Testosterone vs epistane

[Mr_11B]

Does anyone know how epistane goes up against testosterone mg to mg? I can’t seem to find any literature on this.

 

[BCseacow83]

Why do you need to compare these two? Other than being androgens they have very little in common. If you have access the two together would be better than either alone IMO.

A much better comparison would be epistane to anavar to winstrol.

 

[Mr_11B]

Why do you need to compare these two? Other than being androgens they have very little in common. If you have access the two together would be better than either alone IMO.

A much better comparison would be epistane to anavar to winstrol.

I’m just curious. No particular reason I’ve ran them in conjunction in the past. I just like to know these types of things for my own knowledge.

 

[BCseacow83]

If you look at the one study that compared a bunch of aas at the same time in the same fashion(vs grabbing one study over here and comparing it to another over there) more or less all AAS accrete protein at the same rate. You don't gain more contractile muscle tissue on dbol vs var. You gain more water and glycogen but that's not tissue. So if they all accure actual tissue at about the same rate it's what they do OTHER than muscle protein synthesis that differentiates them. Epi, as I am sure you noticed, is a fantastic hardener and in some seems to have some estrogen antagonistic effect. Epi also seems to hit peoples joints after a certain dose. Depending on your goals at the moment would probably help to know.

In a straight comparison take two AAS virgins:
A. Give him 50mg test prop a day.

B. Give him 50mg epi a day.

Same diet, identical twins, same training everything else identical for argument's sake. Catch up with them 18 weeks later but have them both stop the drugs after week 16. The two-week wash-out makes for a better comparison of actual tissue gained as the water and glycogen should be flushed for the two drugs above(would be much longer were it a long ester like deca or eq.)

Who gained more muscle?
Who has the better labs?
Who feels better?
Who's workouts kept getting better the whole time?
Who's joints were killing them?
Who's libido just disappeared at some point?

http://instagr.am/p/CUvzpvnrkMh/
http://instagr.am/p/CQnP2daMHw_/

 

[Mr_11B]

If you look at the one study that compared a bunch of aas at the same time in the same fashion(vs grabbing one study over here and comparing it to another over there) more or less all AAS accrete protein at the same rate. You don't gain more contractile muscle tissue on dbol vs var. You gain more water and glycogen but that's not tissue. So if they all accure actual tissue at about the same rate it's what they do OTHER than muscle protein synthesis that differentiates them. Epi, as I am sure you noticed, is a fantastic hardener and in some seems to have some estrogen antagonistic effect. Epi also seems to hit peoples joints after a certain dose. Depending on your goals at the moment would probably help to know.

In a straight comparison take two AAS virgins:
A. Give him 50mg test prop a day.

B. Give him 50mg epi a day.

Same diet, identical twins, same training everything else identical for argument's sake. Catch up with them 18 weeks later but have them both stop the drugs after week 16. The two-week wash-out makes for a better comparison of actual tissue gained as the water and glycogen should be flushed for the two drugs above(would be much longer were it a long ester like deca or eq.)

Who gained more muscle?
Who has the better labs?
Who feels better?
Who's workouts kept getting better the whole time?
Who's joints were killing them?
Who's libido just disappeared at some point?

http://instagr.am/p/CUvzpvnrkMh/
http://instagr.am/p/CQnP2daMHw_/

Perfect. This is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you!

 

[Mathb33]

Comparaisons and charts aren’t worth **** if you compare the ratings and everything else. Reality is muscle is built over several weeks and months and there’s only very little muscle that can be built in 4 to 6 weeks (very little like 2-3 maximum) so that’s why orals suck ass. It’s something that’s more and more realised and understood in 2021 fortunately. Oils will always be a hundred times better than any other orals at building muscle.

 

[Mr_11B]

Comparaisons and charts aren’t worth **** if you compare the ratings and everything else. Reality is muscle is built over several weeks and months and there’s only very little muscle that can be built in 4 to 6 weeks (very little like 2-3 maximum) so that’s why orals suck ass. It’s something that’s more and more realised and understood in 2021 fortunately. Oils will always be a hundred times better than any other orals at building muscle.

