Longer esters = more potential gains?

**GymDog** · 08-31-2004, 02:32 PM

MMC78 posted an interesting article from metamorphosis.com, where it explained how longer esters will yield a higher anabolic effect than shorter esters.

Parent Drug Ester # of Carbons Anabolic Effect Anabolic / Androgenic Ratio
Nandrolone formate 1 1176 13:1
acetate 2 1594 11:1
propionate 3 1880 10:1
butyrate 4 1488 7:1
valerate 5 2526 9:1
hexanoate 6 3731 9:1
heptanoate 7 6559 13:1
octanoate 8 5557 15:1
nonanoate 9 5080 19:1
decanoate 10 7735 25:1
undecanoate 11 6576 32:1

However, upon reading the article's conclusion, it seems to contradict w/ the "longer ester = higher anabolism" descr***d above:

"Shorter chain esters must be injected more frequently than longer chain esters if consistent blood levels are desired. Consistent blood levels probably lead to the greatest efficiency of use for the drug and the highest anabolic/androgenic ratio. The activity of long chain esters can be mimicked by frequent administration of short chain esters."

So, my question is, is there a greater potential for gains when running longer esters (due to pharmacokinetics), or am I completely misunderstanding the article, and that Durabolin is just as effective as Deca , so long as I inject frequently?

http://www.mesomorphosis.com/article...oid-esters.htm

**GymDog** · 08-31-2004, 02:47 PM

Okay, I just read basskiller's "esters explained" thread, and found a good paragraph reporting that Testosterone /Nandrolone /Trenbolone /etc. is exactly what it is, and esters play no role in a steroid 's effectiveness. In other words, you wouldn't gain more mass from Deca than you would if you ran Durabolin . Basskiller writes:

"While the advent of esters certainly constitutes an invaluable advance in the field of anabolic steroid medicine, clearly you can see that there is no magic involved here. Esters work in a well-understood and predictable manner, and do not alter the activity of the parent steroid in any way other than to delay its release. Although the lure surrounding various steroid products like testosterone cypionate , Sustanon , Omnadren etc. certainly makes for interesting conversation, realistically it just amounts to misinformation that the athlete would be better off ignoring. Testosterone is testosterone and anyone who is going to tell you one ester form of this (or any) hormone is much better than another one should do a little more research, and a lot less talking."

So, according to basskiller, I was right in my "Durabolin's effectiveness" thread when I stated that, "Nandrolone is nandrolone. Esters are irrelavent."

**MMC78** · 08-31-2004, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by GymDog

Okay, I just read basskiller's "esters explained" thread, and found a good paragraph reporting that Testosterone /Nandrolone /Trenbolone /etc. is exactly what it is, and esters play no role in a steroid 's effectiveness. In other words, you wouldn't gain more mass from Deca than you would if you ran Durabolin . Basskiller writes:

"While the advent of esters certainly constitutes an invaluable advance in the field of anabolic steroid medicine, clearly you can see that there is no magic involved here. Esters work in a well-understood and predictable manner, and do not alter the activity of the parent steroid in any way other than to delay its release. Although the lure surrounding various steroid products like testosterone cypionate , Sustanon , Omnadren etc. certainly makes for interesting conversation, realistically it just amounts to misinformation that the athlete would be better off ignoring. Testosterone is testosterone and anyone who is going to tell you one ester form of this (or any) hormone is much better than another one should do a little more research, and a lot less talking."

So, according to basskiller, I was right in my "Durabolin's effectiveness" thread when I stated that, "Nandrolone is nandrolone. Esters are irrelavent."

Esters are irrelevant with one caveat: Blood Levels. Shorter esters dosed daily/EOD will lead to lower blood levels than long esters dosed weekly or bi-weekly.

**GymDog** · 08-31-2004, 05:34 PM

Yeah, but is having high spikes and low valleys any better than having consistent blood levels? I mean, your levels may spike higher initially with something like, say Deca or T. Enanthate , however, during the last couple of days before your next scheduled injection, your blood levels are below what they would be if you were shooting a short-estered AAS daily...

