Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 59
  1. #1
    Cyto is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    20

    M1T.....or the real D-

    I have read alot about this M1T stuff and everyone seems to agree that it is very good.Was thinking about taking the real D-!@# butif this stuff is as good as people say is it worth it just to take this for the price and other obvious reasons?What kind of cycle is best and I have also read in a few threads of some that is only $9.99 a bottle and as good as the $50 dollar bottles......if so where can I locate this particular brand?

  2. #2
    IronAdam's Avatar
    IronAdam is offline Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    858
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyto
    I have read alot about this M1T stuff and everyone seems to agree that it is very good.Was thinking about taking the real D-!@# butif this stuff is as good as people say is it worth it just to take this for the price and other obvious reasons?What kind of cycle is best and I have also read in a few threads of some that is only $9.99 a bottle and as good as the $50 dollar bottles......if so where can I locate this particular brand?
    Most people say real gear is better. The place that had it for $9.99 a bottle is www.1fast400.com and they are out of stock.

  3. #3
    RP7's Avatar
    RP7
    RP7 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Great White North
    Posts
    917
    1fast400.com's stuff is only 5mg pills and I dont think you get a whole lot... still good price though.

    Reason why I would rather stick with real gear is that you'll feel awesome on your cycle, instead of some lethargic grandpa who can't get his dick up.

  4. #4
    DBarcelo's Avatar
    DBarcelo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Bronx
    Posts
    1,667
    I've been looking for some posts on here with results from taking M1T and from taking regular 1-T. People say they will post it, but I haven't seen any yet.

    People also swear that M1T is extremely different from 1-T, but the only difference I've seen is the 17-aa added to it so that it can pass the liver without being destroyed. That makes it more bioavailable, but not a difference substance all together.

  5. #5
    RP7's Avatar
    RP7
    RP7 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Great White North
    Posts
    917
    Someone was saying how the fact thats its methalayted makes it a new compund almost. Like Dbol is a methylated version of some other steroid . I'm no chemist but I think its muchy different than 'just passing through the liver.' Buzz that chemist student, forget his name.

  6. #6
    DBarcelo's Avatar
    DBarcelo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Bronx
    Posts
    1,667
    I know it gets into micro-biology and it has to do with the 17th position of the string, etc, etc. But it's taking 1-Test and adding to the 17th position so that when it passes the liver, the liver isn't able to break it down. The basic compound is still 1-Test, it's just that when it passes the liver, you have more 1-Test in your blood stream.

  7. #7
    LM1332 Guest
    stack your M1T with 4AD you got to or youll get shut and use some nice PCT and some anti toxin

  8. #8
    MMC78's Avatar
    MMC78 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,040
    DBarcello,

    Please stop saying things that are wrong. Dianabol is 17a Equipose and they are not the same. 1-T and m1t are also dissimilar. Changing a compound in a minor way can have drastic effects on its behavior, i.e.

    From steriodology's Dbol profile:
    It is also interesting to note that methandrostenolone is structurally identical to boldenone (EQ), except that it contains the added c17 alpha alkyl group discussed above. This fact makes clear the impact of altering a steroid in such a way, as these two compounds appear to act very differently in the body. The main dissimilarity seems to lie in the tendency for estrogenic side effects, which seems to be much more pronounced with Dianabol. Equipoise is known to be quite mild in this way, and users therefore commonly take this drug without any need of an anti-estrogen. Dianabol is much more estrogenic not because it is more easily aromatized, as in fact the 17 alpha methyl group and c1-2 double bond both slow the process of aromatization. The problem is that methandrostenolone converts to l7alpha methylestradiol, a more biologically active form of estrogen than regular estradiol. But Dianabol also appears to be much more potent in terms of muscle mass compared to boldenone, supporting the notion that estrogen does play an important role in anabolism. In fact boldenone and methandrostenolone differ so much in their potencies as anabolics that the two are rarely though of as related. As a result, the use of Dianabol is typically restricted to bulking phases of training while Equipoise is considered an excellent cutting or lean-mass building steroid.

    Link
    http://www.steroidology.com/profiles/

  9. #9
    daman1's Avatar
    daman1 is offline Diet Specialist
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    beatin it up...
    Posts
    3,200
    Quote Originally Posted by MMC78
    DBarcello,

    Please stop saying things that are wrong. Dianabol is 17a Equipose and they are not the same. 1-T and m1t are also dissimilar. Changing a compound in a minor way can have drastic effects on its behavior, i.e.

    From steriodology's Dbol profile:
    It is also interesting to note that methandrostenolone is structurally identical to boldenone (EQ), except that it contains the added c17 alpha alkyl group discussed above. This fact makes clear the impact of altering a steroid in such a way, as these two compounds appear to act very differently in the body. The main dissimilarity seems to lie in the tendency for estrogenic side effects, which seems to be much more pronounced with Dianabol. Equipoise is known to be quite mild in this way, and users therefore commonly take this drug without any need of an anti-estrogen. Dianabol is much more estrogenic not because it is more easily aromatized, as in fact the 17 alpha methyl group and c1-2 double bond both slow the process of aromatization. The problem is that methandrostenolone converts to l7alpha methylestradiol, a more biologically active form of estrogen than regular estradiol. But Dianabol also appears to be much more potent in terms of muscle mass compared to boldenone, supporting the notion that estrogen does play an important role in anabolism. In fact boldenone and methandrostenolone differ so much in their potencies as anabolics that the two are rarely though of as related. As a result, the use of Dianabol is typically restricted to bulking phases of training while Equipoise is considered an excellent cutting or lean-mass building steroid.

    Link
    http://www.steroidology.com/profiles/
    Agreed. Good post.

