M1T vs Metribolone

[Mike Arnold]

I have only used m1t as a preworkout everyonce in a while. It brings the pumps thats for sure.

Wish some of these very powerful orals were more available as injects, should result in a much more favorable positive to negative ratio.

See bold above: It won't make much of a difference, as the drug will still be metabolized in the same way and provide similar effects. Bioavailability will be slightly increased in the injectable version and liver stress will be very slightly reduced by avoiding first pass, but nothing to write home about. Overall, effects will be basically the same. Crushed lipids, lethargy--all that--will all still there.

 

[Mike Arnold]

did you run test with them?

how you feel on certain AAS imo depends on the individual.

i feel absolutely FANTASTIC on methyltrienlone.
have only ever used the injectable though - imo thats MUCH safer than the oral version.

my bloodwork showed elevated but not absurdly high liver values after 3 weeks on 2mg injectable methyltren. (less than twice the upper reference range for both AST and ALT)

on sdrol for comparison i feel kind of weird. i have the urge of going off that stuff after around 2 weeks.
on methyltren i just feel fucking great and look fucking great.

i have not used m1t since i dislike "wet" orals, but methyltren is probably my favorite compound ever.

intense focus, strength, pumps, veins, sweating.
not sure if i would try the oral form though.

See bold above: This is a fairly common misconception. In reality, it doesn't matter whether you inject or swallow a methylated dryug--it will still be processed by the liver and therefore, provide the same toxic effects. Like I said in a prior post, toxicity will only be very sightly reduced via injection.

 

[Jizzmo]

well, i have ran 2mg injectable methyltrienolone pre workout for 3 weeks and my bloodwork had ALT and AST somewhere around 70-80...

ive read about people getting jaundice and severe liver damage from 1mg methyltrienolone for 2 weeks taken ORALLY:..

am i just very resilient then?
i rather definitely think liver damage is GREATLY reduced with the injectable form.

my hypothesis is:
most damage to the liver is done because the whole amount of the orally taken methylated steroid hit the liver AT ONCE after ingestion, then slowly circulates through the bloodstream.
with injection, it takes much longer for 100% to reach the bloodstream PLUS there is no initial hit when the steroid is "digested".

this makes sense to me and also goes hand in hand with how i feel when on "injectable orals" vs "oral orals"

 

[Mike Arnold]

well, i have ran 2mg injectable methyltrienolone pre workout for 3 weeks and my bloodwork had ALT and AST somewhere around 70-80...

ive read about people getting jaundice and severe liver damage from 1mg methyltrienolone for 2 weeks taken ORALLY:..

am i just very resilient then?
i rather definitely think liver damage is GREATLY reduced with the injectable form.

my hypothesis is:
Bost damage to the liver is done because the whole amount of the orally taken methylated steroid hit the liver AT ONCE after ingestion, then slowly circulates through the bloodstream.
with injection, it takes much longer for 100% to reach the bloodstream PLUS there is no initial hit when the steroid is "digested".

this makes sense to me and also goes hand in hand with how i feel when on "injectable orals" vs "oral orals"

Methylated drugs delivered via injection reach the bloodstream very quickly. Remember, they aren't esterfied....and neither are they suspended in crystal form, so there is nothing to hinder absorption.

Secondly, your theory that methyls are less toxic when injected because they are processed more slowy (lacking the "hit") does not hold up under scrutiny. For one, most people, when using injectables, will only inject once daily--meaning the entire daily dose is absorbed over just a few hours. However, when taking methyls orally, most people administer them according to half-life, so smaller amounts of the drug are being delivered into the sytem over the course of the day.

Besides, the half-life will expire at the same rate regardless of administratioin route. This means the entire dose will be metabolized by the liver in full each and every day, regardless of delivery method.

Basically, neither of the above-mentioned factors have a significant effect on liver toxicity.

Remember, about 95% of mnethylated AAS are metabolized by the liver anyway. It's not like the liver is "spared" just because the steroid avoids first pass...the drug just takes a bit longer to be fully metabolized, which all happens in the liver regardless.

The reason your liver enzymes weren't that high is because M-tren is not nearly as toxic as originally thought. All of those posts about how M-tren will cause liver destruction in just a few weeks were not based on fact or any type of real-world experience. The reality is that using M-tren, whether oraly or via injection, is not excessivley toxic when the dosage is kept reasonable and the cycle duration short.

