Either way - isnt SC totally acceptable for an AAS injection?
Absorption tends to be slower with SC and volumes over 0.25ml tend to leave a bump while the oil disperses.
[quote]Dynamo Hum wrote:
Absorption tends to be slower with SC and volumes over 0.25ml tend to leave a bump while te oil disperses.[/quote]
I know that much already - but the question still stands, SC is still a totally acceptable method of injecting AAS isnt it? Or is there a large difference in drug pharmacokinetics making it disadvantageous?
I brought it up for a couple of reasons, one is that i am sure that it is an accepted practice with TRT dosing, and because it was suggested that when injecting a few milligrams a day of a short ester with a slin pin, IM is still necessary… but wouldnt SC be ok as well as IM?
OR would the whole cycle need to be SC, rather than a mix of SC/IM?
I guess the real question is what exactly is the difference in absorbtion rates? For example i know that it is different with different muscle groups - even injected IM (glutes vs. delts), but we still rotate these sites daily/weekly. Is the difference with SC vs. IM absorbtion that different, that the two methods arent interchangable in a cycle?
Brook 
[quote] Brook wrote:
Dynamo Hum wrote:
Absorption tends to be slower with SC and volumes over 0.25ml tend to leave a bump while te oil disperses.
I know that much already - but the question still stands, SC is still a totally acceptable method of injecting AAS isnt it? Or is there a large difference in drug pharmacokinetics making it disadvantageous?
I brought it up for a couple of reasons, one is that i am sure that it is an accepted practice with TRT dosing, and because it was suggested that when injecting a few milligrams a day of a short ester with a slin pin, IM is still necessary… but wouldnt SC be ok as well as IM?
OR would the whole cycle need to be SC, rather than a mix of SC/IM?
I guess the real question is what exactly is the difference in absorbtion rates? For example i know that it is different with different muscle groups - even injected IM (glutes vs. delts), but we still rotate these sites daily/weekly. Is the difference with SC vs. IM absorbtion that different, that the two methods arent interchangable in a cycle?
Brook ;)[/quote]
SC in theory should lead to a slower absorption. I am not sure that there is any data comparing a hormonal ester in oil IM vs. SC and rate of absorption exists.
I am basing this assumption on the way that insulin is administered and the fact that hitting IM puts it in contact with more bloodflow and thus faster absorption which in a diabetic you would want to avoid because of hypoglycemia.
If it were me I would stick with one method just to be safe. Brook I know how you like your stable blood levels so I am pretty sure you would want the same.
[quote]BenceJones wrote:
Brook wrote:
Dynamo Hum wrote:
Absorption tends to be slower with SC and volumes over 0.25ml tend to leave a bump while te oil disperses.
I know that much already - but the question still stands, SC is still a totally acceptable method of injecting AAS isnt it? Or is there a large difference in drug pharmacokinetics making it disadvantageous?
I brought it up for a couple of reasons, one is that i am sure that it is an accepted practice with TRT dosing, and because it was suggested that when injecting a few milligrams a day of a short ester with a slin pin, IM is still necessary… but wouldnt SC be ok as well as IM?
OR would the whole cycle need to be SC, rather than a mix of SC/IM?
I guess the real question is what exactly is the difference in absorbtion rates? For example i know that it is different with different muscle groups - even injected IM (glutes vs. delts), but we still rotate these sites daily/weekly. Is the difference with SC vs. IM absorbtion that different, that the two methods arent interchangable in a cycle?
Brook
SC in theory should lead to a slower absorption. I am not sure that there is any data comparing a hormonal ester in oil IM vs. SC and rate of absorption exists.
I am basing this assumption on the way that insulin is administered and the fact that hitting IM puts it in contact with more bloodflow and thus faster absorption which in a diabetic you would want to avoid because of hypoglycemia.
If it were me I would stick with one method just to be safe. Brook I know how you like your stable blood levels so I am pretty sure you would want the same.[/quote]
Yeah… i have done all 3 methods in abundance - which method of delivery isnt important to me, but i find the data interesting. I will google it.
while we’re on the topic…
would shooting with a slim pin be less painful with injectables like prop and win?
-
Winstrol should generally be painless unless injected into the calves, or right next to a nerve, or too fast.
-
My own finding, based on a lot of injections, is that whether testosterone propionate is painful or not has to do with the preparation, not the substance itself. It can be painless at 50 mg/mL. (I don’t know if it is for everybody: I am saying it can be.) The problem is that testosterone propionate is soluble in oil only to about 50 mg/mL, whereas the “standard” concentration is 100 mg/mL.
However, even if one disagrees with that (making it oneself to 50 mg/mL and finding it painful would be reason to disagree, at least with regard to personal outcome) it has to do with the injected material itself, not the needle used. So no, a needle would not make a difference.
Or if you mean route of administration, please, don’t inject 1 mL of steroids at a time sub-Q.
Thanks BR. I have no idea where all this subcutaneous talk came from in the first place. I assumed you were referring to IMing with slim pin.
Going back to the thread’s original topic (and apologies for hijacking), I was thinking of ripping a string of 2 weekers. The compounds I have access to are tren ace, winstrol (tabs) and anavar.
This would be my 4th cycle. I’m 6’, 200lbs, ~9%BF. The goal would be to put on 5-8 lbs of lean (lean lean) weight in the first two week period.
I was thinking of 50mg/ed of each compound with an initial front load of tren.
Too much, too little, just right or just dumb?
Those are good doses of TA and Winstrol. Or if using oxandrolone without TA, that’s a pretty good dose of oxandrolone (not maximally effective, but pretty good.)
