Steroids: Why or Why Not?

Training
562

[quote]AzCats wrote:

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]willden wrote:
Which is the entire point of the thread. You need to speculate in order to decide if you want to use. You would think many more people would do a cycle if it were to give them 25lbs of LBM vs 5lbs. It’s all about risk/reward.[/quote]

Correct. An 8 lb gain of pure lean mass in a few months with little/no side effects would be very reasonable and definitely worth the risk in my opinion. Naturally, that would take 2-3 times longer to achieve those results.[/quote]
You must be gifted then. Cause it took me almost 2 years to gain a solid 8lbs of mass naturally. RDS did that in a few weeks. I just don’t think many realize how much 8lbs of solid mass really is… and for someone to do that in 10-12 weeks is amazing to me and I give him props for that instead of others telling him that 8lbs is nothing or he should have gained a lot more. [/quote]

thanks man, yeah I was happy with the 8lbs gain. Looked loads better, got loads stronger. No complaints.

563

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]AzCats wrote:

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]willden wrote:
Which is the entire point of the thread. You need to speculate in order to decide if you want to use. You would think many more people would do a cycle if it were to give them 25lbs of LBM vs 5lbs. It’s all about risk/reward.[/quote]

Correct. An 8 lb gain of pure lean mass in a few months with little/no side effects would be very reasonable and definitely worth the risk in my opinion. Naturally, that would take 2-3 times longer to achieve those results.[/quote]
You must be gifted then. Cause it took me almost 2 years to gain a solid 8lbs of mass naturally. RDS did that in a few weeks. I just don’t think many realize how much 8lbs of solid mass really is… and for someone to do that in 10-12 weeks is amazing to me and I give him props for that instead of others telling him that 8lbs is nothing or he should have gained a lot more. [/quote]

My bad, I just made up a quick example. You’re right though, it would take a lot longer to achieve the same results. 10 week cycle may take at least a year to get those same results. [/quote]

that’s the way I see it. Using steroids I can get a year’s worth of muscle in 12 weeks. More if I was prepared to push the boat out with dosages.

564

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]AzCats wrote:

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]willden wrote:
Which is the entire point of the thread. You need to speculate in order to decide if you want to use. You would think many more people would do a cycle if it were to give them 25lbs of LBM vs 5lbs. It’s all about risk/reward.[/quote]

Correct. An 8 lb gain of pure lean mass in a few months with little/no side effects would be very reasonable and definitely worth the risk in my opinion. Naturally, that would take 2-3 times longer to achieve those results.[/quote]
You must be gifted then. Cause it took me almost 2 years to gain a solid 8lbs of mass naturally. RDS did that in a few weeks. I just don’t think many realize how much 8lbs of solid mass really is… and for someone to do that in 10-12 weeks is amazing to me and I give him props for that instead of others telling him that 8lbs is nothing or he should have gained a lot more. [/quote]

My bad, I just made up a quick example. You’re right though, it would take a lot longer to achieve the same results. 10 week cycle may take at least a year to get those same results. [/quote]

that’s the way I see it. Using steroids I can get a year’s worth of muscle in 12 weeks. More if I was prepared to push the boat out with dosages.[/quote]

I hear the seas are much rougher at higher doses, matey.

565

[quote]audiogarden1 wrote:

[quote]AzCats wrote:

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]willden wrote:
Which is the entire point of the thread. You need to speculate in order to decide if you want to use. You would think many more people would do a cycle if it were to give them 25lbs of LBM vs 5lbs. It’s all about risk/reward.[/quote]

Correct. An 8 lb gain of pure lean mass in a few months with little/no side effects would be very reasonable and definitely worth the risk in my opinion. Naturally, that would take 2-3 times longer to achieve those results.[/quote]
You must be gifted then. Cause it took me almost 2 years to gain a solid 8lbs of mass naturally. RDS did that in a few weeks. I just don’t think many realize how much 8lbs of solid mass really is… and for someone to do that in 10-12 weeks is amazing to me and I give him props for that instead of others telling him that 8lbs is nothing or he should have gained a lot more. [/quote]

It shouldnt take 2 years to gain 8 lbs of lean mass natty unless you are at an advanced level of development. [/quote]
I’m not talking about just weight…I’m talking about lbm. I’m also 45 years old…Takes a bit more time at this age in the game.

