Steroid Vet Dogma

[Dopa]

Re: Age of initiation, maximizing natural gains first, and continuous cycles.

I thought I’d get more responses if I posted here rather than the “Chemically Insane” article from a few days ago. I cut and pasted my response at the bottom. I’d be interested in hearing what you guys have to say.

[quote]facko wrote:
He does his first cycle at 19 and hes perfectly fine…yet someone like me for instance comes on here and asks about doing a cycle at age 18 and i get shit…even kids on here who ask at 19 get shit…what for? Put all the liability shit asside and seriously one cycle at like 18 or 19 isnt going to fuck you up.[/quote]

Ha… I read this and was thinking along similar lines, albeit I’m 29. There seems to be a lot of unresearched dogma even among steroid veterans with respect to age of use, maxing out your natural potential first, doing cycles as opposed to continuous, etc… I’m not saying either way is right or wrong, but I think we should examine these “facts” more fully if we are going to be giving advice.

Why are girls allowed to take supraphysiological doses of hormones at age 16, but boys can’t? What about the developmental effects of increased estrogens and progestins when a girl is still maturing? Should we tell girls not to take birth control until they’ve finished developing at age 25? Is the issue fully researched? I doubt it.

What is it about training natural first that makes one smarter? Yeah I heard the whole trump card theory expoused by Dave Tate, and some people are more apt to think a little more if they’re having problems gaining performance. I think it’s silly though to make broad sweeping generalizations that everyone should max out their natural potential first.

What if one has better genetics than another? Is the one with better genetics going to be the loser in the end due to them not trying as hard, or conversely will that genetic freak try that much harder due to them being good at something and the intrinsic motivation that follows.

Professional sports are dominated by genetic freaks, not the Rudy’s of the world who were shitty to begin with and worked their way up. As I see it there isn’t too much difference between the person with great genetics and an average joe on androgens. Of course there’s always exceptions, but I don’t think we should be giving advice based on exceptions.

Regarding continuous cycles I’m not sure there’s a lot of research to back either side of the issue. So the people attacking others for extended cycle lengths are basically just arguing with wiffle bats. There’s not a lot of weight to either claim as I see it. For all we know it could be healthy. And if you’re going to flame me with that comment, then argue with some peer reviewed research, not some steroid propaganda your 11th grade phys. ed teacher told you or what some “Bro” on some steroid message board said.

And by the way, I am now fully qualified to speak on this topic as of yesterday since I have 400mg of testosterone enanthate coursing though my veins. (sarcasm)

[etaco]

As was mentioned above there’s a lot of uncertainty resulting from the lack of formal study on the matter. There also seems to be quite a bit of variance amongst individuals and I think the cautious attitude towards early use reflects these factors. If you want my opinion though, the kiddies are discouraged because while an adult screwing up is seen as just a free and autonomous individual making a poor decision, a kid misusing is seen as a victim and its an affront to society. It’s the image kids using steroids that is used to justify their legal proscription for adults.

On bushidoboy’s statement with regard to maxing out genetic potential I generally agree although I think there is a bit of a slippery slope with less and less experienced guys saying, “if he’s using why shouldn’t I” pointing at a guy 5 pounds heavier but still featherweight. As has been said a million times, one needs to know how to succeed in the gym past the phase of newbie gains for the negatives of use to be worthwhile.

[Anthony_Roberts]

[quote]Dopamineloveaffair wrote:
There seems to be a lot of unresearched dogma even among steroid veterans with respect to age of use, maxing out your natural potential first, doing cycles as opposed to continuous, etc… I’m not saying either way is right or wrong, but I think we should examine these “facts” more fully if we are going to be giving advice.
[/quote]

The problem is, as I’ve said numerous times, everybody wants to come to the party, and nobody wants to bring the beer.

Everyone wants to give out advice and nobody wants to do the research necessary to give out good advice.

Here’s a benign example:

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=904241

Here you have a member of this site “educating” another member on Paper anabolics. Unfortunately, he’s totally incorrect, and upon being corrected and questioned, readily admits that he’s never seen, much less actually used paper anabolics.

What the fuck?

“Here’s a description of something I’ve never seen…”

And this is basically, as I said in my interview, why even though most moderators/vets/etc…are often well meaning - they are just as often totally incorrect.

This is why we see the prevalant paradigms which are total bullshit, repeated time and again- and it’s why we often see so much resistance to ideas I put forward.

People are much happier repeating what someone else says, and appearing to be correct, instead of investing time into actually being correct.

Everyone loves to party, but nobody loves to buy the beer…but you can’t party without it. Drinking is fun (as is repeating information without doing any research, and getting accolades for being “knowledgable”)- but buying beer, i.e. actually doing research- is not fun, because everyone else can “appear” to be correct without an iota of knowledge- so why be the guy who brings the beer, if everyone else is just going to drink yours?

Hence, we have the current and terrible state of AAS forums around the internet, spewing the same old bullshit- because nobody does any real research. Nobody brings the beer.

[Viking69]

[quote]Anthony Roberts wrote:
Dopamineloveaffair wrote:
There seems to be a lot of unresearched dogma even among steroid veterans with respect to age of use, maxing out your natural potential first, doing cycles as opposed to continuous, etc… I’m not saying either way is right or wrong, but I think we should examine these “facts” more fully if we are going to be giving advice.

The problem is, as I’ve said numerous times, everybody wants to come to the party, and nobody wants to bring the beer.

Everyone wants to give out advice and nobody wants to do the research necessary to give out good advice.

Here’s a benign example:

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=904241

Here you have a member of this site “educating” another member on Paper anabolics. Unfortunately, he’s totally incorrect, and upon being corrected and questioned, readily admits that he’s never seen, much less actually used paper anabolics.

What the fuck?

“Here’s a description of something I’ve never seen…”

And this is basically, as I said in my interview, why even though most moderators/vets/etc…are often well meaning - they are just as often totally incorrect.

This is why we see the prevalant paradigms which are total bullshit, repeated time and again- and it’s why we often see so much resistance to ideas I put forward.

People are much happier repeating what someone else says, and appearing to be correct, instead of investing time into actually being correct.

Everyone loves to party, but nobody loves to buy the beer…but you can’t party without it. Drinking is fun (as is repeating information without doing any research, and getting accolades for being “knowledgable”)- but buying beer, i.e. actually doing research- is not fun, because everyone else can “appear” to be correct without an iota of knowledge- so why be the guy who brings the beer, if everyone else is just going to drink yours?

Hence, we have the current and terrible state of AAS forums around the internet, spewing the same old bullshit- because nobody does any real research. Nobody brings the beer.[/quote]

Oh wait, I almost forgot. Why should I listen to you? Oh yeah, because your THE expert right? Which makes your info correct? OK, got it, let me write that down somewhere…

There is a reason no REAL research is done its called illegal.

[Anthony_Roberts]

I wasn’t picking on you- that example was simply the most benign case of showing where someone who is considered to be knowledgable was clearly wrong, and was giving out information on a subject that he had no real knowledge about.

It doesn’t matter that you don’t know how Paper anabolics are manufactured or what they look like, in any real sense of things. The point was that you were repeating bad information (of the benign sort). And I was presenting that as the way bad information circulates around the internet, in answer to the question posed by the original poster.

It’s not a big deal, I didn’t mean to come off like I was attacking you, it’s just the clearest example I could think of, and is often the case, the least malicious.

If it can happen to you, and you’re considered one of the knowledgable members here, then it could happen to anyone who doesn’t do their research- was my point.

[gojira]

Just gotta ask this question:

I have always wondered about the benefits of traditional cycling. Now, I know about the shutdown issues with males, but it seems to me that the fluctuating hormone levels would cause additional issues. Doing a cycle for six weeks and then doing PCT for two months just seems like two steps forward and one step back. It seems to me that a constant low dose, just enough to give you an anabolic edge, would be much less disruptive to the endocrine system, and allow you to progress at the same time.

And I don’t see how a two week cycle would do anyone any good.

[Anthony_Roberts]

[quote]Viking69 wrote:
Oh wait, I almost forgot. Why should I listen to you? Oh yeah, because your THE expert right? Which makes your info correct? OK, got it, let me write that down somewhere…

[/quote]

I don’t think why you should listen to me instead of someone else, is really part of the original question - which simply attempts to clarify where current steroid dogma originates and is propagated on the internet.

