BF% and test e

[andre300]

There is alot of reference on the site not to use test e if your BF is more then 15%.

Can someone tell me y please?

tx

[Noles12]

You shouldnt use any steroids that aromatize if you have a higher bf%. You are more likely to experience gyno issues if you are prone to it.

[Charger527]

you should not use steriods period if you have a high bodyfat,

read High bf% and cycling

[magic32]

That’s an often quoted fallacy Noles and here’s why.

Firstly, it rather presumptuously asserts that there is a direct correlation between BF and estrogen levels which is false. And secondly because at its core, though other less significant but contributory factors are also at play, gynecomastia is the direct result of an imbalance in the extremely delicate Test/Estro ratio in favor of estrogen. This is not to say that estrogen levels need to usurp test levels, but rather that the ratio change serves to increase existing estrogen, regardless of maintained or decreased Test. Even the slightest of changes in males OF ANY AGE, be they via exogenous Test-induced aromatization, e.g. bb'er usage or merely the application of topical traditionally unrelated aromatizing agents have the potential to incite gyno production. The example I most often cite to illustrate the sheer delicacy of this ratio can be found within the New England Journal of Medicine case studies of three prepubescent boys whose idiopathic (of unknown origin) gyno was both initiated and sustained by the sole and very meager topical application of simple lavender and tea tree oil products from which substantial estrogenic and anti-androgenic effects on their respective endocrine systems were incurred. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/5/479

Interesting read Charger, but there are multiple untrue presumptions here, including the one cited above by Noles. As cited by the author this is simply his opinion, and is not founded on physiological or even empirical evidence. For these reasons, you might want to stop referencing that thread.

Andre, the primary reason aas is not recommended until you reach 15% is because of severely limited aesthetic results (unless of course you’re a powerlifter and unconcerned with cosmetics). Now of course as BF escalates there are health concerns as well, but for the present discussion we're only referencing the 15% mark. Generally speaking proper steroidal administration will still improve your functioning in all other related areas at this fat level, but you'll be unable to attain the results MOST OFTEN sought by aas users with this amount of visceral and subcutaneous fat.

[andre300]

That’s an often quoted fallacy Noles and here’s why.

Firstly, it rather presumptuously asserts that there is a direct correlation between BF and estrogen levels which is false. And secondly because at its core, though other less significant but contributory factors are also at play, gynecomastia is the direct result of an imbalance in the extremely delicate Test/Estro ratio in favor of estrogen. This is not to say that estrogen levels need to usurp test levels, but rather that the ratio change serves to increase existing estrogen, regardless of maintained or decreased Test. Even the slightest of changes in males OF ANY AGE, be they via exogenous Test-induced aromatization, e.g. bb'er usage or merely the application of topical traditionally unrelated aromatizing agents have the potential to incite gyno production. The example I most often cite to illustrate the sheer delicacy of this ratio can be found within the New England Journal of Medicine case studies of three prepubescent boys whose idiopathic (of unknown origin) gyno was both initiated and sustained by the sole and very meager topical application of simple lavender and tea tree oil products from which substantial estrogenic and anti-androgenic effects on their respective endocrine systems were incurred. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/5/479

Interesting read Charger, but there are multiple untrue presumptions here, including the one cited above by Noles. As cited by the author this is simply his opinion, and is not founded on physiological or even empirical evidence. For these reasons, you might want to stop referencing that thread.

Andre, the primary reason aas is not recommended until you reach 15% is because of severely limited aesthetic results (unless of course you’re a powerlifter and unconcerned with cosmetics). Now of course as BF escalates there are health concerns as well, but for the present discussion we're only referencing the 15% mark. Generally speaking proper steroidal administration will still improve your functioning in all other related areas at this fat level, but you'll be unable to attain the results MOST OFTEN sought by aas users with this amount of visceral and subcutaneous fat.

Thanks Magic

[gamemania]

That’s an often quoted fallacy Noles and here’s why.

Firstly, it rather presumptuously asserts that there is a direct correlation between BF and estrogen levels which is false. And secondly because at its core, though other less significant but contributory factors are also at play, gynecomastia is the direct result of an imbalance in the extremely delicate Test/Estro ratio in favor of estrogen. This is not to say that estrogen levels need to usurp test levels, but rather that the ratio change serves to increase existing estrogen, regardless of maintained or decreased Test. Even the slightest of changes in males OF ANY AGE, be they via exogenous Test-induced aromatization, e.g. bb'er usage or merely the application of topical traditionally unrelated aromatizing agents have the potential to incite gyno production. The example I most often cite to illustrate the sheer delicacy of this ratio can be found within the New England Journal of Medicine case studies of three prepubescent boys whose idiopathic (of unknown origin) gyno was both initiated and sustained by the sole and very meager topical application of simple lavender and tea tree oil products from which substantial estrogenic and anti-androgenic effects on their respective endocrine systems were incurred. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/5/479

Interesting read Charger, but there are multiple untrue presumptions here, including the one cited above by Noles. As cited by the author this is simply his opinion, and is not founded on physiological or even empirical evidence. For these reasons, you might want to stop referencing that thread.

Andre, the primary reason aas is not recommended until you reach 15% is because of severely limited aesthetic results (unless of course you’re a powerlifter and unconcerned with cosmetics). Now of course as BF escalates there are health concerns as well, but for the present discussion we're only referencing the 15% mark. Generally speaking proper steroidal administration will still improve your functioning in all other related areas at this fat level, but you'll be unable to attain the results MOST OFTEN sought by aas users with this amount of visceral and subcutaneous fat.

let me dumb this down a bit and say that ur essentially saying, the only reason aas use is recommended at a low bf% i.e. our arbitrary use of 15% is really for aestetic purposes only. if u can handle the muscle and strength gains u get without really looking like someone with a "great bod" due to all the fat ur holding go for it. you will still make the sort of gains u will at a lower bf% but the end result just wont be as pleasing to the eye as if u din have a whole lot of fat in the way of ur glorious muscles.

[chuckt12345]

BF is to hard to really get a accurate measurement so when someone says there 15% they could actually be -+ 5% anyways. That bein said i think anything under 20% is acceptable for steroid use .