  10. #10
    kaotik1's Avatar
    kaotik1 is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by MMC78
    DBarcello,

    Please stop saying things that are wrong. Dianabol is 17a Equipose and they are not the same. 1-T and m1t are also dissimilar. Changing a compound in a minor way can have drastic effects on its behavior, i.e.

    From steriodology's Dbol profile:
    It is also interesting to note that methandrostenolone is structurally identical to boldenone (EQ), except that it contains the added c17 alpha alkyl group discussed above. This fact makes clear the impact of altering a steroid in such a way, as these two compounds appear to act very differently in the body. The main dissimilarity seems to lie in the tendency for estrogenic side effects, which seems to be much more pronounced with Dianabol. Equipoise is known to be quite mild in this way, and users therefore commonly take this drug without any need of an anti-estrogen. Dianabol is much more estrogenic not because it is more easily aromatized, as in fact the 17 alpha methyl group and c1-2 double bond both slow the process of aromatization. The problem is that methandrostenolone converts to l7alpha methylestradiol, a more biologically active form of estrogen than regular estradiol. But Dianabol also appears to be much more potent in terms of muscle mass compared to boldenone, supporting the notion that estrogen does play an important role in anabolism. In fact boldenone and methandrostenolone differ so much in their potencies as anabolics that the two are rarely though of as related. As a result, the use of Dianabol is typically restricted to bulking phases of training while Equipoise is considered an excellent cutting or lean-mass building steroid.

    Link
    http://www.steroidology.com/profiles/
    also agree

  11. #11
    DBarcelo's Avatar
    DBarcelo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Bronx
    Posts
    1,667
    You basically proved my point for me. As your post says, "is structurally identical", "except that it contains the added c17 alpha alkyl group", (even though that's not accurate) so the active ingredient is exactly the same. The only difference is the fact that the bond is stronger using the 17-aa and allows it to pass the liver so there is more active ingredient in the system when it makes it to the blood. And like your post said, "these two compounds APPEAR to act very differently in the body". They appear to act differently because more of it makes it into the body where it can be used. Once again, as your post says, "In fact boldenone and methandrostenolone differ so much in their POTENCIES as anabolics that the two are rarely THOUGHT of as related". i.e. if you take more boldenone, you'll have pretty much the same effects as you would with less methandrostenolone. Here, we are talking about steroids and one has an methyl androgen in it, so that makes a large difference.

    I should also point out that Methandrostenolone and Methandienone are pharmaceutical names for Dianobol.

    One more distinction should be made also. Methandrostenolone is Methylated AND is 17-alpha-alkylated, they are not one in the same. Methandrostenolone is 17-beta-hydroxy-17-alpha-methyl-1,4androstadien-3-one. Boldenone is 17-beta-hydroxy-1,4androstadien-3-one. M1T is 17-alpha-alkylate-1-Testosterone . They CALL it an methylated versioin of 1-Test, but there is no 17-alpha-methyl or even 17-methyl, it's 17-alpha-alky. So according to the chemical structure you provided in your post, there is no androgenic methylate in M1T. And in Methandrostenolone, as I said, it is has both "alpha-methyl" alpha-alkylate and methylate. The alpha is so it can pass the liver and the methyl is the androgen.

    To sum it up, 1-t and M1T are the exact same thing, one just has a 17-aa bond to help it pass the liver.

    Thanks for that excellent post that helped to prove my point.

  12. #12
    MMC78's Avatar
    MMC78 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by DBarcelo
    said, "these two compounds APPEAR to act very differently in the body". They appear to act differently because more of it makes it into the body where it can be used. Once again, as your post says, "In fact boldenone and methandrostenolone differ so much in their POTENCIES as anabolics that the two are rarely THOUGHT of as related". i.e. if you take more boldenone, you'll have pretty much the same effects as you would with less methandrostenolone. Here, we are talking about steroids and one has an methyl androgen in it, so that makes a large difference.
    I didn't prove your point.

    If you were to compare the results 500mg of equipose/week vs 500mg of dianabol you would undoubtably come to the conclusion that these compounds illicit different responses. Not because of their A/A ratios but rather because they have DIFFERENT METABOLITES and different estrogen mediated effects.

  13. #13
    Dude-Man's Avatar
    Dude-Man is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Nowhere, USA
    Posts
    5,966
    Quote Originally Posted by DBarcelo
    I know it gets into micro-biology and it has to do with the 17th position of the string, etc, etc. But it's taking 1-Test and adding to the 17th position so that when it passes the liver, the liver isn't able to break it down. The basic compound is still 1-Test, it's just that when it passes the liver, you have more 1-Test in your blood stream.
    First of all, it's m1t is methyllated, not alkylated. Alkylation is a double bond, methylation is the substitution of a ch3 group instead of a hydrogen.

    Changing functional groups drastically changes a steroids activity. For example, Boldenon is the exact same molecule as dianabol , minus the 17 alpha alkylation. Tell me those two have the same effect in the body and i'll show you a liar.

  14. #14
    RP7's Avatar
    RP7
    RP7 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Great White North
    Posts
    917
    Holy **** boys. I feel like I'm in science class.

  15. #15
    Umberto's Avatar
    Umberto is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Sportsmans paradise
    Posts
    101
    I totally agree with ChrisAdams.

    Changing functional groups DRASTICALLY CHANGES molecule behavior.
    (Estrogen and Testosterone differ very little structurally)

    Slight changes in chemical structure effect enzyme binding emensely.
    Our bodies are controlled almost entirelly by enzymes (basically biological catalyst). These enzymes's activities and especially regulation are directly related to chemical structure. Some enzymes are even covalently modified (have functional groups attached to them, such as a methyl, ethyl, phoshate, hydroxy groups, ect.) to activate or inhibit them OR EVEN use high levels of there own substrates to inhibit their action.
    Now these slight changes you see in androgen structure (methyl attachment, or ANY modification) have such a drastic effect because enzyme active sight attachment is very specific. They need the right polarity, pH, Pk values, rates of attachment, hydrogen bonding, Van der Walhs forces,ect.,ect., ect.. Changeing one small molecule effects all of these things and more.

