+ 3 What in all holy hell is a half-life exactly?
So I recently was asked to explain half-lives since most members seem to have a misconceived view of what they are exactly. Now I'm going to be laying down some fairly advanced math here so if you don’t understand I’m sorry, but I really tried to make it as basic as I possibly could.
So to start with half-lives do not mean that there is a linear decay. However the RATE at which steroids decay is linear. What do I mean by this? Take a look at this graph.
http://www.mathexpression.com/images/graph-of-y-neg-x-4.png
This is a linear graph. This is what you guys are trying to interpret steroid half-life to be like in terms of how much testosterone you have in your body as a function of time. This is not the case. What a half-life saying is the rate of change of testosterone per half-life time is linear or decays at a standard non-exponential rate.
In mathematical differential equation terms this can be represented as dY/dT=-kY (where Y is the amount of testosterone in your body and T is time. k is our decay constant. This basically factors in how fast the material decays. Smaller half-life would have a larger decay constant.
Those d’s stand for differentials. This is basically saying an infinitesimally small slice of something. dT would represent an extremely small amount of time passing. Like .00000000000000001 half-life times. This allows us to take measurements of things that don’t have linear changes.
Anyway with our expression which we just derived (dY/dT=-kY) we can separate our variables and integrate. This is basically what a differential equation is (although this is extremely basic and the easiest form of differential equations).
Separating our variables we get
Dy/Y= (-k)dT
Now that our variables are separated we can integrate to find the amount of testosterone per unit half life. If you don’t know how to integrate from calculus I can’t really help you. It would take too long to explain. You’ll just have to trust me that I am integrating properly.
Ln(Y)=-kT+C
C is our constant of integration. It allows us to plug in different conditions without having to completely change our equation. It just represents a number that we can calculate. In this equation C will turn out to be the initial amount of testosterone injected (although this will only solve for the half life decay of a single injection, trying to explain a system of differential equations would be complex so after I finish showing half life of a single injection I’ll move onto excel and you’ll just have to trust my numbers)
Now to solve for Y (amount of testosterone in your body at any time T). To get rid of a natural log you must e both sides. e is Euler’s number (pronounced oiler) and is roughly 2.71828.
After we e both sides we get
Y=e^(-kT)+e^C
We can simplify this to
Y=C’e^(-kt)
Now we can solve for C using the initial values we were given. Say we injected ourselves with 500mg of testosterone enanthate, that would mean at time t=0 the amount of testosterone enanthate in our system would be 500mg. So
500=C’e^(-k(0))
-k times zero is zero and any exponent to the 0 power is equal to 1 so this simplifies to
500=C’
Which makes our function
Y=500e^(-kT)
With this we can solve for the amount of testosterone we have in our system as long as we have our k (which is our rate of decay constant which would vary depending on the half-life).
Knowing the half-lives we can even solve for our decay constants. If we know that test E has a half life of 10.5 days we can solve for our k by
250=500e^(-k(10.5))
Solving for k we get .066014 which makes our equation
Y=500e^(-.066014*T)
With this we can plug in any amount of time and know how much test E there is in our body after injecting 500mg of testosterone enanthate into our bodies.
So say I wanted to know how much test E was in my body after 5.25 days. That’s half the half life. So I should have ¾ of the test E still in my body right? Wrong. This is exponential decay. The greater the amount of testosterone the faster it leaves your body. Meaning the rate at which testosterone is leaving your body is constantly changing. We can find out exactly how much testosterone is in our body with our derived expression though.
Y=500e^(-.066014*5.25)
Y=353.553mg of test E which is not ¾ of 500 (which would be 375)
Anyway I don’t know if any of you will be able to understand what I just did but hopefully you can follow it enough to understand that first of all testosterone esters are constantly decaying in your body and also that it does not decay linearly over time.
- Bookmark
- 4
- 1
The graph you just sourced in your response to Tread is mine. It is a front loaded 20 week Sust 250 cycle. This is almost poetic!
http://i1326.photobucket.com/albums/u656/mritchie74/Front250_zpse3b4c7b4...
I used it to illustrate a point in a write up I did called Maximizing Cycles. Ain't that ironic. Tread is effectively saying that his experiences are similar to the graphs. When he stops taking prop as do most of us....after several days the sides wear off such as high bp, sweats and cardio endurance. This is obviously because when you discontinue injections the quick half life he wrote about eliminates rapidly without maintenance injections to carry the steady state. He is saying the same stuff!
For the record I never said your function was incorrect....I said your graph did not mach the function you were writing about. The graph is very consistent with the numbers you charted, but those numbers are not at all accurate with a what the half life is for any test at those doses. I do know what linear interpolations is; I use it in soil mechanics all the time. You would interpolate when you have unknowns. But using a decay function you shouldn't have any unknowns between 600 and 0. What I was saying and trying to get you to discuss; was how you were using the function so that your numbers were so off? When you discuss a function or equation you should state what each variable in the function represents and what it does. This is so you can substantiate your findings and people can follow what your saying. This is normal in any engineering, scientific or medical community. You could write an awesome post on quantum mechanics or a Higgs Bozen, but if people can't follow it and then reiterate back to you then you have accomplished very little.
Terephthalic Pt...Well considering I derived the equation after I made the graph I did have unknowns.
The graph isn't a graph of the function. It was a graph I made before I derived the equation using linear interpolation to address the point that you'll have massive spikes in testosterone followed by massive decays using a frontloading method and to avoid sides it would be smarter not to frontload.
And I know the graph I sourced was yours. I did that because you couldn't argue against your own graph.
And If you actually read my post I defined all my variables and constants.
And Tread is saying the same stuff to a degree. He says that all the prop is dead after 72 hours. This is what I argue against. It is the only thing if you'll look that I disagree with him about. I have never said that I don't think he's right about anything except that point.
Oh and this new example with instant release vs timed release. Prop would still comparable to a timed release. Just a faster acting timed release than a longer ester like C or E.
I don’t need to understand the math behind Einstein’s theory of relativity to appreciate the sensation of motion when (in fact it’s) the object next to me that is moving.
All I need to know about a half life is to get an approximate understanding when my levels will have leveled off and why it takes that long.
To suggest that I’d be able to mathematically measure how much test I have in my system so precisely is foolhardy. The math does not take into consideration so many other variables. What muscle did I pin, what’s my body temp, activity level, diet, my ph balance, metabolism, blood pressure etc, etc..
The ONLY true measure is via a blood test.
But, if you want to solve a math problem that would be interesting for me and perhaps others as well please answer this:
If I’m 54 and my natural test level is 620 what was it when I was 30? Given a degradation of 1% per year.
Lol I just said roughly the same thing just a few lines below in response or agreeance rather, to tread!
math sucks
Uummm, has anyone heard of the rule of thumb?
This is all nice and heady talk, but for my needs, is it really pertinent?
tread-mThis of course, the only point that matters. Even something proven becomes just a theory again if it does not work for you personally.
It depends on how you chart your cycles. The way this kid does his math (and I am betting he hasn't actually graduated yet and the calc I shit he is touting above he just learned), exponential decay function is very useful in putting together a cycle. It is a graphical and mathematical model of how your cycle will function over time. But there are different variations of it and you have to know how to use it correctly. There is a standard radioactive decay used in physics and chemistry and a variation of it used for pharmaceutical purposes. This is found in Pharmacokinetic research labs. The point I am getting at with this kid is he is giving out bad info and on here that can get someone hurt. He also is very adamant that front loading is bad and should not be done.
Check this link out and see what I mean bud. It is a simple quick read.
Maximizing Cycles
All I need to know about a half life is to get an approximate understanding when my levels will have leveled off and why it takes that long. And, why front loading is beneficial in maximizing my cycle...
tread-mTwice as much as Quarter life and half as much as a whole life. Whole life insurance is said to be a waste of money by most financial analysts.
Not a member FDIC
For some reason my wife agrees. She feels term life is better -lots of it. Should I be worried?
tread-mWell, ummmm...how do I say this, ummm...yes. I tried bud, just no way to ease into it. Maybe a little fly fishing and some "away time"?
I tend to agree. Term is the smarter way to go. You will never really see any returns from a whole life policy. The insurance companies are just betting on your health that way!
You should take a gander at this thread bud.
Try and stomach through it and read most of it if you can.
http://www.eroids.com/forum/steroids-qa/steroid-cycles/front-loading-vs....
tread-mThanks brother and I know about the thread it was brought to my attention and I was even asked by one to remove the individual from site. I don't squash opinion and that's all our PHD member (self proclaimed) has, an opinion. I've ran gear since the 80's, I know the effects of test on the human body and certainly my body. As well I could lead you to the largest study ever done showing free test blood plasma levels falling off a cliff in a large group of participants after 48 hrs, making ed prop hits much more stable than eod and certainly more stable than 72 plus hr hits by the claim and advice of the individual in question.
Little known fact, they don't study test and its effects etc in med school, its literally very briefly touched on and the average general MD knows nothing about test use. Your best bet in the subject in advice is actually a qualified endo and not a math student breaking down half lifes.
As to all up in the air about his thread or even his disprespect to myself and others, I simply could not care less as much as I appreciate you and others being a lil pizzzed about it. Lifes short , let someone else drag around the hate, you enjoy it.
Terephthalic Pt...I never claimed to have a PhD. I have a bachelors.
And I'm not arguing with you that blood plasma levels would decrease rapidly after 48 hours. But saying that it's all gone in 72 is just ridiculous.
Testosterone propionate follows exponential decay just like any other testosterone. So it drops rapidly at first and begins to level off to zero, but never actually reaching zero.
You talk about blood plasma levels of testosterone like it's the ester that actually does the work. Estered test is inactive in your body. It's only after cleaving the ester and becoming testosterone that the molecule can actually do anabolic work.
So the inverse rate of decay is how much testosterone you receive (and then you'd have to factor in the rate of decay of the active testosterone to see how much was in your blood).
Just because you receive the testosterone faster also doesn't mean that you change how much testosterone you receive at the end of the day.
If you pump 3 grams of testosterone into your body whether it was attached to a P or E or C ester makes no difference. Over the length of the cycle you'll get 3 grams of testosterone. The ester just determines how fast you receive that testosterone. (this is of course neglecting the fact that the ester is part of the total weight and 100mg of test P would have more testosterone per mg total than 100mg of Test E)
tread-mYou use the term argue so let me begin with I don't argue. I may debate or discuss or explain, always learning but to argue is to know only your point and not open your eyes to others...I call that the inability to learn . So I'm always learning let's begin with that and my ego is not in the way of learning fom you either.
So here is the one thing I see from all you have written..."life experience with the things you talk about". You will know the term "looks good on paper".
I have read the paper, papers in fact. Then I had the experience, not a few times, thousands of times. So I don't know your age of life experience but your writing and my interpritation is that you are likely in your 20's. Truth is to someone in their 20's Ikve frogetten more than they have learned and still know more than they currently dom. That's not bragging I'd love to be 25 again so know I just make the points thinking maybe you'll think and actually learn from me as I try to do from you and others.
So let's take your point because while its vaild and true it means nothing in the real life experience. You "argue" if you have 3 grams of test the ester didn't matter you still had 3 grams. Of course you did, nobody as opposed that and in fact aside of ester weight, c and e being more, they were near identical.
So now let's talk reality and talk about my experience with these 3. Well let's say 2 given c and e are pretty much identical. I hit 200 mg's ed of prop for one month then stop. 48 hrs after the month is up my heart rate decreases, metabolic rate decreases with it and free test blood plasma levels fall off a cliff.
Now let's say I do the same with test e. Ojnce the test e last pin is deliverd I still have the elevated heart rate and higher metabolic function for an additional couple weeks dl to the degredation of ester being slower.
So that brings me to an example. Let's take 2400 mg's of guafinisin, designed to help clear fluid from the chest during a cold/allergies whatever.
One tablet was time released and its design in degredation allows it to release over 48 hrs. 2 days later we take 2400 mg's of guafinisin and its an immediate release. What good it will do will occur in less than 6 hrs.
So yes, both cases we received 2400 mg's but one drug provided relief for 48 hrs and the other only 6. So you see of course why even though we delivered the identical amount of drug, they reacted very differently in real life use and were not the same at all?
This is why we discuss ester, not for the math realityh you have learned but fo the actual reality in our own real life studies. This btw is why every drug has to be tested and tested and tested slowly working its way to human trial for yrs before hitting the market....because math is not sometimes wrong, its almost always wrong when applied to reality. Same with anything, the wright brothers we're genious in math and physics skill but they still had to hit the ground real hard a few times in real world experience before they realized the math ,, perfect though it may be, is not always going to support the reality of your experience.
Some things are unexplainable in other words and no matter what math tells you, yoi have to use real experience to really know it and have to fail a few times to overcome the math and get to what's real.
So its this, most of what you have discussed is correct of course, such as "test still present after 72 hrs". The problem is, your plane hit the ground and the math does not overcome the physics the gravity will eventually teach you. If you ask me, "tread, do you want a biology major with his/her PHd to explain the effect of coccaine to you or this guy who has no education but is a heavy coccaine user?" I want the coccaine user because the books were written often without the reality of use. He should have written the book to begin with.
So I ask you then....if young and new to gear do you want my experience or many others or something you read? I've ran many many compounds and thousands and thousands of pins later I actually can give you the real life experience of the use of the compounds and also explain just how irrelevent it is that I may have test still present that's doing nothing, much of which is bound by Sex Hormone Binding Globulan at some point btw.
I sit across nolw from a detergent bottle full of pins I'm about to discard, all from about 30 days use between hgh, peptides and oils. That's nothing I have to read about...I live it.
I'll give you this, you do the math and the reading that's very nice, now put some reality to its "claims" and in 5 yrs after 10 cycles we can discuss further.
What's the one thing we here about all this over and over every year? All over the news or medical journals etc?
"Aresearchers are "now" finding........." Meaning their pre
Vious claims were wrong. In every case that's because reality changed their view on the math that initiated their beliefs.
Open you mind brother, discuss and even debate but shut off the "arguments", they keep you from learning because you are not reading and listening, you are simply looking for a point to argue. I'm not saying my word is final in anything, quite the opposite. I've said over and over and I think have a stickie about it. Confirm what anyone says 1000 times and still use your won judgement. I am only taking time to share with you my personal understanding of esters in the realituy, not in their math "theory". Yes I understand the breakdwons and no they are not theory they are proven but their realityh is very different from the reputation they hold in a lab....as will be most everything you ever learn in a book lor lab.
I haven't done this in a while but what a fuckin gem to do it on.....BOOM!
Terephthalic Pt...You can't really compare testosterone usage to other drug usage. Exogenous drugs have an active life in the body beyond which doesn't affect the body. You take 100mg of some drug and it's active life is 3 hours and it's half life is 3 hours you'll have 100mg of active drug in your body for three hours and then 0mg of active drug in your body, you still will have 50 mg of the drug in your body though.
Extended release acts as a sort of ester if you will. Slowly releasing the drug so the active drug is released over time and you have a more consistent level of active drug.
And once again I don't disagree with you that your blood plasma levels will drop with prop over the course of a half life. I agree with this. But the drug isn't fully eliminated from your body after that sharp drop. It still remains and will build up just as a longer ester will. The fact that it decays faster just speeds up the process of releasing the active testosterone.
Take this guy's graph for example: http://i1326.photobucket.com/albums/u656/mritchie74/Front250_zpse3b4c7b4...
This chart is essentially my function plotted. His equation and my equation are exactly the same. His equation just solve for time whereas mine solves for testosterone amount.
Notice how all the different esters concentration over time look pretty much exactly the same? The only difference between prop and enanthate is that you need more E to so that you decay at a faster rate to get the same amount of testosterone over time. With prop the testosterone is released faster so you don't need as much of it. The levels will still build up. It's just that the prop will decay faster and you won't notice it as much.
tread-mActually you can compare it, look up I did Loool
I gotcha point brother, not sure what we're debating at this point.
Terephthalic Pt...That prop goes dead after 72 hours. I believe it's value is greatly diminished, but it's still there.
I mean you can compare it, but it doesn't work the same way. To compare an shorter ester to an instant release drug is not a comparison that would hold.
To do that you'd need to compare pure testosterone to it. Which I guess you could do with a TNE, or suspension, but you were trying to compare it to prop which would just be a faster acting extended release.
Just out of curiosity how did you find that graph?
Terephthalic Pt...You posted a link to it above in reply to Greg a while ago. I read your post and cited your graph.
I agree an have done that very thing you describe. Taking my cycle experience and comparing it to the math. I love it. But they are by no means exactly the same. More like refined ranges. I say this because all these math theories and graphical representations of a cycle are at best a Model of what it would look like. The reality is no two bodies metabolize anything at the same rate. Pharmaceutical companies develop these models long before trials and they refine them as they get empirical data which is acquired through regular blood tests. That's when ranges are compared to the theory and it is validated. In actuality these companies use very complex models comprised of 7 different compartments of the body or systems rather, that all metabolize substances at different rates. We in the bodybuilding community will never find such studies because there is no medical reason on the planet to take the doses we do. Being that there is no need for such a study an we do not have access to daily blood tests testing all 7 systems to compare data we at best can only make a mathematical model on only one compartment. That is to say we believe the entire body metabolizes gear at the same rate.
That being said I love Eroids because it is the closest thing you can get to an empirical data base being that there are so many vets who can differentiate their experiences on here and comparing my own bloods to the cycle and the math only verifies my beliefs with experience. Again the graphs only give a close approximation of the decay on a daily bases not how our bodies metabolize the juice.
In my humble opinion, If you post a graph or math theorem then you are claiming it to be fact. If you post an experience you are posting an interpretation of the facts.
Terephthalic Pt...Please cite where I said my values were absolute fact. The equation I derived was never supposed to be used as an end all be all, but it will be more accurate than just guessing.
I would love to see the study you are talking about. As far as the PHD thing goes I am not sure how any of that came into this whole thing. I know of no PHD on this site. I don't think he will last very long on here running his mouth the way he is. Take care bro.
tread-mNo worries either way, we all need something to joke about so....
On another note, actual half life in his discussion has some validity but when put to the test in the human body we can make calls as to how half life pertains to "real life". In my real life the half life is used to describe when the actual benefit of a compound falls off the cliff, in both reality as to benefit and reality as to "maximum response". Whether or not a comound still shows presence in the body has little to do with whether or not it is still "working". Prime example would be recreational drugs that are of course still present in the body the day after use, however, the desired impact of those drugs are long since gone. This is where real life experience will trump solmeone simply reading about recreational drugs. Very hard to understand a high by reading about it and very hard to tell a user that what he feels or does not feel is wrong.
Argue with the fence post and it won before the argument ever began, you were destined to get nowhere, such as with someone who knows something they really know nothing about. So my experience is just that, experience. As Forest Gump might say, that's all I have to say about that.
RustyhookerSame reason we promote dosing as we do. The values act in the body on a chart same as logs. Hit the next dose before the cliff so you dont have either dips or excessive buildup. Kepping away from fluctuations proves more growth with less negative sides.
Pinning spots also has a HUGE factor in pinning that goes unnoticed in many forums because were not typically trt advising and use rotations to not get sterile abscess etc. Old endo charts listed each main pin spot by release time. Ventros the best because less vascularity. But in real world pinning you're ritating. Multi pins and you'd better have 10spots or hold on to your seat. Or wobble...whichever comes first....
tread-m"Stability" in a compound is something not present in the math and the math does not hold up in the reality of use. Maths a wonderful thing whe n building the challenger but its hard to convince all those who died in it that it was right.
The problem with people that know everything is they can learn nothing. Spend to much time talkong to ever listen. Then of course they end up, as I did in the day, in the ER watered up, bp through the roof, heart throbbing at 150 scared to death...."what happened doc, I'm a math expert and know half lives like the back of the hand?"
Well, reality happened and your math never showed up to explain to reality that it was wrong.....oops. maybe you should have listened to someone with real life experience rather than a professor that's never had more than a vaccine and a flu shot? You know people bro, one cycle under their belt and they the man...nolw step off in this gym with me and let me show you some real pain with weight you can't seem to getg your math around : / oops
The only problem Tread is, this guys math is wrong. He even posted the proof for all of Eroids to see. I hope no one takes his advice.
i say we all just let him find out the hard way. he has been talking this crap since he joined. when he comes on to someones thread and tries to sound like he know it all just say... o.k. buddy. and leave it at that. just like tread-m said he will find out after running a few cycles that the math is flawed.
Terephthalic Pt...I'm sorry what? You came onto MY thread and started talking crap like YOU knew more than I did.
In case you don't remember.
http://www.eroids.com/forum/steroids-qa/steroid-cycles/2nd-cycle-propmas...
Notice how I am the author of that thread? Notice how you come in and tell me I'm wrong. Shut your mouth you hypocrite.
so i looked because i didn't remember coming right out and saying you were wrong...well guess what i didn't find in one sentence where i said you were wrong
Terephthalic Pt..."it doesn't build up. you stay around 200 mg the whole cycle. I 'm not saying do 700 mg ,but you should increase the dose."
Look again.
where did i say you were wrong? show me were i said "you are wrong."
Terephthalic Pt...You don't have to directly say that I'm wrong to tell me I'm wrong. Telling me something that goes against what I say and then telling me to do something differently is still telling someone they're wrong.
what? Telling me something that goes against what I say and then telling me to do something differently is still telling someone they're wrong. what you say huh? like your the H.N.I.C.
i was not talking to you thank you. i was talking to cry havoc. i could care less what you think you know. it's a free web site and no i don't have to shut my mouth.
Terephthalic Pt...You could care less? So if you could care less than that means you care some. Because you have to care to be able to care less.
o.k i'm carefree :free of trouble and worry and care.
Terephthalic Pt...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_decay
http://universe-review.ca/R01-04-diffeq.htm
http://www.math.fsu.edu/~fusaro/EngMath/Ch1/MSDE.htm
Yeah my math is wrong. And so is everyone else's apparently. Everyone else is wrong. You are right. If you're still talking about my LINEAR INTERPOLATION graph then you really need to go back to college so called mr. engineer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_interpolation
http://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedia/linterp.cfm
https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/pasp05/Linear_Interpolation.html
The point of this isn't to get an exact answer. And yes the further you go out the larger the error is going to be, however the point of the graph wasn't to get exact numbers. I have a function for that. I don't need to make a stupid graph. Graphs are only for displaying data. They have no practical usage for me or anyone that wants exact numbers. The point of the graph was to show why frontloading was a bad idea. It was never meant to give exact numbers you twit.
Now I know you couldn't understand this the first time, or the second time, or the third time I explained this to you, but hopefully this being the forth time you'll be able to get what I'm trying to say. I mean it's a long shot, but who knows.
RustyhookerI'll leave the math to the professionals. Im lost on your saying below that you're an engineer. And on another forum your a pharma major?
http://www.eroids.com/forum/steroids-qa/steroid-cycles/2nd-cycle-propmas...
Math is up to the mathmaticians but cycle advice comes from running many cycles, knowing Esters/compounds and dosing. Defininitly complex on all accounts.
Terephthalic Pt...I never said I was a pharmacy major. I said you needed to research pharmacokinetics. Never said anything about saying I was a pharma major.
RustyhookerMy bad
-I FEEL THE HEAT OF THIS THREAD LOL EVERYONE JUST STAY CALM -
In each human coupling, a thousand million sperm vie for a single egg. Multiply those odds by countless generations, against the odds of your ancestors being alive, meeting, siring this precise son; that exact daughter...until your mother loves a man ...and of that union, of the thousand million children competing for fertilization, it was you, only you...(it's) like turning air to gold...thermodynamic miracle."
this world's smartest man means no more to me than does its smartest termite.
Giant steps, ninety feet high...A constantly changing topographical map, flowing and shifting...Tell me...would it be greatly improved by an oil pipeline ?
There is no future. There is no past....Time is simultaneous, an intricately structured jewel that humans insist on viewing one edge at a time, when the whole design is visible in every facet."
i hope this helps the angry men and woman in this post
PEACE
Good post btw. IMO there is more to what we do than just pumping exogenous hormones in our bodies and hoping for the best. +1
This is never going to help the little guys or average guys coming on here who don,t have A* in maths lol but it is some good info its got my mind ticking over.yano what would be a good idea if eroids had some sort of app well not a app like a extra add to our profile where you could type in AAS doses and find out there half lifes and amounts left in your system but get rite down to the fine lines of it not just 250mg or 187 mg and so on but 150.00516 ect and all you do is type your dose in and bobs your uncle the half life button sorts the sum for you.just an idea it would be realy hard to make and get up on the site tho haha am allways wanting more its eroids its set high standards for forums av seen no over like it now i am going off topic BYEE
With a general Understanding of spreadsheets, plus this equation, a person could build a spreadsheet that would calculate for him/her.
I never made it to calculus, so he lost me halfway thru this thing. I have, however, save it to come back and reference later.
No laptop at the min bro so can't do that am just putting it in favs for a later date and use roidcalc untill laptops sorted.cheers
Terephthalic Pt...Not a perfect calculator, but damn good. It even goes the extra step and doesn't show you how much of the ester testosterone is in your body, but the actual testosterone milligram itself.
I don't know if they took into account that the cleaved molecule would not produce 100% testosterone, but I have to imagine something where they put that much work into it would probably have thought of something as elementary as that.
Nice stuff.