04-17-2017, 09:26 AM #1
Why only 500mg of test E per week?
Just curious, the recommended dose for most users is 500mg test e per week,or 250mg twice a week.
Is that just the status quo? Doesnt size/weight matter when it comes to dose? 500mg per week sounds so low.
Are there advantages to taking a higher dose? Again, just curious to know from the experts. Thanks.
04-17-2017, 10:08 AM #2
It's a good starting point to see how your body reacts..500 mg is a good size dose you could grow in less if your diets in check..most overlook the diet and training aspect and think the more the better that's not the way it is..you can do anything with 500 mg of test cut,bulk it's all diet dependent ..another reason is you will find you'll need higher and higher doses as you grow and use more gear over time..how are you gonna top a gram, 2 grams?at some point the sides outweigh the gains..
04-17-2017, 10:37 AM #3
04-17-2017, 11:33 AM #4
King said it.
It's what we've found to be good starting point.
Sure you could use 450mg, or 550mg, or 600mg,
and it would be basically the same.
But I think another reason we say 500 is because most (HG Pharma) test e gear is dosed at 250mg/ml.
250mg would be a little low, but if your gear was dosed at 300mg/ml and came in amps id say go with 600mg or week.
In a 10ml vial you got options though.
And 500mg isn't low at all.
My first cycle (while longer than usual), was 250mg a week,
and i grew incredibly on that.
But in those days my diet abd everything else was on point,
and I had a very good foundation.
But I wouldn't advice someone doing a 12 week cycle to just use 250mg,
as upping it to 500 would increase the yield significantly.
I remember back then 1g/1000mg was considered extremely much by most,
and 2000mg was considered going for a early grave.
But cycles were also much longer back then,
Our knowledge has evolved.
Anyways, King said it best.
04-17-2017, 12:06 PM #5
I echo what everyone is saying. There is also a pharmacology principle called "The Law of Deminished Returns," which basically means as dosages increase at some point the negative aspects of higher dosages start to outweigh the positive. Or simply, more is only better to a point, then it genders you.
The reason to start as low as possible is that you make great gains with small amounts of drugs. This minimizes side effects and also allows you to run low amounts of drugs on each successive cycle. As you approach your genetic max, cycle after cycle. It will take more and more drugs to get lesser and lesser gains each cycle. If you set the bar artificially high. Future cycles will not be nearly as dramatic or effective. While sides may increase with little benefit to justify them.
04-17-2017, 12:14 PM #6
Ok thanks for the info guys, makes a lot of sense. Reason I asked because I just started a cut cycle and wondered if that would help me get more size/strength by increasing dose since I'm in a calorie deficit to get down to 10-12% bf range, and when you're in a deficit it's difficult to build or even maintain.
04-17-2017, 12:22 PM #7
04-17-2017, 12:47 PM #8
04-17-2017, 01:00 PM #9“Intellectual growth should commence at birth and cease only at death” Albert Einstein
No Source Check Please, I don't know of any.
04-17-2017, 01:10 PM #10
04-17-2017, 01:57 PM #11
The increased fees efficiency of AAS is a proven concept, that's why they use tren in cattle.
But other than that, (or in addition)
my take is that when you train and use AAS you have an increased metabolism due to always repairing and building muscle tissue (increased protein synthesis), so I would think that one wouldn't need much of a calorie deficit to lose fat, if the TDEE is calculated according to when one is not on AAS.
I might be wrong about this though,
but I know it's definitely possible to both lose fat and gain muscle when using AAS and eating correctly.
Last summer I did lose BF and all I did was to stop force feeding myself, so I ate less, but I doubt I had a calorie deficit as such,
but I did do a lot of walking, probably 1-3hours each day.
And a lot of outdoors sex, trying to find monuments and landmarks and such,
so I was very active. It was a good summer if I concentrate on the good stuff. I think I drifted off a bit there....
04-17-2017, 02:07 PM #12
04-17-2017, 02:10 PM #13
Ok so what if I eat at maintenance and throw some cardio in? Right now I don't do anything, just lift.
04-17-2017, 08:31 PM #14
Any chance to walk instead of drive, especially now that it's getting warmer,
everything counts. Best is if it's something you like to do as well.
Got a dog? Do walks with your GF, and so on.
But yeah, cardio would be the methodical way. Light cardio.
04-17-2017, 09:49 PM #15
Regardless, caloric deficit is caloric deficit and simple physics dictates that you will lose body mass, both fat and muscle. For example, one pound or fat is 3600 calories. To gain a pound of Muscle you need to consume about 3500 calories, not counting the calories burned in exercising to do so. So you can in theory exchange body fat with muscle in a 1-1 ratio. This is called changing your body compensation. If you wanted to do this, you need to keep your calories slightly above maintenance. To factor in metabolic waste, energy to break down food and so on.
Edited original post see Asterisks
Last edited by MuscleScience; 04-18-2017 at 08:43 AM.
04-18-2017, 08:30 AM #16
Amazing, you guys are awesome, thank you all for your input. I'll def put up a post of my lean bulk progress and see just how far I was able to go.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)