Primordial Performance's 1-T Tren Write-Up!

[Trauma1]

Anybody got a answer for me with the oxyguno question, I know its a hdrol clone but I was just wondering. Ill probally just run the 1-t/tren by itself. I only ordered one bottle, how soon should you exspect to see results with this compund. I wont another bottle but I wanted to run it for a few weeks to see what I was gettin in to. Also does any PP rep know if PP is gonna be at the arnold next weekend?

To be honest, i would save the oxyguno for a different cycle. The 1-T Tren should give you some impressive gains over a 4-6 week period. I do recommend running it for 6 weeks to attain maximum effects. Let me know if you have any questions about setting the cycle up, i'd be glad to help out.

We won't be at the arnold this year, but it may certainly be a reality come this time next year.

[Trauma1]

I added in the contents of the formula, and application guidelines at the top of this thread. Sorry, left those off last night.

[flipjuice]

So it is ok to stack a oral with regular 1-T, but with 1-T Tren would should go solo?

[Primordial Perf]

Since this compound has excellent oral bioavailability, what would make this transdermal product stand out from the many other estra-4-9 diene-3, 17-dione products on the market? I mean 80 bucks for a product that most charge around 35, is a big leap in price.

What are manufactures claiming the oral bio-availability is? Are they citing any references?

I can’t image it being anymore than 8-10% just based on the molecular structure of the compound.

-Eric

[Primordial Perf]

So it is ok to stack a oral with regular 1-T, but with 1-T Tren would should go solo?

Yep, no need to stack anything with 1-T TREN.

1-T does do well to stack with another anabolic compound though.

-Eric

[Trauma1]

A few options with our new product:


1-T Tren

1-T Tren Twin Pack

1-T Tren Case

Xtreme Hardcore Muscle Stack

[Dragon13]

Why doesn't it "make sense?"

Well, because 1-Androsterone (1-T) as a transdermal makes perfect sense because of the enzymes in the skin converting more of the product, therefore allowing for more active to be available in the body. From what I understood, the Tren compounds were already highly bio-available, so unlike 1-T, the transdermal application didn't offer any specific benefits other than less hepatic stress, which "should" be low anyway as the Trens are non-methyl. So the question was posed more along the lines of, does it make sense at $80/bottle for the combo, as 1-T Tren has less 1-Andro in it than 1-T, or would 1-T + something like Tren Extreme be more cost-efficient?

However, after looking at what it would cost, it actually does looks cheaper to do it with 1-T Tren rather than 1-T + oral Tren. So, yeah, guess it does "make sense" from that standpoint too.

Nice work.

[Trauma1]

Well, because 1-Androsterone (1-T) as a transdermal makes perfect sense because of the enzymes in the skin converting more of the product, therefore allowing for more active to be available in the body. From what I understood, the Tren compounds were already highly bio-available, so unlike 1-T, the transdermal application didn't offer any specific benefits other than less hepatic stress, which "should" be low anyway as the Trens are non-methyl. So the question was posed more along the lines of, does it make sense at $80/bottle for the combo, as 1-T Tren has less 1-Andro in it than 1-T, or would 1-T + something like Tren Extreme be more cost-efficient?

However, after looking at what it would cost, it actually does looks cheaper to do it with 1-T Tren rather than 1-T + oral Tren. So, yeah, guess it does "make sense" from that standpoint too.

Nice work.

What studies or evidence supports this exactly? None i've ever read. It's VERY well known that oral compounds have MANY issues in general in terms of being adequately absorbed or utilized without having methylation in place. The first-pass effect destroys the majority of compounds that are introduced without this put into place.

Lymphatic delivery is another option, but ideals of actual absorbtion are speculative at best. Effective and sufficient enteral (oral) absorbtion, and subsequent systemic delivery of ANY compound or medication is far more complicated than most people think.

Transdermal based substances are utilized for the immense benefits they offer in general. Better typical absorbtion of said compounds in general (those without methylation), less compound degradation overall (which can result secondary to the hepatic first-pass effect), and without a doubt, achieving better results with a significantly less hepatic stress effect (That in itself is worth its weight in gold, trust me.)

Give it a whirl, i think you'll be impressed.

[flipjuice]

I am really stoked about 1-T and 1-T Tren, but I can't decide which way to go yet. Are we going to hear any info from the test subjects? What kind of gains did they get from 1-T Tren? Which product did they like better?

[AFOX]

Yep, no need to stack anything with 1-T TREN.

1-T does do well to stack with another anabolic compound though.

-Eric

I don't know, but if you're product increases it a higher rate we are all in for a treat. This compound taken orally, is by far my favorite PH of all time, and that includes everything pre-ban.
I can't wait to see the logs on you're product. I want to run this stuff to get ready for my 20 year High School reunion in June. Gots to look good for it baby.

