hypothetical question about stack....

[strunes]

Hypothetically speaking if you had 90 days to put on some serious muscle and loose some body fat what would be your ideal stack and what supplements would you use??

I'm 46 and have been on TRT for 6 plus years and have 6-7 solid cycles behind me and have a near unlimited supply of gear available.....

[ksingh93]

anadrol 50 mgs 1-4 weeks
test e or c 1000 mg ew 1-8 weeks
tren ace 100 mg eod 1-8 weeks (if you can deal with sides )
eq 600 mg ew 1-8 weeks
sustanon 1000 mg ew 8-16
deca 750 mg ew 8-16
winnie 50 mg ed week 12-16
cytomel -75 mcg ed week 12-16
clen 80 to 140 mcg ed as per your tolerance week 14-16

arimidex week 1-16 as needed to keep estrogen in upper normal range
caber should be used accordingly to combat with prolactin sides.
liv 52 or n2 gaurd all cycle and after
hcg 250 iu 3 × week week 1-16
hcg 2500 iu ew week 17-19
clomid and nolva week 20-24

blood work should be done before during and after cycle.

for educational purpose only

[ksingh93]

insulin will be used on big and lacking bodypart days only 2 peaks per week and hgh will be used for whole cycle . wont give the dosages because too many teens and noobs read this forum and that stuff is no joke it can kill you. hgh can make you insulin resistance and insulin can kill you instantly if you dont know what you are doing.

[strunes]

Thanks, for the education!

[Eduke93]

Hypothetically speaking if you had 90 days to put on some serious muscle and loose some body fat what would be your ideal stack and what supplements would you use??

I'm 46 and have been on TRT for 6 plus years and have 6-7 solid cycles behind me and have a near unlimited supply of gear available.....

Your TRT dose combined with Tren ace @ 100mg EOD and Masteron P @ 100mg EOD.

Rest is diet and training.

[AlphaMindz]

I'm surprised there aren't 50 diff people posting all kinds of crazy cycles lol.

Without knowing your background, stats, and specific goals I can only give you a generic layout of typical cycles...

Test e ~1000mgs week - you always wanna run test as your base and you wanna keep the dosage around a gram a week IME.
Deca OR Equipoise ~600mgs week - you wanna stack an anabolic compound with the testosterone in order to get the most out of the drug. Test works synergistically with other hormones so you want to take advantage of that.

The above mentioned is the most commonly prescribed cycle, about a gram of test stacked with an anabolic (for example test is "androgenic' and deca is "anabolic") so people tend to stack the two types as to maintain the test base and then add in other compounds to stack on top of the test.

You can also add in an oral compound for the first 3-4 weeks while the injectables are building up in your system. People call this "kick starting" and a common steroid used to kick start is dianabol. If you choose to add in dbol I would get the 5mg or 10mg pills and don't take more than 30mg throughout the day as that is plenty.

There are many ways of stacking drugs and approaching this and you'll have to find what works best for you. Don't go crazy with drugs just because you have the resources to. It's very tempting but truth is drugs will only get you so far anyway. Most of the gains come from driving calories and training hard, and resting! Even with gear, rest is massively important and so is training and diet (as most of us know by now but I repeat to drive the point home for new guys reading this).

The last thing I wanted to mention is there are plenty of useful drugs you can use to polish off your physique but that would be more for contest prep which is a different animal altogether and that's where t3, clen, even tren and masteron and numerous other drugs come into play. Don't use drugs you don't need cause you'll short change yourself later on when your body doesn't respond to them.

What is your ultimate goal?

[GearHeaded]

Your base for the whole 90 days
Test 1500mg week
Deca 600mg week
HGH 8iu per day
Insulin 20-40iu per day
T4 100mcg per day

then you have three phases you run with that base

Phase 1 (weeks 1-4) - estrogen and osmotic super compensation phase (trying to get estrogen and blood volume super high to start)
Anadrol 50mg per day
Dbol 50mg per day
NPP 100mg per day

Phase 2 (weeks 5-8) - max estrogen phase with an ancillary anabolic
Ment 50mg per day
Dbol 50mg per day
Masteron 100mg per day

phase 3 (weeks 9-12) - androgen and anabolic phase
Tren a 50mg per day
Masteron 50mg per day
Anavar 50mg per day

there is no specific 'anabolic' phase here, as all 3 phases are incorporating this.

phase 1 goal is to put on water retention weight and increase blood volume and blood thickness as much as possible (this will help with growth the whole cycle). also to get estrogen levels to elevate asap to help sensitize androgen receptors and promote over all muscle growth. the NPP is our anabolic that also front loads deca for the duration of the cycle
phase 2 with the combo of Ment and Dbol we have a 'max estrogen' phase. estgeon and water retention will be at peak levels here. Masteron is added in as an ancillary anabolic/androgenic that will off set some of the negative sides of possible prolactin and estrogen without doing it to such a degree that it limits growth.
phase 3 (the test and deca base are in full force at this point) we offset all of that osmotic super compensation and estrogen by bringing in a strong androgen, Tren. This will be synergistic with the already elevated estrogen levels and off set negatives but will also be providing synergistic growth (as high levels of androgens in the presence elevated estrogen will promote more iGF and more tissue growth).

