Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure

Getbig Bodybuilding Boards => Steroids Info & Hardcore => Topic started by: Kentucky_cowboy on April 01, 2010, 08:57:51 AM

Title: Tren Acetate vs. Tren Enanthate
Post by: Kentucky_cowboy on April 01, 2010, 08:57:51 AM
OK so as a add on I am deciding between either

a)  3 cc of Tren Acetate per week @ 100 mg each (one cc MWF)
b)  1.5 cc of Tren Enanthate per week @ 200 mg each (1 cc Monday, .5 cc Friday)

The enanthate is exactly double the cost of the acetate for me, so mg for mg cost is same.

Which would you recommend?  Would like lean gains.  Does it matter?  If its a toss-up I would prefer the enanthate for less frequent poking and less oil in my muscles
Title: Re: Tren Acetate vs. Tren Enanthate
Post by: tstmaniac on April 01, 2010, 09:15:46 AM
I recommend acetate because if the sides are too much for you it will be out of your system quickly after discontinuing
Title: Re: Tren Acetate vs. Tren Enanthate
Post by: Kentucky_cowboy on April 01, 2010, 11:22:16 AM
I recommend acetate because if the sides are too much for you it will be out of your system quickly after discontinuing

I have taken tren before so am OK with the sides so it sounds like there isn't a difference in effectiveness between the two?  I guess its sort of like picking between test propionate vs test enanthate? 

Does tren enanthate hold water?
Title: Re: Tren Acetate vs. Tren Enanthate
Post by: tbombz on April 01, 2010, 12:29:21 PM
well, mg for mg the acetate is cheaper, technically. but you can forget i said that.  ;D

 i prefer long acting roids.

longer esters will cause a bit more water retention, but beyond that, and injection freuquency, there is no difference.

Title: Re: Tren Acetate vs. Tren Enanthate
Post by: Kentucky_cowboy on April 01, 2010, 12:48:51 PM
well, mg for mg the acetate is cheaper, technically. but you can forget i said that.  ;D

 i prefer long acting roids.

longer esters will cause a bit more water retention, but beyond that, and injection freuquency, there is no difference.



yES BUE DUE TO COMPOUNDING WOULDNT THE LONGER HALF LIFE tREN eNANTHATE BUILD UP HIGHER LEVELS OVER TIME THAN THE aCETATE?  aND WOUDL THE WATER THING MATTER WITH tREN eNANTHATE I MEan tren itself is not known to hold water or much water so would it meake a difference especially with only 300 mg in this case?
Title: Re: Tren Acetate vs. Tren Enanthate
Post by: tbombz on April 01, 2010, 02:37:35 PM
yES BUE DUE TO COMPOUNDING WOULDNT THE LONGER HALF LIFE tREN eNANTHATE BUILD UP HIGHER LEVELS OVER TIME THAN THE aCETATE? 

no, thats false.

aND WOUDL THE WATER THING MATTER WITH tREN eNANTHATE I MEan tren itself is not known to hold water or much water so would it meake a difference especially with only 300 mg in this case?

a little bit of water, no other difference

Title: Re: Tren Acetate vs. Tren Enanthate
Post by: WillGrant on April 01, 2010, 09:09:31 PM
Would prob need to run the Enan a bit longer say 10 weeks to get same results?..takes a couple to 3 weeks to get up steam.

I seem to get better results on TA but have only run the Enan ester once , i just feel more wired with TA like a steam train  ;D

The positive with longer acting as Tbombz says is less frequent injects.


Title: Re: Tren Acetate vs. Tren Enanthate
Post by: tstmaniac on April 02, 2010, 01:06:06 PM
Agreed