200mg DBOL ED

vados said:
Well guys think about this one, would 200 mg dbol ED be more toxic than the recently popular 1 mg ED of methyltrienolone? Highly doubt it. Yet those who do the d-bol are labeled as abusers.
Have you used methyltrienolone?
 
orals are pretty cheap compared to injectables. i bet there are some crazy people who do this all the time in gyms all over and we would never know.
 
simpllyhuge said:
orals are pretty cheap compared to injectables. i bet there are some crazy people who do this all the time in gyms all over and we would never know.

I bet there are people on this board that do it but wont admit to it.
 
Parteeman said:
I've gone as high as 150mg/ED for a couple of weeks without sides and with no affect on ending liver values.
That's very odd. When was your liver checked in relation to the cycle? I assume it included at least AST and ALT?

Were you taking any supplements to protect your liver? If so, what supplements?
 
vados said:
Well guys think about this one, would 200 mg dbol ED be more toxic than the recently popular 1 mg ED of methyltrienolone? Highly doubt it. Yet those who do the d-bol are labeled as abusers.
I consider both to be abusers.
 
This cant be a serious post. If so....its unheard of in my parts.

30-40 mgs for bodybuilders.....60 tops for powerlifters stacked with a gram of test.
 
Yes methyltrienolone is 17-aa methylated tren.
Never tried it yet, I may do in the future, and again i may not.
To comment again on the issue, Ive never done 200 mg dbol ED either, and im not going to since i hate that compound anyway :), but labeling people abusers or whatever isnt the way to go. You can still use such amounts RESPONSIBLY, if only for the sake of experimenting. I doubt that 2-3 weeks of it will do any irreversible damage to anything. If youre really concerned, yet want to experiment, its always nice to do a blood test and stop if you notice values elevating too much. This is responsible usage in my opinion, and it has nothing to do with the dose used.
Another thing - I bet most people in the 70's would say the same thing about using 1+ g of test/weekly, yet nowadays so many people happily do it.
 
vados said:
Yes methyltrienolone is 17-aa methylated tren.
Never tried it yet, I may do in the future, and again i may not.
To comment again on the issue, Ive never done 200 mg dbol ED either, and im not going to since i hate that compound anyway :), but labeling people abusers or whatever isnt the way to go. You can still use such amounts RESPONSIBLY, if only for the sake of experimenting. I doubt that 2-3 weeks of it will do any irreversible damage to anything. If youre really concerned, yet want to experiment, its always nice to do a blood test and stop if you notice values elevating too much. This is responsible usage in my opinion, and it has nothing to do with the dose used.
Another thing - I bet most people in the 70's would say the same thing about using 1+ g of test/weekly, yet nowadays so many people happily do it.
hell...I did 8 wks Cheque drops so whom am i to say.....twice! ;)
 
Their is a saying in pharmacology that goes something like "the only difference between a toxic, potentially lethal drug and a safe and effective drug is dose".
I think that sums it up perfectly.
 
I dont think you would have to go back that far to find people commenting on the 1g of Test being irresponsible. I started out using gear 7 years ago, and back then anything above 30mg of D-bol was ridiculous, 500mg of Test was the highest you should go with that and Deca at 400mg was the max too. Since the internet enabled easy trade between china and the rest of the world, UG labs have sprung up every where offering convenient mega doses of gear and so the bar has been raised. You would never see an oral with anything more than 5mg a tab until recent years (except A-50). Many inj. came in 50mg/ml where as now you can get up to 400mg/ml.
Personally, i don't see the need to go so high. Arnie made massive gains off 5mg of d-bol a day, so why would anyone feel the need to do 40 times that amount?
I still only use the same amounts I used back when I started and I seem to do alright.
 
1) I'd have to be getting paid to put my body at that level of risk

2) I'd be monitoring bp/blood work like a hawk
 
isotop said:
ive read somewhere about a guy that took 200mg dbol for 1 month...
he said is strength doubled during this month ( he kept a log about the cycle and strength gains)

* anyway I found the guy I was was talking about ( I wasn't exactly correct but close)

one crazy cycle

Dude, I have never seen or heard about such a crazy use of AAS!? I can;t believe the amount this cat is putting in his body...I think this is what they are talking about when the mention Anabolic Androgenic Steroids (AAS) as the cause of death....man, insanity IMO.
 
Regarding Arnie, its been on shed loads of programs. The gym he trained in over here in the UK regularly state on programs that he was taking 5mg of Dbol a day back in the 60's. I'm inclined to believe it simply because i've seen just how much doses have increased in the past 7 years. Back then, you would see a post like this talking about 50mg of Dbol and just about every one would be shocked by it. The way things are going, in another 7 years newbies will be being recommended a starting dose of 100mg a day of dbol. It seems like a slippery slope.
I also agree Arnies genetics obviously played a massive part in his physique, but that's not to say that someone without those genetics should need to take more. They are never going to be as big as Arnie anyway and their is a physical limit to the size anyone can ever get to. With time, patience and sensible training/dieting and cycling, its possible for anyone to acheive their max size without the need to do ridiculously massive cycles.
 
Just read the above, and it seems as though I'm stating that people only need 5mg of Dbol, i'm not. I just phrased that wrong. What I meant to say was that if Arnie took 5mg a dbol and saw fantastic results, then surely an increase of say 6 fold (30mg) a day is sufficient given what we know now. I really don't think their would be any thing to be gained by doing 40 times the dose that could not be acheived by doing much less.
 
vados said:
Well guys think about this one, would 200 mg dbol ED be more toxic than the recently popular 1 mg ED of methyltrienolone? Highly doubt it. Yet those who do the d-bol are labeled as abusers.
This argument is just stupid. Methyltrienolone is poison.
 
Back
Top