T Nation

Tren Bomb - Noob Needs Cycle Checking

#1

morning

looking for a little sanity check on the following from those that know more than I.

I'm seriously considering starting a cycle tren bomb as using the following cycle
Week 1 - 1 dose daily
Week 2 - 2 dose daily
Week 3 - 2 dose daily
Week 4 - 1 dose daily

supplementing with milk thistle as recommended, one MT per TB tab.
post cycle I'm proposing to use USN 19 anabol testo19 or Gaspari novadex.

I'm currently stacking USN anabolic muscle fuel and USN 19 anabol testo 19 and will most likely stay on the muscle fuel whilst on cycle.

what have i missed? and what sort of side should I expect..
yes I'm a noob and I've never tried anything that needs a PCT before.

i weight 155 am 5'7" 40 yrs old currently lift 5 days a week eat regulary every 2/3 hours and take on plently of carbs / protein with a good diet.

appreciate any pointers

regards
J

#2

My advice is to use steroids and ancillaries that are pharmaceutical compounds, rather than using shit.

#3

[quote]ubadboy wrote:
i weight 155 am 5’7" 40 yrs old currently lift 5 days a week eat regulary every 2/3 hours and take on plently of carbs / protein with a good diet.[/quote]

You lied somewhere in that sentence.

http://www.T-Nation.com/searchAdvanced.jsp

#4

Meh…

What chemical compound is Tren bomb?

19-Norandrosta 4,9 diene- 3,17 dione???

This is really not too bad of a product for otc. It’s non-methyl and the gains will not be huge. Expect some strength, but not a lot of mass.

If this in fact the compound you are using you should know it has progestin properties and it can and will cause prolactin related sides.

#5

[quote]Joebob wrote:
Meh…

What chemical compound is Tren bomb?

19-Norandrosta 4,9 diene- 3,17 dione???

[/quote]

17-Beta-Hydroxy-Androstan-4-One.

#6

Another compound never intended as a pharmaceutical anabolic steroid, not existing in nature or a precursor of any hormone and thus not a “prohormone,” also not existing in nature and therefore not a dietary supplement. It exists because the Chinese were able to make it cheaply and it is not listed in the Controlled Substances Act (not being a pharmaceutical steroid or naturally occurring androgen or used by man as of 2004 or whenever).

It is not related to trenbolone.

#7

Patrick Arnold tested this. Turned out to be M1T (I’m assuming this is from Pharma Labs).

#8

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
My advice is to use steroids and ancillaries that are pharmaceutical compounds, rather than using shit.[/quote]

He is correct OP. Shit is far from a anabolic, androgenic pharmaceutical compound. You see, fecal matter varies significantly in appearance, depending on diet and health. Far from anabolic as it is lower in energy than the food it came from.

Feces may still contain a large amount of energy, often 50% of that of the original food. As far as the name “Tren Bomb” is concerned: What will they think up next?

$ EDIT $ Not a stab at BR for whom there’s mad respect.

#9

Use 11-T or run a 4 week Epistane (Havoc) cycle OR the real stuff. That’s my opinion.

Why Havoc? Well, users report decent gains and minimal sides. PCT required as with any pro-steroid.

11-T is more expensive, but no PCT required, virtually no sides, etc etc.

In short, I’d look at it this way:

  1. 11-T : Safe, no PCT required, Realativley expensive

  2. Havoc + taurine pills: Lower Backpumps is main side effect (hence the taurine), standard PCT protocol required, Cheap.

  3. Real steroid cycle (Test and no orals): less then 500mg/week depending on ester will require no AI (Arimidex), Safe if used correctly, Standard PCT required, Price varies depending on source.

  4. Any other pro steroid/prohormone-avoid it to be safe and/or to avoid wasting your money on scams.

Always use milk thistle and fish oil during the duration of any of the above and then some (Milk thistle not required for test only cycle i.e. no 3 above). CoQ10 would be a nice addition (Check out Biotest Flameout).

PS: When I’m refering to PCT Im refering to a 3 or 4 week
40mg/40mg/20mg/20mg or 40mg/20mg/20mg Tamoxifen citrate (Nolvadex) regimen. OTC SERMS well…put it simply, don’t work.

If you haven’t understood the above completely, then you need to read more about steroids and worry less about actually using steroids for now. If you’re 40+ I suggest going to a friendly doc that can put you on TRT. Go on the ‘The Over 35 Lifter’ forum for some good advice regarding this.

Again, just my humble opinion.

#10

[quote]Bicep_craze wrote:
Use 11-T or run a 4 week Epistane (Havoc) cycle OR the real stuff. That’s my opinion.

Why Havoc? Well, users report decent gains and minimal sides. PCT required as with any pro-steroid.

11-T is more expensive, but no PCT required, virtually no sides, etc etc.

In short, I’d look at it this way:

  1. 11-T : Safe, no PCT required, Realativley expensive

  2. Havoc + taurine pills: Lower Backpumps is main side effect (hence the taurine), standard PCT protocol required, Cheap.

  3. Real steroid cycle (Test and no orals): less then 500mg/week depending on ester will require no AI (Arimidex), Safe if used correctly, Standard PCT required, Price varies depending on source.

  4. Any other pro steroid/prohormone-avoid it to be safe and/or to avoid wasting your money on scams.

Always use milk thistle and fish oil during the duration of any of the above and then some (Milk thistle not required for test only cycle i.e. no 3 above). CoQ10 would be a nice addition (Check out Biotest Flameout).

PS: When I’m refering to PCT Im refering to a 3 or 4 week
40mg/40mg/20mg/20mg or 40mg/20mg/20mg Tamoxifen citrate (Nolvadex) regimen. OTC SERMS well…put it simply, don’t work.

If you haven’t understood the above completely, then you need to read more about steroids and worry less about actually using steroids for now. If you’re 40+ I suggest going to a friendly doc that can put you on TRT. Go on the ‘The Over 35 Lifter’ forum for some good advice regarding this.

Again, just my humble opinion.[/quote]

Havoc is legit.

I kept 8 pounds off of a 4 week cycle of Havoc. Not bad for an OTC product.

#11

[quote]Bicep_craze wrote:

  1. Real steroid cycle (Test and no orals): less then 500mg/week depending on ester will require no AI (Arimidex), Safe if used correctly, Standard PCT required, Price varies depending on source.

[/quote]

Some people will get gyno on less than 500mg/wk of aromatizing AAS. What does the ester have to do with aromatization? An AI is recommended for more reasons than just gyno prevention.

#12

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Bicep_craze wrote:

  1. Real steroid cycle (Test and no orals): less then 500mg/week depending on ester will require no AI (Arimidex), Safe if used correctly, Standard PCT required, Price varies depending on source.

Some people will get gyno on less than 500mg/wk of aromatizing AAS. What does the ester have to do with aromatization? An AI is recommended for more reasons than just gyno prevention. [/quote]

Hmmm. Ok time to ask.

I have never injected so might as well learn something from the vets. Thanks for pointing my mistake above Bonez. But uh now I have to ask you to check if my ‘thinking process’ is fine regarding AIs, and SERMS.

AI blocks the aromatization process right? This means that it makes sense to use it while on cycle. No sense in taking a SERM (Nolvadex, Clomid…) and an AI together since basically the AI will cancel the effect of the said SERM, since a SERM binds to receptors as a weak estrogen, hence preventing the stronger aromatizing estrogens to bind instead (nipple receptors for example).

In other parts of the body SERMS exert a more predominant estrogenic influence tough. Granted in laymen’s terms an AI (Arimidex, Letrozole and the like), blocks estrogen conversion in the first place, this means estrogen manifestations-good (lubricated joints) or bad (Mood swings, Female fat pattern deposit, Gynocomastia etc)-will be halted depending on the dose of AI taken. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Now I had read Bill R. say in another thread that 500mg of Test per week will not require AI (eg: Arimidex) use. This made me assume that it had something to do with the type of ester used. Hmm assuption is the mother of all fuck ups they say…ok.

Can someone explain this into more detail please? Or point me a thread where I can read more about this? Thanks eh. I’m trying to learn as much as I can before messing with injectables in the future.

Thanks again and uh sorry for the hijack.

#13

[quote]Bicep_craze wrote:
BONEZ217 wrote:
Bicep_craze wrote:

  1. Real steroid cycle (Test and no orals): less then 500mg/week depending on ester will require no AI (Arimidex), Safe if used correctly, Standard PCT required, Price varies depending on source.

Some people will get gyno on less than 500mg/wk of aromatizing AAS. What does the ester have to do with aromatization? An AI is recommended for more reasons than just gyno prevention.

Hmmm. Ok time to ask.

I have never injected so might as well learn something from the vets. Thanks for pointing my mistake above Bonez. But uh now I have to ask you to check if my ‘thinking process’ is fine regarding AIs, and SERMS.

