T Nation

King of Mass Builders


#1

Question:

Test, dbol and deca seems to be referred to as the king of mass builders by many.

However, numerous deca-dick stories have scared me a bit I admit.

Would Test, dbol and tren be just as effective for building mass?

I realize tren comes with it's own set of sides, but having run it once before (small dose) I found those sides easily tolerated, mostly nightsweats, no libido or limpness-issues.

So assuming same amount of food, similar training and same dosages of test and dbol, how much tren would one need to get the same effect (massbuilding) as a given dose of deca? Say 400mgs of deca EW?


#2

deca is a more potent massbuilder than tren, and can be run for longer periods of time.

Deca-dick is generally due to not running enough test to support your natural levels. With dbol and test this should not be any issue.

Other causes of deca dick are deca’s prolactin sides, caber would be a good choice.

Tren is a good drug for a lot of things, its not really the best mass builder. And its generally quite uncomfortable to run for long cycles non-stop, although easily do able if you really want to.

Bill has stated that a relatively high dose of masterone is equal to deca in this proposed stack.

Although expensive, it is a prolactin and long supression free alternative.

Used properly, deca has few side effects except longer than usual recovery for some people.


#3

Ok, thanks.
Will have to try deca for my next cycle and see for myself I guess.

Any reason to use dbol instead of anadrol in this stack?


#4

I personally think that test/tren/dbol is a wonderful mass builder, and have personally experienced sizable (harhar) results with this combination. In addition, it is pretty hard to gain much fat, and the strength gain is just phenomenal (of course provided all other variables like training, diet and rest are in order).

That said, I have zero experience with nandrolone, and it may well be a better drug for your needs. Also I’m a tren whore, and run it in pretty much any cycle for as long as I am able to.


#5

I’m assuming one is as good as the other although I notice dbol is normally the oral of choice in this cocktail.


#6

I remember Bill Roberts saying he is not a fan of deca. Something to the effect of the benefits can be easily replicated by other drugs with fewer sides. Don’t quote me on that though or he will show up and tear me a new one :stuck_out_tongue:


#7

IME, if you’ve ever seen a man literally blow up with mass straight Testosterone is usually the driving force behind such a transformation.


#8

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I’m a tren whore, and run it in pretty much any cycle for as long as I am able to.[/quote]

2x!! Test/Tren + (Masteron or Dbol)=my ONLY plans for the next year.


#9

[quote]Dynamo Hum wrote:
I’m assuming one is as good as the other although I notice dbol is normally the oral of choice in this cocktail.[/quote]

Dbol and Drol are pretty much the “strongest” orals out there androgen wise. Plenty of people use dbol for cutting.

winny, var, tbol, etc just dont quite have as much kick.

And since dbol is easily avaliable everywhere, and cheap, its usually the first choice of users.

Drol isnt used as much because it has a few more sides, and is a little more rare.


#10

[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
I remember Bill Roberts saying he is not a fan of deca. Something to the effect of the benefits can be easily replicated by other drugs with fewer sides. Don’t quote me on that though or he will show up and tear me a new one :P[/quote]

Hah! Quoted!

Seriously this is exactly what I seem to remember him saying too, and I believe he recommended MORE test and tren instead of deca? Not too sure.

Here drol and dbol are both easily obtained, so I can go with either. Or… both!


#11

Here are a bunch of Bill Roberts quotes on the subject:

(In response to my question as to whether it is necessary to run Test longer than Tren on Adding Winny Thread March 2, 2009-03-02
http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/sports_training_performance_bodybuilding_gear/adding_winny_1?pageNo=0#2844868)
Bill Roberts: Yes, I meant in general it is not necessary to stop trenbolone sooner than testosterone. Not for “sexual side effects” or any other reason.

(In response to my question as to whether test should be run longer than Deca)
Bill Roberts: Deca is very inhibitory due to progestagenic effect and for good recovery use should be ended well before the end of the cycle, if used at all. There seems to be a quite long-lasting effect to inhibition resulting from this mechanism.

