Where does the truth lie?

**beatango2008** · 12-23-2006, 03:35 PM

I got this from another site but thought it was interresting so i'm posting it.

I have heard so much conflicting advice on steroid use I wouldn't even know where to start. Just FYI, I've never done a cycle and I don't know if I ever will, but I'm certainly considering it. I just want to get as clued up as possible before I even think about jamming a needle in my arse.

First off is the bodyfat issue. I was told (and I believe) that you should get your bodyfat as low as possible before cycling, as you're no doubt gonna put a bit of fat on (if you're dieting properly) while bulking. Also, some have suggested that fat inhibits the effect of steroids as some of the substance actually gets stored in fat and is not utilised by the body. Despite this, I constantly hear of fat guys (>20% BF) going on multiple hardcore steroid cycles. These are some of the same blokes with 1000's of posts to their name on various forums, constantly talking-the-talk. Are these blokes just doing it wrong, or doesn't it really matter? No matter the answer to this question, I'm still going to get right down to ~10% before I even think about a cycle. But I'm just curious as to the answer.

Next is the issue of getting as big as you can naturally before doing any cycles. This is something I'm truly confused about. I am constanty hearing the claim, "you should fulfil your natural potential before using steroids". But the questions is, Why? In practise, I've never seen or heard or one single guy that has actually done this (excpet that "rumsteel" guy that posts here, if he is actually natural in his 'before' pictures).

Why do you have to fulfil your natural potential? Is it because "drugs are bad, mkay" and you shouldn't do any drugs unless you absolutely have to? Or is it because of some other practical reason (such as "they're less effective if you're not as big as you can be already")? As a side-note, I'd be very curious to see the "before - steroid free" pictures and the "after steroid use" pictures of anyone here who claims they reached their natural potential before dosing. Post them here.

Another contentious issue is that of "light cycles". People are always saying you have to have a test-based cycle. You shouldn't be doing steroids if you don't do it properly, other cycles are a waste of time and money. These are forum moderators and experienced users saying this sort of stuff. But then you hear from the bodybuilders of yesteryear. Guys like Reg Park, who apparantly put on 30 pounds on winstrol only, and Arnie himself, who claims to have used dianabol orally and that's all! I recently spoke to a 46 year-old bodybuilder who competed successfully throughout the early eighties and late seventies. He said in those times that 200mg of ethanate/week was a big dose. He also said that most of his bulking cycles were on deca -durabolin -only or rarely stacked with a measly 15mg of d-bol. Nowdays you hear such claims as "200mg of ethanate is only enough to shut down your own testosterone levels and will be counter-productive", and that a deca-only cycle would be a "complete waste of time", "d-bol is only effective at doses above 30mg" (a dose that this older bloke claims would have been enormous in the 70s and 80s). Other times I hear of forum users who have claimed to have put on over 20 pounds using winstrol-only, and even huger gains using equipoise -only. Considering the similarity with testosterone , surely an equipose-only cycle would have a moderate effect? Apparantly not.

Are todays ironmen taking too high a dose, as I've heard older blokes claim repeatedly? Or are today's blokes just more up to date scientificly? Are these older guys lying about what they took? Is it that experienced steroid users (with the mentality that it's best to get HUGE) scoff at the average-joe who only has moderate goals, and thus tell him that these "light" cycles are ridiculous, or is it the case that these cycles actually are ridiculous? If so, then why? And why are the old guys lying about what they took (as they would have to be if the lighter cycles are ridiculous)?

When people ask me, I always say that they should use a test-based cycle, but I am also quick to point out that I'm a novice and don't really know the details. I'm just parroting what I read in some FAQ without even knowing the reasons. Surely light cycles are going to have some effect!? It couldn't be a case of either, "go hard and get HUGE" or, "you're just wasting your time", one or the other. Is there no middle ground? Or do pumped-up steroid-verterans just despise people who aim for that middle ground because it is actually possible to get there naturally, and thus considered "cheating"?

My personal belief is that steroids are extraordinary drugs, and should only be used for those aiming for extraordinary results, so they shouldn't be used to get "moderate" gains that could be obtained naturally. If I ever cycle, it will be - with my present knowledge and way of thinking - a testosterone based cycle. Nevertheless, I'd like to know there is some scientific reason why these "light cycles" should not be used, as I've seen this claim posted by mods and other very experienced users again and again. The only explanation I have managed to get so far is "because it's stupid", or "it will be ineffective". But if it was ineffective it would mean those old bodybuilders are all liars. Or maybe I have just been misinformed (which could very well be the case!)

Searching for knowledge...

**Snrf** · 12-23-2006, 03:42 PM

good post

**DNoMac** · 12-23-2006, 03:42 PM

Whats the point of this thread? Are you looking to have these questions answered? These questions and assumptions aren't big mysteries (i.e. why wait to reach your genetic potential, why do most people recc including test), they're common knowledge of AAS. I don't even use AAS and I know the answers to these questions. Clearly the person who originally posted this has not done much research.

**beuleux** · 12-23-2006, 03:54 PM

The guy who wrote it is quite articulate and has given it some thought if not research, personally I think he does, has done or wants to do the light cycles he talks about and just wants an argument and is looking for a mod or experienced user who disagrees with him, he has the cover story of "these blokes" to fall back on and can chicken out at any time without losing the argument because its never his in the first place.

But I could be wrong of course... Infact I didnt even say all that... this bloke did

**crash187ct** · 12-23-2006, 03:55 PM

sounds more like a blog post lol

**Snrf** · 12-23-2006, 04:04 PM

I think he makes a good point, he's basically demonstrating how much of what is said on these kind of sites is speculation, rumour, halftruth and parroted info.

**beatango2008** · 12-23-2006, 04:14 PM

Snrfmaster Ditto.

SVTMuscle* · 12-23-2006, 05:10 PM

Regarding dosages, thats true, how insanely large the dosages have increased in the past few decades. 250-500mgs a week of Test was alot, nowadays thats a mild cycle!

**Snrf** · 12-23-2006, 05:16 PM

haha yeah I suppose.

first timers running a cycle Arnie would be scared of!

Although it could be (and probably is) BS about what small cycles they used to run, think about it...it makes them look more manly if they claim they got huge like they did off 250mg of test e/wk and 15mg dbol a day....

**beuleux** · 12-23-2006, 05:19 PM

Personaly I have never done more than 500mg of anything so that is a big dose to me, but I have read posts from guys in there that do 1000mg+

**guest589745** · 12-23-2006, 05:47 PM

More is more. You want to be big you have to think big.

As far as "test based" I don't believe in that for myself personally. Some compounsd are more anabolic than androgenic and nice versa, some activate the adrogen recptors by different means so including multiple coumpounds, while having its possible negative side effects, have a higher potential to be more successful. So having testosterone as the BASE, implying this is where the majority of your gains will be coming from, isn't practical in my experience. It is merely a precautionary measure.

The bodyfat issue can cause complications if you do not know what you are doing and don't get bloodwork. Bloodwork will tell you exactly what needs to be done ie, estrogen levels will tell you if you need to up the arimidex or lower it etc etc. Lipolysis is promoted by sterod use in fact, fat cells contain androgen receptors which are activated/increased in number by steroids and in turn help promote fat loss.

We all take calculated risks but the more you know, the better off you are.

**Bigcalves122** · 01-11-2007, 06:21 AM

bump

***perfectbeast2001*** · 01-11-2007, 06:53 AM

the reason the guys in the 70s only used certain compounds is because there wasn't much else available. The more knowledge we gain the safer we can make AS. Im willing to bet those guys on deca only cycles who competed (i know a few myself) are now suffering or have suffered from some pretty unpleasant sides and are possibly on TRT. In the 70s PCT was unheard of, doesn't mean its not a good thing now though!!
I dont advise you must have reached genetic limits to use AS but I do think you should have had at the very least an EXCELLENT diet and dedicated training regime for at least a couple of years before AS has any value. AS will not add much muscle without these two factors. It is not a quick fix.
I dont see that there are any severe consequences if AS is used without a good base apart from a lot of money being wasted.

SVTMuscle* · 01-11-2007, 08:56 AM

I suppose I should add, do not forget we are in a day and age, where everyone wants something bigger and better. No one is satisified, (nearly) everyone is spoiled compared to the 50's-70's. In our case, the thing we want bigger and better is out bodies. Not 26 inch rims, not 10 sub's in an SUV, not a 10,000 square foot home, but rather to be bigger and better than everyone else physically. While most of us would enjoy those possessions, we don't have the burning desire for those as we do for our bodies.