How bad are pro-hormones?

[Mike Arnold]

I've seen power lifters jacked on sdrol drop like a tree after a set of deadlifts. Many other times needing to sit down for a few moments b/c of nausea and dizziness... but they probably had the "bad" superdrol? I don't know what that means. Some androgenically inert substance created in production made you sick? The molecule itself wasn't methyldrostanolone?
Many SD poducts have been tested and were found to contain improperly compounded SD. Many of these productds made people sick--me included.

On the other hand, I've seen people need to sit down for a minute or nearly pass out not having taken a designer steroid/prohormone at all.
Exactly. It is doifficult to blame someone passing out after a set of deadlifts on SD..or any drug for that matter, especially when plenty of poeple have passed out without any drugs. "Passing out" is not a side effect of any steroid.

Prohormones more likely have a bad rep because those early steroids from the 50's and 60's WERE shelved precisely because the toxicity was so high.
100% completely WRONG! It is this belief which has led so many people to form an improper opinion of "designer" steroids. I copy & pasted my own article below. It is fairly long, but addresses this issue perfectly. The reality is that onlya tiny-teeny portion of steroids from that era were shelved because of toxicity.

Come 2000 and many companies looking to OTC a drug were looking through books just like Vida's and Kochackian’s and scouring the science sections of university libraries looking for relatively unknown and certainly unscheduled drugs previously synthesized that they could sell behind the counter and/or also use to sneak by drug tests. These were steroids that could be manufactured with little or no FDA oversight at all.
Correct--because the FDA didn't think--way back then--that any supp companies would ever be trying to sell these drugs legally.

I agree that probably not all so-called designer steroids/prohormones are more toxic than previously prescribed AAS but I would venture to say most of them are
Nope---not even close.-

often the reason they were never put into mass production in the first place.
No.

Lumping them all together with drugs put into production by companies like Syntex and Ciba pharmaceuticals is bad info.
See article.

Steroids are not all just one big bushel of apples. There are apples and there are also oranges.

Mike Arnold confronts Industry Expert


By: Mike Arnold​

Instead of giving you guys to usual spiel about some new drug or how to use them I decided to do something a bit different this time around, the idea for which came to me during a conversation with another member of the online bodybuilding community. In the midst of our back and forth banter, it eventually became evident that I was dealing with someone who had been misled regarding the true place of non-traditional (non-script) AAS within a steroid user’s program. As the conversation progressed, he revealed that most of the information he was sharing had been provided by another well known writer within the industry.

After confirming the legitimacy of this claim through a video that had been posted on YouTube, my initial reaction was one of surprise, as I did not expect an individual with this degree of experience to have such little insight into a topic he had elected to teach on. However, my surprise quickly turned to disappointment as I was once again forced to come to grips with the fact that not everything we read or hear can be relied on, even when coming from supposed “experts”. While this realization came early for many of us, to see these kinds of inaccuracies come from those who are held up as the cream of the crop…well, it tends to bother me a little bit more. After all, if we can’t trust those who write for the top-level magazines, who can we trust?

Fortunately, there are plenty of brilliant men who have done a great service for the bodybuilding community over the years. However, those newcomers who are still struggling to discern truth from error may find their pursuit of knowledge made all the more difficult when they can’t even depend on the higher-ups for accurate information. It is with this in mind that I decided to address some of the comments made by this individual (who will remain anonymous out of respect for him. Hey, we all make mistakes at some point, so a little forgiveness is in order), as it deals with the designer steroid/prohormone industry; a subject that I have taken a great deal of interest in over the last 15 years.

In the text that follows you will find my initial reaction to this video, followed by a series of comments from Mr. Anonymous and my subsequent responses. In order for the reader to get a feeling for how this conversation progressed, my responses appear as they were originally provided.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….