[AFOX]

What are manufactures claiming the oral bio-availability is? Are they citing any references?

I can’t image it being anymore than 8-10% just based on the molecular structure of the compound.

-Eric

Oops, I meant to quote this post in my above response.

[Primordial Perf]

Well, because 1-Androsterone (1-T) as a transdermal makes perfect sense because of the enzymes in the skin converting more of the product, therefore allowing for more active to be available in the body. From what I understood, the Tren compounds were already highly bio-available, so unlike 1-T, the transdermal application didn't offer any specific benefits other than less hepatic stress, which "should" be low anyway as the Trens are non-methyl. So the question was posed more along the lines of, does it make sense at $80/bottle for the combo, as 1-T Tren has less 1-Andro in it than 1-T, or would 1-T + something like Tren Extreme be more cost-efficient?

However, after looking at what it would cost, it actually does looks cheaper to do it with 1-T Tren rather than 1-T + oral Tren. So, yeah, guess it does "make sense" from that standpoint too.

Nice work.

What do you mean by high oral bio-availability? I have not been able to find any credible source of information that shows the TREN molecule getting any better absorption than say, 1-AD. (which is only about 8%)

-Eric

[Dragon13]

And what studies or evidence supports this exactly? None i've ever read. It's VERY well known that oral compounds have MANY issues in general in terms of being adequately absorbed or utilized without having methylation in place. The first-pass-effect destroys the majority of compounds that are introduced without this intervention put into place.

Lymphatic delivery is another option, but ideals of actual absorbtion are speculative at best. Enteral entry and absorbtion of ANY compound or medication is far more complicated than most people think.

Transdermal based substances are utilized for the immense benefits they offer in general. Better absorbtion or said compounds, less compound degredation overall, and without a doubt achieving better results with a significantly less hepatic stress effect (That in itself is worth its weight in gold, trust me.)

LOL, come on, studies? On designer tren compounds? I'm pretty sure there are none, so I guess it's more bro-science than anything else. But honestly, as you yourself have run multiple methyls before, we both know a non-methylated product will place significantly less stress on the liver. That's just common sense. Whether or not the even further reduced hepatic stress from transdermal delivery makes much difference is open to opinion.

I have never run the Tren designers before, but from all accounts they are effective, if prone to sides. I expect the same from the PP product, if not better. I don't think anyone, even you guys, have any hard data on transdermal absorption vs oral delivery, but I was very pleased with 1-T, so maybe the 81 mgs of the 19-nor in 5 pumps of 1-T Tren will produce better results than 90 or even 120 mgs taken orally. That, however, remains to be seen.

I'm mulling over trying this, although I am afraid of these progestin-based compounds (gyno, BP issues). Either way, like I said in the earlier post, if one were to want to stack 1-Andro and Tren, this looks like the way to go.

[Dragon13]

What do you mean by high oral bio-availability? I have not been able to find any credible source of information that shows the TREN molecule getting any better absorption than say, 1-AD. (which is only about 8%)

-Eric

I don't think there is any data, that statement is admittedly based on anecdotal evidence. But then again Eric, and correct me if something has changed, you guys didn't have any hard absorption data for 1-T either (remember the whole Pat Arnold - Mike McCandless tag-team over on BB? If I'm not mistaken that was one of the things they wrre grilling you on). And 8% on 1-AD? If you don't mind, where did you get that data?

Look, I really liked 1-T, and I already said that upon further inspection is does seem like your product would be superior to a 1-T/oral Tren stack. I may even try it out.

[Trauma1]

The ability to effectively deliver sufficient amounts of bioavailable actives (of any said compound) into systemic circulation for primary utilization is key. This is one of the primary reasons why a transdermal delivery method is often implemented in use.

[Trauma1]

LOL, come on, studies? On designer tren compounds? I'm pretty sure there are none, so I guess it's more bro-science than anything else. But honestly, as you yourself have run multiple methyls before, we both know a non-methylated product will place significantly less stress on the liver. That's just common sense. Whether or not the even further reduced hepatic stress from transdermal delivery makes much difference is open to opinion.

I have never run the Tren designers before, but from all accounts they are effective, if prone to sides. I expect the same from the PP product, if not better. I don't think anyone, even you guys, have any hard data on transdermal absorption vs oral delivery, but I was very pleased with 1-T, so maybe the 81 mgs of the 19-nor in 5 pumps of 1-T Tren will produce better results than 90 or even 120 mgs taken orally. That, however, remains to be seen.

I'm mulling over trying this, although I am afraid of these progestin-based compounds (gyno, BP issues). Either way, like I said in the earlier post, if one were to want to stack 1-Andro and Tren, this looks like the way to go.

I'm talking more along the lines of delivery methods (oral (methylated or lymphatic/lipophillic delivery), injection, or transdermal) here though, which most certainly will effect the degree/amount of systemic bioavailable actives delivered. I'm not focusing on a specific compound in general per se, because essentially that can be a moot aspect in many ways.

There are plenty of supportive medical studies in regard to enteral, parenteral, and/or transdermal delivery methods, and the specific pros/cons they demonstrate, i can assure you that. Many medications in general are designed to utilize the benefits of that delivery method in their application.

Transdermal delivery methods will most certainly have a significantly lessened degree of hepatic stress, especially when we're talking about making enteral delivered (oral) medications/androgens bioavailable to systemic use (I.E. Methylation.) A non-methylated oral compound won't have a high degree of hepatic stress, you're right, but whatever is absorbed will ultimately face the hepatic first-pass metabolism effect. That in itself will significantly alter the amount of bioavailable active delivered.

You said that to your understanding that 'Tren' like compounds were 'highly bioavailable', however the degree of that is most certainly dependent upon the efficacy of the utilized delivery modality Which is what i've outlined above.

I agree that anecdotal-based evidence is the primary method of feedback at this point. I'm willing to get blood work done when i eventually run this myself. While still anecdotal in nature, it should add some insight overall.

The anecdotal reports we've received back from 1-T (myself included) have been fairly impressive. I'm glad to hear that you enjoyed 1-T yourself. As soon as the 1-T Tren logs start rolling in, i'll put them together in a consolidated thread as i did with the 1-T logs.

[Dragon13]

I'm talking more along the lines of delivery methods (oral (methylated or lymphatic/lipophillic delivery), injection, or transdermal) here though, which most certainly will effect the degree/amount of systemic bioavailable actives delivered. I'm not focusing on a specific compound in general per se, because essentially that can be a moot aspect in many ways.

There are plenty of supportive medical studies in regard to enteral, parenteral, and/or transdermal delivery methods, and the specific pros/cons they demonstrate, i can assure you that. Many medications in general are designed to utilize the benefits of that delivery method in their application.

Transdermal delivery methods will most certainly have a significantly lessened degree of hepatic stress, especially when we're talking about making enteral delivered (oral) medications/androgens bioavailable to systemic use (I.E. Methylation.) A non-methylated oral compound won't have a high degree of hepatic stress, you're right, but whatever is absorbed will ultimately face the hepatic first-pass metabolism effect. That in itself will significantly alter the amount of bioavailable active delivered.

You said that to your understanding that 'Tren' like compounds were 'highly bioavailable', however the degree of that is most certainly dependent upon the efficacy of the utilized delivery modality Which is what i've outlined above.

I agree that anecdotal-based evidence is the primary method of feedback at this point. I'm willing to get blood work done when i eventually run this myself. While still anecdotal in nature, it should add some insight overall.

The anecdotal reports we've received back from 1-T (myself included) have been fairly impressive. I'm glad to hear that you enjoyed 1-T yourself. As soon as the 1-T Tren logs start rolling in, i'll put them together in a consolidated thread as i did with the 1-T logs.

True. It boils down to how much active is delivered... but Trauma, I already do believe in trasdermal delivery! I'm not arguing that point at all. I liked 1-T and I expect, on a mg by mg basis, 1-T Tren will be as effective or more than 1-T + oral Tren, or oral 1-Andro + oral Tren. And it's cheaper. My whole point of contention in the original post was that transdermal delivery wasn't as "necessary" as it was for 1-Andro (b/c no conversion required), and at $80/bottle, would 1-T Tren be "needed" when one could run 1-T + an oral to get thye saem effect. After I find out it's actually cheaper, 2 thumbs up.

Also looking forward to the logs...

[NattyT]

How long will one bottle at 5 pumps a day go?

[Trauma1]

How long will one bottle at 5 pumps a day go?

4 Pumps/day = 27 applications

5 Pumps/day = 23 applications

[Trauma1]

True. It boils down to how much active is delivered... but Trauma, I already do believe in trasdermal delivery! I'm not arguing that point at all. I liked 1-T and I expect, on a mg by mg basis, 1-T Tren will be as effective or more than 1-T + oral Tren, or oral 1-Andro + oral Tren. And it's cheaper. My whole point of contention in the original post was that transdermal delivery wasn't as "necessary" as it was for 1-Andro (b/c no conversion required), and at $80/bottle, would 1-T Tren be "needed" when one could run 1-T + an oral to get thye saem effect. After I find out it's actually cheaper, 2 thumbs up.

Also looking forward to the logs...

I took what you said a different way i guess. No biggie though, i understand your statements here.

I look forward to the logs myself. It's time to get hyooge!