Questions for BBB ( bushy )

Pharma
1

I’ve lurked T-Nation for over 5 years, never been big on the forums, but tend to look in them every once in awhile. I’ve learned a ton over the years, and have recently discovered nootropics, which quickly pointed me towards BBB.

It wasn’t hard to quickly recognize your intelligence and I have a lot of respect for the information you have instilled on the community as well as how collected you have composed yourself. I hope you take the time to consider my questions.

I have done a lot of searching, and couldn’t find some answers but would be interested in your opinion. I am also in the process of back reading your posts, so maybe I’ll eventually find it. I’ve seen you mention your business, so I’m going to try and avoid questions asking for direct advice.

First, and I may be wrong in two different ways here, but you seem like someone who is very health conscious, and you talk about using tren. I was under the impression that tren is one of the more dangerous steroids. The information isn’t fresh in my head anymore, and I will go and brush up if needed, as a lot of my information came from a couple books, one of them being anabolics 2009 ( i think that’s the name ).

But part of the reasoning is that if one was worried about maintaining health, testosterone was the way to go, and eq is pretty safe due to it being chemically very similar to Test. As far as why Tren was dangerous escapes me now, maybe it was all the nasty sides it’s associated with…

So my question is… What, in your opinion, are the real HEALTH dangers of Tren, and how do they compare to test?

I couldn’t find you saying much about EQ, and so my next question is what is your opinion of the substance?

PCTs, such as Nolvadex and Clomid seem to be potentially very dangerous to one’s health. There are many studies backing this up, and I would be happy to provide some if you wish. My mother also works for one of the largest Oncology practices in the nation, and she is in line for a CEO position.

So she has a fair amount of knowledge about the docs and the drugs. Having many talks with her about these drugs, she said the doctors are using them less and less, holding them back for last options, and some not using them at all anymore: Which honestly frightens me.

I try to keep an open mind, and form my own opinions, but oncologists are very intelligent, skilled and trained doctors who I have a lot of respect for. I’ve seen you recommend me these substances several times, and I know it’s common practice, but I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t resort to something just because it was common practice.

I’ve also seen that video where you said if someone comes to you, you would try your best to point a person in the safest direction possible. So I would like to hear what you would have to say as your reasoning to why using these substances (clomid and nolvadex ) and leveling ones hormones out more quickly is safer than the potential side effects of using these drugs.

I just finished a 16 week cycle of 500mg of test deca and 400mg of eq 6 weeks ago. It was my first real cycle. Was nice. I’m not using any pct. In your opinion, how long should I wait before I consider starting another cycle?

Last question, why don’t you use your old account anymore? What happened?

2

Not to speak for BBB, nor do I consider myself ANYWHERE near as intelligent as him on matters such as these…

But don’t you think if SERMS were SO dangerous, we’d have seen more general health problems with its use? I mean, it’s pretty standard in the AAS game. It’s not like we’re talking about cheque drops which are rarely used…

Plus, there’s always the test taper protocol, a PCT without a SERM.

3

Very interesting question. I have not heard of nolva. being dangerous in that sense, will be looking forward to a reply.

4

How in the hell did you recover from that cycle? Or did you?

5

[quote]ferox wrote:
But part of the reasoning is that if one was worried about maintaining health, testosterone was the way to go, and eq is pretty safe due to it being chemically very similar to Test. As far as why Tren was dangerous escapes me now, maybe it was all the nasty sides it’s associated with…
[/quote]

The concern with steroids that aren’t test would be how they affect gene expression.

6

I quit in the beginning of june, so in reality it’s just now probably exiting my system. So we’ll see how recovery goes. I feel fine, although I’ve been getting a little acne recently, and I had little to none during the length of my cycle.

From what I understand, nolva is considered a carcinogen, which means it can cause cancer. Not something you will notice right away. You could argue if one is healthy, they could handle it, but that still doesn’t dismiss the threat.

7

Tamoxifen can cause uterine cancer, which really isn’t top of my list of things to worry about.

8

I don’t think carcinogens pick and choose what type of cells they attack. You can trivialize anything by making comments like that.

Also, due to genetic differences, some people may lack or possess a low amount of the enzyme that metabolizes nolva, so it may not even be helping a certain amount of people.

It also can have a negative effect on vision reported in about 5% of users, and that percentage is conservative. 1 in 20 is a relatively high amount imo.

This is just some of the issues with Nolva. I assumed BBB is informed and knew about these, and it’s why I said I would be willing to provide some if he asked.

Regardless of the effects, and excuse me for thinking for myself… but I have yet to be convinced of why we need PCT drugs, and instead just let our levels come back to normal on their own. The whole point of Nolva is to control Estrogen. But I personally think we can control this through other methods by limiting aromitizers, ie. body fat, xenoestrogens, alcohol. ect.

