First Cycle, Test E/Deca

Pharma / TRT
1

Hey yall, just wanted to throw down my first cycle and to see if i need to change anything.

Background:
24 y/o (plan on starting this in january when im 25)
Training since 14, training smart since 18
5’10" ~ 210lbs. ~15-16% bf
Partially tore my hamstring in july, still healing… I don’t plan on starting the cycle until im completely healed (or close to).

Pre injury lifts:
Bench - 275x3
Squat - 315x5
Deadlift - 465x1
Strict Overhead press - 195x1
BB Row - 265x5

Cycle:
WK 1-10 - Test E 150mg E3D (~300mg per week)
WK 1-10 - Deca 250mg or 1-8 @ 300mg?
WK 1-12 - Aromasin (not sure how much per day as i only hear about adex)
WK 13-16 - Novladex 40/20/20

-I’ll have letrozole on hand incase of any signs of gyno.
-I also will have an extra vial of test E incase i need to up the dose or to save for a future cycle.

If i’m missing anything, i apologize. Thanks in advance for your help.

2

First cycle all you need is test. 500mg EW. Run it, love it, save the deca for next go.

3

Thanks hulk, so you recommend taking 250mg of test E twice a week?

One of the main reasons i picked deca was because i heard it helps with collagen synthesis meaning it can help repair ligaments and the such. I was hoping that deca would hasten my hamstring recovery if it wasnt 100% by january.

4

I agree with the above, about saving deca for a future cycle. It is a pretty harsh drug, and will not aid in repairing your injury. Deca helps with joint/ligament pain, but does not aid in the repairing of them. HGH on the other hand could help that hammy…but thats not part of this thread. That being said the deca would not even help with the hammy. If you want to add another chemical tren is a fun one IMO.

5

And you recommend Trenbolone, one of the strongest androgens available, in the same breath as labelling Nandrolone which is one of the ‘safest’ steroids as harsh?

Nice work there.

(Considering that androgenic side effects are as a whole much more damaging to health than estrogenic side effects, i would consider the higher androgen anabolics to be ‘harsher’).

Also - seeing as you tell us that ‘deca’ will not help his injury, and as such is useless for that reason - by what mechanism would Trenbolone?

6

thank everyone. Yeah J-J i dont plan on doing tren, not for a long time anyways. I’ve also heard that deca is one of the safer steriods, apart from deca-dick.

7

[quote]J-J wrote:
And you recommend Trenbolone, one of the strongest androgens available, in the same breath as labelling Nandrolone which is one of the ‘safest’ steroids as harsh?

Nice work there.

(Considering that androgenic side effects are as a whole much more damaging to health than estrogenic side effects, i would consider the higher androgen anabolics to be ‘harsher’).

Also - seeing as you tell us that ‘deca’ will not help his injury, and as such is useless for that reason - by what mechanism would Trenbolone?[/quote]

Even you have recognized the problem with debating this type of thing by putting quote marks around the word safest. The safety of AAS is relative to the user in many cases.

One can easily make the argument that real trenbolone is safer than nandrolone if their definition of safety focuses on the long lasting effects nadrolone has on sex drive and recovery.

This is not to start an argument but you cant say, in black and white, that stronger androgens are inherently more dangerous than weaker androgens. I would not recommend nandrolone or trenbolone in a first, second, or maybe even third cycle TBH. u

8

The addition of tren was my deca alternative if he wanted to add another element to his cycle. As Bonez stated, a little better on the nuts. Tren will not help his injury, just something fun he could play with. Mind you, I do agree with Bonez that he could/should save Tren for later on, but I was just offering an alternative.

9

I’d be careful with using something like tren on the first go. I’m on my 3rd cycle and I’ve been using it for about 4 weeks at this point, and while the benefits have been great the side effects fucking blow, even at 350 mg/week. Insomnia out the ass and my mood is constantly being fucked with. A first time AAS user would not be able to associate certain effects with a drug and I just don’t think it would be a good idea to expose someone to that right of the bat.

