- 08-27-2005, 07:02 AM
- 08-27-2005, 10:11 AM
- 08-27-2005, 02:00 PM
Thats very interesting....I would feel uncomfortable starting pct 6 weeks after my last shot....
08-27-2005, 02:25 PM
08-27-2005, 05:36 PM
That is why you shouldn't go cold turkey off long esters.
Read the FAQ, it explains it quite well
08-27-2005, 05:38 PM
08-27-2005, 09:33 PM
08-27-2005, 10:03 PM
Now I really dont have the knowledge about what equations to use for half-lives and what is right, but I just dont know if I trust that calculator. I have ran a chart for a 10 week test enan cycle at 600mg/week using the equation given in this thread plotting release of different esters and ran it out to 3 weeks past the last shot, and the test levels in week 13 were down to around 100mg/week, just when recommended to start pct. According to the calculator given, running the same cycle at 10 weeks 600mg/week, cycle ends day 70, pct starts day 114...44 days later?!? Like I said earlier I dont exactly know the correct formula for figuring this out as there seems to be several out there, I am just really doubting this one.
I understand how the amount of esterfied hormone will build up in your body over time, but there will be a certain point where it will stop climbing, which using the equation I got from Skye, is around week 9-10 with test enanthate, figuring a 10.5 day half-life, so the absolute longest a shot of test enanthate could even be active would be 21 days, no matter if it was a 500mg shot or 2000mg shot, in 10.5 days half of the shot will be released and used up, then 10.5 days later the rest will be gone. I am sure there will still be some lingering around for awhile after that, but not enough to keep you suppressed 7 weeks later I doubt.
If someone with a better understanding of this subject could chime in and back me up, or prove me wrong, that would be great
08-27-2005, 10:56 PM
Remember, half-life follows a logarithmic scale and not a linear scale. Example:
2000 mg of Test Enanthate is present. 10.5 days later, 1000 mg is present. 10.5 days later, 500 mg is present. 10.5 days later, 250 mg is present. 10.5 days later, 175 mg is present (etc.) The PCT calculator does appear to be correct in its theoretical calulcations.
08-27-2005, 11:10 PM
..................mmmmmmmmmmm. ..................interesting! .............................Originally Posted by Klaus
08-28-2005, 05:58 AM
I don't know what equation you are using but peak levels of esterified testosterone usually happen within 6 weeks. Just take a look from your cycle on the calculator, view the cycle from day 1 and you'll see the levels peak much earlier than your other calculator devised.Originally Posted by NateDawg
Anyways, a few of your questions are also answered in the FAQ on that page. Give it a read, its fairly short.
08-28-2005, 07:48 AM
This is true, but in my experience x is always less than it should be. If you take a 1000mg shot of test e. on day 0, the value is shifted such than in 10.5 days only 400mg remains instead of the predicted 5. More is hydrolyzed initially and the calculation does not account for this phenomena. It is a matter of common experience because most fellas shoot more often than every 5 days with this ester.Originally Posted by Klaus
It is absurd to leave a 40 day gap in between a cycle and PCT! Try to get your statistics down to baseline before starting pct, but if not, start anyway because the commonly used SERMs have a long t1/2 too and require time to accumulate if not loaded up front. This is why I always take a long, 2 month PCT. There's no way around it. Sometimes I even bridge with a low-suppression oral the few weeks for a smoother transition. ACT has changed that now. It will solve this issue permanently.
08-28-2005, 08:17 AM
More is hydrolyzed initially? What are you basing this statement on?Originally Posted by DR.D
Most fellas do shoot more often than 5 days with enanthate. Why are you stating the obvious?Originally Posted by DR.D
I've said it before and I'll say it again. That is why you should not go cold turkey off long esters.Originally Posted by DR.D
08-28-2005, 09:23 AM
You kind of answered your own question. If more is not hydrolysed initially, then why shoot more often that every 5 days? Because in the real world, that calculation needs a special factor in it to account for this. It is good as a guideline though when planning doses for a cycle.Originally Posted by bulkmuscle
08-28-2005, 10:32 AM
You shoot more often than 5 days with enanthate so that your testosterone levels don't "seasaw" significantly and additionally to maintain a higher level of testosterone.Originally Posted by DR.D
08-28-2005, 11:06 AM
Doc, are you in agreement with the idea that for long runs of test E, your PCT should indeed start up to 6 weeks after the last shot? If so, it seems like running something or some things (much shorter acting) for most or all of those weeks is advisable?
