Notifications
Clear all
Anabolic Steroids & Prohormones
29
Posts
16
Users
0
Reactions
1,753
Views
26/01/2022 6:18 pm
Absolutely agree, of course how does one discover that they have an underlying genetic disorder in the absence of a kickass genetic laboraory in their basement? The hard way I'm afraid.
Yep. I was referring to strictly to stress testing. Still, I would imagine that, in the absence of comorbid issues, someone would be pretty safe doing a low-ball (in terms of both dose and duration) trial to determine their relative succeptibility.
26/01/2022 6:42 pm
Absolutely agree, of course how does one discover that they have an underlying genetic disorder in the absence of a kickass genetic laboraory in their basement? The hard way I'm afraid.
Easiest way is to get your GGT level measured. The cost of adding that to a blood test is around $7. In other words, you'd have to be stupid not to get that one checked. It will tell you a whole lot more about the state and vulnerability of your liver than knowing AST and ALT, which can spike even after a bout of heavy exercise.
Topic starter
26/01/2022 7:07 pm
One would need an underlying genetic disorder or some serious abuse to develop jaundice or any lasting liver damage. But everyone I know who's had a liver panel at the end of multiple weeks of oral use have elevated liver enzymes in their serum. the leakage of liver enzymes into the blood is in and of it's self likely bad for your overall health. I certainly didn't mean to imply that anyone was going to die or be hospitalized for oral use, I just don't see the point of kicking my liver, when I don't have to.No Idea who M. Fisher is.
Dazed
26/01/2022 7:33 pm
Easiest way is to get your GGT level measured. The cost of adding that to a blood test is around $7. In other words, you'd have to be stupid not to get that one checked. It will tell you a whole lot more about the state and vulnerability of your liver than knowing AST and ALT, which can spike even after a bout of heavy exercise.
TRUTH! Didn't ths assay used to be part of the liver standard panel?
Topic starter
26/01/2022 8:03 pm
TRUTH! Didn't ths assay used to be part of the liver standard panel?
It always has been for me...ALT/ALP + GGT.
26/01/2022 8:20 pm
I certainly agree with that.
Yeah me too. Occassional and responsible use of orals I don't have any issue with, but in all experience I've had you can use injectables as a more safe elegant option and experience the same results.
Test + Tren can get you anywhere you need to go.
26/01/2022 8:39 pm
Bump this quality thread.
And while I realize he is not universally respected, this article by Nelson Montana hits on many of the same themes our on Ras does.
Quis nos es non potens ut muto, nos es postulo perfero. Illegitimis non carborundum!
26/01/2022 8:59 pm
Thought you might find this interesting. Very recently published. The cycle was too short IMHO to have any real bearing. Just an FYI.
Other flaws obviously as well - underdosed, choice of AAS, etc.
1: Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006 Nov;98(4):329-40. Epub 2006 Aug 3.
Effect of multiple oral doses of androgenic anabolic steroids on endurance performance and serum indices of physical stress in healthy male subjects.
Baume N, Schumacher YO, Sottas PE, Bagutti C, Cauderay M, Mangin P, Saugy M.
Laboratoire Suisse d'Analyse du Dopage, Institut Universitaire de Medecine Legale, Ch. des Croisettes 22, 1066, Epalinges, Switzerland. [email protected]
Anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) are doping agents that are mostly used for improvement of strength and muscle hypertrophy. In some sports, athletes reported that the intake of AAS is associated with a better recovery, a higher training load capacity and therefore an increase in physical and mental performances. The purpose of this study was to evaluate, the effect of multiple doses of AAS on different physiological parameters that could indirectly relate the physical state of athletes during a hard endurance training program. In a double blind settings, three groups (n = 9, 8 and 8) were orally administered placebo, testosterone undecanoate or 19-norandrostenedione, 12 times during 1 month. Serum biomarkers (creatine kinase, ASAT and urea), serum hormone profiles (testosterone, cortisol and LH) and urinary catecholamines (noradrenalin, adrenalin and dopamine) were evaluated during the treatment. Running performance was assessed before and after the intervention phase by means of a standardized treadmill test. None of the measured biochemical variables showed significant impact of AAS on physical stress level. Data from exercise testing on submaximal and maximal level did not reveal any performance differences between the three groups or their response to the treatment. In the present study, no effect of multiple oral doses of AAS on endurance performance or bioserum recovery markers was found.
PMID: 16896724 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
26/01/2022 9:18 pm
Seems a little odd that they were measuring the effect on endurance athletes...I would not expect a month of steroids to have much effect on someone's running ability...
Quis nos es non potens ut muto, nos es postulo perfero. Illegitimis non carborundum!
26/01/2022 9:41 pm
Seems a little odd that they were measuring the effect on endurance athletes...I would not expect a month of steroids to have much effect on someone's running ability...
Agreed. Also - 19-nordione??? Isn't that classified as a PH? You would think for a study they would have chosen an oral that has a track record of being a abit more robust like methandrostenolone.
.
26/01/2022 10:02 pm
empty your inbox T
Quis nos es non potens ut muto, nos es postulo perfero. Illegitimis non carborundum!
26/01/2022 10:19 pm
empty your inbox T
done
26/01/2022 10:41 pm
I have long been an advocate of minimalism when it comes to AAS use. This does not stem from any reticence to do damage to my body, or from any fear of repercussions: I have done some monstrous cycles with equally monstrous results and consequent monstrous losses. My advocacy of minimalism is entirely based on the hypothesis that the rigours of adaptation force a dramatic return to homeostasis when setpoint is radically challenged. My question to users and theoreticians alike is whether the long-standing assertion of the inefficacy or minimal efficacy of oral-only cycles is in fact substantiable. I, for example, since becoming a 'zen juicer', use only short esters and non-aromatizing orals, and have consistently maintained 90-95% of cycle gains (which have been significant). I am wondering, especially for novice users, whether our oft-repeated caveat of not doing oral-only cycles is in fact bunk, and whether (I have seen this in my own clients) short cycles of, say, Winstrol, at moderate doses, should in fact be considered a little more rationally. I think we dismiss too quickly, and I wonder if this is simple 'reference to authority' laziness. Opinions?
Cause my English is not good enough can you please explain me what does it mean mean for you a 'zen juicer'.
Thanks..
26/01/2022 11:09 pm
Great read.
Page 2 / 2
Prev