T Nation

Nandy or Tren or More Test

Hi Fellers,

Last cycle was

wks 1-6 Test P 75mg/day
wks 7-11 Nolva PCT 40/40/20/20

I am looking to continue gaining muscle for the the time being. I want to progress on my compound use. The goal of this cycle is to gain as much muscle as possible (duh, who’s isn’t right?) lol

Should I just add more test? ie 750mg/week
or
Add in NPP 500mg T/week and 250mgNPP /week
or
add in TrE 500mg T/week and 300mgTrE/week

I want to keep my libido high so I am steering away from the NPP, but I imagine with my dose it SHOULDNT (but who can say for sure) be an issue. I really do not want to get into using D agonists… I wouldn’t have a problem just discontinuing the NPP if that were an issue though, so I am willing to take a chance…

5’9 209 11-14bf range (again I cant be sure without measuring, but I have my abdominals visible)

Thanks for your time

Since you haven’t gone very high with test, I think you would do great with 7-800mg of Test. Keep it simple.

Don’t see an AI in your scheme…

You will need one with Test, especially if you are above 500mg per week, even though it should be in any test based cycle to prevent all estrogen related sides. Arimidex at 0.5 ED-EOD is my recommendation.

If you are looking for sheer size, I would suggest an oral. My choice would be dbol over npp and tren E. With dbol you will not have the possibility of the libido problems as you would with the others, and no need for a dopamine antagonist.

My 2 cents, but as many would agree, for size and strength early on in a person’s PED use, Test/dbol is a dynamic duo:)

[quote]jukebox wrote:
Don’t see an AI in your scheme…

You will need one with Test, especially if you are above 500mg per week, even though it should be in any test based cycle to prevent all estrogen related sides. Arimidex at 0.5 ED-EOD is my recommendation.

If you are looking for sheer size, I would suggest an oral. My choice would be dbol over npp and tren E. With dbol you will not have the possibility of the libido problems as you would with the others, and no need for a dopamine antagonist.

My 2 cents, but as many would agree, for size and strength early on in a person’s PED use, Test/dbol is a dynamic duo:)[/quote]

Last cycle I used letro at .9mg/EOD…

Thanks for the responses, guys. Just to be clear, you’re talking about sheer muscle tissue, right? Not included bloating and transient weight gain? That is what I tend to associate dianabol with. Yes I know sarcoplamsic hypertrophy can facilitate myofibrillar yada yada…

Dianabol and drugs like it are known for great size gains as they facilitate anabolism through many different means…

Methyl/Ethylation (alkylation) increase the non-AR anabolic activity… doing god knows what! (BR has a theory that i thoroughly do not understand!)

The alkylation also increases the potency of the estrogen converted, which further increases IGF and water retention.

This water retention DIRECTLY increases strength and ability to manage heavy loads structurally too.

The alkylation of steroids increases their effect and potency… they are stronger than non-alkylated steroids as a rule. Compare the dosages of the alkylated steroids to the non-alkylated steroids to see this plainly (stanazolol, methandrostenolone, methyltestosterone, methyltrienolone are prime examples)

Activity at the androgen receptor increasing strength as well as anabolism.

These are some of the most well understood reasons why the aromatising steroids are so good at building muscle/promoting an anabolic environment.

I agree that bloating is highly likely to be lost… but it IS a very useful factor in muscle growth… increasing strength MASSIVELY and improving delivery of nutrients, etc. the bloating may well have some direct action on growth.

In short, you will get more muscle at the end of it all using a methylated oral that has some sort of estrogen activity (dbol, Drol - my favourite) than by using an oral with a higher anabolic profile but that is a) unalkylated (primo for example) or b) is alkylated but has no estrogenic activity.

If you associate dianabol with pure transient gains that are lost soon on discontinuation you are likely not using it correctly or have not got all your ducks in a row to be getting the most from AAS anyway.

[quote]J-J wrote:
Dianabol and drugs like it are known for great size gains as they facilitate anabolism through many different means…

Methyl/Ethylation (alkylation) increase the non-AR anabolic activity… doing god knows what! (BR has a theory that i thoroughly do not understand!)
[/quote]
What is the theory, that steric hinderance (and high energy conformation as a result of the methyl group at the 17carbon) inhibits interaction with the AR? Or something else?? Please point me to where I could read about that!

Really, oxandrolone and oxymetholone are converted to estrogen? They ar both alkylated, no?

Wouldn’t potency be defined as equivalent results? To get equivalent results of 500mg of tesosterone a week (Im talking in gains in muscle tissue) wouldn’t you need a lot more than than 75mg of winny or any of the others listed? I mean doubt 75mg/day of dianabol would be equivalent in gains to 500mg test, right? Negating the fact that all of the aforementioned are liver toxic and can’t be taken in equivalent doses.

