Primo vs. Mast

[Rido]

I was relating that to my point about Masteron and your presumably rhetorical question on what experience I’m basing it off.
One doesn’t need experience to understand how drugs work.
I have a lot to learn on this forum, specifically about diet and exercise and how to utilize high hormonal profile within short periods of time.
But just hearing someone say “hey guys mast/primo/whatever killed my libido therefore you should avoid it” is not something I would rely on while choosing a compound to run.
There’s a degree to which drugs affect individuals differently, but unless you’re an extreme outlier, most drugs will do what they’re supposed to.
So just because someone used some UGL fake/ underdosed product doesn’t mean the pharmacology is different had the product been legit and dosed/administered correctly.
So yes, medical knowledge could be important in extrapolating available data on pharmacokinetics. I’ve seen guys on here with decades of cycling under their belt recommend high test high deca cycles and then not understanding why their libido is dead.
What is less helpful is a typical gym bro comment like don’t teach me how to lift unless you bench 300 bro.

Banter on..

You stated that mast is only for contest prep. Find me something on pharmakinects that say it is made for drying out.

I am all for science but you are regurgitating shit and running back to science as your rationale. There are no studies to state it doesn't create growth but there is enough anectodal reports to state it does with test alone.

 

[kakaboom!21]

Primo was utilized for anemia and I do not understand what your point of this argument is.

For medical treatment primo is STILL prescribed where anabolism is required.
Have you ever wondered how Primo treats anemia?
Guess they don’t teach that on forums.
Aplastic anemia is treated by increasing hematocrit and RBC, which is stimulated by anabolism.
I’ve personally spoken to patients who got prescribed primo for sarcopenia and just 200 mg a week makes a huge difference.
Anabolism resulting in hypertrophy or bone marrow doesn’t matter, it’s still anabolism.
Drostanolone in its history was never, ever prescribed for anything above, even off label.i Primo is still prescribed for muscle wasting deceased in Japan too.
so yes, you literally just made an argument against yourself.

 

[Rido]

For medical treatment primo is STILL prescribed where anabolism is required.
Have you ever wondered how Primo treats anemia?
Guess they don’t teach that on forums.
Aplastic anemia is treated by increasing hematocrit and RBC, which is stimulated by anabolism.
I’ve personally spoken to patients who got prescribed primo for sarcopenia and just 200 mg a week makes a huge difference.
Anabolism resulting in hypertrophy or bone marrow doesn’t matter, it’s still anabolism.
Drostanolone in its history was never, ever prescribed for anything above, even off label.i Primo is still prescribed for muscle wasting deceased in Japan too.
so yes, you literally just made an argument against yourself.

Ok, bro. Whatever you say pro. Half the shit you mentioned in here is dated practice.

You are literally stating things in medical history books. Idk what country you are living in but it clearly isn't the US.

No hematologist would prescribe primo over epo.

 

[kakaboom!21]

Banter on..

You stated that mast is only for contest prep. Find me something on pharmakinects that say it is made for drying out.

I am all for science but you are regurgitating shit and running back to science as your rationale. There are no studies to state it doesn't create growth but there is enough anectodal reports to state it does with test alone.

And you can guarantee that it’s not the test that is causing the anabolism?
You cannot say that something is proven just because it’s anecdotal either. Science doesn’t work like that, bro. You prove the positive, not the negative. Your claim is that Masteron builds muscle, while there’s no study to prove that.
My question was very simple. Any volunteers for 360mg mast only cycle compared to 420 primo only cycle? (That’s the approx comparable dose to get equal molecular mass)
Don’t think so.

 

[Rido]

And you can guarantee that it’s not the test that is causing the anabolism?
You cannot say that something is proven just because it’s anecdotal either. Science doesn’t work like that, bro. You prove the positive, not the negative. Your claim is that Masteron builds muscle, while there’s no study to prove that.
My question was very simple. Any volunteers for 360mg mast only cycle compared to 420 primo only cycle? (That’s the approx comparable dose to get equal molecular mass)
Don’t think so.

Not gonna bother wasting my time with you.

You can read this if you care to

Masteron as a growth promoter

I wanted to bring this discussion up. I know that even 5 years ago and you searched this topic up, People would always say that "Masteron is useless over 12% bodyfat" "Masteron is only cosmetic" Now it seems that there are more respectable people, John Jewett, Broderick, Chase Irons state...

thinksteroids.com

 

[kakaboom!21]

Ok, bro. Whatever you say pro. Half the shit you mentioned in here is dated practice.

