-
The estrogen issue with a higher BF can be controlled by using a higher dose of AI ( since adipose is key source of aromatase) which ultimately leads to more drugs in the system, and most everyone doesnt get regular bloodwork during the cycle to monitor the E levels to see if the AI dose is correct.
So, with that point, IMO its not really the 'lack of effectiveness' of doing a cycle, but the way of doing it is very in the dark and if used improperly/adjusted too quickly can lead to other issues, which can be misinterpeted as the wrong thing.
Another hting is that the higher bf% shows that the diet is lacking in quality; and that is a key component of gettin the most of the cycle; and with a proper diet and balance of nutrients the BF should be lower than the 'high bf %" people.. its another safe guard to prevent premature AAS usage while natural gains are still possible.
And alot of poeple are misinformed on proper AAS usage, and how to run cycles and possible side effects and how to do a proper PCT.. yea they might know the basics of it, but when problems arise, they arent expecting it and dont know how to handle them; nor what to do to correct the issue.
And the fact that alot of people are listening to 'emperical' evidence from other users on how to run the cycle and what doses and such work; but ultimately everybody is different on how they respond to the AAS cycle, and what they did. The best thing to do for that is to get info from all sides, along with reviewing some of the review papers here, that have scientific study evidence on usage.
So, IMO, you are correct that you will still have gains on a cycle with a higher BF%, but with alot of other potential issues have a greater chance of arising during the cycle, which may have undesirable effects ultimately.
Perfectly said, of the other questions that need to be honestly answered to oneself ( dont lie to yourself with this topic... bad things can happen)Last edited by Lemonada8; 02-16-2013 at 09:32 PM.
-
02-16-2013, 09:29 PM #42
Banned
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
- Location
- CANADA
- Posts
- 13,200
The more body fat you have, the higher your estrogen levels.
"Aromatase is found most prevalently in fat cells, so the more body fat a man has, especially in the midsection, the more aromatase and hence the more estrogen."
http://www.bodylogicmd.com/hormones-for-men/estrogen
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...-body-fat.html
Aromatase Gene Expression in Adipose Tissue
http://www.jbc.org/content/270/27/16449.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7874190
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...60076094902747
http://www.rbej.com/content/7/1/37
-
02-16-2013, 09:31 PM #43
Banned
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
- Location
- CANADA
- Posts
- 13,200
-
02-16-2013, 09:37 PM #44
Originally Posted by --->>405<<---
-
02-16-2013, 09:38 PM #45
Productive Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- Jorgia
- Posts
- 3,353
Maybe it was you I got that from then. I whole heartedly agree. 20% is hard to tell if the person is serious or not. I know for myself, even though I was never a lifter, I was serious about my looks and health. I was always an endurance-type athelete, so lifting was not really my thing. But after several injuries, I just couldnt keep running, swimming, etc. Lifting isnt easy on me at all, but it is easier than running 10 miles, or swimming 2. I have several injuries that limit my range of motion while lifting, so I have to adapt. But once I got to the point that I wasnt very active with running and such, I did put on some BF, and I hated it. It is much harder to lose, even with a great diet, when youve been very active for so long, than abruptly stop. My diet was never "bad" but my metabolism was shot. Once I decided to take the plunge, my BF just melted off and I got back down to what I consider low. As long as I can maintain a BF of 15% or under, I am perfectly fine. Anything over that, I get self-conscious and all that goes with that. But if I did get to 20%, it wasnt because I wasnt serious about health or appearances. It was just because of my metabolism. I looked very thin when I was 17-18%, but when the shirt came off, I was soft and slightly flabby. I am thin by nature, and it is very hard for me to put muscle on, which could be from years of endurance training. So if someone is a little over 15%, I am not overly concerned with advising them, I just want to find some background to their story. If they were like me, then I would be ok with it, but if they just started training, eat like garbage, and are lazy, it is pretty easy to see through all of that when you find out a little about their past experience.
So, do you know if there is more aromatase in a person with higher BF since the cells are still there? This is what I am looking for at the moment but am coming up empty.
