Results 1 to 32 of 32
Thread: Tren all year?
-
01-31-2013, 03:14 PM #1Junior Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2012
- Posts
- 81
-
01-31-2013, 03:15 PM #2Originally Posted by 3figurez
-
01-31-2013, 03:16 PM #3
Wait for it.......
-
-
01-31-2013, 03:18 PM #5
STUPID! and Bear hasnt seen this yet
-
Drop the Ai and the caber and you'd have nice milky man breasts for sure.
-
01-31-2013, 03:20 PM #7
diminishing ganes would require upping your doses along the way thus increasing your sides. Not to mention the issues that come with Tren such as high HR and High BP would take it's tole on a person over time.
I have cycled tren numerous times and each time I can't wait for it to be over (till the next time).
You are also nearly gauranteed to require TRT for life after a year long cycle like that! It would def. be a risk anyhow!
-
01-31-2013, 03:29 PM #8
-
01-31-2013, 03:38 PM #9Junior Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2012
- Posts
- 81
I was in no way gonna run this. I'm a big believer in time on = time off! Was just curious to see how bad the sides can escalate.
-
01-31-2013, 04:02 PM #10
Oh my.. Lol you could probably make some cash on the side by selling your breast milk
-
01-31-2013, 04:42 PM #11
That would be awesome if we could stay on gear that long and continue to see progress but like the above post gains will slowly become less and less noticeable. Also that would be pricy depending on ur source so if money isnt a issue getting on growth hormone for a year would be a realistic option, then run a couple 12 wk cycles of test and tren ! Gains will be amazing! Ud be surprised the gains u will see on 3-4iu of growth a day. Just something to think about a much safer option if ur looking to stay on ur round.
-
01-31-2013, 07:18 PM #12Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Posts
- 5,332
Whoa killer.............WHY???
What purpose does this serve?
Are you intending to compete in the IFBB or WSM, or is this just for vanity?
Are we talking blast & cruise or just a solid 12 month cycle.
The sides can be controlled................BUT.............the chances that your natural hormone production will recover are practically nil even with the incorporation of HCG while on cycle.
What are your stats & cycle history?Last edited by The Bear 79; 01-31-2013 at 07:21 PM.
-
02-01-2013, 04:23 AM #13
It would be less painful to put a shotgun in your head and blow it, cheaper too!
Dude, even the elite bodybuilders who compete at Mr. O won't stay on Tren all year around. Are you insane?
-
02-01-2013, 04:34 AM #14
Not even worth condsidering, no pro's but loads of con's.
-
02-01-2013, 08:31 AM #15Associate Member
- Join Date
- May 2012
- Posts
- 257
I don't think there is anything wrong with say 150mg tren per week for year long if your body handles it well. But not those dosages of prop and tren.
-
02-01-2013, 09:00 AM #16Originally Posted by Allaaro
That's not the kind of advice we like to condone on the board.
You can't seriously say its ok to use tren 365 days a year that's just stupid.
The side effects and just sheer effect on the body's natural hormone production will be immense.
-
02-01-2013, 09:35 AM #17Originally Posted by panntastic
-
02-01-2013, 09:39 AM #18Originally Posted by krugerr
The point i was trying to get across was to the guy who said "yeah should be ok" if a 18/19 year old saw that and really messed himself up all fingers would point back here.
-
02-01-2013, 10:48 AM #19Associate Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
- Location
- somewhere
- Posts
- 275
if an 18/19 year old took tren at 150mg week all year this thread would not be the cause.
we can only try so hard with the youth, stupidity sometimes wins....
and tren that long is stupidity
-
02-01-2013, 11:01 AM #20
Tren for a year would likely leave you with permanent shutdown.
-
02-01-2013, 04:41 PM #21
I dont know a whole lot about tren , but i think being on gear for a year straight would be suicidal to your natural hormone production
-
02-01-2013, 10:23 PM #22Associate Member
- Join Date
- May 2012
- Posts
- 257
My bad guys....I assumed that it was considering blasting/cruising(or TRT) and never coming off. Since if someone was asking for a cycle for year long thought they were already cruising or on TRT. Since obviously if you are cycling for a year you have some different goals and shouldn't ever come off.
