Low dose cycles--Truth and myth.

[dazbo]

bb79,

Thank you, man, for the compliment and for your input on this thread.

I have only done one cycle. I used testosterone (200-250mg per week [I hit 300mg for one week]). My next cycle is going to be a stack of EQ and Test.

By reasonable, I mean 10-15 lbs* of non-water weight muscle in 10-12 weeks. As opposed to 20-25* in 10-12 weeks on high doses.

*--NOTE: Of course this is while on a strict diet, adequate rest and, intense training.

Im not meaning to flame in any way but I remember early this year, I read a post you put, along with before and after pics of yourself Bask8kace. The thing is, you say you have only done ONE cycle but from what I remember, Im sure you've done more than 1 cycle. I didnt know if I was right so I looked through all your posts. Now I cant find any of the posts I previously read with your before and after pics on. You also discuss a lot about the different types you were using such as EQ, Var, dbol , Prop and even HGH.

Where are those pics now as well as the posts i had read before ???

Im not meaning to sound like a twat but Im just curious aso to where they have gone and why you only say you've done one cycle?? Ive always liked your posts and ALWAYS found them very informative and you've helped me out back then when I was just researching AAS early this year.

I also remember your before and after pics and there was a hell of improvement. You went from a skinny (I mean really skinnY) man to a guy that looked well over 200lbs (Even tho you were 185lbs I beleive at the time. This also leads me to one other thing, regarding this post on low dosages.

I did LOW DOSE CYCLE OF SUS250MG AND DECA 200MG PER WEEK. (Sorry for caps!) But my start and end weight was exactly the same, I had a good diet of which I posted on here before to be criticised (Over 400g prot, carbs and over 5000cals) and am very experienced and know enough to have good training and dedicaation. So that low dose cycle did NOTHING for me. Hence I beleive one thing. The post below is all to do with why I think you, and many others, responded so well to low dose cycles. This is just my oppinion and if others think Im far wrong, then please tell me and thats the last Ill say about this and I apologise in advance! I beleive I got to my genetic limit (190lbs, 10% BF, 5'10", age 23 - been at that for nearly 2 yrs pretty much) And, thats one reason why i beleive I didnt gain much. Heres that post anyway -


Guys who gain 25-30lbs per cycle...

God I can see me getting blasted for this !! Please dont get me wrong, its just how I feel about it and Im happy to leave it and say nothin else so as not to offend as that is not intended!!

[BigJAKE]

Very nice post. Thanks for all the info!

[Italian Stallion]

If you've read some of my posts, you probably already have seen that I advocate suggesting low doses for beginners (being one myself). Why jump into 600mg per week of test as a first or second cycle when it is highly likely you will get great gains using 200-300mg (in initial cycles)?

I keep seeing people write that 200mg of testosterone per week does nothing more than shut down a man's natural test production and bring him near "normal levels"--this is not quite correct. This incorrect statement has endured probably because someone wrote down thier idea/theory of what happens in the body, it sounded good, and other people repeated it. But, it is not correct. (I explain why it is incorrect below).

I was paranoid about side effects of testosterone on a normally functioning body, so I had my blood levels checked while on 200-250mg per week. The results of the tests indicated that the amount of testosterone in my blood was more than twice the high end of the normal range (The normal free testosterone range is 50.0-210.0 pg/ml*. My levels were found to be near 550 pg/ml). I also talked to my doctor and UPJOHN nurses a lot about using testosterone at these doses. Here's a brief bit of what I've learned from my doctor, the UPJOHN nursing staff (UPJOHN is the manufacturer of Depo-testosterone a.k.a Testosterone Cypionate ), and professional medical documents:

*--NOTE: pg/ml is the correct unit notation.

Using a long acting ester testosterone (CYP and ENAN) does not mimic the normally functioning male body's circadian rhythm (daily rise and fall of testosterone). Testosterone, in a normally functioning body, does not explode up to high levels then gradually fall over a 1-2 week period as it does when injecting a testosterone such as CYP or ENAN. On the contrary, the body produces a small amount each day which is far below 200mg (It's around 10mg). That small amount is concentrated at the beginning of the day and then falls low by the end of the day. This process repeats itself every day and by the end of two weeks, a normally functioning body produces approximately 140mg of testosterone (appx. 70mg per week).

