Article: Have Oral Steroids changed over the last 15 Years

[Mike Arnold]

Have Oral Steroids changed over the last 15 Years?​

It wasn?t long ago that oral AAS were segregated into the categories of mass-builder and cutter. It was quite simple; if you wanted to get big & strong you used a steroid like D-bol or Anadrol?and if you wanted to get harder and drier you use something like Winstrol or Anavar. Sure, there were some orals available which breached both categories, such as halotestin, which added the strength of a mass-builder while also making you hard and dry, but by and large, there weren?t really any orals around which added both size & strength without turning you into a bloated mess.

We see this clearly demonstrated when comparing the typical off-season and pre-contest cycles of BB?rs from this time period (10-12 years ago). Pre-contest cycles, especially as they approached show-time, began to gravitate towards stuff like Anavar, Winstrol, or Halotestin, while guys in the off-season rarelyused these drugs. D-bol and Anadrol were the bread & butter of off-season BB?rs trying to make further gains in size before their next show.

This trade-off took place for years. You could either be big, strong, and look like shit?or you could look great, while your size & strength suffered. Now, for those BB?rs (either competitive orrecreational) who don?t care how they look in the off-season, I guess this doesn?t really matter. However, there are quite a few guys out there who would love to be able to build maximum size & strength while looking hard & dry all year long. Previously, this was an impossibility, but a lot has changed over the last 10-12 years. Despite this, many still aren?t fully aware of their options and continue to make this same unnecessary sacrifice yearafter year, but before we talk about that let?s go back about 15 years and see how we arrived at this point to begin with.

In the late 90?s we saw the adventof the first prohormones. For the most part, they weren?t worth a shit and they certainly didn?t compare to the traditional steroids we had been using all along. It seemed that the only reason for their existence was to provide an option to those BB?rs who did not want to buy from the blackmarket. There was absolutely no reason for a BB?r already using the good stuff to purchase these things.
Well, as relatively worthless as these things were, they were the catalyst for big changes on the horizon, as they opened up the doorway for ballsy supplement companies to begin producing legitimate, fully active steroids under the guise of nutritional supplements. For those of you who aren?t aware of the events which led to this significant point in steroid history, I will briefly go over them now.

A couple years after the release of the first PH?s, the environment was ripe for more effective steroidal products, but supplement companies were left with a dilemma. They could either continue producing and selling weak products which only mildly accelerated progress or they could come up with an effective alternative, but how? It had long been the dream of many to see legitimate steroids sold legally to the public, but with fully active steroids being controlled substances, it didn?t seem like this would ever happen?and it wouldn?t have, until a loophole in the law was found which opened the doorway and made it a reality. You see, most of the steroid research that was conducted in the U.S and abroad took place in the 50?s-70?s. At this time, steroids had broad medical applications and this meant big profits for pharmaceutical companies. An immense of amount of research was conducted, in which 100?s of steroids were synthesized and explored fora ctivity. Out of this research came all of our traditional steroids?and many, many more AAS that most people had never even heard of.

Unfortunately, many of the most powerful muscle and strength building AAS were never produced by pharmaceutical companies?not because they were overly toxic (as some ignorant individuals have claimed), but because they did not have the ideal profile for treating specific medical conditions. Only a small portion of these steroids ever became prescription drugs, while knowledge of the rest were largely forgotten, left to collect dust in the research archives of these researchers.

Over 30 years later some entrepreneurial supplement companies realized that all of these previously unproduced steroids had never been listed as controlled substances. Therefore, they could be sold to the general public without legal ramification?and that?s exactly what happened. In 2003 we witnessed the first fully active steroid offered to the public in the form of methyl-1-testosterone (M1T). The bar was set high with this one, as M1T continues to remain the most potent oral AAS ever produced at any time, per effective dose. 16X as potent as testosterone and 5X as potent as Anadrol, per mg, this steroid blew the steroid world away. Gains of 20 lbs in 3 weeks were fairly common, but the side effects were horrible for most people?probably the worst ever for any steroid. Still, it did its job and let everyone know really quickly that the legal market was not only capable of competing with the black market in terms of oral steroid potency, but could actually exceed it. Since that time, many other steroids were released which equaled or surpassed traditional oral steroids in potency, such as SD (the most popular legal steroid ever sold), Epistane, Pheraplex(desoxymethyltestosterone), etc.

