Anabolics
Search More Than 6,000,000 Posts
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 41
  1. #1
    gregpowell is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Tulsa
    Posts
    14

    Wasting my Cash by drinking Winny?

    Hello everyone, I just scored my first batch of Winstrol . I have 20cc's and I am looking foward to seeing what it does. I need to know, from someone with experience, is it alright to drink 100mg/day of winstrol?

    Will I get any results, what do I drink it with and when, etc.
    Your help will be greatly appreciated!

  2. #2
    palme's Avatar
    palme is offline Rosie Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    6,649
    Yes it´s ok to drink winny

    Some people take grapefruit juice with it, do a search and you see why.

  3. #3
    big N's Avatar
    big N is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    3,137
    bro u will see resaults from drinking it ,a bit does get wasted in the digestive track but hey ,bro u dont want tpo drink 100 ed its 17 alk and is liver toxic.50 ed is sufficient.

  4. #4
    gregpowell is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Tulsa
    Posts
    14
    Thanks for the great tips guys. I will drink about 50mg/day then, good point on the liver functionality Grapefruit juice huh? Any reason that is the best?

  5. #5
    ripped4fsu's Avatar
    ripped4fsu is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    2,288
    Big N is right on, 100mg ED is a little excessive. try 100mg EOD or better yet 50mg ED.
    as far as drinking it goes, I have done both ~ and running it seems to work a little better. I still got decent gains off drinking it, with a LOT less pain,,, that's some painful shit to run due to the crystalization. (water based absorb faster leaving crystals in the muscle fiber... )

  6. #6
    Matt Foley's Avatar
    Matt Foley is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    the matrix
    Posts
    511
    you lose up to 30% by drinking your winny.i dont know about you but i could use that extra 16mgs ed.yes its a waste to drink winny.but what kind of winny are we talking?

  7. #7
    djdjdjddjon's Avatar
    djdjdjddjon is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    chicago/cleveland/lansing
    Posts
    2,088
    i wanna see multiple studies that PROVE you lose 30% by drinking, that is ridiculous (jmho)...i dont see any reason it wouldn't be just as productive as injecting, its 17aa to inhibit the product from being destroyed during digestion, i think a negligable ammount may be harmed, but i doubt it is a substantial or even measurable ammount...

  8. #8
    big N's Avatar
    big N is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    3,137
    um dj bro ,yes it less effective bro ok ive done both,time over ,and the resaults shooting are much better .u do loose some through the digestive track ,that whole its 17 alk think and dosent break down through stomach is bullshit dog !!!!u show me proof and studies tgat it work the same !exactly ,best is trail and error .

  9. #9
    MBaraso's Avatar
    MBaraso is offline Retired Mod
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    7,611
    There's no way you lose 30% by drinking it. 17aa is made to NOT break down in the digestive system. If you lose anything it might be a very small amount like dj said.
    If what you're saying was true then we'd also be losing 30% when taking d-bol pills or any other 17aa for that matter....

  10. #10
    Madmax's Avatar
    Madmax is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    boom town
    Posts
    1,743
    i drank mine for the first time..i was always under the imlression it wasn't as good as shooting...i feel the same results as i did when i shot it...Madmax..

  11. #11
    BIG-ANDY's Avatar
    BIG-ANDY is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    17
    THIS IS THE QUESTION OF THE THOUSAND ANSWERS, IN FACT I HAVE THE SAME QUESTION, I WILL APRECIATE IF SOMEONE GIVES A SCIENTIFIC FACT ABOUT THIS, IF IT IS THE SAME INJENTING THAN DRINKING.

  12. #12
    Matt Foley's Avatar
    Matt Foley is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    the matrix
    Posts
    511
    You can drink any 17-AA androgen such as winny and reforvit-B (liquid-Dbol ). Ether route of administration, they will still be equally toxic to the liver, since they both have to make two passes through the liver as opposed to one from any injecctable that is not 17-aa.ive heard of these studies and dont want to chance them.ive had no comparison to the benefit of ed injects of zambon as far as winstrol is concerned.