I agree with you. I’m not asking this question because I’m a newbie wanting to know what cycle to run I’ve run just about everything. I’m just curious. I like to know everything there is just for my own personal knowledge.

 

[Smont]

Does anyone know how epistane goes up against testosterone mg to mg? I can’t seem to find any literature on this.

What kind of question is this

You're comparing apples to oranges

 

[Smont]

Are you looking for purely muscle building ability

 

[Smont]

If you look at the one study that compared a bunch of aas at the same time in the same fashion(vs grabbing one study over here and comparing it to another over there) more or less all AAS accrete protein at the same rate. You don't gain more contractile muscle tissue on dbol vs var. You gain more water and glycogen but that's not tissue. So if they all accure actual tissue at about the same rate it's what they do OTHER than muscle protein synthesis that differentiates them. Epi, as I am sure you noticed, is a fantastic hardener and in some seems to have some estrogen antagonistic effect. Epi also seems to hit peoples joints after a certain dose. Depending on your goals at the moment would probably help to know.

In a straight comparison take two AAS virgins:
A. Give him 50mg test prop a day.

B. Give him 50mg epi a day.

Same diet, identical twins, same training everything else identical for argument's sake. Catch up with them 18 weeks later but have them both stop the drugs after week 16. The two-week wash-out makes for a better comparison of actual tissue gained as the water and glycogen should be flushed for the two drugs above(would be much longer were it a long ester like deca or eq.)

Who gained more muscle?
Who has the better labs?
Who feels better?
Who's workouts kept getting better the whole time?
Who's joints were killing them?
Who's libido just disappeared at some point?

http://instagr.am/p/CUvzpvnrkMh/
http://instagr.am/p/CQnP2daMHw_/

The studies we're done on rodents and not people, just like the AA ratios they're kind of pointless.

I have a much different opinion then most on the subject of how anabolics stack up and I don't really think anyone can disprove it. With a few minor exceptions, all steroids stack up fairly evenly for muscle tissue growth.

They all have different side effects, they all hold different amounts of water and glycogen, but when it comes to building actual contractile muscle tissue they're all pretty even.

Give a bunch of people their choice of steroid for the year, it's the only one they're allowed to take. Make genetics diet and training all equal and the outcome is gonna be pretty much the same minus the water weight and glycogen. There's only so much muscle you can build at a time, even on cycle. And I'm sure everyone here that's used various compounds over the years can attest that there's no magic compound that dramatically speeds up progress

 

[Smont]

Oral steroids typically have a much more dramatic effect on rapid appearance change because of all the glycogen and water. Even the dry orals tend to move water and glycogen around into the right places. There's lots of guys who can take 30-40mg of SD or 100mg anadrol and in a matter of weeks appear to make a years progress just to see it dissapear right after they stopped taking the oral, it's because no real games actually occurred in that short period of time, it was just the shifting of water and glycogen

 

[Mr_11B]

What kind of question is this

You're comparing apples to oranges

Just curiosity bro.

 

[Mr_11B]

Oral steroids typically have a much more dramatic effect on rapid appearance change because of all the glycogen and water. Even the dry orals tend to move water and glycogen around into the right places. There's lots of guys who can take 30-40mg of SD or 100mg anadrol and in a matter of weeks appear to make a years progress just to see it dissapear right after they stopped taking the oral, it's because no real games actually occurred in that short period of time, it was just the shifting of water and glycogen

Thanks. This answer makes a lot of sense.

 

[BCseacow83]

The studies we're done on rodents and not people, just like the AA ratios they're kind of pointless.

I have a much different opinion then most on the subject of how anabolics stack up and I don't really think anyone can disprove it. With a few minor exceptions, all steroids stack up fairly evenly for muscle tissue growth.

They all have different side effects, they all hold different amounts of water and glycogen, but when it comes to building actual contractile muscle tissue they're all pretty even.

Give a bunch of people their choice of steroid for the year, it's the only one they're allowed to take. Make genetics diet and training all equal and the outcome is gonna be pretty much the same minus the water weight and glycogen. There's only so much muscle you can build at a time, even on cycle. And I'm sure everyone here that's used various compounds over the years can attest that there's no magic compound that dramatically speeds up progress

This is exactly what I just posted with the only evidence we have that support it.

 

[BCseacow83]

Oral steroids typically have a much more dramatic effect on rapid appearance change because of all the glycogen and water. Even the dry orals tend to move water and glycogen around into the right places. There's lots of guys who can take 30-40mg of SD or 100mg anadrol and in a matter of weeks appear to make a years progress just to see it dissapear right after they stopped taking the oral, it's because no real games actually occurred in that short period of time, it was just the shifting of water and glycogen

This is why I suggested people should really clear out the hormones, 2 weeks for fast esters/orals and at least a month for long esters, and then look at the scale. What's left is the actual weight gain. We are saying the same thing.

 

[Smont]

This is why I suggested people should really clear out the hormones, 2 weeks for fast esters/orals and at least a month for long esters, and then look at the scale. What's left is the actual weight gain. We are saying the same thing.

Oh absolutely, like 90% of what people think are gains on their cycles are not gains. It's the same thing that's been driving me nuts for years when people try to say that one cycle has more capable gains than another cycle. Or that d-bol gains are not keepable but Winny is dry and you keep the gains.

In reality none of what's disappearing is muscle, muscle is muscle no matter what drug was used while you were building it. No type of muscle is more keepable
than another type of muscle.

I can't count how many guys I know that go on cycle game 10 lb come off cycle lose 10 lb and look the same as they did before and then they repeat the process. And this is what they've been doing for like the last 10 years. They're too worried about the type of gains they get from a drug. And they're relying on the drugs 100% to the point that the only thing they get out of their steroid cycle is the cosmetic effect of whatever drugs they're using while they're on it. Never building any muscle never making any progress ever.

How many times on this forum has someone told that they gained 20 lb on superdral, and 15 lb on something else and 20 lb on the third thing. Yet they've been on the forum for 12 years and there's still 175 lb at the same body fat percentage. No muscle was gained.

I've been back on gear for like 2 and 1/2 years now, mostly cruising on my trt with a couple cycles thrown in. My weight's gone back and forth between 180-225, but at no point when I went on a cycle did I put on 30 lb of muscle or 40 lb of muscle, I put on 30 lb of weight and then dyed it back down to find out that I probably put on about 2 lb of muscle. If I can gather 10 lb of muscle over the course of a year I'm extremely happy.

 

[johnny412]

The studies we're done on rodents and not people, just like the AA ratios they're kind of pointless.

I have a much different opinion then most on the subject of how anabolics stack up and I don't really think anyone can disprove it. With a few minor exceptions, all steroids stack up fairly evenly for muscle tissue growth.

They all have different side effects, they all hold different amounts of water and glycogen, but when it comes to building actual contractile muscle tissue they're all pretty even.

Give a bunch of people their choice of steroid for the year, it's the only one they're allowed to take. Make genetics diet and training all equal and the outcome is gonna be pretty much the same minus the water weight and glycogen. There's only so much muscle you can build at a time, even on cycle. And I'm sure everyone here that's used various compounds over the years can attest that there's no magic compound that dramatically speeds up progress

ok serious question. i get the glycogen and water part. but wouldnt the extra strength and recovery ability make you ad more true muscle considering of course good diet and good workouts?

 

[Mathb33]

ok serious question. i get the glycogen and water part. but wouldnt the extra strength and recovery ability make you ad more true muscle considering of course good diet and good workouts?

As mentionned above, tissue is built with time. We are talking months. This is why something like a low dose testosterone for 16-20 weeks will yield way more muscle gain than the absolute craziest oral cycle that you would do for 4-6 weeks. Toxicity and sides put aside just for the sake of the exemple.... you could put the body on dbol,superdrol,epistane,dmz,Msten for 6 weeks and you wouldn’t build more muscle anyways. Even bodybuilders who are on steroids year round (yes all the time) when they manage to put on 7-8-9 lbs of muscle tissue in a whole year is considered an amazing and successful growth phase. Muscle isn’t as easily build as forums and google seems to say. My growth has been consistent and considered "exceptional" within the last 2 years and most people in
My région say they’ve very rarely seen someone grow as fast as I did and I’ve i only put on 9-10 lbs of tissue per year while pushing gear 8 months a year.

 

[Smont]

ok serious question. i get the glycogen and water part. but wouldnt the extra strength and recovery ability make you ad more true muscle considering of course good diet and good workouts?

Ya of course, more strength allowed more damage to occur, better recovery is better recovery. (Although sometimes recovery can be worse bbecausesome ppl are training so much harder on gear). The same principles apply Natty or with gear if you think about it. Train harder than last time, rest better than last time eat better ect. All of those things drive muscle growth with or without gear.

But obviously with gear there's greater room to grow, but again you can only grow so much in a given period of time.

Have you ever seen the pro bodybuilder compete over the years and watch how their weight on stage changes year to year. With a few freak incidents, the increments are very small usually. A guy in this mid-late twenties might step on stage weigh in 235/240 in 5 years later he's stepping on stage weighing 255

Guys who are younger might add 10 lb in between shows, some freak incidences where they add 15 or 20. But in general most guys are adding like three four maybe 5 lb from show to show as they're still growing. And these are the guys with the most perfect diets on the most gear in the hardest training.

So if the guys with the best genetics on the most gear with the hardest training are only adding 10lbs per year early in their career and 2 to 3 lb a year late in their career. What makes any of us think we're going to add more muscle than that

 

[Mathb33]

So if the guys with the best genetics on the most gear with the hardest training are only adding 10lbs per year early in their career and 2 to 3 lb a year late in their career. What makes any of us think we're going to add more muscle than that

There you go. This here. And I’ll add they aren’t working, they are on blast 10 months out of 12 on hgh insulin and everything else, with the best coaches in the world, training harder than 98% of people. With all these variables added they only add 6-7-8-9 lbs of tissue a year. Now let’s think how much a regular joe training 70% close to failure, with no coach can do in a year. And that’s why most people on steroids look like **** and like they’re natty non lifters.

 

[Smont]

I have heard more then one person say this and it's definitely the Truth, it's also what I believe.
You don't need a lot of drugs to grow and make improvements, but there's a difference between growing and improving and becoming a freak. If you wanna look like a science project then you gotta be a science project and that dosent happen with sarms and sub 1g 12 week cycles. It takes years of drug abuse and dedication to the gym, food and the drugs

 

[AndroRage]

As mentionned above, tissue is built with time. We are talking months. This is why something like a low dose testosterone for 16-20 weeks will yield way more muscle gain than the absolute craziest oral cycle that you would do for 4-6 weeks. Toxicity and sides put aside just for the sake of the exemple.... you could put the body on dbol,superdrol,epistane,dmz,Msten for 6 weeks and you wouldn’t build more muscle anyways. Even bodybuilders who are on steroids year round (yes all the time) when they manage to put on 7-8-9 lbs of muscle tissue in a whole year is considered an amazing and successful growth phase. Muscle isn’t as easily build as forums and google seems to say. My growth has been consistent and considered "exceptional" within the last 2 years and most people in
My région say they’ve very rarely seen someone grow as fast as I did and I’ve i only put on 9-10 lbs of tissue per year while pushing gear 8 months a year.

You said you push gear 8 months a year? The other 4 you come off completely or drop to trt type dosages? Just curious really