New Steroid Effectiveness Chart?

[vitor]

Well i really don't know if this thread is going anywhere.. Reason is nobody has done every AAS out there so nobody can compare all AAS..



AleX

I have done every AAS out there.
Exept masteron , a drug I didnt list either.

[AleX-69]

sry then this was not to offend you bro, but i think you see my point nevertheless,.. There aren't many with your expierence.. and if someone posts his "10s" with only 4-5 compunds expierece, this could alter the whole chart in a negative way.

[SMAN12b]

^^ttt^^

[Property of Steroid.com]

I've done nearly every steroid out there....and I think that if we take my experiences, plus the experiences of the people on this board, and combine that with the anabolic ratings of various steroids , we'll end up with a very accurate and viable chart.

Keep the answers coming...

[BG]

Well i really don't know if this thread is going anywhere.. Reason is nobody has done every AAS out there so nobody can compare all AAS..

So for somebody Var rates 10 on strength (maybe because he hasn't tried other AAS) while for some others D-Bol or Halo rank 10. I for myself would skip all those "personal" expierences and go by the profiles and general consensus. This would be a more accurate Effectiveness Chart than some "uncomplete" user expierences mixed together.

AleX

Did you not read all of the post before you posted this? This is for newbie's to get an idea of what compounds will give them the results they are looking for. Then they can post their questions in the forum and get everybodys personal experience then make their decision. Thats what these forums are all about, giving information so that they can build a useful and safe cycle.BG

[Johnny Test]

Unless it is in fact accurate then and only then is it helpful. Opinions don't do shit but misleads people. Facts are useful. You don't have facts unless you have a controlled environment.

[AleX-69]

Unless it is in fact accurate then and only then is it helpful. Opinions don't do shit but misleads people. Facts are useful. You don't have facts unless you have a controlled environment.

that is exactly what i wanted to say...

and BG of course i read the whole thread and if you would have read it carefully you would have seen that i posted several times within this thread. And the fact that this chart is for newbs is no reason to let it be inaccurate or sth..
Maybe you also misunderstood my post i don't want opinions within these charts i would like to see facts. And it is rather hard to obtain "facts" concerning some steroids . Well, who has run tren alone and can evaluate its effectivness compared to test alone? Most haven't ... But what most users do - and i am no exception - is run to 2 or more compunds together. So it is rather hard to attribute one effect soley to a certain steroid . Maybe the steroid on its own would have a less prounounced effect and is only SO effective because of a synergistic action with another steroid...That is a lot of "woulds" and "ifs" but you get my point i suppose.

Nevertheless i think an updated steroid effectiveness chart is a good idea. That is why i posted some of my steroid ratings on the first page of this thread. And if there is some sort of control mechanism - i.e. AR - i think one will indeed see a rather accurate and improved chart.

and if i came across to harsh in the above paraghraph - BG - don't take it to serious.

AleX

[BG]

that is exactly what i wanted to say...

and BG of course i read the whole thread and if you would have read it carefully you would have seen that i posted several times within this thread. And the fact that this chart is for newbs is no reason to let it be inaccurate or sth..
Maybe you also misunderstood my post i don't want opinions within these charts i would like to see facts. And it is rather hard to obtain "facts" concerning some steroids . Well, who has run tren alone and can evaluate its effectivness compared to test alone? Most haven't ... But what most users do - and i am no exception - is run to 2 or more compunds together. So it is rather hard to attribute one effect soley to a certain steroid . Maybe the steroid on its own would have a less prounounced effect and is only SO effective because of a synergistic action with another steroid...That is a lot of "woulds" and "ifs" but you get my point i suppose.

Nevertheless i think an updated steroid effectiveness chart is a good idea. That is why i posted some of my steroid ratings on the first page of this thread. And if there is some sort of control mechanism - i.e. AR - i think one will indeed see a rather accurate and improved chart.

and if i came across to harsh in the above paraghraph - BG - don't take it to serious.

AleX

I got you buddy, its not the bible, its to help steer newbs in the right direction so when they start posting questions they have a bit of an idea and are more likely to get more infomative answers.BG

[Swifto]

So what I'm basically looking for right now, is for everyone to tell me their perfect 10's. In other words, for fat loss, for strength gains, for weight gain, and for side effects, what would everyone rate as a 10? What's the most effective AAs you have ever used for those purposes?

