Bill, you mentioned a study showing that 1-AD itself is only 40% as effective as testosterone, which of course would indicate low intrinsic activity or low bioavailability. Where can I find this study? Thanks!
It’s correct that 1-androstenediol is only 40% as potent as testosterone,
as determined by assay. The reference is in Vida, Androgens and
Anabolic Agents. It is a very valuable reference work and you might be
interested in obtaining it via interlibrary loan – expect to wait a few
months and then be allowed to have it for only a few days. I personally
have a photocopy of the book, rather than the original – it’s out of print
and cannot be obtained. You have a good memory, Mike – that post was
up only a few hours or maybe a day before I deleted it. The reason I
deleted it is that while the company in question uses …-AD as their
abbreviation for androstenediol in the case of 4-AD, making me think that
their 1-AD was 1-androstenediol, that is not what they mean by …-AD
this time around. Here, they are using the same abbreviation to mean
dione. Confusing, but that’s what they’re doing. They’re selling the dione,
not the diol. Reportedly because the diol is “too difficult” to synthesize. (I
have heard that only secondhand so don’t take the reason as
authoritative.) Since the dione is a different compound than the one
reported in Vida, the 40% figure for the diol is not relevant. The dione has
zero intrinsic activity: having a 17-OH is essential to activity. Vida does
not have a reported value for activity of the dione: very few diones have
been tested due to the fact that they do not have intrinsic activity.
Thanks for the information. It would seem, then, that any anabolic effects 1-AD has must come from its conversion to 1-testosterone. If 300nl/ml is the maximum amount of testosterone that can be produced from conversion of 4-AD to testosterone, then because 1-AD uses the same enzyme, there should be a similar cap on 1-testosterone levels. If the product really is 7 times as potent as tesosterone in humans, then from an anabolic standpoint this would equate to an increase of 2100nl/ml of testosterone.
What effect does, say, 1000mg of test each week have?
Incidentally, I understand I’ve been challenged (and in an insulting and childish manner) with regard to my statement that the equilibrium between 1-androstenedione and DHT-1-ene must be the same as that between 4-androstenedione and testosterone. A reference claiming the equilibrium is instead different is cited as if it were proof. It isn’t.
Here’s the thing. It’s just like seeing
somewhere where some small study has a finding that totally contradicts some extremely well established principle. Say they are doing some kind of physics experiment and their calculations show something moving faster than light. The correct thing to conclude here is not that the theory of relativity is wrong and this particle really moves faster than light, but that this experiment was almost certainly fucked up in some way. .
Here, it’s very well established that where the functional group conversion is the same, and the same
enzyme is being used, both of which are true here, then the equilibrium is the same. Always. It’s biochemistry and it’s thermodynamics. As Robert Heinlein once wrote, you can’t argue with thermodynamics.
The equilibrium being referred to, the true equilibrium is the ratio of the FREE concentrations of each substance, which are also the concentrations that tell you the biological activity.
But if you measure TOTAL (and especially back in the 1960s, this was typical), which includes stuff bound to protein which is not part of the true equilibria, then sure you can get a different ratio, because
DHT-1-ene might bind much better to SHBG than testosterone does, or vice versa. That ratio is not the equilibrium but one could make the mistake of reporting it as such, particularly if not aware that the analytical method was measuring bound as well as free.
I stand by my statement that the equilibria arethe same, and
cannot be anything but the same, for very well established reasons. I do not think the other individual is necessarily being dishonest here – he is not educated to the level of a professional chemist
and couldn’t be expected to do anything but uncritically accept the reference he read. One should never do that with scientific articles – you have to have the background to understand how the numbers were derived and what they mean, in context.
Thanks for the information. It would seem, then, that any anabolic effects 1-AD has must come from its conversion to 1-testosterone. If 300nl/ml is the maximum amount of testosterone that can be produced from conversion of 4-AD to testosterone, then because 1-AD uses the same enzyme, there should be a similar cap on 1-testosterone levels. If the product really is 7 times as potent as tesosterone in humans, then from an anabolic standpoint this would equate to an increase of 2100nl/ml of testosterone.
What effect does, say, 1000mg of test each week have?
The key phrase is, if the product it converts to, DHT-1-ene, really is 7 times more potent than testosterone as they claim.
There’s one LITTLE problem with the claim. Or, four little problems.
Vida reports four and only four studies done on this compound. Here are the results. All studies administered the compounds by injection, so oral bioavailability was
not a factor:
Study 1: 200% relative to testosterone propionate.
