210LBS
Well-known member
I thought anavar is usually ran at like 100-120mgs in the BB world?
Liver damage from oral AAS greatly exggerated
- Thread starter RickyBlobby
- Start date
I thought anavar is usually ran at like 100-120mgs in the BB world?
Chados
Well-known member
Normal dosage is maybe 40-60 but yeah Ronnie Coleman will certainly go at least 100
MrKleen73
Legend
Chados, I like you a lot but you do not seem to understand the difference between anabolic and androgenic.
ANABOLIC is only about growth, some strength comes along with that growth, but how much strength comes along with it is just going to be from building a bigger engine. The reason for the increased strength there is new muscle tissue.
Quoted from Dictionary.com
anabolism in Medicine Expand
anabolism a·nab·o·lism (ə-nāb'ə-lĭz'əm)
n.
The phase of metabolism in which simple substances are synthesized into the complex materials of living tissue.
an'a·bol'ic (ān'ə-bŏl'ĭk) adj.
The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Cite This Source
anabolism in Science Expand
anabolism (ə-nāb'ə-lĭz'əm)
The phase of metabolism in which complex molecules, such as the proteins and fats that make up body tissue, are formed from simpler ones. Compare catabolism.
Notice nowhere in there does it mention strength... to paraphrase the above, anabolism means building tissue... so a more anabolic compound is going to build more tissue, that's it...
Androgenic is sex effects as well as increasing the CNS. A steroid with a higher androgenic effect is going to increase strength more.
I really don't understand why you are so confused about what the two mean.
You keep going back to saying that if it is so anabolic it should increase strength more than other anabolics. The problem is that it is the androgenic side of the equation that actually drives the improvesments in strength from Gear.
So one should expect that they will get stronger ON CYCLE from DBol, Anadrol, Cheque Drops, or any other PED that is higher in androgenic properties than they will on Anavar, Winny or any of the other less androgenic steroids... Asking me to compare how much strength I got from Var to them is asking me to compare apples to oranges.
210LBS
Well-known member
Is anadrol really a good example though? Isn't it considered one of the least androgenic around? Not as little as anavar or winny but maybe the next closest?
Chados
Well-known member
No but there are clearly different takes in this topic. Maybe one affects us more in the teenage years and not when fully grown. I don't know if you read my last post about the ratios, you take halotestin, tren etc that blows everything out of the water. How come tren doesn't give more strenght than weaker anabolic and androgenic compounds? How come halotestin doesn't add any growth but immense strength with an anabolic rating that's 1900? None of these ratios makes any sense in humans. We can argue wether var is good or bad, if it gives size or strength but we can't look away from the fact that we have no idea how anabolic and androgenic they actually are. People can say whatever they want but when you run tren and anavar you will know what's stronger regardless of ratios on rats.
Cgkone
Well-known member
But he did say stronger on anavar
.....he cleaned it up, but he tried to say stronger at first.
Spurfy
Active member
To add to this...
A 90 lb woman whose child is pinned under a car will probably be stronger than a 180 lb guy who regularly lifts when he's going for a new PR in the gym. Strength is mostly about motor unit recruitment, and a huge surge of adrenaline allows up to 100% motor unit recruitment.
Highly androgenic drugs allow for greater motor unit recruitment, so there is a short-term (on-cycle) big increase in strength. Once the cycle is finished, strength returns to a level given normal motor unit recruitment, with a little extra due to the new adaptations made by the myocytes from on-cycle training.
RickyBlobby
Well-known member
Side note: I have received "rep" in the past but yet my "rep power" is zero. Don't really care much just curious
Chados
Well-known member
To add to this, did you get more size or lean body mass with var? That can be seen in the mirror or tested
Chados
Well-known member
Haha, no idea how that works but I'll rep you for this comment
Spurfy
Active member
I do get considerably stronger on Var, but there's a 2-3 week lag. It's not a big, upfront strength boost like with T-prop. The lag is the time it takes for ATP levels to pack and for new myocyte growth. However, the strength gains I get from Var are permanent -- they don't really go down when I'm off or on a cruise.
Spurfy
Active member
Var doesn't add much size, it adds density. Size is a function of myocyte enlargement, density is a function of new myocyte growth. The more myocytes, the more muscle mass, regardless of size. This is why you have 200 lb NFL guys who can bench 500 lbs, but don't look like much. Shannon Sharpe comes to mind... Most BBers won't ever even get close to benching 500 lbs, even huge ones.
