Converting Methyls To Injectable Form: Let's Discuss

200mg/ml prop is crazy. that **** would probably leave you limping for days.

I guess there is no concrete answer to the oil IM question since every compound would be different.
 
MattHines said:
200mg/ml prop is crazy. that **** would probably leave you limping for days.

I guess there is no concrete answer to the oil IM question since every compound would be different.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY.

Also, bear in mind that the higher concentrations are pretty much all done with ethyl oleate nowadays. Besides the unknown effects it may have on the body, it is a better solvent for the hormones, which allows higher concentrations. This seems nice on the surface, but if you think about it, the rate of release of your hormone is inversely proportional to its solubility in its medium. Thus, prop in EO probably behaves much more like a longer ester than prop in oil.

The solvent changes things quite a bit.
 
Grunt76 said:
This post makes it obvious why you have 137,000 reps.
Click to expand...

Bird Headed Deity, boatman of the underworld... A joyous New Year to you, and a plentiful harvest. May your woman be fertile and your cache of gold overflow.


Sincerely,

Ubiquitous I
Harbinger of Love
High King of Snuggle Club
 
Grunt76 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's something I was thinking about. Removing the carbon without creating disturbance in orientation is not fun, but we can turn it into an ester. That's easy. A little sodamide and you're halfway there.
 
Grunt76 said:
This post makes it obvious why you have 137,000 reps.
Click to expand...

your just jealous cuz you only have 92k.

And I have heard the same about EO, that you can get by with E3D prop if its cut with EO. This is getting really close to test-e/c when it comes to dosing. I don't really think it extends the release by that much, but I think it would extend it some. I need to cut high dose test-e with EO, so I can pin once a week. Now thats an idea.
 
Grunt76 said:
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.
Click to expand...
True about the need to for daily injections but that may be somewhat of an over simplification there. What actually effects the absorption rate is the ratio of water solubility to oil solubility ( the partition coefficient ). This along with the solution used determines the half life. That is why adding an ester increases the half life, they make the molecule more lipophilic and more hydrophobic, this less likely to enter in solution in water. As hydrolysis can only occur in water this slows the process considerably.

I would guess that you could get around 100 to 150mg/ml (you can with DHT at any rate)

JM2C, I tend to nitpick sometimes.
 
aspire210 said:
your just jealous cuz you only have 92k.

And I have heard the same about EO, that you can get by with E3D prop if its cut with EO. This is getting really close to test-e/c when it comes to dosing. I don't really think it extends the release by that much, but I think it would extend it some. I need to cut high dose test-e with EO, so I can pin once a week. Now thats an idea.
Click to expand...
Well that works with the prop but I don't think it would work with the longer esters. The EO itself is an ester and is broken down by the body into the acid and alcohol components. As this only takes few (this is not certain by the way, there is some conflicting info) days I am thinking that the prolonging effect would dissipate shortly after this time. I have been working on a test laurate in EO but I am thinking that the half life is actually LESS then what it would be in oil as once the EO is broken down you would be left with just the testosterone laurate without any medium. But again I am not sure on this.
 
MattHines said:
200mg/ml prop is crazy. that **** would probably leave you limping for days.

I guess there is no concrete answer to the oil IM question since every compound would be different.
Click to expand...
I have a 150mg/ml prop that is painless, the 200 I made wasn't painless but it was not bad. the 250 now......
 
Skye said:
Well that works with the prop but I don't think it would work with the longer esters. The EO itself is an ester and is broken down by the body into the acid and alcohol components. As this only takes few (this is not certain by the way, there is some conflicting info) days I am thinking that the prolonging effect would dissipate shortly after this time. I have been working on a test laurate in EO but I am thinking that the half life is actually LESS then what it would be in oil as once the EO is broken down you would be left with just the testosterone laurate without any medium. But again I am not sure on this.
Click to expand...

Bah, you and your "science." But seriously, I didnt really expect to get away with stable blood levels from once a week test-e shots do to EO. I didn't think it would really extend the half life that much, as I said in my post.

I didn't know thats how EO worked though (I probably should have guess just form its name though), its a pretty cool compound. Is this the same reason EO lessens the pain, that is, because its an ester and allows higher concentrations without crashing because it makes things more lipophilic?

For your experiment did you use stictly EO? If so I think klaus once talked about how it was breaking down the rubber part of the plunger when he used over 60% EO. I think he actually managed to inject very small peices of rubber which lead to a bad abcess.
 
Skye said:
True about the need to for daily injections but that may be somewhat of an over simplification there. What actually effects the absorption rate is the ratio of water solubility to oil solubility ( the partition coefficient ). This along with the solution used determines the half life. That is why adding an ester increases the half life, they make the molecule more lipophilic and more hydrophobic, this less likely to enter in solution in water. As hydrolysis can only occur in water this slows the process considerably.

I would guess that you could get around 100 to 150mg/ml (you can with DHT at any rate)

JM2C, I tend to nitpick sometimes.
Click to expand...

Good post bro, I learnt something.

Now you are saying that the EO breaks down into Oleic acid and Ethyl alcohol? That sounds like it is safe then. Unless the EO itself has any activity. Hm... Interesting stuff to ponder right here. And that makes it so very clear why EO is such a great solvent for our purposes: the Ethyl end is extremely water soluble while the Oleic end is very fat-soluble, being a fat itself. Very very cool.
 
aspire210 said:
Bah, you and your "science." But seriously, I didnt really expect to get away with stable blood levels from once a week test-e shots do to EO. I didn't think it would really extend the half life that much, as I said in my post.

I didn't know thats how EO worked though (I probably should have guess just form its name though), its a pretty cool compound. Is this the same reason EO lessens the pain, that is, because its an ester and allows higher concentrations without crashing because it makes things more lipophilic?

For your experiment did you use stictly EO? If so I think klaus once talked about how it was breaking down the rubber part of the plunger when he used over 60% EO. I think he actually managed to inject very small peices of rubber which lead to a bad abcess.
Click to expand...

I am not sure but I think it primarily due to its being very hydrophobic, it has the same effect as using a longer ester. That is why I have some conflicting info on how long the EO takes to break down, it undergoes hydrolysis as well but how long it takes I am not sure. See cut and paste I put in here for my best guess on the eo.

I have not used just EO as Klaus warned me about that. it does swell the rubber so care is needed. But I think that its only a problem if you have too high % of the total solution. So it would not affect the test laurate version. But I will not know for sure until I try it again.


Second misconception: The ester used determines the half–life, NO. I am not sure why this is so set in people’s minds but esters are only part of the picture. An ester modifies the partition coefficient but it does not determine it. The partition coefficient is a fancy term that describes the ratio of oil solubility to water solubility. Almost anything is water miscible to some part, even if very small. This includes the hormones we use as well as the ester of them. This more lipophilic (that is oil soluble, I am simplifying here) the less LIKELY the hormone is to enter into water and be hydrolyse (hydrolysis is the term for the removal of the ester from the base, again this is a simplification of the process). That is why hormones have half-lives, their absorbs ion is based on probability and therefore follows the same pattern as decaying uranium, rolling of the dice, and cards. Contrary to popular belief this is true of the base hormones as well as the estered ones. The esters only modify the ratio (decrease the probability of going into water) For a more complete article on this (its old but still a good read) go read Invalid Link Removed. While it doesn’t go into the mechanics too much it is still the best one I have seen.

While the above is a major factor if you want an accurate estimate of the half-life have to include the solubility of the hormone base you’re using, the length of the ester, the solution that the hormone is suspended in, the biology of the person being injected, and the placement of the depot.

1st. The base solubility hormone is just that, how well it will go into solution, water or oil. What its partition coefficient is to start with. Nandrolone is more lipophilic then testosterone, therefore tends to have a shorter half live then testosterone even with the same ester (see number 2 for more info on this).

2nd. The length of an ester determines how much the partition coefficient is modified (outside of any other influences). The length is usually given in the number of carbon atoms, formate 1, acetate 2, propionate and phenyl propionate 3, butyrate 4, valerate 5, hexanoate, caproate, and isocaproate 6, heptanoate and enanthate 7, octanoate and cypionate 8, nonanoate 9, decanoate 10, undecanoate 11. What’s more the degree that the ester modifies the base per carbon increases with the ester length. To put it another way the longer the esters the more it dominates the properties. For instance the half-life of nandrolone cypionate is less then that of its testosterone counterpart but the difference between testosterone decanoate and nandrolone decanoate is nil (in theory, no one has measured the half life of nandrolone cypionate to my knowledge. But it works well in practice).

3rd. The solution that the hormone is carried in also makes a big difference. Simply put the more hydrophobic your solution your solution the harder it is for the hormone to enter into water. So if you have testosterone enanthate in caster oil with lots of benzyl benzoate you can have a half-life of around 12 days. On the other hand if you use polyethylene glycol or glycerol with no hydrophobic solvents you can have a half-life of less then 8 days. The goes for all hormones. This is due to the reduction (or induction for the hydrophilic solvents) of exposure to water. The less exposure to water the longer the half-life. The more exposure to water the shorter the half-life.

4th. The biology of the person being injected, and the placement of the depot can also affect things. The first part is simple, people with faster metabolisms process things faster then people with slow metabolisms. More enzymes and faster processing of the metabolites will break down the depot faster, this exposing more of the esters to water. Another considerate is where the depot is located. Most people don’t think of this but if you place (inject) the depot into an often-used muscle the increased agitation is going to expose more of the hormone to the water. It’s like mixing two difficult to-mix liquids together, by hand is going to take a lot longer then if you use a mixer. For most people this isn’t a consideration and site rotation takes care of it but it is a consideration if you’re a long distance runner shooting in the legs or a boxer shooting in the triceps. This is another reason site rotation is important; it evens out the release of the hormones.
Click to expand...
 
Ok ok ok, let me make sure I read the article right.

The ester replaces the hydroxyl group on the #17 carbon?

It sounds easier to remove the hydroxyl group, and elongate the methyl to make some sort of ester. I'm pretty sure there's a few mechanisms for removing hydroxy's for the synthesis of ethers.
 
thesinner said:
It sounds easier to remove the hydroxyl group, and elongate the methyl to make some sort of ester. I'm pretty sure there's a few mechanisms for removing hydroxy's for the synthesis of ethers.
Click to expand...

Even so, would you really want to inject something you made like this? I understand the science but you never get 100% yeild on anything and dependings on the chemicals used, you could easily get a very toxic compound in the mix. I don't know the reactions for enlongating an a methyl into an ester, but I know how to remove one and I would never inject the by-products. At that point, I would rather buy something illegally than inject something I don't know is 100% pure. Its a cool idea, but I for one would still not want to be the guinea pig.
 
aspire210 said:
Even so, would you really want to inject something you made like this? I understand the science but you never get 100% yeild on anything and dependings on the chemicals used, you could easily get a very toxic compound in the mix. I don't know the reactions for enlongating an a methyl into an ester, but I know how to remove one and I would never inject the by-products. At that point, I would rather buy something illegally than inject something I don't know is 100% pure. Its a cool idea, but I for one would still not want to be the guinea pig.
Click to expand...
Yes. IMO you get the powders ready-made or you get intermediates and ADD what you need on the backbone.

There is somewhere on here a chemical recipe for turning 1-Testosterone into pretty much every hormone there is. ADDING a methyl seems MUCH MUCH easier than removing one. You can also, of course, get true intermediates and react them together, I have seen at least one supplier of those. I don't know how legal they are but I'm pretty sure you can buy some very legal intermediates that can be reacted into a whole spectrum of AAS with some ease, and little waste or extreme difficulty of purification.
 
aspire210 said:
Even so, would you really want to inject something you made like this? I understand the science but you never get 100% yeild on anything and dependings on the chemicals used, you could easily get a very toxic compound in the mix. I don't know the reactions for enlongating an a methyl into an ester, but I know how to remove one and I would never inject the by-products. At that point, I would rather buy something illegally than inject something I don't know is 100% pure. Its a cool idea, but I for one would still not want to be the guinea pig.
Click to expand...


Please disregard my last post, all esters that are used in injection steroids are the conjugate bases of carboxylic acids, which my last post's logic failed to recognize.


Also recognize that adding the ester is only one step in the multi-step process for isolating the compound. After that we then go to separation and purification steps, which depend on the characteristics of the by-products. By no means should anyone attempt to inject any sort of kitchen chemistry. Such a concoction would not only risk a heavy toxicity, but there's also a high probability that it wouldn't be sterile either.

And since you seem to know, by what mechanism can one remove a methyl group? I'm curious.

