fast acting or slow acting ????????

[flyguy6661]

so what to go for
100mg prop eod & 100mg tren eod & 100mg anavar a day for 6 weeks
vs
600mg enanthet & 400mg tren a week ?
i was under the impression fast acting arent as good for bulking ? correct

[Gaspaco]

What are your stats and cycle history?

[anahny]

When it comes to tren , all esters are good for both bulking and cutting. It would just be a matter of personal preference.

[flyguy6661]

cycle history is test with anavar , test with deca never used tren tho i was thinking of pinning 300mg enanthate and 200mg tren e mon/thurs for 12 weeks what you recon ? bit high on the tren side as ive never used it before ?

[anahny]

cycle history is test with anavar, test with deca never used tren tho i was thinking of pinning 300mg enanthate and 200mg tren e mon/thurs for 12 weeks what you recon ? bit high on the tren side as ive never used it before ?

Not really high for tren but that's a good start. I would reccomend tren a just in case you can't handle the sides you can start pct immediately instead of waiting 14 days. Since you're body hasn't had this compound before you don't know how you would react so short esters would serve you better, I recommend tren a @ 75mg eod and Test p @50mg eod.

[Times Roman]

gear is gear.

however, i prefer fast acting esthers like prop, since due to shortened cycle, overall LESS gear is used, and therefore reduced risk of sides.

however, i prefer the economics of a longer esther like E as I am a cheap bastad, and everytime i pry open my dusty wallet to kick out the additional for prop, all kinds of nasty spiders and moths come flying out my wallet =)

[Turkish Juicer]

I refuse to run any long estered gear at this point for various reasons which are all rooted both in experience and knowledge but this doesn't mean I shall aggressively impose my philosophy upon others. Therefore, I figured it may be a good idea to provide an objective basis for why one is better off using short esters as opposed to long ones:

Pros of short-ester AAS:

1. Most users feel short-ester injectables start acting within the first two weeks into a cycle, thus one doesn't need to kick-start with an oral or front-load with double the cycle dose of these compounds.

2. A user can adjust the dosage of a short-ester AAS in accordance with the metabolic feedback being received, and such adjustments pay off almost immediately.

3. PCT starts only 3 days after last injection with short-ester AAS, thus there is no bridging required.

4. Since there is almost no waiting time for PCT with short-ester AAS for the user, one does not need to worry about going catabolic and loosing gains during the ''waiting phase''.

5. If anything goes wrong while user is cycling with short-ester AAS (i.e., medical emergency, travel, jail etc.), this never becomes a big deal since cycle can be stopped right then simply due to the fact that these compounds will clear off in about 3 days.

6. You'll hear almost everyone on this forum as well many others about how ''test is test'' but then there is the obvious issue of ''ester weight''. Ester weight makes a bigger difference than one may think especially under circumstances where the cycle is long, lots of gear is used at high doses. For instance, you get more Test for your buck then Test Prop compared to Test E simply because of the less ester weight.

7. In the case of Tren , there many rationals for a first time user (or an experienced user for the same matter) to experiment with Tren A for everything listed above plus the special case of ''tren cough'' which is more common with the Enanthate (long) ester than Acetate (short) ester.

Cons of Short-ester AAS:

In my opinion, the only downside that would count as a ''con'' for short-ester compounds is the injection frequency. Majority of juicers do not sympathize with frequent injections for obvious reasons.

Suit yourself!

[Lunk1]

I refuse to run any long estered gear at this point for various reasons which are all rooted both in experience and knowledge but this doesn't mean I shall aggressively impose my philosophy upon others. Therefore, I figured it may be a good idea to provide an objective basis for why one is better off using short esters as opposed to long ones:

Pros of short-ester AAS:

1. Most users feel short-ester injectables start acting within the first two weeks into a cycle, thus one doesn't need to kick-start with an oral or front-load with double the cycle dose of these compounds.

2. A user can adjust the dosage of a short-ester AAS in accordance with the metabolic feedback being received, and such adjustments pay off almost immediately.

3. PCT starts only 3 days after last injection with short-ester AAS, thus there is no bridging required.

4. Since there is almost no waiting time for PCT with short-ester AAS for the user, one does not need to worry about going catabolic and loosing gains during the ''waiting phase''.

5. If anything goes wrong while user is cycling with short-ester AAS (i.e., medical emergency, travel, jail etc.), this never becomes a big deal since cycle can be stopped right then simply due to the fact that these compounds will clear off in about 3 days.

6. You'll hear almost everyone on this forum as well many others about how ''test is test'' but then there is the obvious issue of ''ester weight''. Ester weight makes a bigger difference than one may think especially under circumstances where the cycle is long, lots of gear is used at high doses. For instance, you get more Test for your buck then Test Prop compared to Test E simply because of the less ester weight. It's a neglligable amount and one can always adjust the small difference.

7. In the case of Tren , there many rationals for a first time user (or an experienced user for the same matter) to experiment with Tren A for everything listed above plus the special case of ''tren cough'' which is more common with the Enanthate (long) ester than Acetate (short) ester. From my experience I would disagree with this adamantly. I have never had issues on tren E, only on A!

Cons of Short-ester AAS:

In my opinion, the only downside that would count as a ''con'' for short-ester compounds is the injection frequency. Majority of juicers do not sympathize with frequent injections for obvious reasons.

Suit yourself!

Otherwise...great post

[anahny]

I refuse to run any long estered gear at this point for various reasons which are all rooted both in experience and knowledge but this doesn't mean I shall aggressively impose my philosophy upon others. Therefore, I figured it may be a good idea to provide an objective basis for why one is better off using short esters as opposed to long ones:

Pros of short-ester AAS:

1. Most users feel short-ester injectables start acting within the first two weeks into a cycle, thus one doesn't need to kick-start with an oral or front-load with double the cycle dose of these compounds.

2. A user can adjust the dosage of a short-ester AAS in accordance with the metabolic feedback being received, and such adjustments pay off almost immediately.

3. PCT starts only 3 days after last injection with short-ester AAS, thus there is no bridging required.

4. Since there is almost no waiting time for PCT with short-ester AAS for the user, one does not need to worry about going catabolic and loosing gains during the ''waiting phase''.

5. If anything goes wrong while user is cycling with short-ester AAS (i.e., medical emergency, travel, jail etc.), this never becomes a big deal since cycle can be stopped right then simply due to the fact that these compounds will clear off in about 3 days.

6. You'll hear almost everyone on this forum as well many others about how ''test is test'' but then there is the obvious issue of ''ester weight''. Ester weight makes a bigger difference than one may think especially under circumstances where the cycle is long, lots of gear is used at high doses. For instance, you get more Test for your buck then Test Prop compared to Test E simply because of the less ester weight.

7. In the case of Tren , there many rationals for a first time user (or an experienced user for the same matter) to experiment with Tren A for everything listed above plus the special case of ''tren cough'' which is more common with the Enanthate (long) ester than Acetate (short) ester.

Cons of Short-ester AAS:

In my opinion, the only downside that would count as a ''con'' for short-ester compounds is the injection frequency. Majority of juicers do not sympathize with frequent injections for obvious reasons.

Suit yourself!

Well said Turkish... I've always chosen short esters for the exact reasons you stated above. I actually prefer pinning more. Maybe I'm just crazy but pining eod gives me a good positive state of mind knowing ok..... I have to work out harder than I have before.