no it is not lmao... that is the average tren dosing.And longer esters weaker than shorter esters arnt bro science LOL. Do you even know anything about anabolics dude ?
.jpg "Research Chemical Sciences")
Fucking Tren....
- Thread starter RickRock
- Start date
![[9oNe6]BillyD@kid](/forums/data/avatars/m/2/2076.jpg?1477587594){kind=avatar}
Ok, since its not bro science please post proof of study. I've been doing this going on 16 years so let's not even go there with do I know what I'm talking about.
P
PHURIOUS
Guest
Here is a study on short esters v. long esters. The study clearly shows that short esters yield a higher peak plasma concentration than long esters, which administers higher levels of the drug.
http://www.evolutionary.org/forums/anabolic-steroids-peds/short-esters-v-long-esters-6703.html
Hopefully this will educate you .
Oh hello lol noooooo !!! He did not just pull a fucken EVO thread. I'm don't talking to this noob
P
PHURIOUS
Guest
So u basically just proved our point thank you. Long esters at 400mg a week is NOT a high dose and is clearly not the problem.
PHURIOUS
P
PHURIOUS
Guest
Plus that article is from evo. Lol so u can burn that page. Lmao
PHURIOUS
PHURIOUS
highly aware, just trying to rid his ignorance in regards to this specific topic of esters.
P
PHURIOUS
Guest
Sorry but i woukd have dissagree w you there.
Yes short esters contain more hormone per ml then long. However any veteran user knows this and adjusts the doses accordingly.
PHURIOUS
Hes not gonna understand anything of this nature until he has a few more cycles under his belt, still to green for me to help him understand
alright not trying to argue with you guys but that was my whole point all along, short ester have more of the hormone and longer esters have less.
P
PHURIOUS
Guest
you do realize you are agreeing with me? I said it was not a high dose and he said it was.
P
PHURIOUS
Guest
Hmm. I guess i misunderstood as i thought u said it was.
PHURIOUS
PHURIOUS
I brought it up because they had information in regards to the study, the site is bs information, but that specific thread with that information on the study is not bs.
i have no clue what your talking about but to say 400 is not powerful means YOU have no clue what your talking about.... its pretty disrespectful to speak to vet like angelo like that as well... HIGHLY disrespectful to say the least... you are clearly one of those "more is better" concept guys which i cant stand... thats a crock of shit... to say the least... 400 is not astronomical but its a strong dose... for fucks sake, ive ran it at 250 and gotten bad ass results... more results in the 400 range, absolutely agree, but when you start to exceed that, its more sides than anything...
P
PHURIOUS
Guest
Ya i would agree. 400 is what i would call medium dose. Where 600 i would consider what the hell. Lol. But medium dose for tren e.
PHURIOUS
meant no disrespect towards him, however I am not a more is better concept guy. I simply started that 400mg of tren enanthate is not a high dosage, it is a moderate average dosage of tren, also if you could point out where I said 400mg of tren isn't powerful, I'll be damned. Tren at 200mg is powerful, I would never disrespect tren and call it not powerful.
