SD and Trest

Adam1

Adam1

Member
Awards
0
Alright. Anyone tried SD and Tr3st?

Thinking about doing it like this.
SD 15/22.5/22.5/22.5
Trest 50/75/75/75/100/100
Exem 12.5 eod
Armicare

PCT
Nolva 20/20/10/10
Super PCT

Feedback, tweeks and suggestions please.
 
Chados

Chados

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Trest as In ment or some ph? Well first of all don't go oral only, don't stack two orals. And for god sake don't go with the two of the most harsh compounds. If this is real trest you gotta go with nolva 40-20 not 20-10. I wouldn't just do nolva either. I wouldn't run this stack at all to be honest. How many cycles have you done and with what compounds?
 
AlwaysHungry1

AlwaysHungry1

Member
Awards
0
Just up a little the nolva on pct . If trest is legit is gonna be sick
 
Adam1

Adam1

Member
Awards
0
Tr3st by OL.
I had my reservations about running 2 orals....but have run lots of methyls stacked with non-methyls, back in the day. Ran trest before, logged with sup3r-11, sup3r-2. Was shut down big time but fully recovered. I am considering the Trest because of the lack of a base and don't want to be stuck in bed or on the couch with SD lethargy. I.E. why I posted this thread first.
 
Chados

Chados

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
No don't do this stack and that dosage is pretty high. You don't seem to understand how to use these things.

Don't go without test.
Don't stack two orals especially these two.
Don't use that high of a dosage if youve never even used it.

Just be safe man, this is not the best cycle and if you haven't used it before dosing it higher doesn't mean you'll put on more more muscles just more sides
 
Juicedeez utz

Juicedeez utz

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Trest isn't harsh.... converts to some mad potent estrogen and will shut you down hard being 19-nor derived but isn't methylated to my knowledge. Why the high nolva dosage? 40 would help keep more gains than 20... nolva is liver toxic too some coming Orr a heavy toxic cycle straight into high dose nolva won't help much for recovery.
 
Cgkone

Cgkone

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Trest and SD is not anymore toxic than just SD
Actually the PH to trest is better than oral trest.
40 mg of the PH will have you working out with a boner.
Now if your talking trest ace then obviously that wins over any pill
 
yates84

yates84

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Trest as In ment or some ph? Well first of all don't go oral only, don't stack two orals. And for god sake don't go with the two of the most harsh compounds. If this is real trest you gotta go with nolva 40-20 not 20-10. I wouldn't just do nolva either. I wouldn't run this stack at all to be honest. How many cycles have you done and with what compounds?
You sound like you just hit a 20 rock and are peeking out of the window.....that paranoia is a little over the top. Trest isn't even a 17a methyl so what's the problem? Sd is strong but his dosing is very conservative.
 
Chados

Chados

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I'm the least worried guy in the world but I do worry about others. I'm just saying its a big thing to just jump on and so is SD. This isn't exactly a mild steroid by any means. I don't see why he doesn't run test/ment. I don't understand why people go oral only even thought ment actually works alone it's still not recommend.
 
yates84

yates84

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
I'm the least worried guy in the world but I do worry about others. I'm just saying its a big thing to just jump on and so is SD. This isn't exactly a mild steroid by any means. I don't see why he doesn't run test/ment. I don't understand why people go oral only even thought ment actually works alone it's still not recommend.
Because not everyone wants to inject or has access to legit injectables. Trest is about the best legal alternative to test currently on the market and should help keep him going on the SD without adding too much more stress on the body. I find his cycle well layed out and pretty safe since he has prior experience with orals.
 