Now that you know how we got here, let?s address the abolishment of steroid ?categories?. One of the biggest advantages afforded to supplement companies through this loophole is that they were now able to personally hand-select which steroids they wanted to produce based on their physique and strength altering effects?not their ability to treat medical conditions. One of the first things we realized is that many of these previously un-scheduled research steroids produced an effect perfectly suited to the BB?r. This means we were no longer limited to steroids which made us bloated & big?or smaller, hard, and dry. A perfect example is SD. Look at what this steroid does...it adds more muscle fiber than either D-bol or Anadrol?it rivals or surpasses Anadrol in strength gains and blows away D-bol?and it does this while making us hard, dry,a nd super vascular. No other traditional oral steroid can do that. I could list many other legal orals which equal (or surpass) the muscle-building effects or traditional mass-builders without accompanying water retention.

The point here is that we can now have the best of both worlds. We can look good while being big & strong. While SD is now a banned substance (you can thank our gov. for that one), there are some other, newer steroids which produce similar effects. One of the best legal orals now being produced is Methylstenbolone, by IML. Let?s compare this drug to Anadrol. Anybody with even a modicum of experience with oral steroids understands that total weight gain is not always an accurate indicator of muscle growth. This is readily apparent when we use a steroid like Anadrol...we blow up, then drop half the size we gained 1 week after discontinuation, even though we may continue to use other steroids in its place. In this scenario, we aren't really losing any of our muscle fiber after stopping the Anadrol, but we are losing a lot of water...both intramuscular and sub-q...and this can have a tremendous impact on our visual appearance and strength levels.

With a drug like M-Sten, the muscle fiber building (not water) power EXCEEDS that of Anadrol on mg per mg basis. Yes, this stuff is more potent than Anadrol for muscle gain in a head-on comparison. However, you may not add as much bodyweight...because you're not going to hold the same amount of I.M or sub-q water as you would with Anadrol. In fact, M-Sten it will keep you hard, dry, and vascular as you add genuine muscle fiber at a rapid rate. Now, if you were to use M-Sten at the same dose that most people use Anadrol (50-100 mg/day) you very well might add the same amount of bodyweight, but I can assure you asignificantly greater percentage of your weight gain would be legitimate muscletissue.

Still, 100 mg is just too high of a dose with M-sten. I consider 50 mg to be a max dose for most advanced BB'rs, which will provide greater muscle gains than an equivalent dose of Anadrol orD-bol?and you will certainly look much better. Ohhh...I don't want toforget...this stuff won't make you feel like shit like some other orals will. For a lot of guys, this is important. After all, if you feel like crap for most of your cycle, is it really worth it? For some, maybe, but not for most, especially when there are alternatives out there which work even better without these shitty side effects. Appetite suppression doesn't seem to be an issue either.

Anyone who has used this stuff knows it performs well and does exactly what I said it does, so this post is addressed primarily to those who continue to rely on old-school classics likeD-bol, Anavar, Anadrol, etc. Now, you can?t use M-Sten at 20 mg per day and expect it to build more muscle than 100mg of D-bol, but that is common sense, isn?t it? In order to make a fair comparison, we need to evaluate it on a mg per mg basis.

If any of you have been contemplating trying M-Sten, but are undecided, I challenge you to take me upon the following, and if I am wrong, I want you to tell me about it publically. Use M-Sten for 40-50 mg per day for 6 weeks and if this stuff does not make you look better, build more muscle, lift more weight, and increase vascularity to a greater degree than an equivalent dose of D-bol, I will take down this article immediately. However, I am very confident that this won?t happen. Remember, when researchers evaluated M-Sten for anabolic potency, it achieved a rating of over 600! That is SEVERAL times higher than D-bol and twice as high as Anadrol.

For those of you who are beginners or who wish to start a lower dose, I consider the following guidelines reasonable. Beginners will do well at 20-30 mgdaily. Intermediates may want to use abit more at 30-40 mg daily?and those interested in maximizing gains will want to go up to about 50 mg per day.

 

[UA_Iron]

Honestly, I think I'll stick with compounds that have been sufficiently studied for their safety and efficacy. Even if they aren't the most ideal compounds for gaining muscle, a body of literature exists that details the affects on the body. I design complex systems for a Pharmaceutical, I know the rigors of having adequate testing and research.

