Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below Fina is meant to be implanted in the cartiledge in the ear of cow. This being said, it is effective without having to inject it intramusculary. Im not saying go stab yourself in the ear, however many people say dont use fina if your not willing to inject. From many of the results Ive read, transdermally works effectivly as well, only the dosage is slightly higher. I would say to get the results of injecting 75 mg ed you would need to apply transderammyl 125-150 mg ed, considering how cheap the original pellets are and the ease of making finasol, if your not needle-friendly, you should still get the equivalent results. jmo
fina meant-for implantation
- Thread starter overrx
- Start date
You, like many others, seem to always overlook the fact that IM injections offer a slower, smoother rate of release. Transdermal applications hit the blood stream much faster from the studies I have seen on transdermal delivery and since tren has such a short half life, this will result in larger peaks and valleys in blood levels.
And as allready stated you have the obvious of having to do it 2x a day and using 2-3x the dose. Just a plain waste of a good AAS if you ask me.
2x dosage would be max, 1.75 would be more equivalent, and i would reccomend splitting it up into 3x daily morning afternoon and night would provide more constant bloodlevels. I agree IM is better, but only if your willing to convert your own. I think transdermally offers a more cost effective solution if you dont want to get a kit and WILL yield the same gains.
ColumboWeiser
New member
How do you figure it is more cost effective? The kit is cheap to buy...if you are using 2-3 times more fina when you apply it, your costs are going to be higher...just inject it, needles don't hurt...it is all in the mind!!
Tell that to all the people who tried transdermal and graduated to injecting. I have yet to hear of anyone say transdermal was eaiser to prepare, apply or was anywhere near as effective. All you are going on is anecdotal evidence based on some bogus numbers being tossed around about absorbtion rates and therefor decide 2x dose to be the mas when in reality, no one knows. I have never done it transdermallyand wont since my time is not worth the hassle of 2x and definatly not 3x a day applications. As for cost, it may be comparable when comparing to 75mg/eod injections, but it becomes substantial more expensive when you start comparing it to 75mg/ed injections.
if done correctly transdermal can be very effective at even once a day. Yes, I have done it, hundreds of times and have seen good results. Having said that, I now just disolve it in a little BA , mix it with AAS of my choice, and shoot it, cheap and effective. Why bother with a kit?
anecedotal evidence - yes, i have actually no personal result with transdermal fina, but have heard of enough from people who do imo
pricewise :
lets say you can get pre-made 20 ml of 100 mg for 185
thus 4000 mg for 370
at the same time you can get
100 dosages of 200 mg, yielding 20,000 mg for 365
plus a sprayer for 40
and the alcohol's are negliable....now thats a bargain in my opinion
again the kit is cheaper and more effective, im just pointing out for people who dont want to inject, transdermally is the way to go
-as for the statement ive heard often: if your not willing to inject fina then its not worth it -- thats pure bs imo
pricewise :
lets say you can get pre-made 20 ml of 100 mg for 185
thus 4000 mg for 370
at the same time you can get
100 dosages of 200 mg, yielding 20,000 mg for 365
plus a sprayer for 40
and the alcohol's are negliable....now thats a bargain in my opinion
again the kit is cheaper and more effective, im just pointing out for people who dont want to inject, transdermally is the way to go
-as for the statement ive heard often: if your not willing to inject fina then its not worth it -- thats pure bs imo
Similar threads
