[quote]BeforeIforget wrote:
So what kind of weight gain might we expect? [/quote]
+1
Bill, I saw it was already asked, but how does weight of the user affect the amount of sprays. It says apprx 35 sprays as a serving.
Is that true if you weigh 150,200,250?
Or does it change if you want to lose vs gain weight?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
morepain wrote:
Bill, so how long before someone tries this with ground and filtered finaplix? Yeah i was around when we were all taking abdrosol, grinding up finaplix, mxing and filtering it…those that don’t know missed one ofthe best non-injectable preparations ever, i would assume the same or better results would be seen here?
Anyway just a thought, i was also one of the “long term steroid users” chosento participate in the MAG-10 trial, if i remember right they gave us like 8 weeks worth of MAG-10 for free, that kicked ass to say the least. These days like you, i don’t get much from steroid use other than CNS stimualation and bloat. So i pretty much stick to my HRT dose and hoping to get my doc to allow me to do GH at a replacement dose as well, still have to have tests done on IGF-1 levels. BTW off topic, any tips on how to minimize that on a blood test in hopes of obtaining my GH script??? Nice seeing you around again!
Thanks, morepain!
As always, topically applied Fina is a great way to go and gives good value for the money, though not as good as self-made injectable. Which really is not too hard to do at all.
It really would not be necessary to use the 11-T solution for making it. The sprayer is ideal for the purpose, whereas sprayers I’ve found in products sold at the drugstore or supermarket are not, but that would require only a used 11-T bottle or an old Androsol bottle.
You would want to use 99% isopropyl alcohol. While the 11-T has an added penetration enhancer, I don’t think that’s necessary with trenbolone acetate. Well it certainly isn’t necessary, that wasn’t the right way to put it, but the point is I’m not sure with the trenbolone acetate it would help at all, as there are some differing physical properties.
I preferred 25 mg/mL in the case of Finasol.
The biggest issue is the annoyance of the filler tending to clog things up. Making a solution well in advance and letting it settle helps with that.
I haven’t evaluated stacking effects with 11-T vs differing anabolic steroids. It’s entirely possible and I think not at all unlikely that straight Fina would be the more economical way to go for any given effect.
In the case of mixing Fina with Androsol, there was a synergistic tacking benefit due to the properties of 4-AD. But I don’t know that that’s true with 11-T.
That’s a very interesting question on how to minimize IGF-1 readings. I don’t know, but I’ll try to think about it and look into it.
[/quote]
i would certianly appreciate it, if you come across any idea pm me here thanks
[quote]danew wrote:
I’m thinking that if it doesn’t cause a real significant amount of weight gain through mechanisms other than muscle gain (water rentention), then the possibility of increased fat loss and decreased muscle loss during times of very hard training and cutting are very appealling. However, if I am going to gain a bunch of weight that is water, then that’s going to be a real pain in the ass to cut come competition time.[/quote]
Increased glycogen and water storage in the muscle is lost in only about 3-4 days, and that’s without any special effort at low-carb diet and/or any unusually high caloric expenditure, just normal maintenance diet and normal activity/training. So it really would not be a disadvantage if the 11-T were discontinued several days out.
[quote]borobarco2 wrote:
Bill, I saw it was already asked, but how does weight of the user affect the amount of sprays. It says apprx 35 sprays as a serving.
Is that true if you weigh 150,200,250?
Or does it change if you want to lose vs gain weight?
[/quote]
The figure is relative to an approximate median for a male weight trainer in moderately lean condition. I tend to assume 185 or somewhere around there as being about that median. So really, anyone in the 170-200 range is within 10% of that, which is less than individual variation in other respects. Even the range of say 150-220 is only plus or minus 20%, which again is less than what other individual dose response variations could be expected to be.
Greater bodyweight that is due to fat would not be reason for higher dose. But if one is say a pretty tall guy that is say 240 or more and fairly lean, then yes, knocking up the dose proportionally (by about a third in that case) would make sense.
If someone is considerably smaller than that nominal (I don’t know if it’s factual, it is just an arbitrary figure) median, say 140 lb, then if desired to extend the time the bottle will last, it would be okay to cut the dose proportionately, in that case by about 25%, but if the individual felt absolutely fine with the full 35 sprays (no bothersome overstimulatory effect; that is the only respect in which we anticipate anyone being bothered) there would be nothing wrong with that either.
On the gaining versus losing weight: it is possible that, if having a dieting plan of such a time length, and choosing to spend a given amount on the product, that using half the dose for twice the time might be more cost-effective when dieting. Not more effective per unit time, but since the time is doubled, perhaps more effective in total.
Guys. I’m on the fence. Others have noted good objections. I’m willing to try something new, just to see…
What will tip me over the fence: If I order two bottles, and I am not satisfied, will I get a full refund, or just a refund for one bottle?
Thanks.
what is the reason that a lighter coat is better than more to a target spot. is it just a waste to add extra or is it actually a disadvantage?