Chados
Well-known member
I didn't lose any strength on tren though. I agree var gains are easily kept but there are according to me way stronger compounds that even if you'd lose more you've still gained more and will be stronger and bigger with these compounds.
Chados
Well-known member
I know it doesn't add much size but shouldnt it add more lean musclemass than adrol if its how you say? It doesn't make sense.
RickyBlobby
Well-known member
Well that seemed to help lol
Cgkone
Well-known member
I reach a new level of strength homeostasis from every blast.
I end up a little stronger than before I started the blast.
I get that you get strong from var.
But you don't get MORE strength from var than any other steroid.
I think your tempted to argue that VAR is not only the best for growth but also strength.
But you know that isn't true.
justhere4comm
Banned
Strange.. I repped you for the post and your name... yet. This.
Invalid Link Removed
Chados
Well-known member
I don't think it's instant.. it'll be there
Spurfy
Active member
Regardless, equipotent Var produces more muscle *mass* gains than Tren, because it's more anabolic.
Strength <> mass <> size
Chados
Well-known member
Well I'll try var again in June. I don't mind the compound it gives me some leaner look.
Spurfy
Active member
Var is not the best for strength, DBol beats it easily. Var is the best for *mass*, ie, the total weight of muscle.
Chados
Well-known member
In rats not humans.
Cgkone
Well-known member
Almost everything beats it.
Chados
Well-known member
I'm not but let's forget about tren, halotestin has 1900 in anabolic rating. Is anavar stronger than halo?
Here's a chart and this is copied so take it as you want
Anadrol: Anabolic/Androgenic: 320/45
Anavar: Anabolic/Androgenic: 322-630/24 (Anabolic rating highly misleading in nature)
Deca-Durabolin: Anabolic/Androgenic: 125/37 (Strong androgen binding despite low rating)
Dianabol: Anabolic/Androgenic: 90-210/40-60
Equipoise: Anabolic/Androgenic: 100/50
Halotestin: Anabolic/Androgenic: 1,900/850 (Androgenic activity zero despite high rating)
Masteron: Anabolic/Androgenic: 62/25
Primobolan: Anabolic/Androgenic: 88/44-57
Testosterone: Anabolic/Androgenic: 100/100 (All forms 100/100)
Trenbolone: Anabolic/Androgenic: 500/500
Winstrol: Anabolic/Androgenic: 320/30
Spurfy
Active member
Long-term, yes. Halotestin doesn't create new myocytes, Var does. All of these AAS cause hypertrophy, that's a given. Halo causes more hypertrophy than Var, but Var will produce more mass. If your goal is to be huge, Var isn't for you. If your goal is dense slabs of muscle, leanness, and vascularity, Var is the one.
RickyBlobby
Well-known member
Ive gotten repped like 3 years ago and it still isn't on there lol. I dunno
Nac
Well-known member
Would this increase its heart risk, at least in this respect? The good old LVH etc?
Renew1
Legend
No, it won't.
Apparently he pissed off somebody with control over the board, and (therefore) Rep power. You can rep him all day long, and he'll still be at 0.
Spurfy
Active member
No, because it's such a weak androgen. The most cardiotoxic AAS are unsurprisingly the most androgenic ones. I have never seen a single published case study on OX causing any cardiac complications, whereas pretty much every other AAS, and even T itself, has been linked to LVH. This is purely a function of the androgenic nature of these drugs.
It also stands to reason that OX's unique AR/GR-crosstalk mechanism plays a role in this. GR-signalling is anti-anabolic. If OX is affecting AR/GR-crosstalk in cardiac muscle, then LVH isn't an issue.
It's my belief that OX is exceptionally safe.
RickyBlobby
Well-known member
Somebody is always trying to keep down the minority. In this case someone who is not satisfied with the status quo
RickyBlobby
Well-known member
Back to the moral of the story.
My argument is that the same people who recommend running a 14 week 600mg/ test, 350mg tren/ 50mg dbol (6 weeks) cycle are the same ones preaching that an oral cycle should not be ran longer than 6 weeks.
Which one do you think has more potential to shorten your lifespan? The afforementioned test/ tren/ dbol cycle or an 8 to 12 week dbol/ var/ or tbol cycle? Serious question.
My argument is that the same people who recommend running a 14 week 600mg/ test, 350mg tren/ 50mg dbol (6 weeks) cycle are the same ones preaching that an oral cycle should not be ran longer than 6 weeks.
Which one do you think has more potential to shorten your lifespan? The afforementioned test/ tren/ dbol cycle or an 8 to 12 week dbol/ var/ or tbol cycle? Serious question.
Renew1
Legend
LOL. I'm surprised you didn't say, Test/Tren vs Proviron cycle.
I'd never recommend a Tren cycle, personally.
Spurfy
Active member
Test/Tren/DBol cycle is worse by far. Those are all heavy androgens, cause blood pressure issues, LVH issues, emotional sides, sharply elevate hematocrit, etc.
I'd run a 12 week DBol (30 mg/day), TBol (60 mg/day), or Var (80 mg/day) cycle without hesitation.
MrKleen73
Legend
No, I screwed the pooch on that one. LMAO Mind was lumping them in together due to commonly being used in PL cycles...
Well you are going by feel then, and you can feel androgens. They make you more alpha, more aggressive both positively and negatively. That doesn't mean you are gaining more though.
Now I am not clinging to numbers here, but you seem to be hung up on them needing to be perfect or not worth anything at all. What it seems to me is that you have decided there is no validity in the anabolic / androgenic ratios at all... That is fine if you want to not use it as a tool.
However I think in a few ways you are being a little too dismissive of it. Rats have long been used for pre human trials due to the similarity in how they respond to and metabolize things and most things can be extrapolated using known formulas for the differences in a human and rat. The data that comes from rat testing is considered invaluable and has to be done before they move on to other testing.
One thing is for certain, anything that shows up as highly androgenic on this test is indeed highly androgenic. They use sexual tissue to measure the androgenic effect, unlike the anabolic which they did not use skeletal muscle with. The only thing in question here is the validity of the assumed muscle growth, as mentioned before, the muscle they use for testing is not a weight bearing muscle and does not reflect how skeletal muscle is going to react. I wouldn't simply go off of the numbers listed in these ratios for much of anything other than giving me an idea of how androgenic something was, and maybe how strong it might be in general... meaning if all the numbers are low it is probably a pretty weak steroid if they are all high probably a strong one.
I think we can also look at the types of gear that women use, and see that in those cases they are all listed as lower androgen when you look at the ratio lists. So we know we can use it pretty reliably to figure out what compounds will cause virilization for a female. So the androgenic side of the ratio system seems to be pretty reliable. All of it is going to be relative, but you can get the info you need out of it.
So sure when it comes to how much you might grow the numbers are not going to be johnny on the spot, we already know this might be off due to them using nonskeletal muscle to measure growth instead of skeletal muscle tissue on top of the fact they are not human. Regardless, You can still glean a good bit of info from it if you are not trying to take it as a literal ratio. Just look at the dang ratio of the product without comparing it to test, or anything else and you get an idea to which side it tips anabolic or androgenic, or if it should be relatively even in effects.
If we want to argue until someone proves this right or wrong instead of realizing it is just an estimated ratio based off of witnessed results in a rat, then we will still be having this convo in 20 years. Instead, why not recognize it for what it is, and make use out of it the way it was intended, and not assume that it was designed in order to tell us how to get stronger or bigger instead of how to manage the risks and side effects which is what it was intended for in the first place.
Yeah, but if he cleared it up then he cleared it up. Am I to tell him he must stick with his initial clerical error because it makes it easier to attack his thought process? Someone challenged him to clarify and he came out and did so with some pretty good info about why Var can be pretty good for strength that I didn't know about. He also is looking long range and post cycle not just on cycle. This is kind of how I look at things too. So it is very easy for me to look at it and see that for him the way he is looking at things what he said is true. He is thinking long term, not on cycle strength gains.
He has also come out and said DBol would beat Var easily regarding strength while on cycle and then clarified what he meant. Do I 100% agree with everything, I don't know but I do know that if he has a more efficient way for me to use Var, which is something I prefer over tren then he has my attention.
Again, look into why rats are used for pre human trials and you will see it is the similarities they have with humans that makes them reliable test subjects. Also remember the anabolic : androgenic ratio was basically a side effect measurement device, not a mmm this will grow you and this will make you stronger... the androgenic sides were unwanted, due to a plethora of health reasons, but are excellent for performance and that is what carried over into performance enhancement.
I always liked the fact when I flex my muscle next to other guys my muscles are rock hard! A lot of other guys have that soft muscle tissue... they flex and it is still malleable. Not me it is like there is a rock under my skin. Muscle density is where it is at for me!!!!
Nac
Well-known member
So people should increase their dbol runs?
Or people should decrease their tren runs?
210LBS
Well-known member
And you wouldn't feel like dog sh!t on that cycle? I really want to try tbol.. I'm running hdrol now and have several more bottles of hdrol and mechabol, but I'd like to give tbol a shot. Tbol is a little more appealing to me than var because it is a test derivative as opposed to DHT, which is more ideal for me in running longer cycles in hopes of preserving some of the hair line. Although I'm also running a DHT derivative too now without an issue but it's only a 6 week cycle.
Spurfy
Active member
I completely agree. I don't have a lot of size, but my muscle density is incredible, and to me, the difference in appearance is astonishing. It just looks better. It looks natural. And it's a lot more pleasing to the eye. It's also wickedly fun to rotate in with huge guys struggling doing overhead presses at 225 for reps and I load the bar with 240 and crush it.
RickyBlobby
Well-known member
Both, lol. I think if you are running dbol or another relatively safe oral, the 6 week limit BS is out the window. And I haven't tried tren, but from my research it is something that really should not be considered for such a long period of time due to several factors.
Your body will take more damage from tren than dbol in my opinion especially when stacked with test AND an oral. People for whatever reason think test is safe because your body produces it naturally but running 500mg+ is causing a lot of undesirable things in your cardiovascular system, then add tren on top of that and, well, you get the picture.
Yes var is DHT based but for whatever reason it is one of the friendliest to the hairline.
Spurfy
Active member
I've run many DBol cycles at 30 mg/day and never felt bad in the slightest. I've never run TBol. I've run Var at 80 mg/day and aside from the cold sensitivity in my teeth, I felt great.
I also don't consume nearly as much protein as "recommended", which probably plays a role as well...
150 grams/day is my limit when "on", 100 grams/day when "off." Skeletal muscle is 70% water, therefore to gain a lb of muscle (454 grams) you only need 90 grams of extra protein *total* (not per day)
MrKleen73
Legend
DBol, TBol, Var, or Winny are all going to feel so much better than those designer steroids... There are reasons those never made it any further than they did in research. It might simply be because you don't feel so well on them. However I feel great on var, Dbol and tbol too! I really think you would enjoy it.
They are definitely cleaner feeling compounds than the designers, or any of them I ever used anyway.
RickyBlobby
Well-known member
They are tried and true. Used for many decades under many applications. No reason to use a designer IMO unless you are trying to convince yourself or someone else that you aren't on "steroids"
Spurfy
Active member
The AR/GR-crosstalk that OX stimulates probably prevents the inflammation of hair follicles that a DHT-derived drug *should* cause. It's the inflammation that causes MPB.
RickyBlobby
Well-known member
You are absolutely correct, it is the inflammation that gets you. Which is why topical anti inflammatories like emu oil work wonders, at least in my experience.
210LBS
Well-known member
Honestly, I've always thought the 2 grams of protein per body pound was overrated. With that said, I don't think I could eat only 100 grams of protein if I tried.
I'm definitely sold on tbol. People like me start on PH and DS because they are a hell of a lot easier to source. Find a reputable brand and then a retailer. Sourcing something like tbol and var is just more risky and difficult. Obviously this thread has me rethinking var though. As for dbol... I'm not really sure how it would fit into that cycle. I've never really seen anyone run it for 12 weeks before. Plus, I'm not one of those guys who likes to throw the kitchen sink into a cycle haha - I'd rather keep it simple.
Spurfy
Active member
To be fair, I also eat a very very high fat diet with low sugar/starch. This favorably increases nutrient partitioning and spares lean tissue, lowering my overall need for protein.
RickyBlobby
Well-known member
Tbol is the ****. I felt great on it. Big time pumps all day too. Back then I was sticking to 6 week oral cycles and I should've stayed on, I felt awesome and it seemed like the gains were just getting better and better.
