btw I would like to say for all of you who posted counter-arguments in that FA thread, very well done.
I really don’t want to read the original post and thread in question. Doing so would probably only cause despair. And so I will just operate on guesswork of what it says, based on what is posted above that talks about it.
Two things:
- A “developed for” argument does not necessarily mean much. For example, suppose Life Extension Foundation developed a great new process for extracting a naturally occurring antioxidant from goji berries, or açaí berries (or whatever) for cancer patients.
Now, I know a lot of people being advised to take it as an antioxidant for general health purposes would immediately go nuts and scream “I heard that was for CANCER patients!” and refuse to take it. But in fact, the general line of argument proves nothing.
- With regard to this specific matter, development of pharmaceutical drugs is highly dependent on valid assays.
Assays being means of testing the drug for desired and undesired activities.
In the case of the development of all pharmaceutical anabolic steroids, the assay used was that developed by Hershberger, in which test compounds were administered to male rats for a period of time, which then were dissected and the weights of the levator ani (a sex-specific muscle somewhat analogous to the human pubococcygeous) and the prostate were measured, and compared to weights for control rats.
It was hoped that effect on the levator ani would be a valid assay to predict potency for desired therapeutic effect, and effect on the prostate would be a valid assay to predict potency with regard to undesired side effects.
Now, it just so happens that this was a wrong assumption and in fact the values are very poor predictors of therapeutic effect versus given side effects such as, say, virilizing effect on women.
But they did not know that then, and so compounds with particularly high ratios of activity at the levator ani versus the prostate were deemed to be low in side effects and thus particularly suitable for women and children.
Winstrol has a high ratio in this regard, but in practice can usually be tolerated by women in only quite tiny amounts. It is a poor choice.
Therefore, the person making the argument “It’s a good choice because it was developed for women!” is an idiot.
[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
well she does seem to know a lot about steroids…
It sounds to me like she’s got a problem with cheating and taking “the easy way out” (yeah, right) rather than steroids in and of themselves.
“Steroids, by their very nature, are DRUGS (illegal, at that) and the people who regularly use them are no better than meth or crack heads.”
Really? Fully functioning members of society who use gear are placed in the same category as crack/meth heads; people who will lie, cheat, hurt, steal, kill(?) for a fix? GTFO.
I have a problem with people who say steroids are bad because they’re drugs if they’ve ever used tylenol, advil, etc…[/quote]
Lol. Well said. Nothing irritates me more than when people say steroids are the easy way out.
It amazes me that people think that just become something is illegal makes it bad and because something is legal makes it ok.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I really don’t want to read the original post and thread in question. Doing so would probably only cause despair. And so I will just operate on guesswork of what it says, based on what is posted above that talks about it.
Two things:
- A “developed for” argument does not necessarily mean much. For example, suppose Life Extension Foundation developed a great new process for extracting a naturally occurring antioxidant from goji berries, or açaí berries (or whatever) for cancer patients.
Now, I know a lot of people being advised to take it as an antioxidant for general health purposes would immediately go nuts and scream “I heard that was for CANCER patients!” and refuse to take it. But in fact, the general line of argument proves nothing.
- With regard to this specific matter, development of pharmaceutical drugs is highly dependent on valid assays.
Assays being means of testing the drug for desired and undesired activities.
In the case of the development of all pharmaceutical anabolic steroids, the assay used was that developed by Hershberger, in which test compounds were administered to male rats for a period of time, which then were dissected and the weights of the levator ani (a sex-specific muscle somewhat analogous to the human pubococcygeous) and the prostate were measured, and compared to weights for control rats.
It was hoped that effect on the levator ani would be a valid assay to predict potency for desired therapeutic effect, and effect on the prostate would be a valid assay to predict potency with regard to undesired side effects.
Now, it just so happens that this was a wrong assumption and in fact the values are very poor predictors of therapeutic effect versus given side effects such as, say, virilizing effect on women.
But they did not know that then, and so compounds with particularly high ratios of activity at the levator ani versus the prostate were deemed to be low in side effects and thus particularly suitable for women and children.
Winstrol has a high ratio in this regard, but in practice can usually be tolerated by women in only quite tiny amounts. It is a poor choice.
Therefore, the person making the argument “It’s a good choice because it was developed for women!” is an idiot.
[/quote]
I hate to break it to you Bill, but I threw you under the bus over there and told them that if they had questions they should post a question over here, or PM YOU!
I wonder if that will be the explanation for the recent avalanche of PM’s? Haven’t gotten to any that may be on that yet, though.
Posting over here would be better, as that way replies are, hopefully, useful to many. It does seem that they haven’t posted over here.
Actually there might well be no PM’s either, for all I know (yet: by tomorrow hopefully I will be caught up.) After all, what could a man know, and all that.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I wonder if that will be the explanation for the recent avalanche of PM’s? Haven’t gotten to any that may be on that yet, though.
Posting over here would be better, as that way replies are, hopefully, useful to many. It does seem that they haven’t posted over here.
Actually there might well be no PM’s either, for all I know (yet: by tomorrow hopefully I will be caught up.) After all, what could a man know, and all that.[/quote]
Posting in the thread would be helpful, but although there is sometimes a stigma for men to use steroids there is a HUGE one for women. Or at least that I have noticed. But then what do I know, I am not really all that knowledgeable.
PMs seem a safe start with those kinda questions although I did mention this forum where they could get some info
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
I hate to break it to you Bill, but I threw you under the bus over there and told them that if they had questions they should post a question over here, or PM YOU!
[/quote]
No!! Bill is ours I tell you OURS !!!
On the other hand you have potentially attracted a bunch of women interested in AAS use to us, which is a plus, as we only had one female Steroid forum member and she hasn’t posted in a while.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Don’t let this happen to you![/quote]
Dude could use some more lat width. He should probably prioritize it on his next cycle. 
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Don’t let this happen to you![/quote]
Good arms though…
Wow…SirenSong is a fuckin DUMB BITCHHHHH
Hey Autumn Biscuit.
I personally would never recommend a female use Stanazolol… it is quite highly androgenic even if it is a RELATIVELY low androgen in males.
Oxandrolone can and has been used successfully for women, primobolone tabs and also Boldenone Undeclynate (I believe there is an Acetate ester out there in powders and i know there is a BNE(Boldenone no ester- how effective and if it is inject friendly i do not know [knowing that Primo acetate doesnt take to injecting like one would imagine])
If the long ester is to be chosen it used to be specifically the VG Ganabol 50mg/ml - and of course there is Nandrolone Phenlypropionate.
They are written in the order i would think would be the safest in terms of elimination halflife and also known androgen content.
Var is commonly used 10-20mg (waifnomore?), boldenone and deca 50-100mg… but with the The boldenone having half the androgenicity of test which may still be too much for some sensitive women, and if it is then the undeclynate ester would/could cause problems.
For size and a little risk i might choose NPP at 50-100mg/wk. Deca is a low androgen, but is really anabolic in practice and in 50mg a week the phenylpropionate ester would clear within a week or so (without resorting to charts), if problems occurred - maybe venturing upto 100mg/wk max. ED injects to keep levels as low and stable as possible.
Primo tabs i think would be good… and if i was a woman i would use these. Oral, non-toxic, barely androgenic, good anabolism… add 20mg var to maybe 25mg primo/day for 4 weeks with 6 off and it may make for a cycle that is less likely to give negative sides, which if they did occur would be gone virtually immediately.
These are not cycles i have given or advise anyone on taking, just speculating with my current knowledge of esters and estimated androgen levels in the AAS above, the two main issues for women who use AAS and the potential side effects.
I think that if a woman chooses to use AAS they better be educated on the sides and be aiming for a high goal in sport or some competition, they really are too risky to use recreationally, unlike some men who can ‘get away with’ little knowledge and a couple of dumb cycles with no real damage - other than a flame or two!
Good to see you post in here OG.
JJ
Virilization is not rare with 20 mg/day oxandrolone use.
A single 50 mg injection of Deca can produce irreversible change of voice. Not that that is a usual outcome, but it can happen.
Let alone the 100 mg figure you cite.
I think you are very wrong to state that there is little risk from 100 mg/week.
I doubt that boldenone has any better safety profile for women than nandrolone.
I just recently wrote out an explanation of the error of taking a modest number of known cases where something went okay and then concluding risk is low.
Unfortunately, there is probably no area where this fundamental error is made more often than with regard to anabolic steroid use by women.
Someone knows of five cases where a given thing went okay – though it is a fact that virilization sometimes occurs with the dose in question – and concludes from this that the risk is low. When absolutely nothing of the sort has been demonstrated. The correct conclusion would be that, if there were no oddities in the sampling (for some reason, for example that women who have already used anabolic steroids and gotten away with it are more likely to use again than a woman who never has, thus resulting in a pre-selection for a category that has demonstrated better tolerance, if the person’s sample includes repeat users) the risk still may well be around 20%.
Not that you did this: perhaps you are going from other people who came to their conclusion that way.
Lastly, advising that side effects, for example voice change, “would be gone virtually immediately,” is wrong (as it is stated as an absolute) and is irresponsible.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Virilization is not rare with 20 mg/day oxandrolone use.
A single 50 mg injection of Deca can produce irreversible change of voice. Not that that is a usual outcome, but it can happen.
Let alone the 100 mg figure you cite.
For size and a little risk i might choose NPP at 50-100mg/wk.
I think you are very wrong to state that there is little risk from 100 mg/week.
I doubt that boldenone has any better safety profile for women than nandrolone.
I just recently wrote out an explanation of the error of taking a modest number of known cases where something went okay and then concluding risk is low.
Unfortunately, there is probably no area where this fundamental error is made more often than with regard to anabolic steroid use by women.
Someone knows of five cases where a given thing went okay – though it is a fact that virilization sometimes occurs with the dose in question – and concludes from this that the risk is low. When absolutely nothing of the sort has been demonstrated. The correct conclusion would be that, if there were no oddities in the sampling (for some reason, for example that women who have already used anabolic steroids and gotten away with it are more likely to use again than a woman who never has, thus resulting in a pre-selection for a category that has demonstrated better tolerance, if the person’s sample includes repeat users) the risk still may well be around 20%.
Not that you did this: perhaps you are going from other people who came to their conclusion that way.
Lastly, advising that side effects, for example voice change, “would be gone virtually immediately,” is wrong (as it is stated as an absolute) and is irresponsible.
[/quote]
Fair enough BR, you know much more than I, and as stated i wouldnt recomend that the dosages i stated be used just because i mentioned them, they are just some dosages i have read - IIRC it was in the Chemical Wizardardry book - which is very dated now.
*For the record i said for size and a little risk not for little risk…
I also suggested that the boldenone would likely be too high an androgen too i think…
But you i am sure have written programs for women and done much more research - while i most certainly have not so please dont consider this a disagreement with your points of dosages.
Brook
If women are interested in using…ESPECIALLY Siren…she should use 500-1000mgs a week of test along with a generous amount of Tren and atleast 50mgs a day of dbol. That should work…REAL well.
I think it should be noted that SirenSongWoman is a morbidly obese woman.
This is the second time I’ve brought it up, but I have an issue with women who weigh over 200 pounds spouting off as experts on health and nutrition.
So, just keep that in mind everybody.
Heaven forfend that she should “cheat” in reducing the overfatness.
Fat’s got to be lost the hard way, or not at all.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Heaven forfend that she should “cheat” in reducing the overfatness.
Fat’s got to be lost the hard way, or not at all.[/quote]
Tell me about it…I’m doing the Velocity Diet right now man.
[quote] Brook wrote:
Hey Autumn Biscuit.
I personally would never recommend a female use Stanazolol… it is quite highly androgenic even if it is a RELATIVELY low androgen in males.
Oxandrolone can and has been used successfully for women, primobolone tabs and also Boldenone Undeclynate (I believe there is an Acetate ester out there in powders and i know there is a BNE(Boldenone no ester- how effective and if it is inject friendly i do not know [knowing that Primo acetate doesnt take to injecting like one would imagine])
If the long ester is to be chosen it used to be specifically the VG Ganabol 50mg/ml - and of course there is Nandrolone Phenlypropionate.
They are written in the order i would think would be the safest in terms of elimination halflife and also known androgen content.
Var is commonly used 10-20mg (waifnomore?), boldenone and deca 50-100mg… but with the The boldenone having half the androgenicity of test which may still be too much for some sensitive women, and if it is then the undeclynate ester would/could cause problems.
For size and a little risk i might choose NPP at 50-100mg/wk. Deca is a low androgen, but is really anabolic in practice and in 50mg a week the phenylpropionate ester would clear within a week or so (without resorting to charts), if problems occurred - maybe venturing upto 100mg/wk max. ED injects to keep levels as low and stable as possible.
Primo tabs i think would be good… and if i was a woman i would use these. Oral, non-toxic, barely androgenic, good anabolism… add 20mg var to maybe 25mg primo/day for 4 weeks with 6 off and it may make for a cycle that is less likely to give negative sides, which if they did occur would be gone virtually immediately.
These are not cycles i have given or advise anyone on taking, just speculating with my current knowledge of esters and estimated androgen levels in the AAS above, the two main issues for women who use AAS and the potential side effects.
I think that if a woman chooses to use AAS they better be educated on the sides and be aiming for a high goal in sport or some competition, they really are too risky to use recreationally, unlike some men who can ‘get away with’ little knowledge and a couple of dumb cycles with no real damage - other than a flame or two!
Good to see you post in here OG.
JJ[/quote]
Hiya Troublemaker =)
I peek in here quite often looking to learn.
The thread I linked was just too good to not post.
Celeste
[quote]facko wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Heaven forfend that she should “cheat” in reducing the overfatness.
Fat’s got to be lost the hard way, or not at all.
Tell me about it…I’m doing the Velocity Diet right now man.[/quote]
Hes being incredibly sarcastic you realize…?
[quote]MarvelGirl wrote:
I think it should be noted that SirenSongWoman is a morbidly obese woman.
This is the second time I’ve brought it up, but I have an issue with women who weigh over 200 pounds spouting off as experts on health and nutrition.
So, just keep that in mind everybody.[/quote]
Why does that not surprise me