after reading back over what you wrote a couple of times i picked out your answer. your answer is “don’t do tren only because it’s putting you thru unnecessary sides”. forget what i said about not wanting to help. that IS helpful and it makes me much more comfortable knowing i’m making the right decision to spend a little extra on the test (which i don’t have yet).
money is an issue here, but saving $ to go thru hell doesn’t seem worth it to me. my mind is made up now so i suppose the topic is dead
this board is pretty much all i have to go by since i don’t think the buddy of mine that turned me on to this stuff is knowledgable enough…and i can’t talk to his “dude.” u know how it goes. thanks for taking time to respond. i appreciate it!
One thing that does make it harder is that there is no single short source that gives what one needs to know.
I have never tried doing it, as when writing articles my editors wanted articles that were quite in-depth and thus focused on just one topic, or the Q&A format.
Other authors haven’t done it, so far as I know, because there’s no money in it. Obviously a book makes more money than something that could be written on 1 or 2 pieces of paper.
But for example, it really would be extremely brief and useful to say:
Don’t use a non-aromatizing steroid as the only steroid used, unless the intent is low dose usage still allowing some natural testosterone production or unless using HCG at the same time.
And would have mostly covered this question.
(The remaining part that would ideally be covered is an entry on trenbolone: Trenbolone is unsuitable for low dose usage with intent of still allowing some natural testosterone production.)
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
One thing that does make it harder is that there is no single short source that gives what one needs to know.
I have never tried doing it, as when writing articles my editors wanted articles that were quite in-depth and thus focused on just one topic, or the Q&A format.
Other authors haven’t done it, so far as I know, because there’s no money in it. Obviously a book makes more money than something that could be written on 1 or 2 pieces of paper.
But for example, it really would be extremely brief and useful to say:
Don’t use a non-aromatizing steroid as the only steroid used, unless the intent is low dose usage still allowing some natural testosterone production or unless using HCG at the same time.
And would have mostly covered this question.
(The remaining part that would ideally be covered is an entry on trenbolone: Trenbolone is unsuitable for low dose usage with intent of still allowing some natural testosterone production.)[/quote]
Yes, of course. You do this to me every time, Bill. Now I am insanely curious. Can you please answer for me why someone would possibly use a non-aromatizing steroid alone at a low dose, or with HCG?
You don’t have to write a book (ha ha ha I’d just appreciate a brief synopsis of your insinuation here.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Yes, of course. You do this to me every time, Bill. Now I am insanely curious. Can you please answer for me why someone would possibly use a non-aromatizing steroid alone at a low dose, or with HCG?
[/quote]
A good reason is there’s such a thing as a dosage level that’s not much inhibitory yet is still useful.
For example recently I was enjoying using 15 mg/day Masteron with 100 IU/day HCG and 0.36 mg/day letrozole. It had obvious benefits compared to being “off” but I expect still probably allowed reasonable LH production. (I haven’t in fact had that tested though.)
My view on dosage is that the useful and desirable ranges are either:
High enough to be really effective, preferably (though within reason) as high as to where yet higher dosage would be undesirable due to increased side effects not being worth the minimal increased gains, or the cost becoming more than desired. Or,
Low enough to still allow reasonable LH production.
Where one does not want to be is in the neither-here-nor-there zone of too much to allow good LH production but not enough for really doing a whole lot, either.
So while I don’t favor usage of that third sort, there’s nothing wrong with low dose use of the first sort.
I’d just appreciate a brief synopsis of your insinuation here.