Chados
Well-known member
No, I screwed the pooch on that one. LMAO Mind was lumping them in together due to commonly being used in PL cycles...
Well you are going by feel then, and you can feel androgens. They make you more alpha, more aggressive both positively and negatively. That doesn't mean you are gaining more though.
Now I am not clinging to numbers here, but you seem to be hung up on them needing to be perfect or not worth anything at all. What it seems to me is that you have decided there is no validity in the anabolic / androgenic ratios at all... That is fine if you want to not use it as a tool.
However I think in a few ways you are being a little too dismissive of it. Rats have long been used for pre human trials due to the similarity in how they respond to and metabolize things and most things can be extrapolated using known formulas for the differences in a human and rat. The data that comes from rat testing is considered invaluable and has to be done before they move on to other testing.
One thing is for certain, anything that shows up as highly androgenic on this test is indeed highly androgenic. They use sexual tissue to measure the androgenic effect, unlike the anabolic which they did not use skeletal muscle with. The only thing in question here is the validity of the assumed muscle growth, as mentioned before, the muscle they use for testing is not a weight bearing muscle and does not reflect how skeletal muscle is going to react. I wouldn't simply go off of the numbers listed in these ratios for much of anything other than giving me an idea of how androgenic something was, and maybe how strong it might be in general... meaning if all the numbers are low it is probably a pretty weak steroid if they are all high probably a strong one.
I think we can also look at the types of gear that women use, and see that in those cases they are all listed as lower androgen when you look at the ratio lists. So we know we can use it pretty reliably to figure out what compounds will cause virilization for a female. So the androgenic side of the ratio system seems to be pretty reliable. All of it is going to be relative, but you can get the info you need out of it.
So sure when it comes to how much you might grow the numbers are not going to be johnny on the spot, we already know this might be off due to them using nonskeletal muscle to measure growth instead of skeletal muscle tissue on top of the fact they are not human. Regardless, You can still glean a good bit of info from it if you are not trying to take it as a literal ratio. Just look at the dang ratio of the product without comparing it to test, or anything else and you get an idea to which side it tips anabolic or androgenic, or if it should be relatively even in effects.
If we want to argue until someone proves this right or wrong instead of realizing it is just an estimated ratio based off of witnessed results in a rat, then we will still be having this convo in 20 years. Instead, why not recognize it for what it is, and make use out of it the way it was intended, and not assume that it was designed in order to tell us how to get stronger or bigger instead of how to manage the risks and side effects which is what it was intended for in the first place.
Yeah, but if he cleared it up then he cleared it up. Am I to tell him he must stick with his initial clerical error because it makes it easier to attack his thought process? Someone challenged him to clarify and he came out and did so with some pretty good info about why Var can be pretty good for strength that I didn't know about. He also is looking long range and post cycle not just on cycle. This is kind of how I look at things too. So it is very easy for me to look at it and see that for him the way he is looking at things what he said is true. He is thinking long term, not on cycle strength gains.
He has also come out and said DBol would beat Var easily regarding strength while on cycle and then clarified what he meant. Do I 100% agree with everything, I don't know but I do know that if he has a more efficient way for me to use Var, which is something I prefer over tren then he has my attention.
Again, look into why rats are used for pre human trials and you will see it is the similarities they have with humans that makes them reliable test subjects. Also remember the anabolic : androgenic ratio was basically a side effect measurement device, not a mmm this will grow you and this will make you stronger... the androgenic sides were unwanted, due to a plethora of health reasons, but are excellent for performance and that is what carried over into performance enhancement.
I always liked the fact when I flex my muscle next to other guys my muscles are rock hard! A lot of other guys have that soft muscle tissue... they flex and it is still malleable. Not me it is like there is a rock under my skin. Muscle density is where it is at for me!!!!
Yes but I think it's already been established that these studies on rats works completly different in humans. It said in my previous post about how aas becomes androgenic in humans and not so much in rats. androgenic and anabolic ratios are important and if one is low on the ratio in rats it might become a bulking steroid in humans. Deca is a good example. I don't see it being complicated but hey if I'm wrong of be so surprised you have no idea. After using so many things I know how the compounds work on me and that's all I need to know. One can say I added more muscles with anavar than with tren but I know for sure I didn't. Anyways didn't hairygrandpa try spurfys anavar cycle?