The community elevates tren to a certain status and abuses it as a result.
My most successful prep used a MAX of 350 tren and only for 6 weeks. Drug dependency needs to go. Especially for adding size; food and training are far more important than what drugs make up the total mg and drugs chosen for tolerance (general well-being, apettire and GERD, fatigue and organ impacts, etc) are going to outperform those that are more harsh. People just use the harsh, big hitter drugs as a crutch for not eating, training, and resting like they should.
Absolutely, I view the drugs as important
once advanced no doubt. I view them as the linchpin that ties together training and nutrition. But that means they are the most dispensible of the three factors.
Training with progressive overload, hitting optimal (not simply ever increasing) volumes, tactical use of intensification methods (e.g., DC or myo-reps, muscle rounds), and dedicated training blocks for volume over tension methods and for heavy load over volume methods (periodization, basically) is foundational. Nutrition literally provides the energy to do this work and determines your body composition (basic building blocks as nutrients and energy to perform work/train/function; basic as in foundational, not easy).
No doubt, after ~2.5 years of
perfectly (emphasis because virtually nobody exists that perfectly designs and implements training) implemented resistance training, the addition of AAS will present a novel stimulus that is synergistic (greater than additive) to the training adaptations (i.e., increased muscle size).
And yet, what one actually uses with respect to the PEDs has only subtle influences.
The optimal approach is the one that you, Mac, take, to use the minimal doses necessary to elicit sane increases in muscle size and strength without spillover/side effects and selective use of the harsher compounds to bust through plateaus. The long-term focus is continuous and steady gains.
The minimal effective dose strategy > maximal tolerable dose strategy. Show me ONE guy that does the latter in his prime years (say 20 - 40) that both A) has his health later in life, and B) isn't still working on that pro card. Usually, in fact universally IMO, judging by their complaints, demeanor, lifestyle, etc. their doses are beyond tolerable anyhow.
I
also believe thaatthe PEDs are clearly vital in that they can determine outcomes at the VERY HIGHEST LEVEL (I include yours in this). Please correct me if this is contrary to your experience:
I believe that in a sense, at the highest level of a competitive endeavor that is enhanced by PED use like pro bodybuilding, that discussions about drugs are typically obfuscated; competitors tend to be less that forthcoming about their usage because, whether rooted in fact or not, it is a sort of war based on asymmetry (there is incomplete information about your competitors' protocols, dosing, compounds, etc.), and obfuscation and withholding of facts is just a strategy to, whether true or merely perceived, fortify your position against the adversaries.
Example A: I doubt that you are posting your coach's protocols for the internet and potential competitor to see.
I believe this is more pronounced during phases in the cycle where novel compounds/drug classes become available that enhance performance.
Example B: Right now the GLP-1 & GIP agonists are likely being used by your competitors, but they probably are mum on this fact, and you may even hear users of these drugs deriding them as a crutch for the weak, not needed for the disciplined, etc.
And yet, these are going to be used by many competitors right now.
My unpopular opinion, after many years of involvement in sport, is that the
least talented athletes always are the ones using drugs to begin with and/or the most drugs, but that you simply cannot turn a donkey into a racehorse.
