Wonder if there will be a shortage of generics if various providers switch over to prescribing generics…
They can ramp up the costs of consults, bloodwork etc to compensate for the lack of expensive prescriptions no?
It will be a big hammer.
Yes, I would imagine so and FDA is cracking down on AA clinics/compounding pharmacies with supply approach is my guess.
Good read of how FDA got NASEM to put their seal on the whole thing:
And correction I’d have to consult with my FDA lawyer on above. Empower is 503B compounder so I think they would be able to continue making stuff on the “difficult to compound” list but 503A pharmacies would not.
Section 503A
Sections 503A describes the conditions under which pharmaceuticals compounded by a pharmacist or a physician would be exempt from the provisions of the Federal Drug and Cosmetic Act regarding Good Manufacturing Practices, labeling requirements, and approval via New Drug Applications and abbreviated New Drug Applications.
Before 2002, Section 503A also contained provisions that restricted advertising or a particular compounded drug or classes and types of drugs. Soliciting prescriptions for compounded drugs was also prohibited. However, these restrictions were challenged and determined to be unconstitutional. Section 503A was eventually amended to remove these provisions.
According to Section 503A, a compounded pharmaceutical is exempt if a valid prescription for an individual patient has been issued . The pharmaceutical must also be compounded by a licensed pharmacist in a pharmacy licensed by the state or in a federal facility.
If the pharmaceutical is compounded before a prescription is issued, a licensed pharmacist or a licensed physician must compound it in limited quantities. The compounding must be based on previous prescriptions for the same pharmaceutical and a previous therapeutic relationship between the patient and the physician or the pharmacist.
The pharmaceutical should also be compounded in accordance with the United States Pharmacopeia. Bulk substances manufactured by a registered facility should be used to compound the pharmaceutical. Valid certificates of analysis should accompany the bulk substances.
If bulk substances are not used, they must comply with the standards in a monograph issued by the United States Pharmacopeia or the National Formulary. The pharmaceutical must not have been on a list of medications withdrawn from the market because of lack of efficacy or safety or a list of medications difficult to compound.
Yes, but thats a normal thing, regulary discussed on forums and if one knows how he is supposed to feel on a certain drug, he will know. Thats why i say its important to share actual experience, and not go by the descriptions of a “drug profile”.
There are very specific sides of tren that you cant go wrong with. In fact, some 15 years back that was what people here used to say - sides are good because thats how you know you got the real stuff, haha.
Well scratch the number and lets go by “i have taken some for years” and we know its tren based on caugh, blood sugar drops, night sweats and constant will to rape people, haha.
Most people use UGL stuff and you can tell what you are taking if there are people who have taken it and they share experiences.
Exactly like you said - you cant tell much, because you havent done it. Thats why i said - its easy to know everything when you dont participate in the thing. When you actually do, your opinions would be way different.
I am here to stand by the little guy with no money who just wants to LIVE THIS LIFE and who does all the crazy shit most of us here do.
Yes, it makes me sick.
Some years back they lied about taking stuff. Now they just admit taking stuff but lie about the dose.
The same.
Thats why i think its stupid to use exact dosages by people like @RT_Nomad…
I fucking DARE @tareload to take 200mgs of test and 20mgs of Winstrol and win ANYTHING ANYWHERE. Cant be done.
Either one lies about the dosage, which i dont think Nomad does as he has no interest in doing so, or the drugs are different.
I am sure that @RT_Nomad cant pick a person on here, write him a plan and make him win a bodybuilding show. Wont happen, but id be up for a challange. Id send him money, he sends me his gear, diet, training and ill do what he says, use 200mgs of test and 20mgs of winny and id be happy to win something as low level as some regional Latvian bodybuilding show with 10 contesters.
But i wont… why? Because this guy won it…
200mgs for a cycle to win ANYTHING nowdays… myea.
Anyone who has ever taken steroids will KNOW that 200mgs dont do shit. Its just absurd to claim that it is a cycle.
500mgs wont to much for most people. And we all KNOW it.
1g of test, probably is a solid base… nothing more. A base. NOTHING MORE. I think people who have taken stuff will agree.
1 Like
See now you have gone and “screwed the pooch” so to speak.
@RT_Nomad wasnt giving out this advice for even a mid tier amateur competitor. He was giving it to some dude on the forum who probably takes 60 selfies per gym session to post to his social media account. There was no context to what this guys goals were. Hence if you are going to try something then do a reasonable minimum effective dose. Learn at the bottom and map a dose response.
1 Like
I made some gains over 6-8 months initially on TRT (150 mg/wk was my dose). Nothing extraordinary. More like gains I was getting 5 years prior when I had only been training for a year or two. I made faster gains in my first year training by far than I did in my first year of TRT.
I’ll agree with the caveat that the person is already an intermediate lifter. I think a beginner on 500 mg of Test will gain like crazy if diet is pretty good and so is training.
