micky blue eyes
New member
Hey guys i have reading alot about Winstrol (winny) Tabs and Winstrol (winny) Injections. I understand the difference but i want to know what you guys think is better. any comments would be great. thanks 
Injection vs. tabs
- Thread starter micky blue eyes
- Start date
steel59
Dr. X
IMO nothing beats Injectable... The more directly you can get the chemical to where it needs to go the better in my mind.
Also--- I know others will debate this but I truely believe that suspension drugs like Winstrol (winny) and Test Suspension are perfect for spot injects.... I believe that they affect the area's they are shot into much more.
Also--- I know others will debate this but I truely believe that suspension drugs like Winstrol (winny) and Test Suspension are perfect for spot injects.... I believe that they affect the area's they are shot into much more.
S
string_bean00
Guest
But...very often you can afford to run oral Winstrol (winny) at a higher dose than injectable Winstrol (winny). I won't get into specific prices but we all know that Zambons and most injectable Winstrol (winny) (even UG) are way more pricey mg for mg than some UG lab's tabs or liquid.
StoneColdNTO
Administrator
string_bean00 said:
Sure......BUT you need about 50% more orally to get the same effect as injected, so you need to take that into account when pricing.
Got this off of Brock Strasser's column on T - Mag
Q: There's this huge debate raging over whether or not you can "drink" your Winny-V. I know that because stanozolol is 17-AA'ed, I can use it orally. However, how much more or less effective is oral stanozolol over injected stanozolol? I hear that you need about twice as much stanozolol orally as you would injected to see similar results. How was this figure of doubling the dose orally determined?
A: There isn't a lot of great pharmacokinetic data in humans comparing oral to parenteral (injectable) stanozolol. So that idea of "if you use X amount by injection you need twice as much orally" is anecdotal and speculative at best. The best I could find is a study comparing the two methods of administration in dogs. My comments come after the abstract:
The effect of stanozolol on 15-nitrogen retention in the dog
Can J Vet Res 2000 Oct;64(4):246-8 (ISSN: 0830-9000)
Olson ME; Morck DW; Quinn KB [Find other articles with these Authors] Animal Health Unit and Gastrointestinal Sciences, University of Calgary, Alberta.
The objective of the study was to determine the influence of either oral or intramuscular administration of stanozolol on nitrogen retention in dogs by using a non-invasive 15N-amino acid tracer technique. Ten healthy, intact, adult male sled dogs received either stanozolol tablets, 2 mg/dog PO, q12h, for 25 days (Group 1, n = 5) or an intramuscular injection of 25 mg of stanozolol on Days 7, 14, 21, and 28 (Group 2, n = 5). A 15N amino acid (5.27 mmol) was infused intravenously into each dog on Day 0 (before stanozolol treatment) and on Day 31 (after stanozolol treatment). Urine was collected by catheterization from each animal 3 times daily for 3 consecutive days. The 15N-urea enrichment in urine was determined by high-resolution mass spectrometry and the total amount of urea in the urine was determined.
Both oral and injectable stanozolol resulted in significant (P < 0.05) increases in amino acid nitrogen retention compared to pretreatment values. Oral stanozolol increased nitrogen retention from 29.2 +/- 8.2% to 50.3 +/- 9.2%, while stanozolol injection increased nitrogen retention from 26.6 +/- 9.9% to 67.0 +/- 7.5%. The response to intramuscular administration was significantly greater than the response to the oral dosing regime. Stanozolol increases amino acid nitrogen retention in dogs, as has been previously observed in rats. This action of stanozolol may be beneficial in dogs under stress of surgical trauma and chronic disease.
Okay, so the oral dose was 28mg/week and the injected dose was 25mg/week. And the injected dose was far better at increasing nitrogen retention (67.0% versus 50.3%). This makes it about 33.2% better (roughly speaking), so if I extrapolate, it means to see the same effects as 25mg of injected stanozolol per week, you'd need to take about 38mg of it orally.
This isn't quite "twice the injected dose" and is, in fact, closer to 50% (52% or so actually). So if you assume the dog model is correct, or nearly so in other mammals like humans, you'd need about 50% more stanozolol orally than you would if you injected it. So if you used 50mg of injected Winstrol every other day, it would be a safe bet to assume 37.5mg of stanozolol used orally every day would provide a similar effect.
__________________
S
string_bean00
Guest
Very good point stonecold. But from the specific example I am thinking of injectable Winstrol (winny) vs. oral liquid is 8:1 in cost. At that kind of price difference the effectiveness lost through oral use is negated. But...harder on the liver too.
In a perfect world everyone would use Zambons and that would rule.
In a perfect world everyone would use Zambons and that would rule.
StoneColdNTO
Administrator
string_bean00 said:
Ya mean it's NOT perfect ?
ThinkBigGetBig
New member
Definately injections....however very expensive.
Cambani(Delta)
Hardcore Bodybuilder
Zambon depot rocks!
Its one of ghods seven miracles!
Its one of ghods seven miracles!
S
string_bean00
Guest
juice34 said:
Wondering the same thing. Only way injection is cheaper is if you're using BD tabs or something.
big-tymer
yeah buddy
string_bean00 said:
well around here, tabs will run me about 200 dollars more per cycle. Which dude that's like a half cycle in itself. Injection is WAY cheaper. I find cheap to begin with compaired to most oral. It depends on where you live and what availablity is.. etc.
winny tabs are almost a waste of time even considering, way to expensive.
Last edited:
micky blue eyes
New member
Injections baby
Thanks guys for the great responses.
Thanks guys for the great responses.Similar threads
