virgin muscle and pinning into the same buttock again. ***Time sensitive ***

I started my first ever cycle last thursday and the buttock I injected into got inflammed, sore and a slight bump. So i researched into this further and guess that it could be because my test ethnate is dosed at 300 mg/ml and possibly because the area is not used to being poked. My next pin would've been on monday but instead of doing the whole 1 ml into my other cheek on monday, I thought I should split up the dose and do 1/2 a ml to avoid the same issue. So last night I did just that and everything seems much better. The cheek is somewhat sore, but no redness and the soreness seems dull versus the other one which seems much more localized and sharp. So tommorow I have to pin the other 1/2 ml....which cheek to choose?

ps The cheek that's red and inflammed, I may have polked a bit more on the outer edge than where i'm supposed to. So I can still pin in the correct spot and it doesnt hurt to touch there. Also, the redness and and pain has subsided a bit because of ice packs and good ol ibuprofin

The only advice I can give is that you should absolutely give your injection sites 7 days before you pin the same area again. Doing so more frequently than once every 7 days will result in fast scar tissue buildup, and possibly other problems as well. Pinning one cheek on thursday, and doing it again on monday is far too soon. Try to keep it once every 7 days. If you have to split up your dose, you'll have to throw shoulders in or something.

I call virgin muscle and first pin jitters! Even if it's a bit red and sore, if it was infected the skin would be on fire and solid... Sometimes high benzyne alcohol (spelling) can increase the amount PIP(post injection pain). If splitting it up helps you go for it but I think optimal hormone levels, test e should be shot 3.5 days apart. Also after a few shots you will be used to the drug, and your muscles won't react with pain. Also if your pinning yourself, glutes are complicated. You have huge real estate on your quads or easier yet- and my fav. DELTS!

Good luck

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atomini

The only advice I can give is that you should absolutely give your injection sites 7 days before you pin the same area again. Doing so more frequently than once every 7 days will result in fast scar tissue buildup, and possibly other problems as well. Pinning one cheek on thursday, and doing it again on monday is far too soon. Try to keep it once every 7 days. If you have to split up your dose, you'll have to throw shoulders in or something.

---

X2!!! Make sure you rotate at least 2 sites. 4 sites is even better

I was looking into pinning quads but I gotta be honest, im nervous about it. Although it's a huge nerve free area, im scared of hitting a nerve and not being able to walk sounds a bit off putting. Plus I only have 23 gauge 1.5 inch syringes that I got for glutes and it seems like people are using 1 inch on quads. Would I be able to just stick in 1 inch and get away with it?

Delts=too many nerves....not doing it yet. fugetaboutit~!

@joe...slim chance it could be infected...I take way too many precautions and very meticulous about cleanliness. I even bought those sterile hospital gloves....lol overkill

Rasc, I have never ever done quads for the same reason as you. Shoulders are far better than quads, trust me.

If you really don't want to do either, try the ventrogluteal site. Look it up. Dorsogluteal and ventrogluteal is all I ever do now. Been doing it for 5 years. Last week someone posted a thread asking about it, and I provided detailed explanation in that thread on how to inject the ventrogluteal site. Here is the thread:

http://forums.steroid.com/showthread...r-aspirate-etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rasc170

I was looking into pinning quads but I gotta be honest, im nervous about it. Although it's a huge nerve free area, im scared of hitting a nerve and not being able to walk sounds a bit off putting. Plus I only have 23 gauge 1.5 inch syringes that I got for glutes and it seems like people are using 1 inch on quads. Would I be able to just stick in 1 inch and get away with it?

Delts=too many nerves....not doing it yet. fugetaboutit~!

---

Lol yea I've passed through a few nerves and twitched out, giggled and push the plunger. First cycle too. Just be sure to aspirate so u don't inject a blood vessel.

For the 1.5" it's fine in delts or quads but 1" is better for me. I suppose going partial way is ok, but it would make you drop the pin slower and cause more pain. You want to jab the thing in quickly as possible and keep it where it goes. Going in and out and shaking all about will make it worse than it has to be. Syringes, especially larger gauge are easy to get so shouldn't be a hassle to get smaller pins. Even new tips if you don't want to be wasteful. Believe it or not, delts are the safest place to pin. If you Pierce a nerve it just makes a twitch and that's it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atomini

Rasc, I have never ever done quads for the same reason as you. Shoulders are far better than quads, trust me.

If you really don't want to do either, try the ventrogluteal site. Look it up. Dorsogluteal and ventrogluteal is all I ever do now. Been doing it for 5 years.

