Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Nutrient-Nut
New member
Q: For an average 190 to 215 pound bodybuilder, what total milligram dosage of steroids per week seems to be the minimum needed for appreciable gains to be made? Is this an individual issue, or do most people react in a similar way to identical amounts of gear? On the flipside, what amount would you estimate to be the maximum over which no further gains would be made? Finally, does the amount you take dictate how many continuous weeks you can safely stay "on?"
Bill Roberts:
I always recommend 500 mg a week as a minimum, with a gram being not unreasonable at all. Much less than 500 mg a week, though, and a lot of guys won't get much results.
I've noticed that endomorphs or ectomorphs with no or little beard growth can often get good results with 250 mg per week. Perhaps it's from having low natural Testosterone, and for them, even 250 mg per week is a large improvement. But I don't know if that's the reason.
Brian Batcheldor:
The minimum needed for appreciable gains to be made? This is an individual issue, but I've found that without making changes, diminishing returns occur from about the fifth week on. I'd say that novices can make good gains on as low as 250 mg per week, and I don't give a damn what anybody else says — I've seen it many times myself.
Of course, much depends on what you call good gains, but a novice should be happy with an initial gain of 10-12 pounds. Sure, bigger dosages bring bigger gains. But, at this point, they're setting the blueprint for future use. Therefore, after coming in at a gram a week, where do they go? The decision to use anabolics usually proceeds from a "curiosity cycle" to a long-term decision.
Time has shown that tested athletes can make very good gains on low dose regimens. It's possible to see huge degrees of variation in responses to the same dosage. Many things haven't yet been determined about why this happens. The Eastern Europeans determined that starting on androgens at a young age up-regulated androgen receptors. Many athletes probably have higher amounts of androgen receptors, and this could explain their sometimes superior results than those who appear to have more genetic potential.
No one could ever say what dosage ceases to produce further results — there just isn't any relevant research. I've known athletes who continued gaining after going up from seven grams per week, and I've known athletes who saw nothing more after going up from a gram. There are just too many variables, including the implications on utilization of impaired health.
Higher dosages definitely dictate shorter cycles, although endogenous production is suppressed at lower dosages than you may think. Priority should always be shown to restoring normal liver function. Preventative measures, short sensible dose cycles, short breaks — these are the answers to greater quality long-term gains.
All of this, of course, is relative, and there's just no way of getting away from the higher dosages that a competitive bodybuilder will end up needing to take. What I'm saying is that those dosages need not be as high as their paranoia or other so-called gurus dictate.
Brock Strasser:
The total milligram amount required is so variable it would be difficult, if not impossible, to provide an all-encompassing answer. Things like past usage, how long since past usage, body type, type of steroid(s) utilized (e.g. relative androgenicity), and the duration that they're going to be used play huge roles that make this type of a question difficult to quantify.
Additionally, "reasonable gains" to one person may be patently unacceptable to another. So, net result being such a subjective item, this makes the task at hand even that much more difficult.
Typically, I advise non-bodybuilding clients (e.g. recreational lifters, track and field athletes, baseball and basketball players) to use the equivalent of 500-1,000 mg of Testosterone per week. Since some steroids are "more anabolic" than Testosterone on a milligram per milligram basis, drug selection would play a huge factor.
For example, trenbolone is about thrice as anabolic as Testosterone. Therefore, I'd expect a person using 160-320 mg of trenbolone per week to see somewhat comparable (albeit non-identical) gains to someone just using 500-1,000 mg of Testosterone per week.
This brings up another issue that some steroids have very active metabolites, while others don't. And some steroids probably have a lot of non-androgen receptor mediated activity. Finally, age, physiological differences, and overall health status of the user come into play.
I know it seems like I'm dancing around an answer — this isn't my intent. Rather, I'm trying to illustrate that there is no "set formulae" to developing cycles … for anyone. And anybody who tells you differently, anyone who says if you use "X" for "Y" weeks you'll gain "Z" pounds of lean mass, is guessing. It's a matter of trial and error.
This doesn't imply that we're clueless or can't make some assumptions. For example, I like to "overestimate" what I think a client might need with regard to milligrams per week. A slight overage in milligrams shouldn't dramatically increase side effects, provided that certain precautions are met. But a slight or gaping underage might lead to substantially less than expected gains in lean mass and strength.