Chados

Chados

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
My thoughts are that if you don't want or you're to scared to inject you should probably wait. i dont see why people wanna go for the strongest compounds especially when they do oral only. And I don't know what experience even means in this case. So you survive an sd only cycle and you feel fine (now) hey let's jump on tren test and sd for the next cycle. Why the need to rush things so much? And he said trest shut him down like crazy and will use it to help with the SD? I'm not trying to tell him what to do I just think there's are better ways to do it and safer.
 

franks009

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
why put your body through pct just to do a mild ph or sarm to get little to no gains. Atleast youll have something to show for with this lol and ol trest is not methylated
 
yates84

yates84

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
why put your body through pct just to do a mild ph or sarm to get little to no gains. Atleast youll have something to show for with this lol and ol trest is not methylated
Trest is methylated just not a 17a
 
Adam1

Adam1

Member
Awards
0
I'm sure there's a chemist in here somewhere that wants to explain methyl esters
 
AlwaysHungry1

AlwaysHungry1

Member
Awards
0
Oral trest has a very little half life btw. Why you don't use transdermal but from what I've heard the transdermal trest by OL seems underdosed.
 
Adam1

Adam1

Member
Awards
0
Oral trest has a very little half life btw. Why you don't use transdermal but from what I've heard the transdermal trest by OL seems underdosed.
I ran a combination of OL oral trest and OL transdermal trest in the past I believe it was a six-week run and that was some major shut down so I don't know how underdosed it really is. Although I guess the shut down could have been the Sup3r-11. Either way, was a good strong stack and took some dedicated PCT. Gained several pounds and was strong as hell.
Zero notable estro sides. Actually still wonder what would have happened if I did not run the exem with it. Probably will never know cause I wont run Trest without an AI.
 
Adam1

Adam1

Member
Awards
0
Here is an old but good explanation or Tr3st:

methyl nor testosterone (ment), the chemical names are way off base (copy and paste. Word for word) so take it for what it is. I added another write up on page 3.

Androgenic 650
Anabolic 2,300
Standard Testosterone propionate
Chemical Names 19-norandrost-4-en-3-one-17beta-ol 17beta-hydroxy-estr-4-en-3-one
Estrogenic Activity low
Progestational Activity moderate

Description:
MENT, short for methylnortestosterone (acetate), is a synthetic anabolic steroid derived from nandrolone. This agent is also called trestolone acetate, although not as commonly. The trivial name methylnortestosterone is vague, and can also be applied to other steroids. In this case the "methyl" in the name, which is commonly associated with (-17 alpha alkylated androgens like methyltestosterone, methandrostenolone, or oxymetholone, is referring to a modification at (-7. This gives MENT a considerably different appearance than 17methylnoretestosterone (Orgasteron). Of most obvious significance is its method of use. Although perhaps possessing a moderate level of oral bioavailability, this nandrolone derivative was not designed for oral administration. It is much more effective when administered to the body directly, by injection, implant, or transdermal gel. In character, MENT is a strongly anabolic steroid, which is accompanied by moderate androgenic and estrogenic properties.
General steroid potency is usually increased with 7methylation, a trait well illustrated with MENT. When methylation increases steroid potency it is usually due to one or a couple of things, most notably increased resistance to hepatic metabolism (breakdown) or reduced affinity for constrictive binding proteins. In the case of MENT, we see a steroid with relatively fast metabolic breakdown, but no binding to SHBG (Sex HormoneBinding Globulin).593 Therefore, reduced binding to serum proteins seems to be partly responsible for making MENT a more potent steroid. When assayed in 1963, scientists reported an anabolic effect that was between 3.5 and 23 times greater than testosterone, while being only 3-6 times more androgenic.594 595 When investigated in primates in 1998, it was shown to have 10 times more anabolic potency than testosterone,_ with only 2 times the stimulatory action on the prostate.596 Its relative androgen receptor binding affinity was investigated a year later, and provided further explanation for the strong anabolic effect of this steroid. Here, MENT was shown to bind the androgen receptor more strongly than testosterone, nandrolone, or dihydrotestosterone.

MENT (methylnortestosterone acetate) was first described in 1963.598 The early 1960's were part of the heyday of anabolic steroid development, with new compounds being introduced into the journals almost every week. Like a great many of the effective steroids studied during this era, however, MENT didn't make its way to becoming a commercial drug product. For about four decades it sat gathering dust on the bookshelves, next to many other effective but anonymous compounds. Historically, lack of early financial support has been a death sentence for anabolic steroids. If a company isn't there in the beginning to spend the millions necessary to develop it into an 'actual prescription product, it isn't going to go anywhere later on. The money simply wasn't there for MENT in the 1960s, and it died. For a long time this agent remained a "nothing" in the world of steroids.
But things changed for MENT around the turn of the century, in a very dramatic fashion. On October 30, 2000, international drug giant Schering AG made a pubHc announcement that it had entered into a partnership to research, develop, and market methylnortestosterone acetate for both male contraceptive and hormone replacement use. This followed several years of sporadic but positive studies on this agent. The ball was set in motion, and this old steroid, which scientists had ignored for over thirty years, was suddenly amidst a hotbed of new research and speculation, the likes of which it had never seen before. In their press release, Schering AG makes promise of a new androgen that offers the anabolic and endocrine benefits of an injectable testosterone, but with less prostate growth, and more patient comfort. In other words, Schering is saying that MENT looks to be an easier to administer and equally useful steroid as testosterone, without the same issues concerning androgenicity.
The principle attraction Schering has to MENT is probably not necessarily its potency, but its ability to duplicate the positive effects of testosterone on muscle mass and male sexual function while minimizing stimulatory action on the prostate. Prostate cancer and benign prostate enlargement are very common problems among males in the U.S., and both diseases are fueled at least partly by androgens. This has led to a great deal of caution when it comes to androgen replacement therapy in older men. Although the medical data is still inconclusive in this regard, many physicians fear that the androgenicity of testosterone may lead to ill effects. After all, increases in PSA values with testosterone use in older men are well documented.599 Perhaps MENT is being introduced to alleviate this concern. Noticing the lower relative androgenicity of MENT, researchers concluded over a decade ago that it might be a far better option for hormone replacement therapy. To quote the researchers from the NY Center for Biomedical Research exactly, "We conclude that the use of MENT instead ofT for androgen replacement therapy could have health-promoting effects by reducing the occurrence of prostate disease."600 This is quite a statement, especially when we remember it concerns the use of a synthetic anabolic steroid.
Looking a little more closely at some of the recent studies conducted on MENT, we see a general trend of success and relative safety. Perhaps the most noteworthy to examine is the multinational clinical study that was conducted between 2002 and 2003.601 It involved the use of MENT implants as long-term contraceptives in males. In this experiment, thirty-six men were enrolled in three separate clinics residing in Germany, Chile, and the Dominical Republic (12 men at each). The study protocols itself called for the use of the implants for 6, 9, or 12 months, and required periodic examinations to measure their effects and potential risks. Three different dosages were used, which consisted of administering one, two, or four implants at the onset of the investigation. Each implant is designed to deliver about 400mcg of steroid per day, which equates to daily doses of .4mg, .8mg, or 1.6mg of steroid. The release rate is slowly reduced as the implant loses surface area, however, reaching approximately 200mcg per day by the one-year mark.
The results of the clinical trial were very promising. Four MENT implants (1.6mg/day) suppressed spermatogenesis with similar effectiveness as testosterone implants, testosterone enanthate injections, and testosterone undecanoate injections (all of which have been investigated successfully as contraceptives). MENT was able to produce azoospermia in 82°;0 of treated subjects, a figure that was actually higher than reported with 200 mg of testosterone enanthate per week (which produced azoospermia in 65-660/0 of normal male subjects by 6 months).As far as negative side effects, they were few.Two subjects noted increases in blood pressure that went outside the normal range, and one was forced to discontinue the study because of it (though no ill effect was noted). Otherwise, there was generally just a very small rise in systolic pressure (+4.8), and no significant changes in lipids (including cholesterol and triglycerides) or PSA values. Furthermore, prostate volume was slightly reduced (not increased) in all groups. Liver enzymes were increased slightly, but stayed within the normal range in all subjects. The mean time to the recovery of normal sperm production after discontinuance was 3 months, similar to that reported in a 1990 World Heath Organization study with 200 mg weekly of testosterone enanthate. Overall, MENT performed admirably, with a very notable (acceptable) level of effect, and minimal side effects. And what is more, the drug may be effective when being implanted as infrequently as once per year.
Another study of interest examined the ability of MENT implants to restore sexual behavior and function in hypogonadal (low testosterone) men.602 This, of course, is one of the principle objectives of androgen replacement therapy. This investigation took place in two clinics, one based in Ireland and the other Hong Kong. Twenty men participated in total, 10 at each location. The study was a double crossover investigation comparing the effects of testosterone enanthate (200 mg every 3 weeks) to that of two MENT implants (delivering .8mg of drug per day).This means that each of the twenty men had an opportunity to try both drugs, which were taken on two separate occasions between washoLit periods. Only minor differences in response were noted between MENT and conventional androgen replacement therapy, and both drugs were effective in restoring sexual behavior and erection frequency. MENT, at a dosage of 2 implants delivering approximately .8mg of drug per day, proved to be an effective option for androgen replacement therapy.
If Schering does market this drug as an implant, it will be impractical to use for bodybuilding purposes. At best it will need to be broken down and made into an injectable somehow. The clinical study discussed above used implants containing about 140 mg of steroid each. Given the same in a production drug, more than one implant will be needed for a workable cycle. There is some investigation into its use as an oral,603 which does seem feasible (although not ideal from a cost effectiveness standpoint). The key to this steroid's success with bodybuilders will really be the development of a commercial injectable.This will likely follow the release of Schering's product; perhaps even precede it. The raw powder is already available from suppliers overseas, so it should not take long for some veterinary or underground manufacturer to perceive value in this new agent. An acetate version will probably be closely followed by a slower-acting MENT ester, perhaps even something basic like MENT cypionate or MENT enanthate.
 