566

[quote]AzCats wrote:

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]willden wrote:
Which is the entire point of the thread. You need to speculate in order to decide if you want to use. You would think many more people would do a cycle if it were to give them 25lbs of LBM vs 5lbs. It’s all about risk/reward.[/quote]

Correct. An 8 lb gain of pure lean mass in a few months with little/no side effects would be very reasonable and definitely worth the risk in my opinion. Naturally, that would take 2-3 times longer to achieve those results.[/quote]
You must be gifted then. Cause it took me almost 2 years to gain a solid 8lbs of mass naturally. RDS did that in a few weeks. I just don’t think many realize how much 8lbs of solid mass really is… and for someone to do that in 10-12 weeks is amazing to me and I give him props for that instead of others telling him that 8lbs is nothing or he should have gained a lot more. [/quote]

not really, people just count weight that isn’t lean body mass… as lean body mass

because they don’t know what they are talking about…

567

[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:

[quote]AzCats wrote:

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]willden wrote:
Which is the entire point of the thread. You need to speculate in order to decide if you want to use. You would think many more people would do a cycle if it were to give them 25lbs of LBM vs 5lbs. It’s all about risk/reward.[/quote]

Correct. An 8 lb gain of pure lean mass in a few months with little/no side effects would be very reasonable and definitely worth the risk in my opinion. Naturally, that would take 2-3 times longer to achieve those results.[/quote]
You must be gifted then. Cause it took me almost 2 years to gain a solid 8lbs of mass naturally. RDS did that in a few weeks. I just don’t think many realize how much 8lbs of solid mass really is… and for someone to do that in 10-12 weeks is amazing to me and I give him props for that instead of others telling him that 8lbs is nothing or he should have gained a lot more. [/quote]

not really, people just count weight that isn’t lean body mass… as lean body mass

because they don’t know what they are talking about…[/quote]
Hypothetical Scenario:
Go get your body fat tested.
5’10 201 pounds with 9% bodyfat
Chug a gallon of water
5’10 210 pounds with 9% bodyfat
OMFG AMAZIN GAINZZZZ!!!

568

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:

[quote]AzCats wrote:

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]willden wrote:
Which is the entire point of the thread. You need to speculate in order to decide if you want to use. You would think many more people would do a cycle if it were to give them 25lbs of LBM vs 5lbs. It’s all about risk/reward.[/quote]

Correct. An 8 lb gain of pure lean mass in a few months with little/no side effects would be very reasonable and definitely worth the risk in my opinion. Naturally, that would take 2-3 times longer to achieve those results.[/quote]
You must be gifted then. Cause it took me almost 2 years to gain a solid 8lbs of mass naturally. RDS did that in a few weeks. I just don’t think many realize how much 8lbs of solid mass really is… and for someone to do that in 10-12 weeks is amazing to me and I give him props for that instead of others telling him that 8lbs is nothing or he should have gained a lot more. [/quote]

not really, people just count weight that isn’t lean body mass… as lean body mass

because they don’t know what they are talking about…[/quote]
Hypothetical Scenario:
Go get your body fat tested.
5’10 201 pounds with 9% bodyfat
Chug a gallon of water
5’10 210 pounds with 9% bodyfat
OMFG AMAZIN GAINZZZZ!!!
[/quote]

all natty

569

[quote]AzCats wrote:

[quote]audiogarden1 wrote:

[quote]AzCats wrote:

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]willden wrote:
Which is the entire point of the thread. You need to speculate in order to decide if you want to use. You would think many more people would do a cycle if it were to give them 25lbs of LBM vs 5lbs. It’s all about risk/reward.[/quote]

Correct. An 8 lb gain of pure lean mass in a few months with little/no side effects would be very reasonable and definitely worth the risk in my opinion. Naturally, that would take 2-3 times longer to achieve those results.[/quote]
You must be gifted then. Cause it took me almost 2 years to gain a solid 8lbs of mass naturally. RDS did that in a few weeks. I just don’t think many realize how much 8lbs of solid mass really is… and for someone to do that in 10-12 weeks is amazing to me and I give him props for that instead of others telling him that 8lbs is nothing or he should have gained a lot more. [/quote]

It shouldnt take 2 years to gain 8 lbs of lean mass natty unless you are at an advanced level of development. [/quote]
I’m not talking about just weight…I’m talking about lbm. I’m also 45 years old…Takes a bit more time at this age in the game.[/quote]

I said lean mass.

