Frontloading!

I read over your question, but here:
Given 500 mg testosterone enanthate, e5d, with an expected T1/2 of 6 days, your formula will put 1100mg as a frontload. My method however shows that 1139.5 is better. Even my method is just an approximation, but still more accurate than yours. That's why I said mine is more accurate.

Read more from the MESO-Rx Steroid Forum at: https://thinksteroids.com/community/threads/134315143
EDIT: I had a previous reply which for some reason was about testosterone cypionate. Now redone for enanthate.

Also btw I don't calculate the frontload of 500 mg testosterone enanthate every 5 days (average of 100 mg/day) to be 1100 mg... I don't figure the half-life as the 6 days you say.

I use 5 days for enanthate, and so when injecting 500 mg every 5 days the frontload is the amount injected per half-life (500 mg) plus the ongoing injected amount (500 mg), or 1000 mg.

So you see the choice of half-life is a larger factor.

I use this value because it is consistent with literature data (there are other results though) and gives results I'm completely pleased with. Assuming a longer half-life seems to me to result in small overshoot, though that's unproven, but in any case the 5-day value and method given is found suitable by users, which is what matters rather than non-significant-digit arguments.
 
Last edited:
1) I have. Also, I confirmed that the therapeutic consequence will be small.
2) Since I'm familiar with what I invented, I read over it. There is no need to be arguing about that, especially since I've shown two methods, with the latter one being perfectly fine and easier to use.
3) Your method is not 0.5^(24/35), yours is different. My methods are practically the same, yours differs, as can be seen in the output differences from my function and yours. Read carefully before accusing one to not read carefully.
4) I know that whence injecting at another time than the half life there will occur differences. That is why I used this example. Rather evidently I might add. Also, again, I confirmed the differences to be slight, thus possibly not too relevant. I also stressed however that the difference may lie in the rounding that occurs when users round up (or down) any given output.

5) We are on a forum, not in a one on one chat. If you'd like to draw conclusions from the time span between my posts, be my guest. I however, have a life outside this board as well. Also that you didn't understand it, does not mean no-one did. Don't use other people when you can only speak for yourself.

About the two things: I already stressed in my last posts, that the difference might not have therapeutical consequences. I however could if the output gets rounded in the wrong direction. I've noted that users usually go for the easy values as you explained earlier. My point made one rule before this still stands.

If a function works fine, you are free to keep it at that. I'd rather like to try and improve on methods however. Whether or not my method is to your liking is your call.

I believe we've both said everything we needed to say, all that's left is preference, and I feel that at this point we're debating on preference for one method rather than having an argument based on measurable differences at this point.
 
Also btw I don't calculate the frontload of 500 mg testosterone cypionate every 5 days (average of 100 mg/day) to be 1100 mg... I usually don't figure the half-life as the 6 days you say.

I usually use 7 days for cypionate, and so when injecting 500 mg every 5 days the frontload is 700 mg -- the amount on average injected per half-life -- plus 500, or 1200 mg.

So you see it's rather moot to argue over 39.5 mg when the half-life is a bigger question.

I may have used 6 days in some instances though: I'm not swearing that I never have.

Whatever the real half life is irrelevant to show difference in functions. Since the variable is constant, it's not interesting. I agree that the half life is more relevant, but since that one isn't really known, and it is not relevant in this discussion on which formula yields better results;).
 
You were claiming a difference between your miswritten log function and the exponential I wrote. When I said my method, I was referring to the exponential which you had claimed was not as clean, but is in fact equivalent.

It takes 15 seconds to calculate the frontload as I say; whatever amount of time you spent typing you did spend, yet did not have a value, so I think it's a fair example that your method is slow even for you. At least to set up the spreadsheet in the first place, particularly given instructions with a serious error.

You are assuming that anyone reading was able to follow your instructions, particularly given the key error and the unspecified instructions to "experiment with tables or graphs."

I appreciate that you may think it is condescending of me to at some point find no value in going further, but I am willing to bet that no one is finding this arguing over your claiming a tiny difference in a series and me saying it in fact equals 1, and so forth, to be worth their time. So I prefer to leave it where it is now. Each can decide for himself. I also do have other things to do and I don't score this one as having been much productive, actually.
 
Let's indeed end the discussion at this. I can't have you believe that the timedifference between setting up between the two methods isn't really any different, even having said that I over read your question, so for me there is no use me pursuing that statement.
The same goes for my original formula. Even having given two, you rather look at the wrong one, which I rectified later. There is no added value in continuing this discussion indeed, as I stated two posts before, and indeed, anyone can decide for himself.
 
The reasoning behind why I used 5 days as the half-life for Cyp is the lack of credible sources while finding good sources for Deca and them stating to be 6 days. Considering that Deca is a longer ester I felt wrong in writing that Cyp has an equal half-life. I might have been wrong in that justification but I also added that the half-lives may differ depending on the source. I too have found that Cyp has a half-life of 8 days which is why I included the aforementioned statement. Either way, I don't want this to result in a big half-life discussion, if worrying about the half-life being off please use your own research to base your application on. Which is usually the best in the first place.


1: Acta Endocrinol Suppl (Copenh) 1985;271:19-30 Related Articles, Books
Pharmacokinetic parameters of nandrolone (19-nortestosterone) after intramuscular administration of nandrolone decanoate (deca-Durabolin) to healthy volunteers.

Wijnand HP, Bosch AM, Donker CW.

nandrolone decanoate (deca-Durabolin) was injected intramuscularly into healthy volunteers. One group of females received one injection of 100 mg and three groups of males received one injection of 200 mg, two repeat injections of 100 mg or four repeat injections of 50 mg respectively. The serum levels of nandrolone (19-nortestosterone) were determined by radioimmunoassay and used to estimate pharmacokinetic parameters. The following pharmacokinetic parameters were found: a mean half-life of 6 days for the release of the ester from the muscular injection depot into the general circulation; a mean half-life of 4.3 h for the combined processes of hydrolysis of nandrolone decanoate and of distribution and elimination of nandrolone; a mean nandrolone serum clearance of 1.55 1 X h-1 X kg-1. The half-life of hydrolysis of nandrolone decanoate in serum was of the order of one hour or less. The data are consistent with linear kinetics.

PMID: 3865478
 
Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism May 1, 2005 vol. 90 no. 5 2624-2630 gives 7- 12 days for nandrolone decanoate; J. Steroid Biochem., 1985, 22, 623-629 gives 8 days.

You're right that the 6 day figure also appears in literature but personally, as not all these can be right simultaneously, I suspect it, especially given the notoriously slow clearance.

I also agree with your point with comparing with other steroids, but rather than using ND as the reference point for others, I'd rather judge ND from others.

Roughly speaking it's shown that an additional carbon is "worth" a day or perhaps a little more to half-life (this has to do with partition coefficient: basically the proportion dissolved in fat versus that which is dissolved in water, with the fat-dissolved portion inaccessible to enzymatic hydrolysis.)

Enanthic acid has a chain length of 7; decanoic acid has a chain length of 10. But on the other hand, nandrolone lacks the 19 carbon, so ND actually has only two more carbons. So its half life, by this rough estimate, would be at least 2 days more than that of enanthate.

And if we figure enanthate at 5, then then it would be consistent for ND to be at least 7.

It definitely is not an exactly known fact.

As for testosterone cypionate, it has one carbon more than testosterone enanthate, but it's not a straight chain: it includes a ring. Between the two, I'd expect about a two day difference.

Basically, for whatever reason half-life data is all over the place. In cases like this, where ranges are available, what you are doing -- looking at other compounds and comparing -- can help mak sense as to what part of the range seems consistent with other known facts, and perhaps what parts seem not to be consistent.

