Maximally Synergistic Stacks

[Zeus45]

Sure masteron is an anabolic steroid. But it feels no different to me than injectable proviron. and we know proviron is a weak anabolic. Masteron is a shit very mild builder compared to anadrol, dbol, anavar, npp etc.

 

[Pantera]

Will yield around the same LBM (lean body mass) gains exactly. Lbm will be more or less the same the only thing that changes is the appearance and some unique effects of each steroid

1 gram of tren will put on the same amount of muscle as 1 gram of proviron?

 

[Nilatac]

1 gram of tren will put on the same amount of muscle as 1 gram of proviron?

Why do you compare proviron with a real anabolic? Also halo is out of that conversation because is not used to build muscle. On paper it is 12X more anabolic than test but that's on paper

Compare general anabolic between them.(test,tren,deca,primo,mast,eq,dhb,dbol,drol,sdrol,anavar and there are others but you got the point).
Is a like you compare a pair of underwear and a jumper to keep you warm. Is not the same thing. Compare a jumper with a jacket

 

[Leg_locker]

Well @mr.redpill I think we found your next cycle
1g test prop Ed
1g npp Ed
3g tren ace Ed
1g mast prop Ed
1g dhb Ed
142mg avavar Ed
Total=50g a week (baby doses by some standards)
If my broscience math is correct you should be able to get 300pounds of lbm after 30 weeks
Live large, die large, leave a giant coffin bro!

 

[AlwaysHungry]

Why you silly over here ?
Because raising dosage means increase lbm that doesn't mean you have to take it to the extreme.
Most people do great on 1.5-2g and I mean really great like they get what they signed up for.
It is called productivity and you know how to be productive when you learn.

Individual A, will blast on 1.5g make really great gains then maintain on trt

Individual B, will try to squeeze every little drop of those 500mg for God knows how many weeks , will end up semi bulking at its worst or maintain his weight along with his condition at its best

 

[finroid]

People saying mg of AAS is roughly the same as mg of another AAS, could you please explain what is anabolic rating, what is anabolism and why are they so different between different compounds? And please don't go into halo's ridicilious rating as it has been proven time and time again that theoretical value doesn't always translate into pratical real-life one.

 

[Type-IIx]

Do you have a study to pull out that was made in 60' on 7 people to show how much adding tren will give more actual muscle tissue.
And we talk about muscle not how you look or water weight or anything else. Just muscle

You seems to have a pointless study on everything and write a page using useless words so that's why I asked

You've already expressed a view that:

1. Studies
2. Multisyllabic words
3. Comparisons of AAS that aren't on your preapproved list (can't use Halo or Proviron, because they're "not [sufficiently] anabolic," disproving your argument)

are useless.

What's the point of continued debate - a stretch of the term's meaning - with you?

 

[Type-IIx]

As far as dying from hormones yeah maybe after decades of abuse your hypertrophic heart will explode your arteries will clog etc.
But yet haven't seen directly evidence that testosterone can kill you. Or was the reason that you drop dead.
You can use grams upon grams for years and be fine of course when you drop dead with huge heart that is a result of AAS abuse.
But I can't overdose on steroids. I won't drop dead because I'm using 2g test a week. My heart will be getting bigger and bigger and after decades I will drop dead from this.
But haven't seen any report that said "Rick drop dead due to overuse of anabolic hormones"

Strong case you make here for your assertion that hormones can't kill you: Can't overdose on them, ergo they're not as acutely deadly as fentantyl or heroin, ergo can't kill you. Compelling.

 

[jJjburton]

This.

Each compound has different effects on the body besides anabolism. Tren is anticatabolic as mentioned.

If all things were created equal, everybody would administer injectible methyltrienolone and we would be plagued by 500lbs walking behemoths.

False because food.

 

[jJjburton]

It's not equivalent it's similar. And don't confuse muscle with water retention

Ahh sworder its you!

 

[AlwaysHungry]

Strong case you make here for your assertion that hormones can't kill you: Can't overdose on them, ergo they're not as acutely deadly as fentantyl or heroin, ergo can't kill you. Compelling.

However I know you can develop problems with your health who in lot of cases can and are deadly.
Steroids kills you slow just like smoking

 

[Type-IIx]

However I know you can develop problems with your health who in lot of cases can and are deadly.
Steroids kills you slow just like smoking

I agree with that.

