Orangeoceannsc
New member
First post, hello to all.
Just read all 24 pages of the "Oral Anabolic Steroid cycles" thread steroidology.com/forum/anabolic-steroid-forum/598646-oral-anabolic-steroid-cycles.html. VERY informative - thanks to all that contributed, especially DADAWG, who obviously had/has his work cut out for him.
Before reading that thread, I was strongly considering running a low dose dbol-only cycle. I now understand that this idea is retarded because I wouldn't be replacing the test that I lost from dbol shutdown while on cycle...lesson learned.
However, what the thread didn't explain was, how much exogenous test would be needed to keep tt levels at around the same level as they were naturally (pre-cycle) while using orals? There might be too many variables here, such as the type and dosage of the secondary compound and individual responsiveness to exogenous test. But if anyone has any info about how much exogenous test is needed to merely REPLACE natural test during a low dose oral cycle (dbol in particular) I'd definitely be interested. I believe DADAWG said healthy males make the equivalent of 100-150 mg of test a week, but I also read in one of the stickies that 300 mg of test e boosts total test 691 ng/dl on average, which seems about right for replacing lost test from low dose dbol and low dose test related shutdown.
For anyone who didn't die of boredom from my first question, here is my second one: would keeping test levels relatively close to baseline allow the user to take advantage of some of the rapid strength, power, and size gains of dbol without significantly altering test. homeostasis? Considering that there are several mechanisms of action attributable to aas and that people make plenty of gains even while their total test is in the shitter on orals and PH, it doesn't seem that boosting total test to the 2000-3000 ng/dl levels that you sometimes see from moderate to high test supplementation would be necessary to make moderate gains.
In fact for some, significantly elevated test might be somewhat undesirable for a variety of reasons, and staying somewhere around or just slightly above baseline levels would be preferable. I know lots of people love the feeling of significantly elevated test, but there are plenty of others who would be happy with slightly less gains and possibly a more stable affect. Certainly homeostasis is something to be desired from a reduction of sides and ease of recovery standpoint as well, although I could also see the argument that since you're going to shut yourself down anyway, you might as well dose high enough (within reason) to make significant gains so there will be less to lose when you come off and your test drops during pct. However, assuming that you never let your test fluctuate too dramatically while on cycle, you might have an easier time recovering and keeping gains (at least in theory).
Anyway, let me know what you guys think. Thanks
tl;dr Everyone always says low dose dbol only cycles are bad, you have to REPLACE THE TEST. So how much test is required to replace it? And would merely replacing it (as opposed to adding significantly more) be desirable?
Just read all 24 pages of the "Oral Anabolic Steroid cycles" thread steroidology.com/forum/anabolic-steroid-forum/598646-oral-anabolic-steroid-cycles.html. VERY informative - thanks to all that contributed, especially DADAWG, who obviously had/has his work cut out for him.
Before reading that thread, I was strongly considering running a low dose dbol-only cycle. I now understand that this idea is retarded because I wouldn't be replacing the test that I lost from dbol shutdown while on cycle...lesson learned.
However, what the thread didn't explain was, how much exogenous test would be needed to keep tt levels at around the same level as they were naturally (pre-cycle) while using orals? There might be too many variables here, such as the type and dosage of the secondary compound and individual responsiveness to exogenous test. But if anyone has any info about how much exogenous test is needed to merely REPLACE natural test during a low dose oral cycle (dbol in particular) I'd definitely be interested. I believe DADAWG said healthy males make the equivalent of 100-150 mg of test a week, but I also read in one of the stickies that 300 mg of test e boosts total test 691 ng/dl on average, which seems about right for replacing lost test from low dose dbol and low dose test related shutdown.
For anyone who didn't die of boredom from my first question, here is my second one: would keeping test levels relatively close to baseline allow the user to take advantage of some of the rapid strength, power, and size gains of dbol without significantly altering test. homeostasis? Considering that there are several mechanisms of action attributable to aas and that people make plenty of gains even while their total test is in the shitter on orals and PH, it doesn't seem that boosting total test to the 2000-3000 ng/dl levels that you sometimes see from moderate to high test supplementation would be necessary to make moderate gains.
In fact for some, significantly elevated test might be somewhat undesirable for a variety of reasons, and staying somewhere around or just slightly above baseline levels would be preferable. I know lots of people love the feeling of significantly elevated test, but there are plenty of others who would be happy with slightly less gains and possibly a more stable affect. Certainly homeostasis is something to be desired from a reduction of sides and ease of recovery standpoint as well, although I could also see the argument that since you're going to shut yourself down anyway, you might as well dose high enough (within reason) to make significant gains so there will be less to lose when you come off and your test drops during pct. However, assuming that you never let your test fluctuate too dramatically while on cycle, you might have an easier time recovering and keeping gains (at least in theory).
Anyway, let me know what you guys think. Thanks
tl;dr Everyone always says low dose dbol only cycles are bad, you have to REPLACE THE TEST. So how much test is required to replace it? And would merely replacing it (as opposed to adding significantly more) be desirable?
Last edited:
