Understanding AAS Dosing

[monkeyballs]

Good stuff RG. Keep it coming.

I agree that the typical doses that are passed around on this board are way too much. Newbie's being told that 100mg ED of winny is the only dose that will produce gains. Test doses that are about three times what has been shown to have effective results in clinical studies.

My first cycle was using Upjohn winny V at 50mg EOD for six weeks. The results were outstanding.

I also think that if High quality domestic human grade gear is used, the effective dose is generally much less than what is thought to be an acceptable min dose.

Animal posted that 20 mgs BTG is working wonders for him.
I've seen people bitching about TT at 40
and about IP at 80

 

[donkeydick]

.
Now you may ask what is ones natural max anyway....well as a general guide the average man of 5'9 or 10" can get to a fairly lean 190 without steroids.

So if you are 5'10" and 160 pounds then you do not need steroids in order to make good gains.

I disagree with this statement. If you are 5'10" and have 5% bodyfat, you would have to have freaky genetics to weigh 190 pounds. I'm about 5'10" 175 have done 3 cycles and I'm fucking ripped. It all depends on your genetics bros.

 

[Realgains]

Re: Re: Understanding AAS Dosing

I disagree with this statement. If you are 5'10" and have 5% bodyfat, you would have to have freaky genetics to weigh 190 pounds. I'm about 5'10" 175 have done 3 cycles and I'm fucking ripped. It all depends on your genetics bros.

I am quite certain that the average man at 5'10" can get to 190 lean(NOT ripped) without juice but a very good understanding of correct natural training is needed.

There is no natural that can be at natural max and be 5% body fat bro....when I said fairly lean I was not talking about 5%. If a natural tries to get below about 7% he will loose muscle mass.

Also at 5'10 and 175 ripped you are probably a litttle on the ectomorphic side bro, but that doesn't mean you don't look great...you probably do. You probably don't carry a lot of mass in the lower body because if you did then you would be heavier and ripped at 5'10".

 

[Silent Method]

Great post.

Realgains, I wonder, whats your take increasing the minimal doses for us who have not reached our "genetic limit," and the effect of that increased dose on the rate of progress? How about stacking to increase the rate of progress.

Before you answer, I must say that I agree on the notion that one should "use as little gear as possible in order to see good gains." However, many of us have differing opinions on what "good gains" are as a factor of rate of growth.

 

[Keep it beefy]

Re: Re: Re: Understanding AAS Dosing

I am quite certain that the average man at 5'10" can get to 190 lean(NOT ripped) without juice but a very good understanding of correct natural training is needed.

There is no natural that can be at natural max and be 5% body fat bro....when I said fairly lean I was not talking about 5%. If a natural tries to get below about 7% he will loose muscle mass.

Also at 5'10 and 175 ripped you are probably a litttle on the ectomorphic side bro, but that doesn't mean you don't look great...you probably do. You probably don't carry a lot of mass in the lower body because if you did then you would be heavier and ripped at 5'10".

very good point. i was 215 at 6 foot at around 10% before i started gear. and i have a lot of leg size. so much that, when i tell people what i weigh (230's), they always do a double take or whatever cause they wonder where it all is. if i had chicken legs, i'd probably be like 210 or something.

 

[Realgains]

Great post.

Realgains, I wonder, whats your take increasing the minimal doses for us who have not reached our "genetic limit," and the effect of that increased dose on the rate of progress? How about stacking to increase the rate of progress.

Before you answer, I must say that I agree on the notion that one should "use as little gear as possible in order to see good gains." However, many of us have differing opinions on what "good gains" are as a factor of rate of growth.

There is big difference between genetic limit and natural limit but I will assume that you are talking about natural limit. To reach your "genetic limit" requires huge amounts of gear.

Someone that is not yet at there natural max could use higher doses than I recommended and would probably gain at a slightly faster rate but remember this bro .....we need to consider side effects when calculating the dose. Someone MAY gain a little faster on a gram of test but I can assure you most men would experience some unwanted sides at this dose too. I do advocate pretty large doses of fast acting gear , although not very large amounts, but only for a 2 week on 4 week off cycle, since one is only "on" for two weeks, and rapid maximum saturation is needed in order to produce the best gains

Note this......
The human body can only gain so fast. The ratio between speed of gain and dose is not proportional, that is, a gram of test will not cause one to gain twice as fast as 500mg of test. Also, the body will not gain in a linear fashion week after week after week.

There seems to be a certain dose of gear that produces optimal gains for an individual yet nothing but the same gains but more sides at higher doses.

When looking for the best possible gains you need to experiment a little in order to find the dose of gear that gives you optimal gains. My recommendations where "general" recommendations. Then you need to run this dose for 8-10 or12 weeks. One usually sees best gains between weeks 2 and 6.

Also, two people could take the same amount of gear and gain at different speeds depending on genetics and proper training, nutrition and rest. Those that are wise trainee's and use a lowish volume and somewhat infrequent schedule(3-5 days per week) with plenty of rest and good nutrition are likely to gain better than those that train 6 days per week with high volume, no matter how much sleep and good nutrition they get.

When looking to achieve the very best gains in a cycle it is a very good idea to front load slower esters like test cyp, enanthate and especially sust, deca and EQ. For example..if you were going to do 500 of test cyp per week then you need to front load about 600mg on day one and then inject twice per week after that with the first injection starting three days after the front load. In this way blood hormone levels reach optimal levels quickly and gains begin sooner. In this way you can optimize and speed up your gains in a cycle without triggering more in the way of sides. Most men can handle front loads without trouble since hormone levels are still elevated somewhat slowly and not all at once.

I am all in favor of stacking gear. You can stack gear for two completely different reasons. #1. to make a cycle less androgenic yet plenty anabolic. A test/EQ stack would be a good example of this. As mentioned above, 250 of EQ and 250 of test will produce almost the same gains as 500 of test but will be less androgenic and cause fewer sides.
#2. The other reason people stack is to try to achieve better gains. Some hormones work best when paired with other hormones. An example of this would be test/tren. An explaination goes like this ......... some steroids work primarily via the Androgen receptor and others work more in non AR mediated ways. Nandrolone for example is great at the AR but poor in non AR mediated ways. Winny on the other hand produces gains via the AR but also via non AR mediated mechanisms much more so than deca and thats one reason why a winny and deca are a good combo the same could be said about deca and d-bol.
Testosterone is the only hormone with good activity at the AR and also via non AR mediated mechanisms. That is why test alone is a good choice.

Hope this helps.
RG

 

[Quadsweep]

STUCK!

 

[MadCow1]

You can stack gear for two completely different reasons. #1. to make a cycle less androgenic yet plenty anabolic. A test/EQ stack would be a good example of this. As mentioned above, 250 of EQ and 250 of test will produce almost the same gains as 500 of test but will be less androgenic and cause fewer sides.

What kills me is that within an hour someone will post asking about running a 250mg test + 250mg equip cycle and twenty people will answer:

"You need at least 500mg of test and 400mg of equipoise to see results from those drugs."

The newb ends up asking a follow-up about dbol which someone responds with the minimum 30mg ED (but don't exceed 4 weeks cause even 5 mgs ED for over 4 weeks will kill any human).

Now the 5'9" 165lbs. guy will be running 1 gram+ for his first cycle which will then lead to a 1.5 gram 2nd cycle and so on via his strict following of time on/off protocol where he never takes more than the minimum off.

And no matter how many times it is intelligently explained this will happen for all but a few. I am so thankful that I started before the internet thing. When people knew they could grow off 200mg of test or deca and 20mg of dbol daily.

As sands through the hourglass, so are the days of our lives....

 

[Silent Method]

Thanks for your reply. Nothing but good solid info here. Yes, I meant to say natural limit, not genetic limit. (I felt something wrong with that, hence the " " around genetic!)

#1. to make a cycle less androgenic yet plenty anabolic. A test/EQ stack would be a good example of this. As mentioned above, 250 of EQ and 250 of test will produce almost the same gains as 500 of test but will be less androgenic and cause fewer sides.
Can you point to some data for this or is this based on observation?

 

[MadCow1]

Can you point to some data for this or is this based on observation?

There's never any hard data on roids and combinations etc..Scientists aren't running these types of experiments and those that have been done (most likely Olymp. atheletes from Eastern Block) obviously aren't public domain.

That being said I did read a study about a decade ago where the conclusion was that the total mg dosage was the most important factor in the muscular weight gain achieved. This flew in the face of those designing the perfect combinations and stacks of drugs in the 80's. When it all came down, dosage was the overriding most important factor.

Now, when I think about side effects, drug choice plays a much larger role although sides are also related directly to total dosage. This is where a cycle can be manipulated a bit.

From my own experience and observations, I'd agree with the statement.