Wow! So much inaccurate information in this video, but frankly, it doesn't surprise me. Allow me to begin by saying that prior to this post, I knew who Mr. Anonymous was, but could not bring to remembrance anything he had written; largely because I don't read the magazine he writes for. My point in saying this is so that you understand I have no bias for or against Mr. Anonymous in anyway. I am also aware he is an educated man on various topics within the industry, but this subject does not appear to be one of his strong suites, as the video clearly demonstrates a limited degree of knowledge regarding not only the actual compounds contained in Vida's book, but of the OTC drugs which have been released onto the market from 2004-until the present (Note: 2004 marks the date the first methyl was released onto the OTC market). Below are my responses to certain comments made within the video.



False Statement #1: All non-prescription steroids listed in Julius Vida’s book Anabolic and Androgenic Agents (from which the majority of today’s OTC orals are derived), were never considered for production due to excessive hepatoxicity and/or ineffectiveness.

My Response: I got a big hearty chuckle out of that one, but before we move onto the evidence, let’s apply a little common sense. As Mr. Anonymous stated in the video, there were 100’s, if not 1,000’s of AAS developed from the 1940's-1960's. However, only a small percentage of these drugs ever went on to be tested for hepatoxicity in humans. This fact alone invalidates his claim, as it is impossible to know with a high degree of certainty just how toxic a drug is without actual testing. It is also worth notng that with such a large number of AAS developed during this time, it would be exceedingly unlikely for only a few dozen of them (a rough estimate of the number of ASS which went onto be sold as prescription drugs in the U.S.) to be suitable for human use from a toxicity standpoint.

The truth is that toxicity had very little to do with why the vast majority of these drugs were rejected as viable candidates for prescription status. Rather, the majority were discarded simply because they did not display characteristics deemed advantageous for the treatment of specific medical conditions, which was the primary reason for the development of AAS in the first place.

For example, if researchers (employees of pharmaceutical companies) were looking for a drug which could be used in women and children, one of the most pressing concerns would be the drug’s androgenic potency, as strong androgens are likely to lead to the development of male secondary sex characteristics; a side effect which would have been considered unacceptable given the target population. Right off the bat, this single prerequisite disqualifies the vast majority of AAS from consideration.

As another example, if researchers were looking for a drug to treat those afflicted with anemia, the steroid would need to exhibit above average proficiency at increasing RBC count, while simultaneously displaying a relatively weak androgenic component, in order to cut down on the severity of androgenic side effects in female patients. Or, if they were searching for a drug which could be used to treat short-stature children, one of the first priorities would be making sure the steroid does not aromatize, as estrogen is the hormone responsible for sealing the epiphyseal growth plates.

While I may have provided a few basic reasons as to why certain steroids were chosen and others rejected, the process was much more elaborate than this, with virtually dozens of potential factors evaluated, until the researchers were reasonably confident that the drug they selected possessed characteristics best suited for the treatment of a specific condition in a predetermined population.

It is an undeniable fact that many of the non-script AAS listed in Vida’s book are no more toxic than many prescription AAS, with a great deal being significantly less toxic, especially when compared to drugs such as Halotestin, Anadrol, and Myagen (all script drugs). At the same time, there are also quite a few which display greater toxicity. The point here is that the classifying the entire category of non-script AAS as too toxic for human use is not only wrong, but irresponsible, as the non-script drugs listed in Vida’s book are not necessarily any more or less toxic than prescription AAS.
I could provide dozens of examples right off the top of my head--and anyone who is familiar with the gamut of steroids in Vida’s book will readily attest to this fact. My guess is that Mr. Anonymous became aware of the few OTC steroids (ex. SD, M1T) which were more toxic than the average prescription AAS and automatically assumed that every steroid sold on the OTC market fit this same criteria. Had Mr. Anonymous possessed a deeper knowledge of the drugs within that book, as well as the more recently developed designer steroids, he would never have made such a ridiculous blanket statement.

Let's move onto the 2nd half of his comment, in which he brings up the effectiveness of non-script drugs. More specifically, Mr. Anonymous states that non-script AAS are "no more effective than currently existing prescription AAS". To that I say define the term “more effective". More effective for what? Building muscle? Increasing strength? For getting hard & dry? For increasing aggression? For burning fat? Also, what steroids are being compared? By failing to use the term “more effective” within a defined context, any comparison between these 2 categories of AAS is made impossible. Therefore, I am not going to spend much time on this statement other than to say that this term can only be accurately applied when referring specifically to the treatment of certain medical conditions, NOT the goals of a bodybuilder.