  13. #13
    Matt Foley's Avatar
    Matt Foley is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    the matrix
    Posts
    511
    if there was no difference, pharmaceautical companies (such as spanish giant Zambon) would only produce tabs. why would anyone want to inject if you can swallow it for a fraction of injectable price and extra hole in your body.

    now in details:

    tabs (or oraly administered stanozolol ) have to be digested before it is released in blood. there is no way 100% of the active ingradient is going to make it though thanks to out filtering capabilities of kidney and liver. even being alculated to intoxicate for better penetration, part of stanozolol will be neautralized.

    on top of that oraly administered substance (or whatever is left of it) will be immediately released in blood. making its life span only 3-4 hours.

    injectable will be delivered to your blood more smoothly (usually in a day) and more of the substance will make it to the bloodstreams (in the form of dehydrotestosterone)

    secondly inj is much milder to your kidney/liver partly due to the fact that it does not go though digestion system.

    i think this was from bigcat but not 100% sure of its author.the point is why chance the loss,either you handle the ed injects or you go oral.i myself prefer zambon because i dont mind the ed injects and am happy with my results.
    Last edited by Matt Foley; 01-31-2003 at 04:09 PM.

  14. #14
    big N's Avatar
    big N is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    3,137
    M baraso,yea u dont loose 30 % but its not as effective as injecting ,some is lost .i now shoot one drink one and works fuckin awesome .

  15. #15
    Matt Foley's Avatar
    Matt Foley is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    the matrix
    Posts
    511
    Originally posted by big N
    M baraso,yea u dont loose 30 % but its not as effective as injecting ,some is lost .i now shoot one drink one and works fuckin awesome .
    also tab one day and inject the next.i hear good results with this as well.

  16. #16
    bitchtits's Avatar
    bitchtits is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    262

    YOU GUYS ARE STUCK TOO MUCH ON THESE "STUDIES"

    I hear this arguement all the time "winny is less effective when drinking than when shooting". Is it 30% less effective or 27%? Does it really matter? Hey bro.. Shoot the winny right in your ass don't chance it by drinking it. I have done some winny/deca & winny alone cycles and I personally have found that injecting the winstrol is more effective in MY BODY so why waste your money and drink the shit. Winstrol is expensive shoot it up...and don't be a bitch
    -EC

  17. #17
    Sigmund Froid is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    460
    Matt Foley, your reasoning is incorrect.

    "if there was no difference, pharmaceautical companies (such as spanish giant Zambon) would only produce tabs. why would anyone want to inject if you can swallow it for a fraction of injectable price and extra hole in your body."

    Stanozolol is used in veterinary medicine. They no longer use it on humans. Try getting a dog or a cat to eat a pill. Then, try injecting them. You will see that injection works much better. Therefore, the pharmaceutical companies make liquids.

    -Sigmund Froid

  18. #18
    Sigmund Froid is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    460
    And once again, Sigmund Froid delivers the best scientific studies around while the others bicker and talk of their "studies" that don't even exist:

    Here you are, once again, from t-mag.com

    From Starasseroids 191 by Brock StrasseR:

    "There isn't a lot of great pharmacokinetic data in humans comparing oral to parenteral (injectable) stanozolol . So that idea of "if you use X amount by injection you need twice as much orally" is anecdotal and speculative at best. The best I could find is a study comparing the two methods of administration in dogs. My comments come after the abstract:

    The effect of stanozolol on 15-nitrogen retention in the dog

    Can J Vet Res 2000 Oct;64(4):246-8 (ISSN: 0830-9000)

    Olson ME; Morck DW; Quinn KB [Find other articles with these Authors] Animal Health Unit and Gastrointestinal Sciences, University of Calgary, Alberta.

    The objective of the study was to determine the influence of either oral or intramuscular administration of stanozolol on nitrogen retention in dogs by using a non-invasive 15N-amino acid tracer technique. Ten healthy, intact, adult male sled dogs received either stanozolol tablets, 2 mg/dog PO, q12h, for 25 days (Group 1, n = 5) or an intramuscular injection of 25 mg of stanozolol on Days 7, 14, 21, and 28 (Group 2, n = 5). A 15N amino acid (5.27 mmol) was infused intravenously into each dog on Day 0 (before stanozolol treatment) and on Day 31 (after stanozolol treatment). Urine was collected by catheterization from each animal 3 times daily for 3 consecutive days. The 15N-urea enrichment in urine was determined by high-resolution mass spectrometry and the total amount of urea in the urine was determined.

    Both oral and injectable stanozolol resulted in significant (P < 0.05) increases in amino acid nitrogen retention compared to pretreatment values. Oral stanozolol increased nitrogen retention from 29.2 +/- 8.2% to 50.3 +/- 9.2%, while stanozolol injection increased nitrogen retention from 26.6 +/- 9.9% to 67.0 +/- 7.5%. The response to intramuscular administration was significantly greater than the response to the oral dosing regime. Stanozolol increases amino acid nitrogen retention in dogs, as has been previously observed in rats. This action of stanozolol may be beneficial in dogs under stress of surgical trauma and chronic disease.

    Okay, so the oral dose was 28mg/week and the injected dose was 25mg/week. And the injected dose was far better at increasing nitrogen retention (67.0% versus 50.3%). This makes it about 33.2% better (roughly speaking), so if I extrapolate, it means to see the same effects as 25mg of injected stanozolol per week, you'd need to take about 38mg of it orally.

    This isn't quite "twice the injected dose" and is, in fact, closer to 50% (52% or so actually). So if you assume the dog model is correct, or nearly so in other mammals like humans, you'd need about 50% more stanozolol orally than you would if you injected it. So if you used 50mg of injected Winstrol every other day, it would be a safe bet to assume 37.5mg of stanozolol used orally every day would provide a similar effect."

  19. #19
    ripped4fsu's Avatar
    ripped4fsu is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    2,288
    ugh... you guys are making me tired...

  20. #20
    MYOBRAIN's Avatar
    MYOBRAIN is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    56
    Originally posted by Matt Foley
    if there was no difference, pharmaceautical companies (such as spanish giant Zambon) would only produce tabs. why would anyone want to inject if you can swallow it for a fraction of injectable price and extra hole in your body.

    now in details:

    tabs (or oraly administered stanozolol ) have to be digested before it is released in blood. there is no way 100% of the active ingradient is going to make it though thanks to out filtering capabilities of kidney and liver. even being alculated to intoxicate for better penetration, part of stanozolol will be neautralized.

    on top of that oraly administered substance (or whatever is left of it) will be immediately released in blood. making its life span only 3-4 hours.

    injectable will be delivered to your blood more smoothly (usually in a day) and more of the substance will make it to the bloodstreams (in the form of dehydrotestosterone)

    secondly inj is much milder to your kidney/liver partly due to the fact that it does not go though digestion system.

    i think this was from bigcat but not 100% sure of its author.the point is why chance the loss,either you handle the ed injects or you go oral.i myself prefer zambon because i dont mind the ed injects and am happy with my results.
    IMO, Labs make the injectable version, due to some diseases, when the pacient can't use the oral version. Diseases in stomach, mouth, etc ... I prefer to drink W, despite i don't like this shit.

  21. #21
    Decoder's Avatar
    Decoder is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    S*P*A*R*T*A
    Posts
    1,585
    Shoot the winny right in your ass don't chance it by drinking it. <- i busted out laughing at that HAHAH it just sound's funny.

  22. #22
    Matt Foley's Avatar
    Matt Foley is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    the matrix
    Posts
    511
    Originally posted by Sigmund Froid
    Matt Foley, your reasoning is incorrect.

    "if there was no difference, pharmaceautical companies (such as spanish giant Zambon) would only produce tabs. why would anyone want to inject if you can swallow it for a fraction of injectable price and extra hole in your body."

    Stanozolol is used in veterinary medicine. They no longer use it on humans. Try getting a dog or a cat to eat a pill. Then, try injecting them. You will see that injection works much better. Therefore, the pharmaceutical companies make liquids.

    -Sigmund Froid
    another point here is that zambon makes more money off there amps vs htere tabs do you think the zambon market is primerily vetrinary,i dont.
    Last edited by Matt Foley; 02-01-2003 at 03:33 AM.

  23. #23
    H BOMB is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    FL to NY
    Posts
    1,176
    bro what kind of winny is it. if it is something like zambon, denkall, stanazolic, etc it will pass threw 27g, and 29g, needles. which are no problem for ed cause you won't feel em. let me know what kind of winny it is and i'll tell you the smallest gauge needle it wil go threw. now if it something like tt then drink it cause that shit sometimes jams in a 22g. ouch ed.

  24. #24
    djdjdjddjon's Avatar
    djdjdjddjon is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    chicago/cleveland/lansing
    Posts
    2,088
    so you're saying trial and error is better than scientific evidence....? your one study of what you've used is better than concrete evidence, yah, id have to agree...lol

  25. #25
    djdjdjddjon's Avatar
    djdjdjddjon is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    chicago/cleveland/lansing
    Posts
    2,088
    Originally posted by MBaraso
    There's no way you lose 30% by drinking it. 17aa is made to NOT break down in the digestive system. If you lose anything it might be a very small amount like dj said.
    If what you're saying was true then we'd also be losing 30% when taking d-bol pills or any other 17aa for that matter....
    thanks you mb. also worth mentioning which has already been said, why would a pharm company make a product orally if its much more effective (30%, 50%, whatever) if its injected, makes no sense...

