So I've been doing some research and following along with some of you vets throwing down knowledge and I'm a little confused on this subject.
Anabolic
Coles notes definition is the prime muscle building state the body can be in promoting increased muscle building capacity and performance. Opposite state is catabolic which we all know negatively effects muscle building capacity
Androgenic
Alot of reference Ive found to androgen or androgenjc is male characteristics. In the steroid world this seems to always been immediately following by the words side effects because of the excessive effects, aggressiveness, hair growth, ect.
So steroids have an anabolic and and androgenic rating. This seems straight forward except the numbers don't seem to actually relate to actual real world results unless I'm reading wrong.
Anadrol has an anaboliic rating of 320 and androgenic 45.
I've seen some of you guys label compounds as either androgenic or anabolic and refer to these ratios being in check when building cycles. My question is why would you want androgens to be high at all?
Where does amatasing rates fit in here. With anabolics mostly I believe? Since we've learned estrogen is in itself beneficial to muscle building I'd this part of why high anabolic ratings are better for results.
Androgens are traditionally the "dryer" compounds as well correct?
What's confusing me is if you look at the numbers only and throw out what people have told you why would anyone ever run anything except low testosterone to support proper function and high ratio difference steroids like anadrol and anavar as these are over 3x more anabolic with less than half the androgenic rating of test. Yet we know that anavar is not great for mass. How can this be if it is highly anabolic? Is this where the estrogen link comes into play.
Sorry for rambling! The research continues. I kind of suck at the internet are there any solid published books on steroids anyone can recommend?