Another Havoc Cycle

Pharma
21

[quote]Holden Caulfield wrote:

what i disagree with is putting steroids into these two classes, i think its flawed and outdated. there are studies showing that these “class II” compounds will, in vivo, act on the androgen receptor. knowing that, you almost have to use a little broscience and take real world results into account when thinking about synergy.[/quote]

If I were coming up with it now, rather than about 12 years ago, I would put it differently. Perhaps genomic vs non-genomic.

It has since been demonstrated that the AR, as well as the classical mechanism of binding with DNA and causing promotion of mRNA production, can as a different mechanism have activity in the cytosol independent of binding with DNA.

It’s not unreasonable that some compounds might be better at one of these modes than the other, but with both actually being via the AR.

At any rate, contrary to what you are assuming, the Class I / Class II method is based on real-world results and nothing but. The method of placing compounds in one class or the other, or calling a compound mixed in activity, is solely based on practical experience: if stacking it with for example trenbolone or oxandrolone adds little, and nothing if that base is commensurately reduced, but stacking it with for example Dianabol or Anadrol adds a ton then it is classified as Class I; if the reverse is true Class II; if it can add to either, then mixed.

So most likely in an ideal world everything would be revised to “largely AR genomically mediated” to “largely AR non-genomically mediated” as my best guess for how this may be, but that is of pharmacological interest, not a matter of practical difference.

As to these “prohormones,” I can’t comment as I have never been very interested in them. It seems that Westclock has really put the work and thought into them, though, and I would assume his advice is the way to go if using them.

22

[quote]Westclock wrote:
Holden Caulfield wrote:

why dont i like epi/hdrol? almost every log ive seen using this stack had results equivalent to running one of the compounds solo. plus its hell on your joints. if OP is open to stacking methyls, i think epi/m1,4add would be better but you may disagree since the wet/dry stacking theory is “broscience” (which itself is subjective as a lot of people still use these stacks with a lot of success).

also, why do you suggest stacks like Bold/SD and epi/SD if you follow the classification system? wouldnt those stacks both be competing for the AR?

Certainly the type I, type II classification are far from definitive, you are very much correct in that respect.

The activity of different steroids can not be so easily reduced to two black and white categories.

But it is a general guide we provide to give people examples, and it is quite close to the actual activity most of the time.

Hdrol should not be rough on the joints, it does not have antiestrogenic properties.

Running epistane at all would have similar affects on lubrication.

The only reason running hdrol with the epistane might feel rougher that just epistane is because adding more androgens (the hdrol) would further impair testosterone production, and therefor estrogen production.

The problem with stacking any prohormones is that by the time a user is “advanced” enough to stack they have already experimented with prohormones for alteast a few cycles. And they no longer find single compounds at moderate doses to be effective.

Comparing a more advanced user running a stack with a newbie running his first go round with anabolics of any kind, isn’t a subjective comparison.

Combine this with the fact that stacking andorgens does not produce VASTLY superior gains over one compound.

Example: Test and dbol cycles.

A 500mg test only cycle will net you about 10 pounds or so of lean mass on average.

A 40mg dbol only cycle will yield the same, about 10 pounds.

So why does running 500mg test and 40mg dbol only get you about 12 pounds ? But the stack produces a better “experience”, better recovery, better mood, better gains, higher strength, and more “permanent” gains.

The benefits of running multiple compounds cant always be seen as numbers on paper in terms of comparing only bodyweight.

And the results are not incredibly noticeable due to diminishing returns, your body can only make so much muscle no matter what you run.

Now with prohormones you dont run them much longer than 6 weeks, mabey less.

No matter what your running, even if your running two grams of oral steroids a week, your not going to see massive gains in only 6 weeks.

Steroids are “signals”, no matter how much you run your body can only synthesis so much muscle per day.

Running an ass load of prohormones will not produce better gains if your body is nearing its capacity for protien synthesis.

And to answer your second question, Bold has mostly type I activity, as does epistane.

Superdrol, m1t, etc, have mostly type II activity, they dont “compete” persay when stacked due to a different method of activity in the body.

This is a very poor explanation on my part, but you get the idea.

[/quote]

didnt see this post until now, makes sense.

i understand what youre saying about more compounds =/= more gains, ive been trying to tell people that for a long time. this is why i think for advanced users (definitely not beginners) it would be more benefitial to forget about 4 weekers and run longer cycle that are drawn out and more similar to an AAS cycle. something like this…

Bold (think of this as a test base)
800/800/800/800/800/800/800/800

Phera
30/30/30/30/0/0/0/0

SD
0/0/0/0/20/20/20/20

i know its a little off topic but im wondering how you felt about cycles like this since many people are starting to run them this way as opposed to a standard 4-6 week stack.

23

[quote]Holden Caulfield wrote:
Westclock wrote:
Holden Caulfield wrote:

why dont i like epi/hdrol? almost every log ive seen using this stack had results equivalent to running one of the compounds solo. plus its hell on your joints. if OP is open to stacking methyls, i think epi/m1,4add would be better but you may disagree since the wet/dry stacking theory is “broscience” (which itself is subjective as a lot of people still use these stacks with a lot of success).

also, why do you suggest stacks like Bold/SD and epi/SD if you follow the classification system? wouldnt those stacks both be competing for the AR?

Certainly the type I, type II classification are far from definitive, you are very much correct in that respect.

The activity of different steroids can not be so easily reduced to two black and white categories.

But it is a general guide we provide to give people examples, and it is quite close to the actual activity most of the time.

Hdrol should not be rough on the joints, it does not have antiestrogenic properties.

Running epistane at all would have similar affects on lubrication.

The only reason running hdrol with the epistane might feel rougher that just epistane is because adding more androgens (the hdrol) would further impair testosterone production, and therefor estrogen production.

The problem with stacking any prohormones is that by the time a user is “advanced” enough to stack they have already experimented with prohormones for alteast a few cycles. And they no longer find single compounds at moderate doses to be effective.

Comparing a more advanced user running a stack with a newbie running his first go round with anabolics of any kind, isn’t a subjective comparison.

Combine this with the fact that stacking andorgens does not produce VASTLY superior gains over one compound.

Example: Test and dbol cycles.

A 500mg test only cycle will net you about 10 pounds or so of lean mass on average.

A 40mg dbol only cycle will yield the same, about 10 pounds.

So why does running 500mg test and 40mg dbol only get you about 12 pounds ? But the stack produces a better “experience”, better recovery, better mood, better gains, higher strength, and more “permanent” gains.

The benefits of running multiple compounds cant always be seen as numbers on paper in terms of comparing only bodyweight.

And the results are not incredibly noticeable due to diminishing returns, your body can only make so much muscle no matter what you run.

Now with prohormones you dont run them much longer than 6 weeks, mabey less.

No matter what your running, even if your running two grams of oral steroids a week, your not going to see massive gains in only 6 weeks.

Steroids are “signals”, no matter how much you run your body can only synthesis so much muscle per day.

Running an ass load of prohormones will not produce better gains if your body is nearing its capacity for protien synthesis.

And to answer your second question, Bold has mostly type I activity, as does epistane.

Superdrol, m1t, etc, have mostly type II activity, they dont “compete” persay when stacked due to a different method of activity in the body.

This is a very poor explanation on my part, but you get the idea.

didnt see this post until now, makes sense.

i understand what youre saying about more compounds =/= more gains, ive been trying to tell people that for a long time. this is why i think for advanced users (definitely not beginners) it would be more benefitial to forget about 4 weekers and run longer cycle that are drawn out and more similar to an AAS cycle. something like this…

Bold (think of this as a test base)
800/800/800/800/800/800/800/800

Phera
30/30/30/30/0/0/0/0

SD
0/0/0/0/20/20/20/20

i know its a little off topic but im wondering how you felt about cycles like this since many people are starting to run them this way as opposed to a standard 4-6 week stack.[/quote]

Isn’t phera methylated?

In any case bold+phera = class 1
SD = class 2.

Why run two class 1’s at the same time?

24

[quote]benmoore wrote:
Holden Caulfield wrote:
Westclock wrote:
Holden Caulfield wrote:

why dont i like epi/hdrol? almost every log ive seen using this stack had results equivalent to running one of the compounds solo. plus its hell on your joints. if OP is open to stacking methyls, i think epi/m1,4add would be better but you may disagree since the wet/dry stacking theory is “broscience” (which itself is subjective as a lot of people still use these stacks with a lot of success).

also, why do you suggest stacks like Bold/SD and epi/SD if you follow the classification system? wouldnt those stacks both be competing for the AR?