AI blocks the aromatization process right? This means that it makes sense to use it while on cycle. No sense in taking a SERM (Nolvadex, Clomid…) and an AI together since basically the AI will cancel the effect of the said SERM, since a SERM binds to receptors as a weak estrogen, hence preventing the stronger aromatizing estrogens to bind instead (nipple receptors for example). In other parts of the body SERMS exert a more predominant estrogenic influence tough. Granted in laymen’s terms an AI (Arimidex, Letrozole and the like), blocks estrogen conversion in the first place, this means estrogen manifestations-good (lubricated joints) or bad (Mood swings, Female fat pattern deposit, Gynocomastia etc)-will be halted depending on the dose of AI taken. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Now I had read Bill R. say in another thread that 500mg of Test per week will not require AI (eg: Arimidex) use. This made me assume that it had something to do with the type of ester used. Hmm assuption is the mother of all fuck ups they say…ok.

Can someone explain this into more detail please? Or point me a thread where I can read more about this? Thanks eh. I’m trying to learn as much as I can before messing with injectables in the future.

Thanks again and uh sorry for the hijack.[/quote]

Having questions is perfectly fine. But if you have to ask these questions there is no reason why you should be giving out advice on the topic. At the very least you should preface your opinions with the fact that you have never even run an injectable before.

As far as your question about what an AI does. Yes, an AI prevents aromatization. Refresh yourself with the SERM/AI sticky. I haven’t read it in a while but I know that it covers the basics.

The only way I can see the ester coming into play is because of the different weights of the esters. The prop ester weighs less than enanthate so the user gets a higher proportion of testosterone when using prop instead of enanthate. My guess is that the ester weight is not really important unless the user is on the threshold of gyno development.

#14

[quote]Bicep_craze wrote:
AI blocks the aromatization process right? This means that it makes sense to use it while on cycle. No sense in taking a SERM (Nolvadex, Clomid…) and an AI together since basically the AI will cancel the effect of the said SERM, since a SERM binds to receptors as a weak estrogen, hence preventing the stronger aromatizing estrogens to bind instead (nipple receptors for example). In other parts of the body SERMS exert a more predominant estrogenic influence tough. Granted in laymen’s terms an AI (Arimidex, Letrozole and the like), blocks estrogen conversion in the first place, this means estrogen manifestations-good (lubricated joints) or bad (Mood swings, Female fat pattern deposit, Gynocomastia etc)-will be halted depending on the dose of AI taken. Correct me if I’m wrong.[/quote]

Yes (except for the technicality of SERMS not being a “weak estrogen” in tissues such as breast, but rather an antagonist there.)

And I’d even made a point of saying something like, as the person asking the question, had used a word such as required:

No, it isn’t “required” (according to the usual meaning of the word) with that dosage and using a SERM. But it is’s a good thing.

I was trying to stress that the word required means, you HAVE to do it, and I was saying only that one does not HAVE to do it, though it is preferable.

I figured I had to go to such lengths as if I did not, many would take my saying something is not required to mean there is no point in doing it – even though those are two different things.

Similarly to example for where I had written once, regarding the theory that there is something magic compared to other anabolic steroids about trenbolone which the myth attributed to the acetate ester, that TA does not have “special fat burning properties.” With plenty of context making clear that the point was not that it had none but rather that other androgens also can do the same and the particular ester is not important. But somehow you will find countless web pages attacking me for being wrong in, supposedly, claiming that trenbolone doesn’t burn fat. Even when they bother to use the quote! It’s almost incredible how statements get turned into things they just are not. Anyway, that sort of thing is why I tried to be so clear that I was using the word by what it actually means, not any extrapolation of it to something further.

There was nothing of any kind about any ester. Irrelevant to aromatization.

#15

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

Having questions is perfectly fine. But if you have to ask these questions there is no reason why you should be giving out advice on the topic. At the very least you should preface your opinions with the fact that you have never even run an injectable before.

As far as your question about what an AI does. Yes, an AI prevents aromatization. Refresh yourself with the SERM/AI sticky. I haven’t read it in a while but I know that it covers the basics.

The only way I can see the ester coming into play is because of the different weights of the esters. The prop ester weighs less than enanthate so the user gets a higher proportion of testosterone when using prop instead of enanthate. My guess is that the ester weight is not really important unless the user is on the threshold of gyno development. [/quote]

I feel bitch slapped a little lol. You’re right, on the advice thing. I normally emphasize on what I have tried or not when giving advice. Was a mistake not saying in the first place I have never used an injectable before. Thanks for your reply man.

#16

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Bicep_craze wrote:
AI blocks the aromatization process right? This means that it makes sense to use it while on cycle. No sense in taking a SERM (Nolvadex, Clomid…) and an AI together since basically the AI will cancel the effect of the said SERM, since a SERM binds to receptors as a weak estrogen, hence preventing the stronger aromatizing estrogens to bind instead (nipple receptors for example). In other parts of the body SERMS exert a more predominant estrogenic influence tough. Granted in laymen’s terms an AI (Arimidex, Letrozole and the like), blocks estrogen conversion in the first place, this means estrogen manifestations-good (lubricated joints) or bad (Mood swings, Female fat pattern deposit, Gynocomastia etc)-will be halted depending on the dose of AI taken. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Yes (except for the technicality of SERMS not being a “weak estrogen” in tissues such as breast, but rather an antagonist there.)

Now I had read Bill R. say in another thread that 500mg of Test per week will not require AI (eg: Arimidex) use. This made me assume that it had something to do with the type of ester used. Hmm assuption is the mother of all fuck ups they say…ok.

And I’d even made a point of saying something like, as the person asking the question, had used a word such as required:

No, it isn’t “required” (according to the usual meaning of the word) with that dosage and using a SERM. But it is’s a good thing.

I was trying to stress that the word required means, you HAVE to do it, and I was saying only that one does not HAVE to do it, though it is preferable.

I figured I had to go to such lengths as if I did not, many would take my saying something is not required to mean there is no point in doing it – even though those are two different things.

Similarly to example for where I had written once, regarding the theory that there is something magic compared to other anabolic steroids about trenbolone which the myth attributed to the acetate ester, that TA does not have “special fat burning properties.” With plenty of context making clear that the point was not that it had none but rather that other androgens also can do the same and the particular ester is not important. But somehow you will find countless web pages attacking me for being wrong in, supposedly, claiming that trenbolone doesn’t burn fat. Even when they bother to use the quote! It’s almost incredible how statements get turned into things they just are not. Anyway, that sort of thing is why I tried to be so clear that I was using the word by what it actually means, not any extrapolation of it to something further.

There was nothing of any kind about any ester. Irrelevant to aromatization.
[/quote]

  1. Technicality corrected. mind note taken.

2-Hmm ok, basically having an AI is ‘good to have’ but not ‘essential’ to some since every one reacts differently in terms of aromatization/mg of test injected. Roger that.

  1. Thanks a lot for clearing things up for me, as always you are very helpful. Thanks again.
#17

Sure!

Another factor is that in that post, the OP was going to use a SERM.

Generally speaking, while many may already have established from experience that they can tolerate say 500 mg/week testosterone (no SERM, no AI) with no gyno – actually a majority won’t get gyno, but the minority that will is pretty substantial – when this information is not known, then if an AI is not used, a SERM should be. Substantial risk of gyno is not worth the small dollar and trouble cost saved.

#18

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Sure!

Another factor is that in that post, the OP was going to use a SERM.

Generally speaking, while many may already have established from experience that they can tolerate say 500 mg/week testosterone (no SERM, no AI) with no gyno – actually a majority won’t get gyno, but the minority that will is pretty substantial – when this information is not known, then if an AI is not used, a SERM should be. Substantial risk of gyno is not worth the small dollar and trouble cost saved.[/quote]

Solid advice. I’ll remember that when doing my first test cycle in the future.

#19

[quote]Bicep_craze wrote:

Now I had read Bill R. say in another thread that 500mg of Test per week will not require AI (eg: Arimidex) use. This made me assume that it had something to do with the type of ester used. Hmm assuption is the mother of all fuck ups they say…ok.

Can someone explain this into more detail please? Or point me a thread where I can read more about this? Thanks eh. I’m trying to learn as much as I can before messing with injectables in the future.

Thanks again and uh sorry for the hijack.[/quote]

Not sure what you are asking about regarding ester length, but in addition to what Bill and Bonez said, the ester of an AAS molecule has nothing to do with binding affinity for all intents and purposes.

#20

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Bicep_craze wrote:

Not sure what you are asking about regarding ester length, but in addition to what Bill and Bonez said, the ester of an AAS molecule has nothing to do with binding affinity for all intents and purposes.[/quote]

Eh? No no don’t worry. I got it, I have it sorted now. Thanks for the concern tough.