# Best dose for a first cycle: 500mg test per week VS 250mg test per week



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

*Best dose for a first cycle: 500mg test per week VS 250mg test per week*​
500mg test per week 8772.50%250mg test per week3327.50%


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

I don't want any input from anyone here who I've debated this with previously which might skew opinions. Just want to see everyone's wider thoughts.

PS: This assumes that it's a cycle for a first-time user with no other compounds. Just test E or C.

Edit: Just in response to Josh's point, this is presuming that it's a bulking cycle as most people's first cycles are to add muscle.


----------



## Boshlop (Apr 1, 2012)

if you cutting use a lower dose, worked well for me as maintaining is easier than growing i find. if your going to bulk then make the most of the first time on test and go for 500 and see how much you can put on. 250 will hold muscle just as well as 500 in the end


----------



## smity220385 (Mar 15, 2012)

Defiantly run 500 mate. I run 400!on my first and wish I'd listened and gone higher


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

Josh Heslop said:


> if you cutting use a lower dose, worked well for me as maintaining is easier than growing i find. if your going to bulk then make the most of the first time on test and go for 500 and see how much you can put on. 250 will hold muscle just as well as 500 in the end


I agree with that. Just added the point to the original post that this presumes that it's a first-cycle bulk.


----------



## Wallace86 (Jan 20, 2013)

I ran 250 for my first cycle and worked well for me.


----------



## Chunkee (Sep 1, 2012)

My first cycle was 250mg a week, I thought it went well, strength was good and I gained off it.

Looking back (now I've used 500mg) do I wish I'd used 500mg - Yes I do. Do I think I would have gained more - Yes.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> I don't want any input from anyone here who I've debated this with previously which might skew opinions. Just want to see everyone's wider thoughts.
> 
> PS: This assumes that it's a cycle for a first-time user with no other compounds. Just test E or C.
> 
> Edit: Just in response to Josh's point, this is presuming that it's a bulking cycle as most people's first cycles are to add muscle.


250mg lol


----------



## varman (Jan 12, 2014)

i ran 250 and felt so good after a week i bumped it up to 500-600 lol goodtimes!


----------



## gearchange (Mar 19, 2010)

250


----------



## micros (May 15, 2013)

How many wks will the cycle last?


----------



## raidon (Mar 5, 2014)

400-500mg forgives more on your diet errors etc. Id go with it.


----------



## Pinksgym (Mar 17, 2014)

Think it also depends on the lab of the test... But defo 500 for me


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

micros said:


> How many wks will the cycle last?


Let's say it's a fairly standard 12 week cycle.


----------



## micros (May 15, 2013)

I'm in my first cycle too, but I choose T prop because mine will last 4 weeks. I had a 200mg front load on day one and 50mg ed on the others. Keeping the diet clean and the overeating growing during the cycle I've put on about 11 lbs in the first 3 weeks. Starting weight 154lbs on 164cm height. Hope this will help on your decision. ;-)


----------



## Boshlop (Apr 1, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> I agree with that. Just added the point to the original post that this presumes that it's a first-cycle bulk.


in that case i would go with 500mg test e for the lighter ether and shorted half life for a bulk, its not extreme and will bring good gains under a clean diet


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> *I don't want any input from anyone here who I've debated this with previously which might skew opinions.* Just want to see everyone's wider thoughts.
> 
> PS: This assumes that it's a cycle for a first-time user with no other compounds. Just test E or C.
> 
> Edit: Just in response to Josh's point, this is presuming that it's a bulking cycle as most people's first cycles are to add muscle.


So you dont want opinions from people who disagree with you? 

Lol, have you managed to find a picture of yourself showing us how you put into practice you superior knowledge?

Oh and 250mgs is ideal for a first time user.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

raidon said:


> 400-500mg forgives more on your diet errors etc. Id go with it.


Lol.


----------



## SK50 (Apr 7, 2013)

250.

My first was 500. I spent so much time trying to get my AI dosage right so I didn't look like a beach whale - it was not enjoyable at all.


----------



## 1010AD (May 30, 2009)

Deadcalm said:


> I don't want any input from anyone here who I've debated this with previously which might skew opinions. Just want to see everyone's wider thoughts.
> 
> PS: This assumes that it's a cycle for a first-time user with no other compounds. Just test E or C.
> 
> Edit: Just in response to Josh's point, this is presuming that it's a bulking cycle as most people's first cycles are to add muscle.


That's me out then, you to @stuey99


----------



## 1010AD (May 30, 2009)

stuey99 said:


> 250mg lol


Your not aloud to comment in this thread mate


----------



## Fishheadsoup (Apr 15, 2013)

Ran 250 of sus per week for my first cycle and got great rusults.


----------



## cas (Jan 9, 2011)

1010AD said:


> That's me out then, you to @stuey99


And me, and banzi


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

cas said:


> And me, and banzi


Hes not the boss of me 

I voted :tongue:


----------



## phoenix1980 (Apr 27, 2011)

Ignore this if you dont wish to be dragged in but would be gratefull on your thoughts @Tinytom @Pscarb. Im a noob when it comes to gear so its all valuable knowledge to me at the end of the day. Have to say I do agree with deadcalm though I can also see where the other people warrenting 250ml for a first cycle are coming from too.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

If the 500mg dose wins it will just show how many poor responders we have on the site.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

1010AD said:


> That's me out then, you to @stuey99


Haha...I'm going back to Toys R Us lol. It's great fun winding up deadcalm and watching him go but simple spinning tops get a bit boring after a while haha!!


----------



## vetran (Oct 17, 2009)

dip your toe in at 250mg, if your planning to be in it long term then whats the rush,one day youll be experimenting with 1g + , wagons roll lol


----------



## cas (Jan 9, 2011)

phoenix1980 said:


> Ignore this if you dont wish to be dragged in but would be gratefull on your thoughts @Tinytom @Pscarb. Im a noob when it comes to gear so its all valuable knowledge to me at the end of the day. Have to say I do agree with deadcalm though I can also see where the other people warrenting 250ml for a first cycle are coming from too.


They will recommend the lower dose mate.

..........................................................................

Lets not forget it would depend on ester too, I wouldn't jab sust once per week, so I would run a higher dose. 1ml twice weekly, so 500mg per week

But if using prop, eod jabs, 300mg per week is a good start.

Lets not forget you get less ester weight with prop, so you get more bang for your buck.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

vetran said:


> dip your toe in at 250mg, if your planning to be in it long term then whats the rush,one day youll be experimenting with 1g + roll on lol


But, but, but...there's a study!! What about the study?? Lol


----------



## big (Sep 14, 2004)

You don't have to use either 250 or 500... you can do 250 every 5 days, for instance if you want something in between.

I'll be "that guy" who quotes the science:

http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/281/6/E1172

My notes:

125mg = +3.4kg

300mg = +5.2kg

600mg = +7.9 kg

This was a study of 18-35yo males with lifting experience but no prior use of steroids. So about as close as you can get to the question you're asking.

Clearly more gear means more gains, but double the gear doesn't mean double the gains. Those numbers, IIRC are the gains 16 weeks after the cycle (i.e. real post-recovery gains). The control group and the low dose groups got a bit fatter, but the 300 and 600mg lost a small amount of fat. The diets were all kept the same - so that implies a calorie surplus (at least from the starting metabolic rates - the higher dosages will clearly increase this with the mass gain).

To me that gives a very compelling reason to use 600mg as very few noted sides.

There are a number of studies out there like this, often comparing other effects, but get similar results... but none of them ever seem to go over 600mg... which appears to be the maximum amount the medical community will run studies on.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

big said:


> You don't have to use either 250 or 500... you can do 250 every 5 days, for instance if you want something in between.
> 
> I'll be "that guy" who quotes the science:
> 
> ...


All the studies in the world matter not a jot to the individual, you need to work out what works for you, not 100 people in a study.


----------



## big (Sep 14, 2004)

banzi said:


> All the studies in the world matter not a jot to the individual, you need to work out what works for you, not 100 people in a study.


Agreed. It's a reasonable starting point to look at studies though in order to then experiment from there rather than wildly guessing. Just IMO.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

big said:


> Agreed. It's a reasonable starting point to look at studies though in order to then experiment from there rather than wildly guessing. Just IMO.


Agreed, so why start on a higher dosage than you might need for your first course?

Try 250 and if it doesn't do what you want then try 350, 400, 500.


----------



## big (Sep 14, 2004)

banzi said:


> Agreed, so why start on a higher dosage than you might need for your first course?
> 
> Try 250 and if it doesn't do what you want then try 350, 400, 500.


That's a perfectly fair point and what a lot of people should consider.

The counter argument being that more gear gives more gains (at those sort of levels), and anything up to 600mg is "considered" safe enough by doctors to run tests on. So some people might consider that if you're going to shut yourself down, then you might as well do it at a slightly higher dose for more gains.