Certainly the type I, type II classification are far from definitive, you are very much correct in that respect.

The activity of different steroids can not be so easily reduced to two black and white categories.

But it is a general guide we provide to give people examples, and it is quite close to the actual activity most of the time.

Hdrol should not be rough on the joints, it does not have antiestrogenic properties.

Running epistane at all would have similar affects on lubrication.

The only reason running hdrol with the epistane might feel rougher that just epistane is because adding more androgens (the hdrol) would further impair testosterone production, and therefor estrogen production.

The problem with stacking any prohormones is that by the time a user is “advanced” enough to stack they have already experimented with prohormones for alteast a few cycles. And they no longer find single compounds at moderate doses to be effective.

Comparing a more advanced user running a stack with a newbie running his first go round with anabolics of any kind, isn’t a subjective comparison.

Combine this with the fact that stacking andorgens does not produce VASTLY superior gains over one compound.

Example: Test and dbol cycles.

A 500mg test only cycle will net you about 10 pounds or so of lean mass on average.

A 40mg dbol only cycle will yield the same, about 10 pounds.

So why does running 500mg test and 40mg dbol only get you about 12 pounds ? But the stack produces a better “experience”, better recovery, better mood, better gains, higher strength, and more “permanent” gains.

The benefits of running multiple compounds cant always be seen as numbers on paper in terms of comparing only bodyweight.

And the results are not incredibly noticeable due to diminishing returns, your body can only make so much muscle no matter what you run.

Now with prohormones you dont run them much longer than 6 weeks, mabey less.

No matter what your running, even if your running two grams of oral steroids a week, your not going to see massive gains in only 6 weeks.

Steroids are “signals”, no matter how much you run your body can only synthesis so much muscle per day.

Running an ass load of prohormones will not produce better gains if your body is nearing its capacity for protien synthesis.

And to answer your second question, Bold has mostly type I activity, as does epistane.

Superdrol, m1t, etc, have mostly type II activity, they dont “compete” persay when stacked due to a different method of activity in the body.

This is a very poor explanation on my part, but you get the idea.

didnt see this post until now, makes sense.

i understand what youre saying about more compounds =/= more gains, ive been trying to tell people that for a long time. this is why i think for advanced users (definitely not beginners) it would be more benefitial to forget about 4 weekers and run longer cycle that are drawn out and more similar to an AAS cycle. something like this…

Bold (think of this as a test base)
800/800/800/800/800/800/800/800

Phera
30/30/30/30/0/0/0/0

SD
0/0/0/0/20/20/20/20

i know its a little off topic but im wondering how you felt about cycles like this since many people are starting to run them this way as opposed to a standard 4-6 week stack.

Isn’t phera methylated?

In any case bold+phera = class 1
SD = class 2.

Why run two class 1’s at the same time?[/quote]

like i said before, i dont buy much into the whole class thing. there are aspects of it that are worth paying attention to but studies have shown that its too ridgid. this is my opinion though, obviously in constrast to Westclocks. to be honest, outside of this site, i dont see much talk about it at all.

i just brought that particular stack up as an example in response to Westclocks comment about 4-6 week PH cycles being held to the limits of protein synthesis. no matter how many compounds you stack, theres only so much you can do in that period of time.

a stack like the one i posted is drawn out longer to take full advantage of different compounds. Phera is methylated but by bridging it with SD rather than stacking it, youre theoretically reducing stress on the liver. and yes, Phera and Bold are both Class I but this is a very common stack and is one of the most successfull ive seen for pure bulking. whether SD is actually a Class II im still unsure.

25

[quote]Holden Caulfield wrote:
benmoore wrote:
Holden Caulfield wrote:
Westclock wrote:
Holden Caulfield wrote:

why dont i like epi/hdrol? almost every log ive seen using this stack had results equivalent to running one of the compounds solo. plus its hell on your joints. if OP is open to stacking methyls, i think epi/m1,4add would be better but you may disagree since the wet/dry stacking theory is “broscience” (which itself is subjective as a lot of people still use these stacks with a lot of success).

also, why do you suggest stacks like Bold/SD and epi/SD if you follow the classification system? wouldnt those stacks both be competing for the AR?

