Anyone else read Llewellyn's article in the December issue of MD? IN short, he claims that sust is inferior to both test-e and cyp, "based mainly on the amount of testosterone you get dollar for dollar, and the frequent (weekly) injection schedule it’s usually used with. After all, why pay more for a drug you can take once every 4 weeks if you’re going to use it weekly anyway? But the arguments against Sustanon go well beyond a mere testosterone-per-dollar calculation. It turns out that even in a clinical setting, Sustanon may not provide the slow and steady hormone release it’s always promised."
According to him, the problem lies with in the deconate ester. He says that the "peak hormone level is reached approximately 48hrs after the drug is given....If testosterone deconate isn't a delayed-onset drug as thought, but actually provides a peak in testosterone 48hrs after administration, what's going to happen to the other fast-acting esters? ....adding fast acting esters like test-prop, phenyl-prop, and iso, to the formation, to test-deconate is only going to compound the initial test spike...this is one of the key drawbacks to test-e and cyp injections. Levels spike the first several days and then decline...sharpening this early test peak will give an even greater imbalance between the earlier and latter days of the administration window...Athletes should no longer consider Sust the slow steady test. In essence, it's simply a tweaked form of enanthate; a little sharper immediately after injection, but for all intents and purposes, equivalent when given on a weekly basis and less advantageous with wider dosing windows."
