T Nation

Methyl-Tren and Dosing Variance to Injec Tren:


#1

Hey gang, Bill R.,

A friend, is considering using the oral tren in conjunction with Primo enan later this summer. Reasons for this are unimportant and it's just what he wants to do..

What is the deal with how this particular compound varies strength wise with it's injectable counterparts eg; ace/enan?

Strangely, I've been researching and found some testimony to it being stronger than the injecs....

That may not matter since it's going through two passes, buy doesn't methylation allow the compound to survive the first pass anyway? So that leaves me pondering the question of what to dose it at...lol?
If someone with experience, (Bill where you at, lol?), could please advise...

Btw, source of product is extremely high quality.

SO, question is,

What dose of the methyl tren would equate to injectable doses of tren, of say the usual suspects, 50mg/d, 75/d, or 100/d?

Any help with this is most appreciated guys!

Thanks.


#2

are you talking about metribolone (methyltrienolone) ToneBone...lol the rhymes!

All I know is Llewellyn claims it to be the most liver toxic steroid every produced and even cited a study on that fact.

I could be wrong but I'd guess that the addition of the methyl group is going to change its structure and activity compared to tren...it is not comparable to injectable trenbolone imo. Basing this off the theory of Equipoise in relation to Dbol.

I know Methyl Tren is dosed at .5mg-2mg per day for physique enhancing purposes according to Llewellyn...then he goes on to say

"...this is an extremely toxic steroid, and all good advice would say to avoid it. Any one of the many commercially available steroids would be much safer choices."

Idk man I'd like to hear some advice/knowledge/opinion from the higher powers here as well, but from all my research it seems like itd be best to just avoid it and chose a different compound.

I guess the risks outweigh the potential benefits in my opinion.

?


#3

Yeah, methyltrienolone comes across as a little too harsh for me to risk it as well. I think it's typically dosed in the 2.5-4 mg range, with 5mg being the highest that I've seen.

Of course in this case it might be another compound, though. Oral and transdermal trens, both illicit and semi-legal, have used so many different formulations... you really need to do your homework on what you're receiving. That's why some of these are dosed 10x higher than others... they're different.

ITZ, can you give us the exact chemical name?


#4

I have read articles recommending it dosed in the mcg range actually.

I have read a some about it via google TB - did you not find much, or were you wanting personal experience?

Brook


#5

Hey guys,

Yeah, I am in the process of getting the exact name right now...this might take me a day as the info....well, it's a long story, DG you know what I mean...lol.

But yes, I thought a friend had the exact name, alas he didn't, so I'm in the process of contacting the pertinant person, and will be back with that exact specific name.

I could be wrong, but I thought it was a slightly different name than the above, and that's why I was supremely interested at first glance. That and the origin is of very high regard as I said.

Anywho, I'll be around with that specifics asap.

Thanks guys, and I'm sorry I wasn't fully prepared with that, I thought for sure a particular someone had the name still, and I would be able to post it this morning, but alas it wasn't the case.

ITZ


#6

Hey buddy,

Yeah like I was telling the other guys, I could have sworn I saw it spelled a bit differently, and didn't think much of it a while back as I was carousing a particular place, and recently a buddy became quite interested in it after we had been talking of things...thus the renewed interest.

Plus the "wow" factor was involved due to the integrity of the source.

Let me get after the person of interest now so I can get the reply with the correct name asap..

Oh, and yeah there doesn't seem to be a hell of a lot of either, personal, or googlicious info.


#7

http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/sports_training_performance_bodybuilding_gear/methyltrienolone_oral_trenbolone?pageNo=0#2961106

The doses would be very small I believe compared to injection tren.

Its not really tren obviously, meythlation changes its activity somewhat.

I believe the oral form is more androgenic, considering tren is already a androgenic drug this seems to be adding insult to injury.

Why not just use normal tren ? the oral version is kind of obscure and not used.


#8

Ok, well it is simply called just that methyl-Tren.

And now that I see it is what you guys are all talking about, I have to say, wow..

I'm not at all sure this is anything to tango with at this point. Hell it's about as bad as taking "high" doses of halo, which of course isn't kid stuff in it's own right, lol.

Shit, I thought it was a difft version or something, but alas it is the demon we're all talking about, lol..

Looks like the one small group of athletes that a UGL owner sorted with it, found a "relatively" safe dose to be between 500-750 mcg/day. Guys using up to 2mg/day were developing jaundice and pissing brown with the quickness.

The shit is insanely strong binding at the AR, in fact the strongest of anything, and also very strong binding to the progesterone receptor as well..Can we say yummy yet??!!

None the less, if my friend were to give it a go, it would be at 500mcg/day for a couple weeks.

Btw, the guys using it at 2g/day, who got the jaundice etc, did recover upon cessation, fwtw, lol.

Some serious shit.

So what do you think Bill? I'm curious to your take on it?

ITZ.


#9

Westy:
Thanks for that link. I remember that one..

Bill didn't seem too impressed with the toxicity dangers it looked like to me...not saying he dismissed them though.

I'm very interested to get some more opinion out of him when he gets the time. He seemed to suggest it could be used carefully and be quite effective with the right dose.

Hmmm...


