Converting Methyls To Injectable Form: Let's Discuss

Mulletsoldier

Mulletsoldier

Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
First off, I like to preface this by saying I do realize that the Methyl group on these compounds allows for the most efficient and complete delivery in most cases. However, delivery and efficiency are not my concern, hepatoxicity is.

The compound of particular concern to me is Superdrol. I have run it twice, both times with relatively stellar blood panels; however, this was at a soft cap of three weeks and 30mgs, I would be very interested in possibly extending these cycles by converting some SDrol to injectable form.

Now, I also realize that Superdrol is basically unmethylated Masteron; however, anecdotally at least, these compounds are very different. My question, basically, is a two parter:

1) Given that small structure changes can vastly alter the effects/efficacy of steroids, would removing the methyl group for injection drastically alter an oral's performance

2) Does anybody know how to safely perform this 'experiment'?
 

PumpingIron

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Mullet, wouldn't preforming this experiment lead to you having to up doses for effectiveness? Also, wouldn't you need more of the oral compound to produce less of the injectible?
 
Mass_69

Mass_69

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Now, I also realize that Superdrol is basically unmethylated Masteron
Pssst... don't you mean 17a-methylated Masteron? Silly Mullet.


Aside from that, I don't have anything to add. But the idea in itself is intriguing...
 
Skye

Skye

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
First off, I like to preface this by saying I do realize that the Methyl group on these compounds allows for the most efficient and complete delivery in most cases. However, delivery and efficiency are not my concern, hepatoxicity is.

The compound of particular concern to me is Superdrol. I have run it twice, both times with relatively stellar blood panels; however, this was at a soft cap of three weeks and 30mgs, I would be very interested in possibly extending these cycles by converting some SDrol to injectable form.

Now, I also realize that Superdrol is basically unmethylated Masteron; however, anecdotally at least, these compounds are very different. My question, basically, is a two parter:

1) Given that small structure changes can vastly alter the effects/efficacy of steroids, would removing the methyl group for injection drastically alter an oral's performance

2) Does anybody know how to safely perform this 'experiment'?
I have a friend that removed the methyl from proviron and yes it acts completely differnt, the same with 1-test and m1T, you would not even guess that they were the same substances. So the answer to your first question is yes, it would alter the performance completely. It would also be much less harsh but far less effective as well.

yes to the second question but you really need a lab to do it. Removing methyl groups is more complex then adding or changing esters.

Then again you could just run drostanolone and probably get the same effects.
 

size

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
You can inject a methylated hormone. Injectable dbol was a failry common product a few years ago.

Changing the structure, changes the properties and actions of the drug.
 

Irish Cannon

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Sounds like way too much trouble for little (or even possibly less) improvement.

If your blood panels were okay, why not extend the oral cycle? If your body can handle it, why not let it?
 

Popa Murph

Member
Awards
0
I have a friend that removed the methyl from proviron and yes it acts completely differnt, the same with 1-test and m1T, you would not even guess that they were the same substances. So the answer to your first question is yes, it would alter the performance completely. It would also be much less harsh but far less effective as well.

yes to the second question but you really need a lab to do it. Removing methyl groups is more complex then adding or changing esters.

Then again you could just run drostanolone and probably get the same effects.
How did the proviron change? Had he or whoever ran the unmethylated proviron previously ran regular proviron?

While probably a futile subject I have wondered what would happen if you removed the methyl from some of these designer orals. This is an interesting subject..
 
Mulletsoldier

Mulletsoldier

Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Sounds like way too much trouble for little (or even possibly less) improvement.

If your blood panels were okay, why not extend the oral cycle? If your body can handle it, why not let it?
They were fine yes, but I imagine they would not have been for an extended period. I enjoy the effects of Superdrol alot, no sides whatsoever and incredible gains, I would like to run it for 6-8 weeks.

Skye-

The performance changing was basically my thoughts. Do you think that embarking on something like Size suggested would be any less hepatoxic? My thinking is that the methyl group would still survive first pass. Even intramuscular solutions eventually pass through the liver.
 
thesinner

thesinner

Recovering AXoholic
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
You can inject a methylated hormone. Injectable dbol was a failry common product a few years ago.