    Our bodies are a multitude of precisely controlled biochemical reactions. The more I learn about it the more absolutely mind boggleing how it all works together smoothly in most cases. And the funny thing is EACH CELL in your body experiences millions of similar reaction that all work together in concortium. AND you have billions of cells.

    kind of makes you believe there has to be a God.

  16. #16
    daman1's Avatar
    daman1 is offline Diet Specialist
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    beatin it up...
    Posts
    3,200
    Quote Originally Posted by Umberto
    I totally agree with ChrisAdams.

    Changing functional groups DRASTICALLY CHANGES molecule behavior.
    (Estrogen and Testosterone differ very little structurally)

    Slight changes in chemical structure effect enzyme binding emensely.
    Our bodies are controlled almost entirelly by enzymes (basically biological catalyst). These enzymes's activities and especially regulation are directly related to chemical structure. Some enzymes are even covalently modified (have functional groups attached to them, such as a methyl, ethyl, phoshate, hydroxy groups, ect.) to activate or inhibit them OR EVEN use high levels of there own substrates to inhibit their action.
    Now these slight changes you see in androgen structure (methyl attachment, or ANY modification) have such a drastic effect because enzyme active sight attachment is very specific. They need the right polarity, pH, Pk values, rates of attachment, hydrogen bonding, Van der Walhs forces,ect.,ect., ect.. Changeing one small molecule effects all of these things and more.

    Our bodies are a multitude of precisely controlled biochemical reactions. The more I learn about it the more absolutely mind boggleing how it all works together smoothly in most cases. And the funny thing is EACH CELL in your body experiences millions of similar reaction that all work together in concortium. AND you have billions of cells.

    kind of makes you believe there has to be a God.
    Wow. I'm impressed with your knowledge! Good post.

  17. #17
    RP7's Avatar
    RP7
    RP7 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Great White North
    Posts
    917
    Quote Originally Posted by Umberto
    kind of makes you believe there has to be a God.
    This thread has been hijacked. Ever heard of the theory of evolution?

    Just kidding I'm not a Darwinist

  18. #18
    BREASTMAN is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    219
    M 1-T is nothing like 1-Test. When a compound is chemically altered to be methylated the entire properties of the compound are changed. Make no mistake, methyl 1-Test has proven AS strong for many people as most illegal anabolics. Most call it "oral trenbelone." I have seen guys gain 12 lbs in 2 weeks from just 20 mg per day. It's the read deal.

  19. #19
    DBarcelo's Avatar
    DBarcelo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Bronx
    Posts
    1,667
    I don't know how else to make this any clearer really. Just like I pointed out by posting the exact chemical compound of Methandrostenolone and Boldenone . The only difference between the two is the 17-alpha-methyl. And the post provided by MMC78 (that everyone agreed with) says that M1T only has c17 alpha alkyl added to the 1-Test compound.

    Now when you talk about the difference in the steroids , yes there is a difference between the two because it is alkylated and methylated. The methyl (like I already said) is an androgen, so the steroid is anabolic and androgenic (even though it's a mild androgen). But I thought we were debating 1-T &M1T not Methandrostenolone and Boldenone.

    How anyone can argue that M1T is methylated and not alkylated when the chemical compound provided only shows alpha-alkylate, I really don't know and there's no other proof that can be offered. You provided the chemical compound, not me. I just read it.

    As far as the compound only effecting enzyme binding, I don't even know what to say to that after I already explained what alkylate does and what methylate does. Alkylate strengthens the bond so it can pass the liver and methylate is an androgen that adds an androgenic effect. So, methylating something will change the compound (even though the basic compound you're adding it to is functionally the same). Now all you have to do is show me how it's methylated if there's nothing in the chemical structure YOU provided that shows methylate. If you just want to believe it just for the fun of believing it, that's on you, but I'm believing it until I see a chemical compound showing methylate added to 1-Test.

    It seems to me that the general concesses here is "if they say it's in there, it must be in there". You people have shown that it's alkylated, but nobody has shown any proof that it's methylated. People don't seem to realize that manufacturers of suppliments don't have the same standards that other food makers and pharmacuticals have. They can say there product has whatever they want to say and they can say it does whatever they want to say it does, they only have to make sure the product is labeled to indicate that there findings are not verified by the FDA. People do have wonderful effects from suppliments, I can't argue that, but you don't know what's really in there, even if you did provide a chemical compound that showed it's methylated. It's very expensive to take these products to be analyzed so it's not done very often, but I have heard of some 1-Test products analyzed to contain actual steroids added to it. When they test for an actual steroid, they're looking for something like testosterone , not 1-testosterone and if it's methylated to provide an androgen, that's still not enough for it to show as a steroid.

    I do agree that methylating something will make it more androgenic, but it doesn't change the fact that the basic compound is the same. When methylating, you're not getting a different response, you're just adding another response into the mix.

    So, like I said, instead of just saying it's methylated, prove that it's methylated by showing a chemical compound that has a methyl group in it. Since you already said that the only difference is a 17aa bond, I don't know how you can do that at this point.

    And remember, we're talking about M1T and 1-T, NOT Methandrostenolone and Boldenone.