Fair play but 4 weeks of a dimethyl followed by 4 weeks of methyl sounds VERY hard on the liver.

Certainly the type I, type II classification are far from definitive, you are very much correct in that respect.

The activity of different steroids can not be so easily reduced to two black and white categories.

But it is a general guide we provide to give people examples, and it is quite close to the actual activity most of the time.

Hdrol should not be rough on the joints, it does not have antiestrogenic properties.

Running epistane at all would have similar affects on lubrication.

The only reason running hdrol with the epistane might feel rougher that just epistane is because adding more androgens (the hdrol) would further impair testosterone production, and therefor estrogen production.

The problem with stacking any prohormones is that by the time a user is “advanced” enough to stack they have already experimented with prohormones for alteast a few cycles. And they no longer find single compounds at moderate doses to be effective.

Comparing a more advanced user running a stack with a newbie running his first go round with anabolics of any kind, isn’t a subjective comparison.

Combine this with the fact that stacking andorgens does not produce VASTLY superior gains over one compound.

Example: Test and dbol cycles.

A 500mg test only cycle will net you about 10 pounds or so of lean mass on average.

A 40mg dbol only cycle will yield the same, about 10 pounds.

So why does running 500mg test and 40mg dbol only get you about 12 pounds ? But the stack produces a better “experience”, better recovery, better mood, better gains, higher strength, and more “permanent” gains.

The benefits of running multiple compounds cant always be seen as numbers on paper in terms of comparing only bodyweight.

And the results are not incredibly noticeable due to diminishing returns, your body can only make so much muscle no matter what you run.

Now with prohormones you dont run them much longer than 6 weeks, mabey less.

No matter what your running, even if your running two grams of oral steroids a week, your not going to see massive gains in only 6 weeks.

Steroids are “signals”, no matter how much you run your body can only synthesis so much muscle per day.

Running an ass load of prohormones will not produce better gains if your body is nearing its capacity for protien synthesis.

And to answer your second question, Bold has mostly type I activity, as does epistane.

Superdrol, m1t, etc, have mostly type II activity, they dont “compete” persay when stacked due to a different method of activity in the body.

This is a very poor explanation on my part, but you get the idea.

didnt see this post until now, makes sense.

i understand what youre saying about more compounds =/= more gains, ive been trying to tell people that for a long time. this is why i think for advanced users (definitely not beginners) it would be more benefitial to forget about 4 weekers and run longer cycle that are drawn out and more similar to an AAS cycle. something like this…

Bold (think of this as a test base)
800/800/800/800/800/800/800/800

Phera
30/30/30/30/0/0/0/0

SD
0/0/0/0/20/20/20/20

i know its a little off topic but im wondering how you felt about cycles like this since many people are starting to run them this way as opposed to a standard 4-6 week stack.

Isn’t phera methylated?

In any case bold+phera = class 1
SD = class 2.

Why run two class 1’s at the same time?

like i said before, i dont buy much into the whole class thing. there are aspects of it that are worth paying attention to but studies have shown that its too ridgid. this is my opinion though, obviously in constrast to Westclocks. to be honest, outside of this site, i dont see much talk about it at all.

i just brought that particular stack up as an example in response to Westclocks comment about 4-6 week PH cycles being held to the limits of protein synthesis. no matter how many compounds you stack, theres only so much you can do in that period of time.

a stack like the one i posted is drawn out longer to take full advantage of different compounds. Phera is methylated but by bridging it with SD rather than stacking it, youre theoretically reducing stress on the liver. and yes, Phera and Bold are both Class I but this is a very common stack and is one of the most successfull ive seen for pure bulking. whether SD is actually a Class II im still unsure.
[/quote]

8 weeks of metylated compounds - one of which is a dimethyl sounds harsh

26

[quote]
8 weeks of metylated compounds - one of which is a dimethyl sounds harsh[/quote]

bloodwork my friend. 8 week methyl bridges are very common in the PH/DS world and do not effect liver values to the extent that most people think they do. with the right liver supports, risk is reduced further.

this would be a cycle for advanced users obviously, not for everyone. i wouldnt but it was just an example, its done often and with a lot of success.

27

[quote]Holden Caulfield wrote:

8 weeks of metylated compounds - one of which is a dimethyl sounds harsh

bloodwork my friend. 8 week methyl bridges are very common in the PH/DS world and do not effect liver values to the extent that most people think they do. with the right liver supports, risk is reduced further.

this would be a cycle for advanced users obviously, not for everyone. i wouldnt but it was just an example, its done often and with a lot of success.[/quote]

Fair play but Ive heard that SD alone has caused some horrific liver problems.

I could probably handle most things on account of not drinking at all PERIOD as of about a year… and even then i wasnt a frequent or heavy drinker.

28

More compounds does = more gains, but only after a certain level, and only up to a certain point of diminishing returns.

I see a few problems with this proposed stack. I assume those dosages are in mg per day, by number of weeks.

Which is an odd way to outline it, but I doubt you mean 20mg of SD per week. So I will run with that assumption.

The first one is obvious, its ridiculously expensive, you could run a test, deca, dbol cycle for that price.

You could run an “exotic” and “expensive” multi-compound ACTUAL steroid cycle for how much this prohormone cycle would cost

Lets tally that up real quick:

800mg/day bold for 8 weeks.

Thats 44800mg of bold prohormone. Each bottle is 12000mg.

You would need 4 bottles of bold to run that dosage for that period of time.

At 40-50 bucks a bottle thats 160-200 bucks right there.

Then 30 bucks each for the pheraplex and superdrol.

So another 60. So something like 240 bucks for just the prohormones.

Assuming you buy some sort of cycle support, youve got another 20-30 bucks.

So 270 bucks so far, then you have to buy an SERM, about 55-60 bucks, so your up to 330 dollars for an 8 week prohormone cycle.

You could run a test, deca and dbol cycle, pretty much the king of mass builders, for 10 weeks with a complete PCT for about the same price.

The other IMPORTANT problem I see is that almost none of these steroids aromatize enough (boldenone does, but not much, and the dose in this case is insignificant) to give you any estrogen or convert to DHT.

Your going to be running without test, or estrogen, or DHT. Not much fun. A very poorly designed cycle in this regard, probably would kill your sex drive.

Just looking at the drug its based on doesn’t help too much if they have been screwing with the structure.

superdrol is also very close chemically to drol, it is a super-saturated, or 2-reduced form.

We are fairly sure it is a class II

Pheraplex is actually an old school designer → Madol.

It was used in professional sports for a time because it was “undetectable” by most standard tests.
A test for it now exists however, so it vanished from use quickly, now the prohormone crowd has picked it up.

We are fairly sure it is a class I and it seems to be correct from observation.

We do know it works well stacked with other more clearly type II steroids.

I feel something like m1t bridged into superdrol would be more effective. But M1T is a little more effort to acquire these days than pheraplex, although still much easier than actual steroids. Hdrol would be a poor choice as it would take too long to notice its effects.

But if he wants to use pheraplex, thats a personal choice.

This stack would not be that bad on the liver, certainly its a little long for oral usage.

But you are correct to think that oral toxicity is massively overstated intentionality.

I have known people to get jaundice from prohormones, but they were usually doing stupid shit in addition to usage.

Alcohol, not drinking water or eating correctly, taking high dosages of several prohormones at once, etc.

My last point is this: This cycle is not likely to be more effective than more moderate cycles. The cost to benefit ratio is badly skewed.

This cycle is mostly bold, the strongest drugs, superdrol and phera are run at lower dosages for shorter periods of time.

I would rather run superdrol at 40mg/day and bold at 800/day for 6 weeks than run your cycle.

Or even superdrol and pheraplex for say 5 weeks, SD @ 40 and PP @30.

Its not a very effective use of drugs, it looks nice on paper, but I feel it will be weak.

29

Decided to run havoc through to end.

Week 1: CEL Cycle Assist
Week 2: H-drol 100mg, Havoc 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist
Week 3: H-drol 100mg, Havoc 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist
Week 4: H-drol 100mg, Havoc 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist
Week 5: H-drol 100mg, Havoc 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist
Week 6: H-drol 100mg, Havoc 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist
Week 7: H-drol 100mg, Havoc 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist
Week 8: Nolvadex 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist, ZMA
Week 9: Nolvadex 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist, ZMA
Week 10: TRIBEX Gold 4 caps, Nolvadex 20mg, CEL Cycle Assist, ZMA
Week 11: TRIBEX Gold 4 caps, Nolvadex 20mg, CEL Cycle Assist, ZMA
Week 12: TRIBEX Gold 4 caps, CEL Cycle Assist, ZMA
Week 13: TRIBEX Gold 4 caps, ZMA
Week 14: ZMA
Week 15: ZMA

Also I am likely to invest in some liv52 to run alongside this also. If I can’t get hold of this however I will be dropping the havoc after week 4.

