I appreciate the info. It doesn't make a lot of sense from a scientific standpoint. For example. why would anyway say a ratio of testosterone is 100/100? why not just a ratio of 1/1 or just plain 1. It probably took a lot of research on google to find this but just because its on the internet doesn't make it so. Its kind of like the insurance commercial where the chick hooks up with the guy who told her he was a french model, and really he was an american douche bag. Another thing is proviron has almost no anabolic properties as it is DHT which is purely androgenic therefore its ratio should accurately reflect that. Bill Roberts says a lot of things that can not be backed up by scientific standards. The gold standard being a double blind placebo. It would take a huge amount of research to come up with an accurate list of Q ratios and even then the researchers would have to come up with ways of determining androgenic vs anabolic properties. Since there is no accepted medical reason to conduct this research and no way to makee money of of it it will never happen. So i guess instead of throwing numbers out there its better just to say, " my experience with oxandrolone is very few androgenic side effects compared with trenbolone" or whatever.