People should just weigh up the pros and cons of each approach and go in eyes open.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

big said:


> That's a perfectly fair point and what a lot of people should consider.
> 
> The counter argument being that more gear gives more gains (at those sort of levels), and anything up to 600mg is "considered" safe enough by doctors to run tests on. So some people might consider that if you're going to shut yourself down, then you might as well do it at a slightly higher dose for more gains.
> 
> People should just weigh up the pros and cons of each approach and go in eyes open.


Agreed, its down to the individual, I feel Im lucky as I can still gain on 250mgs test e alone, I know others who have taken up to 10 Anapalon 50s and looked like ****.

Its how you respond at the end of the day.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

banzi said:


> Agreed, its down to the individual, I feel Im lucky as I can still gain on 250mgs test e alone, I know others who have taken up to 10 Anapalon 50s and looked like ****.
> 
> Its how you respond at the end of the day.


I think it's less to do with how you respond to the aas and more about your diest and training.


----------



## Dead lee (Jul 4, 2010)

500mg a week.. there's a point where steroids are more effective and when results start to diminish for extra mg

500mg is a good dose and results are better than 250mg, if your going to do a cycle then do a cycle and get the best you can out of it imo


----------



## ar4i (Jan 29, 2013)

250 mg cycle is not the best option... although again, minority will love their 250mg!

A cycle like this is 100% always test cyp or test eth or a blend like sus.

So 250 mg of let use cyp as an example.

After you strip the ester thats what 175 mg of test.

Now any amount of test that stays in lasts longer than a day is going to effect your own natural test significantly. In this case it 100% shuts you down after a week.

So now youa re not getting an additional 175 mg of test per week which is how most newbies look at it but you are getting it minus ALL of your natural test. Shut down for test is shut down from test. Period. Does not matter if its from 1000 mg or 200 mg you are down and you will be stuck restarting yourself. That 175 barely would barely take you tot he top end of normal. But the reason you do have gains a bit better than without is in the days were there are much higher levels such as the first couple days after an injection and the slightly raised levels. You also have the elevated Es.


----------



## ironman1985bcn (Mar 3, 2010)

big said:


> You don't have to use either 250 or 500... you can do 250 every 5 days, for instance if you want something in between.
> 
> I'll be "that guy" who quotes the science:
> 
> ...


More weight gains while on cycle doesn't necessarily mean more muscle.... More Gear also means more water, more hematocrit...etc. What it's left after cycle is what matters the most to me.

I do feel that sometimes you should up the dose when your weight doesn't raise anymore ( and obviously the diet too ). But I personally Rather not gain as much and keep as much weight as I can after cycle... Plus recovery is faster on low dosages, which means I can go On again sooner.

Plus I bloat up like a water balloon on test, so I like to keep it low.


----------



## johnnymctrance (Nov 21, 2012)

500mg clearly, how would half the dose be better....


----------



## Santoro (Jan 26, 2013)

My first cycle was 250mg sustanon 250 (karachi Pakistan) per week. Made me insanely horney and jealous and was kinda hard to handle at first!! It was a big change in hormones but after a few weeks I loved it. Gained about 14 lbs, then lost about 5/6lbs after cos had no idea about PCT. Just did what my "mate" told me to. I think 500mg for me would have been too much.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

ar4i said:


> 250 mg cycle is not the best option... although again, minority will love their 250mg!
> 
> A cycle like this is 100% always test cyp or test eth or a blend like sus.
> 
> ...


All well and good, heres me on 250mgs a week of test e.


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

banzi said:


> All well and good, heres me on 250mgs a week of test e.
> 
> View attachment 147468


Looking well:thumbup1:

But that is you and the same training/diet/test dose may well not be so effective to others. It's good to share information that we have used successfully ourselves but just because it has worked for us does not make it the standard practice for all. Different strokes for different folks and all that...


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Mingster said:


> Looking well:thumbup1:
> 
> But that is you and the same training/diet/test dose may well not be so effective to others. It's good to share information that we have used successfully ourselves but just because it has worked for us does not make it the standard practice for all. Different strokes for different folks and all that...


Agreed mate, its just that unless people try 250mgs for their first course they will never know.

Thats all Im advocating.

People will take what they like at the end of the day.


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

banzi said:


> Agreed mate, its just that unless people try 250mgs for their first course they will never know.
> 
> Thats all Im advocating.
> 
> People will take what they like at the end of the day.


I agree with you. Personally I rarely go over 400mg of test and am currently using 300mg and I've been training 30 years. I'm a big believer in getting the most from the smallest doses and I'll share this knowledge will anyone. This is just my opinion and is based on my experiences.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Mingster said:


> I agree with you. Personally I rarely go over 400mg of test and am currently using 300mg and I've been training 30 years. I'm a big believer in getting the most from the smallest doses and I'll share this knowledge will anyone. This is just my opinion and is based on my experiences.


Same here started training back in 87.

Highest does whilst competing at national level 750mgs a week.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> So you dont want opinions from people who disagree with you?
> 
> Lol, have you managed to find a picture of yourself showing us how you put into practice you superior knowledge?
> 
> Oh and 250mgs is ideal for a first time user.


Why do you keep asking for a half naked picture of me? Are you gay?

A select few of us have already aired our opinions quite clearly. I just want to see what others think.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

big said:


> You don't have to use either 250 or 500... you can do 250 every 5 days, for instance if you want something in between.
> 
> I'll be "that guy" who quotes the science:
> 
> ...


Don't worry, I've quoted the science too.

Good post.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

ar4i said:


> 250 mg cycle is not the best option... although again, minority will love their 250mg!
> 
> A cycle like this is 100% always test cyp or test eth or a blend like sus.
> 
> ...


This is a good point and one I've made before.

200mg of test is actually a TRT dose for a lot of people. Remove the ester weight and overall efficiency (and possible underdosing of UGLs) and it ain't far off a dose which could only put testosterone levels in the upper range of normal. That means people are shutting their own test production down (with no guarantee of ever recovering) just to put themselves on temporary TRT which might put their test levels slightly higher than their natural levels but still within the range of normal.

This might make a noticeable difference for a 40 year old man with naturally lower test, but for a younger guy in his 20's, he may be shutting down his own test production to replace it with a test level which isn't really that much higher than his own natural production.

People are free to do this if they wish, of course, but if I'm going to shut down my HPTA with no guarantee of recovery afterwards, I'm going to make the most of it and gain those few extra kilos of muscle thank you very much.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> Why do you keep asking for a half naked picture of me? Are you gay?
> 
> A select few of us have already aired our opinions quite clearly. I just want to see what others think.


No, its just I like to see if people are a little more than armchair Google gurus.

Your avoidance is noted.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> This is a good point and one I've made before.
> 
> 200mg of test is actually a TRT dose for a lot of people. Remove the ester weight and overall efficiency (and possible underdosing of UGLs) and it ain't far off a dose which could only put testosterone levels in the upper range of normal. That means people are shutting their own test production down (with no guarantee of ever recovering) just to put themselves on temporary TRT which might put their test levels slightly higher than their natural levels but still within the range of normal.
> 
> ...


Its all temporary mate, we go back to normal in the end.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> No, its just I like to see if people are a little more than armchair Google gurus.
> 
> Your avoidance is noted.


Your repeated asking of half-naked photos of me is also noted as rather alarming.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> Your repeated asking of half-naked photos of me is also noted as rather alarming.


Yep, Im gay, I want to look at a half naked picture of you, you can pm me a cock pic if you like.

Feel better now?

If you want to hand out advice you should be prepared to back up your links with a picture of how you put all that knowledge into practice.

That is all.


----------



## micros (May 15, 2013)

Deadcalm said:


> 200mg of test is actually a TRT dose for a lot of people.


Just for sake of precision, studies have been made and on the average the human test production in 20-35 yo males is about 9mg/day, with 250mg/week you are gonna have from 3 to 5 times that quantity a day depending if you split the dose other not. I'm not sure how TRT is but I think it is about mg250 every 3weeks.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

micros said:


> Just for sake of precision, studies have been made and on the average the human test production in 20-35 yo males is about 9mg/day, with 250mg/week you are gonna have from 3 to 5 times that quantity a day depending if you split the dose other not. I'm not sure how TRT is but I think it is about mg250 every 3weeks.


It's never that straightforward I'm afraid. There are a number of factors which influence it:

Ester weight - A lot of long-estered testosterone is actually the weight of the ester, so with 200mg of test cyp for example, only 138mg of that is actual testosterone.

Metabolic efficiency - Natural test directly from the testicles is never going to be as efficient as external doses into the muscle, so there's no guarantee that all 138mg of that is utilised.

UGL dosing - Many UGLs will be underdosed, perhaps only slightly, but that still makes a difference.

