I notice that on most orals we are warned that they may be hepatoxic.
Some orals such as Anadrol are noted as being more hepatoxic than others.
If they are all 17aaAlkylated why is one more dangerous than the other ??
Actually medical data shows Anadrol to not be especially hepatoxic.
Different drugs regardless of sharing a structural feature can have different potencies whether with regard to therapeutic effects or undesired side effects.
The hepatotoxic properties of alkylated androgens isn't related to their androgenic or anabolic qualities. 17-alkylated non-androgens are hepatotoxic as well.
Ummm, got milk?
So are you saying Bill that for example 50mg of Dbol or 50mg of winstrol (oral) would
have the same effect on the liver ?
Not necessarily: having the same structural feature doesn't mean necessarily having the same potency (effect per milligram) with regards to either therapeutic effect or undesired side-effect.
That said, either of those drugs at those dosages is entirely reasonable with regard to hepatotoxicity if limited to for example 6 weeks at a time with similar time off as on, and both are unwise to use indefinitely at those dosages, or for that matter at any dose.
what was it you were saying again?
Didn't I already answer your question? Twice actually?
If you want a quantitative answer that actually it takes 67 mg/day of Winstrol to have the same hepatotoxicity as 50 mg/day of Dianabol, or whatever, that does not exist.
OK Let me ask another way. They say orals like halotestin are very liver toxic.
And what about that methyldienolone product that was supposed to be liver toxic
in 1 mg dosages. WHY ?
As to why that is, generally because of different binding properties to targets. In this case, not the androgen receptor. The specific cause of the most serious problem, hepatic cholestasis, is not demonstrated, but it has been shown to be related to this structural feature and, as I said, not for anabolic or androgenic effect.
As to whether for example Halotestin is more hepatotoxic at useful dosages than similarly-useful dosages of some other given oral alkylated androgen, I don't know and I rather suspect that those saying it don't have strong if any real basis to say. Might be so, might not be so.
The same principle I gave before applies: a normal useful dose if limited to for example 6 weeks, in the absence of other aggravating factors, is generally safe; indefinitely long use is generally not, even at low dose. This is true so far as I know for all commonly used oral alkylated androgens. Whether it is true for exotics such as methyltrienolone there isn't a basis to say so far as I know.
Ok thanks. BTW Bill, are you any relation to Anthony Roberts ?
"Anthony Roberts" is a pseudonym.
I use my real name.
Realy. Ok thanks for letting me pick your brain.
Actually what you asked is a very interesting question, it's just that there's no sufficient answer besides the practical guidelines.
Well, what about Julia Roberts then? Feel free to have her call me ; )