Nondrolone Recovery

[Gregus]

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:

[quote]Gregus wrote:

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
Having read that abortion of a thread, I see that Gregus has a questionable attitude and low level of steroid education.

However, so do many who read this forum, I’m sure. I too started out with a low level steroid education - as did we all.

However I do not like the attitude displayed by him, especially towards one who genuinely lifted this board with his educated and thoughtful posts.

I am disheartened that he left, but also surprised that he allowed Gregus to infuriate him so much. You have to use a certain level of detatchment when on an internet forum. It’s the only means of staying sane. To leave is at best a hollow victory. Better to stay and ignore, than leave and let the forum degenerate IMO.

BBB[/quote]

Whoa i feel like im getting raged on for something i didn’t do.

His statement open up with:

“To imply that, winstrol is possibly “safer” than the other AAS, is very incorrect.”

His statements are absolutely incorrect and he does not know what he’s talking about. Sorry.

That was about what i said to him and about him. Then i got flipped out on. He made a broad generalization and i disagreed. I;m not sure where anything else came from. I consider my knowledge on AS to be moderate and certainly NOT as good as some here that are of a PHD level in education on this.

I know what he was saying but his angle of discussion was IMO incorrect. Furthermore i was called name after name even though i didn’t reciprocate.

Is it any real argument really that running a cycle of 200 mg or primo weekly and 20 mg of var daily for six weeks is “SAFER” then a cycle of 50mg daily of anadrol and Test suspension @ 100mg daily for six weeks?

He seemed to infer that there is really NO difference in the safety of those two cycles. as in NO DIFFERENCE. So i disagreed. Why didn’t anyone else? If i’m missing something here just let me know, and i do apologize for unintentionally setting someone off. [/quote]

Let me give you a tip regarding etiquette on an internet forum. Of course this is just how I view it and handle things, not taken from some mythical ‘internet guidance bible’ or anything, you understand.

Ok. When someone “seems to infer” as you yourself put it, you have to tread carefully. This is especially true when that poster possesses more knowledge on a given suject than you do.

You certainly do not write a reply that states “His statements are absolutely incorrect and he does not know what he’s talking about.”

It is more likely that your iterpretation of his inferences was wrong.

And since you later admit that “I know what he was saying but his angle of discussion was IMO incorrect.” then this compounds the issue, since you cannot correct an ‘angle of discussion’ with “His statements are absolutely incorrect and he does not know what he’s talking about.”

In short you come across as boorish and truculent. The very ‘asshole-ish’ characteristics you profess to eschew in this forum.

So you went and perpetuated the very type of behaviour you railed against in a recent thread. Hypocritical at best IMO.

Now I don’t agree with how EgJ handled your comment. Normally he would have shown more grace and aplomb. So I have to surmise that yours was the straw that broke the camels’ back, or that he is having a tough time of things in his ‘real’ life and you caught the flack.

BBB
[/quote]

Look the problem is that when we only communicate with the written word, we are missing the whole plethora of emotions that complete the communications. I actually am not a hypocrite, and i railed against advanced people blowing off rookies with seemingly simple questions. I don’t like Elitism.

I was Merely pointing out the incorrectness of this statement.

“To imply that, winstrol is possibly “safer” than the other AAS, is very incorrect.”

Yes i can dig deep into research and find studies that will support that statement. Anything no matter how benign taken to the max can be harmful, this is why there was an acknowledgment to a “possible angle” in that his view can be supported. I was being democratic.

But to flatly correct people and state, again, that

“To imply that, winstrol is possibly “safer” than the other AAS, is very incorrect.”

I can debunk this all day. Common, cut me some slack, i was never rude, seriously wtf? I see people cutting throats on these boards and my little comment of disagreement with no rudeness or profanity causes all of this? Common, are we men? Is there an Estrogen imbalance?

Also, BBB, Just because there are people with more knowledge and more education, It does not mean that, they are not wrong, not incorrect, not of a wrong mindset, immune from being human.

[Gregus]

[quote]WyldFlower wrote:

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:

[quote]Gregus wrote:

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
Having read that abortion of a thread, I see that Gregus has a questionable attitude and low level of steroid education.

However, so do many who read this forum, I’m sure. I too started out with a low level steroid education - as did we all.

However I do not like the attitude displayed by him, especially towards one who genuinely lifted this board with his educated and thoughtful posts.

I am disheartened that he left, but also surprised that he allowed Gregus to infuriate him so much. You have to use a certain level of detatchment when on an internet forum. It’s the only means of staying sane. To leave is at best a hollow victory. Better to stay and ignore, than leave and let the forum degenerate IMO.

BBB[/quote]

Whoa i feel like im getting raged on for something i didn’t do.

His statement open up with:

“To imply that, winstrol is possibly “safer” than the other AAS, is very incorrect.”

His statements are absolutely incorrect and he does not know what he’s talking about. Sorry.

That was about what i said to him and about him. Then i got flipped out on. He made a broad generalization and i disagreed. I;m not sure where anything else came from. I consider my knowledge on AS to be moderate and certainly NOT as good as some here that are of a PHD level in education on this.

I know what he was saying but his angle of discussion was IMO incorrect. Furthermore i was called name after name even though i didn’t reciprocate.

Is it any real argument really that running a cycle of 200 mg or primo weekly and 20 mg of var daily for six weeks is “SAFER” then a cycle of 50mg daily of anadrol and Test suspension @ 100mg daily for six weeks?