Many of the AAS listed in Vida’s book demonstrate increased myotropic potency (muscle growth) over prescription AAS, as concluded by pharmaceutical/government researchers and as proven by verifiable documentation. In many cases, these researchers even went so far as to directly compare the myotropic potency of common prescription AAS (testosterone, oxymetholone, methandrostenolone, stanozolol, methyltestosterone, etc) against many AAS which would later go on to be sold as OTC steroids, including 1-alpha, desoxymethyltestosterone (Pheraplex), methasterone (SD), methylstenbolone, M1T, and dimethazine...and guess what? Every single one of these OTC steroids exceeded the myotropic (muscle building) potency of all the prescription AAS listed above--many of which are considered "heavy hitters" in the world of script-AAS. That's right, when compared on a mg per mg basis, even the most powerful traditional, prescription muscle builders fell short of the muscle building potency of every single OTC listed here. These are not my words--they are the results of well-controlled university studies conducted specifically to find out which steroids built the most muscle!

Dimethazine (which is 2 SD molecules attached together), in one particular study, was compared directly against oxymetholone, test prop, methyltestosterone, and stanozolol on a mg per mg basis (oxymetholone & testosterone are arguably the most potent mass-building oral and injectable prescription AAS) and Dimethazine crushed them all! So, if I can list a handful of steroids just from the OTC market that surpass the muscle building strength of even the strongest script drugs, how many other non-script steroids do you think also surpass the myotropic potency of traditional prescription AAS? How many do you think equal prescription AAS? Let me put in this way--a hell of a lot.

Besides, muscle building potency is not the sole concern of a bodybuilder. Pre-contest bodybuilders need to concern themselves with things such as muscle hardness, dryness, and density, while strength athletes are typically more concerned with strength and power. In conclusion, when Mr. Anonymous says that non-script drugs were discarded for no other reason than toxicity and/or lack of effectiveness, he is making a false statement on a grand level.




False Statement #2: Mr. Anonymous then presents us with a supposed list (which he doesn't show us) of non-script/OTC AAS that have resulted in liver inflammation/liver failure, inferring that these test results indicate a greater degree of hepatoxicity in comparison to prescription steroids.

My Response: Firstly, all methyls, including script AAS, can and frequently do cause liver inflammation. In fact, most modern day steroid users, especially with the dosages used today, experience some degree of liver inflammation with every cycle they run. This is a natural consequence of methylated steroid use.

When reviewing the lab work of individuals who have run prescription orals, it often reveals a dramatic elevation in liver enzymes/inflammation—in many cases greater than what users of OTC steroid experience. Some of the most extreme elevations actually took place under a doctor’s care, with numerous anemics being prescribed 200+ mg of Anadrol daily for several months consecutively. If you doubt this, look up some of the old reports of anemic patients who were prescribed up to 300 mg of Anadrol daily! That is something even the large majority of BB'rs won't do.

Every methyl causes liver stress to varying degrees. Show me a single man on a cycle of Dianabol or Anadrol who doesn't have elevated liver enzymes/inflammation and I will show you either fake lab work or a BB'r who is loaded up on liver protectants (why do you think there are so many liver supplements on the market these days?) The main point here is that it is misleading to imply that liver inflammation indicates above average hepatoxicity, which is exactly what Mr. Anonymous did here.

The liver is a self-rejuvenating organ designed to break down toxic chemicals, which is why the government has no issues legalizing things like liver toxic prescription and OTC medications, as well as recreational substances like alcohol. Many of these things are much more toxic than AAS. Even something as basic as Tylenol exhibits significant toxicity, with doses even 10% over the maximum recommended daily limit capable of causing liver death. More people die from Tylenol induced liver failure each year than all the steroids users who have died from liver failure in history (Wiki claims that the number of yearly deaths attributable to Tylenol overdose, in the U.S. alone, averages 150). Keep in mind this comparison includes the deaths of script and non-script/OTC steroids combined.