A guy that has been lifting for a decade though (and has natty results to show for it), and it isn’t going to do all that much.
there is no need to get stuck on numbers… what im saying is the idea and the idea does not change…
Nomad can send me HIS gear, with his plans of diet, training and everything. I will pay for it. And i guarantee that i will LOSE muscle from where i am now. Doesnt matter what he prescribes to me, it wont be enough to even maintain.
Ok i forgot to mention that i ment that he wont gain anything that is considered STEROID gains by the standards of nowdays.
He wont be 260lbs leanish. He will gain some 20lbs on his current 170lbs and will look like he goes to the gym.
Most people seeing him wont be saying “that guy is on steroids”.
And im not going by the idea that nowdays we have fucked up IG standarts… After 500mgs NO ONE will look good enough, and even people with the most modest opinion wont say that he is a steroid user.
1 Like
I think this is a good way to put it. Looking like you are on steroids.
The guys that will look like they have steroid gains from it were the guys that were suspected of being on while natty, not the guys that looked like average unfit dudes.
I think that when it comes to size, the guys that were suspected to be ON, just have beautiful shape and genetics of how muscles look.
The best way to judge size is to just go by weight. There are guys who weight 200lbs and look epic - because of shape. They are not big in reality.
What im talking about is a grown man, medium-tall, 230-300lbs, strong. For this guy, 1 gram of test is a base and nothing more.
Its just that when i talk steroids i always think about it this way. I forget that people here take steroids while being smaller than i was when i was 17, and thats where we lose context to each other. Girls and undertrained people is something different.
Id be 220lbs if id get Covid and break both my legs and spend a year on a bed. So all this dosage talk is out of my POV.
1 Like
I think a better metric is FFMI. Weight for being muscular is very dependent on height. I have one friend that is 260 lbs @ 6’4" and not that fat, and he looks worse for BBing than my 5’2" 160 lb buddy. 5’2" guy does have much better shape and such though.
Problem with FFMI is many dudes that are 25-30% BF think they are 15%.
2 Likes
I’m generally for risk prevention, but I can see @hankthetank89 points made here. I don’t see inconsistency.
Going the route of cycling means taking the risks associated with it. A person willing to do that is generally not the person who then only cycles 200 mgs and gauges dose response. The continuous dose increases and frequent cycling are how the rather large effects on heart health in long time steroid users are produced.
A prevention measure in the form of abstinence from participation is oftentimes doomed.
In general a discussion should be somewhat about the topic, though in this case @tareload went the right way as OP definitely has no business using Tren.
I think the topic is still interesting and I would love to see the last long term Tren user here still around. For those who remember, it was the constant shitting on his behavior, personality change and dose, that made him quit the forum. A shame since he had good stuff to offer. I love hanks perspectives and would hate to see this play out again.
That’s what happens when you take a break from the forum to do legs (toothpicks these days.) I got raked over the coals.
So, please allow me to add some context of my experience when doctors were closely watched who prescribed AAS. I found it more difficult to find a doctor who would write a prescription for AAS. It seems, as I recall, in the mid 1980’s that I began going to the UGL sources. I never knew what I was getting, coupled that my progress seemed to slow. I attributed that to the possibility that I had reached my genetic potential, but it might have been inferior AAS.
My friend opened a gym. I began going there and he and I soon became workout partners. He and I were talking about the unknown contents of the UGL AAS we were buying. He decided to put an end to the mystery of purity. He started making trips to Spain and France and other countries near about. That became the end of using UGL sources for us.
I should add that a friend I knew who wanted to get as big as he could, lost kidney function doing so. I pretty much thought he was taking testosterone year round. We were very suspicious that he got ahold of some contaminated AAS. He was on dialysis for more than 4 years waiting to be cleared to get on the waiting list for a kidney. Those in charge of the transplant program, made him wait because his behavior was the reason he needed a kidney. He did eventually get a kidney. I have not heard anything about him for at least 20 years.
I will say that apart from that short period of having to rely on UGL “junk”, all my experience with AAS was having very good belief that what I used was exactly what it was labeled to be.
So, henceforth, when I mention any dosage, I will qualify that it was pharmaceutical grade, and “probably many times better than the UGL garbage” you might have.
I want to make a comment about the direct relationship of strength with muscle size when using only AAS. IMO, if you are getting stronger it is because you are adding muscle mass (providing you are not doing CNS specific training.) This is only for comparing yourself before to yourself after. You cannot compare yourself to another athlete.
The addition of HGH and insulin lessens the strength gains relative to the muscle gains. With HGH and insulin you can make significant muscle mass gains while only getting a little stronger. This is just an observation that I have made from the results I have seen in others.
2 Likes
Its not because people cant assess and compare it precisely. In ideal world - yes, but not in reality.
Thats exactly what i mean. And who would need more drugs to keep on progressing? For someone being 160lbs, he can do girl cycles and maybe gain. The big guy probably needs grams and grams to gain more.
yea, i could get behind this, if you feel the need to mention the dosage anyways.