Study 2: 210% relative to testosterone.
Study 3: 200%, relative to testosterone.
Study 4: 30%, relative to testosterone propionate.
Throw out the low and the high, and you
get 200% as your estimation. Not seven times.
Even if there is another study out there showing
7 times, there are four other studies that disagree, so seven times should not be claimed.
Well, I guess it should be claimed to sell product if one runs a company that way, but
so far as integrity goes, no, it’s deceptive and fraudulent.
Now, even twice as potent sounds good, but keep in mind that this assay is a poor predictor. For example, methenolone acetate by injection has tested as high as 5 times as potent as testosterone propionate, but who really believes that Primo is 5 times more potent than testosterone? So the fact that this compound tested as twice doesn’t mean that it necessarily is twice as potent in practical use.
So I would not be making any assumptions that
DHT-1-ene is dramatically more potent than testosterone, or even that it is necessarily any more potent than testosterone. It probably is a good Class I steroid however if blood levels can be gotten high enough.
And Mike, I saw you calling it “1-testosterone”… it is no more “1-testosterone” than it is “1-oxandrolone” or “1-oxymetholone” or anything else, as wonderful as those names may sound and as much product as they might move, just as “1-testosterone” will probably move a lot of product. The name is a fraud, though a good marketing move. The stuff is a DHT derivative not a testosterone derivative: it’s not any kind of testosterone whatsoever.
I have been sort of staying out of this whole “1-AD” (a
misnomer, I know, but I do not know what else to really call
it) mess thus far because I am not sure if this is going to be
a decent product or not. It’s interesting for sure, but there is
scant scientific evidence, as Bill points out, that it does
much of anything orally…one study in German that
measured urinary excretion levels of 17-keto steroids.
Whoopie!!!
So I am not passing judgement on this stuff yet (even though
it is a dione and the maker should have used the diol
version for sure…bet me in 6-12 months the maker says
“1-Adione”, what he is making now, is pretty crummy when
he comes out with the “1-Adiol” version…anyone want to
bet?).
So while I do not have issues with the product itself really
and it may pan out to be a novel, useful compound, I take
exceptional issue with the way the maker is marketing it for
a number of reasons:
-
This guy has been hypercritical of anything we (Biotest)
do and demands we fund double blind, placebo controlled
studies, etc., yet he comes out and hypes the shit out of this
stuff with next to no evidence it does anything really. Pot
calling kettle black here. -
He is not the person who discovered this compound and
we knew about it for awhile but we could not do anything
(well, Bill knew about it) because someone told him about it
in confidence and under non-disclosure. We thought this
person and not the current person selling it, was going to
run with it and make it/sell it. However, this did not happen.
So this guy making it and selling it now once again, stole
the idea from someone else. He has this habit of doing that,
he “appropriated” our Androsol idea some time ago too.
And of course, he took credit for it. He has a habit of
claiming he discovered everything on planet earth. I wonder
when he is getting his Nobel Prize? -
Biotest is not really interested in “1-AD” as Bill has a few
other goodies which make it pretty much a non-issue.
Besides, 4-AD is probably a better compound than “1-AD”
anyhow…but “1-AD” is newer and thus, some people
mistakenly will make the assumption that “newer” = “better”.
That’s a shame.
Like I wrote, this may be a neat compound that works well.
Or not. But for the maker to state that unequivocably that any of it converts to something 7X as potent as testosterone is ludicrous.
Yes, and HMB feels just like Deca too 
This guy was the 1st person to torch Bill and I when we
stated we felt heavy Androsol usage was equivalent to
using a single amp of Sustanon or perhaps two, per week
and this was after we had lab tests conclusively showing
Androsol jacked testosterone/4-AD levels into the
stratosphere.
Now this guy claims his “find” converts, at least some of it, to something 7X as potent as
testosterone? Based on what? A study in German that has
not been translated into English and was done solely on the
muscle taken from a rat’s hindquarter?
When three other studies show two times,
one shows 30%, and NONE back up the 7X figure?
Rats and people, while being similar, are not the same. I
suspect “1-AD” has anabolic activity (not the “1-AD” itself
as it is a dione) but I will bet heavy benjamins that in
humans it doesn’t convert to something 7X as potent as testosterone, and unlike 4-AD it has no activity itself. If say 10% converts, and that would be a big improvement over androstenedione, and that 10% is twice as potent as testosterone, you have 20%. Since 4-AD is 95% as potent as testosterone, big deal.
Verdict - mistrial, need more evidence to convict or
celebrate.
Brock