SmallTitsIRL
Member
I would assume all peds build muscle dose dependant and ofc to a certain extent
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Kurt Havens : Test Cypionate vs Enanthate Case Report
- Thread starter SmallTitsIRL
- Start date
PeterBond
Member
"The compounds used by the subject, including testosterone and methenolone, were obtained independently and administered outside of any clinical or research setting."
Otherwise a poorly written manuscript, too.
Otherwise a poorly written manuscript, too.
I think it was 30 mg and 50 mg, but I don't remember very well. It was more than 15 years ago.
In the 90s, it was common for guys to take just Dbol 6-8 months a year. That was when Naposim was available. They took it like Tic Tacs, and all of them had results during and after those cycles.
IndividualMan
Member
yes, I was specifically talking about the clinical usage (old/sick people who are weak and frail and cant excercise).
In those subjects Dbol does nothing after being discontinued. var does nothing after being discontinued, etc. Adrol seems to be the only oral to leave people with some sort of contractile tissue gained after discontinuation.
Assuming you actually work out and lift (which you did) and you get to lift harder+ with better stimulus for growth (both via mechanical tension and AR activation) you will build muscle.
But it doesnt build muscle on its own (no training stimulus, just everyday activities like walking, eating, occasionally carrying stuff, etc. + Dbol)
technically there is a control, the one subject using both substances is the control group more or less. Viable methodology in this case, the other parts are what irritates me far more (no testing, small sample size, messed up tables/ little to no discussion regardingthe content of the tables).
this just means the were bought from an UGL, and not prescribed/ part of a clinical trial of some sorts, and pinned without supervision.
Other parts of the manuscript are indeed poorly written/ could have used some revision.
IndividualMan
Member
fair. I personally think orals have their time and place (and are quite fun to take), but the % of gains you get to keep is lower than it would be with injectables with a more steady release rate essentially trading a few % of your progress for enjoyment and PRs. Especially with Dbol, which is notoriously fun & strength promoting.
And we gotta keep in mind, having fun in life is a great way to do harm prevention. Mental harm is something underdiscussed on here, and keeping your PED jounrey fun and enjoyable is a great way to prevent lasting psychologically diagnosable/measurable/provable damage.
PeterBond
Member
Exactly, that's the problem. We've ran prospective trials with AAS users and we never do any analyses based on UGL label claims beyond orals vs injectables.
BigDadd7
Member
That is not how a control works in any accepted research.
SnowyMiami
Member
Subq makes the whole study trash. I thought Kurt was the "use drugs as designed guy".
hellerhiwater
Member
non-randomized, single human, uncontrolled trial...the holy grail
i feel genuinely fucking silly for ever listening to this dude. even if i never applied most of what he said, the time wasted itself is annoying.
as someone pointed out, one his repeated axioms is using drugs how they were designed. i guess that didnt apply to this "study"
the damage done to an already fractured and failing system (peer-reviewed studies) is not lost on me. any amt of perpetuating that is just harmful. and i know that sounds snowflakey, but its how we get situations like blanket vaccine-hesitancy and "say anything for a dollar" influencers on a pulpit spewing whatever comes to mind.
so disappointed.
i feel genuinely fucking silly for ever listening to this dude. even if i never applied most of what he said, the time wasted itself is annoying.
as someone pointed out, one his repeated axioms is using drugs how they were designed. i guess that didnt apply to this "study"
the damage done to an already fractured and failing system (peer-reviewed studies) is not lost on me. any amt of perpetuating that is just harmful. and i know that sounds snowflakey, but its how we get situations like blanket vaccine-hesitancy and "say anything for a dollar" influencers on a pulpit spewing whatever comes to mind.
so disappointed.
Last edited:
what a shit paper. It is basically meant as comparison between the testosterone esters and then completely fails by having another drug (primo) where the ester is not even mentioned. Assuming the primo was also enan, does that impact the results of using test enan? N=1 straight garbage.
SmallTitsIRL
Member
I'm trying to do a 52 week cycle, do you recon at the end I can publish a case report about the usage of PEDs and it's health effects? Lol
2ndchancesNK
Member
The study is on Test E vs. Test C, yet they include primobolan to “mitigate aromatization” and “support anabolic stability”. What?
Absurd.
Absurd.
SmiggySmigs
New Member
Idk if someone spoke on this or not cause I didn't read all the article of comment but from what I was told from a very intelligent Individual who use to make TF out of some gear is the difference is in the bioavailability, Cypionate being the lowest on the totem pole so to speak. (I believe Propionate was #1 don't remember) He also told me that USA is one of the only places n the world who prescribes test Cyp over Ent for Trt because at the end of the day they do not want us having the high test levels n the first place.?
IndividualMan
Member
again, when comparing differences in response to drugs, Measuring both in the same person is a valid form of control.
only Test E (200-600)
VS
only Test C (200-600)
VS
a natural? (as "control")
Is worthless.
that third group can be left out.
The only way to truly measure it without having the undeniable flaw of different individual response to different esters is by measuring within the same person. that alone eases the validity concerns (it is about measuring different responses to different compounds in the same individual, not different responses across different individuals, that would be a confounding variable)
They do serve as a control in that sense. Essentially a control within each individual, with the individual serving as a subject in both groups. Intraindividual comparisons are valid for this purpose, unlike interindividual domparisons.
From a Research methodology point of view that is about the only thing he did 100% right (that and letting the subject reach stable serum levels) so no critique from my side on that part.
But it only makes sense if you run this with wayyyy larger sample sizes. The n=1 + no analytical testing when using UGL + subpar discussion just breaks this publications neck.
IndividualMan
Member
onyl real difference is ester weight (how much of the molecule is fatty acid chain VS testosterone. its like 2 percentage points difference)
Kurt havens was looking at the molecular structure in space and tries to argue that esterases have a harder time metabolizing the ring of the cypionate ester vs the non closed chain of the Enanthate ester.
Valid concern, this is not the right way to test for this though.
Actually, thinking about this, In vitro testing would be a better basis for testing these theories.
PeterBond
Member
Comparison of testosterone, dihydrotestosterone, luteinizing hormone, and follicle-stimulating hormone in serum after injection of testosterone enanthate of testosterone cypionate - PubMed
Comparison of testosterone, dihydrotestosterone, luteinizing hormone, and follicle-stimulating hormone in serum after injection of testosterone enanthate of testosterone cypionate
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Similar threads
- Poll
