Oral Anabolic Steroid cycles

[DADAWG]

no this study was only studying the effects of shutdown at 100mg per day over 6 weeks.

being a 17aa, for sure dbol would have more of an effect liver values then say testosterone.

BUT, i can say with certainty that 250mgs of test per week (low dose) will actually shut you down more then say 25 mgs of dbol per day.

you can dismiss the study in terms of shutdown by saying it is 30 years old but the science behind it remains the same. the results were what they were and would be the same today.

once again thats apples to oranges , your comparing 250 mg of test a week to 175 mg of dbol and imo you will get more results from that much test than you will the dbol with much less chance of side effects.

 

[DADAWG]

bro, nobody is encouraging newbies to do oral only cycles.

i am simply pointing out that shutdown is largely dependent on dose. it is incorrect to simply say "dbol only cycle will shut you down".

i still think that study is BULLSHIT .

ive been around enough people who have used dbol only cycles and seen their recovery issues.

 

[THE BOUNCER]

Many religious people think science is BULLSHIT.

Facts are facts brother.

I have to point out a post made by needsize, post #16 in this thread http://www.steroidology.com/forum/a...-whats-bloody-truth-here-dbol-only-cycle.html

again, i am not saying dbol only cycle is the best option, i am just saying there are a few myths behind it and I believe they can be done if you know what you are doing.

to the newbies that dont know what they are doing, they will simply lose all the gains made. same can be said for test though. dipshits that run test and then run no post cycle therapy (pct) etc..

 

[DADAWG]

Many religious people think science is BULLSHIT.

Facts are facts brother.

I have to point out a post made by needsize, post #16 in this thread http://www.steroidology.com/forum/a...-whats-bloody-truth-here-dbol-only-cycle.html

again, i am not saying dbol only cycle is the best option, i am just saying there are a few myths behind it and I believe they can be done if you know what you are doing.

to the newbies that dont know what they are doing, they will simply lose all the gains made. same can be said for test though. dipshits that run test and then run no PCT etc..

wow now im a religeous nut lol.


bouncer as ive said im pretty dissapointed in you , i expected better but it is what it is. i trust what ive seen with my own personnal eyes more than a 30 year old study that was iffy at best.
but i guess if you could find a study that said that board owners were all gay you would buy a tutu

 

[THE BOUNCER]

wow now im a religeous nut lol.


bouncer as ive said im pretty dissapointed in you , i expected better but it is what it is. i trust what ive seen with my own personnal eyes more than a 30 year old study that was iffy at best.
but i guess if you could find a study that said that board owners were all gay you would buy a tutu

lolz

your disappointed in me for talking about facts based on an actual study?

i am not going to ignore or not talk about the facts simply because it may encourage dipshit newbs.

as needsize pointed out in the thread on here i linked too, the reason you see problems with people doing oral only cycles is because more times then not, they have no idea what the hell they are doing.

 

[DADAWG]

lolz

they have no idea what the hell they are doing.

seems to be a lot of that going on

 

[THE BOUNCER]

seems to be a lot of that going on

So are we supposed to hide the facts because of their ignorance? Come on bro.

 

[DADAWG]

So are we supposed to hide the facts because of their ignorance? Come on bro.

what fucking facts bouncer . 1 30 year old study . wtf does that prove. your sounding like a newbie , you find 1 shred of evidence to jump on that agrees with what you want to believe and thats all you need to hear.


ive actually been around a LOT of people who ran dbol over the last 25 plus years and thats long before post cycle therapy (pct) was popular and available and ive seen many many people have trouble post cycle from dbol only cycles. i dont need a 30 year old study to know what i see.


please link this study that you believe s a bible so i can read it.

