Good points, wish we had the data on premature mortality with AAS. Unfortunately the gov’t found a way to destroy the opportunity to collect that data set.
I’ll support @unreal24278 's position that AAS will eventually be found quite similar to tobacco WRT premature mortality. Additional REF.
And to your point alcohol is not treated with the caution it deserves.
I would think at 1g of Test that for most people aromatase activity is pretty much maxed out. Meaning that E2 would be roughly the same on 1g or 2g. Same goes for DHT and 5 alpha reductase activity.
In fact, I think that you might have less E2 sides at 2g because you have more androgens competing for some of the same receptors. This is how I think some DHT derivatives work to have an AI effect. I think some actually may lower E2, but some I think just don’t add to it, and add androgens to the mix.
I might as well go all out then and do 300 test, 500 deca. I don’t believe in the ‘test has to be higher than deca’ narrative as no one has yet backed it with any plausible argument besides anecdotal evidence, which is also provided by those that successfully did it the other way around. Neither side can back up their claims.
I may do that although I wasn’t to comfortable with sharing any photos earlier. But now I don’t really think any harm can come from that. I may use this thread as a log of sorts.
You’re absolutely correct.
Dbol is dbol, now or 50 years back. It’s the exact same chemical compound with more or less 95-98% purity of raws. Perhaps steroid (ab)users nowadays are more lazy and substitute hard work, dedication and gaining intimate knowledge of training and diet with performance enhancing drugs. Also, it may be important to point out that back in the day a very small percentage of bodybuilders used steroids. Today every gym rat with an internet connection can get a hold of them with two clicks on a mouse which makes things easier for anyone that wants to substitute hard work with drugs. I think before only those that were hardcore and living the lifestyle dabbled in PED’s. I could be mistaken.
Rules 5 and 8 are exactly why I said what I said. I’m not saying he can or should run that ratio of test:nand, but he won’t know what works best for him unless he tries. There’s a ton of self experimentation involved in all of this.
There was a lot of people, yourself included, that told him he was running the “wrong” ratio
If I had it to do all over again, I would have tried 400mg/wk Deca, though knowing many have ED problems with Deca, that would be in the back of my mind.
If the idea of the wrong ratio was ED related that would change my thoughts. I never heard of the problems with Deca until I read them here. That aspect of nandrolone is new to my knowledge.
I’ve read a myriad of deca protocols on several forums regarding test:deca ratios and avoiding deca dick. Most agree that running deca solo with no test puts you in the highest risk category. But then someone comes out and says they ran deca solo without any problems.
The closest pattern I noticed that had most potential causing dd was with test higher than deca but these were doing grams of gear, i.e. 1000mg test 800 deca. Then again others made it unscathed.
The most successful deca cycles were with those using some sort of DHT derivative and closely controlled their e2 and prolactin levels. I think it could boil down to having to control all three factors. If one falls off, others follow and create the ‘perfect storm’ for deca dick. In the end it’s all anecdotal and boils down to how lucky one gets
I respect your choice and no matter what cycle you will run i would be happy if you document it with progress pics.
I just said what i believe in and i am fine if people think differently - thats why this whole thing is so fun - so many ways to do things.
But id like to discuss a few things you mentioned.
I cant agree with this.
First of all, most people who are hardcore gym goers and look like crap, they mostly do more than needed, instead of less. I think guys who want muscle, mostly are overtraining and spending too much of their lives on studying this stuff - its an obsession.
I think this way of thinking is what made bodybuilders scared of admiting doses in the first place. As soon as we mention steroids, people will dismiss our hard work. So its better not to say what we use. And since steroid use is so open nowdays, they just took 1 step further and admit doses that ar unrealistic and low.
There is a huge disconnect between what so many people claim and then what some others do. Like Chris Bumstead says he has never taken more than 500mgs of test, has never taken GH and never taken insulin. All these older guys claiming lower dosages, Lee Priest is a king of lower doses. He says he never needed more. But he never won shit. He spent his life in 5th places and says he didnt need more? Really? He was training many hours a day, dieting like crazy, going through all the struggle but never tought of upping the dose? Thats irrational. Of course, he upped the dose as soon as he didnt come in 1st place the very first time. Anyone who wants to win, would do that the very second they failed the very first time.
And then there are some honest guys who tell how it is - Bostin Loyd did this. Jordon Oakley does it now. Greg Valentino admitted that he pumped whole vials of test prop and EQ in his arms. McCarvers autopsy results suggest he didnt pin mgs or mls of drugs, but also - whole vials of shit daily. Piana documented his Bigger By The Day.
Genetics is overrated. Genetics is the muscle shape, insertions, fullness and look. Maybe roundness. But genetics do not dictate how drugs work. Can you name one other thing in medicine, on which someone gets full benefits on 1/10th of the dose, while most dont get much out of a full dose?