If one doesn’t personally benefit from and need its effect on joints, the logical reason why someone would want to take a progestagenic steroid instead of other anabolic steroids not having that problem seems a real puzzler. Additionally, from the practical standpoint there’s no real reason but the above to do so, either. It is surely not necessary to outstanding results nor is it key to maximal results.

(I’m not, above, referring to possible reasons such as having a vial already and, having paid for it, wanting to use it up; or being limited in what one can get so it is a question of using or including Deca or having a really lame cycle without it. Those would be practical reasons for it.)
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?

No, trenbolone is not. Authors that have stated that it is have confused binding with being active.

Both 19-Nors.

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.”

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.

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.

Me: Please excuse my ignorance, but can Tren cause elevated prolactin issues for which many suggest taking cabergoline?

Bill Roberts: 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.

Bill Roberts: 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.

Bill Roberts on Tren concentration: That said, I don’t care for 100 mg/mL trenbolone acetate myself. The most concentrated preparation I’ve liked was 75 mg/mL. However some seem happy with 100 mg/mL formulations. Personally, it seems to me that higher concentration formulations are much more prone to “tren cough” than 50 mg/mL formulations are.
2nd post in this thread 7:35 pm: http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/sports_training_performance_bodybuilding_gear/special_brew_question_to_bill_r?pageNo=0

Bill Roberts on Progerterone/prolactin sides with Tren: March 6 2009 - http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/sports_training_performance_bodybuilding_gear/the_trenprogesteroneprolactin_thread?id=2854761&pageNo=1
More precisely, I don’t know that it was NPP. But rather expect it was some non-trenbolone substance.

I do know that various places and persons that claim that references exist showing trenbolone is a progestin and/or that trenbolone increases prolactin are misinterprations, or are assertions that don’t seem to have anything behind them, and are contradictory to studies that do exist.

I know that no one who has consulted with me on their steroid cycles and was definitely using genuine trenbolone ever suffered this problem. That doesn’t prove it could never happen to anyone but is reason for me to doubt it, and certainly reason to be sure it is at least not common.

Particularly given that black market trenbolone is absolutely notorious for frequently being counterfeit.

And for all I know, third-hand “bro knowledge” about someone who definitely used pellets and got gyno may be missing the information of what else was taken, or maybe the pellets were Finaplix-S. (Considering all the mistakes that are made by steroid users, including many long time users, it seems very unlikely to me that no one has ever mistakenly bought S instead of H.)

A final minor point: Trenbolone has been around a long time, in the form of Parabolan and Finaject prior to the days of common counterfeiting. Why is this problem new to the age of frequent counterfeiting and non-pharmaceutical/non-veterinary sources of trenbolone, then?

Should have been happening all along if trenbolone were the culprit. Not the major point, but a minor one that may connect for someone.

The above is the best I can summarize it, I think.

Bill Roberts: March 6 2009 9:28 pm


I would make the tren-E at say 100 mg/mL. (TA I prefer less concentrated, and I have not made tren-E, but it would be more readily soluble.

Also from same thread a few posts later: No, I’d cut on test and tren as well, just keeping estrogen under control with an AI.

For that more moderate doses would be fine, even as little as the equivalent of 50 mg/day TA and a minimum of 200 but more preferably 500 mg/week testosterone.

(Not that that isn’t also decent for the typical user for a gaining cycle, it is.)

Bill again later in thread: Yes, side effects of for example testosterone can be controlled with ancillaries.

On the other hand, if happening to have night sweats from tren (btw, just because it happened to an individual before doesn’t mean it will next time, or vice versa) I don’t know of anything to take that avoids that.

Or feeling feverish from too much Equipoise: don’t know anything to avoid that.

Or depression from Deca: There’s sonme support for my thoughts that Winstrol plus pregnenolone, but not nearly enough of an experience base to say it with confidence.

