GW-ephedrine-caffine-alcar-osta

[BlumpkinKing]

So i just finished a great cut with test e and
Var/whinny combo. Awesome results. Want to keep the burn going to i figured a non suppressive route would be the best. First time using GW.


GW- at 20mg for 10 weeks

Ephedrine - 50 mg 10 weeks

Caffeine- 200 mg 10 weeks

Alcar- 750 mg 10 weeks

Osta - 10 mg 10 weeks.

I know it's suppressive at certain doses and bloods will be the only way to prove that. I've used with clomid before and recovered fine. So I will be getting them done just incase.

Along with continuing my diet.


What do ya think?

 

[BlumpkinKing]

Post cycle has been completed from the previous cycle.

 

[warbird01]

Looks good man. I would run a mini pct after just in case.

 

[BlumpkinKing]

Looks good man. I would run a mini pct after just in case.

i agree with you on that. Never hurts to do one.

 

[Mystere3]

That's sort of a high dose of GW, but it should def do the job, maybe consider adding s4.

 

[Whacked]

I have personally never heard that many great reviews on GW

if I were to guess, out of the 25 threads I've viewed on various boards; maybe 3 were supportive/showed results good enough to make me want to try it.

I wouldn't waste your money.

 

[pimppapa1977]

Didn't GW show cancer In the rats with the study? Like 100%? I know that they boost up the servings, but either way thats scary.

 

[BlumpkinKing]

Didn't GW show cancer In the rats with the study? Like 100%? I know that they boost up the servings, but either way thats scary.

yea at everyday doses of 400mg a day for like 3 years on the rat. You have a better chance of developing cancer from your tap water. Did a human study in Australia 10 mg for a year and no signs of cell changes. Only fat loss

 

[BlumpkinKing]

I have personally never heard that many great reviews on GW if I were to guess, out of the 25 threads I've viewed on various boards; maybe 3 were supportive/showed results good enough to make me want to try it. I wouldn't waste your money.

its already been bought. So we will see how it treats me. Seemed like a lot of threads I've seen were high body fat people with poor diets looking for the easy way to get fit and thin.

 

[BlumpkinKing]

That's sort of a high dose of GW, but it should def do the job, maybe consider adding s4.

that is one compound I would have to research more. I've read the GW -S4 combo is the ticket though!!

 

[BlumpkinKing]

I have personally never heard that many great reviews on GW if I were to guess, out of the 25 threads I've viewed on various boards; maybe 3 were supportive/showed results good enough to make me want to try it. I wouldn't waste your money.

also GW is highly faked. A lot of them are just arimistane. It's a very very expensive raw. If your not paying at least 120 a vial it's probably fake.

 

[reps4jesus]

also GW is highly faked. A lot of them are just arimistane. It's a very very expensive raw. If your not paying at least 120 a vial it's probably fake.

This is sadly the case with most of the things you THINK your getting. Caber for example.

 

[BlumpkinKing]

This is sadly the case with most of the things you THINK your getting. Caber for example.

very true.

 

[jarhead]

also GW is highly faked. A lot of them are just arimistane. It's a very very expensive raw. If your not paying at least 120 a vial it's probably fake.

Can you elaborate on this? That would mean that a board sponsor is selling fake stuff. I'm genuinely asking, not starting a pissing contest so don't take it the wrong way. I am currently running a sarm cycle and have been less than impressed with the results and haven't seen anything that couldn't be attributed to my diet or training. I have tried two different companies, both of which were well under 120. Many of the companies are which makes what you're saying troubling. I have also noticed after reading extensively about sarms that a very large amount of positive feedback is from people with multiple accounts on multiple sites with connections to certain research companies. Even some of the posts have the same tone, info, results, and even phrasing. (I'm not suggesting you are, just stating what I've seen.) Are there specific characteristics of the products that people should look for, taste, color, etc. I know for example with s4 there is vision side effect. I've had none at 50mg/day. Any input would be great.

 

[BlumpkinKing]

Can you elaborate on this? That would mean that a board sponsor is selling fake stuff. I'm genuinely asking, not starting a pissing contest so don't take it the wrong way. I am currently running a sarm cycle and have been less than impressed with the results and haven't seen anything that couldn't be attributed to my diet or training. I have tried two different companies, both of which were well under 120. Many of the companies are which makes what you're saying troubling. I have also noticed after reading extensively about sarms that a very large amount of positive feedback is from people with multiple accounts on multiple sites with connections to certain research companies. Even some of the posts have the same tone, info, results, and even phrasing. (I'm not suggesting you are, just stating what I've seen.) Are there specific characteristics of the products that people should look for, taste, color, etc. I know for example with s4 there is vision side effect. I've had none at 50mg/day. Any input would be great.

many research labs sell bunk products or under dosed just look at the reviews. the facts I have stated were parroted from other people who have used the products. Not saying all products are bunk. I cannot state which place I use. Against the rules. But I do know that GW is a expensive raw. You can look at the prices per kilo online compared to others.

 

[BlumpkinKing]

Also like I said first time using GW. I dug around for months of reviews,results, uses,studies. And I stated what I viewed.

 

[BlumpkinKing]

Also what i stated has nothing to do with the boards. I don't use those nor would I ever.

 

[Mystere3]

Didn't GW show cancer In the rats with the study? Like 100%? I know that they boost up the servings, but either way thats scary.

You know what been shown to cause cancer IN HUMANS?

Steroids.

 

[Ephedraboy]

So i just finished a great cut with test e and
Var/whinny combo. Awesome results. Want to keep the burn going to i figured a non suppressive route would be the best. First time using GW.


GW- at 20mg for 10 weeks

Ephedrine - 50 mg 10 weeks

Caffeine- 200 mg 10 weeks

Alcar- 750 mg 10 weeks

Osta - 10 mg 10 weeks.

I know it's suppressive at certain doses and bloods will be the only way to prove that. I've used with clomid before and recovered fine. So I will be getting them done just incase.

Along with continuing my diet.


What do ya think?

What is GW?
And where do you buy your ephedrine?

 

[jarhead]

You know what been shown to cause cancer IN HUMANS?

Steroids.

Do you have a link to the study that shows that steroids CAUSE cancer in humans?

 

[Mystere3]

There's hundreds if not thousands of studies. Hepatic adenoma is a tumor essentially only caused by exogenous hormone use (both test and estrogen) however androgen use tends to cause the b-catenin sub type which has a higher percentage of malignant transformation (46%)

Here's a good article about this:

Malignant transformation of hepatocellular adenomas into hepatocellular carcinomas: a systematic review including more than 1600 adenoma cases

β-catenin activated hepatocellular adenoma

 

[jarhead]

Hundreds or thousands? Neither link shows your blanket claim claim that steroids CAUSE cancer. They talk about a benign tumor that can develop from the liver damage associated with oral anabolics as well as other drugs and conditions. And there is no no cause and effect relationship demonstrated of your claim. But, again, hepatomic adenomas are not cancerous. And you are misrepresenting the statistics by the 46% claim. 4.2% of adenomas were found to be malignant, of which 10-15% were found to be the b-catenin subtype. Of that subtype - Hepatocellular carcinoma associated with adenoma was found in 46% of β-catenin-mutated tumours. This is what I'm talking about as far as sarms and gw. There is a very stout defense and downplaying of the study on gw and cancer which is a bit strange. And yes, I understand the difference in dosage between mice and humans in the study. But to compare that to the blanket claim that steroids cause cancer is silly and odd. I've heard this same defense from reps of certain companies and here on this board from a few guys that popped up and were eventually banned.

 

[Mystere3]

Steroids cause HCC directly too (http://www.hindawi.com/journals/cripa/2012/195607/ , http://books.google.com/books?id=pqHUFg2tc08C&pg=PA236&lpg=PA236&dq=hcc+anabolic+steroids&********bl&ots=x6WZrTOJiS&sig=_4qiv0lrHg-v42B1NnK6VhLvSgA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3dlNU_uwCaT4yQGnwoDwAQ&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBw , hnson FL, Lerner KG, Siegel M, et al. Association of androgenic-anabolic steroid therapy with development of hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet. 1972;2:1273-1276. PMID: 4117807)

furthermore to say that they don't cause cancer is being deliberately naive, like saying dangerous colonic polyps don't cause colon cancer. Hepatic adenomas are a precancerous lesion, just like colonic villous adenomas are precancerous lesions.

Hepatic adenomas don't occur in men without the use of AAS. No one is going to do a clinical trial in humans to prove cause/effect for obvious reasons, but it's pretty clear there's a causal relationship.

 

[jarhead]

Steroids cause HCC directly too (http://www.hindawi.com/journals/cripa/2012/195607/ , http://books.google.com/books?id=pqHUFg2tc08C&pg=PA236&lpg=PA236&dq=hcc+anabolic+steroids&********bl&ots=x6WZrTOJiS&sig=_4qiv0lrHg-v42B1NnK6VhLvSgA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3dlNU_uwCaT4yQGnwoDwAQ&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBw , hnson FL, Lerner KG, Siegel M, et al. Association of androgenic-anabolic steroid therapy with development of hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet. 1972;2:1273-1276. PMID: 4117807)

furthermore to say that they don't cause cancer is being deliberately naive, like saying dangerous colonic polyps don't cause colon cancer. Hepatic adenomas are a precancerous lesion, just like colonic villous adenomas are precancerous lesions.