The person's own body - Blood levels vary, otherwise, if we all made 9mg per day, then we'd all have the same blood testosterone levels. In reality, the 'normal' range for test can be anywhere from 300 to 1000, and if a male's test levels fall within that range, then their test level is considered medically fine. SHBG levels in males can also vary considerably, and the more SHBG there is, the more it binds to the test and makes it inactive.

As a result, you will find that a lot of men are on TRT doses on or around 200mg per week just to stay within the normal range. Yeah they may be in the upper end of the normal range, but it's still considered normal for a natural man. Lower TRT doses will just put guys in the lower range of normal.

Obviously 250mg per week is a little bit more than 200mg, but in reality, there will be a fair few people taking this sort of dose who are shutting down their body for what is basically a glorified TRT where the artificial test levels weren't THAT much higher than their own natural levels and certainly aren't worth shutting their own production down for.

That's why the blanket advice of 250mg is wrong, because in some guys it won't be a drastic improvement, and in other guys they won't experience any sides and may as well do a higher dose for more gains. That's why I advise that people TRY 500mg per week and only drop down if they need to due to side effects or AI dosing issues. With that approach, everybody wins.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> It's never that straightforward I'm afraid. There are a number of factors which influence it:
> 
> Ester weight - A lot of long-estered testosterone is actually the weight of the ester, so with 200mg of test cyp for example, only 138mg of that is actual testosterone.
> 
> ...


So the blanket advice of starting on 250mgs of wrong but the blanket advice of 500mgs is right.

Gotcha.

You do seem well versed in all the theory, how do you rate in practice?

Photos still not forthcoming?


----------



## gearchange (Mar 19, 2010)

banzi said:


> Yep, Im gay, I want to look at a half naked picture of you, you can pm me a cock pic if you like.
> 
> Feel better now?
> 
> ...


It's obvious the guy has not used his own theories and is either a skinny runt or fat bitch,first thing anyone would do in his possition is give himself mor credibility by putting up a pic...Yes I am after a cock pic as well lol


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

gearchange said:


> It's obvious the guy has not used his own theories and is either a skinny runt or fat bitch,first thing anyone would do in his possition is give himself mor credibility by putting up a pic&#8230;Yes I am after a cock pic as well lol


Deadcalm bangs out a response complete with links to a plethora of scientific studies.


----------



## gearchange (Mar 19, 2010)

banzi said:


> Deadcalm bangs out a response complete with links to a plethora of scientific studies.
> 
> View attachment 147474


Hahahahahaha,I wonder just how close you are.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> So the blanket advice of starting on 250mgs of wrong but the blanket advice of 500mgs is right.
> 
> Gotcha.
> 
> ...


No it isn't, but I never gave out that advice, did I? I said this:



> That's why the blanket advice of 250mg is wrong, because in some guys it won't be a drastic improvement, and in other guys they won't experience any sides and may as well do a higher dose for more gains.* That's why I advise that people TRY 500mg per week and only drop down if they need to due to side effects or AI dosing issues. With that approach, everybody wins.*


Which isn't blanket advice, it's actually advice specifically tailored to people's own individual sensitivities to side effects and oestrogen management, meaning that those who tolerate 500mg very well can gain maximum sides whilst those who can't tolerate it get the safer and more gentle cycle for them at the expense of some extra muscle again. Voilà. Everyone wins.

This isn't about credibility, or who is bigger than who (which is, by the way, the sort of thing kids would come out with in a school playground). It's actually about intelligence, common sense and an understanding of how steroids work within the body.

And just for the record, not everyone wants to be absolutely gigantic and shaped like Lou Ferrigno's poop. I would actually rather be skinny than be your size. That's not to say that your size is bad, it's just that people have different body goals and I plain and simply do not want to grow past the point I'm currently at (which is an athletic build). I prefer this and so do the women I go for. This makes sharing pics of "who is the biggest" utterly redundant.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Come on @Mingster, @gearchange, @banzi.. @Deadcalm clearly stated in his OP that he didn't want ANY input fom anyone who disagreed with his opinion lol. You must obey the rules or you'll deal with the wrath of deadcalm...he does not like people to disagree witth his studies that he's worked so hard on google to find (while we're all working hard in the gym haha).

@banzi, I love the pic you found of him by the way...he's right, the weight gain using 500mg test is very impressive haha!! Looks like he should probably do a cutting cycle next tho (FYI 250mg will be plenty for cutting)


----------



## gearchange (Mar 19, 2010)

Deadcalm said:


> No it isn't, but I never gave out that advice, did I? I said this:
> 
> Which isn't blanket advice, it's actually advice specifically tailored to people's own individual sensitivities to side effects and oestrogen management, meaning that those who tolerate 500mg very well can gain maximum sides whilst those who can't tolerate it get the safer and more gentle cycle for them at the expense of some extra muscle again. Voilà. Everyone wins.
> 
> ...


No one said anything about being bigger or better,just curious as to whether you have tried any of your case study tests,have you juiced? have you dieted and trained with the doses you constantly talk about ? Or as suspected are you reciting what you have read on the internet.?

Would apreciate strait answers and no dodging of questions..


----------



## Boshlop (Apr 1, 2012)

**** me, just say 500 or 250 instead of turning into teenage girls and bitching... For ppl that don't care there is a lot of effort made to sound right


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

gearchange said:


> No one said anything about being bigger or better,just curious as to whether you have tried any of your case study tests,have you juiced? have you dieted and trained with the doses you constantly talk about ? Or as suspected are you reciting what you have read on the internet.?
> 
> Would apreciate strait answers and no dodging of questions..


I've done multiple cycles, my first one being 500mg per week of test in which I gained 12lbs with minimal fat gain. I've had experience with different steroids, HCG, AIs and pretty much every PCT med you can think of.

However, what I'm trying to do here is AVOID using my own personal experiences as everyone is different. The study I refer to involved 61 men, and as you can expect, 61 men in a controlled environment provide a much bigger scope of data compared to me alone.

That's why I advise a simple protocol which is the best of both worlds for everyone. 500mg has been proven to provide more muscle gain, so try 500mg for your first cycle, and if you get no oestrogen management problems or side effects, then it's clearly the ideal dose of you as you're getting the extra few kilos of mass with no problems.

However, if you try 500mg and you have oestrogen issues or bad side effects, simply drop down to 250/300mg. That means that you've at least tried the dose which provides more gains, but if its too much for you to handle, you can drop to 250mg and have a gentler cycle.

Literally everyone wins with that approach. Non-sensitive individuals get more gains, whilst sensitive individuals quickly learn their sensitivity and get a gentler cycle. That's why I'm always going to disagree with blanket dosage suggestions because they're ONLY ideal for people who have bad side effects or bad estro management issues, which is only a small segment of first-time steroid users.

Make sense?


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> I've done multiple cycles, my first one being 500mg per week of test in which I gained 12lbs with minimal fat gain. I've had experience with different steroids, HCG, AIs and pretty much every PCT med you can think of.
> 
> However, what I'm trying to do here is AVOID using my own personal experiences as everyone is different. The study I refer to involved 61 men, and as you can expect, 61 men in a controlled environment provide a much bigger scope of data compared to me alone.
> 
> ...


However if you start on 250mgs and get great gains you dont need to even take 500mgs.

Look mate , until you post a picture of your incredible physique then to everyone here you are the fat dude in the pic, thats how they will see you tapping away about your stats and studies.

12lbs from your first ever course?

And how much did you keep when you came off.

Careful now you are walking straight into a trap.


----------



## gearchange (Mar 19, 2010)

Deadcalm said:


> I've done multiple cycles, my first one being 500mg per week of test in which I gained 12lbs with minimal fat gain. I've had experience with different steroids, HCG, AIs and pretty much every PCT med you can think of.
> 
> However, what I'm trying to do here is AVOID using my own personal experiences as everyone is different. The study I refer to involved 61 men, and as you can expect, 61 men in a controlled environment provide a much bigger scope of data compared to me alone.
> 
> ...


I have always said start at the beginning,if your a new user then start on the lowest dose and see how you react,up it next time.What your saying is almost paramount to running before you can walk.I see so many newbs wanting to jump in at high doses because their mate said thats how it is..Just because 500mg is supposedly safe because tests are conducted at that level does not mean its the way to go,Its mainly because the study is short and they want a reaction faster.

You also clearly say your against "blanket doses" why then are you for "blanket studies".

I gained more on my 250 than you on your 500 ,Guessing I ate more or trained better,either way can you see my point.

Also everything we know is based on personal experience ,remember those 61 men are individuals so go ahead and use that instead of your incessant case studies


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

gearchange said:


> I have always said start at the beginning,if your a new user then start on the lowest dose and see how you react,up it next time.Its almost paramount to running before you can walk.I see so many newbs wanting to jump in at high doses because their mate said thats how it is..Just because 500mg is supposedly safe because tests are conducted at that level does not mean its the way to go,Its mainly because the study is short and they want a reaction faster.
> 
> You also clearly say your against "blanket doses" why then are you for "blanket studies".
> 
> ...


