My Thoughts on Anabolic Steroids...

[janoshik]

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.

Sully again got to it before me.


The studies were done on people running TRT doses, not bodybuilding. You can't subq (at least in one spot) 1 ml or more.

General rule of thumb in the place where I came from years ago was to subq 0.5 ml maximum.

 

[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.

When I asked the question initially, I was really not interested in injecting .5ml. I thought it was obvious I was speaking in terms of multiple mls. I should state the question more clearly.


So my apprehensions about Sub Q is valid.

 

[Sully]

So my apprehensions about Sub Q is valid.

Yes, you’re concerns are absolutely 100% correct. For a cycle with bodybuilding size doses it would be complete madness to try and do subQ injections. That amount of oil under the skin would cause a litany of problems.

If one just does TRT, or even during the Cruise part of a B&C, subQ is ideal due to reductions in scar tissue.

 

[Concreteguy]

OK, after watching this weekend unfold it has spoken clearly to us all. What did it say? Even with genetics from God himself, a truly superior genetically superior BBer is only going to hold his chemically advanced condition and peek for what can be approximated between 5 to 7 years before the body stops responding favorably to gear on ANY dosage levels. Were not talking about gm rats pounding gear, were talking about the most advanced users in the world under professional supervision. We have once again watched the wheels fall off an incredibly successful Olympian and he didn't fade away. He looked markedly worse than just two years ago.


Is 5 to 7 years what we all have in our genetic "bag" to work with? Maybe were just watching our own futures unfold on a much higher level? Remember, EVERYTHING was on point with all the previous Olympians when they finally tubed inside this golden window. There can be one or maybe two exceptions here. But there is an undeniable pattern playing out.


The Devil is always in the detail friends. IMO, this is worthy of a very deep conversation indeed.

 

[Racepicks]

OK, after watching this weekend unfold it has spoken clearly to us all. What did it say? Even with genetics from God himself, a truly superior genetically superior BBer is only going to hold his chemically advanced condition and peek for what can be approximated between 5 to 7 years before the body stops responding favorably to gear on ANY dosage levels. Were not talking about gm rats pounding gear, were talking about the most advanced users in the world under professional supervision. We have once again watched the wheels fall off an incredibly successful Olympian and he didn't fade away. He looked markedly worse than just two years ago.


Is 5 to 7 years what we all have in our genetic "bag" to work with? Maybe were just watching our own futures unfold on a much higher level? Remember, EVERYTHING was on point with all the previous Olympians when they finally tubed inside this golden window. There can be one or maybe two exceptions here. But there is an undeniable pattern playing out.


The Devil is always in the detail friends. IMO, this is worthy of a very deep conversation indeed.

Wait, CG. You need to expand on this! Phil won 7 straight Olympias. Ronnie and Lee won 8 straight.

If I follow what you're saying it's that that the reason Phil lost was because he could not utilize the benefits of AAS as efficiently as he did in the first 7 Olympias. But Ronnie and Lee could.


Am I interpreting your thoughts correctly?

Let me give you an analogy:

Like any athk

 

[Concreteguy]

Yes and I did say there was a couple exceptions.

 

[Sully]

OK, after watching this weekend unfold it has spoken clearly to us all. What did it say? Even with genetics from God himself, a truly superior genetically superior BBer is only going to hold his chemically advanced condition and peek for what can be approximated between 5 to 7 years before the body stops responding favorably to gear on ANY dosage levels. Were not talking about gm rats pounding gear, were talking about the most advanced users in the world under professional supervision. We have once again watched the wheels fall off an incredibly successful Olympian and he didn't fade away. He looked markedly worse than just two years ago.


Is 5 to 7 years what we all have in our genetic "bag" to work with? Maybe were just watching our own futures unfold on a much higher level? Remember, EVERYTHING was on point with all the previous Olympians when they finally tubed inside this golden window. There can be one or maybe two exceptions here. But there is an undeniable pattern playing out.


The Devil is always in the detail friends. IMO, this is worthy of a very deep conversation indeed.

Are you 100% sure that’s the biggest takeaway from all that? Cuz that’s definitely not what I got out of it at all.

 

[squatster]

Wait, CG. You need to expand on this! Phil won 7 straight Olympias. Ronnie and Lee won 8 straight.

If I follow what you're saying it's that that the reason Phil lost was because he could not utilize the benefits of AAS as efficiently as he did in the first 7 Olympias. But Ronnie and Lee could.


Am I interpreting your thoughts correctly?

