Any difference in gains/potency of long vs short esters?

[Rms2188]

This may sound stupid as hell but it seems like when I run shorter esters I see more Noticible results. For instance if I ran an 8 week cycle of test prop & tren ace at 700/350 it seems to produce more than 12 weeks on the same dose of enanthates. (Takes 3 weeks to get stable) Is there any difference between potency of long vs short esters? Is there a difference in the gains being kept between esters? I'd like an overall opinion on which is better and why? Long or short esters. Ready set go...

 

[kaoticsolja]

I prefer short esters.. It causes that blow up look... I ran 3 long Ester and 2 short ester cycles and have gotten way more... Wtf is that guy on with the prop... More vascular.. Less bloat... Less water and all... That's with no orals. Var or winny may change that but this cycle I am front. Loading with prop and dbol ... Running tren and enth... And at the tell end switching back to prop and var... To ease into pct.. And drop the water I will undoubtedly get from the enth and dbol.. So take that for what it's worth

Eat. Lift. Sleep. Repeat.

 

[lim]

This may sound stupid as hell but it seems like when I run shorter esters I see more Noticible results. For instance if I ran an 8 week cycle of test prop & tren ace at 700/350 it seems to produce more than 12 weeks on the same dose of enanthates. (Takes 3 weeks to get stable) Is there any difference between potency of long vs short esters? Is there a difference in the gains being kept between esters? I'd like an overall opinion on which is better and why? Long or short esters. Ready set go...

Hello,

Theoretically, it is not make much different between long and short ester. Only the main compound will give effects to you. Long Ester is just made to make you more comfort with the injection frequency. However, the short ester will fast release the main compound so you will see the effects faster than the with long ester.

 

[Sherk]

Short esters are stronger on a mg per mg basis. Let's use test prop and cyp for example. When you inject 100mg of cyp you're only injecting roughly 70mg of the testosterone hormone, whereas with prop you're injecting somewhere around 83mg. The ester takes up room. The hormone is the same but the esters are a different weight which slightly changes things.

 

[Rms2188]

I never thought about the ester weight when I wrote this thread. That is a good point bro

 

[Tuck1502]

Its like comparing xanax to valium...you're going to notice the xanax hits you harder, more noticeable and the valium hits slower but lasts longer. Funny comparison but it was the first thing I thought about lol.

- - - Updated - - -

 

[Rms2188]

Makes perfect sense to a former junkie. Good analogy. But after all the esters have played out, are the effects still the same? Like would you get bigger because you lift more times on same amounts of long esters in the end? I dunno its just a untested hypothesis I have. I'm getting a bunch of sust this next week so I'll get the best of both. Anyone ever mix long and short ( like prop/enanthate for entire cycle) to achieve same effect?

 

[l69lou]

I feel that in the long run gains are better on longer esters and cycles . It may take a little longer to get going but as you are on the gear for longer the effects will be greater . I do like mixing longer esters with shorter . I usually kick start with a short ester but frequently keep the short ester going the whole time , I love the kick it gives . It also depends on goals and what kind of run it is . For instance for contest prep most stay drier and leaner on prop than test e or test c . I don't think you can make a blanket statement that one is better than the other , both have their place .

 

[Warriorblaze]

Short esters are stronger on a mg per mg basis. Let's use test prop and cyp for example. When you inject 100mg of cyp you're only injecting roughly 70mg of the testosterone hormone, whereas with prop you're injecting somewhere around 83mg. The ester takes up room. The hormone is the same but the esters are a different weight which slightly changes things.

This ^^^

 

[zionoir626]

I thought you might chime in on this one WB.................But would the half-life on longer ones start to compound and increase mgs?? Thoughts??

 

[Rms2188]

I thought you might chime in on this one WB.................But would the half-life on longer ones start to compound and increase mgs?? Thoughts??

Curious about this too^^^ turning interesting. Come on vets. Ready set go

 

[Tuck1502]

I think any good, solid change occurs with the longer esters. The short esters are good for immediate results but are hard to maintain because the drug leaves the body quickly whereas with a cypionate or ethanate the drug doesn't leave the body near as fast and the gains are sustainable. Your body has to have time to "accept" the changes and it's easier for it to do that with the longer esters. You don't have to "stay on the ball" as much with the longer esters either, remembering to pin every day or every other day. You can direct your focus more on workouts, diet etc. I think the longer esters maintain a more steady hormone level in the body and its easier for the body to adapt. I know this stuff is documented and I may be wrong in something I'm saying here but it's just the way I think about it.

 

[test1]

I feel that in the long run gains are better on longer esters and cycles . It may take a little longer to get going but as you are on the gear for longer the effects will be greater . I do like mixing longer esters with shorter . I usually kick start with a short ester but frequently keep the short ester going the whole time , I love the kick it gives . It also depends on goals and what kind of run it is . For instance for contest prep most stay drier and leaner on prop than test e or test c . I don't think you can make a blanket statement that one is better than the other , both have their place .

im with you on a kick start, i always start off with prop to get things going and its always my plan to drop it about 3-4 weeks in but it never works out that way for me i love running prop and enth together the entire cycle till i switch things up somewhere.