this type of cycle is primary focused on GROWTH. not aesthetics . its to put on as much tissue as possible in 12 weeks.
Ancillaries needed or on hand Nolvadex (probably run 10-20mg per day during phase 1 and 2). no AI, but have arimidex or letro on hand. a DA like caber will not be needed unless your prolactin sensitive. Masteron will act like both a SERM and a DA to some degrees at the receptor levels

[Dannyboy51577]

Your TRT dose combined with Tren ace @ 100mg EOD and Masteron P @ 100mg EOD.

Rest is diet and training.

I'm with you Duke. I cant see the need for jumping into 2 or 3 grams of gear right out of the gate. That would drive me nuts. This is a solid cycle, you can add in a touch more test or tren if you wish, and maybe toss in a T3 or clen if you are feeling frisky and got a decent amount of bad you want to drop. Gotta get good results outta less gear before you start gettin into massive amounts of gear

[GearHeaded]

I'm with you Duke. I cant see the need for jumping into 2 or 3 grams of gear right out of the gate. That would drive me nuts. This is a solid cycle, you can add in a touch more test or tren if you wish, and maybe toss in a T3 or clen if you are feeling frisky and got a decent amount of bad you want to drop. Gotta get good results outta less gear before you start gettin into massive amounts of gear

unfortunately for a lot of guys , test/tren/mast, is not going to put on a lot of size (lot of guys run stacks like this and end up losing weight even though they thought they were going to get huge).
its probably the most common shredding cycle though

Gotta get good results outta less gear before you start gettin into massive amounts of gear

I agree here especially if your just training and running gear for shits and giggles. might as well start low and get what you can out of that first.
However, for anyone really serious I take the opposite approach.
I'll explain

lets say you had two identical twins with exactly the same genetics, training, diets, etc.. after 3 years of natty training they are ready for gear. they are both 190 pounds.
twin A, starts with your traditional low dosage cycles and over time slowly works his dosage up with each new cycle he does
twin B, starts with advanced cycles and protocols and over time becomes very efficient at utilizing AAS and doesn't have to keep going up

if they both have 3 years of enhanced bodybuilding , twin B is going to get much more results and have a more muscular physique over that 3 years then twin A.

thats because Twin B by using advanced AAS protocols and heavier dosages is going to force his body to adapt to that massive influx of hormones and he will ultimately build more androgen receptors to accommodate the heavy dosages and create more muscle cells and create cells that are more efficient at using AAS compounds (cells produced while under the influence of AAS are built to better utilize AAS then cells existing prior to AAS usage).
the twin A approach with small dosages slowly worked up over time is not going to create the homeostatic stress response to make all the things happen that twin B did.

Twin B is simply going to have more androgen receptors, more cell nuclei, more cells, and have cells that better utilize AAS . thus he will ultimately be the more muscular twin.

so really , it depends on your goals and your health concerns..


I know of bodybuilders that started AAS later in life that say if they were to go back and do it all again they would of started at a much younger age and would of utilized more advanced AAS and high amounts of HGH , even as young as 17 .. <--- I'm not promoting that, I'm simply repeating what someone else has said.

[charger69]

unfortunately for a lot of guys , test/tren/mast, is not going to put on a lot of size (lot of guys run stacks like this and end up losing weight even though they thought they were going to get huge).
its probably the most common shredding cycle though




I agree here especially if your just training and running gear for shits and giggles. might as well start low and get what you can out of that first.
However, for anyone really serious I take the opposite approach.
I'll explain

lets say you had two identical twins with exactly the same genetics, training, diets, etc.. after 3 years of natty training they are ready for gear. they are both 190 pounds.
twin A, starts with your traditional low dosage cycles and over time slowly works his dosage up with each new cycle he does
twin B, starts with advanced cycles and protocols and over time becomes very efficient at utilizing AAS and doesn't have to keep going up

if they both have 3 years of enhanced bodybuilding , twin B is going to get much more results and have a more muscular physique over that 3 years then twin A.

thats because Twin B by using advanced AAS protocols and heavier dosages is going to force his body to adapt to that massive influx of hormones and he will ultimately build more androgen receptors to accommodate the heavy dosages and create more muscle cells and create cells that are more efficient at using AAS compounds (cells produced while under the influence of AAS are built to better utilize AAS then cells existing prior to AAS usage).
the twin A approach with small dosages slowly worked up over time is not going to create the homeostatic stress response to make all the things happen that twin B did.

Twin B is simply going to have more androgen receptors, more cell nuclei, more cells, and have cells that better utilize AAS . thus he will ultimately be the more muscular twin.

so really , it depends on your goals and your health concerns..