Who gives a rats ass how 61 people responded to x and y?

Its how you respond to x and y that counts.

You can read all the studies and books in the world and then put into practice what you have "learned" and nothing happens.

At that point you have learned something worthwhile.

Deadcalm is way to wrapped up in what other people are doing.

Until he posts a pic and shows me what he has achieved then I wont take his opinion on anything too seriously.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

gearchange said:


> I have always said start at the beginning,if your a new user then start on the lowest dose and see how you react,up it next time.What your saying is almost paramount to running before you can walk.I see so many newbs wanting to jump in at high doses because their mate said thats how it is..Just because 500mg is supposedly safe because tests are conducted at that level does not mean its the way to go,Its mainly because the study is short and they want a reaction faster.
> 
> You also clearly say your against "blanket doses" why then are you for "blanket studies".
> 
> ...


Oh jesus christ.

How can it be a blanket study when it involved 61 randomised individuals? That's more than a wide enough sample to see how different doses respond. That's why it's a clinical study.

And I'm afraid you don't know whether you gained better than me or not at all. Unless you had access to hydrostatic weighing then you don't know how much of that was muscle and how much of that was fat. That's where these studies help because they have the tools to measure EXACTLY how much muscle was gained and exactly how much fat was gained or lost. In comparison, your measurements are highly inaccurate.

What you're advising just makes no sense. Why start low and avoid those extra few pounds of muscle gain even if someone has no side effects or estro management issues at 500mg per week? Why? What's the reason?


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> Who gives a rats ass how 61 people responded to x and y?
> 
> Its how you respond to x and y that counts.
> 
> ...


You must literally have an IQ of 50 saying stuff like that. It's a study of 61 people who have put it into practice and measured real life results. Use a shred of intelligence and THINK about it.

Everyone take note of banzi for future. Just because someone uses steroids to get big it doesn't mean that they have a CLUE what they're actually talking about. Being big does not correlate with good advice.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> You must literally have an IQ of 50 saying stuff like that. It's a study of 61 people who have put it into practice and measured real life results. Use a shred of intelligence and THINK about it.
> 
> Everyone take note of banzi for future. Just because someone uses steroids to get big it doesn't mean that they have a CLUE what they're actually talking about. *Being big does not correlate with good advice.*


But looking like crap does, as you seem to believe.

Seriously, what have the results of 61 random anonymous people got to do with me or you.

We both likely respond differently to different compounds, so these 61 people are relevant how?

Stop quoting links and studies like they matter to an individual.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> Oh jesus christ.
> 
> How can it be a blanket study when it involved 61 randomised individuals? That's more than a wide enough sample to see how different doses respond. That's why it's a clinical study.
> 
> ...


I ballooned up around 18lbs when I took 16mgs a day of Winstrol on my first ever course how much would I have gained taking 500mgs of test?

Could I have been Mr Olympia?


----------



## the_grinder (Jul 26, 2013)




----------



## gearchange (Mar 19, 2010)

I really think you're missing the point Mr calm.All I am saying is put your toe in the water before you get in,just incase its to hot.

Telling everyone to start on 500mg because the study says so is silly..

See how you react to aas at a low dose before going higher,Its how sensible people do things..Its not depriving yourself of any gains because the next time if you got on well you can go for a higher dose..But to get acne blow up like a balloon then drop down because your blood pressure is in the air is even more stupid.Remember we are talking about new users ,first timers not guys that are used to it.

You are probably going to ramble some more google **** but I thing we are going round in circles.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

gearchange said:


> I really think you're missing the point Mr calm.All I am saying is put your toe in the water before you get in,just incase its to hot.
> 
> Telling everyone to start on 500mg because the study says so is silly..
> 
> ...


I would leave it now mate, hes just a crap responder to gear who assumes everyone else is like him.

We have both made our point now.


----------



## DEADLY (Nov 4, 2013)

As my first cycle I was gonna listen to people on the internet and use 500 plus deca which were originals and I had easy access to..

PIP only allowed me to shoot just the 250 and only run it for 8 weeks. My BF wasn't good at all and still managed to weigh the same after cycle but without the extra fat.

My strengh def went up from week 4 and I actualy kept them gains and with relatively poor diet , or more like a normal diet (didn't change much being on).

PCT I started like 12 days after the last shot and only took a nolvadex pill a day for 20 days if that...total success. So I am happy it went that way and then I could do expirement with more stuff and doses without the paranoia. For a first cycle, try to get original coumpound only like testoviron and go for a shot every 5 days...perfect !

Get used to the pinning ( I had it done at the pharmacy) and take it from there...keep it shortish and low.

Don't listen phrases like '' AS A BARE MINIMUM ''. Bro science I respect more than doctors, but only competition wise and among experimented users.


----------



## DEADLY (Nov 4, 2013)

Ahhhh for ****'s sake !!!! Read Testoviron info by BEYER !! every 250 mg are actualy just under 190mg...

It also reads : testosterone doesn't actualy help with muscle growth. ( sitting on your sofa will only make you look and feel worse on test in other words)

Dosage: one shot every 3 or 4 weeks. In many cases it's only necesary every 6 weeks...So in your tiny mind 250EW is TRT ????? ok mate.

It mentions also: overdosing can cause muscular atrophy !! WHy advice a novice to go 500 to start with ? You don't know him, he doesnt even know his body.

And one more thing . Weight means **** all. The superman type of individual will at the very top produce 70 mg weekly, skinny or big and muscular...TRT my ****.

If you don't use original pharmaceutical products don't opinionate. And if you think all this is all bull, check Yates' inteview who was one of the biggest pros.

He says what people claim to use today freaks him out... but then again what lab gear ? severely under dosed maybe ? that way I can say I do 1g and it's like 400mg.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Josh Heslop said:


> **** me, just say 500 or 250 instead of turning into teenage girls and bitching... For ppl that don't care there is a lot of effort made to sound right


I'm hoping that everyone argueng with deadcalm is doing it for the same reason I do it...to watch him squirm and run around like a cat with it's tail on fire trying to prove his opinions right...IMO he's the most entertaining person on UKM lol.

This all started with what I thought was a nice little debate between deadcalm and myself on another thread about the best starting dose. Unfortunately totally out of the blue he started ordering me not to disagree with his opinions again on a thread, then started this thread to prove that his idea of a starting dose is right and mine is wrong lol.

@banzi @gearchange, come on guys, you're supposed to be on here winding deadcalm up for me...stop taking it so seriously fellas lol. You carry on without me, I've gotta go in to Leeds today...don't worry tho I'll be back later to prod him with a little stick and watch him squirm.


----------



## Boshlop (Apr 1, 2012)

stuey99 said:


> I'm hoping that everyone argueng with deadcalm is doing it for the same reason I do it...to watch him squirm and run around like a cat with it's tail on fire trying to prove his opinions right...IMO he's the most entertaining person on UKM lol.
> 
> This all started with what I thought was a nice little debate between deadcalm and myself on another thread about the best starting dose. Unfortunately totally out of the blue he started ordering me not to disagree with his opinions again on a thread, then started this thread to prove that his idea of a starting dose is right and mine is wrong lol.
> 
> @banzi @gearchange, come on guys, you're supposed to be on here winding deadcalm up for me...stop taking it so seriously fellas lol. You carry on without me, I've gotta go in to Leeds today...don't worry tho I'll be back later to prod him with a little stick and watch him squirm.


aye i cna see that, but the first comment of no one he has debated ti with was to avoid geting into a petty debate and arguments, if it was just allowed to go on then seeing other opinions might have changed his mind if enough ppl said :/

the glory of the internet is great, never a dull day!


----------



## Bear2012 (Jan 19, 2012)

As said in the other thread 250mg 

That's what I used, that's what I liked don't care what anyone else uses or used I did my research spoke to others who suggested like many on here start small and see how you react and feel.

There is no hard and fast "you must take 250/500mg" Read and research ascertain what's best for YOU and go forth.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Josh Heslop said:


> aye i cna see that, but the first comment of no one he has debated ti with was to avoid geting into a petty debate and arguments, if it was just allowed to go on then seeing other opinions might have changed his mind if enough ppl said :/
> 
> the glory of the internet is great, never a dull day!


Yes but you see his opinions aren't actually opinions lol...his opinions are facts...apparently!! I honestly don't care if people do 250 or 500 bro, I was just enjoying an interesting debate until deadcalm stopped taking his loony meds and went on a crazy mission to prove that he is right (he MUST be right you see lol).


----------



## Boshlop (Apr 1, 2012)

stuey99 said:


> Yes but you see his opinions aren't actually opinions lol...his opinions are facts...apparently!! I honestly don't care if people do 250 or 500 bro, I was just enjoying an interesting debate until deadcalm stopped taking his loony meds and went on a crazy mission to prove that he is right (he MUST be right you see lol).


sounds like how most threads end on here now, it is fun to just play along and see what madness you get!