On risk of hepatic cholestasis from alkylated steroids: No known method of avoidance except limited periods of use.

Anyway, saving some for oral use could be a nice option, but as expensive as methenolone enanthate is, and being much more bioavailable by injection, absolutely I’d use at least the great bulk of it for injection.

For example an experiment you might really like is when your natural T is at good levels, try taking Primo at different levels and test the results. For example with 100 mg/week your T may remain unchanged yet you’ll have a benefit. This may be true at 200 mg/week. I knew of one person who found this true at 400 mg/week though while using Clomid at the same time (comparing that state to T levels with no Primo and no Clomid.)

March 18, 2009 Oxidation = Gyno Theory
http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/sports_training_performance_bodybuilding_gear/tren_and_progesterone_receptor_activation?id=2878436&pageNo=1

Thanks, Dave!

I can’t imagine any scenario where tamoxifen would aggravate gyno.

By the way, on this trenbolone thing, I had a possible-alternate-explanation thought today. I have no idea what degree of probability ought to be assigned to it.

Namely, trenbolone is very prone to oxidation. You can see this even with the pellets still in their packaging. A nice new cartridge, with expiration date long away, from a good supplier has very light colored pellets. Not much different than the color of paper (though not bright white paper.)

On the other hand, Finaplix from a poorer supplier may be yellow. It will actually turn brown if left at room temperature for extended time.

Years ago I used to actually purify the stuff by recrystallization. The source I had was providing yellowish pellets. With successive recrystallizations I could get the crystals a pretty light yellow, though still always yellow. On the other hand early on on in the process I’d have more strongly colored stuff.

What point am I leading to?

The stuff I have used has always been low in any oxidized content. Additionally when consulting with anyone who was making their own TA, I generally made a point of saying to get new stuff if the pellets were more than moderately yellow.

But what of folk buying powders?

Has this stuff been refrigerated since manufacture? I’ll bet not!

Almost undoubtedly these products contain substantial amounts of oxidized trenbolone, in varying degrees.

So there’s that to contend with as well as the notoriously high rate of non-Finaplix trenbolone products not being what they’re supposed to be.

Might it be that oxidized trenbolone has some awful activity such as promoting gyno?

I have no idea. Certainly there hasn’t been scientific study of that. The type of reaction occurring does not occur biologically. So taking pharmaceutical or exposed-to-air-but-refrigerated-and-fresh veterinary trenbolone may be a different matter than taking something made from powder that has been exposed to air and unrefrigerated.

Hypothetically.

It also certainly could be that oxidized trenbolone has no activity of any kind. It’s just an unknown.

March 18, 2009 Oxidation = Fina pellet types
http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/sports_training_performance_bodybuilding_gear/tren_and_progesterone_receptor_activation?id=2878436&pageNo=1

At first the possibility of a powdered product being “salted” with trenbolone from Finaplix pellets didn’t follow to me as why it would be a problem (if the pellets were fresh and handled properly, anyway) but then it occurred: what a horror it would be if the supplier used Finaplix S!

You know there have to be people out there that would figure, given that one product (H) is for heifers and the other (S) is for steers, surely they want the one for steers…

Which, however, is estrogen-loaded.


#12

Hm, it doesn’t seem like mr Roberts holds deca in particularily high regard.

What could give comparable (or better) gains? Is simply adding more test a better solution perhaps?

Mass is the goal.


#13

Having used both and being a former proponent of Deca in a big way… i can safely say that Tren is the better drug.

Tren will give relatively the same amount of size as deca, but much more strength, some more quality and a positive effect on libido with estrogen present and controlled.

I would favour Test, Tren and Dbol these days over Test, Deca and Dbol.

Dosages that i find to be best for myself are 700/350/210 (TestP/TrenA/Dbol), injected daily.

JMO

JJ


#14

Ok, thanks.


#15

Agreed.

I’ve gained most mass from a Tren A/Test P cycle. Good quality as well. I got very vascular from this cycle also.

BMC