I know of bodybuilders that started AAS later in life that say if they were to go back and do it all again they would of started at a much younger age and would of utilized more advanced AAS and high amounts of HGH , even as young as 17 .. <--- I'm not promoting that, I'm simply repeating what someone else has said.

Are you calling Obs and me twins? LOL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[charger69]

unfortunately for a lot of guys , test/tren/mast, is not going to put on a lot of size (lot of guys run stacks like this and end up losing weight even though they thought they were going to get huge).
its probably the most common shredding cycle though

Precomp cycle right there!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dannyboy51577]

unfortunately for a lot of guys , test/tren/mast, is not going to put on a lot of size (lot of guys run stacks like this and end up losing weight even though they thought they were going to get huge).
its probably the most common shredding cycle though




I agree here especially if your just training and running gear for shits and giggles. might as well start low and get what you can out of that first.
However, for anyone really serious I take the opposite approach.
I'll explain

lets say you had two identical twins with exactly the same genetics, training, diets, etc.. after 3 years of natty training they are ready for gear. they are both 190 pounds.
twin A, starts with your traditional low dosage cycles and over time slowly works his dosage up with each new cycle he does
twin B, starts with advanced cycles and protocols and over time becomes very efficient at utilizing AAS and doesn't have to keep going up

if they both have 3 years of enhanced bodybuilding , twin B is going to get much more results and have a more muscular physique over that 3 years then twin A.

thats because Twin B by using advanced AAS protocols and heavier dosages is going to force his body to adapt to that massive influx of hormones and he will ultimately build more androgen receptors to accommodate the heavy dosages and create more muscle cells and create cells that are more efficient at using AAS compounds (cells produced while under the influence of AAS are built to better utilize AAS then cells existing prior to AAS usage).
the twin A approach with small dosages slowly worked up over time is not going to create the homeostatic stress response to make all the things happen that twin B did.

Twin B is simply going to have more androgen receptors, more cell nuclei, more cells, and have cells that better utilize AAS . thus he will ultimately be the more muscular twin.

so really , it depends on your goals and your health concerns..


I know of bodybuilders that started AAS later in life that say if they were to go back and do it all again they would of started at a much younger age and would of utilized more advanced AAS and high amounts of HGH , even as young as 17 .. <--- I'm not promoting that, I'm simply repeating what someone else has said.

I can understand what ur saying GH but that while theory is based off advanced bodybuilders. And advanced bodybuilders that have peaked through lower gear dosages. It doesnt apply to 95% of the people reading the advised dosages. I mean the guy didn't even get specific on his goals or experience, and he is already getti g suggestions to start dumping a few grams worth of gear.

As far as not being able to put on size on test, tren, mast, I have to really disagree. For anyone that has done it, tren is just as effective as a mass builder as it is a shredder. I'm not the tren expert but I know a few who are well versed with it and use it specifically for that. Its not what comes to mind when you think of adding size, but I would take a test, then, mast combo at lower dosages and tweak accordingly over tossing that kind of quantity into my system right off the bat

[Quester]

unfortunately for a lot of guys , test/tren/mast, is not going to put on a lot of size (lot of guys run stacks like this and end up losing weight even though they thought they were going to get huge).
its probably the most common shredding cycle though




I agree here especially if your just training and running gear for shits and giggles. might as well start low and get what you can out of that first.
However, for anyone really serious I take the opposite approach.
I'll explain

lets say you had two identical twins with exactly the same genetics, training, diets, etc.. after 3 years of natty training they are ready for gear. they are both 190 pounds.
twin A, starts with your traditional low dosage cycles and over time slowly works his dosage up with each new cycle he does
twin B, starts with advanced cycles and protocols and over time becomes very efficient at utilizing AAS and doesn't have to keep going up

if they both have 3 years of enhanced bodybuilding , twin B is going to get much more results and have a more muscular physique over that 3 years then twin A.

thats because Twin B by using advanced AAS protocols and heavier dosages is going to force his body to adapt to that massive influx of hormones and he will ultimately build more androgen receptors to accommodate the heavy dosages and create more muscle cells and create cells that are more efficient at using AAS compounds (cells produced while under the influence of AAS are built to better utilize AAS then cells existing prior to AAS usage).
the twin A approach with small dosages slowly worked up over time is not going to create the homeostatic stress response to make all the things happen that twin B did.

Twin B is simply going to have more androgen receptors, more cell nuclei, more cells, and have cells that better utilize AAS . thus he will ultimately be the more muscular twin.

so really , it depends on your goals and your health concerns..


I know of bodybuilders that started AAS later in life that say if they were to go back and do it all again they would of started at a much younger age and would of utilized more advanced AAS and high amounts of HGH , even as young as 17 .. <--- I'm not promoting that, I'm simply repeating what someone else has said.

This runs contrary to all of the advice I've heard on here about making the first cycle simple and each additional cycle as simplistic until one can't gain without advanced protocals.

[GearHeaded]

This runs contrary to all of the advice I've heard on here about making the first cycle simple and each additional cycle as simplistic until one can't gain without advanced protocals.

well it wasn't "advice" it just happens to be a scientific and biological fact. but that doesn't mean that anyone should follow it just cause it true.
the slow steady and conservative approach is still the best advice for most anyone reading these posts.
just because something is scientifically true doesn't mean it should necessarily be followed (again I was not giving advice).
just like the fact that yes DNP will help you burn fat, period. no doubt. but that doesn't mean you should take it... thats all I was saying in regards to aggressive dosages

[GearHeaded]

I can understand what ur saying GH but that while theory is based off advanced bodybuilders. And advanced bodybuilders that have peaked through lower gear dosages. It doesnt apply to 95% of the people reading the advised dosages. I mean the guy didn't even get specific on his goals or experience, and he is already getti g suggestions to start dumping a few grams worth of gear.

did you read the title of the thread ? its said "hypothetical" stack , for the purpose of putting on serious amounts of muscle .

so I gave him what he asked for, a hypothetical stack . NOT a suggestion (but even so its still a very reasonable stack)

As far as not being able to put on size on test, tren, mast, I have to really disagree. For anyone that has done it, tren is just as effective as a mass builder as it is a shredder. I'm not the tren expert but I know a few who are well versed with it and use it specifically for that. Its not what comes to mind when you think of adding size, but I would take a test, then, mast combo at lower dosages and tweak accordingly over tossing that kind of quantity into my system right off the bat

ok well its not the norm. is it possible, well sure. most pros save tren for the contest season and won't mess with it during the off season except for max androgen phases. I'd say about 2 out of 10 guys can actually grow well off of tren (when tren is the main compound).
I've used it for bulking. got clients using it as well. but the norm for guys that run it as a primary compound is they lean out and they can't keep up with their food intake to grow a lot while on it (lack of sleep and lack of appetite are big side effects of tren)

you show me 2 guys that put on 40 pounds using Tren and Mast, and I'll show you for every one of your 2 at least 10 guys that put on 40 pounds with Deca and Dbol.

unless you let your estrogen sky rocket, its not the easiest thing to bulk whole on tren compared to other compounds. its why despite popular bro belief, tren by itself is NOT given to cattle to beef them up for slaughter (estrogen is)

I just got done running a gram a week of Tren e, Tren ace, and Tren suspension . With 500mg of mast and 2000mg a week of test.. I didn't gain a single pound. I ended up recomping and getting a little harder and leaner.. even though I was trying to bulk.
this is about my 10th time or so trying to bulk with tren. some guys are gifted and they can put on some size with tren, but most can't.
(it can be done , but you can't use it as your primary compound. your better off running it as soley an androgen in your stack with things like Deca, Dbol, and Anadrol)

[kelkel]

lets say you had two identical twins with exactly the same genetics, training, diets, etc.. after 3 years of natty training they are ready for gear.

I'm starting with these twins.

[Dannyboy51577]

did you read the title of the thread ? its said "hypothetical" stack , for the purpose of putting on serious amounts of muscle .

so I gave him what he asked for, a hypothetical stack . NOT a suggestion (but even so its still a very reasonable stack)





ok well its not the norm. is it possible, well sure. most pros save tren for the contest season and won't mess with it during the off season except for max androgen phases. I'd say about 2 out of 10 guys can actually grow well off of tren (when tren is the main compound).
I've used it for bulking. got clients using it as well. but the norm for guys that run it as a primary compound is they lean out and they can't keep up with their food intake to grow a lot while on it (lack of sleep and lack of appetite are big side effects of tren)

you show me 2 guys that put on 40 pounds using Tren and Mast, and I'll show you for every one of your 2 at least 10 guys that put on 40 pounds with Deca and Dbol.

unless you let your estrogen sky rocket, its not the easiest thing to bulk whole on tren compared to other compounds. its why despite popular bro belief, tren by itself is NOT given to cattle to beef them up for slaughter (estrogen is)

I just got done running a gram a week of Tren e, Tren ace, and Tren suspension . With 500mg of mast and 2000mg a week of test.. I didn't gain a single pound. I ended up recomping and getting a little harder and leaner.. even though I was trying to bulk.
this is about my 10th time or so trying to bulk with tren. some guys are gifted and they can put on some size with tren, but most can't.
(it can be done , but you can't use it as your primary compound. your better off running it as soley an androgen in your stack with things like Deca, Dbol, and Anadrol)

Sure no doubt you can put on 40lbs with deca and dbol. Deca is my favorite, I run it once or twice a year and put on 30+ lbs every time. But that's not 30lbs of muscle. It's more water than anything.

To say 2 out of 10 can put on size with tren, i think is misstating. If all 10 are actually trying to bulk with tren there should be no problem, unless your regimen is incorrect. You aren't gonna do it with 100mg of tren and 100mg of test, not gonna happen.

And if you didn't gain a pound on over 3 grams of gear, including 2grams of test, something is wrong there. Totally unnecessary amount of gear, but that's just my opinion and what I've learned and heard over and over from guys in the biz over a number of years, I know there's plenty of guys that will say they need 3 and 4 grams of gear, while plenty of others get bigger and better looking off alot less.

