Steroids and Body Fat: I Disagree

[Metalject]

A common theme you see on many message boards is that you need to be at a certain body fat before you use any steroids. The idea is that if your body fat is at a certain point or beyond:

1. You won’t be able to combat side effects
2. You won’t get any thing out of your cycle
3. You’ll be shortchanging your gains (whatever the crap that means…I hate the word “Gains” as it’s so often inaccurately used to describe and encompass all steroid use, but that’s another argument for another day)

Before I go any further this little discussion is not taking into account obese men, that’s a separate argument. The argument here is that if a man is 15% body fat or more using steroids would be pointless, disastrous or both. My point is this simply isn’t true. Let’s also keep in mind 15%BF is not considered unhealthy; in fact, medically men in the 15-20% are considered healthy, older men can sometimes slightly increase that and still be well within a healthy range.

So here’s the argument or at least the primary ones:

1. You won’t be able to control aromatization if you’re 15% BF or more…this is false. You may very well need to give it more attention, but it can still be controlled. You also must take into account the individualistic nature of man…many will have an easy time controlling it regardless of being a very low BF or even 15+.

2. You have to lose body fat first before you use any gear….False. This doesn’t take into account the muscle tissue lost that will ABSOLUTELY occur regardless of how well-planned your diet is. If you can control side effects, which you can, and if you can maintain more of your muscle mass while losing fat, which you can, you will burn fat at a more efficient rate and you will look much better as your diet progresses and even more so when it comes to an end.

A good example….through my years of bodybuilding I can think back on one year in particular where I allowed myself to gain far more fat in the off-season than I should have. I was desperate to put on more size and while I still ate very clean I simply ate too much and put on too much fat. I don’t know what my BF was at the end of that off-season but I can guarantee you it was every bit of 15% if not a little more. So I started my prep that year, it was a very hard diet, I’d call it brutal and while all contest diets are brutal it was more than it should have been because I got a little too fat. However, the end result was good, but would it have been as good if I had dieted naturally? Not a chance. I would have lost a lot of muscle mass, not a chance I could have gotten as lean and hard with as much muscle mass preserved had I been natural…it would go against the very laws of common sense to even imply it.

The long and short, there’s more to steroid use than simply putting on piles and piles of muscle. For some that’s the entire point and that’s OK too but it’s not the end all be all. If you can use gear to aid you in your pursuit while maintaining your health despite being 15%+ I see absolutely no reason why you shouldn’t.

This ends my rambling and point of view for today. I'm sure many will disagree and that's OK too. The way I see it, it gives us something else to talk about other than "should I use 500mg/test/wk for 10 or 12wks?"

[ppwc1985]

I agree with you, I myself started bb when I was in the military and cycled a little back then. Up through my 20's and 30's didn't cycle but just maintained my 225 at 13-16% bf. fast forward to 2008 business went under so started driving tractor trailer and ballooned up to 308 at idk let's say 35% bf and very unhealthy. I started driving local and got back into gym for about 8 months got down to around 29% 285. Then said fi, did a 12 week cyp at 500 mg ew/ var at 100 Ed first 7 weeks. At the completion was at 22% bf 243. I had no issues except I did up my AI from 10 mg EOD to 12.5. I'm not saying this would work for everyone but it did me. But I'm also at an age where ex had me knowing what my body can and can't do. IMO

[GhostOfRome]

Actually I agree whole heartidly bro. People don't seem to understand I have recomped from about 22% down to 17% while on Test and have gained strength and muscle size. The way I see it is simple, if you use just to look good and get the added benefits of testosterone then why wouldn't you use it as a tool to get where you want to be instead of just using it when you are already sub 10%. Boggles my mind as well. Also you gave a very good testimony about using it to maintain during a cut. I agree, why lose what you already had when you can cruise through your cut with some test then blast off again.

I'll go as far to say this, I don't believe in cycling. What's the honest point? You put your body through the ringer over and over and over up and down on the hormone rollercoaster. To what? Lose half your gains or more. If you are going to use steriods, you might as well be on some form of test while cruising. Then blasting. I see no real reason to use AAS if you come on and off. Not saying it can't be done safely. I just don't see the point in pinning at all. Agree or disagree would like to hear others as well.

Good post btw bro.

[scorpion62]

Go with the twelve weeks if you have the gear to do it, in for a pound in for a penny Metalject , and I thought the issue with high BF was the fact of picking up on signs of gyno when you cycle

[GhostOfRome]

Go with the twelve weeks if you have the gear to do it, in for a pound in for a penny Metalject , and I thought the issue with high BF was the fact of picking up on signs of gyno

would such an issue even matter if ran with a proper AI chief?

[warmouth]

Great post Metalject! Very interesting perspective, albeit wrong....just kidding. I think for most people, 15% is a great percentage if they arent competing. And I get what youre saying about mass being what most think the end goal is. I've learned a lot from this site and Ive realized that AAS use is and should be used to help accomplish what a person is already doing to reach their goals. Basically, AAS should only be used to assist a person and not guide the person. Hence the number one reason I believe a person should be into their 20s before using. Im not as concerned with hpta as I am with overall laziness and lack of drive to do the work themselves. Young guys seem to expect to never train and start taking AAS then start training. But I'll try not derail the topic.
And 500mgs of a long ester should be ran 12 weeks minimum, lol.

[AD]

good post Metal.

you made a good point, yourself as an example, of how using AAS at 15%bf can be done safely and successfully.

in your opinion, what level of bf will be considered too high for cycling? at what point will it become medically unsafe or unhealthy to use?

[warmouth]

Go with the twelve weeks if you have the gear to do it, in for a pound in for a penny Metalject , and I thought the issue with high BF was the fact of picking up on signs of gyno when you cycle

I think most guys who are advocates for 12% or so are more concerned with the actual work ethic of the person at over 15. With a properly dosed AI, a fat person isn't at anymore of a risk of gyno. Trt is a perfect example. I know 2 fat guys on trt and thier doses are high compared to mine or my cousins. We all use the same dr, and they are almost doubled what mine is.

[blacktoppete]

I agree with you 100%. Shit 30yrs ago dam near the whole gym was juiced up. Young,old and fat you name it. We used half the mgs used today ate like shit and had no pct's and alot of them looked fantastic. I still see alot of those guys around and at the gym today. I started using at the age of 16,I am 45 now 5 kids later and my dick still gets hard. Live for today my friends you never know what tomorrow is going to bring.

[--->>405<<---]

personally IMO u have to be careful when suggesting to people with high bf% its ok to run aas cycles.

1. why are they fat?
2. how is their blood pressure?
3. how long has it been since they were in the gym?
4. do they know how to diet?
5. do they have the discipline to diet well assuming they know what to eat?
6. what kind of base do they have underneath their fat?
7. what is the purpose of running the cycle?

i dont believe necessarily a blanket statement can be made "anyone over 14.86% bf is too fat to run a cycle" but as a rule in an environment like this one dealing with people trying to get "back into shape" specifically if ur bf% is high IMO it is a pretty good indicator considering an AAS cycle may be a bit premature.

[warmouth]

I think that with good BW, a person can tinker a bit. I do think that if a person is obese, steroids would be a waste because the results would suck compared to a leaner person.

[warmouth]

personally IMO u have to be careful when suggesting to people with high bf% its ok to run aas cycles.

1. why are they fat?
2. how is their blood pressure?
3. how long has it been since they were in the gym?
4. do they know how to diet?
5. do they have the discipline to diet well assuming they know what to eat?
6. what kind of base do they have underneath their fat?
7. what is the purpose of running the cycle?

i dont believe necessarily a blanket statement can be made "anyone over 14.86% bf is too fat to run a cycle" but as a rule in an environment like this one dealing with people trying to get "back into shape" specifically if ur bf% is high IMO it is a pretty good indicator considering an AAS cycle may be a bit premature.

I agree. People need to pass a physical and be healthy no doubt.

[scorpion62]

I think most guys who are advocates for 12% or so are more concerned with the actual work ethic of the person at over 15. With a properly dosed AI, a fat person isn't at anymore of a risk of gyno. Trt is a perfect example. I know 2 fat guys on trt and thier doses are high compared to mine or my cousins. We all use the same dr, and they are almost doubled what mine is.

I wasnt implying the fat people are more at risk of getting gyno I thought if you were carrying to much weight that it would be harder to detect the signs

[--->>405<<---]

shoot man i take cycling seriously. i mean, to some of u guys it may just be "another cycle" but to me its a lot more than that, and im on TRT. lets face it, running cycles of AAS is taking health risks. u never know how ur body is going to react. i have been working my butt off for the past 18months trying to get in good shape and learn as much about diet and lifting and AAS as i can. it is only now that i feel in am ready to run a cycle. personally im not going to make recommendations to others that i would not do myself, and theres no way in hell id run a cycle at 20%bf. if i cant lean out and get in better shape than that i dont need to cycle. and lets face it, 20% body fat is fat.. period.. been there. done it.

[warmouth]

I wasnt implying the fat people are more at risk of getting gyno I thought if you were carrying to much weight that it would be harder to detect the signs

I understand. But aromatization should be easily controlled by a correct AI dose. But I'm not talking about an obese person. I should have been clear. Just a person around 15-20%.

[warmouth]

shoot man i take cycling seriously. i mean, to some of u guys it may just be "another cycle" but to me its a lot more than that, and im on TRT. lets face it, running cycles of AAS is taking health risks. u never know how ur body is going to react. i have been working my butt off for the past 18months trying to get in good shape and learn as much about diet and lifting and AAS as i can. it is only now that i feel in am ready to run a cycle. personally im not going to make recommendations to others that i would not do myself, and theres no way in hell id run a cycle at 20%bf. if i cant lean out and get in better shape than that i dont need to cycle. and lets face it, 20% body fat is fat.. period.. been there. done it.

But you're a freak of nature 405! I agree no person should jump in. But realistically, 15-20% isn't unheathy. Much over that might be. But I was about 17-18% first time and dropped to 11-12% in 7weeks on test P. So there is a benefit in assisting in weight loss. But if you eat like crap off and on, youll put on fat either way.

[m_donnelly]

Personally, I don't buy into many absolutes and this is one if those cases. I know plenty of powerlifters who's BF % hangs around 15-20% year round and they get a lot out of their cycles. I've also trained with bodybuilders who have gotten fatter than holy- hell in the off-season and come back fine.

I do agree that a person needs to figure out why they've gotten that heavy before turning to gear. I too have been around many a gym rat with a crap diet and terrible work ethic who jump in hear first. But, they're not the sharpest knives in the drawer either so they run into problems and never run gear again.

I guess we can all agree on a few things; stupid people shouldnt mess with their endocrine system.

[scorpion62]

would such an issue even matter if ran with a proper AI chief?

The only way there would be an issue if you didnt run the correct dose of AI,this would depend on steroid dose

[Bio-Active]

I am on board with 405 on this but I see the point of the start of the thread. If a person can be disciplined... then cycling at a higher body fat could.... be OK but lets be realistic most not all... most people with a higher body fat have not put the effort in to there diet or training to really gain from a cycle?

[--->>405<<---]

I guess we can all agree on a few things; stupid people shouldnt mess with their endocrine system.

LMAO!! agreed! LOL.. one of the best conclusions ive seen in awhile! good job!

[m_donnelly]

Here's the deal, if I posted my macros, my meal plan and my training program along with a proposed cycle, I guarantee that many would applaud my ingenuity and knowledge. Then, I'd blow all of your minds and post my BF% and get a whole bunch of "fattys shouldn't use gear!!!"

Now, I haven't run a cycle in years and I don't plan on it any time soon. Right now, my metabolism is too much of a mess (reasons out of my control) for me to run gear. So, basically, I am too fat to do a cycle but the high BF% isn't the issue; the events that turned me into Katherine Turner are.

[Bio-Active]

My point exactly... There are exceptions to every rule they are just few and far inbetween

Here's the deal, if I posted my macros, my meal plan and my training program along with a proposed cycle, I guarantee that many would applaud my ingenuity and knowledge. Then, I'd blow all of your minds and post my BF% and get a whole bunch of "fattys shouldn't use gear!!!"

Now, I haven't run a cycle in years and I don't plan on it any time soon. Right now, my metabolism is too much of a mess (reasons out of my control) for me to run gear. So, basically, I am too fat to do a cycle but the high BF% isn't the issue; the events that turned me into Katherine Turner are.

[kronik420]

Here's the deal, if I posted my macros, my meal plan and my training program along with a proposed cycle, I guarantee that many would applaud my ingenuity and knowledge. Then, I'd blow all of your minds and post my BF% and get a whole bunch of "fattys shouldn't use gear!!!"