-
02-16-2013, 09:40 PM #46
Productive Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- Jorgia
- Posts
- 3,353
-
02-16-2013, 09:46 PM #47
Banned
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
- Location
- CANADA
- Posts
- 13,200
You're welcome, and i believe that answers your last question.
Just to recap, there is no one magical BF number or percentage that is carved in stone. But we DO know that the higher your BF, the more likely you are to experience sides. This has been proven over and over again.
But with all the data available, and since i believe it's prudent to error on the side of caution, i feel strongly that the 15% rule of thumb is a solid benchmark to use as a guideline for those beginning an AAS cycle.
-
02-16-2013, 09:50 PM #48
Productive Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- Jorgia
- Posts
- 3,353
There is nothing wrong with 18% and cycling, as long as you know what you are doing. That is the point I think we are trying to make. If a person is meticulous about thier diet and training, and have good BW and a clean physical exam, and are mature enough, then by all means, have at it. But the biggest thing for us is that we dont know what the average 20%BF guy does to be 20%. He might be 20 because he is lazy, and he might be 20 because he has lost from 35%. We just cant assume that every fat guy here is willing to put forth the effort that it should take to pursue the BBing lifestyle. We have to find out personal details in order to address the issues. I dont have a problem with someone with 15-20% cycling, as long as they are smart about it. I feel people who decide to use AAS should be responsible enough to know exactly what to do. I also feel they should get BW done religiously. There is no way to know for certain if you are healthy or not without it. You might feel perfect, while your total cholesterol is 402, and tryglycerides at 245. Or your RBC count is through the roof. There are certain things that everyone who decides to use should know and know to a tee! For an obese person, all of this changes, and IMO, they HAVE to lose a considerable amount of BF and have a clean bill of health. An obese person is obviously not in any health to do this.
-
02-16-2013, 09:58 PM #49
Productive Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- Jorgia
- Posts
- 3,353
It did answer it, and I canstop researching it now. And as the 15% rule, I agree there based solely on the fact that if they can maintain 15%, they can certainly do what is needed to achieve the goals. That is not to say a 20%er cant, but 15 is much easier. I think that if a person actually knows (such as if you or I where to get out of lifting for a few years and put on some fat and get to 20%, but decide we need to change) then they can be perfectly safe because we have the knowledge of what works for us personally.
For instance, if I broke my leg and was out of the gym and off my diet for 6 months, but then decided to take the year off and got to 22%, I would feel comfortable getting back on because I know what works for me, and if sides do arise, I know what would need to be done. The probelm we have here on the forum is that we dont know people on a personal level, nor do we know them like we do ourselves. So we have a problem assisting 20%ers because we cant base our personal experience as what will work for them, although is would be a guideline.
All in all, I'm with you 100% on the subject, and it is easier to assist lower BF than higher due to the fact that the lower they are the more disciplined they seem(not assuming, but it is true).
-
02-16-2013, 09:58 PM #50
Lets be honest here most people that are asking very basic questions. If they were ready to cycle wouldn't be asking. Then we find out they are 20% body fat and eat 3 tiny meals a day plus been working out for only 3 months
-
02-16-2013, 10:02 PM #51
Originally Posted by warmouth
-
02-16-2013, 10:06 PM #52
No, didn't abandon the thread or change my opinion...simply haven't looked at the thread since I posted the OP. Posted this thread and went to the gym for legs....pretty exciting Saturday night, lol!
-
02-16-2013, 10:07 PM #53
New Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
- Posts
- 20
Great thread and a good read on everyone's opinions.
Definitely puts another prospective to things and the usual stereotypes that stick to the 8-10% bf theory.
-
02-16-2013, 10:09 PM #54
typically my blood pressure is: 115/65
workout schedule currently: 2 training days per week/5 cardio days per week 90mins cardio split into 2 sessions, one 30min interval the other 60 min LISS
current diet: tapering up to maintenance
training days: @3500-4000cals 40/40/20 split
non-training days: 1500-1800cals 21-24hr fast @200g pro, carbs range from NO starch to 40g, fat @70-80g
i could provide exact cals and macros but really dont feel like it.
stats: 38yrs, 5'9", 190lbs 9%bf
bench: 345lbs, squat: 515 x 5 (NO 1 REP MAX), dead: 365 x 5 (no 1 rep max)
anything else u would like to know?
-
02-16-2013, 10:09 PM #55
I'm curious about the fat cells that remain after losing a lot of weight. For me coming from 470lbs and God knows what BF% to currently 215, I wonder if it will effect my experience once I do finally get to sub 15% BF and decide to cycle?
For the record I am currently in the 20% range and am a few years away from trying AAS, but want to gather as much info as possible while I work on maximizing my natural progress. At 33 years old I missed the boat on my youth and feel like I'm fighting against mother nature for every inch of progress I make.
-
02-16-2013, 10:12 PM #56
There was a thread in the nutrition forum on the fat cells although I can't remember what thread but 405 was in on that one with us. Do you remember 405?
-
02-16-2013, 10:12 PM #57
Productive Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- Jorgia
- Posts
- 3,353
Ha ha. This is what I was eludingto in my last post. If a person "knows" then I think they should be fine. But I also feel that if a person knows, they will do what is necessary to prepare themselves to get the most out of their cycle. But this is exactly what I meant in the last post when it comes to guys asking basic questions about a cycle and finind out theyve been training for no time at all and are pudgy. They would not be in the category as good to go, in my opinion.
-
02-16-2013, 10:13 PM #58
Originally Posted by m_donnelly
Do you have to be 15% or less? No, but the risks are certainly lower if your bf is lower and there simply is no contesting this. The 15% is a recommended guideline that many of us suggest but by no means is it gospel. If you're 30% bf or more, are we going to stop you? No. It's an individual choice, but be sure you understand that the risks are indeed higher, understand those risks, and be willing to accept the consequences.
I don't think anyone here has ever said you MUST be 15% or lower. It's simply advised and for some gear (anavar and mast as two examples) you will see less results the higher the bf.
I think the greater problem we face is not the bf issue, rather, two many people think a few cycles of steroids are all that's needed to give you the physique of a pro body builder and that simply is NOT the case.
-
02-16-2013, 10:17 PM #59
LOL yeh i think it was dans abs and fat cells thread. part of it started in the original march cutting classic thread (the one before the redux). i think some may be in the redux too. but dans abs and fat cell thread should have a bunch in there.
basically u cant destroy fat cells. they have to be removed surgically. they just shrink when u reduce bf%.. u can, however, grow new ones..
-
02-16-2013, 10:18 PM #60
Productive Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- Jorgia
- Posts
- 3,353
Well........C**S**** mentioned a week or 2 ago that if a person cant get to single digits on their own, they were lazy, and they have no business using AAS. I had to show some disagreement with him on that one. But he has been the only case of a vet saying anything like that since Ive been here.
-
02-16-2013, 10:20 PM #61
Really? I see comments that insinuate what I said in the original post on here every day. That's why I decided to post this thread...I didn't pull it out of thin air. Now I'll admit, people may not say things verbatim as I listed them, but that is the overall theme IMO. If I went through every thread on here where a guy talks about doing a cycle and he list his body fat between 15-20% it would probably take me years to count all the replies that tell the guy he should diet naturally first and then use gear.
And I agree, the more body fat you have the harder it can be to control estrogenic side effects...more fat more aromatization but it can be controlled and it's really not that hard. Men who are 20%+ BF are prescribed TRT every day, and the heavier you are, typically the higher your TRT dose will be. However, with proper therapy each and everyone of these men reach a better state of health...granted, this is assuming there are no underlying health issues, that would change the game.
It's also important IMO to consider unknown factors...things do not always work like we think they should. Here's another good example taken from my own experience. I started using gear at 20yrs old and used heavily for 10+ years. Not once during any off-season phase did I ever have gyno symptoms, ED, acne or any other issue. Sure, I would get a little bloated but no serious issues. And believe it or not my entire time bodybuilding I had my blood work done every 16wks like clockwork....never had a single issue of concern. Now, the only time I ever had any gyno symptoms was in one case when I was at a very low BF, low single digits. I was able to remedy the situation. My point, body fat while an important factor is not the end all be all. Estrogen and related estrogenic effects can be controlled when you're at a higher BF...again, I'm not talking about obese.
Where is the cutoff point? When would I say a guy is too fat to use gear? That's a hard question to answer. In the case of TRT I would say most men, even those who are significantly overweight would probably benefit from a good TRT plan...the benefits would outweigh the risk...morbidly obese this could change things, perhaps. As for actual cycling...I don't know if I have this answer. I don't buy into the 15-20% range is too fat to safely use gear, that I can say with certainty.
-
02-16-2013, 10:27 PM #62
Originally Posted by warmouth
-
02-16-2013, 10:29 PM #63
Productive Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- Jorgia
- Posts
- 3,353
This is the reason I mentioned TRT earlier. Out of me, my cousin, and 2 close friends (all the same age), me and my cousin are the leanest and the other 2 fat guys are on double the amounts of testosterone as we are, and we have the same doctor. Fat guys normally have higher estrogen supression anyways, from my little bit of understanding with TRT. They use Anastrozol, and we use nothing prescribed.
-
02-16-2013, 10:30 PM #64
Productive Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- Jorgia
- Posts
- 3,353
-
02-16-2013, 10:32 PM #65
comparing TRT to cycling is 2 different things altogether.
TRT is designed to mimick natural test production in a male who is deficient in test in the first place. ur talking doses ranging on average from 100mg per week to 200mg per week.
cycling is overdosing on test to the tune of 500mg per week +.. NOT the same thing. u cant use TRT as a means to justify running steroid cycles. NOT to mention im only talking about test here.
im not gonna repeat what ive already said. i think what ur suggesting in this thread is borderline at best making statements like high bf cycles are ok.. there are a lot of people reading these threads.. guys in the 20%bf range on average IMO are NOT READY TO CYCLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
02-16-2013, 10:32 PM #66
Originally Posted by warmouth
-
02-16-2013, 10:34 PM #67
-
02-16-2013, 10:35 PM #68
Banned
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
- Location
- CANADA
- Posts
- 13,200
-
02-16-2013, 10:38 PM #69
Originally Posted by --->>405<<---
The procedure is unpleasant and the recovery slow and painful.
-
02-16-2013, 10:41 PM #70
Originally Posted by MuscleInk
-
02-16-2013, 10:41 PM #71
-
02-16-2013, 10:48 PM #72
Originally Posted by --->>405<<---
-
02-16-2013, 10:48 PM #73
From personal experience I have used at low 14% and high BF 22% both times got acne and elevated blood pressure..
I had a good friend that was a power lifter that easy was 25% bf and was using anywhere from 400-800mg test any givin week ..
I even used deca by it self (no condoned )didn't get ED or libido issues hell my test was already low at that point, even when my test was at 67ng/ml I was always getting wood and horny as hell..
Just my personal experiences and I have plenty of friends that use now that I try to steer to the correct path!
-
02-16-2013, 10:49 PM #74
Originally Posted by --->>405<<---
-
02-16-2013, 10:51 PM #75
Banned
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
- Location
- CANADA
- Posts
- 13,200
-
02-16-2013, 10:52 PM #76
Originally Posted by MuscleInk
-
02-16-2013, 10:59 PM #77
Productive Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- Jorgia
- Posts
- 3,353
-
02-16-2013, 11:05 PM #78
Originally Posted by MickeyKnox
-
02-16-2013, 11:12 PM #79
Banned
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
- Location
- CANADA
- Posts
- 13,200
I think those are terrific questions, if people have the answers available. But i doubt the average member would this type of information on hand.
And i seriously doubt senior members are to blame for new members fabricating their profiles. I believe this is because they are aware that AR does not fool around and hand out advice to youngsters that still have developing endocrine systems and are at risk of potentially serious complications if they choose to use AAS prematurely.
-
02-16-2013, 11:18 PM #80
Originally Posted by MickeyKnox
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Front Loading Before a 2 wks...
06-21-2024, 05:12 AM in ANABOLIC STEROIDS - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS