stanozolol inject vs oral
- Thread starter dubfungus
- Start date
jbryand101b
Banned
No difference, one is dissolved in water, the other isn't
Trauma1
Legend
Stanozolol injection is typically a water-based suspension (there is an oil-based but it's rare) that is more expensive and can cause some pretty stout post-injection pain.
The oral tabs are rougher on the liver, but are significantly cheaper and easier to find.
It all depends on what your plan/goals are here and if you have the extra cash to throw down. I'd still pick the oral route with this compound, though. I've used both and never seen any significant discernible differences.
-T1
jbryand101b
Banned
If you inject 50mg of winstrol, vs taking 50 mg orally, why is liver hepatotoxicity different? 50mg is going to be filtered by the liver either way.
Which is prob why you notice no difference.
Which is prob why you notice no difference.
Trauma1
Legend
Umm, not quite...
The difference between taking oral vs. injectable Winstrol, even though it’s technically the same drug, is how and when your body metabolizes it. The initial “first pass” can mean that only a certain portion of the drug reaches your body’s bloodstream initially to demonstrate anabolic/nitrogen retention effects right from the start. So in theory, you're going to get more bang for your buck using the injectable form by having more active compound present from the start when using similar doses, but I never saw a difference. They are still metabolized the same in the end, but that doesn't always translate to real world medicine either. There have also been studies that show a significant difference in reduction of SHBG between the oral vs. injectable. So, there certainly are differences other than simply route of administration.
I also had blood work done after having used both at different times that showed moderate differences in my liver function. Same outline to the cycles, different route of winstrol used. Purely anecdotal, but in my experience the oral was more harsh on my liver function.
-T1
The difference between taking oral vs. injectable Winstrol, even though it’s technically the same drug, is how and when your body metabolizes it. The initial “first pass” can mean that only a certain portion of the drug reaches your body’s bloodstream initially to demonstrate anabolic/nitrogen retention effects right from the start. So in theory, you're going to get more bang for your buck using the injectable form by having more active compound present from the start when using similar doses, but I never saw a difference. They are still metabolized the same in the end, but that doesn't always translate to real world medicine either. There have also been studies that show a significant difference in reduction of SHBG between the oral vs. injectable. So, there certainly are differences other than simply route of administration.
I also had blood work done after having used both at different times that showed moderate differences in my liver function. Same outline to the cycles, different route of winstrol used. Purely anecdotal, but in my experience the oral was more harsh on my liver function.
-T1
jbryand101b
Banned
Trauma1 said:
Interesting about the shbg, but the anecdotal evidence on the liver function I can't accept.
But I wonder what if any metabolites are formed during the first pass this would be the only thing I see that would change how the compounds acts in the body.
I should look more into this.
Trauma1
Legend
And I care why exactly? It's from my own personal experiences with my body to form my own conclusions; not as a scholarly or scientifically proven analytical reference for your science project. Thus why it's called "anecdotal"...
There are many pathways that can affect how any drug/compound acts differently within the body. Specific metabolites are one of many possibilities. You have to look along the entire pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic pathways.
One theory that has some evidence to support it is that oral winstrol is initially and directly interacting with SHBG during the first pass where it is synthesized. The studies I've seen have indicated this has a more direct effect on total SHBG reduction as a result. How much that translates into real world effects with each individual is debatable, but that's what's been scientifically presented previously.
-T1
jbryand101b
Banned
interesting. i'll have to take a look at the metabolism of winstrol.
and i was just saying, if you dont care, thats fine, though if you didn't think it was important, you wouldn't of mentioned it.
and i was just saying, if you dont care, thats fine, though if you didn't think it was important, you wouldn't of mentioned it.
jbryand101b
Banned
william llewellyn states oil injectables of dbol and winny should leave a depot in the muscle, allowing for e/o/d injecting.
also, he states there is no difference in hepatotoxicity of injectable methylated steroids, and their tablet counterparts (both dbol & winstrol).
also, he states there is no difference in hepatotoxicity of injectable methylated steroids, and their tablet counterparts (both dbol & winstrol).
Husker89
Banned
argument over and the winner is..........JBRY
Trauma1
Legend
Yeah, that proves absolutely nothing.