For me, it basically removes the euphoric effect that test gives and replaces it with mild depression, but since I know that’s the tren, it doesn’t bother me as much as it would if I had no idea that was going to happen.

I would really just stick with test the first go, great first cycle gains and great mood effects.

10

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
J-J wrote:
And you recommend Trenbolone, one of the strongest androgens available, in the same breath as labelling Nandrolone which is one of the ‘safest’ steroids as harsh?

Nice work there.

(Considering that androgenic side effects are as a whole much more damaging to health than estrogenic side effects, i would consider the higher androgen anabolics to be ‘harsher’).

Also - seeing as you tell us that ‘deca’ will not help his injury, and as such is useless for that reason - by what mechanism would Trenbolone?

Even you have recognized the problem with debating this type of thing by putting quote marks around the word safest. The safety of AAS is relative to the user in many cases.

One can easily make the argument that real trenbolone is safer than nandrolone if their definition of safety focuses on the long lasting effects nadrolone has on sex drive and recovery.

This is not to start an argument but you cant say, in black and white, that stronger androgens are inherently more dangerous than weaker androgens. I would not recommend nandrolone or trenbolone in a first, second, or maybe even third cycle TBH. u[/quote]

True however -

Trenbolone IS a nandrolone derivative and so is likely to be almost as suppressive as Nandrolone - the only difference being (IMO) the level of activity at the progesterone receptor and the level of aromatisation.
The aromatisation is a non-issue as tren is often stacked with aromatising steroids… and some do seem to have progesterone-like problems from Trenbolone - especially (or actually IMO, exclusively) when they do not control estrogen.

I am not recommending Nand OR tren to this guy (shit, i havent even read his post!) but i am simply calling the guy who considers Nandrolone one of the Harsher drugs, out.
Harshness it has to be agreed by the dictonary definition is a word much better matched to androgenic sides rather than estrogenic sides (not that they are exclusive of one another in reality but the point needs to be made).

Suppression (of libido and HPTA) is the ONLY side effect of nandrolone, whereas Trenbolone will swell the prostate (with estrogenic drugs), worsen acne, aggression and mood, reduce sleep and it is worse on the hair line than nandrolone.

Now - remembering the only point of my post is to argue that Nandrolone is NOT one of the Harsher steroids and that it is certainly not ‘Harsher’ than trenbolone - do you agree?
(it is fine if you still dont but i wanted to clarify my position… )

:wink:

11

[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
I’d be careful with using something like tren on the first go. I’m on my 3rd cycle and I’ve been using it for about 4 weeks at this point, and while the benefits have been great the side effects fucking blow, even at 350 mg/week. Insomnia out the ass and my mood is constantly being fucked with. A first time AAS user would not be able to associate certain effects with a drug and I just don’t think it would be a good idea to expose someone to that right of the bat.

For me, it basically removes the euphoric effect that test gives and replaces it with mild depression, but since I know that’s the tren, it doesn’t bother me as much as it would if I had no idea that was going to happen.

I would really just stick with test the first go, great first cycle gains and great mood effects.[/quote]

This happens to me also, and in me (and is the reason i mention it as it may be the case for you too) it is not so much that it is a ‘different’ drug, but that it is the total androgen level.

Tren is more androgenic than Test’one (to be clear, Testosterone and NOT DHT, as although Tren is still more androgenic than DHT - it is not by as large a degree) and as such the total androgen level rises disproportionately when it (tren) is added to a cycle.

For me, i feel best at 200mg of T a week, and if i cycle i am happy at around 1000mg/wk of total AAS.

If i want to run a 2g cycle (of total androgens) i need to psychologically ‘prepare’ for the lowering of mood and onset of depression that ensues… but when it is a calculated and expected evil it is significantly more manageable than when one has a depression descend with no warning.

