Anabolics
Search More Than 6,000,000 Posts
Results 1 to 30 of 30
  1. #1
    Gills's Avatar
    Gills is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    455

    Running the test higher

    Can somone explain to me why it is that you are supposed to run the test higher than your other compounds? For instance, right now I am taking 800mg eq a week and 250mg test E. Why would I want to run my test higher thanthe EQ? I understand that AAS shuts down your natural test production, so supplemental test is required, however, why is more need than to simply replace what your body is no longer producing?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4,795
    So you don't have erection problems. Some other hormones such as deca , tren , primo, and a few others sometimes will have an effect on your sex drive.

  3. #3
    Gills's Avatar
    Gills is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    455
    Yes, the mess with your sex drive because they supress your natural test production. No test=no sex drive. my question is, if you have enough test to replace what your body is no longer producing, why would you have any problems? My sex drive is higher than normal, since I am replacing my test + some extra

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4,795
    Hormones such as deca , tren , primo and the like tend to supress sex drive. More deca than test = an unhappy Mr. happy.....more test than deca = a happy Mr. happy.

  5. #5
    Gills's Avatar
    Gills is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    455
    Does anyone have a study as to why this is? I have yet to notice a problem by simply replacing my test, same with my two friends that are my lab rats for this experiment. I am taking EQ + light test test subject B is taking 500 decca and 250 test E and test subject C is taking Tren E 500mg EQ 400 and test E 250. Now, none of us have lost our sex drive, nor any other problems. Subject C has light acne on his back, but that is all.

  6. #6
    nomore1324 is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    440
    yes, its in my shorts now, it title testiculus smallius and its a good read.

  7. #7
    Gills's Avatar
    Gills is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    455
    Running the test higher isn't going to keep your testicals any larger bro......

  8. #8
    CSK
    CSK is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    24
    I started wondering the same thing recently... I think it's just another instance of "brotelligence".

  9. #9
    Gills's Avatar
    Gills is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    455
    After my little trial I am thinking the samw thing, the parrot effect has happend. I have been looking for a study to prove me wrong, with no luck, I was hoping maybe hooker could give a solid answer on this one. How about it Hook?

  10. #10
    Gills's Avatar
    Gills is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    455
    bump for anyone who can tell us why test should be higher?????

  11. #11
    sauceman19 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Westchester, NY
    Posts
    125
    yea, i understand the logic of running test with all cycles but personally its not something i would particularly use as a rule when cycling. my boy i go to the gym with is takin EQ and Deca and has had no complaints of loss of sex drive, erections, etc.. i know a lot of people who have ran compounds like EQ Deca Primo winnies and tren aone with no test and have no complaints

  12. #12
    Gills's Avatar
    Gills is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    455
    One of my boys is the same way, he can run decca alone with no trouble, me on the other hand, when i was switching from prop to E, I was a few days off and had a low sex drive for about a week, so I know I need test with mine, I just don't think I need to run a gram to keep my sex drive on 800mg of EQ.

  13. #13
    magicstick2003's Avatar
    magicstick2003 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,070
    all depeds one the person. IF they don;t have problems then more power to them but not everone will be in the same boat. i personally run it higher as well but it seems logical as longas ou are at least replacingwhat baseline would be then it should work out, however the older you get the lower your test so this could be why it's advised to run higher, actually now im just babblingcause im not really sure lol.

  14. #14
    Gills's Avatar
    Gills is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    455
    Damn guys, I'll bet if I would have posted that I was running 800mg EQ and 250 Test, 20 guys would have told me I need to run the tet higher. I pose a question about it, and no one has an answer???

  15. #15
    magicstick2003's Avatar
    magicstick2003 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,070
    lol ok you need to run the test higher......

  16. #16
    Gills's Avatar
    Gills is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    455
    Thanks magic, I feel much better now. maybe I will try that next week..."what do you guys think of this cycle"

  17. #17
    magicstick2003's Avatar
    magicstick2003 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,070
    can you drink winny?

  18. #18
    hemidog66's Avatar
    hemidog66 is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    367
    I want to know if you have something against running test or are you just curious about this or what. I know alot of people will just say:"add some test " to the noob that wants to lknow about his dbol cycle. and some of them dont know shit except what they read on there screen, on the other hand there are some knowledgable peeps around here and I would have to believe them... I am rambling but I think you have a very vaild question, and I bet there is a good answer.

  19. #19
    Gills's Avatar
    Gills is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    455
    I have nothing against test what so ever! I run it in all my cycles. What I do have something against is everyone saying run the test higher than blah blah blah, and not having a valid reason why they are saying this. Why should we go that heavy with the test if we don't need to?

  20. #20
    hemidog66's Avatar
    hemidog66 is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    367
    Im with you but my cycle expereice is small time so I can only ponder. the same thing

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Gills
    Why should we go that heavy with the test if we don't need to?
    Then don't. I gave you my reasoning behind it and its JMO.....not everyone has the same side effects. Personally I'm a firm believer that test should be the base of EVERY cycle because of its awesome synergistic properties. Thats one of the reasons I include it into all my cycles.

  22. #22
    Gills's Avatar
    Gills is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    455
    That is why I used myself and 2 friends for lab rats before I posted this one. if noone can come up with a good reason why the test should be higher rather than simply replaced, I am going to call bullshi* when I see this posted

  23. #23
    Gills's Avatar
    Gills is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    455
    I am not ragging on you at all dragon slayer, and I respect all opioins given I agree that test does need to be in all cycles. Have you by chance run it lower than the rest of your compounds? and if so, did you lose any sex drive?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Gills
    Have you by chance run it lower than the rest of your compounds? and if so, did you lose any sex drive?
    Never, but my very first cycle was EQ/winny only......no test and I regret it. My libido was a little....shall I say sub-par. Since then I have included a test ester in every cycle and will in future cycles. Yes its always the highest hormone ran.

  25. #25
    Gills's Avatar
    Gills is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    455
    Thanks Dragonslayer. Anyone else ever ran there test lower than the other compounds and had any negitive effects from it?

  26. #26
    jaydub's Avatar
    jaydub is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    wait.. where am I?..
    Posts
    1,493
    I know I've ran deca alone and was as horny as ever, didn't have any problems. I was kinda curious about this too, my next cycle is gonna be deca/test e. I was gonna run test e 250/wk and deca 300/wk. everyone was telling me to run the test at 500/wk

  27. #27
    Gills's Avatar
    Gills is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    455
    Advice like that is why I started this thread, they all told you to run 500, but couldn't say why. Would you make better gains using 500 rather than 250..sure, but do youhave to use 500 if you would rather use 250...I really don't think so

  28. #28
    CSK
    CSK is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    24
    Bump

  29. #29
    Gills's Avatar
    Gills is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    455
    Anyone else?

  30. #30
    Two4the$$ is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,717
    Gills, I argued the same point. If Deca /Tren /EQ don't NEGATE testosterone (deactivate it or down regulate some receptor of it), than there isn't much chance of a need for a study on why you need to run it higher, but rather a reiteration of how mass misconception propagates. People are just looking to be authorities on a subject of interest. Most people here can't spell, compose coherent sentences, or worse, do research for that matter. There fortunately are a handful of intelligent minds that take the time to perform due diligence and explain it to the point of exhaustion. I think I speak for all when I say thanks to those people.

    Bottom line appears to be this; Run enough to REPLACE what you lost, and, while you're at it, since your endogenous production has been suppressed in the first place, why not run an amount that also gets results, but not so much that the androgenic affects cause unwanted side affects. Long post short, use prop, start with a low dose, gradually increase until you see an androgenic problem, back down a bit, and figure that's a good mg number for your body. Then, use the equivalent in a long estered version, perhaps frontloading or using prop to get things going. But if you just want the sex drive attribute, use anything of 100mg per week…

    Now, if people could explain on the continuum the motivations for dose modifications, there would be less misconception. Am I perfectly accurate in my post - probably not, but I do explain my motives and logic.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •