Dianabol = better results & less side effects then injectable testosterone.

I know this is an old thread, but nevertheless, I've got some things on my mind about this.

I'm not going to argue who's right or wrong, just asking some questions (genuine questions, not trolling):

1. Why was (are) new AAS even made, if 'the good old test is the king'?

To my knowledge, test was found in the 30's. So why would someone (Dr. Ziegler) invent something (Dbol) twenty years later, that is inferior? (In anabolic qualities, as that's what it was specifically made for).

2. 'Test is the base of every cycle'. While I understand that one could use test while the natural production is halted (for health reasons, and maybe getting your cock hard), why is every 'good' cycle always with a 500mg(ish) test base? If the average male produces around 50mg of test a week (correct if I'm wrong), why would you need ten times of that, just to keep whatever test keeps, functioning?

So to add the two questions together: If test is the king, why use the other 'inferior' AAS to begin with?

Or, if infact modern AAS are actually superior (anabolic wise), why use test more than what is needed (natural amount)?

I know it's a bit black & white, but I'd like to hear your opinions, and the reasons behind them.
I hope someone can at least try to answer these, without just calling names and going lol.

Tarbosh, is that you?
 
This was a weird post , the dude had a raging hard-on for D-bol and seem to despise testosterone.....a classic weird one .lol ~Bo
 
old info

just to throw in my two cents, I thought I would add that as a bit of a history buff, I would like to point out that the Russian military was giving their soldiers d-Bol during ww2. they believed it caused strength and aggression, not to mention they probably just felt a little better in general, considering the conditions they were placed under.then again, most countries also fed their soldiers salt peter, so yeah, they were highly educated back then...lol just like the USA giving LSD to some soldiers during nam.

also, the Russian Olympic lifter in the 70's who's name escapes me right now, but was very well known and won more than one gold, first name was Alexei, go figure, stated that he took twenty Dianabol a day, and also drank up to twenty beer a day for calories and enjoyment. he was interviewed in sports illustrated way back.anyway just saying, d-Bol has it good points, but with the info we have these days, it is foolish to follow advice from years ago that is outdated.2cnts
 
Last edited:
I know this is an old thread, but nevertheless, I've got some things on my mind about this.

I'm not going to argue who's right or wrong, just asking some questions (genuine questions, not trolling):

1. Why was (are) new AAS even made, if 'the good old test is the king'?

To my knowledge, test was found in the 30's. So why would someone (Dr. Ziegler) invent something (Dbol) twenty years later, that is inferior? (In anabolic qualities, as that's what it was specifically made for).

2. 'Test is the base of every cycle'. While I understand that one could use test while the natural production is halted (for health reasons, and maybe getting your cock hard), why is every 'good' cycle always with a 500mg(ish) test base? If the average male produces around 50mg of test a week (correct if I'm wrong), why would you need ten times of that, just to keep whatever test keeps, functioning?

So to add the two questions together: If test is the king, why use the other 'inferior' AAS to begin with?

Or, if infact modern AAS are actually superior (anabolic wise), why use test more than what is needed (natural amount)?

I know it's a bit black & white, but I'd like to hear your opinions, and the reasons behind them.
I hope someone can at least try to answer these, without just calling names and going lol.

congrats your smarter than all the vets and mods on the internet .
 
I know this is an old thread, but nevertheless, I've got some things on my mind about this.

I'm not going to argue who's right or wrong, just asking some questions (genuine questions, not trolling):

1. Why was (are) new AAS even made, if 'the good old test is the king'?

To my knowledge, test was found in the 30's. So why would someone (Dr. Ziegler) invent something (Dbol) twenty years later, that is inferior? (In anabolic qualities, as that's what it was specifically made for).

2. 'Test is the base of every cycle'. While I understand that one could use test while the natural production is halted (for health reasons, and maybe getting your cock hard), why is every 'good' cycle always with a 500mg(ish) test base? If the average male produces around 50mg of test a week (correct if I'm wrong), why would you need ten times of that, just to keep whatever test keeps, functioning?

So to add the two questions together: If test is the king, why use the other 'inferior' AAS to begin with?

Or, if infact modern AAS are actually superior (anabolic wise), why use test more than what is needed (natural amount)?

