Next cycle: test, mast, tren and winnie

[Warrior_1]

For my next cycle I'm thinking:

1-12 Test E 400/wk
1-8 Tren E 245/wk
3-12 Mast E 400/wk
5-12 Winne 350/wk
3-12 hCG 500/wk

And PCT

The intention is run tren a little lower, but longer, than last time to keep prolactin and tren sides in check, and not hurt cardio too much, but take advantage of the amazing gains tren brings. (Actually i'm not even sure tren hurt my cardio that much last time. BP went up and cardio down before i even started the tren.)

Would like to run longer esters than prop and ace to avoid all the wasted time, hardware and product. I ran 50 ed (25x2) tren ace, which is 350/wk, so i can handle 245 no problem.

The goal is lean mass. To perform well at my fall/winter/spring sport i cannot have excess water or fat weight. Enough water to keep the joints happy, so not extreme, but no bloat and must be as lean or a little leaner than i am now.

3rd cycle
5' 7.5"
150 lbs
Lean
47 yo
BB and training for sports for decades.

What would you change and why?

I've heard rumors that Tren E is often "dirty". How common is this? Anyone have knowledge/experience (not more rumors pls) on this?

Thanks.



Sent using Tapatalk 2

 

[Sleazy E]

What do you mean by tren e being ¨dirty¨?
Its no dirtier or cleaner then tren ace... only difference is the ester.

I would run tren e longer than 8 weeks. 10 would be better.

I dont mean to sour your grapes bro but you are very light, even for your height. You could reach your goals with the test e alone and a good diet which is where I suspect you are lacking.

Just my .02

 

[Warrior_1]

Thanks for the feedback.

By dirty they mean more impurities in the product. They are saying that for some reason the UGLs are not, or are not able to, make as pure of a product with enanthate version. I know it's a longer ester. The ester itself is not the issue. They say that for some reason the production process or final purification tends to be either more difficult or less precisely handled for some reason. I don't know if there is any truth to that or not. But i can see it being a possibility since there is no pharma tren so nothing requiring quality control or any level of purity. If tren ace and tren enan were both certified as being 99.9998% pure, then yeah the only diff would be the longer ester, but there is no such quality control. So when you say "its no dirtier or cleaner...only diff is the ester" how do you know? Have you taken a fair amount of tren e and had no issues?

Tren e comes as 200 mg/ml in a 10 ml bottle, so there is 2000 mg in a vial. 245 mg x 8 wks = 1960 mg. So i'd have to buy another vial and use only a tiny bit of it just for two more weeks. And i want a little time to see what test, mast, win w/o tren is like, if the tren e tapers off in time. Plus i stop my tren a little before the end of the cycle to help with PCT. I considered running tren 285/wk x 7 wks to make sure i was in the therapeutic dose range. For perspective, that would be equivalent to about 40 ED ace, not accounting for the loss due to the longer ester. 245/wk enan is similar to 35 ED ace. One concern i have with higher tren is increased prolactin and its effect on erections.

How would you know anything about my diet? I've been an athlete for 32 years and still sponsored to this day. My diet is excellent. I've been on a test-only cycle enough to know that it is not for me, and especially given the negative effect it has on my performance. With test only, estrogen increases and therefore water retention, edema and (the most irritating) BP increases, cardio suffers. And SHBG goes up, soaking up the expensive gear. My reasoning is also that you cannot get the benefits of tren or mast or winnie on a test only cycle. In fact, i considered doing test at only 200/wk and letting the tren do the work. and with less test, i might need less winnie and/or less mast.

You are not souring my grapes in the least by telling me i'm light. Being light is one reason i kick ass in my primary sport. Plus the small joints look great from a BB standpoint.

Thanks.



Sent using Tapatalk 2

 

[Warrior_1]

Has anyone had any personal experience with Masteron? How'd it go? Would you do it again?

Thanks.

 

[Sleazy E]

Thanks for the feedback.

By dirty they mean more impurities in the product. They are saying that for some reason the UGLs are not, or are not able to, make as pure of a product with enanthate version. I know it's a longer ester. The ester itself is not the issue. They say that for some reason the production process or final purification tends to be either more difficult or less precisely handled for some reason. I don't know if there is any truth to that or not. But i can see it being a possibility since there is no pharma tren so nothing requiring quality control or any level of purity. If tren ace and tren enan were both certified as being 99.9998% pure, then yeah the only diff would be the longer ester, but there is no such quality control. So when you say "its no dirtier or cleaner...only diff is the ester" how do you know? Have you taken a fair amount of tren e and had no issues?

Tren e comes as 200 mg/ml in a 10 ml bottle, so there is 2000 mg in a vial. 245 mg x 8 wks = 1960 mg. So i'd have to buy another vial and use only a tiny bit of it just for two more weeks. And i want a little time to see what test, mast, win w/o tren is like, if the tren e tapers off in time. Plus i stop my tren a little before the end of the cycle to help with PCT. I considered running tren 285/wk x 7 wks to make sure i was in the therapeutic dose range. For perspective, that would be equivalent to about 40 ED ace, not accounting for the loss due to the longer ester. 245/wk enan is similar to 35 ED ace. One concern i have with higher tren is increased prolactin and its effect on erections.

How would you know anything about my diet? I've been an athlete for 32 years and still sponsored to this day. My diet is excellent. I've been on a test-only cycle enough to know that it is not for me, and especially given the negative effect it has on my performance. With test only, estrogen increases and therefore water retention, edema and (the most irritating) BP increases, cardio suffers. And SHBG goes up, soaking up the expensive gear. My reasoning is also that you cannot get the benefits of tren or mast or winnie on a test only cycle. In fact, i considered doing test at only 200/wk and letting the tren do the work. and with less test, i might need less winnie and/or less mast.

You are not souring my grapes in the least by telling me i'm light. Being light is one reason i kick ass in my primary sport. Plus the small joints look great from a BB standpoint.

Thanks.



Sent using Tapatalk 2

The highlighted is somewhere between a bunch of bro-science and bull****.
There is no required level of purity, not just for tren but for any hormone produced by unlicensed producers of steroids.
So what would lead anyone to believe that tren enanthate is ¨dirtier¨ then any other hormone?
Chances are great that anything you get from a UGL will not be even close to pharma grade standards in terms of being clean of heavy metals, mercury or other such compunds.

And yes Ive run plenty of tren before and have been making my own gear for some time now.

As for your cycle I still think its too much to do very little.
You just dont need it to achieve what you want to do.
Its rather comical that you think your blood pressure and cardio will be better by adding three compounds to the test.
Good luck and have fun wasting gear.

What do you play? table tennis or badmington?