Low dose post from Elite (The way pros used to cycle)

[I R Baboon]

Great thread!!

[ChefJ]

outdated everyone knows that those guys never came off their gear they stayed on year round and most are paying for that abuse now if they are not dead already. We know much more about these chemicals then we did at that time. It was 40 years ago.we were'nt even on the moon yet. I do agree that some people use to much gear, but you cannot compare Arnold or Lou to Ronnie and Jay. There mass differences are extremely obvious.

[I R Baboon]

If you are on an extended lower dose cycle is it still time on=time off?

[Pork Chop]

outdated everyone knows that those guys never came off their gear they stayed on year round and most are paying for that abuse now if they are not dead already. We know much more about these chemicals then we did at that time. It was 40 years ago.we were'nt even on the moon yet. I do agree that some people use to much gear, but you cannot compare Arnold or Lou to Ronnie and Jay. There mass differences are extremely obvious.

I haven't read about any sickness epidemic plaguing 70's bodybuilders caused by roid use.

What sets Ronnie and Jay so far apart from Arnold or Lou?

[UrbanLegend]

1-Cent,

Although you mentioned 250mg per week of test, I'd like to point out that 200mg per week of a long lasting ester of testosterone such as cypionate or enanthate is equivalent to MORE than twice what your body produces naturally. There's no reason a new steroid user cannot grow on a weekly dose of 250mg testosterone if his diet, rest and training intensity are in order.

I'm not arguing that this is not true, but I think the mentality of some people is "If I'm going to risk my freedom, $, and invest all this time and effort into doing a propper steroid cycle, I want GAINS"

Smaller cycles may not be *worth* it to some people. Just from a risk vs. reward point of view.


That being said, I think this is more of a thought in the back of some guy's heads than the actual mentality for most people. Most of the big cycle mentality is because they want to be big, and don't think small dosses will cut it. And especially I think that isn't true if you are new to this thing, small(er) dosses could keep working for you for years to come. Heck, I'm doing great just with beta agonists right now, you'd be amazed how far you can go without using steroids . And combining just a little more anabolic hormone is most likely all you'll need if you have everything else in order. Depending on your goals of course.........

[ChefJ]

I haven't read about any sickness epidemic plaguing 70's bodybuilders caused by roid use.

What sets Ronnie and Jay so far apart from Arnold or Lou?

about 100 pounds of pure muscle

[BASK8KACE]

I want Bask8kase to reply to my post. Im not trying to argue but thought I had some valid points. Beat me into submission as you will bask8kace. Im intrested in this topic because I would like to think I can start moving into lower doses with consistant gains. But I need some more valid infoi. Im 255lbs as of right now. Ive been as heavy as 277lbs and would like to be a 300lb monster. how would you suggest I do this without increasing my doses.

Please explain, Once again hands down your more intelligent than me and am just here so learn. I just need it explained to me for my goals.

If you want me to PM you bask8kace i will because I want your opinion as to what to do next.

Once again Im not wanting to debate you ( im not in a position to) I just want to continue to learn how to be more productive.

Anhydro,

Anyone can debate/argue a point. Just because I'm a VET on the board doesn't mean you have to agree with everything I say.

One of the reasons I post is to spark discussions.

Regarding your questions:

1. I do believe that the earlier bodybuilders used less steroids than the ones today. The advances in steroids, increased knowledge of the body and changes in the way elite bodybuilders use steroids makes a huge difference.
2. Elite bodybuilders are monitored closely and are on steroids just about year round. So they MUST increase thier doses to the point where they are using mega doses to continue to grow. I posted a study from the University of Maryland regarding homeostasis and why it is necessary to increase doses while on long cycles or when you take very short breaks between cycles.
3. Regarding your personal situation: Anhydro78, if you want to find out if the lower doses work for you, try it. That's the only way you'll know. I have every intention of running a high dose cycle--EVENTUALLY. But, I'm not going to run higher doses until I stop making good gains on low and moderate doses.
4. If you're pursuing a life as a competitive bodybuilder, then you should definitely consider huge doses and cycling year round.

