Cy Willson wrote:
While I won’t deny that it’s effective, it’s not the outrageously powerful compound that the “shops” on the internet are making it out to be.
I really appreciate you taking the time to point me in a direction of education. I am all for being in the know and I love your honest advice!
However, I do have a couple concerns that you sparked for me:
- I read your articles (as best I could since I’m not a doctor), and I appreciated the fact that you are not just interpreting data, but questioning how certain conclusions shouldn’t have been formed. The thing that I find confusing though is that you just posted, “…I won’t deny it’s [M1T] effective…” Yet, you don’t give M1T ANY credit for being at least a poor androgen in your other articles on it! I am not picking a fight with you, but rather I am trying to understand why you contradicted yourself???
Glad I can help and you’re very welcome, however, I don’t understand where you’re getting the idea that I contradicted myself. I’ve never said that M-1-T is completely ineffective, I’ve simply gone over the various claims that it’s “X” amount times more potent than testosterone such. Please re-read part of the article that I had given you the link for:
"Moving on, when people look at Vida?s book they tend to (for some reason which I?ve yet to understand) pick out the best figure they can find and only report that one. For instance, with the compound erroneously referred to as methyl-1-testosterone, you notice huge discrepancies between the various values given. You have M-1-T being anywhere from equipotent to twice as potent compared to Testosterone propionate in terms of an anabolic effect. When compared with methyltestosterone (taken orally) the values are 11 to 19 times greater for M-1-T as compared to methyltestosterone.
If you look over the data, even the control (Testosterone propionate) fluctuated greatly. You?ll even see that the anabolic potency varies from one group of M-1-T (910) to another (1600) by nearly twofold and the androgenic values go from 220 to 100 respectively.
Also, another fact to consider is the huge discrepancy in values with M-1-T being injected and given orally. This shouldn?t be the case. When injecting the compound you?re getting pretty close to 100% bioavailability, and when given orally, considering that the molecule is 17 alpha-alkylated, you?d expect a value that?s at the absolute very best, equivalent to the values with parenteral administration of the same 17 alpha-alkylated molecule. Instead, we see that oral adminstration of M-1-T produces significantly greater anabolic effects as compared to parenteral administration, which makes little sense.
A consideration of pharmacokinetics doesn?t account for the discrepancy either. This again points back to the fact that extrapolating animal data to humans is completely inaccurate and should never be done. What happens in one species, more often than not, will vary greatly from what happens in another.
What the general public doesn?t understand is that people selling you these products are simply gathering the figures that look best to them. In this case, it would be to tell you that M-1-T is 16 times more potent than Testosterone propionate and equipotent (if not less) in terms of being androgenic. If you get a chance to look at the reference values in Vida?s book you?ll get a better understanding of why it?s so inaccurate to apply this data to other rats, let alone humans!
Also, I want to again point out that Counsell, et al. found C-17 alkylation of 17b -hydroxy-5a -androst-1-en-3-one (incorrectly referred to as 1-Testosterone) forming what is now being called Methyl-1-testosterone (17a -Methyl-17b -hydroxy-5a -androst-1-en-3-one), decreased anabolic and androgenic activity in bioassays. It had about one-fourth the anabolic potency of Testosterone propionate and about half the androgenic activity.
Meanwhile, the parent steroid molecule, 17b -hydroxy-5a -androst-1-en-3-one (1-Testosterone) was found to be twice as anabolic as Testosterone propionate and equipotent in terms of androgenic activity. Now, if all of this conflicting data doesn?t convince you these bioassays aren?t meant to be interpreted literally and aren?t very reliable or accurate, I don?t know what will.
After seeing this data, I hope it becomes clear that this type of data really isn?t worth much. Does that mean it has no value at all? I wouldn?t say that. Instead, I think if you see a general trend with the androgen molecule in question, you can assume it may be a more or less potent androgen agonist in general.
For instance, if androgen X has been shown in bioassays to consistently have an effect upon both the sexual accessory organs and the levator ani which is many times greater than that of, say, Testosterone propionate, you can likely assume androgen X is indeed a more potent agonist at the AR.
Does this also mean it?ll be more effective in terms of muscle growth? In most cases I?d say yes, but then again, DHT is a rather potent androgen agonist and it isn’t too impressive in terms of an anabolic effect.
Last, and just as important to keep in mind, is that although this particular bioassay may be generally effective in terms of assessing which compounds are or aren?t good androgen agonists, we must keep in mind that we don?t know all of the mechanisms involved when it comes to androgens and their effects upon muscle growth. There are indeed other mechanisms that are independent of the AR (androgen receptor) which allow for muscle growth, so using an assay which only assesses AR agonism is highly limited in terms of predicting the efficacy of an anabolic steroid.
In other words, more often than not, androgens that don?t bind well to the AR and primarily exert their effects via non-AR mediated mechanisms would be discounted due to a lack of effect in this particular bioassay, when in fact they’re very potent. For example, steroids with a potent antiglucocorticoid effect, which don?t bind avidly to the AR, would be dismissed."
- I have already bought some M1T, so I will post what I get out of it. But, while I have your attention, what is the best pro-steroid/pro-hormone androgen that anyone can buy (no matter the brand)??? Part deux of that is then what’s the best delivery method? (is Mag10 TRULY the best - in your honest to God, non-biased, double-blind scientific opinion???)
MAG-10 is currently the best, although, I’m admittedly biased. As for what has the best oral bioavailability, again, MAG-10. The ethylcarbonate ester affords much greater stability (due to the resonance effect of extra oxygen) than (e.g., acetate or propionate) esters, thus having greater resistance to basic hydrolysis and thus more likely to reach the liver with the ester still attached instead of it being cleaved while in the GI, and the delivery system used is also a rather up-to-date method of increasing the oral bioavailability of lipophilic compounds.
Opinions and comments from all members are encouraged!!!