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Josh Heslop said:


> sounds like how most threads end on here now, it is fun to just play along and see what madness you get!


I know...It's great fun. I know it's a llittle childish, but I love it!! Haha!!


----------



## gearchange (Mar 19, 2010)

stuey99 said:


> I know...It's great fun. I know it's a llittle childish, but I love it!! Haha!!


It's good to be alive :thumb:


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> But looking like crap does, as you seem to believe.
> 
> Seriously, what have the results of 61 random anonymous people got to do with me or you.
> 
> ...


It has nothing to do with us. That's the point. When it comes to steroids, the WORST thing you can do is dish out advice based on your own personal results and claim it as fact. Yeah you can share what happened and state that it's your own personal results, but it's not good when you take one person's results and expect it to fit into a wider audience.

The reason you use studies like these is because it isn't just one person's results, it's 61 people, who have all been accurately measured in a randomised environment without variables to skew results. That provides far more reliable feedback of results which makes the advice much more appropriate to dish out to the masses.

You say things like "hes just a crap responder to gear who assumes everyone else is like him." but then you make a completely hypocritical statement by suggesting 250mg to people just because YOU responded well to it.

I'm basing my advice on studies of 61 randomised men and the anecdotal evidence of 25 others on this poll. You're basing your advice on your own unique body. Who's giving out the better advice?


----------



## Boshlop (Apr 1, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> It has nothing to do with us. That's the point. When it comes to steroids, the WORST thing you can do is dish out advice based on your own personal results and claim it as fact. Yeah you can share what happened and state that it's your own personal results, but it's not good when you take one person's results and expect it to fit into a wider audience.
> 
> The reason you use studies like these is because it isn't just one person's results, it's 61 people, who have all been accurately measured in a randomised environment without variables to skew results. That provides far more reliable feedback of results which makes the advice much more appropriate to dish out to the masses.
> 
> ...


just drop it man, you can pull studies to prove anything if you know how to word them and use data properly.

you have a different opinion and thats that, you could argue that scientifically a banana taste nicer than an apple, but you will never convince the person that likes the apple better... you think what you think and if you like studies to back that up then fair enough, but dont ram it in peoples throats, present it and accept how ppl respond


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> It has nothing to do with us. That's the point. When it comes to steroids, the WORST thing you can do is dish out advice based on your own personal results and claim it as fact. Yeah you can share what happened and state that it's your own personal results, but it's not good when you take one person's results and expect it to fit into a wider audience.
> 
> The reason you use studies like these is because it isn't just one person's results, it's 61 people, who have all been accurately measured in a randomised environment without variables to skew results. That provides far more reliable feedback of results which makes the advice much more appropriate to dish out to the masses.
> 
> ...


Me of course, I know exactly what happened to me because its me, you have no idea how each individual in the 61 man study actually faired, you dont know if they stuck to the plan at all, hell, some of them may have cheated.

Now if you were to say "500mgs worked best for me" then fine you can validate that , what you cant validate is a load of random b**locks thrown together by some university graduate.

So by all means post up your own opinions and show us a picture saying "this is me on 500mgs of test" and you may garner some respect on here.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

gearchange said:


> I really think you're missing the point Mr calm.All I am saying is put your toe in the water before you get in,just incase its to hot.
> 
> Telling everyone to start on 500mg because the study says so is silly..
> 
> ...


I didn't suggest 500mg because the study says so. I suggested 500mg because it's been proven to provide multiple extra pounds of lean mass over a cycle compared to smaller 250mg doses, so why not get that extra muscle gain if someone has no issues with that dose?

If you give 100 people 500mg cycles, 50 might get bad sides or estro issues, but 50 people could be absolutely fine and get no problems, so suggesting 250mg to those people is bad advice because you're talking them out of multiple extra kilos of muscle gain for absolutely NO good reason whatsoever.

That's why you do it the other way around. Try 500mg to get the most gains, and if you get no sides then great, that's the right dose for you. However, if you get sides, then drop down. Everybody wins.

These meds don't provide on/off results. They're dose dependant. You want the balance between the highest dose and manageable side effects. That's why you have the same approach with meds like clomid. Take 100mg because it's proven to be the most effective dose for that particular SERM, and only drop it down if the sides are too much to handle. That way, people who can handle the drug well aren't being talked out of a more effective PCT for no reason.


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

It's pretty pointless posting studies a lot of the time without also posting who they were commissioned by and, more importantly sometimes, who they were financed by. It's a rare case indeed when a body doing a study comes up with a conclusion that doesn't benefit those who commissioned and paid for the study in the first place...


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> I didn't suggest 500mg because the study says so. I suggested 500mg because it's been proven to provide multiple extra pounds of lean mass over a cycle compared to smaller 250mg doses, so why not get that extra muscle gain if someone has no issues with that dose?
> 
> If you give 100 people 500mg cycles, 50 might get bad sides or estro issues, but 50 people could be absolutely fine and get no problems, so suggesting 250mg to those people is bad advice because you're talking them out of multiple extra kilos of muscle gain for absolutely NO good reason whatsoever.
> 
> ...


There you go again.

Why advise 100 people on the chance 50 of them are going to get sides (your figures)

Why not advise 250, far less chance of anyone getting sides and people can gauge their development.

By the way, this is a first course, you are not really cheating anyone out of any gains, Im assuming they will be having another course.

Still no pictures yet,

dont worry I will keep banging the drum every time you hand out advice.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> Me of course, I know exactly what happened to me because its me, you have no idea how each individual in the 61 man study actually faired, you dont know if they stuck to the plan at all, hell, some of them may have cheated.
> 
> Now if you were to say "500mgs worked best for me" then fine you can validate that , what you cant validate is a load of random b**locks thrown together by some university graduate.
> 
> So by all means post up your own opinions and show us a picture saying "this is me on 500mgs of test" and you may garner some respect on here.


You don't actually know what happened to you unless you used hydrostatic weighing and an MRI machine like these studies do. You're throwing numbers around but you have no accurate idea of how much of that was fat, water or muscle whatsoever. None of us really do. We just go off anecdotal evidence.

If you think studies are ineffective because people may have "cheated" or that they're "random bollocks" then the entire fabric of modern medicine as we know it is a waste of time, because every single med you take in all walks of life is based on accurate measurements in controlled environments like these to ascertain EXACTLY what the drug itself does without variables.

Perhaps you should try actually reading. This isn't random bollocks. It's proven numbers. Facts.



> Total Testosterone
> 
> 300 mg group-1,345 ng/dl a 691 ng increase from baseline
> 
> ...


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

Mingster said:


> It's pretty pointless posting studies a lot of the time without also posting who they were commissioned by and, more importantly sometimes, who they were financed by. It's a rare case indeed when a body doing a study comes up with a conclusion that doesn't benefit those who commissioned and paid for the study in the first place...


http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/281/6/E1172



> Acknowledgments
> 
> This study was supported primarily by National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grant 1RO1-AG-14369; additional support was provided by Grants 1RO1-DK-49296, 1RO1-DK-59297-01, Federal Drug Administration Grant ODP 1397, a General Clinical Research Center Grant MO-00425, NIH-National Center for Research Resources-00954, RCMI Grants P20-RR-11145-01 (RCMI Clinical Research Initiative) and G12-RR-03026.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> You don't actually know what happened to you unless you used hydrostatic weighing and an MRI machine like these studies do. You're throwing numbers around but you have no accurate idea of how much of that was fat, water or muscle whatsoever. None of us really do. We just go off anecdotal evidence.
> 
> If you think studies are ineffective because people may have "cheated" or that they're "random bollocks" then the entire fabric of modern medicine as we know it is a waste of time, because every single med you take in all walks of life is based on accurate measurements in controlled environments like these to ascertain EXACTLY what the drug itself does without variables.
> 
> Perhaps you should try actually reading. This isn't random bollocks. It's proven numbers. Facts.


I didn't read it first time you posted it because it doesn't matter to me or how Im going to respond to any drug.

It actually bears no relation to how you are going to respond either but you take it as gospel.

This is why I believe you are just an armchair analyst.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> There you go again.
> 
> Why advise 100 people on the chance 50 of them are going to get sides (your figures)
> 
> ...


Jesus christ. It's a hypothetical situation. Use a brain cell and think.

It's like banging my head against a wall arguing with people with horrendously low IQs who have no idea what they're talking about.

You can bang it all you like. I'm not sending half naked pictures of me to a random man on the internet who seems to REALLY want half naked pictures of men and also enjoys sharing his own half naked pictures even when nobody has asked.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> I didn't read it first time you posted it because it doesn't matter to me or how Im going to respond to any drug.
> 
> It actually bears no relation to how you are going to respond either but you take it as gospel.
> 
> This is why I believe you are just an armchair analyst.