#10

So here's the interesting part of what Bill had to say about it imo;

"First, I've never used it and have nothing to say about it beyond the following:

It has a reputation from popular-audience steroid books of supposedly being vastly liver toxic. In the past I looked into this and never found a trace of evidence for that. Nor did anyone claiming it ever provide any.

Most certainly it is remarkably potent -- which is a precise term when properly used, meaning only that quite few milligrams (or depending on the case, micrograms) are required for a given effect."

Thing is, if someone I knew ever did give it a go, how would you take it? I don't know if traditional capping would be accurate enough for me to stomach the attempt, as the dosages are so small...
Which leads me to think liquid solution, but then you're mixing what, 151 with something quite liver toxic in it's own right!!!

Hopefully the insanely small dose of each together would be tolerable, lol.

Let's see what Bill has to say.


#11

Idk man I think the only reason that I'd ever want to try this would be the same as something like 'cheque drops' aka miberlone i believe...and that would be just to satisfy the curiosity of what it did/does and write down the experience. lol


#12

Yeah, it does seem like more of a novelty than anything.


#13

Yeah I hear you guys, but it was for a friend like I said initially, and he has his reasons for having or wanting to do it. I just decided it might be doable, and I might be interested to find out too, but it's apparently out of stock right now anyway from what I found out.

So, there we go, case closed and probably all the better for it from the sounds of the general concensus.

Thanks for the opinions.


#14

This is spot on. Methylation changes a drugs effects to such an extent, the drug can no longer (in all reason) still be called the same thing.

Look at Boldenone and Dianabol, which i believe is a methylation apart.

As for practical use - i for one wont need it in my journey to achieve as impressive a physique as possible. Why bother? There are so many simple, safe and vastly effective AAS out there - tropical preparations like this are not necessary.

I can imagine a pharmacist coming up with the idea, methylating the drug and experimenting with the outcome - no clue as to how potent it would be, or how useless.

However, as DG mentioned - there is something inside me that would try it for shits and giggles - i have always been a chemical adventurer.

Brook


#15

Well put bud.
It did go against my normal train of thought, and it's true there really is no reason, save the one my buddy has, for attempting to get a "tren" effect without shooting. But like you Brook, once I got to thinking and wondering if he should do it, the dark adventurer inside me took over the helm a bit there, lol...

Nonetheless, it does seem to be getting bought out there by some people, so I look at this thread as the other one, as a chance to get some light shed on a rarely seen or talked about compound, which happens to be potent as fuck all.

Ah well, it won't be in my arsenal or my bud's anytime soon now. Plenty of room for some other form of tren in the big picture like we all agree on here!!


#16

A general principle that has served well and reliably -- at least to the extent of almost at least always being validated by practice, and I can't think of a single case of it being really thoroughly embarrassed -- is that compounds which have successfully gone through the process of becoming human-use pharmaceuticals are better choices than those that have not.

The pharmaceutical companies researched literally thousands of compounds, you know.

Some pretty smart folks were doing their best to pick their best compounds to try to make money with, not their worst or their so-so compounds.

In this particular case, methyltrienolone was in fact researched by a pharmaceutical company and got fairly well along the process but they decided not to bring it to market.

Why? If it is really a super-number-one choice, why didn't they want to make money?

This argument proves nothing, but is at least suggestive, I think, that maybe this may not really be as good, all things considered, as the pharmaceutical compounds.

Additionally, the pharmaceutical compounds have a proven track record in bodybuilding. Very, very extensively proven. Lots of cases of use.

So unless one is just the intellectually curious type, why would this be preferred over a pharmaceutical compound?


#17

Methyltrienolone is somewhat overrated and overhyped. In the Benelux it's widely available, in oral and injectable form, and as I was interested in using it I looked for a few contacts who've tried it.

The worst guy is an abuser and mega-doser and injected 9mg ed for 4 weeks, along with a load of other drugs, with orals like var, winny and halotestin all included at a high dose. The things he reported were a steady increase of agression, decent fat loss, no real strength increase(but nothing seems to do that for him anymore), lots of bacne, constant heavy sweating(running in a t-shirt mid winter hehehe), foul-looking and smelling urine, insomnia and he just didn't feel good on it. In terms of sides, he said it's by far the worst he's used, even worse than 2g/week of tren ace.

He didn't die, didn't develop jaundice, or anything else. He claimed to have tested his liver enzymes 2 months after and they were fine, but I'm not sure he's speaking the truth, it sounds too good to be true. But he concluded other drugs do a lot more for him and a lot less sides.

One other interesting contact is an athlete who just used 150mcg/day for 3 weeks, he reported cramping, sweating, and insomnia as well. Also mild fat loss and strength increase, but nothing spectacular. Also too many sides for too little.

So I concluded it's not really worth the risks.


#18

Seems incredibly potent


#19

Yes, defining potency correctly, as effect per milligram.

However, as the number of milligrams (or micrograms) is not in itself an important thing -- who cares that the number is less -- potency really is not important.

If a drug gives equally good effects with less side effects but requires 10 times the milligrams to do it, it's still the better drug despite being less "potent" (effect per milligram.)


#20

hey bill, when you have some free time can you get back to me on that pm