Ironic, no?
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
What is the actual "release date" of a Cyp ester?
- Thread starter BBC3
- Start date
Stretch
Subscriber
Is it childish to end a futile argument???
I think not.
I think not.
Stretch
Subscriber
I am embarassed to have argued over a personal matter for so long, and to no benefit. My apologies to the board.
Nice straw man. But that's not what we're talking about, is it?
Is it childish to say you're never going to speak to someone again? To put your fingers in your ears and ignore them forever if they try talk to you?
I think it was beneficial. You got to vent and I got to respond. Now we can move on and move past it. We can talk about why nothing ever seems to register with BBC3. Why, if history repeats itself, you'll see him talking about how "half-life" is a misnomer in some other thread in a couple of weeks... in one ear, out the other.
Ok, Rise and shine ConciBoy!!!! Ready for a piece??
Wiki
A misnomer is a term which suggests an interpretation that is known to be untrue. Such incorrect terms sometimes derived their names because of the form, action, or origin of the subject becoming named popularly or widely referenced—long before their true natures were known.
Webster:
Main Entry: mis·no·mer
Pronunciation: \?mis-?n?-m?r\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English misnoumer, from Anglo-French mesnomer, from mes- mis- + nomer to name, from Latin nominare — more at nominate
Date: 15th century
1 : the misnaming of a person in a legal instrument
2 a : a use of a wrong or inappropriate name b : a wrong name or inappropriate designation
— mis·no·mered \-m?rd\ adjective
Lets take a moment and step outside that happy little place you live in. You completely missed the point of the drill. We are not speaking TECHNICALLY as STRAIGHT FORWARD. The attempt it to point out the relevant issues with the misunderstanding of Esters as another prospective to help gain majority understanding of the concept.
Folks have the general notion that the ester provides some "extended action" or life of the testosterone as a single unit, and not the release process. To apply the term "Maturity Date" is thus HIGHLIGHTING the fact that the Steroid is not even released into "combat" prior to a certain time span. And thus IT IS NOT SIMPLE ALL ACTIVE AND TICKING DOWN TO THE DAY IT WON'T WORK ANYMORE.... That is all. This concept is not understood.. And just the same AAS is improperly used do to this lack of understanding. To point out that there is a "release Date" for each and every ester, upon which it is broken, and depending on its level of saturation away from general cirulation.
So yes, some esters are metabolized within a week, and some are not metabolized for 2 months probably. So they do indeed have different dates in which the Steroid becomes available.
FORGET CIRCULATING STEROIDS. This count is miniscule in comparison to the amount held in fat, AT ANY TIME. I already agreed the most appropriate measure of half-life was in curculation. I understand that the more there is around the faster the rate at which you will see the action.
This does not have anything to do with the conundrum of receptor site availability, and the problems that I am addressing with regard to excessive influxes of active steroid that go unused, wasted, and strain the system to remove. If you read some of the other posts.threads associated, you would realize what I am after. I am addressing the whole interesting problem associated with muscle site saturation, vs. accumulated body fat saturation, as they relate to usage. I am pointing out the relevance that if one were to inject one single glute with 500mgs test cyp twice a week, they would see sharp rises in circulating TT levels LONG before the same person that rotated this injection schedule between (8) large muscle groups. Thus also highlighting the poor choice of an ester longer than PROP for AAS purposes AT ANY RATE. This brings other factors to light such as site location in relation to the body and preferential areas of heavy fat storage, as well as other issues.
So the long and the short is that yes, drugs obviously have a metabolism half life in action. ONCE IN ACTION. To assign a half life to a drug that is so fatty soluble, and has esters that must be broken in order to even use it (become the active drug), is somewhat of a MISNOMER, when we dont even know the factors involved regulating the storage prinicples for sure. A simple change in the body's basic game plan as to whether or not it is currently choosing to access fat ( or dietary intake), would even result in large discrepancies. Considering this and many more variables that I dare not mention, FOR AAS PURPOSES, "half-life", is most definitely a MISNOMER...... If not the root of 80% of cycles today as incorrect, as they appear born out of this misunderstanding. Yes 80% is a constructive guess, so save your banther to that regard.... I enjoy your participation always. So keep up the good work!!
By the by... Tell YUR MOMMA I said HELLO!!! And remember, if you are really good for the rest of the year, I might see to it that you get that shiny red bicycle this Christmass!!!!!
[)]
Regards....
