M1T.....or the real D-

[DBarcelo]

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.

[BREASTMAN]

This is not my true area of expertise...training, nutrition, and supplementation is. That said, I cannot argue up to the ability that I would like to here, but I know people that would contend that you are wrong.

While you like to explain it this way...

methyl group + 1-test = nothing more than methyl group + 1-test (analagous to creatine + glutamine = nothing more than creatine + glutamine)

They would explain...

methyl group + 1-test = brand new compound (analagous to mixing blue paint and yellow paint = green paint, not just blue + yellow...mix the two and get a brand new color).

[DBarcelo]

methyl group + 1-test = nothing more than methyl group + 1-test (analagous to creatine + glutamine = nothing more than creatine + glutamine)

They would explain...

methyl group + 1-test = brand new compound (analagous to mixing blue paint and yellow paint = green paint, not just blue + yellow...mix the two and get a brand new color).

I agree that the creatine/glutamine mix isn't a good analogy (I thought I wrote that it wasn't a good analogy), it was just meant to simplify it. In reality, the analogy of water + salt is much better. If you mix salt into water does the water stop being water and lose all of it's water qualities? They are chemically bound together, it does effect the temperature it takes to freeze and boil, your body responds to both completely differently and the compounds would be represented differently, but most people would accept that the water is still water and the salt is still salt. It's not that it's some kind of new compound that makes the salt water raise your bloodpreasure. It's not that it's some new compound that causes the salt water to dehydrate you, while the regular water would hydrate you. It's the fact that salt is in your body period, either by itself or mixed with water, salt has the same effect on the body. Just like while either by itself or mixed with an anabolic, an androgen is going to have the same effect on the body.

[BREASTMAN]

I agree that the creatine/glutamine mix isn't a good analogy (I thought I wrote that it wasn't a good analogy), it was just meant to simplify it. In reality, the analogy of water + salt is much better. If you mix salt into water does the water stop being water and lose all of it's water qualities? They are chemically bound together, it does effect the temperature it takes to freeze and boil, your body responds to both completely differently and the compounds would be represented differently, but most people would accept that the water is still water and the salt is still salt. It's not that it's some kind of new compound that makes the salt water raise your bloodpreasure. It's not that it's some new compound that causes the salt water to dehydrate you, while the regular water would hydrate you. It's the fact that salt is in your body period, either by itself or mixed with water, salt has the same effect on the body. Just like while either by itself or mixed with an anabolic, an androgen is going to have the same effect on the body.

Well, I quit. You are convinced you are right and I'm not sure that even a PHD in biochemistry could change your mind. I know you will say that you have not heard good enough arguments to change your mind, but in truth, with the "way" you are presenting your case, there is no way you could be wrong...even if in reality, you are.

Its all good!

[RP7]

I think you guys should just have a brench-pressing competition to see whos right.

[DBarcelo]

Well, if a chemist were to tell me that it really does change the basic compound, then I'd be willing to listen because I'm sure they'd be able to give a more convincing argument. But when I was in medical school they were chemists that tought micro biology and chemistry and those are the people I have my background info from, so I doubt a chemist would say that it changes the basic compound.

To Cyto, check out the anabolics forum to get a better idea about that stuff. I did a pretty good thread a couple months ago about the different types of estrogen receptors and what to take to offset each one. I've already been the cause of this thread concentrating on another topic, so I'm not to veer off into another subject.

[DBarcelo]

the first part of what you wrote is true depending on what the base compound is. Testosterone for example has it's own receptors and doesn't need the aid of anything to be recognized by those receptors.

The second part of what you wrote is basically correct, but it has been proven that the effects are reversible. There is a gathering of enzymes in the liver while you're taking the 17-aa or 17-am androgen, but it disipates on its own. Because the liver is the way it is (regenerative abilities), the enzymes effects aren't like enzyme effects on the lunges. When you look at the lunges of a healthy adult that lived in the city, you see black spots all over the lunges from the enzyme action of removing the contaminents. That's not even that good of an analogy, because if you take that same person and allow them to live in the country for 5-10 years, the enzymes will slowly disipate. The action is just a lot quicker in the liver. You can cut out a part of the liver and it will regenerate, so the effects on the liver are not permanent. And large doses are relative. The way that people talk about the toxicity just makes it seem a lot worse than what it is. I'm not saying it's okay to go out and take large doses of chemicals with 17-aa or 17-am, but unless you have an underlying liver problem, it's not going to kill you to take even relatively large doses over a short period of time.

[MMC78]

http://forum.avantlabs.com/?act=ST&f=12&t=8278&

[DBarcelo]

I don't know what the purpose is of showing another message board. But based on what one of the people said, I will say that the compound will act differently because the entire compound is different, however the base compound does not change. I will say once again, if you add an androgen to an anabolic, you're going to get androgenic effects. If you add an androgen to a non-steroid, you're going to get androgenic effects. If you take the androgen by itself, you're going to get androgenic effects. Why this is so unbelievable, I don't understand.

[MMC78]

I will say that the compound will act differently because the entire compound is different, however the base compound does not change.

Fine, this is correct we are in agreement and I never said anything in contrast to this statement.

BTW Is english your first language?

[DBarcelo]

Here are a few quick parts from what I've been writing for the past half a month, I've been making the same point for the entire time and just trying to word it differently so people would understand what I was saying.

"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."

"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."

"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."

And I only speak english. I was actually wondering if some people here understood english well at some times. But anyway, that has always (atleast after someone finally proved that there was actually methyl in M1T) been what I was trying to say. Read some of my old posts through and check it out. I only re-worded it over and over again. The entire compound is changed because you've added something to the original compound, but the base compound goes unchaged and the body breaks each one down individually.

[MMC78]

If methylating a compound makes it more androgenic, then why do the A/A ratios of m1t, winny, and dbol show a lower androgenic component compared with say testosterone?

[DBarcelo]

depends on where you got your info from and what exactly they were talking about. When you normally talk about testosterone you talk about anabolic effects not androgenic effects. There is a resulting androgenic effect from testosterone, but some people say that testosterone IS an androgen when it's really an anabolic.

Basically, you have to make sure they were talking about androgenic compound or androgenic effect (it seems like they would be the same principal but they have nothing to do with eachother).

[MMC78]

What I'm talking about are adrogenic effects. Testosterone is not a pure anabolic as it does convert to DHT which binds with strong affinity to androgen receptors.

Furthemore DHT is actually highly anabolic, if it can make it into muscle tissue without being deactivated by enzymes. This is why DHT-derrived steriods require such low doses.

[DBarcelo]

In that case, what you said isn't correct, the compound is going to have a higher androgenic effect, but it's a very mild androgen. I'm a little too busy right now to go into it, but I think it's pretty well explained in the other posts in this thread.

[Kropsy]

To awsner Cytos questions is decent. Ive taken it before, i used the kinda that was 9.99, same compound thats in the 40 dollar bottles, just 5 mg instead of 10. Put on about 6 lbs in two weeks. Kept most of it, but not a noticeable increase in strenght. If i was you, save your money and stick to the real gear.

[K-pac]

Can ya'll tudor me