mars1960

Just found this, i'd like your opinions lads.

---

There is no question about it. Underground steroid products make up the dominant share of the global steroid business now. What was once a market largely fed by real prescription drugs, is now one where small-scale underground manufacturing and home brewing operations thrive. The underground market does accomplish one very substantial thing – it allows the very large demand for these drugs to be met. It will be the first to admit, that were it not for the underground aspect of this trade, there would be far fewer drugs in commerce, and far fewer people with access to them. But this article is not about the availability of underground steroids. It is about their safety.

Underground steroids are indeed everywhere. But are they actually safe to use? Are underground steroids truly equivalent to the prescription drugs they are to replace? Those in support of the underground business often herald their favorite brands. Who is to blame them when they have access to a company that can supply them the variety, and often great value, that can be found with underground steroids. Many readers will recognize that we have had a very active testing history at Body of Science. In fact, I suspect that no single magazine or online community has tested as much as we have. But we too have our limitations. Up until now, our testing has been focused solely on the steroid content of a product. In other words, we have been able to tell you if X steroid was present in Y amount, but that is it.

The Labs

In an effort to help consumers REALLY assess the quality and potential health risks of underground steroid products, ************.com and ANABOLICS undertook a detailed joint drug analysis project. This project focused solely on examining the quality of steroids made from underground facilities, and exceeded the normal scope of testing by examining a number of other variables often overlooked in dosage testing. A total of 14 underground steroid samples were selected for laboratory testing, which included products from Amplio Labs, British Dragon, Diamond Pharma, Generic Anabolics, Generic Pharma, Lizard Laboratories, Medical Inc., Microbiological Labs, Nordic Supplements, Shark Laboratories, SWE Supplements, and Troy Labs. Included in this list were drugs that were made from small underground manufacturers, mid-level operations, and even producers large enough to have their items assembled under contract by drug manufacturing facilities. All 14 samples were analyzed at a registered and licensed facility in the U.S.

The Tests

There were four specific areas of testing for this market analysis project. The first test was to look for the presence of toxic heavy metals such metals as lead, tin, mercury, and ****nic. Next, we commissioned the standard steroid quantification testing to see how these products were dosed. After this we looked to see if there were any unknown steroidal contaminants in the products. Pharmaceutical grade steroids will be highly pure. Unprocessed intermediary chemicals or other contaminants should not appear upon analysis. The presence of unknown steroidal substances signifies that lower quality materials (not made to pharmaceutical standards) were used. Finally, we examined for the presence of the flavoring agent 2,4-decadienal. This material is common to food products, and its presence demonstrates that food-grade oil (not highly pure pharmaceutical grade oil for injection) was used during product manufacture.

The Results

A detailing of the first 2 results from this testing series is available below, for all readers to see. Overall, the products examined in this study reflected extremely poorly on the quality of the underground steroid market. To begin with, more than 20% of the products (1 in 5) contained heavy metal contamination. While pre-market testing would have noticed this, if such products were ever found on pharmacy shelves in the U.S. it would trigger an immediate nationwide recall. Next, an examination of basic drug dosing showed many deviations. Approximately 35% of the products were actually significantly overdosed. While this was likely done in an effort to produce a stronger user response and loyal customer base, this is unacceptable and does raise many potential safety issues. The remaining results will be published in the upcoming release of William Llewellyn’s ANABOLICS 7th Edition (2009).


Test #1: Heavy Metals Contamination

Sample Contamination Result
1. methandrostenolone None Detected (<0.002) PASS
2. testosterone enanthate None Detected (<0.002) PASS
3. testosterone enanthate None Detected (<0.002) PASS
4. testosterone propionate None Detected (<0.002) PASS
5. boldenone undecylenate Metals Found (>0.002) FAIL
6. testosterone cypionate None Detected (<0.002) PASS
7. boldenone undecylenate Metals Found (<0.002) FAIL
8. trenbolone hexahydro. None Detected (<0.002) PASS
9. testosterone cypionate None Detected (<0.002) PASS
10. methenolone enanthate Metals Found (>0.002) FAIL
11. testosterone cypionate None Detected (<0.002) PASS
12. nandrolone decanoate None Detected (<0.002) PASS
13. methenolone enanthate None Detected (<0.002) PASS
14. trenbolone enanthate None Detected (<0.002) PASS

Failure Rate: 21%


Test #2: Dosage vs. Label Claim (mg/mL)

Sample Labeled Dose / Actual Dose / Percentage of Claim / Pass Fail Status
1. methandrostenolone 25 mg 115 mg 459% FAIL
2. testosterone enanthate 250 mg 440 mg 176% FAIL
3. testosterone enanthate 250 mg 408 mg 163% FAIL
4. testosterone propionate 75 mg 127 mg 169% FAIL
5. boldenone undecylenate 200 mg 240 mg 120% PASS
6. testosterone cypionate 200 mg 204 mg 102% PASS
7. boldenone undecylenate 200 mg 178 mg 89% PASS
8. trenbolone hexahydro. 76 mg 190 mg 249% FAIL
9. testosterone cypionate 200 mg 177 mg 88% PASS
10. methenolone enanthate 100 mg 54 mg 54% FAIL
11. testosterone cypionate 250 mg 171 mg 69% FAIL
12. nandrolone decanoate 250 mg 228 mg 91% PASS
13. methenolone enanthate 100 mg 78 mg 78% FAIL
14. trenbolone enanthate 100 mg 0 mg 0% FAIL

Failure Rate: 64% (+/- >20% of Label Claim)


Conclusion

The results are fairly self-explanatory. Even with just these two sets of tests under our belt, serious problems are evident. The heavy metals, of course, are alarming. The metals tested here are all known to pose specific threats to health when they accumulate in the body. Those metals considered inert (such as iron and aluminum) were not included. Heavy metals are common in chemical-manufacturing operations, but are normally removed through very careful product assembly and purification steps. They were likely found here because the raw materials used to make some of these steroids was simply made “cheaply”, without the expense needed to hit true drug-grade purity. This type of material could be considered “food grade”, and likely dominates most of the underground market.

This article is certainly not meant to be an outright attack on underground products. Indeed, to many bodybuilders these products fill an important niche, which is very understandable. Indeed also, there are products to be found on the underground market that are made to high quality standards. In fact, these results should underline the other side of the coin, that it is possible for underground steroids to meet the level of true pharmaceutical grade drug purity. After all, some of these products did not have any unacceptable heavy metals, and were properly dosed. The very difficult trick, however, can be just finding them. Either way, I feel it is very important to be aware of the good and the bad of the underground anabolic/androgenic steroid market before you make any decisions. Stay informed. Stay safe.

Beans

Some of the tested dosages are shocking.

Dbol labled at 25mg/tab, tested at 115mg per tab. That is awful.

Very interesting.

Great post.

Tall

Buy one... Get 3.5 free

Beans

LOL

50mg ED for four weeks, on those thing's would turn me yellow.

Tall

Chinese Generics?

hackskii

Bump baby for tomorrow........................yah.........

__________________
Power over others is weakness disguised as strength.

Scott

redman

In all honesty the heavy metals issue is actually quite pleasing, Its only the boldenone that an issue and IMO the whole issue is blown out of all proportion. You are likely to breath in and inject more heavy metals/free radicals etc in a day that you could inject in a week.

The doses on the other hand take the p1ss. It really isnt hard to dose something correctally. Its like baking a cake and putting in 3 time as much flour as you need!

P1ss poor, I hope they name and shame the labs.

William has always been on the over cautious side regarding UGLs you can see why whit those doses. Looking forward to 2009 addition.

Sylar

Those results are pretty alarming, although he only tested samples from 12 UGLabs right?

Amplio Labs
British Dragon
Diamond Pharma
Generic Anabolics
Generic Pharma
Lizard Laboratories
Medical Inc.
Microbiological Labs
Nordic Supplements
Shark Laboratories
SWE Supplements
Troy Labs

Do you use UG labs yourself, mars?

mars1960

Up until last night i did,, seriously though, yes i do use UG gear.

GTT

I think Overdosing is out of order, you see lots of people bigging UG gear saying its overdosed as if its a good thing. If i am doing a cycle and i choose to take say 500mg of enanthate then there is a reason i have decided on that-- i dont want to be really taking 1g in test because its overdosed, its impossible to create a realistic benchmark of how your body is progressing when you dont have a clue what doseages you are really taking.

xzx

Thats a very good analysis and addresses the problem from a different angle. Good post.

jayt

good read, reps

Pscarb

i am suprised he never tested products from HCL as he has mentioned this lab alot in his MD column on a posative note

__________________



Do not PM or Mail me asking for a source as a BAN may offend

Sylar

Just not from the above labs, I imagine?

The UG lab that cannot be discussed on this board (or the "Unholy One" as some may call it ) are very good IMO, good prices too.

Cheers for the post mars, I would rep you but got to spread some "love" about first.

It does slightly come across as scaremongering though IMO.. He should have tested samples from dozens of more UGlabs for the report to hold any real scientific weight.

Maybe he did, just didn't publish the results..

hackskii

This one is funny. Zero percent....lol
Looks like one lab is making a killing on oils......lol


I have a question for redman, if the weight of the ester in the testosterone powder gives less mg per ml based on the number of carbon atoms, does pharma test cyp @ 200mg per ml have 200mg per ml?
Or is the weight of the ester not factored in with regards to total mg?
If this is the case then the enanthate passed barely and the cypionate faild with just a few mg diffrence in dose. I would assume that would be one more carbon atom that would make the diffrence.

__________________
Power over others is weakness disguised as strength.

Scott