But I still don't think tren year round is bad IF you are fine on TRT/cruising for life. I'm trying it myself at 150-600 for 9 months(on month 4 now at 400mg weekly). Bloodwork is fine and feel great...but I handle tren fine. Probably just going to go back down to 150 per week and stay there with 200 test per week. There even was an article somewhere about how tren could work for TRT...don't got link though but I'm sure someone has it.
-
02-02-2013, 12:27 AM #23
There was a study done and it has been sited on here before, but the gist if it was that tren was possibly better than test for hormone replacement.
010 Jun;75(6):377-89. Epub 2010 Feb 4.
Tissue selectivity and potential clinical applications of trenbolone (17beta-hydroxyestra-4,9,11-trien-3-one): A potent anabolic steroid with reduced androgenic and estrogenic activity.
Yarrow JF, McCoy SC, Borst SE.
Source
Geriatric Research, Education & Clinical Center, VA Medical Center, Gainesville, FL 32608, United States. [email protected]
Abstract
Recently, the development of selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs ) has been suggested as a means of combating the deleterious catabolic effects of hypogonadism, especially in skeletal muscle and bone, without inducing the undesirable androgenic effects (e.g., prostate enlargement and polycythemia) associated with testosterone administration. 17beta-Hydroxyestra-4,9,11-trien-3-one (trenbolone ; 17beta-TBOH), a synthetic analog of testosterone, may be capable of inducing SARM-like effects as it binds to androgen receptors (ARs) with approximately three times the affinity of testosterone and has been shown to augment skeletal muscle mass and bone growth and reduce adiposity in a variety of mammalian species. In addition to its direct actions through ARs, 17beta-TBOH may also exert anabolic effects by altering the action of endogenous growth factors or inhibiting the action of glucocorticoids. Compared to testosterone, 17beta-TBOH appears to induce less growth in androgen-sensitive organs which highly express the 5alpha reductase enzyme (e.g., prostate tissue and accessory sex organs). The reduced androgenic effects result from the fact that 17beta-TBOH is metabolized to less potent androgens in vivo; while testosterone undergoes tissue-specific biotransformation to more potent steroids , dihydrotestosterone and 17beta-estradiol, via the 5alpha-reductase and aromatase enzymes, respectively. Thus the metabolism of 17beta-TBOH provides a basis for future research evaluating its safety and efficacy as a means of combating muscle and bone wasting conditions, obesity, and/or androgen insensitivity syndromes in humans, similar to that of other SARMs which are currently in development.
Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2011 Apr;300(4):E650-60. Epub 2011 Jan 25.
17β-Hydroxyestra-4,9,11-trien-3-one (trenbolone) exhibits tissue selective anabolic activity: effects on muscle, bone, adiposity, hemoglobin, and prostate.
Yarrow JF, Conover CF, McCoy SC, Lipinska JA, Santillana CA, Hance JM, Cannady DF, VanPelt TD, Sanchez J, Conrad BP, Pingel JE, Wronski TJ, Borst SE.
Source
VA Medical Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, 32608-1197, USA. [email protected]
Abstract
Selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs) now under development can protect against muscle and bone loss without causing prostate growth or polycythemia. 17β-Hydroxyestra-4,9,11-trien-3-one (trenbolone), a potent testosterone analog, may have SARM-like actions because, unlike testosterone, trenbolone does not undergo tissue-specific 5α-reduction to form more potent androgens. We tested the hypothesis that trenbolone-enanthate (TREN) might prevent orchiectomy-induced losses in muscle and bone and visceral fat accumulation without increasing prostate mass or resulting in adverse hemoglobin elevations. Male F344 rats aged 3 mo underwent orchiectomy or remained intact and were administered graded doses of TREN, supraphysiological testosterone-enanthate, or vehicle for 29 days. In both intact and orchiectomized animals, all TREN doses and supraphysiological testosterone-enanthate augmented androgen-sensitive levator ani/bulbocavernosus muscle mass by 35-40% above shams (P ≤ 0.001) and produced a dose-dependent partial protection against orchiectomy-induced total and trabecular bone mineral density losses (P < 0.05) and visceral fat accumulation (P < 0.05). The lowest doses of TREN successfully maintained prostate mass and hemoglobin concentrations at sham levels in both intact and orchiectomized animals, whereas supraphysiological testosterone-enanthate and high-dose TREN elevated prostate mass by 84 and 68%, respectively (P < 0.01). In summary, low-dose administration of the non-5α-reducible androgen TREN maintains prostate mass and hemoglobin concentrations near the level of shams while producing potent myotrophic actions in skeletal muscle and partial protection against orchiectomy-induced bone loss and visceral fat accumulation. Our findings indicate that TREN has advantages over supraphysiological testosterone and supports the need for future preclinical studies examining the viability of TREN as an option for androgen replacement therapy.
