I agree with the bulk of your post, but I disagree with your body weight standards.
Height makes a huge difference in how much a guy will weigh. If we take a look at the IFBB classic physique weight limits vs height, you would be allowed to be 55 lbs heavier than OP (6’2" vs 5’7"). The weight limits are designed to allow the competitors to have equal physiques at different heights.
I would be questioning said “experience” and overall intelligence if they thought they could gain 30lbs LBM in one blast.
I think there are quite a few folks who are decently well trained and new to AAS who still manage to put on muscle with low doses of anabolics while cutting, but you seem to disagree here; that’s fine. I’ve experienced it personally with ME and witnessed it with multiple others, but I understand your experience must be different.
I feel this is unnecessary in many situations, and overly burdensome on the speaker. As I said before, we are discussing advice in the scope of someone who still has very “natty” stats; anyone who is beyond the state of being able to gain while cutting on AAS - isn’t reading this.
Of the people I know who claim they accomplished this with mild cycles (4-500 mg of Test/week), IMO, it was mostly delusion. The ones I am thinking of started off a bit chubby, gained weight, and claimed reduction in belly fat. They didn’t take measurements though, just what they thought based on the mirror.
At the same time, others and myself were thinking they got overall bigger and fatter.
I think what they were seeing in the mirror was proportion changes. A bit of shoulder growth can make a big impact on the physique.
Now these are guys that are decently strong guys. Not elite or anything, but both deadlift over 500 lbs, and one did a 375 lb bench on his cycle. So not newbs by almost any standard.
I think the impressive recomps we see with mild cycles are often guys that are far from their natural limit. They start training harder, they have gear support, plus they have lots of gains left. Their body isn’t resisting putting on more muscle, and in those circumstances may even convert a good amount of fat to muscle. They get good recomps, but at the same time, I know naturals that look way better that spent 10 years training with a good diet.
For a contest I am looking to look as “dry” as I could. That meant I needed to drop the “wet” AAS. At 4 weeks out, I no longer took Anadrol or Dianabol, and replaced them with either Winstrol or Anavar. I preferred Winstrol, because I felt it gave my muscles a fuller look. I only took 20mg/day, though.
All of my cycles included 200mg/wk of testosterone cypionate, and usually 200mg/wk Deca. At two weeks out I would drop the testosterone cypionate. I would take the last Deca one week out of the show.
What I found was that testosterone helped to keep my muscles full and hard, but the water associated with the cypionate hindered me getting a “dry” look. So, 10 days out, I would start taking 100mg/day of testosterone suspension, where I took the last injection about an hour or two prior to prejudging. I felt that that combination gave me the fullest, hardest, dry look that I could get. (i don’t know of anyone who did that but me.)
If you add those AAS up, I was taking close to one gram of AAS per week the last 10 days.
Then, simply put, I was “off cycle.” If I could get some HCG (a 10cc vial), which wasn’t for all cycles, I would run some for the first 20 days, EOD, starting one week after the last oral AAS.
Please note, I wasn’t “off cycle” more than 8 weeks, and sometimes as short as 6 weeks, especially if I couldn’t get HCG. Throughout the year, I was “on cycle” more than I was “off cycle.”`
Most folks undertrained for their first cycle, so my point about Blast/Cut and Cruise/Bulk stands exactly in line with this… After all, that is who we’re giving advice to.
Just my opinion, but those guys shouldn’t be using gear. They haven’t demonstrated that they know how to get results with training and eating. Because of this, they will get cycle gains, and then revert back to looking how they did before the cycle / blast. I don’t see the point.
It is my belief that I can only give valid advice to someone I have seen working out for a few weeks. I have not seen the OP. I have not seen his effort. I have not seen his training strategy. And I have not seen his physique to give it my assessment.
At best we can give the OP general thoughts, based on each of our “images” of him. Sorta like tailoring a suit for someone over the phone.
100% agreed, but that rarely stops them from doing so. If the opinions of some random internet people change your mind on using steroids, you weren’t going to use them anyways.
I agree with this in theory, but this would result in one giving advice to almost no one and would kill this subforum if put into practice by everyone.
Good point. I don’t give cycle advice for this reason, I just like to point people in the proper direction. I think is someone wants advice a picture should be mandatory along with proper detailed info on training history, max lifts, and cycle goals.
The point is that we need better description of the OP. Sure, I cannot be there. But if the OP wants specific advice, he needs to help us understand who were are giving the advice. He doesn’t want to post a pic. I am okay with that, except I know less about him, which is not helpful. How strong is he? We don’t know.
I might take one look at him and refuse to talk anything AAS with him.
1)LBM is LBM. Bodybuilding is a sport where specific genetics make it work. Just like a pretty face. 2 eyes, mouth, nose - but some look pretty, some look ugly. The face is the face, but the result is so much different.
I dont care if this guy looks epic and is 170lbs, the guy is eating for 170lbs, can take drugs for 170lbs, and couldnt give me any advice, as i am 80lbs bigger than he is. And idc about height, because being shorter means also doing less work, as far as any movement.
2)If a 170lbs guy looks like this, he attaches pics in the first post 100% of the time. So when i see 170lbs on this forum, i bet all my money on the fact that the OP doesnt look like this dude in the pic. He looks like a person who has never trained, so my advice and comments are based on that.
A few months back i wrote tons of DMs to lots of coaches who look like pro-BBs but all weight around 200-210 during a contest. I wrote all my stats, all my struggles with how many kcals i need to eat, all the gear i have taken, and i wanted to pay for coaching if they believe they can make me look like they do.
None…NONE replied.
Because a 210lb pro bodybuilder knows jack shit about how to make a 250lbs guy BIG, cuz they have never been at that size. Even tho genetics make em look “big” it doesnt change the fact that they lift less weight for less ROM, and eat for size the same kcals i eat to cut.
LBM is LBM, no matter how ones genetics make him look. The food, the work, the drug doses are calculated by LBM, not how pretty they look.
This needs a bit of clarification. The only pounds of concern are pounds of muscle, not body weight.
I see it even more specifically, it is only the pounds of muscle above that which you can attain without AAS, that are the pounds in question.
But to @mnben87 point. The taller a man is, the greater amount of muscle he needs, to appear the same muscular proportion as the shorter man. Seems to me about 8lbs per inch. So consequently, the taller a person the greater the amount of AAS is required to reach an equivalent muscular proportion of a shorter man.
“But to @mnben87 point. The taller a man is, the greater amount of muscle he needs, to appear the same muscular proportion as the shorter man.”
However due to the increased length of myofibrils created due to the greater length between proximal and distal attachments, the muscle is built in a higher weight factor. It doesn’t take a taller bodybuilder longer to build 10lbs of muscle than a shorter one.
In connection to this point, a taller bodybuilder has to lift a weight further than a shorter one, but strength (generalized) is (partially) determined by muscle length, so the greater length of fibres compensates for the adversity, coupled with the difference in pivotal action, the difficulty is overcome.
He is heavy for how lean and tall he is (5’2"). That is very difficult to accomplish at that height (part of why he is a great BBer).
I was just taking issue with Hank’s blanket statement about weight a guy should weigh for AAS use or to be considered developed.
They pretty much all are for their height considering their BF levels.
Consider Frank Zane. 190 lbs doesn’t sound that big. But how many guys at 5’9" are able to be 190 lbs at 5-6% BF? Not very many. Very few do it at 10-12%.
