That’s my first post, I hope not to get flamed too much I read a lot on this board and on others too out there on the Internet, and still I’ve done been able to answer one question (actually many, but let’s start by the beginning):
Why does everybody dogmatically only recommend test as first cycle ? I’m saying dogmatically because it’s never assorted with whatever explanation at all. Just as if it were a divine commandment…
Actually, i know test is the king of all steroids, but it has a 1:1 anabolic/androgenic ratio, while many other aas on the market provide way less androgenic effects for those who’d like to minimize those (mbp, etc…).
So why wouldn’t someone in its own right opt for this kind of products at all ? What would be wrong with that ?
The reason test is suggested as a first cycle and ran alone except possibly with a oral kick start is so that you can find out what kind of sides you might have, if your running several compounds at the same time how are you going to know what side is from what? its why you really should add only one new compound per cycle. And being that test is used in most cycles it should be the first compound you use.
Well I get the “one-compound-only” argument so as to assess one’s reaction to each compound. I also understand that test is base ingeredient of many many cycles out there… But my point is not there.
If someone prefers to increase the ana:andro ratio of his cycle, why would he ever take test, that decreases that ratio ?
Said otherwise : why take test altogether when so many new steroids have been designed so as to precisely circumvent test’s not so ideal rentablity (in terms of a:a ratio) ?
[quote]jidayjiday wrote:
Well I get the “one-compound-only” argument so as to assess one’s reaction to each compound. I also understand that test is base ingeredient of many many cycles out there… But my point is not there.
If someone prefers to increase the ana:andro ratio of his cycle, why would he ever take test, that decreases that ratio ?
Said otherwise : why take test altogether when so many new steroids have been designed so as to precisely circumvent test’s not so ideal rentablity (in terms of a:a ratio) ?
[/quote]
Not sure exactly what other compounds you are referring to, though you shouldn’t be married to “new steroids”, nor the published anabolic-androgenic ratios, particularly after you read about how they were derived.
Anyway, there are reasons to want something more anabolic, and there are reasons to want something more androgenic; one isn’t necessarily better than the other. Testosterone doesn’t increase your strength drastically, but it’s a relatively simple compound to use when gaining mass, so it certainly seems to fall on the “anabolic” side of things, as compared to something like trenbolone.
In terms of setting up a cycle, one wants testosterone or some other compound that aromatizes, in order to yield baseline levels of estrogen, at least in any medium-long cycle. Beyond that, it isn’t necessary.
“Not sure exactly what other compounds you are referring to” : not sure what you mean by that … Aren’t winstrol, masterone, dht, etc… other compounds ?
Why shouldn’t I be married to new steroids ? The immense majority of people out there are far from only using old school steroids…
And even not talking about new steroids, why shouldn’t I rely on the a:a ratios ? They are meaningless to you ?
Why would someone ever want androgenic effects ? Thats precisely what everybody wants to avoid at all cost, unless I missed something.
Sorry it turned into as many other questions, but I really want to get to the core of your explanations. Thank you again.
[quote]jidayjiday wrote:
Well I get the “one-compound-only” argument so as to assess one’s reaction to each compound. I also understand that test is base ingeredient of many many cycles out there… But my point is not there.
If someone prefers to increase the ana:andro ratio of his cycle, why would he ever take test, that decreases that ratio ?
Said otherwise : why take test altogether when so many new steroids have been designed so as to precisely circumvent test’s not so ideal rentablity (in terms of a:a ratio) ?
[/quote]
Not sure exactly what other compounds you are referring to, though you shouldn’t be married to “new steroids”, nor the published anabolic-androgenic ratios, particularly after you read about how they were derived.
Anyway, there are reasons to want something more anabolic, and there are reasons to want something more androgenic; one isn’t necessarily better than the other. Testosterone doesn’t increase your strength drastically, but it’s a relatively simple compound to use when gaining mass, so it certainly seems to fall on the “anabolic” side of things, as compared to something like trenbolone.
In terms of setting up a cycle, one wants testosterone or some other compound that aromatizes, in order to yield baseline levels of estrogen, at least in any medium-long cycle. Beyond that, it isn’t necessary.[/quote]
This.
anabolic:androgenic ratio is a rather useless way of choosing steroids
You dont sound like you know how the endocrine system works. Id do more reading before asking people to type out 500 word explanations of how to run an effective cycle.
What is your goal if you decide to run a cycle? Gain 15 pounds? Gain 20 pounds? Maybe your body can gain that 20 pounds from a nice cycle of test only…but a guy that’s done a bunch of cycles may have to add in other stuff to get the gains he’s looking for.
The fact is, you don’t know how your body is going to react…until you do, there is no point in trying to add too many chemicals to your body that you might not even need to get the results you want.
And no, I’ve never researched a cycle or what different drugs do…just using common sense.
My opinion is this. Test is the most well researched AAS, it is naturally produced by the body, the side effects are easily predictable (so proper provisions can be made)…
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
What is a ‘new’ steroid? And what is an ‘old school’ steroid?
[/quote]
That was not my wording.[/quote]
Sure it is. In your post right before whotookmyname replied. You said ‘new steroids’.
[quote]jidayjiday wrote:
“Not sure exactly what other compounds you are referring to” : not sure what you mean by that … Aren’t winstrol, masterone, dht, etc… other compounds ?
Why shouldn’t I be married to new steroids ? The immense majority of people out there are far from only using old school steroids…
And even not talking about new steroids, why shouldn’t I rely on the a:a ratios ? They are meaningless to you ?
Why would someone ever want androgenic effects ? Thats precisely what everybody wants to avoid at all cost, unless I missed something.
Sorry it turned into as many other questions, but I really want to get to the core of your explanations. Thank you again.[/quote]
and in there you say ‘old school’
Dont blatantly lie. I was willing to take your questions seriously but if you start to come off as having an agenda or appear to be trolling, my tune will change.
Nevertheless, the medical use of certain anabolic steroids has little carry over to bodybuilding.
[quote]deapee wrote:
What is your goal if you decide to run a cycle? Gain 15 pounds? Gain 20 pounds?
[/quote]
I don’t have any goal right now : I’m not planning on going on a cycle soon, I’m still in my learning phase
I’m not talking about injecting many chemicals… Only one, at a time, to assess your sensibility to it. But once again, my question is more : why ever start by test ?
[quote]
And no, I’ve never researched a cycle or what different drugs do…just using common sense.[/quote]
I dont think common sense, specially in the field of aas, really exists… Genereally, Common sense is what’s you’re left with after having learned.
Sorry, I take this back, I did use the word new. Didn’t mean to lie.
By “new”, I meant designer steroids.
But let’s not focus that “new” thing, my point is not there. I just wanted to highlight that there were many differents hormones available out there. Why, of all of them, only focus on test.
[quote]BigSkwatta wrote:
My opinion is this. Test is the most well researched AAS, it is naturally produced by the body, the side effects are easily predictable (so proper provisions can be made)…
In a nut shell, that is why.[/quote]
I get this argument, but that the sides are easily predictable doesn’t change the fact that they are there, and you cannot mitigate against all of them.
[quote]deapee wrote:
What is your goal if you decide to run a cycle? Gain 15 pounds? Gain 20 pounds?
[/quote]
I don’t have any goal right now : I’m not planning on going on a cycle soon, I’m still in my learning phase
I’m not talking about injecting many chemicals… Only one, at a time, to assess your sensibility to it. But once again, my question is more : why ever start by test ?
When you use anabolic steroids your body stops producing testosterone of its own.
When your body does not produce testosterone your body loses its main source of estradiol. Estradiol is necessary for a man to feel right and funciton properly. It should be kept within a very specific range.
So if you use anabolic steroids but dont find a way to replace the estrogen, you leave yourself in a bad spot, to put it as simply as possible.
There are other ways to replace estrogen, but using testosterone is the most productive way as it also is excellent at building muscle.
Then theres also the issue with the different classes of steroids. Some steroids yield results by binding to and activating the androgen receptor. And some steroids appear to yield results by some other means. These are called class I and class II steroids. Testosterone is both class I and class II.
There is plenty in this post to serve as starting points for further research. Enjoy your reading.
[quote]BigSkwatta wrote:
My opinion is this. Test is the most well researched AAS, it is naturally produced by the body, the side effects are easily predictable (so proper provisions can be made)…
In a nut shell, that is why.[/quote]
I get this argument, but that the sides are easily predictable doesn’t change the fact that they are there, and you cannot mitigate against all of them.
[/quote]
Says who?
Which sides effects of testosterone supplementation cant be avoided, if not at least mitigated?
Because you’re going to have a bigger amount of test, as compared to your normal levels, you’ll also come up with a bigger amount of estradiol floating around in your blood. So it will exceed the specific range you were talking about. Wouldn’t that be an issue ?
And about risk elimination or mitigation : I’m not saying that there’s not a way to completely avoid each and every risk or side effect (haven’t “read” enough on that yet) , but who actually takes and supplements in all of them when on cycle ? Meaning taking half a dozen or more of other antidots (provided they exist). Except for pct and liver support, I dont have the impression people necessarily and systematically ressort to anything specific against alopecia, prostate enlargement, and other no desired androgenic side effects.
[quote]jidayjiday wrote:
Because you’re going to have a bigger amount of test, as compared to your normal levels, you’ll also come up with a bigger amount of estradiol floating around in your blood. So it will exceed the specific range you were talking about. Wouldn’t that be an issue ?
And about risk elimination or mitigation : I’m not saying that there’s not a way to completely avoid each and every risk or side effect (haven’t “read” enough on that yet) , but who actually takes and supplements in all of them when on cycle ? Meaning taking half a dozen or more of other antidots (provided they exist). Except for pct and liver support, I dont have the impression people necessarily and systematically ressort to anything specific against alopecia, prostate enlargement, and other no desired androgenic side effects.
[/quote]
Read more.
Of the educated steroid users, who DOESNT use drugs to mitigate side effects.
I read a lot on this board and on others too out there on the Internet, and still I’ve done been able to answer one question (actually many, but let’s start by the beginning):