Wiki
A misnomer is a term which suggests an interpretation that is known to be untrue. Such incorrect terms sometimes derived their names because of the form, action, or origin of the subject becoming named popularly or widely referenced—long before their true natures were known.
Webster:
Main Entry: mis·no·mer
Pronunciation: \?mis-?n?-m?r\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English misnoumer, from Anglo-French mesnomer, from mes- mis- + nomer to name, from Latin nominare — more at nominate
Date: 15th century
1 : the misnaming of a person in a legal instrument
2 a : a use of a wrong or inappropriate name b : a wrong name or inappropriate designation
— mis·no·mered \-m?rd\ adjective
Lets take a moment and step outside that happy little place you live in. You completely missed the point of the drill. We are not speaking TECHNICALLY as STRAIGHT FORWARD. The attempt it to point out the relevant issues with the misunderstanding of Esters as another prospective to help gain majority understanding of the concept.
Folks have the general notion that the ester provides some "extended action" or life of the testosterone as a single unit, and not the release process. To apply the term "Maturity Date" is thus HIGHLIGHTING the fact that the Steroid is not even released into "combat" prior to a certain time span. And thus IT IS NOT SIMPLE ALL ACTIVE AND TICKING DOWN TO THE DAY IT WON'T WORK ANYMORE.... That is all. This concept is not understood.. And just the same AAS is improperly used do to this lack of understanding. To point out that there is a "release Date" for each and every ester, upon which it is broken, and depending on its level of saturation away from general cirulation.
So yes, some esters are metabolized within a week, and some are not metabolized for 2 months probably. So they do indeed have different dates in which the Steroid becomes available.
FORGET CIRCULATING STEROIDS. This count is miniscule in comparison to the amount held in fat, AT ANY TIME. I already agreed the most appropriate measure of half-life was in curculation. I understand that the more there is around the faster the rate at which you will see the action.
This does not have anything to do with the conundrum of receptor site availability, and the problems that I am addressing with regard to excessive influxes of active steroid that go unused, wasted, and strain the system to remove. If you read some of the other posts.threads associated, you would realize what I am after. I am addressing the whole interesting problem associated with muscle site saturation, vs. accumulated body fat saturation, as they relate to usage. I am pointing out the relevance that if one were to inject one single glute with 500mgs test cyp twice a week, they would see sharp rises in circulating TT levels LONG before the same person that rotated this injection schedule between (8) large muscle groups. Thus also highlighting the poor choice of an ester longer than PROP for AAS purposes AT ANY RATE. This brings other factors to light such as site location in relation to the body and preferential areas of heavy fat storage, as well as other issues.
So the long and the short is that yes, drugs obviously have a metabolism half life in action. ONCE IN ACTION. To assign a half life to a drug that is so fatty soluble, and has esters that must be broken in order to even use it (become the active drug), is somewhat of a MISNOMER, when we dont even know the factors involved regulating the storage prinicples for sure. A simple change in the body's basic game plan as to whether or not it is currently choosing to access fat ( or dietary intake), would even result in large discrepancies. Considering this and many more variables that I dare not mention, FOR AAS PURPOSES, "half-life", is most definitely a MISNOMER...... If not the root of 80% of cycles today as incorrect, as they appear born out of this misunderstanding. Yes 80% is a constructive guess, so save your banther to that regard.... I enjoy your participation always. So keep up the good work!!
By the by... Tell YUR MOMMA I said HELLO!!! And remember, if you are really good for the rest of the year, I might see to it that you get that shiny red bicycle this Christmass!!!!!
[)]Regards....
Furhter, quit attacking out dedicated newbies. Stetch defended me fairly. You know why? BECAUSE HE UNDERSTANDS WHAT I HAVE EXPLAINED. We do not all sit atop a cloud of heavily intocerted hot air.... In fact, while there is a hurricane if it blowing out of your ass, MOST of us are laymen, and we need solid layman type interaction. I AM HERE TO BRIDGE THE GAP!!!!!!! Thanks again stretch for your support.....
Conciliator, quite possibly the problem is that some of what you write is not so, and BBC3 has seen this before, and therefore he doesn't necessarily accept what you say simply because you said it.
For example,
I'm sorry but this is totally screwed up.
A brief way for you to see this: Suppose that a drug had the exact same kinetics except for terminal half-life, which in our example is extremely long.
It does take some time for an injected steroid to be redistributed throughout the body, but when this occurs its chemical potential (you could call this "percent saturation" as a simplification) is the same everywhere.
Net mass transfer only occurs where difference in chemical potential drives the transfer.
