Steroids and Body Fat: I Disagree

[Lemonada8]

The estrogen issue with a higher BF can be controlled by using a higher dose of AI ( since adipose is key source of aromatase) which ultimately leads to more drugs in the system, and most everyone doesnt get regular bloodwork during the cycle to monitor the E levels to see if the AI dose is correct.
So, with that point, IMO its not really the 'lack of effectiveness' of doing a cycle, but the way of doing it is very in the dark and if used improperly/adjusted too quickly can lead to other issues, which can be misinterpeted as the wrong thing.
Another hting is that the higher bf% shows that the diet is lacking in quality; and that is a key component of gettin the most of the cycle; and with a proper diet and balance of nutrients the BF should be lower than the 'high bf %" people.. its another safe guard to prevent premature AAS usage while natural gains are still possible.

And alot of poeple are misinformed on proper AAS usage, and how to run cycles and possible side effects and how to do a proper PCT.. yea they might know the basics of it, but when problems arise, they arent expecting it and dont know how to handle them; nor what to do to correct the issue.
And the fact that alot of people are listening to 'emperical' evidence from other users on how to run the cycle and what doses and such work; but ultimately everybody is different on how they respond to the AAS cycle, and what they did. The best thing to do for that is to get info from all sides, along with reviewing some of the review papers here, that have scientific study evidence on usage.

So, IMO, you are correct that you will still have gains on a cycle with a higher BF%, but with alot of other potential issues have a greater chance of arising during the cycle, which may have undesirable effects ultimately.

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.

Perfectly said, of the other questions that need to be honestly answered to oneself ( dont lie to yourself with this topic... bad things can happen)

[MickeyKnox]

The more body fat you have, the higher your estrogen levels.

"Aromatase is found most prevalently in fat cells, so the more body fat a man has, especially in the midsection, the more aromatase and hence the more estrogen."

http://www.bodylogicmd.com/hormones-for-men/estrogen

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...-body-fat.html


Aromatase Gene Expression in Adipose Tissue

http://www.jbc.org/content/270/27/16449.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7874190

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...60076094902747

http://www.rbej.com/content/7/1/37

[MickeyKnox]

The estrogen issue with a higher BF can be controlled by using a higher dose of AI ( since adipose is key source of aromatase) which ultimately leads to more drugs in the system, and most everyone doesnt get regular bloodwork during the cycle to monitor the E levels to see if the AI dose is correct.
So, with that point, IMO its not really the 'lack of effectiveness' of doing a cycle, but the way of doing it is very in the dark and if used improperly/adjusted too quickly can lead to other issues, which can be misinterpeted as the wrong thing.
Another hting is that the higher bf% shows that the diet is lacking in quality; and that is a key component of gettin the most of the cycle; and with a proper diet and balance of nutrients the BF should be lower than the 'high bf %" people.. its another safe guard to prevent premature AAS usage while natural gains are still possible.

And alot of poeple are misinformed on proper AAS usage, and how to run cycles and possible side effects and how to do a proper PCT.. yea they might know the basics of it, but when problems arise, they arent expecting it and dont know how to handle them; nor what to do to correct the issue.

So, IMO, you are correct that you will still have gains on a cycle with a higher BF%, but with alot of other potential issues have a greater chance of arising during the cycle, which may have undesirable effects ultimately.

100% agree. And that's my point.

[motoxposse]

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.

If this is so then why don't we ask what's your blood pressure, training schedule, diet, etc most just assume a high bf a poor work ethic or a beginner or a lazy ass that wants quick easy results without sacrifice. I'm guessing my bf at 18% and I now i train harder than most guys at the gym with less bf a lot approach me asking for advice

[warmouth]