yates84

yates84

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
As stated previously, it's a methyl but not a 17a so minimal liver stress or toxicity. 7a methyl.
 
yates84

yates84

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Cycle is fine if you aren't interested in pinning. I made excellent progress for years running oral only cycles, doing PCT, then taking proper time off and starting over. I pin now but it was a natural progression and is not necessary imo. Yes, injectable cycles are easier on the body for the most part and gains are usually better kept but it all comes down to the user. I've been on both sides and there are plenty of good arguments for either side. In the end, it's ultimately what you think is best so run your cycle bro. It will be a good one. Have ran it before, myself.
 
brofessorx

brofessorx

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Alright. Anyone tried SD and trest

Feedback, tweeks and suggestions please.
Yea, I pulsed sd while running injectable trest for 5 months. Not a good cut cycle, great for bulking or strength.

I didn't run any ancillaries besides the occasional 1,000mg of Tudca if i noticed sides from the sd.
 
brofessorx

brofessorx

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Trest as In ment or some ph? Well first of all don't go oral only, don't stack two orals. And for god sake don't go with the two of the most harsh compounds. If this is real trest you gotta go with nolva 40-20 not 20-10. I wouldn't just do nolva either. I wouldn't run this stack at all to be honest. How many cycles have you done and with what compounds?

Lulz.
 
brofessorx

brofessorx

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
You sound like you just hit a 20 rock and are peeking out of the window.....that paranoia is a little over the top. Trest isn't even a 17a methyl so what's the problem? Sd is strong but his dosing is very conservative.
:banana:
 
brofessorx

brofessorx

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
I'm the least worried guy in the world but I do worry about others. I'm just saying its a big thing to just jump on and so is SD. This isn't exactly a mild steroid by any means. I don't see why he doesn't run test/ment. I don't understand why people go oral only even thought ment actually works alone it's still not recommend.
After running trest aka ment, I have zero desire to run trest and test. One or the other. Test is better imo, but if you can only get trest, it'll work as as good as test, just different.
 