Let's post a few other neat facts for you. Mr. Anonymous mentions that one OTC steroid user died from liver failure; a guy who used SD. He also points out that the man claims to have used the recommended dose. Let me re-emphasize the number "One", as in one individual. Compare that to the number of people who have died from the same cause when using prescription orals and it doesn't even come close.

In addition, any review of the few documented cases involving liver injury from SD will often reveal the presence of other significant ricks factors, all of which could have easily, and likely, played a substantial role in the development of their condition. Many of these individuals were highly ignorant regarding the potential dangers of methylated drugs and therefore demonstrated extreme irresponsibility in regards to their health. While some of these men did indeed stick within the recommended dosing range (most did not), they often ran the product for longer than recommended, while also engaging in regular, heavy drinking. Even worse is that some of these same people were simultaneously running 2-3 other OTC methyls along with it (meaning their methyl dose was 3-4X above the normal limit), and some were popping liver-stressing NSAIDS like candy, as well. But of course, it was the SD’s fault. Never mind the 10,000’s of responsible users who never experienced any problems.




False Statement #3: Instead of using SD, just use Masteron, as Masteron is a clean version of SD.

My Response: So, Mr. Anonymous believes Masteron as "clean" version of SD? Come on. The two drugs are nothing alike. Clearly, Mr. Anonymous lacks even a basic understanding of steroid biochemistry, as even small molecular changes to a steroid, such as methylation, results in the creation of a completely different compound. Using this guy’s logic, we should start calling boldenone (EQ) a clean version of Dianabol. After all, Dianabol is simply methylated EQ in the same way that SD is methylated Masteron. I guess that also means we should we call testosterone a clean version of Bolasterone, being that Bolasterone is nothing but di-methylated testosterone? Actually, to back track a little bit, SD is actually di-methylated masteron, which means Dianabol is closer in chemical structure to boldenone than SD is to Masteron.

As expected, anytime we create a new compound, its effects will differ from that of the parent hormone, often times drastically. A great example is SD and Masteron. Aside from a few similarities, these drugs couldn’t be farther apart in terms of effects, yet we have Mr. Anonymous leading people to believe that they can just use the “clean version of SD” and get the same positive effects without the negative side effects. I don’t think I need to go any further with this one.




Closing: Although I chose to focus on just a few of the errors contained in Mr. Anonymous’s video interview, these points comprised the bulk of it. Still, there were at least 3-4 other inaccurate pieces of information provided in that video, making nearly the entire production a waste of time. It was brutally apparent that the individual had not only failed to dig deep enough into the research/clinical side of things, but that he lacked any real-world experience or connection with the athletes who use these drugs. If he had taken the time to properly prepare, he would have found plenty of reliable information to present to the public.

 

[Mike Arnold]

Thanks for educating me buddy. I knew absolutely nothing about most of what you wrote about because I never cared to learn anything about pHs.
No problem. I appreciate all your contributions, as I appreciate the contribitions of anyone who demonstrates intelligence, common sense, and a positive attitude.


No matter what though, I would still tell people to stay away

There's a reason no BB's use this stuff.
Actually, brother--lots do.

On the contrary, as OuchThatHurts said, I know PL'ers use Sdrol. I've seen PL do some crazy oral stacks that scare me. For example: 200 Anadrol ED,10mg SD, and some halotestin prework.
For many people, SD is the best strength drug they have ever used.

......

 

[Mike Arnold]

Ummm, because I still don't know of a single IFBB pro bodybuilder that is up there in the rankings using pro hormones. Find me one that's worth something and let me know bro. I'm open to seeing it if its true lol.

A know a couple that do. I alos know another one that prepped on SD recently--used it the last 2 weeks of prep for muscle fullnes. Of course, won't mention any names, as it would violate the person's trust. I know many national level competitors that do.

Also, keep in mind that just like guys here, not all pros are as educated as you might think. I would say just as many pros are educated on designer AAS as non-pros are. It just depends on who you are talking to.

Steroids are steroids. Each one has characteristics which make it better for one purpose or another. Unfortunately, many people are still stuck in the belief that unless a drug was made into a prescription (if you have time, read my article above), that there was something wrong with it in terms of toxicity and/or effectiveness, but this is just not the case. There are lots and lots of steroids which are of great use to BB'rs, but even to this day, many have never been produced.