So I'm arguing with a chap who has injected himself full of steroids and drugs without even bothering to read any information about how they work.

Explains a lot.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/281/6/E1172


You keep reading studies while I keep listening to my body and making improvements at almost 49 years of age.

Half way through my diet last year 250mgs test.



Good luck Googling.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> Jesus christ. It's a hypothetical situation. Use a brain cell and think.
> 
> It's like banging my head against a wall arguing with people with horrendously low IQs who have no idea what they're talking about.
> 
> You can bang it all you like.* I'm not sending half naked pictures of me to a random man on the internet who seems to REALLY want half naked pictures of men and also enjoys sharing his own half naked pictures even when nobody has asked.*


Its called "proof of claim"

So either put up or shut up.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> Its called "proof of claim"
> 
> So either put up or shut up.


Please stop sending me half-naked photos when no one has asked for them, it's making me feel uncomfortable.

And here's my proof of claim:



> Fat Free Mass by* underwater weighing*
> 
> 300 mg group-5.2kg (11.4lbs) increase
> 
> ...


And it happens to be from 61 randomised men in a controlled study without any variables. Handy.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> So I'm arguing with a chap who has injected himself full of steroids and drugs without even bothering to read any information about how they work.
> 
> Explains a lot.


See, thats where you are wrong, I have took far less than most people of my experience.

Im trying to lead others down the same path, you on the other hand want to bang people in on high dosages when you have already said half of the people you advise will likely suffer sides as a result.

Isnt me who's reckless mate.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> Please stop sending me half-naked photos when no one has asked for them, it's making me feel uncomfortable.
> 
> And here's my proof of claim:
> 
> And it happens to be from 61 randomised men in a controlled study without any variables. Handy.


I would prefer you sent me 61 pictures of sodomised men thanks.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> See, thats where you are wrong, I have took far less than most people of my experience.
> 
> Im trying to lead others down the same path, you on the other hand want to bang people in on high dosages when you have already said half of the people you advise will likely suffer sides as a result.
> 
> Isnt me who's reckless mate.


I don't think even half will to be honest. Based on my experience the vast majority of people who do 500mg cycles are absolutely fine. It only seems like a lot of people have bad sides because they're the only ones who post threads because they need advice. You won't see anyone posting threads just to tell people they have no sides, would you?

My path isn't reckless. I simply suggest trying 500mg and only dropping down if sides are bad. Everybody wins.

By the way, instead of sharing your advice with me (a guy who is actually relatively conservative with doses compared to most, I only use test and never 19nors), perhaps you should be having a chat with your companion Stuey99, who, according to his threads, is currently on 500mg of test prop, 500mg of tren ace, 500mg of mast prop, 200mg of npp, 75mg of winny, 100mcg of T3 and 15ius of insulin per day, all whilst complaining about heart palpitations and tren sides:



Stuey99 said:


> Alright lads.
> 
> Running 500mg each test p/tren a/past p with 200mg npp a week for joints. Also 100mcgs T3 ed and 75mg winny.
> 
> ...


And yet this is the guy who has been arguing with me about only doing 250mg test for a first cycle.

At least he's practising what he preaches too huh. :lol:


----------



## gearchange (Mar 19, 2010)

I thought this was over...Look you numskull ..First timers ,newbs whatever you call them are 90% likely to get sides on 500mg because they have not nailed their diet or training or know anything about Ai's.So shut the fvck up for god sake and drop this.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

gearchange said:


> I thought this was over...Look you numskull ..First timers ,newbs whatever you call them *are 90% likely to get sides on 500mg* because they have not nailed their diet or training or know anything about Ai's.So shut the fvck up for god sake and drop this.


And now you're just plucking ideas out of thin air based on absolutely NOTHING. Interesting.

Perhaps you shouldn't be so patronising about first-time cycle users by suggesting that they don't have a good diet, don't have the right training and haven't done any research. People aren't all like you ya know.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> I don't think even half will to be honest. Based on my experience the vast majority of people who do 500mg cycles are absolutely fine. It only seems like a lot of people have bad sides because they're the only ones who post threads because they need advice. You won't see anyone posting threads just to tell people they have no sides, would you?
> 
> My path isn't reckless. I simply suggest trying 500mg and only dropping down if sides are bad. Everybody wins.
> 
> ...


Well tren sides are gone now and heart palpitations were due to severely overdosed dhacks T3. I know you will ignore these question as you won't have an answer, but I'll ask them anyway...

How does my current cycle and doses have any relevance to a thread on advising first cycle dosages??

And

How could I possibly "practcice what I preach"?? This is not my first cycle you fvcking dumbell lol.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> *And now you're just plucking ideas out of thin air based on absolutely NOTHING. Interesting.*
> 
> Perhaps you shouldn't be so patronising about first-time cycle users by suggesting that they don't have a good diet, don't have the right training and haven't done any research. People aren't all like you ya know.


Yep, a bit like you did when you said 50 people out of a hundred would get sides and then changed your mind when it didn't fit your next line of argument.

Im pretty sure you are trolling now, no ones that dumb.


----------



## Ben_Dover (Apr 12, 2012)

This is UKM, more is always better !!!


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

PS...this thread is fvcking quality lol. @Deadcalm, I've got to go now, things to do...but keep this thread going, please...I'll be back for a chuckle later haha.

One tip would be to waste more of your time going through more of my previous threads and picking out stuff that is totally irrelevant to first cycle dosages...do you actually have a life mate?? (Rhetorical question btw lol)


----------



## gearchange (Mar 19, 2010)

stuey99 said:


> PS...this thread is fvcking quality lol. @Deadcalm, I've got to go now, things to do...but keep this thread going, please...I'll be back for a chuckle later haha.
> 
> One tip would be to waste more of your time going through more of my previous threads and picking out stuff that is totally irrelevant to first cycle dosages...do you actually have a life mate?? (Rhetorical question btw lol)


If you would be so kind as to print off all your posts for me and I will pop by and pick them up,I will then scoot round to Deadcalms house and shove them up his ****. Thank you mate. :thumb:


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> Yep, a bit like you did when you said 50 people out of a hundred would get sides and then changed your mind when it didn't fit your next line of argument.
> 
> Im pretty sure you are trolling now, no ones that dumb.


I actually only said 50 people because I thought you'd moan if I put the number as any lower.

The vast majority of people actually won't get any serious sides, which is backed up by the fact that 25 people have suggested 500mg for first cycle doses whilst only 10 suggested 250mg. Aw shame.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

gearchange said:


> If you would be so kind as to print off all your posts for me and I will pop by and pick them up,I will then scoot round to Deadcalms house and shove them up his ****. Thank you mate. :thumb:


Hahahaha!! Mate I actually just fell over laughing...nice one!! Possibly helped by the amazing mood I'm in...just found out me and the mrs are moving to Dubai!!! Oh, and @Deadcalm, before you ask me to justify the doses I run again, don't bother as I'll tellyou now...

I'm a fvcking juice junky lol!!!


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

stuey99 said:


> Well tren sides are gone now and heart palpitations were due to severely overdosed dhacks T3. I know you will ignore these question as you won't have an answer, but I'll ask them anyway...
> 
> How does my current cycle and doses have any relevance to a thread on advising first cycle dosages??
> 
> ...


Banzi seems to be an advocate of lower dose test cycles and keeps sending half-naked pictures of his physique on 250mg cycles.

You are pumping yourself with grams of steroids and thyroid meds and insulin and keep soldiering on despite heart palpitations and very bad tren sides (which you've also made threads about). You can't exactly preach "listen to your own body" can you?

My cycles are actually probably more in-tune with Banzi's than yours are, and yet you two seem to be fighting the same ridiculous corner. Perhaps he should be talking to you instead of me.

Edit: if you're a "juice junky" perhaps you shouldn't be giving out advice.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> I actually only said 50 people because I thought you'd moan if I put the number as any lower.
> 
> The vast majority of people actually won't get any serious sides, which is backed up by the fact that 25 people have suggested 500mg for first cycle doses whilst only 10 suggested 250mg. Aw shame.


I'm still waiting on your reply to how my current cycle is relevant to a thread about FIRST CYCLE doses??? Whenever you're ready dumbell??? Lol


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> I actually only said 50 people because I thought you'd moan if I put the number as any lower.
> 
> The vast majority of people actually won't get any serious sides, which is backed up by the fact that 25 people have suggested 500mg for first cycle doses whilst only 10 suggested 250mg. Aw shame.


Lol, awww were you pandering to my whims rather than being honest, how nice of you.

Now you want to change your mind.

So from half getting sides its now the vast majority wont get sides.

Thats some swerve even for you.

This poll is as much use to an individual as your beloved Google studies are.

Who cares if 25 random people on the internet say 500mgs.

You seem to believe you have won some kind of victory, lol at your total lack of rational thought.

You seriously have got to be trolling, well done keeping the thread going.


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

banzi said:


> Agreed, its down to the individual, I feel Im lucky as I can still gain on 250mgs test e alone, I know others who have taken up to 10 Anapalon 50s and looked like ****.
> 
> Its how you respond at the end of the day.


If that's you in your avi, did you get into that condition on 250mg a week?


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> Banzi seems to be an advocate of lower dose test cycles and keeps sending half-naked pictures of his physique on 250mg cycles.
> 
> You are pumping yourself with grams of steroids and thyroid meds and insulin and keep soldiering on despite heart palpitations and very bad tren sides (which you've also made threads about). You can't exactly preach "listen to your own body" can you?
> 
> ...


Ah interesting!!

Well how am I soldiering on when I dropped the overdosed T3 which was causing the heart palps and lowered the tren dose...and now everything's fine??

And where have I "preached" "listen to your own body"??

And even though I have never preached listen to your own body, surely by dropping the T3 and tren dose that's exactly what I've done?? So looks like I'm free to preach away now then yeah??

Answers on a postcard dumbell lol.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> Banzi seems to be an advocate of lower dose test cycles and keeps sending half-naked pictures of his physique on 250mg cycles.
> 
> You are pumping yourself with grams of steroids and thyroid meds and insulin and keep soldiering on despite heart palpitations and very bad tren sides (which you've also made threads about). You can't exactly preach "listen to your own body" can you?
> 
> ...


I dont care what anyone else takes, its up to them.

I only advise first time users to start on a low dose.

You seem to want them to start at a higher dose.

You post studies  to show how you appear to be right but are not willing to show us your mess of a physique.

Let people decide what they want to do.


----------



## gearchange (Mar 19, 2010)

I am shocked in the number of times "uncomfortable" with seeing men showing their top half,Thats a bad phobia to have for a trainer/bodybuilder,

It's like a claustrophobic working down the mines by choice.Very odd..You know what I think...

Your physique is so **** that you're trying to avoid a pic of your progress. Am I right,go on tell me I'm right .


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Oh and @Deadcalm, I knew you'd jump on that juice junkie comment like a b1tch on heat...that's why I put it...you're so much fun mate haha


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Smitch said:


> If that's you in your avi, did you get into that condition on 250mg a week?


No I added in hardening compounds for the last 5 weeks, I actually took way more than I have ever used in the past listening to someone who was more knowledgeable than myself.

It didnt really pan out as I expected because I tripled my dose to try and get some size back on as I was flat and a bit over-dieted.

I gained 2lbs in weight and got a bit harder.

Thats why I keep harping on about it not mattering how things work for other people, its what works for you that counts.


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

banzi said:


> No I added in hardening compounds for the last 5 weeks, I actually took way more than I have ever used in the past listening to someone who was more knowledgeable than myself.
> 
> It didnt really pan out as I expected because I tripled my dose to try and get some size back on as I was flat and a bit over-dieted.
> 
> ...


I'm still buggering about with doses as i only started pinning last year, i'm running 500mg of Zafa a week at the moment and have just chucked in some one rip to see what happens.

As you've said it's down to the individual but human nature tells us more is better so most peeps will automatically go for the bigger dose and work down, whether that is right or wrong.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Smitch said:


> I'm still buggering about with doses as i only started pinning last year, i'm running 500mg of Zafa a week at the moment and have just chucked in some one rip to see what happens.
> 
> As you've said it's down to the individual but human nature tells us more is better so *most peeps will automatically go for the bigger dose and work down, whether that is right or wrong. :*)


I agree mate, but you will get better gains running 250mgs test for 12 months than running 500mgs for 6.

Duration is the key with steroids of you want long term gains.

Short blasts although they throw on the weight its not going to last.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Smitch said:


> I'm still buggering about with doses as i only started pinning last year, i'm running 500mg of Zafa a week at the moment and have just chucked in some one rip to see what happens.
> 
> As you've said it's down to the individual but human nature tells us more is better so most peeps will automatically go for the bigger dose and work down, whether that is right or wrong.


I don't think it's so much human nature mate...it's more men's nature lol.


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

banzi said:


> *I agree mate, but you will get better gains running 250mgs test for 12 months than running 500mgs for 6*.
> 
> Duration is the key with steroids of you want long term gains.
> 
> Short blasts although they throw on the weight its not going to last.


Well this is what i'm thinking now.

This Zafas obviously come in 1ml 250mg amps so ultimately i'll probably end up doing one amp every ten days with a blast every now and then.

I'm nearly 38 so an ongoing TRT dose could be the way forward seeing as i started late.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> I actually only said 50 people because I thought you'd moan if I put the number as any lower.
> 
> The vast majority of people actually won't get any serious sides, which is backed up by the fact that 25 people have suggested 500mg for first cycle doses whilst only 10 suggested 250mg. Aw shame.


I was waiting for this lol. So what you're saying here is that because more people voted for 500mg that means you are right??

These are OPINIONS you muppet!! It's not about who's right or wrong, it never was!! It was a perfectly reasonable discussion until your obsession with being right and proving that others are wrong took over your brain...and then caused you to make yourself look reall pathetic.

Why do you care about "being right" so much...what is wrong with you?? Have you honestly not learned yet that two people can have different opinions, and that's ok? Why do you feel the need to force everyone to agree with you?? Why can't you accept the OPINIONS are not the same as FACTS??


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

> This Zafas obviously come in 1ml 250mg amps so ultimately i'll probably end up doing one amp every ten days with a blast every now and then.
> 
> I'm nearly 38 so an ongoing TRT dose could be the way forward seeing as i started late.


Thats a sensible approach mate, Im 48 now and Im not going to get much bigger now no matter what I do, I just cruise on 250mgs a week to 10 days and throw in 200-300 mgs tren e for around 10 weeks and then off and cruise for 10-12 weeks.

Taking 3gms test and a gram of tren isnt going to make me Mr Olympia so why risk my health?


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

banzi said:


> Thats a sensible approach mate, Im 48 now and Im not going to get much bigger now no matter what I do, I just cruise on 250mgs a week to 10 days and throw in 200-300 mgs tren e for around 10 weeks and then off and cruise for 10-12 weeks.
> 
> Taking 3gms test and a gram of tren isnt going to make me Mr Olympia so why risk my health?


Are you on for life now then mate??


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

stuey99 said:


> Are you on for life now then mate??


No idea mate, I dont know how long Im going to live.

Just kidding, I will stay on as long as Im lifting and living the lifestyle and then see how things pan out.


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

banzi said:


> Thats a sensible approach mate, Im 48 now and Im not going to get much bigger now no matter what I do, I just cruise on 250mgs a week to 10 days and throw in 200-300 mgs tren e for around 10 weeks and then off and cruise for 10-12 weeks.
> 
> Taking 3gms test and a gram of tren isnt going to make me Mr Olympia so why risk my health?


Don't want to derail the thread but i'm using 1000iu of HCG a week to keep my nuts from being like pin heads in a bin bag, is this something you do?


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

What's also amusing is that the people dishing out this advice are the people who are on TRT due to abusing steroids and seem to even advocate that it's better to do far longer cycles which are ultimately far more likely to result in permanently suppressed test levels and TRT for life.

Banzi, the guy harping on about all this, even just said the words "it's better to do 250mg for 12 months".

Good lord.

When I give out advice, I actually want people to cycle on and off and ultimately keep their own natural production instead of shutting themselves down and going on TRT for life when many first-time cycle users are actually very young.

The advice you people are giving out is actually dangerous. A note to newbies: DON'T take advice from guys like this who have all ended up putting themselves on TRT for life. They really aren't the best people to be dishing out cycle advice because they aren't actually doing cycles anymore.

PS: 8 replies to my posts from three people since I last checked. Who are the guys getting riled up here. :lol:


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> What's also amusing is that the people dishing out this advice are the people who are on TRT due to abusing steroids and seem to even advocate that it's better to do far longer cycles which are ultimately far more likely to result in permanently suppressed test levels and TRT for life.
> 
> *Banzi, the guy harping on about all this, even just said the words "it's better to do 250mg for 12 months".*
> 
> ...


Lol

I knew you would jump on that.

What do you think is more detrimental to your endocrine system?

Taking a mild dose of one hormone (natural test) for a year

Or taking high amounts of hormones and coming off said hormones and then taking more drugs to counteract the damage you have done to you own test levels by constantly keeping it off guard.

My long term use at low levels allows me to monitor my body and gauge my progress and keep moving forward.

Going on and off all the time is keeping your body in a constant state if disarray.

God luck with that one.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Smitch said:


> Don't want to derail the thread but i'm using 1000iu of HCG a week to keep my nuts from being like pin heads in a bin bag, is this something you do?


I use HCG very occasionally, maybe a shot every three months.

Is there an advantage to having huge nuts?