  26. #26
    2timer's Avatar
    2timer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    canada
    Posts
    1,228

    winstrol depot is way better!

    My number one concern is liver toxicity and winstrol depot is alot less liver toxic. On just this fact I pick injectible. plus oral has to go through the digestive system that is another negitive, which waist the drug alittle. No matter what, digestive system will waist some of the drug. Why would anyone pick oral over injectible? is beyond me. Only reason I see is if you don't like too much injectible. And the reason they make oral version is becuase some peoiple hate injection period. injectible is way better. In every website on winstrol they say injectible is much more effective and less liver toxic then oral.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,668
    1. 17aa steroids pass through the liver DOZENS sometimes HUNDREDS of times before they are excreted.

    2. First pass is just the point at which your liver has more of the enzymes available for break down. initial deactivation is greater.. slightly.. but so is the IGF1 release.. its a trade off.

    3. oral winstrol and injected are generally equivalent in effect. The difference is negligible, in all but a few individuals (where first pass is of above average effectiveness)

    4. the tissue damage done by ED, even EOD, injections of waterbased far outwieghs any possible benefits of injecting (which are limited at best)

  28. #28
    Matt Foley's Avatar
    Matt Foley is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    the matrix
    Posts
    511
    From my understanding, 17AA steroids are completely inactive until a molecule is detached, and they are alkylated this way to protect them from the digestive process. Passes thru the liver doesn't really have much to do with it being a 17aa (except for making them active). It is digestion which is the problem for orals, stomach acids and so forth.

  29. #29
    2timer's Avatar
    2timer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    canada
    Posts
    1,228

    macrophage I totally disagree!

    I am currently 4 year biology and trust me oral steroids specially 17aa are the most liver toxins. injectible is alot less liver toxin. anyone with a little biology knows orals are alot more toxic to the liver!

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,668

    Re: macrophage I totally disagree!

    Originally posted by 2timer
    I am currently 4 year biology and trust me oral steroids specially 17aa are the most liver toxins. injectible is alot less liver toxin. anyone with a little biology knows orals are alot more toxic to the liver!


    17aa steroids whether taken orally or injected... as is being discussed here are BOTH liver toxic.

    perhaps you failed to realize that injectable stanozolol is 17aa...

  31. #31
    HeartDocMD's Avatar
    HeartDocMD is offline AR Medical Advisor
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    329

    Re: Re: macrophage I totally disagree!

    Originally posted by macrophage69alpha




    17aa steroids whether taken orally or injected... as is being discussed here are BOTH liver toxic.

    perhaps you failed to realize that injectable stanozolol is 17aa...
    I agree...however, I will add that all of the 17aa's are liver toxic to different degree's. To my knowledge, something like anadrol or cheque drops are far more liver toxic then winny, and anavar is far less liver toxic than tylenol...however, all ARE liver toxic to some degree. However, whether injected or taken orally, these compounds pass through the liver, thus being liver toxic.

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,668

    Re: Re: Re: macrophage I totally disagree!

    Originally posted by HeartDocMD


    I agree...however, I will add that all of the 17aa's are liver toxic to different degree's. To my knowledge, something like anadrol or cheque drops are far more liver toxic then winny, and anavar is far less liver toxic than tylenol...however, all ARE liver toxic to some degree. However, whether injected or taken orally, these compounds pass through the liver, thus being liver toxic.
    actually toxicity of 17aa is individual.. and dependant on genetics.. obviously there are generalizations that accurately reflect the populus in general. however there are a number of people that are hypersensitive to winstrol .

    sensitivity mostly related to cytochrome p450 differences/activity... particularly expression of 3a4

  33. #33
    alevok Guest
    Injecting is more effective no matter what AS it is against pill forms. Just injecting it and from my experience site injections with winny is way less painfull and works better.

  34. #34
    2timer's Avatar
    2timer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    canada
    Posts
    1,228

    hey I never said injection winny is not liver toxins.

    trust me injection winny is 17aa is liver tixic. No doubt! but it is alot less liver toxic then orally.

  35. #35
    Matt Foley's Avatar
    Matt Foley is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    the matrix
    Posts
    511
    the potential loss of effectiveness,the ability to spot inject and the questionable toxicity factors are enough for me.im not convinced oral administration is the way to go here.if you want more results orally up your dose.if you want better results,inject.meanwhile i will be spotting my needed areas.peace!


