TOPIC: Linnea safe or metacrill

I was told they were the same. There was no explanation why one was $500 more. Not helpful.

The results from Metacrill haven\'t been consistent for a long time, now, on the board - at least. Perhaps, they have different opinion, though...since they see everyone. But, I think this is possibly why LS came back. Maybe patients were unhappy with metacrill.

It made no sense that in the early days, guys would gain 0.8\" from 20 cc 30% - and then in the last year, guys would barely gain 0.5\" from 35cc 30% -- I think metacrill quality went down. or, we are just seeing strange patient reports.

I gained from R1 - but my 10% metacrill was a year old - when it was still good... I think.

There are a lot of threads on here about the gains problem that went on...though it wasn\'t 100% of guys, it was more than in the earlier days...and they were getting higher CCs - so it was odd.

Restoration wrote: The results from Metacrill haven\'t been consistent for a long time, now, on the board - at least. Perhaps, they have different opinion, though...since they see everyone. But, I think this is possibly why LS came back. Maybe patients were unhappy with metacrill.

It made no sense that in the early days, guys would gain 0.8\" from 20 cc 30% - and then in the last year, guys would barely gain 0.5\" from 35cc 30% -- I think metacrill quality went down. or, we are just seeing strange patient reports.

I gained from R1 - but my 10% metacrill was a year old - when it was still good... I think.

There are a lot of threads on here about the gains problem that went on...though it wasn\'t 100% of guys, it was more than in the earlier days...and they were getting higher CCs - so it was odd.

Except that in the last year there have also been reports of adequate gains from Metacril. Honestly, the sample size is too small and not enough men report on their experiences with Metacril in the past year to say definitively the product was to blame.

I don\'t think you will see much of a difference in terms of gains between the two products, but I could be wrong. I\'ve had both in me (I had Linnea when it was originally labeled New Plastic) and both have been yielded notable gains (visually, I no longer measure for purposes of maintaining-penis-sanity).

I don\'t know why Linnea costs as much as $500 more, but if they say both products are comparable in quality, then it is probably a matter of overhead (i.e. as in, Linnea charges more per cc). I guess it\'s easy to assume that the higher costing product is the more \"premium\" one, but we really can\'t say until we have more men report on gains. This forum is only as good as its contributors.

I\'m pretty sure I was one of the biggest gainers, & I had Metracril. Supposedly there\'s no difference in quality, but LS is just more expensive for them to acquire. I honestly believe that it really depends on the individual. As much as everyone wants to believe otherwise, I think it\'s basically throwing darts blindfolded & hoping for the best. There are too many variables .

All that said, I will be opting for LS on my touch up round.

Yeah, honestly it\'s very hard to say given the limited sample.

I\'ve looked into everything that could be affecting me from pharmaceuticals to blood flow issues... so I hope that R3 is a bigger success than R2 where I basically gained nothing.

There are so many factors, certainly. Edupd has a really good journal on how his path was a total roller coaster of good/bad results - way before it became an \"issue\" that people didn\'t like their metacrill results. So, yeah I think it\'s more complicated... I just am trying to stack the deck as best as I can considering I am actually going to end up with a 10k penis that is smaller than where some guys on here start!

No one really seems to know, il ask Dr C when he\'s next on the board or email prof Lemperle when I have some free time.