  20. #20
    DBarcelo's Avatar
    DBarcelo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Bronx
    Posts
    1,667
    I should also not that before M1T came out, 1-testosterone was labeled as a legal steroid and not an actual prohormone, because the body doesn't have to change it into anything, it's already a form of testosterone. Now they're saying the same thing about M1T.

  21. #21
    THA GONZ is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    388
    I have done a few different cycles of the real deal(test,deca ,d-bol,sustanon , ect.) before and I am about to try Legal gears Methyl 1-Test. I will post my results when I start.
    I am starting at the end of this week, I am trying it to get the real scoop for myself. I have heard both good and bad reviews so the only way to get the scoop is to do it. So I will let you all hear my unbiased opinoin when I am done. I got it for $40 and will be doing about 20 mg/day maybe somedays 30mg.

    I will post my results soon.

  22. #22
    THA GONZ is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    388
    by the way I am really not expecting it to be as strong as the real deal but just want to see for my self what it is all about

  23. #23
    MMC78's Avatar
    MMC78 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,040
    You're correct that it's technically an alkylated molecule. However I don't think anyone here was ever argueing that point. Here's a snippet of a writeup by a chemist (somthing you're obviously not).

    http://www.t-mag.com/nation_articles/289cy.jsp
    "Methyl 1-Test: The True Story

    Q: What is Methyl 1-test? Is it potent? Is it legally sold as a supplement or what? I'm so confused!

    A: First, Methyl 1-Test isn’t even proper nomenclature. As for it being potent, Counsell, et al., found that C-17 alkylation of 17B-hydroxy-5a-androst-1-en-3-one (also incorrectly referred to as 1-Testosterone ) decreased anabolic and androgenic activity in bioassays. It had about one-fourth the anabolic potency of Testosterone propionate and about half the androgenic activity.

    I think people were excited when they first heard of it as they thought, "Oh, okay, well alkylating 1-Testosterone will solve the problem of oral bioavailability and thus we'll have one kick-ass compound." In reality, adding that methyl group creates not just a methylated version of the androgen, but an entirely different molecule, period!

    People need to understand that adding a methyl group or a double bond (or really any number of functional groups and atoms) creates an entirely different androgen. For instance, methandrostenolone (D-bol) only differs from Testosterone by a methyl group at the C-17 and an additional double bond between the C-1 and C-2. But can you honestly say D-bol and Testosterone impart the same effects? Even disregarding bioassays, which have demonstrated substantial differences between the two androgens, it’s still obvious to anyone who’s used them."

  24. #24
    BREASTMAN is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    219
    Adding a methyl group to the c-17-Alpha position certainly changes the properties of the steroid completely...sometimes for the worse, as in the case of testosterone ! This is still totally bioavailable, but acts nothing like testosterone.

  25. #25
    DBarcelo's Avatar
    DBarcelo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Bronx
    Posts
    1,667
    No, I'm not a chemist, apparently you aren't one and the person that wrote that description doesn't seem to be one either. I do know enough about chemistry to know that alpha alkylate is not a methyl group, they are two completly different things. This person says that alkylating something is actually methylating it, he also says that testosterone is an androgen when it's an anabolic .

    Nobody has yet to show where M1T has a methyl group. People keep saying it's in there but fail to show it. Showing alpha alkylate is not showing methylate. No matter how many times you say it, no matter how much you want to believe it, alkylate is not methylate.

    And saying that methylating something completely changes it is wayyyyy off. The methyl chain for the most part stays in the liver and acts as an androgen and the remaining compound is actually left in the liver and if it's alkylated, that allowes it pass the liver without being broken down. That's why Methandrostenolone is BOTH methylated and alkylated (since you wanted to bring steroids into this).

  26. #26
    MMC78's Avatar
    MMC78 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,040
    Why don't you take this up with Patrick Arnold in the bodybuilding.com forums. You're too thickheaded to trust what anyone else has to say.

    A fact is a fact, methylating or alkylating a steroid molecule changes it's properties: at the androgen recptor, at the anabolic receptor, and at the enzymatic level.

  27. #27
    DBarcelo's Avatar
    DBarcelo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Bronx
    Posts
    1,667
    Quote Originally Posted by MMC78
    Why don't you take this up with Patrick Arnold in the bodybuilding.com forums. You're too thickheaded to trust what anyone else has to say.

    A fact is a fact, methylating or alkylating a steroid molecule changes it's properties: at the androgen recptor, at the anabolic receptor, and at the enzymatic level.
    I don't think I'm too thickheaded to not believe what someone tells me, I'm not that gullible to believe anything that anyone tells me, especially when I know better.

    I've taken my fare share of chem classes (though I'm not a chemist) as well as human bio, micro bio, etc. I don't know where you get your info from. Methylating an anaboic steroid does change the way the body absorbes the base steroid by causing an androgenic effect in addition to the anabolic effect, but it's not changing the properties of the steroid itself. It SEEMS as though it's changing the properties because of the different results and the androgenic side effects that become associated with it. Alkylating a steroid isn't changing the properties or even adding another reaction like methylating does, alkylating only strengthens the bond to allow a chemical to survive the first pass through the liver.

    It seems as though you believe there is an anabilic level, enzymatic level and an androgen receptor involved in the actual makeup of the molecular strand. If you alkylate an anabolic steroid, you aren't adding any androgen, it's still only an anabolic. And it's not changing the way that the anabolic agent is absorbed or used, but it does allow MORE of the anabolic to enter into the body beyond the liver. The only enzymatic change is the fact that you will get a buildup of enzymes at the liver trying to breakdown the alkylate chain (which is why people always said that you shouldn't use an alkylate for more than 6 weeks, even though we now know that the enzymes disipate and liver levels return to normal (as if you had never taken it) after a few weeks after taking an alkylate).

