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:
I have Provirion. And all the pct essentialsNPP, and have an AI and something for prolactin on hand. P5P, or Prolactrone, or cabergoline.
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.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?I have Provirion. And all the pct essentials
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!! lolI’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?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.
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..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?
Makes sense. So since it can be tough for theeither 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?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.
Yep pretty sure that’s why people say it’s like dbol but twice as strong.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.
as we all know the anabolic ratio means pretty much **** all when it comes to determining the muscle building capacity of any aas......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?
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.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.
Nope, not that knowledgeableI 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?
Honestly brother ....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...
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.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????
No.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Here's a link to the full study: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.
Comparison of the effects of high dose testosterone and 19-nortestosterone to a replacement dose of testosterone on strength and body composition in normal men - PubMed
We examined the extent to which supraphysiological doses of androgen can modify body composition and strength in normally virilized men. In doubly blind tests, 30 healthy young men received testosterone enanthate (TE) or 19-nortestosterone decanoate (ND), at 100 mg/wk or 300 mg/wk for 6 weeks...pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
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.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.
This. Very much this.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.
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 pathwaysComparing 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.
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.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.
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 trenIt'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.
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.@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.
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.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.
As I've posted in my other threads.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.....
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.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..
Well, if I'm not making sense or it's over your head, just feel free to ask wtf I'm talking about.@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