Hepatic adenomas don't occur in men without the use of AAS. No one is going to do a clinical trial in humans to prove cause/effect for obvious reasons, but it's pretty clear there's a causal relationship.

Not true. They do occur in men without aas. In fact MOST of them occur without them. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2020650/
"Up to 20% of adenomas are documented as occurring in male patients. Most are solitary and occur in patients without recognised risk factors (steroid therapy and glycogen storage diseases types I and III). "

And it is not naive to say [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, serif]hepatic adenomas[/FONT] don't cause cancer. They are benign. Malignancy is rare. Your own links state that. You are using a blanket statement that "steroids" cause cancer to counter the study on gw. That is completley misleading. Chronic longterm oral aas use obviously can damage the liver which can lead to a number of complications. That is much different than the study that showed rapid developing cancer in all doses with rats. Again, I understand the difference in dosing with humans. But to ignore that study while claiming that steroids cause cancer when clearly the situation isn't that simple is a bit odd.

 

[Mystere3]

They're a pre-cancerous lesion. I also posted three references of steroids causing hepatocellular carcinoma without causing an adenoma.

Idk if you read that article you posted but their methods are severely flawed. They came up with that analysis of a meta analysis of case reports which isn't really a valid statistical technique because the individual trials are far too small (some had 5 ppl) to conclude that most cases happen in the absence of predisposing risk factors.

While it's true that patients with NASH (itself a pre-cancerous condition) can develop adenomas, as well as ppl with GSDs (which is a tiny percentage of the population and irrelevant to our discussion), typically (but admittedly not necessarily) that happens at a later age and is likely in fat people who are more likely to have a history of alcohol abuse. Also, the b-catenin type which has the highest chance of malignancy is associated with AAS.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12072-008-9075-0/fulltext.html

Furthermore doctors aren't going to test the patient for steroids, the only way they'll know if the patient is taking them is if they admit it.

In young male patients with adenomas the cause will almost always be AAS. Will it necessarily become cancer? No, but it may. Smoking doesn't necessarily mean you'll get cancer, but it greatly increases your chances. Furthermore even without malignancy, adenomas can rupture and cause catastrophic hemorrhage (in about 20% of pts) which is why we always recommend resection.

Finally AAS are associated (but no cause-effect link is yet established) with increased risk of prostate cancer in several series.

 

[jarhead]

They're a pre-cancerous lesion. I also posted three references of steroids causing hepatocellular carcinoma without causing an adenoma.Idk if you read that article you posted but their methods are severely flawed. They came up with that analysis of a meta analysis of case reports which isn't really a valid statistical technique because the individual trials are far too small (some had 5 ppl) to conclude that most cases happen in the absence of predisposing risk factors. While it's true that patients with NASH (itself a pre-cancerous condition) can develop adenomas, as well as ppl with GSDs (which is a tiny percentage of the population and irrelevant to our discussion), typically (but admittedly not necessarily) that happens at a later age and is likely in fat people who are more likely to have a history of alcohol abuse. Also, the b-catenin type which has the highest chance of malignancy is associated with AAS. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12072-008-9075-0/fulltext.htmlFurthermore doctors aren't going to test the patient for steroids, the only way they'll know if the patient is taking them is if they admit it. In young male patients with adenomas the cause will almost always be AAS. Will it necessarily become cancer? No, but it may. Smoking doesn't necessarily mean you'll get cancer, but it greatly increases your chances. Furthermore even without malignancy, adenomas can rupture and cause catastrophic hemorrhage (in about 20% of pts) which is why we always recommend resection.Finally AAS are associated (but no cause-effect link is yet established) with increased risk of prostate cancer in several series.

They are BENIGN and rare to begin with, or as the study calls the, a "rare phenomenon". Becoming malignant is even more rare. And the b-catenin type represents a very small percentage of of adenomas, and is even more rare. You are still misrepresenting the data and repeating the same things. And you're saying the study I linked was flawed because of the size group studied (despite the fact that the references in the link have plenty of cases) yet your link on hcc's was about one person, a 37 year old with a history of chronic abuse. It also states the following:"In the literature the correlation between anabolic misuse by bodybuilders and the development of HCC is reported only in seven cases retrospectively. In contrast, numerous cases about the development of HCC in patients taking anabolic steroids because of other underlying diseases have been referred"You are taking an extremely rare condition and trying to say steroids , meaning all, cause cancer. That is an odd position to take while completely writing off the gw study which clearly demonstrated rapid cancer development.As far a gsd's being irrelevant, that's ridiculous. Most of the cases that develop are in people with gsd's. http://journals.lww.com/jpgn/Abstract/1997/03000/Hepatocellular_Adenomas_in_Glycogen_Storage.8.aspxhttp://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02679993