I got this from another site but thought it was interresting so i'm posting it.
I have heard so much conflicting advice on steroid use I wouldn't even know where to start. Just FYI, I've never done a cycle and I don't know if I ever will, but I'm certainly considering it. I just want to get as clued up as possible before I even think about jamming a needle in my arse.
First off is the bodyfat issue. I was told (and I believe) that you should get your bodyfat as low as possible before cycling, as you're no doubt gonna put a bit of fat on (if you're dieting properly) while bulking. Also, some have suggested that fat inhibits the effect of steroids as some of the substance actually gets stored in fat and is not utilised by the body. Despite this, I constantly hear of fat guys (>20% BF) going on multiple hardcore steroid cycles. These are some of the same blokes with 1000's of posts to their name on various forums, constantly talking-the-talk. Are these blokes just doing it wrong, or doesn't it really matter? No matter the answer to this question, I'm still going to get right down to ~10% before I even think about a cycle. But I'm just curious as to the answer.
Next is the issue of getting as big as you can naturally before doing any cycles. This is something I'm truly confused about. I am constanty hearing the claim, "you should fulfil your natural potential before using steroids". But the questions is, Why? In practise, I've never seen or heard or one single guy that has actually done this (excpet that "rumsteel" guy that posts here, if he is actually natural in his 'before' pictures).
Why do you have to fulfil your natural potential? Is it because "drugs are bad, mkay" and you shouldn't do any drugs unless you absolutely have to? Or is it because of some other practical reason (such as "they're less effective if you're not as big as you can be already")? As a side-note, I'd be very curious to see the "before - steroid free" pictures and the "after steroid use" pictures of anyone here who claims they reached their natural potential before dosing. Post them here.
Another contentious issue is that of "light cycles". People are always saying you have to have a test-based cycle. You shouldn't be doing steroids if you don't do it properly, other cycles are a waste of time and money. These are forum moderators and experienced users saying this sort of stuff. But then you hear from the bodybuilders of yesteryear. Guys like Reg Park, who apparantly put on 30 pounds on winstrol only, and Arnie himself, who claims to have used dianabol orally and that's all! I recently spoke to a 46 year-old bodybuilder who competed successfully throughout the early eighties and late seventies. He said in those times that 200mg of ethanate/week was a big dose. He also said that most of his bulking cycles were on deca-durabolin-only or rarely stacked with a measly 15mg of d-bol. Nowdays you hear such claims as "200mg of ethanate is only enough to shut down your own testosterone levels and will be counter-productive", and that a deca-only cycle would be a "complete waste of time", "d-bol is only effective at doses above 30mg" (a dose that this older bloke claims would have been enormous in the 70s and 80s). Other times I hear of forum users who have claimed to have put on over 20 pounds using winstrol-only, and even huger gains using equipoise-only. Considering the similarity with testosterone, surely an equipose-only cycle would have a moderate effect? Apparantly not.
Are todays ironmen taking too high a dose, as I've heard older blokes claim repeatedly? Or are today's blokes just more up to date scientificly? Are these older guys lying about what they took? Is it that experienced steroid users (with the mentality that it's best to get HUGE) scoff at the average-joe who only has moderate goals, and thus tell him that these "light" cycles are ridiculous, or is it the case that these cycles actually are ridiculous? If so, then why? And why are the old guys lying about what they took (as they would have to be if the lighter cycles are ridiculous)?
When people ask me, I always say that they should use a test-based cycle, but I am also quick to point out that I'm a novice and don't really know the details. I'm just parroting what I read in some FAQ without even knowing the reasons. Surely light cycles are going to have some effect!? It couldn't be a case of either, "go hard and get HUGE" or, "you're just wasting your time", one or the other. Is there no middle ground? Or do pumped-up steroid-verterans just despise people who aim for that middle ground because it is actually possible to get there naturally, and thus considered "cheating"?
My personal belief is that steroids are extraordinary drugs, and should only be used for those aiming for extraordinary results, so they shouldn't be used to get "moderate" gains that could be obtained naturally. If I ever cycle, it will be - with my present knowledge and way of thinking - a testosterone based cycle. Nevertheless, I'd like to know there is some scientific reason why these "light cycles" should not be used, as I've seen this claim posted by mods and other very experienced users again and again. The only explanation I have managed to get so far is "because it's stupid", or "it will be ineffective". But if it was ineffective it would mean those old bodybuilders are all liars. Or maybe I have just been misinformed (which could very well be the case!)
Searching for knowledge...
Reply With Quote