9

While I don’t know anything about the studies you are referring too showing that SERMs are dangerous, I believe nolva is taken for a period of 5 years for breast cancer treatment. If this is the case in those studies, do you think those risks would be significantly decreased when theyre used for pct for a matter of a few weeks instead of years?

10

TBH I don’t feel comfortable with my knowledge set to make that kind of decision. Which is why I’m asking, I don’t see it talked about much.

But I do know other options are being looked at in the Oncology setting. And I believe what you are referring to is for prevention means, but correct me if I’m wrong.

11

[quote]ferox wrote:
I don’t think carcinogens pick and choose what type of cells they attack. You can trivialize anything by making comments like that.

Also, due to genetic differences, some people may lack or possess a low amount of the enzyme that metabolizes nolva, so it may not even be helping a certain amount of people.

It also can have a negative effect on vision reported in about 5% of users, and that percentage is conservative. 1 in 20 is a relatively high amount imo.

This is just some of the issues with Nolva. I assumed BBB is informed and knew about these, and it’s why I said I would be willing to provide some if he asked.

Regardless of the effects, and excuse me for thinking for myself… but I have yet to be convinced of why we need PCT drugs, and instead just let our levels come back to normal on their own. The whole point of Nolva is to control Estrogen. But I personally think we can control this through other methods by limiting aromitizers, ie. body fat, xenoestrogens, alcohol. ect.[/quote]
Couple points. The increase in acne you witness after being off the aas for while as compared to when you were on is likely from estrogen rebound. Had you been more intentional in controlling estrogen on cycle your acne might not have been an issue.
You did indirectly hit upon a key point in “playing this game.” Every individual is different and while we can speak of general trends a person’s individual response to a product or compound might differ substantially even from the vast majority.
Some people are much more sensitive to estrogen on cycle than others. Some feel they require the usage of an aromatize inhibitor. Some are prone to acne. Some are prone to hairloss. Some are prone to sexual side effects. Some are prone to blood pressure issues. For almost every side effect there is a counter measure. In the end based on individual experience and personal choice the individual must justify what they are doing and accept consequences for everything they do and don’t put into their system.
There are countless other example in addition to the ones above. You mentioned not needing PCT drugs and I think you were specifically implying SERM usage for PCT. Its probably true that if you just stopped taking whatever you are taking and did nothing that eventually the body would return to a condition of homeostasis. The idea behind PCT in whatever form that is is to accelerate and maximize endogenous recovery. So if someone can do in 4 weeks what might take 8 unassisted that would be the rationale and justification behind the protocol. Myself and others have gravitated towards the test taper procedure which does not necessarily require the use of SERM’s.
Bottom Line remains in the gear game every aas compound cares certain conditions individuals may have to deal with. So the choice to use or not use a compound is much like the choice to use or not use a certain ancillary product for said compound. The list is too long for everything to be listed here. We seriously could go on for hours just speaking of potential side effects of individual compounds and potential ancillaries for those compounds and whether or not to use them based on an individual’s personal composition.
The challenge occurs in the absence of direct personal experience. What do you do when 60% of users claim a certain side effect? What if it were 90%? Or only 5%. Again, sometimes one must merely pre-plan for the ‘just in case’ scenario. Its half the reason many “vets” have moderate accumulations of used ancillary product. Much like a spare tire I’d rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. Then again I know people to remove their spare tire for extra storage space, aesthetics and improved gas mileage. Again, however you justify your decision/choice just live with it. If it turns out to be wrong thru personal experience make changes and adjustments

12

seems to me that you are too worried about the side effects of a substance you are reluctant to use to help you recover from suppression of natural test…when, if you are prepared to use compounds (Deca/EQ) that ultimately are more likely to cause problems than the subtance (nolva) you refused to use…doesnt make sense to me that someone who put so much forethought into whether nolva is safe enough to use, would jump into a 16 week long cycle using 500mg of Nandrolone and 400mg EQ…all the while having no gameplan to ensure the safe recovery of your endocrine system…neglectful to say the very least…this is purely my opinion!

13

[quote]ferox wrote:
I don’t think carcinogens pick and choose what type of cells they attack. You can trivialize anything by making comments like that.

Also, due to genetic differences, some people may lack or possess a low amount of the enzyme that metabolizes nolva, so it may not even be helping a certain amount of people.

It also can have a negative effect on vision reported in about 5% of users, and that percentage is conservative. 1 in 20 is a relatively high amount imo.

This is just some of the issues with Nolva. I assumed BBB is informed and knew about these, and it’s why I said I would be willing to provide some if he asked.

Regardless of the effects, and excuse me for thinking for myself… but I have yet to be convinced of why we need PCT drugs, and instead just let our levels come back to normal on their own. The whole point of Nolva is to control Estrogen. But I personally think we can control this through other methods by limiting aromitizers, ie. body fat, xenoestrogens, alcohol. ect.[/quote]

You havent made mention of dose and duration of nolvadex causing these problems.

2 tylenols a day for 3 days is OK on the body. 20 tylenols for 100 days is horrible. Be more specific when you say a certain drug may be dangerous. Without knowing the dose and duration youre talking about its hard to have a legitimate discussion.

And yes I agree the acne is from estrogen. Maybe not estrogen ‘rebound’ per se but simply “estrogen dominance”. Your T is very likely to be well below it’s normal level at the moment. But your E levels havent come back down yet.

It would be very very wise to get your hormone levels test ASAP. Not using PCT is an awful idea. Pretty much anything, including hCG in low dose, tapering T in any fashion or using a natural T booster is better than going cold turkey.

Oh and the last 6 hardcopy issues of MD (a bodybuilding mag) has great write ups about the potential use of trenbolone as a ‘SARM’. Yes it has studies cited. Basically doctors are finding that trenbolone has a much greater affect on skeletal cells than it does on prostate cells. Meaning a very low dose can be used while still preventing muscle wasting in diseased patients without causing the androgenic side effects that come with using testosterone. How that related to bodybuiilders using 75mg of it per day… Im not really sure. But it’s not the devils drug by any means.

14

I really dont like where this thread is going, which is a discussion on if we should use SERMS. I personally don’t feel like I need the PCT, I don’t think the POTENTIAL risks are worth it. Having said that, I am mostly just interested in BBB’s opinion on the dangers given his education, experience, ect. I know he has talked about using it, and recommends it, which in itself almost answers the question. And I realize I didn’t help the situation by adding what I added.

But, I am still open to what other people have to say, which is why I continue to comment on it. The 4 - 8 week thing makes sense, but I don’t see the big deal in that, ok my estrogen is spiked for a week or two.

Back to tren, I will admit, that before going to the dark side, tren sounded very scary. But I would be lying if I would say I’m not curious about it. I still would like to make an informed decision, and I know the sides can be nasty, and I can easily find info on how to manage these. But I don’t hear anyone talk about the health issues.

As far as I know, the biggest issues with test is prostate enlargement, bloodpressure, and left vent hypertrophy. And if you have prostate cancer, it can make it grow. Do these risks go up with tren, does it pose more risks?

You see comparisons of benefits all the time, but rarely do you seems comparisons about the risks. Again, I would like to hear what someone with a deep and vast understanding of anatomy had to say about this.

15

[quote]ferox wrote:
I don’t think carcinogens pick and choose what type of cells they attack. You can trivialize anything by making comments like that.[/quote]

Of course carcinogens that have their affect through receptor activation and alteration of gene expression rather than direct molecular physical effects (e.g. from ROS) “pick and choose what type of cells they attack”

16

[quote]ferox wrote:
I really dont like where this thread is going, which is a discussion on if we should use SERMS. I personally don’t feel like I need the PCT, I don’t think the POTENTIAL risks are worth it. Having said that, I am mostly just interested in BBB’s opinion on the dangers given his education, experience, ect. I know he has talked about using it, and recommends it, which in itself almost answers the question. And I realize I didn’t help the situation by adding what I added.

But, I am still open to what other people have to say, which is why I continue to comment on it. The 4 - 8 week thing makes sense, but I don’t see the big deal in that, ok my estrogen is spiked for a week or two.

Back to tren, I will admit, that before going to the dark side, tren sounded very scary. But I would be lying if I would say I’m not curious about it. I still would like to make an informed decision, and I know the sides can be nasty, and I can easily find info on how to manage these. But I don’t hear anyone talk about the health issues.

As far as I know, the biggest issues with test is prostate enlargement, bloodpressure, and left vent hypertrophy. And if you have prostate cancer, it can make it grow. Do these risks go up with tren, does it pose more risks?

