Hey Bill - I’ve used Nanadrosol with great success for both bulking and cutting - so much so that I still own a bottle. I intend to try 4AD-EC at some point, but out of curiosity and for future reference, could you provide an opinion on how many sprays of Nandrosol would roughly equal a single dose of 4AD-EC (I understand that this would only be a best guess, but your best guesses tend to be closer to the mark and much more valuable than most!)?
Thanks.
For most people, maximum label dose, 70 sprays per day!
By the way, we’re considering a “Nandrosol” (more precisely, 19-nor) version of the 4-AD-EC product. It’s just a question of how many people would really want it (Nandrosol sales were never close to Androsol sales, probably because of lacking the CNS and pro-libido effects.)
I thought Nandrosol was a great product and I actually seemed to gain better on it than Androsol but I feel the limiting factor with Nandrosol was price - Androsol was just way more bang for the buck. I would definately be interestred in Nor-4-AD-EC if it was cost effective.
I also thought Nandro was better than Andro, although combining the two yielded the best results for me. Price wouldn’t be that big of a deal to me, so long as it wasn’t astronomically expensive.
how does 1 bottle of androsol or nandrosol equal 1 bottle of 4-AD-EC? laters pk
I would luvvv to try a new 19-nor product, and I pity the fool who wouldn’t!
Does that mean we might see a Nor-Mag-10 product too? Man, this is getting messy! How about selling the AD/NAD/1A components individually instead, and then we use them individually or can plug them together to suit? Seems like a variant of MAG-10 at 50% 1AE, 25% 4AD-EC, 25% NOR would be a well rounded product (since not as many people seem to notice CNS benefits with MAG-10 anyhow?)
Bill, bring on the Nor-4AD-EC…and for some reason I remembered Henry Kucinsky and his ski jump cycles from mfw with 2 weeks androgens/2 off/2 anabolics…
I’d buy it for sure. I also preferred Nandro to Andro and the price was not an issue for me
Actually, with the ethylcarbonate method,
a 19-nor product would not be price prohibitive at all.
I’m pretty sure that the messy situation
of having MAG-10, nor-MAG-10, 4-AD-EC, nor-4-AD-EC, and A1-E all separately won’t occur.
When you have too many products it’s just too confusing.
Now that you mention it, I remember Henry as well. My only objection to him really was his insistence that injecting testosterone propionate made from Implus pellets complete with all the estrogen (and there’s a HUGE amount of estrogen in the product) was a perfectly OK thing to do. I don’t even think
it’s OK with the typical effort of removing
the estrogen, which still leaves about 1%
estrogen, but he insisted that with the
full amount of estrogen (which is at least
10%) no one got gyno. This was false of course, though I’m sure, true to his knowledge.
Also, on the 2 on / 2 off point, it’s worth
keeping in mind that after only two weeks
of “rest” from having grown rapidly, usually
you won’t grow as fast on the next cycle
as you would with four weeks off. Over time
your gains are probably faster, but each
individual cycle is less efficient. It’s a trade off and which way to go depends on the circumstance.
Bill, I accept completely what you see as an undesirable situation with having too many products. To clarify, what I was suggesting is that all products be replaced with just 3 - the component products (AD/NAD/1A EC’s), oral only. This would simplify production, distribution, stock holding etc, and yet still offer any stack that could possibly be dreamed up. If in the future a new pro-hormone/steroid product then reaches the Biotest stables, it will not dilute the branding, or cause an exponential increase in product dilemmas. As consumers go, the Biotest ones are more educated than most due to the effort placed in areas like providing this site. [one of] the things I like about Biotest is the small range of products, that you don’t feel the need to produce another Creatine just because you can. I’ve thought long and hard about this since I was talking with Dave Ramona at one point about becoming a distibutor (btw: Is Dave still with you since the dialogue seems to have dried up) and I was working with the idea of a partial product range (the pro-hormone&steroids/Myostat/Protein powders & Bars) Regards T-Bam
I’d be ecstatic with the release of a nor-4AD-EC oral. But I’m a little confused. I thought it was a bump in the price of raw materials for Nandrosol that made it prohibitive to manufacture. Now, you’d have to add another step, the EC process, and yet, you’re saying that price wouldn’t be a problem?
For the record, I much preferred Nandrosol to Androsol. It’s hard to complain too loudly with MAG-10 around, but it’d be great to have a nor alternative on the shelf again.
Because the bioavailability is greater,
for any given level of effect it costs less
to provide nor-4-AD-EC orally than it does to
provide nor-4-AD topically, for same blood
levels. With Nandrosol, according to an analysis money was being
lost (once all costs were accounted for including share of overhead) with the list price at $79.95. But an oral nor-4-AD-EC
product could be profitable at a price
similar to 4-AD-EC, simply because less
compound is needed due to higher efficiency.
With less compound being required with the EC products for ‘notionally’ equivelant absorbtion, could this be the reason that more people notice CNS effects with Androsol than Mag-10 or 4AD-EC? (that there is more compound and that those whose absorb it well transdermally get a higher dose than others?). If so, does fat level affect transdermal absorbtion percentages or does the carrier make it to the bloodstream the same no matter what (meaning is there some other variable at work here?)
good question T-Bam, i’ve been wondering the same thing. A days dose of androsol is 1 gram 4-AD while 4-AD-EC is 200mg. Granted not all the andro is absorbed. Still the difference is stagerring. I’ve been wanting an answer but can’t get it. It might have to do with longer Bioavailability. laters pk
The A1-E not only isn’t a CNS stimulant
it instead
reduces somewhat the effect of the 4-AD-EC.
This is why MAG-10 can have less CNS effect
than Androsol or the 4-AD-EC product.