How to reach the next level (>240lbs)

That's bad old school thought, the "lipids are bad" hypothesis has been debunked.. Only thing to look out for is small dense LDL, or oxidised LDL (which is probably the same thing).. Stay away from combining refined fructose with healthy fats and cholesterol markers should not be an issue..

Google: Dr. Ronald Krauss on LDL Cholesterol, Particle Size, Heart Disease & Atherogenic Dyslipidemia..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gZt9DQqtZI

Oh yeah Im aware that those markers arent everything and research/opinions on them have changed recently. What I got from the video is that they arent all important but shouldnt necessarily be discarded - would you agree or disagree?

Obviously theres more to the picture than just HDL and LDL but at the same time, I think Id rather see his blood work of 41 HDL and 98 LDL instead of, say, a 15 HDL and 200 LDL.

-Directional but not gospel- may be a good summary?
 
OP: nobody in the history of bodybuilding has ever got to the next level via some magic combination of doses and types of AAS, even though 97.5% of all posts and threads in bodybuilding forums are basically asking that question. Eventually you begin to see the pointlessness of it all.


In general: use less AAS; start low and taper your doses upwards; make the most of rebounds by coming off/tapering down frequently and then cycling back on; learn to cycle training frequency/volume/intensity and food/supplement intake in similar ways; accept progress takes time and year-on-year discipline once you've reached a certain level of mass.


Thanks for your answer I have read many helpful posts from you. I completely agree as I had gotten many years of powerlifting expierence before I switched to bodybuilding.


My questions hasn't aimed for a magic combination. My question is what would be the most effective and safest cycle strategy next to go for to reach my goals:

test,hgh,insulin +
short cycles (6 weeks) of TREN (400-600mg) VS long cycles (10 weeks) of DECA (800-1200mg)?


I have found an old post from you . May I ask for your height, weight and experience with this stack and that time which sounds amazing:
2.5g tren/wk
5g test/wk
Growth (I think I was doing 10iu Chinese generic/day)
IGF-1 (here and there in various muscles)
Around 100iu Humalog/day
Plus some bunch of orals, can't remember the details now.
For about 16 weeks I think.
 
Fuck. I forgot about that post from CFC.

Ive run shit high but thats well above and beyond where Ive been willing to go. Looks epic nonetheless haha.
 
Thanks for your answer I have read many helpful posts from you. I completely agree as I had gotten many years of powerlifting expierence before I switched to bodybuilding.


My questions hasn't aimed for a magic combination. My question is what would be the most effective and safest cycle strategy next to go for to reach my goals:

test,hgh,insulin +
short cycles (6 weeks) of TREN (400-600mg) VS long cycles (10 weeks) of DECA (800-1200mg)?


I have found an old post from you . May I ask for your height, weight and experience with this stack and that time which sounds amazing:


That post from me was just an example of some of the dumb shit I did when I was younger trying to 'break through to the next level' etc ;) It really didn't do anything special in the long run. When you're already taking a bucketload of gear, the body generally just ignores the additional stimulus, just like it does with anything else (ie: tolerance).

I guess everyone still wants to try though. But as I said, the best way to break the next level is just consistency year-on-year, steadily tapering up doses from genuine/low TRT --> to supraphysiological/high during the cycle, making the most of rebounds (thus frequently cycling), staying lean & keeping insulin sensitivity high, periodising training, supplement and food intake.

For most guys with 5-10 years experience under their belts, this just means intensifying what they already do and being more intelligent and thoughtful with the PEDs they use. Nobody wants to hear that though cos it's just not sexy and largely goes against the mindless pursuit of the 'perfect' drug combos that you see on all the boards.

For most intents and purposes, all AAS are roughly the same (within reason), do the same thing (anabolism, boost GH/IGF-1, attenuate myostatin, increase T3 levels etc), and in the long run (ie over years) it really doesn't matter too much what you use. The only time it really does matter is when you're trying to pull off the right look for a competition.
 
I get your point, agree and will follow this for sure: "consistency year-on-year, steadily tapering up doses from genuine/low TRT to supraphysiological/high during cycles + staying lean & keeping insulin sensitivity high, periodising training, supplement and food intake."

For most intents and purposes, all AAS are roughly the same (within reason), do the same thing (anabolism, boost GH/IGF-1, attenuate myostatin, increase T3 levels etc), and in the long run (ie over years) it really doesn't matter too much what you use. The only time it really does matter is when you're trying to pull off the right look for a competition.

But do you really think in the long run it does not matter what you are using (talking about AAS only)?

Why someone shouldn't just use testosterone then all the time (with steadily tapering)?

Many bodybuilders say it is always better to add a second compound to testosterone especially from the class of 19-nor steroids (trenbolone, nandrolone). Some also think it's even better to add a third one of the class of DHT-derivates regarding most effective muscle growth.

