Either oral or injectable…
I suspect that this is something that effects everyone differently. In my case, I felt Anavar was great and Dbol was nasty.
As far as injectables go, would a Test-E with a long ester be easier on the kidneys?
Anyway, what are your opinions on what the safest drug is.
[quote]Diana Bolann wrote:
Either oral or injectable…[/quote]
I know many guys seemed to like Sustanon (injectable) due to it’s long and short duration properties. It seems a fairly mild product.
Are you thinking about relative safety as far as the LIVER is concerned?
Things like oxymetholone since it is I 7-alpha alkylated are very toxic to the liver.
[quote]derek wrote:
Are you thinking about relative safety as far as the LIVER is concerned?
Things like oxymetholone since it is I 7-alpha alkylated are very toxic to the liver.[/quote]
Liver and kidney. I seem to remember Bill Roberts saying something about how injectables can be hard on the liver also. I want to get to the bottom of it.
Probably test would be safest, but it is entirely dependent on the dose.
[quote]T234 wrote:
Probably test would be safest, but it is entirely dependent on the dose. [/quote]
Which ester, and what is your reasoning if you don’t mind me asking?
Do anabolic steroids cause kidney damage?
There is no known toxic effect of anabolic steroids on the
kidneys. However, one study showed that long-term use of anabolic
steroids decreased the amount of anabolic steroids excreted in the
urine.(1) At the same time, the excretion of
corticosteroids was not affected.(1) It is unknown why this
decrease in anabolic steroid excretion occurs.(1)
No one knows whether the steroids not excreted by the kidneys
accumulate in the body or are excreted in the feces.(1)
REFERENCES 1. Harrison LM, Martin D, Gotlin RW, Fennessey PV. Effect of extended use of single anabolic steroids on urinary steroid excretion and metabolism. J Chromatogr 1989;489:121-6. by Trent Tschirgi, R. Ph. (c) 1992 University of Maryland Office of Substance Abuse Studies. All Rights Reserved.
I do see some references to increased incidence of kidney disease but also that AAS are used to help AIDS patients with impaired kidney function. I need to look deeper into it.
Safest least side effects.Anavar,its designed for woman so its very mild.
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
Safest least side effects.Anavar,its designed for woman so its very mild.[/quote]
Yea, it seems like everyone likes anavar, it’s too bad it’s so expenisve.
OK, so to put it another way, which steroid is closest to what our bodies naturally produce. I assume this would be the easiest for the body to process.
[quote]Diana Bolann wrote:
Either oral or injectable…
I suspect that this is something that effects everyone differently. In my case, I felt Anavar was great and Dbol was nasty.
As far as injectables go, would a Test-E with a long ester be easier on the kidneys?
Anyway, what are your opinions on what the safest drug is.[/quote]
Well, technically, it’s Andriol (testosterone undecanoate). It does not metabolize in the liver at all and it has a very short half-life (somewhere around 1,5-2 hours).
As far as injectables are concerned, I would go with Primobolan as it is highly anabolic but not highly androgenic, and neither does it convert to estrogen.
[quote]Abaddon wrote:
Diana Bolann wrote:
Either oral or injectable…
I suspect that this is something that effects everyone differently. In my case, I felt Anavar was great and Dbol was nasty.
As far as injectables go, would a Test-E with a long ester be easier on the kidneys?
Anyway, what are your opinions on what the safest drug is.
Well, technically, it’s Andriol (testosterone undecanoate). It does not metabolize in the liver at all and it has a very short half-life (somewhere around 1,5-2 hours).
As far as injectables are concerned, I would go with Primobolan as it is highly anabolic but not highly androgenic, and neither does it convert to estrogen.[/quote]
Ha that’s funny! I actually did a cycle of Andriol once. It took about 240+ mgs a day to do anything. That shit was expensive! It didn’t do much either, but I felt no side effects or anything.
What, if any, are the downsides to primo?
There aren’t many downsides to primo except that the results aren’t as dramatic as some of the stronger compounds like test…that is why it costs so much.
[quote]Diana Bolann wrote:
What, if any, are the downsides to primo? [/quote]
Huge slabs of dirty, dysfunctional muscle.
[quote]Mr. Clean & Jerk wrote:
Diana Bolann wrote:
What, if any, are the downsides to primo?
Huge slabs of dirty, dysfunctional muscle.[/quote]
I think you mean UNfunctional.
My mother told me not to trust people with big teeth. My father said she is crazy.
The question makes no sense. Safety of any drug is dose dependent.
[quote]sharetrader wrote:
The question makes no sense. Safety of any drug is dose dependent.[/quote]
It also depends on the cerebral capacity of the person doing the cycle.
[quote]Diana Bolann wrote:
Mr. Clean & Jerk wrote:
Diana Bolann wrote:
What, if any, are the downsides to primo?
Huge slabs of dirty, dysfunctional muscle.
I think you mean UNfunctional.
My mother told me not to trust people with big teeth. My father said she is crazy.[/quote]
Unfunctional? Weird. Do you really think Brak’s teeth are big? I’m thinking there’s a much more pronounced lack of proportion with his cheekbones. Your mother is right not to trust him, though.
Big teeth have been clinically demonstrated to filter 94% of truth to any statement that passes through them, despite the morals and intentions of the keeper of said teeth. Plus, those bites hurt the worst.
[quote]sharetrader wrote:
The question makes no sense. Safety of any drug is dose dependent.[/quote]
The question does make sense if we assume that 10mg of one drug can be safer than 10mg of another, especially if we assume that the drugs have a similar efficacy at the same dosage.
I bet you have big teeth smart-guy.