08-28-2005, 12:36 PM
No, I totally don't agree w/ 6wks. Unless you can plan it just right, then that's fine. And yes, you can cut your shots at 6wks, or whatever, and finish off with an oral, or switch to a shorter acting ester. But 2 or 3 wks tops if you don't wanna blow the cycle. Just do a longer PCT. I have never agreed that recovery is impossible unless the last mg of ester is gone from your system. I have successfully cheated and bridged too many PCTs to believe that and can tell you otherwise.Originally Posted by milwood
08-28-2005, 12:49 PM
I gave the link to the calculator I was using bulk, did the link not show up? I did read the FAQ, and it really didnt answer any of my questions, if it would have, I probably wouldnt have asked them lol.Originally Posted by bulkmuscle
I agree with you on how it would be best to not stop cold turkey from long esters and run they cycle out a few more weeks with either an oral or a much shorter estered injectable.
08-28-2005, 12:57 PM
I agree with the idea of not going off a long ester like that, but if you do, there is no point to PCT if you don't wait the proper time, as you will simply just get shutback down.Originally Posted by DR.D
08-28-2005, 01:01 PM
I am pretty sure DR.D already knew this he even said first off that most guys shoot more often than every 5 days, which agreed with what you said, so I see no reason to argue that.Originally Posted by bulkmuscle
When he was explaining more is hydrolyzed initially than what the equations tend to figure, that explains why you would shoot test enan more often than every 5 days, yet you disagree with him stating that more is hydrolyzed than what the equation gives. If you agree with your equation being 100% correct, you should be able to get away with shooting every 5 days and keeping blood levels fairly stable with that dosing protocol since 5 days is about half of the 10.5 day halflife. So do you agree with your calculator or not? I am not trying to start any heated arguments, just want to figure out what exactly is right
08-28-2005, 01:05 PM
Sorry, I didn't see the link Reading through it nowOriginally Posted by Nate Dawg
08-28-2005, 01:13 PM
Like I mentioned earlier, I have no idea which way is right or how to even set up an equation for something like a halflife from scratch...algebra was my downfall, if you guys cant tell lol
08-28-2005, 01:21 PM
Would make sense that having exogenous test in your body would not hinder recovery b/c your body bases its shutdown on test production based on your natty levels, right? Therefore, if you've got a small amount of exogenous test left in the system--the body has no clue it's synthetic--so long as your test levels are within normal range, supression will no longer continue and recovery will be underway, right? Therefore, I'd assume even if you had like 100mg or so of Test E (etc) in your system, recovery would begin. A TRT dose of 100mg test/wk gives test levels around low-mid normal range, so I don't see any reason supression would take place (or at least not much supression) at that level.Originally Posted by DR.D
I don't believe HPTA supression is not dose dependent, personally. I don't know why I read so many people who think that hormone--> body == shutdown, regardless of dose, when it seems evident dose plays a role.
08-28-2005, 01:52 PM
I'm not trying to cause a ruckus eitherOriginally Posted by Nate Dawg
He said that if you inject 1000mg of enanthate, in 10.5 days there will be 400mg of esterified enanthate left. Then he gave no reason for this "magical" disappearance of 100mg. I just wanted to know what his reason was. A half-life is a half-life. Nothing changes about it just because it is your first shot.
On the topic of the article you posted. I should probably note that the time to start PCT is all dependent on what your base testosterone level is. I used a baseline of ~550 ng/dl from one of the sources listed on the page. 100mg of esterified testosterone resulted in a negligible change from baseline levels. So if your levels are naturally much higher, then you'd want to start PCT sooner. And if you don't know your baseline, you're really taking a shot in the dark with when you start PCT.
08-28-2005, 02:00 PM
t1/2 is hte time it takes for "half" of the hormone to dissappear. Its not linear, either. I forgot the formula, but its definitely not a linear decay.Originally Posted by bulkmuscle
08-28-2005, 02:25 PM
I don't know what your t1/2 is suppose to mean. I didn't say it was linear either.Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
08-28-2005, 03:18 PM
t1/2 = half life
08-28-2005, 03:37 PM
How is that a half-life formula?
08-28-2005, 03:41 PM
He didn't finish the equation..
