Nandrolone

Megashark

Member
Awards
2
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
My friend tells me nandrolone is the second strongest injectable next to trenbolone. I don't see how this could be as it has an anabolic ratio of like 90. I am thinking about ordering some thought. Should I go with deca or NPP?
 
Last edited:
ValiantThor08

ValiantThor08

Board Sponsor
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
NPP, and have an AI and something for prolactin on hand. P5P, or Prolactrone, or cabergoline.
 
ValiantThor08

ValiantThor08

Board Sponsor
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
I have Provirion. And all the pct essentials
Provirone may not be sufficient by itself. Better to have something else for estrogen and prolactin, and not need it, than to not have, and end up needing it.
 
Mathb33

Mathb33

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Best Answer
I have Provirion. And all the pct essentials
I know as you said there’s all the info necessary on trestolone so I figure you’re a very knowledgeable person... yet he’s offering you solid advice which are VERY BASIC and you’re answering I have proviron I won’t need anything against prolactin?
 
Last edited:
Matthersby

Matthersby

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
I’m gonna go ahead and be the most experienced Trest user here, (which I am) and let everyone know you need Nolva or Ralox for Trest. You may be one of the lucky few that isn’t gyno prone at all, or don’t run it high enough, but your nipples will be your main problem with the estro from Trest, if you’re anything like the majority that use it, and Proviron isn’t gonna do much of anything at all.
 
xR1pp3Rx

xR1pp3Rx

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I’m gonna go ahead and be the most experienced Trest user here, (which I am) and let everyone know you need Nolva or Ralox for Trest. You may be one of the lucky few that isn’t gyno prone at all, or don’t run it high enough, but your nipples will be your main problem with the estro from Trest, if you’re anything like the majority that use it, and Proviron isn’t gonna do much of anything at all.
I smite thee as the most experienced trester on these forums!!! J/K if u want that title i am more than happy to point to u!! lol

but, you also know i am the one who doesnt need more than a AI for trest. even at ultra high doses. what you said though, about proviron is spot on for sure... proviron adds little if anything to a trest cycle. its not enough to help with estrogen and further, trest will trump the libido from proviron any day of the week. so meh.
 

JoePaul39

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
I’m gonna go ahead and be the most experienced Trest user here, (which I am) and let everyone know you need Nolva or Ralox for Trest. You may be one of the lucky few that isn’t gyno prone at all, or don’t run it high enough, but your nipples will be your main problem with the estro from Trest, if you’re anything like the majority that use it, and Proviron isn’t gonna do much of anything at all.
So rather than an AI you take a Serm on cycle when you run Trest? Did that also help you control water retention as well?
 
xR1pp3Rx

xR1pp3Rx

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
So rather than an AI you take a Serm on cycle when you run Trest? Did that also help you control water retention as well?
either should help with water retention... the thing to keep in mind here is that trest throws off what's known as methyl estrogen which may or may not attach to the estrogen receptor the same or as strong or otherwise. taking a serm may keep regular estrogen at bay but it may not hold up the same under methyl estrogens prowess. I think its prudent to incorporate an AI to stop as much conversion as possible. I am not against using a SERM but i feel like if your at all susceptible to estrogens issues when it gets elevated then use both! some will find that the prolactin issues are worse for them than that of the Mestrogen..
BTW, we at least know that methyl estrogen is tough for the body to excrete so the build up can be a real issue here.
 

JoePaul39

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
either should help with water retention... the thing to keep in mind here is that trest throws off what's known as methyl estrogen which may or may not attach to the estrogen receptor the same or as strong or otherwise. taking a serm may keep regular estrogen at bay but it may not hold up the same under methyl estrogens prowess. I think its prudent to incorporate an AI to stop as much conversion as possible. I am not against using a SERM but i feel like if your at all susceptible to estrogens issues when it gets elevated then use both! some will find that the prolactin issues are worse for them than that of the Mestrogen..
BTW, we at least know that methyl estrogen is tough for the body to excrete so the build up can be a real issue here.
Makes sense. So since it can be tough for the
methyl estrogen to excrete through the body do you even stay on your AI for like a week after the cycle to give your body time to get rid of it? Seems like that might be a good idea.
 

CroLifter

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • RockStar
either should help with water retention... the thing to keep in mind here is that trest throws off what's known as methyl estrogen which may or may not attach to the estrogen receptor the same or as strong or otherwise. taking a serm may keep regular estrogen at bay but it may not hold up the same under methyl estrogens prowess. I think its prudent to incorporate an AI to stop as much conversion as possible. I am not against using a SERM but i feel like if your at all susceptible to estrogens issues when it gets elevated then use both! some will find that the prolactin issues are worse for them than that of the Mestrogen..
BTW, we at least know that methyl estrogen is tough for the body to excrete so the build up can be a real issue here.
Is that the same methyl estrogen dbol converts to?

Because many think how dbol aromatizes heavily, but that is not true, rate is way less than test. But, that methyl estrogen is very potent afaik and therefore estrogenic sides from dbol can be harsh.
 
Mathb33

Mathb33

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Best Answer
Is that the same methyl estrogen dbol converts to?

Because many think how dbol aromatizes heavily, but that is not true, rate is way less than test. But, that methyl estrogen is very potent afaik and therefore estrogenic sides from dbol can be harsh.
Yep pretty sure that’s why people say it’s like dbol but twice as strong.
 

Whisky

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Best Answer
My friend tells me nandrolone is the second strongest injectable next to trenbolone. I don't see how this could be as it has an anabolic ratio of like 90. I am thinking about ordering some thought. Should I go with deca or NPP?
as we all know the anabolic ratio means pretty much **** all when it comes to determining the muscle building capacity of any aas......

that’s the last thing I would use to judge a compound bro,

as for deca vs npp......personally I don’t seem to suffer from DD and on long cycles (I like to bulk forward 16 weeks) Id rather only jab twice a week so deca for me.

but many others (I’d say a majority) prefer NPP for the reduced prolactin and ED sides it apparently gives. Some claim slightly better results but I’ve not seen anything that really backs that up.

not entirely sure how trest came into the thread (agree with above, defo have an ai on hand for that beast) but with any 19nor I’m not seeing much logic behind proviron being a solution to prolactin - absolutely have caber on hand.

prov for reducing circulating estrogen through its affinity to bind to the aromatase enzyme - yeah for sure

to increase the effectiveness of test through its ability to decrease SHBG - yeah great (although I question the benefit of this but get the logic)

to boost libido sometimes affected by 19nors due to its DHT - wonderful

but na, not for prolactin my my personal opinion
 
StarScream66

StarScream66

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
Nandrolone is technically a weaker steroid than testosterone, mostly because it converts to DHN (dihydronandrolone) instead of DHT. But this can be beneficial because DHN causes less androgenic effects, meaning less acne, hair loss, prostate problems, etc. It's more of a mass builder than anything else. Not too many people run deca alone, because for one, it's going to give you 'deca dick' (inability to get it up), so it's recommended to run at least a little testosterone with it. You could run as low as 150 a week of a long acting test ester like enan or cyp.

As far as which to choose, NPP is a quicker acting form of nandrolone so it only lasts about a week in the body, but you have to inject it in small doses throughout the week to keep levels consistent. This will give you less bloat (there's already not much bloat from nandrolone), similar to test prop. Nandrolone deconate is the long acting version, so you'll have to inject around 300-600mg a week for 10-12 weeks to see results.

Right now, I'm using a product that has both! It's called Rx-SuperNan and contains Nandrolone Deconate 225mg and NPP 75mg. I'm using it as sort of a make shift TRT where I inject it 1ml every two weeks. It's kind of a little experiment I'm running along with 1ml of Sustanon to see if it improves my mood or energy levels.

But, depending on your goals, if you're looking for a good bulking cycle with low bloat, I would go with the old standard of nandrolone deconate. Run it at say 300mg a week (or 600mg a week if you're really looking to bulk) along with 150mg of test cyp or enan. Or the old standby, back in the day the Deca/Dbol cycle was super popular. I don't remember the doses off the top of my head, but I'll link you an article about it.

If you wanted to do a super lean cycle, I would run test prop and NPP and inject it multiple times throughout the week for 6-12 weeks. I don't remember the dosages on that either, but I can look them up or someone else can fill you in.

Also, I wanted to talk about prolactin. A lot of people complain they have prolactin induced gyno from nandrolone, but prolactin can't cause gyno without the presence of estrogen. So, having an ancillary drug like Nolvadex on hand through the cycle if you experience any unwanted estrogen effects would be a good idea as well.


Hope that helps,
-SS
 
Renew1

Renew1

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
SS, you're going to do whatever you want.

FOR EVERYBODY ELSE:
Don't run compounds year round. (But hopefully you weren't planning to anyway).

Nandrolone isn't a weaker
steroid than Test.
 
StarScream66

StarScream66

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
SS, you're going to do whatever you want.

FOR EVERYBODY ELSE:
Don't run compounds year round. (But hopefully you weren't planning to anyway).

Nandrolone isn't a weaker
steroid than Test.
Bro, I'm just asking a question, I'm not stating a fact that you can run whatever you want. I'm asking why this is so. How do you figure nandrolone isn't weaker than test? It's conversion to DHN makes it less androgenic. If you're going by the Vida numbers, it's just meaningless. Testosterone is the perfect anabolic/androgenic compound and by the Vida numbers would be 100:100. I don't see how you can say nandrolone is stronger.

I don't know why I always get into these arguments with you...
 

Megashark

Member
Awards
2
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I know as you said there’s all the info necessary on trestolone so I figure you’re a very knowledgeable person... yet he’s offering you solid advice which are VERY BASIC and you’re answering I have proviron I won’t need anything against prolactin?
Nope, not that knowledgeable
 
Renew1

Renew1

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Bro, I'm just asking a question, I'm not stating a fact that you can run whatever you want. I'm asking why this is so. How do you figure nandrolone isn't weaker than test? It's conversion to DHN makes it less androgenic. If you're going by the Vida numbers, it's just meaningless. Testosterone is the perfect anabolic/androgenic compound and by the Vida numbers would be 100:100. I don't see how you can say nandrolone is stronger.

I don't know why I always get into these arguments with you...
Honestly brother ....
Because you're wrong.

You just told everyone Over and Over that Anabolic/Androgic ratios don't carry over into humans.
That was one of the few times recently that you've been spot-on.
Then what do you do next? ...
Use those ratios to try and justify your position!
Just come on man!
REALLY????
 
StarScream66

StarScream66

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
Honestly brother ....
Because you're wrong.

You just told everyone Over and Over that Anabolic/Androgic ratios don't carry over into humans.
That was one of the few times recently that you've been spot-on.
Then what do you do next? ...
Use those ratios to try and justify your position!
Just come on man!
REALLY????
So, again, you're making the argument the nandrolone is stronger than testosterone. Justify it for me. Because I can't do it. I used the Vida numbers because I assumed that is what you are basing your idea that nandrolone is "stronger" than testosterone.
 
Renew1

Renew1

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
So, again, you're making the argument the nandrolone is stronger than testosterone. Justify it for me. Because I can't do it. I used the Vida numbers because I assumed that is what you are basing your idea that nandrolone is "stronger" than testosterone.
No.
I don't use that crap, because they don't apply to real-life.

That's what I'm (mainly) basing this truth off of ... Real life.
You know all those bodybuilders who rave about how Test is a Superior muscle-building compound to Nandrolone??
Nope.
Me neither.
Neither does anyone else.
Because it isn't true.
 
StarScream66

StarScream66

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
Comparing Nandrolone and Testosterone really comes down to dosage. I can't remember where the study was posted but Nandrolone is more effective in lower doses.
I would love to know where that chart came from. I guess I could do a reverse Google image search on it, but I'm pretty tired, I'll look it up later unless someone else wants too.
No.
I don't use that crap, because they don't apply to real-life.

That's what I'm (mainly) basing this truth off of ... Real life.
You know all those bodybuilders who rave about how Test is a Superior muscle-building compound to Nandrolone??
Nope.
Me neither.
Neither does anyone else.
Because it isn't true.
Well, I'm glad we agree on point number one. Number two is that we're going off anecdotal evidence, and that point I can't argue, so because I'm exhausted I'll give it to you.
 
bad rad

bad rad

Active member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
It was the Army based on the article so I'm assuming US Army. Walter Reed Medical Center is also in Bethesda, MD. It's a medical study so "high dose" is relative.

 
StarScream66

StarScream66

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
It was the Army based on the article so I'm assuming US Army. Walter Reed Medical Center is also in Bethesda, MD. It's a medical study so "high dose" is relative.

Here's a link to the full study:

I didn't read anything beyond the abstract, so feel free to peruse away and figure it out and I'll read it later.
 
Mathb33

Mathb33

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Best Answer
@StarScream66 you read all these studies and that’s awesome they’re helping you learn a lot but you’re getting lost in them. Half of what you post are studies that don’t validate the points you’re trying to make.
 
Mathb33

Mathb33

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Best Answer
I would love to know where that chart came from. I guess I could do a reverse Google image search on it, but I'm pretty tired, I'll look it up later unless someone else wants too.


Well, I'm glad we agree on point number one. Number two is that we're going off anecdotal evidence, and that point I can't argue, so because I'm exhausted I'll give it to you.
In this sport more often than other anecdotal evidence and real life experience tells the truth over studies. Deca is a much better muscle builder than test. If anything test is one of the weakest muscle builder there is and all the top athletes will validate that. You say you’re exhausted of renew going at you well we are exhausted of seeing you in every single thread spitting studies done on rats or studies done 25 years ago that half the time don’t even mean what you think they mean. It is exhausting to us too. No offense.
 
Last edited:

Whisky

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Best Answer
In this sport more often than other anecdotal evidence and real life experience tells the truth over studies. Deca is a much better muscle builder than test. If anything test is one of the weakest muscle builder there is and all the top athletes will validate that. You say you’re exhausted of renew going at you well we are exhausted too seeing you in every single thread spitting studies done on rats or studies done 25 years ago that half the time don’t even mean what you think they mean. It is exhausting to us too. No offense.
This. Very much this.

In 1977 a proper study stated that steroids are ineffective for muscle gains. In fact many studies around that time declared steroids were not ‘performance enhancing’

whilst the studies eventually caught up both body builders and athletes had known this for years.

there are countless examples of bodybuilders in particular being intuitively ahead of the science on training and nutrition as well.

very often the studies Or theory just doesn’t translate to real life but anecdotal evidence can’t be disputed. It actually happened. Bodybuilders use deca or npp because time and time again they and their peers gain more muscle than using test along.

superdrol on paper isn’t that strong but you ask anyone who’s used it and more than half will tell you it put more muscle on and added more strength than any other compound they’ve ever used.

understanding (or trying to understand) why is interesting for sure but in the context of ‘is such and such a compound stronger or weaker’ then anecdotal evidence has to take priority over theory or rat studies because it’s reality.

it just is what it is.....
 

CroLifter

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • RockStar
Comparing Nandrolone and Testosterone really comes down to dosage. I can't remember where the study was posted but Nandrolone is more effective in lower doses.
Nandrolone has a higher binding affinity than test for the ar. But test also works through other pathways better, like all aas, hence why aas are more powerful than sarms, as they work through multiple pathways

Test converts to estrogen and therefore has better mass gaining potential by itself.

but add estro to nandrolone and i am pretty sure it will beat test.



Just stack them like it has always been done.
 
bad rad

bad rad

Active member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Nandrolone has a higher binding affinity than test for the ar. But test also works through other pathways better, like all aas, hence why aas are more powerful than sarms, as they work through multiple pathways

Test converts to estrogen and therefore has better mass gaining potential by itself.

but add estro to nandrolone and i am pretty sure it will beat test.



Just stack them like it has always been done.
It's all circumstance in the end. 3cc of Test amounts to more weight than 3c of Tren but weight gain isn't all muscle gain. Then, as you referenced estrogen leads to muscle gains too. It's more profound with Tren.
 

CroLifter

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • RockStar
It's all circumstance in the end. 3cc of Test amounts to more weight than 3c of Tren but weight gain isn't all muscle gain. Then, as you referenced estrogen leads to muscle gains too. It's more profound with Tren.
Estrogen with tren for sure...growth is crazy...i put on 4kg in 2 weeks with delts and chest exploding with 250 test and a teeny tiny bit of tren

Changes are on a day to day basis
 
StarScream66

StarScream66

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
@StarScream66 you read all these studies and that’s awesome they’re helping you learn a lot but you’re getting lost in them. Half of what you post are studies that don’t validate the points you’re trying to make.
I think that can be a fair point sometimes, but you have to keep in mind, like @Whisky posted, a lot studies say that AAS don't do anything. That's one reason to be skeptical of these older studies, they have an anti-drug agenda from the start. But that doesn't mean these studies are totally worthless. There a lot of good studies on people with HIV for using AAS and they have shown major positive benefits. Obviously, we don't have HIV, but the studies are pretty close to what we're looking at since they're in weight trained men.

In this sport more often than other anecdotal evidence and real life experience tells the truth over studies. Deca is a much better muscle builder than test. If anything test is one of the weakest muscle builder there is and all the top athletes will validate that. You say you’re exhausted of renew going at you well we are exhausted of seeing you in every single thread spitting studies done on rats or studies done 25 years ago that half the time don’t even mean what you think they mean. It is exhausting to us too. No offense.
None taken. I really wish I could edit my signature. When I'm posting these messages, I'm not trying to disparage anyone, call them stupid or try and completely contradiction what they were saying. I'm trying to encourage lively debate. If you know something I don't know, post it, an we can talk about it in a civil and scientific manner and see what we can glean from it.

I didn't mean I was exhausted with Renew. I like Renew, he's a good guy, and although we disagree (all the time), I still consider him an asset to the forum because he has a lot of knowledge and a different set of knowledge to bring to the table. He's civil in his arguments, and not disparaging (most of the time). ;)

I was exhausted because I took some Exelcisor because I was feeling tired and I was up all night, just answering questions like my life depended on it. Then, I finally crashed and didn't feel like looking at that study and posting my remarks about it.

This. Very much this.

In 1977 a proper study stated that steroids are ineffective for muscle gains. In fact many studies around that time declared steroids were not ‘performance enhancing’

whilst the studies eventually caught up both

I wa body builders and athletes had known this for years.

there are countless examples of bodybuilders in particular being intuitively ahead of the science on training and nutrition as well.

very often the studies Or theory just doesn’t translate to real life but anecdotal evidence can’t be disputed. It actually happened. Bodybuilders use deca or npp because time and time again they and their peers gain more muscle than using test along.

superdrol on paper isn’t that strong but you ask anyone who’s used it and more than half will tell you it put more muscle on and added more strength than any other compound they’ve ever used.

understanding (or trying to understand) why is interesting for sure but in the context of ‘is such and such a compound stronger or weaker’ then anecdotal evidence has to take priority over theory or rat studies because it’s reality.

it just is what it is.....
As I've posted in my other threads.

I follow the skeptical ideology of Carl Sagan and his book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. For a quick overview, here is his Baloney Detecthttp://bit.ly/CandleinTheDarkion Kit. I'm also a big fan of Quackwatch (although I think the author got too old and is no longer updating the site) as well as the book Muscles, Speed, and Lies: What the Sport Supplement Industry Does Not Want Athletes or Consumers to Know. It's my personal opinion that probably 98% of all supplements are bullsh!t, and the 2% that work are simply under looked because people are looking for the next best thing..
I've noticed different forums have different ways to look at data. Back in the hay day of mindandmuscle and avant labs sites, it was a lot of pre-med students who could really translate the data, but it was a scientifically geared site. We used logs as anecdotal evidence, but they were very advanced logs.

On here, I notice more people are inclined to to listen to anecdotal evidence and disregard the science, which is something I'm not used to.
 
Mathb33

Mathb33

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Best Answer
@StarScream66 in all honesty I appreciate you and what you bring to the forum. I just get lost in points you’re trying to make sometimes. Other times you’re super on point. But I guess when I think about it the same thing could be said about me
 
StarScream66

StarScream66

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
@StarScream66 in all honesty I appreciate you and what you bring to the forum. I just get lost in points you’re trying to make sometimes. Other times you’re super on point. But I guess when I think about it the same thing could be said about me
Well, if I'm not making sense or it's over your head, just feel free to ask wtf I'm talking about.

And thanks, I like being a part of this forum, posting answers and learning new things everyday.
 

Similar threads


Top