You are literally stating things in medical history books. Idk what country you are living in but it clearly isn't the US.

No hematologist would prescribe primo over epo.

Ok, bro. Whatever you say pro. Half the shit you mentioned in here is dated practice.

You are literally stating things in medical history books. Idk what country you are living in but it clearly isn't the US.

No hematologist would prescribe primo over epo.

US is not a good example of logical medical application, where some opioids are in Schedule 4 and AAS are in Schedule 3 drug category.
primo is more virilizing that’s why I think they stopped prescribing it there, but Spain, Japan and Turkey see no problem prescribing Primo for muscle wasting to this day.

 

[Deezznutzz]

Maybe I didn't do enough but on 300 a week tested primo I saw almost zero gains for 3 months. Dropped the Primo and upped my trt to a 500 a week cycle and started growing. I may try it again someday but at a bigger dose.

 

[kakaboom!21]

Maybe I didn't do enough but on 300 a week tested primo I saw almost zero gains for 3 months. Dropped the Primo and upped my trt to a 500 a week cycle and started growing. I may try it again someday but at a bigger dose.

Where I currently live most people often run primo cycles and effective dose for muscle growth is 450-800 mg/wk. 300 mg would probably give good cosmetic effects (what I’m currently experiencing) but limited growth, unless you run it for 20-30 weeks. It’s very slow growth indeed.

 

[kakaboom!21]

Not gonna bother wasting my time with you.

You can read this if you care to

Masteron as a growth promoter

I wanted to bring this discussion up. I know that even 5 years ago and you searched this topic up, People would always say that "Masteron is useless over 12% bodyfat" "Masteron is only cosmetic" Now it seems that there are more respectable people, John Jewett, Broderick, Chase Irons state...

thinksteroids.com

Thanks brother, will do. All the best.

 

[Type-IIx]

And you can guarantee that it’s not the test that is causing the anabolism?
You cannot say that something is proven just because it’s anecdotal either. Science doesn’t work like that, bro. You prove the positive, not the negative. Your claim is that Masteron builds muscle, while there’s no study to prove that.
My question was very simple. Any volunteers for 360mg mast only cycle compared to 420 primo only cycle? (That’s the approx comparable dose to get equal molecular mass)
Don’t think so.

Primo is virtually interchangeable functionally with Mast. Both are relatively modest in their potency to transactivate mammalian AR, but Mast > Primo actually in this potency (33.2% the potency of DHT [Mast] vs. 28.75% the potency of DHT [Primo] per Houtman). Both are unfortunately subject to metabolism (breakdown in human skeletal muscle) by 3α-HSD, resulting in dramatically reduced skeletal muscle anabolism in human vs. rodent. Indeed, this similarity is shared by Proviron, and as such it is not unreasonable to mention Proviron (a far more potent AR agonist on paper than Mast or Primo) in the same discussion.

Where the two seem to differ functionally, is that Mast has been shown to prevent the uptake of estrogens into, e.g. breast cells, and is therefore a tissue-specific modulator of estrogenic activity (not unlike epitiostanol, the non-methylated counterpart of Epistane that is used clinically in Japan to treat gynecomastia). Primo may serve to reduce circulating estrogens by 17β-HSD1 inhibition (DHT has been shown to be a good ligand for this enzyme), and metenolone's more saturated/estrogen-like A-ring may confer some inhibitory potency for 17β-HSD1 [resulting in decreased E2]), and/or aromatase inhibition. There is insufficient evidence to state either with confidence presently. What matters is that both have good efficacy and attenuated androgenicity particularly in treatment-resistant advanced cancer of the breast. Mast fell out of favor because of its significantly greater androgenicity to Primo in women, however; hence the actual reason why it's not available commercially as a pharmaceutical preparation.

It's great that you are a student of medicine, I wish you all the best brother. Do be aware that bold confidence on this forum, as a practical AAS neophyte, will require that you do more than make appeals to authority of ongoing education, however. And do avoid the perils (I am not saying you have done so, but I think I see a tendency) of conflating absence of evidence with evidence of absence, a common logical pitfall or fallacy.

I disagree that Primo iS iNcOmPrEnSiBlY nOnCoMpArAbLe to Mast in practice. They are remarkably similar. While I think most do prefer Primo, as I do; this is largely because it's appealing to me that it has known advantageous cardiovascular effects versus testosterone (but absence of evidence for Mast is not evidence of absence for these effects), and that it is still commercially available in some markets as a pharmaceutical product. It does not follow that Primo is superior per se to Mast, however.

