# Lean gain steroids that don't cause water retention or gyno ect



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

Just wondering really, always done allot of research but its not completely clear apart from anavar and winny what steroids have minimal effect on water retention, achne, gyno ect.

Basically meds that dont make you look huge like the hulk or blow out too quickly, but slow, lean, hard gains if you know what I mean.


----------



## oldskoolcool (Oct 4, 2009)

tren


----------



## Guest (Mar 28, 2013)

Any steroid has the potential to cause acne or gyno as both can be caused by an imbalance or change in hormones.

There is generally less risk of gyno associated with non-aromatising steroids.

For what you are after I would suggest Winny or Tbol (Turinabol) but not before some research.


----------



## IGotTekkers (Jun 6, 2012)

Tbol


----------



## BigTrev (Mar 16, 2008)

Tbol orals

Masteron test

Use an Ai on a cycle and it reduces water retention and gyno


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

Yeh I guess I should have said 'have minimal' instead of 'have none' of the effects I listed.

Just interested really for future reference. My end goal isnt really to get as big as possible, but slow gain hard and dense muscle.

Thanks for the replies


----------



## Proteen Paul (Apr 6, 2012)

Poke said:


> Yeh I guess I should have said 'have minimal' instead of 'have none' of the effects I listed.
> 
> Just interested really for future reference. My end goal isnt really to get as big as possible, but slow gain hard and dense muscle.
> 
> Thanks for the replies


If you want slow gains, surely hard work and a good diet is the best option.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

All steroids can have the ability to blow you up it depends on the individual, diet, dose etc.......


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

Proteen Paul said:


> If you want slow gains, surely hard work and a good diet is the best option.


Unfortunately not when you work 8 hours a day in a very demanding job  There gets a point when your body just breaks down muscle or maintains it instead of repairing it and gaining, even on a calorie surplus at this point my body stores as much fat as possible and makes very little muscle gains because of the work I do, it adapts to it.

Ive been a gardener/tree surgeon for 5 years and my max natural potential while doing this job is a bit under 14 stone (5"11) when at about 8-10% bf and anything heavier than that if trying to bulk just turns into fat no matter what the diet. A bit like marathon runners have very minimal muscle mass whatever their diet.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Poke said:


> Unfortunately not when you work 8 hours a day in a very demanding job  There gets a point when your body just breaks down muscle or maintains it instead of repairing it and gaining, even on a calorie surplus at this point my body stores as much fat as possible and makes very little muscle gains because of the work I do, it adapts to it.


But even with steroids this would not be better in the end as when you come off the steroid if your job is this bad you would just go backwards........I cannot believe that you have such a job for 8 out of 24hrs that it breaks down muscle at such a rate that even when eating a calorie surplus you do not gain.......can I ask how often do you train? If your answer is more than 3 days a week can I ask with such a job why??

What job do you do??

Don't get me wrong using steroids is an individual choice and if you want to use them do so but don't think you can use a steroid at such a dose to create muscle gain and have no side as non exist......

Edit: just noticed you have said tree surgeon (blunt alert) what you have said is b0llox buddy I know many many guys who work 12 hr shifts in very demanding physical jobs and still manage to gain without gear (not a lot but still) your issue is your not eating enough food it really is as simple as that buddy, like I said use gear by all means but you will be throwing your money away as where do you think the gear will get the calories from to do there job from??


----------



## huarache (May 28, 2012)

Poke said:


> Unfortunately not when you work 8 hours a day in a very demanding job  There gets a point when your body just breaks down muscle or maintains it instead of repairing it and gaining, even on a calorie surplus at this point my body stores as much fat as possible and makes very little muscle gains because of the work I do, it adapts to it.
> 
> Ive been a gardener/tree surgeon for 5 years and my max natural potential while doing this job is a bit under 14 stone (5"11) when at about 8-10% bf and anything heavier than that if trying to bulk just turns into fat no matter what the diet. A bit like marathon runners have very minimal muscle mass whatever their diet.


bollocks


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

I train 3 times a week for this very reason  (used to train 4-5 times a week the first 2 years of my job but changed it to 3 and I gained allot but eventually plaued to what I explained above, tried other training methods and its just the way it is I suppose)

But dont worry ive done allot of research over the years and have always been the only one out of my mates that never did any PEDs, Im making the right choice for myself

I edited to explain what my job is and to compare it to a marathon runner for example, which is a very good comparison and the same situation.

With my job I am just on my feet moving 7 hours a day lifting heavy stuff and using heavy equipment for long periods, basically I do a hell of allot of cardio.


----------



## Proteen Paul (Apr 6, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> But even with steroids this would not be better in the end as when you come off the steroid if your job is this bad you would just go backwards........I cannot believe that you have such a job for 8 out of 24hrs that it breaks down muscle at such a rate that even when eating a calorie surplus you do not gain.......can I ask how often do you train? If your answer is more than 3 days a week can I ask with such a job why??
> 
> What job do you do??
> 
> Don't get me wrong using steroids is an individual choice and if you want to use them do so but don't think you can use a steroid at such a dose to create muscle gain and have no side as non exist......


Thank you.