Article by the steroid gurus of Testosterone Mag.
NN
Bill Roberts:
I always recommend 500 mg a week as a minimum, with a gram being not unreasonable at all. Much less than 500 mg a week, though, and a lot of guys won't get much results.
I've noticed that endomorphs or ectomorphs with no or little beard growth can often get good results with 250 mg per week. Perhaps it's from having low natural Testosterone, and for them, even 250 mg per week is a large improvement. But I don't know if that's the reason.
Brian Batcheldor:
The minimum needed for appreciable gains to be made? This is an individual issue, but I've found that without making changes, diminishing returns occur from about the fifth week on. I'd say that novices can make good gains on as low as 250 mg per week, and I don't give a damn what anybody else says — I've seen it many times myself.
Of course, much depends on what you call good gains, but a novice should be happy with an initial gain of 10-12 pounds. Sure, bigger dosages bring bigger gains. But, at this point, they're setting the blueprint for future use. Therefore, after coming in at a gram a week, where do they go? The decision to use anabolics usually proceeds from a "curiosity cycle" to a long-term decision.
Time has shown that tested athletes can make very good gains on low dose regimens. It's possible to see huge degrees of variation in responses to the same dosage. Many things haven't yet been determined about why this happens. The Eastern Europeans determined that starting on androgens at a young age up-regulated androgen receptors. Many athletes probably have higher amounts of androgen receptors, and this could explain their sometimes superior results than those who appear to have more genetic potential.
No one could ever say what dosage ceases to produce further results — there just isn't any relevant research. I've known athletes who continued gaining after going up from seven grams per week, and I've known athletes who saw nothing more after going up from a gram. There are just too many variables, including the implications on utilization of impaired health.
Higher dosages definitely dictate shorter cycles, although endogenous production is suppressed at lower dosages than you may think. Priority should always be shown to restoring normal liver function. Preventative measures, short sensible dose cycles, short breaks — these are the answers to greater quality long-term gains.
All of this, of course, is relative, and there's just no way of getting away from the higher dosages that a competitive bodybuilder will end up needing to take. What I'm saying is that those dosages need not be as high as their paranoia or other so-called gurus dictate.
Brock Strasser:
The total milligram amount required is so variable it would be difficult, if not impossible, to provide an all-encompassing answer. Things like past usage, how long since past usage, body type, type of steroid(s) utilized (e.g. relative androgenicity), and the duration that they're going to be used play huge roles that make this type of a question difficult to quantify.
Additionally, "reasonable gains" to one person may be patently unacceptable to another. So, net result being such a subjective item, this makes the task at hand even that much more difficult.
Typically, I advise non-bodybuilding clients (e.g. recreational lifters, track and field athletes, baseball and basketball players) to use the equivalent of 500-1,000 mg of Testosterone per week. Since some steroids are "more anabolic" than Testosterone on a milligram per milligram basis, drug selection would play a huge factor.
For example, trenbolone is about thrice as anabolic as Testosterone. Therefore, I'd expect a person using 160-320 mg of trenbolone per week to see somewhat comparable (albeit non-identical) gains to someone just using 500-1,000 mg of Testosterone per week.
This brings up another issue that some steroids have very active metabolites, while others don't. And some steroids probably have a lot of non-androgen receptor mediated activity. Finally, age, physiological differences, and overall health status of the user come into play.
I know it seems like I'm dancing around an answer — this isn't my intent. Rather, I'm trying to illustrate that there is no "set formulae" to developing cycles … for anyone. And anybody who tells you differently, anyone who says if you use "X" for "Y" weeks you'll gain "Z" pounds of lean mass, is guessing. It's a matter of trial and error.
This doesn't imply that we're clueless or can't make some assumptions. For example, I like to "overestimate" what I think a client might need with regard to milligrams per week. A slight overage in milligrams shouldn't dramatically increase side effects, provided that certain precautions are met. But a slight or gaping underage might lead to substantially less than expected gains in lean mass and strength.
Article by the steroid gurus of Testosterone Mag.
NN