 

[Skip Foursome]

I think any good, solid change occurs with the longer esters. The short esters are good for immediate results but are hard to maintain because the drug leaves the body quickly whereas with a cypionate or ethanate the drug doesn't leave the body near as fast and the gains are sustainable. Your body has to have time to "accept" the changes and it's easier for it to do that with the longer esters. You don't have to "stay on the ball" as much with the longer esters either, remembering to pin every day or every other day. You can direct your focus more on workouts, diet etc. I think the longer esters maintain a more steady hormone level in the body and its easier for the body to adapt. I know this stuff is documented and I may be wrong in something I'm saying here but it's just the way I think about it.

Maybe you are quoting what some bro told you but I am with Farva on this one, not good advice.

 

[Rms2188]

So mixing seems like the solution to me. Get the benefits of both. Fuck it next cycle I'm gonna run a gram of every injectable compound in the market and 100mg of every oral and see what happens. Lol. I may or may not mutate/need a new liver. So as soon as I lock down a liver donor I'll get right on it.

 

[l69lou]

Theoretically a short ester is stronger because of ester weight but it's only what 13mg/ml . You would never notice it in the real world . I like to keep it simple myself . you have to take enough and you have to take it for long enough . lol That's Lou's theory in a nutshell !

 

[Tuck1502]

You read chapter 3 in Brology Science 101 too??

Lol I guess I have been. Can you point out where I am wrong? Not being a smartass, really trying to learn more

 

[Mike Arnold]

Short esters are not more anabolic!

​

Even today, you will hear people claim that shorter esters are stronger, per mg, due to their decreased ester weight.

This is 100% wrong! While shorter esters do contain a greater amount of steroid per mg, they are NOT stronger per mg. In fact, in every study ever conducted over the last 80 years which examined this subject (there have been many), longer esters have continually been demonstrated to produce a greater increase in protein synthesis, per mg, than shorter esters. This translates into greater muscle growth and is a direct result of the longer ester's extended active life.

In one study involving 200 mg of test enanthate and 200 mg test prop, protein synthesis was increased roughly 190% in the test prop subjects, while protein synthesis increased over 240% in the test enth subjects. There have been literally dozens of similar studies going back to the 1930's and in every case, the results are always the same--the longer the ester, the greater the increase in protein synthesis, per mg. The anabolic benefits of having a longer active life simply outweigh the anabolic benefits of reduced ester weight. The research is abundantly clear on this fact.

The reason some people appear to get better gains using short esters, at least intially, comes down to release rate. Short esters, like prop, release testosterone into the system very quickly, so naturally, gains will take place more quickly. However, when protein synthesis is measured over the entire active life of the steroid, greater growth occurs with a longer ester. So, while short esters often produce more gains up-front, they do not produce greater gains in the long-run.

 

[Rms2188]

Short esters are not more anabolic!

​

Even today, you will hear people claim that shorter esters are stronger, per mg, due to their decreased ester weight.

This is 100% wrong! While shorter esters do contain a greater amount of steroid per mg, they are NOT stronger per mg. In fact, in every study ever conducted over the last 80 years which examined this subject (there have been many), longer esters have continually been demonstrated to produce a greater increase in protein synthesis, per mg, than shorter esters. This translates into greater muscle growth and is a direct result of the longer ester's extended active life.

In one study involving 200 mg of test enanthate and 200 mgtest prep, protein synthesis was increased roughly 190% in the test prop subjects, while protein syntheis increased over 240% in the test enth subjects. There have been literally dozens of similar studies going back to the 1930's and in every case, the results are always the same--the longer the ester, the greater the increase in protein synthesis, per mg. The anabolic benefits of having a longer active life simply outweighs the anabolic benefits of reduced ester weight. The reserach is abundantly clear on this fact.

The reason some people appear to get better gains using short esters, at least intially, comes down to release rate. Short esters, like prop, release testosterone into the system very quickly, so naturally, gains will take place more quickly. However, whe protein syntheis is measured over the entire active life of the steroid, greater growth occurs with a longer ester. So, while short esters often produce more gains up-front, they do not produce greater gains in the long-run.

Awesome add-in. Thanks for sharing this.

 

[l69lou]

^^^ There you go !

 

[STTM]

The quicker the gains, the quicker myostatin will rise.

 

[Casca]

Short esters are not more anabolic!

​

Even today, you will hear people claim that shorter esters are stronger, per mg, due to their decreased ester weight.

This is 100% wrong! While shorter esters do contain a greater amount of steroid per mg, they are NOT stronger per mg. In fact, in every study ever conducted over the last 80 years which examined this subject (there have been many), longer esters have continually been demonstrated to produce a greater increase in protein synthesis, per mg, than shorter esters. This translates into greater muscle growth and is a direct result of the longer ester's extended active life.