Changing the structure, changes the properties and actions of the drug.
Winstrol is another
 
BigMattTx

BigMattTx

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
I just dont see how you would ever get the same potency with less side effects. The world doesnt work that way sadly.

This idea is interesting BUT.... Orals are methylated for a reason. They are supposed to be strong and the stronger they are, the more havoc they wreak on your body....theres no avoiding that. Its always pissed me off as to why someone would inject winstrol or dbol and risk infection/accumulate extra scar tissue when they could just pop a pill or swallow the liquid.
 

Moyer

board observer
Awards
1
  • Established
I just dont see how you would ever get the same potency with less side effects. The world doesnt work that way sadly.

This idea is interesting BUT.... Orals are methylated for a reason. They are supposed to be strong and the stronger they are, the more havoc they wreak on your body....theres no avoiding that. Its always pissed me off as to why someone would inject winstrol or dbol and risk infection/accumulate extra scar tissue when they could just pop a pill or swallow the liquid.
Well take for example, as suggested earlier 1-Test & M1T. I would rather take injectable 1-Test for a longer cycle any day over M1T caps. Granted someone who loves M1T might feel differently.

Hold on a sec, wouldn't removing the methyl from superdrol actually just make it plain masteron?
 
jonny21

jonny21

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Hold on a sec, wouldn't removing the methyl from superdrol actually just make it plain masteron?
Nope


edit: That is a paradox. How could a derivative of drostanolone become drostanolone.
 

Moyer

board observer
Awards
1
  • Established
Nope


edit: That is a paradox. How could a derivative of drostanolone become drostanolone.
Yeah nevermind. I was under the impression that SD was simply methylated masteron (drostanolone), but it is not.
 
Mulletsoldier

Mulletsoldier

Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
EXXXXXXXXXACTLY!
And on a more scientific note, as Jonny stated, a derivative of something cannot become that thing through chemical alteration. Even anecdotally, the effects of Masteron and Superdrol are drastically different. All reports of Masteron I have read or heard cited fleeting gains, which were only noticeable at a lower bodyfat percentage, i.e., contest prep. Superdrol is, in my experience at least, absolutely nothing like that.

The purpose of posing this question, which I think I already knew the answer to (see my original post) was if Superdrol could be altered for hepatoxicity reasons yet still maintain its beneficial effects. If it was/is possible, then the possibility exists, for me at least, to add a potent lean mass builder to an injectable cycle arsenal.

EDIT:

And on another note, if you read my original posts, sides in terms of hairloss, libido, etc., are of absolutely no problem or concern to me with Superdrol. So, this whole endeavour would have been to sidestep hepatoxicity, not vanity concerns. In effect, having to use an exacerbated dosage, if effects remained equal, would present a great opportunity.
 
ripped22

ripped22

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
hey mullet, you should get some raw powder and try injecting it. My guess is that it would be like injectable winny, same results, but the injectable needs a higher dose. The benefit would be that you would avoid the first pass of the liver potentially making it less toxic. We need a lab rat cause i love the superdrol but hate what it does to my liver and choelesterol.

Also isn't superdrol a hybrid of masteron and anadrol? There is a write up out there somewhere that states this.
 
Mulletsoldier

Mulletsoldier

Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
hey mullet, you should get some raw powder and try injecting it. My guess is that it would be like injectable winny, same results, but the injectable needs a higher dose. The benefit would be that you would avoid the first pass of the liver potentally making it less toxic. We need a lab rat cause i love the superdrol but hate what it does to my liver and choelesterol.

Also isn't superdrol a hybrid of masteron and anadrol? There is a write up out there somewhere that states this.
Yeah:

Superdrol gets its name from the fact that it is a super-saturated, or 2-reduced, form of Anadrol. Anadrol has a =C-OH at the 2nd position, and if this is totally saturated (reduced) with hydrogen, it gives -CH3. Another way to describe it is that it is a 2a-17a-dimethyl of drostanolone (Masteron). Masteron has a single methyl group at the 2nd position. Superdrol is a modification of this structure by adding another methyl group at the 17th position, like M1T or M-Dien. However you may wish to look at it, it is by this simple-looking transformation that Superdrol comes to occupy the sweet spot between the chemical natures of Anadrol and Masteron.

Which is what I was initially trying to get at. Demethylating Superdrol would not give you the same effects as Drostanolone. Which is why I really would like to try it.
 

PumpingIron

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Getting your hands on the raws is probably an easy task...

Getting things from China seems to be a baaaad idea.
 
Mass_69

Mass_69

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Nope


edit: That is a paradox. How could a derivative of drostanolone become drostanolone.
I'm missing something here, and maybe someone can help me out. How is Superdrol a derivative of masteron? Technically, both are DHT derivatives. I don't see how (if it's possible) that removing the 17a-methyl from Superdrol would not yield Masteron:

Superdrol - 2a,17a-Dimethyl-17ß-hydroxy-5a-androstan-3-one

Masteron - 2a-methyl-17ß -hydroxy-5a-androstan-3-one

Hence DS naming the compound "Methasteron" as in Methyl-Masteron.

Well take for example, as suggested earlier 1-Test & M1T. I would rather take injectable 1-Test for a longer cycle any day over M1T caps. Granted someone who loves M1T might feel differently.
The example MattHines used of someone injecting Winny or Dbol, both still in methylated form. So it would be more like someone injecting M1T - He was saying it's pointless and riskier, as you risk infection and scar tissue injecting the needle
 
ripped22

ripped22

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
i am very interested to see this done. are you planing on trying in the near future? if you do use the powder from some AX superdrol to get a fair assement.
 
Mulletsoldier

Mulletsoldier

Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
I'm missing something here, and maybe someone can help me out. How is Superdrol a derivative of masteron? Technically, both are DHT derivatives. I don't see how (if it's possible) that removing the 17a-methyl from Superdrol would not yield Masteron:

Superdrol - 2a,17a-Dimethyl-17ß-hydroxy-5a-androstan-3-one

Masteron - 2a-methyl-17ß -hydroxy-5a-androstan-3-one

Hence DS naming the compound "Methasteron" as in Methyl-Masteron.

The example MattHines used of someone injecting Winny or Dbol, both still in methylated form. So it would be more like someone injecting M1T - He was saying it's pointless and riskier, as you risk infection and scar tissue injecting the needle
If you read the whole write up from which that post was quoted above

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/designer-supplements/22038-superdrol-final-draft.html?highlight=superdrol+write+up

You see that it is not only the methylation at the 17th position in which SDrol differs from Masteron. And while removing only the methyl at 17 would make this the same as Masteron on paper, that does not mean in practical use it would be the same.
 
Mass_69

Mass_69

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
That's the problem, I have read it, and the above posts I questioned don't make sense to me. Even part of the write-up you quoted says the following:

Masteron has a single methyl group at the 2nd position. Superdrol is a modification of this structure by adding another methyl group at the 17th position, like M1T or M-Dien.
Now, if you were referring to removing both methyl groups from Superdrol, then you would have DHT.
 
aspire210

aspire210

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
This idea is interesting BUT.... Orals are methylated for a reason. They are supposed to be strong and the stronger they are, the more havoc they wreak on your body....theres no avoiding that. Its always pissed me off as to why someone would inject winstrol or dbol and risk infection/accumulate extra scar tissue when they could just pop a pill or swallow the liquid.
There is some flawed thinking there.

First of all, not all orals are stronger than injectables. Some of the nadrolones are signifcantly stronger than the common orals. In addition, these very same injectables are much less toxic than even the friendliest orals.

Second, some of us get very bad stomach problems from orals. Three weeks of dbol and my stomach is so irritated that I am living in peptobismal and I can barely eat. So why would it make less sense to inject it for someone like me? Also, the slower stream of hormones better mimicks the bodies natural pattern, which normally allows for better growth.