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

sckeane said:


> bollocks


Its true mate, You feed a marathon runner what ever you want, and as long as they keep doing their training, their body wont produce more muscle (Although it will produce more fat it can use for fuel) because of their long distance running, bigger muscle is detrimental for it because of the oxygen and energy/calories it takes up, the body adapts very well.

Like for me, my body wont gain more lean mass than it does because of my work (like slow cardio throughout the day), admittedly im not at the peak I was 3 years ago but Im not too far off.

Natural Body builders need rest and cant be doing demanding work all day unless they dont want to gain allot of muscle mass or have naturally high test or good genetics, Im taking what I am the same reason MMA fighters/boxers do, to enable me to work (for them to train hard) and still get the results I desire and feel good and not like crap (in their case need)


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Poke said:


> Its true mate, You feed a marathon runner what ever you want, and as long as they keep doing their training, their body wont produce more muscle (it can produce more fat) because of their long distance running, bigger muscle is detrimental for it because of the oxygen and energy/calories it takes up, the body adapts very well.
> 
> Like for me, my body wont gain more lean mass than it does because of my work, admittedly im not at the peak I was 3 years ago but Im not too far off.


Really so with your very fast metabolism (because of job and lack of gains) you will gain fat? And not muscle? How do you figure? So if you eat more calories they will just be burned off or be stored as fat? You do know that does not make sense??

At the end of the day when all is said and done calories are king if you do not eat enough you will lose, if you eat the right amount you will stall and maintain if you eat a surplus you will gain this is fact, you say you are eating a surplus but not gaining if this is true then you are not eating a surplus you are eating enough to maintain......sorry buddy but what your saying just does not make sense, I have no doubt you are not gaining but you seem to think if you eat more food you will just get fat? Why?


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> Edit: just noticed you have said tree surgeon (blunt alert) what you have said is b0llox buddy I know many many guys who work 12 hr shifts in very demanding physical jobs and still manage to gain without gear (not a lot but still) your issue is your not eating enough food it really is as simple as that buddy, like I said use gear by all means but you will be throwing your money away as where do you think the gear will get the calories from to do there job from??


I appreciate your advice mate I really do, but I have experimented and learnt my body for years and I know what it can and cant do and what its peaks are with what I have done.

I have always had a solid and strict diet on paper written out since I was about 16 (apart from a few years I was ill between 21-23) I usually bulk with a 500 cal surplus and whenever I got to a point where I was around or just under 14 stone and 8-10% bf If I kept bulking (tried 300 surplus instead and the same result, with high carb/lowcarb high fat/low carb ect) no matter what the only weight I would gain was fat, its not a very hard concept to understand and scientifically makes *allot* of sense and everyone is different but thats just how my body adapts.


----------



## zack amin (Mar 13, 2012)

Poke said:


> Its true mate, You feed a marathon runner what ever you want, and as long as they keep doing their training, their body wont produce more muscle (Although it will produce more fat it can use for fuel) because of their long distance running, bigger muscle is detrimental for it because of the oxygen and energy/calories it takes up, the body adapts very well.
> 
> Like for me, my body wont gain more lean mass than it does because of my work (like slow cardio throughout the day), admittedly im not at the peak I was 3 years ago but Im not too far off.
> 
> Sorry mate, your point is well off, listen to what pscarb says, your not eating enough Cal's, I feel your pain, I'm an engineer work for mysel, so some days m wirkn 12-14hours and can still fit in my macros for a bulk, I wish I only worked a set number off hours everyday


----------



## Guest (Mar 28, 2013)

There's a bricky on here somewhere. I remember him eating 5000+ cals to gain. Bet your not close to that mate are you???


----------



## MF88 (Jul 1, 2012)

I work 8.5 hours a day as an electrician, one 30 min break a day, a lot of the time physical work, and I've gained 30lbs in 9 months. It's all down to diet.


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

MF88 said:


> I work 8.5 hours a day as an electrician, one 30 min break a day, a lot of the time physical work, and I've gained 30lbs in 9 months. It's all down to diet.


30 lbs in 9 months, thats 2 stone, you were either very skinny before and gained allot of muscle, or gained allot of fat to go with it.



Jd123 said:


> There's a bricky on here somewhere. I remember him eating 5000+ cals to gain. Bet your not close to that mate are you???


My maintenance at 14 stone is 4000 cals, bulking for me was 4500, even 5000, made no difference I wouldnt gain any more muscle but just fat.


----------



## MF88 (Jul 1, 2012)

Poke said:


> 30 lbs in 9 months, thats 2 stone, you were either very skinny before and gained allot of muscle, or gained allot of fat to go with it.


Bit of both mate, was skinny before and the fat I did gain was minimally visible. The only good thing about starting skinny I guess.


----------



## Guest (Mar 28, 2013)

Poke said:


> 30 lbs in 9 months, thats 2 stone, you were either very skinny before and gained allot of muscle, or gained allot of fat to go with it.
> 
> My maintenance at 14 stone is 4000 cals, bulking for me was 4500, even 5000, made no difference I wouldnt gain any more muscle but just fat.


Then surely it's training you need to luck at pal?


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

MF88 said:


> Bit of both mate, was skinny before and the fat I did gain was minimally visible. The only good thing about starting skinny I guess.


Yeh, you will always gain a certain amount of muscle, I was just stating my platue.

Guys seriously if you read my post at the top of the page explaining I'm not sure what the fuss is about, it *scientifically* makes sense anyway and is true, like I said maybe if someone else had my job and had different genetics they would be different, but its tried and tested on my end for my body over 5 times over the years trying to bulk above that with different methods, just the way it is and as said is scientifically correct anyway


----------



## SickCurrent (Sep 19, 2005)

A surplus of protein won't make you fat


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

actin said:


> A surplus of protein won't make you fat


You cant simply have a surplus of protein unless all your consuming is protein on its own, in which case you would be ****ting bricks lol.

P.s. Im getting burned to **** here lol, wish I never said anything


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Poke said:


> I appreciate your advice mate I really do, but I have experimented and learnt my body for years and I know what it can and cant do and what its peaks are with what I have done.
> 
> I have always had a solid and strict diet on paper written out since I was about 16 (apart from a few years I was ill between 21-23) I usually bulk with a 500 cal surplus and whenever I got to a point where I was around or just under 14 stone and 8-10% bf If I kept bulking (tried 300 surplus instead and the same result, with high carb/lowcarb high fat/low carb ect) no matter what the only weight I would gain was fat, its not a very hard concept to understand and scientifically makes *allot* of sense and everyone is different but thats just how my body adapts.


It makes sense until you say this......



Poke said:


> Unfortunately not when you work 8 hours a day in a very demanding job  *There gets a point when your body just breaks down muscle or maintains it instead of repairing it and gaining, even on a calorie surplus at this point my body stores as much fat as possible and makes very little muscle gains because of the work I do, it adapts to it*.


If you are not gaining and you are maintaining due to your physical job then you eat more calories, you claim to be eating a surplus but do not gain anymore muscle just gain fat.

this is what does not make sense you have a very physical job, and as YOU have stated breaks down muscle (which is very hard to do) so by this fact alone that you have stated it would be virtually impossible to gain fat if your metabolism is so fast that it breaks down muscle........plus the very obvious flaw in your answer no one and I mean no one can eat a surplus and maintain there weight.....

But after saying all that it is your life and your coin hell I am just trying to help I am out of this thread good luck.......


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Poke said:


> Yeh, you will always gain a certain amount of muscle, I was just stating my platue.
> 
> Guys seriously if you read my post at the top of the page explaining I'm not sure what the fuss is about, it *scientifically* makes sense anyway and is true, like I said maybe if someone else had my job and had different genetics they would be different, but its tried and tested on my end for my body over 5 times over the years trying to bulk above that with different methods, just the way it is and as said is scientifically correct anyway


Ok one more post as this winds me up please show us the scientific proof you keep going on about........


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

Maybe it was the way I tried to explain it but I never said I ate a surplus and stayed the same weight. I said If I ate a surplus at those stats the only wait I would gain was fat and *my body would break down the muscle or just maintain it*, using high fat, or high carb ect diets it was the same.

Now I have you understand what I said surely you even agree?


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

actin said:


> A surplus of protein won't make you fat


Yes it will if the surplus puts you over you calorific needs for the days



Poke said:


> You cant simply have a surplus of protein unless all your consuming is protein on its own, in which case you would be ****ting bricks lol.
> 
> P.s. Im getting burned to **** here lol, wish I never said anything


your not getting burnt you have made certain statements that factually are not true this is a forum for debate and that is what is happening.........just because you have not gained in the past does not mean you never will it just means what you have done up to now has not worked......

plus you can have a surplus of protein as protein amounts is determined by your weight.......to much protein can cause health issues


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Poke said:


> Maybe it was the way I tried to explain it but I never said I ate a surplus and stayed the same weight. I said If I ate a surplus at those stats the only wait I would gain was fat and *my body would break down the muscle or just maintain it*, using high fat, or high carb ect diets it was the same.
> 
> Now I have you understand what I said surely you even agree?


No because the body would only break down muscle if you was not eating enough food but you have stated you was eating a surplus so no it still does not make sense, muscle does not break down unless you have no carbs and no fats in your diet, you speak of science take a look at how energy is used in the body and how muscle is broken down and I am certain you will not find any evidence to show when eating a surplus of calories you will break down muscle and store fat..........


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> Yes it will if the surplus puts you over you calorific needs for the days
> 
> your not getting burnt you have made certain statements that factually are not true this is a forum for debate and that is what is happening.........just because you have not gained in the past does not mean you never will it just means what you have done up to now has not worked......
> 
> plus you can have a surplus of protein as protein amounts is determined by your weight.......to much protein can cause health issues


You just mis-understood my statement, the only things you stated found wrong with my statement I explained to you in my last post, you just mis read it maybe due to the way I wrote it.