He seemed to infer that there is really NO difference in the safety of those two cycles. as in NO DIFFERENCE. So i disagreed. Why didn’t anyone else? If i’m missing something here just let me know, and i do apologize for unintentionally setting someone off. [/quote]

Let me give you a tip regarding etiquette on an internet forum. Of course this is just how I view it and handle things, not taken from some mythical ‘internet guidance bible’ or anything, you understand.

Ok. When someone “seems to infer” as you yourself put it, you have to tread carefully. This is especially true when that poster possesses more knowledge on a given suject than you do.

You certainly do not write a reply that states “His statements are absolutely incorrect and he does not know what he’s talking about.”

It is more likely that your iterpretation of his inferences was wrong.

And since you later admit that “I know what he was saying but his angle of discussion was IMO incorrect.” then this compounds the issue, since you cannot correct an ‘angle of discussion’ with “His statements are absolutely incorrect and he does not know what he’s talking about.”

In short you come across as boorish and truculent. The very ‘asshole-ish’ characteristics you profess to eschew in this forum.

So you went and perpetuated the very type of behaviour you railed against in a recent thread. Hypocritical at best IMO.

Now I don’t agree with how EgJ handled your comment. Normally he would have shown more grace and aplomb. So I have to surmise that yours was the straw that broke the camels’ back, or that he is having a tough time of things in his ‘real’ life and you caught the flack.

BBB
[/quote]

Yeah “Gregus”.

Take me for example, i’m an annoying little shit with my social faux pases (sic) and lack of boundaries but i always pepper my brusqueness with a modicom of humility.

Like that adderrall thread, in which i qualified my disagreements with “correct me if i’m wrong,” and “i’m sure you’re knowledge of pharmacology is way superior to mine, and so i will defer to your better judgement, BUT…” etc. Such statements are enough to massage their egos, particularly when uneducated little shits, such as myself, go around presenting contrary opinions which may nevertheless be correct i am stupid.[/quote]

LOL. Gotcha. I need an ego massage lesson for sure. People here assume superiority over the next individual. There are presumptions some are more educated then others. I’t ivory towerism and elitism at it’s finest.

Heck there should be rules on how to disagree with members of a certain level of knowledge. Rookies can just be told to F-off but the elites have to be spoken to as you mentioned:

"i qualified my disagreements with “correct me if i’m wrong,” and “i’m sure you’re knowledge of pharmacology is way superior to mine, and so i will defer to your better judgement, BUT…” etc

[Gregus]

Here is another Gem from him insulting ME:

[b]Please explain to me the importance of reducing SHBG? What is the average concentration of SHBG? Say you took away all of SHBG how much “extra” free testosterone would you have?

Show me one study that shows positive collagen enhancement by any AAS?[/b]

You are a joke.

Ok, we all know what SHBG is and how Oral Winny affects this more then the injectable. Many AS have been shown to have a positive impact on Collagen formation.

Why is he writing so as to portray me as an idiot when nothing i wrote is untrue? He is the one out of line and spreading misinformation. I completely have NO desire to share knowledge and experience on these topics with people like that. I also have nothing to prove.

[Cortes]

Uh, your comment there, taken in context with your slam at the forum regulars before it certainly had me feeling you were the rude one at that time.

Here, I’ll quote it below so we can see it in its proper context. Keep in mind this was your first contribution to that entire thread.

[quote]
True. This board is full a holes. They have their roid rage. I stay away from this board and check up on it infrequently just to see if there is any good info. Usually there Isn’t, just more of what you mentioned.

But there are exceptions so my apologies to the good contributors.

But too many dudes have the attitude that because they are “above” someone with less size, they look down on any notion about “them” using. Who do they think they are those smaller guys thinking about juicing, lol. So questions are not addressed or answered.

you get sarcasm, put downs, name calling etc etc etc… [/quote]

Gee, I don’t know where anyone could have come off with the idea that you are truculent or boorish. You sound completely innocent here.

[WyldFlower]

Gregus, to be fair, you did come off waaaay condescending in that thread - unecessarily so. Seemed to be challenging his intellect for no good reason.

Anyway, EVERYONE STAY ON TOPIC, cos this has been a very informative thread for me on the cost/benefits of Nandrolone.

[WyldFlower]

[quote]Gregus wrote:
Here is another Gem from him insulting ME:

[b]Please explain to me the importance of reducing SHBG? What is the average concentration of SHBG? Say you took away all of SHBG how much “extra” free testosterone would you have?

Show me one study that shows positive collagen enhancement by any AAS?[/b]

You are a joke.

Ok, we all know what SHBG is and how Oral Winny affects this more then the injectable. Many AS have been shown to have a positive impact on Collagen formation.

Why is he writing so as to portray me as an idiot when nothing i wrote is untrue? He is the one out of line and spreading misinformation. I completely have NO desire to share knowledge and experience on these topics with people like that. I also have nothing to prove.

[/quote]

Hey yeah, i remember Bill Roberts saying somethign about the negligible difference reducing SHBG would make in freeing up bound-test - i think it was in relation to a thread on proviron… can’t quite recall.

Perhaps you should continue this line of inquiry in that old thread??!!!

[Detroitlionsbaby]

[quote]Gregus wrote:

“To imply that, winstrol is possibly “safer” than the other AAS, is very incorrect.”

I can debunk this all day. Common, cut me some slack, i was never rude, seriously wtf? I see people cutting throats on these boards and my little comment of disagreement with no rudeness or profanity causes all of this? Common, are we men? Is there an Estrogen imbalance?

