Androgenic/Anabolic Ratios...wtf?

**Sadie** · 09-05-2009, 10:48 PM

that sort of makes sense tho.. it was actually used for animal breeding at one point i believe and it is typically (not designed for but from what i have seen) used specifically to cause aggression before a powerlifting meet.. most of my friends on it use it for that anyway.. they said it makes then so aggressive and angry they seem to hit new PRs. that ration would definitely cause those reactions..

**Dawgpound_Hank** · 09-06-2009, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by Sadie

that sort of makes sense tho.. it was actually used for animal breeding at one point i believe and it is typically (not designed for but from what i have seen) used specifically to cause aggression before a powerlifting meet.. most of my friends on it use it for that anyway.. they said it makes then so aggressive and angry they seem to hit new PRs. that ration would definitely cause those reactions..

Yes, I KNOW halo is great for aggression.lol But how do you make sense of the dramatic numbers that dont jive?

**Scotsmark** · 09-06-2009, 04:59 AM

Hank, they're all explained in William Llewelyn's (SP) Anabolics series of books. I skim read it a while back but I have it at home, if nobody has done so by the time I get back home, I'll post up what it says in there.

***liftsiron*** · 09-06-2009, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by Dawgpound_Hank

Yes, I KNOW halo is great for aggression.lol But how do you make sense of the dramatic numbers that dont jive?

Well with halo, you use low mg doses, and with test you can pretty safely use large doses per week. So although halo is stronger per mg, test is more effective because we user far larger doses. Although the anabolic/androgenic ratio looks good on paper, I'm skeptical that it's totally accurate in our bodies.

**Dawgpound_Hank** · 09-06-2009, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by liftsiron

Well with halo, you use low mg doses, and with test you can pretty safely use large doses per week. So although halo is stronger per mg, test is more effective because we user far larger doses. Although the anabolic/androgenic ratio looks good on paper, I'm skeptical that it's totally accurate in our bodies.

I understand you're reasoning about the doses bro...I thought about the "mg for mg" take too. However, lets scale the doses down to equal and try this: halo@40mg ed = 280mg ew VS test@280mg ew. With that, we all know the halo cycle is gonna make one MUCH more aggressive than that test cycle. However, lets not forget about the ANABOLIC ratings...it states that halo is 19X more anabolic than test. Yet comparing those 2 cycles above, the low dosed test will STILL put more mass on you than the halo cycle. At 19X more anabolic AND 8.5X more androgenic, logic would dictate halo to BLOW test out of the water for gains! Follow my dilemma now in trying to solve this puzzle?lol

Having said that, I would like to end it and be satisfied with your last statement of "Although the anabolic/androgenic ratio looks good on paper, I'm skeptical that it's totally accurate in our bodies.". BUT, I would like some more feedback on this for any real data debunking some of the crazy ratings numbers on said drugs. I know the easy answer could be "Yo Hank fuck it, test works and thats all we need to know!".lol But with all the wisdom on this board with vets like you, BASS and a few others, I REALLY would like some more input/data explaining.

Thx

**Dawgpound_Hank** · 09-06-2009, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Scotsmark

Hank, they're all explained in William Llewelyn's (SP) Anabolics series of books. I skim read it a while back but I have it at home, if nobody has done so by the time I get back home, I'll post up what it says in there.

Perfect! Just what we need dude...some real data...thanks!

***basskiller*** · 09-06-2009, 04:03 PM

I'm not sure when the numbers first appeared, but they are in Llewelyn's 2006 book. Somehow they've become like gospel to some and regurgitated again and again.. Hell, I think I may have even posted these in the past. (before I come to realize)
I believe they were originally from studies done on rat livers. Maybe even compiled through several abstracts.
You can search on http://www.hubmed.org/ (excellent site)
And thats why they don't really correlate to real world experiance. While halotestin looks like it's 19 times more anabolic, bodybuilders don't really see that. and why it's used more for hardening off right before a contest or moreso used by powerlifters for the aggressive nature of it.

not sure if that helps or not. But it's my take on these specific numbers that have been floating around for years.

Find out who was first to put them together and I'll bet he'll tell you that all the numbers came from rat studies alone

***liftsiron*** · 09-06-2009, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by Dawgpound_Hank

OK, math has always been my best gig. And I have been the type that can usually figure out complex patterns and algorithms and such based on my experience in programming. HOWFUCKINGEVER, this shit is crazy.

LI, Bass, anyone wanna explain this please....

deca Anabolic/Androgenic ratio: 125:37
tren Anabolic/Androgenic ratio: 500/500
test Anabolic/Androgenic ratio: 100/100
halo Anabolic/Androgenic ratio:1,900/850
eq Anabolic/ Androgenic ratio: 100:50
drol Anabolic/Androgenic Ratio: 320:45
dbol Anabolic/Androgenic Ratio (Range): 90-210:40-60
var Anabolic/Androgenic Ratio (Range): 322-630:24

Based on the numbers only, we can conclude that halo is 19 times more anabolic and 8.5 times more androgenic than test.

That is the main one that doesnt make sense to me. Just look at the numbers for all, and see if you can find any actual pattern that applies to REAL WORLD results. WTF?

Yeah trens great, but 5X more anabolic/androgenic than test???