    If you only methylate an anabolic steroid, then you're not changing anything at any androgenic level, you are ADDING an androgen. Methylate is an androgen and there are different types of methylate androgens. Once again, it's not changing the way the anabolic agent is absorbed per se, but because of the androgen, it keeps certain levels in better balance and therefore amplifies the anabolic effect. But I can see how a person would believe it's completely changing the compound because you end up with androgenic effects that you don't have when only taking the anabolic. On the enzymatic level, you are adding another compound that has to be broken down, so there are different enzymes involved with breaking the whole chain down, but it's not altering the enzymatic reaction to the original anabolic.

    You still seem to believe that alkylating and methylating are one in the same. To your defense, it seems that a lot of people believe that. But that doesn't make it true.

    Like I said before, just saying that it's methylated is saying anything. You already said the only difference is 17-alpha-alkylate, so the only way to change my mind is to admit that you were wrong and that there is also a methylate chain added.

    You really sound like one of those people back in the 1600's that insisted that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. You present them with scientific fact and all they can say is, "well it's true, the sun does revolve around the earth, everyone knows it and the Bible says it".

    I'm not saying that I'm not willing to accept the idea that it's methylated, you just haven't shown anything to back up your claim. You actually disproved yourself by saying that the only change is an 17-aa bond. If you whould have shown me a chemical compound with a methylate chain, we wouldn't be going back and forth with this for so long.

  28. #28
    daman1's Avatar
    daman1 is offline Diet Specialist
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    beatin it up...
    Posts
    3,200
    Quote Originally Posted by DBarcelo
    I don't think I'm too thickheaded to not believe what someone tells me, I'm not that gullible to believe anything that anyone tells me, especially when I know better.

    I've taken my fare share of chem classes (though I'm not a chemist) as well as human bio, micro bio, etc. I don't know where you get your info from. Methylating an anaboic steroid does change the way the body absorbes the base steroid by causing an androgenic effect in addition to the anabolic effect, but it's not changing the properties of the steroid itself. It SEEMS as though it's changing the properties because of the different results and the androgenic side effects that become associated with it. Alkylating a steroid isn't changing the properties or even adding another reaction like methylating does, alkylating only strengthens the bond to allow a chemical to survive the first pass through the liver.

    It seems as though you believe there is an anabilic level, enzymatic level and an androgen receptor involved in the actual makeup of the molecular strand. If you alkylate an anabolic steroid, you aren't adding any androgen, it's still only an anabolic. And it's not changing the way that the anabolic agent is absorbed or used, but it does allow MORE of the anabolic to enter into the body beyond the liver. The only enzymatic change is the fact that you will get a buildup of enzymes at the liver trying to breakdown the alkylate chain (which is why people always said that you shouldn't use an alkylate for more than 6 weeks, even though we now know that the enzymes disipate and liver levels return to normal (as if you had never taken it) after a few weeks after taking an alkylate).

    If you only methylate an anabolic steroid, then you're not changing anything at any androgenic level, you are ADDING an androgen. Methylate is an androgen and there are different types of methylate androgens. Once again, it's not changing the way the anabolic agent is absorbed per se, but because of the androgen, it keeps certain levels in better balance and therefore amplifies the anabolic effect. But I can see how a person would believe it's completely changing the compound because you end up with androgenic effects that you don't have when only taking the anabolic. On the enzymatic level, you are adding another compound that has to be broken down, so there are different enzymes involved with breaking the whole chain down, but it's not altering the enzymatic reaction to the original anabolic.

    You still seem to believe that alkylating and methylating are one in the same. To your defense, it seems that a lot of people believe that. But that doesn't make it true.

    Like I said before, just saying that it's methylated is saying anything. You already said the only difference is 17-alpha-alkylate, so the only way to change my mind is to admit that you were wrong and that there is also a methylate chain added.

    You really sound like one of those people back in the 1600's that insisted that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. You present them with scientific fact and all they can say is, "well it's true, the sun does revolve around the earth, everyone knows it and the Bible says it".

    I'm not saying that I'm not willing to accept the idea that it's methylated, you just haven't shown anything to back up your claim. You actually disproved yourself by saying that the only change is an 17-aa bond. If you whould have shown me a chemical compound with a methylate chain, we wouldn't be going back and forth with this for so long.
    Yes you seem like you just throw our opinions down the ****ter. If your going to argue with our responses then your just making it so we don't want to help you and making it difficult to learn. Just sit back, ask questions, and listen.

  29. #29
    DBarcelo's Avatar
    DBarcelo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Bronx
    Posts
    1,667
    Quote Originally Posted by daman1
    Yes you seem like you just throw our opinions down the ****ter. If your going to argue with our responses then your just making it so we don't want to help you and making it difficult to learn. Just sit back, ask questions, and listen.

    Thank you. That's pretty much my main point. So far all anyone is doing is giving an opinion and unable to back it up with fact. I only started to get argumentative when people started to attack me saying I'm "apparently no chemist", when I never claimed to be one and when all people have been quoting are people that aren't chemists either. I am also not looking for any help, I'm trying to offer my help. People don't seem to realize the whole situation with suppliment companies and take everything they say to heart. Even the so called experts tend to just take the companies word for it that whatever they say is true. And like I said, I am willing to listen, but I can't take anything that anybody is saying seriously if you can't back it up.

    I can think of an argument that you can use and a person that says that I'm apparently not a chemist should be able to make that argument without my help. But here you go anyway, I'll toss you a bone that you can use as an argument........