    MF

  36. #36
    hammerhead's Avatar
    hammerhead is offline Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    North Atlantic
    Posts
    567
    For starters - the arguments that "why would pharmaceutical companies make something in a pill if it's more effective injected" or the "why would a pharmaceutical company make an injection if you can take it in a pill" are nonsense. There are countless medications in the PDR that are available both in tablet and injection form. The method of administration has little to do with effectiveness. The fact that everyone missed is that because something IS available in both forms demonstrates that the substance being delivered is done so adequately in either form. Translation: it obviously works quite well in both oral and injected form or they wouldn't make it in both.

    The question of liver toxicity - winstrol is very mildly hepatatoxic. It's not even close to dianabol or anadrol . Hepatatoxicity simply means that it can (note can) elevate liver values with repeated administration. There is no evidence anywhere to prove that a hefty dose of winstrol for the rest of your life will cause liver damage. I'll post some studies on the hepatatoxicity of oral steroids sometime to show you my point. The difference in hepatatoxicity between the 2 methods of administration will be negligible.

    As far as effectiveness - I don't know of any drug in the world that is 100% as effective when taken orally as it is parenternally. I do not believe Winstrol is the one exception to the rule. I do not believe for one minute that oral winstrol is as effective as injected nor do I believe that the difference in effectiveness will be huge. In the study posted - on the dogs - the injected winstrol was about twice as effective as the oral - the conclusion of that article is incorrect.
    Okay, so the oral dose was 28mg/week and the injected dose was 25mg/week. And the injected dose was far better at increasing nitrogen retention (67.0% versus 50.3%). This makes it about 33.2% better (roughly speaking),
    Base level was 29% - oral achieved 50% - injected achieved 67% - injected produced an increase of 38% whereas oral produced an increase of 21%. That's damn near twice the effect!
    I don't believe that same result is true in humans or we'd all know as the gospel uncontested truth that injected is better than oral. But I cannot ignore those numbers. Injected is more effective. Period. How much more? That depends on alot of factors. If you're a dog it's quite significant!

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,668
    Originally posted by hammerhead
    For starters - the arguments that "why would pharmaceutical companies make something in a pill if it's more effective injected" or the "why would a pharmaceutical company make an injection if you can take it in a pill" are nonsense. There are countless medications in the PDR that are available both in tablet and injection form. The method of administration has little to do with effectiveness. The fact that everyone missed is that because something IS available in both forms demonstrates that the substance being delivered is done so adequately in either form. Translation: it obviously works quite well in both oral and injected form or they wouldn't make it in both.

    The question of liver toxicity - winstrol is very mildly hepatatoxic. It's not even close to dianabol or anadrol . Hepatatoxicity simply means that it can (note can) elevate liver values with repeated administration. There is no evidence anywhere to prove that a hefty dose of winstrol for the rest of your life will cause liver damage. I'll post some studies on the hepatatoxicity of oral steroids sometime to show you my point. The difference in hepatatoxicity between the 2 methods of administration will be negligible.

    As far as effectiveness - I don't know of any drug in the world that is 100% as effective when taken orally as it is parenternally. I do not believe Winstrol is the one exception to the rule. I do not believe for one minute that oral winstrol is as effective as injected nor do I believe that the difference in effectiveness will be huge. In the study posted - on the dogs - the injected winstrol was about twice as effective as the oral - the conclusion of that article is incorrect.

    Base level was 29% - oral achieved 50% - injected achieved 67% - injected produced an increase of 38% whereas oral produced an increase of 21%. That's damn near twice the effect!
    I don't believe that same result is true in humans or we'd all know as the gospel uncontested truth that injected is better than oral. But I cannot ignore those numbers. Injected is more effective. Period. How much more? That depends on alot of factors. If you're a dog it's quite significant!
    those # do not project into humans for # reasons...
    1 oral bioavailability varies between species
    2 2mg will be broken down much faster than the supraphysio doses that humans use-- initial liver response-- higher levels at once= greater response
    3. half life.. once a day dosing is more likely the culprit than either of the above.

    with doses used- 25mg a day a typical dose- differences seen are going to be minimal if any..

    most people use a lot more than that.. multiple dosing throughout the day..

    btw- the half life reason is part of the reason for flaw in study.. 1mg twice day would have produced different results.

  38. #38
    Dimitri is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    47
    i understand the whole concept...just another topic....what about letting the winny dissolve under the tongue and other drugs like dbol ....does that seem like an effective way because of the direct blood stream flow....

  39. #39
    Dimitri is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    47
    guys have any input on the under the tongue thing...

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,668

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •