[quote]Dynamo Hum wrote:
dasboi wrote:
i’m running 500mg test e a week. frontloaded 625 grams on my first pinning on a saturday. subsequently pinned 250mg every tuesday and friday. gained 8 pounds after the first week.
“625 grams” - Freudian slip??? That is some frontload!! King Kong eat your heart out…[/quote]
rofl
[quote]Dynamo Hum wrote:
dasboi wrote:
i’m running 500mg test e a week. frontloaded 625 grams on my first pinning on a saturday. subsequently pinned 250mg every tuesday and friday. gained 8 pounds after the first week.
“625 grams” - Freudian slip??? That is some frontload!! King Kong eat your heart out…[/quote]
Lmao!
Wow, that would be an experience then wouldn’t it?!
Very interesting thread guys, and very informative.
I’m currently just letting things move into stable active levels on their own, using prop esters, and I just don’t have a problem waiting a week to get the ball rolling give or take. But I will give this a try next time I promise, lol.
Great stuff.
[quote]Dynamo Hum wrote:
Bill Roberts uses the following calculation for frontload:
(weekly dosage x half-life / 7) + interval dosage = frontload dose
So in your case the first dose would look like this:
(583mg per week x 8 / 7) + 250mg = 900mg test E frontload dose. [/quote]
(From another thread)
If one was planing on Test-E 250mg E3D, they would:
250mg / 3 = 83mg
(83mg)(7 days)(5 day halflife)/7 = 417mg
417mg + 250 mg = 667mg First Shot
Correct?
[quote]DOHCrazy wrote:
Dynamo Hum wrote:
Bill Roberts uses the following calculation for frontload:
(weekly dosage x half-life / 7) + interval dosage = frontload dose
So in your case the first dose would look like this:
(583mg per week x 8 / 7) + 250mg = 900mg test E frontload dose.
(From another thread)
If one was planing on Test-E 250mg E3D, they would:
250mg / 3 = 83mg
(83mg)(7 days)(5 day halflife)/7 = 417mg
417mg + 250 mg = 667mg First Shot
Correct?
[/quote]
That would be correct on figuring the half-life at 5 days.
The principle is that you inject the regular scheduled amount – what you are calling above the “interval dosage” – plus the amount on average injected during one half-life.
So if the half-life is taken as 5 days, and if injecting 250 mg every three days, on average each half-life (5 days) gets 250 x (5/3) mg or as you provided, 417 mg.
And the total for first day injection would be as you said, that plus 250 mg, or 667 mg total.
The half-life seems to be an uncertain thing in terms of a precise-to-the-day figure. I tend to think 6 days – if using that then it would be 500 mg injected over each half-life, so 750 mg for the frontload.
But obviously that difference is not a very great one. And I have no proof that 6 days is a more accurate figure than 5.
I would think an overestimated front load would be more beneficial for the purpose than an underestimated front load.
Thus, 750mg better than the 667mg.
Thoughts?
Anybody remember saps’ formula for calculating half-life based upon carbon atoms (or something to that effect)?
I’d like to see Bill’s take on it.
[quote]DOHCrazy wrote:
I would think an overestimated front load would be more beneficial for the purpose than an underestimated front load.
Thus, 750mg better than the 667mg.
Thoughts?
[/quote]
It certaintly makes it easier to get the right amount if your gear is doses at 250 mg’s/cc.
The only thing I have encountered that goes against large front loads is some people say you have to deal with 'habituation". In that your body takes in the 750 mgs and does great but when you just start doing the 250 mg shots, your body is already used to the higher dose and so doesn’t respond to the 250 mg very well. I have no evidence to prove this, but it makes some sense, seeing as every rec drug I have ever used I have to use more and more overtime to achieve the same effects.
How does 8 days sound for the half life of a decanoate ester?
[quote]DOHCrazy wrote:
I would think an overestimated front load would be more beneficial for the purpose than an underestimated front load.
Thus, 750mg better than the 667mg.
Thoughts?
[/quote]
I agree with your logic and Bill’s guestimate of test e’s 6 day half life is as educated a guess as you’ll find.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
How does 8 days sound for the half life of a decanoate ester? [/quote]
If I had to guess, I’d go with 9 days since I have seen enanthate listed at 10 days and decanoate listed as 15. Bill puts test E at around 6 days so I would trim decanoate by the same percentage (40%) yielding 9 days.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Anybody remember saps’ formula for calculating half-life based upon carbon atoms (or something to that effect)?
I’d like to see Bill’s take on it.[/quote]
I don’t know the formula in question but if (if) dealing with a question of only added methylene units – extra CH2’s in a straight chain – then an extra day for each added methylene unit is about right.
But sometimes the added unit is something different such as a phenyl ring (phenylpropionate vs propionate) or cyclopentyl ring (cypionate vs propionate). And in such cases the change in half-life will not be as predicted above.
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
The only thing I have encountered that goes against large front loads is some people say you have to deal with 'habituation". In that your body takes in the 750 mgs and does great but when you just start doing the 250 mg shots, your body is already used to the higher dose and so doesn’t respond to the 250 mg very well. I have no evidence to prove this, but it makes some sense, seeing as every rec drug I have ever used I have to use more and more overtime to achieve the same effects.[/quote]
But the thing is that frontloading simply gets you to the SAME levels that you will be maintaining, rather than being a higher dose.
So there is no habituation to a higher level, as a higher level does not occur.
Bill no input on the half life of decanoate ester?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Cortes wrote:
Anybody remember saps’ formula for calculating half-life based upon carbon atoms (or something to that effect)?
I’d like to see Bill’s take on it.
I don’t know the formula in question but if (if) dealing with a question of only added methylene units – extra CH2’s in a straight chain – then an extra day for each added methylene unit is about right.
But sometimes the added unit is something different such as a phenyl ring (phenylpropionate vs propionate) or cyclopentyl ring (cypionate vs propionate). And in such cases the change in half-life will not be as predicted above.[/quote]
Hey Bill,
Saps formula was simply taking the amount of carbon atoms and multiplying by .7 to get the half life in days.
Prop comes out to 2 days, enan was 5 days with this method I believe.
Here are a few quotes of Sap’s that I found after digging around a bit…
"I should point out since I sometimes am the only one here championing this cause. I do not subscribe to the conventional belief on esters. I still hold to the carbons x .7 formula whereas all those internet charts seem to follow nearly double that guideline. So yeah EQ or undeca Test reports as 14 day half life. But again IMO and common practice seem to back this up if you follow the .7 formula you are only going to be getting about 8 days before you it the half life point. Under my forumla 1600 would be 800 after 8 days and 400 after 15 days and still about 200 after the 4 weeks to one month point.
For the record the .7xcarbons caluclation is not my own. Years ago I did read an internet story on it. However, for $1000 I could not produce the link. I just cannot find it anywhere I search for it. This suggests this opinion might not have overwhelming scientific backing. That’s not my concern. My concern is real world testing."
And this:
" In the real world why is it that Tren Ace is recommended as an ED and Test Prop and EOD? Same reason Test Enanthate or Cypionate are advised as E3D or bi-weekly. Same reason further that Deca and EQ can be recommended as infrequently as once a week.
All the above common place recommendations follow the formula above and the injection frequency occurs prior to reaching your half-life point.
Years ago I ran Test Cyp as a weekly inject. According to the popular internet sites on half-lives Cyp is like a 10-12 day half life. I got decent results to be sure. 8 carbons x .7 is 5.6 days after all so even once a week I was just a day or so past half-life using the .7 formula. However, when switching Cyp and subsequently Enan to a bi-weekly schedule I achieved substantially better results. By injecting every 3.5 days with products that had 4.9 or 5.6 day half-lives I was never experiencing the degree of loss of product I was formerly.
See for yourself. Find how many carbon atoms your product has and multiply by .7. Then figure out what your injection frequency should be. Prop is the one whose injection frequency comes closest to hitting the half life. EOD is of course every 2 days. Prop has 3 carbons for a 2.1 day half life according to the formula. I think we all know individuals who do or have done Prop as an ED."
All of this flies in the face of the conventional charts, most of which are usually almost double this, but Saps argued that they were usually pretty much just all copies of one another etc.
One final quote from our man Saps,
“In real life if you plan your pins and pct off the x.7 formula you will be much better off.”
What say you on this now Bill? It does seem to have merit imho as far as being accurate though I’m not sure if science backs it up fully or not.
ToneBone
Well I wrote an article on that sort of thing about 10 years ago which goes into more detail:
mesomorphosis.com/articles/pharmacology/anabolic-steroid-esters.htm
And as to why the simple formula is true only for straight-chain differences, that is to say, differences only in number of methylene (CH2) units: It is because the physical reason is difference in partition coefficient, which is approximately speaking the ratio of solubilities of a substance in a chosen hydrophobic solvent versus water.
The difference in log partition coefficient is indeed constant for each added methylene unit.
But not for each added carbon, per se. For example an added phenyl ring increases log partition coefficient far less than 6 added methylenes do. (Because a phenyl ring is not as hydrophobic as 6 methylenes.) And therefore, for example, phenylpropionate has a shorter half-life than enanthate despite having more carbons.
Saps’ formula, in contrast, would predict its half life to be only minimally shorter than decanoate: by only 7/10ths of a day. Quite wrong.
Awesome, thanks Bill, trying to pull it up right now…looks like I’ll have to dump the computer and restart, damn freeze ups…lol.
So glad you’ve been back around these days.
It’s a great help to the integrity of the forum, and we as a whole greatly appreciate your input.
TB
Thanks for the kind words! 
Thanks for finding that for me, Tone, that was exactly what I was talking about.
I miss old saps. He was around for a long time when I first started researching AAS, then disappeared for a long time. Around the time Bill “came back” he did, too, and I was thrilled that the both of you were posting on this site now that I had finally gotten up the balls to start posting myself.
I’m very glad you have remained here, as well, Bill. I wouldn’t mind if you made it over to PWI a little bit more recently. You are as intelligent and articulate in that sphere as you are in this one. I tend to keep my mouth shut over there a lot more than I do over here, though.
Okay, /long rambling hijack 
Would the side effect potential not be excacerbated by a front load?Im just curious,as from reading about potential sides versus dosages it would seem that if one was prone to acne/hairloss, hypertension etc…and had no experience as to how their body would react to exogenous testosterone(as i obviously don’t) would it not be more prudent for a first timer to go with a standard protocol?