Again with the protein I think I just write in a way thats hard to understand or something, actin was referring to a surplus of protein being a surplus on top your total calory intake being protien only so it wont store as fat (so your only surplus is protien and not carbs or fat) which of course as you just explained is not true, and the only way you could have a surplus of protien is as I said if you only ate protien, and we agree again because thats why I said you would be ****ting bricks allong with blood lol


----------



## Ste1337 (Feb 2, 2012)

Anything that doesnt aromatise really... Tren, anavar, winny, epistane, proviron....


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> No because the body would only break down muscle if you was not eating enough food but you have stated you was eating a surplus so no it still does not make sense, muscle does not break down unless you have no carbs and no fats in your diet, you speak of science take a look at how energy is used in the body and how muscle is broken down and I am certain you will not find any evidence to show when eating a surplus of calories you will break down muscle and store fat..........


Thats why I said* or maintain it*, I was just trying to explain it in any way I could, I'm not the most grammer correct person in the world mate and find it hard explaining things, thats why I wrote break down first then thought know this will be better to explain and wrote or maintain it, I should have just deleted the word break down out to stop confusion.

I think the only problem here is my explanation of things and you mis understanding my statement.


----------



## Englishman (Oct 4, 2012)

You need 150mg Test per week and run 1200mg Tren A.

Low fat 20g, 200/250mg protein and as many carbs as you can get down you.

Problem solved, goodbye.


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

1.2g of tren? :lol:


----------



## SickCurrent (Sep 19, 2005)

Pscarb said:


> Yes it will if the surplus puts you over you calorific needs for the days


Won't it be excreted as nitrogenous waste?


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

actin said:


> Won't it be excreted as nitrogenous waste?


It doesn't matter mate. Calories in - calories out, if you eat more calories than you need and for example in your suggestion (where you think eating a 'calorie surplus of protein' will make you not gain fat) say you eat a calorie surplus of 100g of carbs, 30g of fat and 400g of protein then the body will store what it wants as fat from the carbs and fat first, your calorie surplus doesn't consist of purely protein but consists of everything you eat in the day (you cant single out the protein and say that is the surplus of your daily calories) your body can also convert excess protein as a last resort into glucose which can then turn into fat.

The above example is very bad for you anyway lol.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

actin said:


> Won't it be excreted as nitrogenous waste?


no mate not all of it, any surplus be it from fat/carbs or protein has the ability to be stored as fat however your body uses each macro differently so one is not going to be predominantly stored as fat more than the other.



Poke said:


> *It doesn't matter mate. Calories in - calories out*, if you eat more calories than you need and for example in your suggestion (where you think eating a 'calorie surplus of protein' will make you not gain fat) say you eat a calorie surplus of 100g of carbs, 30g of fat and 400g of protein then the body will store what it wants as fat from the carbs and fat first, your calorie surplus doesn't consist of purely protein but consists of everything you eat in the day (you cant single out the protein and say that is the surplus of your daily calories) your body can also convert excess protein as a last resort into glucose which can then turn into fat.
> 
> The above example is very bad for you anyway lol.


Really!!!!!!!

so lets break your post down.....



Poke said:


> if you eat more calories than you need and for example in your suggestion (where you think eating a 'calorie surplus of protein' will make you not gain fat) say you eat a calorie surplus of 100g of carbs, 30g of fat and 400g of protein then the body will store what it wants as fat from the carbs and fat first


your body does not store "What it Wants" and it certainly does not store fat and Carbs as fat over Protein.......your body has needs both for energy and Amino's (repairing/building muscle) excess to this requirement can be stored as fat it makes no difference if this is calorie surplus is from Fat/Carbs or Pro.....



Poke said:


> your body can also convert excess protein as a last resort into glucose which can then turn into fat


this is incorrect what you are saying is the body will go through the process of converting an Amino into glucose just to store it as fat??

the only time the body will convert Pro(Amino's) to glucose is if the body needs that energy as there is insufficient available from the first 2 energy sources (Carbs then Fat) and if it does convert the Amino's to glucose it does so to use that glucose not to store it as fat??

the section above in bold is where your post should have stopped as this is the only factually correct thing in your post.....


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Poke said:


> Unfortunately not when you work 8 hours a day in a very demanding job  There gets a point when your body just breaks down muscle or maintains it instead of repairing it and gaining, even on a calorie surplus at this point my body stores as much fat as possible and makes very little muscle gains because of the work I do, it adapts to it.
> 
> Ive been a gardener/tree surgeon for 5 years and my max natural potential while doing this job is a bit under 14 stone (5"11) when at about 8-10% bf and anything heavier than that if trying to bulk just turns into fat no matter what the diet. A bit like marathon runners have very minimal muscle mass whatever their diet.


Mate, the key here is food...and lots of it!! I also have a demanding job doing 12 hour shifts. It took me a while to figure out just how much I had to eat to put on muscle (both on and off cycle). It's all about calories in vs calories burnt. Just keep upping calories. I soon realised that I had to eat nearly as much for a non training day (at work) as I did on a training day (only train on days off work). So basically when I'm bulking on around 5300 cals a day I pretty much eat the same amount on non training days.


----------



## SickCurrent (Sep 19, 2005)

Pscarb said:


> no mate not all of it, any surplus be it from fat/carbs or protein has the ability to be stored as fat however your body uses each macro differently so one is not going to be predominantly stored as fat more than the other.
> 
> Really!!!!!!!
> 
> ...


