Deca or just high test

[Test_subject]

Was it Primo 300 mg by any chance from a friendly well known friend (use to be around these parts) ...

If so, I also tried that ... worse PIP I even had .. but thinking back on what I know now .. it was likely not Primo that was the problem ...

His primo 300 was probably 75mg of straight test prop knowing that dud.

 

[SFGiants]

His primo 300 was probably 75mg of straight test prop knowing that dud.

If it didn't crash at 300mg it wasn't 100% Primo, nobody makes that for a reason and many keep it at 100 for a reason.

 

[SFGiants]

Was it Primo 300 mg by any chance from a friendly well known friend (use to be around these parts) ...

If so, I also tried that ... worse PIP I even had .. but thinking back on what I know now .. it was likely not Primo that was the problem ...

No way it was brother!

 

[Test_subject]

If it didn't crash at 300mg it wasn't 100% Primo, nobody makes that for a reason and many keep it at 100 for a reason.

200 is perfectly doable with regular solvents and carrier oil, but 300 would require some serious super solvent magic and hurt like fuck.

 

[SFGiants]

200 is perfectly doable with regular solvents and carrier oil, but 300 would require some serious super solvent magic and hurt like fuck.

I agree, 100mg just stretches it out longer seeming it's so hard to get the raws, well not hard just not as available as often.

 

[MetalHeadX]

So in reality from experience, I blasted 750mg test for years and cruised at 500mg, never in that time did I grow as I did to get to 285lb without deca or npp. The deca and npp sped things up.

Interesting. That's what I cruise with too. I'm at about 210 right now and wouldn't mind seeing what 220 or 230 would feel like before Spring.....preferably from solid gains.

 

[MetalHeadX]

So for me the deca/npp has less androgenic sides than test does. That's the main reason why I pick nandrolone over high test-only.

I ran up to 900mg of nandrolone once, and it didn't elevate my blood pressure, give me acne, or estrogenic sides like I would have on that amount of testosterone.

Since you're B&C, maybe try the deca this time? It's less pinning. I don't know if androgenic sides are an issue for you. I never got deca dick on that high dose of deca with low dose test when I did it.

Well if it comes down to it....hopefully good ol cialis and nitrate rich foods will do the trick lol. Just want to pack on some solid chest and arm girth this winter DAGNABIT!!!

 

[SFGiants]

Interesting. That's what I cruise with too. I'm at about 210 right now and wouldn't mind seeing what 220 or 230 would feel like before Spring.....preferably from solid gains.

There was a guy Riro here that believes as I do, your not keeping great gain without doing so.

I don't mean gains anyone and everyone can get but gains beyond that that most don't achieve. Not everyone's goals are the same.

 

[Oakley6575]

There was a guy Riro here that believes as I do.

RiR0 believed what?

 

[lukiss96]

Testosterone is like vodka, it fucking works and it's cheap. For us regular gym rats who want to look good and look like we lift it's more than enough.

Cruising on 500mg is overkill for most, but 250lbs and 6+ ft. Sure if you're shorter and carry 230 pounds leanish you definitely need that for a cruise. Hell, I'm suprised by how much 250mg can maintain, I can retain 230+ or a lean 220lbs (100kg) on it quite easily. But I'm a bit taller nearly 6'2.

 

[Mephisto]

study is from 1954

does that invalidate the findings?

is there better information so I can stop believing this?

is it true that at a point they stopped doing studies on people who train and eat right and the steroid studies are now on HIV, don't train, muscle wasting.

 

[Test_subject]

does that invalidate the findings?

Not necessarily, but n=8 does. The study also doesn’t mention whether the subjects did weight training or not, so it’s not terribly useful.

 

[Mephisto]

Not necessarily, but n=8 does. The study also doesn’t mention whether the subjects did weight training or not, so it’s not terribly useful.

thanks.

where do you land on this statement?

Long esters are more anabolic than short esters.

 

[Test_subject]

thanks.

where do you land on this statement?

Long esters are more anabolic than short esters.

I have no opinion. I haven’t seen any convincing evidence either way so I’m withholding judgement until I see something conclusive.

I use long esters solely because I’m not a fan of frequent pinning.

 

[lukiss96]

thanks.

where do you land on this statement?

Long esters are more anabolic than short esters.

I'm not a scientist, more like brosciencist and based on my own experience I can say that I feel short esters more, if I inject daily I can get away with high dosages of test/tren. Long esters I don't really feel good and have to battle with side effects more, short esters I feel more motivated and stable, but then again maybe if I did eod injections of say enanthate I would feel the same? I don't know. Another thing I like is that short esters go away fast and I don't have to deal with sides for the next few weeks in case that happens. I like to get in and get out faster. Patience is not my strongest asset.

For a cruise it's no brainer, I use long esters for sure. Recently I have switched to T undec which I inject once per week with insulin syringe and I like it so far. More like a high cruise. I'm not afraid of injections and I'm not a pussy, but I'm getting smarter in time with my protocol. Why stab my ass twice or more times per week with regular syringe when I can only do it once per week and do half as damage. Win/win situation for me.

 

[TODAY]

On the one hand, longer esters are less potent by virtue of increased ester weight

On the other, I suppose you could argue that a longer half-life/elimination time could lead to increased target activity.

Overall, I strongly doubt that there's more than a marginal difference

 

[BigBaldBeardGuy]

On the one hand, longer esters are less potent by virtue of increased ester weight

On the other, I suppose you could argue that a longer half-life/elimination time could lead to increased target activity.

Overall, I strongly doubt that there's more than a marginal difference

Would there be an accumulation or “build-up” due to the longer elimination time?

Edit: I don’t think it would be that significant though.

 

[SFGiants]

On the one hand, longer esters are less potent by virtue of increased ester weight

On the other, I suppose you could argue that a longer half-life/elimination time could lead to increased target activity.

Overall, I strongly doubt that there's more than a marginal difference

I liked to come on and off fast so I can get on to the next, short easter besides test c helped.

 

[SFGiants]

Would there be an accumulation or “build-up” due to the longer elimination time?

I always looked at it as more saturated so possibly, as one comes and goes much faster. No proof just what I thought.

 

[TODAY]

I liked to come on and off fast so I can get on to the next, short easter besides test c helped.

Yeah, I like to run a pretty tight ship as far as blast parameters go

And short esters allow for greater precision