EDIT: I will be delaying this cycle however until my bicep tendonitis has cleared up and am benching with full ROM for max effort work without pain or discomfort.

Its only really benching that seems to irritate it - something brought on by over doing dips/flat dumbell presses with high ROM and max effort benching in the same cycle.

30

[quote]benmoore wrote:
Decided to run havoc through to end.

Week 1: CEL Cycle Assist
Week 2: H-drol 100mg, Havoc 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist
Week 3: H-drol 100mg, Havoc 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist
Week 4: H-drol 100mg, Havoc 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist
Week 5: H-drol 100mg, Havoc 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist
Week 6: H-drol 100mg, Havoc 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist
Week 7: H-drol 100mg, Havoc 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist
Week 8: Nolvadex 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist, ZMA
Week 9: Nolvadex 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist, ZMA
Week 10: TRIBEX Gold 4 caps, Nolvadex 20mg, CEL Cycle Assist, ZMA
Week 11: TRIBEX Gold 4 caps, Nolvadex 20mg, CEL Cycle Assist, ZMA
Week 12: TRIBEX Gold 4 caps, CEL Cycle Assist, ZMA
Week 13: TRIBEX Gold 4 caps, ZMA
Week 14: ZMA
Week 15: ZMA

Also I am likely to invest in some liv52 to run alongside this also. If I can’t get hold of this however I will be dropping the havoc after week 4.

EDIT: I will be delaying this cycle however until my bicep tendonitis has cleared up and am benching with full ROM for max effort work without pain or discomfort.

Its only really benching that seems to irritate it - something brought on by over doing dips/flat dumbell presses with high ROM and max effort benching in the same cycle.[/quote]

Keep a watch on your eye color just in case.

If it looks like its getting noticeably darker your going to want to drop the PH’s and start your SERM early.

Drink plenty of water.

31

[quote]Westclock wrote:
benmoore wrote:
Decided to run havoc through to end.

Week 1: CEL Cycle Assist
Week 2: H-drol 100mg, Havoc 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist
Week 3: H-drol 100mg, Havoc 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist
Week 4: H-drol 100mg, Havoc 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist
Week 5: H-drol 100mg, Havoc 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist
Week 6: H-drol 100mg, Havoc 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist
Week 7: H-drol 100mg, Havoc 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist
Week 8: Nolvadex 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist, ZMA
Week 9: Nolvadex 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist, ZMA
Week 10: TRIBEX Gold 4 caps, Nolvadex 20mg, CEL Cycle Assist, ZMA
Week 11: TRIBEX Gold 4 caps, Nolvadex 20mg, CEL Cycle Assist, ZMA
Week 12: TRIBEX Gold 4 caps, CEL Cycle Assist, ZMA
Week 13: TRIBEX Gold 4 caps, ZMA
Week 14: ZMA
Week 15: ZMA

Also I am likely to invest in some liv52 to run alongside this also. If I can’t get hold of this however I will be dropping the havoc after week 4.

EDIT: I will be delaying this cycle however until my bicep tendonitis has cleared up and am benching with full ROM for max effort work without pain or discomfort.

Its only really benching that seems to irritate it - something brought on by over doing dips/flat dumbell presses with high ROM and max effort benching in the same cycle.

Keep a watch on your eye color just in case.

If it looks like its getting noticeably darker your going to want to drop the PH’s and start your SERM early.

Drink plenty of water.
[/quote]

Its starting to sound like its a very real risk… that made me have a think. I havent found any logs of people going this high on a hdrol and havoc stack.

Maybe I should think a little more about this.

Truth be told ive got a while to go yet - held back by me rehabbing this stupid bicep tendonitis.