[quote]figmopoly wrote:
Bill, first I wanted to tell you I’ve been a fan of Biotest products for quite some time. I’ve always been impressed with your innovation and the support you provide customers in this forum. I tried MAG-10 and 4-AD-EC and really look forward to getting 11-T. But I just had 2 questions:
-
Would 11-T be as effective as 4-AD-EC was during cutting cycles? If so, what are the other Biotest products you’d recommend to stack with it for a cutting cycle?
-
When I’d cycle off MAG-10 or 4-AD-EC, I’d feel down–nothing horrible, but definitely mildly depressed. Will cycling off 11-T yield the same result? If so, what can I do to mitigate that?
Thanks and congratulations on 11-T.[/quote]
Thanks, figmopoly!
I expect considerable individual variation. I would expect it though to at least match 4-AD-EC for cutting cycles.
Principally other Biotest products to stack with it for cutting cycles would be, main item, HOT-ROX. If, as most people can, one can tolerate the yohimbine in the Extreme then go with that. If not, then the Maximum Strength.
Second optional item, Carbolin 19. Even though Extreme already has a good dose of the same active (FC), HOT-ROX really can’t or shouldn’t be taken around the clock, whereas FC being in the system around the clock is helpful. So for example with Extreme, 1 capsule of Carbolin 19 with each of the 2 daily doses of HRX, and an additional 2 capsules in the evening, improves results.
With the Maximum Strength, I use 2 capsules of Carbolin 19 with each HOT-ROX dose, and then 2 final capsules in the evening. (Yes, that’s above label recommendation, and is only a personal example. I have not done anything towards seeing whether or not this is appropriate for most people in general.)
As non-Biotest items, absolutely get some Vitamin D. 4000 IU a day can ge a substantial help to fat loss. The RDA for Vitamin D is absolutely nowhere near the optimal level, existing supplements one is likely to take are unlikely to total anywhere near to an optimal amount, and Vitamin D is not much present in food, including not in Vitamin D supplemented milk. Unless one is out in strong sun an hour a day in sunnier latitudes, one probably does not have optimal levels.
Olive oil is also helpful (should be cold-pressed extra virgin.) Personally I’ve never liked the taste, but actually a tablespoon mixed into an MRP or protein shake is okay even to me. There is a lot of research showing substantial benefits to monounsaturated fats, and olive oil is a fairly concentrated and probably the most economical choice.
(Macadamia nuts are even more concentrated, but are expensive and I will eat too much of them, whereas I don’t do that with olive oil. Tea seed oil, also known as camellia oil, is also even more concentrated in MUFA’s than olive oil, and may taste better, but personally I haven’t tried it. I’ve seen it online for $14 per 500 mL.)
A couple of tablespoons per day seems a good amount. Of course, not as added calories, but as a replacement for something else.
And EFA’s, of course.
I also use Solaray brand “Cool Cayenne” capsules.
EGCG is a good thing also, and is cheap.
[quote]zbelair wrote:
what is the reason that a lighter coat is better than more to a target spot. is it just a waste to add extra or is it actually a disadvantage?[/quote]
It is a waste to apply more to a given spot than a light coat.
Research by Dr Annette Bunge revealed that, for compounds with low solubility in the skin (more specifically, low solubility in the stratum corneum, the outer dead layer) flux – amount delivered per unit time per unit area – of such compounds is just as great with a “speckled” (not sure if she ever used that term herself) coat, where a tiny amount exists in one tiny spot, a small area around it has nothing, then another such spot, etc, none being greatly far apart) than is the case with an absolutely solid application or for that matter, with an inch-thick slathered-on coat.
The reason is that lateral (sideways, so to speak) diffusion is much faster in this situation than diffusion through the stratum corneum, and the top layer of the stratum corneum rapidly becomes completely saturated with the speckled coat due to this lateral diffusion. And so that can’t be increased with a heavier coat.
A heavier coat requires that, for the same total amount, a lesser skin area is applied to and therefore a lesser area is saturated with the material. So, applying a thicker coat over a lesser area results in less delivery.
There’s no such thing as applying over too great an area – that will not reduce delivery – but there certainly is in applying the same amount to a smaller area than results from the spraying directions.
Roughly speaking, 35 sprays should take at least half of the available body area (available area excludes face, genitals, and bottom of feet and palms of hand.) There is no waste this way from excessively thick coat.
Oh, and on the mild depression experienced when cycling off MAG-10 and 4-AD-EC, and whether that indicates it would happen with 11-T, that seems like an individual variation sort of thing but I suppose isn’t unlikely given that it happened with the first two.
If it’s correct to say that stimulatory properties of 4-AD-EC (present in both MAG-10 and the 4-AD-EC product) resulted in adaptation within your brain where that stimulation was “expected” and downregulation of some sort occurred to adjust for it, then if you find 11-T stimulatory the same might reasonably happen.
good strength gains or is it more of an asthetic/fatloss thing? thanks
[quote]flightposite wrote:
good strength gains or is it more of an asthetic/fatloss thing.[/quote]
I’m curious about this too. I see it mostly being mentioned for targeting cortisol and being used for cutting…but some are talking about/worrying about gaining weight or hoping to get swole.