I think people have misunderstood what I've been saying about low doses. Here are some points to read through carefully if you want to understand:

1. I have NEVER said or implied that by using low and moderate doses that someone can become as large as the elite bodybuilders. (But how many people are truly looking to become as huge as the elites?) However, I have said that while using low and moderate doses that someone can become D*MN huge--impressively huge.

2. I have said that more is not better AND whether you use high doses or not depends largely on your goals. If a person is not planning to compete or is not really planning to become as huge as the elite bodybuilders, then he should quit trying to cycle like the elites and start using the tools available in ways that more directly address his true goals. High doses is not the only way to cycle successfully or effectively. There are some guys on this board that are very big and have used low and moderate doses only.

A lot of people have misunderstood my comments about fat. To clarify:

1. Outside of elite competitors or those climbing the competition ladder, I have not seen people gain much more than 10-25 lbs of solid mass on any cycle. It seems that those who claim to consistently gain more than 25 lbs on a cycle leave out the fact that the 35 or 40 lbs they gained included 20 lbs of fat and water weight. Sometimes that extra fat and water weight are needed while bulking. But I don't like it when that entire gain is represented as "more muscle." I just want the misrepresentations to stop.

I never said that all high dosers are fat. But, I did say that those who claim to constantly gain 35 or 40 lbs per cycle omit how much of that gain is fat.

Regarding the myth that more is always better:

1. A lean 20-pound gain on a cycle is impressive whether you're on low or high doses. I can gain a lean 20 lbs on a cycle using low doses and there are many more here that could do the same if they concentrated on diet and quit trying to increase thier doses to compensate for an inadequate diet. As long as I make those gains, I'm not going to increase my doses.

2. If a person can gain 20 lbs on a cycle of low doses, then why would he want to use high doses? According to the more is better arguements, it seems that the low dose cycler who is getting 20lb gains should expect more gains on more gear. I don't agree with that--I don't agree that he'll suddenly gain much more than 20 lbs on a cycle if he uses more gear. To reiterate...a lean 20 lbs gain on a cycle is a very good gain whether on high or low doses.

I just want both sides of the story told.

Regarding support for low dose arguements:

1. I've posted a ton of info on low doses. If you want more info, search. I'm not going to rehash every point here that has already been written out clearly and hotly debated in other posts.

[100%NATURAL-theGH]

who knows what they really used... I seriously DOUBT it was as low as that... and I bet a lot of prows are pushing 3 grams a week of test and a few more grams of their other drugs of choice... some insulin and GH... that sounds about right... and back in the day they probably only did a third of that minus the gh and insulin and that is about what I think they used.... but who really knows?

[Pork Chop]

Regarding your questions:

3. Regarding your personal situation: Anhydro78, if you want to find out if the lower doses work for you, try it. That's the only way you'll know. I have every intention of running a high dose cycle--EVENTUALLY. But, I'm not going to run higher doses until I stop making good gains on low and moderate doses.

Low doses will work for everyone. In every case the gains will be short term and minimal; how minimal is dictated by the amount of juice administered.

1. I have NEVER said or implied that by using low and moderate doses that someone can become as large as the elite bodybuilders. (But how many people are truly looking to become as huge as the elites?) However, I have said that while using low and moderate doses that someone can become D*MN huge--impressively huge.

If someone gets D*MN huge on a low dose, that person will likely get GROSSELY OBSCENELY huge on a high cycle.

[b] High doses is not the only way to cycle successfully or effectively. There are some guys on this board that are very big and have used low and moderate doses only.

.

I think it is the only way to cycle successfully or effectively. If you're going to deny yourself the full potential available from a proper cycle, you may as well not bother. The same could be said about protein intake, nutrition or sleep or discipline at the gym - i'm not advocating extreme acts here, just taking full adavantage where it's available.

2. If a person can gain 20 lbs on a cycle of low doses, then why would he want to use high doses? According to the more is better arguements, it seems that the low dose cycler who is getting 20lb gains should expect more gains on more gear. I don't agree with that--I don't agree that he'll suddenly gain much more than 20 lbs on a cycle if he uses more gear. To reiterate...a lean 20 lbs gain on a cycle is a very good gain whether on high or low doses.

Because the gains stop at 20 (generally speaking). If you want more, you gotta use more. If beyond 20lbs the individual increases the dose by half, what happens to it? Since he gained 20lbs no more gains can be made and the rest is wasted and pee'd in the toilet?

BASK*KACE,
If you're making great gains on your low dose cycle, i think you haven't yet reached your physical peak yet. I think you could get just as big or real close to it without the juice.

Don't hate me cause what i'm saying is different.

[Anhydro78]

Thank you for the time you put into the reply to my questions Bask8kace. I like I have said before like my Androgens for athletic performance. But am starting to think my doses of Test and Deca , ect... Can be lowered when I start HGH and IGF-1 therapy next year. I really dont experiance much of any side effects from drugs that I take regularly. But at the rate that im increasing my doses in a couple years It will seem stupid to take any more gear than I am now.

I agree with you on most points that you make, but the only thing that I think we differ on is goals. I cant compete because of my chest. I have huge lats and traps with decent arms but my pecs are under developed. I use to compete in power lifting but had to stop due to a back injury.

[BASK8KACE]

BASK8KACE,
If you're making great gains on your low dose cycle, i think you haven't yet reached your physical peak yet. I think you could get just as big or real close to it without the juice.

Don't hate me cause what i'm saying is different.

Pork Chop,

I have abolutely no problem with our having a difference of opinion. I appreciate the fact that you have stated your point of view without making it a personal issue.

I firmly disagree with you on several of your points, especially the one in which you talk about my physical peak. Perhaps over several years I could have reached my current condition naturally, but there is no way I could have reached this weight as fast as I did without steroids .

I think it's wrong to encourage people to use high doses of steroids too soon. Once a person makes the decision to use steroids , it's way too easy for him/her to go overboard by stacking ridiculous amounts of steroids if s/he is encouraged only to use high doses. There's a time and a place for high doses. However, too many people use high doses far sooner than necessary and for the wrong reasons (Usually doses are raised too soon when a person doesn't get good results from a cycle and immediately blames the dose when an inadequate diet almost always is to blame).

There are too many people on the board who could gain quite well on far less gear.

Cheers.

[Property of Steroid.com]

Lets be honest here...the guys we're talking about (competitors from the 60's-early 80's) would have a hard time qualifying for the NPC's, and would hardly finish within the top 5 in a national amateur contest. The guys from the 60's and early 70's would be struggling to win a regional BB-ing show.


Times (and dosages) move on....

[100%NATURAL-theGH]

wow... maybe some of them but there is no way you can take anything away from ARNOLD... he may not have been HUGE... but regional or amateur contests he would have NO problem... his symmetry alone would let him win.

[WS6_KID]

Interesting thread...good read

Just throwing an opinion out there.....

I believe the body builders of today are superior to those of Arnolds age. I mean this in a competing sense (onstage) Body building is about who presents the most size, symetry, vascularity.... I'd favor the physique of Markus Ruhl over Frank Zane any day. But then again i'm all about pure ripped mass..the bigger the better

Just my 2 cc's

[Sage]

going simply by numbers overlooks the obvious which is the quality of the gear u r running....

QV test/deca are known tobe under-dosed so should the person not run it at 400mgs/200mgs, but instead up the dose to actually get the full 400/200 in his upcoming cycle?....i would say most definitley that being a reason...

[Cuttup]

good azz post

[Cuttup]

****,..i have my first cycle coming up soon,..500mg per week of test e and 30 mg of dbol per day,..you got me worried now,..da#n it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bmwrob]

bump for all to read

[Property of Steroid.com]

****,..i have my first cycle coming up soon,..500mg per week of test e and 30 mg of dbol per day,..you got me worried now,..da#n it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't be worried. Thats a nice first cycle.