I just really have a lot of trouble with 6 days for ND, and there are other studies finding differently.
 
Also, to illustrate my method and make it more accessible for everyone out there, I've built a spreadsheet in which you only need to add some data, and you'll be able to establish your optimal frontload.
For better accuracy I might as well upload a spreadsheet that shows the breakdown per day even when injected every five days so that a minimal fluctuation timescheme could be established, but not yet.

Enjoy.
 

Attachments

I know this thread is old, but I thought I would kick in my 2 cents: I don't use any complicated formula, I just double up, or close to it, on the dosage.

For example, I just started a cycle and did about 750 mg of Deca and 900mgs EQ the first week.

The second week started, and I dropped the deca down to 350mg, and the EQ to 500mg. I also started in on 250 mg of test enanthate to counter the side effects (partly due to deca and EQs ability to kill sex drive among other things).
 
Frontloading question

i've learnt a lot about frontloading from this forum, and i'd like to ask those who have already tried frontloading this question.

can a person cut down the total duration of the cycle with long esters by employing frontloading? eg: instead of running a 12 weeker with test E, run a 5 or 6 weeker with it, with a frontload?
 
Re: Frontloading question

i've learnt a lot about frontloading from this forum, and i'd like to ask those who have already tried frontloading this question.

can a person cut down the total duration of the cycle with long esters by employing frontloading? eg: instead of running a 12 weeker with test E, run a 5 or 6 weeker with it, with a frontload?

Yes!

mands
 
Re: Frontloading question

On spot Mands, but it seems there's more than one question in your post OP!

The PRIMARY purpose of front loading is to achieve steady state levels sooner!

Thus "front load" dosing will provide early onset SSL and using a longer acting ester allows that level to remain "steady state" for a more prolonged period.

However the reason the cycle continues at SSL, without regularly scheduled pinng is the presence of an ester with a longer half life and is not necessarily the consequence of "front loading".
 
Re: Frontloading question

What does frontloading involve? Is it taking more from the beginning and then tapering off throughout the run?
 
Re: Frontloading question

Yep, I should have followed your professional lead of brevity more closely Mands ........ "YES", lol!
 
Good info, thread should probably be a sticky.

For those of you who are using gear properly (I define properly as spending as much time off as on) then front loading is absolutely beneficial.

So, you run a 12 weeker, then 12 weeks off (and the first 5-6 weeks are HCG, and then PCT) you only need another 6-7 weeks.
 
I re-read the thread "Frontloading!" again and after all that dialog about whose formula or calculation is correct, I got a bit cross-eyed.

I am with pericles on this one: double the dose for the first week, then continue at the desired dosage for the remainder of the cycle. who cares if i'm 8.5 mg off the "ideal dosage"? there are too many variations like absorption rate and the sites you pin that would affect your dosage. and I also think that someone mentioned that the typical user pins in multiples of 50mg anyway, or at most 25mg.

so if you're using 500mg test E per week, do 1000mg the first week, then continue at 500mg for all remaining weeks. keep it simple.
 
I've been researching this all day. Here is a post I shamelessly ripped from another site. It didn't have sources, or I would give credit. Anyway, it is a good read and fits in well with what is destined for stickiness (this thread).

Front-loading steroid cycles
Posted Jul.13, 2007 under 3.4 - Steroid Cycle Planning

There is a lot of scrutiny regarding proper anabolic-androgenic steroid cycle structure for maximal muscle gains with minimal risks. Front loading is one practice gaining attention in the bodybuilding community. This process immediately elevates blood androgen levels. Front loading omits the customary delay of obtaining peak and stable blood levels by increasing the cycle’s front-end use.

