Marcus
New Member
Exactly this... Which is why we have devised our own process to discover what the best and most accurate protocol is instead of relying on the source to provide us
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
USAspetz Domestic Source for FDA Pharma meds, Orals, Injectables, Raws and GH
- Thread starter usaspetz
- Start date
Kinikuman
Well-known Member
Brutus, I think you're right. The 10x rule is most likely to be based on 24-48hrs after last pin. So we are not looking at total mg/week but mg/pin to see the 10x number.
Hey Gents!
I have some exciting new Vet products, i am sold out of the old EQ i was getting from Colombia, i have one 100ml Jug of that brand. I do have a similar product also coming out of Colombia called Mitgan which i will upload pics now, and also another Product from Mexico called Equi-Gan, the oil is very transparent and after some research i learned they use Sesame oil.
Furthermore, the 100ml NPP are back in stock, and 50ml are in short supply.
50ml jugs are $140, and 100ml are $250.
I have some exciting new Vet products, i am sold out of the old EQ i was getting from Colombia, i have one 100ml Jug of that brand. I do have a similar product also coming out of Colombia called Mitgan which i will upload pics now, and also another Product from Mexico called Equi-Gan, the oil is very transparent and after some research i learned they use Sesame oil.
Furthermore, the 100ml NPP are back in stock, and 50ml are in short supply.
50ml jugs are $140, and 100ml are $250.
So, if I pin 600mg/week, split up in to 3 injections of 200mg on M, W, F you're saying that on Wednesday AM (48 hours after my last pin, but before my Wed pin) I should see test serum levels of 2000 (200mg injection x 10)?
But if I pin 600mg/week on Monday AM and test on Wed AM, I should see serum levels of 6000?
This makes no sense.
I'll say this again, once blood levels are stable (5-6 weeks for Test E) each subsequent injection makes very little difference because it pales in comparison to the amount of test currently in the body.
Kinikuman
Well-known Member
What I'm saying is, based on your scenarios above:
Pin 600 mg/wk split into 3 doses on MWF, drawing 48 hrs after last pin (sometime on Sun), assuming a 5-7 day half life on Test E, would leave your M pin at or near the end of it's first half-life and therefore you would see a T level lower than if you are simply doing 600mg all at once every week and then testing at 48hrs. If you plot it out you will see what I mean. There is a reason that larger doses of AAS get split up this way - to prevent spikes and valleys in blood levels - at the sacrifice of on-time peak levels.
dmt31
New Member
No, you wouldn't see results of only the 200, the but other 2 shots wouldn't be as active anymore. The first shot would be near the end of its effectiveness, and the second shot would be on the downward slope of the testosterone value in your blood.
I don't get why this is so hard to understand for some people... Just because you pin something doesn't mean it lasts forever. I really am confused as to why this is still a debate. You can't will the Test E to remain in your system for as long as you want it to be there, it's just not how it works.
xgunx
Well-known Member
I will it in there just fine every m w f
lol
lol
The question was, "would we expect the serum levels of test to reflect the weekly aggregate of exogenous test, or merely the last shot?"
My answer was, once stable blood levels have been achieved eg: 5-6 weeks for Test E, you can base your expected serum levels off of the aggregate weekly dose.
As far as your comment, "the first shot would be near the end of its effectiveness....", well, that's demonstrably false. Whether you want to use a 7 or 10.5 day half-life, there is still greater than %50 active compound available.
On that note, I'm going to bow out of this convo at this point. I'll return in a few weeks with bloods.
Just when I think I'm out....
Here's a chart using a 7 day half-life for Test E. The yellow protocol is a single 600mg shot at the beginning of each week, the blue protocol is three 200mg shots on days 1, 3, and 5.
You can see that once a stable level of Test in the body has been achieved (approx. week 5 or so), the difference between mgs of Test in the body on any given day is less than %10. In fact, 48 hours after the 600mg shot, the difference is closer to %5.