 

[THE BOUNCER]

what fucking facts bouncer . 1 30 year old study . wtf does that prove. your sounding like a newbie , you find 1 shred of evidence to jump on that agrees with what you want to believe and thats all you need to hear.


ive actually been around a LOT of people who ran dbol over the last 25 plus years and thats long before post cycle therapy (pct) was popular and available and ive seen many many people have trouble post cycle from dbol only cycles. i dont need a 30 year old study to know what i see.


please link this study that you believe s a bible so i can read it.

i have been around A LOT of people on test cycles and seen many people have trouble post cycle just like you. what does that prove? nothing.

what the hell does the age of a study have to do with anything? the compound in question has not changed, the way the human body reacts to said compound has not changed.

here is that study. Effects of methandienone on the performance and bo... [Clin Sci (Lond). 1981] - PubMed result

if you choose to ignore the study simply because you dont want to believe it, then you are the one acting like a newbie my friend.

 

[DADAWG]

i have been around A LOT of people on test cycles and seen many people have trouble post cycle just like you. what does that prove? nothing.

what the hell does the age of a study have to do with anything? the compound in question has not changed, the way the human body reacts to said compound has not changed.

here is that study. Effects of methandienone on the performance and bo... [Clin Sci (Lond). 1981] - PubMed result

if you choose to ignore the study simply because you dont want to believe it, then you are the one acting like a newbie my friend.

Abstract

1. In a previous study of the effects of methandienone (Dianabol) on men undergoing athletic training, strength and performance increased, but not significantly more when the subjects were taking the drug than when they were taking placebo. The subjects did, however, gain more weight on the drug, with increases in total body potassium and muscle dimensions. It remained an open question whether the muscles had gained normal tissue or intracellular fluid. 2. In an attempt to distinguish between these possibilities the trial has been repeated, using as subjects seven male weight-lifters in regular training, and including measurements of total body nitrogen. As before, a dose of 100 mg of methandienone/day was given alternately with the placebo in a double-blind crossover experiment. The treatment periods lasted 6 weeks and were separated by an interval of 6 weeks. Body weight, potassium and nitrogen, muscle size, and leg performance and strength increased significantly during training on the drug, but not during the placebo period. 3. The finding of increased body nitrogen suggested that the weight gain was not only intracellular fluid. The increases in body potassium (436 +/- SEM 41 mmol) and nitrogen (255 +/- 69 g) were too large in proportion to the weight gain (2.3 +/- 0.4 kg) for this to be attributed to gain of normal muscle or other lean tissue, and imply gain of nitrogen-rich, phosphate-poor substance. Although this action of methandienone might be described as anabolic, the weight gain produced is not normal muscle.

im not familiar with pub med but where does it talk about shutdown or recovery ?

 

[DADAWG]

i did find this




Br J Sports Med. 1977 Dec;11(4):170-3.

Responses to sustained use of anabolic steroid.

Shephard RJ, Killinger D, Fried T.


Abstract

Description is given of six body-builders who had been taking Methandrostenolone (up to 20 mg/day in intermittent courses for a year or more). At the time of examination there was no subjective disturbance of sexual function, but testosterone levels were low relative to laboratory standards and luteinizing hormone levels were also reduced - particularly in relation to testosterone concentrations. Abnormal liver function tests were seen in three of the six subjects, and one had mild diabetes with high serum cholesterol, triglycerides and uric acid. The weight gain of the group was not outstanding, and the only possible finding was a high haemoglobin and haematocrit in one of the six subjects.

 

[DADAWG]

and this

Abstract

Plasma levels of testosterone, luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) as well as the response of LH and FSH to the intravenous administration of 100 mug of luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LRH) were measured in 16 well-trained athletes (mean age 30 years) before and after 2 months of daily oral intake of 15 mg of metandienon, and anabolic steroid (Anabolin, 17 alpha-methyl-17beta-hydroxy-1,4-androstadien-3-one, Medica, Finland). All athletes continued to train regularly, just as they had done for several years. During administration of metandienon the mean plasma testosterone level fell 69%, from 29.4 +/- 11.6 nmol/1 to 9.1 +/- 7.5 nmol/1. The mean plasma levels of LH and FSH also fell significantly (P less than 0.001 and P less than 0.01, respectively), both about 50%. Because LH and FSH levels were low after administration of the steroid the maximum stimulation values after LRH administration were also lower than pre-treatment values although the mean increments did not differ significantly before and after administration of the anabolic steroid. However, after treatment, the FSH response curve had a biphasic pattern in most subjects, with peaks at 10 to 20 and 50 to 60 min after the iv injection of LRH. Administration of LRH after the treatment period had no effect on FSH secretion in two subjects and no effect on LH secretion in one. Our results show that administration of an anabolic steroid causes a pronounced lowering of plasma levels of testosterone, LH and FSH but causes no gross alteration in the response of LH secretion to stimulation by LRH. The reason for the biphasic response pattern of FSH to LRH administration in most subjects is not known.

