Why Stack Class I&II PH/DS?

B_rocK1 · June 22, 2009, 1:01pm

Well this might get my flamed and burnt to a crisp, but I’m going to ask it anyways hoping the fact that I’m not looking for hawt abz will save me.

I’m looking into possibly stacking a pair of PH/DS at the end of the summer.

Before I get too involved into my research I wanted to know “why”?

MY reason for wanted to stack them is because I think that it would only ADD to the strength/size gains. However I am a bit unaware of the specifics of these. (I do plan to read up some more)

But I was hoping that someone with a bit more knowledge then I could shed some light on the reason that stacking Class I&II would be beneficial?

I know Mak said:
“However, with a class I/class II combination while one pro-hormone floats around binding to the androgen receptor, the other little guy is busy attaching itself to other parts of the body to encourage growth.”

And by this I got that stacking allowed for optimal uptake of the chemicals. And with this train of thought I got thinking “why not just take a little bit more of a single chemical?”

That’s where my thoughts trailed off and I couldn’t answer myself (yet).

Can anyone jump in here and offer some thoughts, advice etc etc…???

benmoore · June 22, 2009, 1:27pm

[quote]B rocK wrote:
Well this might get my flamed and burnt to a crisp, but I’m going to ask it anyways hoping the fact that I’m not looking for hawt abz will save me.

I’m looking into possibly stacking a pair of PH/DS at the end of the summer.

Before I get too involved into my research I wanted to know “why”?

MY reason for wanted to stack them is because I think that it would only ADD to the strength/size gains. However I am a bit unaware of the specifics of these. (I do plan to read up some more)

But I was hoping that someone with a bit more knowledge then I could shed some light on the reason that stacking Class I&II would be beneficial?

I know Mak said:
“However, with a class I/class II combination while one pro-hormone floats around binding to the androgen receptor, the other little guy is busy attaching itself to other parts of the body to encourage growth.”

And by this I got that stacking allowed for optimal uptake of the chemicals. And with this train of thought I got thinking “why not just take a little bit more of a single chemical?”

That’s where my thoughts trailed off and I couldn’t answer myself (yet).

Can anyone jump in here and offer some thoughts, advice etc etc…???[/quote]

Perhaps theres only so many receptors? shrugs

I suspect you would continue to get more gains but the results will taper off pretty quickly whilst the sides will shoot up like crazy.

EDIT: Just as I remembered… no I never found out anything else about the propadrol. Most of the good reports seem to come from reps only. I personally wouldnt take it.

EDIT 2: “It`s progrestin and should convert to variation of Nandrolone or something .
Chemically similar to birth control pill and might give a nice pair of teeny tits on you.
Nasty shit.” - balljack8

Brook1 · June 22, 2009, 1:37pm

Don’t know much about PH etc, but understand a little about CI/CII action.

They are how androgenic steroids are classified by our very own Bill Roberts. The details of which can be found on mesomorphosis.com - a very useful site for AAS articles.

Anyway… it is about the different modes of action of the two classes and is classified on how synergistic they are (or not). For example a Class I steroid such as Nandrolone stacks very well with a Clsss II such as dianabol, but not with Anavar, another Class I.
Generally speaking class I steroid are not the best stacked together, and Class II are not. The best results comes from stacking the two classes - and this is due to the mode of action (AR and non-AR).

Class I drugs have a high affinity for androgen receptors - They exert their action through this means and as such tend to have effects on strength androgenically (this is generally neural AFAIK), and they generally do not aromatise.
This class will include Estren based drugs… so drugs that are estrogen based (such as progestins) rather than testosterone based (such as Dianabol). For this reason female hormones can be affected directly through this means as nandrolone is a lass I progestin.

Class II steroids are said to provide their action by other means than androgen receptor attachment - what this is exactly is anyone’s guess but mine. It has never been specified to me and i have never read any details - hopefully BR knows and will enlighten me.
These drugs tend to aromatise and as such increase estrogen. They are therefore often considered great size drugs as they have the benefits that estrogen brings seperately (IGF) as well as the sides (gyno).

The only drug that is both Class I and Class II is… testosterone. This is why it is so damn good at what it does… and also why it is even better to stack it with virtually anything else!

I hope this helps - i am not 100% on it myself, it is BR’s brainchild - he would be the best guy to ask although i suspect he is long tired of taking about it.

Go to mesomorphosis.com for more detail

Brook

B_rocK1 · June 22, 2009, 2:22pm

Thanks for the info Brook. I appreciated it.

Bill_Roberts · June 22, 2009, 7:03pm

By the way there is newer research showing that the AR has both genomic and non-genomic activity. What this means is that while the long-known method of working is by binding to DNA and causing increased transcription of some genes, it also, when activated, has activities that don’t involve that.

So previously when science did not know of this and an activity was shown not to be genomic, I called that non-AR-mediated.

At this point it would be better to call such non-(genomically-AR-mediated.) Though that would be an awkward phrase.

Anyway the main thing is that it is a practical system, based on observed synergy or lack thereof.

For example let’s say we compared 100 mg/day trenbolone acetate alone, 100 mg/day oxandrolone alone, or 50 mg/day of each. Combining them (while keeping total dose constant) does nothing special: no improvement in outcome compared to using a single drug.

Or we could try the same sort of thing, comparing 100 mg/day Dianabol (not recommended except in an experimental context, as it is unnecessary) vs 100 mg/day (divided doses) Anadrol, vs 50 mg/day each. Again, combining them, while keeping total dose constant, gives no noticeable if indeed any improvement.

But if we compare 50 mg/day TA plus 50 mg/day Dianabol to 100 mg/day of either alone, the difference is pretty amazing.

Thus from the practical standpoint many steroids can be put in one class or the other according to their stacking behavior. If a drug provides synergy to trenbolone or oxandrolone then it is Class II; if a drug provides synergy to Dianabol or Anadrol it is Class I; and the system is expandable such that the comparisons don’t have to be specifically those drugs, but any steroid that stacks synergistically with a Class I is a Class II and vice-versa.

The exception is where synergy is provided to drugs of either class in which case the steroid is described as having mixed activity. Testosterone is the best example.

I have not done this sort of experimentation with the “prohormones” but other have made observations of such things, and so from the practical standpoint, definitely one wants to have such synergy.

B_rocK1 · June 22, 2009, 6:14pm

Thanks so much for the detailed explanation Bill. Would you happen to know where I can read up on what might be good to stack with Epi? (I have some left from last cycle)

I’m reading here, PHF and meso right now but haven’t stumbled on anything concrete just yet. I’ve heard people stacking it with H-drol as well as Prop; but these are just random posters saying “I did this and got strong”. While that is great for them, I’d like to know a bit more.

Bill_Roberts · June 22, 2009, 8:17pm

It seems to me that Westclock has looked into this thoroughly and has probably the best advice available on the so-called prohormones.

B_rocK1 · June 23, 2009, 10:56am

Cool, maybe he will stumble on this thread.

:: ahem ::

Brook1 · June 23, 2009, 12:31pm

Yea… WC is by far the resident PH guru round these parts

Why not PM his attention to the thread?

snakey · June 23, 2009, 12:36pm

Westclock’s recommendation was to stack 30mg epi (class 1) with 75 mg Hdrol (class 2). Hdrol by CEL is the one you want. I think he may have discussed this in the prohormone sticky.

benmoore · June 23, 2009, 4:44pm

[quote]snakey wrote:
Westclock’s recommendation was to stack 30mg epi (class 1) with 75 mg Hdrol (class 2). Hdrol by CEL is the one you want. I think he may have discussed this in the prohormone sticky.[/quote]

Aye - run for 6 weeks…

B_rocK1 · June 23, 2009, 5:47pm

That’s the typical stack that I’ve read about a few times. But very rarely does the thread go beyond saying “this is what you do”

I’d like to know WHY stack them? What benefits would one get? What possible (if any) negatives?

My epi stack had great strength gains, size gains and I even leaned out a bit (not the purpose, but I’ll take it). But now during PCT I’m getting acne, and during the cycle I got REALLY tired/lethargic.

Would stacking these alleviate, increase or do nothing to symptoms like these?

I’ll PM this to WC and have him read things over if he has time.

DOHCrazy · June 23, 2009, 7:56pm

May I ask why you won’t just use AAS instead of PH’s?

Westclock · June 23, 2009, 8:28pm

[quote]B rocK wrote:
That’s the typical stack that I’ve read about a few times. But very rarely does the thread go beyond saying “this is what you do”

I’d like to know WHY stack them? What benefits would one get? What possible (if any) negatives?

My epi stack had great strength gains, size gains and I even leaned out a bit (not the purpose, but I’ll take it). But now during PCT I’m getting acne, and during the cycle I got REALLY tired/lethargic.

Would stacking these alleviate, increase or do nothing to symptoms like these?

I’ll PM this to WC and have him read things over if he has time.[/quote]

Acne and lethargy are completely unrelated to hdrol specifically.

The acne in the PCT is completely normal to all exogenous androgens, its from rapid hormone shifts as your system comes back online. There are also many theories that SERMs may contribute to acne to a certain extent, they are estrogens after all.

But regardless, that has nothing to do with hdrol itself, that is just for steroids/PCT’s in general.

The tiredness/lethargy is the same boat.

Its actually due to low testosterone production. Once you shutdown your natural hormone production and its rates start to fall your going to feel more and more tired unless the hormone your taking can adequately replace test.

Hdrol and havoc can not.

This is why people used to recommend running 4AD with just about everything back when it was still around.

Not only did it produce a nice synergy because it was testosterone, but it also kept enough test and estrogen in the system to keep the user comfrotable.

Now on drug choice, the epi/hdrol stack I recommended is just one of many many possible combinations. It is one of the milder and more “kindly” stacks as far as cardiovascular ability is concerned. It synergizes well as the epi is a bit more type I and the hdrol is type II, and the epi “kicks” in faster, it can be felt in the first week much of the time.

Hdrol on the other hand takes longer than average and needs to be run for almost 6-7 weeks to take full advantage of its strength gains.

Its not a “kickstart” as both compounds are fast acting and both are increasing protien synthesis from the start, its just that epi’s STRENGTH gains are more noticeable early on.

I dont really consider any prohormones to have “sideffects” bad enough to be avoided, but some people do, so I took that into consideration.

Feel free to mix the PH’s as you like, there is no “best stack”, because not all users are the same, and because not all users have the same goals.

Its like asking me what the best steroid cycle is, I can tell you some GOOD cycles, but BEST is a relative term.

There are three variables just like any steroid cycle, cost, risk/sideeffects, gains required.

Brook1 · June 23, 2009, 8:42pm

So sorry, i thought that these quotes were pretty self explanatory…

“…Anyway… it is about the different modes of action of the two classes and is classified on how synergistic they are (or not)…”

“…Generally speaking class I steroid are not the best stacked together, and Class II are not. The best results comes from stacking the two classes - and this is due to the mode of action (AR and non-AR)…”

“…By the way there is newer research showing that the AR has both genomic and non-genomic activity. What this means is that while the long-known method of working is by binding to DNA and causing increased transcription of some genes, it also, when activated, has activities that don’t involve that.
So previously when science did not know of this and an activity was shown not to be genomic, I called that non-AR-mediated…”

“…But if we compare 50 mg/day TA plus 50 mg/day Dianabol to 100 mg/day of either alone, the difference is pretty amazing…”

mesomorphosis.com/articles/pharmacology/
androgen-classification-system.htm

I’ll add this as it will also be needed to fully grasp the knowledge behind the idea:

mesomorphosis.com/articles/pharmacology/
differences-between-anabolic-steroids.htm

So you can see that you already had the “WHY stack them?”, the “What benefits would one get?”, the answer to “What possible (if any) negatives?”. You also have where to get more information (meso.com) and you EVEN had the Author of the article that began it all replying personally.

Of course this information is directly related to pharmaceutical (or ex-pharm) AAS, rather than hormonal supplements, but i have heard of it being used ‘successfully’.

If it were upto me to use nothing or a PH, i’d honestly choose nothing, they aren’t worth the sides.

I deleted the very harsh reply, i am undergoing anger management somewhat.

B_rocK1 · June 24, 2009, 11:07am

[quote]Westclock wrote:
B rocK wrote:
That’s the typical stack that I’ve read about a few times. But very rarely does the thread go beyond saying “this is what you do”