**MMC78** · 08-31-2004, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by GymDog

Yeah, but is having high spikes and low valleys any better than having consistent blood levels? I mean, your levels may spike higher initially with something like, say Deca or T. Enanthate , however, during the last couple of days before your next scheduled injection, your blood levels are below what they would be if you were shooting a short-estered AAS daily...

The consensus is that stable blood levels are always better than dramatic spikes and valleys. As far as ending a cycle with a short or long ester, people seem to prefer ending quickly with prop over test-e.

**joevette** · 08-31-2004, 07:01 PM

If anything it would be the other way around, short esters giving more anabolism. Simply because in 100mg of Prop there is 84mg of test while 100mg of cyp only yields 72mg of test. So prop gives you 17% more testosterone than cyp. Also, When injecting prop ed you are injecting at one fourth the halflife and the same is true with biweekly cyp injections so your overall levels of test should be the same for both.

**SportsMedVIP** · 08-31-2004, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by GymDog

Okay, I just read basskiller's "esters explained" thread, and found a good paragraph reporting that Testosterone /Nandrolone /Trenbolone /etc. is exactly what it is, and esters play no role in a steroid 's effectiveness. In other words, you wouldn't gain more mass from Deca than you would if you ran Durabolin . Basskiller writes:

"While the advent of esters certainly constitutes an invaluable advance in the field of anabolic steroid medicine, clearly you can see that there is no magic involved here. Esters work in a well-understood and predictable manner, and do not alter the activity of the parent steroid in any way other than to delay its release. Although the lure surrounding various steroid products like testosterone cypionate , Sustanon , Omnadren etc. certainly makes for interesting conversation, realistically it just amounts to misinformation that the athlete would be better off ignoring. Testosterone is testosterone and anyone who is going to tell you one ester form of this (or any) hormone is much better than another one should do a little more research, and a lot less talking."

So, according to basskiller, I was right in my "Durabolin's effectiveness" thread when I stated that, "Nandrolone is nandrolone. Esters are irrelavent."

Esters do effect other properties of hormones. Test with no ester is a b*tch to get in to solution and needs a lot of solvents where Test E needs very little solvents to get in to solution. I also believe it has more effects on how a steroid works, not so much how well as you were asking about, but how period. I can't recall more details than that at the time though. I'll try to search something up on it.

**MMC78** · 08-31-2004, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by joevette

If anything it would be the other way around, short esters giving more anabolism. Simply because in 100mg of Prop there is 84mg of test while 100mg of cyp only yields 72mg of test. So prop gives you 17% more testosterone than cyp. Also, When injecting prop ed you are injecting at one fourth the halflife and the same is true with biweekly cyp injections so your overall levels of test should be the same for both.

To an extent yes, the ester weight effects the amount of drug in the depot. In the examples we've been discussing though this small margin isn't relative. Long estered compounds shot infrequently mg per mg will lead to higher blood concentrations than short esterd compounds shot daily or eod.

**Steroids101** · 08-31-2004, 07:57 PM

I think a ten week cycle of test E would be slightly more effective than a 10 weeker of prop simply because your on the test E longer.

**Warrior** · 08-31-2004, 08:07 PM

Testosterone is testosterone (and it's deriatives) but I do recall reputable studies showing uneven androgen releases causing more androgenic (side) effects. Let me look into this... I think there was something by either Yeselis or Taylor's book about it... when explaining the development of esters...

**Warrior** · 08-31-2004, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by Steroids101

I think a ten week cycle of test E would be slightly more effective than a 10 weeker of prop simply because your on the test E longer.

Prop would elevate blood levels of testosterone faster - within the first week. Enanthate can take 2-3 weeks for blood levels to get to where they will be stable for the duration of the cycle... unless you frontloaded the enanthate.