Making injectable superdrol....
- 06-07-2006, 01:49 PM
- 06-07-2006, 01:50 PM
06-07-2006, 01:51 PM
06-07-2006, 01:56 PM
Idk a whole lot about all this stuff, but when i read this, i was thinking how it is methylated to be delivered through the stomach, being injected in the blood would make the methyl go to the heart and sounds unsafe to me...
06-07-2006, 02:02 PM
One does not inject AAS intravenously, but rather AAS are injected intramusclar. Methylated AAS are sometimes injected IM such as winstrol but it is not necessary in most cases.Originally Posted by AndroAnarchy
06-07-2006, 02:03 PM
06-07-2006, 02:40 PM
i was thinking it would be cost effective , in a way even tho superdrol aint that expensive, but i would be nice to see the results and the effects, but i'll hold off......but it will be a future experiment
06-07-2006, 03:22 PM
cost effective how? You get basically all the active chemical by taking it orally, how much more are you going to get by injecting? With cost of filters, oils, needles you would be wasting money for something that is almost 100% absorbed when taken orally. Results would be the same as taking it orally, so i dont get what you would gain from injecting it.Originally Posted by RDXg0d
06-07-2006, 04:21 PM
I'm not going to dismiss the idea entirely - it may reduce the "harsh sides" so many people worry about?
06-07-2006, 05:31 PM
06-07-2006, 05:33 PM
Not really. Its designed to pass through your liver and then do its magic. By injecting it, your taking away a huge part of the process. Really dont know what the result of that skipped process might be.Originally Posted by Hbs6
06-07-2006, 05:34 PM
Not everybody has "harsh sides" from it. I've actually had no sides at all. Even more i felt awsome on it. And you are putting the same chemical compund in you, what makes you think that you're body is going to react any different than it would orally?Originally Posted by Jason_L
06-07-2006, 09:22 PM
LOL.. how you "felt" means very little. It's about liver stress, lipids, etc., which can be hitting you hard w/o you even knowing it. All of which are significantly worse with orals vs popular injectables. Particularly methyls, as they are liver-toxic. Bypassing first-pass (ie, pinning, TDS) avoids a lot of the liver stress. Thats often why folks can pin for much longer cycles then they can use orals - orals are just much harder on you and need to be limited. This is generalizing, but you should have uderstood these general principles before you did a cycle.Originally Posted by animalXXX
But superdrol is not a pro-hormone, it's a steroid, so there shouldn't really be any requirement for first pass metabolism. It's methylated, so it should pass the liver intact (at a price though).Not really. Its designed to pass through your liver and then do its magic. By injecting it, your taking away a huge part of the process. Really dont know what the result of that skipped process might be.
06-07-2006, 09:34 PM
again, it's about the toxicity of orals vs injectables. And there is often a big difference. In theory, if one reduced the toxicity of superdrol, they could potentialy use it for much longer cycles. Think methyl test vs injectable test...Originally Posted by Hbs6
I would research oral vs injectable winstrol to see if it is worthwhile, as it's a methyl.
06-07-2006, 09:41 PM
The only logic I can see in it is that it would only pass through the liver on the second pass and probably be a little easier on liver value's than oral. But like SnakeByte said, all the other stuff youd need to make the stuff would sort of eliminate any cost benefits.
I dont know how profound of an effect (if any) oral methasteron first pass liver breakdown has on IGF production. But I do recall that a criticism that was made about the injectable Dbol products, were that while it reduced liver stress, it also negated the IGF boost, wich was one of the great benefits of oral Dbol. But like I said, I've yet to read about oral methasteron's effect on IGF production.
06-07-2006, 10:46 PM
Can one inject dbol? yes.
Can one inject winstrol? yes.
The argument is not whether or not one can inject superdrol, but rather is it worth it? In my opinion, the answer is no.
06-08-2006, 02:52 AM
I know all of that... I did everything that I could to keep the lipid and liver in check. All I'm saying is that you have all these people crying about backpumps and headaches and a whole lot of other side effects which I never experienced. Anyways the truth is that in the end it's just not worth making it in injectable form. It's not cost effective.Originally Posted by Jason_L
06-08-2006, 03:27 AM
06-08-2006, 08:38 AM
Not everyone has the same needs, financial requirements, etc. I personaly wouldn't pin for my own reasons, but I have no doubt that there's some people who would be interested in it if it meant they could do longer cycles safely. Let's pretend for a minute that making superdrol and PP into an injectable was viable, and that as an injectable it had less sides regarding lipids, etc. I bet there would be people interested in stacking these in 10+ week cycles, etc., if they could. It might cost more then "regular gear", but they would potentialy have similar gains w/o dealing with source issues, etc. Granted, there's a ton of assumptions in those last few sentences, but I think it's a valid curiosity. I would think the more relevant, ultimate question would then become "would it be worth it vs homebrewing from fina or syno".Originally Posted by size
LOL - I just talked myself into your same stance - im my opinion, it's not worth it. Go get some pellets
06-08-2006, 09:35 AM
This is my thought process. Sure it can be done. Is it worth it though? Time it takes, possibility of mistakes in the preparation, possibility of heavier sides from injecting, etc.Originally Posted by Jason_L
06-08-2006, 05:59 PM
well i'd like to see some of these compounds available as injectables like we saw with the late prohormones .and superdrol may not be worth it for the homebrewer to make himself but some of the companys getting into the act could surely make it available at a lower cost for them in quantities also like prostanz or others with an ester , would be very nice.
06-08-2006, 08:30 PM
Okay...this is a no brainer.
17a alkylation makes oral bioavailability virtually equal to IM. SD is 17aa.
The liver filters blood over and over and over. Not just when you take it orally. So, 17aa AAS are going to kill liver values no matter what. Maybe the lack of first pass metabolism b/c of ingesting it will make "some difference", but I doubt it.
There is no point to taking 17aa AAS IM unless you just like to pin yourself.
06-08-2006, 08:47 PM
This is what I keep thinking to myself, the liver eventually gets rid of it which than causes the stress on the ol' liver. The only thing I could think of is you might get a little more out of it due to the fact that its in your body active before first pass, than is active after first pass, meaning it is the blood stream one more time round than just orally, will this make large effects? who knows, I just dont think it is worth it.Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
06-08-2006, 10:24 PM
I stand corrected. Any mechanism designed to allow the product to survive first pass to such a large degree (17aa), by it's nature would seem likely to survive second pass and continue to circulate and pass through the liver and do it's damage.Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
06-08-2006, 10:27 PM
One pass doesn't take very long. If it was deactivated to any great extent with each pass it wouldn't be as orally bioavailable as it is. The heart pumps approximately 1900 gallons of blood per day Howstuffworks "How Your Heart Works"Originally Posted by snakebyte05
Similar Forum Threads
- By RDXg0d in forum Supplement LogsReplies: 0Last Post: 06-07-2006, 01:49 PM
- By 2slow in forum AnabolicsReplies: 0Last Post: 03-31-2006, 02:48 AM
- By chode in forum AnabolicsReplies: 5Last Post: 03-28-2006, 03:09 PM
- By chode in forum AnabolicsReplies: 1Last Post: 03-24-2006, 11:45 AM
- By judge-mental in forum AnabolicsReplies: 10Last Post: 09-15-2005, 01:40 AM