finds the typical values of about two times when compared to testosterone propionate (and ordinarily, testosterone propionate is comparable to testosterone in potency when injected.)

As for mechanism of action being what we call Class I, principally via the androgen receptor rather than via non-androgen receptor mediated means, there are no references on that. It is simply observed stacking behavior, what it works synergistically with (and also is not suprising because it’s so similar structurally to methenolone (Primobolan.))

Bill, yes any add’l references would be appreciated.

7 fold seems high…maybe due technical problems 40 yrs ago?

Is it possible that since the structure closely resembles primobolan, that might explain why the side effects are so minimal with an effective dose?