Let me give you an analogy:

Like any athk

Maybe 5 to 7 years once you hit your max of all maxes. Or not
Think it is safe to say that not one of us here will come close to hitting our 100% full potential.
I know even with age we don't dig as deep as we did.
I am laying on the couch right now watching Fantom works and eating junk.
When I was in my 20's or 30's and even mid to late 40's I would have been stretching or doing sit up or working.
I think many many maxes come down to mental- it- just doesn't matter as much any more- the goil isn't as important enough any more with time.
If I heard it correctly on one of phils YouTube videos- he was eating 6500 cals pr day- weeks out from the Olympia-- mentality how do you do that time and time again.
Like Phil said - he can finnaly live life- FUCKING WOW
And I didn't even get into the drugs yet.
I have been doing juice for about 35 years now- the only problems I have had was when my calories aren't high enough on heavy cycles. Other then that nothing at all.
I would love to have some guidance on a kick ass cycle to see what a little of my potential could be before my time is up.
Sorry - got carried away like always
Not even sure if I added any thing to this thread or were I am with this chicken scratch of mine.
Sorry
Go around this post of mine

 

[AGGRO]

Are you 100% sure that’s the biggest takeaway from all that? Cuz that’s definitely not what I got out of it at all.

I agree. Phil has issues with his stomach. That will be because of many factors and drugs used could come into it. It's not that he suddenly has stopped responding or that his genetics have faded. Phil has had this issue for years and since the bad hernia it has only got worse. If Phil had Rhodens abs he would have won his 8th title easily. I am no fan of Phil either and happy he lost.

 

[Racepicks]

Wait, CG. You need to expand on this! Phil won 7 straight Olympias. Ronnie and Lee won 8 straight.

If I follow what you're saying it's that that the reason Phil lost was because he could not utilize the benefits of AAS as efficiently as he did in the first 7 Olympias. But Ronnie and Lee could.


Am I interpreting your thoughts correctly?

Let me give you an analogy:

Like any athk

Sorry...Let me finish my thought.

What I was trying to get at is this. What's the difference between Phil losing after winning 7 straight Olympias, or Tom Brady showing signs of aging after winning 5 Super Bowls?

Not that it's not a possibility but, people don't attribute Brady's decline to AAS use. Only in our sport does everything boil down to drug use.

 

[Racepicks]

Yes and I did say there was a couple exceptions.

I'm not saying you're wrong, CG. I am trying to get you to expand what your thoughts are on AAS use as you advance in age. I believe we're about the same age, but I never competed. You have a much more relevant position to comment.

I began this thread as "My Thoughts" hoping I could get others to add theirs. I believe your knowledge could add much more to the thread then mine could.

 

[Concreteguy]

Wait, CG. You need to expand on this! Phil won 7 straight Olympias. Ronnie and Lee won 8 straight.

If I follow what you're saying it's that that the reason Phil lost was because he could not utilize the benefits of AAS as efficiently as he did in the first 7 Olympias. But Ronnie and Lee could.


Am I interpreting your thoughts correctly?

Let me give you an analogy:

Like any athk

IMO comparing a quarter back to an Olympian is apples to ANYTHING other than an apple. On one side of the coin you have a incredibly talented athlete and on the other you have a chemistry experiment.
Olympians aren't athletes requiring strength, coordination, agility , timing and GOD given talent.
Olympians are a combination of the desired genetics' to develop fast twitch muscle fiber, genetic muscle insertions that are tight and small, balanced bone structure, genetics to assimilate high levels of steroids with no uncontrollable side effects ((( AND ))) the drive, tenacity and ability to ender self inflected pain on a mental and physical level few will ever experience. With all of that in place you then must have the ability to eat. EAT BIG and eat huge caloric surpluses of bland boring food. Eat on a timer. EAT WHEN THE LAST THING YOU WANT TO DO IS EAT. Lastly there must be a internal driving force to couple all this with. The desire to wont to be the best is whats going to carry these guys through all the times there going to the gym hurting or eating when there not hungry and so on.

Tom Brady, on 700mgs tren a week would no longer be Tom Brady. Comparing him as a natty aging to an aging chemical science experiment IMO, respectfully can't be done.


The point I was making is it would seam that there is a window even the best of the best are working around. They all seam to have a sweat spot and then fight to hold onto it and as they fade from it they eventually bluer from what they once were. Look at the Blade, Dexter Jackson. His legs are going away. But in a way he's an exception as well. Unlike the others going away he stays clean and ripped. But his kryptonite is his muscles wont hold the once desired mass. You know better than to think he doesn't realize this and implemented leg training to counter this into play. He cant stop it.


Now you can say age is in play but look at the age of our new Mr O. I think it's 43. That 43 number will check mate most if not all age arguments in the Olympia debate. Again, I just feel theres a window. I don't think it's Rhodens age, I think he's now working inside of "his window". He just entered it later. I also feel theres a window with use jurk weeds banging away too. This has little effect on the guys that just fire away with cycles and don't track them or amounts. I'm talking about the guys that have slowly titrated up and watched there gains relevant mg amounts. Almost all of the guys that have done this can tell you what I'm saying is true.

 

[montego]

Think it boils down to how long your prime is and how much better you are then everyone else.

Even when Ronnie started to slide the last couple years, he was already so far ahead of everyone else it just got closer.

 

[Concreteguy]

Montego, all good points. But you also made my point. The reason he fade was his active window was going away. In reality it may have been much longer than his Olympia success. He was probably growing at his fastest well before stepping on stage. But again, my point was there is a "window" regardless of drug use that your going to maintain peek condition. I don't think it coincides with age either.

 

[montego]

Montego, all good points. But you also made my point. The reason he fade was his active window was going away. In reality it may have been much longer than his Olympia success. He was probably growing at his fastest well before stepping on stage. But again, my point was there is a "window" regardless of drug use that your going to maintain peek condition. I don't think it coincides with age either.

Yup. Totally agree.

 

[ketsugo]

OK, so I was going to add this on to the "Thoughts on HGH" thread, but I have a feeling this thread may be a keeper, I thought I would start a new thread. Way more people use Anabolics than HGH so, let us use this thread to explore the multitude of issues with Steroid use, and bounce some of these questions off my friend Jano. I will preface the discussion by saying I am far from an expert, but like you all, I have my opinions. I'm sure that Jano will say that he is not an "expert" either but, I'm curious what his thoughts are on the subject.



Let me start by asking the first question, while forming the question with my personal beliefs.





I was listening to the RX Muscle series called, Ask Dave. He was saying that he believed the "Sweet Spot" for weekly Testosterone injections was 1000ml. I was surprised by that. It seems to me that the popular answer is, 500-750ml/week.





My question for Jano is:





What dosage do you think is the level where, above that, a person may be putting their health in jeopardy?



I believe the level is proportionate to a persons genetic ability to stay healthy. What I mean is, some people have a propensity for poor health. For this person, maybe abstaining from Steroid use is the answer. Other people are never sick a day in their life, maybe they can handle the higher dosages.



Your thoughts?



By the way, this question is directed to everyone.

Let me ask you a question? How long you been doing . As common sense and experience shows clearly there is no seeet spot unless you ask ingorant still beginner because they’ve learned nothin . Why because 90% of forum members no nothing . The term briscience is another term for asinine . I’ve you have lived the lifestyle over 30 plus years you’d know that these questions only the individual can answer . Start low use least amount needed . Or you’ll never find you paths period . One guy 200 mg could jeopardize his health others go 3 grams week and they feel great . So many factors variables : experience, cycles done ( correctly ) some never learn correctly. Lifestyle , eating sleeping habits , type of job , family no one can answer your questions. They will try because they all want to feel knowledgeable and important . A weak man looks in the eyes of others for his reflection. A strong true man stands alone confident in his own beliefs and conviction

 

[ketsugo]

I’ll preface my post with the same disclaimer as yours. This is all just my opinion and I don’t claim to infallible in any way.



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.



Diet, training, gear experience, body fat percentage, amount of muscle mass, healthy, weight, standard hormone levels without gear, genetic propensity for side effects. These are just a handful of the myriad of moving pieces that work together to determine how an individual responds to a cycle. And notice that I didn’t even bring up which hormones they were using or what amounts? Or the use of an AI. There are just too many pieces to the puzzle to make blanket generalizations about how much gear is ideal for any one individual.

Wow you and I always seem to think alike

 

[Racepicks]

Let me ask you a question? How long you been doing . As common sense and experience shows clearly there is no seeet spot unless you ask ingorant still beginner because they’ve learned nothin . Why because 90% of forum members no nothing . The term brisience is another term for asinine .

Reading the beginning of your post, you asked me a question:

"How long you been doing.". Doing what? Posting on this board? Perhaps you're asking "How have you been doing?" I'm good, how about you?

I’ve you have lived the lifestyle over 30 plus years you’d know that these questions only the individual can answer . Start low use least amount needed . Or you’ll never find you paths period . One guy 200 mg could jeopardize his health others go 3 grams week and they feel great . So many factors variables : experience, cycles done ( correctly ) some never learn correctly. Lifestyle , eating sleeping habits , type of job , family no one can answer your questions. They will try because they all want to feel knowledgeable and important . A weak man looks in the eyes of others for his reflection. A strong true man stands alone confident in his own beliefs and conviction

Now, the rest of your post. That is exactly the kind of interaction I wanted. Someone like you, with over 30 years in this game who is a respected member who newer members could and should listen to. Thank you for giving your views. I hope you continue to contribute.

You would be better served by leaving out the condescending beginning of your post. The last thing I want is senior members intimidating newer members from asking questions because they fear they will be attacked.

 

[Concreteguy]

The last thing I want is senior members intimidating newer members from asking questions because they fear they will be attacked.

I support this view 100%. We have to treat all member with common respect. I have seen newbs get mugged over at PM. They get beat up for just having a low post count. A form of hazing? If I could do something about it at PM I would, but I can't.

 

[Racepicks]

I began this thread, not because I consider myself an authority on AAS use but, to begin some dialogue on this forum. As a matter of fact, as witnessed by the answers that have been posted to my questions, guys like Concreteguy, Sully, etc. possess a ton of knowledge I want to tap into. I have been using AAS off and on for 30 years, the past 10 years mostly on. My hope is that we all can share our experiences on this thread. At the very least, perhaps we can prevent those younger guys, who have little or no experience, from making the same mistakes we did.

I invite any member who may be hesitant to post, because they have been flamed on other forums, to ask questions or add comments. As stated by Concreteguy, we will not allow anyone to get attacked on this thread for their inexperience.