Really, you know me? I have never used dianabol, I was speculating off observations. I don’t see a lot of pple maintaining gains from dianabol, from people I know. NOW whether or not that is due to bad cycle, PCT, etc or the drug I dont know. No reason for that last statement. You don’t know me, my genetic predisposition, my starting point, my current progress, my knowledge.

[quote]Detroitlionsbaby wrote:
J-J wrote:
Dianabol and drugs like it are known for great size gains as they facilitate anabolism through many different means…

Methyl/Ethylation (alkylation) increase the non-AR anabolic activity… doing god knows what! (BR has a theory that i thoroughly do not understand!)

What is the theory, that steric hinderance (and high energy conformation as a result of the methyl group at the 17carbon) inhibits interaction with the AR? Or something else?? Please point me to where I could read about that![/quote]

No idea. Look it up yourself - i am sure with your obvious background in pharmacology you have the means to do so…[quote]

The alkylation also increases the potency of the estrogen converted, which further increases IGF and water retention.

Really, oxandrolone and oxymetholone are converted to estrogen? They ar both alkylated, no?[/quote]

You are a smart arse aren’t you. Pathetic.

Now to address your silly little comment, did i say that var and drol convert to estrogen? I think not.
I said that of any estrogen converted, methylation increases its potency.

You know why - i know why… unless you want to make another pointless statement that only attempts to make me look stupid but only makes you look petty - then go ahead. It’s your dime…[quote]

The alkylation of steroids increases their effect and potency… they are stronger than non-alkylated steroids as a rule. Compare the dosages of the alkylated steroids to the non-alkylated steroids to see this plainly (stanazolol, methandrostenolone, methyltestosterone, methyltrienolone are prime examples)

Wouldn’t potency be defined as equivalent results? To get equivalent results of 500mg of tesosterone a week (Im talking in gains in muscle tissue) wouldn’t you need a lot more than than 75mg of winny or any of the others listed? I mean doubt 75mg/day of dianabol would be equivalent in gains to 500mg test, right? Negating the fact that all of the aforementioned are liver toxic and can’t be taken in equivalent doses.[/quote]

Maybe however you should take into account that the higher the potency the lower the dose needed to achieve therapeutic effect, so I would say the higher the potency the less needed to get more… ie. 15mg of Stanazolol or Dianabol is significantly more effective than 15mg of Testosterone.

When discussing dosages significantly higher than necessary it is clearly a matter of a weaker potency and thus a less effective point made doncha think?

Or are you saying that testosterone is then more potent than Stanazolol? If you are NOT saying T is more potent than Stanazolol, then what exactly is the point?[quote]

If you associate dianabol with pure transient gains that are lost soon on discontinuation you are likely not using it correctly or have not got all your ducks in a row to be getting the most from AAS anyway.

Really, you know me? I have never used dianabol, I was speculating off observations. I don’t see a lot of pple maintaining gains from dianabol, from people I know. NOW whether or not that is due to bad cycle, PCT, etc or the drug I dont know. No reason for that last statement. You don’t know me, my genetic predisposition, my starting point, my current progress, my knowledge.
[/quote]

Again, if you read the post a little slower and with a little deliberation you will see i say quite clearly, “IF you associate…”. that’s ‘IF’, dickhead.

Now… it is clear you have a thorough understanding of pharmacology and medicinal chemistry, however you do not have a thorough understanding of AAS… though you clearly think that is all there is to it.

You are nothing more than a ‘book’ - with very little real world knowledge in the field. Of course i am just ‘speculating off observations’…

I wonder my friend, do you have anything to offer other than what can be gotten from studying med. chem. text books, or do you just have theoretical knowledge coupled with ‘friends’ who use steroids?

We all know the answer there don’t we? And i have my text books…

My FRIEND! Don’t be so sensitive! I really did not intend my post the way you took it… Im a chef, lol, as in I went to culinary school. Only shit I know is the stuff I read off mesomorphosis and wikipedia! That is why I joined this site is because I LOVED Dr. Roberts stuff! WRT to the potency thing, that is just my understanding of the word “potent”. Like if I could buy 10g of test or 10g of winny which would be better results (equivalent therapeutic effect) if they were the same price. Again, just talking man, no reason to get so “testy” LOL.

I was actually asking, or rather, asking for clarification on the stuff above! I thought you were saying that alkylation=aromatisation, I apologize that I mis-interpreted. I have ONE TEST ONLY cycle under my belt, I certainly dont think I know everything.

My bad man

Funny… because you came across as trying to prove something in the last post…

Fair enough.

To clarify, alkylation is the process that modifies a steroid to give it a significantly higher oral bioavailability. 17-Alpha Alkylated steroids (17-AA) have been ‘alkylated’ which means that a carbon atom is placed at the 17th position instead of the existing hydrogen atom, which drastically affects how it is metabolised.

This makes it not only survive first pass but also some of the effects i listed above. I don’t know the theory behind why 17AA steroids inhibit AR binding, i am sure one of the chemists among us will though.