The use of long acting esters are in theory supposed to slowly release the testosterone over a two week period, but this is not quite what happens. To keep it simple, the delay of the esters actually allows large amounts of testosterone to build up--especially if you are taking 200mg every week as opposed to once every two weeks (biweekly) which is what the dose is supposed to be. (I'm simplifying here). Remember the "normally functioning" male produces only (appx.) 70mg per week (=140mg per two weeks). The dose doctors are recommended to perscribe is 200mg every 2 weeks (biweekly), but they tend to give 200mg every week.

So, it is fallacious reasoning to compare the TOTAL amount of testosterone produced in daily spurts in a normally functioning body over a 2 week period to the same amount of testosterone injected in one shot at the beginning of a week and reshot every week (before the previous week's dose is used up). The latter case (injections once per week) results in an overlap and build up of dose which causes the levels of testosterone to be HIGHER than normal. (Remember the shots should actually be 200mg every TWO weeks--not every week). These excess levels of testosterone are sufficient to build lean body mass faster than the "normally functioning" male.

In other words: addding up what the average male body produces per week then comparing that to the amount that is shot every week is like comparing apples to oranges. There is a whole diferent set of advantageous reactions happening in the body when it is given a full
2-week load (200mg) at the beginning of a week as opposed to getting naturally occuring, small, daily spurts of appx 10mg over the same period of time (2 weeks).

This is why a low dose cycle can yeild REASONABLE gains. Understand, I'm not talking mega-huge-fast gains. I'm talking noticably-faster-than-normal gains, which when coupled with a strict diet, sufficient rest and an excellent bodybuilding work ethic, can yeild large, solid gains (especially early in a person's cycle experience).

that's the story

[DEVLDOG]

Also the topic was low dose for BEGINNERS, not someone who has alot of cycles under their belt.

no bro...read it again..TOPIC "LOW DOSE CYCLES,TRUTHS AND MYTHS"

and i have no interest in what the NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE says..that info is no good for what we use it for...like i said and i will say it again.just for you..I never claim to know the science behind it,I just state what works for me...and I have no interest that you are 41 yrs old bro.that means nothing to me.im 34.been doing this since i was 17...this isnt a pissing contest.i would just like to see the facts to "HARD" statements made.if I/we took everything everybody swears they know and just believed it.then we'd know a whole lot of nothing....I did say i didnt disagree with some of what you said,i just ask for you to post something to back it up..RE: the pituitary problem you state that the so called giants have that secrete too much gh...last time i ck'd coleman is only 5'10"..not exactly a giant and is said to take about 20ius(i cant confirm that) of gh daily...

[Property of Steroid.com]

Take more gear and you gain more. Thats the "Truth" part of this thread. As for the "Myth," part, I'll leave that to someone else...


Basically, here are some studies showing proof-positive that higher doses are directly correlated with more muscle gained and less fat lost. I know this generally falls into the "no-shit-Sherlock" category.... but here they are:

J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004 Feb;89(2):718-26.


Dose-dependent effects of testosterone on regional adipose tissue distribution in healthy young men.

Woodhouse LJ, Gupta N, Bhasin M, Singh AB, Ross R, Phillips J, Bhasin S.

Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Molecular Medicine, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science, Los Angeles, California 90059, USA.

Testosterone supplementation reduces total body adipose tissue (AT), but we do not know whether the effects are uniformly distributed throughout the body or are region specific, or whether they are dose related. We determined the effects of graded doses of testosterone on regional AT distribution in 54 healthy men (18-35 yr) in a 20-wk, randomized, double-blind study of combined treatment with GnRH agonist plus one of five doses (25, 50, 125, 300, or 600 mg/wk) of testosterone enanthate (TE). Total body, appendicular, and trunk AT and lean body mass were measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, and sc, intermuscular, and intraabdominal AT of the thigh and abdomen were measured by magnetic resonance imaging. Treatment regimens resulted in serum nadir testosterone concentrations ranging from subphysiological to supraphysiological levels. Dose-dependent changes in AT mass were negatively correlated with TE dose at all sites and were equally distributed between the trunk and appendices. The lowest dose was associated with gains in sc, intermuscular, and intraabdominal AT, with the greatest percent increase occurring in the sc stores. At the three highest TE doses, thigh intermuscular AT volume was significantly reduced, with a greater percent loss in intermuscular than sc depots, whereas intraabdominal AT stores remained unchanged. . LoweIn conclusion, changes in testosterone concentrations in young men are associated with dose-dependent and region-specific changes in AT and lean body mass in the appendices and trunk Lowerring testosterone concentrations below baseline increases sc and deep AT stores in the appendices and abdomen, with a greater percent increase in sc depots. Conversely, elevating testosterone concentrations above baseline induces a greater loss of AT from the smaller, deeper intermuscular stores of the thigh.