If your TA is considerably cheaper per milligram than the oxandrolone, I’d consider saving the oxandrolone for where it can do things TA cannot, such as bridging. Oxandrolone does nothing that trenbolone does not. However if let’s say the situation is that you can take only a given amount of TA before say night sweats come in, and the wife or girlfriend hates night sweats (reasonably enough), and that amount is less than maximally effective for you, then adding oxandrolone while keeping the TA in a non-problematic way is a good way to increase effect without increasing side effects.
But if that is not an issue I’d use more TA rather than combine oxandrolone with it, if the TA is cheaper per mg.
Lastly, your choice of compounds is problematic because of having no aromatizable steroids. Your natural estrogen would drop too low. This could be solved with even a small amount of Dianabol such as 5 mg three to five times per day – the latter is more than needed for this purpose but would add to gains without being high-estrogen – or adding testosterone propionate at even say 15 or 20 mg/day, or twice that every other day. Alternately you could use low dose HCG, e.g. 100 IU/day, 200 IU eod, or 250 IU 3x/week during week 1 only.
Thanks again Bill. Good insight on getting positive effects without sides.
Cost and sweating on girlfriends isn’t really an issue.
So to adjust it, I’ll…
- up the Tren to 75mg/ed
- drop the Anavar
- use that half can of propionate I have left
I do like the idea of using HCG though since it would serve a dual purpose. I didn’t realize it would have that much of a “positive” effect on estrogen.
The effect on estrogen is by normalizing testosterone production despite LH being suppressed.
Marc51, do you expect to gain 5-8 lbs of lean lean mass in two week? IME, a 2 pounds gain in real dry tissue is possible in a 2-3 week period, the rest is ususally water.
TA gives good “real” gains, comparable with test+dbol.
It would depend on whether the previous 4 cycles had the training and nutrition really together or not (as well as whether this one does), and/or whether there are re-gains to be had.
If the training and nutrition are considerably better this time, or this will largely be regains, then it’s possible. If neither is true then yes it’s too much of an expectation. Consider that most pro bb’ers don’t add 5-8 lb lean mass every YEAR. (For example Lee Haney said he averaged 3 lb gains per year in the seven years he was Mr Olympia.)
Of course they had their training and nutrition together in previous cycles, and in the comparison we aren’t figuring from the perspective of regains.
I plan on running a series of two weekers, starting next month.
2 on 2 off
2 on 2 off
2 on 4-12 off (Depending on how I feel)
THEN REPEAT!
This will be my first cycle st 40 years of age. I am clear on what compounds are to be used and at what dosages, however I am still not certain on how/if I incorporate a SERM during the extended off periods? The typical 4 week period that concludes the series of two week cycles. I assume this is largely based on experience.
Thank You!
The good news is that I don’t look anything Lee Hainey when he was only progressing by 3lb/year. Meaning I think I have some of those explosive newbie gains left. I get that if this was my 3rd or 4th cycle in a string of two weekers, my expectations should be dialed back to the 2-3lb range. But even if I only come out with 3lb per 2 week cycle; if I put 3 of those together, that’s 9lb (duh). Nine pounds of lean dry tissue would drastically change my physique. And if my balls don’t shrink into peanuts like last time, I’m sold.
I chose TA and Winstrol specifically for their lack of water retention. My thinking is that whatever I come out with will be lean dry tissue. At Bill’s suggestion, I’ll splash a little prop in there to balance things out a better.
Thinking back at my “vast” 4 cycles worth of experience (which all ranged between 8 and 12 weeks); I always found that most of my gains came in the first month anyway. Strength was the opposite.
Anyway, I’m stoked to try this out. I’ll ping you guys to let you know how I do.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Not necessarily moreso due to the Vitex than the other ingredients, but rather that I’d found it an important addition to Tribulus.
It worked for me, in terms of being better than doing nothing and adequate to the demand placed by the shorter cycle. I went back to using a SERM (Clomid) after the trial as I do think that is better. These days I rely on letrozole.
Whether everyone would do better with that than with nothing in the context of 2 week cycles, I cannot say. I have only the single-case (though through many cycles) personal experience.[/quote]
I’ve always read that a SERM needs to tapered off. It seems that the two-week off period doesn’t allow enough time for any kind of tapering. Perhaps I’m wrong. If you please, what is the dosing protocol for a SERM during the two weeks off?
The half-life being several days, both Clomid and Nolvadex taper themselves off naturally simply by discontinuing using them.
Thank you. I appreciate the response.
So I was revisiting old threads on here-- and after re-reading this one and realizing how much great knowledge Bill had to share, along with BBB, Dynamo, and others-- I realized there’s another question to be asked.
Would one be able to front load tren hexahydrobenzylcarbonate in a similar fashion to the Test E front load that was mentioned?
I bring this up because Bill had mentioned the ability to frontload 200-1000mg Test E, but tren is much more suppressive while in the system. And hexy has a 5 day half life IIRC, so similar to enanthate. Parabolon seems to be making a comeback of sorts in the past few years in many parts of the country.
If it were able to be frontloaded, what kinds of dose range would be necessitated by having to get it to non-suppressive levels by day 14?
I don’t think it would be suitable for brief cycles.
While I didn’t get T levels measured to establish it as a fact, I’ve experimented with low dose trenbolone acetate as a bridging agent. It seems to me to be partially suppressive even at something quite low: I forget what but something like 10 mg/day.
With a trenbolone ester that has a very short half-life, that still works, but with Parabolan it would take too long for levels to drop from useful to low-suppressive.
E.g., if you wanted it to be down to the 10 mg/day level 15 days after the first injection (not that we want to figure exactly that, but the number is more convenient for calculation) you’d have to be at the 20 mg/day level at 10 days after, the 40 mg/day level at 5 days after, and the 80 mg/day level on the first injection.
So you would have useful levels the first few days, but not really past or much past the first week.