Thinking of doing a cycle in a few months. Any advice? I know very little about this other than the information I’ve read on the few websites with female info on the net. I would like to gain mass and cut.
For males, there is some risk involved in using gear. For females, that risk is MUCH greater if you want to avoid virilization. Once you start noticing things like hair growth and voice deepening, it is usually too late as those effects typically don’t go away after the cycle is complete. Unless you don’t mind slightly becoming a man, you need to be VERY careful. I have this feeling that unless you are planning to become a competitive bodybuilder, the goals you have could probably be achieved without the use of anabolics.
The vets will chime in and probably give you some options, but it’s pretty much like ubergreg said. Not worth the risk IMO, but let’s see where this thread goes.
Yeah, I am no expert in any way at all, and what little I do know I learned recently helping a gal friend who was considering a cycle do research. One thing that convinced me that female AAS use is risky business was reading comments posted by women who said they experienced slight masculinization (voice changes, hair growth) even running low dosages of Anavar. On the flip side, other women said they had run dosages that were pretty high with no such side effects at all. I think every woman is likely very different in that respect and considering that you won’t know how sensitive you are until you try, it all seems very risky.
Oh, and my gal friend decided against using any AAS and instead has been working on tightening up her diet, supplementation (non-hormonal), and training to achieve her goals.
Steroid usage is fairly “casual” for men.
Sometimes things go horribly wrong, its not very common, but it happens.
Even a stupid user, doing almost everything wrong, cant USUALLY mess himself up beyond repair, a doctor, or more intelligent users, such as ourselves, can usually correct their errors before anything drastic happens.
Permanent damage can occur even in users doing “everything right” but its quite rare, Ive never even seen a case.
For women…even a brilliant user with pharmaceutical grade drugs and the watchful care of people with decades of experience… that is simply unlucky; can be ruined for life.
This isn’t a decision to take lightly.
Before considering steroid usage I would recommend exploring the other non-steroidal performance enhancers at your disposal.
Im not saying those are “safe” either, but the risks are much easier to predict.
Steroid usage in women is a calculated gamble at best.
And if you don’t have access to ACTUAL pharmaceutical grade steroids, don’t even consider it.
If an underground lab decides to replace a little var with dbol cut with sugar, or M1T or something, or messes up the dosages, or has other quality, labeling, etc, issues… yeah a male user might be pissed if he even notices, but it isn’t going to hurt him.
For a female, that’s a game ender.
There are not many here who can give you proper advice - the only people who may be able to are WHB, Bill Roberts and Alpha F… Other than that it is kinda a shot at the dark as men can only go with what they read and experience second hand, and I personally believe it important for a combination of theoretical and practical knowledge in an area to be able to have a decent opinion.
As someone mentioned above, it seems to be very much a gamble as to the level of virilization you will suffer. I too have heard of some women noticing it with just 5mg of Stan where others have run nandrolone, boldenone and stan and had less problem.
IF i were to give any advice to a female who was absolutely set on using steroids, I would say start as low as possible, with as least androgenic drug as possible - you can always add more over time. Don’t rush things.
I think that would be 5-10mg of Oxandrolone.
With women it is a massive risk and if you take the gamble and for you it doesn’t pan out too well, the virilization that you may experience will stay for good. Some women actually like a larger clitoris apparently, better orgasms and such… but of course the extent of growth can be such that it is truly a nightmare come true - akin to a man with breasts i would think.
Alpha Femme showed me about timing the androgen with the menstrual cycle and dosing estrogen and such, and while i could repeat what i learnt i think it better to come from the cats mouth. I am sure she’ll pop in to this thread - i think she gets lonely being the only female in a room of extremely highly sexed men…
Seriously though, best of luck and whatever you do, do NOT follow the advice of a guy who thinks he can do it just because he knows what works for him. 
[quote]Westclock wrote:
Steroid usage is fairly “casual” for men.
Sometimes things go horribly wrong, its not very common, but it happens.
Even a stupid user, doing almost everything wrong, cant USUALLY mess himself up beyond repair, a doctor, or more intelligent users, such as ourselves, can usually correct their errors before anything drastic happens.
Permanent damage can occur even in users doing “everything right” but its quite rare, Ive never even seen a case.
