My Thoughts on Anabolic Steroids...

[Sully]

As it relates to androgen receptor activation, that’s where the value in products like Winstrol comes into play. As Test levels rise, your body produces more SHBG(sex hormone binding globulin) to help combat against excess androgens and maintain homeostasis. Substances like Winstrol help to free the Testosterone that is bound in SHBG, and allow a higher level of free Test, therefore allowing a higher saturation level of androgen receptors while using the same, or even lower, amount of Test. At least, that’s my understanding.

I’m not personally a huge fan of Winstrol, for other reasons, but this is it’s most valuable potential use, IMHO.

 

[janoshik]

I posted a link over in my HGH thread about the possibility that HGH could result in Hyperplasia. I went ahead and posted the study here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2439518/

If Hyperplasia is indeed a fact, that would result in more muscle cells.....and more receptors.

Do you think Hyperplasia induced by HGH is a reality?

I don't think that HGH can induce hyperplasia of muscle cells, just like the authors of that article, nor I do believe that HGH influences the satellite cell populations to induce their differentiation to muscle cells. (Though satellite cells are certainly worth looking into!)


By increasing the number of receptors I generally meant within a single sell, but yes, having more muscle cells would certainly help.




Sully: Yes, you understand it perfectly. Of course winstrol exhibits its own effect on receptors as well.


That's also how proviron works - very heavy SHBG affinity increases free testosterone.

 

[Racepicks]

nor I do believe that HGH influences the satellite cell populations to induce their differentiation to muscle cells. (Though satellite cells are certainly worth looking into!)

You say that Satellite Cells are certainly worth looking into. How so?


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26140708

 

[SURGE]

I don't think that HGH can induce hyperplasia of muscle cells, just like the authors of that article, nor I do believe that HGH influences the satellite cell populations to induce their differentiation to muscle cells. (Though satellite cells are certainly worth looking into!)


By increasing the number of receptors I generally meant within a single sell, but yes, having more muscle cells would certainly help.




Sully: Yes, you understand it perfectly. Of course winstrol exhibits its own effect on receptors as well.


That's also how proviron works - very heavy SHBG affinity increases free testosterone.

I have been adding 25mg proviron to most test cycles for this purpose. I don't know exactly how much it increases free test but it has other benefits and is cheap so well worth adding in.

 

[Racepicks]

I saw this post over at ProMuscle from Lats. It's going back 5 months or so, but I found it an interesting theory.

Yes sub q is superior way to do anabolics.. Test especially.. But one must watch how much goes into one area.. Minimal amounts into one area.. But I keep my test ( even blasting) at no more than 300 mgs.. So it's easy for me to SUBQ with little pain

I would like to hear Jano's view on it. Kind of like a medical or psysiological point of view. I have heard this Sub Q proceedure before, but I never gave it much creedence. After hearing Lats, I may need to rethink my position.

 

[squatster]

Ok
So has any one ever figured out what the best cycle would be to gain pure size? Duration? Migs?
What signs would your body tell you when it's done to stop?
How about cut cycle?

 

[janoshik]

You say that Satellite Cells are certainly worth looking into. How so?


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26140708

Well, if we could force them to proliferate and grow innervation, it would be a great fix to many terrible diseases/injuries. And would make it possible for humans to get awfully big

 

[janoshik]

I saw this post over at ProMuscle from Lats. It's going back 5 months or so, but I found it an interesting theory.



I would like to hear Jano's view on it. Kind of like a medical or psysiological point of view. I have heard this Sub Q proceedure before, but I never gave it much creedence. After hearing Lats, I may need to rethink my position.

The main reasoning past preference of subq in case of HGH is the local side effects - any injection into the muscle can damage the muscle.

I assume the same could be applied to oils.

Effect-wise there is no difference, but there might be some difference in how fast the hormone gets released, but not very significant imo.

It was theorized that subq injections change aromatization / redution to DHT rates of the hormone, due to different abundances of the the enzymes responsible in various tissues, however I don't believe it to be true.

 

[Racepicks]

The main reasoning past preference of subq in case of HGH is the local side effects - any injection into the muscle can damage the muscle.

I assume the same could be applied to oils.

Effect-wise there is no difference, but there might be some difference in how fast the hormone gets released, but not very significant imo.

It was theorized that subq injections change aromatization / redution to DHT rates of the hormone, due to different abundances of the the enzymes responsible in various tissues, however I don't believe it to be true.

I understand that you don't buy into the theory but....

"change aromatization / redution to DHT rates of the hormone", I'm not following. Are you saying that the theory was that Sub Q would result in less aromatization to DHT then intramuscular?

Anyway, bottom line, you think that injecting Testosterone Sub Q is just as effective as intramuscular.

 

[janoshik]

I understand that you don't buy into the theory but....

"change aromatization / redution to DHT rates of the hormone", I'm not following. Are you saying that the theory was that Sub Q would result in less aromatization to DHT then intramuscular?

Anyway, bottom line, you think that injecting Testosterone Sub Q is just as effective as intramuscular.

I think the story was that subq aromatized less or something (or similar scenario - I'm honestly not sure). Don't really believe that.

However, steroids become active only after blood esterases cleave off the ester. So it doesn't matter where does the hormone come from (subq, im...) it only gets to get active once it's in blood.

 

[squatster]

Ok
So has any one ever figured out what the best cycle would be to gain pure size? Duration? Migs?
What signs would your body tell you when it's done to stop?
How about cut cycle?

It's crazy-
So many years of steroid use and no one can really can answer or want to answer this question.
Not really sure why I would care any ways at my age.

 

[Racepicks]

It's crazy-
So many years of steroid use and no one can really can answer or want to answer this question.
Not really sure why I would care any ways at my age.

It's not so much that no one wants to answer, it is more that no one CAN answer that question.

Let's start with Sully:

I’ve always felt that it’s dangerous to state that a certain amount of gear, regardless of the hormone in question, is a “sweet spot”. Everyone responds differently to every hormone, and at different amounts. There can’t be one certain amount that just works best for everyone, there are just too many variables in play.

And go right to Jano:

First I gotta say is that everything I'd say was already here by Sully.

To answer your question directly -

In regard to testosterone, I believe that anybody is putting their health in jeopardy and sacrificing at least a little bit of long term well-being if they run gram or more - regardless of their bloodwork and feeling.
there are changes that are not detected by either and it's simply as it is. Is is more harmful than common vices? Probably not.

There are of course people, for whom 250 will be too much already, but there are no people who can say that 1000 does nothing negative is what I'm trying to say.

It's all individual and if someone has easy answers to questions like that, I'd be vary.

There has always been 3 totally different thoughts on dosages of AAS.

1) The more AAS you inject, the bigger and stronger you will get! All the Camel crew does 5+ grams, and look how big Ramy and Roelly are! You can argue for a 1 gram limit, but to be huge, you need 5+ grams!

2) As I posted at the beginning of this thread, Palumbo is on record as believing that 1 gram of Testosterone is the "Sweet Spot". 1 gram of Test, 600mg. Deca, add in some D-Bol and you are all set!


3) If you can't gain strength and size with 750mg. of Test, 300mg. Deca, in addition to a good diet. Then you should consider taking up knitting!


My point is this. In my opinion, all the above is true. If you possess great genetics, then #3 will work for you. If you have less than ideal genetics, #2 should work for you. If your genetics suck, you just may see some significant results using #1.


Obviously, there are serious health concerns involved with all 3. If you are concerned about your health, it may be beneficial for you to not to inject these drugs at all.


I would be remiss if I didn't add this final thought.

My personal opinion is this.....Do yourself and your family a favor and start your AAS usage at a very low dosage. You will see great gains for your first cycle. Bump your dosages up as you break plateaus. And finally, do not venture too much over 1 gram to protect your health.


I am in no way an authority on this subject. I am just expressing my thoughts....

 

[squatster]

It's not so much that no one wants to answer, it is more that no one CAN answer that question.

Let's start with Sully:



And go right to Jano:



There has always been 3 totally different thoughts on dosages of AAS.

1) The more AAS you inject, the bigger and stronger you will get! All the Camel crew does 5+ grams, and look how big Ramy and Roelly are! You can argue for a 1 gram limit, but to be huge, you need 5+ grams!

2) As I posted at the beginning of this thread, Palumbo is on record as believing that 1 gram of Testosterone is the "Sweet Spot". 1 gram of Test, 600mg. Deca, add in some D-Bol and you are all set!


3) If you can't gain strength and size with 750mg. of Test, 300mg. Deca, in addition to a good diet. Then you should consider taking up knitting!


My point is this. In my opinion, all the above if true. If you possess great genetics, then #3 will work for you. If you have less than ideal genetics, #2 should work for you. If your genetics suck, you just may see some significant results using #1.