---

Wouldn't you agree that if your pinning as long as 5 years you would want to get used to more sites for more options?? Imagine the scar tissue build up with only 2 sites. That's a lot of pinning

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JustJoe

Wouldn't you agree that if your pinning as long as 5 years you would want to get used to more sites for more options?? Imagine the scar tissue build up with only 2 sites. That's a lot of pinning

---

You're right, but I haven't had an issue with scar tissue. And I am someone who never uses long esters, just short estered things like prop and acetate, and therefore meaning frequent pinning.. I've found that as long as you make sure to rotate sites so that they don't get pinned more than once every 7 days, and you are very gentle and slow with your injections, you shouldn't have scar tissue buildup. I probably will start using shoulders more often though.

By the way, time off from gear does allow scar tissue to clear. I know some guys that took a 5 year break from cycling whom had scar tissue when they stopped, and then after the 5 year break they noticed scar tissue was no longer there. There are also certain things you can take that help the body dissolve scar tissue.

thanks for the link...will check it out once i have some quiet time and read up on that. May have to use that tommorow morning.

BTW, what gets rid of scar tissue?

I used to skate in my younger years and have had plenty of falls where there is thick scarring and nothing I know of has worked as well as Retin-A. I use it for stretch marks as well. Works better than a lot of things ive heard mentioned

Next time you pin make sure your buttocks isn't flexed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rasc170

thanks for the link...will check it out once i have some quiet time and read up on that. May have to use that tommorow morning.

BTW, what gets rid of scar tissue?

I used to skate in my younger years and have had plenty of falls where there is thick scarring and nothing I know of has worked as well as Retin-A. I use it for stretch marks as well. Works better than a lot of things ive heard mentioned

---

For the most part, scar tissue is there to stay. But here are some things that break up (but not totally eliminate) scar tissue:

- Time off
- Cold laser therapy
- Ultrasound
- Deep fascial tissue massage (hurts like freaking hell but it works)

Some things that will prevent buildup of scar tissue (after all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure):

- Smaller needle gauge used (I reccomend at LEAST 25g for oils)
- Injection speed/technique (slow and steady does it, nice and gentle)
- Compounds used (water-based stuff like winny can be harsher on muscle tissue, and then there is the issue of the amount of BA in the solution, etc.)

Basically, getting good deep massages on the areas where you inject helps the collagen lay down evenly. But, this should be done early on while the collagen fibers are being layed down. Massage will help prevent further scar tissue, but the scar tissue that is fully formed is probably there to stay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atomini

You're right, but I haven't had an issue with scar tissue. And I am someone who never uses long esters, just short estered things like prop and acetate, and therefore meaning frequent pinning.. I've found that as long as you make sure to rotate sites so that they don't get pinned more than once every 7 days, and you are very gentle and slow with your injections, you shouldn't have scar tissue buildup. I probably will start using shoulders more often though.

---

any reason why you dont use long esters? just curious

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by junkiescumbag

any reason why you dont use long esters? just curious

---

- Long esters, due to their slower release rate, are far slower at achieving peak blood levels in the body, therefore the 'kick-in' period for them takes far too long for my liking (weeks 4-5 for long esters)
- For the same reason, it takes far longer for the long estered AAS to clear your system before you can begin your PCT (i.e. it takes 2 weeks for Test Enanthate to clear your system before starting PCT, whereas it with Test Prop it is 4 days before I can begin PCT)
- Long estered AAS require longer cycles due to their nature, and I am an advocate of short cycles (i.e. 8 weeks) to minimize the negative effects on the body, and for speedy post-cycle recovery
- With long esters, if you have any very undesirable side effects or bad reactions, you need to wait a very long amount of time before you can get off the ride. Not so with short esters where it is in and out of your system quick.
- Long esters hold a far heavier molecular weight than short estered steroids. Therefore, on a mg for mg basis, you are getting far more mg of steroid in a short estered compound vs a large estered compound. For example, you are getting far more mg of testosterone in 600mg of test prop than 600mg of test enanthate. This is because of the shorter lighter weight to the propionate ester compared to the large heavy enanthate ester. You actually are getting MORE steroid in any given concentration of propionate than enanthate.

I've only ever run ONE cycle of long estered AAS in my whole life. That was Test Enanthate for 10 weeks as my very first cycle. I decided to go with Prop for my next cycle after that, fell in absolute love with it, and have been doing short esters for 5 years. And I don't plan on ever using long esters ever again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atomini

- Long esters, due to their slower release rate, are far slower at achieving peak blood levels in the body, therefore the 'kick-in' period for them takes far too long for my liking (weeks 4-5 for long esters)
- For the same reason, it takes far longer for the long estered AAS to clear your system before you can begin your PCT (i.e. it takes 2 weeks for Test Enanthate to clear your system before starting PCT, whereas it with Test Prop it is 4 days before I can begin PCT)
- Long estered AAS require longer cycles due to their nature, and I am an advocate of short cycles (i.e. 8 weeks) to minimize the negative effects on the body, and for speedy post-cycle recovery
- With long esters, if you have any very undesirable side effects or bad reactions, you need to wait a very long amount of time before you can get off the ride. Not so with short esters where it is in and out of your system quick.
- Long esters hold a far heavier molecular weight than short estered steroids. Therefore, on a mg for mg basis, you are getting far more mg of steroid in a short estered compound vs a large estered compound. For example, you are getting far more mg of testosterone in 600mg of test prop than 600mg of test enanthate. This is because of the shorter lighter weight to the propionate ester compared to the large heavy enanthate ester. You actually are getting MORE steroid in any given concentration of propionate than enanthate.

I've only ever run ONE cycle of long estered AAS in my whole life. That was Test Enanthate for 10 weeks as my very first cycle. I decided to go with Prop for my next cycle after that, fell in absolute love with it, and have been doing short esters for 5 years. And I don't plan on ever using long esters ever again.

---

Interesting but I want to look into the part

"Long esters hold a far heavier molecular weight than short estered steroids. Therefore, on a mg for mg basis, you are getting far more mg of steroid in a short estered compound vs a large estered compound. For example, you are getting far more mg of testosterone in 600mg of test prop than 600mg of test enanthate. This is because of the shorter lighter weight to the propionate ester compared to the large heavy enanthate ester. You actually are getting MORE steroid in any given concentration of propionate than enanthate."

I don't understand how 600mg of one is more if 600mg is the measurement... Weird!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JustJoe

Interesting but I want to look into the part

"Long esters hold a far heavier molecular weight than short estered steroids. Therefore, on a mg for mg basis, you are getting far more mg of steroid in a short estered compound vs a large estered compound. For example, you are getting far more mg of testosterone in 600mg of test prop than 600mg of test enanthate. This is because of the shorter lighter weight to the propionate ester compared to the large heavy enanthate ester. You actually are getting MORE steroid in any given concentration of propionate than enanthate."

I don't understand how 600mg of one is more if 600mg is the measurement... Weird!

---

That's because you're not understanding the concept of what's going on here. You're not stepping back to look at the big picture. All you're looking at is 'testosterone'. Allow me to help you understand:

Remember that the measurement of mg (miligram) is the weight of a particular substance. Mg/ml (miligram per mililiter) is the concentration. Of course, this is common knowledge - you should know this. When a vial says "contents: Testosterone Enanthate 250mg/ml", you must realize that measurement is 250mg per mililiter of Testosterone Enanthate, NOT a weight measurement of testosterone itself without the enanthate ester attached.

An analogy I could use for ease of understanding would be this: You are looking for only the tractor part of a tractor trailer. I have 100 tonnes worth of tractor trailers I am going to give you. That is not 100 tonnes worth of the single tractors alone. That's 100 tonnes of the tractor with the trailer attached. If all you are looking for is the tractor part of the trailer, then you must account for the weight of the stuff you don't need (the trailers) in order to account for how much of the part which you need (tractor).

Once the enzymes in your body cleave off the enanthate ester from testosterone enanthate, you are left with pure testosterone. The weight of the molecule now weighs less as pure testosterone compared to when it was testosterone enanthate. Therefore, you are now left with far less testosterone in your body than you originally thought.

Remember, the mg/ml measurements are for testosterone enanthate (or test prop, or test undecanoate, test acetate, etc. etc.), not for testosterone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atomini

That's because you're not understanding the concept of what's going on here. You're not stepping back to look at the big picture. All you're looking at is 'testosterone'. Allow me to help you understand:

Remember that the measurement of mg (miligram) is the weight of a particular substance. Mg/ml (miligram per mililiter) is the concentration. Of course, this is common knowledge - you should know this. When a vial says "contents: Testosterone Enanthate 250mg/ml", you must realize that measurement is 250mg per mililiter of Testosterone Enanthate, NOT a weight measurement of testosterone itself without the enanthate ester attached.

An analogy I could use for ease of understanding would be this: You are looking for only the tractor part of a tractor trailer. I have 100 tonnes worth of tractor trailers I am going to give you. That is not 100 tonnes worth of the single tractors alone. That's 100 tonnes of the tractor with the trailer attached. If all you are looking for is the tractor part of the trailer, then you must account for the weight of the stuff you don't need (the trailers) in order to account for how much of the part which you need (tractor).

Once the enzymes in your body cleave off the enanthate ester from testosterone enanthate, you are left with pure testosterone. The weight of the molecule now weighs less as pure testosterone compared to when it was testosterone enanthate. Therefore, you are now left with far less testosterone in your body than you originally thought.

Remember, the mg/ml measurements are for testosterone enanthate (or test prop, or test undecanoate, test acetate, etc. etc.), not for testosterone.

---

I do understand what your saying, but I would like to research your information and find some proof to it. I'm not saying your wrong, but an intelligent thing to do when you find something to be illogical is to confirm or deny the information. Considering all information you have given, it seems somewhat more possible because I'm not a chemist and I don't understand the science behind gear. I figured the testosterone was an independent ingredient and the cyponate or propionate was added to create a vehicle for the testosterone to travel in called the ester.... I felt this way after trying to learn about test suspension, or Test no ester... And what to do with that stuff.... Add an ester? I thought the mg referred to the medical ingredient, not the weight of the oil or finished product... I still have mountains to learn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JustJoe

I do understand what your saying, but I would like to research your information and find some proof to it. I'm not saying your wrong, but an intelligent thing to do when you find something to be illogical is to confirm or deny the information. Considering all information you have given, it seems somewhat more possible because I'm not a chemist and I don't understand the science behind gear. I figured the testosterone was an independent ingredient and the cyponate or propionate was added to create a vehicle for the testosterone to travel in called the ester.... I felt this way after trying to learn about test suspension, or Test no ester... And what to do with that stuff.... Add an ester? I thought the mg referred to the medical ingredient, not the weight of the oil or finished product... I still have mountains to learn

---

Joe,

Unfortunately there are no references for these things because this is basic chemistry knowledge. Trust me, it is VERY BASIC chemistry. You can do the math yourself even if the last chemistry you did was in high school.

Allow me to correct your understanding here... i'll give you a small chemistry lesson and even take the time here to photoshop pictures of chemical structures for you so that you may understand better. I'm also going to copy and paste direct from my chemistry notes from school, since I have all the descriptions right here of what an ester bond is and how it is formed. Testosterone is not an independant ingredient when it is colloquially known as 'testosterone enanthate', or 'testosterone propionate'. Now the lesson shall begin:

Here is your basic bare-bones testosterone molecule:

Attachment 124978

What you have here is testosterone without an ester bonded to the molecule. Lets focus on testosterone propionate here in order to put this in perspective for you. Testosterone itself is a lipid (a fat), as it is cholesterol based. Its sterane structure makes it a fat (all steroid hormones are really fats), and this is why anabolic steroids work in the manner they do, by diffusing through the phospholipid bilayer membrane of the target cells. They are fat-soluble, so they can do this with ease. In comparison, protein hormones cannot do this as they are proteins, and not fats. Protein is not fat-soluble.

Now, here's a little refresher on lipids in general for you, copypasted straight from my chem notes:

Fats and oils are made by attaching fatty acids to a glycerol molecule. The glycerol molecule - see page 16 in written notes. Glycerol molecules can react with the carboxylic acid part of up to 3 fatty acids producing up to 3 water molecules and either a fat or an oil molecule – see page 16 in written notes and page 52 in textbook. The resulting fat or oil molecule is called a triglyceride. Whether the fat or oil is solid or liquid in room temperature depends on whether or not the fatty acids in the triglyceride are polyunsaturated or a saturated. If the fatty acids are saturated, then it’s most likely a solid. If they are polyunsaturated, then it’s most likely a liquid. The shorter the chain lengths, the less the attraction between molecules, so therefore the smaller the chain then the more likely it’s an oil and the larger the chain, the more likely it’s a fat.

Attachment 124982 Attachment 124983

Alright, that's the basic low-down on fats. Now, here is where the ester bonding comes into play. Again, more from my chem notes:

Whenever an alcohol-containing molecule reacts with a carboxylic acid-containing molecule such as a fatty acid reacting with glycerol, water molecules (H2O) are always produced and the bond between the newly united molecules is called an ester linkage (or, ester bond) and the process is called esterification (see page 40 in Arms & Camp textbook). The result is a molecule called a triglyceride.

Diagram of the esterification process:

Attachment 124984

(3) Phospholipids

Phospholipids are similar to triglycerides in that fatty acids are esterifying but the difference is that one of the alcohol groups is esterifying to a phosphate group (see page 40 in Arms & Camp textbook.)

Attachment 124985

Alright, thats the basics on ester bonding. Now, back to testosterone propionate.... i've already posted a picture of the chemical strucutre of bare bones testosterone with no ester attached to it. Now, allow me to introduce you to our friend here, called Propionic Acid:

Attachment 124990

As you can see, its a very small molecule. I will now explain where the typical bonding area is when it esterifies (bonds) to other molecules (in this case, testosterone). So, what happens in a lab is a chemical reaction is produced whereby the propionic acid loses its OH group, and an H comes off the testosterone. The OH from the propionic acid, and the H from the testosterone bond to form H2O, and leave the molecule as such. Now, you have a newly formed chemical compound: TESTOSTERONE PROPIONATE.

Scroll up and take a look at the bare-bones testosterone picture. Now compare it with this, testosterone propionate:

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/9498/testprop.jpg

Here, in case you haven't noticed, I took the liberty of outlining the area on the molecule that has now changed (or rather, an addition):

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/677...opoutlined.jpg

See where the OH is gone from the Propionic Acid? And how it is now bonded to testosterone? Once again, this forms Testosterone Propionate. It is no longer testosterone - peroid.