And since I'm on a roll, here's a study showing that you gain more muscle on higher doses of testosterone:


Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2003 May;284(5):E1009-17. Epub 2003 Jan 07.

Development of models to predict anabolic response to testosterone administration in healthy young men.
Woodhouse LJ, Reisz-Porszasz S, Javanbakht M, Storer TW, Lee M, Zerounian H, Bhasin S.

Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Molecular Medicine, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science, 1731 E. 120th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90059, USA.

Considerable heterogeneity exists in the anabolic response to androgen administration; however, the factors that contribute to variation in an individual's anabolic response to androgens remain unknown. We investigated whether testosterone dose and/or any combination of baseline variables, including concentrations of hormones, age, body composition, muscle function, and morphometry or polymorphisms in androgen receptor could explain the variability in anabolic response to testosterone. Fifty-four young men were treated with a long-acting gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist and one of five doses (25, 50, 125, 300, or 600 mg/wk) of testosterone enanthate (TE) for 20 wk. Anabolic response was defined as a change in whole body fat-free mass (FFM) by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), appendicular FFM (by DEXA), and thigh muscle volume (by magnetic resonance imaging) during TE treatment. We used univariate and multivariate analysis to identify the subset of baseline measures that best explained the variability in anabolic response to testosterone supplementation. The three-variable model of TE dose, age, and baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level explained 67% of the variance in change in whole body FFM. Change in appendicular FFM was best explained (64% of the variance) by the linear combination of TE dose, baseline PSA, and leg press strength, whereas TE dose, log of the ratio of luteinizing hormone to testosterone concentration, and age explained 66% of the variation in change in thigh muscle volume. The models were further validated by using Ridge analysis and cross-validation in data subsets. Only the model using testosterone dose, age, and PSA was a consistent predictor of change in FFM in subset analyses. The length of CAG tract was only a weak predictor of change in thigh muscle volume and lean body mass. Hence, the anabolic response of healthy, young men to exogenous testosterone administration can largely be predicted by the testosterone dose.

J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 1991;40(4-6):607-12.

Comparison of the effects of high dose testosterone and 19-nortestosterone to a replacement dose of testosterone on strength and body composition in normal men.

Friedl KE, Dettori JR, Hannan CJ Jr, Patience TH, Plymate SR.

Exercise Physiology Division, U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, MA.

We examined the extent to which supraphysiological doses of androgen can modify body composition and strength in normally virilized men. In doubly blind tests, 30 healthy young men received testosterone enanthate (TE) or 19-nortestosterone decanoate (ND), at 100 mg/wk or 300 mg/wk for 6 weeks. The TE-100 mg/wk group served as replacement dose comparison, maintaining pretreatment serum testosterone levels , while keeping all subjects blinded to treatment, particularly through reduction in testicular volumes. Isokinetic strength measurements were made for the biceps brachii and quadriceps femoris muscle groups before treatment and 2-3 days after the 6th injection. Small improvements were noted in all groups but the changes were highly variable; a trend to greater and more consistent strength gain occurred in the TE-300 mg/wk group. There was no change in weight for TE-100 mg/wk but an average gain of 3 kg in each of the other groups. No changes in 4 skinfold thicknesses or in estimated percent body fat were observed. Of 15 circumferences, significant increases were observed only for men receiving TE-300 mg/wk (shoulders) and ND-300 mg/wk (shoulders and chest). The data suggest that high dose androgens increase body mass and may increase strength in normal men but, except for a consistent weight gain with greater than replacement doses, the detectable changes were highly variable and relatively small, especially in comparison to the significant alterations which were observed for other markers of androgen action.

Ann Nutr Metab. 1991;35(3):141-7.


Dose-dependent effects of an anabolic steroid, nandrolone phenylpropionate (Durabolin), on body composition and muscle protein metabolism in female rats.

Choo JJ, Emery PW, Rothwell NJ.

Department of Nutrition, King's College, London, UK.

