Thought Experiment on the Efficacy of Orals vs. Injectables

[aljowa]

I'm about to finish up a twelve-week anadrol cycle, the longest oral cycle I've ever done, and it got me thinking.

Hypothetically, let's say we live in an alternate reality where orals were not as harsh on the liver, kidneys, lipids, etc (the reasons most people tend to be more conservative with the dosage and length of oral cycles). Let's assume that orals and injectables both carried roughly the same relative health risks on a milligram-for-milligram basis. How would this change your approach/preferences regarding compound selection, if at all? For instance, would orals feature more prominently in your cycles? Would you default to running 500+mg/week of anavar instead of primo or masteron? Or would you consider the injectable compounds overall superior for muscle growth? I suppose another way to pose the question is: given this hypothetical scenario, now that health detriments have been equalized between orals and injectables, how would your personal rankings for most effective compounds (i.e. benefits vs risks) change?

Curious as to people's opinions, especially those more seasoned veterans in the AAS game. Thanks in advance for any input.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Was there any test here?

 

[lukiss96]

This is just day dreaming and nothing else. A fantasy if you will. Which probably won't yield anything that will benefit someone.

There is lots of things we wouldn't do if we didn't have to. Of course, same applies here who would inject for having fun if all you could do is take a pill?

However, as with most things in life we do them because it is not exactly what we want, but must do in order to accomplish something.

What if there wasn't hunger and what if we didn't have to count calories and just eat at mcdonalds and drink coke instead of water all while staying fit and healthy?

I believe nobody would do the hard way. But it is what it is. Life is complicated, so I just deal with it and live.

 

[aljowa]

Was there any test here?

The test is there, and it never leaves.

 

[aljowa]

This is just day dreaming and nothing else. A fantasy if you will.

You are quite right, but that is what a thought experiment is. This is purely hypothetical conjecture for the sake of curiosity and discussion. Thought experiments are common in virtually all fields of inquiry.

I'll be more concrete here. I have really enjoyed running anadrol the last three months. I am actually running it during a weight-loss phase, and I believe it has significantly contributed to me maintaining a level of muscular fullness despite losing 20 pounds and being in a daily deficit. I've gotten daily compliments at my job the past month from both men and women, most of whom I don't even know personally (I work in a setting where I interact with a large amount of people). My blood pressure a few days ago was 118/60, and I'm getting bloodwork done next week to see how my liver, kidney, and cholesterol markers are. I'm gonna guess the results will not be fantastic, lol, and this is why I'll be stopping the anadrol. Were it not for anadrol's route of administration being so harsh, as it's an oral, I would run it for another 12 weeks at 100mg/day (assuming the harshness was mostly due to the mechanisms of oral absorption and not from the compound itself).

So, to me, if orals were not so harsh, and let's say anadrol was similar to testosterone or masteron in its health effects, I'd strongly consider just running a moderate dose in perpetuity. I'd rank it among my top three compounds. This is kind of what I was probing people for. Do others have similar feelings about certain orals, or would they still prefer their favorite injectables over orals, even if the health effects were equivalent? Maybe some people would still say that 800mg/week of primo is superior to 800mg/week of anavar, for example. This is admittedly all just mental masturbation, but I find it entertaining. Perhaps I'm the only one amused by useless conjecture, lol, which is also fine.

 

[lukiss96]

You are quite right, but that is what a thought experiment is. This is purely hypothetical conjecture for the sake of curiosity and discussion. Thought experiments are common in virtually all fields of inquiry.

I'll be more concrete here. I have really enjoyed running anadrol the last three months. I am actually running it during a weight-loss phase, and I believe it has significantly contributed to me maintaining a level of muscular fullness despite losing 20 pounds and being in a daily deficit. I've gotten daily compliments at my job the past month from both men and women, most of whom I don't even know personally (I work in a setting where I interact with a large amount of people). My blood pressure a few days ago was 118/60, and I'm getting bloodwork done next week to see how my liver, kidney, and cholesterol markers are. I'm gonna guess the results will not be fantastic, lol, and this is why I'll be stopping the anadrol. Were it not for anadrol's route of administration being so harsh, as it's an oral, I would run it for another 12 weeks at 100mg/day (assuming the harshness was mostly due to the mechanisms of oral absorption and not from the compound itself).

