researched facts of differnce betwwen winny IM or oral

[yom]

okay im sick of everyone different opions on saying orals ARE just as good as injections.

my opions on injections vs orals

-orals are 33 % less effective than INJECTIONS.
-injections passes the liver once not twice.


okay where the scientific proof done over say 8 weeks on 50 mg oral vs 50 mg injections.

we need a sticky with the facts not people opions.

.

[symatech]

First I must say that I've been drinking neat scotch for the past 3 hours and am a bit...well...shall we say passionate! If I come across as belligerent or forceful I apologize but dammit I'm right

Ok, what I can tell you is only from experience and blood tests. And that is that 1) hepatoxicity when it comes to aas is so exaggerated it's almost sad. and 2)blood tests done on 4 separate cycles denoted no significant difference in either toxicity or relevant strength of said drugs (with said drugs being 17aa in my case anadrol , anavar , winny, dbol and tbol.

if you consider blood tests to be fact then by all means accept my post, if not then forget it. But keep in mind that for every study conducted, I'll bet there exists one which counters it entirely. I'm going to share with you all one of the biggest secrets of scientific research. That is to read read read. Never, not once take anybodies results as fact. Take my word for it as I am quite versed in reading scientific publication (hell my degree required years of it). In addition, I've spent years in chem labs where you learn that synthesizing any particular compound is not like baking a cake. There are things that go wrong and often quite inexplicably. Like WWII pilots referred to gremlins mucking up their planes, these gremlins also much up scientific research. In short, never take any one study you read as fact even the ones I will post below!!! <---(please note I have 3 ! points to super emphasize my point).

Check out this for shits and giggles
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

Higher doses of 17alpha-AAS, together with other lifestyle and chemical factors, may produce a greater chance for liver toxicity, but overall the risk of adverse hepatic function is lower than believed

let's see what that really means. First we examine the lifestyles changes. that could mean drinking like I have been so scientifically exploring tonight!!! I'll bet you dollars to donuts that consuming a glass of scotch does more liver damage than a high dose of 17aa aas. in fact, I say it so confidently b/c I've had the blood tests to proove it (or at least plausibly confirm it)! So your point # 2 I'd say is either disproved or irrelevant.

As for your 33% less effective point I have two things to say. 1)Post the study. For a thread which is supposed to be scientific etc. you didn't post anything scientific at all! Aside from that I can say that I have seen a study of some sort with 33% mentioned but that doesn't mean it's right. Now for the more important point. 33% is relative. Yup, 33% of 0 is still 0, and from my experience 33% (assuming that it is correct) makes no macroscopic difference in any cycle of steroids . That is to say that 33% will show you no noticeable gains of any sort. But that's just my experience.

So, in short I long ago decided to settle this matter for my own and ran a seriese of experiment cycles to see. My conclusion is that for each of us it's different, but I wager that nobody notices any serious difference from injecting 17aa aas than eating it. I do encourage each and every one of you to try this for yourselves b/c it is the only way that you will know how to cycle. There are people who will say that injecting is better, and there are those who will say the opposite. The truth is that neither are right. you must all decide from yourselves and you will only be able to decide correctly if you try both, get bloodwork, and see the results. Trust me, this is as far as science will take you with anabolics...take it from me...b/c I am a scientist.

peace

PS. please observe the following

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

Hepatoxicity was noted in two (8.0%) patients in the IV-NAC treatment group and two (6.9%) patients in the O-NAC group.

interesting that the hepatoxicity is higher in the injection group than the oral group here, granted it is IV not IM but still...make you think? it should. but not conclusive

[yom]

yeah i got the 33% less effectiveness . off another threads were a test was done on rats using oral vs IM AND the results came back as 33%less effective. but like you said , i didnt believe just one researched study.

[powerliftmike]

I think that "one liver pass for injectables" and "two liver passes for orals" is a myth. The fact is the drug remains in your bloodstream until your liver filters it out, which may take many passes. I would say that injectables are more effective, a higher bio availibility anyway.