The effects of three doses (1, 4 and 10 mg/kg body weight) of an anabolic steroid , nandrolone phenylpropionate (NPP), on body weight and composition, and muscle protein metabolism were investigated in female rats. Daily injections of 1 mg/kg of NPP for 10 days caused a significant increase in weight gain which was associated with an increase in body protein (9%) without affecting body fat. At higher doses this effect on body weight was attenuated, resulting in no change in body weight at 10 mg/kg. However body protein content was still increased (9%) whereas body fat content was significantly reduced (32%). NPP did not affect metabolizable energy intake at any dose tested. Body energy gain and gross energetic efficiency were both significantly reduced in animals treated with a dose of 10 mg/kg. The mass and protein content of gastrocnemius muscle were significantly increased in animals injected with NPP at all doses. Muscle protein synthesis measured in vivo was also significantly stimulated at 1 and 4 mg/kg but was not affected at 10 mg/kg. These data confirm an anabolic action of NPP and suggest highly dose-dependent effects on other parameters such as body weight, fat deposition and muscle protein synthesis.

[TomPlatz]

I'm a moron.

[DEVLDOG]

GOOD post Hook....you the man!

[Property of Steroid.com]

Thanks. Actually, those are all (100%) from an Edu thread I made on High doses being Better, at www.bodybuilding4life.com ....

[righton]

no bro...read it again..TOPIC "LOW DOSE CYCLES,TRUTHS AND MYTHS"

and i have no interest in what the NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE says..that info is no good for what we use it for...like i said and i will say it again.just for you..I never claim to know the science behind it,I just state what works for me...and I have no interest that you are 41 yrs old bro.that means nothing to me.im 34.been doing this since i was 17...this isnt a pissing contest.i would just like to see the facts to "HARD" statements made.if I/we took everything everybody swears they know and just believed it.then we'd know a whole lot of nothing....I did say i didnt disagree with some of what you said,i just ask for you to post something to back it up..RE: the pituitary problem you state that the so called giants have that secrete too much gh...last time i ck'd coleman is only 5'10"..not exactly a giant and is said to take about 20ius(i cant confirm that) of gh daily...

Whoa bro...read the first sentence of what he said. The word "beginners" is right there! And i do understand the science behind it because i'm in a field that requires indepth contact with the med community. And since when does someone who has 17yrs of cycles behind them have no idea of the science behind of what their putting into their body? That sounds like sheer stupidity!! And the hard facts are right there in numerous studies in NEJM but it looks like you don't want to do the simple research and just stick to the "show me or shut up" attitude. Theres a previous thread where the kid was going to cycle against everyones advice even though he had no idea of the "science behind it", sounds stupid huh??? And being 41yro and RESEARCHING and being in my field has given me alot of "experience and knowledge".

[Property of Steroid.com]

Whoa bro...read the first sentence of what he said. The word "beginners" is right there! ".

Even for a beginner, a low-dose cycle is not optimal, IMO.

[hulkzer]

Even for a beginner, a low-dose cycle is not optimal, IMO.

how many mg's would you consider a low dose cycle.
thx
zer_

[righton]

Even for a beginner, a low-dose cycle is not optimal, IMO.

What would be considered low dose..100,200mg? Anything above "replacement doses"(avg 70mg/wk) would be more than enough for"increased protein synthesis" in the average person. Not that it would be optimal for everyone(e.g. large structured or well built ppl) but for the average 180lb novice. And there would be a point of "diminishing returns" not so much as loss of or no muscle development but there would be too much extraneous test(large doses) for the limited muscle receptors in such an individual(novice) and a waste of gear,imo.

[Property of Steroid.com]

I consider low doses to be 200-300mgs, as stated in the original post....

[Property of Steroid.com]

What would be considered low dose..100,200mg? Anything above "replacement doses"(avg 70mg/wk) would be more than enough for"increased protein synthesis" in the average person. Not that it would be optimal for everyone(e.g. large structured or well built ppl) but for the average 180lb novice. And there would be a point of "diminishing returns" not so much as loss of or no muscle development but there would be too much extraneous test(large doses) for the limited muscle receptors in such an individual(novice) and a waste of gear,imo.

No. I'm talking about optimal, not good or good enough....Good enough isn't good enough for me. I want optimal results.

And...without being rude, I want you to know that almost everything in your post is incorrect. I don't know how else to say it, and I hope you won't be offended...

I can only say that up to 600mgs/week (as in one of the studies I posted) produced much better results than 300mgs/week....which produced better results than 150mgs/week, and so on....and the side effects were all basically the same, regardless of dose.