brofessorx

brofessorx

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Because not everyone wants to inject or has access to legit injectables. Trest is about the best legal alternative to test currently on the market and should help keep him going on the SD without adding too much more stress on the body. I find his cycle well layed out and pretty safe since he has prior experience with orals.
Its comments like this that make me glad I experiment with compound the way I do.
I love sd, it's so damn versatile. I'll probably run trest again next time instead of test c.
 
brofessorx

brofessorx

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
My thoughts are that if you don't want or you're to scared to inject you should probably wait. i dont see why people wanna go for the strongest compounds especially when they do oral only. And I don't know what experience even means in this case. So you survive an sd only cycle and you feel fine (now) hey let's jump on tren test and sd for the next cycle. Why the need to rush things so much? And he said trest shut him down like crazy and will use it to help with the SD? I'm not trying to tell him what to do I just think there's are better ways to do it and safer.
Most act like little girls when sd lethargy hits them and all they wanna do is eat ice cream watch Netflix, and sleep

Of course there are safer ways! But how's he gonna learn for himself if he doesn't do it. Aas effect everyone different. He might be an anomaly, probably not, but he won't know until he tries.
 
brofessorx

brofessorx

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
I'm sure there's a chemist in here somewhere that wants to explain methyl esters
Well,uh huh.... let's see...
 
brofessorx

brofessorx

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
I ran a combination of OL oral trest and OL transdermal trest in the past I believe it was a six-week run and that was some major shut down so I don't know how underdosed it really is. Although I guess the shut down could have been the Sup3r-11. Either way, was a good strong stack and took some dedicated PCT. Gained several pounds and was strong as hell.
Zero notable estro sides. Actually still wonder what would have happened if I did not run the exem with it. Probably will never know cause I wont run Trest without an AI.
It wasn't the super 11. Fish androgens. Lulz.
 
brofessorx

brofessorx

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
I didn't read anything on this as the nomenclature is wrong. So it just screws everything else.

Here is an old but good explanation or Tr3st:

methyl nor testosterone (ment)

Androgenic 650
Anabolic 2,300
Standard Testosterone propionate
Chemical Names 19-norandrost-4-en-3-one-17beta-ol 17beta-hydroxy-estr-4-en-3-one
Estrogenic Activity low
Progestational Activity moderate

Description:
MENT, short for methylnortestosterone (acetate), is a synthetic anabolic steroid derived from nandrolone. This agent is also called trestolone acetate, although not as commonly. The trivial name methylnortestosterone is vague, and can also be applied to other steroids. In this case the "methyl" in the name, which is commonly associated with (-17 alpha alkylated androgens like methyltestosterone, methandrostenolone, or oxymetholone, is referring to a modification at (-7. This gives MENT a considerably different appearance than 17methylnoretestosterone (Orgasteron). Of most obvious significance is its method of use. Although perhaps possessing a moderate level of oral bioavailability, this nandrolone derivative was not designed for oral administration. It is much more effective when administered to the body directly, by injection, implant, or transdermal gel. In character, MENT is a strongly anabolic steroid, which is accompanied by moderate androgenic and estrogenic properties.
General steroid potency is usually increased with 7methylation, a trait well illustrated with MENT. When methylation increases steroid potency it is usually due to one or a couple of things, most notably increased resistance to hepatic metabolism (breakdown) or reduced affinity for constrictive binding proteins. In the case of MENT, we see a steroid with relatively fast metabolic breakdown, but no binding to SHBG (Sex HormoneBinding Globulin).593 Therefore, reduced binding to serum proteins seems to be partly responsible for making MENT a more potent steroid. When assayed in 1963, scientists reported an anabolic effect that was between 3.5 and 23 times greater than testosterone, while being only 3-6 times more androgenic.594 595 When investigated in primates in 1998, it was shown to have 10 times more anabolic potency than testosterone,_ with only 2 times the stimulatory action on the prostate.596 Its relative androgen receptor binding affinity was investigated a year later, and provided further explanation for the strong anabolic effect of this steroid. Here, MENT was shown to bind the androgen receptor more strongly than testosterone, nandrolone, or dihydrotestosterone.

MENT (methylnortestosterone acetate) was first described in 1963.598 The early 1960's were part of the heyday of anabolic steroid development, with new compounds being introduced into the journals almost every week. Like a great many of the effective steroids studied during this era, however, MENT didn't make its way to becoming a commercial drug product. For about four decades it sat gathering dust on the bookshelves, next to many other effective but anonymous compounds. Historically, lack of early financial support has been a death sentence for anabolic steroids. If a company isn't there in the beginning to spend the millions necessary to develop it into an 'actual prescription product, it isn't going to go anywhere later on. The money simply wasn't there for MENT in the 1960s, and it died. For a long time this agent remained a "nothing" in the world of steroids.
But things changed for MENT around the turn of the century, in a very dramatic fashion. On October 30, 2000, international drug giant Schering AG made a pubHc announcement that it had entered into a partnership to research, develop, and market methylnortestosterone acetate for both male contraceptive and hormone replacement use. This followed several years of sporadic but positive studies on this agent. The ball was set in motion, and this old steroid, which scientists had ignored for over thirty years, was suddenly amidst a hotbed of new research and speculation, the likes of which it had never seen before. In their press release, Schering AG makes promise of a new androgen that offers the anabolic and endocrine benefits of an injectable testosterone, but with less prostate growth, and more patient comfort. In other words, Schering is saying that MENT looks to be an easier to administer and equally useful steroid as testosterone, without the same issues concerning androgenicity.
The principle attraction Schering has to MENT is probably not necessarily its potency, but its ability to duplicate the positive effects of testosterone on muscle mass and male sexual function while minimizing stimulatory action on the prostate. Prostate cancer and benign prostate enlargement are very common problems among males in the U.S., and both diseases are fueled at least partly by androgens. This has led to a great deal of caution when it comes to androgen replacement therapy in older men. Although the medical data is still inconclusive in this regard, many physicians fear that the androgenicity of testosterone may lead to ill effects. After all, increases in PSA values with testosterone use in older men are well documented.599 Perhaps MENT is being introduced to alleviate this concern. Noticing the lower relative androgenicity of MENT, researchers concluded over a decade ago that it might be a far better option for hormone replacement therapy. To quote the researchers from the NY Center for Biomedical Research exactly, "We conclude that the use of MENT instead ofT for androgen replacement therapy could have health-promoting effects by reducing the occurrence of prostate disease."600 This is quite a statement, especially when we remember it concerns the use of a synthetic anabolic steroid.
Looking a little more closely at some of the recent studies conducted on MENT, we see a general trend of success and relative safety. Perhaps the most noteworthy to examine is the multinational clinical study that was conducted between 2002 and 2003.601 It involved the use of MENT implants as long-term contraceptives in males. In this experiment, thirty-six men were enrolled in three separate clinics residing in Germany, Chile, and the Dominical Republic (12 men at each). The study protocols itself called for the use of the implants for 6, 9, or 12 months, and required periodic examinations to measure their effects and potential risks. Three different dosages were used, which consisted of administering one, two, or four implants at the onset of the investigation. Each implant is designed to deliver about 400mcg of steroid per day, which equates to daily doses of .4mg, .8mg, or 1.6mg of steroid. The release rate is slowly reduced as the implant loses surface area, however, reaching approximately 200mcg per day by the one-year mark.
The results of the clinical trial were very promising. Four MENT implants (1.6mg/day) suppressed spermatogenesis with similar effectiveness as testosterone implants, testosterone enanthate injections, and testosterone undecanoate injections (all of which have been investigated successfully as contraceptives). MENT was able to produce azoospermia in 82°;0 of treated subjects, a figure that was actually higher than reported with 200 mg of testosterone enanthate per week (which produced azoospermia in 65-660/0 of normal male subjects by 6 months).As far as negative side effects, they were few.Two subjects noted increases in blood pressure that went outside the normal range, and one was forced to discontinue the study because of it (though no ill effect was noted). Otherwise, there was generally just a very small rise in systolic pressure (+4.8), and no significant changes in lipids (including cholesterol and triglycerides) or PSA values. Furthermore, prostate volume was slightly reduced (not increased) in all groups. Liver enzymes were increased slightly, but stayed within the normal range in all subjects. The mean time to the recovery of normal sperm production after discontinuance was 3 months, similar to that reported in a 1990 World Heath Organization study with 200 mg weekly of testosterone enanthate. Overall, MENT performed admirably, with a very notable (acceptable) level of effect, and minimal side effects. And what is more, the drug may be effective when being implanted as infrequently as once per year.
Another study of interest examined the ability of MENT implants to restore sexual behavior and function in hypogonadal (low testosterone) men.602 This, of course, is one of the principle objectives of androgen replacement therapy. This investigation took place in two clinics, one based in Ireland and the other Hong Kong. Twenty men participated in total, 10 at each location. The study was a double crossover investigation comparing the effects of testosterone enanthate (200 mg every 3 weeks) to that of two MENT implants (delivering .8mg of drug per day).This means that each of the twenty men had an opportunity to try both drugs, which were taken on two separate occasions between washoLit periods. Only minor differences in response were noted between MENT and conventional androgen replacement therapy, and both drugs were effective in restoring sexual behavior and erection frequency. MENT, at a dosage of 2 implants delivering approximately .8mg of drug per day, proved to be an effective option for androgen replacement therapy.
If Schering does market this drug as an implant, it will be impractical to use for bodybuilding purposes. At best it will need to be broken down and made into an injectable somehow. The clinical study discussed above used implants containing about 140 mg of steroid each. Given the same in a production drug, more than one implant will be needed for a workable cycle. There is some investigation into its use as an oral,603 which does seem feasible (although not ideal from a cost effectiveness standpoint). The key to this steroid's success with bodybuilders will really be the development of a commercial injectable.This will likely follow the release of Schering's product; perhaps even precede it. The raw powder is already available from suppliers overseas, so it should not take long for some veterinary or underground manufacturer to perceive value in this new agent. An acetate version will probably be closely followed by a slower-acting MENT ester, perhaps even something basic like MENT cypionate or MENT enanthate.
 