And true, at your age it would likely take longer. At mine, as long as im consistent and on a bulk diet, 8 lbs of straight LBM is very achievable in a years time.

570

Audio,
How long have you been training?
What are your current lifting statistics?

571

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]AzCats wrote:

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]willden wrote:
Which is the entire point of the thread. You need to speculate in order to decide if you want to use. You would think many more people would do a cycle if it were to give them 25lbs of LBM vs 5lbs. It’s all about risk/reward.[/quote]

Correct. An 8 lb gain of pure lean mass in a few months with little/no side effects would be very reasonable and definitely worth the risk in my opinion. Naturally, that would take 2-3 times longer to achieve those results.[/quote]
You must be gifted then. Cause it took me almost 2 years to gain a solid 8lbs of mass naturally. RDS did that in a few weeks. I just don’t think many realize how much 8lbs of solid mass really is… and for someone to do that in 10-12 weeks is amazing to me and I give him props for that instead of others telling him that 8lbs is nothing or he should have gained a lot more. [/quote]

My bad, I just made up a quick example. You’re right though, it would take a lot longer to achieve the same results. 10 week cycle may take at least a year to get those same results. [/quote]

that’s the way I see it. Using steroids I can get a year’s worth of muscle in 12 weeks. More if I was prepared to push the boat out with dosages.[/quote]

I hear the seas are much rougher at higher doses, matey. [/quote]

Arrr! Quite possibly matey

572

[quote]AzCats wrote:

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]rds63799 wrote:
steroids really aren’t all that addictive.

I’ve done a couple of low dose cycles. They were fun. Will probably do another one in the future but not anytime soon.

The idea that once you’ve had a taste of the juice you automatically become some snarling vascular beast with no balls who never comes off is every bit as retarded as saying having a couple of pints every now and then will automatically lead to alcoholism.[/quote]

Did you keep most of your gainz? Since you aren’t close to your natty potential, cycling a few times would bring you closer to that and allow you to keep it. Is my reasoning sound at all? [/quote]

I know exactly what you mean mate.

Yeah I did keep my gains. 100% of the strength, and only lost a few lbs of bodyweight (which I suspect was water).

My first cycle I went from 180lbs (omg so skinny) to about 188, with a 20k increase on my bench. Could’ve probably got a few more lbs out of it but I really fucked my back up just before starting so my leg training was pretty limited. Second cycle took me up to 195 but I recomped pretty significantly so the weight gain doesn’t tell the full story. 2nd cycle was a tiny bit disappointing tbh, I expected more in the way of gains but I found out after that a lot of people who used the lab I’d used weren’t happy with their recent cycles and the general consensus is the lab has gone to shit. So it goes.

It’s been close to 6 months since my last cycle, and I am gaining naturally just the same as anybody else, with no sign of the gains I made on cycle going anywhere. It actually seems like I gain a little faster since the cycles. I’ve heard that steroids can permanently upregulate your androgen receptors, but I don’t know if it really happens to any significant degree, or if the low dosed cycles I ran would have that effect.

Obviously if I had been running 5g of gear and gone way over my genetic potential I would expect to lose something, but in my opinion (which is mirrored by my experience) if you are below your genetic potential running moderate doses you can absolutely keep your gains.[/quote]

Right on. I’m curious to see what Walk thinks about the androgen receptors. It seems like you could “fire up” more receptors since they are a lot more active on cycle. Again, I’m just making shit up and speculating.

I also wonder if you could kick your natural T levels a little higher with a good, low dose cycle and solid PCT. [/quote]

Low dose is a waste of time IMO. Eight pounds for a first cycle is pretty low, unless it was only four weeks long.
[/quote]

Lol 8 solid lbs is great for a cycle. Go look at a 10lb roast that will give you an idea of wow much solid mass that is. Most bloat up 15-20lbs then lose 10+ lbs. so net gain of 5-10 mass after water. Two cycles like that a year and you’ll be a hulk. [/quote]

I think we both know that’s not quite how it works. I’ll still stand by my opinion that a begginer should gain way more than eight pounds. 15lbs of keep able gains is possible ESP if you are nowhere near your potential. If people are happy with eight pounds for a first cycle then that’s fine, as long as it only lasts four to six weeks.
[/quote]

Oh I totally agree, a beginner should gain more than 8lbs (and I certainly weighed much more than that on cycle, the 8lbs is what I had a few weeks after PCT once the water and shit was gone).

