The Ester debate... sorta

SFGiants

Elite
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
11,362
Reaction score
16,161
Points
383
I think they said the same thing about phenylpropionate being a trash ester. My npp says otherwise lol

TPP is great as well.

I always prefered npp over deca and tpp over prop.
 

CJ

Mod Squad
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
23,044
Reaction score
42,308
Points
383

Oh, wow, that's a long video. I'll have to watch it later.

Thank you, though. I appreciate that you found it for me, I had no idea whose YouTube page to look for it on.
 
Joined
Sep 3, 2022
Messages
6
Reaction score
6
Points
3
he didn't say it didn't work.

he is deep diving into the weeds.

preparing to study the genetic component to how well each person absorbs different esters
What do they even mean by "absorbs" in this context?

Are they claiming that the type of ester affects how fast the pro-drug (test C/E/D/U/etc) diffuses from the oil depot? This would not affect the amount of testosterone that the body sees. It would only affect the pharmacokinetics, like the difference between Test-E and Test-U both in the same oil.

Are they claiming that the type of ester affects how fast the enzyme cleaves the ester from the pro-drug to produce testosterone? If I recall, the rate at which the ester is cleaved from the pro-drug is very fast compared to the rate of diffusion from the oil, so this shouldn't matter. Even if it did, it wouldn't make any difference unless...

Are they claiming that the Test-C prodrug is metabolized and/or excreted by the body without being converted to testosterone?

What happens to the Test-C that "is not absorbed" or whatever? If it is not metabolized/excreted, does it sit in the muscle forever until you die? Does it magically disappear?
 
Joined
Sep 3, 2022
Messages
6
Reaction score
6
Points
3
This is my mistake.

I typed absorb. He did not use that word.

--- link cut so I could post --- pureectoplasm

Sorry about that.
I went back further and Kurt Havens says this (slightly edited transcript from youtube):

8:49 and just trying to determine if cypionate is even an effective ester. I'm going to say it's not going to
8:56 be that effective of an ester after all this time. I don't think
9:01 it's broken down quite as effectively as a straight chain fatty acid

All the same questions still apply, though it seems like Havens is referring specifically to the enzymatic cleavage of the ester from the pro-drug. Again, how would this actually change anything other than move the pharmacokinetics in the direction of Test-U vs Test-E?

I call bullshit. Not worth any more of my time to dig into this. If any fans of the guy want to figure out _exactly_ what he means and where the non-effective Test-C goes (magically disappears?), feel free to post your conversations with him here.

This is the problem when Youtube Influencers are allowed to use vague language without being challenged in that they get away with spouting vague bullshit claims to get views.
 

eazy

Elite
Joined
Mar 23, 2021
Messages
5,279
Reaction score
14,825
Points
333
feel free to post your conversations with him here
I understand it not being worth your time.

You should be the person having that conversation. Can't just say anything to you, you understand what is being said.
 

SFGiants

Elite
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
11,362
Reaction score
16,161
Points
383
This is my mistake.

I typed absorb. He did not use that word.

0:14:25 Genetics Plays A Role In How We Metabolize Certain Esters

Sorry about that.
We have seen others and ourselves respond different to different esters.

Classic case for me and POB was one as well, Mast P worked so much better than Mast E for us for some odd reason.

I have heard the same between test c and e over the years!

So this makes more sense to me now!
 

SFGiants

Elite
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
11,362
Reaction score
16,161
Points
383
I went back further and Kurt Havens says this (slightly edited transcript from youtube):

8:49 and just trying to determine if cypionate is even an effective ester. I'm going to say it's not going to
8:56 be that effective of an ester after all this time. I don't think
9:01 it's broken down quite as effectively as a straight chain fatty acid

All the same questions still apply, though it seems like Havens is referring specifically to the enzymatic cleavage of the ester from the pro-drug. Again, how would this actually change anything other than move the pharmacokinetics in the direction of Test-U vs Test-E?

I call bullshit. Not worth any more of my time to dig into this. If any fans of the guy want to figure out _exactly_ what he means and where the non-effective Test-C goes (magically disappears?), feel free to post your conversations with him here.

This is the problem when Youtube Influencers are allowed to use vague language without being challenged in that they get away with spouting vague bullshit claims to get views.
It's what upset me, test c is very effective. I have ran test c non stop for 13 years or so.
 

SFGiants

Elite
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
11,362
Reaction score
16,161
Points
383
I might be getting the language mixed up, and only looking at it as how effective it works boosting testosterone. How I read it is he's saying it's not but maybe I just don't understand the language he is using.

I'm not nerd enough!
 
Joined
Sep 3, 2022
Messages
6
Reaction score
6
Points
3
I understand it not being worth your time.

You should be the person having that conversation. Can't just say anything to you, you understand what is being said.

Just to be clear, I'm certainly not telling you to go talk to him. I realize you are simply forwarding information for discussion.

At the very least it will be good to get more data on Test-C pharmacokinetics. I recall one old study which showed a single injected of Test-C was near identical in the time curve of serum testosterone to an injection of Test-E, but it is always good to get more data. I'll be surprised if they are allowed to run a study at bodybuilding dosages, though. It's possible they could convince an Institutional Review Board to agree it is a study that is ethical to run, but I'd still be surprised if it happens.
 
Joined
Sep 3, 2022
Messages
6
Reaction score
6
Points
3
I might be getting the language mixed up, and only looking at it as how effective it works boosting testosterone. How I read it is he's saying it's not but maybe I just don't understand the language he is using.

I'm not nerd enough!
That's also how I understand his claim. He's saying that you could inject more and more Test-C, but your serum level will never rise above some level. An example would be inject 800mg/week and get a serum testosterone level of 6000 ng/dl. Inject 1600mg/week and you'll still only get 6000 ng/dl. The rest of the Test-C is somehow ineffective.
 

Thrawn

Elite
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
3,263
Reaction score
3,343
Points
193
he didn't say it didn't work.

he is deep diving into the weeds.

preparing to study the genetic component to how well each person absorbs different esters
I've been working on an amateur work up on that ever since I had my genetic testing. I have been know to procrastinate though lol
 
Joined
Sep 9, 2024
Messages
199
Reaction score
112
Points
43
The test c ester doesn't hold as well than test e but it stays good in it's raw state for many years. Test e has issues in it's raw state and turns to crap, this is why bad pip happens.

As far as effective in bloodwork, no difference has been shown in any of our guinea pigs in all these years.

I just can't take it serious when called a trash ester, although I didn't hear it in the video, just read it in this thread.

Too many of us are on trt with test c and tested regularly, it's not a trash ester, it works!
I take most of what is out there with a grain of salt, I haven't seen too many of their channel and episodes. There are so many different people with youtube channels making claims and statements that I do not think they have enough legit information to back all f it up.

Like you just mentioned in your statement here about bloodwork, it def works! IF you look at my thread from the other day on my recent bloodwork, I am running a ugl Test C @ 400mg's/wk right now and my test level alone is float around 2000... my prescribed Test C refill is sitting unopened as I know it legit works also!

The youtube video was Anabolic Round Table Ep. 5, I will have to find the video and post a the link with the time, as I mentioned I merely seen a clip of it myself.

I haven't read all the comments on the thread yet, just scrolling, reading and replying as I go so if someone has posted it already, thank you.
 

Test_subject

Super Duper Elite
Joined
Oct 18, 2021
Messages
5,269
Reaction score
15,209
Points
333
Keep in mind that these dudes fixate on weird things as marketing gimmicks for their channels.

“Eat a lot, work hard and take drugs” isn’t marketable.

An ester is just a time release mechanism. If you understand the rate of release that a particular ester produces and tailor your dosing protocol to it, the esters are indistinguishable from one another. .
 

BrotherIron

Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
6,017
Points
238
Test does not contain a aromatic ring. It contains cyclohexane rings. The difference is in their bonding, structure, and chemical properties. Aromatic rings are cyclic with alternating double bonds. Most common example is a benzene ring. Cyclohexane ring is a saturated cyclic structure. Aromatic rings have delocalized electrons and special stability due to resonance, while cyclohexane rings are simpler, saturated without aromatic properties. Test has 3 cyclohexane rings and 1 cyclopentane ring.

Now, estrogen does contain 1 aromatic ring as part of its structure .

Here's where it gets a lil tricky... test itself lacks aromaticity, but can be converted into estrodiol whcih does include an aromatic ring.

I can simplify this if anyone would like me to.
 

BrotherIron

Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
6,017
Points
238
The difference betw Test E and C is in their carbon ester chain. E has a 7 carbon ester chain and C has a 8 carbon ester chain. The longer chain results in a slightly longer half life/ slower release rate.
 
Top