[rainjack]

[quote]Anthony Roberts wrote:
I don’t think why you should listen to me instead of someone else, is really part of the original question - which simply attempts to clarify where current steroid dogma originates and is propagated on the internet.[/quote]

It wasn’t part of the original question - but it was part of your answer. It’s always part of your answers.

I think everyone that is even remotely interested in AAS should buy Llewellyn’s book and read it/refer to it when ever there is a question.

I agree with Viking - the dark side is illegal. There will never be any empirical evidence to support time on = time off, or that blasting and cruising is superior to going on and coming off.

Every bit of proof we have wrt how to use AAS is all anecdotal. Hooker’s ideas are totally unproven in real life - he just had a rich guy pay to have them printed. His ideas have no more real proof behind them than does P-22’s tapering theories.

It has absolutely nothing to do with which board you are a member of.

[gojira]

bushidobadboy wrote:

Hey Bushy, thanks for responding.

Gojira, I’ll offer you my opinion on the subject, but since I have never done any ‘real’ research, then you’ll have to take it for what it’s worth, lol

OK, well it’s generally thought that suppression is more a function of time, rather than dose. What do I mean? Well 200mg of test each week (an HRT dose, just enough to give you and ‘anabolic edge’ but not much more) will likely shut down natural test 100%. 1000mg / week will shut you down 100% also, but will give you considerably more anabolic assistance than 200mg. Therefore, 10 weeks of 200mg/wk will likely leave you just as shut down as 1000mg/wk for 10 weeks, but you will have experienced less gains.

Ahh, I see. That makes sense. But if you never go off and continue at low levels, wouldn’t you make up for the gains you may have made at a higher dose, but lost a portion of during PCT? And at a lower dose, wouldn’t you experience fewer side effects such as acne and hair loss?

Is there any dose dependent effect regarding how fast one rebounds from shutdown? (I guess these questions are probably answered in the steroid newbie thread)

With regard to the 2 week cycle, it’s generally assumed (more hearsay and ‘dogma’) that it will take 3 weeks approx for the body to restore homeostatic levels of things like cortisol (and test). Therefore, if you take quick-acting gear for less than this period, you can stop the cycle without the penalty of elevated catabolic hormones and/or reduced androgens.

Thereby avoiding shutdown?

[quote]
Some would argue that 2 weeks is not sufficient time to notice worthwhile gains caused by increased protein transcription through AR mediated steroids. I personally think that some steroids, notably anadrol and dianabol would work well within this timeframe, but as to whether they would have any lasting effects, I don’t know. I do know that they would both facilitate much more intense workouts due to glycogen retention and androgenic activity. There should surely be some carryover from the increased muscle trauma, particularly if one were to go absolutely balls-out for the 2 weeks, and then immediately take a recovery week post cycle. A kind of ‘supercompensation’ I suppose. I might suggest though that since estrogen tends to hang around longer than test, an AI be used to prevent build up of E during the cycle which would then hang around post-cycle, continuing to suppress natural T. Of course, an AI won’t work with Anadrol, so perhaps Dbol might be the only choice for this kind of cycle?

bushy[/quote]

So, a short cycles effectivenss is dependent on the gear used.

Interesting. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.

[Anthony_Roberts]

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:

Have you ever seen God? I doubt it, but I’m sure if someone asked, you could furnish them with a description…
[/quote]

No, not really. I’m agnostic.

And I certainly wouldn’t make one up, if someone asked me for a description of something that I’d never seen.

I think someone who makes up a description of something they’ve never even seen, as if they have- may make up other things as well, without knowing what they’re talking about.

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
And I didn’t mean to come off like I was defending my self specifically. I was actually defending EVERY contributor to this (and other) boards, who ISN’T a ‘professional steroid researcher’, ie all of us folks who chip in with what we know (and/or think we know) in an attempt to help those who ask worthwhile questions.

[/quote]

All of which is sometimes worthwhile. But if someone asks a question, and you make the entire answer up off the top of your head (as in the thread I linked to, where you made up the production process as well as the look of the final product), then you are doing nobody a service. You’re doing a dis-service, I think.