So, to me, if orals were not so harsh, and let's say anadrol was similar to testosterone or masteron in its health effects, I'd strongly consider just running a moderate dose in perpetuity. I'd rank it among my top three compounds. This is kind of what I was probing people for. Do others have similar feelings about certain orals, or would they still prefer their favorite injectables over orals, even if the health effects were equivalent? Maybe some people would still say that 800mg/week of primo is superior to 800mg/week of anavar, for example. This is admittedly all just mental masturbation, but I find it entertaining. Perhaps I'm the only one amused by useless conjecture, lol, which is also fine.

Perhaps you're right, you have to experiment to find out what works best for you. There is no shortcut unfortunately.

I just wanted to say, that for such a controversial topic there is going to be a lot of debate and opinions. Because the school of thought is Test is best, orals suck and while it stands true for most people but not all.

My point is orals are not really sustainable long term. What if they were? Dbol and anavar all the way brother!

 

[aljowa]

My point is orals are not really sustainable long term. What if they were? Dbol and anavar all the way brother!

Ah, now that's the type of answer I'm looking for! So in this hypothetical, you'd be crushing Dbol and anavar with your longer cycles (and maybe even your "cruises," depending how people define a "cruise," lol). I admittedly have never run Dbol, but I'll eventually get around to it. The rumored water retention/bloat is what deters me, but maybe I should stop being a pussy and enjoy blowing up like a balloon for awhile.

 

[xrayphoton13]

Ah, now that's the type of answer I'm looking for! So in this hypothetical, you'd be crushing Dbol and anavar with your longer cycles (and maybe even your "cruises," depending how people define a "cruise," lol). I admittedly have never run Dbol, but I'll eventually get around to it. The rumored water retention/bloat is what deters me, but maybe I should stop being a pussy and enjoy blowing up like a balloon for awhile.

Well dbol is a lot like a replacement for test so it would be like doubling your test. Same issues. So you could either pick test or dbol but not both, or run low test. And use a second injectable anabolic that doesn't aromatize or does very little. Easiest way to manage sides anyway.

 

[readalot]

Great thread @aljowa.

Dan has some words from the beyond. RIP.

R

Post in thread 'Is William Llewellyn book with it?'

Jan 18, 2024

True, though while I regard Duchaine's USH II as required reading for everyone, it contains a ton of outdated info with respect to available compounds. A lot of it is opinion, also.

Holding up pretty well over 30 years later (1989)...

• readalot

• 
• 
• 

 

[bigMoJo]

IMO—and I'm going to base this on reality, leaving the hypothetical part just in regard to toxicity—orals are more potent for pre WO spike than anything else, save TNE, and I've heard DHB. I've never used Anavar, and I understand it has differing benefits/uses, but A-drol & D-bol are "fire."

Fire = One 50mg A-drol preWO for most training days, 50mg D-bol for widow-makers. No toxicity, I'll venture higher on dosages.

I'd still keep my Test injectable as a base for steady levels. The spikes from orals just cause to much hormonal "imbalance" (for lack of better term). There's just too many variables that make AAS a complex puzzle beyond toxicity of orals.

But man, 50mg D-bol... you havn't felt what roids can really do until you try that.

 

[Ghoul]

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2816584

 

[bigMoJo]

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2816584

With regard to "total deaths" AAS users about 2.8% vs non-AAS 0.9%, half that for "non-accidental" (natural causes) deaths.

Basically, they're saying AAS users have three times likelier chance of dying.

So, should I cut-down on the d-bol?

 

[Ghoul]

With regard to "total deaths" AAS users about 2.8% vs non-AAS 0.9%, half that for "non-accidental" (natural causes) deaths.

Basically, they're saying AAS users have three times likelier chance of dying.

So, should I cut-down on the d-bol?

Given the young median age of subjects, you'd just as effectively cut down on the risk of death by controlling steroid associated reckless behaviors like keeping your cool while driving and avoiding cocaine.

 

[bigMoJo]

Given the young median age of subjects, you'd just as effectively cut down on the risk of death by controlling steroid associated reckless behaviors like keeping your cool while driving and avoiding cocaine.

Avoiding cocaine is a big "ask" bro.

Don't let @readalot find out... this news will crush him.

 

[readalot]

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2816584

Study limitations include its observational nature, which does not establish causality, and an absence of adjustment for potential confounding variables affecting health. In Denmark, AAS use is considered outside social norms.3,5 Behaviors possibly associated with AAS use, such as risk-taking propensities or the use of other substances, may contribute to the elevated mortality risks observed

Would love to see the decoupling of AAS from the other behavioral stuff.

Get Big and Try Trying.

 

[readalot]

How would this change your approach/preferences regarding compound selection, if at all? For instance, would orals feature more prominently in your cycles? Would you default to running 500+mg/week of anavar instead of primo or masteron?

70 mg/week Test C plus 350 mg/week oxandrolone plus 80 mg/week stanozolol. Something like that, maybe tweak the OX to ST ratio a bit. 500 mg/week total androgen load.

I'd run some combo of OX / ST year round if I could.

Maybe I'll change my mind when I get some experience with GH along with metenolone/drostanolone. Can't imagine liking those 2 better than OX. My bias though.

Should probably try the oxymetholone and metandienone everyone raves about as well.

 

[readalot]

Fire = One 50mg A-drol preWO for most training days, 50mg D-bol for widow-makers. No toxicity, I'll venture higher on dosages.

But man, 50mg D-bol... you havn't felt what roids can really do until you try that

Very tempting. Thank you. Might as well try Halo as well before death.

 

[aljowa]

70 mg/week Test C plus 350 mg/week oxandrolone plus 80 mg/week stanozolol. Something like that, maybe tweak the OX to ST ratio a bit. 500 mg/week total androgen load.

I'd run some combo of OX / ST year round if I could.

Maybe I'll change my mind when I get some experience with GH along with metenolone/drostanolone. Can't imagine liking those 2 better than OX. My bias though.

Should probably try the oxymetholone and metandienone everyone raves about as well.

Oxandrolone or stanozolol combined with oxymetholone would be an interesting combo. I'm not sure what ratio to run them at, but I'd be curious to see how the dryness of the oxa/stan would pair with the fullness of oxy. Downing 150mg of each per day would yield some interesting results, I'd imagine, lol.

 

[readalot]

Oxandrolone or stanozolol combined with oxymetholone would be an interesting combo. I'm not sure what ratio to run them at, but I'd be curious to see how the dryness of the oxa/stan would pair with the fullness of oxy. Downing 150mg of each per day would yield some interesting results, I'd imagine, lol.

I think I've seen a dude on here running those types of doses. Mutant upper body. Very purple as well.

 

[bigMoJo]

Given the young median age of subjects,

Would love to see the decoupling of AAS from the other behavioral stuff.

You gentlemen bring up very interesting and well-applied analysis.

"The mean age among AAS users and control participants was 27.4 (SD, 6.9) years."

This comes out to ages between 20.5 to 34.3.

It begs the questions...
Who died, at what age, from what?
Did any 20 year old die from AAS? Doubt it, right?
Did any of the 34 year olds die?

With all the "advancements" at our disposal today—even compared to just a few years ago—access to/freedom of blood tests, knowledg-sharing forums, scientific studies... there are many "avenues" to reduce the risk of harm and death.

Yes, there's a lot left to be "decoupled" from this AND many other studies.