March 09, 2001
Issue # 37

MORE STUFF ON 1-AD
by Pat Arnold

Since I introduced everyone to the new prohormone 1-AD, interest in it has really taken off.  I have gotten a ton of questions on the stuff that I have had to address.  The more common questions that I have received have been compiled in a FAQ, and this FAQ can be found at http://ergopharm.net/products/1ad.asp 

There are some more specialized and technical questions that have come up as well.  Lots of these questions (more like “attacks”) emanate from one moderated discussion board which I would not be allowed to participate in even for a million bucks.  So what I will do here is make up a mock Q&A to address these issues.  I also will give a brief on the experiences of a couple of guys who have tried cycles of 1-AD here in my local area. 

Question: You unethical little bitch you!  How dare you try to fool honest customers with your lies.  First of all, you claim that the active hormone that your new prohormone (which BTW you stole from someone else) converts to is called “1-testosterone”.  That is not a correct chemical name for this substance and you know it!!  Secondly, you claim that this active hormone is more than 7 times as potent than testosterone.  But you fail to tell everyone that this was measured using the rat levator ani assay, which is known to be less than precise.  How convenient it must be to be able to mislead like this without caring.  So my question is, how do you live with yourself?

B.R.  Gainesville, Florida

Answer: Wow.  You are an angry man indeed BR.  Anyway, you are correct in regards to “1-testosterone” not being a technically correct chemical name.  The correct chemical name (one of them) would be 17beta-hydroxy-5alpha-androst-1-en-3-one.  However, given the fact that 1-AD is often referred to in the literature as 1-androstenedione, I figured it would be OK if I nicknamed its conversion product “1-testosterone”.  If this offends you in any way I sincerely apologize.

You are also correct in regards to the rat levator ani assay.  It is certainly not the perfect technique for determining the anabolic potency of steroids in man.   The rat levator ani assay seems to overestimate certain substances (i.e. oxandrolone) while underestimating others (i.e. dianabol, oxymetholone).  However, seeing that almost all the anabolic steroids that ever made it to the marketed were developed using this assay, I don’t think I am committing any crime by using this data in support of 1-AD/1-testosterone.   Thanks for reminding me to point this out though, as I agree that consumers should be aware of this.  So now they are!!

Question: You and your evil cohorts will not get away with your lies this time!!  Your claim that the 17beta-HSD equilibrium is different for 1-ene compounds than it is for 4-ene compounds is complete chemical fraud!!  The equilibrium has to be the same for both of these.  Also, you claim that your compound resists metabolic deactivation by one of the same mechanisms as Primobolan.  This is also criminal fraud because we all know that it is the 1-methyl group that imparts this activity to Primobolan, and 1-AD does not have this group.  So my question is, why does it hurt so much when I pee?

B.R.  Gainesville, Florida

Answer:  Whoa!! Slow down fella!!  You’re starting to scare me.  Anyway, I am afraid it is true that the 17beta-HSD equilibrium is shifted for 1-ene androstanes (1-ene DHT derivatives).  It is also shifted for 1-methyl, and 2-methyl androstanes.

Let me refer you to a paper on the subject.  The first one is in German (Langecker, “Beziehungen Zwischen Substitution im Ring A und Abbau im Stoffwechsel bei Verwandten des Testosterons”, Acta Endocrin, 41 (1962), 494-506), but it has an English abstract and its tables are pretty easy to interpret.  The researchers administered a bunch of steroids to people and then analyzed the urinary metabolites for 17-keto steroids.  While testosterone’s 17-keto metabolites were around 70%, 1-testosterone gave only about 9-20% 17-keto metabolites.  This represents a profound shift in the 17keto/17beta hydroxyl redox potential, or in other words, the 17beta-HSD equilibrium.

So what about 1-AD itself?  In another paper (Galletti and Gardi, “Metabolism of 1-Dehydroandrostanes in Man”, J Steroid Biochem, 3 (1972), 933-936), 1-AD was administered to men.  The urine was analyzed for active 17beta hydroxyl steroid metabolites.   The authors found that the figures for these metabolites after 1-AD ingestion were “significantly higher than those reported after testosterone”.  I think that’s pretty damn solid evidence supporting the equilibrium shift BR.

Now in regards to your point about Primobolan, I am afraid you’re wrong here bro’. I refer you again to the German paper of Langecker et.al.  In addition to 1-testosterone, that paper also looked at Primobolan and other 1-methylated steroids.  This is what they concluded “The 1-methyl group and the 1-double bond seem to be responsible of the inhibition of the oxidation of Methenolone in the 17-position.”  So you learn something new everyday, eh BR?   

I am not sure what to say about your urinary tract problem BR.   Its been a while since I watched those old G.I. films.

Guinea Pig Feedback

People want to know how good 1-AD is in the real world.  What I tell them is the only way they are gonna know is to try it themselves or to get feedback from someone they know and trust.  Now, I sell supplements and by default I guess that is supposed to make me dishonest, so feel free to scoff at my feedback reports.  At least I know they are real.

Subject one:  Joe Yager

Joe Yager had been working out for several years on and off, and for the last six months or so quite regularly.  He is in his mid 20’s and plays softball competitively.  He used to be a great baseball pitcher with major league aspirations but screwed up a nerve and his grip is bad now.  His weight hovers around 220-225 and he is around 6’3’’ tall.

Joe took 1-AD at 600mg a day for 2 weeks followed by 900mg a day for 3 weeks.   This is what he told me he got from the stuff.  His report to me was not comprehensive (that’s Joe for you), but it is enough to indicate something interesting happened. 

Bodyweight:  Up 12 pounds

Bench:  From 275 for one to 325 for two (at end of cycle)

Incline Bench:  From around 175-185 to around 230-240

He said his waist has not gotten bigger and his traps and shoulders have quite a bit.  He said lots of people have noticed the change in him and are teasing him about it.  He finds it hard to get sore after a workout and finds it easy to work out really hard now (he used to do more talking than lifting).   He feels very hard, and although he gained a decent amount of weight, he does not feel sluggish one bit.  His only side effect was a stomach distension that occurred during the first part of the cycle but gradually subsided.

Subject two:  Heath (last name ??)

Heath got great results as can be seen by observing him in the gym over the course of his cycle.  He is a college student getting a business degree or something.  He lifted regularly for a year or more, and had been stagnated at the same bodyweight and strength for a long time.  His feedback is not very comprehensive either, but I think from what he reported the stuff worked very well for him.  He used the same cycle regimen as Joe.

Bodyweight:  Up 8 pounds 

Hammer Strength Bench:  From 6 plates for 8 reps to 10 plates for 8 reps

Other exercises:  All up quite a bit (no specifics)

Heath loved the stuff and called up begging for his second bottle when he ran out of the first.  I noticed he also started sporting a big vein in his front delt during the cycle which was never apparent before.  He definitely looked noticeably bigger in the upper body after the cycle.  He reported no side effects either, except for the stomach distension that subsided just like Joe but his was accompanied by a slight appetite suppression too.  Obviously it didn’t hurt his overall weight gain though

Okay, so I really suck at running case studies.  I tried to find guys that would keep detailed records for me but I ended up with a couple of laid back guys that probably never balanced a checkbook in their lives.  Next time I do this sort of thing, it will be more comprehensive, I promise.

   BACK TO CURRENT ISSUE