Ke = Halflife
Ke = (LnCp(t2) - LnCp(t1)) / ( t1-t2)
08-28-2005, 04:13 PM
"Magical", OK, now you're starting to sound a bit derogatory. Please do not use fruity terms like that with me again. You can use whatever equation you like in your 'magical' world where the skies are purple and unicorns run free, I could really give a **** less.Originally Posted by bulkmuscle
Anyway, if you must know, the t1/2 is biphasic. So no, a half life is not a half live. Each metabolite of test has a different half live and the enzymes that cleave the ester are not steady. That's why more hydrolysis occurs initially. If it didn't, 1 shot ever 5 days would achieve steady state in just a few weeks. Plus, much of the hormone leaves the sight of deposit only to be sheltered in adipose tissue or converted into other esters of the bodies choosing. You are trying to make this black and white. It's not. Research the issue if you really want to know, I don't have the time to offer links or do it for you (because I already know), but please be respectful in the future. I was only trying to help elaborate on your equation when you decided to get ****ty. I really don't take much ****.
08-28-2005, 04:15 PM
t1/2 is the short-hand notation for spelling out "half life".....Originally Posted by bulkmuscle
08-28-2005, 04:16 PM
If you believe this is the best approach then I encourage you to wait 6 weeks before starting post cycle and see how you feel.
08-28-2005, 04:18 PM
Originally Posted by DR.D
08-28-2005, 04:18 PM
Originally Posted by size
08-28-2005, 06:16 PM
Alright well I don't know why you were posting that then because no one was debating what a half-life was.Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
I don't stop cycles on long esters anymore so I would never be required to start that late.Originally Posted by size
No need to get all upset. I didn't intend to offend.Originally Posted by DR.D
Anyways, when you say the half-life is biphasic, you are including the metabolite's half-life, correct? Cause I am only taking into account the ester's half-life which is not biphasic. I could not find any literature stating that testosterone esters were biphasic.
Assuming THEY were biphasic, you must have some source that you used to calculate that 100mg "disappearance" claim.
The majority of exogenous testosterone migrates to fatty tissue? Maybe if you're injecting into it...otherwise it resides in the muscle tissue until its picked up by the blood.Originally Posted by DR.D
I'm not trying to make it exactly black & white, but close enough to generate a proper PCT start time. Most of the other variables are negligible, unless of course the significant differences you claim can be substantiated with some literature. (Come on, you must have at least one journal article)
I have attempted to research your claims and I've come up with nothing. Perhaps you can provide me with a couple journal articles that I can read? I have no problem agreeing with you or admitting I am wrong, but when I can't come up with anything to back up your claims, bells are ringing.Originally Posted by DR.D
08-28-2005, 06:23 PM
Okay genius....I referenced half life with the notation "t1/2" in a sentence. You asked what t1/2 meant!!!!! So, I said t1/2 = half life.Originally Posted by bulkmuscle
Geezus....I think we have a newest "most dense" material on our hands....and its surrounding someones cranal cavity.
08-28-2005, 06:25 PM
See! ^^Originally Posted by bulkmuscle
I brought up half life (t1/2) b/c of the way you referenced doc's numbers. You were speaking of a "half life" and disappearing 100mg, etc. Nevermind...you wouldn't get it mr. e-ducated.
08-28-2005, 06:37 PM
Um no you gave the definition of a half-life which was already clear to everyone. I simply asked about the abbreivation which I'd not seen before.Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
Captain Obvious strikes again.Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
Now do you see what I said what I said?
08-28-2005, 07:03 PM
Kwycke,Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
Don't even bother bro! Let this punk figure it out the hard way. Some folks just have to learn for themselves that the equations don't add up. Years of mistakes, confusion, and trial and error will humble him. (haha, kind of reminds me of someone I once knew, but I was always much more interested in finding the real truth rather than 'being right')
08-28-2005, 07:29 PM
YOu were implying a linear relationship...therefore 1/2lift = 2x1/4 life in your little brain when that is not the case.Originally Posted by bulkmuscle
Its okay...I'm sure the gods take pity on the stupid...afterall, their ****up.
Similar Forum Threads
- By bentlax39 in forum Post Cycle TherapyReplies: 1Last Post: 04-10-2006, 10:26 PM
- By Havok in forum Weight LossReplies: 3Last Post: 03-22-2003, 11:49 PM
- By sage in forum Exercise ScienceReplies: 1Last Post: 01-18-2003, 12:19 PM
- By Matthew D in forum Weight LossReplies: 22Last Post: 01-16-2003, 09:21 AM
- By YellowJacket in forum Weight LossReplies: 3Last Post: 01-12-2003, 04:32 PM