Question: what's with all these oral cycles?!
- 04-28-2006, 03:11 PM
Question: what's with all these oral cycles?!
I fully anticipate my rep to go into the toilet for this, but I think this needs to be said.
I find it really disturbing to be honest. Thread after thread, all I see these days are folks talking about cycles of multiple oral steroids.
To make matters worse I never see anyone warning them of the health issues inherent in these dangerous cycles. I'm tempted to post in these threads but there are so many and I really don't have the time or patience to go thread by thread.
Here are some issues I think folks here need to think long and hard on:
1) Legal steroids are legal because they were never marketted as pharmaceuticals. There's a reason they were never sold as drugs. In some cases, it is efficacy; the compound is too weak. In others, and I should say MOST cases, it is too dangerous.
2) These compounds are untested. They haven't been out long enough for us to know the sides or longterm effects. Heck many aren't out long enough for us to know the effects after a couple cycles!
3) Some compounds have been out for some time and .... surprise, they are dangerous. Superdrol messes your HDL cholesterol as badly as M1T for example. For many it doesn't recover for months. For some it doesn't recover PERIOD.
Then there's the simple statements in AAS use that are repeated for good reason: "Don't do oral only cycles" and "Don't stack orals." The second is most easily explained. Simply put, all orals stress your liver, and stacking them only compounds this effect. Most legals seem to mess with your lipids and/or HDL, and stacking them can only mean horrible things.
As for oral only cycles, there are several reasons. First being that they are short. Short cycles means you are constantly going from superhigh hormone levels to rock bottom back and forth. The initial 4 weeks of a cycle have fairly negative health consequences becuase of hormone fluctuations. PCT has negative health consequences as well for the same reason. I see a lot of folks here whose bodies are essentially in a constant hormonal flux.
Why is no one ever chiming in to tell them what they are doing is ####ing themselves? Worse yet, why are so many doing this?
The reasoning people use tends to have to do with legality. However, many times folks doing these cycles tend to think they aren't "going to the dark side" or are taking something pretty safe compared to illegal AAS. They couldn't be more wrong. The way I see it, the ONLY reason to be taking these legal oral AAS is because you absolutely positively have no access to illegal ones.
You know what I have to say about that? I say, if you have issues with illegal AAS, then you shouldn't use ANY AAS. Cycles should be based on injectables and should be tailored to achieve a stable (albeit high) hormone level for a decent length of time in order to ensure not just quality gains, but to moderate health risks better.
Some of the legal orals have their purpose in the grand scheme of AAS. Superdrol is a great replacement for Dianabol or Anadrol for those who dislike estrogen for example. Given its effect on HDL though I would treat it safet-wise on close to Anadrol, and less safe than Dianabol.
M5AA, when it was legal, was a nice alternative to Halotestin. Not as strong a boost in strength, but not nearly as dangerous.
Nonetheless, the point is, I don't think legality is a valid excuse for doing an oral only cycle. I don't think there is any valid excuse for an oral only cycle.
There was a time I took oral cycles. I admit I subconciously did not think of them as being true AAS, and for some reason didn't think of them as being as dangerous. However I have since learned better. I'm sorry for this rant, but I just was hoping I could perhaps impart some of this warning to others here so they don't have to mess themselves up with a million oral cycles before realising their mistake.
- 04-28-2006, 03:13 PM
- 04-28-2006, 03:20 PM
Good posting man...
I also don't understand people doing everything but the kitchen sink. Like the dosing of 4 frackin' orals!!!!!
I won't say I wouldn't do orals. I plan to finally step away from being all natural and use part of the 3 grams of SD powder I have in a couple of months.
I just think the grouping of multiple orals and lack of Chol/BP/liver/prostate supps and lack of blood work to ensure proper recovery has become a thing of the past.
Last edited by JonesersRX7; 04-28-2006 at 03:56 PM.