Just because it isn't necessary for you, or its a bad idea for you, does not mean its stupid or a bad idea for everyone else.
 
Mulletsoldier

Mulletsoldier

Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Superdrol gets its name from the fact that it is a super-saturated, or 2-reduced, form of Anadrol. Anadrol has a =C-OH at the 2nd position, and if this is totally saturated (reduced) with hydrogen, it gives -CH3...Superdrol comes to occupy the sweet spot between the chemical natures of Anadrol and Masteron.
Which is what I am trying to allude to. It seems to share characteristics both chemically and anecdotally of both.
 
Mulletsoldier

Mulletsoldier

Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
There is some flawed thinking there.

First of all, not all orals are stronger than injectables. Some of the nadrolones are signifcantly stronger than the common orals. In addition, these very same injectables are much less toxic than even the friendliest orals.

Second, some of us get very bad stomach problems from orals. Three weeks of dbol and my stomach is so irritated that I am living in peptobismal and I can barely eat. So why would it make less sense to inject it for someone like me? Also, the slower stream of hormones better mimicks the bodies natural pattern, which normally allows for better growth.

Just because it isn't necessary for you, or its a bad idea for you, does not mean its stupid or a bad idea for everyone else.
Exactly.
 
Mass_69

Mass_69

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Which is what I am trying to allude to. It seems to share characteristics both chemically and anecdotally of both.
The difference between Anadrol & Superdrol is the saturation at the 2 position:

Anadrol/oxymetholone - 17ß-hydroxy-2-hydroxymethylene-17a-methyl-5a-androstan-3-one

Superdrol/methasteron - 2a,17a-Dimethyl-17ß-hydroxy-5a-androstan-3-one


It's still just 17a-methyl drostanolone.
 
Mulletsoldier

Mulletsoldier

Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Also, as the D-Bol and Winny examples have been brought up, how much hepatoxicity would truly be avoided by simply injecting the methylated formula. My thinking would remain that the second methyl group would still survive. However, as Aspire alluded to, IM injections may lead to a slower compound release and steadier blood levels.
 
aspire210

aspire210

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Also, as the D-Bol and Winny examples have been brought up, how much hepatoxicity would truly be avoided by simply injecting the methylated formula. My thinking would remain that the second methyl group would still survive. However, as Aspire alluded to, IM injections may lead to a slower compound release and steadier blood levels.

Sadly, little if any. It still has to pass through the liver once its in the blood stream. As per the second methyl group, I don't know much about methylation at the 2nd position, so I wil leave that to the pros. However, I have only heard of the important methylations being at 1 and 17, though for some reason the 7th position also stand out in memory, something to do with Dr.D talking about it once, I believe.
 
Mulletsoldier

Mulletsoldier

Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Sadly, little if any. It still has to pass through the liver once its in the blood stream. As per the second methyl group, I don't know much about methylation at the 2nd position, so I wil leave that to the pros. However, I have only heard of the important methylations being at 1 and 17, though for some reason the 7th position also stand out in memory, something to do with Dr.D talking about it once, I believe.
Ahh, no I was talking about the second methylation at 17, on top of the methylation at 2 of Masteron.

That is pretty much what I thought though, as I said in the earlier post even IM injections still must go through first pass liver degradation.
 
jonny21

jonny21

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Now, if you were referring to removing both methyl groups from Superdrol, then you would have DHT.
That is what I thought was being discussed, unmethylating the compound.

Nevertheless, masteron does not have one methyl group at the 17th position.
 
Mass_69

Mass_69

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
That is what I thought was being discussed, unmethylating the compound.

