I am doing a 12 week 60 mg OT cycle.
I always read that it doesn’t automatize therefore there isn’t need for PCT
BUT I see a lot of people saying that OT is mainly fake.
should I do PCT anyways?
witch drug and dose?
Completely abandon this plan.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Completely abandon this plan. [/quote]
Why?
-
You clearly need to learn much more about anabolic steroids before starting anything, as only a position of absolutely not knowing even the basics could have produced this cycle.
-
Running 12 weeks of an alkylated oral is a bad idea for the liver. The general preference is to not run an oral more than 6 weeks. Eight weeks is a long time for an oral. 12 is just wrong.
-
The idea that just because something doesn’t aromatize supposedly means you don’t need PCT is wrong.
-
Oral Turinabol has a documented (by the East Germans) safety record that is inferior to Wwstern-world pharmaceutical anabolic steroids.
-
Saying you want to do oral only is like saying you want to lift weights but you have a personal preference against barbells and dumbbells. It may sound brilliant to the person saying it and as though their opinion ought to be respected, but to those doing it the right way, it’s like tattooing (insert expression of your choice) on the forehead.
There just is nothing in this plan that ought to be kept. Therefore, abandon it completely.
I was under the impression that not all alkylated orals are created equal with regards to liver toxicity? Is this wrong?
Also am I right in assuming a simple nolva pct would not be adequate for such a steroid?
Not absolutely the same in terms of toxicity per milligram but that does not change the situation here. And there is no reason to consider OT less toxic than most.
On second question: No, ordinary Nolvadex PCT would be fine.
Thanks Bill.
Sure thing!
Bill…I’m not doubting you on what you said however, I’d like to know where you found out that OT is somehow less safe than other steroids?
I had some interest in using halodrol, which is a designer prosteroid of OT, therefore it would be of interest to me if you could point me to where you found such information. Thanks
[quote]facko wrote:
Bill…I’m not doubting you on what you said however, I’d like to know where you found out that OT is somehow less safe than other steroids?
I had some interest in using halodrol, which is a designer prosteroid of OT, therefore it would be of interest to me if you could point me to where you found such information. Thanks[/quote]
Im interested in both of these points too.
Thanks for the information already provided by the way Bill!
Also as a follow up - what would you personally reccomend with regards to dosing, duration and other substances to run alongside it. Stack with a class 1?
Im going to go and do a bit more homework and reseach on this substance but Im just asking for your views on things on account of you having some thoughts that contradict a few other sources I have come across.
Thanks for your time Bill.
There isn’t a formal conclusion of this written up in the scientific literature.
However, after the unification of Germany, there was an official report released regarding the doping program that the East German Communists had used on their athletes that went into a great deal of detail and has a great deal of information.
I’d read it thoroughly and was personally struck by the incidence of medical problems being far in excess of what ever has been reported for pharmaceutical anabolic steroids in the West. And this was not because of extreme high dosages, either.
You could probably find a copy of that report by Googling and see for yourself just how many medical problems the athletes had from OT.
On which type is best to stack with OT: Back when I developed that system of classification, Oral Turinabol was a very rare and hard to get substance which I had never used and no one I worked with or even heard of had ever used it. So I had no information at all then.
When it became more common I tried it personally but never really did a definitive experiment on stacking properties. It did work better with trenbolone acetate and nothing else but a little HCG than for oxandrolone would have done, so I guess it has some Class II properties. I tend to think it is not exclusively that though.
So it’s a guess, without really sufficient basis, to say that I have the impression it has mixed activity. I couldn’t say if it’s “imbalanced” so to speak in one direction or the other.
To do that I would have had to do OT-only, and compare that with substitution of some of the OT with a Class I, and then likewise with a Class II, to see which improved it more or if both offered about the same improvement, or no real improvement in either case. But I never did it.
Ill go and have a look for the article but off the top of your head do you know a rough outline of the sides experienced?
Ive yet to find a negative t-bol log… I shall continue to dig!
I think it was 10 athletes that were hospitalized for liver problems; and three deaths attributed by the East Germans to the drug.
This was out of several thousand athletes but that’s still a bad rate. Especially as their dosing was such that a mere 16 days at a typical bodybuilding dose such as 60 mg/day would put one in what they called the high-dose category.
Medically in the West, drugs such as Anadrol and oxandrolone get used at far greater annual quantities with less incidence of problem.
The track record is not something utterly horrible – e.g. I was willing to use it myself - but it’s not the best.
That is, not utterly horrible for men.
For women, the track record compiled by the East Germans shows it to be extremely virilizing per mg. It’s a truly poor choice for women. That is a different subject, but as long as we were onto OT and the East Germans it seemed worth mentioning as there actually people out there that assume OT is safe for women.
Also, on not finding a negative Oral Turinabol log:
The following is an interesting mathematical fact. It is fact: there’s a proof of it though I don’t recall the proof.
Suppose something is known to occur randomly and with some unknown frequency. It is known however that the chance of the event happening is not zero: sooner or later it will happen. Might be one time in a billion for all you know, but you do know that there is SOME chance.
And, the only other information you have is that you know of X cases or times where it did NOT happen.
For example, say that ALL you know is that you were provided with 40 cases of users taking OT and none suffered liver damage. You do, however, know that it isn’t something with zero chance.
What, mathematically, is the way to bet in terms of betting even odds that the thing will happen, or will not happen (either bet is equally good) by what point?
Should you bet even money that 1000 cases will likely as not go by before one of them is a liver problem case?
Should you bet the chance of problem is about 1 in 100?
Human intuition tends to have it that seeing really only quite few successes all in a row means that disaster is quite unlikely, even if knowing that it would have to happen sooner or later. If we try something risky 10 times and every time comes out okay, we tend to assume it’s really unlikely that another try will go bad. Oh, a chance in 1000 of it going bad, maybe!
Well, the mathematically correct conclusion is that the odds should be estimated as 50% of occurring within the same number of trials as already seen without problem.
So if having no other information on risk of serious liver problems from OT other than your logs, if you find say 40 such logs, the best you can conclude is that the odds of risk should be assumed, if there’s nothing but that, as 1 in 80.
In other words, having a number of logs such as that as the only information does not warrant concluding safety.
Its a shame - it sounded so promising =[
Westclock seems to think its a wonder oral judging by recent posts.
If I’m correct that it has mixed activity, then judging OT alone vs various other orals alone – which is how they should NOT be taken – then OT would appear a wonder.
It also winds up looking good in per mg effect but really, though it’s a handy shorthand, milligrams per se aren’t what is important, but effect on the body.
For example oxandrolone plus Anadrol, plus anything to keep estrogen from going too low (if insisting on orals, say 5 mg Dianabol 2x/day) would be more effective than I think OT is, and safer.
Or if one doesn’t mind taking an AI or SERM, oxandrolone plus Dianabol.
If insisting on oral only cycles, which is a silly insistence.
So the fact that the total mg count would be higher in the comparison is not important.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
If I’m correct that it has mixed activity, then judging OT alone vs various other orals alone – which is how they should NOT be taken – then OT would appear a wonder.
It also winds up looking good in per mg effect but really, though it’s a handy shorthand, milligrams per se aren’t what is important, but effect on the body.
For example oxandrolone plus Anadrol, plus anything to keep estrogen from going too low (if insisting on orals, say 5 mg Dianabol 2x/day) would be more effective than I think OT is, and safer.
Or if one doesn’t mind taking an AI or SERM, oxandrolone plus Dianabol.
If insisting on oral only cycles, which is a silly insistence.
So the fact that the total mg count would be higher in the comparison is not important.[/quote]
So do you think halodrol has equal risk of damage as the steroid it is based from, OT? OR even more so? Halodrol is a prosteroid of OT.
Quite possibly moreso in terms of toxicity per amount of effect achieved, as more of it is required.
i guess i won;t start my “is tren, winny and propionate a good PCT plan” thread