T Nation

Another Havoc Cycle


#1

Considering running one this summer or autumn:

Week 1: CEL Cycle Assist
Week 2: Havoc 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist
Week 3: Havoc 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist
Week 4: Havoc 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist
Week 5: Havoc 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist
Week 6: Havoc 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist
Week 7: Havoc 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist
Week 8: Nolvadex 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist, ZMA
Week 9: Nolvadex 40mg, CEL Cycle Assist, ZMA
Week 10: TRIBEX Gold 4 caps, Nolvadex 20mg, CEL Cycle Assist, ZMA
Week 11: TRIBEX Gold 4 caps, Nolvadex 20mg, CEL Cycle Assist, ZMA
Week 12: TRIBEX Gold 4 caps, CEL Cycle Assist, ZMA
Week 13: TRIBEX Gold 4 caps, ZMA
Week 14: ZMA
Week 15: ZMA

My questions:
1. Natural test/libido boosters - how best to use them to assist PCT - how is how I outlined?
2. 6 weeks at 40mg... is this even worthwhile - should I stack up with a class 2?
3. What are others experience at this dose for a longer cycle?

EDIT: Would like to add that I will be 22 in November. 6 Weeks too long perhaps?


#2

My $0.02 is that 6 weeks is too long.

Not that it’s going to fry your liver, but I don’t think you’ll see continued gains, hence it’s automatically not worth it in my eyes. I get that people react differently to anything, but I sure don’t see much change beyond the 3 week mark. I’ve written many times here that for me at least, epi is one of the few designers worth using if I’m not using the real deal, so I’m not knocking it… I just think you’re trying to get too much out of it. It’s never going to give you dbol/drol-like effects.

Not a big fan of stacking 17-methyls either, and the non-methyl options are all pretty weak and / or expensive for what you get.

Don’t see anything wrong with your PCT. Waiting a couple of weeks to add in that booster is fine.

If you do take epi for 6 weeks, I’d strongly recommend getting a liver panel done before and after. Regardless of cycle length, to keep HDL from dropping too precipitously, take some high quality fish oil (Biotest’s Flameout, Carlson’s etc…) while on cycle & during PCT.


#3

[quote]whotookmyname wrote:
My $0.02 is that 6 weeks is too long.

Not that it’s going to fry your liver, but I don’t think you’ll see continued gains, hence it’s automatically not worth it in my eyes. I get that people react differently to anything, but I sure don’t see much change beyond the 3 week mark. I’ve written many times here that for me at least, epi is one of the few designers worth using if I’m not using the real deal, so I’m not knocking it… I just think you’re trying to get too much out of it. It’s never going to give you dbol/drol-like effects.

Not a big fan of stacking 17-methyls either, and the non-methyl options are all pretty weak and / or expensive for what you get.

Don’t see anything wrong with your PCT. Waiting a couple of weeks to add in that booster is fine.

If you do take epi for 6 weeks, I’d strongly recommend getting a liver panel done before and after. Regardless of cycle length, to keep HDL from dropping too precipitously, take some high quality fish oil (Biotest’s Flameout, Carlson’s etc…) while on cycle & during PCT.[/quote]

Fish oil will be ran throughout anyway… probably not a high quality one like Flameout (in the uk a lot of this stuff is hideously expensive). Will be making up for it with large quantities of the regular stuff - 20+g a day.

Why do you think 6 week cycles arent worth their time? Why do you think results taper off?

EDIT: West has suggested a hdrol/epi stack before at 75/30 ED for 6 weeks. I was considering running a single methyl for my first 6 week cycle. Perhaps running a hdrol and epi or a hdrol along early 2010.


#4

[quote]benmoore wrote:
whotookmyname wrote:
My $0.02 is that 6 weeks is too long.

Not that it’s going to fry your liver, but I don’t think you’ll see continued gains, hence it’s automatically not worth it in my eyes. I get that people react differently to anything, but I sure don’t see much change beyond the 3 week mark. I’ve written many times here that for me at least, epi is one of the few designers worth using if I’m not using the real deal, so I’m not knocking it… I just think you’re trying to get too much out of it. It’s never going to give you dbol/drol-like effects.

Not a big fan of stacking 17-methyls either, and the non-methyl options are all pretty weak and / or expensive for what you get.

Don’t see anything wrong with your PCT. Waiting a couple of weeks to add in that booster is fine.