Here is a further 3D-ish picture of a Testosterone Propionate molecule I built out of my organic chemistry set (I originally posted this in a thread from a loooong time ago, here: http://forums.steroid.com/showthread...ight=chemistry )

Bare-bones testosterone:
http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/4...emmodelkw1.gif

Testosterone Propionate:
http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/9498/testprop.jpg

See the prop attached to it?

What this esterification process does is enable the main compound (testosterone) to be released at slower rates in the body than if testosterone was un-estered to anything. Your body now has to send the anabolic steroid to the liver and use enzymes to cleave off that ester so that testosterone is in its bare-bones form again (which is the only form it can actually do its job and be used by the body). This is also THE reason why there is no such thing as site-specific growth except for AAS like testosterone suspension. Test suspension is simply un-esterified testosterone suspended in water. All esterified anabolic steroids must be processed by enzymes before they can be in their useable form. The longer the bigger the ester is, the longer it takes the body to cleave the ester off (hence the longer release times for esters like enanthate, undecanoate, etc.)

Alright, so the chemistry lesson is over. What does all this mean and how does it refer to the mg/ml stuff I was talking about earlier? Well, it's pretty simple at this point in case you haven't figured it out... the propionic acid has a particular molecular weight to it.... and testosterone has a particular molecular weight..

So at this point, its basic grade 2 math. You take the molecular weight of propionic acid and use this nifty little function on your calculator: + and punch in the molecular weight of bare-bones testosterone. Now you have the molecular weight of testosterone propionate. Now, it stands to reason that if you have a longer heavier ester attached to testosterone, your weight measurements of pure testosterone will become fudged because you now need to factor in the weight of the ester, because remember: testosterone is no longer testosterone when you have enanthate attached. It is now testosterone enanthate.

I hope you understand now and I hope this helped you!

Just want to add a quick little re-cap.

Bare-bones testosterone:

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/3837/testgll.jpg

Testosterone Propionate:

http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/3241/testprop2.jpg

Testosterone + Propionic Acid = Testosterone Propionate.

Esters such as Propionate, Enanthate, Undecanoate, Acetate, etc. etc. etc. are not independant ingredients into the solution. They are literally bonded to the hormone in question to create, essentially, a new molecule. As such, the weight of the ester must be taken into account. You are NOT getting 100mg of testosterone when you are injecting testosterone propionate into yourself. You are getting slightly less mg of testosterone than you think. And the larger the ester is (such as enanthate or undecanoate), the far less testosterone (or whatever hormone is bonded to the ester) you are getting out of the total mg. Hence my tractor trailer analogy from earlier.

^^^ One of the best explanations I've seen on these forums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Honkey_Kong

^^^ One of the best explanations I've seen on these forums.

---

Thanks. I'm thinking of copying and pasting everything i've posted and putting it into a separate thread for people to truly grasp the understanding of esters and ester bonding, how it works, and how people should consider the true effective concentration of the hormone they are using, by taking the weight of the esters into account.

Atomini................Love this guy!!!! Amazing explanation man!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atomini

Joe,

Unfortunately there are no references for these things because this is basic chemistry knowledge. Trust me, it is VERY BASIC chemistry. You can do the math yourself even if the last chemistry you did was in high school.

Allow me to correct your understanding here... i'll give you a small chemistry lesson and even take the time here to photoshop pictures of chemical structures for you so that you may understand better. I'm also going to copy and paste direct from my chemistry notes from school, since I have all the descriptions right here of what an ester bond is and how it is formed. Testosterone is not an independant ingredient when it is colloquially known as 'testosterone enanthate', or 'testosterone propionate'. Now the lesson shall begin:

Here is your basic bare-bones testosterone molecule:



What you have here is testosterone without an ester bonded to the molecule. Lets focus on testosterone propionate here in order to put this in perspective for you. Testosterone itself is a lipid (a fat), as it is cholesterol based. Its sterane structure makes it a fat (all steroid hormones are really fats), and this is why anabolic steroids work in the manner they do, by diffusing through the phospholipid bilayer membrane of the target cells. They are fat-soluble, so they can do this with ease. In comparison, protein hormones cannot do this as they are proteins, and not fats. Protein is not fat-soluble.

Now, here's a little refresher on lipids in general for you, copypasted straight from my chem notes:

Fats and oils are made by attaching fatty acids to a glycerol molecule. The glycerol molecule - see page 16 in written notes. Glycerol molecules can react with the carboxylic acid part of up to 3 fatty acids producing up to 3 water molecules and either a fat or an oil molecule - see page 16 in written notes and page 52 in textbook. The resulting fat or oil molecule is called a triglyceride. Whether the fat or oil is solid or liquid in room temperature depends on whether or not the fatty acids in the triglyceride are polyunsaturated or a saturated. If the fatty acids are saturated, then it's most likely a solid. If they are polyunsaturated, then it's most likely a liquid. The shorter the chain lengths, the less the attraction between molecules, so therefore the smaller the chain then the more likely it's an oil and the larger the chain, the more likely it's a fat.



Alright, that's the basic low-down on fats. Now, here is where the ester bonding comes into play. Again, more from my chem notes:

Whenever an alcohol-containing molecule reacts with a carboxylic acid-containing molecule such as a fatty acid reacting with glycerol, water molecules (H2O) are always produced and the bond between the newly united molecules is called an ester linkage (or, ester bond) and the process is called esterification (see page 40 in Arms & Camp textbook). The result is a molecule called a triglyceride.

Diagram of the esterification process:



(3) Phospholipids

Phospholipids are similar to triglycerides in that fatty acids are esterifying but the difference is that one of the alcohol groups is esterifying to a phosphate group (see page 40 in Arms & Camp textbook.)



Alright, thats the basics on ester bonding. Now, back to testosterone propionate.... i've already posted a picture of the chemical strucutre of bare bones testosterone with no ester attached to it. Now, allow me to introduce you to our friend here, called Propionic Acid:



As you can see, its a very small molecule. I will now explain where the typical bonding area is when it esterifies (bonds) to other molecules (in this case, testosterone). So, what happens in a lab is a chemical reaction is produced whereby the propionic acid loses its OH group, and an H comes off the testosterone. The OH from the propionic acid, and the H from the testosterone bond to form H2O, and leave the molecule as such. Now, you have a newly formed chemical compound: TESTOSTERONE PROPIONATE.

Scroll up and take a look at the bare-bones testosterone picture. Now compare it with this, testosterone propionate:

Here, in case you haven't noticed, I took the liberty of outlining the area on the molecule that has now changed (or rather, an addition):

See where the OH is gone from the Propionic Acid? And how it is now bonded to testosterone? Once again, this forms Testosterone Propionate. It is no longer testosterone - peroid.

Here is a further 3D-ish picture of a Testosterone Propionate molecule I built out of my organic chemistry set (I originally posted this in a thread from a loooong time ago, here: http://forums.steroid.com/showthread...ight=chemistry )

Bare-bones testosterone:

Testosterone Propionate:

See the prop attached to it?

What this esterification process does is enable the main compound (testosterone) to be released at slower rates in the body than if testosterone was un-estered to anything. Your body now has to send the anabolic steroid to the liver and use enzymes to cleave off that ester so that testosterone is in its bare-bones form again (which is the only form it can actually do its job and be used by the body). This is also THE reason why there is no such thing as site-specific growth except for AAS like testosterone suspension. Test suspension is simply un-esterified testosterone suspended in water. All esterified anabolic steroids must be processed by enzymes before they can be in their useable form. The longer the bigger the ester is, the longer it takes the body to cleave the ester off (hence the longer release times for esters like enanthate, undecanoate, etc.)

Alright, so the chemistry lesson is over. What does all this mean and how does it refer to the mg/ml stuff I was talking about earlier? Well, it's pretty simple at this point in case you haven't figured it out... the propionic acid has a particular molecular weight to it.... and testosterone has a particular molecular weight..

So at this point, its basic grade 2 math. You take the molecular weight of propionic acid and use this nifty little function on your calculator: + and punch in the molecular weight of bare-bones testosterone. Now you have the molecular weight of testosterone propionate. Now, it stands to reason that if you have a longer heavier ester attached to testosterone, your weight measurements of pure testosterone will become fudged because you now need to factor in the weight of the ester, because remember: testosterone is no longer testosterone when you have enanthate attached. It is now testosterone enanthate.

I hope you understand now and I hope this helped you!

---

If I wore a hat, I'd take it off for you sir! This is
By far the most detailed, most scientific, most thorough response anyone has ever conjured up in a thread I have read. My eyes are burning but i read it all... I only retained so much so I will read it again tomorrow, and probably several more times to sink it in well.

Again, Thank you ATOM!

I always love reading everything you say Atomini! Kudos for the detailed explanation of the esters!!!

damn ....some real good shit came out of this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atomini

Thanks. I'm thinking of copying and pasting everything i've posted and putting it into a separate thread for people to truly grasp the understanding of esters and ester bonding, how it works, and how people should consider the true effective concentration of the hormone they are using, by taking the weight of the esters into account.

---

I think we all take for granted what we learned in school and assume everyone's got the same pool of knowledge (roughly). But there are guys who read this board who don't know much about chemistry. I think your explanation could be understood by them. So yeah I think you should make your own thread about that.

Hey atom, do you know to what degree the different ester bonds effect the weight? Percentage or ratio of test weight vs ester attached weight? Example 250mg test enan extra weight is made of 10% of total molecule weight ... Or ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JustJoe

Hey atom, do you know to what degree the different ester bonds effect the weight? Percentage or ratio of test weight vs ester attached weight? Example 250mg test enan extra weight is made of 10% of total molecule weight ... Or ??