04-28-2006, 03:36 PM
For some reason I think when u said 4 orals u were refering to my earlier post....I have all my supps for my Chol/BP on check dude...I am just asking questions cuz the people on this board know their shiet and can pass the knowledge on to those of us who havent been in the game as longOriginally Posted by JonesersRX7
04-28-2006, 03:37 PM
Yes.... I was singling you out.....Originally Posted by oswizzle
People can do whatever they want... it's their own health. I just think that for an average of $115 bucks and only a month worth of products, a little more can be spent to homebrew your own and have a 3 month cycle that will yeild better results with less of a detriment to ones health.
04-28-2006, 03:40 PM
It doesnt matter what supps you have as precautionairy measures, it still effects your body. Its just stupid to put all these orals in your body, when there is a much safer, proven alternative to them.Originally Posted by oswizzle
04-28-2006, 03:41 PM
04-28-2006, 03:42 PM
hence the question b4....thats why I am asking brother....I come with a whack Idea...u dudes put it in check..and in return u save me from screwing myself...as far as safer alternatives I am sure ur gonna drop the whole 'Pin Syndrome" on me right?....I'd be more then down ..just cant man up to do it
04-28-2006, 03:52 PM
04-28-2006, 03:52 PM
Yeah dude dont stack methyls. If you dont pin then just keep on keepin with the food and solid training.Originally Posted by oswizzle
New labels for AAS reads " warning if you dont a) squat or deadlift. b)eat a planned diet c) training for 2+ years after 21
then this product is not for you, consult your local library." Lol
This is generalised not for you oswizzle.
04-28-2006, 03:53 PM
I agree with you to an extent, but when done properly...IMO short oral cycles still have their uses and can have their side effects minimized while still remaining quite effective. Therefore i have no problem with people running oral cycles as long as they do it responsibly. Granted that is a rare occasion.
There are reasons why people don't post in these threads. There is an incredible amount of those threads for one, some people posting already know what were going to tell them, and another one is that even if we do give advise...few people listen. Sad but true.Originally Posted by Nullifidian
I remember a guy who against all advise stacked SD and H-50 or used high doses of one for long periods of time while never doing PCT or useing liver protecting supps. If i remember correctly he was in his 40's and said that he never experienced any major side effects, he also said that he didn't have blood work done either, and that he didn't was any more kids anyways. This guy is the perfect example of why knowlegable people feel like it's a waist of time to try to help all the people posting oral cycles, they usually dont listen or they disagree with us. At least that my take on it. I think this is one of those never-ending discussions.
04-28-2006, 03:54 PM
Just read your thread...Originally Posted by oswizzle
And that's great! I hope you just take the advice to heart. This thread alone should be good enough to keep you from running 4 orals in a period of 6 weeks. Because you are right, there are some very intelligent guys on here.
It's what kept me from doing a M1T and 1,4ADiol cycle. I finally tossed the junk a couple of weeks back. Wasn't worth the cost/benefit ratio (health / performance-muscle gain)
04-28-2006, 03:59 PM
04-28-2006, 04:17 PM
To me not risking going to prison is a pretty nice benefit to staying oral.
What person had an experience where their hdl never came back? There are ways to significantly minimize the negative effects. I also think there is a good argument for short cycles and their benefits HPTA and growth wise (oral or non-oral). Read ALR's Building the Perfect Beast. Another things to keep in mind is that injectables have negative effects on the lipids too (some more then others) even if they not as pronounced as orals.
I understand the point of your post Null, and I agree with you to an extent. I just feel like you are almost going overboard on your argument against orals, especially when you pretty much disregard the legal aspect of things.
As far as there being a few posts that get by without ppl being warned, that may be the case, but I think it is only because the seasoned members have gotten tired of the anabolics section. A PP or SD cycle can only be rehashed so many times and it seems there are, sadly, not many posts of interest in this section anymore.
04-28-2006, 04:25 PM
Good posting my friend even though I love those orals, I understand some run them because of their legalities. (myself included)But more or less, one has to think about the health issues because they think they are not as strong, which is totally false.
Last edited by Apowerz6; 04-28-2006 at 05:08 PM.
04-28-2006, 04:26 PM
sorry natiels but i agree with null 100000%
if you're worried about the legality then just don't use anything because those orals are SO harsh and and terrible for you
and short cycles like that and the constant up and down of hormones does NOT create an environment conducive to retaining muscle mass
04-28-2006, 04:51 PM
I fall into the category of people who have stayed oral b/c of legality reasons. After busting my ass to get a Master's, and being in my first year teaching full-time, I'm not about to get banished from the education community over a law I disagree with. I don't see why that precludeds me as a candidate for using AAS, albeit in the oral form. Once I'm well-established in my job I'll definitely make the jump. If I knew someone locally, (to avoid risk of shipping/internet trail) I'd probably just make the jump now.
The real fault for the oral craze lies with the manufacturers. Give me a mutha-bleep-in transdermal and I'm happy.
I just did my first cycle with more than 1 oral. I used HD-50 with the remainder of my transdermal 4AD, then I took about 10 days off the orals, at which point I started M-TRN. HD-50 is methylated; M-TRN is not methylated, but has undergone a different alteration (forget the name) that makes it hepatoxic, though not nearly as severe. I also ran oral 1,4AD (an old PH) throughout.
I got bloodwork before, and will get bloodwork again at the end of PCT. If bloodwork looks bad, I'll never do anything like this again. If it is good, I will proceed with caution, monitoring risk with bloodwork. If you're gonna invest in the cycle, invest in the bloodwork.
One final point is that you seem to be overgeneralizing about orals. I have heard a lot of criticism of harshness, but have seen little evidence. Everyone was ready to crucify ALR for putting out M-TRN, but it turns out that it wasn't that harsh after all. Other new orals, such as Max LMG and Prostan are not methyls. Are they still hepatoxic? I don't know, but certainly not in the same realm as methyls. I'll be getting bloodwork soon, so I'll let you know.
04-28-2006, 05:04 PM
04-28-2006, 05:07 PM
Bump to this, not doubting, would like to read experience/log.Originally Posted by natiels
And I must say, just because one person has an issue does not mean the sides relate to everyone.
Reminds me of the case against ephedra, just because some morbidly obese jerk runs triple the dose and keels over, doesn't mean it's bad for someone who is in good health and uses correct administration.
04-28-2006, 05:10 PM
04-28-2006, 05:11 PM
04-28-2006, 05:22 PM
He does, comes from being in the service.
On a more serious note,
I agree with Null, he makes very valid points. Many of the new designers are untested, and many of the injectables are tried and true for many years.. It's a fact that orals are much harsher on the body in a myriad of ways.
You can, for all intents and purposes, be on an HRT dose of Test Cyp indefinitely without real fear of any negative consequences..
moderation is ALWAYS going to be paramount when dealing with any hormones... or substances for that matter... sh1t, even food.
Beo also has a great point.. From the legality standpoint, it is better to err on the side of caution than go haphazardly headfirst into something that you really won't shy away from once you do.
I myself have decided to drop orals all together, and comfortably pin myself when I do go back on. The sweet comfortable sting of a 25g has grown on me... I value my health, and I owe that much to my wife and my future family. So as I said, when i DO decide to go back skinny dipping into the wonderful world of endocrine manipulation... I will stick myself pleasantly into that good night.
04-28-2006, 05:26 PM
You make me piss myself laughingSo as I said, when i DO decide to go back skinny dipping into the wonderful world of endocrine manipulation... I will stick myself pleasantly into that good night.
04-28-2006, 06:18 PM
04-28-2006, 06:31 PM
I was going to bring that up too. I agree with Null for the most part. Still, from all the blood work posted, and some not, I don't see most of the orals as significantly worse than the older orals. I've seen blood work from cycles that included anadrol that were worse than some SD cycles that were posted. Plus I've seen people make good gains from occasional 2on2off cycles. 12-16 week injectable cycles aren't for everyone. It's not always about needles, maybe they just don't want to explain 20lbs of new muscle to their family and friends.Originally Posted by Beowulf
But I think this point stands: people have been requesting powders for quite some time to mix with some T gel, or good old pain free orals. They just haven't been delivered. Probably because it doesn't serve as large a market as orals, or the hormone itself just wasn't as good if dosed that way, who knows. Throw legality in with that and you can see why some would choose the legal oral route.