I'm also going to factor in various steroids Anabolic Ratings to the ratings, and the androgenic ratings into some of the numbers as well, so there is a subjective portion to this (Steroid.com members ratings) as well as an objective portion (scientifically determined anabolic/androgenic ratings).

I'd rate Test Prop far higher for actual lean gains than Test Enan. There's a start...

[Swifto]

For mass, Deca /Anadrol have to be 10, or near abouts.

[BG]

I'd rate Test Prop far higher for actual lean gains than Test Enan. There's a start...

You dont say .

[Swifto]

You dont say .

.....Was that obvious....

[BG]

.....Was that obvious....

BIG time.

[Duke of Earl]

It might be good to include a few everyday products like tylenol, alcohol, caffein & cigarettes etc so newbies have some 'real world' reference point for toxicity and sides etc (this is not a joke )

tylenol
mass 0
strength 0
gyno / bloat 0
fatloss 0
cost 1
sides (liver) 5

alcohol
mass 0
strength 0
gyno / bloat 3
fatloss -3
cost 1
sides (liver, heart, lipids) 6

cigarettes
mass 0
strength 0
gyno / bloat 1
fatloss 2
cost 1
sides (lungs, heart, lipids etc) 7

caffeine
mass 0
strength 1
gyno / bloat 0
fatloss 2
cost 1
sides (bp) 1

most people dont really realise that there are risks when taking virtually any medicine ( including rec 'medicine' ) so it would be good to put things into perspective when they see scary stuff like ''liver damage'' or heart disease as possible sides

[guest589745]

lol.

[BG]

lol.

I second that.

[Property of Steroid.com]

Unless it is in fact accurate then and only then is it helpful. Opinions don't do shit but misleads people. Facts are useful. You don't have facts unless you have a controlled environment.

Actually, I do have "facts". I have the anabolic rating of every steroid ever created. Those ratings were determined in a lab, and a controlled environment. Are they "factual" enough, to meet your criteria?

Those "facts" rate Halotestin as 19.5x as anabolic as testosterone . Would you agree? Or does the experience of literally hundreds of AAS users weigh more heavily in this kind of thing- I am inclined to say that since nobody has (ever) gained 19.5x as much weight off Halotestin as Testosterone, that "controlled environment facts" are actually LESS useful than real-world experience. Has anyone ever gained more weight off Anavar than testosterone? No. But it's got a higher anabolic rating, which was determined in a controlled environment. Misleading? Yes. Fact? Yes. Controlled environment? Yes. More useful than real-world feedback, from real users? Hardly.

[Johnny Test]

Like I said

I think the list posted now is pretty dam accurate.

I agree with you totally. Judging from the facts is not a flawless approach. But I think that by using real-world experience you might leave yourself open to more bios opinions than one would desire.

For example:
A.) Ask a person who has done one cycle his whole life. Say it's a sust 250 cycle, naturally he had good gains being his first cycle and all. He did everything correctly. So he was very pleased with the outcome of his cycle. Now this cycle changed his life socially, it gave him confidence, a few more hotties and so on. When this person is asked what he considers a 10 naturally he's going to say Sust. Is Sust a 10? No. But for him it was.

B.) Lets take the same person, same cycle. He did everything the same except he had a sh*tty diet. His out come was not the same. Good gains but lost everything. Again this is his first cycle. Maybe this guy tried something else next. He decides to try a D-bol only cycle. But this time he uses a correct diet and does everything correctly (if there is a way to do a D-bol only cycle correctly) because his diet was in check he might have better out come than with the sust. Giving it a higher rating. Most people know that a Sust only cycle would be much better than a D-bol only cycle. But because of the situation he gives the D-bol a higher rating.

