DUANABOL
New member
The following came directly from Cy-BORG.
Q: A couple of years ago, T-mag ran an article called "Steroids for Health." In it, the author prescribed a layman's steroid cycle; one that an average bodybuilder could maybe do once or twice a year, safely, and that would add at least 8-10 pounds of muscle. I imagine your take on the subject is very much different. As such, can you give me a minimalist cycle that's A) readily available, B) relatively safe, and c) relatively effective?
A: Hell yes my take is different! First off, the recommendations came from an individual who thinks that just because a drug is a "veterinary androgen," it's only effective in animals for the most part. That's ridiculous. Boldenone (EQ) and stanozolol (Winstrol) work in humans just as they do in animals. The label has nothing to do with whether it's effective in humans or animals. The molecules are exactly the same. Nothing is different except the label.
This person also talks about how their standards for quality are lower. Well, in a way he's correct because these companies don't have someone regulating them, but any shortcomings in quality aren't because they think they're making these drugs for animal consumption. Yeah, and I bet it's just a coincidence that these veterinary companies are bringing back every bodybuilder's favorite drugs, like Anadrol (oxymetholone), trenbolone acetate, etc. These companies know exactly who their market is, plain and simple.
Moving on, this person also uses a *La Chatelier-like principle to explain why only certain androgens allow a better retention of muscle after a cycle is over and others don't. Essentially, his thoughts were that since you gain too much muscle with a certain drug, your body strives to reach equilibrium, so your body just magically "loses" these gains because it's too "heavy" on the body. Um, that's taking things too far and sounds like a fourth grader's reasoning skills.
[Editor's note: La Chatier was a chemist, now dead, largely known for the following principle: "Any change in one of the variables that determines the state of a system in equilibrium causes a shift in the position of equilibrium in a direction that tends to counteract the change in the variable under consideration." So now you know.]
Drugs like Primobolan do tend to allow you to keep gains more so than others, but the reasons don't have much to do with "striving to reach equilibrium" and more to do with physiology and endocrinology. True, the body does have a response mechanism in cases where you cause an imbalance, but this can't be applied to every situation. He also throws in other thoughts left over from the 70's like letting your receptors "refreshen" or whatever, when evidence points to them actually up-regulating.
But enough of the original article. There are three key determinants of whether you keep a good portion of your "gains" after the cessation of a cycle. One is the degree of inhibition of your endogenous Testosterone production or effect on the HPTA. Two is the amount of water retention or edema caused by the drug during usage, and three is — this one being a little more on the "iffy" side — whether it causes simple hypertrophy of skeletal muscle or the activation of satellite cells, leading to the formation of new muscle fibers. This last one isn't totally solid, but there's evidence supporting it.(1,2)
In any event, here are some sample cycles that are relatively available, safe and effective:
500 mg/week any Testosterone ester combined with 50 mg/day stanozolol (Winstrol)
500 mg/week nandrolone (Deca) combined with 500 mg/week of any Testosterone ester
500 mg/week methenolone (Primobolan) with 50 mg/day stanozolol (Winstrol) or methandrostenolone (D-bol)
Each one of these (with the exception of nandrolone) aren't very suppressive in terms of allowing endogenous testosterone production to return. These steroids won't cause much water retention as well, and lastly, with the nandrolone and Testosterone stack, you're theoretically increasing IGF-1 levels to a very high level, which in theory would lead to satellite cell activation, forming "new muscle."
As far as length goes, I feel 5-6 weeks is totally fine. Whatever slight side effects you'd see at 3 weeks would be the same as those you'd encounter after 5-6 weeks, so there's no point in only doing a 2 or 3 week cycle.
Q: A couple of years ago, T-mag ran an article called "Steroids for Health." In it, the author prescribed a layman's steroid cycle; one that an average bodybuilder could maybe do once or twice a year, safely, and that would add at least 8-10 pounds of muscle. I imagine your take on the subject is very much different. As such, can you give me a minimalist cycle that's A) readily available, B) relatively safe, and c) relatively effective?
A: Hell yes my take is different! First off, the recommendations came from an individual who thinks that just because a drug is a "veterinary androgen," it's only effective in animals for the most part. That's ridiculous. Boldenone (EQ) and stanozolol (Winstrol) work in humans just as they do in animals. The label has nothing to do with whether it's effective in humans or animals. The molecules are exactly the same. Nothing is different except the label.
This person also talks about how their standards for quality are lower. Well, in a way he's correct because these companies don't have someone regulating them, but any shortcomings in quality aren't because they think they're making these drugs for animal consumption. Yeah, and I bet it's just a coincidence that these veterinary companies are bringing back every bodybuilder's favorite drugs, like Anadrol (oxymetholone), trenbolone acetate, etc. These companies know exactly who their market is, plain and simple.
Moving on, this person also uses a *La Chatelier-like principle to explain why only certain androgens allow a better retention of muscle after a cycle is over and others don't. Essentially, his thoughts were that since you gain too much muscle with a certain drug, your body strives to reach equilibrium, so your body just magically "loses" these gains because it's too "heavy" on the body. Um, that's taking things too far and sounds like a fourth grader's reasoning skills.
[Editor's note: La Chatier was a chemist, now dead, largely known for the following principle: "Any change in one of the variables that determines the state of a system in equilibrium causes a shift in the position of equilibrium in a direction that tends to counteract the change in the variable under consideration." So now you know.]
Drugs like Primobolan do tend to allow you to keep gains more so than others, but the reasons don't have much to do with "striving to reach equilibrium" and more to do with physiology and endocrinology. True, the body does have a response mechanism in cases where you cause an imbalance, but this can't be applied to every situation. He also throws in other thoughts left over from the 70's like letting your receptors "refreshen" or whatever, when evidence points to them actually up-regulating.
But enough of the original article. There are three key determinants of whether you keep a good portion of your "gains" after the cessation of a cycle. One is the degree of inhibition of your endogenous Testosterone production or effect on the HPTA. Two is the amount of water retention or edema caused by the drug during usage, and three is — this one being a little more on the "iffy" side — whether it causes simple hypertrophy of skeletal muscle or the activation of satellite cells, leading to the formation of new muscle fibers. This last one isn't totally solid, but there's evidence supporting it.(1,2)
In any event, here are some sample cycles that are relatively available, safe and effective:
500 mg/week any Testosterone ester combined with 50 mg/day stanozolol (Winstrol)
500 mg/week nandrolone (Deca) combined with 500 mg/week of any Testosterone ester
500 mg/week methenolone (Primobolan) with 50 mg/day stanozolol (Winstrol) or methandrostenolone (D-bol)
Each one of these (with the exception of nandrolone) aren't very suppressive in terms of allowing endogenous testosterone production to return. These steroids won't cause much water retention as well, and lastly, with the nandrolone and Testosterone stack, you're theoretically increasing IGF-1 levels to a very high level, which in theory would lead to satellite cell activation, forming "new muscle."
As far as length goes, I feel 5-6 weeks is totally fine. Whatever slight side effects you'd see at 3 weeks would be the same as those you'd encounter after 5-6 weeks, so there's no point in only doing a 2 or 3 week cycle.
