It’s been said by the t-mag experts that testosterone propionate and suspension will inhibit endogenous test production more than test enthanate or longer acting testosterone esters. That’s all fine and dandy but I’m wondering why? Would it not basically come down to how much testosterone is metabolized per day rather than what testosterone ester one is using? Example: Person ‘A’ injects 800mg of test enthanate (assuming a 96hr half-life for argument sake) and Person ‘B’ injects 100mg of test suspension (assuming a 24hr total lifespan) for four (4) days. Roughly the same amount of test is being metabolized each day for the first 4 days. If this continued for a 4 wk period, would the two people not respond the same way assuming all else being equal?
Thank you for your time. Have happy holidays to every T-man and T-vixen out there.
I also had not heard of this harebrained
theory you describe having been espoused
by any “T-mag experts,” let alone all or
many of us. Maybe Nelson Montana said it
once, but if he did he was wrong. It’s as
Brock said, testosterone is testosterone,
and the only difference is duration of
action.
Check out “constructing a steroid cycle Part2” by Brian Batcheldor.He says propionate is more supressive than cypionate or enanthate.
Any comments Bill or Brock?
I have the utmost respect for Brian Batcheldor’s achievements with his athletes:
they are truly remarkable. However a few of
the statements he’s made about steroids have
been off, indisputably factually off, and
if he said that, that’s one of them.
Everybody just relax. All I did was question something that was published by a t-mag writer (Brian Batcheldor) because it didn’t make sense to me and I wanted clarification. My second question states my personal opinion regarding the subject. So anyways,… let’s just have a good holiday.