    There is a way to alkylate a chemical using an androgen such as Danazol or Stanozolol . In that case, you are only adding a 17-alpha-alkylate to the base chemical structure, but at the same time you are also methylating it (i.e. adding an androgen). In that case the chemical structure should still be represented as "17-alpha-alky-methyl" meaning that there is an addition of an alpha-alkylate in the 17th position which is also a methylate, but you can get away with only showing it as "17-alph-alkylate". The only thing that would leave you with is to prove that M1T uses an androgenic alkylate like Danazol or Stanozolol therefore making it unecessary to have a seperate methyl chain added to the chemical composition. Even in that case, the androgenic effect takes place in the liver and is not effected by the testosterone , but you could at least argue that M1T is really methylated despite the fact that the chemical compound you provided doesn't show a methyl chain.

    I'm apparently not a chemist but I'm able to give you enough info about the chemical compounds to both refute and support your argument. But yet, nobody wants to take my word for it that the basic chemical does not change, I'm supposed to sit back, listen and learn from people that don't know enough about what they're talking about to even give a good argument. I am willing (once again) to accept M1T as actually being methylated if you can actually prove it (I use the word prove loosly because you never can tell what's actually in a suppliment without getting it analyzed).

    So stop attacking me for not just sitting back and agreeing with people because they say it with enough confidence and I'll stop attacking people for not being able to come up with a valid argument to support their opinions.

  30. #30
    MMC78's Avatar
    MMC78 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by DBarcelo
    If you only methylate an anabolic steroid , then you're not changing anything at any androgenic level, you are ADDING an androgen. Methylate is an androgen and there are different types of methylate androgens. Once again, it's not changing the way the anabolic agent is absorbed per se, but because of the androgen, it keeps certain levels in better balance and therefore amplifies the anabolic effect. But I can see how a person would believe it's completely changing the compound because you end up with androgenic effects that you don't have when only taking the anabolic. On the enzymatic level, you are adding another compound that has to be broken down, so there are different enzymes involved with breaking the whole chain down, but it's not altering the enzymatic reaction to the original anabolic.
    I'm not sure which side you're supporting anymore.

    The original enzymatic reaction to the anabolic is altered, for example:
    Dianabol (methandrostenolone ) converts to 17alpha methylestradiol, a more powerful version of estradiol. This is why people experience dbol bloat.

    Show me how equipose can do this. The aromatase enzyme has less affinity for its non 17a structure and therefore dramatically alters its side-effects.

  31. #31
    DBarcelo's Avatar
    DBarcelo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Bronx
    Posts
    1,667
    Quote Originally Posted by MMC78
    I'm not sure which side you're supporting anymore.

    The original enzymatic reaction to the anabolic is altered, for example:
    Dianabol (methandrostenolone ) converts to 17alpha methylestradiol, a more powerful version of estradiol. This is why people experience dbol bloat.

    Show me how equipose can do this. The aromatase enzyme has less affinity for its non 17a structure and therefore dramatically alters its side-effects.
    That's where the confusion is. It's not altering the side effects, it's adding side effects. When you add an androgen to an anabolic, the androgen is going to add side effects that you wouldn't get with just using the androgen, because the androgen isn't there. The alkylate allows more to be available in the body, so you need less to have the same effect. So add an anarobic alkylate and you get more of the anabolic agent into the body and the androgenic chemical amplifies the action of the anabolic by adding an enzymatic reaction that wouldn't be happening if you only had the anabolic in your system.

    The difference in the amount you need is so much less because of the lakylate and the side effects are so different because of the androgen that you get the impression that the whole compound is completely different. After all, you feel like you've taken something else.

    For example, lets look at 1-Testosterone and T-Bomb. The chemical structure for 1-Testosterone is 17-Beta-hydroxy-5-alpha-androst-1-ene-3-one, the chemical structure for T-Bomb is 17-Beta-hydroxy-5-alpha-androst-1-ene-3-one tetrahydropyranyl (ether). There is an entirely new chemical added to the compound. Would you then consider that the entire compound has changed. If you take regular 1-Test and take T-Bomb, you're going to need less T-Bomb to get the same effect. You may even get added side effects from having more 1-test in your system while using T-Bomb. But at the same time, T-Bomb is nothing more than 1-Test, that's the base chemical compound. The tetrahyropyranyl is nothing more than an enteric coating that allowes more of the 1-Test to survive the pass through the stomach acids. So adding something to the 17th carbon molecule like alpha alkylate is the equivalent of adding the enteric coating to T-Bomb. The enteric coating helps to pass the stomach and the alpha-alkylate helps to pass the liver.

    With the methylate, you can think of that kinda like a tracktor trailer. The tractor and the trailer are two different and seperate things, but they are bound together, in this case, it's by the 17th carbon. The tractor doesn't change and the trailor doesn't change, they are just bound together and travel together and without the tractor, the trailer wouldn't be able to move. That part is a bad analogy because you can take an androgenic steroid and an anabolic steroid seperately and get the same results as mixing them together (this is part of the reason for stacking).

    And to answer your question, I'm not supporting any side, I'm just trying to get people to think and not just take people's word for stuff. The one thing I'm not swayed on is the people saying that the compound changes the 1-testosterone itself somehow, to something else. But I'm willing to listen to any intelligent argument.

  32. #32
    BREASTMAN is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    219
    The fact is that when 17-beta-Hydroxy-5alpha-Androst-ene-3-one is made into 17 alpha-methyl-17-beta-Hydroxy-Androst-ene-3-one we have 2 entirely different compounds with different properties. I do not believe that it is simply 1-Test + methyl group, and that it in fact, becomes an entirely unique compound.

  33. #33
    DBarcelo's Avatar
    DBarcelo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Bronx
    Posts
    1,667
    Quote Originally Posted by BREASTMAN
    The fact is that when 17-beta-Hydroxy-5alpha-Androst-ene-3-one is made into 17 alpha-methyl-17-beta-Hydroxy-Androst-ene-3-one we have 2 entirely different compounds with different properties. I do not believe that it is simply 1-Test + methyl group, and that it in fact, becomes an entirely unique compound.