Reason: AAS from different classes have different transcription / action profiles. Combining different AAS could result in synergies (as mentioned here regarding trenbolone) which could be more effective and/or also safer (e.g. androgenic sides) than taking high dosage of testosterone only.

What is your opinion on that?

Currently I am still thinking of tapering down to cruise cycle (low test+hgh) and tapering up to blast cycle with short intake period (6 weeks) of trenbolone, because of the synergies and because of my good experience.
 
It's more about finding a compound/combination that you can ramp up over time without it negatively affecting you or causing negative side effects that aren't too subjectively severe (some don't mind bloat from compounds, others are obsessive about minimizing it). Real growth happens over a long period of time and thus its prudent you find what you can run for a long period of time that won't run you down and allow you to eat, sleep, and train optimally.
 
^Yeah Id agree along with what CFC said. What compounds you run doesnt really matter which is why I run primarily test and bulked on high test a lot unless I had other stuff I just wanted to get rid of.

I could see deca or EQ if someone wanted less estrogen conversion (EQ) or if deca just came with low sides or they wanted more water retention for bulking but at the end of the day what drugs you run is much more about look than anything else.
 
Ok, I agree to all your points.

Sorry this has become a bit rambling, but the point I was trying to get to is that I would speculatively rank them in terms of presumed overall cardiovascular risk factors (best to worst):

Test > Bold > Winstrol > Mast > Deca > Tren

Tren may actually not be as directly damaging as some of the others (eg doesn't seem to be too bad on lipids for example), but it is an intense CNS stimulant, and that's a huge downside when AAS causes myocyte anabolism. However, it's also hands down one of the best all-round steroids out there for most guys. And rather than avoid it, I'd choose to lessen its side effects.

Is this still your current evaluation in terms of AAS ranking regarding cardiovascular risk factors?

Three things I am curious about:

1) Why there are no human studies of trenbolone since it was used for humans in the 80s?

2) Why current research (my first post) is done on trenbolone with a possible use for humans?

3) Regarding these studies trenbolone seems to be not that androgenic, therefore maybe it is not a strong CNS stimulant?
 
Ive got answers for the first two although CFC is probably more versed. Either way, where did you get the idea tren isnt very androgenic? Its very androgenic - 5x that of testosterone unless that literature on that has changed.

Not to mention, if youve ever used tren then its easy to tell that its a potent CNS stimulant
 
I think I never had CNS sides from tren.

Only thing was the change in cholesterol levels.

Regarding androgenic potency:

Tissue selectivity and potential clinical applications of trenbolone (17beta-hydroxyestra-4,9,11-trien-3-one): A potent anabolic steroid with reduced androgenic and estrogenic activity. (2010)
Compared to testosterone, 17beta-TBOH appears to induce less growth in androgen-sensitive organs which highly express the 5alpha reductase enzyme (e.g., prostate tissue and accessory sex organs). The reduced androgenic effects result from the fact that 17beta-TBOH is metabolized to less potent androgens in vivo; while testosterone undergoes tissue-specific biotransformation to more potent steroids, dihydrotestosterone and 17beta-estradiol, via the 5alpha-reductase and aromatase enzymes, respectively. Thus the metabolism of 17beta-TBOH provides a basis for future research evaluating its safety and efficacy as a means of combating muscle and bone wasting conditions, obesity, and/or androgen insensitivity syndromes in humans, similar to that of other SARMs which are currently in development.
 
Yeah I?m still calling bullshit. Give a female an equal dose of test and tren and tell me which one causes more virilization symptoms. Tren is much more androgenic than test even if the metabolites aren?t
 
Ive got answers for the first two although CFC is probably more versed. Either way, where did you get the idea tren isnt very androgenic? Its very androgenic - 5x that of testosterone unless that literature on that has changed.

Not to mention, if youve ever used tren then its easy to tell that its a potent CNS stimulant

Remember the research into the androgenic component of various AAS (frequently quoted on popular steroid boards) was done some while ago on rat prostate, of which modern opinion might suggest was not the most accurate means of determining such data..
 
Remember the research into the androgenic component of various AAS (frequently quoted on popular steroid boards) was done some while ago on rat prostate, of which modern opinion might suggest was not the most accurate means of determining such data..

Yeah I know that data is a little old - so my 5x number may not be exactly correct.

That said, Id still argue tren is significantly more androgenic which is easy to tell just from running it. Tons of hardening, vascularity, aggression. Everything that would be expected from a highly androgenic compound
 
Is this still your current evaluation in terms of AAS ranking regarding cardiovascular risk factors?

Three things I am curious about:

1) Why there are no human studies of trenbolone since it was used for humans in the 80s?

2) Why current research (my first post) is done on trenbolone with a possible use for humans?

3) Regarding these studies trenbolone seems to be not that androgenic, therefore maybe it is not a strong CNS stimulant?


(1) When it was synthesised back in the 1960s, standards for drug approval were much less stringent than they are nowadays. If the mechanism of action was comparable to other compounds in a class, and there were animal studies demonstrating general safety, that would sometimes be sufficient.

(2) Tren's an interesting compound, but all kinds of compounds, some of which are notoriously dangerous, are still researched with an eye to potential future applications. Thalidomide's repurposing to other uses is an example.

(3) Tren has been demonstrated to be rather androgenic in most animal and cell-culture studies, and those aren't really disputed by anyone, not even the study you're quoting. There is only really one relevant paragraph from the paper relating to your quote above:

To this effect, TREN is a promising candidate to reduce the incidence of androgenic and/or estrogenic side effects associated with androgen administration because TREN (1) reduces serum testosterone [104,105,237] and DHT (unpublished laboratory results) presumably through pituitary or hypothalamic feedback inhibition [93,106], (2) does not appear to undergo 5-a reduction or aromatization [58,68], and (3) is metabolized to less potent androgens in vivo [39,58,68]. Ultimately, research examining the prevalence of androgen- and/or estrogen-mediated side effects associated with TREN administration and the mechanisms through which TREN reduces prostate growth is warranted.

As you can see, all they're really saying is that it doesn't convert to DHT or E2, but it's hardly unique among AAS in that regard. And their assumption that DHT is the main or only mechanism for virilization or androgenicity in AAS is patently misleading and myopic. I would say, having read the paper, that they're just trying to drum up interest in the compound to justify the research they're already undertaking. Which is not to say their research isn't helpful (it is, and they've done quite a lot before and since), merely that many scientists attempt to create self-justifying cycles of related research in order to keep themselves happily employed and (most importantly) to get it published ;)

Having said that, any study which can claim that prostate cancer is the only really 'serious risk' for AAS-using bodybuilders demonstrates a concerning lack of knowledge on the part of the authors :|
 
Thanks for your answer CFC.

Considering all your posts - thank you - I will follow this strategy:

8w BLAST (lean bulk)
w1-2 1000mg test 600mg deca
w3-4 1500mg test 800mg deca
w5-8 1500mg test 800mg deca 500mg trenbolone
5iu hgh and 20iu slin added on training days.

Trenbolone should be in long enough to work, but short enough to stay "safe".

After BLAST 8w CRUISE with low test and maybe minimal hgh and so on.

Dieting for contest without deca but with trenbolone only as short as possible.

Keeping blood and heart patameters controlled.

If you have further advice please tell me.

Thanks.
 
Thanks for your answer CFC.

Considering all your posts - thank you - I will follow this strategy:

Mate, if you considered my posts you would know I couldn't support anyone using that much gear, as I think it unnecessary. But good luck with your cycle and I hope you reach your goal.

Hopefully you plan to incorporate an ARB into that, to help reduce the risk of cardiovascular/TGF-b/RAAS issues and hold down BP.
 
I agree ok, I will try to reduce overall gear usage to a minimum dose as possible to reach my goals, starting with lower dosages as mentioned above.

Do you think ARB is a must go to reduce other risks , if blood pressure is already ok?

With 1,5g gear usage I have 130/80.

Taking 100mg aspirin ed and 5-10mg tadalafil 2-3 times a week.

Taking cabergoline against sides of deca (0,25mg e5d).

Do you recommend heart MRI or CT to control heart and coronary arteries?

Thanks.
 
I think an ARB should be run as standard on most cycles, not just because of the effect on BP but also the anti-fibrotic effect and reduced risk of heart hypertrophy. And also because it has few negative sides compared to the risks of not acting prophylactically.

As for the scans, they just give your doctor a picture of their condition (their dimensions, whether you have any plaques etc). A CMR (cardiac MRI) or MRA (for the vessels) provides a generally more accurate picture and avoids giving you a relatively large dose of radiation.
 
Thanks for your advice I will follow it.

Have read some studies regarding AAS, TGF and RAAS regarding losartan. Maybe worth a new topic, because it is not easy to understand.

Would you recommend a dose of 25mg losartan or more for cardioprotective effects?
 
Mate, if you considered my posts you would know I couldn't support anyone using that much gear, as I think it unnecessary. But good luck with your cycle and I hope you reach your goal.

As your general advice is to use less AAS, what are the supraphysiological blasting dosages of AAS (doesn't matter which AAS particulary), gh and insulin you are thinking of when it comes to break through 240lbs@5'10 in long term. What would be your suggested cycling frequency (blast and cruise)?

I am currently stagnating while staying below of 1g of AAS for blasting (crusing with 500mg per week). Having powerlifting experience for seven years without gear and bodybuilding experience for 3 years with gear. Increasing calorie intake while blasting with 1g of gear does not result anymore in more muscle gains.
 
Top