brofessorx

brofessorx

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
As stated previously, it's a methyl but not a 17a so minimal liver stress or toxicity. 7a methyl.
The 7a methyl prevents 5a reduction. 19nor andros become weaker when they interact with 5alpha reductase enzyme. This probably is what helps oral bioavailability a little bit.
 
brofessorx

brofessorx

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Cycle is fine if you aren't interested in pinning. I made excellent progress for years running oral only cycles, doing PCT, then taking proper time off and starting over. I pin now but it was a natural progression and is not necessary imo. Yes, injectable cycles are easier on the body for the most part and gains are usually better kept but it all comes down to the user. I've been on both sides and there are plenty of good arguments for either side. In the end, it's ultimately what you think is best so run your cycle bro. It will be a good one. Have ran it before, myself.
:banana:
 
Chados

Chados

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Most act like little girls when sd lethargy hits them and all they wanna do is eat ice cream watch Netflix, and sleep

Of course there are safer ways! But how's he gonna learn for himself if he doesn't do it. Aas effect everyone different. He might be an anomaly, probably not, but he won't know until he tries.
Thing is that there are far too many out of shape people running steroids. It just won't give you these crazy results if you're not in shape because most people want the body not the strenght and while they help they aren't nearly as effective to burn fat and drop weight as they are to bulk up. There are also way too many choosing the strongest compound when they're not close to be needing it.
 
Chados

Chados

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I understand the thing about needles but to skip test is kinda ignorant and its better to not do it at all. It's just tearing on your body 10 times to get the result of one or two test cycles
 
LAH813

LAH813

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
I just finished my cycle of SD and Tr3st. Was amazing. Gained well over 20 pounds and have kept (most of) it despite having my appendix explode midway through pct
 
Adam1

Adam1

Member
Awards
0
I just finished my cycle of SD and Tr3st. Was amazing. Gained well over 20 pounds and have kept (most of) it despite having my appendix explode midway through pct
My appendix exploded after a pig picking. Think it was caused by the vinegar based Bar-B-Q sauce...
 