    First off, 17 alpha-methyl-17-beta-Hydroxy-Androst-ene-3-one is not the compound that was stated earlier in the thread and that everyone agreed on earlier in the post.

    With that compound you are saying that its an methylate.

    I'm glad that you wrote that this is what you believe or don't believe. The majority of people hold this same belief. But like I said with the 1-test and T-Bomb, there is another structure added, but it's only there to aid in the effectiveness of the base compound. You can get the exact same results if you take two seperate pills, one being testosterone and the other being an androgen. This is also why they suggest you stack steroids by mixing and matching. This is also why several steroids are no more than a combination of different types of steroids so you don't have to stack several individual steroids. The only thing that's happening with the two compounds in laymens terms is there is a methyl group being attached to 17th carbon of the base compound which in this case is 1-Testosterone. If you removed the 17 from the compound, then you would have an entirely different thing all together. That would mean the entire compound is fused with an androgen (though it's imposible to do from what I remember of chemistry, and even if you were able to do that, the entire compound would be stuck in the liver and would never make it into the blood stream). By having the 17 in there means it's just pigybacking on the testosterone and able to be broken off so that the methyl stays in the liver and the testosterone can enter the blood.

  34. #34
    MMC78's Avatar
    MMC78 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,040
    TBomb has no such structure attached to it. They just coat the capsule to prevent breakdown in the stomach. They're not altering the molecule.

    Furthermore, the 17 doesn't have to be broken off in the first step through the liver (see my earlier post). The compound can be converted via other enzymatic actions resulting in 17aa molecules completely different from 1-test.

  35. #35
    DBarcelo's Avatar
    DBarcelo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Bronx
    Posts
    1,667
    Quote Originally Posted by MMC78
    TBomb has no such structure attached to it. They just coat the capsule to prevent breakdown in the stomach. They're not altering the molecule.

    Furthermore, the 17 doesn't have to be broken off in the first step through the liver (see my earlier post). The compound can be converted via other enzymatic actions resulting in 17aa molecules completely different from 1-test.
    I pulled that compound info off of a bottle of T-Bomb I have, so it does have that compound unless you are arguing that it's not really in there. And like I said, all that coating does is to allow it to pass the stomach acids.

    I also already said that the person that wrote that info you're using is incorrect on several things. If they are saying that it's not only broken down on the first pass of the liver then that's another thing that's wrong. The whole purpose is so the base compound can make the first pass of the liver and so the liver enzymes can act on the androgen.

    There is no enzymic change that can be done to turn it into a 17-aa molecule, the alpha-alkylate is added to aid in surviving the liver.

    I know I'm no chemist, so I'll just call this micro-biology, but I'll keep it as simple as possible.......

    There are two main binding sites that we look at when dealing with 17-alpha-alkylate, actually one site with a sub-site. Dexamethasone binding sites, inside of which are low affinity glucocorticoid-binding sites. 17-aa is an inhibitor of dexamethasone binding to the liver. 17-aa decreases the number of dexamethasone binding sites, increases the dissociation rate of dexamethasone from the low affinity glucocorticoid-binding sites, and causes an inactivation of the dexamethasone binding site. Low affinity glucocorticoid-binding sites are a steroid -binding entity that is able to distinguish between natural androgens and 17 alpha-alkylated testosterone derivatives used as anabolic agents. Because of this, 17-alph-methylation slows aromatization, but has no effect on the testosterone binding site (we know this because there are very specific effects on the liver that are not present when only testosterone is present). Because the methylate is basically cought in the liver and it's androgenic effects are seen because of the enzyme reaction in the liver and liver toxicity increases because of the excess enyme activity in the liver, but yet, there's no change to the testosterone binding sites. i.e. the compound is seperated from the base compound in the liver.

  36. #36
    BREASTMAN is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by DBarcelo
    First off, 17 alpha-methyl-17-beta-Hydroxy-Androst-ene-3-one is not the compound that was stated earlier in the thread and that everyone agreed on earlier in the post.

    With that compound you are saying that its an methylate.

    I'm glad that you wrote that this is what you believe or don't believe. The majority of people hold this same belief. But like I said with the 1-test and T-Bomb, there is another structure added, but it's only there to aid in the effectiveness of the base compound. You can get the exact same results if you take two seperate pills, one being testosterone and the other being an androgen. This is also why they suggest you stack steroids by mixing and matching. This is also why several steroids are no more than a combination of different types of steroids so you don't have to stack several individual steroids. The only thing that's happening with the two compounds in laymens terms is there is a methyl group being attached to 17th carbon of the base compound which in this case is 1-Testosterone. If you removed the 17 from the compound, then you would have an entirely different thing all together. That would mean the entire compound is fused with an androgen (though it's imposible to do from what I remember of chemistry, and even if you were able to do that, the entire compound would be stuck in the liver and would never make it into the blood stream). By having the 17 in there means it's just pigybacking on the testosterone and able to be broken off so that the methyl stays in the liver and the testosterone can enter the blood.
    The compound I wrote about is what a company called VPX uses for their
    M 1-T product. From what I understand, when a methyl group is added to a compound such as 1-Test or 4-AD it no longer has ANYTHING in common with the original compound. They become as different as Dbol and Equipoise . By methylating 1-Test we do not simply have a "super 1-Test" but an entirely different steroidal molecule.

    This is a great discussion by the way.

  37. #37
    MMC78's Avatar
    MMC78 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by DBarcelo
    I also already said that the person that wrote that info you're using is incorrect on several things. If they are saying that it's not only broken down on the first pass of the liver then that's another thing that's wrong. The whole purpose is so the base compound can make the first pass of the liver and so the liver enzymes can act on the androgen.