E.g., if the chemical potential is high at the injection site but low elsewhere in the body, redistribution would occur; but if chemical potentials are the same due to having reached equilibrium, then there will be no further net transfer.
Now, if a drug's terminal half-life is short -- it is metabolized rapidly -- then this causes a lesser chemical potential in the serum than is the case in, for example, bodyfat, and transfer will occur of further drug from those tissues to the serum. The rate will be essentially identical to the rate of elimination, which is why the rate of elimination follows a smooth curve.
There is, by weight, only a truly tiny amount present in the serum. The serum maintains smooth levels with a very gradual fall due to the process I described above.
So, in our example, we've waited long enough for chemical potential to be essentially equal everywhere, and so further net transfer will occur only if a change in chemical potential is created so as to drive that.
If half-life of the first metabolic conversion is short, then that results in faster mass transfer.
If it were virtually zero, then the amount eliminated per unit time would be virtually zero and the duration of action would be extremely long.
The difference being the rate of first metabolic conversion, which here is de-esterification.
You were entirely incorrect to assert that metabolism was not the limiting step in the case of long-acting drugs.
Rather the reason that long-chain (highly hydrophobic) steroid esters undergo slower metabolism is because of lower -- extremely low -- water solubility resulting in very slow rate of de-esterification.
And no, I am not going to get into another ridiculous back and forth with you. I've explained it plainly enough, and I thoroughly expect that you will be certain that I am wrong and you are of course right. To prove the matter to you rather than give a simple explanation would really only be possible if you got a quite considerable degree of education in the relevant sciences.
So you are free to reject that, if you like.
But perhaps this explains why people don't necessarily buy into your arguments followed by your accusations of idiocy of the other party.
For example,
I'm sorry but this is totally screwed up.
A brief way for you to see this: Suppose that a drug had the exact same kinetics except for terminal half-life, which in our example is extremely long.
It does take some time for an injected steroid to be redistributed throughout the body, but when this occurs its chemical potential (you could call this "percent saturation" as a simplification) is the same everywhere.
Net mass transfer only occurs where difference in chemical potential drives the transfer.
E.g., if the chemical potential is high at the injection site but low elsewhere in the body, redistribution would occur; but if chemical potentials are the same due to having reached equilibrium, then there will be no further net transfer.
Now, if a drug's terminal half-life is short -- it is metabolized rapidly -- then this causes a lesser chemical potential in the serum than is the case in, for example, bodyfat, and transfer will occur of further drug from those tissues to the serum. The rate will be essentially identical to the rate of elimination, which is why the rate of elimination follows a smooth curve.
There is, by weight, only a truly tiny amount present in the serum. The serum maintains smooth levels with a very gradual fall due to the process I described above.
So, in our example, we've waited long enough for chemical potential to be essentially equal everywhere, and so further net transfer will occur only if a change in chemical potential is created so as to drive that.
If half-life of the first metabolic conversion is short, then that results in faster mass transfer.
If it were virtually zero, then the amount eliminated per unit time would be virtually zero and the duration of action would be extremely long.
The difference being the rate of first metabolic conversion, which here is de-esterification.
You were entirely incorrect to assert that metabolism was not the limiting step in the case of long-acting drugs.
Rather the reason that long-chain (highly hydrophobic) steroid esters undergo slower metabolism is because of lower -- extremely low -- water solubility resulting in very slow rate of de-esterification.
And no, I am not going to get into another ridiculous back and forth with you. I've explained it plainly enough, and I thoroughly expect that you will be certain that I am wrong and you are of course right. To prove the matter to you rather than give a simple explanation would really only be possible if you got a quite considerable degree of education in the relevant sciences.
So you are free to reject that, if you like.
But perhaps this explains why people don't necessarily buy into your arguments followed by your accusations of idiocy of the other party.
Last edited:
I fear I was only a pawn. A means to this end. Bill, you took the bait....
Before I Totally step back, and let "The Master" take you legs right out from under you, as you will so certainly put your head on this perverbial chopping block, I have one final.
I have already explained one of the misconceptions with drug half-lives as this can be confused with the the term, as it is used in nuclear chemistry, as half-life to that respect means the inception of an entirely new element in some cases. Where yes there are still similarities to general premise, they are different. An radioactive element of this nature may spend only 50 days at the first "half-life", and then spend 2000 days at the next one, and so on. I AM ONLY PROVING THE TERM IS DYNAMIC IN USAGE. But not only that, there would appear to be some dynamics the the actual usage for drug metabolism half-lifes, when you consider a drug like T cyp. To label TCYP as a "half-life" of 8 days for one, is relatively speculative at best, and dependant upon the principle of application. There would also appear to be at least (4) different stages of application depending on where the drug is currently in the human system, thus denoting extremely varied actions of metabolsm, with applicable variables we simply due not address to wind up at the end, as our means are not served by the "books" to which you hold so dear....
An even further confusion in the aspect of drug elimination half lives is the fact the many are not held in fat at all, and yet they have half lives. Thus I was highlighting the relevance of the ONLY TRUELY KNOWN HALF LIFE OF CYP AS BLOOD CIRCULATING. The rest is for any "body" to say. Take a drug like tylenol. I am guessing it is not fatty soluble at all. This could also be denoted by the fact that it dissolves in a glass of water. HOWEVER, it lasts in the system for an estended time due to its half life in relation to how quickly the liver can deal with it. So its half life is primarily determined solely by its ability to withstand the action of the liver. Some are removed by the kidneys (advil), and hence the same. WHile I am not totally accurate as you would like, the point is fairly made. SO AGAIN, TO ASSIGN TCYP A 'HALF-LIFE" is somewhat of a MISNOMER..... Ahhhh, you bring me so much pleasure............ I need a "smile" for SATISFACTION...
It is clear you have not learned the age old wisdom of never drawing lines in the sand. I will now DO YOU A FAVOR and offer you #2..... CHOOSE YOUR BATTLES WISELY....... So eager to stamp out common sense are we? So ready to take the work/word of others as singular gospel. It was not intended as such. You have only enslaved it in this manner. Without a brain to think, your toolbox is has less value that an erector set. And at least then, creativity is not only allowed, but encouraged... Perhaps I will have her get you one of those too.....
We must work on your balance young one. The ideals, theory, and literal foundation that your that your University propagated intellactual bubble provide you with, also serve to shield you from truth in general and real application. One day you may be ready to actually attempt to practive lesson #3, Tooting you own horn.... It is experience that I fear you lack. The final piece to your puzzle. You are not yet ready yound Padawon......
Thank you Bill for again interjecting. I realize as it was not so much in my defense, and clearly to further explain you lessons, I appreciate the support you offered.......
Before I Totally step back, and let "The Master" take you legs right out from under you, as you will so certainly put your head on this perverbial chopping block, I have one final.
I have already explained one of the misconceptions with drug half-lives as this can be confused with the the term, as it is used in nuclear chemistry, as half-life to that respect means the inception of an entirely new element in some cases. Where yes there are still similarities to general premise, they are different. An radioactive element of this nature may spend only 50 days at the first "half-life", and then spend 2000 days at the next one, and so on. I AM ONLY PROVING THE TERM IS DYNAMIC IN USAGE. But not only that, there would appear to be some dynamics the the actual usage for drug metabolism half-lifes, when you consider a drug like T cyp. To label TCYP as a "half-life" of 8 days for one, is relatively speculative at best, and dependant upon the principle of application. There would also appear to be at least (4) different stages of application depending on where the drug is currently in the human system, thus denoting extremely varied actions of metabolsm, with applicable variables we simply due not address to wind up at the end, as our means are not served by the "books" to which you hold so dear....
An even further confusion in the aspect of drug elimination half lives is the fact the many are not held in fat at all, and yet they have half lives. Thus I was highlighting the relevance of the ONLY TRUELY KNOWN HALF LIFE OF CYP AS BLOOD CIRCULATING. The rest is for any "body" to say. Take a drug like tylenol. I am guessing it is not fatty soluble at all. This could also be denoted by the fact that it dissolves in a glass of water. HOWEVER, it lasts in the system for an estended time due to its half life in relation to how quickly the liver can deal with it. So its half life is primarily determined solely by its ability to withstand the action of the liver. Some are removed by the kidneys (advil), and hence the same. WHile I am not totally accurate as you would like, the point is fairly made. SO AGAIN, TO ASSIGN TCYP A 'HALF-LIFE" is somewhat of a MISNOMER..... Ahhhh, you bring me so much pleasure............ I need a "smile" for SATISFACTION...
It is clear you have not learned the age old wisdom of never drawing lines in the sand. I will now DO YOU A FAVOR and offer you #2..... CHOOSE YOUR BATTLES WISELY....... So eager to stamp out common sense are we? So ready to take the work/word of others as singular gospel. It was not intended as such. You have only enslaved it in this manner. Without a brain to think, your toolbox is has less value that an erector set. And at least then, creativity is not only allowed, but encouraged... Perhaps I will have her get you one of those too.....
We must work on your balance young one. The ideals, theory, and literal foundation that your that your University propagated intellactual bubble provide you with, also serve to shield you from truth in general and real application. One day you may be ready to actually attempt to practive lesson #3, Tooting you own horn.... It is experience that I fear you lack. The final piece to your puzzle. You are not yet ready yound Padawon......
Thank you Bill for again interjecting. I realize as it was not so much in my defense, and clearly to further explain you lessons, I appreciate the support you offered.......
I am sorry, but you're mistaken, Despite what you think, what I said is entirely supported by several references. I started a new thread devoted to that. I wanted to 1) make it painfully obvious that what I said was correct and 2) encourage a response from you.
The first "metabolic conversion" is hydrolysis of the ester into the parent drug after it leaves the depot and enters the body. This is the absorption phase.
Metabolism of the esterfied prodrug is not what I'm talking about. When I say clearance or elimination, I'm talking about metabolism and clearance of the parent drug, active testosterone.
Agreed.
The new thread I started, and the numerous references I provided, clearly demonstrates that this is the case. This is now the second debate we've had in which I've lost faith in your reasoning and knowledge.
I was just reviewing this. In case there was any confusion, there were only TWO sentences directed at Bill, the first and the last. The rest was for Conciboy.......... Bill Roberts IS "The Master" to which I graciously support....... Conciboy is the legless one......[)]
)]I fear I was only a pawn. A means to this end. Bill, you took the bait....
Before I Totally step back, and let "The Master" take you legs right out from under you, as you will so certainly put your head on this perverbial chopping block, I have one final.
I have already explained one of the misconceptions with drug half-lives as this can be confused with the the term, as it is used in nuclear chemistry, as half-life to that respect means the inception of an entirely new element in some cases. Where yes there are still similarities to general premise, they are different. An radioactive element of this nature may spend only 50 days at the first "half-life", and then spend 2000 days at the next one, and so on. I AM ONLY PROVING THE TERM IS DYNAMIC IN USAGE. But not only that, there would appear to be some dynamics the the actual usage for drug metabolism half-lifes, when you consider a drug like T cyp. To label TCYP as a "half-life" of 8 days for one, is relatively speculative at best, and dependant upon the principle of application. There would also appear to be at least (4) different stages of application depending on where the drug is currently in the human system, thus denoting extremely varied actions of metabolsm, with applicable variables we simply due not address to wind up at the end, as our means are not served by the "books" to which you hold so dear....
An even further confusion in the aspect of drug elimination half lives is the fact the many are not held in fat at all, and yet they have half lives. Thus I was highlighting the relevance of the ONLY TRUELY KNOWN HALF LIFE OF CYP AS BLOOD CIRCULATING. The rest is for any "body" to say. Take a drug like tylenol. I am guessing it is not fatty soluble at all. This could also be denoted by the fact that it dissolves in a glass of water. HOWEVER, it lasts in the system for an estended time due to its half life in relation to how quickly the liver can deal with it. So its half life is primarily determined solely by its ability to withstand the action of the liver. Some are removed by the kidneys (advil), and hence the same. WHile I am not totally accurate as you would like, the point is fairly made. SO AGAIN, TO ASSIGN TCYP A 'HALF-LIFE" is somewhat of a MISNOMER..... Ahhhh, you bring me so much pleasure............ I need a "smile" for SATISFACTION...
It is clear you have not learned the age old wisdom of never drawing lines in the sand. I will now DO YOU A FAVOR and offer you #2..... CHOOSE YOUR BATTLES WISELY....... So eager to stamp out common sense are we? So ready to take the work/word of others as singular gospel. It was not intended as such. You have only enslaved it in this manner. Without a brain to think, your toolbox is has less value that an erector set. And at least then, creativity is not only allowed, but encouraged... Perhaps I will have her get you one of those too.....
We must work on your balance young one. The ideals, theory, and literal foundation that your that your University propagated intellactual bubble provide you with, also serve to shield you from truth in general and real application. One day you may be ready to actually attempt to practive lesson #3, Tooting you own horn.... It is experience that I fear you lack. The final piece to your puzzle. You are not yet ready yound Padawon......
Thank you Bill for again interjecting. I realize as it was not so much in my defense, and clearly to further explain you lessons, I appreciate the support you offered.......
Not to worry!
Similar threads