32

[quote]benmoore wrote:
Its starting to sound like its a very real risk… that made me have a think. I havent found any logs of people going this high on a hdrol and havoc stack.

Maybe I should think a little more about this.

Truth be told ive got a while to go yet - held back by me rehabbing this stupid bicep tendonitis.[/quote]

Using hormones of any kind is a very real risk.

If you want safety I would recommend using only one compound at a time.

33

[quote]Westclock wrote:

The other IMPORTANT problem I see is that almost none of these steroids aromatize enough (boldenone does, but not much, and the dose in this case is insignificant) to give you any estrogen or convert to DHT.

Your going to be running without test, or estrogen, or DHT. Not much fun. A very poorly designed cycle in this regard, probably would kill your sex drive.
[/quote]

Is this a problem because of the length of the hypothetical cycle? What I mean is: is the lack of aromatization not too much of a problem if a cycle is only four or five weeks?

34

[quote]downintucson wrote:
Westclock wrote:

The other IMPORTANT problem I see is that almost none of these steroids aromatize enough (boldenone does, but not much, and the dose in this case is insignificant) to give you any estrogen or convert to DHT.

Your going to be running without test, or estrogen, or DHT. Not much fun. A very poorly designed cycle in this regard, probably would kill your sex drive.

Is this a problem because of the length of the hypothetical cycle? What I mean is: is the lack of aromatization not too much of a problem if a cycle is only four or five weeks?
[/quote]

Your body will be pretty heavily suppressed after say 2-3 weeks. But you still have decent test levels up until that 2 week mark, they are falling but still there.

So if your cycle is only 4 weeks, you test production is barely shutdown.
If your running for 8 weeks, then your going to be running with a shutdown system.

You will have minimal testosterone and estrogen.

8 weeks is doable, but your going to find your sex drive and energy drop hard about mabey half way through.

Its not the same for everyone, but just be aware of what happening.
If you run a longer cycle without test, your just asking for a limp dick.

And since no “test” is avaliable with prohormones, long cycles generally suck.

They used to have this stuff called 4-AD.

It was great shit, not methylated, and converted to testosterone, and therefor estrogen and DHT.

It could be used as a “half assed” test base for prohormone cycles. You used to see it run with EVERYTHING, like every cycle had it in there somewhere, it wasn’t methylated and it prevented alot of the energy and libido problems due to no testosterone production.

They still sell stuff CALLED 4-AD but its not the same stuff, its just named the same.

35

Thanks Westclock. So, this is the reason (one of them, at least) behind stacking compounds instead of bridging them, right?

36

[quote]downintucson wrote:
Thanks Westclock. So, this is the reason (one of them, at least) behind stacking compounds instead of bridging them, right?[/quote]

Well stacking is mostly so you can run several different drugs at once.

The drugs synergize with each other for better gains if done properly.

But yes it also keeps cycles short.

The less your shut down, the better from a recovery standpoint.

4 weeks you bounce right back with an SERM, 8 weeks might drag a little more.

And you want to bounce back quickly with PH’s, because they dont give great gains, you can end up losing everything you got from the cycle simply because you cant recover fast enough.

37

[quote]Westclock wrote:
downintucson wrote:
Thanks Westclock. So, this is the reason (one of them, at least) behind stacking compounds instead of bridging them, right?

Well stacking is mostly so you can run several different drugs at once.

The drugs synergize with each other for better gains if done properly.

But yes it also keeps cycles short.

The less your shut down, the better from a recovery standpoint.

4 weeks you bounce right back with an SERM, 8 weeks might drag a little more.

And you want to bounce back quickly with PH’s, because they dont give great gains, you can end up losing everything you got from the cycle simply because you cant recover fast enough.[/quote]

Interesting considering how common 8 week bold cycles seem to be.

38

[quote]benmoore wrote:
Westclock wrote:
downintucson wrote:
Thanks Westclock. So, this is the reason (one of them, at least) behind stacking compounds instead of bridging them, right?

Well stacking is mostly so you can run several different drugs at once.

The drugs synergize with each other for better gains if done properly.

But yes it also keeps cycles short.

The less your shut down, the better from a recovery standpoint.

4 weeks you bounce right back with an SERM, 8 weeks might drag a little more.

And you want to bounce back quickly with PH’s, because they dont give great gains, you can end up losing everything you got from the cycle simply because you cant recover fast enough.

Interesting considering how common 8 week bold cycles seem to be.[/quote]

People do odd cycles all the time, many of them are decently successful.

People do deca only cycles, which is just moronic, but they still make progress. Just because something isn’t ideal doesn’t mean it will not work, and doesn’t mean it isn’t done.

39

[quote]Westclock wrote:
benmoore wrote:
Westclock wrote:
downintucson wrote:
Thanks Westclock. So, this is the reason (one of them, at least) behind stacking compounds instead of bridging them, right?

Well stacking is mostly so you can run several different drugs at once.

The drugs synergize with each other for better gains if done properly.

But yes it also keeps cycles short.

The less your shut down, the better from a recovery standpoint.

4 weeks you bounce right back with an SERM, 8 weeks might drag a little more.

And you want to bounce back quickly with PH’s, because they dont give great gains, you can end up losing everything you got from the cycle simply because you cant recover fast enough.

Interesting considering how common 8 week bold cycles seem to be.

People do odd cycles all the time, many of them are decently successful.

People do deca only cycles, which is just moronic, but they still make progress. Just because something isn’t ideal doesn’t mean it will not work, and doesn’t mean it isn’t done.

[/quote]

Been thinking even more about this cycle.

I think I would definatly like to run havoc at 40mg ED for 4 weeks minimum.

I WOULD like to run hdrol alongside it.

I am wondering however - since hdrol takes a while to kick in - for the first 1-2 weeks would there be any reason why it would be a bad idea to run at a lower dose… say 50mg? (I do realise you feel that anything under 50mg is a waste).

Im just looking at minimising liver risk for two methyls:

Week 1: Havoc 40mg, Hdrol 50mg
Week 2: Havoc 40mg, Hdrol 50mg
Week 3: Havoc 40mg, Hdrol 75mg
Weel 4: Havoc 40mg, Hdrol 75mg
Week 5: Hdrol 100mg
Week 6: Hdrol 100mg

Or Weeks 1-4 could be ran at 75mg straight?

40

[quote]Westclock wrote:

Transdermal PH are a waste of money for the most part.

Also:

The tren clones have an anabolic effect, but only when dosed relatively high, this leads to much higher progesterone qualities than anabolic.

In other words, muscle growth/anabolic effects are practically a side effect of these compounds.

We actually have no idea how or why they work for the most part, zero research of any kind has been done on them, atleast with real tren we have used it in animals, and people have been using it for years.

And atleast a few cases of extremely aggressive prostate cancer have been reported from even moderate usage in YOUNG men with these off the shelf compounds.

The stuff is a plague on the weightlifting society, and it needs to be banned immediately.

That said, its gains are no more impressive than say superdrol, or pheraplex, the trens are attractive due to their lack of methyls for stacking reasons, but its not worth while in my opinion.

Pheraplex parent compound, DMT has been linked to some heart issues, how accurate that is, is hearsay, but so far superdrol has only been linked to liver issues from methylation.

If I were to use any current prohormones I would choose epistane, hdrol, superdrol, or pheraplex.

If I were you and I were limited to prohormones I would stack epistane and hdrol.

Its mixing a type I and II, its two methyls but they are somewhat mild on the liver compared to many.

Both give decent strength and clean gains with no water. They provide “quality” muscle as much as any prohormone can.

Epistane/havoc at 40mg/day + hdrol at 75-100mg/day would be a decent cycle imo.

I would run the hdrol for atleast 5-6 weeks, it takes a little longer to kick than epistane.

Meaning you can start with epistane, run it for 4 weeks along side the epistane, and the simply continue for another 2 weeks on just the hdrol.

Or you can buy more epistane and run it throughout, etc.

Ive posted about it in a thread before. I would expect atleast 7-8 pounds a slight reduction in body fat with a clean diet, increased cardio capacit and moderate strength increases all around.

[/quote]

This is what westlock told me about hdrol and epi, I’m still planning on running the cycle only I think I’m going to run a bridge cycle, hdrol into epistane.

I’ve run milder cycles in the past normally for about 4 weeks, so i am nervous about shut down.

I remember I did mess with dbol and took it too late in the afternoon/night I wanna say, and my member/balls were not the same until i pct’d

I’m thinking about logging the cycle too