Also, BBB, Just because there are people with more knowledge and more education, It does not mean that, they are not wrong, not incorrect, not of a wrong mindset, immune from being human. [/quote]

Man I completely agree that winstrol is JUST AS DANGEROUS as the other steroids. It depends on the person and the situation! I can use tren and test all day every day with no side effects, never had any real issues. I ran winstrol for a five weeks, BAM severe joint issues, my lipid levels tanked, and I almost developed a nasty abscess from the shit. IMO Winstrol is way more dangerous than the other steroids. Why dont you try it before you comment??

Bill Roberts had a GREAT write up on SHBG where he talked about how basically useless it is to worry about.

The problem is you are doing calculations on a wrong assumption (thinking it is a fact that it works according to the percentages you describe), yielding a completely wrong conclusion.

Of course a rigorous explanation would go into the equations for equilibria and receptor binding, but a simple explanation is this:

The cause and effect is the opposite of what you think.

Total T is what it is as a product, so to speak, of the amount of free T and the amount of SHBG. Not, free T as a consequence of total T and the amount of SHBG. If the significance of the difference isn’t clear then please let that one sit for a bit because it is crucial.

Thinking that wrong second thing, or coming to conclusions based on such an assumption even if unconsciously, leads to thorough error.

The amount of free T is the result of the chemical potential of testosterone in the body. Except where out of equilibrium, thus resulting in mass transfer – for example intratesticular free testosterone is about 10 times higher a level than in blood – the chemical potential is about the same throughout the body. (Because where it is not, there is mass transfer to the areas of lower chemical potential.)

As to what chemical potential is, that is a difficult physical chemistry thing but it is very closely related to “percent saturation” or you could call it so to speak the stored energy in how highly loaded a solution is. Like having two bodies of water at different levels, if you remove the gate between them the water will flow from that of the higher, in this case gravitational, potential to the lower. Or if they are at the same potential in the first place then no net mass transfer will occur on opening the gate. By way of analogy.

Only a very small amount of the total testosterone in the body at any time is in the blood whether as free T or as T bound to SHBG or other proteins.

You are assuming that if the amount of SHBG were cut in half, well then according to the percentages, uh, well wait a sec according to your logic that would cut free T in half too, since “the percentage is always the same.”

So actually I can’t manage to reconcile the above percentages theory with the conclusion reached in any way.

But in any case the assumption is wrong. Removing half the SHBG itself does nothing to change the chemical potential of the testosterone. It is the same, the equilibrium between for example free testosterone in blood and testosterone dissolved in fat is the same: the free testosterone level in the blood remains the same.

Or try thinking of it this way again: So you have say 1000 ng/dL of testosterone bound to SHBG. That’s one microgram per 10th of a liter, or 10 micrograms per liter, or say 50 micrograms in all the blood.

So say you release ALL that mighty amount of testosterone. It would be the equivalent of injecting 50 micrograms! BFD! And it would be a one-time shot.

There’s no way that magic games claiming “it’s always this percentage” or whatever changes either the facts of chemical equilibria and potential, or the fact that SHBG is not consuming steroid and there is no substantial amount to release either.

The entire idea is mistaken. I understand that the idea is appealing, and because of correlation – which is about all doctors care about as they are not considering treating anything by changing amount of SHBG – doctors see that when someone has for example normal testosterone but low SHBG that it is as if they have high testosterone. Well yeah, because they have high free T, necessarily! Because if there isn’t much SHBG then it takes high free T levels to have that SHBG carrying a normal total amount. There would be no need to bother looking at the SHBG at all: the free T alone would tell the whole story. But still from the diagnostic standpoint, it’s perfectly valid to note that when SHBG is low for any given amount of total T, then activity of T is more than would otherwise be expected from the total T. It may well be medically useful as labs have often been confusing in their reports of free T, so this would be a way to cut through that problem if nothing else.

And steroid dealers writing steroid books find it a simple enough thing to assert that driving down SHBG will increase free T without actually needing a fact of that ever being shown, or making the slightest sense if actually educated in the things involved.

Here’s a final analogy for you. Not that analogy is the way actually to show that something is so, but it can be a way to illustrate things. You have a swimming pool. Gigantic – 100 meters long by, say, 20 meters wide. Attached to it for some reason is a small hot-tub sized additional pool, with a means for water flow between it and the huge pool. Also there are drains off of each of these that lead to a really small thing, about the size of a gallon jug of water, up on the deck that has a screen in it that catches the big stuff before it gets to your filtration system. So you can get at the screen.

The water is, unsurprisingly, at the same levels – the same gravitational potential – in each of these things. Now the total amounts of water are vastly different, but the heights are the same.

On top of all this, for some reason there’s an ongoing process that adds thousands of gallons of water to the pool at one part and removes it at the same rate from another part. And whenever the water level was a little higher than usual, removal rate would increase a little, or if a little lower, removal rate would decrease, thus keeping the level stable.

And someone comes along and claims, You know, if you reduced the size of that attached hot-tub-sized-thingie, WOW the water level would really rise dramatically in that little catch thing that also is connected to the giant pool!

No it wouldn’t. Do you see?

DAMN I hate the SHBG thing. It is totally banging my head against the wall, particularly when seeing for example even you buying Schwarzy’s utter nonsense attempted refutation over the rather thorough explanations I’ve given many times.

I at least have found how to search the forum and actually get results. The answer is to use Google directly and limit the search to this site. In future I will limit SHBG replies to a stock Google search recommendation. It is just a total loser of a topic as the forces of nonsense are just too much to overcome.

[Gregus]

OK. I still don’t see Where i was “wrong”. But i want to see where i was wrong. Please, if you can, explain to me how primobolan, taken at the same dosage weekly as a Testosterone suspension or tren is EQUALLY as toxic and side effect prone for the general population. Please explain.

Also in regards to SHBG. Ofcourse i know what it is, what it does and it’s importance. Why else would i mention it and actually be accurate? I can explain everything about SHBG but it does not prove anything. I can cut and past to me hearts content and “seem” to know. Rest assured i know.

Again if me saying to he was incorrect in stating that any anabolic steroid is as dangerous as any other steroid regardless of anything is pure silliness and he SHOULD be called out on inaccuracies.

So BBB, again, explain to me how primobolan, taken at the same dosage weekly as a Testosterone suspension or tren is EQUALLY as toxic and side effect prone for the general population. Please explain.

IM SERIOUS, i really want to know, no sarcasm intended. Let’s share some info and see where it all falls. Till then getting on my case incessantly over how i said something as opposed to “WHAT” i said, is very unmanly.

[Gregus]

[quote]Detroitlionsbaby wrote:

[quote]Gregus wrote:

“To imply that, winstrol is possibly “safer” than the other AAS, is very incorrect.”

I can debunk this all day. Common, cut me some slack, i was never rude, seriously wtf? I see people cutting throats on these boards and my little comment of disagreement with no rudeness or profanity causes all of this? Common, are we men? Is there an Estrogen imbalance?

Also, BBB, Just because there are people with more knowledge and more education, It does not mean that, they are not wrong, not incorrect, not of a wrong mindset, immune from being human. [/quote]

Man I completely agree that winstrol is JUST AS DANGEROUS as the other steroids. It depends on the person and the situation! I can use tren and test all day every day with no side effects, never had any real issues. I ran winstrol for a five weeks, BAM severe joint issues, my lipid levels tanked, and I almost developed a nasty abscess from the shit. IMO Winstrol is way more dangerous than the other steroids. Why dont you try it before you comment??

Bill Roberts had a GREAT write up on SHBG where he talked about how basically useless it is to worry about.

[quote]
The problem is you are doing calculations on a wrong assumption (thinking it is a fact that it works according to the percentages you describe), yielding a completely wrong conclusion.

Of course a rigorous explanation would go into the equations for equilibria and receptor binding, but a simple explanation is this:

The cause and effect is the opposite of what you think.

Total T is what it is as a product, so to speak, of the amount of free T and the amount of SHBG. Not, free T as a consequence of total T and the amount of SHBG. If the significance of the difference isn’t clear then please let that one sit for a bit because it is crucial.

Thinking that wrong second thing, or coming to conclusions based on such an assumption even if unconsciously, leads to thorough error.

The amount of free T is the result of the chemical potential of testosterone in the body. Except where out of equilibrium, thus resulting in mass transfer – for example intratesticular free testosterone is about 10 times higher a level than in blood – the chemical potential is about the same throughout the body. (Because where it is not, there is mass transfer to the areas of lower chemical potential.)

As to what chemical potential is, that is a difficult physical chemistry thing but it is very closely related to “percent saturation” or you could call it so to speak the stored energy in how highly loaded a solution is. Like having two bodies of water at different levels, if you remove the gate between them the water will flow from that of the higher, in this case gravitational, potential to the lower. Or if they are at the same potential in the first place then no net mass transfer will occur on opening the gate. By way of analogy.

Only a very small amount of the total testosterone in the body at any time is in the blood whether as free T or as T bound to SHBG or other proteins.

You are assuming that if the amount of SHBG were cut in half, well then according to the percentages, uh, well wait a sec according to your logic that would cut free T in half too, since “the percentage is always the same.”

So actually I can’t manage to reconcile the above percentages theory with the conclusion reached in any way.

But in any case the assumption is wrong. Removing half the SHBG itself does nothing to change the chemical potential of the testosterone. It is the same, the equilibrium between for example free testosterone in blood and testosterone dissolved in fat is the same: the free testosterone level in the blood remains the same.

Or try thinking of it this way again: So you have say 1000 ng/dL of testosterone bound to SHBG. That’s one microgram per 10th of a liter, or 10 micrograms per liter, or say 50 micrograms in all the blood.

So say you release ALL that mighty amount of testosterone. It would be the equivalent of injecting 50 micrograms! BFD! And it would be a one-time shot.

There’s no way that magic games claiming “it’s always this percentage” or whatever changes either the facts of chemical equilibria and potential, or the fact that SHBG is not consuming steroid and there is no substantial amount to release either.

The entire idea is mistaken. I understand that the idea is appealing, and because of correlation – which is about all doctors care about as they are not considering treating anything by changing amount of SHBG – doctors see that when someone has for example normal testosterone but low SHBG that it is as if they have high testosterone. Well yeah, because they have high free T, necessarily! Because if there isn’t much SHBG then it takes high free T levels to have that SHBG carrying a normal total amount. There would be no need to bother looking at the SHBG at all: the free T alone would tell the whole story. But still from the diagnostic standpoint, it’s perfectly valid to note that when SHBG is low for any given amount of total T, then activity of T is more than would otherwise be expected from the total T. It may well be medically useful as labs have often been confusing in their reports of free T, so this would be a way to cut through that problem if nothing else.

And steroid dealers writing steroid books find it a simple enough thing to assert that driving down SHBG will increase free T without actually needing a fact of that ever being shown, or making the slightest sense if actually educated in the things involved.

Here’s a final analogy for you. Not that analogy is the way actually to show that something is so, but it can be a way to illustrate things. You have a swimming pool. Gigantic – 100 meters long by, say, 20 meters wide. Attached to it for some reason is a small hot-tub sized additional pool, with a means for water flow between it and the huge pool. Also there are drains off of each of these that lead to a really small thing, about the size of a gallon jug of water, up on the deck that has a screen in it that catches the big stuff before it gets to your filtration system. So you can get at the screen.

The water is, unsurprisingly, at the same levels – the same gravitational potential – in each of these things. Now the total amounts of water are vastly different, but the heights are the same.

On top of all this, for some reason there’s an ongoing process that adds thousands of gallons of water to the pool at one part and removes it at the same rate from another part. And whenever the water level was a little higher than usual, removal rate would increase a little, or if a little lower, removal rate would decrease, thus keeping the level stable.

And someone comes along and claims, You know, if you reduced the size of that attached hot-tub-sized-thingie, WOW the water level would really rise dramatically in that little catch thing that also is connected to the giant pool!

No it wouldn’t. Do you see?

DAMN I hate the SHBG thing. It is totally banging my head against the wall, particularly when seeing for example even you buying Schwarzy’s utter nonsense attempted refutation over the rather thorough explanations I’ve given many times.

I at least have found how to search the forum and actually get results. The answer is to use Google directly and limit the search to this site. In future I will limit SHBG replies to a stock Google search recommendation. It is just a total loser of a topic as the forces of nonsense are just too much to overcome.
[/quote][/quote]

YEs i understand your point about Winny. This is more of an issue of individual tolerance and response as with ANY drug a person takes. GENERALLY there are accepted safe(er) compounds and there are a myriad of other issues that makes a AS toxic. His point made it like Cheque drops and Anavar = SAME RISK.

I did say that he is right from a certain angle. And the angle of individual response is valid, as are dosages, duration, age, gender, drug selection and individual GENETICS.

[Gregus]

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Uh, your comment there, taken in context with your slam at the forum regulars before it certainly had me feeling you were the rude one at that time.

Here, I’ll quote it below so we can see it in its proper context. Keep in mind this was your first contribution to that entire thread.

[quote]
True. This board is full a holes. They have their roid rage. I stay away from this board and check up on it infrequently just to see if there is any good info. Usually there Isn’t, just more of what you mentioned.

But there are exceptions so my apologies to the good contributors.

But too many dudes have the attitude that because they are “above” someone with less size, they look down on any notion about “them” using. Who do they think they are those smaller guys thinking about juicing, lol. So questions are not addressed or answered.

you get sarcasm, put downs, name calling etc etc etc… [/quote]

Gee, I don’t know where anyone could have come off with the idea that you are truculent or boorish. You sound completely innocent here.[/quote]

It could be the part where is say

“But there are exceptions so my apologies to the good contributors.”

You know “apologies” to those i was not referring. I was referring to the attitude of blowing off rookies. Blowing off new Posters with low post counts and the attitude of elitism. If you’re offended it means you identified with one of the many negative people i was referring to. My “apology” was intended for those i offended UNINTENTIONALLY.

[Gregus]

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:

[quote]Gregus wrote:
Here is another Gem from him insulting ME:

[b]Please explain to me the importance of reducing SHBG? What is the average concentration of SHBG? Say you took away all of SHBG how much “extra” free testosterone would you have?

Show me one study that shows positive collagen enhancement by any AAS?[/b]

[/quote]
Actually he is not a joke. He is asking you to provide a shred of proof (not bro-hearsay) that AAS positively effect collagen synthesis. It’s a straighforward request.

And I myself thought I was fully cognizant of the mechanisms of SHBG. However when Bill Roberts explained it fully, I realised that I was actually way off base. And I suspect you are too. Perhaps not though. Why don’t you tell us what you know.

You are a joke.

Ok, we all know what SHBG is and how Oral Winny affects this more then the injectable. Many AS have been shown to have a positive impact on Collagen formation.

Why is he writing so as to portray me as an idiot when nothing i wrote is untrue? He is the one out of line and spreading misinformation. I completely have NO desire to share knowledge and experience on these topics with people like that. I also have nothing to prove.

Whatever dude.

BBB
[/quote]
I know he is not a joke. WTF? He called ME a “joke”. Now what are you going to say?

So you want to write a dissertation and link studies proving what we all know if already true. What is the purpose of that. It won;t change the truth of what i said. AS can and do influence collagen production. Some more then others, some positive others negative. Same with calcium leeching. Some AS leech calcium and other help deposit.

I’ll also say AS can build muscle. Do i have to post studies links and explain the mechanisms of action? Maybe i should because till them i might be repeating hear say.

[Detroitlionsbaby]

[quote]Gregus wrote:

YEs i understand your point about Winny. This is more of an issue of individual tolerance and response as with ANY drug a person takes. GENERALLY there are accepted safe(er) compounds and there are a myriad of other issues that makes a AS toxic. His point made it like Cheque drops and Anavar = SAME RISK.

I did say that he is right from a certain angle. And the angle of individual response is valid, as are dosages, duration, age, gender, drug selection and individual GENETICS. [/quote]

So if you agree that side effects of AAS are user dependent how could you disagree that all steroids are potentially equally as dangerous? Are you really saying that you would feel more comfortable taking 50mg/day of Winny for the rest of your life than you would taking 50mg/day of test the rest of your life?

Anavar FUCKS UP your cholesterol bro, just because your dick works fine doesnt mean a steroid is safe. I dont think you get that. There are more side effects to these drugs than the ones we feel. I have used Dbol test tren tbol all with no problems and no real changes in my bodies chemistry yet Winstrol, M-drol, and anavar all really negatively effected my body.

If winstrol gets labeled as a “safe” drug than people will start using it because its “safe”. WHICH IS STUPID because it is NOT SAFE it is just as dangerous as any other drug. It needs to be taken responsibly and in a correct fashion to minimize issues associated with it. If you disagree with that I really don’t see a point in continuing to argue with you, you just dont get “it”

[Gregus]

[quote]Detroitlionsbaby wrote:

[quote]Gregus wrote:

YEs i understand your point about Winny. This is more of an issue of individual tolerance and response as with ANY drug a person takes. GENERALLY there are accepted safe(er) compounds and there are a myriad of other issues that makes a AS toxic. His point made it like Cheque drops and Anavar = SAME RISK.

I did say that he is right from a certain angle. And the angle of individual response is valid, as are dosages, duration, age, gender, drug selection and individual GENETICS. [/quote]

So if you agree that side effects of AAS are user dependent how could you disagree that all steroids are potentially equally as dangerous? Are you really saying that you would feel more comfortable taking 50mg/day of Winny for the rest of your life than you would taking 50mg/day of test the rest of your life?

Anavar FUCKS UP your cholesterol bro, just because your dick works fine doesnt mean a steroid is safe. I dont think you get that. There are more side effects to these drugs than the ones we feel. I have used Dbol test tren tbol all with no problems and no real changes in my bodies chemistry yet Winstrol, M-drol, and anavar all really negatively effected my body.

If winstrol gets labeled as a “safe” drug than people will start using it because its “safe”. WHICH IS STUPID because it is NOT SAFE it is just as dangerous as any other drug. It needs to be taken responsibly and in a correct fashion to minimize issues associated with it. If you disagree with that I really don’t see a point in continuing to argue with you, you just dont get “it”[/quote]

I do get it and obviously can’t dispute the indisputable. The points you’re making are true in the very technical sense but lean to the extreme in your examples because they are your personal reactions learned from experience.

There are more sides from the “light” compounds you missed too. Like vocal cord thickening, hairloss and more. It’s true all drugs have to be taken in their entire spectrum, no doubt.

But that’s all nit picking. Generally in looking at the bigger picture it’s safe to say that if a younger person with potentially still growing bones will be better off doing a cycle of Primobolan Depot and some anavar then jumping straight into Test Suspension and Fina with Anadrol 50. Can we at least agree to that? Isn;t that a reasonable point of view?

And also just out of curiosity, what was your before and after Cholesterol profile and specifically your diet during that time of anavar usage.

[Detroitlionsbaby]

[quote]Gregus wrote:

[quote]Detroitlionsbaby wrote:

[quote]Gregus wrote:

YEs i understand your point about Winny. This is more of an issue of individual tolerance and response as with ANY drug a person takes. GENERALLY there are accepted safe(er) compounds and there are a myriad of other issues that makes a AS toxic. His point made it like Cheque drops and Anavar = SAME RISK.

I did say that he is right from a certain angle. And the angle of individual response is valid, as are dosages, duration, age, gender, drug selection and individual GENETICS. [/quote]

So if you agree that side effects of AAS are user dependent how could you disagree that all steroids are potentially equally as dangerous? Are you really saying that you would feel more comfortable taking 50mg/day of Winny for the rest of your life than you would taking 50mg/day of test the rest of your life?

Anavar FUCKS UP your cholesterol bro, just because your dick works fine doesnt mean a steroid is safe. I dont think you get that. There are more side effects to these drugs than the ones we feel. I have used Dbol test tren tbol all with no problems and no real changes in my bodies chemistry yet Winstrol, M-drol, and anavar all really negatively effected my body.

If winstrol gets labeled as a “safe” drug than people will start using it because its “safe”. WHICH IS STUPID because it is NOT SAFE it is just as dangerous as any other drug. It needs to be taken responsibly and in a correct fashion to minimize issues associated with it. If you disagree with that I really don’t see a point in continuing to argue with you, you just dont get “it”[/quote]

I do get it and obviously can’t dispute the indisputable. The points you’re making are true in the very technical sense but lean to the extreme in your examples because they are your personal reactions learned from experience.

There are more sides from the “light” compounds you missed too. Like vocal cord thickening, hairloss and more. It’s true all drugs have to be taken in their entire spectrum, no doubt.

But that’s all nit picking. Generally in looking at the bigger picture it’s safe to say that if a younger person with potentially still growing bones will be better off doing a cycle of Primobolan Depot and some anavar then jumping straight into Test Suspension and Fina with Anadrol 50. Can we at least agree to that? Isn;t that a reasonable point of view?

And also just out of curiosity, what was your before and after Cholesterol profile and specifically your diet during that time of anavar usage. [/quote]

Growing bones??? What are you taking about? Someone who has growing bones should def NOT be taking any steroids. Anavar has been used IN LOW DOSE for those people BUT they use like 5mg at a time. That is no way enough to build muscle.