Now, I haven't run a cycle in years and I don't plan on it any time soon. Right now, my metabolism is too much of a mess (reasons out of my control) for me to run gear. So, basically, I am too fat to do a cycle but the high BF% isn't the issue; the events that turned me into Katherine Turner are.

i think i got a few of those comments in my log lol..

im currently 3 weeks into my cycle and so far no sides (except for PIP lol)...

still on the same dose for my AI (.25mg EOD liquidex).. seems to be doing it's job..

[sixfootseven]

Great thread

[warmouth]

Great thread

It really is a great thread isn't it? Good for discussion and hearing all different points of view.

[MickeyKnox]

A common theme you see on many message boards is that you need to be at a certain body fat before you use any steroids. The idea is that if your body fat is at a certain point or beyond:

1. You won’t be able to combat side effects
2. You won’t get any thing out of your cycle
3. You’ll be shortchanging your gains (whatever the crap that means…I hate the word “Gains” as it’s so often inaccurately used to describe and encompass all steroid use, but that’s another argument for another day)

Before I go any further this little discussion is not taking into account obese men, that’s a separate argument. The argument here is that if a man is 15% body fat or more using steroids would be pointless, disastrous or both. My point is this simply isn’t true. Let’s also keep in mind 15%BF is not considered unhealthy; in fact, medically men in the 15-20% are considered healthy, older men can sometimes slightly increase that and still be well within a healthy range.

So here’s the argument or at least the primary ones:

1. You won’t be able to control aromatization if you’re 15% BF or more…this is false. You may very well need to give it more attention, but it can still be controlled. You also must take into account the individualistic nature of man…many will have an easy time controlling it regardless of being a very low BF or even 15+.

2. You have to lose body fat first before you use any gear….False. This doesn’t take into account the muscle tissue lost that will ABSOLUTELY occur regardless of how well-planned your diet is. If you can control side effects, which you can, and if you can maintain more of your muscle mass while losing fat, which you can, you will burn fat at a more efficient rate and you will look much better as your diet progresses and even more so when it comes to an end.

A good example….through my years of bodybuilding I can think back on one year in particular where I allowed myself to gain far more fat in the off-season than I should have. I was desperate to put on more size and while I still ate very clean I simply ate too much and put on too much fat. I don’t know what my BF was at the end of that off-season but I can guarantee you it was every bit of 15% if not a little more. So I started my prep that year, it was a very hard diet, I’d call it brutal and while all contest diets are brutal it was more than it should have been because I got a little too fat. However, the end result was good, but would it have been as good if I had dieted naturally? Not a chance. I would have lost a lot of muscle mass, not a chance I could have gotten as lean and hard with as much muscle mass preserved had I been natural…it would go against the very laws of common sense to even imply it.

The long and short, there’s more to steroid use than simply putting on piles and piles of muscle. For some that’s the entire point and that’s OK too but it’s not the end all be all. If you can use gear to aid you in your pursuit while maintaining your health despite being 15%+ I see absolutely no reason why you shouldn’t.

This ends my rambling and point of view for today. I'm sure many will disagree and that's OK too. The way I see it, it gives us something else to talk about other than "should I use 500mg/test/wk for 10 or 12wks?"

In the immortal words of Joe Pesci, "allow me to retort";

For starters, I'm not clear on who your argument is with? I dont believe i have ever seen anyone suggest that using AAS while BF is at unfavorable levels that it would be, "pointless, disastrous or both." Nor has anyone, that i have seen or read here, commented that "You won’t be able to combat side effects" or that "You won’t get any thing out of your cycle". Those are clearly two extremes that youve misrepresented to support your opinion. Nothing wrong with having an different opinion. But this is untrue on this site, imho..

Myself, and others here, are huge advocates for reducing BF to levels more conducive to preventing unwanted side effects. And what is that levels you ask? I believe through personal experience, other individual accounts, sound research, and empirical data, that the higher your BF the more susceptible you are to experiencing unwanted sides. And these sides include, but are not limited to, ED, water retention, acne, heart disease, and a host of others.

Your argument is weak at best, but your point is clear. I agree that there is no magical number or threshold etched in stone. However the point that I and others try to convey is, the lower your BF, the less likely you will experience unwanted sides.

[GhostOfRome]

In the immortal words of Joe Pesci, "allow me to retort";

For starters, I'm not clear on who your argument is with? I dont believe i have ever seen anyone suggest that using AAS while BF is at unfavorable levels that it would be, "pointless, disastrous or both." Nor has anyone, that i have seen or read here, commented that "You won’t be able to combat side effects" or that "You won’t get any thing out of your cycle". Those are clearly two extremes that youve misrepresented to support your opinion. Nothing wrong with having an different opinion. But this is untrue on this site, imho..

Myself, and others here, are huge advocates for reducing BF to levels more conducive to preventing unwanted side effects. And what is that levels you ask? I believe through personal experience, other individual accounts, sound research, and empirical data, that the higher your BF the more susceptible you are to experiencing unwanted sides. And these sides include, but are not limited to, ED, water retention, acne, heart disease, and a host of others.

Your argument is weak at best, but your point is clear. I agree that there is no magical number or threshold etched in stone. However the point that I and others try to convey is, the lower your BF, the less likely you will experience unwanted sides.

While I agree, are the sides limited to the conversion of estro or from just the test alone? Because estrogen can be combated easily with an on cycle AI and proper bloodwork.

[MickeyKnox]

While I agree, are the sides limited to the conversion of estro or from just the test alone? Because estrogen can be combated easily with an on cycle AI and proper bloodwork.

Other than the widely known sides that develop from the introduction of exogenous testosterone, beyond that is anyone's guess.

[m_donnelly]

Adipose tissue stores aromatase. So, more fatty tissue equates to faster conversion of testosterone to estrogen. More estrogen means more side effects... And, we live in a world where guys stick needles full of testosterone into the side of their ass without a PCT protocol much less an AI on board... So, I see both sides of the argument.

[AD]

hey... i think op has abandon the thread...

[Lunk1]

Adipose tissue stores aromatase. So, more fatty tissue equates to faster conversion of testosterone to estrogen. More estrogen means more side effects... And, we live in a world where guys stick needles full of testosterone into the side of their ass without a PCT protocol much less an AI on board... So, I see both sides of the argument.

So a fatter person has more of the aromatase enzymes than a thinner one????

[MickeyKnox]

So a fatter person has more of the aromatase enzymes than a thinner one????

Yes.

[Bio-Active]

Yes.

This is exactly why I believe the leaner you are the smaller ai dose you need?

[MickeyKnox]

hey... i think op has abandon the thread...

I hope not. I like Metalject and enjoy his comments. However i think he dropped the ball here using his own personal experience to guide him and not collective data that supports the opposite.

[ppwc1985]

Well just because a person is over 15% don't really mean their lazy, I know Guys who play ball and who are over 20% but ill wager they can out lift and out run 90% of the ppl on this site to include myself. It's not safe for anyone to run aas at high bf % but if someone knows themselves and knows what they can handle safely that is all that matters to me.

[MickeyKnox]

Well just because a person is over 15% don't really mean their lazy, What are you talking about??I know Guys who play ball and who are over 20% but ill wager they can out lift and out run 90% of the ppl on this site to include myself. Again, what are you talking about?? It's not safe for anyone to run aas at high bf % but if someone knows themselves and knows what they can handle safely that is all that matters to me. But you dont know how any ONE specific person reacts..that's the point! But, we DO know how collectively(through research and published data) overweight or unusually high BF users react to supraphysical amounts of exogenous testosterone, do.

Reds..

[ppwc1985]

No but I do know how my body reacts to it. I'm just saying that just because somebody ain't cut don't mean they are lazy.

[warmouth]

So a fatter person has more of the aromatase enzymes than a thinner one????

I'd like to dig on this one. I think all of us should honestly. Maybe even get Stem in on it. From my understanding, just because you lose a certain amount of body fat, doesnt actually mean you lose fat cells. I think they just shrink. I'm pretty sure I heard one of the Nutrition gurus talk to a female member recently on the subject, and he had alot of data to support it. So I dont know if there is more aromatase enzyme in expanded fat cells or not, hopefully he will chime in.

I personally think Metalject has something up his sleeve here and not abandoning it. I just think he is letting us ponder it. I am serious about him being on of the most knowledgeable guys on AAS that I have ever seen, as far as common sense stuff is concerned. So lets be patient with him because I guarantee you he will plop something on us after he reads all of this over.

As far as my comments go, I think 15-20ish is ok, but I also dont see 15-20 as unhealthy. Much more than we could make that argument. But AAS can help a 18% BF (like I was) drop a significant amount of BF as long as the person is willing to put in the effort it will take. But an obese person is a whole different story. An obese person is not willing to put the work in on his own, and doesnt have any business in AAS until he can prove himself by regulating his diet and exercise. And it would be almost impossible for him to adjust his AI without BW, so he wouldnt be certain if he was experiencing gyno early enough in some cases, I'd say.

I just think this is an interesting topic, and one we all can learn from if we can keep an open mind and be willing to be wrong. If I am wrong with anything, on any topic, I want to know it so that I dont say or do something to harm someone else. And as a "productive" member here, I feel that I need to know everything that I can in order to help wherever I can.

[OdinsOtherSon]

I'd like to dig on this one. I think all of us should honestly. Maybe even get Stem in on it. From my understanding, just because you lose a certain amount of body fat, doesnt actually mean you lose fat cells. I think they just shrink. I'm pretty sure I heard one of the Nutrition gurus talk to a female member recently on the subject, and he had alot of data to support it. So I dont know if there is more aromatase enzyme in expanded fat cells or not, hopefully he will chime in.

I personally think Metalject has something up his sleeve here and not abandoning it. I just think he is letting us ponder it. I am serious about him being on of the most knowledgeable guys on AAS that I have ever seen, as far as common sense stuff is concerned. So lets be patient with him because I guarantee you he will plop something on us after he reads all of this over.

As far as my comments go, I think 15-20ish is ok, but I also dont see 15-20 as unhealthy. Much more than we could make that argument. But AAS can help a 18% BF (like I was) drop a significant amount of BF as long as the person is willing to put in the effort it will take. But an obese person is a whole different story. An obese person is not willing to put the work in on his own, and doesnt have any business in AAS until he can prove himself by regulating his diet and exercise. And it would be almost impossible for him to adjust his AI without BW, so he wouldnt be certain if he was experiencing gyno early enough in some cases, I'd say.

I just think this is an interesting topic, and one we all can learn from if we can keep an open mind and be willing to be wrong. If I am wrong with anything, on any topic, I want to know it so that I dont say or do something to harm someone else. And as a "productive" member here, I feel that I need to know everything that I can in order to help wherever I can.

I've read the same.... you don't lose bodyfat, you simply shrink the size of the cells.

I agree with you warmouth. I think there is definitely some credibility to this notion, so long as we're talking about an otherwise healthy person (not obese). Obviously this isn't going to work for just anyone but I tend to generally agree that the whole "no one over 15% bf" should even consider aas usage is just painting with too broad a brush; however, it is also a good base line with great safety protocols built in. I think its person dependent at the end of the day. Another prime example of why educating oneself prior to any aas use is paramount. Just my $0.02

[Bio-Active]

I'd like to dig on this one. I think all of us should honestly. Maybe even get Stem in on it. From my understanding, just because you lose a certain amount of body fat, doesnt actually mean you lose fat cells. I think they just shrink. I'm pretty sure I heard one of the Nutrition gurus talk to a female member recently on the subject, and he had alot of data to support it. So I dont know if there is more aromatase enzyme in expanded fat cells or not, hopefully he will chime in.

I personally think Metalject has something up his sleeve here and not abandoning it. I just think he is letting us ponder it. I am serious about him being on of the most knowledgeable guys on AAS that I have ever seen, as far as common sense stuff is concerned. So lets be patient with him because I guarantee you he will plop something on us after he reads all of this over.

As far as my comments go, I think 15-20ish is ok, but I also dont see 15-20 as unhealthy. Much more than we could make that argument. But AAS can help a 18% BF (like I was) drop a significant amount of BF as long as the person is willing to put in the effort it will take. But an obese person is a whole different story. An obese person is not willing to put the work in on his own, and doesnt have any business in AAS until he can prove himself by regulating his diet and exercise. And it would be almost impossible for him to adjust his AI without BW, so he wouldnt be certain if he was experiencing gyno early enough in some cases, I'd say.

I just think this is an interesting topic, and one we all can learn from if we can keep an open mind and be willing to be wrong. If I am wrong with anything, on any topic, I want to know it so that I dont say or do something to harm someone else. And as a "productive" member here, I feel that I need to know everything that I can in order to help wherever I can.

Once your body creates fat cells the only way to destroy them is with surgery but you can deplete them yes. Effort is a big thing with ass. At 20 % bf it is hard to tell if a person is going to put the effort in to there nutrition and training to deplete those fat cells and cycling at the bf % will you get stronger? More than likely yes but you will only make your physic look different if you can maintain proper nutrition and training. We all know you don't need aas to get leaner