Good post mate..Excellent info


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

actin said:


> Good post mate..Excellent info


no problem buddy glad it was of help


----------



## SATANSEVILTWIN (Feb 22, 2012)

@Poke, my monies on you dont train hard enough because your too knackered from your job,thats why when you up your cals to bulk you put on fat.just my opinion.not having a dig.


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

SATANSEVILTWIN said:


> @Poke, my monies on you dont train hard enough because your too knackered from your job,thats why when you up your cals to bulk you put on fat.just my opinion.not having a dig.


Hey mate, this isn't even my problem atm (im trying to lose weight and fat right now, not bulk) But when it was the problem, actually training too hard was one thing I did wrong (probably due to my work) when I trained 3 days instead of 4-5 and for only 60 mins each day I gained a good solid over a few bulks 8 pounds of muscle, but the gains stopped again at a certain point and anything I tried didnt work (less and more intense workouts ect.).

I was 14 stone at 5"11 at about 8% bf don't forget, this is pretty big for a complete natural that has a demanding day job that probably sucks up his testosterone levels, and my genetics arent the best, I naturally have high estrogen levels on all types of diets (carry most my fat around hips and upper legs/nipples)

As I said this isn't even a problem atm and not linked to my original question, I just mentioned it in conversation to someone asking about why Im choosing to use steroids, and its not something anyone else can really argue about tbh because I have basically carried out a study on myself over a 5 year period, where as nobody else has.

Right now, my reason for choosing to use light steroids after 6 years of being natural is to get to my goals quicker and enhance myself, at the end of the day thats what most people do it for as well. And if I didnt have the job I do then I probably wouldnt need to or want to because I would have allot more rest to repair ect.


----------



## Vibora (Sep 30, 2007)

Poke said:


> *I was 14 stone at 5"11 at about 8% bf don't forget*, this is pretty big for a complete natural that has a demanding day job that probably sucks up his testosterone levels, and *my genetics arent the best*, I naturally have high estrogen levels on all types of diets (carry most my fat around hips and upper legs/nipples)
> 
> As I said this isn't even a problem atm and not linked to my original question, I just mentioned it in conversation to someone asking about why Im choosing to use steroids, and its not something anyone else can really argue about tbh because I have basically carried out a study on myself over a 5 year period, where as nobody else has.
> 
> Right now, my reason for choosing to use light steroids after 6 years of being natural is to get to my goals quicker and enhance myself, at the end of the day thats what most people do it for as well. And if I didnt have the job I do then I probably wouldnt need to or want to because I would have allot more rest to repair ect.


Do you have pics of yourself at this condition?

At a true 5'11" ~90kg @ 8% bodyfat, you would look pretty darn good. Like amazing compared to the average gym rat (and you would definitely not have poor genetics).

If you have actually reached this condition then you may have reached your genetic limit, however from reading your posts in this thread, IMO this doesn't seem to be the case.


----------



## Dan 45 (Aug 16, 2012)

:rolleye:


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

Vibora said:


> Do you have pics of yourself at this condition?
> 
> At a true 5'11" ~90kg @ 8% bodyfat, you would look pretty darn good. Like amazing compared to the average gym rat (and you would definitely not have poor genetics).
> 
> If you have actually reached this condition then you may have reached your genetic limit, however from reading your posts in this thread, IMO this doesn't seem to be the case.


I know, this is why I was surprised that people thought it was such a big deal or I was wrong, as it really does make sense. I have always had a solid diet since 16 and it took about 3-4 years onto get to those specs ( i trained with weights for about 6 years before that but the first 2 I wasn't educated on training properly so it wasn't optimal training )

And I have played rugby (hooker and flanker) since the age of 8. Tbh I was surprised at the reaction I got as its not as if its far fetched anyway.

I don't have any picks, I've never been that bothered what I look like, not really and body builder I just like training hard and reaching goals (got injured and couldn't play rugby anymore after the age of 17 so the gym replaced that)

Edit; also another thing I forgot to mention is from playing rugby all those years and just genetically my leg muscle are very very big in contrast to my body (or equal to the rest of my body, which ever way you want to look at it) so they take up* allot* of weight, basically my upper body at 8% bf didnt look as 'big' as an average body builder at the same sepcs because my legs take up allot of weight.


----------



## theBEAST2002 (Oct 16, 2011)

to give you a simple list low dose of test cycled with hiher doses of eq, mast, tren.

winny, var or tbol will make good editions as orals but a lot of this is individual to people. i don't bloat too bad on aromatizing compounds and i don't go over 15% body fat. but my brother in law has to keep his test low because he bloats very easily. so he stacks a lot of ai's and thermobolics with his cycles.


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

theBEAST2002 said:


> to give you a simple list low dose of test cycled with hiher doses of eq, mast, tren.
> 
> winny, var or tbol will make good editions as orals but a lot of this is individual to people. i don't bloat too bad on aromatizing compounds and i don't go over 15% body fat. but my brother in law has to keep his test low because he bloats very easily. so he stacks a lot of ai's and thermobolics with his cycles.