Nevertheless, masteron does not have one methyl group at the 17th position.
Ahh, I think I get what you were getting at. I had it stuck in my head just removing the 17a-methyl, since the 2a-methyl doesn't really matter as far as toxitity.
 
aspire210

aspire210

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Ahh, I think I get what you were getting at. I had it stuck in my head just removing the 17a-methyl, since the 2a-methyl doesn't really matter as far as toxitity.
hmmm...I'm not a chemistry wizz, but removing just one of the methyl groups sounds insanely hard to do, atleast at home. Maybe skye, klaus, dr.d or someone of that ilk will chime in and help.
 
thesinner

thesinner

Recovering AXoholic
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
I'm missing something here, and maybe someone can help me out. How is Superdrol a derivative of masteron? Technically, both are DHT derivatives. I don't see how (if it's possible) that removing the 17a-methyl from Superdrol would not yield Masteron:

Superdrol - 2a,17a-Dimethyl-17ß-hydroxy-5a-androstan-3-one

Masteron - 2a-methyl-17ß -hydroxy-5a-androstan-3-one

Hence DS naming the compound "Methasteron" as in Methyl-Masteron.

Unfortunately, Carbons don't work like tinker toys. Removing a carbon risks the forming of a new bond orientation, thus creating a stereoisomer.


Mullet,
If you're looking into isolating masteron for injection purposes, it might be easier to build off a different steroidal compound than removing the methyl from SD. Not to mention, there's no 100% yield to this equation; you'll probably be left with a few isomers too similar to separate out.
 
Mulletsoldier

Mulletsoldier

Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Unfortunately, Carbons don't work like tinker toys. Removing a carbon risks the forming of a new bond orientation, thus creating a stereoisomer
This was essentially the line of thinking I was using when stating simply demethylating SDrol would not yeild Masteron. I imagine removing that process may create an entirely different environment.

Mullet,
If you're looking into isolating masteron for injection purposes, it might be easier to build off a different steroidal compound than removing the methyl from superdrol. Not to mention, there's no 100% yield to this equation; you'll probably be left with a few isomers too similar to separate out
Hmm, it would seem I may be pooched. Masteron, IMO, is just not a good choice for my next planned cycle. Cost-effect ratio is simply not good enough to warrant consideration, as well as the gains are fleeting. Any suggestions though?
 
Skye

Skye

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
They were fine yes, but I imagine they would not have been for an extended period. I enjoy the effects of Superdrol alot, no sides whatsoever and incredible gains, I would like to run it for 6-8 weeks.

Skye-

The performance changing was basically my thoughts. Do you think that embarking on something like Size suggested would be any less hepatoxic? My thinking is that the methyl group would still survive first pass. Even intramuscular solutions eventually pass through the liver.
no its not. people used to talk about miss the first pass through the liver but from what I can tell that just delays the process. as you said the liver still ends up handling it so if its easier on your liver it would be because the stress is more evenly distributed. (as was stated above)
 
xtraflossy

xtraflossy

Board Supporter
Awards
1
  • Established
Just wanted to throw another possibility/variable in the mix:

I was reading a post on here about injecting Winny vs. oral winny, and the difference in its effects. Apparently, (taking the artical as truth) the journey to (or around) the liver when taken orally lends to an effect in SHBG, just like nettle/activate.
When compared to injections, I beleive you got the same metabolites, but since they were administered via different means, those metabolites did not have an effect on SHBG.

I beleive it concluded something like when takin IM, winny had MORE of an effect on nitrogen retention while taken orally, that effect was lessend some, but produced an increase in free test (via interfeering with test binding).

Honestly, I had a point when I started, but it just seems to escape me at the moment.
But this does lend to an argument/discussion about differences in taking the same compound via different pathways.
This could also be something exclusive to winstrol, or could be total BS.
but I recall the read included some pretty conviencing evidence to the theory....
I'll see if I cant find it
 
Grunt76

Grunt76

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
How did the proviron change? Had he or whoever ran the unmethylated proviron previously ran regular proviron?

While probably a futile subject I have wondered what would happen if you removed the methyl from some of these designer orals. This is an interesting subject..
Yes it is. Let's look at pheraplex. How about unmethylating it and putting a cypionate ester on it? Might be a GREAT compound although it was not tested AFAIK. Also, prostanozol without the THP ether but an ester on it would be a great addition IMO.