I find it hilarious how the sheep take everything william llewellyn says like it's gospel. I see know we've gone from water-based to oil-based for convenience or argument...
Where's the supportive/objective science to support that claim? Where's the human studies and blood work that shows direct correlation or contrast of data points? That's right, there isn't any. Do you know what that means?....it's anecdotal, not scientific fact or evidence-based.
What a fukcing joke...
-T1
I find it hilarious how the sheep take everything william llewellyn says like it's gospel. I see know we've gone from water-based to oil-based for convenience or argument...
Where's the supportive/objective science to support that claim? Where's the human studies and blood work that shows direct correlation or contrast of data points? That's right, there isn't any. Do you know what that means?....it's anecdotal, not scientific fact or evidence-based.
What a fukcing joke...
-T1
Trauma1
Legend
jbryand101b
Banned
Yeah, that proves absolutely nothing.
I find it hilarious how the sheep take everything william llewellyn says like it's gospel. I see know we've gone from water-based to oil-based for convenience or argument...
Where's the supportive/objective science to support that claim? Where's the human studies and blood work that shows direct correlation or contrast of data points? That's right, there isn't any. Do you know what that means?....it's anecdotal, not scientific fact or evidence-based.
What a fukcing joke...
-T1
i was just stating what was posted in the latest edition of m&d magazine, you've been on a while, im sure you know how to get in touch with bill if you want to question him on it.
jbryand101b
Banned
You're a classic case of the blind being led by the blind...
-T1
I understand you are a nurse, student, educated follower all that stuff, but i wouldn't go as far as saying im blind.
we can agree to disagree, cause neither of us have any proof yet, (but bill stated there were studies on stano's hepatotoxicity, so i'll have to look) but if you know of any studies, i'd be happy for the help.
until then, peace love and happiness. buddy. :thumbsup:
Trauma1
Legend
I have zero desire to use him for any type scientific reference, period.
I'm pretty sure that was already made pretty evident in the above post...
Trauma1
Legend
I'm sorry, did I specifically point you out for being uneducated or blind? I'm pretty sure I didn't. There never was an "argument" to be won; merely a discussion on a topic. You've mistaken my inference; which granted is easy to do in this setting.
I'm pretty blunt when I have a specific issue with someone or something, so no worries there. I think that's been more than evident over the years. I don't waste my time arguing on these forums anymore.
I'm all for an educated discussion, however.
Back at ya, braaaahhhh. :thumbsup: :240:
Husker89
Banned
ya I wouldnt dare post anecdotal evidence like YOU did about your experience with winny. I believe you said PURELY ANECDOTAL. I just take williams word over yours thats all.
Yeah, that proves absolutely nothing.
I find it hilarious how the sheep take everything william llewellyn says like it's gospel. I see know we've gone from water-based to oil-based for convenience or argument...
Where's the supportive/objective science to support that claim? Where's the human studies and blood work that shows direct correlation or contrast of data points? That's right, there isn't any. Do you know what that means?....it's anecdotal, not scientific fact or evidence-based.
What a fukcing joke...
-T1
Trauma1
Legend
Wow...
Yep, I sure did. It was my own personal experiences and views with my blood work. Which was clearly stated as being, anecdotal. Maybe you didn't read the OP's initial comment that says, "opinions welcome." Are you that dense that you can't even comprehend a simple statement?
Why don't you produce those scientific facts then that show his words to be....fact. Do you even understand what anecdotal means? You obviously don't...
Keep the blinders on newb. It's clear you're a sheep and don't have a fukcing clue.
-T1
MattPorter
Banned
There was once upon a time a oil based winny like t1 talked about and I swear that stuff at only 25 mgs a day blew oral winny at 25 mgs a day out the damn water. Of course purely anecdotal, but this was pretty amazing stuff at such a mild dose....
The water based such as desma's version is not worth the damn pain and hassle --- if you ever come across the glorious oil base --- consider yourself lucky...
-Matt
The water based such as desma's version is not worth the damn pain and hassle --- if you ever come across the glorious oil base --- consider yourself lucky...
-Matt
Trauma1
Legend
Agreed, Matt.
The water-based suspension definitely isn't worth the pain or extra cash involved. Thanks for sharing your experiences with it.
-T1