T Nation

Special Brew Question To Bill R.


#1

Hey Bill,

I would pm you but haven't been able to in weeks for technical reasons, so here goes, and the masses can enjoy too now...

Anyhow, so an idea came around for a special blend and I was wondering what you think of the viability of such an idea?

100mg Test E, 100mg Tren E, and 100mg Primo E, per healthy ml? Let's call it TPT300, for shits and giggles...

Will this product hold in your opinion? And what would you think of the pain factor of such a brew?

With the same esters, vs. a blend of esters like Sust, etc, does that make this inherently more difficult to hold without crashing? And would EO, help in your opinion as an addition, or castor oil, or some combo of the two?

Very interested in your opinion on this Bill.

Thanks in advance for any help/ideas to make this work.

ToneBone


Tren & Progesterone Receptor Activation
King of Mass Builders
#2

In most cases, except where their presence greatly reduces the percentage content of solvent or unusual interactions exist, solubilities are independent.

In other words, let’s say that Compound A dissolves in vegetable oil at 50 mg/mL and Compound B dissolves at 75 mg/mL.

Most likely you could dissolve both at the same time at those same concentrations or very close.

In your example the solution is still 70% solvent, so reducing the amount of solvent is not a very large factor, and there are no unfavorable interactions between the solutes. Actually it may be that they serve as mutually useful cosolvents to some extent.

Anyway I’d expect any solvent mixture that was able to dissolve each of these, to also dissolve the combination.

That said, I don’t care for 100 mg/mL trenbolone acetate myself. The most concentrated preparation I’ve liked was 75 mg/mL. However some seem happy with 100 mg/mL formulations. Personally, it seems to me that higher concentration formulations are much more prone to “tren cough” than 50 mg/mL formulations are.

My main thought about this formulation is the use of methenolone enanthate seems wasteful. It is more costly per gram and does nothing anabolically that trenbolone and testosterone cannot do for lower cost.

Why not save it for the property it has that trenbolone does not and testosterone to a much lower extent: the ability to be used in stasis (or if you are going to do a taper, taper) at modest dose with very little inhibition.


#3

On the ethyl oleate or castor oil, I don’t know, I’ve never used them.

There have been some complaints from some regarding ethyl oleate. I would try injecting small amounts of plain EO and seeing how it suits you before, if doing it at all, irreversibly (pretty much) consigning your trenbolone, etc, to an EO-containing formulation.


#4

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
In most cases, except where their presence greatly reduces the percentage content of solvent or unusual interactions exist, solubilities are independent.

In other words, let’s say that Compound A dissolves in vegetable oil at 50 mg/mL and Compound B dissolves at 75 mg/mL.

Most likely you could dissolve both at the same time at those same concentrations or very close.

In your example the solution is still 70% solvent, so reducing the amount of solvent is not a very large factor, and there are no unfavorable interactions between the solutes. Actually it may be that they serve as mutually useful cosolvents to some extent.

Anyway I’d expect any solvent mixture that was able to dissolve each of these, to also dissolve the combination.

That said, I don’t care for 100 mg/mL trenbolone acetate myself. The most concentrated preparation I’ve liked was 75 mg/mL. However some seem happy with 100 mg/mL formulations. Personally, it seems to me that higher concentration formulations are much more prone to “tren cough” than 50 mg/mL formulations are.

My main thought about this formulation is the use of methenolone enanthate seems wasteful. It is more costly per gram and does nothing anabolically that trenbolone and testosterone cannot do for lower cost.

Why not save it for the property it has that trenbolone does not and testosterone to a much lower extent: the ability to be used in stasis (or if you are going to do a taper, taper) at modest dose with very little inhibition.

[/quote]

Wonderful, thank you for the excellent explanation Bill.

Yes, I know what you mean about the methenolone as said, but a certain guy really wants it in there. Having said that, money aside, do you see it as helpful at that dose?

Two scenarios exist for said brew protocol, I’ll outline them…

  1. Twice weekly at 1ml each…(for the new guy).
  2. Twice weekly or eod, at 2ml each, or 1ml each respectively.

So, Mr. conservative gets a rather tame 600mg total/week.
and Mr. coolbreeze, gets a more interesting 1200mg total/week.

