Anavar/Primobolan cycle for a female

[Realgains]

I agree except on wording!

While 10 mg may sound like a low amount of oxandrolone, matching up with "even with as little as," that is actually a quite major dose for a woman.

As you say, such side effects are likely at this dosage level.

There's a reason the medical dose for women (pre-AIDS-wasting-syndrome) was 2.5 mg.

And not to beat the drum with the illustration, as after all it is only a personal observation that I don't claim to be a dead match for every anabolic steroid, but on the 1/10th rule, what would we compare 10 mg/day to?

To 100 mg/day for a man. On the heavy end rather than the mild end.

So as it happens, oxandrolone conforms to this rule of thumb also.

Where a woman doesn't want laser treatment to come in or much chance of voice change, for oxandrolone 5 mg/day in divided doses is a better top-end, and still can be markedly effective.

Yes, I agree...except I like 10-15mg for real results. Just be willing to get laser hair removal done lol My wife did 15 for 12 weeks. Needed 10 laser treatments to get rid of the hair....but damn did her body rock lol ...and she kept it all cause she was and is on TRT for women at 5mg per day (test gel). No deepening of her voice. Some clit swelling but it went away.

She didn't see very good results from 5mg a day.
The serious fitness comp ladies use at least 10m and often 15-20. You don't wanna know what a few of my female bodybuilders take. lol

RG

 

[Bill Roberts]

Yes, to be clear, my focus has been not with competitors, but where the wives of those I was consulting wanted quite substantial improvement. But were not themselves competing.

These days, there is no way to compete without going to doses having some virilizing effects.

I just haven't wanted to be involved with the competitive levels. Too much of a grey area, too much concern on my part that what a woman might be happy with today, later she may regret. I like the feeling that I know of no one who feels that my advice harmed them and just don't want to go away from that. Of course a more sensible approach than mine is that the women are adults, too, and am I their father? no. But still it just is not for me, personally, while recognizing that those doing a good job with it, are doing a good job and helping! So my advice for women is always on the more conservative side, yet still quite effective compared to natural. But not quite as much as can be done while still not slipping into "Good morning, sir." Maybe half as much as the maximum amount that still usually avoids that, as a rough figure.

 

[Dr JIM]

I concur. My earlier comments are reflective of the multiple novice female lifters - bodybuilder wannabes whom "wanna look like her"! 0ftentimes not recognizing what was required besides the little blue pill and clearly not cognizant of the androgenic side effects of steroids some of which are permanent especially at higher doses.
Furthermore, occasionally I have seen those whom clearly exceed the risk benefit ratio with steroid use such as hypertension and even "borderline diabetes" or abnormal LFTs from the onset. These issue are most assuredly not going to be diagnosed by some gym rat whose "been there done that".
Consequently placing anyone females in particular on steroids absent baseline screening labs and physical exam is asking for unforeseen complications.
Granted once these issues are addressed, should they exist, then cautiously using steroids in our female counterparts can be a very rewarding venture lol!

 

[Dr JIM]

Incidentally, this is probably self evident in my rebuttals, but my experience and admitted bias parallels those of B.R. more than those of Dr Gains.
Regards
Dr. Jim

 

[blondgirll]

@realgains
When you say the dosage/day, for example like you say 15Mg/day Anavar for your wife, was that being taken everyday day for 15 Weeks???

 

[contactsam]

It seems to fall along with most other anabolic steroids for benefit/risk. About 40-50 mg/week, preferably divided to two doses per week, is very effective but reasonably conservative I think for safety. (Not extremely conservative however. I'm sure for some there is risk with this dosage.)

Again, not talking about effectiveness in the pro bb'ing sense.

Bill ... what about test prop with added inhibitors - 5-alpha and aromatase? Taking these inhibitors with testosterone, doesn't it greatly reduce the "androgenic" part of the testosterone? Increasing the anabolic ratio? Prop is fast acting too - so, less long-term problems?

Also - I know this thread is about females - but what about older males who want to reduce androgen sides (hair for example). Would you still suggest low dose anadrol compared to the typical "safer" roids such as Anavar, Winstrol, Primo, etc.?

thank you...

 

[Dr JIM]

AIs sure but avoid 5-alpha reductase inhibitors unless you are willing to risk becoming impotent, possibly long term! Heck who knows if the A-A ratios, developed by Potts in 1976 using rat anal muscular development as the gold standard, and is referenced in a multitude of studies, remains viable today.

 

[Dr JIM]

Sorry but I couldn't resist the temptation BR. Are you aware of any recent on AA ratio updates? Are they more credible today with the varied metabolic discoveries and considerably improved immunoassay sensitivities and specificities since 1976?

 

[contactsam]

Sorry but I couldn't resist the temptation BR. Are you aware of any recent on AA ratio updates?

Where can one find these updates?...

It's sad that 98% of all steroids were developed over half a century ago. It would be nice if some "new and improved" versions came out these days - just for HRT and longevity reasons...

 

[Dr JIM]

I don't know of any, because many studies are still using rat anal sphincter hypertrophy and prostatic changes as a benchmark for the A-A ratio. However I was hopeful BR could be aware of some advancements in science, (over the past 35 years), as I mentioned earlier, which further establishes their contemporary credibility.

 

[Bill Roberts]

Sorry but I couldn't resist the temptation BR. Are you aware of any recent on AA ratio updates? Are they more credible today with the varied metabolic discoveries and considerably improved immunoassay sensitivities and specificities since 1976?

Well, really the problem is that while it's a quite interesting story and was good science for the knowledge available then, it was all fundamentally a mistake.

Briefly, in medicinal chemistry when searching out of many candidates for new compounds or new extracts, often this is guided by assay. In other words, a test will be used to determine the potency of the compound or extract with regard to desired activity. In some cases, assays may exist for undesired activities to.

If the assays are of a type that accurately predict effect in humans, all is well. If not, well... you do wind up choosing some compounds over others but perhaps not for the right reason. Perhaps your choices are still good, though.

Back when anabolic steroids were being developed it was an entirely an unknown fact that there is only one androgen receptor. In fact it was widely assumed that there were different receptors for anabolic activity versus androgenic activity. So, given this assumption, assays for "anabolic" and "androgenic" activity were devised and compounds were tested according to these assays.

As you know, in the most common assay (Hirshberger's) anabolic activity was assessed by efffect on the levator ani muscle of the rat, similar to the PCG muscle of Kegel exercise fame, and is sex-specific. Androgenic activity was determined by effect on the prostate.

So really rather than calling this "anabolic/androgenic ratio," it is "levator ani / prostate" ratio.

Amazingly, just about every steroid tried turned out to be "improved" relative to testosterone! Funny how the binding to the anabolic receptor was always improved moreso than the binding to the androgenic receptor!

Well of course the actual story is that testosterone was potentiated in the prostate by conversion to DHT, whereas the synthetics were not.

Nowadays activity can be measured by induced increase in gene transcription.

 

[Bill Roberts]

Bill ... what about test prop with added inhibitors - 5-alpha and aromatase? Taking these inhibitors with testosterone, doesn't it greatly reduce the "androgenic" part of the testosterone? Increasing the anabolic ratio? Prop is fast acting too - so, less long-term problems?

Also - I know this thread is about females - but what about older males who want to reduce androgen sides (hair for example). Would you still suggest low dose anadrol compared to the typical "safer" roids such as Anavar, Winstrol, Primo, etc.?

thank you...

If referring to men, really prefer using testosterone only up to the dose that, individually, one likes the effects from or is comfortable with, and then past that, using synthetics if desired, rather than employing 5AR inhibitors.

That is where no particular regard is being taken to the hair: if really concerned about that then it's something that some do and are happy with, and a few are not.

Anadrol is as good an oral anabolic as others for men but is I think comparable for effect on the hair to others as well.

If for women, testosterone at extremely low dose is fine for quality of life enhancement: a 5AR inhibitor wouldn't be helpful because the dose is chosen to be appropriate with the degree of natural conversion that takes place. The conversion is part of the benefit.

 

[Dr JIM]

Bill
Thanks for you astute insight but one more query.
I understand several of designer AAS aren't converted to DHT (Tren, Deca, Bolo?) yet what about the others with elongated alkyl groups at C-17, the addition of a pyrazole ring to the "A ring", varied alterations to C-1, C-2 and C-7 etc, manufactured previously. Are these anabolics also subject to 5HT reduction and subsequent DHT production?
I can't locate the metabolic pathways for these steroids in the literature and it seems by avoiding those with 5HT metabolism one could circumvent the androgenic effects. I suspect my inclination is far to simplified...NO -YES??

 

[Bill Roberts]

Anything that has no double bond in the 4 position won't be affected by the 5-AR enzyme.

And where 5-alpha reduction does occur, it doesn't necessarily potentiate the molecule, though it does in the case of testosterone.

Perhaps where a discovery might lie is a compound working in general as a typical anabolic steroid but (like nandrolone) becoming less potent on 5-AR metabolism, without nandrolone's side effects or other unusual side effects. I suppose it's not impossible that such a molecule might exist.

 

[Dr JIM]

Your SUBLIME thanks again!
Best regards,
Jim

 

[contactsam]

If referring to men, really prefer using testosterone only up to the dose that, individually, one likes the effects from or is comfortable with, and then past that, using synthetics if desired, rather than employing 5AR inhibitors.

That is where no particular regard is being taken to the hair: if really concerned about that then it's something that some do and are happy with, and a few are not.

Thank you taking the time to reply - I really appreciate it.

Now, if a man is concerned about hair (as I am), which would be good synthetics? Forget nandrolones, hate the libido issues =( Primobolan?... or, some the more "exotic" ones such as Cholestabol acetate?

I always feel like the orals do cause hair issues. I can get Oxandrolone all day long with a script. But... maybe Anadrol is a better option?

BTW, for me - GH for sure causes hair loss... especially at higher dosages. I've tried it time and time again and always, same results - even though it just doesn't make sense. Maybe you can shed some light on why GH would do so?

Also - my goal isn't to get huge... just a bit of an edge and some improvements as I get to the 40 year mark. =)

 

[Bill Roberts]

The more "noise" (random variation) in results, the harder it is to discern any actual differences in effect, if any. For this reason I think it would take a very large amount of data, carefully acquired, legitimately to discern differences, if any, for hair loss among the anabolic steroids other than nandrolone.

My guess is they're all about the same; anything that activates the AR will promote male pattern baldness; and apparently anabolic steroids which do not bind the AR particularly well but do have strong anabolic effect such as Anadrol are also culprits.

Other than being reduced in potency by 5-AR (nandrolone) for an anabolic steroid to build muscle but not promote MPB might be a situation rather like an anabolic steroid promoting growth of left arms but not right arms!

 

[Dr JIM]

Sound like synergism to me. Can't have one without the other although the effects of either receptor can be moderated somewhat. Metabolically I suspect if you COULD severely restrict the androgen receptor effects the anabolic benefits would be significantly curtailed also.
Get a hair transplant its well worth the short term discomfort for the long term benefits. It's not cheap but the prices are much more competitive (Bosley NOT). I had 2K grafts placed for 5K.
My only regret was not doing it sooner!

 

[Bill Roberts]

Yes, Will Brink advised me years ago that, particularly as I didn't mind being thinner and wasn't trying to disguise the overall fact but did want to still retain the hairline, that I shouldn't wait.

Now, it would be guesswork what the original hairline used to be! There's still one, if being technical, but it's not in the same place or shape. And as I'm not a photo person, I don't have a single pic of myself that could be used as a guide. The few that there are, really don't show the hairline.

I wouldn't have needed 2000 implants to have achieved that, either.

 

[contactsam]

Get a hair transplant its well worth the short term discomfort for the long term benefits. It's not cheap but the prices are much more competitive (Bosley NOT). I had 2K grafts placed for 5K.
My only regret was not doing it sooner!

Well, I finally gave in and got transplants after years of trying to fight my genetics. My original mentor was Duchaine and that's all we spoke about - keeping hair, while growing muscle (the later years before he "moved" on). That's why I did GH and honestly, that was just as bad for my hair - I still can't figure out why. (Bill... any thoughts?...)

If you want to know who is the best transplant doc, I can tell you. I don't want to post/advertise here.

But, I did almost 5000 hairs and well, it's certainly not enough... I'll need to do more in a few months. I don't know if I'm still having to wait to see all the results (it's been 6 months now) or if a lot didn't grow or I was balder than I thought. =(

Sigh... freakin hair genetics. I wish I didn't care ... but I DO!!!

I see Jay Cutler at the gym every now and then, the guy has amazing hair genes - barely has fuzz on his shoulders, no hair problems DESPITE gallons of juice.