Painkillers dont work that way. Sure, some need 1, some need 2. But not that someone needs 1/10th of ibuprofenum and some need 10 pills. Antibiotics dont work that way. Everyone who has ever used them use the same protocol and it works. Vaccines dont work that way. Imagine some people needing 2 boosters for Cov but some need 15?
Steroids have medical purpose, and there is no record that some people need 1/10th of the dose while some need mega doses for the same result. So what the fuck?
I think blaming hard work is just the best way to sell stuff. I am bigger than you, i am only on TRT. If u use more than TRT, you dont know how to train - buy my product.
What is also a good way to look at this, is seeing how people like Seth Feroce claim TRT doses, while there are people like Dorian, Levrone, Arnold, even Coleman - are on same TRT but they havent kept shit.
As far as working hard goes, in fact, i believe people nowdays work much harder and smarter. There is so much idiotic stuff training and diet-wise from 70s and 80s and 90s. Nowdays we actually have science backing up stuff and i would bet my money on the fact that most people who are using PEDs actually are in a ballpark of doing stuff right-ish. Anyway, definetly not so wrong that them using 3 grams of shit doesnt produce results some old-timers claim got out of 30mgs of dbol. Its just absurd.
I am really interested in other opinions on this.
Does someone really think that the guys who have 16+ inch arms but are on 500mgs of test are just doing wrong exercises and if Chris Bumsted trained them, they would have arms that look like his, on the same 500mgs? Does someone really think this makes sense? i mean, even most guys here admit taking more than Bumstead admits. Do you think your dont work enough or that you miss some key points in your diet, and that is the only reason why you cant compete with Bumstead? Or do you believe his “genetics” are just so much different he can smell test and grow? Or maybe just Chris is completely full of shit, because he earns millions on people admiring his “genetics”. His genetics are definetly better but genetics dont determine how drugs work. Guys with worse genetics should be similar size, just without the good look and proportions, not that medicine suddenly dont work because you dont have Mr.O genetics.
I agree with you on this. I have seen many on the other end of the spectrum - exercising day in day out 7 days a week, increasing cardio, changing workouts on a weekly basis, manipulating calories, basically doing everything that popular bodybuilding magazines suggest - but in the end just spinning their wheels and getting nowhere. Despite of the drugs, high motivation and dedication, they don’t see the forest from the trees and lose sight of the three most essential aspects for muscle development: 1) proper training 2)proper nutrition 3)proper rest.
I often neglected at least one of those three and if neglected enough, it had a deleterious effect to my health and overall development. Ironically, I gained more mass when I “took a break” from training and just tried to maintain intensity - I broke all of my PRs because I was getting enough food and rest and mentally was in a better place.
Come to think of it, you’re likely right about this. Arnold trained hard, but not very efficiently. He did what was known back then but better and improved methods for building muscle were later discovered. However, there is no substitute for hard work, no matter what training method you are using.
I just realized nobody actually gave me a body fat appraisal. I’m notoriously bad at eyeballing it but if I had to I’d put me around the 13-15% mark. Is that about accurate or am I way off?
I did give you an appraisal above. A big thumb. Unless those pants are hiding some serious adipose tissue you are doing great. Extrapolating the top condition to the bottom and using Coach Greg’s laser vision I am going with 9 to 12%. Lighting ain’t great and your vascularity getting washed out with lighting on bottom pic.
But as the guys say the number mattereth little once sub 12. Let the mirror/pinch/caliper be thy guide. And also stares at the civilian pool. Extremely lean people might as well be aliens today.
My estimate would be around 12%.
But I should qualify that I don’t care about precise numbers. I just want repeatable numbers. I am much more interested in knowing when I am progressing than what my body fat percentage actually is.
I used the skin fold test. You can calculate a body fat percentage from the total millimeters. What I found was that my upper back was the last place to drop fat. It was the highest mm skin fold every time. Ultimately the mirror is the standard. The skin fold is just an empirical measurable metric
Was at a resort for a conference our company was hosting. Ran into our Global HR Director at the reasonable hotel gym. Had never seen me with a tank top or shorts. Her jaw dropped. Later at the office she said she went back to the room and almost threw up or was wretching or something. Not a fan of the veiny look but then she apologized that she should not be commenting on my nasty vascularity. It was all pretty hilarious watching her violate every rule she teaches at work.
At my gym I am one of the 4 extra veiny guys. I’ve had people come up to poke at them. one of the 4, is just insane for vascularity. Like almost garden hose size veins in his upper arms. I don’t think I am exaggerating when I estimate they are only a bit shy of 1/2" diameter veins.
I am afraid that as I age they may become disturbing to look at. My calves are not currently as bad as Nick Walkers, but they aren’t that far off. I think if I had his muscle underneath and was at that leanness they would be on par (especially if I had the extra RBCs he has).
HR codes only apply to men. Or at least, men generally find things flattering that some women might be offended by. We are probably not going to report a women for having the extend touch on the back of the arm, but if a guy does this regularly, he will almost for sure find himself in trouble. Also, HR doesn’t really take complaints against women very seriously (most of the time).