Adam1

Adam1

Member
Awards
0
The 7a methyl prevents 5a reduction. 19nor andros become weaker when they interact with 5alpha reductase enzyme. This probably is what helps oral bioavailability a little bit.
Yeah, this sounds correct. I read it somewhere. Read a lot of stuff recently... It might be in the thing you did not read up there. Funny, you sound like a lawyer. Nomenclature is incorrect so what good is the rest of it? I don't disagree for the most part...Aside from the creative writing commonly used in the industry to name, rename and otherwise create proprietary names. (For what it is worth)
Oh yes, the write up is for MENT, "target of oral trest"..for what that is worth also.

Insert banana man animation
 
yates84

yates84

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
I understand the thing about needles but to skip test is kinda ignorant and its better to not do it at all. It's just tearing on your body 10 times to get the result of one or two test cycles
Huh? There's this cool thing called blood work that you get done if you use any kind of anabolic. My liver values etc were just as tanked on my first test e cycle as they were on all my oral only cycles. I actually bounced back from the oral cycles quicker via blood work. I literally doubled my starting weight without ever touching testosterone and was perfectly healthy and made plenty of gains. To say test is mandatory is quite ignorant.
 
Chados

Chados

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Well how do you know what the difference what have been? Also just because it works for you or it works one time.. I mean the logic here, you don't suggest something to others because you're feeling fine. I can do twice the amount my friend can and that doent mean he will be fine. I get great results on anything but there's just no competition if you run test with it and i get more out of it then 3 cycles of oral only.
 
yates84

yates84

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Well how do you know what the difference what have been? Also just because it works for you or it works one time.. I mean the logic here, you don't suggest something to others because you're feeling fine. I can do twice the amount my friend can and that doent mean he will be fine. I get great results on anything but there's just no competition if you run test with it and i get more out of it then 3 cycles of oral only.
Yeah, logic. You're the only person here being illogical. I'm at least speaking from experience, what are you speaking from? The side of your neck is what it sounds like.
 
DemntedCowboy

DemntedCowboy

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Well how do you know what the difference what have been? Also just because it works for you or it works one time.. I mean the logic here, you don't suggest something to others because you're feeling fine. I can do twice the amount my friend can and that doent mean he will be fine. I get great results on anything but there's just no competition if you run test with it and i get more out of it then 3 cycles of oral only.
Chados, just wondering. Do you know, or are friends with heyboy...Just wondering
 
Adam1

Adam1

Member
Awards
0
People get high and mighty with this parroting orals are bad and pins are good. The point is not to hear 50 comments about how pins are better/great/safe/blah. Everyone knows that orals are bad for your liver, it is a given. The point was to gather anecdotal feedback regarding the subject of oral trest and SD in particular. Thanks.
 
yates84

yates84

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
brofessorx

brofessorx

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
The nomenclature in the write up was for 19-nor testosterone.

No 7a methyl, and the precursor to ment is a dione and doesn't have a 3 ketone
 
Adam1

Adam1

Member
Awards
0
The nomenclature in the write up was for 19-nor testosterone.

No 7a methyl, and the precursor to ment is a dione and doesn't have a 3 ketone
Ok so they totally blew it. Will keep searching then.
 
Dma378

Dma378

Legend
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
My thoughts are that if you don't want or you're to scared to inject you should probably wait. i dont see why people wanna go for the strongest compounds especially when they do oral only. And I don't know what experience even means in this case. So you survive an sd only cycle and you feel fine (now) hey let's jump on tren test and sd for the next cycle. Why the need to rush things so much? And he said trest shut him down like crazy and will use it to help with the SD? I'm not trying to tell him what to do I just think there's are better ways to do it and safer.
Tren/Test/Sd...now we're talking!!!
 

Similar threads


Top