I know it's a bit black & white, but I'd like to hear your opinions, and the reasons behind them.
I hope someone can at least try to answer these, without just calling names and going lol.


Instead of asking and getting smashed into the ground on a question, most people won't even want to answer. You should read around and answer your own questions. There is plenty of Factual information on this site, no need to throw around uneducated guesses.
 
Instead of asking and getting smashed into the ground on a question, most people won't even want to answer. You should read around and answer your own questions. There is plenty of Factual information on this site, no need to throw around uneducated guesses.

I was asking your opinion. Because the facts are: back in the 'hayday of anabolic steroids' in 1930-1960, the reason for all the steroid development was to create a steroid that would be strong in anabolic effects while having minimum androgenic effects. Why was this? Because test, while strongly anabolic, is also as strongly androgenic. That's why the original OP had a point, when he brought in the question about the A/A (anabolic/androgenic) ratio.

Because, in theory, all steroids were made to have better A/A ratios than test (I'll assume). So, test should have the worst androgenic side effects considering given anabolic effects compared to any other steroid. True, it's not the whole picture, but I rarely see any arguments considering test other than: 'it's the king', which is stupid.

I just don't see many arguments in any of these steroid forums, and so it's hard to know what to believe and what not to. So I just figured I'd put the question here. If you do have an answer, why don't you just give it to me? Or point me to the right direction (link), rather than just ignoring the question to begin with. I do have tried searching for an answer...
 
Last edited:
No one anywhere stated test is King by reading some horseshit. We state test is KING by shooting the fucking shit.
You take your theory, your dbol and every steroid in the planet and I'll compare results with you anytime.
 
No one anywhere stated test is King by reading some horseshit. We state test is KING by shooting the fucking shit.
You take your theory, your dbol and every steroid in the planet and I'll compare results with you anytime.


That's some great help right there, good advice for all the kids out there. 'Take the potentially most dangerous 'roid out there, just cuz I say so' or 'don't think about it, just shoot the shit'.

Lemme guess, you quit school? Cuz you gotta learn to read m8. Nobody is questioning the results test will give you, it IS one of the most powerful anabolic steroid out there, I believe you. I never said it isn't. But I just wondered, as it is also one of the most ANDROGENIC steroid out there, that you could get those results 'safer' perhaps...

All I'm saying is that there is a reason AAS development was done in the first place. To my knowledge, it was done to reduce the androgenic effects of test. So, you vets are basically saying: the scientist were wrong?. Again, I'm not taking sides, you can have any opinions about anything, but I like opinions based on logic and reasoning more convincing than bold statements.

Sorry if questioning your king test is a violation of the forum rules...
 
Last edited:
That's some great help right there, good advice for all the kids out there. 'Take the potentially most dangerous 'roid out there, just cuz I say so' or 'don't think about it, just shoot the shit'.

Lemme guess, you quit school? Cuz you gotta learn to read m8. Nobody is questioning the results test will give you, it IS one of the most powerful anabolic steroid out there, I believe you. I never said it isn't. But I just wondered, as it is also one of the most ANDROGENIC steroid out there, that you could get those results 'safer' perhaps...

All I'm saying is that there is a reason AAS development was done in the first place. To my knowledge, it was done to reduce the androgenic effects of test. So, you vets are basically saying: the scientist were wrong?. Again, I'm not taking sides, you can have any opinions about anything, but I like opinions based on logic and reasoning more convincing than bold statements.

Sorry if questioning your king test is a violation of the forum rules...

test is the only steroid that is natural to a man PERIOD . cry bitch and whine all you want but thats the way it is.
every newbie whos reading this please take a look at the guys who are disagreeing with me on this . every one of them has only a few post . the reason why is because they are a newbie just like you and they dont know SHIT.


vets , mods , admins know whats going on because they have actual real world experience .
 
That's some great help right there, good advice for all the kids out there. 'Take the potentially most dangerous 'roid out there, just cuz I say so' or 'don't think about it, just shoot the shit'.

Lemme guess, you quit school? Cuz you gotta learn to read m8. Nobody is questioning the results test will give you, it IS one of the most powerful anabolic steroid out there, I believe you. I never said it isn't. But I just wondered, as it is also one of the most ANDROGENIC steroid out there, that you could get those results 'safer' perhaps...

All I'm saying is that there is a reason AAS development was done in the first place. To my knowledge, it was done to reduce the androgenic effects of test. So, you vets are basically saying: the scientist were wrong?. Again, I'm not taking sides, you can have any opinions about anything, but I like opinions based on logic and reasoning more convincing than bold statements.

Sorry if questioning your king test is a violation of the forum rules...

You will get no answer, because most of the guys here were not blessed with much intellect. LOL They simply repeat some bullsh*t over and over again, because the majority of guys repeats it, too. It is called the "herd behaviour".

"test is the only steroid that is natural to a man PERIOD"

Up to 50 mg/week. Anything over this dose is not natural, you genius, and it will cause harsh side effects in a significant number of people. Yow yow!
 
I guess you're right User.

Yeah, I've heard this 'test is natural', and honestly, basing an argument on something because it's 'natural' is...

Just because our body produces it naturally for it's purposes, doesn't make it any more or less dangerous when injecting 10x the doses your body needs.

My body needs it for it's anabolic and adrogenic qualities. However, I'm building muscle (anabolic), and not trying to get prostate problems(androgenic).

And if you really want the 'natural' test anyway, you gotta extract it from a real specimen. As technically, you are injecting yourself with synthetic test, which is not (chemically speaking) the exact same thing.

I'll appreciate your input nevertheless. Keep yourselves safe people.
 
1- i would't survive several weeks without sex,
2- Test IS king
3- anavar only is for ppl with vaginas
4- Dadawg is usually right, even though he's a human being, and we all make mistakes from time to time, he doesnt make many ( anymore:p)
Oh and im a med student... i guess they just take anybody these days :p
 
Yes, I was already excommunicated from the local Steroid Church many times. Here are the ten commandments that I routinely break:

1. There is only one Steroid God and Dadawg is his prophet.
2. The name of the Steroid God is Test.
3. Test is best.
4. Test is a stuff that is naturally occuring in the body. This means that even if you injected 10 liters of testosterone, you won't notice any serious side effects.
5. Dadawg is always true, and if he isn't, you will be banned.
6. Never do oral-only cycles.
7. We actually don't know why, but don't do them anyway!
8. Anavar is for people with vaginas.
9. Avoid shut-down at any cost, because nobody has ever survived several weeks without sex.
10. Bald head, acne scars and enlarged prostate are gifts from Heaven.

:madflip:

That certainly impressed the other 3 trolls here.
 
I know this is an old thread, but nevertheless, I've got some things on my mind about this.

I'm not going to argue who's right or wrong, just asking some questions (genuine questions, not trolling):

1. Why was (are) new AAS even made, if 'the good old test is the king'?

To my knowledge, test was found in the 30's. So why would someone (Dr. Ziegler) invent something (Dbol) twenty years later, that is inferior? (In anabolic qualities, as that's what it was specifically made for).

2. 'Test is the base of every cycle'. While I understand that one could use test while the natural production is halted (for health reasons, and maybe getting your cock hard), why is every 'good' cycle always with a 500mg(ish) test base? If the average male produces around 50mg of test a week (correct if I'm wrong), why would you need ten times of that, just to keep whatever test keeps, functioning?

So to add the two questions together: If test is the king, why use the other 'inferior' AAS to begin with?

Or, if infact modern AAS are actually superior (anabolic wise), why use test more than what is needed (natural amount)?

I know it's a bit black & white, but I'd like to hear your opinions, and the reasons behind them.
I hope someone can at least try to answer these, without just calling names and going lol.


Ok, your questions are logical (as were the OP's) and I signed up just to answer them. I like a good debate, and since I've got no dog in the fight on this one (I don't know any of you and could care less if this is my first and last post) I'll give it to you straight.

YOU'RE COMPARING APPLES TO ORANGES.

1.) The menagerie of steroids you see used these days were mostly developed during the 1930-50's. At the time research into male hormones was all the rage and pharmaceutical companies would patent anything they would come up with for possible further use. Most substances were pushed to the side and forgotten. This happens all the time, there are tens of thousands of drugs in the back logs of pharmaceutical companies that no one ever found a medical use for so they go on ice.