Another note, Mr. Conservative HAS limited himself for reasons…of the twice weekly shots. While the other party is quite happy with whatever…

Having said that, how do you see each of those faring results wise with said compounds, and do you yourself have perhaps an “option 3. The Madman” idea sir, with potentially the ultimate results for these cmpds. lol…?

Thanks much Bill!

TB


#5

At option 1 I’d expect the additional 200 mg/week of Primobolan would add a worthwhile (not cost-efficiently, but if not caring about cost) amount of extra results.

In the option 2 case, with 400 mg/week TE and 400 mg/week trenbolone enanthate (works out to 57 mg/day average) still there is some added kick to be had but the additional 400 mg/week Primo would be a bit subtle perhaps.

Simply injecting a modestly greater volume of the less expensive 2-component mixture would be much more cost-effective.

But if that’s not on the table for whatever reason, then sure.

My option 3 would be:

Don’t worry about injection volume. Injecting with an insulin needle is no big deal. I’ve injected as much as six oil-based injections per day That is more than I prefer but the point is, it’s not necessary to go so extremely low with it.

And not worrying about injection volume, now I would make the tren-E at say 100 mg/mL. (TA I prefer less concentrated, and I have not made tren-E, but it would be more readily soluble. And leave it alone.

And make the test-e. Why not make it at 200 mg/mL.

And make the methenolone-e, at 100 mg/mL, and save it for later.

I would now be free to adjust trenbolone and testosterone as desired, independently. And if I decided the “trenbolone” was counterfeit or something actually undesirable, I wouldn’t have wasted my testosterone or methenolone.

If I’d never used trenbolone I’d start at 50 mg/day or whatever would have the same amount of trenbolone as 50 mg/day of the acetate does (I don’t have at hand the figures to do the calculation but it would be something like 60 mg, 65, probably less than 70, dunno.)

And if I liked that I’d consider moving it up to the equivalent of 75-100 mg/day of the acetate.

(Just take the molecular weight of the enanthate and divide it by the molecular weight of the acetate and that would be the factor to multiply by, to figure equivalent amounts of trenbolone.)

The testosterone, I’d use at a rate such as totalling say 700 mg/week.

Every other day injections would be good.

The Primo I’d save for later and I would be glad I did.

If somewhere along the way you decide you are very happy with a given amount of each of these things and want to create a vial of the well-liked mixture, it will be easy enough to take say (just making up figures) 4 mL of one solution and 6 of another, or whatever, and add them to a vial.

The injection volume will be greater than necessary but still nothing unreasonable. Then next time around you might try saving on injection volume via doing it all at the same time.


#6

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
At option 1 I’d expect the additional 200 mg/week of Primobolan would add a worthwhile (not cost-efficiently, but if not caring about cost) amount of extra results.

In the option 2 case, with 400 mg/week TE and 400 mg/week trenbolone enanthate (works out to 57 mg/day average) still there is some added kick to be had but the additional 400 mg/week Primo would be a bit subtle perhaps.

Simply injecting a modestly greater volume of the less expensive 2-component mixture would be much more cost-effective.

But if that’s not on the table for whatever reason, then sure.

My option 3 would be:

Don’t worry about injection volume. Injecting with an insulin needle is no big deal. I’ve injected as much as six oil-based injections per day That is more than I prefer but the point is, it’s not necessary to go so extremely low with it.

And not worrying about injection volume, now I would make the tren-E at say 100 mg/mL. (TA I prefer less concentrated, and I have not made tren-E, but it would be more readily soluble. And leave it alone.

And make the test-e. Why not make it at 200 mg/mL.

And make the methenolone-e, at 100 mg/mL, and save it for later.

I would now be free to adjust trenbolone and testosterone as desired, independently. And if I decided the “trenbolone” was counterfeit or something actually undesirable, I wouldn’t have wasted my testosterone or methenolone.

If I’d never used trenbolone I’d start at 50 mg/day or whatever would have the same amount of trenbolone as 50 mg/day of the acetate does (I don’t have at hand the figures to do the calculation but it would be something like 60 mg, 65, probably less than 70, dunno.) And if I liked that I’d consider moving it up to the equivalent of 75-100 mg/day of the acetate.