There are more like that. Plenty, actually.


They were fine yes, but I imagine they would not have been for an extended period. I enjoy the effects of Superdrol alot, no sides whatsoever and incredible gains, I would like to run it for 6-8 weeks.

Skye-

The performance changing was basically my thoughts. Do you think that embarking on something like Size suggested would be any less hepatoxic? My thinking is that the methyl group would still survive first pass. Even intramuscular solutions eventually pass through the liver.
It does pass through the liver, but as it was stated, in more steady amounts. I believe it is not arguable the liver toxicity from injecting methyls isn't reduced compared to ingesting them.
 
Grunt76

Grunt76

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Yeah nevermind. I was under the impression that superdrol was simply methylated masteron (drostanolone), but it is not.
It *IS*, so removing "the methyl" at 17a will yield masteron, a VASTLY different compound.


I'm missing something here, and maybe someone can help me out. How is Superdrol a derivative of masteron? Technically, both are DHT derivatives. I don't see how (if it's possible) that removing the 17a-methyl from Superdrol would not yield Masteron:

Superdrol - 2a,17a-Dimethyl-17ß-hydroxy-5a-androstan-3-one

Masteron - 2a-methyl-17ß -hydroxy-5a-androstan-3-one

Hence DS naming the compound "Methasteron" as in Methyl-Masteron.

The example MattHines used of someone injecting Winny or Dbol, both still in methylated form. So it would be more like someone injecting M1T - He was saying it's pointless and riskier, as you risk infection and scar tissue injecting the needle
Less spikes in toxic hormone in the liver will yield lesser acute release of ROS attempting to metabolize the hormone. So while the total amount of hormone passing through the liver will be the same, the constant amounts will have the liver release a more constant stream of ROS, more easily fought with the standard liver protection than when the liver goes insane because you have just swallowed a 50mg Anadrol tab. Or some M1T, Sdrol, whatever.
 
BigMattTx

BigMattTx

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
There is some flawed thinking there.

First of all, not all orals are stronger than injectables. Some of the nadrolones are signifcantly stronger than the common orals. In addition, these very same injectables are much less toxic than even the friendliest orals.

Second, some of us get very bad stomach problems from orals. Three weeks of dbol and my stomach is so irritated that I am living in peptobismal and I can barely eat. So why would it make less sense to inject it for someone like me? Also, the slower stream of hormones better mimicks the bodies natural pattern, which normally allows for better growth.

Just because it isn't necessary for you, or its a bad idea for you, does not mean its stupid or a bad idea for everyone else.
Good point. Orals tear up my stomach too but right now, I'm just injecting twice a week and already starting to build scar tissue. I cant imagine ED injects of orals plus my other gear. On top of that, Most orals have a very short half-life so to keep the most stable levels, it would be best to take several dosages throughout the day. This would mean 2-3 injects/day just to take an oral in inject form. Id rather jumpstart with short esters like prop or deal with popping a pill but thats just my take on it.
 
aspire210

aspire210

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
This would mean 2-3 injects/day just to take an oral in inject form.
Not true, as the body would have to break down the oil/solution much more slowly then a oral relase would. This is the same reason oil based suspension can be injected once daily. It does take time for an IM injection to be broken down and its contents relased into the blood stream, hence the lack of spikes and stable blood levels with this route.
 
BigMattTx

BigMattTx

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
Not true, as the body would have to break down the oil/solution much more slowly then a oral relase would. This is the same reason oil based suspension can be injected once daily. It does take time for an IM injection to be broken down and its contents relased into the blood stream, hence the lack of spikes and stable blood levels with this route.
This makes sense but do you know of any data that supports this?

A lot of liquid winny and suspension is water based and that stuff is obviously taken up very quickly, probably faster than digestion in the stomach.

For the oil-based ones, Id be curious to know how slow this release is. Its critical information.
 
aspire210

aspire210

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
This makes sense but do you know of any data that supports this?