    There is no enzymic change that can be done to turn it into a 17-aa molecule, the alpha-alkylate is added to aid in surviving the liver.
    I'm not sure what you're arguing here.
    Let's get back to the main point and compare 2 analogous supplements. Take methytestosterone and test suspension (pure testosterone ) as an example.

    Methytestosterone -> 5-ar -> Methy-DHT
    Testoserone -> 5-ar -> DHT

    Milligram per milligram Methyl-DHT is much more androgenic that regular DHT. Therefore these two compounds, differing only in methylation can have dramatically different effects on the body.

  38. #38
    DBarcelo's Avatar
    DBarcelo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Bronx
    Posts
    1,667
    Quote Originally Posted by MMC78
    I'm not sure what you're arguing here.
    Let's get back to the main point and compare 2 analogous supplements. Take methytestosterone and test suspension (pure testosterone ) as an example.

    Methytestosterone -> 5-ar -> Methy-DHT
    Testoserone -> 5-ar -> DHT

    Milligram per milligram Methyl-DHT is much more androgenic that regular DHT. Therefore these two compounds, differing only in methylation can have dramatically different effects on the body.
    Yes, like I said before, methylating something is adding an androgen to it, so it will therfore be much more androgenic . But that doesn't mean that the base compound has changed. Just look at everything you've used to try to prove your point.... DHT aposed to Methyl-DHT, DHT is still the base compound and you're still going to have the same DHT properties with the added androgenic properties. testosterone and methyltestosterone . Testosterone is the the base compound and you're still going to have the same testosterone properties with the androgenic properties of the methylate. 1-Testosterone and Methyl 1-Testosterone, 1-Testosterone is the base compound and remains unchanged. If it were completely different, wouldn't someone have thought to just drop the name of the base compound so as to eliminate confusion? Do you think maybe the base compound has always been left in the name with the addition of the word METHYL so you know you're getting this base compound (whatever it may be) along with a methyl androgen?

    As far as what breastman said, this is what I'm trying to dispell, this whole myth that people have about the entire compound being completely different when it's methylated. The body treats each part seperately, the methyl group is handled one way by one part of the body and the base compound is handled differently by another part of the body, but I do agree that the overall result can be much different.

  39. #39
    BREASTMAN is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by DBarcelo
    Yes, like I said before, methylating something is adding an androgen to it, so it will therfore be much more androgenic . But that doesn't mean that the base compound has changed. Just look at everything you've used to try to prove your point.... DHT aposed to Methyl-DHT, DHT is still the base compound and you're still going to have the same DHT properties with the added androgenic properties. testosterone and methyltestosterone . Testosterone is the the base compound and you're still going to have the same testosterone properties with the androgenic properties of the methylate. 1-Testosterone and Methyl 1-Testosterone, 1-Testosterone is the base compound and remains unchanged. If it were completely different, wouldn't someone have thought to just drop the name of the base compound so as to eliminate confusion? Do you think maybe the base compound has always been left in the name with the addition of the word METHYL so you know you're getting this base compound (whatever it may be) along with a methyl androgen?

    As far as what breastman said, this is what I'm trying to dispell, this whole myth that people have about the entire compound being completely different when it's methylated. The body treats each part seperately, the methyl group is handled one way by one part of the body and the base compound is handled differently by another part of the body, but I do agree that the overall result can be much different.
    This whole argument is semantics really. But one point is clear...when you methylate a compound you change its activity and properties in the body. But still, you ARE methylating a base compound, eg, 1-Test. Now, once the base compound is methylated it "acts" like an entirely different steroid within the body. So, instead of calling methylated 1-testosterone, M 1-T, we should just give it a new an unique name like Masanabol or something.

  40. #40
    DBarcelo's Avatar
    DBarcelo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Bronx
    Posts
    1,667
    Like you said, it "acts" differently because you are adding something different to it. If it were actually a different substance all together, then it would have a different name all together, but since you're only adding another compound to the base compound, the name remanes the same with the "Methyl" added to it. They know exactly what they're doing when they name these things (the scientific name), but you would think they SHOULD name it something else because people want to believe so badly that they are completely different agents. But, THE BASE, BASE, BASE, BASE (I can't say it enough), THE BASE COMPOUND REMAINS THE SAME, UNCHANGED, UNEFFECTED.

    You're not changing the activity of the base compound, you are adding another activity. If you add salt to water, is it no longer water?? It does change the properties by lowering the temperature it takes to freeze it and lowers the temperature it takes to boil it, but it's still water and that has more of an effect than just methylating an anabolic steroid .

    It is pretty much just symantics, but this board is about learning thing and I do let a lot of things pass, but having people think something that's as wrong as this is, is just too much. People seem to misinterpret what people have written about. From the few articles that I have read, the people that really know what they're talking about all say that it makes it "SEEM" as though it's a completely different drug alltogether. I haven't seen anyone (credible) say it "DOES" become a different drug alltogether.

    The thing people seem to miss is that adding an androgen is going to give androgenic effects. I don't know why that's so hard to understand, but it seems to be. If you stack steroids and take an anabolic with an androgen, do people think they mix in the body and become a different agent alltogether, or do people realize that it's two seperate drugs giving two seperate effects? If you take creatine suppliment that's mixed with glutamine, do people think that they're taking some new suppliment or do people realize it's two different things with two different effects? At what point does that line get blured in understanding that two different things can be chemically bound together and yet still be seperate and individual entities? I already showed how the body seperates each compound and breaks it down individually within the liver. The liver traps one and allowes the other to pass.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •