Anyone tried Superdrol from AML?

[Mike Arnold]

Sdrol is on a long list of compounds made back in the fifties when they were trying to come up with new steroids and in the nineties were brought back to be sold as prohormones, but the reason they had to be " brought back" is because most everything on that list were not as effective, had way to many sides, or were too toxic. They were scrapped for good fucking reason. You need an ai and if you want quality gains then get var and dose it at 100 per day. It'll get rid of a little fat, put on quality mass that is VERY EASILY maintained, will get even a high bf body like yours to become very vascular, it's very mild on the liver as well as with any potential sides, kicks in very fast, and will get rid of some of that water you have on you faster than the ai would in some cases. As far as calories go,4k is PLENTY. Bulking should not mean you're okay with putting on excessive body fat. Bulking needs to be done wisely. The more fat you gain the more fat cells your body must produce to have a place to store the excess fat. The problem with this is that you can burn fat, but once you have a fat cell it's there for good and even if they are empty they still damage the potential of a physique. These guys know what they're talking about. Listen to them. I ran"prohomones off that list I mentioned earlier and thus far in my 13+ years of training/ bodybuilding/ dieting/ chemical enhancing those were the only things I have ever regretted. There are better options that that and safer and you know it. if you don't know it then, no offense, but you shouldn't be cycling. Thi isn't a game for the reckless. Be smart and you'll achieve greatness, but be patient. I am no where near my goals after over 13 years! This is a game of persistence and wisdom and admitting when you're wrong because pretending you're right can have DISASTROUS consequences. Good luck, brother. be safe

No offsense, but the beginning of your post is ignorant and filled with errors. NONE of the steroids (which were mostly reseracherd in the 60's), aside from a VERY small few, were scrapped because of toxicity or because they weren't "effective". The steroids which were selected to become prescriptions were selected for ONE reason and one reasn ONLY...and it was NOT because they were eless toxic...NOR because they were better muscle builders, but ONLY because they did the best job (from what they could tell) at treating a specific medical condition...period!

I know a LOT about this subject....you don't seem to know much, but we can continue this topic if you would like. By the way, MANY steroids which did not go on to become script drugs were proven (by multi-billion dollar pharm companies) to be FAR superior muscle builders than those steroids which did become script drugs (SD was one of these, as were many more)...and many were also LESS toxic (in some cases dramatically less toxic) than some of the script drugs!!!

These pharm companies weren't looking for steroids which were best for BB'rs and strength athletes. If they were, they would have selected other steroids. This a 100% certainty...and was readily admitted by the researchers when doing extensive research on the myotropic ability of the various steroids. We are blessed today to have the variety of steroids we now have available. As a final consideration, Dimethazine, which is essentially 2 SD molecules attached together, was a prescription drug in 2 countries (Italy & Mexico)...and Dimethazine was proven, without any doubt whatsoever, to be SUPERIOR to Anadrol, Dianabol, and testosterone in terms of myotropic potency (muscle building) on a mg per mg basis. In fact, I can name SEVERAL steroids which have been produced over the last 10 years which have also been indisputably proven (again, by large pharm companies that were specifically looking at myotropic ability) to superior muscle builders (mg per mg) to Anadrol, Dianabol, and testosterone.

There is a LOT of ignorance out there about steroids, especially when it comes to steroids reserached in the (50-70's). Quite frankly, I am surprised I am still hearing shit like this when accurate info has been in open circulation for many years now. I attribute the ignorance to the internet...because it is all too easy for a single person to spread inaccurate info to 1,000's of people without even knowing it...and then those people tell more people, perpetuating the problem.

 

[Norsegod]

I apologize. my ignorance was for to my old guidance. Idk why I pushed most of what they said it and kept a few things knowing they were prob wrong. I have done a little research on pro hormones, but apparently not enough for the comment I made. Sorry guys. I didnotmean to misguide anyone.

 

[Black Beard]

I concur with mike arnold. 500-1000 is usually the sweet spot. The more conservative the surplus, the leaner the gains most of the time. At a certain point you just get fatter.

 

[00pmac00]

It takes multiple cycles to reach most guys goals. Slow and steady still applies. At least i see it that way. I knew someone would make this statement XD


I mean as slow as steady as you go, you are eventually going to hit a wall called genetics and/or age. I'd like to think a lot of guys here have exhausted their genetic limit before they seek chemical enhancement and i know that's the exception not the rule, but not every gear user is the "I want muscles now!11!11! Is 1 gram of tren Saf3>!!#1?" type.

LOL Yeah, I'm just bustin balls here

 

[Black Beard]

 

[Mike Arnold]

I apologize. my ignorance was for to my old guidance. Idk why I pushed most of what they said it and kept a few things knowing they were prob wrong. I have done a little research on pro hormones, but apparently not enough for the comment I made. Sorry guys. I didnotmean to misguide anyone.

No need for an apology, bro. Lots of people have said what you have so the mistake is understandable. It should also be said that a couple of the steroids which have been released over the last 10 or so years HAVE been considerably toxic (at least in comparison to traditional orals). M1T is one of these--likely the most toxic oral to ever be widely circulated. It can still be safely used, as demonstrated by the many 1,000's of people who have used it without harm, but it needs to be respected...which means shorter cycles at lower dosages compared to a drug like D-bol.

Most steroids have a place, but it is up to each individual to determine if a particular steroid is best suited to their goals. Just because a steroid builds more muscle than another...or appears to take one to their ultimate desitination more quickly, does not necessarily mean it is the best choice for that person at that time. There are many factors to consider when trying to make the best choice.

 

[Norsegod]

Most steroids have a place, but it is up to each individual to determine if a particular steroid is best suited to their goals. Just because a steroid builds more muscle than another...or appears to take one to their ultimate desitination more quickly, does not necessarily mean it is the best choice for that person at that time. There are many factors to consider when trying to make the best choice.

I completely agree. I just honestly feel that ph are too risky when they're are usually safer and more effective compounds out there. To me it's like an oxy addict refusing to switch to heroin because they think that if they stick with the" legal one" they won't get addicted or overdose....I guess some people like them though. To each there own,I mean, we all react to each aas differently. Just be safe guys.

 

[bigkit34]

Bad analogy norsegod ... Which one are you comparing to ph, oxy or heroin. As a former oxy addict i personally didn't switch to heroin because its more potent and often cut with other drugs. AASand illegal street drugs really have nothing to do with each other