Anavar vs. MAG-10?

Pharma / TRT
21

“Exceedingly,” no, as oxymetholone itself has been used medically at 300 mg/day, with 150 mg/day having been pretty common, and these doses having been considered medically acceptable for treatment of anemia and of leukemic reticuloendotheliosis.

But, it is not something I would at all recommend doing for extended periods of time, nor for more than a fraction of the weeks of the year. Half the weeks of the year would be as far as I’d push it, that being for an aggressive sort of steroid user, or one-third for someone preferring a more moderate, yet still potentially tremendously effective approach.

It does seem to me that the real danger to the liver with the methylated androgens is how extended the use is, not really how much the dose per day is. Doses of some 17-alkylateds such as methyltestosterone have caused liver problems at as low as 5 mg/day when used chronically – that is to say, month in month out, year in year out, as part of an ongoing therapy.

In contrast neither medically nor from any user have I ever learned of a lasting problem, as opposed to transient blood values, from periods of use of only a few weeks, six or less.

Perhaps, as speculation, this is due to the liver being the fastest and best-healing of all the organs. Perhaps the situation is that if it isn’t pushed too far in the first place and then gets the chance to recover – a period of non-exposure – it does fine; but if the insult is continuous even if low, then it never gets a fair chance and slowly worsens in an ever-downward trend. That’s not proven, it just seems like a possible explanation.

However all this said I don’t at all think this stack is a preferred way to go. If nothing else, oxandrolone is very expensive and does nothing trenbolone won’t do at the same or even slightly lesser dose, nor anything that Primo won’t do at maybe 3 or 4 times the dose. And even though the principal thing is the duration of use, it does make sense that for the same duration, less total alkylateds must be easier, though being easier than “easy enough” may not be important.

The reason I did it was out of scientific interest, not that I thought it was an optimal stack for any practical reason. The only extent to which I have followed up on it is in using oxandrolone as a supplement in the last three days of a brief cycle, as replacement for the dwindling amount of injectable remaining. However, oral Primobolan will do the same.

As to substances that may help the liver with 17-alkylateds, there’s long been hopeful thinking that silymarin might help; it wasn’t till a couple of years ago that finally there is some evidence that it is of help at least when tested in rats. I tend to expect that having a ordinarily-healthy intake of antioxidants is also probably important, but taking excesses of antioxidants is probably no further help. I’ll post the silymarin study abstract, following.

22

I haven’t read the article, because it is in Serbian, but here is the abstract:

Medicinski Pregled. 2003;56 Suppl 1:79-83.

Hepatoprotective effects of silymarin in androgenic-anabolic steroid-induced liver damage.

Radovanovic D, Jovanovic D, Mihailovic D, Rankovic G, Stojiljkovic N, Dimitrov V.

INTRODUCTION: The use and abuse of anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) commonly induces liver damage. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study included 40 male Wistar rats, divided into 4 groups of 10 rats each. Animals in the first experimental group (M), were subjected to progressive systematic forced swimming test, 5 days a week, during 8 weeks. Animals in this group were treated with AAS methandienone, 2 mg/kg BW/day, per os, before swimming, 5 d/w for 8 weeks. After swimming, animals were given three times more food than the laboratory animals of the same age and kind. Animals in the second group (M+S), were subjected to progressive forced swimming test, 5 d/w 8 weeks. Animals in this group were treated with methandienone equally as the experimental group M and received the same amount of food. Apart from that, they received silymarin 20 mg/kg BW/day. Animals in the third group (K), represented the control group, which was neither subjected to swimming test, nor treated with methandienone or silymarin. Animals in this group received the same amount of food as animals in groups M and M+S. Animals in the fourth group (C), also represented a control. This group was not exercised nor treated, and animals received a standard amount of food for laboratory animals of this kind and age. Quantitative analysis of obtained hemataxylin-eosin, periodic acid shift and enzymohistochemical preparations was processed using Digital Image Analysis System: Microimage 3.0. RESULTS: It was established that processes in the nuclei of animals in groups M and K were significantly more intensive (p<0.001) in relation to groups M+S and C. The investigation of glycogen showed significantly higher density in the cells of groups M and M+S in comparison to groups K and C. Also, there was a significant difference between groups M+S and M. Density of enzyme activity of glutamate dehydrogenase in hepatocytes of animals in the group M+S was significantly higher in relation to the remaining three groups. A statistically significant difference was not found in enzyme activity of succinate dehydrogenase and lactate dehydrogenase. DISCUSSION: In cell nuclei of animals in the experimental group M, in the absence of silymarin effect, methandienone causes damages which induce regenerative processes and in this way increase high intensity activity. Silymarin significantly increases the glycogen density in hepatocytes. Increased activities of GDH are attributed to cell vitality. CONCLUSION: The present results show hepatoprotective effects of silymarin in androgenic-anabolic steroid induced liver damage.
23

Oh, and in terms of post-cycle therapy, same as anything: Clomid post-cycle for those that can use it, which is the great majority (the exceptions are those that have visual disturbances or unacceptable “estrogeny” mood problems) at 50 mg/day, with HCG preferably having been used during the cycle at for example between 250 IU every other day and 500 IU 3x/week or every other day, the lower end of that being probably more correct for longer periods and the higher end fine for shorter.

I have supposed but not proved that TRIBEX or Alpha Male may help. Back when we were deciding whether Vitex should be included, I and another here tried not using Clomid for recovery but only TRIBEX and Vitex, versus TRIBEX alone, and TRIBEX alone was definitely superior to no PCT, and TRIBEX plus Vitex even better than that. But, that these are effective by themselves doesn’t prove that they add to the effect of Clomid. Perhaps so, perhaps not.

Generally, combining things that work by the same mechanism is kind of pointless – sort of like deciding to take both Advil and Alleve instead of just one in the right amount. Whereas in many cases when things work by different means, the total result can be greater.

For that reason the chances seem good that there may be an at least partially additive effect since those compounds don’t work the same way Clomid does (that is to say, they are not estrogen receptor modulators.)

I would really rather that anyone using AAS acquire Clomid at the same time, if they are able to use it, than to assume the supplements will be as good. If nothing else, the Clomid will also be gyno-protective during the cycle, so why not.

24

Thanks Bill, you rule. I wish you’d write more for this site again.

25

Thanks, Professor!

I’m going to try to do so, though truth is, there’s a limit to how much is both new and true – there’s plenty that’s one but not the other, but not so much that’s both. I’d say 10 years or so ago that wasn’t the case, the knowledge of combining steroids, with then was pretty much potluck, and dosing range and post cycle therapy, as well as then-not-well-understood agents such as GH and HCG left a great deal of range for new work, but these days all that is pretty well understood or at least the information is available. So that has been a limiting factor in writing new articles. It’s much more likely I think that posts will be suitable, as people are always coming up with slightly different or sometimes quite different angles and questions on things.

26

Is there an oral that might combine with Anavar for the synergistic effect of both classes without defeating a person’s original choice of Anavar for its relative safety on non-suppressiveness? I know it’s an intrinsic trait of the others that they are going to be suppressive, but are there any that might standout for offering better ratio of results/suppression when used in combination with Anavar. The prospect of Anavar being drastically less effective than prohormones/prosteroids I have experienced while at the same time costing much more is pretty disappointing.

ps - The only reason I mentioned MAG-10 in the first place, by the way, just to clarify, is that it is the only measuring stick I have to get idea of effects of the various AAS – I took MAG-10 many times and have good idea of results and sides but have yet to take AAS.

27

But the thing is, it’s not so on the reputed-in-some-places nonsuppressiveness.

There’s clear data on that from treatment of AIDS patients. Even 20 mg/day in divided doses is suppressive.

I wouldn’t be surprised if 20 or 40 mg/day taken only in the morning was minimally suppressive, on account of androgen levels at night being more important to the HPTA than during the day, but it’s also not very effective. I know I have tried that during off weeks as a bridge but don’t recall the exact dose: certainly it was at least 25 mg but I am not sure it was as high as 40.

Oxandrolone is also probably not the best choice for the morning-only dosing scheme, if low suppression is the goal, because it has a longer half-life than most orals, at 8 hours. In contrast, 50 mg/day Dianabol can be taken morning only and be minimally suppressive.

There’s no magic possible really – being active at the androgen receptor is always going to activate the androgen-receptor-mediated mechanism (as opposed to other mechanisms such as estrogenic) for suppression. The best that can be done is nibbling at the edges so to speak, getting an edge anabolically but no great kick, if suppression is being avoided.

However, one also might not worry so much about suppression. For example if using 2 week cycles, the HPTA bounces back just about instantly: the fact that it was suppressed during the 2 weeks causes no harm or problem at all. So why not get the gains, rather than keep things feeble (in terms of performance-enhancing effect) but maintain feeble effect for a longer time? Operating at a higher level will kick in changes that just don’t happen at a lower level, no matter how long used.

Anyway, as to what’s effective to combine with oxandrolone, oxymetholone certainly is. Or Dianabol, but Clomid would be preferable if using that, if personally able to take Clomid.

As a guess, one way of looking at that is keeping the total around 40 mg, if Dianabol plus oxandrolone, and the dosing being morning-only may perhaps not be much suppressive and probably modestly, very modestly, effective, and moreso than oxandrolone alone.

I have absolutely no suppression info on oxymetholone, never tried using it on a bridge, don’t know anyone who has, and so can’t say there. However I’d be surprised if it was much if any more suppressive per mg than Dianabol is.

28

Thank you very much for all the insight. I’d like to share real quick what I am pursuing, largely for the sake of other members being able to understand that people are not always looking for the same kinds of things in AAS strategies (there are so many people that just say “shoot T, be a man, orals suck, etc”, for example).

I would like to use AAS much in the manner that I was able to use Mag10, namely very stealthily and as non-disruptively to rest of life as possible. I obviously want gains and want edge to kick me up out of plateaus and help produce solid gains at reliable rate – that’s reason why pursuing AAS. However, there are certain parameters I have to stay within while doing this.

The major parameters are: It would be extremely bad if anyone at my work got idea I was “taking steroids”. Thus, I have to avoid anything that causes things like rapid water gains, redness, etc. I also do not want to have my sex life disrupted bc I am at stage in life where still unattached but take my relationships seriously and do not want to worry about huge swings in potency, libido, etc that can “rock the boat” in relationship.

Thus, I am looking for something to give me an edge that I could, for example, use over and over in very short cycles with solid improvement over course of time, though not earth-shattering, but without all the complications of less moderate approach.

Bill, thank you for the recommendation of Dbol in mornings, that indeed sounds like very smart way of doing things as far as gains vs supression. Unfortunately, I’m concerned about its reputation for causing water retention which I think would result in overall too high possibility of coworkers seeing signs of “taking steroids”.

29

Bill, are you saying still to go for very short 2 week cycles? I know you helped spread that idea a few years ago but reading this board most juicers feel 10 weeks cycles are too short. So I’m a bit confused.

P22 has great tips and info, and he basically suggests to go for long cycles and taper off with TestE, then remain on low doses (around 100mg) of TestE for 6 weeks while using anti-E such as Nolva as PCT. No crashes. HPTA fully restored when you finally do go totally off.

Personnaly I’m more interested in gains I can keep that gaining and losing 20 pounds but long cycles could be fun, and according to many posters here, are way more efficient. But then again most heavy users never really come off at all.

Euh, bottomline, do you “recommand” 2 week cycles or long ones as the most useful and safe for long term gains?

Thanx and I too am glad you’re posting again!

30

Yes, I think that’s an excellent way to go even though I know there are many say that one “needs” 10 weeks or what-have-you.

In my view while I understand that people perceived this in their own experience, or many saying it have, actually it comes down to:

  1. Training being wrong (most likely either excessively low volume out of HIT theory or some other reason, but in some cases from excess, or from otherwise just not getting the stimulus,

  2. Diet being wrong, rapid gaining requiring a quite high protein intake such as around 2.5 g per lb LBM per day divided into MANY parts pretty much around the clock except for sleep, and for that matter middle-of-the-night nutrition on momentarily awaking in the middle of the night is beneficial. The same protein intake taken as relatively few meals does not get as much absorbed.

  3. Failing to frontload. If one doesn’t do this, it can take weeks for injectable drug levels to build up to the desired amount.

  4. Failing to use a strong enough stack. A bare minimum is a level corresponding to about one gram per week of testosterone. Most drug stacks will require similar total grams except that a couple of drugs are more potent per mg, for example a milligram of trenbolone I think “counts” as three milligrams of T. If piddling around at 500 mg/week or something, no, the only way anything much is going to happen in two weeks is if it would have happened anyway.

The only “legit” reason for not much happening in two weeks is if, due to a great deal of past experience at that level of usage that that is closely approaching the homeostasis level for that person and that hormonal mileau.

In this instance, indeed a longer time will be required for noticeable change – rather similarly to a person near the homeostasis level at the natural level of testosterone doing more work at that same level.

When evaluating greater periods of time, in fact it’s more efficient to have the cycles limited to two weeks “on” at a time.

For example let’s say progress is planned over a period of time such as one year.

Now, how many periodization or just generally speaking strength training experts will tell you that they can best plan your training year where there are several, say three, 10 week periods that are supposed to be all balls to the wall gaining throughout?

It’s just not so.

On the other hand, absolutely you can periodize your training where you’re balls to the wall for 2-week intervals.

Next factor, with the 2 week cycles in fact ordinarily strength and even sometimes muscular size increase into the third week (the first off week.) And the gains are easily not only held onto, but consolidated with any following weeks. Which might be as short as two off weeks total.

What happens to the guys with the 10 week cycles and then a couple months recovery inbetween? Do they gain strength in the off time? Do they even hold their mass? No, the only exception being those so far behind what they can obtain, even less than if they hadn’t used the steroids, that being off won’t matter.

For example 24 “on” weeks, as twelve cycles of two weeks with a couple weeks or more between them, with proper training and nutrition, is going to do better both as peak result and as the result hung onto than two 12 week cycles that have some months of “off” time between them, or even if not.

Yeah, it does take planning and a degree of doing-it-right that longer cycles guys just often don’t do.

MAG-10 was at a level of efficacy still allowing the 2 week method to work very well, as was found by so many. But of course for example 8 weeks straight will do more than 2 weeks, all else being equal – though generally not what four cycles of two weeks can.

Properly speaking, it isn’t a game of incremental results, not a business of adding a fraction of a percent per week, or for that matter a number of ounces or a pound per week. It’s a question of making jumps that yield permanent increase in the body’s potential, via more nuclei being added to the muscle cells from satellite cells, thus “permanently” increasing their protein synthesis capability and size potential, and/or differentiation of satellite cells.

Being at a lower level longer, or the same level but not as effective a training stimulus, doesn’t do the same.

There are other reasons for not doing two week cycles, for example not having short acting injectables, or being in a real hurry to diet off fat, or in fact being so developed that the body is at a near homeostasis even at the given drug level (still the goal should be more towards finding a way to stimulate the above changes rather than hoping for the cells to keep plumping up without the cellular foundations actually increasing), or being concerned about a time point quite near in the future.

E.g., if you’ve got to be the best you can on March 1 and it’s January 1 right now, a higher level should be achieved by doing that period straight, simply because it’s more time “on” and more total drug use before that date.

The conclusion would be entirely different if instead it’s July 1 you want to look best on, and you’re going to use the same amount of drugs, the same time “on,” and training/nutrition are optimized. Being two weeks out of your sixth cycle should, unless one screws up badly, be much better than being three months out of the one 12-week cycle. Plus it is much better for the HPTA.

So conclusions depend on the comparison being made.

31

Interesting that you’d recommend that much clomid as well as HCG with 75mg of anavar. You definitely know more than I do, but I thought that if it was something I wanted to try, I’d be fine with clomid or nolva post-cycle and no HCG. Guess I’m wrong. Thanks, Bill.

32

Thanx for the lenghty and thorough answer Bill. Why then do you think the very short cycles have NOT caught on?

I know some people want to gain 20-30 pounds RIGHT NOW, so longer cycles make more sense. But while many of these dudes deny it, they never come off, and I dont want to
do that.

But again reading the advice on this board, 12 week cycles are now considered too short for real gains, espacially for slow acting stuff like EQ and Primo. Hence my confusion.

“Properly speaking, it isn’t a game of incremental results, not a business of adding a fraction of a percent per week, or for that matter a number of ounces or a pound per week. It’s a question of making jumps that yield permanent increase in the body’s potential”

I believe that is exactly right. Gains, natural or juiced, do come in bursts.

I dont have to be big for a specific event, and I’d rather gain 5 pounds and keep 3 - and do it over and over again - then gain 25 and finally keep 8, but I admit it is fun to be “on” for a long while. You just feel superhuman.

While being “off” sucks in comparison, if you dont crash it’s not that bad. You just dont feel the same “highs” with 2 week cycles but if they do allow for gains with minimum sides…

33

Well, I think it’s a combination of things, but perhaps mostly that for most guys the reasons above for longer cycles are in fact reasons that are compelling to them.

E.g., the idea of being much improved say 10 weeks from now, and somewhat behind that 20 weeks from now, is far more compelling to them than the idea of being moderately less ahead 10 weeks from now, but better at the 20 week point than even the peak of the 10 week point.

(Assuming 10 weeks off with the 10 week cycle, just as one illustration.)

Most are really not planning six months or a year ahead.

Most probably don’t have periodization plans worked out anyway. I’m pretty sure of that because 97% of all lifters that I see don’t bother to bring a training log to the gym, so unless they are absolute super-computers mentally I simply don’t believe they have any true progressive plan, unless one calls just doing whatever seems right at the time a progressive plan.

I expect it’s also publicity.

Most writers in this field it seems to me – not talking about genuine scientists such as John Berardi and so forth, but “steroid writers” – just can’t stand the idea of it appearing that they are dependent in any way on the work of others, absolutely never crediting anyone with anything though in fact for the most part everyone stands on the shoulders of others.

For example the other day I mentioned here in a post, because it was true, that I learned my method of insulin use from Oliver Starr, giving him credit for that. You won’t see that kind of thing from “steroid writers,” or hardly ever. If ever.

I think if there had been several “steroid writers” pointing out the advantages, then others would feel they could do so too because it wouldn’t be apparent that they were repeating any given individual. Same as various other “commonplace” advice gets repeated readily, they have no problem doing that.

While I’ll readily say that I learned 2 week cycles from a Greek doctor (known on some boards as Lysis), whose practical experience synced up with some information I had that indicated why it had great promise (much faster recovery of the HPTA: the response of the hypothalamus is actually improved after two weeks on androgens, but then gets rapidly far below baseline) you would not, I think, find your general steroid writers saying that they learned this in turn from me, or pretty much anything from any other specific writer either, and are passing it on. Just not what they do, it seems.

However, the information’s sufficiently out there. It’s true that those only buying a steroid book will be without it, but it’s not hard to find.

34

Thanks again for the thorough answer.

I had planned on a long 12-14 TestE and EQ cycle followed by an off period and then a short 5-6 weeks Test & Anavar cutting cycle. That would have ended in June 2007.

Yesterday I did a planning of 2 weekers with either 2 or 3 weeks off and… it would end on June 2007 as well.

Mmmm. Probably less sides, less ups and downs in gains and mood, about the same price.

I’d guess though I’d need more PCT gear? I mean you dont take Nolva etc for more than 3-4 weeks after a long cycle while if I use some for 1 week after every 2 weekers I’ll need more.

Again, I’m just surprised that those short cycles have NOT “caught on”. Mag10 and prohormones were suggested this way and hugely popular when legal. And Bill you are a very respected expert and have vouched for those 2 week cycles for a while now.

BTW if the HPTA is actually primed and we use gear with very short half-lives, why is there a need for PCT at all? Would you still suggest Arimidex while “on” even on such short usage of androgens? Nolva or Clomid while “off”?

35

Bill,

Question on cycles for someone who is already on HRT, where HPTA recovery would not be an issue. Would the 2 on / 2 off cycle still make sense? Or would a typical 6 to 10 week cycle with equal or double the time off work just as well?

Do you also have any recommendations for people on HRT and coming off a cycle? Is estrogen and cortisol control still needed and how would it be applied?

Thanks a million Bill, its great having you back on the board.

36

Thanks!

If HRT is presently and expected to continue as the source of testosterone instead of normal production, then there is not any reason to aim for a specific number of days let alone exactly 14.

That isn’t to say that, if planning to be “on” at some level of usage some number of weeks of the year that’s well above the usual HRT, that it won’t likely still be advantageous to do it as a larger number of relatively short cycles with less time inbetween than a larger number of longer cycles with more time inbetween.

(Which has to be the comparison, because a comparison with different numbers of weeks in the year that are “on” for different programs isn’t a good comparison – whichever program has less could be looked at with more, so as to be matching.)

The reasons for better overall outcome – though not necessarily at an exact point in time three months from now or whatever – are the same as above and also to reemphasize, a training program really should not be in “balls to the wall” gaining mode on a nonstop basis. There’s only so many weeks before one ought to have for example a period at lighter weight and then working back up.

Another factor is if alkylated steroids are used: here, far and away the principal factor against the liver is duration of use, not anywhere so much dosage during use. So keeping cycles down to say 6 weeks is much easier on the liver than going 20 weeks or what have you.

Lastly, in comparison with the possibility of using the same amount of steroids total over the year but just breaking it into 52 weeks that are all equal, rather than some that are high and some that are low, unless the dosage is kind of high this also doesn’t have the same potential in most cases, because there’s just a limit to what the smaller dose will do, whereas temporarily being at a higher dose can trigger changes that do continue to benefit even in the off weeks.

(The reason for saying “most cases” is there are a few guys who do really, really well on a relatively modest dose of androgens and so that could be irrelevant for them.)

Lastly, on the HRT and apparently being needed for life, while of course that’s true in some cases, there are a lot of guys who have successfully gotten off of it via Clomid and minimizing the androgenic inhibition. Not everyone who believes they are in the position of being stuck for life with it really is.