Thoughts on Pre-Meet AAS

Pharma / TRT
21

On whether the side effects of Cheque Drops “should” be due to a factor other than the steroid itself, I would not assume this.

Side effects of androgens, particularly psychological effect and things like nausea and headaches, are completely unpredictable by the human mind from structure. (It may be that there are by now computer programs that can predict binding to all receptors that could be relevant for such things – a number of years back it was possible to predict from structure binding to androgen, estrogen, and corticosteroid receptors, and more types may have been added since – but I wouldn’t be surprised if that still is not fully possible.)

It’s completely ordinary for a small structural change to result in completely different side effects from a steroid.

For example, how could it have been predicted that boldenone – “same as Dianabol but without the 17a-methyl” – could cause fever or fevered feeling at higher doses? How could it have been predicted that methyl-1-T would have a worse psychological side effect profile than 1-T? For that matter, how could it have been predicted that 1-T had allopregnanolone-type activity that could cause depression in users? Etc.

And not only is it unpredictable as to whether mibolerone may inherently have the side effects that Cheque Drops demonstrate, there’s also the fact that the patent holder decided never to bring the drug to market for humans. Why give up that profit? That doesn’t prove anything but is suggestive.

The impurity idea would be very plausible if talking about some underground thing, but – don’t know about presently but for very many years during which time Cheque Drops earned their reputation – they were made with pharmaceutically-manufactured mibolerone with the only thing added, I believe, being propylene glycol if I recall correctly. (And maybe a B vitamin? Not sure.) So that leaves it pretty unlikely that anything but the mibolerone itself was to blame, in this instance, though the general suggestion certainly remains valid for exotic underground steroids which, if they do odd things, might indeed have impurities as the cause as you suggest.

22

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I’m not a powerlifter but thought it worth mentioning, in this context, that BY FAR the biggest androgen rush I’ve ever experienced was with transdermal application of trenbolone acetate from the very first inadvertent experiment that ultimately led to Androsol.

Back in those days, as I had the means and was pretty obsessive compulsive about such things and hadn’t yet determined that it was overkill, I didn’t use any simple method of making TA injectables from Fina, but isolated and recrystallized, with several recrystallizations, the TA.

I now know that my method was more difficult than necessary, and even if one were going to follow the general approach, the first step – dissolving everything into a very small amount of chloroform, and then adding to a large volume of hexane – was a bad idea (though convenient as the first step) as it put binder into the solution whereas, had I simply had the patience to stir overnight into hexane at say 46 C, probably virtually none of the binder would have gone into solution.

Anyway, that’s neither here nor there, but explains why the recrystallization process resulted in left over material that was still rich in TA but was nasty due to having lots of binder. So while the final product, used for the injections, was nice canary-yellow powder, there was also a quite signnificant amount of unfit-for-injection brown powder.

But why waste it? I thought.

I had no particular expectations of high transdermal delivery, but surely some would get through. So I dissolved some amount – unmeasured, but quite a lot, certainly at least hundreds of milligrams – into acetone and then applied onto my forearms. Nowhere else, just forearms, as I was dressed in a short sleeve shirt and long pants at the time.

DAMN!!!

Never got an androgen rush like that before or since. For comparison, as an example I’ve used 150 mg/day injectable TA plus 300 mg/day Anadrol so it’s not that I haven’t had substantial levels of psychoactive androgens. But this was way more.

The later-developed Androsol method (called Finasol when used for TA) is more efficient and better, and I generally recommened formulating that at 25 mg/mL and using 70 sprays over the entire body very lightly misted.

It’s not that, in this case, more than that cannot go through the skin – it can – but more than that tends to be sticky and that is unpleasant while dressed, and wasteful too as some or even much product will transfer to clothing.

But for a PL meet that would be of no particular importance.

Using Finasol but say at 50 mg/mL and furthermore applied at say 140 sprays, I expect would give a hell of a rush, though I haven’t tried it as when formulating Finasol, my goal was something appropriate for longer-term use. But the extreme dose might be very interesting for PL’ing. [/quote]

How hard would it be to make your own finasol out of finaplix? I also have tren ace but it is ready for injection so it is probably of little use for this application.

23

It seems easy… except for the androsol part.

http://www.T-Nation.com/readArticle.do?id=462077

24

While having an Androsol-type sprayer is important for a really efficient, even, thin coat, my thought on the PL’ing application is to glom it on. So a commonly available sprayer, though still preferably one giving a reasonably fine mist, from some drugstore-available cosmetic or body fragrance product should work OK.

Efficiency is not so important as the use will be infrequent enough that waste doesn’t represent that major a cost.

25

Thanks for posting the link to that article!

My memory being refreshed by it, now I think that probably the immediately-thought-at-the-moment suggested value of 50 mg/mL in the above post is probably too high. 25 mg/mL and enough sprays, which would be at least 70, to cover most of the entire usable area of the body (avoiding genital area, the head, the palms, and bottoms of feet) to very light stickiness after drying should be plenty.

Not having done it this way and therefore having to guess, I would try the 70 over this broad area, and then after drying, if it wasn’t even the slightest bit sticky would try very, very lightly sprayed (rapid movement of sprayer) additional coats if desired.

There’s no point in being thicker than this very slightly sticky level, as rate of drug transport through the skin is not affected by thickness of coat, only with whether there is at least a speckled (with the speckles extremely close to each other) film everywhere or not and whether that film is thick enough to continue providing drug for the desired duration of delivery or not. Which it will be.

26

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
On whether the side effects of Cheque Drops “should” be due to a factor other than the steroid itself, I would not assume this.

Side effects of androgens, particularly psychological effect and things like nausea and headaches, are completely unpredictable by the human mind from structure. (It may be that there are by now computer programs that can predict binding to all receptors that could be relevant for such things – a number of years back it was possible to predict from structure binding to androgen, estrogen, and corticosteroid receptors, and more types may have been added since – but I wouldn’t be surprised if that still is not fully possible.)

It’s completely ordinary for a small structural change to result in completely different side effects from a steroid.

For example, how could it have been predicted that boldenone – “same as Dianabol but without the 17a-methyl” – could cause fever or fevered feeling at higher doses? How could it have been predicted that methyl-1-T would have a worse psychological side effect profile than 1-T? For that matter, how could it have been predicted that 1-T had allopregnanolone-type activity that could cause depression in users? Etc.

And not only is it unpredictable as to whether mibolerone may inherently have the side effects that Cheque Drops demonstrate, there’s also the fact that the patent holder decided never to bring the drug to market for humans. Why give up that profit? That doesn’t prove anything but is suggestive.

The impurity idea would be very plausible if talking about some underground thing, but – don’t know about presently but for very many years during which time Cheque Drops earned their reputation – they were made with pharmaceutically-manufactured mibolerone with the only thing added, I believe, being propylene glycol if I recall correctly. (And maybe a B vitamin? Not sure.) So that leaves it pretty unlikely that anything but the mibolerone itself was to blame, in this instance, though the general suggestion certainly remains valid for exotic underground steroids which, if they do odd things, might indeed have impurities as the cause as you suggest.[/quote]

Thanks. I’m pretty aware of how radically small alterations to small molecules can change the action and effects, though I’m mostly interested in protein science rather than small molecule/drug design… I guess the primary reason I thought that the sides could possibly be due to something other than the compound itself was simply the extremely rapid onset of sides that some reported, after only 1 dose. The big thing though is that I always thought that cheque drops were primarily a UGL thing, not the pharm industry. I had no idea they were only made by big pharma. I never took the time to actually look them up.

27

It used to be purchased as a veterinary product: nothing underground about it. It still is available as a veterinary product actually though as to how many buy it that way instead of from an UG operation, I don’t know. I meant pharmaceutical veterinary as opposed to pharmaceutical human: I should have been clearer on that.

29

… wow!

sounds fun!!

30

Bill, Finasol has been mentioned a number of times… but it’s generally the acetate ester being used correct?.. but what about a straight trenbolone (no ester) transdermal? Wouldn’t that decrease the response time and possibly increase the “rush” effect? Isn’t there some purchase availability of an unesterified powder?

31

The acetate almost undoubtedly penetrates the skin better, and I would expect that esterases in the skin will convert all or practically all of the acetate to unesterified trenbolone before it reaches the bloodstream.

That’s not always the case, but usually is the case with such esters.

Oddly, anytime I’ve seen trenbolone itself priced, it has been far more expensive than the acetate. It’s also far less available or at least that has been the case the few times I looked into it.

On the response time, actually I had been just about to post on that as of course it’s very relevant to use for a powerlifting meet.

I would say the point where the rush was just extreme was about 6 hours after application. Actually it may have started sooner, but I was asleep and woke up at the 6-hours-since-application point and was just amazed.

It would be possible also to, instead of using the suggested Androsol-type method, simply to approximately reproduce the way that I did it in the first place. This will be more wasteful of trenbolone acetate, but even if consuming say 500 mg of Fina for a single use, that’s only about $8 or $9 worth which is no big deal for a very-infrequent use such as for a PL meet.

First, see how many mL of acetone (available at the hardware store) is needed to thoroughly wet the arms but without any dripping.

Then, dissolve – I really don’t know how much powder I used and did not know at the time, it was simply the amount that I had – say half a gram, which is 1/4 of a cartridge which is an inconvenient amount so say instead, 3 rows which is 600 mg – into that amount of acetone. And then just thoroughly apply to the arms.

That essentially is what I did in that first such usage.

Unless doing a test run first and learning that the effect is actually faster, assume the rush will be at a peak level at about 6 hours post-application and will continue for at least a few hours past that.

A disadvantage is that white powder will also probably be on the arms from this method. (Which did not happen with my method because the filler had been removed earlier in the process. It will not happen with the Androsol method either as the white powder will be allowed to settle out in the preparation process.)

One could avoid the white powder problem by first dissolving in considerably more acetone, allowing to settle, pouring off the clear solution, adding more acetone to the remainder with the filler and mixing, allowing to settle again, pour off again (this is being done to minimize losses of TA in the solution left behind) and then allow the poured-off acetone to evaporate, which is not that hard a process particularly if put in front of an exhaust window fan. Fairly slow evaporation is best in these instances because fast evaporation may cause water condensation.