Test VS Test MG for MG

[newyork]

I am taking 500mg of Test prop a week, along with 500mg winstrol, 500mg Masteron prop...5 or 6 iu gh daily

Previous to this I was taking 750mg of HG Organon Sust, with 300mg npp, do you think that the prop ester at 500mg is too much, or is it about equal to what I was taking before?? (also taking the gh daily)

im curious if you know please clue me in....

thanks
newyorker:headbang:

 

[Sieve]

No. Its okey.

 

[Hmmm]

I recently read on a website the specific breakdowns on each ester what the ester vs test weight is. It listed most esters. If I was on a computer I would find I for you, I assume it could be googled fairly easy

 

[saps]

Even with the ester you are getting less test than before. Prop yields approxiamately 82-83% test. Sust obviously is a blend which has a myriad of different esters including prop but also much slower and thus lower potency esters like decanoate which only yields around 60%. Average them altogether and still ~70% of 750 is still a bit more than 82% of 500.

 

[Sieve]

Sustanon is : propinat 30 ml, felinpropinat 60mg, izocaproat 60 mg, decanoat 100mg
Aprox free test/100mg : Propionat 83mg/100mg, phenylprop 67mg/100mg, decanoat 63mg/100mg.
Im not about the other ester.
750mg sustanon has a little bit more active test then 500mg prop but may feel like less due to longer release times asocieted with other esters.
Like i said its okey.

 

[Mike Arnold]

What do you mean when you say "equal"?

A common misunderstanding all over the net is that shorter esters are more potent than longer esters simply because they contain more test per mg. Obviously, short esters do contain more test per mg, but they are NOT more anabolic, per mg.

Resarch going back to at least the 50's shows that longer esters, per mg, provide a greater muscle-building effect compared to shorter esters, depsite the increased percentage of testosterone contained in the shorter esters, per mg.

There are two reasons many users believe shorter esters provide a greater myotropic effect compared to long esters, which are:

1.) A mentioned above, shorter esters provide more test per mg, so the automatic assumption is that a larger usable percentage if testosterone translates into greater growth potential. However, the effect the ester has on total protein synthesis, is almost always completely discounted.

2.) Because shorter esters are released and used more quickly, gains come faster during the first few weeks of the cycle.



In light of the above, it is easy to see how someone could easily assume that shorter esters provide a greater anabolic effect per mg. I mean, it makes sense, right? It does on the surface, but when a testosterone ester's ability to cause an increase in protein synthesis is tracked over it's entire lifetime, the longer esters will eventually catch up and exceeed the short ester. Numerous studies have been done comparing the anabolic effects of shorter esters to longer esters. This was one of the first things reseracher's wanted to know when they started attaching esters to steroids about 80 years ago (the 30's). A study was done not to long ago, showing that a 200 mg injection of test enth was able to elevate protien synthesis over 250%+, while a 200 mg injection of test prop was under 200%. I have since forgotten the exact figures, as it was over a decade ago when I first become aware of this study, but this study's findings are consistent with all the other research was has taken place over the last several decades involving esterification and its effect on protein synthesis.

 

[newyork]

What do you mean when you say "equal"?

A common misunderstanding all over the net is that shorter esters are more potent than longer esters simply because they contain more test per mg. Obviously, short esters do contain more test per mg, but they are NOT more anabolic, per mg.

Resarch going back to at least the 50's shows that longer esters, per mg, provide a greater muscle-building effect compared to shorter esters, depsite the increased percentage of testosterone contained in the shorter esters, per mg.

There are two reasons many users believe shorter esters provide a greater myotropic effect compared to long esters, which are:

1.) A mentioned above, shorter esters provide more test per mg, so the automatic assumption is that a larger usable percentage if testosterone translates into greater growth potential. However, the effect the ester has on total protein synthesis, is almost always completely discounted.

2.) Because shorter esters are released and used more quickly, gains come faster during the first few weeks of the cycle.



In light of the above, it is easy to see how someone could easily assume that shorter esters provide a greater anabolic effect per mg. I mean, it makes sense, right? It does on the surface, but when a testosterone ester's ability to cause an increase in protein synthesis is tracked over it's entire lifetime, the longer esters will eventually catch up and exceeed the short ester. Numerous studies have been done comparing the anabolic effects of shorter esters to longer esters. This was one of the first things reseracher's wanted to know when they started attaching esters to steroids about 80 years ago (the 30's). A study was done not to long ago, showing that a 200 mg injection of test enth was able to elevate protien synthesis over 250%+, while a 200 mg injection of test prop was under 200%. I have since forgotten the exact figures, as it was over a decade ago when I first become aware of this study, but this study's findings are consistent with all the other research was has taken place over the last several decades involving esterification and its effect on protein synthesis.

Id say this just about sums it up...thanks Mike Arnold, and everyone else...
So if I threw in a shot of cyp or enth id be getting the best of both
worlds....thanks again

 

[raw33man]

What do you mean when you say "equal"?

A common misunderstanding all over the net is that shorter esters are more potent than longer esters simply because they contain more test per mg. Obviously, short esters do contain more test per mg, but they are NOT more anabolic, per mg.

Resarch going back to at least the 50's shows that longer esters, per mg, provide a greater muscle-building effect compared to shorter esters, depsite the increased percentage of testosterone contained in the shorter esters, per mg.

There are two reasons many users believe shorter esters provide a greater myotropic effect compared to long esters, which are:

1.) A mentioned above, shorter esters provide more test per mg, so the automatic assumption is that a larger usable percentage if testosterone translates into greater growth potential. However, the effect the ester has on total protein synthesis, is almost always completely discounted.

2.) Because shorter esters are released and used more quickly, gains come faster during the first few weeks of the cycle.



In light of the above, it is easy to see how someone could easily assume that shorter esters provide a greater anabolic effect per mg. I mean, it makes sense, right? It does on the surface, but when a testosterone ester's ability to cause an increase in protein synthesis is tracked over it's entire lifetime, the longer esters will eventually catch up and exceeed the short ester. Numerous studies have been done comparing the anabolic effects of shorter esters to longer esters. This was one of the first things reseracher's wanted to know when they started attaching esters to steroids about 80 years ago (the 30's). A study was done not to long ago, showing that a 200 mg injection of test enth was able to elevate protien synthesis over 250%+, while a 200 mg injection of test prop was under 200%. I have since forgotten the exact figures, as it was over a decade ago when I first become aware of this study, but this study's findings are consistent with all the other research was has taken place over the last several decades involving esterification and its effect on protein synthesis.

Heard from a lot of folks, Tren A is a lot potent than Tren E !

 

[Mike Arnold]

Heard from a lot of folks, Tren A is a lot potent than Tren E !

I've seen these posts, but others have posted differently, as well. Regardless, when referring to the various testosterone esters, the reserach is abundantly clear and overwhelmingly conclusive. I makes sense that Tren would be affected in the same way, but with the U.S having never conducted this research on Tren, as it was never approved for human use, I cannot definitively state this to be the case. I am also not aware of any foreign countries which have conducted this reserach, although I am sure some country probably has.

In addition, we have also seen the very large majority of internet posters claim that test prop results in greater muscle growth, per mg, than enth/cyp, yet they are wrong. So, is it not possible that it may be the same way with tren? For this reason and others, I do not blindly accept any internet assumption, even when they appear to make sense. Sometimes what "appears" to makes sense is completey off-base, especially when we come to conclusions without knowing/understanding all the factors responsible for determining the end result. As an example, for decades BB'rs used to think that doing fasted morning cardio burned more fat than at other times of the day...and we had a very "sensical" explanation as to why this was the case. However, it turns out that we were completely wrong, despite "decades" of advanced BB'rs (and basically everyone else) saying this was a "fact". So, while I do take everything into consideration and believe anecdotal evidence to be vital in our understanding of how to optimally apply these drugs in BB'rs, I will not sit here and say I believe something simply because a larger "percentage" of online posters believes something to be true.


As far as testosterone goes, there is no doubt that longer esters deliver greater "total" increases in protien synthesis per mg, so we should, at the minimum, consider the possibility that tren may act similarly. I believe that one of, if not the main reason many people believe that tren ace delivers greater increases in protein synthesis, per mg compared to tren enth, is due to the fact that ace typically delivers greater initial gains. With tren ace commonly being employed for shorter cycles of 6-8 weeks, this intial period of greater growth is influential (and likely decieving) in its affect on the beliefs of those who use the drug. However, results witnessed over a few weeks of time is not necessarily indicative of a drug's sum affect on protein synthesis over the course of its entire active life.

 

[Mike Arnold]

Id say this just about sums it up...thanks Mike Arnold, and everyone else...
So if I threw in a shot of cyp or enth id be getting the best of both
worlds....thanks again

Just to clarify, I don't think it makes much differences what ester is used, in terms of growth, as BB'rs already use such large doses of testosterone, as well as one or more additional AAS on top of it.

Just use the ester you feel provides the effects you like the most.

 

[ManoftheWorld]

:yeahthat:

and the simple fact I am less of a pin cushion using the longer ester of same compound makes it that much more appealing to me personally... especially when I ramp the dosages up for the week and I get way more of longer estered compound in less volume of oil making those already less frequent injections that much less discomforting..

 

[teslacsten]

:yeahthat:

and the simple fact I am less of a pin cushion using the longer ester of same compound makes it that much more appealing to me personally... especially when I ramp the dosages up for the week and I get way more of longer estered compound in less volume of oil making those already less frequent injections that much less discomforting..

You said it. Prop=Pin cushion. Doesn't make a bit of sense to me unless you need something that clears out of the system rather quickly.