Steroids and Body Fat: I Disagree

[Metalject]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ppwc1985]

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

[GhostOfRome]

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

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

Good post btw bro.

[scorpion62]

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

[GhostOfRome]

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

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

[scorpion62]

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

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

[warmouth]

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

[AD]

good post Metal.

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

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

[warmouth]

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

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

[scorpion62]

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

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

[blacktoppete]

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

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

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

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

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

[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]

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.

[--->>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?

[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.

[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.

[warmouth]

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

[warmouth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[warmouth]

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

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

[warmouth]

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

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

[m_donnelly]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bio-Active]

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

[m_donnelly]

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

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

[Bio-Active]

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

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

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

[kronik420]

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

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

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

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

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

[sixfootseven]

Great thread

[warmouth]

Great thread

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

[MickeyKnox]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GhostOfRome]

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

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

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

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

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

[MickeyKnox]

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

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

[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.

[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.

[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..

[Metalject]

Great post Metalject.

Reds..

Sure, 15% is a good guideline. I don't have any problem with that. I simply don't like the set in stone mentality some (many) tend to lay out. I don't care for insinuating disaster just because someone's over 15% BF...that's insanity IMO.

The "It can't be both comment.".....my point was simply that extra BF can make estrogenic effects harder to control or more aptly put they may need more attention....again, it depends on the guy. However, it can be controlled. Just because you may or may not have to give something more attention does not mean you can't control it. You know, just like how some guys have a difficult time controlling cholesterol while others don't. I've never had cholesterol or blood pressure issues but I still recognize some have to put more effort into controlling theirs than I do.

[m_donnelly]

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

[Lunk1]

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

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

[MickeyKnox]

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

Yes.