T Nation

To Bill Roberts: new prosteroid???

5-androst-1-ene-3-one-B-undecanoate made by Nutrex? What you think Bill?
Thanks

We sort of already covered this. I can’t see how the undeconate ester would do anything for the A1E/1-Test Molecule. It does double the oral absorbency of testosterone from 2.5% to 5% from my readings. Not very good in my oppinion. If you could inject it, it might make a difference, but I have never heard of anyone trying to inject the A1E/1-Test molecule and don’t recomend it. I think it really is a gimmik unfortunately. Sounds really cool though.

EDog

Here is a reference they use to promote the product:
Gooren LJ. J Androl 1994 May-Jun;15(3):212-5
A ten-year safety study of the oral androgen testosterone undecanoate.

Testosterone undecanoate (Andriol) is an oral androgen that provides the hypogonadal patient with the unmodified testosterone molecule. It was introduced in the mid-1970s. This is a report on the safety of this oral androgen. Of 35 men originally included in the study, 33 could be followed up for a minimum of 10 years. In them no alteration in the biochemical parameters of liver function could be detected. Upon annual measurements (7-9 hours after ingestion of testosterone undecanoate), serum levels of testosterone ranged between 5.4 +/- 1.9 and 6.5 +/- 1.9 nmol/L (normal range 8-24) and of 5 alpha-dihydrotestosterone between 3.2 +/- 1.8 and 3.5 +/- 1.7 nmol/L (normal range 0.8-2.5). These levels remained constant during the study period, indicating that there is no increased hepatic enzymatic breakdown of the androgen over time. Eight men were older than 50 years at the start of the study. Over the 10-year period in two of them a mild reduction in urine flow was measured, whereas in the other six this could not be demonstrated. Digital examination of the prostate did not reveal signs of prostate tumors. Testosterone undecanoate appears to be a safe oral androgen. A yearly checkup of the patient on therapy with this androgen seems adequate.

What this reference indicates is that 240 mg/day of testosterone undecanoate only maintains normal levels of testosterone,
rather than achieving supraphysiological levels that might have pro-athletic effect.

Not the best advertisement for an undecanoate
steroid supplement.

Bill,
I was wondering if you could explain how this supplement is conceived to work. Does this prosteroid convert to test undecanoate in the body? Does it matter if is does? i.e. would that increase result in any gains. I have people asking me about it, but I’m not a chemist and not familiar with steroid biochemistry. Thanks.

It would be de-esterified to androst-1-ene.

So I gather you feel the ethylcarbonate ester is more effective than the undecanoate ester. I’m not challanging you , just asking. Regardless, seems like an attempt to steal your idea. thanks

Boll, can the two be stacked? would there be any benefit to doing that or would it just be pointless. I know that alone Mag-10 is awesome, but would would stacking it with this product do?

Oh no, the undecanoate ester is not stealing my idea in the slightest. What’s novel about A1-E is not the androst-1-ene parent steroid: its anabolic properties have been known for decades. There are many scientists who have
researched that and I had nothing to do with it. The novel part is using a carbonate ester to improve oral bioavailabilty of a steroid. The undecanoate ester is something quite different, nothing novel, and definitely isn’t an infringement on my work. No problem there.

If a lower dose of MAG-10 is used then adding this product could increase effect. Whether it would do so more cost-effectively than more MAG-10 would, I don’t know since I don’t know the price, but probably not.

Based on the research that used Testosterone undecanoate in an oil suspension gel cap (Andriol), I would conclude that 1-Test (or whatever the hell we are calling it these days 5-androst-1-ene-3-one I guess) would give the same poor results for bioavailability with an undecanoate ester molecule paired to the parent molecule since from what I have read the lipophilic ratio is about the same of the parent and the undecanoate ester would obviously be the same.

My curiousity is the value of taking 1-AD with Mag-10. Perhaps the improved oral bioavailability of 1-AD and conversion pathway could provide a boost in effectiveness for Mag-10. Just more curious than anything. Bill, what makes Brock think that 1-AD has no inherent anabolic property and that only the conversion to A1 is of value? Pat Arnold seems to disagree with you on this point. I trust your judgement on these things, but I like to hear all sides. I appreciate you honesty about not knowing the exact bioavailability of Mag-10 (from a previous post) and certainly one can’t ignore the annecdotal evidence that it is an effective supplement. Maybe you could give a “state of the industry” address. Much like the prohormone round table, but inform us on the latest things like 1,4 AD, 5AAD etc… Thanks again for your efforts.

EDog

EDog, my reason for saying that 1-androstenediol probably has little or no intrinsic activity is that the assay done on it, and also the assay done on the diacetate ester, gave only 40% the potency of testosterone propionate. Whereas androst-1-ene, the compound it converts to, gives in almost all of the many assays done 200-400% the potency.

Clearly the diol cannot have a very high potency. If it had 40% then this would be consistent with the data only if there were zero conversion.

The most favorable case for intrinsic
potency of the diol would be with the lowest value for potency of androst-1-ene and the lowest conversion – this would leave the most possible of the 40% as being due to the unconverted diol.

So, let’s work with 200%, not three times (or let alone the notorious “seven times” claimed by certain in the industry.) If the conversion were only 1/5 this would still account for 40% and leave zero for the diol. If the conversion is 1/10 however that would account for 20%, leaving 20% intrinsic potency for the diol.

The fraction converted is probably dependent on dose as well as species and no one exact figure will apply, but the 20% esimation is a better one, from the data, than a lower one. But even if you assume a low value like 1/10 conversion of 1-androstenediol to androst-1-ene, you’d still come up with a conclusion of low intrinsic potency.

Bill, as always we are in your debt for answering our questions timely and fairly. As you’ve heard time and time again, we all appreciate your tireless efforts.

EDog