Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

D-bol and Fina at the same time?

solidspine

New member
Is it okay to run


D-bol and Fina at the same time.

Cycle will be


Fina
Deca
Test
D-bol
Growth
Liquidex


Thanks for your input

Solidspine
 
I'd decide on either deca or fina, and not both. You could always strt with deca, then switch over to tren.

BMJ
 
i ran test prop, tren, and d-bol in my last cycle. worked pretty well for me. gained 33 lbs, and have held 27lbs for the last 2+ months. if you are going to run tren,i strongly suggest running the a.m. d-bol bridge,as part of your post cycle therapy.
 
You don't need the deca in there bro. Deca and fina don't go well together. I'm doing test, fina, dbol, slin, liquidex, & proviron and loving the gains bro. Skip on the deca bro.
 
Mind numbing strength gains. I get back pumps pretty bad on either but together I have to take a few asperin before working out to control the pain.
 
I just ran Deca 400mg/week. Test prop 750mg/week. Tren 75mg ED. and dbol first 4 weeks before i added in the tren.

Gained 35 lbs. I think deca had a lot to do with it as my roommates did same cycle swap EQ for DECA and no one gained more than 20 lbs out of 4 guys.

I don't know why you'd say that deca/fina don't go well together....there is an ongoing debate as to whether tren binds to the prog. receptor as an antagonist or agonist....deca binds as an agonist so two woudl be bad, but i think it binds as an antagonist and the two run well together.
 
Thanks guys,

I had not thought too much about the deca, was mostly concerned with running d-bol, fina and test all at the same time,
too much for the liver?
 
solidspine said:
Thanks guys,

I had not thought too much about the deca, was mostly concerned with running d-bol, fina and test all at the same time,
too much for the liver?

Dbol is the only thing here harsh on the liver. The tren toxicness has been disproved too many times.
 
Top Bottom