If you do take epi for 6 weeks, I’d strongly recommend getting a liver panel done before and after. Regardless of cycle length, to keep HDL from dropping too precipitously, take some high quality fish oil (Biotest’s Flameout, Carlson’s etc…) while on cycle & during PCT.

Fish oil will be ran throughout anyway… probably not a high quality one like Flameout (in the uk a lot of this stuff is hideously expensive). Will be making up for it with large quantities of the regular stuff - 20+g a day.

Why do you think 6 week cycles arent worth their time? Why do you think results taper off?

EDIT: West has suggested a hdrol/epi stack before at 75/30 ED for 6 weeks. I was considering running a single methyl for my first 6 week cycle. Perhaps running a hdrol and epi or a hdrol along early 2010.[/quote]

I have no particular insight into why results tail off… just that they do, at least for me. Didn’t see a difference b/w 30 & 40mg either, actually. Why are some compounds weaker than others? Different manners of action, different binding affinities and effects, the nature of the AAS’s metabolites, etc… Maybe epi binds ARs with unspectacular affinity and provides modest, AR-mediated gains, but little else, eg., no increased transcriptional activation of myosin, nor binding to other receptors…

Hdrol seems to take longer to kick in, and as it’s pretty easy to run for the vast majority of people that use it, 6 weeks is fine. Personally, I’d still only run epi for 4 weeks in that stack if I was going to cross the line and run two methyls, but my entire answer is based on little more than personal brolore.


#5

[quote]whotookmyname wrote:
benmoore wrote:
whotookmyname wrote:
My $0.02 is that 6 weeks is too long.

Not that it’s going to fry your liver, but I don’t think you’ll see continued gains, hence it’s automatically not worth it in my eyes. I get that people react differently to anything, but I sure don’t see much change beyond the 3 week mark. I’ve written many times here that for me at least, epi is one of the few designers worth using if I’m not using the real deal, so I’m not knocking it… I just think you’re trying to get too much out of it. It’s never going to give you dbol/drol-like effects.

Not a big fan of stacking 17-methyls either, and the non-methyl options are all pretty weak and / or expensive for what you get.

Don’t see anything wrong with your PCT. Waiting a couple of weeks to add in that booster is fine.

If you do take epi for 6 weeks, I’d strongly recommend getting a liver panel done before and after. Regardless of cycle length, to keep HDL from dropping too precipitously, take some high quality fish oil (Biotest’s Flameout, Carlson’s etc…) while on cycle & during PCT.

Fish oil will be ran throughout anyway… probably not a high quality one like Flameout (in the uk a lot of this stuff is hideously expensive). Will be making up for it with large quantities of the regular stuff - 20+g a day.

Why do you think 6 week cycles arent worth their time? Why do you think results taper off?

EDIT: West has suggested a hdrol/epi stack before at 75/30 ED for 6 weeks. I was considering running a single methyl for my first 6 week cycle. Perhaps running a hdrol and epi or a hdrol along early 2010.

I have no particular insight into why results tail off… just that they do, at least for me. Didn’t see a difference b/w 30 & 40mg either, actually. Why are some compounds weaker than others? Different manners of action, different binding affinities and effects, the nature of the AAS’s metabolites, etc… Maybe epi binds ARs with unspectacular affinity and provides modest, AR-mediated gains, but little else, eg., no increased transcriptional activation of myosin, nor binding to other receptors…

Hdrol seems to take longer to kick in, and as it’s pretty easy to run for the vast majority of people that use it, 6 weeks is fine. Personally, I’d still only run epi for 4 weeks in that stack if I was going to cross the line and run two methyls, but my entire answer is based on little more than personal brolore.
[/quote]

I value your insights, thank you.

When you say results tapered off… strength or size? Or both?

Also without wanting to sound like a douche… did you progress your calorific intake over the course of the cycle?


#6

[quote]benmoore wrote:

I value your insights, thank you.

When you say results tapered off… strength or size? Or both?

Also without wanting to sound like a douche… did you progress your calorific intake over the course of the cycle?
[/quote]

Size. My strength increases slow down, but certainly continue through PCT. Some of that may be related to training style (relatively low volume but high intensity). Definitely don’t want to burn out during PCT, but I hate giving back any gains in strength :slight_smile:

Wrt diet on epi, I’ve based it mostly on the way my body looked. I find it quite dry, so not much of the gains are water. Initially I can probably eat an extra 1000 calories / day and do well. Really seems like quite an efficient compound at that point; things start to slow down a bit in the third week, and by the fourth week I don’t look quite as lean and the scale isn’t budging. But to answer your question, no, I’m not eating more at the end of the cycle than I am during the first couple of weeks. It’s just not a test-deca cycle.


