T Nation

AAS Caused Increased Vascularity

Hey guys, my last cycle was about a year ago, I was doing around 75mg Tren ace and 75mg test prop ED with 50mg winny ED, along with low doses of AI. Anyways I got insanely vascular quite quickly from this, my diet was geared towards cutting, just slightly below maintenance calories but I couldn’t believe how much more my veins would pop out. Anyone know what causes this with AAS use? After my pct and recovery I was still roughly the same body fat percentage but most of the vascularity went away. Any idea what caused the increased vascularity? I’m assuming the winny did because it was my first time using it and I never got the vascularity like this in previous cycles.

Wow… 75 mg test p 75 mg tren a 50mg winny daily… I sure hope you compete… because going that hard just to impress some chikz is ludicrous… test tren winny is easily one of the most dangerous stacks one can take… you didn’t exactly dose low either

But yes, compounds that are

  • highly androgenic
  • non aromatising

Tend to bring out a distinct “hard, grainy, vascular” look

why even add all this in there? He did it he was fine and he didnt ask for your opinion on the doses whats the point of saying all that?

2 Likes

Oh didnt realise you were his doc and checked his full blood panel and ECG results.

No harm in telling someone to be careful, his question was also answered.

SB

2 Likes

well he is alive to type the question so common sense he is actually fine doesnt sound like he died to me. He wasnt telling him to be careful that would of been a before he did it comment this is after the fact so really pointless for him to add all that in its self righteous unnecessary BS to me. He could of just answered the question.

2 Likes

It’s not self righteousness… it’s the fact that 90%+ of the individuals who funnel these dosages down have no idea they’re cutting 20 years or more from their lifespan… if said individual knew what he was getting himself into, but chose to use anyway I’d be fine with that.

There are many, both in real life and on here who have been legitimately surprised when I explain the concept of cardiac enlargement, heart and kidney failure… most just think ‘’gyno, balding, acne…’ that’s the end of it, but the truth is… the neuropsychiatric, cardiac, rental implications are huge with dosages like this for many.

I find adults tend to be reasonable, ask me to tell them more… then make an informed decision whereas teenagers make a knee jerk defensive retard reaction and say “but bro… I don’t give a FUCK, my hearts strong, I can handle this”

This was coming from a kid who smokes like 2 packs per day and has for like 5 years, uses recreational (hard) drugs frequently… you’re heart isn’t fucking strong, you’re unstable… This conversation wasn’t about gear though… this guy wanted to combine cocaine with another stimulant substance, I was like “no”… he got defensive and aggressive because apparently he knows what he can handle… despite the fact that I’ve seen him passed out on the floor during house parties more times than I can count… kid also wants to use gear… just lol

should clarify he isn’t a bad guy at all, just caught up in the wrong shit

Adults tend to be better… that is until they reach 50-60+ wherein they think they’re entitled to put you down (even if they’re wrong) due to the age disparity between me and them… won’t even give me a chance to speak, it’s just “I’ve been on this earth longer than you have… you really think I don’t know this?”

Yes… you don’t know this, HIIT burns calories quicker than LISS

1 Like

i think you are grossly over exaggerating the effect one cycle will have on long term health, there are guys that use this stuff at higher doses 3-4 times a year and live into their 70-80s sure there are some guys that die young but these are hardcore users. My thing is if your opinion on whether the cycle is dangerous isnt asked for than keep it to urself alot of ppl ask a simple question and get hit with some let me tell you bullshit they didnt ask for.

1 Like

@thejuiceman When you put something out there on the internet you are expected to get a wide range of responses. He has just as much a right to post his opinion as you do to question it. The OP came on here posted and aggressive cycle and then asked what I consider to be an amateur question. Its begs for a response such as @unreal24278.

There is a bit of a Nanny state going on in the forums, but what’s the harm in that? To me that’s a good thing versus some of the other forums I’m on where they advocate rampant use to guys that quite frankly don’t need it.

2 Likes

I guess the whole “I sure hope you compete… because going that hard just to impress some chikz is ludicrous” is what rubbed me the wrong way, just sounded condescending ppl take gear for diff reasons and its really nobodys right to say theres only one reason you should.

4 Likes

Unreal is right though. You don’t need anywhere near that much Test to build muscle. Androgen receptors get saturated and overdosing does nothing beyond more side effects. Sure, you may ‘look’ bigger, but it is all extra water and glycogen retention. Unless you are 250lbs lean, you do NOT need these insane dosages. It literally will not provide you additional benefits because it is not possible without the muscle mass providing you with extra androgen receptors to accept the high doses. Tren is also very bad for your health. You need very little tren to get the benefits.

ya nobody needs any of this stuff but here we all are.

1 Like

I disagree with you’re ideology, a dose dependent increase in muscle mass has been observed with the use of testosterone up to 600mg, and increments that occur would still be substantial over said dosage. The amount one would need to take to reach AR saturation would be astronomical, enough to counteract the effect of using; as supraphysiologic doses induce new AR synthesis.

That being said, one doesn’t need to take so much due to inherent risk. The 525mg test prop weekly is quite a bit, combining that with 525 mg TREN (quite a lot of tren) and winny (the worst for lipids, one of the worst for endothelial function etc… tren probably being worse) is downright retarded for recreational purposes

@thejuiceman my response comes from the fact that the individual at stake here probably has no idea that he’s shredding a good 20-30 years + from his lifespan

There are different reasons to use… but if you’re reasoning isn’t one that’s involves

  • being a veteran user
  • making a career/money

Then you should be sensible and keep the dosage low/moderate… I guarantee you the guy above has NO idea regarding the potential complications that can stem from his AAS use, so instead of making this guy feel as if his use is totally fine, it’s important to make him/her realise they’re taking a big, big risk

I have no problem with high dosages if the individual is aware of what they’re doing to themselves… but since like 99 percent of people who use apparently start using after only a few google searches, this isn’t the case

And if there is no notion of what reasoning is acceptable to blast megadosages (which I actually agree with, I think it’s primairly based on whether the user knows the risks) then why do we bash specific cohorts that wish to use for (probably) the exact reason the guy in this thread is using?

Thinking of skinny fat/untrained individuals, younger crowds etc

We’ll agree to disagree. For example, an average 180lb male will not get additional muscle mass gains off a 500mg per week Test cycle compared to if they ran a 300mg per week cycle. Will they gain more (FFM) >water and glycogen< and look better on the higher dose? Sure, but it won’t be actual muscle mass. The human body can only gain so much actual muscle in a certain period of time.

1 Like

Uh huh… well this study would disagree with you

AAS dosage isn’t determined by size (unless size accrued has been from AAS)

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/ajpendo.2001.281.6.E1172?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3Dpubmed

Initial weight in subjects from 300mg group was 78.4 kg ±10.4 kg

600mg group 74.8kg ±12.5kg

Lean mass in 300mg group increased by 5.2 kg ±0.8kg

Lean mass increased in the 600mg group by 7.9kg ± 0.6 kg

As you can see the amount of lean mass gained in supra groups was roughly the same for all despite dramatic differences in weight amongst groups… if you can’t back you’re answers with scientific literature, then prepare for a rebuttal…

AR supersaturation does NOT occur at 300mg, however the risks do increase as the reward ratio decreases, there’s a reason the gold standard is 4-500mg weekly for first timers… granted I’ve never used dosages THAT high, but for one who knows the risks and doesn’t care about health/longevity or simply uses but lives an impeccable lifestyle… they’re not going to be cycling like 200-300mg weekly

I can link about 3-4 more studies if you wish

Nope. You conveniently swapped the words Fat Free Mass and used Lean Mass instead. They use the term Fat Free Mass (FFM) for a reason. Exactly like I said in my previous post. It is not 100% lean mass (muscle). It includes water, protein, glycogen and minerals.

“At the molecular level, fat mass (FM) accounts for the total nonessential body lipids, and the remaining components (water + protein + glycogen + mineral) together define fat‐free mass (FFM)”

“To determine whether the apparent changes in fat-free mass by DEXA scan and underwater weighing represented water retention, we measured total body water and compared the ratios of total body water to fat-free mass before and after treatment in each group. The ratios of total body water to fat-free mass by underwater weighing did not significantly change with treatment in any treatment group , indicating that the apparent increase in fat-free mass measured by underwater weighing did not represent water retention in excess of that associated with protein accretion.”

So now we can probably cancel out water retention, given that 2-3 G of water is retained per every 1g of glycogen stored… we can probably rule out significant glycogen retention being the cause of FFM accrual (keep in mind subjects were all healthy, prior weightlifters and instructed to do NO exercise during the duration of this study)… “did not represent water retention in excess of that associated with protein accruation”… remove protein from the list of variables… then you’ve got minerals, and I doubt anyone here is retaining like 4kg of potassium etc

This would be in contrast to studies implementing dbol as the primary method of anabolic intervention… the gains stemming from 100mg methandienone daily appear to be primarily composed of water/glycogen retention, so you could make an argument there regarding gains cutting off after a certain dose (and that’s probably around 30-40mg daily)

This further proves what my trainer was saying that I posted in the other thread. He only takes dbol pre workout because it’s much more androgenic then anabolic. Giving you strength etc will help you grow in the gym because ur able to lift more weight adding more stimulus, but that it’s not the best at building actual muscle and increasing protein synthesis, although it still does

Unreal,

Do the risks increase with each cycle of Tren (longer term use) or is one cycle that dangerous. And if he used a smaller dose are the potential long term sides less? Same with Winny? Using it once takes 20 years off or are we talking about long term abuse?

Long term abuse, once every 20 years… you’ll probably be fine, can’t say the same with tren as some incredibly concerning case reports do exist… but even then you’d probably be fine… problem, is its like a gateway, no one who says “I’ll just use tren once” really uses tren once

It’s like narcotics, most who say “but I’ll just try it once” don’t actually just “try it once”

Risks increase exponentially after tren exposure (long term)… short term exposure isn’t healthy either, but honestly, once cycle probably won’t kill you

I wouldn’t say it’s “bad” at building muscle, a bit better than test, but tbh I think its over rated… for pure lean tissue, I’d stipulate oxandrolone is better

and data would also back this claim

1 Like