Other determining factors:
C.)His genetics might be different
D.)His Age (from one cycle to the next, or one person to the next)
E.)His Diet (absolutely)
F.)His Routine (from one cycle to the next, or one person to the next)
G.)Whether or not it's the persons first cycle or not would have an effect.
H.)His PCT (from one cycle to the next, or one person to the next)
I.)Dosage (from one cycle to the next, or one person to the next)
J.)what were there goals? (from one cycle to the next, or one person to the next)
k.)Did they expect to gain lean or mass? (from one cycle to the next, or one person to the next)
Alter or change anyone of the above factors and you change the indivials outcome from the cycle. And more importantly! his opinion of the cycle.

When I said

we really need a lab.

What I meant was a professional company the can afford to create a controlled environment. With the proper test subjects and professionally monitor there diets, there routines, there PCT exc. In order to do the testing in a correct fashion. Naturally with hundreds of subjects. I did not necessarily mean a lab that would check the actual anabolic properties of the individual drugs. Just a lab that would and could create this controlled environment as needed.

Again there still might be loopholes in this system as well. But after enough subjects you come up with a more educated guess. I think, (and this is just me) that there are far too many variables to consider when just asking someone for there opinion. I mean come on, there are far too many, newbs, slackers or just bios persons on this board to get an accurate reading on this subject.

Now I know that this is not going to happin. Maybe if people were asked to provide more details about there experiance. Or better yet fill out a form asking the right questions. then we would talkin. But to allow someone to just blert out the word sust or deca ? Thats just not smart. And to any newb a dam chart is as good as gold. I think when posting a chart it should be takin very seriously!

No offence to anyone! We're just talkin here! Peace

[twiney]

I would like to see PGF2a in the list.

[Property of Steroid.com]

Judging from the facts is not a flawless approach.

There is no flawless approach. In this case, I'm going to combine experience with science. I think this is the best of both worlds. Even the "perfect" scenario you have proposed as would be the most accurate way to create such a chart has numerous and I would argue, fatal, flaws with it's design. You failed to take into account the level of training of the athlete, whether it is a first time user of the compound in question (or others, or whatever anabolic agent), whether they're stacking multiple compounds, etc...and adding PCT into the equation only further makes it inaccurate, as adding in multiple post-cycle compounds only adds more variables, not less....

I know that personally, I have tried almost every steroid alone and with a consistent dose of test prop, and followed the same diet each time, for my own experience.

So...

Yeah. Don't worry. The chart will take into account the (literally) hundreds of studies that I have read on the topic, as well as the subjective experience of real, steroid using athletes in this poll, as well as my own meticulous records on each compound and the results I've gotten from it.

The will be as accurate as possible, and be, in fact, accurate enough to allow people to make educated decisions about which steroids , relatively, will produce what kind(s) of results.

We can all speculate as to what mitigating or aggravating factors would perhaps make the chart less accurate, and be stymied into inaction by timid ignorance, which typically attempts to hold back progress- or we can focus on making the chart as accurate as possible.

I, for one, choose to push forward the body of knowledge we have on anabolic steroid use by athletes, and choose the latter- you, apparently have chosen the former.

[Duke of Earl]

What I meant was a professional company the can afford to create a controlled environment. With the proper test subjects and professionally monitor there diets, there routines, there PCT exc.

Nice idea but unfortunately this won't ever happen
To conduct this sort of research you'd need a large pharmaceutical company to run and manage the project - however this wouldn't happen unless they had a vested interest ( ie monopoly ) in the compounds involved.....

Even from a pharmaceutical giants perspective this sort of study would be insanely expensive - it takes years & hundreds of millions of dollars to trial even one compound, so trying to trial say 20-30 compunds would need the annual income of a small country.

I think the only practical way to get an acccurate picture is to get as much 'anecdotal' evidence from real world users but balance that info with the background of each individual ( ie cycle, compound & training experience, dedication etc ) for it to be useful it just requires some honesty from everyone.

[Dying Wail]

[Merc..]

There is no flawless approach. In this case, I'm going to combine experience with science. I think this is the best of both worlds. Even the "perfect" scenario you have proposed as would be the most accurate way to create such a chart has numerous and I would argue, fatal, flaws with it's design. You failed to take into account the level of training of the athlete, whether it is a first time user of the compound in question (or others, or whatever anabolic agent), whether they're stacking multiple compounds, etc...and adding PCT into the equation only further makes it inaccurate, as adding in multiple post-cycle compounds only adds more variables, not less....

I know that personally, I have tried almost every steroid alone and with a consistent dose of test prop, and followed the same diet each time, for my own experience.

So...

Yeah. Don't worry. The chart will take into account the (literally) hundreds of studies that I have read on the topic, as well as the subjective experience of real, steroid using athletes in this poll, as well as my own meticulous records on each compound and the results I've gotten from it.

The will be as accurate as possible, and be, in fact, accurate enough to allow people to make educated decisions about which steroids , relatively, will produce what kind(s) of results.

We can all speculate as to what mitigating or aggravating factors would perhaps make the chart less accurate, and be stymied into inaction by timid ignorance, which typically attempts to hold back progress- or we can focus on making the chart as accurate as possible.

I, for one, choose to push forward the body of knowledge we have on anabolic steroid use by athletes, and choose the latter- you, apparently have chosen the former.

Well said Anthony and I totally agree!!! Thanks for giving 100% of your knowledge and also getting the feedback from other experienced users to make this a truly accurate chart... This is why you and your books are so successful because you always give 100 % of yourself and always take the time to actually listen to others( best of both worlds as you said could not be a more fitting statement) .. I think this is one reason you are leading the field in the anabolic industry because most others( authors) think they know it all and you realize that everyone can still learn from eachother and you take the time to listen to what experienced users have to say and in my opinion thats what sets you ahead of the rest.... Keep up the great work my friend!!!

[BUDGIE]

when we rate the steroids how do we take the dosing into consideration. i.e standard dosing for d/bol is 20-50mg wheras 20-50mg of eq = 140-350p/w, do we use this pound for pound or work it out in standard beginers doses?

[Property of Steroid.com]

when we rate the steroids how do we take the dosing into consideration. i.e standard dosing for d/bol is 20-50mg wheras 20-50mg of eq = 140-350p/w, do we use this pound for pound or work it out in standard beginers doses?

Mg for Mg. In other words, consider what would happen if you took 100mgs of just one particular steroid , per day, and rate it for strength gains, fat loss, weight gain, and side effects accordingly.

The chart, to be successful, has to meet 2 criteria:

1. Be more accurate than any other chart on the same topic
2. Be as accurate as possible

Getting the first criteria met shouldn't be too much of a problem. The rough draft I already have been working on is going to be the most accurate one ever made.

The second criteria is a bit more difficult, because although I'm using some studies and hard data (anabolic /androgenic ratings), I'm also using alot of subjective data too.

Also, alot depends on how I combine the information I'm given. For example, although test prop causes less water retention than test cyp, the question is do I factor that into the "Side effects" category, or the weight gain category, or both? Or do I make all of the testosterone 's basically have the same ratings, because we have to think about what would happen if you shot Testosterone Propionate with the same dosing schedule (100mgs/day) as Enanthate , and would the water retention be the same if you had a dosing schedule that was the same?

Some of this is going to be dependant on anabolic/androgenic ratio and study information (all testosterone's have the same anabolic/androgenic rating), how much feedback I receive, and how I think that the information would be most accurately portrayed in a table/chart.

That's why I'd really appreciate everyone's help and support with this project. Together, the membership on this board have helped me write a book already, with their valuable feedback and support (and some of them even supported the book with their own work/research/writing)- so I don't think that producing an accurate chart on the effectiveness of various steroids is going to be too difficult if we all contribute something worthwhile to it's production.

[guest589745]

I wanna see this thing........

Is it gonna be put in with the book and a new updated version released or anything like that?

[Property of Steroid.com]

I wanna see this thing........

Is it gonna be put in with the book and a new updated version released or anything like that?

Right now, there's plans for a quite a few new profiles to be put into the updated book, as well as some of the stuff I've written for the main page. I personally like the "How to inject" article, the "History of Steroids " and the "Steroid Side Effects" articles, and hope they make it into the new book. Me and Brian need to sit down over a few beers and figure out what makes the cut and what doesn't. We're also thinking about F-ing around with the Font and margins and stuff, to keep it at 400 pages, in order to keep the price the same from year to year.

[Property of Steroid.com]

Unless it is in fact accurate then and only then is it helpful. Opinions don't do shit but misleads people. Facts are useful. You don't have facts unless you have a controlled environment.

Fact: Eq aromatizes at roughly 250% the rate of Deca

Fact: The more something aromatizes, the more water retention it causes

Fact: Eq causes less water retention than Deca

Fact: Facts are misleading unless they are backed by experience

I know the literature on AAS backwards and forwards....I'd like to hear everyone's experiences....otherwise, we'd have a chart that says Eq causes more water retention than Deca....which the literature supports, but we all know to be untrue.

[Johnny Test]

The collection and utilization of data are the fundamental underpinnings of research. If the data are not collected, recorded and interpreted properly, and with full integrity, they are useless. The following are just a few quotations from the extensive literature on this subject.

‘The integrity of data and, by implication, the usefulness of the research it supports, depends on careful attention to detail, from initial planning through final publication”
“ The responsible conduct of research includes considerations that begin even before data collection begins. Carefully designing the study so as to identify what data will be needed helps assure that resources are not wasted and that significant results can be obtained. The time to correct problems in data collection methods is before the data are collected. . . Because data collection can be repetitious, time-consuming, and tedious, its importance can be underestimated. Care should be taken to assure that those responsible for collecting data are adequately trained and motivated, that they employ methods that limit or eliminate the effect of bias, and that they keep records of what was done by whom and when."
“Research misconduct include errors in judgment or mistakes in the recording, selection, analysis or interpretation of data . . . Between error and misconduct lies a range of attitudes and behaviors such as carelessness, negligence, reckless disregard and deliberate disregard in the handling of research results that, while not falling within the scope of research misconduct, nonetheless are quite corrosive to the research establishment.”
Boston University






Like I said
Quote:
I think the list posted now is pretty dam accurate.

I agree with you totally. Judging from the facts is not a flawless approach. But I think that by using real-world experience you might leave yourself open to more bios opinions than one would desire.

For example:
A.) Ask a person who has done one cycle his whole life. Say it's a sust 250 cycle, naturally he had good gains being his first cycle and all. He did everything correctly. So he was very pleased with the outcome of his cycle. Now this cycle changed his life socially, it gave him confidence, a few more hotties and so on. When this person is asked what he considers a 10 naturally he's going to say Sust. Is Sust a 10? No. But for him it was.

B.) Lets take the same person, same cycle. He did everything the same except he had a sh*tty diet. His out come was not the same. Good gains but lost everything. Again this is his first cycle. Maybe this guy tried something else next. He decides to try a D-bol only cycle. But this time he uses a correct diet and does everything correctly (if there is a way to do a D-bol only cycle correctly) because his diet was in check he might have better out come than with the sust. Giving it a higher rating. Most people know that a Sust only cycle would be much better than a D-bol only cycle. But because of the situation he gives the D-bol a higher rating.

Other determining factors:
C.)His genetics might be different
D.)His Age (from one cycle to the next, or one person to the next)
E.)His Diet (absolutely)
F.)His Routine (from one cycle to the next, or one person to the next)
G.)Whether or not it's the persons first cycle or not would have an effect.
H.)His PCT (from one cycle to the next, or one person to the next)
I.)Dosage (from one cycle to the next, or one person to the next)
J.)what were there goals? (from one cycle to the next, or one person to the next)
k.)Did they expect to gain lean or mass? (from one cycle to the next, or one person to the next)
Alter or change anyone of the above factors and you change the indivials outcome from the cycle. And more importantly! his opinion of the cycle.

When I said
Quote:
we really need a lab.
What I meant was a professional company the can afford to create a controlled environment. With the proper test subjects and professionally monitor there diets, there routines, there PCT exc. In order to do the testing in a correct fashion. Naturally with hundreds of subjects. I did not necessarily mean a lab that would check the actual anabolic properties of the individual drugs. Just a lab that would and could create this controlled environment as needed.

Again there still might be loopholes in this system as well. But after enough subjects you come up with a more educated guess. I think, (and this is just me) that there are far too many variables to consider when just asking someone for there opinion. I mean come on, there are far too many, newbs, slackers or just bios persons on this board to get an accurate reading on this subject.

Now I know that this is not going to happin. Maybe if people were asked to provide more details about there experiance. Or better yet fill out a form asking the right questions. then we would talkin. But to allow someone to just blert out the word sust or deca ? Thats just not smart. And to any newb a dam chart is as good as gold. I think when posting a chart it should be takin very seriously!

No offence to anyone! We're just talkin here! Peace

[Johnny Test]

I can see you are still sweatin it. Relax man everything will be fine.

[Swifto]

The collection and utilization of data are the fundamental underpinnings of research. If the data are not collected, recorded and interpreted properly, and with full integrity, they are useless. The following are just a few quotations from the extensive literature on this subject.

‘The integrity of data and, by implication, the usefulness of the research it supports, depends on careful attention to detail, from initial planning through final publication”
“ The responsible conduct of research includes considerations that begin even before data collection begins. Carefully designing the study so as to identify what data will be needed helps assure that resources are not wasted and that significant results can be obtained. The time to correct problems in data collection methods is before the data are collected. . . Because data collection can be repetitious, time-consuming, and tedious, its importance can be underestimated. Care should be taken to assure that those responsible for collecting data are adequately trained and motivated, that they employ methods that limit or eliminate the effect of bias, and that they keep records of what was done by whom and when."
“Research misconduct include errors in judgment or mistakes in the recording, selection, analysis or interpretation of data . . . Between error and misconduct lies a range of attitudes and behaviors such as carelessness, negligence, reckless disregard and deliberate disregard in the handling of research results that, while not falling within the scope of research misconduct, nonetheless are quite corrosive to the research establishment.”
Boston University

This isnt a college/university essay to become a brain surgeon. Its a chart on Anabolic Steroids effects on human models.

I think someone HAD to say that...

[Johnny Test]

Its a chart on Anabolic Steroids effects on human models.

Yah your right! Similar to the analysis of the different flavors of ice cream. Piece of cake!

[BG]

Johnny test I believe you are looking into this waaaaaay to much. Do you think Anthony's going to take the post here and make a chart.....NO. This is clearly to get some hands on experience and use it for whats its worth. If he were to make a chart with out, you would say "hey Johnny Test wants to know why you didnt get the members input". AR has enough books and studies to go on and is just looking for a bit of hands hands on info to add. As for this chart being as good as gold to newbs, would you rather have them look at this chart which is nearly perfect then have an idea or just jump into the forum asking questions and shit advice from some newb parrot?BG

[Johnny Test]

or just jump into the forum asking questions and shit advice from some newb parrot?BG

Absolutely not! Fact is I agree the chart posted is nearly perfect.

When I began posting in this thread I simply gave my opinion on the subject because some were just blurting out what they felt was good.

Well some people apparently took offense, and began getting upset.

Actually, I do have "facts". I have the anabolic rating of every steroid ever created. Those ratings were determined in a lab, and a controlled environment. Are they "factual" enough, to meet your criteria?

I felt that Alex made a good point when he said

Well I really don't know if this thread is going anywhere.. Reason is nobody has done every AAS out there so nobody can compare all AAS..

So I gave my 2 cents

I now feel that egos have been affected and criticizing my posts as a result leads me to trying to prove what I’ve posted

Like I said “I feel that the chart posted is nearly perfect” I have a copy printed out from a dam year ago. Good job brother! I can’t wait to see the new one.

I’m done here Peace!

[BG]

Mission accomplished , back to gathering USEFUL information. BG

[Property of Steroid.com]

Further input? I'm giving myself about 1 more week to finish the chart, so feel free to chime in with 1-10 ratings in any area you feel would be helpful, and on any steroid you have used.

[BG]

^^^^ for more info.

[Bear-StrengthWithin]

sorry but i saw the steriod effectivenis chart on steriod.com and halotestin is only rated 2 stars for strength wtf? This is very misleading halo is one of the best compounds for strength.

[No One Knows]

i personally dont think this should be done.. no offense though

I don't see why not? They ARE steroids ...

[Anabolic CEO]

Can't wait to see the finished product!!!