dertynasty
$Money$
yeah i know... just spreadin the word about my "problem" 
Mega (Methoxy) TRN
- Thread starter D_town
- Start date
Lithuanian Bear
New member
I think I just figured out my next stack Mega trn and Methoxy TST just got an e-mail telling me about the presale . I wonder how you can compare it to the infamous test -tren cycle (injectable )?
Yjyankee
More Cowbell
raider1 said:
for me, getting up to the 3500 mark on calories could be hard. My appetite is never that great! I may need to switch from muscle milk to a weight gainer.. I can save the TRN, but have nothing else to stack it w/ on a later date. You think it may be good solo? Also, what kind of results did you have w/ the Emax?
raider1
Registered User
It would be great as a solo, works very well with Prostanazol..or a good CEE.. I did a cycle of this early summer last year , right as softball was starting and 3 weeks later guys in the league were noticing the size increase :twisted:
I did a 5 week cycle of this of this and put on almost 10lbs..very hard to do during the summer... oh , and the increase in libido was a great effect also :twisted:
I did a 5 week cycle of this of this and put on almost 10lbs..very hard to do during the summer... oh , and the increase in libido was a great effect also :twisted:
MuscleBound1337
Active member
So what would be better to stack with m-trn if I'm looking for mostly strength gains? Zol, phera-max or TST?
crewchief182
Member
I really don't see any problem myself. I ran 4 weeks with the original TRN from ALR* and added halo for the last 10 days. No superdrol pumps at all. The results were only so-so. I also ran a 4 week of plain halo with no sides and was impressed. Not like I was with SD but halo was a good cutter.
scerbera
New member
Does anybody have any estimations of what the equivilent dose would be for someone who would normaly run tren ace at 50, 75, and 100 mgs per day say for example?
Also has this been banned by the fda? I am not a us bro so am not up to speed with things so if anyone would like to very briefly explain it would help a great deal.
Much thanks
Also has this been banned by the fda? I am not a us bro so am not up to speed with things so if anyone would like to very briefly explain it would help a great deal.
Much thanks
jmh80
Well-known member
I've not tried H-50.
I've got 2 friends that are using H-50 for their bodybuilding show. They really like on a diet. They've maintained muscle at only 1600 cals/day these last 2 weeks (the show is next Saturday).
I'm not really sure which is better. If I were to go with TST, I'd bump the dose to 6 mgs at least. I didn't feel much from it at 4 mgs (it might need 8 for all I know).
I've got 2 friends that are using H-50 for their bodybuilding show. They really like on a diet. They've maintained muscle at only 1600 cals/day these last 2 weeks (the show is next Saturday).
I'm not really sure which is better. If I were to go with TST, I'd bump the dose to 6 mgs at least. I didn't feel much from it at 4 mgs (it might need 8 for all I know).
xtraflossy
Board Supporter
H-50 would be the better choice.
1 chemical as opposed to 3.... plus, the vast majority of users are reporting NO sides from Haladrol. You could probably acheive the same result from a 30 day H-50 cycle (mass wise) as you could from a combination.
With the longer durration "on cycle" using TST/TRN/ZOL supression, sides, health issues (such a HDL/LDL and the lot) would become more exagerated.
Not saying that a TST/TRN/ZOL cycle is bad in any way- but I think you can put on just as much beef with the one (h-50) as the other in a shorter amount of time and less health risk,.. not to mention for a cheaper total price.
just my 0.02
1 chemical as opposed to 3.... plus, the vast majority of users are reporting NO sides from Haladrol. You could probably acheive the same result from a 30 day H-50 cycle (mass wise) as you could from a combination.
With the longer durration "on cycle" using TST/TRN/ZOL supression, sides, health issues (such a HDL/LDL and the lot) would become more exagerated.
Not saying that a TST/TRN/ZOL cycle is bad in any way- but I think you can put on just as much beef with the one (h-50) as the other in a shorter amount of time and less health risk,.. not to mention for a cheaper total price.
just my 0.02
Apowerz6
Board Sponsor
LO AND BEHOLD GREXX IS BACK!!! Grexx that sounds like a solid stck, bro what you been up too since MTV no AM (jk) i know being a student, and travelling makes it hard esp since GL is restructuring the company's products. I tried Methaxy TRN and it was hella hard on my BP for some reason, and for 4 weeks got great hardness, I think more or less next time i would use it as a bulker...
xtraflossy
Board Supporter
Sharia said:
Some people get really good results from X-Mass/LMG . I've seen logs go as high as 17lbs. H-50, first time steroid use maybe 15lbs.
Therotically, you COULD stack the 2. But if you dont dabble much in anabolics, Id stick with one.
On avarage, you can expect a nice 10lbs on ANY of the currently available orals. As far as weight gains go, Ive seen no bennifit in combining them simultaniously. This would go with SD and PP also,.. look at the logs, every once in a while, a 15lbs gain is seen, most of the time around 10 though. And when combined, the result overall isnt what you would get running them independantly in 2 seperat cycles
Smoky
Banned
I can speak to the fact that Xmass/PP got me 15lbs on a lean bulk in 4 weeks. It was a wet bulk as well. It was smoother than superdrol with no sides for me. No back pumps or shin splint problem or dry joints. Don't place a lot of weight on my dosing as my programs have always been ones that required higher than others in most things. But like I said it was a research stack more so. Dosage is always stepped as it goes. The program started Xmass @ 40 and AX_PP at @ 20mg. In the third week X was @ 80. In the forth week it was X @ 120 and PP @ 30. No sides to report. Having done that I beleive I would run the experiment again with X @ 80 and PP @ 30 with an AI for 4 weeks, things did slow down at that point. Saw no point in running any higher. But this is me and not to be interpreted as advice, only my research results. I felt the research was a success and learned alot.
I hope this helped shed some light in at least one dark recess somewhere. If not nevermind....
Thank you - Rosanne Rosanna Dana
I hope this helped shed some light in at least one dark recess somewhere. If not nevermind....
Thank you - Rosanne Rosanna Dana
swole210
Registered User
I can't speak for everyone or for everything that is out there, but H-50 was awesome for me! It was by far one of my favorite orals I have tried. It had literally no sides for me, and gave me very good strength gains, awesome pumps, and some great recomposition. I gained a lot of weight on it also. Tried PP for 2 weeks, but stopped because I noticed a lot of shedding going on, and I can't have that. Tried M-TRN for 2 weeks, but stopped going into week 3 because I was getting the high BP sides( but I was at 6mgs a day). I will give it another fair run but start lower, and see how that goes for 4-6 wks. As for X-Mass or H-50 and which one to use.....never used X-mass but due to it being a wet compound, might give you more "weight" gain. H-50 might give you less in terms of overall lbs, but will have more qualatative gains. So if it's all out bulk you want, then MAYBE X-Mass would be better, but again I have not used X-mass just going by what I've read on it from others. Hope this might help you a bit more. ANy one else with some X-mass experience care to chime in?
xtraflossy
Board Supporter
While I dont think stacking is necessesary in this case, I really dont see a problem with stacking the 2, running X-MASS for maybe 3 weeks then H-50 for 3 weeks after ,maybe the 1 trasision week.
Just wanted to say that the possibility is feasable, but I dont think its necessesary.
You would probably get more out of 2 independent cycles.
Just wanted to say that the possibility is feasable, but I dont think its necessesary.
You would probably get more out of 2 independent cycles.
SubliminalX
Member
Just wanted to bump this for a question.
I read elsewhere that the reported chemical structure of Mega-TRN is such that it likely has zero bioavailability.
And it's been pulled from the market fairly quickly, which also makes you wonder. I know there are some positive logs on this board, but it really makes me wonder about this product.
I read elsewhere that the reported chemical structure of Mega-TRN is such that it likely has zero bioavailability.
