Dianabol and Winstrol Stronger Than We Thought?

blueoval · Aug 19, 2015

b_cornelius said:
First have to figure prenuclear affects, prior to the translocation. It begins after the conformational change with a cascade from the heat-shock proteins onward.

Methandienone and stanozolol both take longer before translocation to the nucleus, which may imply some other things. Testosterone translocates the fastest.

And sure there's polyvocal coding, transactivation, transrepression, regulatory feedback. I could always use help with this.

Still "Efficacy" is a notion that implies that these molecules have conscious intention, whereas they are simple unconscious codes. The form is the function and the function is the form. They simply ARE, and in order to study them, human intentions need to be phenomenologically reduced.

That was always drilled into my head.

"Efficacy" in reference that a particular molecule's ligand activity to induce a physiological response. Not trying engage in anthropomorphism of chemical compounds.

b_cornelius · Aug 19, 2015

blueoval said:
That was always drilled into my head.

"Efficacy" in reference that a particular molecule's ligand activity to induce a physiological response. Not trying engage in anthropomorphism of chemical compounds.

"Efficacy" in reference that a particular molecule's ligand activity to induce an intended physiological response. Antropomorphism has nothing to do with it, but you could say that objects of knowledge do have religious implications, similar to pagan explanations of naturalistic phenomena.

A molecule does not produce a response. In a philological system, there is no beginning and no end. Everything gets it's power and efficacy from everything else. Since there is no beginning or end, there is no cause and effect. Cause and effect comes from the relative intervention of consciousness. Consciousness intends to have a response.

Notions such as efficacy come into play when a person wants to intend a philological response or induce change within a system. It is not in the nature of the molecules themselves. When a person wants to study the molecular machinery, efficacy should be disregarded, to a point.

Oval, I am not just preaching at you in particular, but I thought this would be a good time lay down some philosophy of science. It seems like I'm just splitting hairs here, but these fine points make all the difference.

RaffaelloSanzio · Oct 4, 2015

Thanks man. Informative

pickapeck · Oct 4, 2015

The data presented really is not that useful. I would like to see the article. What is presented seems to be based on imaging studies which are not that accurate. Possibly they are based on remote labeling. What they really need is a reporter system where they can detect expression of a gene or protein that is designed to be synthesized on steroid receptor activation.

Matty2127 · Oct 22, 2015

Nice post

UnknownBeast · Oct 24, 2015

Very good post.

Debating on using d or not. Not really a fan of the wet compounds. Would rather keep it to dry gains

sciroxx-lab · Oct 25, 2015

b_cornelius said:
"Efficacy" in reference that a particular molecule's ligand activity to induce an intended physiological response. Antropomorphism has nothing to do with it, but you could say that objects of knowledge do have religious implications, similar to pagan explanations of naturalistic phenomena.

A molecule does not produce a response. In a philological system, there is no beginning and no end. Everything gets it's power and efficacy from everything else. Since there is no beginning or end, there is no cause and effect. Cause and effect comes from the relative intervention of consciousness. Consciousness intends to have a response.

Notions such as efficacy come into play when a person wants to intend a philological response or induce change within a system. It is not in the nature of the molecules themselves. When a person wants to study the molecular machinery, efficacy should be disregarded, to a point.

Oval, I am not just preaching at you in particular, but I thought this would be a good time lay down some philosophy of science. It seems like I'm just splitting hairs here, but these fine points make all the difference.

You mentioned some very important issues bro

The first part with the "older" testing method tests the affinity of a substance to the AR receptor, we all know from the old table of anabolic/androgenic effect that for instance nandrolone has 3 times more affinity to the AR receptor then testosterone, so based on such some claims it's 3 times more anabolic (!?)

The second "in vivo" test actually shows how much receptors are activated in reality, which shades new light on this subject.

But what u mentioned and I would like to add to, is that after each product creates a ligand (attaching to a receptor and hosted into the nucli) it has a different effect in the nucli - for instance it may signal for synthesis of different proteins, or create higher rate of synthesis of certain proteins, meaning that it shows different anabolic effect in the cell. In other words - when a molecule of Methan is attached to the receptor, and gets into the cell it has practically different (and stronger) effect then such molecule of for instance testosterone which attached to the same receptor and got into the cell.

Thus in reality same dosage of methan may have stronger anabolic effect then same dosage of testosterone