For women…even a brilliant user with pharmaceutical grade drugs and the watchful care of people with decades of experience… that is simply unlucky; can be ruined for life.
This isn’t a decision to take lightly.
Before considering steroid usage I would recommend exploring the other non-steroidal performance enhancers at your disposal.
Im not saying those are “safe” either, but the risks are much easier to predict.
Steroid usage in women is a calculated gamble at best.
And if you don’t have access to ACTUAL pharmaceutical grade steroids, don’t even consider it.
If an underground lab decides to replace a little var with dbol cut with sugar, or M1T or something, or messes up the dosages, or has other quality, labeling, etc, issues… yeah a male user might be pissed if he even notices, but it isn’t going to hurt him.
For a female, that’s a game ender.
[/quote]
I agree with this.
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
snf_05 wrote:
I would like to gain mass and cut.
I would think that GH would be more appropriate to your needs, as long as you don’t suffer the same sort of paradoxical reaction that my fiancee does.
BBB[/quote]
GH would not only be safer, and easier to use…it would also likely have more benefits that women value than steroids would.
GH does slow your visible aging, hair, skin, eyes, muscle tone.
And it is a very effective at shifting the body from burning muscle to burning fat, its not “great” for putting on muscle, but it can preserve it brilliantly, and reduce body fat in the process.
BTW, BBB what happens to your fiancee ? Ive never heard of anyone having an adverse reaction to GH before…but then again I’m not experienced in its usage…what are her effects ?
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
Dbol and anadrol are not really suitable, partly because they give a quick fullness to the muscles, which is more of a male thing.
BBB[/quote]
I could’ve sworn I read that BR said anadrol in doses of 25mg/day or less had less virilization than anavar.
[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
bushidobadboy wrote:
Dbol and anadrol are not really suitable, partly because they give a quick fullness to the muscles, which is more of a male thing.
BBB
I could’ve sworn I read that BR said anadrol in doses of 25mg/day or less had less virilization than anavar.
[/quote]
That’d be correct.
I didn’t make that exact comparison (EDIT: or at least I hadn’t thought I had) but I had discussed the two drugs at various separate times, and the way that you’ve put that together is correct.
I had first learned of Anadrol’s relative suitability in a conversation with Dan Duchaine, where I learned that he had used this dosage with a female bb’er of the day who was at that time non-virilized and very impressively muscular by the standards then, doing quite well at various major shows and with her photos getting lots of magazine space. Undoubtedly the best arms and quads of the time, and the best ass, too. But that is a side point.
I was surprised by this because in terms of reputation floating around, one would have thought the exact opposite.
But going through the medical literature, it’s backed up: 50 mg/day is the lowest dose ever routinely used medically, and virilization rate was quite low. It remained low even on higher doses than that.
I have always tried to stay away as much as reasonably possible from being a guru to women wanting to use anabolic steroids. As Westclock says, it fundamentally is a crapshoot that, where past experience doesn’t already exist, it cannot be predicted that any usage of anything will necessarily be safe with regards to virilization. So I like to stay away from it. But when sufficiently pestered or in cases when working with a male bb’er or athlete and the subject comes up with regard to their wives, there have been a few instances over time. The Anadrol has worked fine.
That doesn’t mean that another woman might not come up unlucky. It can be said though that there is a very substantial and statistically sound body of evidence that the risk is no more than a few percent. However, that does no good to someone who happens to be in those few percent, though it may sound negligible going into it.
With regard to oxandrolone, the reverse is true. 20 mg/day has a substantial risk of virilization, and smaller amounts have significant risk as well.
As BBB says, testosterone – while again intuition might have one thinking that this “ought” to be one of the worst – has worked okay in the modest number of cases that I’ve known of where it’s been used, where like him I’ve recommended daily injection at very low dose.
But I don’t at all think it’s the case that, when combined with weight training, there are not long term gains, and very good ones, from the low-dose Anadrol use.
Well, the most precise thing to say about the Class I / Class II model is that it categorizes stacking behavior in male weight trainers. With trenbolone and Primobolan arbitrarily being called Class I, compounds that do not stack synergistically with these are likewise called Class I, while those that stack synergistically with a Class I are called Class II.