Indeed, if you investigate Primo (metenolone enanthate)'s safety profile using a tool like FAFDrugs4tool, you may be surprised to learn that it fails to comply with the GlaxoSmithKline 4/400 Rule, Lilly Med Chem Rules, in addition to Pfizer's 3/75 Rule on logP, and is thus regarded as an unsafe and therefore unapproved medicine under many international and national standards.

 

[SkullCrusher]

Primo is virtually interchangeable functionally with Mast. Both are relatively modest in their potency to transactivate mammalian AR, but Mast > Primo actually in this potency (33.2% the potency of DHT [Mast] vs. 28.75% the potency of DHT [Primo] per Houtman). Both are unfortunately subject to metabolism (breakdown in human skeletal muscle) by 3α-HSD, resulting in dramatically reduced skeletal muscle anabolism in human vs. rodent. Indeed, this similarity is shared by Proviron, and as such it is not unreasonable to mention Proviron (a far more potent AR agonist on paper than Mast or Primo) in the same discussion.

Where the two seem to differ functionally, is that Mast has been shown to prevent the uptake of estrogens into, e.g. breast cells, and is therefore a tissue-specific modulator of estrogenic activity (not unlike epitiostanol, the non-methylated counterpart of Epistane that is used clinically in Japan to treat gynecomastia). Primo may serve to reduce circulating estrogens by 17β-HSD1 inhibition (DHT has been shown to be a good ligand for this enzyme), and metenolone's more saturated/estrogen-like A-ring may confer some inhibitory potency for 17β-HSD1 [resulting in decreased E2]), and/or aromatase inhibition. There is insufficient evidence to state either with confidence presently. What matters is that both have good efficacy and attenuated androgenicity particularly in treatment-resistant advanced cancer of the breast. Mast fell out of favor because of its significantly greater androgenicity to Primo in women, however; hence the actual reason why it's not available commercially as a pharmaceutical preparation.

It's great that you are a student of medicine, I wish you all the best brother. Do be aware that bold confidence on this forum, as a practical AAS neophyte, will require that you do more than make appeals to authority of ongoing education, however. And do avoid the perils (I am not saying you have done so, but I think I see a tendency) of conflating absence of evidence with evidence of absence, a common logical pitfall or fallacy.

I disagree that Primo iS iNcOmPrEnSiBlY nOnCoMpArAbLe to Mast in practice. They are remarkably similar. While I think most do prefer Primo, as I do; this is largely because it's appealing to me that it has known advantageous cardiovascular effects versus testosterone (but absence of evidence for Mast is not evidence of absence for these effects), and that it is still commercially available in some markets as a pharmaceutical product. It does not follow that Primo is superior per se to Mast, however.

Indeed, if you investigate Primo (metenolone enanthate)'s safety profile using a tool like FAFDrugs4tool, you may be surprised to learn that it fails to comply with the GlaxoSmithKline 4/400 Rule, Lilly Med Chem Rules, in addition to Pfizer's 3/75 Rule on logP, and is thus regarded as an unsafe and therefore unapproved medicine under many international and national standards.

For me personally, having Bayer Rimobolan from a local pharmacy I know and trust just outweighs using Mast because it’s always UGL.

I’d need to know the raw supplier well and then home brew so I know the oil is natural not synthetic & the exact solvents etc.

I’m super cautious though & have never used UGL injections.

That’s a pity because pharma Masteron had great effect on gym friends. I never got to try it though

 

[Fredy]

People are taking primo instead of using an AI for E2. Lots of people are crashing E2 because they think more is better.
Lots of people are taking mast because it hides E2 sides. Taking mast while on tren helps keep sides under control.

Personal I haven’t taken primo but I have used mast twice. Mast and Primo are being used in trt because they both help with E2.

 

[Rido]

People are taking primo instead of using an AI for E2. Lots of people are crashing E2 because they think more is better.
Lots of people are taking mast because it hides E2 sides. Taking mast while on tren helps keep sides under control.

Personal I haven’t taken primo but I have used mast twice. Mast and Primo are being used in trt because they both help with E2.

I think it affects progestin receptors as well and suspected to inhibit prolactin secretion (it did so in rats)

 

[QuantumCornerie]

So Mr Olympia understands every compound’s effect on human bodyjust because he’s tried it, following your logic?
I’m studying medicine and can understand pharmacology without testing everything under the sun on myself.
Drostanolone was literally made to treat breast cancer by changing E2-mediated gene transcription. What that means is while it may not directly lower E2, it does inhibit estrogen receptor binding affinity, which is what most people would care about on a cycle or from overall well-being perspective.
It’s literally FDA approved to be an antiestrogenuc drug. Don’t know what bro science you’re talking about.

My man watched a more plates more dates video and is regurgitating it lmao

 

[Deezznutzz]

Primo is virtually interchangeable functionally with Mast. Both are relatively modest in their potency to transactivate mammalian AR, but Mast > Primo actually in this potency (33.2% the potency of DHT [Mast] vs. 28.75% the potency of DHT [Primo] per Houtman). Both are unfortunately subject to metabolism (breakdown in human skeletal muscle) by 3α-HSD, resulting in dramatically reduced skeletal muscle anabolism in human vs. rodent. Indeed, this similarity is shared by Proviron, and as such it is not unreasonable to mention Proviron (a far more potent AR agonist on paper than Mast or Primo) in the same discussion.

Where the two seem to differ functionally, is that Mast has been shown to prevent the uptake of estrogens into, e.g. breast cells, and is therefore a tissue-specific modulator of estrogenic activity (not unlike epitiostanol, the non-methylated counterpart of Epistane that is used clinically in Japan to treat gynecomastia). Primo may serve to reduce circulating estrogens by 17β-HSD1 inhibition (DHT has been shown to be a good ligand for this enzyme), and metenolone's more saturated/estrogen-like A-ring may confer some inhibitory potency for 17β-HSD1 [resulting in decreased E2]), and/or aromatase inhibition. There is insufficient evidence to state either with confidence presently. What matters is that both have good efficacy and attenuated androgenicity particularly in treatment-resistant advanced cancer of the breast. Mast fell out of favor because of its significantly greater androgenicity to Primo in women, however; hence the actual reason why it's not available commercially as a pharmaceutical preparation.

It's great that you are a student of medicine, I wish you all the best brother. Do be aware that bold confidence on this forum, as a practical AAS neophyte, will require that you do more than make appeals to authority of ongoing education, however. And do avoid the perils (I am not saying you have done so, but I think I see a tendency) of conflating absence of evidence with evidence of absence, a common logical pitfall or fallacy.

I disagree that Primo iS iNcOmPrEnSiBlY nOnCoMpArAbLe to Mast in practice. They are remarkably similar. While I think most do prefer Primo, as I do; this is largely because it's appealing to me that it has known advantageous cardiovascular effects versus testosterone (but absence of evidence for Mast is not evidence of absence for these effects), and that it is still commercially available in some markets as a pharmaceutical product. It does not follow that Primo is superior per se to Mast, however.

Indeed, if you investigate Primo (metenolone enanthate)'s safety profile using a tool like FAFDrugs4tool, you may be surprised to learn that it fails to comply with the GlaxoSmithKline 4/400 Rule, Lilly Med Chem Rules, in addition to Pfizer's 3/75 Rule on logP, and is thus regarded as an unsafe and therefore unapproved medicine under many international and national standards.

May I ask what you do for a living? Always with the intelligent answers. Thanks for the info.

 

[BawlsDeep]

Any volunteers for 360mg mast only cycle compared to 420 primo only cycle? (That’s the approx comparable dose to get equal molecular mass

what u mean? their MWs are practically identical.

 

[I6JQdr06]

what u mean? their MWs are practically identical.

True. 360mg Mast E is equal to 358mg Primo E

 

[kakaboom!21]

True. 360mg Mast E is equal to 358mg Primo E

While the MW is identical, the esters make a difference in how much of the product you’re actually getting. At high dosages that may create significant difference. So yes if you compare Primo (being Enanthate) to Drostanolone Propionate (Masteron), the amount of drug you get is different, after the ester weight is cleaved off. Primo is 72.9% API, while Masteron is 84.4% API. So if you want to directly compare the dosages you take molecular weight, molar mass and the ester weights.
There’s no such thing as Mast E, because Masteron is a brand name. AFAIK it was only sold as Propionate.

 

[kakaboom!21]

My man watched a more plates more dates video and is regurgitating it lmao

I used to watch Derek but I didn’t know he had a video about Masteron. What I wrote above is argued about on most bb forums I’ve scrolled through, don’t think it’s anything new.

 

[kakaboom!21]

That’s a pity because pharma Masteron had great effect on gym friends. I never got to try it though

Same here, I only use Bayer Primo. A few local pros that go to the same gym as me say that they prefer Primo any day over Mast, and they only use Mast for hardness/prep/E2 managing, while Primo is pretty much used year around. It’s the general consensus at local shows that I’ve attended also and the people I talked to that pharma Primo is just more anabolic and pharma is pharma, like you said.