Also, keep in mind that there is a difference between PH's and designer steroids. Drugs such as SD, M-sten, Epistane, and DMZ are designer steroids--they are fully active in their original state, requiring no conversion. They are simply classified as anabolic-androgenic steroids. Prohormones are drugs which require conversion in order to become active. Generally, they are weaker than active steroids, due to limitations in conversion rate. Most of what is sold today--and has been the last 10 years--are fully active steroids.

 

[machomadness22]

I appreciate all the responses

 

[nothuman]

I took Superdrol a few years ago and it destroyed my bloodwork in just 3 weeks. Also gave me the only bloody nose I ever had in my life. The results are superior to illegal orals like dbol but far worse for your health

 

[TrinityD]

......

I agree with you... Superdrol and Halotestin are the best drugs for putting on strength. Pretty much every serious PL I know will begin cycling one or both when it's time for competition. There is no question about SD's potency.

 

[heavydeadlifts]

You guys might not want to believe me but Halodrol at 125mg a day for 6 weeks has been better than any oral illegal steroid or designer steroid Ive ever tried...and yes better than SD, phera, anavar, anadrol, dbol, winny, etc.::

It is like a super potent anavar/winny hybrid that brings the hardening/vascularity of tren without the sleep issues

(I am using injectable methyl-tren right now that blows everything out of the water though....)

 

[machomadness22]

You guys might not want to believe me but Halodrol at 125mg a day for 6 weeks has been better than any oral illegal steroid or designer steroid Ive ever tried...and yes better than SD, phera, anavar, anadrol, dbol, winny, etc.::

It is like a super potent anavar/winny hybrid that brings the hardening/vascularity of tren without the sleep issues

(I am using injectable methyl-tren right now that blows everything out of the water though....)

So you self dose that? Because isn't a normal cycle of halo 75mg a day?

 

[heavydeadlifts]

So you self dose that? Because isn't a normal cycle of halo 75mg a day?

A good dose is 100mg/day...125mg a day would be on the heavier side but I have seen people run it at 150/day and higher

 

[OuchThatHurts]

Going back to SD for a second. SD really isn't that bad. Literally 1,000's of guys online have used it and felt completely fine. A big part of the reason some guys felt like shit is because a LOT of companies were selling poorly synthesized, or "dirty" SD. I have run over 30 SD cycles utilizing over a dozen different brands. There was a BIG difference between the original SD (and a few others) and some of the shit products put out by certain supp companies. I felt completely fine using some brands of SD...and absolutely horrible when using others. They were so different that they could not have been the same drug.

Right. I forgot about this too. Another reason safety with PH's should be carefully weighed. A dozen different brands and you never know what the hell you're going to get.

 

[machomadness22]

Right. I forgot about this too. Another reason safety with PH's should be carefully weighed. A dozen different brands and you never know what the hell you're going to get.

What do you think about ironmags? Im weighing the risk here it doesn't seem worth it to me to take. I mean I'm not taking SD or M1T or anything to crazy but still, just curious

 

[OuchThatHurts]

What do you think about ironmags? Im weighing the risk here it doesn't seem worth it to me to take. I mean I'm not taking SD or M1T or anything to crazy but still, just curious

I don't know. Never used them. Only ever did Pheraplex a loooong time ago. There are people in this thread that could probably steer you much better than I could on these. You can tell I'm personally not a fan. I don't "experiment" with much at all. If I don't know it, I don't touch it.

 

[Mike Arnold]

Right. I forgot about this too. Another reason safety with PH's should be carefully weighed. A dozen different brands and you never know what the hell you're going to get.

Well, yes and no. Your comment "PH's should be carefully weighed. A dozen different brands and you never know what the hell you're going to get" is only accurate when referring to designers which ahev not been subjected to stringent lab testing.

In my opinion, designers should only be purchased by those companies which do lab testing at accredited facilities and make GMP-approved products. This way, the user is 100% sure he is getting exactly what the label says and only what the label says.

So long as a designer steroid is tested for purity & potency, they are FAR more reliable than blackmarket steroids. In fact, the designer steroid industry is the ONLY outlet for purchasing GMP-approved steroids of similar quality to pharmacy-grade steroids. There are plenty of supp companies out there which can make this claim, but NO UGL's can.

Technically, this makes designer steroids much more reliable than blackmarket steroids. Blackmarket AAS are frequently under-dosed, mislabeled, unsterile, polluted, and often times total bunk. Your comment, "a dozen different brands and you never know what the hell you're going to get" truly applies in this instance.

 

[Mike Arnold]

What do you think about ironmags? Im weighing the risk here it doesn't seem worth it to me to take. I mean I'm not taking SD or M1T or anything to crazy but still, just curious

IronMag Labs? they lab test all their stuff--everything is GMP-produced. You get exactly what the label says. They are FAR more reliable than blackmarket steroids....and many designers are no more liver toxic than script orals.

Let's put it this way, I have acces to anything I want---and rarely do I pay for anything (it's been years), yet there are some designers I use consistently. In fact, my favorite orals of all time are all designers--my top 3.

I have also gotten labwork many times while using these products and my labs were never far out of range, but I always use cycle support as well. Sometimes my labs weren't out of range at all.

 

[OuchThatHurts]

Well, yes and no. Your comment "PH's should be carefully weighed. A dozen different brands and you never know what the hell you're going to get" is only accurate when referring to designers which ahev not been subjected to stringent lab testing.

So what you're saying is, using PH's should be carefully weighed. Because you never know what the hell you're going to get (except if you go with IronMags whose website is peppered with your "articles")?

they lab test all their stuff--everything is GMP-produced. You get exactly what the label says. They are FAR more reliable than...

You have to do what you want. Go with what has worked and with what you believe in. I'm tired of being the heckler in this increasingly shameful infomercial.

I think 90% of these PH jugs are filled with more marketing and hot air than results. I think the other 10% might actually produce some results. Are they toxic? Are they anabolic? Are they low in androgens? Yes, no, possibly. I suppose you'd have to read up on the compound from 50-60 years ago and find out why it was dropped as a potential candidate for production. Did the rats grow tits? Did their nuts fall off? Did they develop jaundice or shit out their livers? Heart conditions? Did their kidneys shut down? Did they become sterile? Or maybe they got increased muscle mass but their cancers showed no signs of shrinkage. Maybe they showed no signs of decreased muscle wasting vs placebo? Or maybe the compound didn't even exist until recently and they just altered an existing molecule in some fashion and some testing showed some promise and they went straight to the shelves. I don't even care because the pharma industry regarding drugs is very Darwinian in that USUALLY only the most effective and therapeutic survive. The fact remains that for one reason or another, these didn't.

And I'm too busy to care why. I know which ones DID survive, I know exactly how they work, and I know exactly what to expect. The fact that I don't with these companies' products is enough for me to just keep my money in my pocket and look for something better.

GMP-produced designer steroids... good lord.

 

[Mike Arnold]

So what you're saying is, using PH's should be carefully weighed. Because you never know what the hell you're going to get (except if you go with IronMags whose website is peppered with your "articles")?
No, I did not say that. Here's exactly what I said "So long as a designer steroid is tested for purity & potency, they are FAR more reliable than blackmarket steroids. In fact, the designer steroid industry is the ONLY outlet for purchasing GMP-approved steroids of similar quality to pharmacy-grade steroids. There are plenty of supp companies out there which can make this claim"

Notice the sentence "There are plenty of supp companies out there which can make this claim", with emphasis on the word "plenty". IML is just one of many. I made that very clear. Why would I not include IML in that example when their products have been mentioned numerous times in this thread, I have been associated with them for several years, and know for a fact their products are GMP-made with extensive lab testing?

You have to do what you want. Go with what has worked and with what you believe in.
I agree...and have NEVER at any time suggested otherwise--not in this thread or elsewhere.

I'm tired of being the heckler in this increasingly shameful infomercial.
How can this be an informercial if IML doesn't sell these drugs? LOL. Come on, bro...if you don't even know what IML sells, how can you make a statement like that? This thread has not been about IML, but about designer steroids in general.

You do realize that SD, which has been talked about more in this thread than any other designer, has been banned for 2 years now, right? This means IML doesn't sell it. M1T? It was banned 10 years ago and was never sold by
IML.

More importantly, you do realize IML no longer sells designer steroids, right? Aside from most of the steroids in this thread being discontinued by IML years ago, the few which remain will be taken off the shelf in a few weeks due to the recent Designer Steroid Control Act.

So, if I was going to have an "infomercial", don't you think I would have done so while IML STILL SOLD THESE DRUGS!!!!! It's kind of hard to advertise for products which no longer exist.


I think 90% of these PH jugs are filled with more marketing and hot air than results.
I know you do, which is why I respectfully pointed out your error. However, keep in mind that I am referring to fully active methylated steroids ONLY when making these claims, which are not actually claims anymore, but facts--facts recognized not only by 10,000's of users, but by the world's top pharmaceutical companies, as well as many respected people in this industry. Hell, just look at how many intelligent and respectable posters here say the same exact thing. Many will testify to their potency. Personal opinion aside, most will readily admit several of these steroids are very strong indeed. Honestly, only someone who is exceedingly ignorant on this subject would ever claim that drugs like SD, M1T, Dimethazine, and Methylstenbolone (among others) are anything less than powerful steroids.

Several of the OTC steroids released onto the market between 2004 and the present have been subjected to extensive testing by pharm companies, which often compared them directly against Dianabol, Anadrol, and testosterone (among others) to see which were stronger muscle builders. I can list at least OTC 4 steroids (now banned), which were tested in this fashion and defeated every script steroid ever made.

Now, there have been plenty of products released over the years which were classified strictly as "prohormones' (not the same thing as active methyls) that were toal garbage. In fact, basically every single OTC PH relesaed up to 2003 was junk in comparison to traditional AAS. There were a lot of products released during that time period, some of which produced no results at all. Even after methyls started being released, plenty of companies continued selling shit products listed as PH's. So, unless someone was able to differentiate these products from each other, they would not know whether they were holding an extremely potent steroid in their hand, or a PH which produced no results at all. Of course, all of these comoanies adverstised their products as being "steroid-like" and claimed to provide great results, so you needed to know what you were looking at.

However, like I said before, I was not referring to any of these shit products or PH's, but only to legitimate, fully active methylated steroids.
All of the steroids released in this class--often called designer steroids--were legitimate AAS capable of prpoducing significant results. Of course, just like with traditional AAS, they produced a wide variety oif effects, with some being very powerful muscle & strength builders, while others made better cutting drugs.


I think the other 10% might actually produce some results. Are they toxic? Are they anabolic? Are they low in androgens? Yes, no, possibly. I suppose you'd have to read up on the compound from 50-60 years ago and find out why it was dropped as a potential candidate for production. Did the rats grow tits? Did their nuts fall off? Did they develop jaundice or shit out their livers? Heart conditions? Did their kidneys shut down? Did they become sterile? Or maybe they got increased muscle mass but their cancers showed no signs of shrinkage. Maybe they showed no signs of decreased muscle wasting vs placebo? Or maybe the compound didn't even exist until recently and they just altered an existing molecule in some fashion and some testing showed some promise and they went straight to the shelves. I don't even care because the pharma industry regarding drugs is very Darwinian in that USUALLY only the most effective and therapeutic survive. The fact remains that for one reason or another, these didn't.
I explained very clearly why these drugs were not made into prescriptions in my article I posted previously, so it is kind of repetitive to address something I aleady commented on, but since you didn't read it, I will be brief in my explanation.

In the overwhelming majoryty of cases, the AAS which were denied prescription status had nothing to do with safety or effectiveness. Big Pharma only prodcues drugs which will make them money...and guess what, just because a steroid might produce killer gains in size and strength and have a reasonable safety profile, it does not mean they will produce it.

Why? Because building muscle & strength, especially back then, was not a priority. AAS were selected based on there charactristics. In other words, only those drugs deemed most advantageous for treating a specific medical condition were chosen, even if 100 other drugs were equally safe and far superior growth agents. There are a LOT of factors which need to be considered when choosing a steroid for prescription status...and muscle and strength were NEVER a priority.



And I'm too busy to care why. I know which ones DID survive, I know exactly how they work, and I know exactly what to expect. The fact that I don't with these companies' products is enough for me to just keep my money in my pocket and look for something better.
And I have no problem with that. Not everyone is going to keep up to date on all the PED's this world has to offer. However, you cannot say a script drug is "better" unless you know what you're comparing it to...and like you already said, you don't. Believe me, I understand why some guys would rather just stick with the tried & true and be done with it. It's easier and there is an element of certainity not found with newer drugs. But if someone wants to look into all their option, there is nothing wrong witb that. I mean, look at trestolone (ment). Technically, trestolone is a "designer" steroid just like SD...and is currently sold as a research chemical on some sites. The only reason it isn't sold by supp companies is because supp companies can't sell injectables--they have to be in pill form, which means the steroid has to be methylated. Otherwise, there would be a lot more steroids being sold by these companies.

Many guys use trestolone really like it...even on this site. Personally, I think it's a great drug, but a lot of guys don't think of it as a 'designer" simply because it's not sold by a supp compoany and called a designer. However, it falls in the same category as all the other designers we have been talking about. It was never made into a script drug and was left collecting dust until some UGL's started making it. Actually, I think there are many non-script steroids which are superior to the vast majority of script drugs. For example, I woukd much rather use dihydroboldenone over boldenone any day of the week. It produces bigger and better reuslts with the same low side effect profile. It is like a super primo in effects, but very few noticable sides.

Anyway, to each their own. I wasn't trying to piss you off by pointing out your erros--I was just trying to clear up misinformation because this is a subject I am passionate about. Still, I can understand why you got angry, as it easily could have appeared as if I were trying to be disagreeable.

GMP-produced designer steroids... good lord.
Not sure what you mean by that, but I would much rather have a drug produced under GMP guidelines than not, and I think most others would as well. GMP's are only guidelines used to assure product quality.

........

 

[OuchThatHurts]

........

Don't mistake my disagreement as anger. I'm not angry! I'm perfectly capable of debating without getting angry; particularly regarding a subject of relative indifference such as this one. I just don't agree with you! I'm not even willing to say you're wrong but my position is opposite yours. I don't think it's worth the effort to get to know all these designer oral anabolics - not when there are perfectly comparable compounds already. It's just not my bread and butter. That's my opinion and not worth my time to validate it (and certainly not worth your time either I hope).
I don't see any of these companies' GMP certifications. GMP certified or GMP "standards"? Like I said, I feel like a heckler and I don't want to be in that role. Among the things I've already expressed (with your line-item contradictions mind you) is that there are plenty of people here that have come and gone selling these and other members that have gotten sick on them. Not to mention the former legality of them legitimized compounds that I'm certain found their way into the hands of young kids that could have repercussions on their long-term development.
I realize the same can be said for black market items but grabbing a tub off a shelf or ordering MENT from Amazon is a little different. MENT is a little more legitimate though as it has some r&d in the area of male contraception. Still, not exactly what a developing male needs.

I believe there have been amazing advances in the areas of peptides and prostaglandins which are a whole other area of exploration and have merit. I find that more interesting but oral methylated steroids have just been beaten to death. But please, if there's going to be a point-by-point rebuttal of this post than I'll concede now and just say you're right.

 

[Ashop]

I'm just curious I bought some with the new law in place and caught some good deals but I always see some guys on here talk about how their body responds better to pro-hormones than the real stuff. Any thoughts is doing a cycle of pro-hormones every now and then detrimental to your health?

Most of the effective pro hormones were actually designer oral steroids.
I would treat them like you would any strong oral AAS like Dbol Or anadrol.

 

[Dezzy]

One positive thing I'm trying to take from this is at least there will be some new orals available on the black market eventually like Superdrol.

 

[Tom]

One positive thing I'm trying to take from this is at least there will be some new orals available on the black market eventually like Superdrol.

Yes but...potency ? purity?