 

[mr.redpill]

I don't have a pedestal to stand atop in this argument, given my obviously inexperienced nature with AAS(besides test).

But in terms of health -or my own health I should say- Given that I'll never use what most would quantify as *dangerous amounts of AAS*, I'm more concerned with the carrier oil itself. Please correct me if I'm wrong @Type-IIx - But I believe that the link between heart disease and vegetable oils that are high in linoleic acid or other polyunsaturated omega-6 fatty acids(GSO, Soybean, sesame, etc.) is just as strong, if not stronger, than the link between heart disease and AAS...

I wonder if someone injecting 10ml/week of (non-AAS) high PUFA vegetable oils for 20 years would yield the same or similar health defects w/o the AAS compound itself.

I mean, who's to not say that the early mortality of modern pro bodybuilders has more to do with the fact that they're injecting like .05 liters of vegetables oil into their bodies every week, and less to do with AAS. How do we isolate this factor? Have there been studies on this?

I know this is somewhat irrelevant to the discussion, but it's a pretty fucked rabit hole to go down if anyone wants to. I'll be sticking to MCT only(Lowest in PUFA's ((Polyunsaturated fatty acids)).

 

[Nilatac]

You've already expressed a view that:

1. Studies
2. Multisyllabic words
3. Comparisons of AAS that aren't on your preapproved list (can't use Halo or Proviron, because they're "not [sufficiently] anabolic," disproving your argument)

are useless.

What's the point of continued debate - a stretch of the term's meaning - with you?

Anyone who used steroids knows how things goes in real life and not in a "study ".

I use steroids that actually build muscle in real life like everything besides those 2-3 and what everyone use,every gym rat.

Why to use halo for a example just to prove a point?
Almost no one use halo, no one used halo for the purpose of building muscle,no one said "bro I will get on a 12 weeks halo cycle and get huge",no one used 2g of halo. Can we actually have some common sense here? Or yeah I showed him that I am smart by taking a example of something no one does.

Don't take in consideration halo,proviron,mtren or any other thing that 98% of people don't use often or ever
Do that comparison with general steroids (test,tren,mast,primo,eq,dhb,deca and orals dbol,drol,sdrol,anavar and some others but you get it).

Do comparisons between cycles of what gym rats take.
For example 1g of test and 600 deca does build him significantly more muscle than the guy that took 400 test and 1,2g deca over 20 weeks and having the similar variables (diet,training, resting). Does the first guy build 5 kg and the second 8 kg? No it will be similar amount
But if you want to make a example of a guy that take 1,6g of halo to build more muscle then the first guy and saying that not all steroids have the same capacity to build muscle because halo guy didn't grow and actually got a liver transplant check yourself how you put the problem in the first place. No one used 1,2 g of halo. I don't have a study to show you how many people use halo in general but maybe you pullout a study

Man we talked about real life applications not useless studies from 60 years ago made on 5 guys.
I know it's hard to get that but that's on what you should report yourself. Real life applications on real people that go to gym and what happen to them by taking x amount of anabolic and then compare with same people that took same total mg of anabolics but 2 or more substance and they built significant more muscle. Well the answer of that is no.

You are the study guy and pullout studies that are useless just to sound smart and probably you make a penny or two out of that by tricking people that you know what are you talking about because: "he use words that I never read before and it's a study that he speaks from so that's right".
Dude make a youtube, do videos speaking of studies like that guy Leo did and trick lost souls that that's how it is in real life applications. Or sell some useless programs or whatever is the trick in trend nowadays

Building muscle and taking steroids is a simple concept can we not complicate that for no reason.

There is no debate. You can do whatever you want as far as I am concern. You can do bungee jumping without a rope because that what studies show you and I sleep the same at night.

Everyone can do whatever they want and take whatever steroids they want I really don't care and don't win anything from this.
I don't train people and I don't have a purpose to pullout studies to sound like I have the secret to get clients online and train them on 60 years old studies. Man get a grip on what real applications is

 

[Nilatac]

However I know you can develop problems with your health who in lot of cases can and are deadly.
Steroids kills you slow just like smoking

Living kills you slow
The side effect of living is dying

 

[narta]

False because food.

Other parameters are supposed to be constant. Food training hydration etc.

That's the problem when comparing science based (aka standardized parameters) with anecdotal brosciense (aka do whatever the fuck you want) theories.

If we could somehow eliminate methyltrienolone's toxic traits and keep only the androgenic and anabolic characteristics, we could totally see a new era of behemoths to walk on stage. Same with halo, same with superdrol and every other steroid that has elevated anabolic action compared to testosterone.

Out world became a better place because we started measuring, analyzing and put in use scientific data. Same goes into sports or whatever. Discarding that for brosciense is like wanting to go back to the stone age.

 

[Pantera]

Why do you compare proviron with a real anabolic?

Because sometimes it is easier to demonstrate a point when the counter example is absurd.

My thoughts on this matter are that each person has their own upper limit for how much muscle they can build per given time frame. That limit is likely approached asymptotically as dosages increase (assuming all other factors remain constant).

Most people are also probably approaching that limit when running big stacks like 800mg test + 800mg deca. Assuming your theory is correct, that could explain why you probably won't notice that huge of a difference in results between 800mg test + 800mg deca vs 1600mg test.

But then, that does not imply that all steroids build muscle at a similar rate. It's just that at those doses, you are hitting almost 100% of the maximum rate of muscle building.

If you truly want to know if they build muscle at the same rate, you should compare them at doses where they aren't hitting that 100% limit. Of course there is probably no study for this, so we would have to infer from the data that we do have. But my intuition tells me that 100mg of test per week, for example, will NOT build nearly as much muscle as 100mg of tren per week. Or 100 mg of anadrol per week. Or 100mg of anavar per week.

 

[jJjburton]

Because sometimes it is easier to demonstrate a point when the counter example is absurd.

My thoughts on this matter are that each person has their own upper limit for how much muscle they can build per given time frame. That limit is likely approached asymptotically as dosages increase (assuming all other factors remain constant).

Most people are also probably approaching that limit when running big stacks like 800mg test + 800mg deca. Assuming your theory is correct, that could explain why you probably won't notice that huge of a difference in results between 800mg test + 800mg deca vs 1600mg test.

But then, that does not imply that all steroids build muscle at a similar rate. It's just that at those doses, you are hitting almost 100% of the maximum rate of muscle building.

If you truly want to know if they build muscle at the same rate, you should compare them at doses where they aren't hitting that 100% limit. Of course there is probably no study for this, so we would have to infer from the data that we do have. But my intuition tells me that 100mg of test per week, for example, will NOT build nearly as much muscle as 100mg of tren per week. Or 100 mg of anadrol per week. Or 100mg of anavar per week.

You will find those doses get pretty high, if all things the same.

You will see 500 tresn is less effective then 1000 mg. Etc with ever AAS.

And 1000 tren, 1000 deca, 1000 test better then 500 each. So that stradegy will only be shown be the people who are already Olymipa stage. You cannot find this info from someone on here.

Even mac wild cat, ran high doses at one point, or wunderpus. These people would put this claim to rest. To what your saying here.

 

[jJjburton]

Because sometimes it is easier to demonstrate a point when the counter example is absurd.

My thoughts on this matter are that each person has their own upper limit for how much muscle they can build per given time frame. That limit is likely approached asymptotically as dosages increase (assuming all other factors remain constant).

Most people are also probably approaching that limit when running big stacks like 800mg test + 800mg deca. Assuming your theory is correct, that could explain why you probably won't notice that huge of a difference in results between 800mg test + 800mg deca vs 1600mg test.

But then, that does not imply that all steroids build muscle at a similar rate. It's just that at those doses, you are hitting almost 100% of the maximum rate of muscle building.

If you truly want to know if they build muscle at the same rate, you should compare them at doses where they aren't hitting that 100% limit. Of course there is probably no study for this, so we would have to infer from the data that we do have. But my intuition tells me that 100mg of test per week, for example, will NOT build nearly as much muscle as 100mg of tren per week. Or 100 mg of anadrol per week. Or 100mg of anavar per week.

But as you say “MOST PEOPLE” i guess there you are correct, but if all other aspectes are constant, more will grow more muscle. Thats just what they do.

 

[hallomonde]

At the end of the day, you guys end up talking over each other.
And me, who have zero intent of going past 300mg ever feels like a weirdo when I see people blasting grams of gear.