science behind test prop and bloat
Hopefully I don't get flamed for not doing enough 'research,' but my brief attempt at research didn't provide a satisfactory answer, and there seems to be quite a few opinions about this. I know this topic comes up often, and I don't mean to make a redundant thread, but I'd like a definitive explanation. So if anyone wants to drop some biochemical logic, I'd appreciate it
When cutting why do bros continue to believe that prop is best?
In the past I've used test e, prop, and suspension. I never really noticed any difference in water retention, which makes sense test is test. So, the amount of bloat comes from the ester. If there is fluctuation in test levels there is less bloat, less estrogen is being produced. Since prop is short, consistent levels are a little harder to maintain; however, the responsible user will pin test prop ed or eod, which in theory keeps levels stable. Therefore, whether using a long or short ester and assuming proper frequency, test levels stay stable and bloat should be the same.
I was thinking, one variable that might support 'prop=less bloat' is the mechanism by which the ester is cleaved from the test molecule. If short esters are more easily cleaved, then while using prop there will undoubtedly be spikes after every inject, since the prop is pinned every other day, rather than having a slow build-up of levels with long ester. Could it be the case that test levels from prop are never as stable as long esters, and this is why the prop=less water retention theory persists? So, prop actually causes less water retention.
- Bookmark
- 0
- 0
tread-mLong ester is building faster than depleting , the higher the level the higher the "possibility " of retention. Free test plasma levels fall off a cliff at the 48 hr mark which means even running ed to clean up fluctuation levels will never exceed 1 days pop x 2. IMO the shorter esters are simply "cleaner" in that they will duplicate reality in the body better when compared to natty. In any case, you have to also realize in a cutter leading up to a comp or photo's etc a builders habits tend to be better in the kitchen and certainly more strict than in any time during the build, this does play some role given even with prop if you're not drinking enough wsater and the salt is not in check you will bloat. In a cutter or clean up and cut ones final goal is to eliminate estrogen to dry out and grain so that action alone and particularly combined with the diet to that goal will shed the water. Much of it is habit but test is test and without the proper habits and particularly running higher you will bloat. Final point would be this, I've tried to explain with little success that prop mg's don't equal long ester mg's. This alone causes many people to think that prop holds less water. The reason for that is that if you werfe running 600 mg's for example in long ester for 10 weeks and you figure the "worth" of test by way of mg's as to the free test levels your body is growing in free test because the 600 mg's in worth each week is growing faster than depleting, particularly with sauce. So if one switches to prop they think wow, I'm dumping water using the exact amount of test, 600 mg's when compared to 600 of long. in reality its probably more in line with dropping to 2-300 mg's of long ester. The reason for that is that your body is never appreciating the values at 600 because of the 48 hr cliff test level fall of of with prop. 48 hrs being the magic number you have to figure with ed shots of 100 mg's you will never have an appreciation of more than 200 mg's at any one time. If you were running 300 mg's ed of prop then you would have a 2 day or uner 48 hr value and appreciation of a full 600 mg's. This has been debated and argued many times here and elsewhere but it is my opinion based on simple math in my view, but having said all that I think the 150 eod prop or a 100 ed is still a "cleaner" run simulating a natty situation at elevated levels and probably more productive than the long ester run even if mg for mg is factored in. I think the argument of ester is more about levels building faster than depleting when looking to free test levels but the truth is it is much more about "unbound" free test levels. That is the other argument with short ester, I think less binding possibility with things such as shbg are likely because the longer ester carrying and creating a higher rate of free test week after wek may rise the binding competition faster than with a prop where free test levels are likley to rise early and peak and hold. That peak and hold may be the magic in that the competition from binders also peaks. That peak would in and of itself make less water possible given the water is associated with higher levels of binders and estrogen. Much to argue about on the subject but I think it may be much less to do with the actual ester and have much more to do with what the ester is causing free test levels to do and the chain reaction that follows those levels around.