And it's been pulled from the market fairly quickly, which also makes you wonder. I know there are some positive logs on this board, but it really makes me wonder about this product.
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
SubliminalX said:
That all arose from what PA believes TRN to be, so I would take that with a large grain of salt. PA tends to bash any product he did not come up with, and Author isn't exactly a slouch when it comes to Chem, and had his active hidden well.
SubliminalX
Member
Mulletsoldier said:
What do you know about the true identity of TRN? From my readings thus far, TRN is one of two things:
(1) If it's the reported substance on the label, then it's probably worthless from a chemical standpoint.
(2) If it's a "secret" compound that works, then it's probably not legal. That explains why TRN is no longer being made AFAIK.
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
SubliminalX said:
Author L. Rea said:
Straight from the man's mouth bud. Now, given that information I know:
1) The nomenclature on the label was of ALR's design deliberately to ward off complete knockoffs, and IS NOT what PA thought it was. It is NOT methoxy trenbolone, plain and simple.
2)As I bolded what the man said, it is NOT illegal as it was a compound created by him.
SubliminalX
Member
Mulletsoldier said:
Good man. Of course ALR won't do anything but claim that it's legal. I mean, who openly admits to breaking the law?
Now that the GL TRN is no longer being made, what do you think about the knock-offs like trenadrol, etc? Not like the original? I mean, some of this must have been analyzed by GC/MS if there was no attempt to hide what's in the original TRN formula.
3clipseGT
On my grind
My only real question to this, is if it isnt methoxy tren then does it have the same attributes as tren? I love alri products and i love tren, didnt care for test but i dont like the fact that its not methoxy tren and yet we arent given an idea to what it is, UNLESS ive missed something.
Like i said i love alri products, but now i feel like ive been putting a pill in my mouth i thought was one thing, to find out now that its not. :study:
Like i said i love alri products, but now i feel like ive been putting a pill in my mouth i thought was one thing, to find out now that its not. :study:
SubliminalX
Member
Work said:
Nor? As in Nortest, aka Nandrolone? I'm now wondering how GL knew what was in the original ALRI formula, in order to produce their own line. Because, if no one knows what ALRI really made, then what the heck is in Mega-TRN, Trenadrol, etc?
Sometimes consumer faith in supplement companies runs a little too blindly. And I'm guilty of that too.
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
SubliminalX said:
If I am not mistaken ALRI revealed the active to GL, but did not to any other company.
12many
New member
I have used both the ALRI Methoxy-TRN and the GL MTRN on a couple of occasions. I can attest based upon my experience from both that that I believe the two compounds are 100% identical. I respond the MTRN very well. I have had zero sides taking it @ 6mg/day for 6weeks and vote Methoxy-TRN/MTRN to be the GOD of oral supplementation!
12many
New member
idunk42 said:
Call it what you want, I have no reason to lie nor do I have anything to prove to you or anyone else. My log is "encapsulated" somewhat in another person's log. I think the post is called "Mtrn/mtst/pmax" or something like that. I won't bother to respond to this after this particular post. Best of luck to you though.
mixedup
Well-known member
Hey 12many did you get those pics taken this weekend any update when you might post them I know in the other thread there is a ALOT of people who can't wait to see you at 195 and 4% BF SERIOUSLLY MAN that is national competition level status. If you do decide to compete i'm routing for you.
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
12many said:
12, I would not get offended even you must realize that your claims have been slightly off the cuff. LBM equates to lean body mass i.e., developed lean tissue, which if I am not mistaken your body cannot create lean muscle at 6lbs a week. Sorry bro, that's not speculation or hating, that is more honest physiology. I do not doubt you have put on 30lbs by any means, however, I am sorry bro but it is a mixture of new forming muscle, water, glycogen storage, not 30lbs.
On the pictures, as Mixedup said if you are 195 @ 4% that is honestly Nationals level, and I think you would be doing everybody a favour by posting your pics.