What you're really asking here is "why are steroids besides test used by athletes if test itself sooooo wonderful"? The short answer is, test sucks for *actual* athletes. (Bodybuilders are not athletes, sorry to everyone with a hurt asshole.)

Keep in mind that drug use began among athletes from Olympic sports and filtered down to everyone else. As drug testing in sports became more and more sophisticated through the 70-80's athletes (mostly T&F and weightlifters) needed to use different compounds to pass their tests without getting popped. Different drugs have different clearance times and things like test prop or suspension were only used to bridge. Test E and C have terrible clearance times and can't be used reliably in drug tested sports without a hell of a lot of planning. To find new undetectable compounds team doctors went back into those same pharmaceutical back logs and pulled up the old substances which the tests were not yet calibrated to detect. They were looking for anything they could, and thus many new compounds were introduced into the sporting world eventually filtering down to bodybuilders (who were nothing more than a strange pseudo-athletic subculture back then).

Just about everyone from the 60's-80's who broke a world record used good ol' dbol as the base of their cycle if they could get away with it. Some lucky teams used designer drugs or rotated in drugs to accomplish different training goals over time. They were trying to maximize their performance, simple as that.

See, test IS king - if your only athletic goal in life is to get "swole" and look good on a beach. If you are looking for strength and recovery gains without any weight gain (weight class sports) it's not the best compound to use. So how were athletes able to use dbol only and not come down with the litany of horrid side effects everyone here blathers on about? THEY USED IT AS DIRECTED. Dbol is useful even at small doses if all you care about it recovery and strength gain.

Someone threw out "The Russians" before claiming that Alexeev used massive amounts of dbol. What UTTER BULLSHIT. The Russians had a nationwide doping program, only useing 0.5mg/kg of bodyweight per day and they cycled it in three week blocks - three on three off. They also took off entire YEARS (usually post-Olympic) where they went clean. There was no post cycle therapy (pct) and yet tens of thousands of those "old time" athletes survived just fine without it. They smashed world records that modern athletes only dream about simply because they busted their asses and were intelligent about their drug use.

Most of the great 70's powerlifters thrived on nothing more than 15-25mg of dbol a day, a tiny amount compared to the people you see posting their train wrecks on boards like this. No wonder everyone crashed so hard, they're taking double and triple the effective dose with other things stacked in.

Bill March was using 10mg a DAY when he standing pressed 390lbs at 220 bwt. I personally use 25mg a day and am an 800 deadlifter at 275, so make of it what you will.

The bottom line - the BEST ATHLETES IN HISTORY used anything and everything BESIDES test. If they had, they would have to have been off cycle for up to 6 months before major competitions to clear. When the OP brought up the army of East German doctors and data collected from tens of thousands of athletes over decades, he was right. They knew what they were doing and were some of the BEST sports coaches in history. Sure, none of their athletes could win the Mr. Olympia, but no pro bodybuilder could out throw an average German woman's shot putter. Apples to oranges.

2.) As I said, test is only being used these days because it's cosmetic drug. It's not really used in the sporting world.

This is why you've got 280lbs guys with abs who can't lift worth a shit. They're not athletes and their drug protocol is only designed to make them look a certain way. They don't have to worry about getting popped for using Test E too close to a World Cup. You're getting one story from the bodybuilders and they obviously know what they're doing, but come over to the powerlifting boards and we'll tell you a whole 'nother story.

I personally don't know anyone who uses Test as a cycle base and I've been competing internationally for a decade. If I were to use it, I'd outgrow my weight class in a month and only gain a marginal increase in strength. Dianabol has been used by athletes for 60 years for a reason - it's still one of the best compounds for strength and performance gains while staying in your weight class!
 
Ok, your questions are logical (as were the OP's) and I signed up just to answer them. I like a good debate, and since I've got no dog in the fight on this one (I don't know any of you and could care less if this is my first and last post) I'll give it to you straight.

YOU'RE COMPARING APPLES TO ORANGES.