Thanks, after looking around allot in the future possibly 4 months time after I finish my first anavar only cycle I might do a low test e cycle with anavar (ot Tbol) maybe looking into the alternative additions you mentioned (very low test dose or around 175-200mg a week, experimenting with what does gives what effect maybe bumping it up slightly) which should be a bump more than my natural test levels and get the very slow lean gains I want, its all just experimenting really I never want to get as big as possible as quick as possible infact the opposite, very slowly.

My assumption is the slower you gain solid muscle, the more % of it you keep after you come off, and I never want to look too bulky or big, its really just for experimenting and training/performance really.


----------



## theBEAST2002 (Oct 16, 2011)

for your 2nd cycle i'd recommend 250mg test pw with your var, for your third after reading what you've just written i'd recommend 600mg of eq with 250mg of test for 20 weeks. depend on your blood pressure. that'll give you slow lean gains, increase strength and endurance. a strong pct will help ypu keep gains, and maintaining high test lvls off cycle will too. consistancey with your training and diet will be the big one though.


----------



## Kermit2 (Sep 24, 2010)

So you claim that at 5'11" to be only 6-8lbs away from being contest ready at around 188-190lbs and claim to have a problem gaining mass and not body fat. Oh and let's not forget this is all done naturally. I call BS.


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

Poke said:


> Thanks, after looking around allot in the future possibly 4 months time after I finish my first anavar only cycle I might do a low test e cycle with anavar (ot Tbol) maybe looking into the alternative additions you mentioned (very low test dose or around 175-200mg a week, experimenting with what does gives what effect maybe bumping it up slightly) which should be a bump more than my natural test levels and get the very slow lean gains I want, its all just experimenting really I never want to get as big as possible as quick as possible infact the opposite, very slowly.
> 
> My assumption is the slower you gain solid muscle, the more % of it you keep after you come off, and I never want to look too bulky or big, its really just for experimenting and training/performance really.


Thanks man really appreciate it, real helpful advice 



Kermit2 said:


> So you claim that at 5'11" to be only 6-8lbs away from being contest ready at around 188-190lbs and claim to have a problem gaining mass and not body fat. Oh and let's not forget this is all done naturally. I call BS.


Not sure I understand what you trying to say there mate, or if you understand what I have said and got confused. If you have read I am not at 8% bf right now but have been in that past at 5"11 and a few pounds under 14 stone. Right now I am 15.5 stone and under 20% bf (so pretty fat and trying to lose fat).

All I said was my peak after experimenting and training with a solid routine diet and different methods over 4 years was just under 14 stone at 8% bf, and any heavier than that I would just put on fat no matter the calorie excess/diet/macros or training method, there is nothing far fetched about this at all if your educated and also considering I was natural and have a demanding job, and Im not sure how you can legitimately call something BS when you haven't carried out a study on my body for years like I have.

Also dont forget like I explained before I have played rugby since a very young age and coupled with my genetics my legs carry allot of my total body weight.


----------



## chiqui (Oct 28, 2009)

Eq is good minimal minimal aromatisation mast and tren aswell


----------



## Kermit2 (Sep 24, 2010)

Post up your diet from when you were 8% bf at 196lbs. I assume you kept records of this as it would be difficult to remember the details and any changes you made during your 5 year study without writing down said findings and experiments. Cheers


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

eh?

Do you keep records and date of all your different diets including calories/weight/macros for 5 years?

Sorry but I don't, I'm not a scientist and its a study on my own body for myself much like many other people (although they wouldn't describe it as a study, but you are still learning your body which is studying) I do know my calories for the specs and roughly what my diet was at the the time though, but I couldn't write out all my different diets and macros I tried when bulking multiple times lol.

Calories for me at a tad under 14 stone and 8-10% bf are around 3500-4000 maintenance (But I could never maintain it for very long because my work activities, having a low bf for long just makes me feel very tired even if eating maintenance)

Diet at the time was something like this (one of my fav diets) at around 40/40/30 cant remember, with about 200g protein, I cant tell you grams for each macro in each meal as I dont have it written down lol, would have to work it out again, but they were pin point correct, I have always been anal with diets on getting them perfect;

1. Protien shake with milk, slice of bread and peanut butter.

2. ham sandwhich with mayo, 2 egs, 1 white.

3. Chiken salad, 2 slices of bread, yoghurt with almonds.

4. Ham sandwhich, almonds, protein shake.

5. chiken/fish/beef pasta/bread/rice almonds/sauce.

6. cottage cheese/casein shake

Someting like it, Im not sure why you feel the need to ask this sort of stuff anyway, but Im happy to answer


----------



## Kermit2 (Sep 24, 2010)

Not being funny mate but your numbers don't add up. 200g protein 40% of diet is only 800 cals. 200g carbs also at 40% is another 800 cals you only have 20% left but you have fats at 30%. How? If it was 20% fats that would only be 100g giving you 900 cals. Totalling 2500 cals a day. Far short of 3500 - 4000 a day mate.

And I record workout details and daily diets as its impossible to track any changes made over time whether they be for the better or worse. If it was good enough for DY then it's good enough for me.