Thanks in advance,

Thesinner
 
Skye said:
I am not sure but I think it primarily due to its being very hydrophobic, it has the same effect as using a longer ester. That is why I have some conflicting info on how long the EO takes to break down, it undergoes hydrolysis as well but how long it takes I am not sure. See cut and paste I put in here for my best guess on the eo.

I have not used just EO as Klaus warned me about that. it does swell the rubber so care is needed. But I think that its only a problem if you have too high % of the total solution. So it would not affect the test laurate version. But I will not know for sure until I try it again.
Click to expand...


Thanks for all the info bro...it really cleared things up.

My only question is this--> Lets say that after 2 days, there still seems to be some oil deposited at the injection location...Is it possible that the compound suspended could be absorbed before all of the oil is?
 
MattHines said:
Thanks for all the info bro...it really cleared things up.

My only question is this--> Lets say that after 2 days, there still seems to be some oil deposited at the injection location...Is it possible that the compound suspended could be absorbed before all of the oil is?
Click to expand...
No, unless the product was a suspension to begin with instead of a solution.
 
aspire210 said:
Even so, would you really want to inject something you made like this? I understand the science but you never get 100% yeild on anything and dependings on the chemicals used, you could easily get a very toxic compound in the mix. I don't know the reactions for enlongating an a methyl into an ester, but I know how to remove one and I would never inject the by-products. At that point, I would rather buy something illegally than inject something I don't know is 100% pure. Its a cool idea, but I for one would still not want to be the guinea pig.
Click to expand...
actually purifying is pretty easy if you don't mind a little waste, recrystalization will almost always work provided that you don't do anything in the process that would make seperation a problem. For instance if you cleave an ester off a hormone you want to make sure that the resulting salt is water soluble and not soluble in the hormone. (I made this mistake a while back) Granted removing the methyl groups is harder but if you planed your proceedure right purifying your product afterwards would be pretty strieght forward.

Of course you can't do this anywhere nearly as cheap as you could just buy the stuff
 
MattHines said:
Thanks for all the info bro...it really cleared things up.

My only question is this--> Lets say that after 2 days, there still seems to be some oil deposited at the injection location...Is it possible that the compound suspended could be absorbed before all of the oil is?
Click to expand...

not likely. in fact even prop takes a month or two to completely disperse from the depot as the amount halfs every few days instead of dropping off after a certain time. in this way it a very small amount is present long after the bulk of the hormone is gone.
 
Skye said:
not likely. in fact even prop takes a month or two to completely disperse from the depot as the amount halfs every few days instead of dropping off after a certain time. in this way it a very small amount is present long after the bulk of the hormone is gone.
Click to expand...
That is why you have to wait a LONG time until you would be cleared for an AAS test. The slightest amount will show up.
 
Skye said:
not likely. in fact even prop takes a month or two to completely disperse from the depot as the amount halfs every few days instead of dropping off after a certain time. in this way it a very small amount is present long after the bulk of the hormone is gone.
Click to expand...

HA and everyone would have thought I was crazy for running prop in a down taper then using transdermal for 2 weeks after that before beginning PCT.
 
thesinner said:
And since you seem to know, by what mechanism can one remove a methyl group? I'm curious.
Click to expand...

Sorry my statement was a little ambigious, I meant I know the reaction to remove an ester. Ester cleving is pretty easy, its just hard to get a good yeild sometimes. Skye/Klaus/Dr.D should be able to answer this A LOT better than I could. I mean I might be able to look it up somewhere, but that doesn't mean I could walk anyone though it or even know its truly correct. Sorry for the confusion, but since we have skye's attention in this thread maybe he can help.
 
aspire210 said:
Sorry my statement was a little ambigious, I meant I know the reaction to remove an ester. Ester cleving is pretty easy, its just hard to get a good yeild sometimes. Skye/Klaus/Dr.D should be able to answer this A LOT better than I could. I mean I might be able to look it up somewhere, but that doesn't mean I could walk anyone though it or even know its truly correct. Sorry for the confusion, but since we have skye's attention in this thread maybe he can help.
Click to expand...

Oh it's cool, I was just curious what it was. Removing this damn methyl is been itching my brain all week. I'm more interested in the chemistry behind it than doping it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top