1.) The menagerie of steroids you see used these days were mostly developed during the 1930-50's. At the time research into male hormones was all the rage and pharmaceutical companies would patent anything they would come up with for possible further use. Most substances were pushed to the side and forgotten. This happens all the time, there are tens of thousands of drugs in the back logs of pharmaceutical companies that no one ever found a medical use for so they go on ice.

What you're really asking here is "why are steroids besides test used by athletes if test itself sooooo wonderful"? The short answer is, test sucks for *actual* athletes. (Bodybuilders are not athletes, sorry to everyone with a hurt asshole.)

Keep in mind that drug use began among athletes from Olympic sports and filtered down to everyone else. As drug testing in sports became more and more sophisticated through the 70-80's athletes (mostly T&F and weightlifters) needed to use different compounds to pass their tests without getting popped. Different drugs have different clearance times and things like test prop or suspension were only used to bridge. Test E and C have terrible clearance times and can't be used reliably in drug tested sports without a hell of a lot of planning. To find new undetectable compounds team doctors went back into those same pharmaceutical back logs and pulled up the old substances which the tests were not yet calibrated to detect. They were looking for anything they could, and thus many new compounds were introduced into the sporting world eventually filtering down to bodybuilders (who were nothing more than a strange pseudo-athletic subculture back then).

Just about everyone from the 60's-80's who broke a world record used good ol' dbol as the base of their cycle if they could get away with it. Some lucky teams used designer drugs or rotated in drugs to accomplish different training goals over time. They were trying to maximize their performance, simple as that.

See, test IS king - if your only athletic goal in life is to get "swole" and look good on a beach. If you are looking for strength and recovery gains without any weight gain (weight class sports) it's not the best compound to use. So how were athletes able to use dbol only and not come down with the litany of horrid side effects everyone here blathers on about? THEY USED IT AS DIRECTED. Dbol is useful even at small doses if all you care about it recovery and strength gain.

Someone threw out "The Russians" before claiming that Alexeev used massive amounts of dbol. What UTTER BULLSHIT. The Russians had a nationwide doping program, only useing 0.5mg/kg of bodyweight per day and they cycled it in three week blocks - three on three off. They also took off entire YEARS (usually post-Olympic) where they went clean. There was no post cycle therapy (pct) and yet tens of thousands of those "old time" athletes survived just fine without it. They smashed world records that modern athletes only dream about simply because they busted their asses and were intelligent about their drug use.

Most of the great 70's powerlifters thrived on nothing more than 15-25mg of dbol a day, a tiny amount compared to the people you see posting their train wrecks on boards like this. No wonder everyone crashed so hard, they're taking double and triple the effective dose with other things stacked in.

Bill March was using 10mg a DAY when he standing pressed 390lbs at 220 bwt. I personally use 25mg a day and am an 800 deadlifter at 275, so make of it what you will.

The bottom line - the BEST ATHLETES IN HISTORY used anything and everything BESIDES test. If they had, they would have to have been off cycle for up to 6 months before major competitions to clear. When the OP brought up the army of East German doctors and data collected from tens of thousands of athletes over decades, he was right. They knew what they were doing and were some of the BEST sports coaches in history. Sure, none of their athletes could win the Mr. Olympia, but no pro bodybuilder could out throw an average German woman's shot putter. Apples to oranges.

2.) As I said, test is only being used these days because it's cosmetic drug. It's not really used in the sporting world.

This is why you've got 280lbs guys with abs who can't lift worth a shit. They're not athletes and their drug protocol is only designed to make them look a certain way. They don't have to worry about getting popped for using Test E too close to a World Cup. You're getting one story from the bodybuilders and they obviously know what they're doing, but come over to the powerlifting boards and we'll tell you a whole 'nother story.

I personally don't know anyone who uses Test as a cycle base and I've been competing internationally for a decade. If I were to use it, I'd outgrow my weight class in a month and only gain a marginal increase in strength. Dianabol has been used by athletes for 60 years for a reason - it's still one of the best compounds for strength and performance gains while staying in your weight class!

i powerlifted for 15 years and we ALL used test as a base . your theory that dbol wont add weight makes me laugh anyway . even if you were right about test just adding mass , thats what 90% of the meatheads on this board want anyway .you managed to type out a whole lot of nothing.
 
Back
Top