[GearHeaded]

Sure no doubt you can put on 40lbs with deca and dbol. Deca is my favorite, I run it once or twice a year and put on 30+ lbs every time. But that's not 30lbs of muscle. It's more water than anything.

didn't you just start running AAS at your age (40s) less then a year or so ago ? and you just recently started dabbling with cycling ? and you spent a good part of this last year with a car accident and injured (so really only have maybe one cycle under your belt) ... so I'm confused as to how you make it sound like you run all these Deca cycles every year and put on 30 pounds each time. yet in the last two decades you've ran a deca cycle once , correct ?
unless your a different "dannyboy" then the one I remember who signed up on this forum about a year ago being new to the whole world of AAS and was asking about his first 'test only' cycle .

just seems off that you were asking about your first test only cycle , and now your suddenly someone that runs multiple deca cycles every year and puts on 30 pounds each time.
from my math, you have maybe 6 months of recent (in the last couple decades) AAS usage under your belt. but again, maybe I'm confusing you with another Dannyboy..


and fyi regarding the water weight.. if its 'inter cellular' water weight and you get a dexa scan it will show up as a increase in LBM (being muscle is made up of 78% water to begin with). so its still muscle even though its "water" . inter cellular water retention is how we build muscle.
which makes perfect sense why 'wet' compounds are considered the best muscle builders and bulkers.


your thread, "old guy new to this just getting started" -- so you went from just getting started with this and needing help last October.. to a guy that runs Deca cycles all the time
https://forums.steroid.com/new-male-...g-started.html

[GearHeaded]

And if you didn't gain a pound on over 3 grams of gear, including 2grams of test, something is wrong there. Totally unnecessary amount of gear, but that's just my opinion and what I've learned and heard over and over from guys in the biz over a number of years, I know there's plenty of guys that will say they need 3 and 4 grams of gear, while plenty of others get bigger and better looking off alot less.

you don't understand fully how steroids work.. the gains that come from a cycle do not all come at once during the time of the cycle only. I ran a high dosage blast as an investment into future gains. the cycle ended a couple days ago. but 10 pounds of gains may be actualized from that 6 months from now.
anyhow, thats a whole other topic and too much info for this thread.

[GearHeaded]

Sure no doubt you can put on 40lbs with deca and dbol. Deca is my favorite, I run it once or twice a year and put on 30+ lbs every time.
And if you didn't gain a pound on over 3 grams of gear, including 2grams of test, something is wrong there. Totally unnecessary amount of gear.. , I know there's plenty of guys that will say they need 3 and 4 grams of gear, while plenty of others get bigger and better looking off alot less.

so ok, if you put on 30 pounds every time you run Deca (and you make it sound like you been doing it for years) , AND your of the opinion that you can get bigger and better looking running low dosages .. then lets see a pic of your current physique and see how all those deca runs and low dosages are currently working out for you

if MY regiment is incorrect , lets see how yours is working

[charger69]

When we are talking about putting on weight, I am assuming it is just that and not lean body mass (ie- competition weight).

I struggle to add 10 lbs of lean body mass per year. I am still learning and trying new things to see if I can improve.

Damn, if anyone could gain 30 lbs of lean body mass from a cycle, then I would shortly be Kai’s size.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GearHeaded]

When we are talking about putting on weight, I am assuming it is just that and not lean body mass (ie- competition weight).

I struggle to add 10 lbs of lean body mass per year. I am still learning and trying new things to see if I can improve.

Damn, if anyone could gain 30 lbs of lean body mass from a cycle, then I would shortly be Kai’s size.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

competition or stage weight is a whole different thing then putting on LBM . yes you could put on 30 pounds of LBM in a year, starting at 12% body fat and ending at 12% body fat and holding a ton more muscle ..
competition weight doesn't account for just an increase in LBM though. you competition weight has a whole lot of other factors that come into play. for one your in a depleted state. so your stage weight is NOT a good measurement of LBM, its more a measurement of how much physical 'tissue' you did not lose while dieting. its more a measurement of how little you lost, compared to how much you gained.
plenty of guys will put on 20 more pounds after a contest. and its not fat.. its just because your stage weight is your 'depleted' weight and not your actual weight.

for guys that compete. sure adding 4 pounds of stage weight from one contest to another may be a big deal. but its not accurate in regards to actual LBM you've put on (thats like measuring out your rice un cooked and with not water in it .. well thats fine, but thats not really how your going to eat it. the water the rice takes in is 'real', its not pretend .. just like the water the muscles take on when your not depleted is real LBM, its not pretend). its more accurate to measure whats real and maintainable , then it is to measure whats temporary and not sustainable (like contest stage weight).
imo

[GearHeaded]

just to clarify
if you get a dexa scan and it reads that your 200 pounds and 10% body fat, and then a year later it reads that your 220 pounds and 10% body fat and have a 20 pound increase in LBM , this is NOT going to equate to 20 pounds of increased contest stage weight.
because they are two different things

[charger69]

competition or stage weight is a whole different thing then putting on LBM . yes you could put on 30 pounds of LBM in a year, starting at 12% body fat and ending at 12% body fat and holding a ton more muscle ..
competition weight doesn't account for just an increase in LBM though. you competition weight has a whole lot of other factors that come into play. for one your in a depleted state. so your stage weight is NOT a good measurement of LBM, its more a measurement of how much physical 'tissue' you did not lose while dieting. its more a measurement of how little you lost, compared to how much you gained.
plenty of guys will put on 20 more pounds after a contest. and its not fat.. its just because your stage weight is your 'depleted' weight and not your actual weight.

for guys that compete. sure adding 4 pounds of stage weight from one contest to another may be a big deal. but its not accurate in regards to actual LBM you've put on (thats like measuring out your rice un cooked and with not water in it .. well thats fine, but thats not really how your going to eat it. the water the rice takes in is 'real', its not pretend .. just like the water the muscles take on when your not depleted is real LBM, its not pretend). its more accurate to measure whats real and maintainable , then it is to measure whats temporary and not sustainable (like contest stage weight).
imo

Never looked at it like that. I was always measuring my contest weight as real LBM. You have a point...... as always.
I would still like to have a cycle that I can put on 30 lbs of LBM.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GearHeaded]

I would still like to have a cycle that I can put on 30 lbs of LBM.

I'm afraid those days are probably long gone for me and you. we've implemented proper training and diet protocols over the years, we've taken all the drugs ,etc.. we are at our age and genetic limit. so we have to scrape and claw for even 5 or so pounds.
guys like Dannyboy mentioned running Deca and putting on 30 pounds like it was no problem. but he just started this whole process like 10 months ago (not 10 years ago), he's a total newb, so he can more easily respond (and respond with low dosages too). 30 pounds is totally doable for someone new to the game.
for us, doing massive stacks with lots of different drugs and variables to gain just 5 pounds is good imo .


edit - ok what I mention above about Dannyboy is incorrect . I was not aware that he started AAS at 19 and when he joined this forum he was just pretending to be a new guy and was just roll playing being a dummy

I started aas when I was 19 into my 30's.
When I came on here, I think I said I hadn't done aas in like 10 or 20 years or something - not really accurate, more like 6 or 8 years maybe, but was told by veteran that referred me here, to come in as a new guy, start with the idea that I'm a dummy,

ok makes total sense now

[Dannyboy51577]

so ok, if you put on 30 pounds every time you run Deca (and you make it sound like you been doing it for years) , AND your of the opinion that you can get bigger and better looking running low dosages .. then lets see a pic of your current physique and see how all those deca runs and low dosages are currently working out for you

if MY regiment is incorrect , lets see how yours is working

I'm the same that came on here about a year or so ago. Not just started, just started back. I started aas when I was 19 into my 30's. Quit when I was having my 2nd daughter for a while and only started back because I had natural test issues, not planning on more kids and figured I'd get back into it. When I came on here, I think I said I hadn't done aas in like 10 or 20 years or something - not really accurate, more like 6 or 8 years maybe, but was told by veteran that referred me here, to come in as a new guy, start with the idea that I'm a dummy, listen and learn how forum worked before I dove in. So I followed that direction and that's what I did.

Not that I need to explain anything about me personally, but the last few yrs or whatever years I've ran 2 or 3 deca cycles, last 2 decades, maybe 10 maybe 20 couldnt tell ya.

Sure I had alot of questions for alot of guys here- I've never dealt with getting aas other than from a personal source, was outta game for long enough to forget some, and not know much about anything new. There was no internet or forums when I was younger. I had a group of vet guys I relied on for info and direction until I learned on my own. Alot of guys here have good info on training methods, different theories, how to get better results, etc. I've never been a know it all. Always alot of people that know more than me.

Having said that, it doesnt change what I said. By no means am I an expert on anything, and I dont pretend to be. I know what i know, what I was taught, what I've researched, experience I have, and what info I get from guys who I can look at and realize they get results and have knowledge. That's it. I'm not a scientist, not a trainer, and dont have my pro card. So forgive me when, in my opinion, I think that 3 grams of gear a week is ridiculous, and I have no clue what you mean by you taking huge amounts of gear now and seeing results in 6 months. Maybe I'm not that smart or dont have a clue. I know very few guys that have ever needed to get to an extreme level of gear, and those guys were actually in the biz, huge, and competing in weight classes that I have no Interest in. If you take 3 grams of gear a week, more power to ya. My point started as, not suggesting to people to jump into such amounts of gear, especially when having no clue of their background.

First off, as I said in my welcome back post, I haven't been around here in a few months due to an accident. I look like a pile of hot garbage right now and getting back into routine for first time in maybe 3 or 4 months. I make no secret about saying I fell off during that time and am in no shape to talk about physique. But at the same time, I will say, getting back into my routine after that amount of time off, I wont need 3 grams a wk to get back to where I was, that i know. I dont usually do progress pics but if you are that interested I will. But I'm also very curious what 3 grams of gear a week gets ya

[GearHeaded]

But I'm also very curious what 3 grams of gear a week gets ya

well theres really not that much to be curious about .. 3 grams of gear a week or more have been ran by thousands of guys for 40+ years now. nothing new really. but if you want to follow along
https://forums.steroid.com/training-...ments-log.html

go to an NPC national level competition. 95% of more of the guys are on 2-6 grams a gear a week or more. theres really nothing that 'unknown' about moderately high dosages.
the experiment is when regular Joe gym rats like myself do it I suppose


not sure why guys think that 'higher dosage' cycles are some how a "new thing" or popular the last couple years. its been around for 50 years..
just like guys think that the idea of combining insulin and DNP together is a modern thing , when its been done since the late 80s

[charger69]

GH breaks the normal thinking pattern. This is sometimes hard to swallow.
I was brought up that you are a fool if you don’t use an AI.
Along comes GH and gives the opposite opinion. After my own expirement, I think that GH has a point. I no longer use an AI, but I also have not tried 1g of test. Came close with tren, but had to back down a little. LOL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Narkissos]

I just got done running a gram a week of Tren e, Tren ace, and Tren suspension . With 500mg of mast and 2000mg a week of test.. I didn't gain a single pound. I ended up recomping and getting a little harder and leaner.. even though I was trying to bulk.
this is about my 10th time or so trying to bulk with tren. some guys are gifted and they can put on some size with tren, but most can't.
(it can be done , but you can't use it as your primary compound. your better off running it as soley an androgen in your stack with things like Deca, Dbol, and Anadrol)

I'm one of those guys who will grow on a high dose of tren and a low dose of everything else.

I miss tho days. lol

[Narkissos]

you don't understand fully how steroids work.. the gains that come from a cycle do not all come at once during the time of the cycle only. I ran a high dosage blast as an investment into future gains. the cycle ended a couple days ago. but 10 pounds of gains may be actualized from that 6 months from now.
anyhow, thats a whole other topic and too much info for this thread.

Naw.
Post it

[Quester]

well it wasn't "advice" it just happens to be a scientific and biological fact. but that doesn't mean that anyone should follow it just cause it true.
the slow steady and conservative approach is still the best advice for most anyone reading these posts.
just because something is scientifically true doesn't mean it should necessarily be followed (again I was not giving advice).
just like the fact that yes DNP will help you burn fat, period. no doubt. but that doesn't mean you should take it... thats all I was saying in regards to aggressive dosages

GH,
-Just because I'm not debating the science doesn't mean you are correct. It is for you to prove that taking massive amounts of inputs will stimulate receptors to grow in number. Anecdotal evidence does have a place, it is significant, and you have a lot more of it than I, or anyone I know, ever will. Your anecdotal evidence supporting this is the beginning of science but, true science is not supported by ones experiences but by the scientific method. The science of it is not specific to just AAS. It is a universal principle, feedback loops, receptor stimulation, etc. You know enough about this and the associated science that you could easily support these statements, if you wanted too. Simply using the words like "biological and scientific fact" may sell cars or get one elected to public office but offer no real proof of anything.
-In the way this forum mirrors our western culture, it is upon the claimant to prove, not the audience to disprove.
-My specific motivation is that I am in healthcare and I care about the health of others. I also care about the integrity of this forum and the integrity of the process.
-It is also true that advancements are often made outside of the realm of true science. This forum has respected that as well. Therefore, nobody should have a problem with you sharing knowledge based upon your experience, we are all benefiting from your knowledge and I THANK YOU FOR THAT.
-Another aspect of the culture of this forum is erring on the side of safety. Perhaps you could frame these types of ideas with a healthy respect for that?
-This specific thread does say "hypothetical." And, I apologize that my comments may appear to be antagonistic. It isn't the intention, the intention is to respect the past and be reasonable with regard to the fact that most of the people who read these threads are not in the 10% or 1% of the elite that HUGELY benefit from the sharing of your insights and accumulated experience.

[Quester]

edit

[strunes]

Thank you for all the great info. I guess I needed to be a little more specific as to my goals. Like, I said I have run several cycles and have used Test, Deca, Tren and Var. This cycle I wanna cut some body fat and not lose any muscle and hopefully gain some. I can easily tolerate a 1000mg of test and 600mg of tren per week. My body seems to have a strange way of adapting to whatever I try, that why wanna mix things up....

[GearHeaded]

You know enough about this and the associated science that you could easily support these statements, if you wanted too. Simply using the words like "biological and scientific fact" may sell cars or get one elected to public office but offer no real proof of anything.
-In the way this forum mirrors our western culture, it is upon the claimant to prove, not the audience to disprove.

well I'll be bluntly honest here.. I'm not on this forum to 'prove' anything. I have no motive or dog in any fight (I'm here for my own entertainment like everyone else). I feel no need to back up things I say with scientific evidence, even though like you say , I probably could. but I'm not here to do that (nor is this the place for such things.. this is not a private invite academic board)

if this forum wants to hire an on board full time scientist to make sure every claim made on here is true , then thats fine , but I'm not in any position or have any motivation to write 'academic' or scholarly posts on here . I simply share my thoughts and experiences as a "bro" and "juice head" "meat head" "trainer" "bodybuilding coach" "gym owner" etc. and whatever else I may be (but scientist or academic is not one of those).

this is a board full of gym bros and juice heads. not academic students. I feel inspired to talk freely and talk shit here just like I would in my gym. I don't need to be tested and proved correct in everything I say on here. even if what I say is 100% scientifically accurate.. who really gives a shit. no one really. guys will take it with a grain of salt and experiment for themselves.

besides. if anyone takes anything I say on here as 'absolute truth' and scientific fact , and thats coming to them from a complete stranger online ,, then they are a fool.
its up to you all to figure it out for yourselves. I'm just some juice head behind a keyboard.

Quester, perhaps you may be in school and in academics. but I think you often times misplace this public forum as a place for 'debate' and 'academic review' ,, but its not that. there are places for that type of stuff (and they are usually private invite only).
I'm not here to prove anything or debate anyone. this in my opinion is not the place for that type of thing.
I know several times you've looked at posts that I've done and interacted with them thinking that I needed to prove what I was saying with science. but I don't care to do so. I have zero need to feel justified in what I say.. if someone can take some of the posts that I do and learn something from them and get something out of them and end up putting on 20 pounds of muscle and feeling great , then good for them, I'm glad (I don't need any justification in return). I don't need to be proved right. I'll continue providing the information that I do , and you all guys can take it or leave it ( I gain nothing from being right or wrong either way)

[GearHeaded]

if I say something like , doing short term blasts (say 3 weeks) of mega high dosages of AAS will cause a homeostatic disruption to the body due to the massive influx of androgens, and the body will respond to that stress by drastically up-regulating the production of androgen receptors and receptor density to help accomadate and deal with the stress. and it does this quickly before it has time to up-regulate mystostatin and cortisol in an attempt to limit anabolism. and this thus ultimately leads to more growth for your current cycles and as well as future cycles (because you now permanently have more ARs). and this is a technique thats been used by high levels body builders for 25 or so years..

well if you want scientific evidence for this .. don't fucking ask me I have no letters after my name that say "PhD" or "scientist" . You'd be a fool to accept scientific evidence from me .. print what I say , and go pay and take it to a real certified scientist and have him study it and find out the evidence and wither its true or not . don't go asking a gym bro juice head like myself . sure I can coach guys up on bodybuilding, but I surely aint no scientist and will NEVER give real scientific evidence for anything I ever claim or say (I'd be delusional to think that I even could or am even qualified to do so)

[GearHeaded]

Naw.
Post it

well Nark , I just kinda touched on it in my last post #35 in a round about way


there are ways to run cycles and manipulate hormones as well as things at the cellular level which end up generating gains at a later date down the road. running cycles in certain ways is not just for getting the immediate gains from the duration your on the cycle, you can run things in a way to further enhance gains even months/years down the road.

I'd be happy to chat with you about these things further . perhaps hit me up on my Log, so I don't keep derailing the OPs thread here

[Quester]

No one is asking you for anything. You are the one making claims and using words like "Scientific fact" and "biologic fact." Use different words and no one will think you mean to say they are facts. There is a multitude of different ways you could express yourself but you choose these words. When words like that are used, they carry authority because the assumption is that you can back them up.
Earlier this week, a guy posted about his workouts, your response was that because he only had 30 minutes he is not ready to cycle. There was no mention of a cycle. The man said he was on TRT.
You are constantly pushing people toward ingesting more substances.
Nobody has been asked to prove anything but those who make claims. If you talk it, walk it.

[Quester]

Back it up with something. Stand behind your claims. If it is a "scientific fact" or a "biologic fact," surely it must be easier to support than to respond with those long winded statements about how you don't have to support? How much time is lost writing long columns about how you don't have to "prove" anything when it would just be so easy to support a "FACT?"

[GearHeaded]

If you talk it, walk it.

well I am the guy that happens to be posting pics of myself , and laying out my cycles in detail in my log and showing everyone exactly what I'm personally doing and how I'm applying my knowledge of AAS, training, nutrition, etc.. to myself .

so sure "I talk it" .. AND "I walk it" .. If you don't think I walk the walk . then your welcome to come and spend a week at my gym training with me (oh yeah , and juicing with me .. I hope your not afraid of heavy weights and lots of needles
we will spot inject 8cc of gear each day into multiple body parts we plan on training for the day, then take 50mg Dbol and 50mg tren suspension pre-workout. I'm sure you too 'walk the walk' and should be able to hang with me brother

[Quester]

Facts usually speak for themselves. When someone wants to know more, people who wish to contribute have no trouble pointing that person in the right direction because facts are easy to support. Much easier than writing about why one doesn't have prove something.