[So-Solid]

this may have already been said.......(i havent read the entire thread so i dont know).........but i think we need to remember that most of theses pros` you are talkin about already had a head start with their genetics....so low doses were probably all they needed to enhance what was already there.For guys who are a little less gifted.......200 deca and 20 dbol aint gonna get them very far is it.

[bignatt]

Question for Bask8kace if you were to run a low dose test e cycle say 300mg/wk would you do the dose in 1 shot or divide it?

[BASK8KACE]

Question for Bask8kace if you were to run a low dose test e cycle say 300mg/wk would you do the dose in 1 shot or divide it?

You can take that all in one injection.

A general rule of thumb for long lasting esters: Anything less than a weekly dose 400mg can be taken in one dose. Anything greater than or equal to a weekly dose of 400mg should be divided into at least 2 weekly injections.

[MIKE_XXL]

You forgot to mention Flex Wheeler.

The ultimate physique in my eyes. Very small bone structure with perfect muscular symetrical muscle bellies.

ANd flex has also been reported to use low doses early in his carere...i agree one of the best phisiques ever, but he was much better earlier then later in his carere...i think more drugs made his loose some of his edge...XXL

[MIKE_XXL]

Lets be honest here...the guys we're talking about (competitors from the 60's-early 80's) would have a hard time qualifying for the NPC's, and would hardly finish within the top 5 in a national amateur contest. The guys from the 60's and early 70's would be struggling to win a regional BB-ing show.


Times (and dosages) move on....

However they looked healthier and were healthier...todays guys look very ran down and a lot of them by the time they turn pro have very short careres because of the over use of the drugs...do you honestly think if they cut their doses in half they would be much smaller...i think NOT...maybe 5lbs less on stage, i don;t think all that gear is worth it...and we must keep in mind that 99.9% of people on here have no desire to be Pro's or look like Ronnie Colman...we must be careful what we advocate here...XXL

[MIKE_XXL]

Bask8 great post Bro...i am behind you 100% on the lower doses...might take a bit longer to get the gains but you will be healthier and the gains will much more sustanable...great post again!
XXL

[bignatt]

You can take that all in one injection.

A general rule of thumb for long lasting esters: Anything less than a weekly dose 400mg can be taken in one dose. Anything greater than or equal to a weekly dose of 400mg should be divided into at least 2 weekly injections.

Thanks for the info

[Jackman]

You can take that all in one injection.

A general rule of thumb for long lasting esters: Anything less than a weekly dose 400mg can be taken in one dose. Anything greater than or equal to a weekly dose of 400mg should be divided into at least 2 weekly injections.

why is this true? if the half life is 3.5 days then why should you take it all in one dose?>

[ChefJ]

I think he is talking about longer test esters like test e and cyp. Not prop or suspension

[Jackman]

I think he is talking about longer test esters like test e and cyp. Not prop or suspension

i know what hes talking about but i wana make sence on why the frequency of injections would change with the dose. The blood levels will fluctuate doing 500mg 1 time a week just as doing 300mg 1 time a week would it not?

[Sharky72]

Funny subject... I am currently hitting 250 a wk of cyp. On my 5th week and have gained 10pnds already, which is about what i gained my entire 16 week cycle last year.. The reason I decided for the low dose is basically right on with what baske8face's belief is. Why take more when less may be better! i'll keep you posted during the next few weeks...

[The Baron]

There is a threshold level of steroids that you need to do in order to acheive a noticeable anabolic effect.

The range with test- 200 mg a week and up
Decca- 200mg a week and up

Decca, when tested in rats, produced nil effect up to a certain level, then from that level on produced results. If you go below a certain level, nothing.
Check the recommended doses in steroid profiles...the lower figures are usually the minimal amounts required for effect, go below and nothing.

Naturally. Remember that the HPTA is depressed by the presence of exogenous testosterone , so up to a point you are simply replacing endogenous with exogenous. Until you build up a level in the body that is significantly higher than natural, you aren't doing anything. So the first bit is basically not doing anything at all for you. The threshold value is obviously that amount that FINALLY starts to give a significant increase over natural levels.

[The Baron]

However they looked healthier and were healthier...todays guys look very ran down and a lot of them by the time they turn pro have very short careres because of the over use of the drugs...do you honestly think if they cut their doses in half they would be much smaller...i think NOT...maybe 5lbs less on stage, i don;t think all that gear is worth it...and we must keep in mind that 99.9% of people on here have no desire to be Pro's or look like Ronnie Colman...we must be careful what we advocate here...XXL

I would definitely NOT want to look like Ronnie Coleman! That gut is disgusting! I would most like to look like Frank Zane, I think, in his prime. Maybe Ah-nold. Jeez that guy had a tight waist to be so big!

[The Baron]

Lets be honest here...the guys we're talking about (competitors from the 60's-early 80's) would have a hard time qualifying for the NPC's, and would hardly finish within the top 5 in a national amateur contest. The guys from the 60's and early 70's would be struggling to win a regional BB-ing show.


Times (and dosages) move on....

True. Look even further back, to Steve Reeves etc and you will see many noncompeting all-natural guys in most any gym who could pose him into the floor. Still, I think the aesthetics have gone all to crap. I prefer the old school look, without the big belly and the monomaniacal fixation on mass. I would rather look like the Arnold any day, than today's top pros. Also the look was more sustainable I think.

[bignatt]

I def agree that the old school guys had better looking physiques i think the guys these days are to big

[bignatt]

I agre i think the old school guys had better looking physiques then the new guys there just to big

[PlasticFuture112]

Excellent post Basket!! Trully amazing by my thoughts. On the topic of looks between the pros of today and the pros in the past i would by far pick the ones in the past. They look unbelievable. I think thats how the human body should look. Like arnold said, he puts on muscle like a sculpter would put on muscle, a little bit at a time until perfect. People envy the work of sculpters from the roman empire and the bodybuilding pros of the past purely resembled it to a point. I personally think that pros today are way too big, almost freakishly discusting. I mean ya, sure its huge and your gonna get attention but everyone you talk to, unless a pro or amatuer bodybuilder alike will tell you that they think those guys look aweful. And truthfully i have to agree, i mean yes they put hard work into how they look but its just not appealing. So for all of you out there who admire the look from yesterday i commend you because you all admire great works of art from ppl who created perfection at its finest.

[PlasticFuture112]

Excellent post Basket!! Trully amazing by my thoughts. On the topic of looks between the pros of today and the pros in the past i would by far pick the ones in the past. They look unbelievable. I think thats how the human body should look. Like arnold said, he puts on muscle like a sculpter would put on muscle, a little bit at a time until perfect. People envy the work of sculpters from the roman empire and the bodybuilding pros of the past purely resembled it to a point. I personally think that pros today are way too big, almost freakishly discusting. I mean ya, sure its huge and your gonna get attention but everyone you talk to, unless a pro or amatuer bodybuilder alike will tell you that they think those guys look aweful. And truthfully i have to agree, i mean yes they put hard work into how they look but its just not appealing. So for all of you out there who admire the look from yesterday i commend you because you all admire great works of art from ppl who created perfection at its finest.

[PlasticFuture112]

oops lagged, sorry about the double post there.

[The Baron]

Are you telling us that it wasn't just a cheap shot, to get your post count upped by two, for the effort of writing only one? |

[Jackman]

Naturally. Remember that the HPTA is depressed by the presence of exogenous testosterone, so up to a point you are simply replacing endogenous with exogenous. Until you build up a level in the body that is significantly higher than natural, you aren't doing anything. So the first bit is basically not doing anything at all for you. The threshold value is obviously that amount that FINALLY starts to give a significant increase over natural levels.

this is true to a point. The drug is released faster than you might think. The reason you dont see the results right away because it has not build up to its full potential. It does in fact start working pretty fast.