---

Yes, its very easy math you can even do yourself. You need to find the molar mass of testosterone, and the molar mass of the ester (lets continue to use Propionate as the example). Molar mass for molecules is measured in moles (mol). I won't get into what that is or why that measurement is used.

You get the mol of testosterone and the mol of propionate and add the two for the total molar mass of testosterone propionate. Then you calculate what the % of molar mass that prop makes up out of the total mol of the molecule.

The next major step is to use the formula that converts mol into mg, and then use that to convert it into your desired mg/ml. Then you can take the total % from that to find out how much % of weight (in mg) the prop takes up out of a given mg/ml.

I'm at work right now, but when I get home later i'll calculate this myself to give you an example. It would be great if we would find a chart that would list this for every AAS compound to give people a good idea.

Alrighty, i'm home now. Lets do this.

Time to dig into my chemistry knowledge again. It looks like I will have to give a brief explanation on what moles (mol) are in the chemistry world so that you understand what's going on here. The Mole is a unit of measurement in chemistry, where things are so tiny and small and where chemical reactions often take place at a level where using grams doesn't work or doesn't make sense. Now, this may sound like ancient Greek to you, you won't understand this at all, but the proper official defition of mole is this: A mole is the quantity of anything (testosterone, H20, carbon dioxide, cyanide, proteins, hydrogen ions, etc.) that has the same number of particles found in 12.000 grams of pure carbon-12 isotope. Now, this 'quantity' (the number of molecules of whatever we're discussing) is literally the exact same number for everything. And this number is... 6.023 X 10^23 (can also be expressed like this: 0.00000000000000000000006023. This number was originally discovered by the great chemist Amedeo Avogadro. This is also why the number is also known as 'Avogadro's number'. The number of molecules in a mole (known as Avogadro's number) is defined so that the mass of one mole of a substance, expressed in grams, is exactly equal to the substance's mean molecular weight. For example, the mean molecular weight of natural water is about 18.015, so one mole of water is about 18.015 grams. This property considerably simplifies many chemical and physical computations.

So, we want to find out what % of a total mg weight in testosterone propionate is taken up by propionate. As such, we are going to continue using Testosterone Propionate as our example.

Lets find the molar mass of testosterone. Instead of pulling out the periodic table, and adding up the mass of all the carbon atoms, hydrogen atoms, etc. etc. in the testosterone molecule (because that would take too long), I am just going to pull it off wikipedia. Wikipedia tells me the molar mass of bare bones testosterone is: 288.42g/mol. Now, lets grab the molar mass of Propionic Acid: 74.0g/mol. We want the total molar mass of Testosterone Propionate, so we are going to add 288.42 and 74.0 together, which gives us 362.42g/mol as the molar mass of Testosterone Propionate.

So, what now? Well, I originally thought that we would have to convert g/mol into mg/ml but now that i'm right in the middle of doing this, I realize this is not necessary. All I would be doing is an extra complicated step that doesn't really help us find anything out, so we can just skip that. All we need to do is find out the percentage of weight that propionate occupies out of the whole 263.42g/mol, and then we can easily just apply that to any given mg/ml. So, lets find this out:

74.0 / 263.42 = 0.280920203

0.280920203 X 100 = 28.092%

So, basically... 28% of the total weight was taken up by propionate. Now, we can easily do this with mg. Lets take a look at 100mg of test prop (you don't even need to do the math for this but here it is anyways):

0.28 X 100mg = 28mg of propionate

100mg - 28mg = 72mg bare-bones testosterone left over in 100mg of test prop

Lets take a look at Testosterone Enanthate for a change. Testosterone: 288.42g/mol. Enanthic Acid: 130.18g/mol. Testosterone Enanthate: 288.42 + 130.18 = 418.6g/mol.

130.18 / 288.42 = 0.451355661

0.451355661 X 100 = 45%

So, lets take a look at how much bare-bones testosterone you're left with in 500mg of Testosterone Enanthate.

0.45 X 500mg = 225mg

500mg - 225mg = 275mg of pure Testosterone from Test E.

Now, you have the general idea. But what i'm going to do a little later is convert the g/mol into mg/ml and do the calculations from there to see if I get the same or similar answers. This way I will see if skipping that step actually gave me errors or not, because to be honest some of these percentages seem a little too high to me, even for larger esters like enanthate. But these actually could be correct. Either way, you see the general concept here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atomini

Alrighty, i'm home now. Lets do this.