-
02-02-2013, 02:27 AM #24Originally Posted by RoadToHuge
-
02-02-2013, 06:19 AM #25
-
02-02-2013, 10:09 AM #26
Wow, a bolded response.. U Mad Brah?
The last study says that there is potential in the use of Tren . It says that futher studies are required, it's right there in the abstract.
dunno why U Mad Bro.. I'm supposed to believe you over the scientists? Does not compute..
-
02-02-2013, 10:13 AM #27Associate Member
- Join Date
- May 2012
- Posts
- 257
Do I think tren is better for TRT than with test? No
But even if it was a long shot by it working by itself, add in testosterone and you now have both bases covered at 100-150mg each of test and tren. Should be the best of both worlds and at that low dosages of tren, sides shouldn't even be there unless your extremely sensitive.
Look at it like this, what would be better, test and tren at 100-150mg per week each for a year, or running 100-150mg test and then blasting with large amounts of test/tren/etc for a few cycles in the year. I think the low dosage test/tren is an good idea because I think you will never have to cycle unless you want to go pro.....since everyone should be able to get gains of that low of a dosages of tren and test if they are training and eating correctly.
-
02-02-2013, 10:42 AM #28
How could you even possibly leap to the conclusion that I would be mad because I chose to write my response in bold?
I responded in bold simply because I was responding to a long-ass post and wanted my own sentences to stick out as opposed to having them disappear under a post that consists of 1000 words...
It is not like I owed you an explanation but since you got me started, I think you should back off and take a deep breath before you rush into meaningless conclusions about a simple respond coming from an individual whom you have no idea about his personality. This will indeed make you not only look more meditative as a person but also smarter. That's if you care about your image as a member of this board.
Also, it may help to check one's profile and learn at least a little about that person's background and see whether he actually knows what he is talking about before getting all jumpy.. Seriously ''Brah'', take it easy and stop acting like you are about to blow...
-
02-02-2013, 10:52 AM #29Wow, a bolded response.. U Mad Brah?
The last study says that there is potential in the use of Tren . It says that futher studies are required, it's right there in the abstract.
dunno why U Mad Bro.. I'm supposed to believe you over the scientists? Does not compute..
-
02-02-2013, 09:24 PM #30
LOL, you got pulled right in. If you look at my other posts, you will see I only talk like that when I am making fun of someone. Bold, all caps.. Yup, you got upset. Your even more upset now and you cannot admit it.
Point is there are studies that say it might work and might be beneficial. You dispute that, and I think you are foolish for discounting the professional. All your years of bodybuilding do not give you a MD or doctorate in chemistry.
Any board my rep is in danger because I disagree with you? The hell are you talking about. God complex much? I use this board for advice. I could care less about what people think. I do find it amusing that you seem to know better than a doctor that thinks that it needs to be looked at. You said it was a stretch to say it could work, but that is what the doctor is suggesting.
You are back after a ten year lay off and you have been back on for a year, right? I know who "you are" from your boasts and posts and you are brain dead if you think ****$ are given.
BTW, you were the one that got jumpy. I sited studies and you called it out as bs. I never said it would work but pointed out that a study said in needed to be investigated more.
-
02-02-2013, 11:37 PM #31
So are you saying that at 40-50 ml a week (Based on its effectiveness, this should be about right.Perhaps less), that you would have any major sides?
Now I am questioning if YOU have ever used Tren ...
-
02-03-2013, 02:12 AM #32
Its crazy that someone who has aas in their hands would even ask a question like this. Even craizer is how everyone is skipping the basics and going right into the hard stuff
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Zebol 50 - deca?
12-10-2024, 07:18 PM in ANABOLIC STEROIDS - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS