Juice: Thanks for your understanding.
Bill: Thanks for sharing the knowledge gleaned from much research and real life practice.
I am a little confused in what makes Deca “very inhibitory due to progestagenic effect”, while you don’t feel Tren has the same tendancy (at least not to a degree as to warrant special treatment like running testosterone longer in a Deca cycle).
They are both progestins right? Both 19-Nors. Both bind to the progesterone receptor (Tren 60% as much as progesterone itself and Deca 20% as much as Progesterone itself). On paper tren looks more inhibitory.
Of course I understand that these are layman and theoretical observations, myself never having experimented with either compound.
I guess what I am saying is that I fully accept that Tren is less problematic than Deca when constructing a cycle because of your experience with the two compounds, but can you tell me what makes it so (simply for curiosity sake)?
[quote]Dynamo Hum wrote:
Juice: Thanks for your understanding.
Bill: Thanks for sharing the knowledge gleaned from much research and real life practice.
I am a little confused in what makes Deca “very inhibitory due to progestagenic effect”, while you don’t feel Tren has the same tendancy (at least not to a degree as to warrant special treatment like running testosterone longer in a Deca cycle).
They are both progestins right? [/quote]
No, trenbolone is not. Authors that have stated that it is have confused binding with being active.
Again, authors that are not medicinal chemists (not all of them but some) are confused on this point. While it sounds scientific, actually there is no more validity to that structural fact being applied the way that they do then there would be to arguing that they have the same number of letters in the name, or both have names ending with “olone.”
By this reasoning tamoxifen and clomiphene must cause gyno then: they bind to the estrogen receptor. But no, they bind but are not agonists, in breast tissue.
When actual activity has been studied in the veterinary literature, trenbolone has been found non-progestagenic.
Very interesting. Thanks once again.
Please excuse my ignorance, but can Tren cause elevated prolactin issues for which many suggest taking cabergoline?
Absolutely zero reason to think so (other than from reading authors who claim it but had zero legitimate reason to think so.)
There is no published human data on this but the veterinary literature shows no increase in prolactin from trenbolone usage.
In practice, those injecting no-doubt-about-it trenbolone acetate, made themselves from Fina, and taking no other steroid that might cause the problem, see no issues that would be expected from increased prolactin.
I think you have exhausted my seemingly insatiable curiosity masterfully and patiently. For that I am grateful.
This has been great! You have certainly changed my mind on what I “thought” I knew on Trenbolone, Bill.
Out of curiousity, what specific AAS could cause prolactin issues?
Again, thanks for all of your time Bill, your knowledge, and willing to share it with others. Even though there are only a couple of us writing here I am sure many are learning.
Regards
Bill do you own shares of Tren? Cause that stock has officially gone throught the roof, lol kidding, on a more serious note you have def changed my mind as well as others on tren. I think others will agree that tren has always had this “boogieman” “be careful what you wish for” stigma to it. Great info, your contributions as always, appreciated.
Estrogen increases prolactin.
As to whether any androgen does (except via any conversion to estrogen) I don’t know.
RommelKorps, thanks for the kind words!
Say what?? Trenbolone does NOT increase prolactin and is NOT a progestin?
But but…
So keep estrogen in check with an AI and all will be well (when using tren)?
I’m ordering more tren!
Yes.
And trenbolone does not increase estrogen. So if an AI is needed it will not be on account of the trenbolone.
Error in this area, if it occurs, tends to be in the opposite direction: using trenbolone without an aromatizing steroid and without HCG, and thus driving estrogen too low.
I’m also fairly sure that taking the oral version of Stanozolol has a rather unique ability to lower SHBG. A dose of .2mg/kg lowers SHBG significantly, which would in turn, raise the amount of free testosterone circulating in the body. From that point of view, I would say that adding 50 mg of oral Winstrol should be of greater benefit than 50 additional mgs of Tren for the overall cycle.
Am I correct, Mr. Roberts?
hey guys this thread has been awesome!
totally changed my view of tren.
Don’t have to worry about those frequently written about (and incorrect) progesterone issues
Thanks for this great info Bill and the rest.
[quote]Abaddon wrote:
I’m also fairly sure that taking the oral version of Stanozolol has a rather unique ability to lower SHBG. A dose of .2mg/kg lowers SHBG significantly, which would in turn, raise the amount of free testosterone circulating in the body. From that point of view, I would say that adding 50 mg of oral Winstrol should be of greater benefit than 50 additional mgs of Tren for the overall cycle. [/quote]
Abaddon, not that i have any literature to refer to but i think injectable stanna would be just as good as oral in regards to the lowering of SHBG and also be more effective as it would miss the first pass through the liver, be more biologically available (less wasted) and therefore be overly more effective and less harsh on your liver.
i do agree with you on the fact that the addition of 50mg ED of stanna would be beneficial, because the other steroids (test, tren and masteron) have reasonable to high (tren) affinity for the androgen receptor where stanna as Bill mentioned operates through non receptor mediated pathways, and also the effects of stanna complement the effects of the other drugs in this stack, that is adding quality lean/dense mass while aiding fat loss.
i think the fact that stanna may bind to SHBG would have a negligible affect on results due to the sheer amount of androgens in this stack.
Sorry to bring this up again but i find this extremely interesting. Bill Just to confirm so deca is an agonist of the progesterone receptor and tren is an antagonist binding to it but not activating it?
so what are the sides of tren alone is it just supression of natural test (no biggie as we would always run test with tren)
and others associated with trens high androgenic rating?
Thanks again guys
Thanks for all of the info guys, Tren no longer seems to be the scary monster that people make it out to be!
I agree that 50mg of winny ED would likely be a great addition to the stack but as Bill mentioned earlier I will already be running 1.4g of AAS per week, so I still haven’t decided.
It’s funny, I read and read info on all AAS, serms, AI’s, peptides and anything else to do with bodybuilding and in two pages on one thread I think I have learned more on the subjects we have been discussing from you, Bill, than I would have reading 5 books dedicated to AAS.
I can’t wait for this cycle to start now! June seems so far away…
Thank you for the kind comment! 