Also..."limited muscle receptors in a novice"? What does that mean. You are (of course) aware that testosterone increases the prolifiration and number of androgen receptors in your body, right?

Also, some steroids (anadrol for example) don't work on the receptor to produce their results.

[taiboxa]

Even for a beginner, a low-dose cycle is not optimal, IMO.

wow i was gettin worried that maybe all my high doses were acts of retardation ...

[gooroo]

Im currently in week 8 of a 400mg a week dose split into mondays and thursdays at 200mg a pop. Is this a low dose cycle? I would think so. Test-e by the way. Thats all im running cause its my first time. So far its been a 12 or 15 lb gain, and too me I cant see it. I think its cause I have grown slightly all over. I think my legs have grown some.

[taiboxa]

Im currently in week 8 of a 400mg a week dose split into mondays and thursdays at 200mg a pop. Is this a low dose cycle? I would think so. Test-e by the way. Thats all im running cause its my first time. So far its been a 12 or 15 lb gain, and too me I cant see it. I think its cause I have grown slightly all over. I think my legs have grown some.

err i think LOW would be UNDER 400 since usually people run 400-500 first time.

[righton]

No. I'm talking about optimal, not good or good enough....Good enough isn't good enough for me. I want optimal results.

And...without being rude, I want you to know that almost everything in your post is incorrect. I don't know how else to say it, and I hope you won't be offended...

I can only say that up to 600mgs/week (as in one of the studies I posted) produced much better results than 300mgs/week....which produced better results than 150mgs/week, and so on....and the side effects were all basically the same, regardless of dose.

Also..."limited muscle receptors in a novice"? What does that mean. You are (of course) aware that testosterone increases the prolifiration and number of androgen receptors in your body, right?

Also, some steroids (anadrol for example) don't work on the receptor to produce their results.

I wish i knew how to paste certain parts of quotes, anyways never offended. Prehaps you can show the better results from the larger dose part of the study i can't seem to find it. As for the limited receptors, most being on the muscle fiber itself someone with small muscle mass would use only a certain amount of AS as opposed to someone with large muscle mass until that mass increases and more receptors are available. Also i don't see how my previous post was incorrect?

[j martini]

Hooker do you think that you would ever reach a point that you where using so much that increasing the dose would have no effect.

For example someone using 4000mg of test as opposed to 5000mg.

[Property of Steroid.com]

I wish i knew how to paste certain parts of quotes, anyways never offended. Prehaps you can show the better results from the larger dose part of the study i can't seem to find it. ?

The parts showing that are in the studies posted above, in color and bold....did you notice those parts?

As for the limited receptors, most being on the muscle fiber itself someone with small muscle mass would use only a certain amount of AS as opposed to someone with large muscle mass until that mass increases and more receptors are available.

Thats not how it works. In fact, in the studies by Minto et. al. Height was more relevant to determining anabolic response to steroids than weight.

Also i don't see how my previous post was incorrect

Your part about limited muscle receptors is wrong.

I think you are going off "board knowledge" and don't know how receptors actually work...

[Property of Steroid.com]

Hooker do you think that you would ever reach a point that you where using so much that increasing the dose would have no effect.

For example someone using 4000mg of test as opposed to 5000mg.

Yes. It's certainly nowhere near the low-dose-spectrum though.

[righton]

Hooker...i'm talking about muscle mass not weight. Muscle fibers(and organs) contain receptors, therefore more muscle mass means more receptors this is definitely not "board knowledge" and as muscle mass increase so do receptors not unlike cell division itself! The more receptors the more androgens needed to saturate them! And as for the bold type, there are various interpretations.

[bmg]

no matter what dose a person starts at, more and more will always be required further down the road to continue gains (and im not talking about regaining previouly made gains) untill a final plateau is reached. so what exact dose a person starts at really doesnt make to much of a difference. this debate is nearly pointless.

[Property of Steroid.com]

You can have an increase in receptors without an increase in weight or muscle mass.

And as for the bold parts, every one of them shows more muscle gained and more fat lost with higher doses...there's no interpreting to be done. Every case shows that higher doses produced more gains. I'm fond of "interpreting" them as per the English Language....

What do you "interpret" them as saying? Something different?