Again, I'm not saying there isn't a difference. I'm merely saying that for a given weekly dose of Test E, the difference between a weekly shot and thrice weekly shots is much smaller than many people seem to realize. That's because there's already a pool of Test E that has accumulated in the body over time. If you want to look at week 1 and tell me there's a big difference, I'd agree with you! But not once stable blood levels have been achieved.
One last caveat: This chart shows mgs of Test E, not blood serum levels. Obv, the relationship between the two is strong, but not necessarily 1:1
Here's a chart using a 7 day half-life for Test E. The yellow protocol is a single 600mg shot at the beginning of each week, the blue protocol is three 200mg shots on days 1, 3, and 5.
You can see that once a stable level of Test in the body has been achieved (approx. week 5 or so), the difference between mgs of Test in the body on any given day is less than %10. In fact, 48 hours after the 600mg shot, the difference is closer to %5.
Again, I'm not saying there isn't a difference. I'm merely saying that for a given weekly dose of Test E, the difference between a weekly shot and thrice weekly shots is much smaller than many people seem to realize. That's because there's already a pool of Test E that has accumulated in the body over time. If you want to look at week 1 and tell me there's a big difference, I'd agree with you! But not once stable blood levels have been achieved.
One last caveat: This chart shows mgs of Test E, not blood serum levels. Obv, the relationship between the two is strong, but not necessarily 1:1
iintensity
New Member
A little confused. Why are there so many peeks and troughs if it's injected once per week?Just when I think I'm out....
Here's a chart using a 7 day half-life for Test E. The yellow protocol is a single 600mg shot at the beginning of each week, the blue protocol is three 200mg shots on days 1, 3, and 5.
You can see that once a stable level of Test in the body has been achieved (approx. week 5 or so), the difference between mgs of Test in the body on any given day is less than %10. In fact, 48 hours after the 600mg shot, the difference is closer to %5.
Again, I'm not saying there isn't a difference. I'm merely saying that for a given weekly dose of Test E, the difference between a weekly shot and thrice weekly shots is much smaller than many people seem to realize. That's because there's already a pool of Test E that has accumulated in the body over time. If you want to look at week 1 and tell me there's a big difference, I'd agree with you! But not once stable blood levels have been achieved.
One last caveat: This chart shows mgs of Test E, not blood serum levels. Obv, the relationship between the two is strong, but not necessarily 1:1
TANGO.ECHO.KILO
Member
I'm a little confused...Why the fuck has this argument been going on for 3 days in this thread.
Builder9916
New Member
Just made an order with USAspetz. Communication was great with great response times. Waiting on tracking numbers. When gear arrives I will give full analysis of products with labmax and bloods during cycle.
Guilty <raises hand>
Waiting to hear back on a job interview, have nothing better to do. Already jerked off twice today.
Because that's how it works....
Given a 7 day half-life, half the compound is gone by day 7, then the next shot of 600mgs brings the total pool of Test E back up again.
Time is on the X axis; there's just one peak and one trough per week.
12-lead EKG findings.
What's up everyone. I'll try to summarize this as well as I can without boring you or going into too much detail.
I decided to get a "12 lead" picture of my heart today. I was having chest pain and curious as to how AAS effects the heart on an acute level. Clearly, I'm no cardiologist, however, I do have a good understanding of pathophysiology and basic 12 lead EKG interpretation.
First, I will say that I do not have my old-prior EKG to compare this to but I do know that nothing was remarkable and was normal at the time of my last EKG (approx 4 months ago)
So, today at work, I was having a little substernal chest pain and wanted to run an EKG.
Here were the first findings.
I'll try not to butcher this too much. And if anyone has anything to add, please chime in.
And remember, EKG's can tell you an infinite amount of data if you're awesome at interpreting them. Again, I only have a little more than a basic understanding.
1. The red circles in leads II, III and aVF with the down sloping arrows are "T waves" which represent the repolarization or recovery of the ventricles of the heart. In most cases they're supposed to point upwards.
Inverted T waves can be many things; Pulmonary embolism, Miocardial Infarction, ischemia, amongst many other things. In this case it was peculiar because I was having chest pain at the time of the test.
2. "RVH" the circle with RVH is "Right Ventricular Hypertrophy" see how those long spikes called the "QRS" interval are peaked really high and go into the other ones above it?
The heart is a muscle, AAS increases the size of the heart as well. RVH is a sign of the heart growing, to meet the oxygen demands of the body. We all know, the right side of the heart is where it receives blood from the body via superior and inferior vena cava. In conclusion, the right side of my heart has grown bigger. Now, this is a common finding umongst lots of athletes or very active people. Nothing of too much concern.
However, I did NOT have this finding on my previous EKG months ago. I would absolutely attribute it to AAS use only because of the acute changes which differ from my previous EKG. Also, it will go down when I stop using AAS, hopefully.
In conclusion, t-wave inversion is suspect of a lot of things, but unlikely in this case since the rest of the EKG was normal. I could go into abnormal in more depth, but I fear this is boring everyone enough.
The RVH? Personally, I thinks it's pretty fucking cool to see my heart grow, also scary but interesting....very interesting.
So there you have it. My heart has temporarily grown bigger to meet up with my O2 demands, and the T-wave inversion is inconclusive at best.
I ran another EKG after my chest pain subsided and it actually did look better. Less T wave inversion in leads II and III with no inversion in aVF.
"RVH"was still present in the second EKG finding. I'm having trouble uploading it. If anyone wants to see it. I'll upload it for you.
What's up everyone. I'll try to summarize this as well as I can without boring you or going into too much detail.
I decided to get a "12 lead" picture of my heart today. I was having chest pain and curious as to how AAS effects the heart on an acute level. Clearly, I'm no cardiologist, however, I do have a good understanding of pathophysiology and basic 12 lead EKG interpretation.
First, I will say that I do not have my old-prior EKG to compare this to but I do know that nothing was remarkable and was normal at the time of my last EKG (approx 4 months ago)
So, today at work, I was having a little substernal chest pain and wanted to run an EKG.
Here were the first findings.
I'll try not to butcher this too much. And if anyone has anything to add, please chime in.
And remember, EKG's can tell you an infinite amount of data if you're awesome at interpreting them. Again, I only have a little more than a basic understanding.
1. The red circles in leads II, III and aVF with the down sloping arrows are "T waves" which represent the repolarization or recovery of the ventricles of the heart. In most cases they're supposed to point upwards.
Inverted T waves can be many things; Pulmonary embolism, Miocardial Infarction, ischemia, amongst many other things. In this case it was peculiar because I was having chest pain at the time of the test.
2. "RVH" the circle with RVH is "Right Ventricular Hypertrophy" see how those long spikes called the "QRS" interval are peaked really high and go into the other ones above it?
The heart is a muscle, AAS increases the size of the heart as well. RVH is a sign of the heart growing, to meet the oxygen demands of the body. We all know, the right side of the heart is where it receives blood from the body via superior and inferior vena cava. In conclusion, the right side of my heart has grown bigger. Now, this is a common finding umongst lots of athletes or very active people. Nothing of too much concern.
However, I did NOT have this finding on my previous EKG months ago. I would absolutely attribute it to AAS use only because of the acute changes which differ from my previous EKG. Also, it will go down when I stop using AAS, hopefully.
In conclusion, t-wave inversion is suspect of a lot of things, but unlikely in this case since the rest of the EKG was normal. I could go into abnormal in more depth, but I fear this is boring everyone enough.
The RVH? Personally, I thinks it's pretty fucking cool to see my heart grow, also scary but interesting....very interesting.
So there you have it. My heart has temporarily grown bigger to meet up with my O2 demands, and the T-wave inversion is inconclusive at best.
I ran another EKG after my chest pain subsided and it actually did look better. Less T wave inversion in leads II and III with no inversion in aVF.
"RVH"was still present in the second EKG finding. I'm having trouble uploading it. If anyone wants to see it. I'll upload it for you.
Marcus
New Member
I'm a Medic. I work in the ER now. Did a little paid-on call/volunteer a few years ago though.
Marcus
New Member
Ohhhh, I thought I remember you saying you were a firefighter or something
Yes, did paid on call and volunteer a few years ago. Never got hired full time. Sucks.
Similar threads