OK, let me see if I’ve got this right…
- 11-T is superior to 11OXO due to delivery system (transdermal) and being a similar, but “stronger” compound(?)…
2)“Real” AAS and/or 11-T are useless for us in the the geezer crowd (over 40/over 50 trainers) because of our naturally lower GH levels, therefore, we can expect little to no muscle mass gains or fat loss results(?)…
Correct, or did I misinterpret what I have been reading here so far?
Same here, I wonder how it increases libido since it’s just suppose to be a “cortisol re-directing agent”?
Or is it just being tacked on as a marketing tool?
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
What I’m unclear on is how something that only affects how cortisol reacts to certain tissues, can cause infertility or testicular shrinkage.
As well as increased libido.
Granted, I know that when you mess with one hormone it will typically cause a reaction to another hormone.
But, we’re not increasing or decreasing cortisol.
[/quote]
On the second point, no, AAS are hardly useless to older trainers, though it’s true that lower GH levels reduce what can be expected compared to having higher GH levels when younger.
But for any individual there is only so far they can go. For some, that’s amazingly impressive, for others not so much so, but for example someone who has done over a number of years say 30 steroid cycles is not going to have a retained “mere” 5 lb of added muscle from each one. (If he did, he’d have 150 lb of added muscle and that just isn’t going to happen for the ordinary individual.)
Additionally, where the body is at a homeostasis point for a given hormonal milieu and excellent training stimulus and nutrition, one cannot expect to be more muscular than achieving that point. So if at an older age AAS with lower natural GH is not as favorable a hormonal milieu as the same AAS with higher natural GH was at a younger age, not only may there be no new personal records set for muscle size, but the homeostasis point may be a little lower.
But, that hormonal milieu is still a more favorable one than not having the AAS.
If I were to quit using for an extended period of time, as an example, then there would be slow losses and I could have, after say a year, with resumed use “impressive” regains. And I think that would be the case with 11-T as well. But they would in my case now generally only be regains, not forging on to new territory, I think for the reasons given.
But as I don’t take such really extended time off, and I don’t do things where there is a post-cycle hormonal crash, there aren’t significant true losses between cycles, so there’s no impressive regains to be had. There’s always a weight difference but as said, I believe that’s from added glycogen and glycogen-associated water stored in the muscles when “on.” Not in my case added contractile protein.
[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Guys. I’m on the fence. Others have noted good objections. I’m willing to try something new, just to see…
What will tip me over the fence: If I order two bottles, and I am not satisfied, will I get a full refund, or just a refund for one bottle?
Thanks.[/quote]
Yeah I thought about the refund bit as well. Be interesting to see what the details are on that - in the past Biotest has always given me a full refund, so that would be my expectation.
Again I just can't get over the spray thing, nor can I imagine this being anywhere NEAR as potent as MAG-10 was. I'll just have to wait on the feedback and hear from folks who really felt it made a difference. Like I said I usually buy just about anything these guys make but just can't buy into this one. If you buy this and use it right for 6 weeks along with hard training and diet - please post your results.
Bill,
Are the low androgenic properties likely to affect:
-
hair loss
-
increased aggression
-
acne
When taking other “products”, if you will, I was one of those guys who always had pronounced negative side effects from even small doses, while some of my friends could take huge doses and get nothing.
But those products were supposed to be androgenic, where this product is not a pro-hormone, if I read it correctly. I’m a little confused, to be honest.
Thanks in advance.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Principally other Biotest products to stack with it for cutting cycles would be, main item, HOT-ROX. If, as most people can, one can tolerate the yohimbine in the Extreme then go with that. If not, then the Maximum Strength.[/quote]
Is Max Strength still available? I don’t think I have seen it in the store for a while. Maybe sold off site?[quote]
As non-Biotest items, absolutely get some Vitamin D. 4000 IU a day can be a substantial help to fat loss.[/quote]
And just wanted to double check. 4k IU of Vitamin D? Don’t think I have ever taken that much.
Anyway, I didn’t think you were supposed to add any Carbolin-19 to HRX, but I will give this a try soon.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
BADASS MENTALITY wrote:
WAY too much for this! Biotest is out of their minds with this one. $$$ is better spent on a good PT pushing me to my limit than some miracle supp.
must not be too much seeing as several people jumped at it right away.[/quote]
Most spend which they do not have, son. And how come you have a damn answer for everything on here?! WTF are you, son?! Ya noob. But hey, sometimes I’m so fucking bright, my father calls me son.
If the concern regarding being a spray is supposing that it is too much trouble, it isn’t. We lost a lot of Androsol sales because of people assuming SEVENTY SPRAYS would be an incredible chore, but in fact it was very quick – tsst-tsst-tsst-tsst-tsst so to speak, not One… Two… Three… etc – and most actually enjoyed it. Believe it or not, it was a happy process. And this is only 35. Truly no big deal.
Or if the thought is an assumption that it’s not as bioavailable this way, that assumption would be wrong. The reverse is true. This method escapes first pass metabolism, which deactivates the majority of the compound if taken orally; the vast skin area used allows vast amount of delivery; and the extremely thin film means it’s taken into the skin rather than having excess that comes off or never makes it in. This isn’t your dad’s transdermal, so to speak.
But to each his own, of course.