[BUYLONGTERM]

I have done a lot of personal experimentation on this subject. first a little backround on me. I grew up with low test levels. I think thats the main reason I was/am a very hard gainer. All my cycles have been over 16 weeks. Now, My first cycle I did a very low dose cycle. I virtually changed my body. If anyone has seen my before and after pics, you would know what I"m talking about. 2nd cycle, I started with low dose and bumped it up because I wasn't happy with my results. I talked with a lot of great bro's and we thought It was because of diet. Well, I tweaked my diet and though my results werre a little better I was still wasn't happy with any cycle after that. I finally decided to do around 1.5g. After several weeks, I didn't see that great of an improvement. So, I went up to 2g a week. Thats when I finally saw a jump. I think I'm a rare casse because I do NOT respond well to any steroids . I did 75mg of DBOL and wasn't impressed. It takes at least 75-100mg of Winstrol to see anything. I do NOT bloat or get sides on test even at 2g!! I honest to god do not gain one ounce of water weight. I don't even get "shrinkage". I don't need NOLVA, I don't need HCG . (YES, my gear is real). To this day, I would love to know why It takes me big doses to get big. I have been on TEST for about a year now and I think that has a lot to do with it, but again, I can see both sides of this debate. Beginners I think should be able to see great results at low doses.

BLT

[gooroo]

thats amazing

[dragon69]

hey bro...what is your body weight?? i have my own theories on dosages and for me at 290lbs..200-250mg/week is useless...it's more like 3-4g/week to maintain and grow.but like i always say..this is what i need to grow...someone 100lbs lighter would no doubt benefit off much less....the bigger you get the more you need...of everything..gear,cals,rest,training...

so how about a powerlifter like me 5'10" @ 225lbs (don't know BF, maybe 15%), lifting 18years with a past 500 bench (365 current) 19" arms (20+ in the past-cold) and a steriod virgin? I've planned on 500 test, but I'm scared of sides (since even though I'm like way bigger than most I seem to respond to meds pretty strongly) like gyno, dick drop, FAT etc that I've heard about. Should I use 250 or 500 test?

[taiboxa]

test give you very lil sides and an ungodly sex drive or so it does for most prolly best start your own thread though

anyways i feel sorry for BLT thats gotta suck to have to use so much gear to get minimal results hope you found a stupid cheap source for powders...

[righton]

You can have an increase in receptors without an increase in weight or muscle mass.

And as for the bold parts, every one of them shows more muscle gained and more fat lost with higher doses...there's no interpreting to be done. Every case shows that higher doses produced more gains. I'm fond of "interpreting" them as per the English Language....

What do you "interpret" them as saying? Something different?

I'd like to see on which muscles these receptors are being increased(not including smooth muscle.e.g heart,prostate.) and they are not increasing in size or mass...impossible! Also by interpretation i mean the statements in bold do not say anything about a SUBSTANTIAL (not just 2-4lbs)increase in relation to higher doses.So a beginner can do a low dose cycle and put on 25-30lbs(average) and have a solid foundation for large dose cycles down the road.And common logic dictates that any excess androgens will not be utilized if all receptors are saturated and the only way to increase receptors is with time so a beginners cycle would not have to be a high dose cycle! (Unless that person is a large frame or with above average muscle mass!)

[DEVLDOG]

I'd like to see on which muscles these receptors are being increased(not including smooth muscle.e.g heart,prostate.) and they are not increasing in size or mass...impossible! Also by interpretation i mean the statements in bold do not say anything about a SUBSTANTIAL (not just 2-4lbs)increase in relation to higher doses.So a beginner can do a low dose cycle and put on 25-30lbs(average) and have a solid foundation for large dose cycles down the road.And common logic dictates that any excess androgens will not be utilized if all receptors are saturated and the only way to increase receptors is with time so a beginners cycle would not have to be a high dose cycle! (Unless that person is a large frame or with above average muscle mass!)

receptors are like any other cell in your body and die off and regenerate every 30 days or so(i could be wrong on time frame here) that receptor saturation idea has been proven a myth(again,i dont have anything concrete to post so someone help me out here.but it has been yrs since this was the belief)
as far as the # skeletal muscle cells...AAS cause hypertrophy(the enlargement of those cells) what you are refering to is hyperplasia(growth of new cells...IE form..GH via IGF) so a larger muscled person doesnt nesacerally have to have more cells per muscle then someone not as big.his cells have just become larger thriough training and supplimentation.

HOOK....did i get that right...I'M tired and need to sleep

oh...and if a beginner puts on 25-30lbs his first cycle..atleast 50%of that is water weight...ATLEAST!