I thought I explained it in my post where I said I couldn’t really train my legs on cycle due to a back injury. I reckon I’d have easily got 10lbs+ if I could have. The smart thing for me to have one would have been to wait til my back was rehabbed before cycling but I had all my gear sitting in the house and I was way too impatient.[/quote]
You explained things just fine in your post. An 8 pound gain after all is said and done is a pretty damn good cycle in my book rds. Pretty much every post after yours is pure speculation from those who have never even touched AAS in their lives, with the exception of Walkway. If you’ve never done a cycle in your life then how can you possibly speculate on what any certain individual should or should not gain. 8lbs is solid and most would be happy with that.[/quote]

Have you cycled before? 8lbs is not good for a first cycle. After a good few cycles then yeah 8lbs is good but for a begginner? If you only gain 8lbs on a first cycle then you ain’t doing it right.

With just the standard 500mg a week test (regardless of bodyweight???) advocated on these forums then I’d be more inclined to agree, but IMO if you are doing a first cycle then you should have test dosed correctly, and have dome dbol or anadrol in there, and a small dose of short estered eq, and preferably 2iu’s of GH every day. Why waste time? All sides can be controlled pretty much apart from hairloss but if you are choosing to use then you shouldn’t be too concerned about your hair…

573

^my first cycle that got me 8lbs was 450mg of test a week. Was too scared to run it any higher, lol

574

Lol @ a first cycle being test, dbol, anadrol, short eater EQ AND growth hormone.
Come on proportionatelymassiveguns.
What beginner runs that as a first cycle?
More than likely its just test or orals/PH’s as a first cycle.

575

So there’s a the trick to control excessive horniness?

576

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Lol @ a first cycle being test, dbol, anadrol, short eater EQ AND growth hormone.
Come on proportionatelymassiveguns.
What beginner runs that as a first cycle?
More than likely its just test or orals/PH’s as a first cycle.[/quote]

this ^

I thought with roids, and nutrition/supplementation in general it was best to try and get the most results out of the least amount of whatever input?

577

not to mention the 2iu GH a day would cost more than the rest of the gear put together

578

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Audio,
How long have you been training?
What are your current lifting statistics?[/quote]

I think ive been training since summer of '09. I dont ever max and im more of a volume guy, so lifting stats are tough to give without more specific requests than that.

At the moment im on the tail end of a 5 month cut too so im favoring volume over weight more than ever.

Why?

579

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Lol @ a first cycle being test, dbol, anadrol, short eater EQ AND growth hormone.
Come on proportionatelymassiveguns.
What beginner runs that as a first cycle?
More than likely its just test or orals/PH’s as a first cycle.[/quote]

this ^

I thought with roids, and nutrition/supplementation in general it was best to try and get the most results out of the least amount of whatever input?[/quote]

Ha short ester eq. And throw some GH in there right off the bat. Wtf massivegun you continue to amaze me with your stupidity. Plenty more experienced ppl saying 8 solid lbs is good yet only you are the one having trouble grasping this. Then sit out some retarded first cycle. Wow

580

We aren’t talking about supra physiological level of glycogen which sucks up a ton of water not to mention the extra water you hold in general. Then the extra food traveling through your stomach/intestines from trying to gain weight. We are talking 8lbs of dry lean muscle. Sure putting on 20-30 lbs on a cycle is easy but to think even half of that 30lbs is muscle is crazy. 10lbs probably doable . 8lbs on a cycle and do two Ina year. 16lbs in a year even considering no gains other than that is a damn good year and you would look insanely different

581

[quote]audiogarden1 wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Audio,
How long have you been training?
What are your current lifting statistics?[/quote]

I think ive been training since summer of '09. I dont ever max and im more of a volume guy, so lifting stats are tough to give without more specific requests than that.

At the moment im on the tail end of a 5 month cut too so im favoring volume over weight more than ever.

Why?[/quote]

Because 8 true lbs past the first 2 years of lifting is pretty damn hard to do as natty. Or something along those lines. Stu or brick would know better