04-28-2006, 06:50 PM
Just some relevant information...Here are some actual AAS-induced hepatotoxicity case studies in anyone wants to read them. They are old and you have to ignore most of the medical mumbo-jumbo wording in the first case study, but remember these people also had some form of anemia. I'll spare you the pictures of their livers, they ain't pretty.
A 5-year-old boy presented for investigation of pancytopenia. His height was less than the third percentile and his weight was in the tenth percentile. Both thumbs were absent and there was microcephaly and microphthalmia. The skin exhibited cafe-au-lait patches and both testes were undescended. The haemoglobin was 10-3 g/dl, reticulocytes 4%, and white cell count 3-3 x 109/l. The bone marrow was mildly hypoplastic with marked suppression of thrombopoiesis. Chromosomal analysis revealed a 46 XY karyotype and 25% of the cells exhibited chromosome breaks. A radiographic skeletal survey showed absent thumbs and a bone age of approximately 2 years 8 months. Liver function tests and an intravenous pyelogram were normal. A diagnosis of Fanconi's anemia was made (a younger brother was similarly affected) and the patient was started on prednisolone, 15 mg, and Received for publication 18 December 1975 methyl testosterone, 20 mg daily. Over the next three years blood counts remained satisfactory but marked virilization and bouts of jaundice necessitated replacement of testosterone by a reduced dose of oxymetholone. At the end of this period the child was admitted for investigation of a four-week episode of jaundice. Therapy at this time was oxymetholone,5 mg daily, and prednisolone, 5 mg on alternate days. The liver was palpable two fingerbreadths below the costal margin. Investigations showed a haemoglobin of 7-9 g/dl, abnormal liver function tests including a bilirubin of 43 ,umol/l (2 5 mg/dl), LDH 190 U/I, alkaline phosphatase 230 U/I, and an SGOT of 47 U/I. Serum triglycerides were 2-7 mmol/l (239 mg/dl) and cholesterol 16 3 mmol/l (630 mg/dl). A diagnosis of cholestatic jaundice with hyperlipidaemia due to oxymetholone was made and nandrolone decanoate, 25 mg intramuscularly weekly, was substituted. The jaundice, however, persisted and the haemoglobin level fell so that transfusions were required for the first time. Approximately one year later the patient was readmitted for management of melaena following aspirin ingestion. The haemoglobin was now 4 g/dl and the platelets 50 x 109/l. Serum bilirubin was 60 ,umol/l (3-5 mg/dl), alkaline phosphatase 535 U/I, and SGOT 91 U/l. Alphafetoprotein was negative. A liver scan revealed a filling defect with technetium-99 which was not apparent with selenomethionine, and selective angiography showed abnormal circulation in the right lobe of the liver. The patient was transfused and discharged on no therapy. Three months later he was readmitted with gastro-626 Hepatic lesions in patients treated with synthetic anabolic steroids intestinal bleeding and skin purpura. He became drowsy and confused and died seven days later.
A 46-year-old man developed a persistent chest infection and was referred to another hospital for investigation. The haemoglobin was 9 9 g/dl, white cell count 11 x 109/l with 50% neutrophils, and platelets 35 x 109/l. Bone marrow aspirate revealed hypoplasia of all elements. A diagnosis of aplastic anaemia was made and treatment with oxymetholone, 100 mg daily, and prednisone was started. Over the next three months there was little improvement in the haematological status in spite of doses of oxymetholone up to 300 mg daily. Pyrexia developed, which was treated empirically with antibiotics, and the patient was transferred to the Hammersmith Hospital. On admission he was taking 150 mg oxymetholone and 5 mg prednisone daily. Examination revealed marked jaundice and purpuric spots in the mouth and over the arms and back. The haemoglobin was 8-5 g/dl, platelets 11 x 109/l, and white cell count 0-6 x 109/l. The bilirubin was 168 ,umol/l (9-8 mg/dl), alkaline phosphatase 1510 U/l, and SGOT 102 U/I. Renal function declined and necessitated the institution of peritoneal dialysis. Terminally there was infection and collapse of the lower lobe of the right lung, liver failure, and uraemic pericarditis. Necropsyfindings There was a fibrinous pericarditis and bronchopneumonia in the lower lobe of the right lung with abscess formation. Both kidneys were enlarged but appeared normal macroscopically. The bone marrow was pale. The liver was enlarged and firm and weighed 1875 g. The cut surface demonstrated a variegated yellow-brown colour with small nodules of pale brown tissue up to 05 cm in diameter scattered throughout the parenchyma. The portal system and biliary tract were normal. Microscopy of the liver revealed circumscribed hyperplastic nodules of hepatocytes composed of cell-plates two or more cells thick. These nodules were generally situated in the midzones of lobules. There was no distortion of the hepatic architecture and no evidence of cirrhosis.
A 31-year-old woman was investigated for longcholestasis was evident the patient was treated with prednisone and oxymetholone, 50 mg daily. Three months later vaginal bleeding developed and she was admitted to the Hammersmith Hospital. On admission the haemoglobin was 4 5 g/dl, white cell count 1 -2 x 109/1, and platelets 10 x 109/1. The liver was uniformly enlarged and weighed 2020 g. The capsular surface was smooth and the cut surface was firm and of a uniform tan colour. The architectural pattern in the liver was normal. Thickening of the liver cell plates was evident in every lobule although this was not uniform throughout the lobules . There were frequent mitotic figures, in some areas up to three per high-power field . Very small amounts of haemosiderin were present in the Kuppfer cells. There was no evidence of cholestasis or cirrhosis.
04-28-2006, 06:53 PM
I have to agree with Beo here. I know there has to be a few that really do fall into this catagory. Due to the work I do and having to do a poly every 5 years keeps me from doing anything illegal. They won't give two shiats if I do something immoral or stupid as long as its not illegal. So I see my doc regularly and keep an eye on my blood work and do the best I can. If it were not for the legal issue I would go all kinds of crazy dark (probably make better gains and be safer) but I have to play the hand I'm dealt. I think if your smart about it and don't go nutz you can make good gains with orals. There is no way I would be where I am now with out the legal oral market.Originally Posted by Beowulf
04-28-2006, 08:42 PM
So from what I can see half the people here think orals are the devil and half think they are fine. The reality is probably somewhere in between. As with everything else when used responsibly I think they have their place. Unfortunately I don't think the majority of people use these compounds responsibly and see them as being totally safe because of the fact that they are legal.
04-28-2006, 08:51 PM
04-28-2006, 09:17 PM
This conversation seems a bit marred by the lack of specifics. Let's make a list of the harshest legal orals; this may clarify things. If anyone has bloodwork or remembers seeing it for any of these compounds, and you can track it down, please post it up. Obviously, 1 person's bloodwork does not equate to a long-range, extensive study, bit it is a start. I'll list them in order of my impression of severity. Feel free to alter the order.
3. Methoxy Trn (M-TRN):
6. Methoxy TST:
7. MAX LMG:
Am I missing anything?
Similar Forum Threads
- By uncleT in forum Old School Hormone UseReplies: 5Last Post: 06-20-2013, 11:50 AM
- By Babbagandu in forum AnabolicsReplies: 0Last Post: 10-05-2012, 10:14 AM
- By HereToStudy in forum General ChatReplies: 31Last Post: 02-18-2010, 08:10 PM
- By bodybybrad in forum NutraplanetReplies: 14Last Post: 10-29-2007, 09:01 PM