A lot of liquid winny and suspension is water based and that stuff is obviously taken up very quickly, probably faster than digestion in the stomach.

For the oil-based ones, Id be curious to know how slow this release is. Its critical information.
Gradual relase is the definition of a depot injection, its actully the whole point. I have a study with cows that proves this, it is subculteous vs IM though and I found this in a matter of seconds. It does how ever prove that IM oil based shots are slow release. Not to be a ****, but if you don't grasp the idea of a depot injection, then you really shouldn't be using steroids. Slow release of a depot is fairly common knowledge. I don't think there is a knowledgable person on this board that thinks oil based steroids are absorbed anywhere near as fast as an oral.
 
Grunt76

Grunt76

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Gradual relase is the definition of a depot injection, its actully the whole point. I have a study with cows that proves this, it is subculteous vs IM though and I found this in a matter of seconds. It does how ever prove that IM oil based shots are slow release. Not to be a ****, but if you don't grasp the idea of a depot injection, then you really shouldn't be using steroids. Slow release of a depot is fairly common knowledge. I don't think there is a knowledgable person on this board that thinks oil based steroids are absorbed anywhere near as fast as an oral.
This is true. And short esters tend to get absorbed quicker because they kinda don't want to be in solution. Which, of course, with a methyl, is going to be increased, so daily injections will be a must. I'm betting you'll be able to go as high as 50mg/ml with an actual solution. No more.
 
BigMattTx

BigMattTx

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
Gradual relase is the definition of a depot injection, its actully the whole point. I have a study with cows that proves this, it is subculteous vs IM though and I found this in a matter of seconds. It does how ever prove that IM oil based shots are slow release. Not to be a ****, but if you don't grasp the idea of a depot injection, then you really shouldn't be using steroids. Slow release of a depot is fairly common knowledge. I don't think there is a knowledgable person on this board that thinks oil based steroids are absorbed anywhere near as fast as an oral.
Easy there...I'm just trying to learn here bro.

You say that injectable is superior to oral because of slow release however you have no numbers to go by. Prop is in and out of the system about 4-5 times as fast as Enanthate or Cypionate...they are both oil based. Given, this is dictated by half-lifes and we are really talking about absorption rates of IMs with oil based compounds Vs. digestion. I really would be curious to know how long it takes the body to absorb an IM.
 
Grunt76

Grunt76

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Easy there...I'm just trying to learn here bro.

You say that injectable is superior to oral because of slow release however you have no numbers to go by. Prop is in and out of the system about 4-5 times as fast as Enanthate or Cypionate...they are both oil based. Given, this is dictated by half-lifes and we are really talking about absorption rates of IMs with oil based compounds Vs. digestion. I really would be curious to know how long it takes the body to absorb an IM.
As I posted above, this is proportional to the solubility of the hormone in its oil. Basically the reason why some esters have a longer half-life is because they are more soluble and thus remain in the oil longer. That is also why you will see 400mg/cc Cyp but never more than 150mg/cc prop or acetate.
 
aspire210

aspire210

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
As I posted above, this is proportional to the solubility of the hormone in its oil. Basically the reason why some esters have a longer half-life is because they are more soluble and thus remain in the oil longer. That is also why you will see 400mg/cc Cyp but never more than 150mg/cc prop or acetate.
Yes lipophilicity is crucial to this concept. Also, doesn't the fact that the higher the lipophilicity increase the affinity to fatty tissue, which causes the drug to basically "hide-out" in fatty tissue and is released much slower into the blood stream? This is because release of a drug from fatty tissue is usually pretty slow, if I remember correctly. I think methylated compounds are more lipophilic than base hormones as well. But again, depending on the hormone, the concentration could not be very high if it was a true solution and not a suspension.

I would still bet that a once daily injection would be good enough, depending on the carrier. Ethyl Olate is supposed to slow absorbtion, not sure why but I have heard this many times.

BTW some good unground labs have 200mg/ml prop....HA. It is on the verge of crashing though, and simply leaving it outside has supposedly done this for some.
 

Similar threads


Top