 

[DADAWG]

and this
The effects of large doses of the anabolic steroid, methandrostenolone, on an athlete.

Kilshaw BH, Harkness RA, Hobson BM, Smith AW.


Abstract

Doses of the anabolic steroid, methandrostenolone, nearly ten times greater than those used therapeutically, have resulted in a marked depression of levels of testosterone in urine and blood, and in some depression of gonadotrophin excretion by a male athlete. The administration of the drug has been checked and its metabolism studied from the pattern of urinary metabolites

 

[THE BOUNCER]

PubMed is simply a host for studies. Unfortunately they only offer an abstract of the study in question and not the entire study.

 

[DADAWG]

PubMed is simply a host for studies. Unfortunately they only offer an abstract of the study in question and not the entire study.

i agree withnthat because a couple of the titles looked interesting but when you opened them there wasnt crap for info .

what about the other stuff that i copy and pasted that DID show natural test shutdeown from dbol.

 

[THE BOUNCER]

and this
The effects of large doses of the anabolic steroid, methandrostenolone, on an athlete.

Kilshaw BH, Harkness RA, Hobson BM, Smith AW.


Abstract

Doses of the anabolic steroid, methandrostenolone, nearly ten times greater than those used therapeutically, have resulted in a marked depression of levels of testosterone in urine and blood, and in some depression of gonadotrophin excretion by a male athlete. The administration of the drug has been checked and its metabolism studied from the pattern of urinary metabolites

that sort of proves my original point.

a very large does lowered natural test levels but not to the point of being completely shut down. now if a dose of "10 times normal" didnt cause complete shutdown, one can only reason that something like 25-30mgs per day would have much less impact on shutdown.

 

[DADAWG]

that sort of proves my original point.

a very large does lowered natural test levels but not to the point of being completely shut down. now if a dose of "10 times normal" didnt cause complete shutdown, one can only reason that something like 25-30mgs per day would have much less impact on shutdown.

one of those studies was done over a year BUT at UP TO 20 mg and with breaks and it shows at least partial shut down .

running any steroid without post cycle therapy (pct) doesnt make sense to me.

 

[THE BOUNCER]

what about the other stuff that i copy and pasted that DID show natural test shutdeown from dbol.

i never said that dbol did not shut you down bro. i simply said it was dose related. read my first post in the thread.

 

[DADAWG]

i never said that dbol did not shut you down bro. i simply said it was dose related. read my first post in the thread.

i still fail to see the point of standing by the whole idea anyway . if you add a little bit of dbol to up gains but lose a little bit of natural test then what do you accomplish.

 

[THE BOUNCER]

i still fail to see the point of standing by the whole idea anyway . if you add a little bit of dbol to up gains but lose a little bit of natural test then what do you accomplish.

good point.

but my thinking is that there has to be a line in which the benefit to side effect ratio starts to spill over.

i think you would agree that 100mgs of dbol a day will cause many more sides then 1mg per day. my question is, how about 5mgs per day, 10mgs, 20mgs etc..

will 5mgs shut you down at all? then again will it have any benefit? there has to be a dose where the benefit is stronger then the negative.

the guys from the late 50's and 60's come to mind. the dose back then was 5mgs per day and they loved it!!

its just the way my mind works, always trying to get maximum from the minimum.

didnt mean to come in here and argue with you bro, i got nothing but respect for you and i have actually enjoyed the debate. doesnt have to be a negative thing.