# Long Ester vs. Short Ester while cutting



## bigiron (Aug 3, 2012)

I'm sure this has been touched on many times, but it's hard to find clear-cut scientific responses without a bunch of bull&$*# speculation.  To simplify the question, let's leave test out of it.  Tren and Mast are both known to reduce fat, water, estrogen, etc., so what is the difference if one person uses a long, enanthate ester, and another uses a shorter prop/acetate ester? If the compounds are both dry and used at the same time, why would enanthate, prop, acetate, etc even matter?


----------



## Standard Donkey (Aug 3, 2012)

bigiron said:


> I'm sure this has been touched on many times, but it's hard to find clear-cut scientific responses without a bunch of bull&$*# speculation.  To simplify the question, let's leave test out of it.  Tren and Mast are both known to reduce fat, water, estrogen, etc., so what is the difference if one person uses a long, enanthate ester, and another uses a shorter prop/acetate ester? If the compounds are both dry and used at the same time, why would enanthate, prop, acetate, etc even matter?



different dispersion rates and different amount of compound per 100mg..

shorter esters = faster plus more compound per 100mg


----------



## bigiron (Aug 3, 2012)

So the dispersion rate is faster for shorter esters and slower for longer esters, that I understand and am okay with.  But all other things constant (dry compound, fat burning ability, anti-estrogen ability, etc.) why does the dispersion rate even matter from your cutting/condition standpoint as long as you start a week or so earlier than the faster acting versions??


----------



## theCaptn' (Aug 3, 2012)

Short esters are easier to dial in. That's about it.


----------



## loydchristmas (Aug 4, 2012)

I go shorter for cutting cycles.


----------



## lee111s (Aug 4, 2012)

It shouldn't make much difference. I've recomped on test E and ended with mast E.


----------

