MESO-Rx Exclusive Peter Bond on the anabolic-to-androgenic ratio

[MESO-Rx Administrator]

We published a new MESO-Rx original article today. It is the first in a series from Peter Bond. Peter is a great source of evidence-based steroid information. His "Book on Steroids" is highly recommended too.

Please read the following article and let us know what you think:

The Anabolic to Androgenic Ratio is Worthless and Hinders the Quest for Safer Steroids & SARMs

The anabolic to androgenic ratio compares steroids relative to each other in terms of anabolic and androgenic potency. To minimize androgenic side effects, you select an AAS with a favorable ratio. However, there are so many issues that it's worthless.

thinksteroids.com

 

[Millard]

It seems like there would be better tools available in the drug development of anabolic steroids. I guess if researchers are still using the anabolic to androgenic ratio for SARMs, it shouldn't be too surprising that none of the SARM candidates have proven to offer any real benefits over traditional steroids.

AAS technology is very old. The "best" steroids, or at least the most popular are over 50 years old. You would think there would be some real progress towards a superior (safer) steroid by now.

What will it take to move forward? Or is this as good as it gets for AAS?

 

[PeterBond]

It's ironic how they rely on the Hershberger method and relative binding affinity (RBA) assays to screen for potential SARM candidates.

These same experimental methods have failed to yield a SARM with the hundreds of AAS they've tried previously over the decades. And the reason why is clear; my critique of the Hershberger method isn't new. Why would they expect any predictive value to come from these methods with SARMs belonging to different chemical classes?

Initial screening only needs to validate if there's _any_ reasonable affinity for the androgen receptor, coupled with high specificity (i.e. no affinity to other steroid receptors). Afterwards you can rely on high-throughput screening based on adverse outcome pathways.

 

[Ferenor]

I read lot of things from Peter, especially the book on steroids. Highly recommended

 

[Millard]

I read lot of things from Peter, especially the book on steroids. Highly recommended

MESO-Rx is fortunate to have @PeterBond as a featured writer. I give a x2 on the book recommendation. As you guys probably know, I read everything published about AAS. Most writers seem to rewrite/rephrase other book content. But Peter truly brings an original treatment and analysis of the subject matter. Highly recommended!

 

[MFAAS]

This is one of the downsides of research, particularly in less mainstream research areas. When the field has a flawed foundation (in this case the Anabolic:Androgenic Ratio, Hershberger assay, etc.) previous research continues to build on that flawed foundation. Pretty soon you end up with a whole area of research or class of drugs that just doesn't have truly accurate information that can be reliably used in application to human consumption.

We almost need a reset with this field...not a total new page, but we need to take a step back and really re-analyze what we think we know. The AR CALUX bioassay looks like it was first published about by the creators in around 2004, so fairly recently. I'm glad people are still working on better ways to judge AAS compounds. Hopefully someday we develop a better way to test these things out. It's It's a damn shame to see companies compounds that could be promising simply because one of these somewhat useless RBAs don't provide the results they're looking for.

Thanks for the heads up on this article @Millard