Lets try a pattern. Look at var, and see its about 3.22-6.3 times more anabolic than test, and yet only about 1/4 as androgenic. And we all KNOW var is gonna put only a fraction of the muscle on you as test. So based on those 2 numbers, one could try to deduce that its the ANDROGENIC side of a drug that is doing most of the muscle building. HOWEVER, then go back and look at halos numbers!

That throws that hypothesis completely out the fucking door, as we also know halo isnt gonna put near the muscle on you as test is.lol So wtf???

p.s...Btw, just WHO da fuck came up with these ratios? I found these particular stats over at steroid.com when browsing the proifles. But I know I have seen these numbers at many sites profiles in the past, so wtf?

I don't why they are using such large numbers for halo if you break it down halo has approx a 2:1 androgenic to anabolic ratio. I'm not sure whoever came up with these numbers knew wtf was up. And I can state from experience as well as from anecdotal reports, halo is near zero as far as an anabolic, an near through the roof as a near pure androgenic compound.

***liftsiron*** · 09-06-2009, 04:33 PM

The list states that tren is 500:500 mathematically that is the same as test a 1:1 ratio. Anyhow anabolic to androgenic ratios mean little imo, it's a particular drugs affinity to bind to specific receptors that determine a drugs effectiveness for bodybuilding. Here is a good abstract explaining affinity.

Relative Binding Affinity of Anabolic-Androgenic Steroids: Comparison of the Binding to the Androgen Receptors in Skeletal Muscle and in Prostate, as well as to Sex Hormone-Binding Globulin*
T�NU SAARTOK, ERIK DAHLBERG{dagger} and JAN-�KE GUSTAFSSON

Department of Medical Nutrition, Karolinska Instituted Huddinge University Hospital F 69 S-141 86 Huddinge, Sweden

This study was supported by Grants 19P-6483 and 03X-06803 (to E.D.) and 13X-2819 (to J.-�.G.) from the Swedish Medical Research Council, grants from the LEO Research Foundation, Karolinska Institutet (to T.S. and E.D.), and Grant RF/IFR 35/82 (to. T.S. and J.-�.G.) from the Swedish Sports Research Council.

Abstract

It is unclear whether anabolic steroids act on skeletal muscle via the androgen receptor (AR) in this tissue, or whether there is a separate anabolic receptor. When several anabolic steroids were tested as competitors for the binding of [3H]methyltrienolone (MT; 17β-hydroxy-17{alpha}-methyl-4,9,11-estratrien-3-one) to the AR in rat and rabbit skeletal muscle and rat prostate, respectively, MT itself was the most efficient competitor. l{alpha}-Methyl-5{alpha}-dihydrotestosterone (l{alpha}-methyl-DHT; mesterolone) bound most avidly to sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) [relative binding affinity (RBA) about 4 times that of DHT]. Some anabolic-androgenic steroids bound strongly to the AR in skeletal muscle and prostate [RBAs relative to that of MT: MT > 19-nortestosterone (NorT; nandrolone) > methenolone (17β-hydroxy-l-methyl-5{alpha}-androst-l-en-3-one) > testosterone (T) > l{alpha}-methyl-DHT]. In other cases, AR binding was weak (RBA values < 0.05): stanozolol (17{alpha}-methyl-5{alpha}-androstano[3,2-c]pyrazol-17β-ol), methanedienone (17β-hydroxy-17{alpha}-methyl-l,4-androstadien-3-one), and fluoxymesterolone (9{alpha}-fluoro-11β-hydroxy-17{alpha}-methyl-T). Other compounds had RBAs too low to be determined (e.g. oxymetholone (17β-hydroxy-2-hydroxymethylene-17{alpha}-methyl-5{alpha}-androstan-3-one) and ethylestrenol (17{alpha}-ethyl-4-estren-17β-ol). The competition pattern was similar in muscle and prostate, except for a higher RBA of DHT in the prostate. The low RBA of DHT in muscle was probably due to the previously reported rapid reduction of its 3-keto function to metabolites, which did not bind to the AR [5{alpha}-androstane-3{alpha},17β-diol and its 3β-isomer (3{alpha}- and 3β-adiol, respectively)]. Some anabolic-androgenic steroids (only a few synthetic) bound to SHBG (l{alpha}-methyl-DHT >> DHT > T > 3β-adiol > 3{alpha}-adiol = 17{alpha}-methyl-T > methenolone > methanedienone > stanozolol). The ratio of the RBA in rat muscle to that in the prostate (an estimate of the myotrophic potency of the compounds) was close to unity, varying only between about 0.4 and 1.7 in most cases. The present data indicate that 1) the existence of a putative anabolic receptor distinct from the AR must be questioned, 2) many anabolic steroids interact with the AR (generally with lower RBA than NorT or T), 3) some steroids with anabolic-androgenic activity in vivo do not bind to the AR, and must have an indirect mechanism of action (e.g. via biotransformation to active compounds, by influencing the metabolism of other steroids, or by displacing them from SHBG). (Endocrinology 114: 2100, 1984)

**Dawgpound_Hank** · 09-07-2009, 12:39 AM

Thx bros!

Androgenic/Anabolic Ratios...wtf?

Androgenic/Anabolic Ratios...wtf?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment