Thanks for the replies. I truly always appreciate the quick replies from the PP reps. It's very helpful and one of the reasons I took a look at Andromass and bought three bottles of AM to begin with.
I understand the "anabolic equivalent" comparison. I have to say, however, that I was under the impression that Andromass would produce test-like effects either because it had similar properties to test or because it converted directly to test. The reason I was under this impression was mostly because Primordial Performance touted AM as the "must have test base" for all cycles.
Since Primordial Performance suggests that AM makes for a good "test" base, then it must be similar to testosterone for reasons aside from the fact that they both build muscle. AM's propensity to build muscle does not make it similar to test. It's anabolic potential makes it steroid-like, but if you're going to liken the compound to testosterone, then it should indeed have test like effects. If AM's anabolic potential is the only reason you're likening it to test, why not liken AM to its anabolic equivalent of any other anabolic steroid? Why not compare it to 120 mg/week of DBOL or 350 mg/week of winstrol? Am I missing something?
I'm no expert, but I know that steroid stacks are designed around the unique properties of each steroid, as it's the unique effect of each steroid, and not just its anabolic potential, that helps yield a desired result. I've been planning a DBOL/AM cycle because I believed that each compound had certain properties that, together, would yield a nice result... a somewhat similar result, or perhaps a not too distant second to an actual DBOL/test cycle. I didn't choose to run DBOL with AM simply because they both build muscle.
