# Anabolic and androgenic ratios.. knowledgeable PH users please help



## wheybolic63 (Sep 23, 2012)

Many people that understand PH's to a great degree should be able to  help on this one. This may seem like somewhat of a dumb question but  i've wondered this for some time and have never been completely sure.  Lets take super DMZ 2.0 for example. it contains 2 strong compounds,  methylstenbolone and dimethazine. Methylstenbolone has an  anabolic/androgenic ratio of 660/170 and dimethazine- 210/95. Since both  of these compounds are being stacked into one pill are you..

1. Getting the anabolic results of the compound that is more anabolic? Methylsten-660
2. Getting the anabolic results of the average of the two compounds? 435
3. Gettting the anabolic results of both compounds together?- 870

same for the androgenic ratios. lets say your stacking epistane (androgenic-95) and halodrol(androgenic-28) 

1. are you losing more androgenic activity by adding the halodrol to epistane?
2. Does adding the low androgenic profile of halodrol two a moderately  androgenic compound like epistane increase the chance of estrogenic  accumulation and lower the overall DHT levels that act as a strong  estrogen antagonist?
3. As long as the epistane is with your system no matter what you stack  it with are you still getting the full androgenic effects as if you were  to just take epistane solo?

thanks guys.


----------



## Goodskie (Sep 23, 2012)

Negged for broscience


----------



## wheybolic63 (Sep 23, 2012)

anyone else whos not a douche have any informative opinions?


----------



## Goodskie (Sep 23, 2012)

wheybolic63 said:


> anyone else whos not a douche have any informative opinions?



Negged for having a GNC supplement as your username.


----------



## HereToStudy (Sep 23, 2012)

None of that makes sense.

The A:A ratios simply state how many times stronger than testosterone. So 100:100 means the compound is 100 times more anabolic that testosterone and 100 times more androgenic than testosterone. Nothing more.


----------



## teezhay (Sep 23, 2012)

OP, you know those scanners through which you swipe your credit card? The androgen receptors in your body are JUST LIKE THAT (not kind of like that, I mean _literally_ JUST LIKE THAT) and each steroid molecule has a little credit card on it with a code in the form of an anabolic to androgenic ratio. When you ingest steroids (I especially like tren, because you can pop the top off the vial and pour it in a shake and not even notice its there, it tastes totally fine) the molecules swipe their credit cards on your androgen receptors and a big number flashes up like "*600:100*" and your body goes, "Holy fucking shitballs that's a lot of digits," so it reads them, encodes them in your muscle tissue, and that's how your body knows how much to grow when on a cycle. 

So yes, if you take methylstenbolone and dimethazine at the same time, your ATMs will be like "omfg wtf is this dude doing there's too many different numbers," and it may average the different numbers out. So your muscle tissue will think about getting super big on the methylstenbolone but then the dimethazine will be like, "wait bitch I haven't had a turn yet," and it'll put its cock in your androgen receptor's mouth, and they'll spit out the numbers which will be lower than methylstenbolone, so your muscles will shrink back down.

I hope that wasn't too technical for anyone.


----------



## TrojanMan60563 (Sep 23, 2012)

teezhay said:


> OP, you know those scanners through which you swipe your credit card? The androgen receptors in your body are JUST LIKE THAT (not kind of like that, I mean _literally_ JUST LIKE THAT) and each steroid molecule has a little credit card on it with a code in the form of an anabolic to androgenic ratio. When you ingest steroids (I especially like tren, because you can pop the top off the vial and pour it in a shake and not even notice its there, it tastes totally fine) the molecules swipe their credit cards on your androgen receptors and a big number flashes up like "*600:100*" and your body goes, "Holy fucking shitballs that's a lot of digits," so it reads them, encodes them in your muscle tissue, and that's how your body knows how much to grow when on a cycle.
> 
> So yes, if you take methylstenbolone and dimethazine at the same time, your ATMs will be like "omfg wtf is this dude doing there's too many different numbers," and it may average the different numbers out. So your muscle tissue will think about getting super big on the methylstenbolone but then the dimethazine will be like, "wait bitch I haven't had a turn yet," and it'll put its cock in your androgen receptor's mouth, and they'll spit out the numbers which will be lower than methylstenbolone, so your muscles will shrink back down.
> 
> I hope that wasn't too technical for anyone.



I'm not sure that makes sense to me. Otherwise why would you get better results by stacking drugs than using one drug alone? There are lots of tried and true stacks. Otherwise people would just run tren and nothing more. (and I know some do this too)


----------



## iSteroids (Sep 24, 2012)

Goodskie said:


> Negged for having a GNC supplement as your username.



LOL! 

http://www.isteroids.com/


----------



## Standard Donkey (Sep 24, 2012)

anabolic/androgenic ratios should be given no attention imo


----------



## Jimmyinkedup (Sep 24, 2012)

HereToStudy said:


> None of that makes sense.
> 
> The A:A ratios simply state how many times stronger than testosterone. So 100:100 means the compound is 100 times more anabolic that testosterone and 100 times more androgenic than testosterone. Nothing more.



Not exactly John. Test is 100/100 . 
Here is the scientific mumbo jumbo but the fact is I wouldnt base my cycle off those numbers anyway. In the real world they often just dont translate into what you would expect, as you definatelty realize John, but definitely not all do. They are merely , imo , a vague guideline:

*Anabolic and Androgenic**

The anabolic:androgenic ratios for steroids and prohormones are often quoted, but what do they mean?

In the 1960s when the majority of steroid research was undertaken,  before steroids became a dirty word, the goal of the researchers was to  develop steroids that could increase muscle mass (in cancer patients,  burn victims, those with wasting diseases etc.) without also causing the  secondary male sex characteristics that natural steroids like  testosterone can cause (like increased facial hair, deeper voice,  enlarged clitoris in females). They were trying to develop steroids that  were anabolic without being androgenic.

Of course medical science has pesky moral objections to testing unknown  substances on human test subjects (even though these days gymrats are  willing to queue round the block to take the latest untested designer  steroid compounds), so a system of testing was developed on rats.


The Hershberger Assay

The steroids were administered to rats either orally (through a gavage  tube) or by injection. The rats were sacrificed after the experiment  (which is known as the Hershberger Assay), and the increase in the  weights of the levator ani, seminal vesicles, and ventral prostate, were  recorded and compared to a standard such as testosterone (if by  injection) or methyl testosterone (if administered orally).

The levator ani is the "tail-wagging" muscle in animals, and as such any  increase in weight provides a reasonable estimate of the anabolic  nature of the compound.
The seminal vesicles and the ventral prostate are both involved in the  production of semen, and are androgen-sensitive tissues, that is they  grow when androgenic compounds are administered.

By using these markers, the scientists tried to make compounds that had a  high anabolic value (as measured by the levator ani, or L.A) and low  androgenic value (as measured by seminal vesicles, S.V., and ventral  prostate, V.P.).


Viva la Vida

In the late 1960s a young scientist called Julius Vida spent a long time  collecting and reviewing all the available data on steroids that had  been published so far. In 1969 he published a book called "Androgens and  Anabolic Agents - Chemistry and Pharmacology". The first part of this  book was a discussion on the metabolism, and structure and activity  relationships of these compounds, while the second part listed 666  steroids, organised by structure, and for each he listed the steroidal  nomenclature (the chemical name for the drug), a structural diagram of  the compound, and the anabolic and androgenic values compared to a  standard along with the method of administration used to determine them  (i.e. oral or subcutaneous injection). He also provides a reference  number that refers to a bibliography to show which study the figures  were originally published in.

These figures form the basis of the anabolic:androgenic ratios we see quoted today.


In Detail

Here's an example of one of the compounds listed in Vida's book. I've added some labels to make it a bit more clear.







We aren't concerned about the serial, nomenclature or chemical structure  at the present time. Looking at the method of administration, for the  top row it is empty (meaning that the figures on that row were the  result of subcutaneous injection) and on the second row it says oral,  meaning that the steroid was orally administered to arrive at the  figures on that row.

Since this compound is methylepithiostanol, more commonly known as the  prohormone/designer steroid "epi" (or by the trade names epistane and  havoc), and is currently only available in caps for oral administration,  we should only concern ourselves with the figures on the second row -  those arrived at by oral admin.

Those figures are given as ventral prostate/seminal vesicles: 91,  levator ani: 1100, and the basis of comparison is given as 17a-MT  (methyltestosterone).
This gives it an anabolic:androgenic ratio of 1100:91 (compared to  methyl test). Methyl test is assumed to be 100:100 for the purposes of  this comparison. What this means is that epi is 11 times more anabolic  (1100%) and roughly as androgenic (91% as androgenic) as methyl test (by  oral administration to rats).


In Conclusion

While these figures do not translate literally to their effects on  humans, they tend to give a reasonable impression of the nature of a  given steroid. In medical science, these would be the first tests they  would do on a newly synthesized compound to determine it's initial  viability. If it proved effective, and had a strong dissociation of  anabolic and androgenic effects, it may have progressed to further  testing and eventually human trials.

Many of the compounds available on the prohormone and designer steroid  market today never progressed beyond this initial animal testing stage,  and some of them are entirely novel compounds with no scientific testing  undertaken at all.*


----------



## HereToStudy (Sep 24, 2012)

Jimmyinkedup said:


> Not exactly John. Test is 100/100 .


Honestly, I can't believe I typed that. I knew it was percent of test, just haven't actually dug into A:A in so long...lol


----------



## Jimmyinkedup (Sep 25, 2012)

HereToStudy said:


> Honestly, I can't believe I typed that. I knew it was percent of test, just haven't actually dug into A:A in so long...lol



Yeah I was scratching my head ..i was sure you know that ....


----------

