"Ask Chest Rockwell" column - Open thread for member questions

[Wunderpus]

Of course there are benefits, but it's not the same massive change as when going from zero to 200.

(I'm a TRT user, so all my comments are in that context.)

And if test were so fantastic, we wouldn't have all these other compounds. Or all the threads about how to deal with the ever increasing sides? Right?

You do know most of the other compounds were developed for horses, cattle, HIV/AIDS patients, cancer patients, etc., right? Few drugs were designed for the sole purpose of bodybuilding (superdrol is one of the few I can think of).

Your snooty attitude is highlighted by your fundamental lack of knowledge. Your words will only carry you so far....

 

[ChestRockwell]

I've seen a lot lately on deca dick. It seems that in most cases the doses were very high with both teat and deca.

I've also seen this theory pushed about test needing to be at a 2 to 1 ratio over deca.

Would a lower ratio like one to one and Lower doses of both test and deca be more advisable when trying to avoid deca dick.

The other thought I have is a TRT dose of test like 200 mg per week and a moderate dose of deca, like 300 or 400 mg per week is potentially safer due to lower aromitizing compounds.

This does seem to be a topic of recent popularity. Libido is a very complex topic so forgive me for providing more of a high-level answer, but my experience has taught me that folks differ wildly in what puts them into their hormonal sweet spot.

First and foremost, folks should devote time to learning their body's response to hormones, and more specifically where their body's androgen:estrogen (A:E) ratio tends to thrive. This can be done easily within the first few stack designs before moving onto more complicated stacks, a trap I see many fall into.

Once an individual's A:E ratio is determined, it can often provide a foundation by which all future stacks are designed. It isn't going to be an actual calculation, and some trial and error will still be involved.

For this reason, I don't tend to play the ratio games because some may thrive on stacks that cripple others.

 

[ChestRockwell]

Related to @OldmanRob question about the test + deca combo, what would @ChestRockwell recommend as a longer term "cruise TRT cycle"? That's a serial misnomer, yes, but the objective is a TRT dose to keep the endocrine system happy, and then layer smaller amounts of one or several other compounds on top, for greater performance but done in a way to reduce longer-term negatives.

I know, nothing is free in life, everything comes with risk. No need to bash me for this.

For example - an approach with 150-200 test per week, with equal amounts (say 100-150 each) of deca, primo, maybe even tren added. Total gear load in the 500-650 range per week in this case. Is there a sweetspot like that?

Remember, a "cruise" is designed to be exactly that - HRT that attempts to allow the body to recover from any and all past supraphysiological "blasts". Once you start adding supraphysiological doses and/or exotic compounds, it is no longer a "cruise"...

 

[Millard]

You do know most of the other compounds were developed for horses, cattle, HIV/AIDS patients, cancer patients, etc., right? Few drugs were designed for the sole purpose of bodybuilding (superdrol is one of the few I can think of).

No, superdrol was created in 1956 with cancer patients in mind.

Superdrol

H. J. Ringold and G. Rosenkranz. “Steroids. LXXXIII. Synthesis of 2-Methyl and 2,2-Dimethyl Hormone Analogs.” Journal of Organic Chemistry. 21. (1956): 1333.

 

[Wunderpus]

No, superdrol was created in 1956 with cancer patients in mind.

Superdrol

H. J. Ringold and G. Rosenkranz. “Steroids. LXXXIII. Synthesis of 2-Methyl and 2,2-Dimethyl Hormone Analogs.” Journal of Organic Chemistry. 21. (1956): 1333.

Well, there you go

Looks like I can't think of any AAS that were "designed" just for use in bodybuilding, except maybe some of the designer prohormones...?

 

[Eman]

Well, there you go

Looks like I can't think of any AAS that were "designed" just for use in bodybuilding, except maybe some of the designer prohormones...?

THG!

 

[tenpoundsleft]

Remember, a "cruise" is designed to be exactly that - HRT that attempts to allow the body to recover from any and all past supraphysiological "blasts". Once you start adding supraphysiological doses and/or exotic compounds, it is no longer a "cruise"...

Well aware of this distinction, thus the quotation marks.

I was simply inquiring if you had any thoughts on a middle ground btw basic TRT and full on blast cycle. This is obviously aimed at the older lifter.

I think many are interested in exploring where the curve of efficacy starts to tilt too far toward negative sides. It's not a black/white flip between 150-200 per week, and then jump to a gram or more. And I think it's established that there are synergistic non-aromatizing compounds that are worth adding.

I'll keep exploring this on my own, was just curious if you'd come across anything in this grey zone.

 

[OldmanRob]

This does seem to be a topic of recent popularity. Libido is a very complex topic so forgive me for providing more of a high-level answer, but my experience has taught me that folks differ wildly in what puts them into their hormonal sweet spot.

First and foremost, folks should devote time to learning their body's response to hormones, and more specifically where their body's androgen:estrogen (A:E) ratio tends to thrive. This can be done easily within the first few stack designs before moving onto more complicated stacks, a trap I see many fall into.

Once an individual's A:E ratio is determined, it can often provide a foundation by which all future stacks are designed. It isn't going to be an actual calculation, and some trial and error will still be involved.

For this reason, I don't tend to play the ratio games because some may thrive on stacks that cripple others.

I actually understand what you are saying.

My plan is to start cautiously and incrementally move up into my cycle gradually, take notes and make slow adjustments.

I'd like to use lower test and a lower deca dose to start.

Thank you for the reply.

 

[ChestRockwell]

Well aware of this distinction, thus the quotation marks.

I was simply inquiring if you had any thoughts on a middle ground btw basic TRT and full on blast cycle. This is obviously aimed at the older lifter.

I think many are interested in exploring where the curve of efficacy starts to tilt too far toward negative sides. It's not a black/white flip between 150-200 per week, and then jump to a gram or more. And I think it's established that there are synergistic non-aromatizing compounds that are worth adding.

I'll keep exploring this on my own, was just curious if you'd come across anything in this grey zone.

I certainly respect this approach and have even earned a bit of a reputation as a minimum effective dose coach.

Of course, we still are going to fall into the everyone is different realm of answers so it will certainly take some self-experimentation to find out what compounds and doses work best for your own body. You'll also need to determine short and long-term goals because my recommendations would require me knowing what you are looking to accomplish with any sort of mild blast stack design.

 

[ChestRockwell]

My plan is to start cautiously and incrementally move up into my cycle gradually, take notes and make slow adjustments.

I'd like to use lower test and a lower deca dose to start.

Yes! This is a great methodology to use for self-experimentation...generally speaking:

- only make one modest change at a time
- give yourself time to properly assess what the change accomplished (both good and bad)
- document
- make further changes as required

 

[master.on]

I'm going to speculate you are not accounting for the metabolic adaptations the body goes through during periods of dieting. It is similar to why one will stop losing weight using a dietary structure that previously started them out in a deficit.

The thermogenic effects don't stop, they may get masked by these adaptations if not accounted for however.

So, use clen until the thermogenic effect fads, then add T3 or something like that?
clen-followed-by-t3 is the coward's men DNP?

 

[ChestRockwell]

So, use clen until the thermogenic effect fads, then add T3 or something like that?
clen-followed-by-t3 is the coward's men DNP?

That is one method, however I normally urge folks to add T3 early, if they plan on using it at some point. Exogenous thyroid can take time to upregulate pathways, so getting it in early can be beneficial.

 

[Xlgx]

@CR,what markers does a doc/lab look at in blood work to determine if someone is a healthy candidate for hgh use? Igf-1? Gh? Any red flags? Especially with respect to cancer prevention?

 

[ChestRockwell]

@CR,what markers does a doc/lab look at in blood work to determine if someone is a healthy candidate for hgh use? Igf-1? Gh? Any red flags? Especially with respect to cancer prevention?

There are only a handful of FDA approved uses for GH, and this is what is looked for when determining if someone is a candidate for GH usage. This is also the case as it relates to whether or not insurance will cover the costs, even with a prescription.

A review of guidelines for use of growth hormone in pediatric and transition patients. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Kracken]

Clenbuterol will be optimal in the sense that it will produce an environment of significantly greater fat mobilization potential, as compared to something like albuterol.

When you say "significantly" do you mean, say tice as effective? Maybe an extra 20%? I use albuterol with some success and have not tried clen because of what I have read are harsh sides. But I also thought albuterol was as effective. I use 16mg per day, 8mg in the morning and 8mg in the afternoon, and an antihistamine daily before bed. If by significantly you mean like half again or better it may be worth a try.

 

[ChestRockwell]

@Kracken I do not believe I've come across any human trials that specifically measured the intrinsic efficacy of clenbuterol versus albuterol/salmeterol. I'm also not entirely sure that would be the true way to measure lipolytic potential.

Interestingly, fenoterol has been shown to have the highest intrinsic efficacy across all three β-adrenoceptor subtypes, at least according to one report. Clenbuterol has a 1.28 efficacy ratio for the β2-adrenoceptor versus albuterol/salmeterol which comes in at 0.63. For the β3-adrenoceptor, clenbuterol is at 0.84 compared to albuterol/salmeterol at 0.27.

The selectivity of beta-adrenoceptor agonists at human beta1-, beta2- and beta3-adrenoceptors. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[tenpoundsleft]

@Kracken I do not believe I've come across any human trials that specifically measured the intrinsic efficacy of clenbuterol versus albuterol/salmeterol. I'm also not entirely sure that would be the true way to measure lipolytic potential.

Interestingly, fenoterol has been shown to have the highest intrinsic efficacy across all three β-adrenoceptor subtypes, at least according to one report. Clenbuterol has a 1.28 efficacy ratio for the β2-adrenoceptor versus albuterol/salmeterol which comes in at 0.63. For the β3-adrenoceptor, clenbuterol is at 0.84 compared to albuterol/salmeterol at 0.27.

The selectivity of beta-adrenoceptor agonists at human beta1-, beta2- and beta3-adrenoceptors. - PubMed - NCBI

Do you have any position on prolonged use of ECA, clenbuterol, albuterol/salmeterol etc?

And, if I dare bring it up, do you have a position on DNP?

About the latter, some people complain that DNP is for those with no diet discipline etc. which I understand, but is a short run with DNP not a far more effective and safer (unless you're an idiot with your dosage) way to get to a weight loss goal, than prolonged use of the above meds?

 

[ChestRockwell]

Do you have any position on prolonged use of ECA, clenbuterol, albuterol/salmeterol etc?

We would probably need to set some definitions of what "prolonged usage" means. Generally speaking, I do not feel that one needs to cycle beta agonists, but I also don't feel it wise to run them any longer than is required for one's immediate goals. In other words, don't use powerful fat burning agents during a cruise and/or off-season for vanity purposes.

And, if I dare bring it up, do you have a position on DNP?

About the latter, some people complain that DNP is for those with no diet discipline etc. which I understand, but is a short run with DNP not a far more effective and safer (unless you're an idiot with your dosage) way to get to a weight loss goal, than prolonged use of the above meds?

Full disclosure, I've never used DNP, nor have I ever recommended it to anyone. I don't think I agree that this compound could ever be called "safer" because miscalculations literally result in death.

I've seen a handful of case studies on clenbuterol toxicity, but they all survived.

 

[tenpoundsleft]

We would probably need to set some definitions of what "prolonged usage" means. Generally speaking, I do not feel that one needs to cycle beta agonists, but I also don't feel it wise to run them any longer than is required for one's immediate goals. In other words, don't use powerful fat burning agents during a cruise and/or off-season for vanity purposes.




Full disclosure, I've never used DNP, nor have I ever recommended it to anyone. I don't think I agree that this compound could ever be called "safer" because miscalculations literally result in death.

I've seen a handful of case studies on clenbuterol toxicity, but they all survived.

Thanks, and the D N P letters invariably stir up strong emotions, especially from those who have never used it.

It seems to me that DNP is several magnitudes more effective at this job than any other compound, and while it can be used in a really stupid way (as can Tylenol), for a disciplined user a DNP cycle is over in a couple of weeks.

And DNP has nearly no side effects, other than the worst one, but only if you royally and massively screw up. I honestly don't see how anyone who's able to do basic math can get themselves in harms way with DNP - you have to be exceedingly blonde.

All the other chemical approaches mess with the body's systems in many more ways, and have to be used much longer, as they're so much weaker.

That's my logic - and I haven't seen anyone layer in the time factor and overall exposure when comparing approaches.

And yes, yes, yes, to all the "eat correctly and this will not be a problem" people, we get that - so no need to reiterate.

 

[Wunderpus]

@ChestRockwell after reading your new article, the you say "exogenous insulin can also be used to bypass many of the refractory period limitations"

Would you suggest a long acting insulin like lantus if one plans on multiple, more frequent than every 6-8 hours, injections of GH....? Would this lower the refractory period significantly enough to justify every ~4 hour injections?

Oh, and "Most will find the GH ceiling to occur somewhere between 4-8 IUs/day sans insulin"... Do you feel the addition of lantus would increase the overall ability to get "more" out of "more" gh? Meaning, if 4-8iu/day is the "cap" w/o insulin, how would you describe a "balls out" insulin and GH stack (Something like Xiu ofGH would be effective with Y amount of insulin)?

God dammit, one more question to add... You mention SERMS and AIs have a negative effect. What about the addition of a DHT derivative such as proviron or masteron in place to prevent some aromatization?