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
In fact, you claim that the small boards are ‘elitist’, and yet you will only contribute to the largest boards. Doesn’t that make you elitist too?
bushy[/quote]

Small boards aren’t by nature, elitist. Neither are large boards, by nature. Boards that offer special little invites, and restrict access to only a few are elitist; and garbage, bar none.

I have to limit my involvement to the largest boards, because from a financial point of view, I won’t be able to sustain any kind of career posting on 1k, 2k, or even 5k member boards with any regularity.

I would rather spend my time and energy posting on 50-100k member boards, which is strictly a buisness thing, not a sign of contempt or anything for smaller board size.

I’m spread very thin as it is, and can’t really commit time where it’s not going to produce ample exposure for me. That sounds harsh, but I think to state otherwise would be an obvious contradiction of the facts at hand.

[grey]

[quote]Anthony Roberts wrote:
bushidobadboy wrote:

Have you ever seen God? I doubt it, but I’m sure if someone asked, you could furnish them with a description…

No, not really. I’m agnostic.

And I certainly wouldn’t make one up, if someone asked me for a description of something that I’d never seen.

I think someone who makes up a description of something they’ve never even seen, as if they have- may make up other things as well, without knowing what they’re talking about.

bushidobadboy wrote:
And I didn’t mean to come off like I was defending my self specifically. I was actually defending EVERY contributor to this (and other) boards, who ISN’T a ‘professional steroid researcher’, ie all of us folks who chip in with what we know (and/or think we know) in an attempt to help those who ask worthwhile questions.

All of which is sometimes worthwhile. But if someone asks a question, and you make the entire answer up off the top of your head (as in the thread I linked to, where you made up the production process as well as the look of the final product), then you are doing nobody a service. You’re doing a dis-service, I think.

bushidobadboy wrote:
In fact, you claim that the small boards are ‘elitist’, and yet you will only contribute to the largest boards. Doesn’t that make you elitist too?
bushy

Small boards aren’t by nature, elitist. Neither are large boards, by nature. Boards that offer special little invites, and restrict access to only a few are elitist; and garbage, bar none.

I have to limit my involvement to the largest boards, because from a financial point of view, I won’t be able to sustain any kind of career posting on 1k, 2k, or even 5k member boards with any regularity.

I would rather spend my time and energy posting on 50-100k member boards, which is strictly a buisness thing, not a sign of contempt or anything for smaller board size.

I’m spread very thin as it is, and can’t really commit time where it’s not going to produce ample exposure for me. That sounds harsh, but I think to state otherwise would be an obvious contradiction of the facts at hand.[/quote]

Spread so thin? Ha.
You have so much time on your hands that you don’t know what to do with it you elite athlete you.
Oh…by the way. Being an elite athlete and all can you tell me where we might read up on your elite statistics?
You are here to pedal your snake oil and nothing more.
You are not Dan Duchaine and stop trying to compare yourself to him. It’s fucking ridiculous.
I hate people who blow their own horn and you are definately a blower.
Your steroid advice is selective and you do not answer questions where you are in the dark.
Cmon man. Answer the question that was asked by the poster about PCT protocal when on for years on end.
Testicular shrinkage? I think so.
Children down the road? I don’t think so.
Bullshit? Yes a lot of it.

You haven’t a clue. Your a wannabe athlete cum guru that is looking for recognition on the internet.
You want to sell your cut and paste book on anabolics? That’s ok by me as long as you stop making yourself out to be the man.
You suck.

[Anthony_Roberts]

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
Right, so a councellor who gives out information about protecting oneself against the AIDS virus, yet has never seen one - should be avoided at all costs because they may ‘make up’ other information. Is that what you are saying?

bushy[/quote]

You made up a manufacturing process, then made up a physical description of a product which you had no idea about.

I’m saying that if you have no idea what you’re talking about, then you ought not “try to help”- because it’s not helping to give out fallacious information.

Don’t know the answer = don’t answer the question

And my point is that when enough people do it, we have (as dopamineloveaffair pointed out)- the current state of misinformation about steroids that constitutes steroid dogma.

[rainjack]

If you want to get plum technical about it - Hooker misrepresented the process and the appearance of the paperbolics in question as well.

I guess since he used something 4 years ago he can still claim he is an expert - regardless of whether he is right or not.