And it works out that the Class II’s don’t stack synergistically with each other.
It’s still correct that there’s evidence that there’s both AR-mediated and non-AR-mediated activity of anabolic steroids, but it’s now known to be more complex in that there is AR-mediated genomic activity as well as non-genomic activity. So whether a compound is Class I or Class II may not be as simple as androgen receptor binding. That is to say, possibly (possibly) a compound might be more potent in stimulating AR-mediated non-genomic activity than genomic while another might be the other way around. That is to say, logically the possibility is open anyway.
When it comes to oxandrolone’s stacking behavior, it comes out as a Class I.
It would have been nice and simple, and certainly seemed to make sense, if compounds that didn’t have strong binding to the androgen receptor but yet were effective anabolic steroids were all Class II’s, whereas those that did have strong binding to the androgen receptors would be Class I or mixed. From what binding data I had in the past that seemed to fit.
It has since turned out – I can’t recall if the data was actually available in the literature but I didn’t have it, or if it has been discovered since, but anyway it has become known to me since – that oxandrolone actually has pretty low binding affinity for the androgen receptor.
So that’s an oddity. Things must be more complex.
In terms of it’s stacking behavior, this doesn’t change how to stack things, because its categorization was based on how it stacks in the first place.
It would seem to make sense that there could be a convenient division such as that Class I’s are less virilizing to women for given anabolic effect, while Class II’s are moreso.
But that division may not be the case, and I don’t think it is. The compounds need to be considered individually. For example, just because Primobolan is relatively suitable as a sole anabolic for women does not mean to me that trenbolone would have to be. And just because Winstrol is not does not mean that Anadrol isn’t.
One of the key things in drug design and discovery, when having candidates for drug development, is having an assay method that allows determination of which candidates have advantages or disadvantages over others.
It is unfortunate that in the drug development of anabolic steroids, there was a mistaken theory that there were probably two kinds of androgen receptors – anabolic and androgenic – and that since differing drugs gave different ratios of growth in the prostate and levator ani of the rat, that therefore measuring this effect would show which drugs were giving better selectivity between these receptors, with the aim being to develop drugs with the highest ratio of levator ani growth to prostate growth.
(The levator ani not being a skeletal muscle, and thus not necessarily a good model at all for growth of skeletal muscle in response to resistance training, but rather is a sex-specific muscle most closely similar to the human pubococcygeous. By the way, the Russians did have a good assay for muscle growth: they severed the gastrocnemius of the rat and had some means of forcing it to run on a wheel, thus inducing hypertrophy of the soleus, and evaluated the extent to which different drugs enhanced this hypertrophy. But this was not done in American or European research.)
There never was an assay that in any valid way measured anything that would predict for virilizing effect in women.
So even though it was a goal to produce drugs safe for women to use, due to the fundamental problem of not having a suitable assay, the results were spotty.
Not that I think that anything would be 100% side effect free, but there is difference between drugs such as Winstrol and Anadrol in this respect, or oxandrolone and Anadrol.
On duration of use: Again, medically Anadrol has a far better track record for the liver, when used alone and in the absence of other aggravating factors, than one might expect. As with any alkylated oral I would limit use to six weeks, with preferably as much time off as on, though really half that is acceptable.
But certainly that’s an advantage of an injectable for women, you’re right of course.
[quote]snf_05 wrote:
Thinking of doing a cycle in a few months. Any advice? I know very little about this other than the information I’ve read on the few websites with female info on the net. I would like to gain mass and cut.[/quote]
Hi snf_05, and welcome to the steroids forum.
How serious are you about this?
And how serious is your station now?
*Diet manipulation
*Training intensity
*Current and past supplementation ( specially ephedrine and other amphetamines )
*Endocrine status: previous and past steroidal birth control history
*Age
[quote]Westclock wrote:
bushidobadboy wrote:
I would think that GH would be more appropriate to your needs, as long as you don’t suffer the same sort of paradoxical reaction that my fiancee does.
BBB
BTW, BBB what happens to your fiancee ? Ive never heard of anyone having an adverse reaction to GH before…but then again I’m not experienced in its usage…what are her effects ?[/quote]
Yes, I am curious about this also. Can you expand, BBB?