#7

What was your dosing like and results out of curiosity?


#8

[quote]benmoore wrote:

EDIT: West has suggested a hdrol/epi stack before at 75/30 ED for 6 weeks. I was considering running a single methyl for my first 6 week cycle. Perhaps running a hdrol and epi or a hdrol along early 2010.[/quote]

The reason for the six weeks is for the hdrol.
Epistane only cycles can be effective in shorter cycles as it “kicks in” faster.

But this is mostly speaking to strength increases rather than mass, the epistane is stacked with the hdrol to attempt to mix a type I and II.

You should still see anabolic effects from the epistane after 4 weeks, in other words you should still be growing, even if your strength is not still increasing.

People dont “feel” a prohormones affects after the strength increases level off, but they are still working. Its just that people expect dramatic results, and even real steroids dont produce huge muscle gains in 4 weeks, your body simply cant grow that fast.

Only the hdrol really “needs” to be run for 6 weeks, if for whatever reason you want to drop the epistane after 4 weeks and just run the hdrol thats fine.

I think it would be less effective, but not dramatically so.
And it would also not be dramatically “safer” to drop off just two weeks of double methyl for single methyl out of the cycle, its fairly insignificant either way.

Liver/blood tests should always be done before any cycle of anything.

Not just double methyls.


#9

[quote]benmoore wrote:
What was your dosing like and results out of curiosity?[/quote]

Last time I took 30 through the end of wk 2, then 40 for the balance. In retrospect, I would have just kept it at 30 mg throughout. Gained ~8 lbs in the first two wks, ~8.5 after 4 wks, and kept 6 lbs. It was decent for someone used to real gear, imo, though I spent a small fortune on food.


#10

[quote]Westclock wrote:
benmoore wrote:

EDIT: West has suggested a hdrol/epi stack before at 75/30 ED for 6 weeks. I was considering running a single methyl for my first 6 week cycle. Perhaps running a hdrol and epi or a hdrol along early 2010.

The reason for the six weeks is for the hdrol.
Epistane only cycles can be effective in shorter cycles as it “kicks in” faster.

But this is mostly speaking to strength increases rather than mass, the epistane is stacked with the hdrol to attempt to mix a type I and II.

You should still see anabolic effects from the epistane after 4 weeks, in other words you should still be growing, even if your strength is not still increasing.

People dont “feel” a prohormones affects after the strength increases level off, but they are still working. Its just that people expect dramatic results, and even real steroids dont produce huge muscle gains in 4 weeks, your body simply cant grow that fast.

Only the hdrol really “needs” to be run for 6 weeks, if for whatever reason you want to drop the epistane after 4 weeks and just run the hdrol thats fine.

I think it would be less effective, but not dramatically so.
And it would also not be dramatically “safer” to drop off just two weeks of double methyl for single methyl out of the cycle, its fairly insignificant either way.

Liver/blood tests should always be done before any cycle of anything.

Not just double methyls. [/quote]

Well I have two bottles of havoc in anyway… but I guess I could order in some hdrol.

Whats your current thinking westclock? Both have been reccomended by yourself before:
75mg hdrol/30mg epi for 6 weeks
100mg hdrol 6 weeks/40mg havoc for 4 weeks

OR 6 weeks straigh 100mg hdrol as a standalone?

EDIT: Anyone elses opinion would be welcome too - general consensus seems to be against a 6 week havoc standalone.


#11

[quote]
Whats your current thinking westclock? Both have been reccomended by yourself before:
75mg hdrol/30mg epi for 6 weeks
100mg hdrol 6 weeks/40mg havoc for 4 weeks

OR 6 weeks straigh 100mg hdrol as a standalone?

EDIT: Anyone elses opinion would be welcome too - general consensus seems to be against a 6 week havoc standalone.[/quote]

there are much better stacking options than epi/hdrol. those are two very similar compounds in terms of their characteristics and effects and there is little synergy between the two. not to mention theyre both methyls. stacking either compound with tren or 1,4ad would make more sense.

ive seen people run 5 and 6 week epi cycles but they are usually low dosed and produce the same gains as a 4 week cycle at 30 to 40mg.


#12

[quote]Holden Caulfield wrote:

Whats your current thinking westclock? Both have been reccomended by yourself before:
75mg hdrol/30mg epi for 6 weeks
100mg hdrol 6 weeks/40mg havoc for 4 weeks

OR 6 weeks straigh 100mg hdrol as a standalone?

EDIT: Anyone elses opinion would be welcome too - general consensus seems to be against a 6 week havoc standalone.

there are much better stacking options than epi/hdrol. those are two very similar compounds in terms of their characteristics and effects and there is little synergy between the two. not to mention theyre both methyls. stacking either compound with tren or 1,4ad would make more sense.

ive seen people run 5 and 6 week epi cycles but they are usually low dosed and produce the same gains as a 4 week cycle at 30 to 40mg. [/quote]

Thankyou for you opinion, although wrong and backwards in my opinion, you are welcome to it.

Tren is crap, it should never be used by anyone for anything, although technically a type I and not a methyl, which makes it “attractive”, tren prohormones are progestin based and are poorly designed nonsense, an insult to the steroid community.

1, 4ad/boldenone derivatives are a very good choice for stacking as it is a type I and not a methyl. But it would make NO sense to stack with epistane.

Two type I’s will simply compete and a portion of each product will be wasted. This is the simple logic between trying to use a type I and II.

Now boldenone derivatives would work just fine stacked with hdrol, and their non-methyl nature would be a plus

And unfortunately its cost is too absurd to actually dose high enough to see benefits over other compounds.

Im not sure how you are determining synergy, as Im quite sure you do not know how either compound functions.

If you are referring to the fact that they are both “dry” this means nothing, nor does it indicate their method of action in the body. How they feel does not determine anything about their anabolic qualities.

The old “stacking wet with dry” thing is simply a “bro science” attempt to match type I’s to type I’s by feel.

The technically strongest effective stack of two currently available prohormones would be pheraplex and superdrol.

A poor choice for most, but I have seem other things done, such as mixing hdrol + superdrol and pheraplex.

This triad is technically superior to running just pheraplex and superdrol, but seems absurd to buy THREE prohormones.

Running a lower dose of hdrol combined with a lower dose of superdrol would be comparable to the same toxicity as a higher dose of just superdrol or just hdrol

The gains could be better or worse, superdrol is a stronger compound, but its method of action in the body at higher doses may simply drop to diminishing returns, in which case another drug of the same type but different action would have better results.

Epistane and hdrol are chosen because it will produce fairly high strength gains, clean muscle gains (in other words not simply water retention in the muscles), and because both compounds have very mild side effects if any at all. And the fact that although methylated neither compound is excessively toxic compared to many, run responsibly for a short duration…

It is an “acceptable” risk in my opinion, if you decide otherwise, I certainly would not try to talk anyone into it, health is very important, and I would no be the one who deals with any unexpected consequences.

Hdrol seems to have a benefit as far as cardiovascular capacity is concerned and epistane does not interfere with the cardiovascular system’s capacity as do many steroids, aka dbol, drol, m1t,etc.

I chose to recommend epistane over boldenone derivatives for stacking with hdrol simply beacause the strength increases are greater, and the drug itself is so MUCH CHEAPER.

But if your willing to buy the absurd amounts of bold required for it to actually be effective, then certainly its a very fine choice.

Bold with superdrol would be dandy

Epistane and superdrol would work fine as well…although riskier than epi/hdrol

As would bold with m1t, or bold with hdrol, or epi and m1t.

etc, etc, etc.

There are many possibilities. I chose hdrol and epistane because both are cheap, effective, common, good quality drugs compared to many prohomrones, and neither is prone to sideffects.

It is a comfrotable, effective stack that is cheap, a middle ground if you will, certainly safer stacks exist, or stronger stacks, or cheaper stacks, etc.

You can trade cost for safety, effectiveness for safety, sideffects for effectiveness, cost for sideffects, the list goes on.

There are excessive numbers of effective combinations.

This one is simply a recommendation of a potentially effective cycle, it by no means the “best possible stack”.

To answer the other question, of those proposed cycles: 100mg hdrol 6 weeks/40mg havoc for 4 weeks

would probably be the “strongest”.

I see no real danger in running the havoc for 6 weeks as well, but its certainly up to you.

Caution is always a good thing, but liver toxicity, purposefully, is overstated by us, and others to keep users safe.


#13

[quote]Westclock wrote:
Holden Caulfield wrote:

Whats your current thinking westclock? Both have been reccomended by yourself before:
75mg hdrol/30mg epi for 6 weeks
100mg hdrol 6 weeks/40mg havoc for 4 weeks

OR 6 weeks straigh 100mg hdrol as a standalone?

EDIT: Anyone elses opinion would be welcome too - general consensus seems to be against a 6 week havoc standalone.

there are much better stacking options than epi/hdrol. those are two very similar compounds in terms of their characteristics and effects and there is little synergy between the two. not to mention theyre both methyls. stacking either compound with tren or 1,4ad would make more sense.

ive seen people run 5 and 6 week epi cycles but they are usually low dosed and produce the same gains as a 4 week cycle at 30 to 40mg.

Thankyou for you opinion, although wrong and backwards in my opinion, you are welcome to it.

Tren is crap, it should never be used by anyone for anything, although technically a type I and not a methyl, which makes it “attractive”, tren prohormones are progestin based and are poorly designed nonsense, an insult to the steroid community.

1, 4ad/boldenone derivatives are a very good choice for stacking as it is a type I and not a methyl. But it would make NO sense to stack with epistane.

Two type I’s will simply compete and a portion of each product will be wasted. This is the simple logic between trying to use a type I and II.

Now boldenone derivatives would work just fine stacked with hdrol, and their non-methyl nature would be a plus

And unfortunately its cost is too absurd to actually dose high enough to see benefits over other compounds.

Im not sure how you are determining synergy, as Im quite sure you do not know how either compound functions.

If you are referring to the fact that they are both “dry” this means nothing, nor does it indicate their method of action in the body. How they feel does not determine anything about their anabolic qualities.

The old “stacking wet with dry” thing is simply a “bro science” attempt to match type I’s to type I’s by feel.

The technically strongest effective stack of two currently available prohormones would be pheraplex and superdrol.

A poor choice for most, but I have seem other things done, such as mixing hdrol + superdrol and pheraplex.

This triad is technically superior to running just pheraplex and superdrol, but seems absurd to buy THREE prohormones.

Running a lower dose of hdrol combined with a lower dose of superdrol would be comparable to the same toxicity as a higher dose of just superdrol or just hdrol

The gains could be better or worse, superdrol is a stronger compound, but its method of action in the body at higher doses may simply drop to diminishing returns, in which case another drug of the same type but different action would have better results.

Epistane and hdrol are chosen because it will produce fairly high strength gains, clean muscle gains (in other words not simply water retention in the muscles), and because both compounds have very mild side effects if any at all. And the fact that although methylated neither compound is excessively toxic compared to many, run responsibly for a short duration…

It is an “acceptable” risk in my opinion, if you decide otherwise, I certainly would not try to talk anyone into it, health is very important, and I would no be the one who deals with any unexpected consequences.

Hdrol seems to have a benefit as far as cardiovascular capacity is concerned and epistane does not interfere with the cardiovascular system’s capacity as do many steroids, aka dbol, drol, m1t,etc.

I chose to recommend epistane over boldenone derivatives for stacking with hdrol simply beacause the strength increases are greater, and the drug itself is so MUCH CHEAPER.

But if your willing to buy the absurd amounts of bold required for it to actually be effective, then certainly its a very fine choice.

Bold with superdrol would be dandy

Epistane and superdrol would work fine as well…although riskier than epi/hdrol

As would bold with m1t, or bold with hdrol, or epi and m1t.

etc, etc, etc.

There are many possibilities. I chose hdrol and epistane because both are cheap, effective, common, good quality drugs compared to many prohomrones, and neither is prone to sideffects.

It is a comfrotable, effective stack that is cheap, a middle ground if you will, certainly safer stacks exist, or stronger stacks, or cheaper stacks, etc.

You can trade cost for safety, effectiveness for safety, sideffects for effectiveness, cost for sideffects, the list goes on.

There are excessive numbers of effective combinations.

This one is simply a recommendation of a potentially effective cycle, it by no means the “best possible stack”.

To answer the other question, of those proposed cycles: 100mg hdrol 6 weeks/40mg havoc for 4 weeks

would probably be the “strongest”.

I see no real danger in running the havoc for 6 weeks as well, but its certainly up to you.

Caution is always a good thing, but liver toxicity, purposefully, is overstated by us, and others to keep users safe.

[/quote]

ill agree with most of trens being an unknown or even garbage. whether or not these truely are progestins in the first place is something ive yet to see and i think 17b methoxy tren is a little more worth it than the estra-4, 9 tren im assuming your referring to. i also agree that 1,4ad is an excellent compound but expensive to run at an effective dose.

what i disagree with is putting steroids into these two classes, i think its flawed and outdated. there are studies showing that these “class II” compounds will, in vivo, act on the androgen receptor. knowing that, you almost have to use a little broscience and take real world results into account when thinking about synergy.

why dont i like epi/hdrol? almost every log ive seen using this stack had results equivalent to running one of the compounds solo. plus its hell on your joints. if OP is open to stacking methyls, i think epi/m1,4add would be better but you may disagree since the wet/dry stacking theory is “broscience” (which itself is subjective as a lot of people still use these stacks with a lot of success).

also, why do you suggest stacks like Bold/SD and epi/SD if you follow the classification system? wouldnt those stacks both be competing for the AR?


#14

[quote]Holden Caulfield wrote:

why dont i like epi/hdrol? almost every log ive seen using this stack had results equivalent to running one of the compounds solo. plus its hell on your joints. if OP is open to stacking methyls, i think epi/m1,4add would be better but you may disagree since the wet/dry stacking theory is “broscience” (which itself is subjective as a lot of people still use these stacks with a lot of success).

also, why do you suggest stacks like Bold/SD and epi/SD if you follow the classification system? wouldnt those stacks both be competing for the AR?[/quote]

Certainly the type I, type II classification are far from definitive, you are very much correct in that respect.

The activity of different steroids can not be so easily reduced to two black and white categories.

But it is a general guide we provide to give people examples, and it is quite close to the actual activity most of the time.

Hdrol should not be rough on the joints, it does not have antiestrogenic properties.

Running epistane at all would have similar affects on lubrication.

The only reason running hdrol with the epistane might feel rougher that just epistane is because adding more androgens (the hdrol) would further impair testosterone production, and therefor estrogen production.

The problem with stacking any prohormones is that by the time a user is “advanced” enough to stack they have already experimented with prohormones for alteast a few cycles. And they no longer find single compounds at moderate doses to be effective.

Comparing a more advanced user running a stack with a newbie running his first go round with anabolics of any kind, isn’t a subjective comparison.

Combine this with the fact that stacking andorgens does not produce VASTLY superior gains over one compound.

Example: Test and dbol cycles.

A 500mg test only cycle will net you about 10 pounds or so of lean mass on average.

A 40mg dbol only cycle will yield the same, about 10 pounds.

So why does running 500mg test and 40mg dbol only get you about 12 pounds ? But the stack produces a better “experience”, better recovery, better mood, better gains, higher strength, and more “permanent” gains.

The benefits of running multiple compounds cant always be seen as numbers on paper in terms of comparing only bodyweight.

And the results are not incredibly noticeable due to diminishing returns, your body can only make so much muscle no matter what you run.

Now with prohormones you dont run them much longer than 6 weeks, mabey less.

No matter what your running, even if your running two grams of oral steroids a week, your not going to see massive gains in only 6 weeks.

Steroids are “signals”, no matter how much you run your body can only synthesis so much muscle per day.

Running an ass load of prohormones will not produce better gains if your body is nearing its capacity for protien synthesis.

And to answer your second question, Bold has mostly type I activity, as does epistane.

Superdrol, m1t, etc, have mostly type II activity, they dont “compete” persay when stacked due to a different method of activity in the body.

This is a very poor explanation on my part, but you get the idea.


#15

[quote]Holden Caulfield wrote:
Westclock wrote:
Holden Caulfield wrote:

Whats your current thinking westclock? Both have been reccomended by yourself before:
75mg hdrol/30mg epi for 6 weeks
100mg hdrol 6 weeks/40mg havoc for 4 weeks

OR 6 weeks straigh 100mg hdrol as a standalone?

EDIT: Anyone elses opinion would be welcome too - general consensus seems to be against a 6 week havoc standalone.

there are much better stacking options than epi/hdrol. those are two very similar compounds in terms of their characteristics and effects and there is little synergy between the two. not to mention theyre both methyls. stacking either compound with tren or 1,4ad would make more sense.

ive seen people run 5 and 6 week epi cycles but they are usually low dosed and produce the same gains as a 4 week cycle at 30 to 40mg.

Thankyou for you opinion, although wrong and backwards in my opinion, you are welcome to it.

Tren is crap, it should never be used by anyone for anything, although technically a type I and not a methyl, which makes it “attractive”, tren prohormones are progestin based and are poorly designed nonsense, an insult to the steroid community.

1, 4ad/boldenone derivatives are a very good choice for stacking as it is a type I and not a methyl. But it would make NO sense to stack with epistane.

Two type I’s will simply compete and a portion of each product will be wasted. This is the simple logic between trying to use a type I and II.

Now boldenone derivatives would work just fine stacked with hdrol, and their non-methyl nature would be a plus

And unfortunately its cost is too absurd to actually dose high enough to see benefits over other compounds.

Im not sure how you are determining synergy, as Im quite sure you do not know how either compound functions.

If you are referring to the fact that they are both “dry” this means nothing, nor does it indicate their method of action in the body. How they feel does not determine anything about their anabolic qualities.

The old “stacking wet with dry” thing is simply a “bro science” attempt to match type I’s to type I’s by feel.

The technically strongest effective stack of two currently available prohormones would be pheraplex and superdrol.

A poor choice for most, but I have seem other things done, such as mixing hdrol + superdrol and pheraplex.

This triad is technically superior to running just pheraplex and superdrol, but seems absurd to buy THREE prohormones.

Running a lower dose of hdrol combined with a lower dose of superdrol would be comparable to the same toxicity as a higher dose of just superdrol or just hdrol

The gains could be better or worse, superdrol is a stronger compound, but its method of action in the body at higher doses may simply drop to diminishing returns, in which case another drug of the same type but different action would have better results.

Epistane and hdrol are chosen because it will produce fairly high strength gains, clean muscle gains (in other words not simply water retention in the muscles), and because both compounds have very mild side effects if any at all. And the fact that although methylated neither compound is excessively toxic compared to many, run responsibly for a short duration…

It is an “acceptable” risk in my opinion, if you decide otherwise, I certainly would not try to talk anyone into it, health is very important, and I would no be the one who deals with any unexpected consequences.

Hdrol seems to have a benefit as far as cardiovascular capacity is concerned and epistane does not interfere with the cardiovascular system’s capacity as do many steroids, aka dbol, drol, m1t,etc.

I chose to recommend epistane over boldenone derivatives for stacking with hdrol simply beacause the strength increases are greater, and the drug itself is so MUCH CHEAPER.

But if your willing to buy the absurd amounts of bold required for it to actually be effective, then certainly its a very fine choice.

Bold with superdrol would be dandy

Epistane and superdrol would work fine as well…although riskier than epi/hdrol

As would bold with m1t, or bold with hdrol, or epi and m1t.

etc, etc, etc.

There are many possibilities. I chose hdrol and epistane because both are cheap, effective, common, good quality drugs compared to many prohomrones, and neither is prone to sideffects.

It is a comfrotable, effective stack that is cheap, a middle ground if you will, certainly safer stacks exist, or stronger stacks, or cheaper stacks, etc.

You can trade cost for safety, effectiveness for safety, sideffects for effectiveness, cost for sideffects, the list goes on.

There are excessive numbers of effective combinations.

This one is simply a recommendation of a potentially effective cycle, it by no means the “best possible stack”.

To answer the other question, of those proposed cycles: 100mg hdrol 6 weeks/40mg havoc for 4 weeks

would probably be the “strongest”.

I see no real danger in running the havoc for 6 weeks as well, but its certainly up to you.

Caution is always a good thing, but liver toxicity, purposefully, is overstated by us, and others to keep users safe.

ill agree with most of trens being an unknown or even garbage. whether or not these truely are progestins in the first place is something ive yet to see and i think 17b methoxy tren is a little more worth it than the estra-4, 9 tren im assuming your referring to. i also agree that 1,4ad is an excellent compound but expensive to run at an effective dose.

what i disagree with is putting steroids into these two classes, i think its flawed and outdated. there are studies showing that these “class II” compounds will, in vivo, act on the androgen receptor. knowing that, you almost have to use a little broscience and take real world results into account when thinking about synergy.

why dont i like epi/hdrol? almost every log ive seen using this stack had results equivalent to running one of the compounds solo. plus its hell on your joints. if OP is open to stacking methyls, i think epi/m1,4add would be better but you may disagree since the wet/dry stacking theory is “broscience” (which itself is subjective as a lot of people still use these stacks with a lot of success).

also, why do you suggest stacks like Bold/SD and epi/SD if you follow the classification system? wouldnt those stacks both be competing for the AR?[/quote]

bold/epi are both class 1, SD is a class 2 perhaps?

Anyone have extra liver saving ideas?


#16

[quote]
bold/epi are both class 1, SD is a class 2 perhaps?

Anyone have extra liver saving ideas?[/quote]

if you go by the whole class thing then yes, Bold and Epi are both Class I but that also includes masteron-based compounds so SD would be a Class I as well.

are you talking about liver saving ideas for the cycle you already proposed or a whole new cycle thats easy on the liver?


#17

[quote]Holden Caulfield wrote:

bold/epi are both class 1, SD is a class 2 perhaps?

Anyone have extra liver saving ideas?

if you go by the whole class thing then yes, Bold and Epi are both Class I but that also includes masteron-based compounds so SD would be a Class I as well.

are you talking about liver saving ideas for the cycle you already proposed or a whole new cycle thats easy on the liver?[/quote]

On current proposed cycle - possibly the one put forth by westclock - weeks 1-6 hdrol 100mg, weeks 1-4 havoc 40mg.


#18

[quote]benmoore wrote:
Holden Caulfield wrote:

bold/epi are both class 1, SD is a class 2 perhaps?

Anyone have extra liver saving ideas?

if you go by the whole class thing then yes, Bold and Epi are both Class I but that also includes masteron-based compounds so SD would be a Class I as well.

are you talking about liver saving ideas for the cycle you already proposed or a whole new cycle thats easy on the liver?

On current proposed cycle - possibly the one put forth by westclock - weeks 1-6 hdrol 100mg, weeks 1-4 havoc 40mg.[/quote]

well im pretty sure CEL Cycle Assist already has NAC and milk thistle but it would be a good idea look into Himalaya Liv-52, awsome supplement. SAMe also works well for normalizing liver enzyme levels.

if youre going to be stacking epi and hdrol i would really suggest picking up some cissus or some other kind of joint support supplement as you’re probably going to get dried out. it doesnt feel good. taking fish oil and drinking a lot of water will help with this also.


#19

[quote]Holden Caulfield wrote:

bold/epi are both class 1, SD is a class 2 perhaps?

Anyone have extra liver saving ideas?

if you go by the whole class thing then yes, Bold and Epi are both Class I but that also includes masteron-based compounds so SD would be a Class I as well.

are you talking about liver saving ideas for the cycle you already proposed or a whole new cycle thats easy on the liver?[/quote]

Superdrol is masterone based, that doesn’t mean its masterone.

Methylation changes compounds dramatically, and superdrol has had other changes besides just methylation.

For example:

Boldenone is chemically identical to dbol, except it has been 17 beta esterfied while d-bol has been 17 alpha alkylated.

Basically methylation versus attatching an ester for time release.

This seemingly, tiny change completely changes the compound’s effects and method of action in the body.

Same with masterone, superdrol is the “dbol” of masterone.

Agian, a silly explanation, as its much more complicated, but its a pretty good way to explain it.

Superdrol is a mostly type II hormone.


#20

[quote]Westclock wrote:
Holden Caulfield wrote:

bold/epi are both class 1, SD is a class 2 perhaps?

Anyone have extra liver saving ideas?

if you go by the whole class thing then yes, Bold and Epi are both Class I but that also includes masteron-based compounds so SD would be a Class I as well.

are you talking about liver saving ideas for the cycle you already proposed or a whole new cycle thats easy on the liver?

Superdrol is masterone based, that doesn’t mean its masterone.

Methylation changes compounds dramatically, and superdrol has had other changes besides just methylation.

For example:

Boldenone is chemically identical to dbol, except it has been 17 beta esterfied while d-bol has been 17 alpha alkylated.

Basically methylation versus attatching an ester for time release.

This seemingly, tiny change completely changes the compound’s effects and method of action in the body.

Same with masterone, superdrol is the “dbol” of masterone.

Agian, a silly explanation, as its much more complicated, but its a pretty good way to explain it.

Superdrol is a mostly type II hormone.[/quote]

I thought the classification system outlined in the prohormone sticky was based upon the steroids they are precursors to.

If this is the case and methlyation changes things - how do we know that hdrol is class 2 and havoc class 1?