In one study involving 200 mg of test enanthate and 200 mg test prop, protein synthesis was increased roughly 190% in the test prop subjects, while protein synthesis increased over 240% in the test enth subjects. There have been literally dozens of similar studies going back to the 1930's and in every case, the results are always the same--the longer the ester, the greater the increase in protein synthesis, per mg. The anabolic benefits of having a longer active life simply outweigh the anabolic benefits of reduced ester weight. The research is abundantly clear on this fact.

The reason some people appear to get better gains using short esters, at least intially, comes down to release rate. Short esters, like prop, release testosterone into the system very quickly, so naturally, gains will take place more quickly. However, when protein synthesis is measured over the entire active life of the steroid, greater growth occurs with a longer ester. So, while short esters often produce more gains up-front, they do not produce greater gains in the long-run.

Solid information, thx for helping me understand more clearly.


THE GREEN MACHINE

CASCA

 

[Powerlifter03]

Short esters are not more anabolic!

​

Even today, you will hear people claim that shorter esters are stronger, per mg, due to their decreased ester weight.

This is 100% wrong! While shorter esters do contain a greater amount of steroid per mg, they are NOT stronger per mg. In fact, in every study ever conducted over the last 80 years which examined this subject (there have been many), longer esters have continually been demonstrated to produce a greater increase in protein synthesis, per mg, than shorter esters. This translates into greater muscle growth and is a direct result of the longer ester's extended active life.

In one study involving 200 mg of test enanthate and 200 mg test prop, protein synthesis was increased roughly 190% in the test prop subjects, while protein synthesis increased over 240% in the test enth subjects. There have been literally dozens of similar studies going back to the 1930's and in every case, the results are always the same--the longer the ester, the greater the increase in protein synthesis, per mg. The anabolic benefits of having a longer active life simply outweigh the anabolic benefits of reduced ester weight. The research is abundantly clear on this fact.

The reason some people appear to get better gains using short esters, at least intially, comes down to release rate. Short esters, like prop, release testosterone into the system very quickly, so naturally, gains will take place more quickly. However, when protein synthesis is measured over the entire active life of the steroid, greater growth occurs with a longer ester. So, while short esters often produce more gains up-front, they do not produce greater gains in the long-run.

I'm glad some real info is posted; especially, when it backs up one of the primary reasons I prefer longer esters! There is a reason why so many of the older vets use long esters....

I personally prefer long esters (with the exception of NPP) due to the stable hormonal levels. My levels are all over the place on short ester Test/Mast and I feel up and down constantly. With longer ester Test/Mast hormone levels are much more smooth and everything is far more controllable, plus I prefer to run long cycles. *I may kickstart with a short ester like TPP for 3-4 weeks or even add it in going into a meet, but not always sometimes I prefer an oral.

Not too say I don't love the hard hitting feeling of short esters, but like I said, I prefer long cycles and short esters will burn you out in 6-8 weeks. At least for me they have that effect.

 

[Powerlifter03]

Mike, is there any chance you can post some of these studies or know where one can look to find them? I'd enjoy reading them.

 

[ClintEastwood]

Short esters are stronger on a mg per mg basis. Let's use test prop and cyp for example. When you inject 100mg of cyp you're only injecting roughly 70mg of the testosterone hormone, whereas with prop you're injecting somewhere around 83mg. The ester takes up room. The hormone is the same but the esters are a different weight which slightly changes things.

This

Short esters give you more actual product into the blood stream. Some people will tell you short ester give less sides, like water retention but I disagree with this idea. Sides are often caused by poor diet or estrogen build up. I can bloat up just as easy on prop as I can with enanthate.

 

[ClintEastwood]

Short esters are not more anabolic!

​

Even today, you will hear people claim that shorter esters are stronger, per mg, due to their decreased ester weight.

This is 100% wrong! While shorter esters do contain a greater amount of steroid per mg, they are NOT stronger per mg. In fact, in every study ever conducted over the last 80 years which examined this subject (there have been many), longer esters have continually been demonstrated to produce a greater increase in protein synthesis, per mg, than shorter esters. This translates into greater muscle growth and is a direct result of the longer ester's extended active life.

In one study involving 200 mg of test enanthate and 200 mg test prop, protein synthesis was increased roughly 190% in the test prop subjects, while protein synthesis increased over 240% in the test enth subjects. There have been literally dozens of similar studies going back to the 1930's and in every case, the results are always the same--the longer the ester, the greater the increase in protein synthesis, per mg. The anabolic benefits of having a longer active life simply outweigh the anabolic benefits of reduced ester weight. The research is abundantly clear on this fact.

The reason some people appear to get better gains using short esters, at least intially, comes down to release rate. Short esters, like prop, release testosterone into the system very quickly, so naturally, gains will take place more quickly. However, when protein synthesis is measured over the entire active life of the steroid, greater growth occurs with a longer ester. So, while short esters often produce more gains up-front, they do not produce greater gains in the long-run.

Well I guess that blows my last post out of the water.

 

[ClintEastwood]

^^^ There you go !

Biglou,

So which is your choice? Prop or enanthate? Just curious.

 

[badboys]

Makes me want to go get some Tren E