Check my Tren E/Test E cycle please

Page 3 of 3 First 123

  1. Quote Originally Posted by DetroitHammer View Post
    What's the matter Stan, did I truly embarrass you that much that you can't stop trying to redeem yourself after exposing you as incompetent, flippant and irrational? Not to mention confused. Go ahead Stan, I enjoy your attempts at redemption, makes you look even more desperate trying to convince yourself that you are in control of the discussion.
    Embarrass me?? LOL You should be embarrassed Mr Tren pushes test out of the receptor.
    Cmon you can do it. Admit you are wrong Hammer. It much easier than all you deflection posts since it has been thoroughly proven to anyone with a brain that you are. Lose the ego, stop being a fraud, admit you are wrong, and move on.


  2. Quote Originally Posted by DetroitHammer View Post
    Stan wants to make a point, so he creates a fictitious premise then comments on it to make him look good in the eyes of those who hang on his every word. Who said tren "hogs every damn receptor?" You know who? Stan.
    I think both of you guys are confused on who said what.

    Stan said: there are enough AR receptors to cater to both tren and test. thats why people can run deca/tren/test cycles. Because if there werent anymore recptors why would you run something like that.

    Detroit said: there would be no reason to run test with tren besides to keep libido because tren has 5x binding affinity.

    Detriot the way you are coming off makes it sound like tren gets all the play with receptors and test gets none.

    I do remeber you stating that high test would lead to extra aromatization and would not lead to more gains since the test would have no where to go because tren was taking up the receptors. Right here is where I believe you are wrong because many people have run successful high test/low tren cycle and gotten better results than low test/high tren. If your theory was right, why would people do high test? it would be the equivalent of injecting estrogen since all its going to do is aromatize?? Do you see where this doesnt make sense? So basically high test/ low tren= will cause you to have a ton more estrogenic sides and no more gains?
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by jman6 View Post
    I think both of you guys are confused on who said what.

    Stan said: there are enough AR receptors to cater to both tren and test. thats why people can run deca/tren/test cycles. Because if there werent anymore recptors why would you run something like that.

    Detroit said: there would be no reason to run test with tren besides to keep libido because tren has 5x binding affinity.

    Detriot the way you are coming off makes it sound like tren gets all the play with receptors and test gets none.

    I do remeber you stating that high test would lead to extra aromatization and would not lead to more gains since the test would have no where to go because tren was taking up the receptors. Right here is where I believe you are wrong because many people have run successful high test/low tren cycle and gotten better results than low test/high tren. If your theory was right, why would people do high test? it would be the equivalent of injecting estrogen since all its going to do is aromatize?? Do you see where this doesnt make sense? So basically high test/ low tren= will cause you to have a ton more estrogenic sides and no more gains?

    Oh it gets even better there DH .... please do explain that GEM

    jman you have a fairly firrm grasp on exactly how thinks really work. I wish you all the best with your cycle.

  4. Of course guys have run high test/high tren with good results, but how do you know that the same results wouldn't have occurred with high tren/low test? Unless that same guy runs various cycles under the same conditions with high tren/low test, blood work and other empirical data, it's just fuzzy math and nothing more. I've run very high tren, with very high test; very high tren with virtually no test and a balance of each over the years. Hardly empirical data, but an observation based on known assumptions. When my blood work comes back and I see the results of free test, serum test and so on, with other indicators, I'm convinced that when running tren, it's best to keep test low. Maybe it was a poor choice of words to say tren pushes test away, but in effect, tren is the dominant participant to the viable receptors... Stan is saying two things: One, the more androgens you introduce, the more receptors your body produces, implying that there is no competition since there are plenty of viable receptors to go around. On that point I say that there are not enough studies out there to convince me. Secondly, he is saying that running test with tren at any dose is fine because there are receptors for every molecule. I say that tren is dominant and if you run tren you should let tren do what tren was designed to do and the addition of test at high doses will not be beneficial. All the other BS is just arm waving and insults thrown both ways. If he had stuck to the points without resorting to insults this could have been a very interesting discussion, but it has turned into a mud slinging contest and I'm out of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by jman6 View Post
    I think both of you guys are confused on who said what.

    Stan said: there are enough AR receptors to cater to both tren and test. thats why people can run deca/tren/test cycles. Because if there werent anymore recptors why would you run something like that.

    Detroit said: there would be no reason to run test with tren besides to keep libido because tren has 5x binding affinity.

    Detriot the way you are coming off makes it sound like tren gets all the play with receptors and test gets none.

    I do remeber you stating that high test would lead to extra aromatization and would not lead to more gains since the test would have no where to go because tren was taking up the receptors. Right here is where I believe you are wrong because many people have run successful high test/low tren cycle and gotten better results than low test/high tren. If your theory was right, why would people do high test? it would be the equivalent of injecting estrogen since all its going to do is aromatize?? Do you see where this doesnt make sense? So basically high test/ low tren= will cause you to have a ton more estrogenic sides and no more gains?

  5. Quote Originally Posted by DetroitHammer View Post
    Of course guys have run high test/high tren with good results, but how do you know that the same results wouldn't have occurred with high tren/low test? Unless that same guy runs various cycles under the same conditions with high tren/low test, blood work and other empirical data, it's just fuzzy math and nothing more. I've run very high tren, with very high test; very high tren with virtually no test and a balance of each over the years. Hardly empirical data, but an observation based on known assumptions. When my blood work comes back and I see the results of free test, serum test and so on, with other indicators, I'm convinced that when running tren, it's best to keep test low. Maybe it was a poor choice of words to say tren pushes test away, but in effect, tren is the dominant participant to the viable receptors... Stan is saying two things: One, the more androgens you introduce, the more receptors your body produces, implying that there is no competition since there are plenty of viable receptors to go around. On that point I say that there are not enough studies out there to convince me. Secondly, he is saying that running test with tren at any dose is fine because there are receptors for every molecule. I say that tren is dominant and if you run tren you should let tren do what tren was designed to do and the addition of test at high doses will not be beneficial. All the other BS is just arm waving and insults thrown both ways. If he had stuck to the points without resorting to insults this could have been a very interesting discussion, but it has turned into a mud slinging contest and I'm out of it.
    Well if you could get back to being civil we could actually help this guy together. We dont 100% disagree-we just disagree on why the things that were said, were said. We may never agree on receptor competition as I firmly belive it does not exist-at all. Also consider this DH, if it did why would more test not be effective yet you recommend dbol and say it is very effective with tren, hmm think about it. I have gotten blood work from several cycles that would show of course my T levels proportionally increased (based on my individual response to given test doses of course), both total and free with higher test and lower tren. Of coursre my gains increased -virtually everyones do for goodness sake.
    For me I like lower test higher tren, but for many it is a disaster. Why , because tren is literally the most side ridden steroid and also the steroid with the highest % of user that cannot tolerate said sides. For those users that do not tolerate tren well, however can if it is run at a lower dose, they increase their test and of course they increase their gains as well. (This also holds true even with high levels of test and what would be considered high levels of tren which also makes me stand firmly by my contentions throughout the thread).
    The thing is jman you will have to find out what works for you. I would not run test as low as 100mg under any circumstances (however it is a legitimate trt dose + slightly), thats me. You may want to do so. If you were going to run it lower i would run it at 200mg/week minimum. The reality is I am not really opposed to you plan as you put it out there to be honest other than any other suggestions I may have made and the addition of clomid to your pct(even at a low dose if needed due to clomid intolerance issues).
    The key is and will be if you run it as proposed you have got to manage your e2 properly. Keep it in clinical range and well managed throughout your cycle. Mid cycle blood work is an invaluable tool, i highly recommend it. Have 2 things on hand in case but again i you manage e2 it will lessen the likelihood of the necessity to use either BUT you should have a dopamine agonist (i prefer prami - others like caber), and have raloxifene on hand as well. IF (and it shouldnt but better safe) gyno shoud rear its head raalox is the way to treat it. The dompanie agonist well you prab already know what that is for.
    That being said I am also not opposed to shifting to lower test and higher tren at oh say 200-250/300. The same things are most prudent to the success of the cycle and e2 manaagment is just as important albeit slightly easier at the lower test dose.
    Best of luck and I hope, as it seems, you sifted though the nonssense here and you can get a good solid cycle set up which will yield you great reward if done properly and with proper diet, training and rest.
    •   
       


  6. I've read all the discussion, and it seems to me (in my neutral opinion) that DH got butthurt and that Stan was right.

  7. I dont know stan, but he seems very versed on aas etc. DH was one of the first guys i got advice from when i joined and he has proved over and over he knows his shyt. Great debate. What a wealth of info the 2 of you could be. I do agree with the avi comment. Show it if you got it.

  8. Very informative......

    I have to go with Stan on this one. The studies are interesting reads.

  9. I have to run out but I want to address dbol because it's interesting. Basically, it binds very, very weakly to the AR which is why a tren/dbol cycle works great. The anabolic effect of anadrol and dbol differ from a strong AR binding steroid. But, we can discuss this further.

