@Chris_Colucci Nice equivocation. You won’t change the word safe to safer in the description, but you’ll spend lines and lines explaining to me why safe should be read and interpreted as actually the words relatively safe.
Here you go @RT_Nomad
School me please. Got all that Gear in the fridge.
“Free from harm or risk” is not your definition, for sure. How am I free from risk driving to the gym today? So it is absolutely unsafe to drive to the gym, by your thinking?
I suggest trashing all of it. Why waste valuable refrigerator space?
No it’s not my definition, it’s THE DEFINITION.
I feel like I’m listening to my parents argue from my bedroom. I’m uncomfortable…
Friendly debate. Do not fear.
And what does this have to do with my Thesis above? Another Red Herring.
Cool. Glad Nomad asked for clarification, since it was overlooked in all this mess and is a critical first step.
I’d suggest that men 25 years or older, who are experienced in the gym and have a decent training and nutrition plan in place, and use anabolics for 8-16 weeks followed by a well-designed PCT are “not likely to be hurt or harmed” by a cycle of anabolics. The keyword I really appreciate there, as per Mr. Merriam and Mr. Webster, is likely. It’s a bit of real-world wiggle room, like relatively.
And we see threads from those types of guys all the time. When someone falls outside of those criteria, either via age or experience or training/nutrition plan, they’re consistently told that they should not proceed with their planned cycle because it’s dangerous.
I’mma go have a good weekend. Can’t wait to see what Monday holds in store.
Of the five choices I supplied, I see you had to reach down to an essential meaning. That’s fair (some crawfishing) and I’ll give you a “C minus”. Also, you limited AAS use to a 8-16 week cycle. What’s the probability a user is going to stop there if they like what they see/feel? Since you fixed that additional degree of freedom, I give you a D+.
We have now gone from “safe AAS methods” to “one cycle is likely safe”. So who’s left to do the accounting of safety integrated over all the cycles (??) or permablasting, which is all the more likely??? Recreational AAS use is typically “one 8-16 week cycle”? What in the name of Sweet Jesus would be the point of that if you enjoy recreational AAS use as your hobby? You are kind of a tease. I have to limit my AAS use to one cycle now to stay safe? Bummer. Wish I would have known that.
We agree (it’s pretty clear from what’s been discussed) you just won’t admit it; one of the two recommendations I initially made is the appropriate choice if one likes to use precise and meaningful language. Of course, you’d also have to be looking out for a potential AAS user’s health and keep the principle of “do no harm” in mind.
Next week we can find out what the terms “men” and “not likely” mean.
Then we can figure how when recreational AAS use became doing one 8-16 week cycle:
Have a great weekend!
How is it a red herring? Very little in life is absolutely safe (driving as my example), yet you demand AAS use be absolutely safe. Clearly an uneven scale.
Be sure to post when you flush your gear. A video would be a nice added touch.
You still don’t get it.
No I don’t demand AAS to be absolutely safe. I absolutely don’t demand that.
(1) use the definition of words as we’ve assigned them for use by the human race
(2) avoid ambiguity where possible (use precise and clear language)
I prefer to be conservative when dealing when matters of health (especially for strangers).
No, how about one shipping it to @mnben87. I am guessing @readalot gear has been sent out for testing. I would like some tested oxandralone.
To me, is this safe enough comes down to the individual. Is the potential health risks worth the cosmetic benefits? We as society have said no, but it isn’t like other drugs for cosmetic reasons don’t exist. Accutane and Finasteride are great examples. Some may say that Finasteride isn’t worth it, you are only saving hair, and I don’t want sides. Others are like get me on this shit, my hair is a big part of my looks, and I don’t want to lose that.
For some steroid use is silly. For others it makes sense. We should all try our bests to understand what we are getting into. There are certainly people who think steroids are free or almost free from any negative side effects, and they should be educated.
Wow, this is like a better version of Philosophy 203. I can see the class title: “Philosophy for the AAS user”.
Pay attention in class @RT_Nomad.
Here you go. I’ll make another argument for debate:
Going outside to get one’s mail right now is not safe.
I believe that just like I believe there are no safe methods for recreational AAS use. The big difference here is the matter of probability of harm between the two cases, but from a truth-value standpoint they are the same. To make it clearer: the potential risk from you going outside vs me going outside may be very different. I may live in the 'hood; you may live in a posh country club neighborhood with fences and armed security.
I’ll let you know if I flush 'em. I doubt it. I like to pull them out and look at them from time to time. Helps me thoughtfully remember why I may have irregular heartbeats on a regular basis now.
Only have compounding pharmacy Pharma AAS that have a C of A for API. I haven’t tested to be honest (seemed like overkill but you never know nowadays).
Not many test their medications from Walgreen’s but maybe we are getting there.
I understand.
Real TRT potential is pretty much one’s natural potential though considering all real TRT does is fix a deficiency.
I’ve heard many times people state that a TRT patient can gain more than they would had their T levels remained normal, but I highly doubt this. Even I’ve been told that I’ve had some advantage because of TRT.
EXCELLENT!
IMO, it is a very slight advantage. I did real TRT (though a Dr.) for a year and a half. 150 mg/wk pinned M,W,F. I tested on Friday in range (850 ng/dL in trough). I do think there was a bit of a boost, but certainly not what most think when they think about TRT.
It is likely guys who haven’t ever tried this stuff that think that. It is also guys who lie about what they take, then the inexperienced take their word on it and repeat it. YouTube is filled with these guys. When they look so awesome on 100 mg/wk of Test, these guys think that they can too. Those guys have great genetics, didn’t build their muscle on 100 mg of Test, and are probably using a lot more than what they say.
What was your peak / trough at 18-20 years old?
I look better on these type of blood levels than I ever would “natural”. Even if you stay within physiologic range for 95%, TRT still isn’t potentially the same as “natural” if your peak levels at 18 were even say 800 ng/dl. Remember AUC on even “TRT” (not even “TOT”) can be much higher than pre-TRT.
And it comes down to… if you have everything (or most) things dialed in first. I easily carry 20 lb of additional lean mass on TRT than I could natural at the same bodyfat.
Can’t one lift weights and be strong without steroids or are you saying you only consider strength and lifting with steroids to be worthy? (Serious question.)
How so, if you don’t mind answering?
And just so it’s absolutely clear…reread my request on the post that started this all:
If you were taking a test and had to guess/infer what the meaning of safe was from that passage (or even what I understood it to mean in that context), what would your answer be?
My request was logically consistent with the full definition of safe which is “free from threat of danger, harm, or loss” or you could even plug in “not able to be hurt or harmed” in there.
Amazing how you and @Chris_Colucci are supremely confident that “men” visiting this forum are “likely free from harm” from the recreational (implies a hobby which means at least occasional and many times chronic) use of AAS. Amazing! Regular riverboat gamblers.