Athletes stumble onto AAS use while scavenging for further ways to promote a progressive strength training routine – especially bodybuilders and powerlifters. Strength athletes often search for ways to develop productive steroid cycling protocols by combining the clinical research that is available with personal experience; as well as gathering insight from others. Formal clinical trials analyzing anabolic steroids in sports and exercise are rare. The medical community perceives little application for large performance-enhancing amounts of AAS to treat disease – even though many athletes would argue poor performance is an adverse health condition. Mostly through trial and error, numerous informal studies and private research examines various steroid cycling methods and how they can present a positive impact on performance and body composition. This information is generally shared through social networks, to include using online messaging software.

Steroid hormones meant for intramuscular injection have attached fatty (carboxylic) acid esters to delay the hormone’s actions. They create a slow-release depot within the muscle for sustained and even blood levels. Instead of being immediately metabolize, the parent hormone is steadily released for days, or weeks. The rate at which the hormone is released is based on the ester’s characteristics; such as length and weight. Commonly available heavy, long esters are: enanthate, cypionate or decanoate.

Due to a slow release, when a steroid with an attached heavy ester is injected at routine intervals, peak plasma concentrations can take weeks to elevate and remain stable. This is why most users do not notice performance results with heavy esters until a few weeks into the AAS cycle. Plasma levels must first build up to significant amounts to support the events associated with gains in strength and muscle mass. The ester’s speed of release is typically documented by it’s associated half-life, the time it takes for half of the administered steroid to metabolize. Active lives are also published, indicating the estimated time for full absorption of the compound.

Many bodybuilders and powerlifters have begun to omit the waiting period for peak blood levels with front loading. Most users report muscular gains are best made during the first several weeks of an anabolic steroid cycle; results dwindle after six to eight weeks of application. Immediately flooding the system with growth hormones makes the most of this sensitive period. Simply put: front loading gets the cycle started quicker – while the body is most receptive of growth cues. Also, a quicker onset can present an option for shorter cycle duration; resulting in less impact to the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis for easier post-cycle recovery of natural androgen production.

Normally, the same drug administered during the cycle is used to front load. The perfect front-load can be accurately calculated for stable release using figures and charts, but it’s cumbersome. There is some simplified guidance for front loading a heavy-ester cycle. First, calculate weekly use; administering 250 milligrams of testosterone enanthate every three days is equal to 583 milligrams per week (250/3*7). Then, double the weekly use and administer that amount prior to the first half life from the first injection – around four days for testosterone enanthate. Alternatively, the same compound with a lighter ester can be used, such as acetate or propionate.

Today, many users are starting to front-load steroid cycles every time a heavy ester is used – to eliminate delayed affects on body composition and strength. Many others merely jump start a cycle with orals or suspensions, drugs without an ester allow quick absorption. Either method will boost blood levels up quickly to fully exploit the early responsive period – a time when the body is primed for growth and will best use the hormonal signals for amplified muscle growth.

According to basic pharmacology, a single dose of 250mg of testosterone enanthate will deliver the parent hormone at it’s highest values the first 10 days; around 31, 27, 23, 20, 18, 15, 13, 12, 10 and nine milligrams, respectfully. After 10 days, the amounts released become negligible. Repeated injections create an overlap that gradually builds up blood levels. Actual amounts are affected by the injection site and technique, personal differences in physiology and the sites body fat levels.

The above cycle illustrates testosterone enanthate administered at 250 milligrams every three days; with and without a front load. The front loaded portion was accurately configured and applied with 500 milligrams on day one, 250 milligrams on day two, a day off and then 250 milligrams every third day for the cycle’s duration. The front load is 1000 milligrams within the first four days – almost twice the weekly administered amount (583mg). Blood testosterone volume is immediately elevated and reasonably stable the first week with the front load.

Non-front-loaded administration did not elevate and stabilize blood levels until over three weeks after the cycle’s launch. This is why results normally don’t manifest themselves for many weeks without a proper front load.

And yeah, after all that, doubling up the first week (or even over the first 4 days) seems the most sensible protocol.
 
Back
Top