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

Kermit2 said:


> Not being funny mate but your numbers don't add up. 200g protein 40% of diet is only 800 cals. *200g carbs also at 40%* is another 800 cals *you only have 20% left but you have fats at 30%. How?* If it was 20% fats that would only be 100g giving you 900 cals. Totalling 2500 cals a day. Far short of 3500 - 4000 a day mate.
> 
> And I record workout details and daily diets as its impossible to track any changes made over time whether they be for the better or worse. If it was good enough for DY then it's good enough for me.


Thats exactly why I said ;



> Diet at the time was something like this (one of my fav diets) at around 40/40/30 cant remember, with about 200g protein,* I cant tell you grams for each macro in each meal as I dont have it written down lol, would have to work it out again,* but they were pin point correct, I have always been anal with diets on getting them perfect;


I haven't given you any numbers to 'add up' in the first place, that was roughly my diet and it consisted of somewhere between 3500-400 cals with about 200g protien, probably was 250 tbh to make 1.5g per lb of bw, cant remember exactly. Question what you will, but I'm saying how it is.

My question to you is which relates to what I highlighted in bold in your not being funny post, is *I never said I ate 200g carbs*.... how did you work out me being wrong I don't know lol. Work out carbs and fat to make it to 3750 cals considering I was eating 200g of protein (probably 250g tbh like I said it was a rough guess) and you have your answer of what I was eating....

Im not sure what your trying to gain out of this (maybe you for some reason want to prove a random stranger wrong about something??) Ive said how it is Im sorry, and theres nothing wrong with it or an educated reason for you to think there is...


----------



## Moonbeam (Jul 20, 2011)

Test and winny and a nice clean good quality diet


----------



## Kermit2 (Sep 24, 2010)

Mate, you said your protein was 200g. You also stated that your macro breakdown was 40/40/30 which is 10 too many. Just using your macro breakdown and 200g protein the numbers can be added up.

What I'm getting at mate is that after 5 years studying your body you are unsure of how many cals you were taking in and where the cals were coming from. An extra 50g protein gives you an extra 200cals if your carbs were equal then there is another 200cals.


----------



## Jason88 (Mar 24, 2013)

Like twin muscle say....."do what the fuk you wanna do"

you cleary wanna do steriods, and cleary havent done your research, admittley I no very little on the thats why I dont do them


----------



## Moonbeam (Jul 20, 2011)

Man people over think everything when planning a cycle, basically whatever you think is going to work for you then go for it. You know your own body better than anyone. Screw Macros etc just eat clean and enough, train, take ya gear and away you go happy days. Water retention means nothing when you start ****ing it out after. Train well eat well and sleep well, golden rule innit


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

Kermit2 said:


> Mate, you said your protein was 200g. You also stated that your macro breakdown was 40/40/30 which is 10 too many. Just using your macro breakdown and 200g protein the numbers can be added up.
> 
> What I'm getting at mate is that after 5 years studying your body you are unsure of how many cals you were taking in and where the cals were coming from. An extra 50g protein gives you an extra 200cals if your carbs were equal then there is another 200cals.


Anyone with average intelligence would have clearly realized It was a simple typo and I meant to say 40/30/30 probably the most popular macro's, besides I never said it was exactly that, I said it was roughly that,* probably* something like 40/35/25* for example*.

Mate, I already explained I cant remember what the grams of each macros were *form 3 years ago* lol. I have my diets written down on paper when I do them, I dont keep them.. I write them out new each time I make one. The macros are pin point perfect within a few grams. I know exactly what is in them when I do it, right now I am on 2400 calories (500 cal deficit and its off season so a little easier at work) and 165g carbs/203g protein/ 80g fat per day

The only thing Im unsure about is if your serious :/ or just trying to argue about something because your bored. Unfortunately there is nothing Im saying that is false.. And I dont know why you think there is either.

Infact heres a picture of my current diet;



As you can see I'm not what you think I am (which must be some dumb idiot speaking out there ass by the way your trying to say Im wrong) But Im legit..


----------



## Kermit2 (Sep 24, 2010)

Poke said:


> Anyone with average intelligence would have clearly realized It was a simple typo and I meant to say 40/30/30 probably the most popular macro's, besides I never said it was exactly that, I said it was roughly that,* probably* something like 40/35/25* for example*.
> 
> Mate, I already explained I cant remember what the grams of each macros were *form 3 years ago* lol. I have my diets written down on paper when I do them, I dont keep them.. I write them out new each time I make one. The macros are pin point perfect within a few grams. I know exactly what is in them when I do it, right now I am on 2400 calories (500 cal deficit and its off season so a little easier at work) and 165g carbs/203g protein/ 80g fat per day
> 
> ...


I never said you were a dumb idiot but even now your numbers don't add up to 2400cals more like a shade under 2200cals. All I'm saying is your numbers are wrong.


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

Kermit2 said:


> I never said you were a dumb idiot but even now your numbers don't add up to 2400cals more like a shade under 2200cals. All I'm saying is your numbers are wrong.


You are are joking right?

Your trying to say a wheel isn't a wheel, lol.