Obviously, there are serious health concerns involved with all 3. If you are concerned about your health, it may be beneficial for you to not to inject these drugs at all.


I would be remiss if I didn't add this final thought.

My personal opinion is this.....Do yourself and your family a favor and start your AAS usage at a very low dosage. You will see great gains for your first cycle. Bump your dosages up as you break plateaus. And finally, do not venture too much over 1 gram to protect your health.


I am in no way an authority on this subject. I am just expressing my thoughts....

Great answer man.
I think you nailed it with all 3 answers my self.
It was what I was looking for and more.
Thank you

 

[Sully]

I saw this post over at ProMuscle from Lats. It's going back 5 months or so, but I found it an interesting theory.



I would like to hear Jano's view on it. Kind of like a medical or psysiological point of view. I have heard this Sub Q proceedure before, but I never gave it much creedence. After hearing Lats, I may need to rethink my position.

There was a study done on administering Test for HRT purposes several years ago. If I’m remembering correctly it was conducted by the VA, and maybe had some involvement by the Canadian Army? It started a lot of this subQ controversy. I seem to remember reading the study and not understanding how these guys were drawing their conclusions from the data that was presented, but it’s been a few years and I’m really fuzzy on the details. Lemme see if I can dig up a link to the study.

 

[Sully]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17143361/

 

[Racepicks]

There was a study done on administering Test for HRT purposes several years ago. If I’m remembering correctly it was conducted by the VA, and maybe had some involvement by the Canadian Army? It started a lot of this subQ controversy. I seem to remember reading the study and not understanding how these guys were drawing their conclusions from the data that was presented, but it’s been a few years and I’m really fuzzy on the details. Lemme see if I can dig up a link to the study.

What's wrong with me??? In the face of overwhelming evidence.....I'm just not buying into it!

I'm going to try it myself.

I'm going to come off Testosterone completely. Get a Testosterone Serum and Free Testosterone Test. Then I'll Sub Q 250mg. of Testosterone for 4 weeks and see where my Test Serum and Free Test is. I have quite a bit of scar tissue in my glute because of the hundreds of injections over the years. If Sub Q is as effective as Intramuscular, that would be reason enough for people to re-think their opinion.

 

[squatster]

I just wouldn't feel very comfortable with 1 to 3 cc under my skin just waiting to go some were

 

[Racepicks]

If I was to use this method, I would certainly use multiple 1cc injections. That does not concern me, My concern would be how efficiently and effectively you body could assimilate the hormone. Why have medical injections always been injected into the muscle? I have no recollection of visiting a Physician and being injected Sub Q!

 

[Sully]

The question is not “Does it work?”. Clearly, according to the study it works. The question is, “how does it work, when does it work, and in what way does it work?”. I don’t believe subcutaneous injections to be an every situation solution. As with all things, it has it’s time and place.

Especially after trying it myself, it’s apparent that there is a specific situation where subQ is ideally implemented. That situation is for guys that run nothing more than low dose TRT/HRT, with small weekly injections of Test. Anything injection larger than 0.5cc will result in a big painful knot under the skin, with a noticeable brown mark on the skin over the knot. Even 1cc subQ is too damn big of an injection.

Do not use subQ injections for an actual cycle! Unless you’re prepared to break up every injection into a 0.5cc daily dose, which may require multiple daily injections depending on how much gear you’re running, it just isn’t the right way to go about things. For a standard cycle, IM injections work perfectly.

 

[Sandpig]

The question is not “Does it work?”. Clearly, according to the study it works. The question is, “how does it work, when does it work, and in what way does it work?”. I don’t believe subcutaneous injections to be an every situation solution. As with all things, it has it’s time and place.

Especially after trying it myself, it’s apparent that there is a specific situation where subQ is ideally implemented. That situation is for guys that run nothing more than low dose TRT/HRT, with small weekly injections of Test. Anything injection larger than 0.5cc will result in a big painful knot under the skin, with a noticeable brown mark on the skin over the knot. Even 1cc subQ is too damn big of an injection.

Do not use subQ injections for an actual cycle! Unless you’re prepared to break up every injection into a 0.5cc daily dose, which may require multiple daily injections depending on how much gear you’re running, it just isn’t the right way to go about things. For a standard cycle, IM injections work perfectly.

Good advice.
I get a knot/ lump under my skin even when doing small doses.

I can't Imagine doing a full cc.