serious answer: i am older than you; smarter than you; and i have better social skills than you. how old are you? or perhaps a better question is, how stupid are you?
sorry, just giving my roid rage some room to play. kind of spent the last of my patience for idiots in the last wasteful reply.
You above reply is exactly the reason I asked. While I do understand you weren’t getting the responses you were looking for and that is frustrating you don’t need to have such a poor attitude. It’s unnecessary to be putting that negativity into this forum.
Answer to your questions, I’m 26 and only a tad stupid.
deanis, you are yet to contribute to this thread. you are taking up space in this thread and in my mind. give us something useful or don’t write. seems fair, no? be helpful or not. i’m not here to debate your intelligence or mine. i dont care about that kind of contest. and i disagree about what you say regarding my attitude. i was humbly asking for info. joe shmo comes and calls me an idiot. i tell joe to back his shit up or fuck off. so you want to talk about my attitude. and this is just off topic and making the entire thread less valid. i asked valid questions and i am sure there are hundreds of other people with kidney stones who would could find such answers useful.
pollution
You asked me a question and I replied, no?
I asked you a simple question and in your reply you asked me how stupid I was. That does come across as you having a poor attitude. I may have missed it although I didn’t see anyone call you stupid.
When a certain reply to a question isn’t what you were looking for then simply ask for the reasoning behind it or a more detailed answer rather then reply with such negative responses.
Anyway I’ll leave it at that. Hopefully you’ve learnt some humility from my few posts although something tells me you haven’t.
Have a good night 
adults usually have better social skills than to imply you are an idiot in response to a question. or to suggest that anyone who answers the question is an idiot, which is what that guy did here. and i was not so rude in response as you are suggesting.
i have learned nothing from you dude. you are unable to see my point of view. and yet you still talk about your psychological nonsense even though i keep asking you to stay on topic of leave. im not going to analyze or try to think of ways to expose your mistakes here.
i dont care. good night or good day to you, or whatever. bye bye i hope
Generally speaking, attitude isn’t appreciated on here, especially from new members looking for advice. This reply
Wasn’t necessary and was a childish response (I think). As a matter of fact, I’m fairly sure such talk is grounds to get into trouble with the mods/forum administrators.
As to cardiac safety, all the support supplements in the world can’t counteract cardiac enlargement induced via direct action on androgen receptors within cardiac myocytes… aside from anti-androgens, which would directly counteract the hypertrophic stimuli within skeletal muscle you’re looking to elicit from using in the first place.
Other commonly overlooked pathology induced via AAS use would be polycythemia and dyslipidemia. It may be impossible to keep lipids in line on a blast (esp with DHT derivatives and/or c17 AA drugs), you really don’t want to be running around with an HDL/LDL ratio of like 1-20 year round (hence why drugs like anavar or winstrol generally aren’t nearly as mild as some make them out to be).
I never said you couldn’t read?
are we still analyzing the fascinating psychological aspects of this convo or can we just talk about the relevant and interesting issues? i did not start a fight here. i dont see my reply as childish either. so much talk about mature or not mature in this thread. is that smart to you? who cares? don’t see how my being a new user has anything to do with attitude validity or invalidity either. again, off topic. boring. yawn. please move on.
i’m not trying to pretend to be mature. i wouldn’t even know where to begin, philosophically, to define that word. again, i do not care about that. i have no disrespect for anyone who can offer insights to a valid question. it’s too bad i have been misunderstood. and i do not even think i have been disrespectful. just telling people to keep it real or stay off my thread. not interested in insults, to and/or fro. not interested in any stupid stuff like that. im here for knowledge.
so, anyhow, regarding the enlargement of the heart valve, or whatnot, isn’t that mostly seen in people who are using very large AAS for longterm durations? is it possible that i could get there considering my ceiling is probably around 600mg of test and 1,000mg of primo per week, worst case scenario. and i am giong to go on a permanent maintenance cruise once i get to the muscle mass i want (brad pitt fight club level of muscle mass). that’s not very much. sure, everyone’s predisposition to pitfalls from steroid use is different but, we have to make our guesses, right?
i have to look up polycythemia.
do you think oral anavar is an absolute danger for me? i know it is metabolised in some way in the kidneys and not in the liver. i do not fully understand what is meant by this.
how does increased red blood cells effect the kidneys? how does increased lipids effect the kidneys?
how do you know about all these medical terms? just through personal research or are you a doctor?
btw, i am fairly sure i do not have kidney damage as i was quite thoroughly tested for it about 1 month ago–this testing included an ultrasound.
it seems i just have weak kidneys and the symptoms are chronic kidney stones the side of “sand” particles–this is what the technician said.
i am taking many precautionary vits and supplements. what is your opinion of my outlook given this information?
If you want that, don’t eat for 3 months and you’ll get there without putting anything in your body.
You seem like a guy that’s interested in facts, I like that. I don’t like it either when threads revolve into questions of character.
But what I’m starting to question is the justifying of using steroids if you want a body that’s not only achievable natty but doesn’t even have average gym rat muscle mass. On top of that you have health issues worsening the risk for using roids.
I’d say zac Efron in bay watch isn’t roid territory either, just training, bulking cutting, bulking cutting for like 3-4 years. And that physique has some muscle. Now if you want a The Rock physique, then I’d point you to steroids.
Just be clear in what your goals are.
I know this thread is not intended to discuss your goals. That had to be pointed out though.
Ok enough with that.
I’ll give you something to read here since you seem interested in research and learning like me.
See here:
They demonstrated that podocytes express both androgen and estrogen receptors and that in vitro , testosterone can cause podocyte apoptosis, which is blocked by the addition of flutamide (18)
from:
So the first thing to recognize is from this study is that every AAS is nephrotoxic seemingly dependent on the binding of the AR.
So then we check how strong AR binding affinities for various steroids are:
MT greater than 19-nortestosterone ( NorT ; nandrolone) greater than methenolone (17 beta-hydroxy-1-methyl-5 alpha-androst-1-en-3-one) greater than testosterone (T) greater than 1 alpha-methyl-DHT]. In other cases, AR binding was weak (RBA values less than 0.05): stanozolol (17 alpha-methyl-5 alpha- androstano [3,2-c]pyrazol-17 beta-ol), methanedienone (17 beta-hydroxy-17 alpha-methyl-1,4-androstadien-3-one), and fluoxymesterolone (9 alpha-fluoro-11 beta-hydroxy-17 alpha-methyl-T). Other compounds had RBAs too low to be determined (e.g. oxymetholone (17 beta-hydroxy-2-hydroxymethylene-17 alpha-methyl-5 alpha-androstan-3-one) and ethylestrenol (17 alpha-ethyl-4- estren -17 beta-ol).
from:
That is one variable, AR binding. Now we just need to look at all the others and put them in perspective to come up with a good conclusion. I think this thread has potential, so let’s go on a joint effort to find out which one is the least toxic to the kidneys.
You guys got something to point out or contribute here @unreal24278 @anon18050987 ? I’d appreciate it
100% serious response, with zero sarcasm: go look it up. Those particular physiological interactions are documented and can be found with a relatively simple google search. It would be extremely wasteful for someone else to type out a whole response when you could easily find that information yourself.
Anyway, the answers are ‘anemia’ and ‘dyslipidemia’. If your kidneys get worsened by something—steroids or otherwise—your body ends up with less EPO and you become anemic. (That is the 4th grade version; it’s obviously more complicated than that).
Well binding affinity to the AR is one massive aspect. Predisposition for inducing 20-HETE production and subsequent RAAS alteration also factors in. Oxymetholone may have a relatively low RBA for the AR, but anecdotally it’s predisposition towards inducing hypertension is off the charts. Furthermore a potential metabolite (hypothesised as to why it’s quite androgenic) is mestanolone (very high affinity for the AR)
Prolonged hypertension = kidney damage
Anecdotes and a limited body of scientific literature indicate boldenone may be one of the more destructive substances regarding kidney health/function (including one observational study of which I can link if asked).
Stanozolol also has a relatively low RBA for the AR, but quite a few case reports of stanozolol induced acute renal failure exist.
Perhaps it’s less overall binding affinity and more tissue selectivity (thus preferential selectivity towards AR binding in the kidney?).
Ehhh I’m on the fence about this. 3-4 years of bulking/cutting to look like Zac Efron in Baywatch for 1-2 days with sufficient carb cycling, water manipulation etc should be obtainable. But to look like him year round/for a prolonged period of time you’d be looking at a bit of secret saucy sauce.
Yes I saw that. Thought you’d mention it or elaborate since I couldn’t find a reasoning. Tissue selectivity could be a factor.
I actually don’t think his BF level is not possible to hold year round. His amount of muscle should also be attainable natty. For not reaching this you gotta be below average genetics or not dieting enough. For some it could be not pleasant at BF 10% year round but it should be attainable.
Edit: just looked again. I’m relatively positive he had a little help from the syringe. Also I’d say he is above average, his shoulders stand out. But I stand by my point that most people just don’t diet long or hard enough and I don’t blame anybody because it’s not everybody’s goal to be as lean.
If inducing RAAS is the main problem as it seems with some steroids (you mentioned anadrol/oxymetholone) one could add a RAAS blocker like an ACE-Inhibitor or a AT1R-Antagonist. There should be consideration of the metabolism and interactions of those. Sartans are primarily metabolized by the liver, ACE-Is by the kidneys.
You’re getting the most valuable contribution for your need. And even when @unreal24278 logically detailed why, you still want to be an ask hole and push back.
Just because non lifters said you need to have roid rage doesn’t mean you actually do. You might just be a dick.
I think many can achieve it natty. I think the majority that do achieve that look are on the sauce. The hard part is the body fat level. I am about his height (I am 2" taller, I thought he was taller), but have more lean mass than he weighed total, but not close to that lean.
Yes I fully agree Ben! I just finished a diet on 2400 kcal with 210 g of protein. That shit was awful haha. I cut my calories by about 1000 from day 1 because I had to cut down fast. I remember now why nobody walks around < 10%. That doesn’t mean it’s not achievable or possible to hold year round.
Agree here. It is just to miserable for most. I’m not interested in the shredded look anyway. I would rather have the full look with abs (but not shredded). Maybe around that 12-15 percent range.
You speak like a child, you act like a child. You act like a spoiled little twat, you are going to get treated like one.
I’ve seen it reported he was around 155 LBS for that movie, doubt anyone needs AAS to do that. Lean as hell tho, diet and fat burners could get that job done.
Also, and maybe I missed it, but you never did say how old you were. My curiosity is piqued
I’m fairly sure Efron was closer to 6-8% in Baywatch though. He had a “Christmas tree” around his lower back and deep cuts around his abdominals.
@swoops39 he’s 42 from what I’ve seen in another thread. I admit, I was rather surprised.