That diet is 2404 cals exactly, and thats a fact, not sure how you can say it isn't and my numbers are wrong when its a mathematical fact it is, unless ofcourse you are just winding me up :death:


----------



## Kermit2 (Sep 24, 2010)

How many cals are in a gram of protein? A gram if carbs and a gram if fat mate?


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

4 in carbs and pro and 9 in fat......


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

What are you going to ask me next how many wheels there are on a car? :tongue:


----------



## Kermit2 (Sep 24, 2010)

Poke said:


> 4 in carbs and pro and 9 in fat......


Correct, now run your numbers you last put up. 165g carbs 203g protein 80g fats.

So 165g carbs x 4 = 660 cals

203g pro. x 4 = 812 cals

80g fat. x 9 = 720 cals

Total = 2192 cals.


----------



## Kermit2 (Sep 24, 2010)

Poke said:


> What are you going to ask me next how many wheels there are on a car? :tongue:


I could ask you what school you walked past as your math skills are sh!t


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

Kermit2 said:


> Correct, now run your numbers you last put up. 165g carbs 203g protein 80g fats.
> 
> So 165g carbs x 4 = 660 cals
> 
> ...


+ Bedtime shake which is 200 cals 

I think you should read or look properly before saying things that are pure bull****.

If you add up my diet it actually comes out as 2450 or something, but I changed the bread so its 2404 now, within margin of error :stupid:



Kermit2 said:


> I could ask you what school you walked past as your math skills are sh!t


You should have gone to specsavers, you made yourself look like a right ****


----------



## Kermit2 (Sep 24, 2010)

And what is in your bedtime shake? Seems it contains no protein, carbs or fats as surely any intelligent person would count the macro's


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

Kermit2 said:


> And what is in your bedtime shake? Seems it contains no protein, carbs or fats as surely any intelligent person would count the macro's


You would know if you read the picture of my diet you quoted in post #62 you plank


----------



## Kermit2 (Sep 24, 2010)

> You should have gone to specsavers, you made yourself look like a right ****


Maybe I should have gone to Specsavers, then I could see your razor sharp 8% definition at 196lb all natural and maybe studied your findings of your 5 year study on your body. Oh that's right you didn't log any except when writing out your diet which you admitted to changing or finding it difficult to stick to. Try asking at bodybuilding.com mate


----------



## Kermit2 (Sep 24, 2010)

Poke said:


> You would know if you read the picture of my diet you quoted in post #62 you plank


 not the most easiest thing to do when looking on my phone. And what's with the insults? Are you some sort of keyboard warrior?


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

Kermit2 said:


> Maybe I should have gone to Specsavers, then I could see your razor sharp 8% definition at 196lb all natural and maybe studied your findings of your 5 year study on your body. Oh that's right you didn't log any except when writing out your diet which you admitted to changing or finding it difficult to stick to. Try asking at bodybuilding.com mate


Maybe you should crawl back into your whole now that you've made yourself look like a complete fool and failed in your quest to try and make a stranger on the internet 'wrong' :tongue:



Kermit2 said:


> not the most easiest thing to do when looking on my phone. And what's with the insults? Are you some sort of keyboard warrior?


If you don't know what you're talking about, then why argue against it, because you'll only end up looking like a plank. You're really not a successful bridge dweller


----------



## Hotdog147 (Oct 15, 2011)

Now now girls! Play nice....lol


----------



## Kermit2 (Sep 24, 2010)

Poke said:


> Maybe you should crawl back into your whole now that you've made yourself look like a complete fool and failed in your quest to try and make a stranger on the internet 'wrong' :tongue:
> 
> If you don't know what you're talking about, then why argue against it, because you'll only end up looking like a plank. You're really not a successful bridge dweller


.

Yeah your so right. I have no idea what I'm talking about. Lol. But then neither do you. You contradict yourself in every post you make. Good luck in your quest, not that an expert like you needs any help. Lol. Let me know how you get on.


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

Kermit2 said:


> .
> 
> Yeah your so right. I have no idea what I'm talking about. Lol. But then neither do you. You contradict yourself in every post you make. Good luck in your quest, not that an expert like you needs any help. Lol. Let me know how you get on.


Your work is done here pal, you failed, and trying to justify your failure or false accuse isn't going to get you anywhere


----------



## Kermit2 (Sep 24, 2010)

Poke said:


> Your work is done here pal, you failed, and trying to justify your failure or false accuse isn't going to get you anywhere


Lol. Your so witty mate. Study your body for another 5 years and let me know when you hit 210 at <10% body fat.


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

Kermit2 said:


> Lol. Your so witty mate. Study your body for another 5 years and let me know when you hit 210 at <10% body fat.


You cant dig out of this one :tongue: but keep trying haha


----------



## Kermit2 (Sep 24, 2010)

Poke said:


> You cant dig out of this one :tongue: but keep trying haha


Lol. I'll leave the digging for you after all your used to manual graft, isn't that the reason you can't gain anything other than body fat.


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

Kermit2 said:


> Lol. I'll leave the digging for you after all your used to manual graft, isn't that the reason you can't gain anything other than body fat.


Like I said, keep trying :thumb:


----------

