Results 1 to 34 of 34

Thread: Test-E for only 8 weeks?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Anywhere...
    Posts
    15,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonaparte View Post
    Actually, I must have missed that.
    And I have read that article before (though it was like 2 years ago), but I dismissed it as more of Anthony Roberts' unfounded conjecture. And I really don't feel like reading all that shit again, but didn't AR claim that long esters convert more readily to estrogen, while short esters convert more readily to DHT?
    And either way, what could actually account for the difference, since the hormone is inactive while still attached to an ester?
    Read the article.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    13,506
    Quote Originally Posted by Swifto View Post
    Read the article.
    I actually went ahead and read it anyway a few hours ago. It was a bit different than the one I was thinking of.

    But isn't it very possible that the findings in these studies he cites were skewed because of the infrequency of the shots? It seems that they are just based on what an individual shot of test will do (or multiple infrequent shots that allow for a return to baseline in between), and not a steady level like we would have in a cycle with frequent injections. I only took the time to look up the monkey study (source #2), but the shortest ester used was Enanthate, which doesn't really tell us much about Prop vs Enanthate. I'm still far from convinced, as it still just seems like a lot of conjecture, since he can't really provide a scientific basis for these findings.
    Whatever, maybe I'm just being cranky and contrary because its midnight here and I have to teach a class in 8 hrs, but I'm awaiting your thoughts on the matter (and not trying to pick a fight with you that I'll surely lose) lol.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Anywhere...
    Posts
    15,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonaparte View Post
    I actually went ahead and read it anyway a few hours ago. It was a bit different than the one I was thinking of.

    But isn't it very possible that the findings in these studies he cites were skewed because of the infrequency of the shots? It seems that they are just based on what an individual shot of test will do (or multiple infrequent shots that allow for a return to baseline in between), and not a steady level like we would have in a cycle with frequent injections. I only took the time to look up the monkey study (source #2), but the shortest ester used was Enanthate, which doesn't really tell us much about Prop vs Enanthate. I'm still far from convinced, as it still just seems like a lot of conjecture, since he can't really provide a scientific basis for these findings.
    Whatever, maybe I'm just being cranky and contrary because its midnight here and I have to teach a class in 8 hrs, but I'm awaiting your thoughts on the matter (and not trying to pick a fight with you that I'll surely lose) lol.
    No fighting here bro. I'm being blunt as I'm just about to put my dog down... :-(

    They did compare Prop and Enanthate. I'm going to come back to this tomorrow.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    13,506
    Quote Originally Posted by Swifto View Post
    No fighting here bro. I'm being blunt as I'm just about to put my dog down... :-(
    Sorry to hear that...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •