Frontloading Enanthate

**jfletcher** · 01-29-2011, 05:25 AM

Hey guys, just a quick one about frontloading! I don't understand how loading up on a slow test like Enanthate gets it working quicker.... If it's a slow acting test, why does it kick in earlier if it's used at a higher quantity??

**cro** · 01-29-2011, 06:20 AM

valid point.

Originally Posted by jfletcher

Hey guys, just a quick one about frontloading! I don't understand how loading up on a slow test like Enanthate gets it working quicker.... If it's a slow acting test, why does it kick in earlier if it's used at a higher quantity??

**Far from massive** · 01-29-2011, 09:15 AM

Because if you absorb 20% of the test from 500mg's of test thats 100mg's if you absorb 20% of the test from 1000mg's of test thats 200mg's.

Now that takes us to question # 2 does the amount injected per depo affect the absorption rate. That is, from what I have read, esterases work to cleave the ester and cause bioavailabiltiy to the bloodstream and this takes place primarily in the fat tissue. Does this mean that the depot is absorbed and redistributed in fat throughout the body, where it can be cleaved by esterases? Or does it mean that this action which takes place primarily in the fat occurs in the fat layer adjacent to the injection depot?

It is easy to see that the amount of AAS injected at a given depot could have an effect on the rate of AAS available to the bloodstream. Whether this is a factor and if so to what extent I have yet to read in any scientific literature however it seems clear that the this would have a major affect on how AAS should be injected.

Anyway regarless of the effect of depot size on bioavailability, it seems clear that injecting more long estered test will allow a greater blood level to be achieved. However a study of injection depots affect on bioavailability where either one 3cc injections or three 1cc injections are given at various locations and blood level concentrations are studied. It seems likely there would be a point where a single depot would loose its effectiveness and multiples would have a clear advantage.....Anyone got 10 grand they want to invest in a first of its kind double blind depot study?

I think I drank too much coffee sorry...

FFM

**number twelve** · 01-29-2011, 10:15 AM

i frontloaded my test e cycle that i am on right now. 1000 mg for the first 2 weeks before going down to regular dose of 500. felt like it kicked in faster for sure

**redz** · 01-29-2011, 10:18 AM

I couldnt tell any difference when I tried it.

**cro** · 01-29-2011, 10:20 AM

thanks bro. makes sence..

Originally Posted by Far from massive

Because if you absorb 20% of the test from 500mg's of test thats 100mg's if you absorb 20% of the test from 1000mg's of test thats 200mg's.

Now that takes us to question # 2 does the amount injected per depo affect the absorption rate. That is, from what I have read, esterases work to cleave the ester and cause bioavailabiltiy to the bloodstream and this takes place primarily in the fat tissue. Does this mean that the depot is absorbed and redistributed in fat throughout the body, where it can be cleaved by esterases? Or does it mean that this action which takes place primarily in the fat occurs in the fat layer adjacent to the injection depot?

It is easy to see that the amount of AAS injected at a given depot could have an effect on the rate of AAS available to the bloodstream. Whether this is a factor and if so to what extent I have yet to read in any scientific literature however it seems clear that the this would have a major affect on how AAS should be injected.

Anyway regarless of the effect of depot size on bioavailability, it seems clear that injecting more long estered test will allow a greater blood level to be achieved. However a study of injection depots affect on bioavailability where either one 3cc injections or three 1cc injections are given at various locations and blood level concentrations are studied. It seems likely there would be a point where a single depot would loose its effectiveness and multiples would have a clear advantage.....Anyone got 10 grand they want to invest in a first of its kind double blind depot study?

I think I drank too much coffee sorry...

FFM

**MBMETC** · 01-29-2011, 10:28 AM

it doesn"t act quicker, it hit you harder since you don't have the stady build in levels. more uasable compound quicker!

**MBMETC** · 01-29-2011, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by number twelve

i frontloaded my test e cycle that i am on right now. 1000 mg for the first 2 weeks before going down to regular dose of 500. felt like it kicked in faster for sure

faster or harder?

**higgy** · 01-29-2011, 10:30 AM

If sustanon is the route I'm going, would frontloading help or not?

**MBMETC** · 01-29-2011, 10:32 AM

sust has prop so possibly, yes.

**number twelve** · 01-29-2011, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by MBMETC

faster or harder?

hm that is a good question, i am not sure now that i think of it, i guess harder, i knew it was working right at 4 weeks. where usually it takes 5-6 for me to really feel it

**jfletcher** · 01-31-2011, 01:10 AM

I'm still unsure

**marcus300** · 01-31-2011, 03:38 AM

Front loading is a process to saturate your receptors with the peak dose from week one to ensure stable blood levels instead of it taking several weeks to peak like most long esters,When you inject AAS regardless of the ester a certain amount is released over the next 24-48hrs the only thing the esters does is extends the half life of the AAS it wont slow down the first initial release of the AAS,, so after the the first release of the AAS as mentioned above the reminder is released over a certain amount of time up to the half life. If you front load you will have a higher amount being released in the first initial shot because your injecting double the amount.

**jfletcher** · 01-31-2011, 03:45 AM

Thanks mate that was easier to understand

**Rick1796** · 01-31-2011, 10:52 AM

This site is so damned informative. Good stuff guys. Thanks!

**poppz** · 01-31-2011, 12:31 PM

Great info indeed

**jfletcher** · 02-01-2011, 03:29 AM

There's some very experienced blokes on here thats for sure

**marcus300** · 02-01-2011, 03:32 AM

Not everyone responds to frontloading, many prefer kickstarting with an oral rather than frontloading. Its something you have to try and see you respond good to it, ive tried it many times and I think its a great way to get the cycle kicking straight away and you can cut the length down of the cycle but IMHO experience the same gains.

**Bigjerdog** · 02-01-2011, 04:56 PM

Sorry not meaning to highjack the thread but quick question. So if you are using orals there is no reason someone would need/want to frontload or the other way around? They are just 2 ways to get the same result pretty much right?

**MACHINE5150** · 02-01-2011, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Bigjerdog

Sorry not meaning to highjack the thread but quick question. So if you are using orals there is no reason someone would need/want to frontload or the other way around? They are just 2 ways to get the same result pretty much right?

essentially.. but not exactly.. If you frontload test E it will still take 2 weeks to feel it.. you will just feel on week 2 what you regularly would feel on week 4.. that being said, if you were to take orals say for the first 4 weeks.. you will feel it in a couple days since most orals are so fast acting... and by the time you come off in week 5 your test has already built up to where it will plataue and continue through the rest of your cycle.

**eGGz** · 02-01-2011, 10:10 PM

I'm an advocate of frontloading simply because it works and because I avoid most orals.
Double the preferred dose for the first 2 weeks. You will end up feeling the full effect about 2 weeks sooner.