[DEVLDOG]

leave it to BASK8KASE to bring up these indepth fact finding threads ..haha

[humpymuscle]

it would be nice if this alternative low dosing was presented on the main website, instead of the 500mg they suggest for a 'novice' cycle. i know personally i did wayyy too much test for my first few cycles, and if i knew then what i know now, i think i would have saved a lot of money and had less sides.

[lavaman]

I think you would be wasting your money on a low dose for a first time cycle.
My first test-c cycle was 500 a week and I had no sides at all.

[Property of Steroid.com]

it would be nice if this alternative low dosing was presented on the main website, instead of the 500mg they suggest for a 'novice' cycle. .

I'll tell you why it isn't:

We, the staff at AnabolicReview, strive to provide the most optimal advice possible....and the alternative "low dosing" that is presented here will provide some gains...but is far from optimal. There are many boards that provide average advice, and good advice...but AR provides optimal advice whenever possible. And in this case, we feel that 500mgs/week of test would provide a beginner with optimal gains and minimal sides.

If you want average or good advice....AR isn't the place for you....AR is the place to get the best advice....optimal advice.

[BG]

I started at low doses to make sure my body took to AS, and when it did I stayed at low dosages for 5 weeks, no results, atleast nothing near what I know normal people would expect. Most people who I see come on this site say, I want 10-15 lbs. of lean muscle, well your not going to get that from 200mg a week, I ended up bumping up dosages in order to get some gains. Now for 5 weeks I stuck myself and wasted gear and money. Not so say that when you change dosages I got many of the sides, especially acne, and now ended up doing a 15 week cycle cuz just started to get gains. Now I believe Hookers view is to recomend 500 mg to start is that at that dosage you will get your desired gains, in a shorter time frame, with less sides which in return will be the safest way you can start with AS. Just saying this cuz I didnt listen and totally screwed up my first cycle and now relize just what they were getting at with the 500mg to start. JMO, NY

[taiboxa]

I started at low doses to make sure my body took to AS, and when it did I stayed at low dosages for 5 weeks, no results, atleast nothing near what I know normal people would expect. Most people who I see come on this site say, I want 10-15 lbs. of lean muscle, well your not going to get that from 200mg a week, I ended up bumping up dosages in order to get some gains. Now for 5 weeks I stuck myself and wasted gear and money. Not so say that when you change dosages I got many of the sides, especially acne, and now ended up doing a 15 week cycle cuz just started to get gains. Now I believe Hookers view is to recomend 500 mg to start is that at that dosage you will get your desired gains, in a shorter time frame, with less sides which in return will be the safest way you can start with AS. Just saying this cuz I didnt listen and totally screwed up my first cycle and now relize just what they were getting at with the 500mg to start. JMO, NY

umm.. unless you were taking prop or jump starting w/ dbol .. it takes about 5 weeks to kick in so umm prolly shoulda been patient if you really wanted to test out the low dose ordeal

[Mighty Joe]

We are all so different aren't we....

[BG]

umm.. unless you were taking prop or jump starting w/ dbol .. it takes about 5 weeks to kick in so umm prolly shoulda been patient if you really wanted to test out the low dose ordeal

I know how long it kicks in, and it took another3 or 4 weeks after I up the dosages , When starting out at a higher dosage, or even front loading, my boys started to kick in at 3 weeks. you totally missed my point to give a snide remark. My point being, average person starting AS wants to gain 10 to 15 lbs of keepable muscle, there is no way your going to get that at low dosages, and most likely will up thedosages mid way to get better results, hench causing more sides and not being as safe as starting with a higher dosage. NY

[taiboxa]

dood im all for the 500+ dosages but nothing over 1g IMO unless your just unlucky like that and have to use it.
but yeah w/ low doses its like 2 steps forward 1 step back and your kinda rack back to where you coulda been w/ a perf diet and training regiment w/o the toll on your body... if im going to do it im going to run foward as far as possible before i take my few steps back

[BG]

dood im all for the 500+ dosages but nothing over 1g IMO unless your just unlucky like that and have to use it.
but yeah w/ low doses its like 2 steps forward 1 step back and your kinda rack back to where you coulda been w/ a perf diet and training regiment w/o the toll on your body... if im going to do it im going to run foward as far as possible before i take my few steps back

Absolutly with a lot less scaretissue to avoid next time around when injecting!!!