ExcelMale
Menu
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Videos
Lab Tests
Doctor Finder
Buy Books
About Us
Men’s Health Coaching
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Clinical Use of Anabolics and Hormones
Clinical Use of Anabolics and Hormones
Nandrolone Experiences
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DS3" data-source="post: 170806" data-attributes="member: 18514"><p>"Rather, my hope is to dissuade others from similarly jumping to extraordinary conclusions based on uncontrolled and often subjective evaluations, which also conflict with existing research. This is the sure path to a metaphorical dark ages, in which little new knowledge is gained."</p><p></p><p>My conclusions are based on my decade's worth of experience taking Testosterone, 7 of which have been under doctor supervision at the Baylor College of Medicine. Perhaps there are flaws in the existing research. Every time I have changed from long-ester to short, most negative symptoms (with the most bothersome being the GI pain) diminish. When I switch back to long-esters, the negative symptoms present themselves. I have tried this time and again over the last decade. And again, I have quantifiable evidence that validates there are differences in how I respond to Prop versus Cyp (even at a much higher dosage). Perhaps you should be a little more open to considering new evidence, lest you fall victim to limited knowledge acquisition remnant of the dark ages. </p><p></p><p>"Here's a tidbit for you. If you want to learn more then Google is your friend:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><em><strong>As all testosterone esters</strong>, testosterone propionate is <strong>rapidly hydrolysed into free testosterone in plasma</strong>.[<a href="https://www.drugbank.ca/drugs/DB01420#reference-A31625" target="_blank">1</a>]"</em></p><p></p><p>Thanks for the resource. Just so we are clear, DrugBank is citing a study that solely assesses the pharmacokinetics of Testosterone Propionate without comparison to other esters. The assertion is, in fact, not supported by the study they are citing. <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3782423" target="_blank">Pharmacokinetic properties of testosterone propionate in normal men. - PubMed - NCBI</a></p><p></p><p>"You must be a big fan of homeopathy, chief: Water has memory, so testosterone must also, right? Once again, extraordinary claim, burden of proof on you."</p><p></p><p>No sir. If you assert that the body doesn't know the difference between endogenous T and exogenous T, you must provide evidence of that claim or chalk it up to the <strong>speculation</strong> that it is. Remember: Russell's teapot.</p><p></p><p>"Ever heard that you can't prove a negative? In this case the claim is also ridiculously vague. Tell me specifically what problems you think they're causing along with some plausible mechanisms."</p><p></p><p>Lol. Hey man, if you are going to call someone out and say that it is mere speculation that preservatives and esters don't affect drugs, then simply turning it around on me for calling you out and saying that the burden is on me furthers my speculation that you don't have evidence backing up your statement. I'm totally cool with saying that my statement is, in fact, speculation that preservatives and esters 'may' affect the way a drug works in someone's body (depending on liver enzyme function, etc.). If you are going to assert that this is incorrect then you need to provide evidence, or just own up to your statement being speculation.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DS3, post: 170806, member: 18514"] "Rather, my hope is to dissuade others from similarly jumping to extraordinary conclusions based on uncontrolled and often subjective evaluations, which also conflict with existing research. This is the sure path to a metaphorical dark ages, in which little new knowledge is gained." My conclusions are based on my decade's worth of experience taking Testosterone, 7 of which have been under doctor supervision at the Baylor College of Medicine. Perhaps there are flaws in the existing research. Every time I have changed from long-ester to short, most negative symptoms (with the most bothersome being the GI pain) diminish. When I switch back to long-esters, the negative symptoms present themselves. I have tried this time and again over the last decade. And again, I have quantifiable evidence that validates there are differences in how I respond to Prop versus Cyp (even at a much higher dosage). Perhaps you should be a little more open to considering new evidence, lest you fall victim to limited knowledge acquisition remnant of the dark ages. "Here's a tidbit for you. If you want to learn more then Google is your friend: [INDENT][I][B]As all testosterone esters[/B], testosterone propionate is [B]rapidly hydrolysed into free testosterone in plasma[/B].[[URL='https://www.drugbank.ca/drugs/DB01420#reference-A31625']1[/URL]]"[/I][/INDENT] Thanks for the resource. Just so we are clear, DrugBank is citing a study that solely assesses the pharmacokinetics of Testosterone Propionate without comparison to other esters. The assertion is, in fact, not supported by the study they are citing. [URL='https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3782423']Pharmacokinetic properties of testosterone propionate in normal men. - PubMed - NCBI[/URL] "You must be a big fan of homeopathy, chief: Water has memory, so testosterone must also, right? Once again, extraordinary claim, burden of proof on you." No sir. If you assert that the body doesn't know the difference between endogenous T and exogenous T, you must provide evidence of that claim or chalk it up to the [B]speculation[/B] that it is. Remember: Russell's teapot. "Ever heard that you can't prove a negative? In this case the claim is also ridiculously vague. Tell me specifically what problems you think they're causing along with some plausible mechanisms." Lol. Hey man, if you are going to call someone out and say that it is mere speculation that preservatives and esters don't affect drugs, then simply turning it around on me for calling you out and saying that the burden is on me furthers my speculation that you don't have evidence backing up your statement. I'm totally cool with saying that my statement is, in fact, speculation that preservatives and esters 'may' affect the way a drug works in someone's body (depending on liver enzyme function, etc.). If you are going to assert that this is incorrect then you need to provide evidence, or just own up to your statement being speculation. [INDENT][/INDENT] [INDENT][/INDENT] [INDENT][/INDENT] [INDENT][/INDENT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Share this page
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Sponsors
Forums
Clinical Use of Anabolics and Hormones
Clinical Use of Anabolics and Hormones
Nandrolone Experiences
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top