    Quote Originally Posted by StanleyG View Post
    Well if you could get back to being civil we could actually help this guy together. We dont 100% disagree-we just disagree on why the things that were said, were said. We may never agree on receptor competition as I firmly belive it does not exist-at all. Also consider this DH, if it did why would more test not be effective yet you recommend dbol and say it is very effective with tren, hmm think about it. I have gotten blood work from several cycles that would show of course my T levels proportionally increased (based on my individual response to given test doses of course), both total and free with higher test and lower tren. Of coursre my gains increased -virtually everyones do for goodness sake.
    For me I like lower test higher tren, but for many it is a disaster. Why , because tren is literally the most side ridden steroid and also the steroid with the highest % of user that cannot tolerate said sides. For those users that do not tolerate tren well, however can if it is run at a lower dose, they increase their test and of course they increase their gains as well. (This also holds true even with high levels of test and what would be considered high levels of tren which also makes me stand firmly by my contentions throughout the thread).
    The thing is jman you will have to find out what works for you. I would not run test as low as 100mg under any circumstances (however it is a legitimate trt dose + slightly), thats me. You may want to do so. If you were going to run it lower i would run it at 200mg/week minimum. The reality is I am not really opposed to you plan as you put it out there to be honest other than any other suggestions I may have made and the addition of clomid to your pct(even at a low dose if needed due to clomid intolerance issues).
    The key is and will be if you run it as proposed you have got to manage your e2 properly. Keep it in clinical range and well managed throughout your cycle. Mid cycle blood work is an invaluable tool, i highly recommend it. Have 2 things on hand in case but again i you manage e2 it will lessen the likelihood of the necessity to use either BUT you should have a dopamine agonist (i prefer prami - others like caber), and have raloxifene on hand as well. IF (and it shouldnt but better safe) gyno shoud rear its head raalox is the way to treat it. The dompanie agonist well you prab already know what that is for.
    That being said I am also not opposed to shifting to lower test and higher tren at oh say 200-250/300. The same things are most prudent to the success of the cycle and e2 manaagment is just as important albeit slightly easier at the lower test dose.
    Best of luck and I hope, as it seems, you sifted though the nonssense here and you can get a good solid cycle set up which will yield you great reward if done properly and with proper diet, training and rest.

  10. Yay group hug.
    I'm just a dude chasing a dream

  11. Quote Originally Posted by superbeast668 View Post
    Yay group hug.
    lol ikr. Thanks Stanley and Detroit for both trying to help me out.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by DetroitHammer View Post
    I have to run out but I want to address dbol because it's interesting. Basically, it binds very, very weakly to the AR which is why a tren/dbol cycle works great. The anabolic effect of anadrol and dbol differ from a strong AR binding steroid. But, we can discuss this further.
    So it binds weaker, but tren doesnt push it out or compete with it but tren does with steroids which have a stronger binding affinty? That doesn't make any sense DH. at all.
    The fact is the androgenic effects of any other steroid are still felt when taken with tren and they effects are amplified with corresponding dose increases because there is no receptor competition.
    You need to also get this A/A rating garbage out of your head. Do you understand how they were arrived at and what they do and also do not mean? The real world relevance of them compared to the on paper relevance is just night and day in many cases (if you understand how they are arrived at this will make total sense)
    We are going to have to agree to disagree. At this point, honestly for your own sake in the argument/ debate whatever, I think it might be prudent to take a step back and rethink things here.
    Im all for working together to help people but sometimes it takes a bit of humility and just letting go, learning and moving on. Together we could help a lot of people here. young people that need it, and learn from one anther and others but that is going to take some change on your part if this is how the road is going to go.
    Its your call bro. I will no longer debate the receptor competition nonsense. It has been thoroughly dispelled in this thread and all over experienced boards and through real world experienced aas users anyway. I have been beating a dead horse going back and forth with you, I know it, you know it, the people in this thread know it. Im done and over it, you should be as well man.

  13. Both anadrol and dbol are non-receptor mediated so anabolic effects attributable to other mechanisms other than AR binding. Any binding to the AR is probably insignificant. Not so with test. So given that, not sure why it doesn't make any sense? But the point you raise regarding amplification of andorgenic effects with other steroids while on tren is the crux of the debate, or at least part of it. I understand your reasoning and it's a sound reason, but using myself as a lab rat I can honestly say that was not the case with me. I've run probably the most reckless dosages of tren than anyone here, with varying combinations of ancillary gear, including cheque drops. I always get blood work done while my levels should be at their peaks. Time and time again I don't see what you see. You appear to have probably done much of what I have done so you use yourself as an example of proof positive, as do I. The most reckless cycle (I use cycle to denote blast) was tren at 900mgs per week for 6 months. During the cycle I introduced test, cheque drops, you name it, to see changes. I'd get blood work done every couple of months to make sure I wasn't destroying myself. The higher doses of test produced no real difference in the blood panel than it did with less test, like elevated hematicrit, liver values, PSA, GFR and so on. I should say no remarkable difference. Additional adrogenic effects should have seen a spike in several of those values. Granted, the tren had an effect on the panel, but the addition of high test barley changed them. In the gym, the addition of test did zero in terms of gains or strength. My best gains were at around the 4th month, on 100mgs of test per week and 800-900mgs of Tren. My strength went through the roof. By the 6th month I had broken every PB I had. My bench went up nearly 100 pounds. Of course, the price you pay is severe and I had to stop at month 6… In regards to increased receptors I’ll offer this as something to consider. I’ve been on AAS for a very long time, never coming off. My receptors have maxed out. No amount of androgens will increase my receptors. At some point, maybe after the 6th week of initial use, I don’t know, I maxed out. The studies you cite suggest that there is an increase in receptors for the first few weeks, then a mechanism stops the increase, with some saying a down-regulation occurs. Either way, based on the studies you provided, if there is an increase in receptors it’s very short lived. I contend that it’s really the sensitivity that is increased, which would account for leveling off and not seeing cancerous growth of receptors. So for the sake of argument, let’s agree that there is an up-regulation of receptors at the on set of a cycle. I think you would agree that the up-regulation is short lived? That was called out in your citations, which I did read. So after maybe 4-6 weeks, receptors are maxed out in terms of quantity, correct? The issue then becomes the binding of any other androgen in the presence of tren. The only empirical data that I know of outside of my own personal experience is how someone “feels.” So I will keep an open mind to your contention that it all works well together and there is no degradation of the effectiveness of test in the environment of high tren. I personally do not feel convinced right now that 500mgs of test has the same A/A effect as 500mgs in the environment of 500mgs of tren. Convince me otherwise and I’ll back down. I’m old, torn up and tired. I’m not here to fight, just trying to help so others don’t make the same mistakes I made.

    Quote Originally Posted by StanleyG View Post
    So it binds weaker, but tren doesnt push it out or compete with it but tren does with steroids which have a stronger binding affinty? That doesn't make any sense DH. at all.
    The fact is the androgenic effects of any other steroid are still felt when taken with tren and they effects are amplified with corresponding dose increases because there is no receptor competition.
    You need to also get this A/A rating garbage out of your head. Do you understand how they were arrived at and what they do and also do not mean? The real world relevance of them compared to the on paper relevance is just night and day in many cases (if you understand how they are arrived at this will make total sense)
    We are going to have to agree to disagree. At this point, honestly for your own sake in the argument/ debate whatever, I think it might be prudent to take a step back and rethink things here.
    Im all for working together to help people but sometimes it takes a bit of humility and just letting go, learning and moving on. Together we could help a lot of people here. young people that need it, and learn from one anther and others but that is going to take some change on your part if this is how the road is going to go.
    Its your call bro. I will no longer debate the receptor competition nonsense. It has been thoroughly dispelled in this thread and all over experienced boards and through real world experienced aas users anyway. I have been beating a dead horse going back and forth with you, I know it, you know it, the people in this thread know it. Im done and over it, you should be as well man.

  14. I will say one thing on the matter. I've done a few cycles of tren and test. my test e is 250mg and the tren is 200mg per ml. my first cycle was 500mg test and 400mg tren for 16 weeks. (yes I know thats probably to long of a cycle but I was new to the stuff and was also getting my advice from the idiots using it at my gym), it took about 6 weeks before I started noticing strength gains and mass. at the end of my cycle I gained some good mass. and some good vascular gains. I gained enough that people actually came to me asking me what I was on. But I wasn't satisfied. I hit up google and read so many forums that it made my head hurt on how running tren higher would get better results. so I decided to try it. my second cycle was 300mg test and 500mg tren a week for 16 weeks again. I didn't change my diet or anything else at all. everything else was exactly the same as the first cycle. Keep in my mind that my cycles were 3 months apart. on my second cycle, it took aboutt 6 weeks again to start noticing anything. BUT this time, my strength went up super fast once it kicked in. my vanes were sticking out like crazy. i swear I was lifting more and more weight every time I went into the gym. The higher test cycle did get me more of a massive look. But the higher tren cycle was the over all winner on everything else. The higher tren cycle did make me more angry/tired all the time. but the high test cycle made me sad and made my nipples look like my fiances rack lol. idk if any of this helps anyone. but I think there is a big difference in the results you get from dosing these wonderful AAS
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Comment on my Test P cycle please =)
    By AtomicFox in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 05-28-2010, 08:59 PM
  2. Tren E + Test E cycle advice
    By somal007 in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-02-2009, 08:30 PM
  3. tren a/test prop cycle
    By mosberg in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-06-2009, 09:14 PM
  4. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-21-2008, 10:31 AM
  5. wanna check my PCT for this upcoming cycle?
    By freakboy in forum Post Cycle Therapy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-23-2006, 03:25 PM
Log in
Log in