(Just take the molecular weight of the enanthate and divide it by the molecular weight of the acetate and that would be the factor to multiply by, to figure equivalent amounts of trenbolone.)

The testosterone, I’d use at a rate such as totalling say 700 mg/week.

Every other day injections would be good.

The Primo I’d save for later and I would be glad I did.

If somewhere along the way you decide you are very happy with a given amount of each of these things and want to create a vial of the well-liked mixture, it will be easy enough to take say (just making up figures) 4 mL of one solution and 6 of another, or whatever, and add them to a vial.

The injection volume will be greater than necessary but still nothing unreasonable. Then next time around you might try saving on injection volume via doing it all at the same time.[/quote]

Fully explained and then some, many thanks Bill.

Final note; If one were hell bent on making a triple mix with the above mentioned two components, and one other, having already used said compounds and being aware of one’s own response etc, WHAT would you suggest for the final compound to go along with the T/T, to make for a superb synergistic brew?

I know many these days really like the Mast in this mix, is there something better in your opinion? The user is rather sensitive/prone to gyno sides, not too bad, but more than the usual I believe. And fwiw, the cycle would be used in a cut.

I really appreciate the time/effort of your response and the knowledge shared Bill.

Thank you.

Tone

Oh Christ, while you’re still around, lol…
If the user was hell bent on using PRIMO, in a blend, your top suggestion would be …?

Thanks, I’ll stop now I promise Bill, lol…


#7

I’d pick the Masteron over the Primo, yes. That would be excellent and hard or perhaps impossible to improve on for an all-injectable stack.


#8

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I’d pick the Masteron over the Primo, yes. That would be excellent and hard or perhaps impossible to improve on for an all-injectable stack.[/quote]

Perfect. Thanks again, and I snuck one last querry in on you during an edit there sir…

Your best Primo injec blend would be…?

Cheers Bill!


#9

For what purpose?

For its best purpose I wouldn’t blend it with anything.

For mass gain or fat loss I’d rather use for example half as many added mg of trenbolone instead.


#10

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
For what purpose?

For its best purpose I wouldn’t blend it with anything.

For mass gain or fat loss I’d rather use for example half as many added mg of trenbolone instead.[/quote]

Well, along the lines of cutting. I indicated that in the previous post edit, but you probably missed it.

So if you ran it solo, or with tren, which I had actually thought about, but was sort of talked out of that, what would your respective doses look like to REALLY kick ass Bill?


#11

While some powerlifters use more than that, 100-150 mg/day of trenbolone acetate (general method given above to figure milligrams for another ester) is plenty and is kick-ass.

It seems to me that testosterone is so to speak more potent for it’s non-AR-mediated effects than AR-mediated. The benefit, if using testosterone-only, to going to the quite-high-by-typical-standards doses such as 2 g or 4 g per week seems to me to be to get the not-so-potent-at-that testosterone to pretty fully activate the AR’s, not because that much was needed for non-AR-mediated activity. For the latter, it seems to me that a gram per week is quite effective.

Anyway regardless of reason in practice 100-150 mg/day of TA and a gram per week of testosterone ester is quite effective. With an AI to control estrogen it can be quite reasonable, too.

If worried about pore size, skin oiliness and things like this, dutasteride at that sort of dose of testosterone seems no impediment of any sort but reduces or eliminates any such problems.


#12

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
While some powerlifters use more than that, 100-150 mg/day of trenbolone acetate (general method given above to figure milligrams for another ester) is plenty and is kick-ass.

It seems to me that testosterone is so to speak more potent for it’s non-AR-mediated effects than AR-mediated.

The benefit, if using testosterone-only, to going to the quite-high-by-typical-standards doses such as 2 g or 4 g per week seems to me to be to get the not-so-potent-at-that testosterone to pretty fully activate the AR’s, not because that much was needed for non-AR-mediated activity. For the latter, it seems to me that a gram per week is quite effective.

Anyway regardless of reason in practice 100-150 mg/day of TA and a gram per week of testosterone ester is quite effective. With an AI to control estrogen it can be quite reasonable, too.

If worried about pore size, skin oiliness and things like this, dutasteride at that sort of dose of testosterone seems no impediment of any sort but reduces or eliminates any such problems.[/quote]

Shit, I’m sorry Bill, I thought we were talking about primo and tren there…if you look back on the posts prior…

Can I possibly get that final thought out of you tonight, lol? That’s what I thought you had asked me about, regarding to the primo as I had asked…I think I misunderstood your post then…sorry.