I know exactly where you are going with the diet, but I can assure you that my low carb diet consisted of steel cut oats and good fats. I am smart enough to know what what is my body and what is the crap I am using. Perhaps you should try a winstrol only cycle. Take blood work before and after and tell us if you think it is safe. I can tell you that it was mainly my HDL that took the beating for both drugs. When I get home I could look up specific numbers if you really want.

Really, I just dont get why you keep pushing this matter. STEROIDS ARE DANGEROUS LONG TERM. All of them. They need to be used with care. That is the point I think Egant was trying to make. That is the point pretty everyone should agree on. It is no myocardial thickening on my heart if you want to think that you can just use anavar +winny all the time and never worry about anything. Good luck.

[Gregus]

[quote]Detroitlionsbaby wrote:

[quote]Gregus wrote:

[quote]Detroitlionsbaby wrote:

[quote]Gregus wrote:

YEs i understand your point about Winny. This is more of an issue of individual tolerance and response as with ANY drug a person takes. GENERALLY there are accepted safe(er) compounds and there are a myriad of other issues that makes a AS toxic. His point made it like Cheque drops and Anavar = SAME RISK.

I did say that he is right from a certain angle. And the angle of individual response is valid, as are dosages, duration, age, gender, drug selection and individual GENETICS. [/quote]

So if you agree that side effects of AAS are user dependent how could you disagree that all steroids are potentially equally as dangerous? Are you really saying that you would feel more comfortable taking 50mg/day of Winny for the rest of your life than you would taking 50mg/day of test the rest of your life?

Anavar FUCKS UP your cholesterol bro, just because your dick works fine doesnt mean a steroid is safe. I dont think you get that. There are more side effects to these drugs than the ones we feel. I have used Dbol test tren tbol all with no problems and no real changes in my bodies chemistry yet Winstrol, M-drol, and anavar all really negatively effected my body.

If winstrol gets labeled as a “safe” drug than people will start using it because its “safe”. WHICH IS STUPID because it is NOT SAFE it is just as dangerous as any other drug. It needs to be taken responsibly and in a correct fashion to minimize issues associated with it. If you disagree with that I really don’t see a point in continuing to argue with you, you just dont get “it”[/quote]

I do get it and obviously can’t dispute the indisputable. The points you’re making are true in the very technical sense but lean to the extreme in your examples because they are your personal reactions learned from experience.

There are more sides from the “light” compounds you missed too. Like vocal cord thickening, hairloss and more. It’s true all drugs have to be taken in their entire spectrum, no doubt.

But that’s all nit picking. Generally in looking at the bigger picture it’s safe to say that if a younger person with potentially still growing bones will be better off doing a cycle of Primobolan Depot and some anavar then jumping straight into Test Suspension and Fina with Anadrol 50. Can we at least agree to that? Isn;t that a reasonable point of view?

And also just out of curiosity, what was your before and after Cholesterol profile and specifically your diet during that time of anavar usage. [/quote]

Growing bones??? What are you taking about? Someone who has growing bones should def NOT be taking any steroids. Anavar has been used IN LOW DOSE for those people BUT they use like 5mg at a time. That is no way enough to build muscle.

I know exactly where you are going with the diet, but I can assure you that my low carb diet consisted of steel cut oats and good fats. I am smart enough to know what what is my body and what is the crap I am using. Perhaps you should try a winstrol only cycle. Take blood work before and after and tell us if you think it is safe. I can tell you that it was mainly my HDL that took the beating for both drugs. When I get home I could look up specific numbers if you really want.

Really, I just dont get why you keep pushing this matter. STEROIDS ARE DANGEROUS LONG TERM. All of them. They need to be used with care. That is the point I think Egant was trying to make. That is the point pretty everyone should agree on. It is no myocardial thickening on my heart if you want to think that you can just use anavar +winny all the time and never worry about anything. Good luck.[/quote]

Yep post up the blood work. Im really curious. Also what’s the big deal about growing bones? Sound too simple for you? I know i should have said the “epiphyseal plate”. There happy? And some people don’t fuse all their epiphyseal plates upto 25 yo. and in some rare cases 28.

IS testosterone also dangerous long term? Your view is Very Myopic imo. You’re defending the person not the subject matter and intentionally ignore my questions. Your response is weak and not on point.

[Detroitlionsbaby]

[quote]Gregus wrote:

[quote]Detroitlionsbaby wrote:

[quote]Gregus wrote:

[quote]Detroitlionsbaby wrote:

[quote]Gregus wrote:

YEs i understand your point about Winny. This is more of an issue of individual tolerance and response as with ANY drug a person takes. GENERALLY there are accepted safe(er) compounds and there are a myriad of other issues that makes a AS toxic. His point made it like Cheque drops and Anavar = SAME RISK.

I did say that he is right from a certain angle. And the angle of individual response is valid, as are dosages, duration, age, gender, drug selection and individual GENETICS. [/quote]

So if you agree that side effects of AAS are user dependent how could you disagree that all steroids are potentially equally as dangerous? Are you really saying that you would feel more comfortable taking 50mg/day of Winny for the rest of your life than you would taking 50mg/day of test the rest of your life?

Anavar FUCKS UP your cholesterol bro, just because your dick works fine doesnt mean a steroid is safe. I dont think you get that. There are more side effects to these drugs than the ones we feel. I have used Dbol test tren tbol all with no problems and no real changes in my bodies chemistry yet Winstrol, M-drol, and anavar all really negatively effected my body.

If winstrol gets labeled as a “safe” drug than people will start using it because its “safe”. WHICH IS STUPID because it is NOT SAFE it is just as dangerous as any other drug. It needs to be taken responsibly and in a correct fashion to minimize issues associated with it. If you disagree with that I really don’t see a point in continuing to argue with you, you just dont get “it”[/quote]

I do get it and obviously can’t dispute the indisputable. The points you’re making are true in the very technical sense but lean to the extreme in your examples because they are your personal reactions learned from experience.

There are more sides from the “light” compounds you missed too. Like vocal cord thickening, hairloss and more. It’s true all drugs have to be taken in their entire spectrum, no doubt.

But that’s all nit picking. Generally in looking at the bigger picture it’s safe to say that if a younger person with potentially still growing bones will be better off doing a cycle of Primobolan Depot and some anavar then jumping straight into Test Suspension and Fina with Anadrol 50. Can we at least agree to that? Isn;t that a reasonable point of view?

And also just out of curiosity, what was your before and after Cholesterol profile and specifically your diet during that time of anavar usage. [/quote]

Growing bones??? What are you taking about? Someone who has growing bones should def NOT be taking any steroids. Anavar has been used IN LOW DOSE for those people BUT they use like 5mg at a time. That is no way enough to build muscle.

I know exactly where you are going with the diet, but I can assure you that my low carb diet consisted of steel cut oats and good fats. I am smart enough to know what what is my body and what is the crap I am using. Perhaps you should try a winstrol only cycle. Take blood work before and after and tell us if you think it is safe. I can tell you that it was mainly my HDL that took the beating for both drugs. When I get home I could look up specific numbers if you really want.

Really, I just dont get why you keep pushing this matter. STEROIDS ARE DANGEROUS LONG TERM. All of them. They need to be used with care. That is the point I think Egant was trying to make. That is the point pretty everyone should agree on. It is no myocardial thickening on my heart if you want to think that you can just use anavar +winny all the time and never worry about anything. Good luck.[/quote]

Yep post up the blood work. Im really curious. Also what’s the big deal about growing bones? Sound too simple for you? I know i should have said the “epiphyseal plate”. There happy? And some people don’t fuse all their epiphyseal plates upto 25 yo. and in some rare cases 28.

IS testosterone also dangerous long term? Your view is Very Myopic imo. You’re defending the person not the subject matter and intentionally ignore my questions. Your response is weak and not on point.

[/quote]

Go back to the politics section dude, you have no idea what you are talking about. It is very clear you do not have a physiological education under your belt. You have read a few studies about anavar and from that have decided that is the safest steroid of all time. Your posts are vague and it seems like you are arguing just to “win”. Have fun with a limp dick from your nAndrolone. If you really think that you know so much about SHBG, what constitutes safe steroid use, and how the body works WHY ARE YOU ASKING A RUDIMENTARY QUESTION? I am not on this site to bicker with “gurus” so I wont be bothering with you anymore.

You know whats funny is for all your “knowledge” you have yet to post a single source backing your opinion. You have no pictures of yourself, your physique to show any “real world” results. Have fun arguing with yourself.

[Cortes]

[quote]Gregus wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Uh, your comment there, taken in context with your slam at the forum regulars before it certainly had me feeling you were the rude one at that time.

Here, I’ll quote it below so we can see it in its proper context. Keep in mind this was your first contribution to that entire thread.

True. This board is full a holes. They have their roid rage. I stay away from this board and check up on it infrequently just to see if there is any good info. Usually there Isn’t, just more of what you mentioned.

But there are exceptions so my apologies to the good contributors.

But too many dudes have the attitude that because they are “above” someone with less size, they look down on any notion about “them” using. Who do they think they are those smaller guys thinking about juicing, lol. So questions are not addressed or answered.

you get sarcasm, put downs, name calling etc etc etc… [/quote]

Gee, I don’t know where anyone could have come off with the idea that you are truculent or boorish. You sound completely innocent here.[/quote]

It could be the part where is say

“But there are exceptions so my apologies to the good contributors.”

You know “apologies” to those i was not referring. I was referring to the attitude of blowing off rookies. Blowing off new Posters with low post counts and the attitude of elitism. If you’re offended it means you identified with one of the many negative people i was referring to. My “apology” was intended for those i offended UNINTENTIONALLY.

I’ll paraphrase here what I wrote in the first thread:

“I don’t spend any reasonable amount of time on the steroid forum, but let me tell you all what it’s like.”

And then you drop your token weasel phrase in there to cover your ass because of course there are going to be one or two “good” contributors, to use your condescending word.

You certainly did not “offend” me, either. I have helped countless guys to not fuck themselves up and to build better cycles while you’ve been dicking around in some other forum talking about what assholes we are here, just like everyone else does. See, what you don’t realize, because you don’t spend any real time here, is that we get drive-by posters like you all the time. Truth is, you guys are the real dicks of the steroids forums, not the regulars. Most of us who decide to STAY here are here to HELP those rookies, and if, instead of being so argumentative, you actually took a look around the place, you would actually see that there is a whole LOT of help and friendliness that goes on here. Sometimes our language happens to be harsh, but that is because we actually CARE that these kids do not hurt themselves. It has nothing to do with elitism. And your insinuation that it does shows just how little you understand this forum.

Nice try at making me look insecure though. This is not PWI and things don’t work that way here.