SmallTitsIRL
Member
I would assume all peds build muscle dose dependant and ofc to a certain extent
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Kurt Havens : Test Cypionate vs Enanthate Case Report
- Thread starter SmallTitsIRL
- Start date
PeterBond
Member
"The compounds used by the subject, including testosterone and methenolone, were obtained independently and administered outside of any clinical or research setting."
Otherwise a poorly written manuscript, too.
Otherwise a poorly written manuscript, too.
I think it was 30 mg and 50 mg, but I don't remember very well. It was more than 15 years ago.
In the 90s, it was common for guys to take just Dbol 6-8 months a year. That was when Naposim was available. They took it like Tic Tacs, and all of them had results during and after those cycles.
IndividualMan
Member
yes, I was specifically talking about the clinical usage (old/sick people who are weak and frail and cant excercise).
In those subjects Dbol does nothing after being discontinued. var does nothing after being discontinued, etc. Adrol seems to be the only oral to leave people with some sort of contractile tissue gained after discontinuation.
Assuming you actually work out and lift (which you did) and you get to lift harder+ with better stimulus for growth (both via mechanical tension and AR activation) you will build muscle.
But it doesnt build muscle on its own (no training stimulus, just everyday activities like walking, eating, occasionally carrying stuff, etc. + Dbol)
technically there is a control, the one subject using both substances is the control group more or less. Viable methodology in this case, the other parts are what irritates me far more (no testing, small sample size, messed up tables/ little to no discussion regardingthe content of the tables).
this just means the were bought from an UGL, and not prescribed/ part of a clinical trial of some sorts, and pinned without supervision.
Other parts of the manuscript are indeed poorly written/ could have used some revision.
IndividualMan
Member
fair. I personally think orals have their time and place (and are quite fun to take), but the % of gains you get to keep is lower than it would be with injectables with a more steady release rate essentially trading a few % of your progress for enjoyment and PRs. Especially with Dbol, which is notoriously fun & strength promoting.
And we gotta keep in mind, having fun in life is a great way to do harm prevention. Mental harm is something underdiscussed on here, and keeping your PED jounrey fun and enjoyable is a great way to prevent lasting psychologically diagnosable/measurable/provable damage.
PeterBond
Member
Exactly, that's the problem. We've ran prospective trials with AAS users and we never do any analyses based on UGL label claims beyond orals vs injectables.
BigDadd7
Member
That is not how a control works in any accepted research.
SnowyMiami
Member
Subq makes the whole study trash. I thought Kurt was the "use drugs as designed guy".
hellerhiwater
Member
non-randomized, single human, uncontrolled trial...the holy grail
i feel genuinely fucking silly for ever listening to this dude. even if i never applied most of what he said, the time wasted itself is annoying.
as someone pointed out, one his repeated axioms is using drugs how they were designed. i guess that didnt apply to this "study"
the damage done to an already fractured and failing system (peer-reviewed studies) is not lost on me. any amt of perpetuating that is just harmful. and i know that sounds snowflakey, but its how we get situations like blanket vaccine-hesitancy and "say anything for a dollar" influencers on a pulpit spewing whatever comes to mind.
so disappointed.
i feel genuinely fucking silly for ever listening to this dude. even if i never applied most of what he said, the time wasted itself is annoying.
as someone pointed out, one his repeated axioms is using drugs how they were designed. i guess that didnt apply to this "study"
the damage done to an already fractured and failing system (peer-reviewed studies) is not lost on me. any amt of perpetuating that is just harmful. and i know that sounds snowflakey, but its how we get situations like blanket vaccine-hesitancy and "say anything for a dollar" influencers on a pulpit spewing whatever comes to mind.
so disappointed.
Last edited:
what a shit paper. It is basically meant as comparison between the testosterone esters and then completely fails by having another drug (primo) where the ester is not even mentioned. Assuming the primo was also enan, does that impact the results of using test enan? N=1 straight garbage.
SmallTitsIRL
Member
I'm trying to do a 52 week cycle, do you recon at the end I can publish a case report about the usage of PEDs and it's health effects? Lol
2ndchancesNK
Member
The study is on Test E vs. Test C, yet they include primobolan to “mitigate aromatization” and “support anabolic stability”. What?
Absurd.
Absurd.
SmiggySmigs
New Member
Idk if someone spoke on this or not cause I didn't read all the article of comment but from what I was told from a very intelligent Individual who use to make TF out of some gear is the difference is in the bioavailability, Cypionate being the lowest on the totem pole so to speak. (I believe Propionate was #1 don't remember) He also told me that USA is one of the only places n the world who prescribes test Cyp over Ent for Trt because at the end of the day they do not want us having the high test levels n the first place.?
IndividualMan
Member
again, when comparing differences in response to drugs, Measuring both in the same person is a valid form of control.
only Test E (200-600)
VS
only Test C (200-600)
VS
a natural? (as "control")
Is worthless.
that third group can be left out.
The only way to truly measure it without having the undeniable flaw of different individual response to different esters is by measuring within the same person. that alone eases the validity concerns (it is about measuring different responses to different compounds in the same individual, not different responses across different individuals, that would be a confounding variable)
They do serve as a control in that sense. Essentially a control within each individual, with the individual serving as a subject in both groups. Intraindividual comparisons are valid for this purpose, unlike interindividual domparisons.
From a Research methodology point of view that is about the only thing he did 100% right (that and letting the subject reach stable serum levels) so no critique from my side on that part.
But it only makes sense if you run this with wayyyy larger sample sizes. The n=1 + no analytical testing when using UGL + subpar discussion just breaks this publications neck.
IndividualMan
Member
onyl real difference is ester weight (how much of the molecule is fatty acid chain VS testosterone. its like 2 percentage points difference)
Kurt havens was looking at the molecular structure in space and tries to argue that esterases have a harder time metabolizing the ring of the cypionate ester vs the non closed chain of the Enanthate ester.
Valid concern, this is not the right way to test for this though.
Actually, thinking about this, In vitro testing would be a better basis for testing these theories.
PeterBond
Member
Comparison of testosterone, dihydrotestosterone, luteinizing hormone, and follicle-stimulating hormone in serum after injection of testosterone enanthate of testosterone cypionate - PubMed
Comparison of testosterone, dihydrotestosterone, luteinizing hormone, and follicle-stimulating hormone in serum after injection of testosterone enanthate of testosterone cypionate
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
BigDadd7
Member
Again, it's not. This isn't personal. Medical/pharmaceutical research doesn't work that way.
IndividualMan
Member
Pharma research for evaluating drug legality/usability? no.
That framing is also something I do not agree with. another part of the study that was poorly done.
Is this valid methodology for comparing 2 different drugs in a nonclinical setting, simply to highlight possible differences in metabolism/drug response? aka to learn more about the drugs/prodrugs themselves? Definitely.
An example where a third control group would be needed is Antidepressant A vs Antidepressant B.
Antidepressant A hits receptor ABC and affects neurotransmitter DEF
Antidepressant B hits receptor GHI and affects neurotransmitter JKL
One group takes A, the other B, and a third, a control, takes a placebo.
what effects are being reported? What efects can be maesured via questionares? etc.
Now we get to an example more closely related/ similar to the Test E vs Test C.
Insulin A has a half life of 72 hours.
Insulin B has a half life of 72 hours, but it gets that long lasting effect via a different mechanism as insulin A. Its molecule looks a bit different, and there is some anecdotal evidence to suggest some people might not reach similar serum insulin levels due to the odd shape it has.
Pharma company Novo-Lilly wants to test the differences in individual responses, because they fear that Insulin A might get metabolized differently than insulin B due to either: analysis of its structure and or: customer reports/anecdotes.
They take a hundred type 1 diabetics and give them insulin A in a trial. It works as they thought it would. serum insulin is at 27-34 in all subjects when measured (differences occur due to bodyweight differences, absorption differences, etc). This is their baseline which would be expected for insulin B as well.
So each individual now has a score attached to them.
Now the same 100 diabetics take insulin B. Equivalent dosages, all other variables accounted for. Serum insulin is about equal to the score for insulin A in 50 people.
The other half only shows a serum insulin of ~20. there may be some Glucose control issues in this half as well, but they are not quite sure.
That means they show a different serum score compared to the one they showed when taking insulin A, so now there is proof that some people have to either dose insulin B differently or switch to insulin A if they have issues with insulin B.
Novo-Lilly now knows, that there is something about those fifty people that changes the way the either absorb or metabolize Insulin B. They may now do whatever they want with that knowledge.
There is no need for a design that adds another control group of people who have nothing to do with insulin, like non-diabetic people (or in our case, testosterone and naturals) or diabetics who dont get any insulin (which would be cruel).
It is nonsensical to try to measure intraindividual differences with groupings used to measure interindividual differences.
We are not evaluating if these drugs are effective or permissible to be prescribed or used in humans. This is not that type of research. No stage 3 human trial. We are evaluating if one of them has a specific characteristic which may impact their effectiveness compared to another prodrug, both of which are already widely used and have identical APIs.
In that scenario, you would be 100% right
IndividualMan
Member
All I am trying to say is: research designs should be the right tool for the job.
in this case, everything was wrong, except for the tool used.
the number of objects interacting with the tool, too few. the reason you gave your boss as to why he should buy you this tool, bad. the thing you did with the object after using the tool, bad.
the fact that you put the object into an oven to dry it while you were using the tool that has a side effect of making it wet, and the customer specifically wanted the object to be soaked.
the fact that he did not really reflect on the object itself and what it was, also not good.
but at least he used a hammer to hammer in a nail. the chair still falls apart and only has 3 legs, but damn the one nail he put in sits well.
However, I am confident that he will publish a study using a larger sample, without Primo, and doing standardized, equally spaced IM shots.
And that he will discuss the results more in depth, and clarify reference ranges used, etc.
That obviously takes time, and I am confident he can do such a thing over the next 1-2 years, which will help clarify if this is a real issue people should mind or something to diseregard.
in this case, everything was wrong, except for the tool used.
the number of objects interacting with the tool, too few. the reason you gave your boss as to why he should buy you this tool, bad. the thing you did with the object after using the tool, bad.
the fact that you put the object into an oven to dry it while you were using the tool that has a side effect of making it wet, and the customer specifically wanted the object to be soaked.
the fact that he did not really reflect on the object itself and what it was, also not good.
but at least he used a hammer to hammer in a nail. the chair still falls apart and only has 3 legs, but damn the one nail he put in sits well.
However, I am confident that he will publish a study using a larger sample, without Primo, and doing standardized, equally spaced IM shots.
And that he will discuss the results more in depth, and clarify reference ranges used, etc.
That obviously takes time, and I am confident he can do such a thing over the next 1-2 years, which will help clarify if this is a real issue people should mind or something to diseregard.
Similar threads
- Poll