You see comparisons of benefits all the time, but rarely do you seems comparisons about the risks. Again, I would like to hear what someone with a deep and vast understanding of anatomy had to say about this.[/quote]
If you want BBB’s opinion you could just try giving him a PM and then you would not be burden’s with other people’s opinion.
However, since you indirectly asked for it I will share some thought about what you asked about in your post.
On the SERM’s as mentioned above if you choose not to run them for whatever reason thats fine. Your only side effect seemed to be acne and if you can live with that great. There is no magic time line which says how many more weeks unaided recovery will take with or without the SERM. You might only need an extra week or two. It might take a couple months extra. Again, you dont have to justify your decision to anyone but yourself. If you have no problems or complaints during your recovery phase more power to you.
Regarding tren. Tren is the most powerful animal out there. Its like the spiderman quote with great power comes great responsibility. I never like to use the term dangerous when referring to aas stuff. The truth is my life is at greater risk everytime I get into my car to drive anywhere, but the point remains the same. Tren requires IMO as much intentional management and planning as anything out there. You mentioned a few specific concerns with tren and the body.
First the prostate. I had a vasectomy in 2004 and since than I get an annual check up which includes the lovely prostate exam. I started using aas back around 2004-2005 and I started using tren in 2007. Over the past 6 years I have had no significant enlargement of my prostate nor any other issues related directly to it. I cannot address the prostate cancer issue I just dont know.
Second BP. I used to use tren at a moderate dose 300-400mg/wk alongside 750-1000mg/wk of test. At these dose levels within weeks my bloodpressure would skyrocket from the median average 120/80 to 150/95. It was very pronouced, very extreme and very much directly related to the tren. Upon cessation of the tren within weeks my BP would drop back down. But without doubt or question high test and medium tren launches the BP. [BBB experienced the same thing as have countless others]. So what to do. What is the cost-benefits analysis? Why use the tren if it affects BP that much and that negatively? For its simple, the strength. I PL’d from 2006-2009. If I have been off tren more than 3 months, upon re-starting tren within 1 month my Squat is up on average 100lbs and Bench is up 50lbs and it keeps climbing steadily after that too. For me the strength surge was justification for living with the BP. But is not just BP. My resting pulse rate jumped from 65-70 to 90. I was constantly sweating and dealing with shortness of breathe and a substantially reduced aerobic capacity.
However, you spoke of making an informed decision and how to manage and what I learned from BBB no less is how to manage tren use. I now run just 200mg/wk of test with my tren. At this lower dose I am able to run my tren at 700mg/wk. So despite doubling my tren by reducing my test to basically a TRT dose level my blood pressure is actually around 115/78 these days. I would have never believe this was possible from previous runs on tren. I dont know all the science behind why this is; I just know that it is. On this lower test and higher tren protocol my cardio conditioning is not penalized as much as high test medium tren. I dont sweat as much. My pulse rests around 72 these days, which might be up slightly from 66-68 but is a far cry from 90. What I tell people is my “side effects” are reduced by 80-85% using the lower test dose. Now equally true low test has a few things it needs managed as well. On just 200mg/wk my estrogen borderlines on being too low. So libido issues for me can arise on this protocol. So I acquire and use ancillary product to combat that. And of course those ancillary product bring with them new concerns and sides. Again its all about trade-offs and such. Invariably, we end up taking from Peter to give to Paul in some sense.
The low test high tren thing just works for me. Now certainly not recommending you start out with an experiment of 200mg test and 700mg tren the first go round. But hopefully more light has been shed on the subject for you now

17

Sadly my PMs have been turned off for me (without consent) by the Mods here. My account was set to private by the same person(s).

That was why I opened a second acount, however the same thing happened again. Again, without my consent.

So, I can’t receive PMs any more, on any account.

I would love an explanation, but none of my enquiries have been responded to.

I am being marginalised and don’t expect this message will be allowed, hence I will refrain from typing out a lengthy, technical reply to your questions.

All I’ll ay is that risk is relative. I only take calculated risks, but I do judge the risks from tren to be much like any other AAS: overstated by the media and believed-n my those not educated enough to make an informed descision. I could be wrong though.

BBB

18

Saps I appreciate your responses.

I think I’m going to try a 50mg tren, 25mg test prop ED for 4-6 weeks, and see how I like it. I did come across the high tren low test cycle through my searching. Everyone who has talked about it has reported positively. It makes sense to me.

I am most worried about balding, as I have a beautiful, full set of hair. All of my buddies who have used tren all have had at least a little hair loss from tren. Any advice on how to avoid this?

Second thing I’m worried about is classes start, Should I be worried about this affecting my performance? I was thinking about throwing in some provigil to help with my studies. I have trouble focusing and staying awake in class anyways, hence why I’m still in school.

19

That sounds like a decent cycle to ‘test the waters’. Dbol is a good replacement for test in this case as well. I thoroughly enjoyed 50mg tren and 20mg dbol. More tren would have been better though.

Have you lost hair on cycles with testosterone? Actually lost hair. Shedding is common with most steroids but that hair seems to grow back quickly for a lot of people.

20

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
That sounds like a decent cycle to ‘test the waters’. Dbol is a good replacement for test in this case as well. I thoroughly enjoyed 50mg tren and 20mg dbol. More tren would have been better though. [/quote]

This.

Also I like HCG