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

Maybe it was you I got that from then. I whole heartedly agree. 20% is hard to tell if the person is serious or not. I know for myself, even though I was never a lifter, I was serious about my looks and health. I was always an endurance-type athelete, so lifting was not really my thing. But after several injuries, I just couldnt keep running, swimming, etc. Lifting isnt easy on me at all, but it is easier than running 10 miles, or swimming 2. I have several injuries that limit my range of motion while lifting, so I have to adapt. But once I got to the point that I wasnt very active with running and such, I did put on some BF, and I hated it. It is much harder to lose, even with a great diet, when youve been very active for so long, than abruptly stop. My diet was never "bad" but my metabolism was shot. Once I decided to take the plunge, my BF just melted off and I got back down to what I consider low. As long as I can maintain a BF of 15% or under, I am perfectly fine. Anything over that, I get self-conscious and all that goes with that. But if I did get to 20%, it wasnt because I wasnt serious about health or appearances. It was just because of my metabolism. I looked very thin when I was 17-18%, but when the shirt came off, I was soft and slightly flabby. I am thin by nature, and it is very hard for me to put muscle on, which could be from years of endurance training. So if someone is a little over 15%, I am not overly concerned with advising them, I just want to find some background to their story. If they were like me, then I would be ok with it, but if they just started training, eat like garbage, and are lazy, it is pretty easy to see through all of that when you find out a little about their past experience.

So, do you know if there is more aromatase in a person with higher BF since the cells are still there? This is what I am looking for at the moment but am coming up empty.

[warmouth]

The more body fat you have, the higher your estrogen levels.

"Aromatase is found most prevalently in fat cells, so the more body fat a man has, especially in the midsection, the more aromatase and hence the more estrogen."

http://www.bodylogicmd.com/hormones-for-men/estrogen

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...-body-fat.html


Aromatase Gene Expression in Adipose Tissue

http://www.jbc.org/content/270/27/16449.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7874190

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...60076094902747

http://www.rbej.com/content/7/1/37

Nice! Thanks Mickey.

[MickeyKnox]

You're welcome, and i believe that answers your last question.

Just to recap, there is no one magical BF number or percentage that is carved in stone. But we DO know that the higher your BF, the more likely you are to experience sides. This has been proven over and over again.

But with all the data available, and since i believe it's prudent to error on the side of caution, i feel strongly that the 15% rule of thumb is a solid benchmark to use as a guideline for those beginning an AAS cycle.

[warmouth]

If this is so then why don't we ask what's your blood pressure, training schedule, diet, etc most just assume a high bf a poor work ethic or a beginner or a lazy ass that wants quick easy results without sacrifice. I'm guessing my bf at 18% and I now i train harder than most guys at the gym with less bf a lot approach me asking for advice

There is nothing wrong with 18% and cycling, as long as you know what you are doing. That is the point I think we are trying to make. If a person is meticulous about thier diet and training, and have good BW and a clean physical exam, and are mature enough, then by all means, have at it. But the biggest thing for us is that we dont know what the average 20%BF guy does to be 20%. He might be 20 because he is lazy, and he might be 20 because he has lost from 35%. We just cant assume that every fat guy here is willing to put forth the effort that it should take to pursue the BBing lifestyle. We have to find out personal details in order to address the issues. I dont have a problem with someone with 15-20% cycling, as long as they are smart about it. I feel people who decide to use AAS should be responsible enough to know exactly what to do. I also feel they should get BW done religiously. There is no way to know for certain if you are healthy or not without it. You might feel perfect, while your total cholesterol is 402, and tryglycerides at 245. Or your RBC count is through the roof. There are certain things that everyone who decides to use should know and know to a tee! For an obese person, all of this changes, and IMO, they HAVE to lose a considerable amount of BF and have a clean bill of health. An obese person is obviously not in any health to do this.

[warmouth]

You're welcome, and i believe that answers your last question.

Just to recap, there is no one magical BF number or percentage that is carved in stone. But we DO know that the higher your BF, the more likely you are to experience sides. This has been proven over and over again.

But with all the data available, and since i believe it's prudent to error on the side of caution, i feel strongly that the 15% rule of thumb is a solid benchmark to use as a guideline for those beginning an AAS cycle.

It did answer it, and I canstop researching it now. And as the 15% rule, I agree there based solely on the fact that if they can maintain 15%, they can certainly do what is needed to achieve the goals. That is not to say a 20%er cant, but 15 is much easier. I think that if a person actually knows (such as if you or I where to get out of lifting for a few years and put on some fat and get to 20%, but decide we need to change) then they can be perfectly safe because we have the knowledge of what works for us personally.

For instance, if I broke my leg and was out of the gym and off my diet for 6 months, but then decided to take the year off and got to 22%, I would feel comfortable getting back on because I know what works for me, and if sides do arise, I know what would need to be done. The probelm we have here on the forum is that we dont know people on a personal level, nor do we know them like we do ourselves. So we have a problem assisting 20%ers because we cant base our personal experience as what will work for them, although is would be a guideline.

All in all, I'm with you 100% on the subject, and it is easier to assist lower BF than higher due to the fact that the lower they are the more disciplined they seem(not assuming, but it is true).

[Bio-Active]

Lets be honest here most people that are asking very basic questions. If they were ready to cycle wouldn't be asking. Then we find out they are 20% body fat and eat 3 tiny meals a day plus been working out for only 3 months

[Bio-Active]

It did answer it, and I canstop researching it now. And as the 15% rule, I agree there based solely on the fact that if they can maintain 15%, they can certainly do what is needed to achieve the goals. That is not to say a 20%er cant, but 15 is much easier. I think that if a person actually knows (such as if you or I where to get out of lifting for a few years and put on some fat and get to 20%, but decide we need to change) then they can be perfectly safe because we have the knowledge of what works for us personally.

For instance, if I broke my leg and was out of the gym and off my diet for 6 months, but then decided to take the year off and got to 22%, I would feel comfortable getting back on because I know what works for me, and if sides do arise, I know what would need to be done. The probelm we have here on the forum is that we dont know people on a personal level, nor do we know them like we do ourselves. So we have a problem assisting 20%ers because we cant base our personal experience as what will work for them, although is would be a guideline.

All in all, I'm with you 100% on the subject, and it is easier to assist lower BF than higher due to the fact that the lower they are the more disciplined they seem(not assuming, but it is true).

This could open up a can of worms for a whole new topic but I somewhat disagree. I help many people with nutrition. Some of my clients do not train at all and we get them to very low bf percentages just by adjusting there food intake and timing.

[Metalject]

No, didn't abandon the thread or change my opinion...simply haven't looked at the thread since I posted the OP. Posted this thread and went to the gym for legs....pretty exciting Saturday night, lol!

[NewBeast1]

Great thread and a good read on everyone's opinions.
Definitely puts another prospective to things and the usual stereotypes that stick to the 8-10% bf theory.

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

If this is so then why don't we ask what's your blood pressure, training schedule, diet, etc most just assume a high bf a poor work ethic or a beginner or a lazy ass that wants quick easy results without sacrifice. I'm guessing my bf at 18% and I now i train harder than most guys at the gym with less bf a lot approach me asking for advice

typically my blood pressure is: 115/65

workout schedule currently: 2 training days per week/5 cardio days per week 90mins cardio split into 2 sessions, one 30min interval the other 60 min LISS

current diet: tapering up to maintenance

training days: @3500-4000cals 40/40/20 split

non-training days: 1500-1800cals 21-24hr fast @200g pro, carbs range from NO starch to 40g, fat @70-80g

i could provide exact cals and macros but really dont feel like it.

stats: 38yrs, 5'9", 190lbs 9%bf

bench: 345lbs, squat: 515 x 5 (NO 1 REP MAX), dead: 365 x 5 (no 1 rep max)

anything else u would like to know?

[Crooktele79]

I'm curious about the fat cells that remain after losing a lot of weight. For me coming from 470lbs and God knows what BF% to currently 215, I wonder if it will effect my experience once I do finally get to sub 15% BF and decide to cycle?

For the record I am currently in the 20% range and am a few years away from trying AAS, but want to gather as much info as possible while I work on maximizing my natural progress. At 33 years old I missed the boat on my youth and feel like I'm fighting against mother nature for every inch of progress I make.

[Bio-Active]

There was a thread in the nutrition forum on the fat cells although I can't remember what thread but 405 was in on that one with us. Do you remember 405?

[warmouth]

Lets be honest here most people that are asking very basic questions. If they were ready to cycle wouldn't be asking. Then we find out they are 20% body fat and eat 3 tiny meals a day plus been working out for only 3 months

Ha ha. This is what I was eludingto in my last post. If a person "knows" then I think they should be fine. But I also feel that if a person knows, they will do what is necessary to prepare themselves to get the most out of their cycle. But this is exactly what I meant in the last post when it comes to guys asking basic questions about a cycle and finind out theyve been training for no time at all and are pudgy. They would not be in the category as good to go, in my opinion.

[MuscleInk]

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.

Absolutely correct! Lets not forget that elevated estrogens are linked with a number of maladies (cancer, bone disorders, hypertension and a number of cardiac risks). Yes, the aromatase can be managed but how much of an AI is needed? The prevailing thought is that an AI is an AI and as long as you are dosing, everything is fine. But there aren't any guarantees. A single 0.25mg dose of adex EOD may suffice for one person and be in adequate for another.

Do you have to be 15% or less? No, but the risks are certainly lower if your bf is lower and there simply is no contesting this. The 15% is a recommended guideline that many of us suggest but by no means is it gospel. If you're 30% bf or more, are we going to stop you? No. It's an individual choice, but be sure you understand that the risks are indeed higher, understand those risks, and be willing to accept the consequences.

I don't think anyone here has ever said you MUST be 15% or lower. It's simply advised and for some gear (anavar and mast as two examples) you will see less results the higher the bf.

I think the greater problem we face is not the bf issue, rather, two many people think a few cycles of steroids are all that's needed to give you the physique of a pro body builder and that simply is NOT the case.

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

There was a thread in the nutrition forum on the fat cells although I can't remember what thread but 405 was in on that one with us. Do you remember 405?

LOL yeh i think it was dans abs and fat cells thread. part of it started in the original march cutting classic thread (the one before the redux). i think some may be in the redux too. but dans abs and fat cell thread should have a bunch in there.

basically u cant destroy fat cells. they have to be removed surgically. they just shrink when u reduce bf%.. u can, however, grow new ones..

[warmouth]

I don't think anyone here has ever said you MUST be 15% or lower. It's simply advised and for some gear (anavar and mast as two examples) you will see less results the higher the bf.

Well........C**S**** mentioned a week or 2 ago that if a person cant get to single digits on their own, they were lazy, and they have no business using AAS. I had to show some disagreement with him on that one. But he has been the only case of a vet saying anything like that since Ive been here.

[Metalject]

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.

Really? I see comments that insinuate what I said in the original post on here every day. That's why I decided to post this thread...I didn't pull it out of thin air. Now I'll admit, people may not say things verbatim as I listed them, but that is the overall theme IMO. If I went through every thread on here where a guy talks about doing a cycle and he list his body fat between 15-20% it would probably take me years to count all the replies that tell the guy he should diet naturally first and then use gear.

And I agree, the more body fat you have the harder it can be to control estrogenic side effects...more fat more aromatization but it can be controlled and it's really not that hard. Men who are 20%+ BF are prescribed TRT every day, and the heavier you are, typically the higher your TRT dose will be. However, with proper therapy each and everyone of these men reach a better state of health...granted, this is assuming there are no underlying health issues, that would change the game.

It's also important IMO to consider unknown factors...things do not always work like we think they should. Here's another good example taken from my own experience. I started using gear at 20yrs old and used heavily for 10+ years. Not once during any off-season phase did I ever have gyno symptoms, ED, acne or any other issue. Sure, I would get a little bloated but no serious issues. And believe it or not my entire time bodybuilding I had my blood work done every 16wks like clockwork....never had a single issue of concern. Now, the only time I ever had any gyno symptoms was in one case when I was at a very low BF, low single digits. I was able to remedy the situation. My point, body fat while an important factor is not the end all be all. Estrogen and related estrogenic effects can be controlled when you're at a higher BF...again, I'm not talking about obese.

Where is the cutoff point? When would I say a guy is too fat to use gear? That's a hard question to answer. In the case of TRT I would say most men, even those who are significantly overweight would probably benefit from a good TRT plan...the benefits would outweigh the risk...morbidly obese this could change things, perhaps. As for actual cycling...I don't know if I have this answer. I don't buy into the 15-20% range is too fat to safely use gear, that I can say with certainty.

[MuscleInk]

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.

You don't lose adipocytes. They decrease in size. To make matters worse....you can actually increase the number of adipocytes through poor nutrition and a sedentary life style.

[warmouth]

And I agree, the more body fat you have the harder it can be to control estrogenic side effects...more fat more aromatization but it can be controlled and it's really not that hard. Men who are 20%+ BF are prescribed TRT every day, and the heavier you are, typically the higher your TRT dose will be. However, with proper therapy each and everyone of these men reach a better state of health...granted, this is assuming there are no underlying health issues, that would change the game.

This is the reason I mentioned TRT earlier. Out of me, my cousin, and 2 close friends (all the same age), me and my cousin are the leanest and the other 2 fat guys are on double the amounts of testosterone as we are, and we have the same doctor. Fat guys normally have higher estrogen supression anyways, from my little bit of understanding with TRT. They use Anastrozol, and we use nothing prescribed.

[warmouth]

You don't lose adipocytes. They decrease in size. To make matters worse....you can actually increase the number of adipocytes through poor nutrition and a sedentary life style.

Eeeesh!

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

comparing TRT to cycling is 2 different things altogether.

TRT is designed to mimick natural test production in a male who is deficient in test in the first place. ur talking doses ranging on average from 100mg per week to 200mg per week.

cycling is overdosing on test to the tune of 500mg per week +.. NOT the same thing. u cant use TRT as a means to justify running steroid cycles. NOT to mention im only talking about test here.

im not gonna repeat what ive already said. i think what ur suggesting in this thread is borderline at best making statements like high bf cycles are ok.. there are a lot of people reading these threads.. guys in the 20%bf range on average IMO are NOT READY TO CYCLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MuscleInk]

Eeeesh!

There's always liposuction! Lol

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

There's always liposuction! Lol

yeh but liposuction destroys all the connective tissue(or whatever u call it) which if u re-gain the fat back (as u probably know) can result in some unsightly fat!

[MickeyKnox]

Really? I see comments that insinuate what I said in the original post on here every day. That's why I decided to post this thread...I didn't pull it out of thin air. Now I'll admit, people may not say things verbatim as I listed them, but that is the overall theme IMO. If I went through every thread on here where a guy talks about doing a cycle and he list his body fat between 15-20% it would probably take me years to count all the replies that tell the guy he should diet naturally first and then use gear.

The replies that you would be counting are the same ones i would be. And they would basically be similar to my recap. Using gear above 15% BF is not wise for the reasons already listed and supported. Again, i agree with you that is not set in stone but it's certainly a good guideline.

And I agree, the more body fat you have the harder it can be to control estrogenic side effects...more fat more aromatization but it can be controlled and it's really not that hard. Which is it? It cant be both lol. Men who are 20%+ BF are prescribed TRT every day, and the heavier you are, typically the higher your TRT dose will be. However, with proper therapy each and everyone of these men reach a better state of health...granted, this is assuming there are no underlying health issues, that would change the game.

Im not talking about TRT designed to replace testosterone. Im referring to supraphysical doses.

It's also important IMO to consider unknown factors...things do not always work like we think they should. Here's another good example taken from my own experience. I started using gear at 20yrs old and used heavily for 10+ years. Not once during any off-season phase did I ever have gyno symptoms, ED, acne or any other issue. Sure, I would get a little bloated but no serious issues. And believe it or not my entire time bodybuilding I had my blood work done every 16wks like clockwork....never had a single issue of concern. Now, the only time I ever had any gyno symptoms was in one case when I was at a very low BF, low single digits. I was able to remedy the situation. My point, body fat while an important factor is not the end all be all. Estrogen and related estrogenic effects can be controlled when you're at a higher BF...again, I'm not talking about obese.

Here's my own experience. Ive discovered that i cannot adhere to the standard protocols of AI's. That's right, i use i higher amount ALWAYS. And it doesn't matter whether im on TRT (which i am btw) or on cycle. My AI is ALWAYS dosed higher than any current standard protocol. But that doesn't mean that everyone else should dose it my way. There has to be a guideline in order for us to give safe sound and responsible advice to new AAS users. And to ME, 15% seems like a fair benchmark given the enormous amount of information available about BF, adipose tissue, aromatase, and AI's, sides, and consequences.

Where is the cutoff point? When would I say a guy is too fat to use gear? That's a hard question to answer. Youre right. But i did my best so far in this threwad. In the case of TRT I would say most men, even those who are significantly overweight would probably benefit from a good TRT plan...the benefits would outweigh the risk...morbidly obese this could change things, perhaps. As for actual cycling...I don't know if I have this answer. I don't buy into the 15-20% range is too fat to safely use gear, that I can say with certainty.

Great post Metalject.

Reds..

[MuscleInk]

yeh but liposuction destroys all the connective tissue(or whatever u call it) which if u re-gain the fat back (as u probably know) can result in some unsightly fat!

I'm a huge opponent of it for the reasons you cited and more. My business partner had the procedure done two years ago. His diet is still terrible, he's sedentary and now his abdominal fat is 2x more than before the procedure.

The procedure is unpleasant and the recovery slow and painful.

[Bio-Active]

I'm a huge opponent of it for the reasons you cited and more. My business partner had the procedure done two years ago. His diet is still terrible, he's sedentary and now his abdominal fat is 2x more than before the procedure.

The procedure is unpleasant and the recovery slow and painful.

Ugh I tell people all the time that is a terrible procedure to have done. Just deplete those fat cells!!

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

I'm a huge opponent of it for the reasons you cited and more. My business partner had the procedure done two years ago. His diet is still terrible, he's sedentary and now his abdominal fat is 2x more than before the procedure.

The procedure is unpleasant and the recovery slow and painful.

yeh it looks brutal. jabbing that dang rod in and out of ur abdomen like that. very crude looking procedure and NOT one i would want to undergo. get on a freaking elliptical and ditch the doughnuts man!

[motoxposse]

typically my blood pressure is: 115/65

workout schedule currently: 2 training days per week/5 cardio days per week 90mins cardio split into 2 sessions, one 30min interval the other 60 min LISS

current diet: tapering up to maintenance

training days: @3500-4000cals 40/40/20 split

non-training days: 1500-1800cals 21-24hr fast @200g pro, carbs range from NO starch to 40g, fat @70-80g

i could provide exact cals and macros but really dont feel like it.

stats: 38yrs, 5'9", 190lbs 9%bf

bench: 345lbs, squat: 515 x 5 (NO 1 REP MAX), dead: 365 x 5 (no 1 rep max)

anything else u would like to know?

What the hell does this mean?are you trying to impress me with your outstanding program your missing the point I made if the question is health then lets state that not just assume everyone over a certain bf is not fit to do aas there's many factors that play into a successful program if you had enough time to read the whole post instead of trying to woooo me with your diet and stats I can tell u it has been posted on this forum that aas isn't going to do u any good if your over a certain bf. tren for example binds to the ar's in fat cells causing a great aas for weight fat loss this could be benifical to someone that has a higher bf. but gets mislead by someone posting it isn't going to do much for u at that bf.

[FONZY007]

From personal experience I have used at low 14% and high BF 22% both times got acne and elevated blood pressure..

I had a good friend that was a power lifter that easy was 25% bf and was using anywhere from 400-800mg test any givin week ..

I even used deca by it self (no condoned )didn't get ED or libido issues hell my test was already low at that point, even when my test was at 67ng/ml I was always getting wood and horny as hell..

Just my personal experiences and I have plenty of friends that use now that I try to steer to the correct path!

[MuscleInk]

yeh it looks brutal. jabbing that dang rod in and out of ur abdomen like that. very crude looking procedure and NOT one i would want to undergo. get on a freaking elliptical and ditch the doughnuts man!

That and the 12 weeks of wearing a girdle just to keep your "guts" in place!!!!

[MickeyKnox]

What the hell does this mean?are you trying to impress me with your outstanding program your missing the point I made if the question is health then lets state that not just assume everyone over a certain bf is not fit to do aas there's many factors that play into a successful program if you had enough time to read the whole post instead of trying to woooo me with your diet and stats I can tell u it has been posted on this forum that aas isn't going to do u any good if your over a certain bf. tren for example binds to the ar's in fat cells causing a great aas for weight fat loss this could be benifical to someone that has a higher bf. but gets mislead by someone posting it isn't going to do much for u at that bf.

Easy there Bubba. I'm pretty sure 405 was commenting tongue in cheek so to speak - hence the smiley face. No need to go off on a respected member for no reason.

He's probably forgot more than you'll know.

[Crooktele79]

That and the 12 weeks of wearing a girdle just to keep your "guts" in place!!!!

Didn't have lipo, but had to have loose skin removed....the wearing of the girdle sucks!

[warmouth]

comparing TRT to cycling is 2 different things altogether.

TRT is designed to mimick natural test production in a male who is deficient in test in the first place. ur talking doses ranging on average from 100mg per week to 200mg per week.

cycling is overdosing on test to the tune of 500mg per week +.. NOT the same thing. u cant use TRT as a means to justify running steroid cycles. NOT to mention im only talking about test here.

im not gonna repeat what ive already said. i think what ur suggesting in this thread is borderline at best making statements like high bf cycles are ok.. there are a lot of people reading these threads.. guys in the 20%bf range on average IMO are NOT READY TO CYCLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not comparing the 2. I'm stating that fat people usually need more than a lean person. Btw, we got church in the am. We need to get to bed! Ill holler at you guys tommorrow. Goodnight.

[motoxposse]

Easy there Bubba. I'm pretty sure 405 was commenting tongue in cheek so to speak - hence the smiley face. No need to go off on a respected member for no reason.

He's probably forgot more than you'll know.

This is exactly the attitude that makes new forum mbers shy away from asking the questions that need to be asked. Some of the senior members post comments that make new members lie about there stats to get info that's not going to be correct, I'm not questioning his knowlage I'm sure it's solid it's his approach to a member on the forum that's outta line. If we're here to help then let's ask the questions that are truly important, like your bf might be high for aas how's your blood pressure,any recent bw etc

[MickeyKnox]

This is exactly the attitude that makes new forum mbers shy away from asking the questions that need to be asked. Some of the senior members post comments that make new members lie about there stats to get info that's not going to be correct, I'm not questioning his knowlage I'm sure it's solid it's his approach to a member on the forum that's outta line. If we're here to help then let's ask the questions that are truly important, like your bf might be high for aas how's your blood pressure,any recent bw etc

I think those are terrific questions, if people have the answers available. But i doubt the average member would this type of information on hand.

And i seriously doubt senior members are to blame for new members fabricating their profiles. I believe this is because they are aware that AR does not fool around and hand out advice to youngsters that still have developing endocrine systems and are at risk of potentially serious complications if they choose to use AAS prematurely.

[motoxposse]

I think those are terrific questions, if people have the answers available. But i doubt the average member would this type of information on hand.

And i seriously doubt senior members are to blame for new members fabricating their profiles. I believe this is because they are aware that AR does not fool around and hand out advice to youngsters that still have developing endocrine systems and are at risk of potentially serious complications if they choose to use AAS prematurely.

MK I agree I've always respected your info and knowledge most senior members on this forum are amazing we (junior members) can be a pain in the butt at times my apology