I have seen many labs of people using both forms of delivery and there has been very little difference in terms of toxicity. Total dosage and length of administartion are much more important factors. Like I said previously, injecting methyls doesn't make a big difference in terms of toxicity..and I have seen hundreds of labs to comnvince me.

It would be awesome if we "greatly" reduce a methyl's tocivity by injecting it, which you claim happens, but it just doesn't work that way.

I will look for some studies on PubMed demonstrating the toxicity profile of both injectable and oral winstrol. I read them years ago, but need to do some searching.

 

[nfernoo]

Methylated drugs delivered via injection reach the bloodstream very quickly. Remember, they aren't esterfied....and neither are they suspended in crystal form, so there is nothing to hinder absorption.

Secondly, your theory that methyls are less toxic when injected because they are processed more slowy (lacking the "hit") does not hold up under scrutiny. For one, most people, when using injectables, will only inject once daily--meaning the entire daily dose is absorbed over just a few hours. However, when taking methyls orally, most people administer them according to half-life, so smaller amounts of the drug are being delivered into the sytem over the course of the day.

Besides, the half-life will expire at the same rate regardless of administratioin route. This means the entire dose will be metabolized by the liver in full each and every day, regardless of delivery method.

Basically, neither of the above-mentioned factors have a significant effect on liver toxicity.

Remember, about 95% of mnethylated AAS are metabolized by the liver anyway. It's not like the liver is "spared" just because the steroid avoids first pass...the drug just takes a bit longer to be fully metabolized, which all happens in the liver regardless.

The reason your liver enzymes weren't that high is because M-tren is not nearly as toxic as originally thought. All of those posts about how M-tren will cause liver destruction in just a few weeks were not based on fact or any type of real-world experience. The reality is that using M-tren, whether oraly or via injection, is not excessivley toxic when the dosage is kept reasonable and the cycle duration short.

I have seen many labs of people using both forms of delivery and there has been very little difference in terms of toxicity. Total dosage and length of administartion are much more important factors. Like I said previously, injecting methyls doesn't make a big difference in terms of toxicity..and I have seen hundreds of labs to comnvince me.

It would be awesome if we "greatly" reduce a methyl's tocivity by injecting it, which you claim happens, but it just doesn't work that way.

I will look for some studies on PubMed demonstrating the toxicity profile of both injectable and oral winstrol. I read them years ago, but need to do some searching.

Random but the tabs are 1mg. Suggestion?
I think 1mg is fine

 

[Jizzmo]

...

Thanks ! That clarified some :headbang:

 

[mewalrus]

See bold above: It won't make much of a difference, as the drug will still be metabolized in the same way and provide similar effects. Bioavailability will be slightly increased in the injectable version and liver stress will be very slightly reduced by avoiding first pass, but nothing to write home about. Overall, effects will be basically the same. Crushed lipids, lethargy--all that--will all still there.

have you personally compared the routes of administration. I will admit I havent, but i would like to.

I think the sides might be quite a bit less with inject as the liver is never getting even close to the high concentration pulse that oral would result in. Logically and based on some reports I've read that there is marginally better tolerability with injected orals that is probably highly variable with certain orals being much better and some less.

I wish there was more data on extent of first pass metabolism for various substances. Do you know of any resources Mike?

 

[mewalrus]

I was editing last post and time ran out so I copied what I had written and reposted it as the editing would have been next to impossible on my phone.

See bold above: It won't make much of a difference, as the drug will still be metabolized in the same way and provide similar effects. Bioavailability will be slightly increased in the injectable version and liver stress will be very slightly reduced by avoiding first pass, but nothing to write home about. Overall, effects will be basically the same. Crushed lipids, lethargy--all that--will all still there.

Mike have you personally compared the routes of administration. I will admit I havent, but i would like to. What science or data are you using to back up this claim as I have seen very little and there is not a great availability of injectable orals. Probably because I believe most accept the very high side effect profile of orals only because they like the convience of oral. I for one dont cycle orals and rarely use them because of their harshness, however I do acknowledge some are very powerful. Now my eternal optimism(lol) is hoping for a magical way to harness them in a less harmful way. The lack of real data gives me hope.

I think the side effects might be quite a bit less with inject as the liver is never getting even close to the high concentration pulse that oral would result in. Logically and based on some reports I've read that there is marginally better tolerability with injected orals that is probably highly variable with certain orals being much better and some less.

I wish there was more data on extent of first pass metabolism for various substances. Do you know of any resources Mike?

 

[mewalrus]

ok see lots of my points were addressed.

I am curious about extent of first pass metabolism. You have any data on what percent is metabolised. For me if it was 20% or more then getting that increased dose at the reduced stress would be worth it.

I tend to get reflux and indigestion from some compounds almost immediatly after injestion which feels like a toxic reaction and is partly why I was hoping inject would help.

 

[nfernoo]

I wonder how much udca to use

 

[Serotonin]

Well since this thread sort of derailed onto the inject vs oral mtheyls....

How about the fact that you're not putting this compound through your digestive tract?

 

[Jizzmo]

Well since this thread sort of derailed onto the inject vs oral mtheyls....

How about the fact that you're not putting this compound through your digestive tract?

this is a part of what i meant... youll probably avoid a lot of acid reflux issues etc too by injecting

 

[stackdizzy]

Too bad no one knows where to get real steroids:lightbulb:

 

[Jizzmo]

Too bad no one knows where to get real steroids:lightbulb:

if you think m1t or methyltrienolone are not "real steroids" then get the fuck out of this thread. they blow 90% of your "real steroids" out of the water in terms of results. :banghead:

 

[stackdizzy]

Yea I think I will stay. I just don't see why one would not use tested relatively safe compounds as apposed to these. No ones secrete is either of these compounds.....

 

[Mike Arnold]

Random but the tabs are 1mg. Suggestion?
I think 1mg is fine

For M-Tren? I have seen them range from 500 mcg to 1 mg per tab. I have seen guys run anywhere from 500 mcg/day to as much as 5 mg/day. At 5 mg/day his liver enzymes weren't nearly sbad as most would think, but this is likely becaus he was co-adminisering Milk thistsle and Liv 52.

I consider up to 2 mg/daily, based on what i've seen, to be very reasonable, but I always recommend liver support when running orals, especially when they possess an above average toxicity profile. Don't underestimate how much support products can help. They can make a huge difference in liver function, especially when using some of the better ones (Tudca, Milk Thistle, Liv 52). There are others as well, but they are some of the most common.

 

[Mike Arnold]

have you personally compared the routes of administration. I will admit I havent, but i would like to.

I think the sides might be quite a bit less with inject as the liver is never getting even close to the high concentration pulse that oral would result in. Logically and based on some reports I've read that there is marginally better tolerability with injected orals that is probably highly variable with certain orals being much better and some less.

I wish there was more data on extent of first pass metabolism for various substances. Do you know of any resources Mike?

Check Pubmed. You will find, with a little searching, studies comparing the toxicity of oral vs. injctable adminsitration with basically every prescription oral steroid ever made. Some of these studies are very old, so will be more difficult to find.

From every study I have seen over the years, as well as all the lab work comparisons I have witnessed (100's), I have noticed minimal differences in liver values between the two routes of administration. I have even seen some labs in which people used the same drug and dosage at two different times, but actually had higher liver enzymes from the injectable. This may have been due to liver support products being used at one time and not the other--I don't know, but I have seen it with both M1T and Winstrol...and lest you think the drugs came from different sources, they did not.

At this point, I consider administration route to be a minor consideration when it comes to total liver stress. Factors such as total dosage, length of administration, and whether or not liver support products are used play a much bigger role in determining how well the liver copes with the methyls one is using.

Besides, I do not consider liver stress to be the most pressing concern when using orals. Few people suffer irreversible liver damage when using orals...and only there are only a handful of documented cases of BB'rs dying from liver failure over the last several decades, yet many BB'rs succumb to cardiovascular health problems when using methyls. Therefore, as long as we utilize some common sense when administering orals...and implement some preventative care, we are unlikely to experience any serious liver issues, but cardiovascular health issues are another story altogether.

 

[mewalrus]

Could some cardiovascular risk be directly related to liver stress?
I always thought the liver was a major player in blood lipids.

And I agree with you that liver stress is much less of a concern than the other sides.

 

[Mr.Priapus]

M-Tren sounds like the better choice IMHO. I've never been a fan of the puffy 'big' look. I'd rather take my gains slower and have them remain. To each his own though.

Mike brings up a logical point as well. If the toxicity difference isn't a major factor then the oral administration sounds like the way to go, as long as you take the proper supportive supplements.

How is it on the lipids?

 

[275bills]

Mike do you recommend using liver support like milk thistle, liv 52 ect while running the harsher orals or wait till you cycle off?