Time to dig into my chemistry knowledge again. It looks like I will have to give a brief explanation on what moles (mol) are in the chemistry world so that you understand what's going on here. The Mole is a unit of measurement in chemistry, where things are so tiny and small and where chemical reactions often take place at a level where using grams doesn't work or doesn't make sense. Now, this may sound like ancient Greek to you, you won't understand this at all, but the proper official defition of mole is this: A mole is the quantity of anything (testosterone, H20, carbon dioxide, cyanide, proteins, hydrogen ions, etc.) that has the same number of particles found in 12.000 grams of pure carbon-12 isotope. Now, this 'quantity' (the number of molecules of whatever we're discussing) is literally the exact same number for everything. And this number is... 6.023 X 10^23 (can also be expressed like this: 0.00000000000000000000006023. This number was originally discovered by the great chemist Amedeo Avogadro. This is also why the number is also known as 'Avogadro's number'. The number of molecules in a mole (known as Avogadro's number) is defined so that the mass of one mole of a substance, expressed in grams, is exactly equal to the substance's mean molecular weight. For example, the mean molecular weight of natural water is about 18.015, so one mole of water is about 18.015 grams. This property considerably simplifies many chemical and physical computations.

So, we want to find out what % of a total mg weight in testosterone propionate is taken up by propionate. As such, we are going to continue using Testosterone Propionate as our example.

Lets find the molar mass of testosterone. Instead of pulling out the periodic table, and adding up the mass of all the carbon atoms, hydrogen atoms, etc. etc. in the testosterone molecule (because that would take too long), I am just going to pull it off wikipedia. Wikipedia tells me the molar mass of bare bones testosterone is: 288.42g/mol. Now, lets grab the molar mass of Propionic Acid: 74.0g/mol. We want the total molar mass of Testosterone Propionate, so we are going to add 288.42 and 74.0 together, which gives us 362.42g/mol as the molar mass of Testosterone Propionate.

So, what now? Well, I originally thought that we would have to convert g/mol into mg/ml but now that i'm right in the middle of doing this, I realize this is not necessary. All I would be doing is an extra complicated step that doesn't really help us find anything out, so we can just skip that. All we need to do is find out the percentage of weight that propionate occupies out of the whole 263.42g/mol, and then we can easily just apply that to any given mg/ml. So, lets find this out:

74.0 / 263.42 = 0.280920203

0.280920203 X 100 = 28.092%

So, basically... 28% of the total weight was taken up by propionate. Now, we can easily do this with mg. Lets take a look at 100mg of test prop (you don't even need to do the math for this but here it is anyways):

0.28 X 100mg = 28mg of propionate

100mg - 28mg = 72mg bare-bones testosterone left over in 100mg of test prop

Lets take a look at Testosterone Enanthate for a change. Testosterone: 288.42g/mol. Enanthic Acid: 130.18g/mol. Testosterone Enanthate: 288.42 + 130.18 = 418.6g/mol.

130.18 / 288.42 = 0.451355661

0.451355661 X 100 = 45%

So, lets take a look at how much bare-bones testosterone you're left with in 500mg of Testosterone Enanthate.

0.45 X 500mg = 225mg

500mg - 225mg = 275mg of pure Testosterone from Test E.

Now, you have the general idea. But what i'm going to do a little later is convert the g/mol into mg/ml and do the calculations from there to see if I get the same or similar answers. This way I will see if skipping that step actually gave me errors or not, because to be honest some of these percentages seem a little too high to me, even for larger esters like enantha But these actually could be correct. Either way, you see the general concept here?

---

It's totally clear. Its a very misleading topic, and it's amazing that in all my reading I've never come across this information. Suppose I chose test prop for my cycle... I would have dosed it at 500mg per week and would have mutated into a bull lol! I think this should be widely spread so when people are making suggestions for first-timers, or anyone for that matter, they are giving accurate information and not saying "just choose a test, doesnt matter which ester" because obviously there is a major difference... 500mg of prop in a week is clearly more bare bones test than 500mg of enan or cyp etc.

I feel like I've been to school today

Great piece I would like to see this all compiled in one place
ifyou ever do id. like to read

Yeah later on today hopefully, I will compile everything i've posted here into a separate independant thread about esters and such. I am just waiting for Admin to increase the image limit in posts to more than 5. It was a pain in the ass to get images up in my post there for explanation, and I hate having like 4 direct-linked images, and 5 attached images where you have to click thumbnails to see full size.

Pretty sure your numbers are high because all you have to do is divide the base weight (288.42 for test) by the ester + base weight for a percentage.

So for test E it would be: 288.42/400.6 (taken from pubchem and chemblink) = .7199g test per mg of Test E or 71.99% testosterone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonaparte

Pretty sure your numbers are high because all you have to do is divide the base weight (288.42 for test) by the ester + base weight for a percentage.

So for test E it would be: 288.42/400.6 (taken from pubchem and chemblink) = .7199g test per mg of Test E or 71.99% testosterone.

---

Gah!!! That was my mistake! Thanks for clearing it up. I haven't done stoichiometric equations in a while. I appreciate that, thanks.