I’ve never tried cyp but I understand it is basically the American answer to enan. If so does anyone notice any significant differences between the two?
Cyp is the Euro version of Enan. But yeah, they are basically the same compound. I think the half-lives are about 2 days apart.
Some folks like the cyp because they say they can “feel it” faster then the E.
But to me, and most everyone else - cyp and E are the same thing.
Testosterone Cypionate
Half life: 12 days
Molecular Formula: C(27)H(40)O(3)
Molecular Weight: 412.6
Testosterone Enanthate
Half life: 10.5 days
Molecular Formula: C(26)H(40)O(3)
Molecular Weight: 400.6
The difference lies within the extra carbon, which by itself has an atomic weight of ~ 12.0107 g/mol.
[quote]thetruepitbull wrote:
Testosterone Cypionate
Half life: 12 days
Molecular Formula: C(27)H(40)O(3)
Molecular Weight: 412.6
Testosterone Enanthate
Half life: 10.5 days
Molecular Formula: C(26)H(40)O(3)
Molecular Weight: 400.6
[/quote]
Test cyp from the package insert:
“The half-life of testosterone cypionate when injected IM is proximately eight days.”
The half-life will be dose dependant, but that seems to never be discussed. The free testosterone half-life is probably way shorter than that and the some might argue that the half-life of the total testosterone might be of no significance.
Part of the issue is the ratio of FT:E2. As FT decreases and the ration of FT:E2 drops, the benefit window of the injection might be shorter than the half-life might suggest.
I expect that there is no half-life data for gear sized doses and that what data we have is all based on TRT dosing.
This is also found in the context of TRT: “the cypionate ester provides a 5-8 day half-life, depending upon the specific metabolism, activity level, and overall health of the patient”
[quote]Diana Bolann wrote:
I’ve never tried cyp but I understand it is basically the American answer to enan. If so does anyone notice any significant differences between the two? [/quote]
In a word: NO
The aforementioned answers above cover the technical aspects of the differences
Based on my limited experience with the two- one cycle of each- I would more or less agree that they are interchangable in effects. However, it felt like my post-cycle crap (acne, shrunken nuts, lowered libido) from cyp has lasted way longer than it did from enanthate. Same PCT plan both times, by the way- clomid and tribulus.
they are interchangable.i cant tell a difference
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
I’m sorry if I seem picky, but ‘half life’ means the time for half of the drug to be metabolised, and would therefore have nothing to do with dose.
Bushy[/quote]
I guess the engineer in me would not agree.
This is not like an oral drug that is in serum and well dispersed. With an oil based deposit, the mechanics of diffusion are a different situation. We could also talk about surface area to volume ratios as well. The diffusion rate will be driven by the “wetted surface area” not the volume.
[quote]KSman wrote:
bushidobadboy wrote:
I’m sorry if I seem picky, but ‘half life’ means the time for half of the drug to be metabolised, and would therefore have nothing to do with dose.
Bushy
I guess the engineer in me would not agree.
This is not like an oral drug that is in serum and well dispersed. With an oil based deposit, the mechanics of diffusion are a different situation. We could also talk about surface area to volume ratios as well. The diffusion rate will be driven by the “wetted surface area” not the volume. [/quote]
You are mistaking clearance time with half-life.
If I make a million loaves of bread - they will all go bad just as quickly as one loaf will.
Take that crappy analogy and apply it to estered steroids, or any carbon based compound for that matter. Each one will have a specific time in which, once injected or ingested, they will be half as powerful as they were when initially administered.
Think c-14 dating. More carbon does not slow the aging process down.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
You are mistaking clearance time with half-life.
If I make a million loaves of bread - they will all go bad just as quickly as one loaf will.
Take that crappy analogy and apply it to estered steroids, or any carbon based compound for that matter. Each one will have a specific time in which, once injected or ingested, they will be half as powerful as they were when initially administered.
Think c-14 dating. More carbon does not slow the aging process down. [/quote]
I think what KSman is saying is that the oil doesn’t all disperse at once like an oral disperses when you eat it. To use your bread analogy, some of it doesn’t “go bad” because it doesn’t become bio-available all at the same moment and is therefore “preserved” for a time.
I have no idea if this is true, but it’s the second time someone brought up an idea like this and it is an interesting question.
For my part, I have had next-day pain 6-8 inches away from the initial inject site (sort of like cadav’s “Bad IM” thread) which leads me to believe that it disperses fairly rapidly. But KSman has a point that it would seem to be different than an oral.
Uh, for what it is worth I’ve had better experiences with cyp.
I have no scientific data to support my preference and it may just be my body that takes to it better. Could have easily been other factors outside of the effectiveness of the drug ie. diet, stress etc. as well but my preference is cyp.
[quote]Diana Bolann wrote:
I think what KSman is saying is that the oil doesn’t all disperse at once like an oral disperses when you eat it. To use your bread analogy, some of it doesn’t “go bad” because it doesn’t become bio-available all at the same moment and is therefore “preserved” for a time.
[/quote]
My point is that the same percentage of bread will go bad regardless of the number of loaves baked.
Now - whether or not injection site volume has a play in absorbtion rate is a totally different animal than how much test you inject affecting the half-life of an ester.
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Now - whether or not injection site volume has a play in absorbtion rate is a totally different animal than how much test you inject affecting the half-life of an ester.
Indeed. Information on dosage site, injection volume and concentration of gear Vs uptake/absorbtion rate is something that I for one would love to know much more about…
bushy[/quote]
I have a feeling the average nursing student knows a hell of a lot more about this than we do! LOL
Anyway, good stuff guys.
from what Ive heard and seen from buddies, both are great things.
[quote]Diana Bolann wrote:
bushidobadboy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Now - whether or not injection site volume has a play in absorbtion rate is a totally different animal than how much test you inject affecting the half-life of an ester.
Indeed. Information on dosage site, injection volume and concentration of gear Vs uptake/absorbtion rate is something that I for one would love to know much more about…
bushy
I have a feeling the average nursing student knows a hell of a lot more about this than we do! LOL
Anyway, good stuff guys.[/quote]
I have the feeling we know a hell of a lot more than average nursing student when it comes to gear related matters.
[quote]sapasion wrote:
I have the feeling we know a hell of a lot more than average nursing student when it comes to gear related matters.
[/quote]
Probably most doctors too. I was talking about injections though.
So what’s the conclusion anyway, its either still up for debate or I misunderstood some earlier posts.