Supplement companies offering these new compounds? Great, thats awesome, keep it up - but they'll never understand the efforts a Pharmaceutical goes through to release a drug to market, nor will they ever understand all the affects of the drugs on the body. They are not appropriately staffed for such measures.

How much bigger do you think Dorian Yates would have been had he had access to M1T?

 

[jay_steel]

Honestly, I think I'll stick with compounds that have been sufficiently studied for their safety and efficacy. Even if they aren't the most ideal compounds for gaining muscle, a body of literature exists that details the affects on the body. I design complex systems for a Pharmaceutical, I know the rigors of having adequate testing and research.

Supplement companies offering these new compounds? Great, thats awesome, keep it up - but they'll never understand the efforts a Pharmaceutical goes through to release a drug to market, nor will they ever understand all the affects of the drugs on the body. They are not appropriately staffed for such measures.

How much bigger do you think Dorian Yates would have been had he had access to M1T?

tell me UA how much pharma orals or oils do you actually take? because the shit is out right now is garbage compared to the 90's of orals. I have a few old school buddys that would only run 15 var and now they run 150 var for the same results. They use to only run 20 dbol now run 100 dbol for the same results. Shit is so underdosed its stupid. I told a vet that was off gear one time my dose and he flipped out saying i was going to die. They he got back on gear and realized why my dose is really this high. He would run 300mg of primo 300 test 200 parabolan and 15 dbol he said. This was a TOP level guy in that period of time. He was a pro at his time going for Mr. Universe local to where I am. To think of those doses for that level is nuts.

 

[HFO3]

US pharma ANAVAR used to come in 5mg tabs, 2-3 of them a day was a high dose. lol.

 

[jay_steel]

still does, i hook it up in our medical program to see what is still around and it comes in 5mg and I have a Dr. friend who is actually on it running it at 10-15 and saying its mind blowing.

 

[Arnold]

Honestly, I think I'll stick with compounds that have been sufficiently studied for their safety and efficacy. Even if they aren't the most ideal compounds for gaining muscle, a body of literature exists that details the affects on the body. I design complex systems for a Pharmaceutical, I know the rigors of having adequate testing and research.

Supplement companies offering these new compounds? Great, thats awesome, keep it up - but they'll never understand the efforts a Pharmaceutical goes through to release a drug to market, nor will they ever understand all the affects of the drugs on the body. They are not appropriately staffed for such measures.

How much bigger do you think Dorian Yates would have been had he had access to M1T?

really, then why do 100's of thousands of people die every year from Rx drugs?

 

[World-Pharma.org]

good article as always!

 

[UA_Iron]

This article needs to be retitled to something like "How NEW oral steroids have evolved and changed the game of bodybuilding" or something to that affect. This article has nothing to do with dosing of orals and how it may or may have not changed over the years even though the title implies it.

For you guys who didn't read it, I'll summarize; the author is stating that perhaps because pharmaceutical steroids of old were developed to treat specific conditions, none being 'put on as much muscle mass as possible,' that they might be obsolete to the new designer steroids that are being developed - such as M1T.

 

[UA_Iron]

tell me UA how much pharma orals or oils do you actually take? because the shit is out right now is garbage compared to the 90's of orals. I have a few old school buddys that would only run 15 var and now they run 150 var for the same results. They use to only run 20 dbol now run 100 dbol for the same results. Shit is so underdosed its stupid. I told a vet that was off gear one time my dose and he flipped out saying i was going to die. They he got back on gear and realized why my dose is really this high. He would run 300mg of primo 300 test 200 parabolan and 15 dbol he said. This was a TOP level guy in that period of time. He was a pro at his time going for Mr. Universe local to where I am. To think of those doses for that level is nuts.

I can't comment on dosing of pharmaceutical steroids - the last one I really ran were some naposims years ago. 20mg/day would make my nose bleed and blow me up. But honestly, QV dbol was even better imo. Now I'll just never run dbol again not my thing.

I was speaking to studied pharmaceutical compounds, raw ingredients really.

I also can't speak to anything your friend ran, nor do I understand why you'd make a general assumption off what he noticed when its not even an appropriate sample size to make such judgements. I know what I take is dead accurate - do a search for my name in the homebrewing forum.

really, then why do 100's of thousands of people die every year from Rx drugs?

