Dianabol and drugs like it are known for great size gains as they facilitate anabolism through many different means…
Methyl/Ethylation (alkylation) increase the non-AR anabolic activity… doing god knows what! (BR has a theory that i thoroughly do not understand!)
What is the theory, that steric hinderance (and high energy conformation as a result of the methyl group at the 17carbon) inhibits interaction with the AR? Or something else?? Please point me to where I could read about that![/quote]
No idea. Look it up yourself - i am sure with your obvious background in pharmacology you have the means to do so…[quote]
The alkylation also increases the potency of the estrogen converted, which further increases IGF and water retention.
Really, oxandrolone and oxymetholone are converted to estrogen? They ar both alkylated, no?[/quote]
You are a smart arse aren’t you. Pathetic.
Now to address your silly little comment, did i say that var and drol convert to estrogen? I think not.
I said that of any estrogen converted, methylation increases its potency.
You know why - i know why… unless you want to make another pointless statement that only attempts to make me look stupid but only makes you look petty - then go ahead. It’s your dime…[quote]
The alkylation of steroids increases their effect and potency… they are stronger than non-alkylated steroids as a rule. Compare the dosages of the alkylated steroids to the non-alkylated steroids to see this plainly (stanazolol, methandrostenolone, methyltestosterone, methyltrienolone are prime examples)
Wouldn’t potency be defined as equivalent results? To get equivalent results of 500mg of tesosterone a week (Im talking in gains in muscle tissue) wouldn’t you need a lot more than than 75mg of winny or any of the others listed? I mean doubt 75mg/day of dianabol would be equivalent in gains to 500mg test, right? Negating the fact that all of the aforementioned are liver toxic and can’t be taken in equivalent doses.[/quote]
Maybe however you should take into account that the higher the potency the lower the dose needed to achieve therapeutic effect, so I would say the higher the potency the less needed to get more… ie. 15mg of Stanazolol or Dianabol is significantly more effective than 15mg of Testosterone.
When discussing dosages significantly higher than necessary it is clearly a matter of a weaker potency and thus a less effective point made doncha think?
Or are you saying that testosterone is then more potent than Stanazolol? If you are NOT saying T is more potent than Stanazolol, then what exactly is the point?[quote]
If you associate dianabol with pure transient gains that are lost soon on discontinuation you are likely not using it correctly or have not got all your ducks in a row to be getting the most from AAS anyway.
Really, you know me? I have never used dianabol, I was speculating off observations. I don’t see a lot of pple maintaining gains from dianabol, from people I know. NOW whether or not that is due to bad cycle, PCT, etc or the drug I dont know. No reason for that last statement. You don’t know me, my genetic predisposition, my starting point, my current progress, my knowledge.
Again, if you read the post a little slower and with a little deliberation you will see i say quite clearly, “IF you associate…”. that’s ‘IF’, dickhead.
Now… it is clear you have a thorough understanding of pharmacology and medicinal chemistry, however you do not have a thorough understanding of AAS… though you clearly think that is all there is to it.
You are nothing more than a ‘book’ - with very little real world knowledge in the field. Of course i am just ‘speculating off observations’…
I wonder my friend, do you have anything to offer other than what can be gotten from studying med. chem. text books, or do you just have theoretical knowledge coupled with ‘friends’ who use steroids?
We all know the answer there don’t we? And i have my text books…