Different Steriods

[T-W]

I am new to the forums and i am interested in the different anabolic steriods and I have used Anavar in two different cycles and I have noticed the results and I love the results that I have seen. I am now letting my body so to speak cleanse now. When it is time again I will start another cycle but is there something out there different I could use for better results orbdo I continue using the same thing. Plus I looking to cut some body fat and drop some more lbs and was wondering what I could us for that too. Any info would be great thanks.

[austinite]

Welcome!

What are your stats?

Age, height, weight, Body fat %, training experience?

[Honkey_Kong]

I am new to the forums and i am interested in the different anabolic steriods and I have used Anavar in two different cycles and I have noticed the results and I love the results that I have seen. I am now letting my body so to speak cleanse now. When it is time again I will start another cycle but is there something out there different I could use for better results orbdo I continue using the same thing. Plus I looking to cut some body fat and drop some more lbs and was wondering what I could us for that too. Any info would be great thanks.

You don't need gear to cut body fat and drop lbs. What is age, stats, experience and diet?

[Metalject]

You don't need gear to cut body fat and drop lbs. What is age, stats, experience and diet?

True, but you'll lose far less muscle tissue with gear than you would otherwise. IMO, gear is far more valuable when cutting than when bulking.

[gixxerboy1]

True, but you'll lose far less muscle tissue with gear than you would otherwise. IMO, gear is far more valuable when cutting than when bulking.

I do agree with you. Especially the leaner you get. But i wouknt recommend them to someone 25% trying to shed a few lbs

[Metalject]

I do agree with you. Especially the leaner you get. But i wouknt recommend them to someone 25% trying to shed a few lbs

I agree there has to be a cutoff point when you're referring to body fat. There is a certain point when the estrogenic issues may be too hard to control and if you're body fat is really high there are cholesterol and blood pressure issues to consider. At the same time, if you're an adult male with low levels of testosterone, I mean really low this is where my opinion changes. If you're otherwise healthy I can't see a reason for not using testosterone. If your levels are 100ng/dl or lower, which isn't that uncommon, this is going to make losing body fat tremendously difficult, far more than it needs to be and can even be so difficult it becomes near impossible for the every day guy whose life doesn't revolve 100% around diet and training. Where the cutoff point is for everyone else? I don't buy the 15% rule a lot of people subscribe to. If your cholesterol and blood pressure is healthy, your prostate is healthy and you're not obese, I say go for it. You may have to put a little more effort into controlling estrogen, which is not that hard to do, but then again you may not. Individual response truly is individual.

[gixxerboy1]

I agree. If someone does have that low of t levels. Just going on trt would make an improvement. I wouldnt nessaserally recommend a cycle dose.
Wasnt implying you would either

[MuscleInk]

I agree there has to be a cutoff point when you're referring to body fat. There is a certain point when the estrogenic issues may be too hard to control and if you're body fat is really high there are cholesterol and blood pressure issues to consider. At the same time, if you're an adult male with low levels of testosterone, I mean really low this is where my opinion changes. If you're otherwise healthy I can't see a reason for not using testosterone. If your levels are 100ng/dl or lower, which isn't that uncommon, this is going to make losing body fat tremendously difficult, far more than it needs to be and can even be so difficult it becomes near impossible for the every day guy whose life doesn't revolve 100% around diet and training. Where the cutoff point is for everyone else? I don't buy the 15% rule a lot of people subscribe to. If your cholesterol and blood pressure is healthy, your prostate is healthy and you're not obese, I say go for it. You may have to put a little more effort into controlling estrogen, which is not that hard to do, but then again you may not. Individual response truly is individual.

I don't disagree with what you've said but I would still oppose prescribing any anabolic agent as a dietary intervention. It's is highly risky and generally not that effective. I agree, in an aged male with low T (and sorry, levels below 100 are rare and would imply something more dire than age-associated declines), TRT would be an option to consider, but at TRT levels, I would not expect to see dramatic reductions in body fat. The prescribed tx simply isn't enough to facilitate a dramatic loss in weight. Moreover, an otherwise healthy individual with no hx of hyperlipidemia or hypertension does not guarantee the absence of risks or side effects. Any anabolic compound is most certainly going to skew cardiac function and associated factors and higher bf makes this a more likely outcome.

Sure 15% isn't a "rule". It's simply a reference point. Someone at 25% bf may respond to AASs without a lot of sides just as someone at 10% bf could experience a number of unexpected sides. There simply is no way of knowing or predicting how each person will respond. There is no magical bf number. 15% is simply a guideline but as a general rule, the lower your bf, the less likely the complications arising from an anabolic tx - bit as in life there are NO GUARANTEES (except death and taxes I suppose).

In most cases, failure to gain or lose weight can almost always be traced back to poor nutrition - irrespective of age (barring any medical condition that would influence a healthy weight distribution).

[AD]

wow, that was a lot of discussion on hypothetical cases. why dont we wait for the op to respond with his stats.

[MuscleInk]

wow, that was a lot of discussion on hypothetical cases. why dont we wait for the op to respond with his stats.

Not entirely off base or hypothetical. OP expressed interest in losing weight and referenced subsequent cycles to achieve this. My intent was to suggest that anabolics should not be perceived as weight management agents. We'd all agree that anabolics will elevate BMR and facilitate some weight loss, but results are best achieved if his nutrition plan supports his end goal(s).

Stats will of course be a factor to consider.

[Metalject]

I don't disagree with what you've said but I would still oppose prescribing any anabolic agent as a dietary intervention. It's is highly risky and generally not that effective. I agree, in an aged male with low T (and sorry, levels below 100 are rare and would imply something more dire than age-associated declines), TRT would be an option to consider, but at TRT levels, I would not expect to see dramatic reductions in body fat. The prescribed tx simply isn't enough to facilitate a dramatic loss in weight. Moreover, an otherwise healthy individual with no hx of hyperlipidemia or hypertension does not guarantee the absence of risks or side effects. Any anabolic compound is most certainly going to skew cardiac function and associated factors and higher bf makes this a more likely outcome.

Sure 15% isn't a "rule". It's simply a reference point. Someone at 25% bf may respond to AASs without a lot of sides just as someone at 10% bf could experience a number of unexpected sides. There simply is no way of knowing or predicting how each person will respond. There is no magical bf number. 15% is simply a guideline but as a general rule, the lower your bf, the less likely the complications arising from an anabolic tx - bit as in life there are NO GUARANTEES (except death and taxes I suppose).

In most cases, failure to gain or lose weight can almost always be traced back to poor nutrition - irrespective of age (barring any medical condition that would influence a healthy weight distribution).

I understand what you're saying, and for the most part I agree. I think a lot of times when I post I'll do so in a more generalized sense often in response to comments made in replies to the OP that I find interesting or debatable. Maybe that's confusing to some people...I'll try to do a better job with that.

I do, however, think extremely low levels are more common than many people may tend to think. I'm not saying it's extremely common, just more common than we might expect. I've seen a lot of guys over the years and I do mean a lot who have total test levels in the 50-150ng/dl range. I also think that a lot of steroid users, guys from this board and all over will be pretty surprised at where there levels are when they're a little older despite following proper or standard cycling practices. It's definitely a risk many tend to think they're going to escape just because they always followed time on, time off protocols, ran solid PCT's, used HCG on cycle, etc. I think a lot of guys will be surprised.

Last thing, I would agree that an anabolic steroid shouldn't be prescribed for the sole purpose of weight loss. If you have low levels, testosterone is merely prescribed to treat the low levels, and as a bonus it will help you lose body fat that is very difficult to lose when levels are low. There are of course exceptions such as Winstrol prescriptions that are granted on the sole purpose of facilitating weight loss. These are not common prescriptions and most don't need them but it has proven useful in some cases for those who are obese.

[Honkey_Kong]

Metalject, I'll agree with you that gear can be helpful in cutting. But I've noticed that in most cases on here, the OP really doesn't have a sound dietary plan and he's just "eye-balling it" and wondering why he isn't losing weight. Besides, I've got a feeling that the OP might still be a kid (due to no age listed on profile) and I don't want to encourage him to do gear in that case.