My comments were to steroids specifically. I'm sure there's as many "whys" as there is as many deaths. Are you using this fact as justification countering my preference of sticking with actual pharmaceutical compounds?

 

[Mike Arnold]

This article needs to be retitled to something like "How NEW oral steroids have evolved and changed the game of bodybuilding" or something to that affect. This article has nothing to do with dosing of orals and how it may or may have not changed over the years even though the title implies it.

For you guys who didn't read it, I'll summarize; the author is stating that perhaps because pharmaceutical steroids of old were developed to treat specific conditions, none being 'put on as much muscle mass as possible,' that they might be obsolete to the new designer steroids that are being developed - such as M1T.

I didn't spend as much time as usual on this article, so sorry if the title is not to your liking.

 

[Mike Arnold]

Honestly, I think I'll stick with compounds that have been sufficiently studied for their safety and efficacy. Even if they aren't the most ideal compounds for gaining muscle, a body of literature exists that details the affects on the body. I design complex systems for a Pharmaceutical, I know the rigors of having adequate testing and research.

Supplement companies offering these new compounds? Great, thats awesome, keep it up - but they'll never understand the efforts a Pharmaceutical goes through to release a drug to market, nor will they ever understand all the affects of the drugs on the body. They are not appropriately staffed for such measures.

How much bigger do you think Dorian Yates would have been had he had access to M1T?

I hear your point, but in my opinion it is a little misguided. AAS as a whole are very well understood group of drugs. After all, they have been around for over 80 years and we know what effects they have on the body. It is also important to remember that all of the so-called "designer" steroids that have been released over the last 10 years were previously synthesized by pharm companies 40-50 years ago and there was nothing noted in the literature which indicates they are any different...or more or less dangerous than any of the other orals studied alongside them, such as Anadrol, Wnstrol, Anavar, etc.

Therefore, we do NOT need to subject every new steroid to the same level of scrutiny as the older prescription steroids, just to know it is going to function like every other oral steroid that came before it. We already did that with dozens of other prescription orals and guess what? They all present the same basic risk factors. This is because steroids as a group are similar drugs. The risks are basically the same across the board. Sure, there are variances between them, but in general they have been proven a relatively safe category of drugs.

The proof is in the pudding. Look at how many new orals have been released in the last 10 years. Millions of people have used these drugs worldwide and to my knowledge, no one has experienced any side effects which are not considered common to this class of drugs...nor have we seen any new side effects emerge...and the ones we are already aware of have not been any more or less severe than what we have seen with the wide spectrum of previously available prescription steroids.

So, while you are free to use what you want, to imply that there may be side effects uncommon to or greater than traditional orals is an implication that has not born out in the real-world.

 

[oufinny]

I hear your point, but in my opinion it is a little misguided. AAS as a whole are very well understood group of drugs. After all, they have been around for over 80 years and we know what effects they have on the body. It is also important to remember that all of the so-called "designer" steroids that have been released over the last 10 years were previously synthesized by pharm companies 40-50 years ago and there was nothing noted in the literature which indicates they are any different...or more or less dangerous than any of the other orals studied alongside them, such as Anadrol, Wnstrol, Anavar, etc.

Therefore, we do NOT need to subject every new steroid to the same level of scrutiny as the older prescription steroids, just to know it is going to function like every other oral steroid that came before it. We already did that with dozens of other prescription orals and guess what? They all present the same basic risk factors. This is because steroids as a group are similar drugs. The risks are basically the same across the board. Sure, there are variances between them, but in general they have been proven a relatively safe category of drugs.

The proof is in the pudding. Look at how many new orals have been released in the last 10 years. Millions of people have used these drugs worldwide and to my knowledge, no one has experienced any side effects which are not considered common to this class of drugs...nor have we seen any new side effects emerge...and the ones we are already aware of have not been any more or less severe than what we have seen with the wide spectrum of previously available prescription steroids.

So, while you are free to use what you want, to imply that there may be side effects uncommon to or greater than traditional orals is an implication that has not born out in the real-world.

Well said Mike. In my PERSONAL, so this is anedotal not science, opinion I had far less side effects from M-sten, DMZ, SD and Epi than I ever did from Dbol or Winstrol. Anavar, can't say how good it was for sure, didn't really have any negative sides but I knew I was on something and not in the good feeling kind of way. I ran 40mg of Dbol that I know was considered of a high quality and it gave me horrid sides, BP spiked and I had bad headaches. Mind you I am on prescribed BP medication and even on SD it only went up to 130/85 the two times it was taken. I know many love anadrol, dbol, winny but their are some great options now. I will put a stack of SD or DMZ with Halotestin against Var/Winny any day going into a contest. Why, I have the guy I write all his cycles for that wins NPC shows do exactly that and he has never been as grainy/striated/dry as he is on the designers. It's a to each their own kind of deal, and I am really shocked Mike didn't bring up DMZ, its truly amazing stuff.

 

[Mike Arnold]

Well said Mike. In my PERSONAL, so this is anedotal not science, opinion I had far less side effects from M-sten, DMZ, SD and Epi than I ever did from Dbol or Winstrol. Anavar, can't say how good it was for sure, didn't really have any negative sides but I knew I was on something and not in the good feeling kind of way. I ran 40mg of Dbol that I know was considered of a high quality and it gave me horrid sides, BP spiked and I had bad headaches. Mind you I am on prescribed BP medication and even on SD it only went up to 130/85 the two times it was taken. I know many love anadrol, dbol, winny but their are some great options now. I will put a stack of SD or DMZ with Halotestin against Var/Winny any day going into a contest. Why, I have the guy I write all his cycles for that wins NPC shows do exactly that and he has never been as grainy/striated/dry as he is on the designers. It's a to each their own kind of deal, and I am really shocked Mike didn't bring up DMZ, its truly amazing stuff.

I was focusing more on M-Sten this time out, but absolutely, there are some great products out there...amd Super DMZ is one of them.

 

[UA_Iron]

I didn't spend as much time as usual on this article, so sorry if the title is not to your liking.

Technically, it's not incorrect, just misleading as to the content matter. I appreciate you writing the article.

I hear your point, but in my opinion it is a little misguided. AAS as a whole are very well understood group of drugs. After all, they have been around for over 80 years and we know what effects they have on the body. It is also important to remember that all of the so-called "designer" steroids that have been released over the last 10 years were previously synthesized by pharm companies 40-50 years ago and there was nothing noted in the literature which indicates they are any different...or more or less dangerous than any of the other orals studied alongside them, such as Anadrol, Wnstrol, Anavar, etc.

Therefore, we do NOT need to subject every new steroid to the same level of scrutiny as the older prescription steroids, just to know it is going to function like every other oral steroid that came before it. We already did that with dozens of other prescription orals and guess what? They all present the same basic risk factors. This is because steroids as a group are similar drugs. The risks are basically the same across the board. Sure, there are variances between them, but in general they have been proven a relatively safe category of drugs.

The proof is in the pudding. Look at how many new orals have been released in the last 10 years. Millions of people have used these drugs worldwide and to my knowledge, no one has experienced any side effects which are not considered common to this class of drugs...nor have we seen any new side effects emerge...and the ones we are already aware of have not been any more or less severe than what we have seen with the wide spectrum of previously available prescription steroids.

So, while you are free to use what you want, to imply that there may be side effects uncommon to or greater than traditional orals is an implication that has not born out in the real-world.

I think this is a fair justification for applying to the designer steroids. I am still caught up on the idea of M1T being a super liver toxic steroid, it would be nice to know its relative toxicity to a drug like say, halotestin.

Thanks again for writing the article.

 

[Mike Arnold]

Technically, it's not incorrect, just misleading as to the content matter. I appreciate you writing the article.



I think this is a fair justification for applying to the designer steroids. I am still caught up on the idea of M1T being a super liver toxic steroid, it would be nice to know its relative toxicity to a drug like say, halotestin.

Thanks again for writing the article.

M1T was certainly one of the more harsh orals...no doubt about that. Running that drug for an 8-10 weeker isn't very realistic...unless you want to experience major flucuations in liver enzymes. Howeveer, stuff like M-Sten, Dimethazine, etc...are much less toxic per mg and similar to traditional orals like D-bol and Anadrol in terms of toxicity. Actually, Dimethazine was a prescription steroid at one point...for about 10 years in 2 different countries.