Just thought i’d mention it to maybe help clarify the same issue for you or someone else :wink:

12

[quote]J-J wrote:

Now - remembering the only point of my post is to argue that Nandrolone is NOT one of the Harsher steroids and that it is certainly not ‘Harsher’ than trenbolone - do you agree?
(it is fine if you still dont but i wanted to clarify my position… )

;)[/quote]

Yes, I’ll agree but only because it would require less ancillary drugs to control Nandrolone’s side effects compared to the amount of ancillaries needed to mitigate tren’s. I think they are both harsh in their own way but nandrolone is not worse than tren, sure.

14

Well i disagree with that then because you cant make Tren less androgenic with any ancillary available today.

16

[quote]J-J wrote:
Well i disagree with that then because you cant make Tren less androgenic with any ancillary available today.[/quote]

True. That was part of my point but I couldn’t explain it well. Of the side effects that can be controlled, you’d need more drugs with tren than nandrolone. I didn’t mean to imply that all of the non-muscle building effects that tren brings can be controlled with ancillary drugs.

17

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
You disagreeing with me or have you not learnt how to use quotes yet, lol?

I assume it’s with someone else, since I made no mention of androgenicity.

BBB[/quote]

I was disagreeing with Bonez as your post wasn’t showing when i made mine - however everyone seems to be forgetting what i was actually talking about, which is:

Nandrolone (whatever ester) as one of the harshest steroids.

It isn’t. It just is not.

NPP will inhibit faster most likely than Deca, and of course the inhibition is caused by the exact same mode of action.
Plus ‘on’ cycle will be just as detrimental to libido and such factors (in those who suffer) as Deca - but of course i agree it should be less problematic for recovery in the long term i’d expect.

The reason i use the term Nandrolone and not Deca (unless Nandrolone Decanoate is the specific topic of discussion) is because whatever differences the ester may cause are purely matters of timing.

The whole point of my post was NOT the causative factors of Nandrolone’s inhibition of the HPTA - but that it is a less harsh drug than Testosterone or Trenbolone.

Of course (and here is where the problem comes) the question of ‘what is harsh’ can be subjective - and i personally consider the word harsh to mean something that is damaging or corrosive, which is much more applicable to the effects one of the strongest androgens (ever made i think - considering methyltrienolone) has on the body when compared to the effects a progestin (which Tren is ALSO) may have.

Phew.

18

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
J-J wrote:
Well i disagree with that then because you cant make Tren less androgenic with any ancillary available today.

True. That was part of my point but I couldn’t explain it well. Of the side effects that can be controlled, you’d need more drugs with tren than nandrolone. I didn’t mean to imply that all of the non-muscle building effects that tren brings can be controlled with ancillary drugs. [/quote]

‘Of the side effects that can be controlled…?’ Is that really the key point to your argument? Are you sure you are going with that or do you want to ask the audience - phone a friend?

lol! I didn’t realise people judged a drugs side effects purely on the controllable ones, discounting the ones that cannot be controlled…! :wink:

Anyway - i do disagree with you but there is no point repeating myself further, i am more than happy to agree to disagree.

JJ

19

[quote]J-J wrote:
BONEZ217 wrote:
J-J wrote:
Well i disagree with that then because you cant make Tren less androgenic with any ancillary available today.

True. That was part of my point but I couldn’t explain it well. Of the side effects that can be controlled, you’d need more drugs with tren than nandrolone. I didn’t mean to imply that all of the non-muscle building effects that tren brings can be controlled with ancillary drugs.

‘Of the side effects that can be controlled…?’ Is that really the key point to your argument? Are you sure you are going with that or do you want to ask the audience - phone a friend?

lol! I didn’t realise people judged a drugs side effects purely on the controllable ones, discounting the ones that cannot be controlled…! :wink:

Anyway - i do disagree with you but there is no point repeating myself further, i am more than happy to agree to disagree.

JJ[/quote]

I can’t speak for anyone else but I am certainly not judging the harshness of a drug 'purely on side effects that can be controlled. The last sentance in my post implies that I understand that tren has uncontrollable side effects. And I certainly don’t pick and choose side effects to recognize when forming opinions about different AAS, that doesn’t really make much sense does it.

The point of my argument was that the term ‘harsh’ is relative to the individual. That’s all. I explained myself poorly.