I am not against anyone who has posted here. I am just standing behind the guys who are here to take stuff and reach their goals, and we have enough youtubers already with that 200mgs a week shit - its just not true and it doesnt work that way, and all it gets people is self doubt, bad self image and probably many of them quit their dreams because they feel like they are not good enough.
And also, i just mentioned that i see a new trend on here - posting links about dangers in every thread. That is unnecessary as this is not TRT forum but Pharma, meaning we should get more talk about stuff that works, not the dosages that fix old guys libido and nothing else.
2 Likes
You can look better than average on 200mg/wk, esp if you’ve cycled in the past
But you’ll never look like Arnold from 200mg/wk… you almost certainly aren’t winning bodybuilding competitions on that dose…
2 Likes
Wrong. The stuff @RT_Nomad was very likely 200 mg/ml and your stuff may be 10, 50, 200? mg/ml labeled as something else (200?, 400? mg/ml). For safety and consistency/tracking/logging/metric purposes guys should be analyzing their gear to understand what they are using. You have to have basic standards otherwise we stay in the stone age.
This goes back to the whole idea why we measure stuff. I find myself now in the same place with you as I was with Danny Bossa. Why measure stuff? Why? Because bullshit hides in dark places and measuring stuff shines a light so the bullshit can’t hide.
You switched the goal posts on the 200 mg/week+20 mg/day example above. Giving out initial dosing to some random on the internet should always be at a minimum effective dose for initial screening. I didn’t gather from the guy @RT_Nomad was talking dosages with that he was going for his NPC Nationals trophy. For newbies let them get their feet wet without drowning. Yes, there is always going to be debate on whether a starting cycle suggestion should be 250 mg/week or 500 mg/week. At this point I don’t really care if the guy on the other end doesn’t care enough to know what he’s injecting and avoid propagating misinformation in an area that’s already filled with it.
If you stand behind this guy you would support educating him. Neither you or I are going to win any BB show of significance at any dosage. Why, because we don’t have the genetics not because we didn’t up the dose. Shoot for your dreams and know what you are taking.
I’ll cool it with the risk reduction links. Good point and it is a buzz kill. 
I wish you health AND a satisfying build.
2 Likes
I’m coming in late on this thread and have a lot of thoughts/experience with this. The little pink dbol I used to get over 20 years ago was god like. You popped one and you would get a pump just walking. I stopped dabbling in anabolics until about 6 years ago when I jumped on TRT. Nothing I have purchased in recent years has even come close. Was it better stuff? Was it more concentrated? Was I more prime for growth back then? I don’t know. I would generally disagree with @hankthetank89 stating that ‘back in the day’ gear was different. But… my experience has me thinking he’s on to something.
That being said I would also throw out there that the advice @RT_Nomad gives should have a disclaimer that he was cycling over half the year (quite frequently). Correct me if I’m wrong @RT_Nomad but you’ve stated a couple times you were 8 weeks off and 8 weeks on all year. Thats far different than I have ever done and I think most people do an 8-12 week cycle 1-2 times a year. @RT_Nomad may have been able to get better growth returns with such freuquent cycling on lower doses.
4 Likes
Especially the Dbol is mentioned being really good a few decades ago. I have heard that on another forum a few times by the “old timers”.
Begs the question where one would find a Pharma/Compounded Dbol today?
Answer: you won’t
Just that sketchy Methandrostenolone from the clinic that rhymes with “liking” or one that rhymes with “brighten”. Pathetic that clinics are actually moving their UGL s*it at the clinic. No pharmacy necessary. And then one wonders why FDA is about to drop the hammer on all this. BIG TIME.
1 Like
Essentially, you are correct. It must be considered that I got no blood tests to make any medical feedback decisions.
Pretty much I was a pioneer (in my corner of the USA) using AAS for the first 12 or so years that I used steroids, and even after that, information was minimal. From my experience I noticed that I quit making strength gains about 8 weeks into a cycle. So I thought why “waste” my supply when I was getting much less return on investment. That is why I limited my growth cycles to 8 weeks. I also believe that 8 weeks off was the most that I needed to restart my own testosterone. (I am not saying I am correct, just what I believed.)
Also, it should be stated that I started steroids with 10mg/day of Dianablo (Ciba) for 4 weeks. I started extending the cycle time a little more, and also the doses up to 15mg/day. I believed that I needed off cycle time to give my binding sites a rest, so that they would be more receptive when I started the next cycle. I am not saying that it was based on any science, just what I had guessed was happening. Remember that there was next to zero information on AAS.
Now I need to state that IMO, my Ciba Dianabol is far better than any Dianabol any of you can get.
2 Likes
You don’t need to state any disclaimers IMO. Just more of the bullshit asymmetry of the internet at its finest. You will waste your time clarifying this stuff. Don’t be like me. I am a slow learner.