One more time sir…
Did you mean use primo as a standalone for best?, and for cutting or mass, test and half as much tren?

I’m sorry I was confused and thought we were talking primo tren…


#13

Thanks Bill, I think I figured out what happened.

I just was after the kick ass primo dose for the cut coming up, and whether you would add anything to that, or just simply run it solo, which is what I think you said to do.

Tone

Sorry to sit here and pick your brain like this, but your credentials are impecable imo, and thus, the flurry comes fast and furious Bill.


#14

No, I’d cut on test and tren as well, just keeping estrogen under control with an AI.

For that more moderate doses would be fine, even as little as the equivalent of 50 mg/day TA and a minimum of 200 but more preferably 500 mg/week testosterone.

(Not that that isn’t also decent for the typical user for a gaining cycle, it is.)


#15

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
No, I’d cut on test and tren as well, just keeping estrogen under control with an AI.

For that more moderate doses would be fine, even as little as the equivalent of 50 mg/day TA and a minimum of 200 but more preferably 500 mg/week testosterone.

(Not that that isn’t also decent for the typical user for a gaining cycle, it is.)[/quote]

Yeah Bill, I got that from your other post, lol…

I’m just badgering you around here at this point, for what you would deem a “kicking total ass” dose of Primo, and if that would be STRICTLY a solo thing for you, or if you would add anything to Primo, in using PRIMO for a cut?

I’m rather lame sometimes at articulating things, I do apologize if that’s been the case tonight,…


#16

I’ve never had the opportunity to use Primo at high dose, or more precisely not the willingness to spend the outrageous cost. Nor has anyone in the US that I’ve known done so.

However I had a friend in Greece who was very, very intelligent and knowledeable about these things, and he was quite fond of a gram per week of Primo.

I would check estrogen levels though if doing this, and if need be take a little HCG to maintain low-normal. However he did not do this, and had no problems.


#17

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I’ve never had the opportunity to use Primo at high dose, or more precisely not the willingness to spend the outrageous cost. Nor has anyone in the US that I’ve known done so.

However I had a friend in Greece who was very, very intelligent and knowledeable about these things, and he was quite fond of a gram per week of Primo.

I would check estrogen levels though if doing this, and if need be take a little HCG to maintain low-normal. However he did not do this, and had no problems.[/quote]

Beautiful!

Many, MANY thanks Bill for your time on this subject.
You’ve been a tremendous help as you so often are.

Ciao!


#18

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#19

Yeah, all this talk about primo has gotten me thinking (and I know I already asked about it on another thread), but, the general consensus here is that primo is a good compound, but, for the cost, two to three other compounds can be stacked to equal or greater benefit, at the cost of increased sides. The sides, however, can be controlled with good planning and use of ancillaries. Does this sound about right?

I have 12g of primo powder that I got for free sitting in my freezer and I was thinking about trying to convert it to injectible, but I’ve heard enough bad things about this that if the answer to the above paragraph is “yes,” then I will probably just swallow it.


#20

Yes, side effects of for example testosterone can be controlled with ancillaries.

On the other hand, if happening to have night sweats from tren (btw, just because it happened to an individual before doesn’t mean it will next time, or vice versa) I don’t know of anything to take that avoids that.

Or feeling feverish from too much Equipoise: don’t know anything to avoid that.

Or depression from Deca: There’s sonme support for my thoughts that Winstrol plus pregnenolone, but not nearly enough of an experience base to say it with confidence.

On risk of hepatic cholestasis from alkylated steroids: No known method of avoidance except limited periods of use.

Anyway, saving some for oral use could be a nice option, but as expensive as methenolone enanthate is, and being much more bioavailable by injection, absolutely I’d use at least the great bulk of it for injection.

For example an experiment you might really like is when your natural T is at good levels, try taking Primo at different levels and test the results. For example with 100 mg/week your T may remain unchanged yet you’ll have a benefit. This may be true at 200 mg/week. I knew of one person who found this true at 400 mg/week though while using Clomid at the same time (comparing that state to T levels with no Primo and no Clomid.)