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

banzi said:


> I use HCG very occasionally, maybe a shot every three months.
> 
> Is there an advantage to having huge nuts?


I'm single, so it saves quizzical looks off new birds when they find an empty ball bag.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Smitch said:


> I'm single, so it saves quizzical looks off new birds when they find an empty ball bag.


Im lucky my Mrs isnt a ball woman


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> Lol
> 
> I knew you would jump on that.
> 
> ...


Your approach is infinitely more detrimental, because your approach shuts down your HPTA for good and means that someone needs to be on TRT and take injections for the rest of their life. Long-term higher test injections also produce problems with high blood pressure and high hematocrit.

Higher (but still reasonably safe) doses of test in cycles means that someone can keep their natural production going and don't shut themselves down for life.

A lot of people who do cycles for the first time are very young (in their 20's) and suggesting that long-term blasting and cruising and ultimately TRT for life is the safer approach is EXTREMELY irresponsible, especially as it can result in fertility issues and people can change their minds as they get older and regret having to pin testosterone for the next 50 years.

You've just lost all credibility with that statement. I highly advise any newbies to avoid listening to Banzi's advice. It's further proof that just being big doesn't mean that you have any clue what you're talking about. Your advice is dangerous.

Edit: an HCG shot every 3 months :lol: What a complete waste of time. You really don't know anything about how these chemicals work, do you?


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> Your approach is infinitely more detrimental, because your approach shuts down your HPTA for good and means that someone needs to be on TRT and take injections for the rest of their life. Long-term higher test injections also produce problems with high blood pressure and high hematocrit.
> 
> Higher (but still reasonably safe) doses of test in cycles means that someone can keep their natural production going and don't shut themselves down for life.
> 
> ...


You are doing everything within your power to try and appear right.

Stop banging the drum mate, no one in this thread seems to be on your side.

I have said a number of times I don't care what other people do and I have only advised people starting a course for the first time to take a low dose.

Everything I write is my OPINION no more no less.

As for anyone reading this forum and thread, read whats written and then make up your own minds, its your life, you live it the way you choose.

Oh, and dont let random guys on the internet who are scared to post a picture because they are a fat forum troll sitting in their mommies basement spouting garbage they have google searched.

That is all.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

> You really don't know anything about how these chemicals work, do you?


Obviously not, my pictures clearly show I am a rank amateur compared to you.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> PS: 8 replies to my posts from three people since I last checked. Who are the guys getting riled up here. :lol:


Well I can only speak for myself here (the others can answer for themselves), but I'm not riled up at all, I'm just having a hell of a lot of fun winding you up mate lol.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

banzi said:


> No idea mate, I dont know how long Im going to live.
> 
> Just kidding, I will stay on as long as Im lifting and living the lifestyle and then see how things pan out.


Yeah, same here mate!! I'm on for life baby, I ain't never coming off!!

Ps...you know what's coming now don't you lol??


----------



## Dan TT (May 9, 2012)

The question is, who would you listen to if these two arguing are stood side by side?

(presuming deadcalm hasn't used roids, and banzi is a hench mofo)


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Dan TT said:


> The question is, who would you listen to if these two arguing are stood side by side?
> 
> (presuming deadcalm hasn't used roids, and banzi is a hench mofo)


I would listen to deadcalm...he has a study you know lol.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

.. @Benzi doesn't have a study!!


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> You are doing everything within your power to try and appear right.
> 
> Stop banging the drum mate, no one in this thread seems to be on your side.
> 
> ...


Except 27 people who all agreed with me (over 2 times more than the people who agreed with you).

Yeah it is your opinion, you're right. My issue is you claiming it as the truth and using your own opinion to batter down what is very reasonable advice to try 500mg and ONLY bring it down if side effects are bad.

That advice isn't based on my opinion. It's based on logic. It means that people with no sides get the full benefit of 500mg, whilst people who do get sides can do 250mg first. Every, body, wins.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

> PS: 8 replies to my posts from three people since I last checked. Who are the guys getting riled up here.


So you are trolling after all 

Nice one mate, you had me going there, I really believed you thought all that garbage you were spouting was true.

Consider me owned.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

Dan TT said:


> The question is, who would you listen to if these two arguing are stood side by side?
> 
> (presuming deadcalm hasn't used roids, and banzi is a hench mofo)


I've done multiple cycles of steroids, just for the record. The reason I'm not getting into a "my muscles are bigger than your muscles" argument is because personal anecdotal evidence is irrelevant here. I'm trying to give newbies advice which is tailored to everyone's own unique sensitivity to steroids whilst making sure they get maximum gains for their first cycle (i.e. try a higher dose and only drop down if you get sides). Personal experiences don't really come into it when you're trying to give advice to multiple different first-timers, otherwise I'd be like Banzi telling everyone to try 250mg just because he did it.


----------



## Dan TT (May 9, 2012)

stuey99 said:


> I would listen to deadcalm...he has a study you know lol.


Having not read this all but skimmed over bits. Deadcalm does seem to know his stuff (or seems to know his stuff) with all his technical jargon. Things are different for different bodies I guess is the argument taking place here.

Deadcalm how can you back all this knowledge up? internet reading? or is it your daily job? do you have a certain qualification in all of this?


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Dan TT said:


> Having not read this all but skimmed over bits. Deadcalm does seem to know his stuff (or seems to know his stuff) with all his technical jargon. Things are different for different bodies I guess is the argument taking place here.
> 
> Deadcalm how can you back all this knowledge up? internet reading? or is it your daily job? do you have a certain qualification in all of this?


Mate, if I spend the next hour researching rocket science on the internet then I'm sure I could come up with some interesting studies and technical jargon...does this mean you'd feel safe with me building rockets???

I doubt it!!

Lol.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Dan TT said:


> Having not read this all but skimmed over bits. Deadcalm does seem to know his stuff (or seems to know his stuff) with all his technical jargon. Things are different for different bodies I guess is the argument taking place here.
> 
> Deadcalm how can you back all this knowledge up? internet reading? or is it your daily job? do you have a certain qualification in all of this?


Professional googler...lol.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> I've done multiple cycles of steroids, just for the record. The reason I'm not getting into a "my muscles are bigger than your muscles" argument is because personal anecdotal evidence is irrelevant here. I'm trying to give newbies advice which is tailored to everyone's own unique sensitivity to steroids whilst making sure they get maximum gains for their first cycle (i.e. try a higher dose and only drop down if you get sides). Personal experiences don't really come into it when you're trying to give advice to multiple different first-timers, otherwise I'd be like Banzi telling everyone to try 250mg just because he did it.


But instead you're telling everyone to try 500mg?? Lol.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> Except 27 people who all agreed with me (over 2 times more than the people who agreed with you).
> 
> Yeah it is your opinion, you're right. My issue is you claiming it as the truth and using your own opinion to batter down what is very reasonable advice to try 500mg and ONLY bring it down if side effects are bad.
> 
> That advice isn't based on my opinion. It's based on logic. It means that people with no sides get the full benefit of 500mg, whilst people who do get sides can do 250mg first. Every, body, wins.


Yes, but when you say your advice is based on logic, that's only your OPINION isn't it??

It is my OPINION that it isn't logic.

Now who's to say which opinion is right?

I'm assuming your opinion is right and mine is wrong?


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

Dan TT said:


> Having not read this all but skimmed over bits. Deadcalm does seem to know his stuff (or seems to know his stuff) with all his technical jargon. Things are different for different bodies I guess is the argument taking place here.
> 
> Deadcalm how can you back all this knowledge up? internet reading? or is it your daily job? do you have a certain qualification in all of this?


I'm a geek at heart. Not only do I train and diet and do steroids, but I also educate myself with in-depth knowledge on exactly how nutrition, exercise, steroids and other compounds work. If I'm putting these into my body then I want to know the exact biological processes of everything and the clinical data behind them.

So it's basically through hundreds of hours of reading articles, books, expert pieces, endocrinology sources and a whole bunch of other things. That way, I can back up anecdotal evidence with real knowledge of what is happening inside our bodies, which I feel much safer doing when I myself take AAS and train.

The problem with steroids and bodybuilding in general is that many guys only learn the surface knowledge and believe that they are experts without ever really going in-depth as to how things work and why. Some do, some don't. For example, there's a well known guy on the internet who is a big steroid user and advises using HCG during PCT, which anyone with an ounce of knowledge will know will suppress GnRH due to the negative feedback loop and hamper recovery significantly.

The point here is that the biggest guy in the room can often know the least. I've met many HUGE guys who are quite frankly stupid and know very little. Sometimes people can have very fortunate genetics which gives them amazing physiques whilst papering over the glaring cracks in their knowledge.

One such issue with suggesting a "one side fits all" dosage (especially a low one) is that sex hormone-binding globulin levels can vary from person to person. The more SHBG there is, the more it binds to the testosterone and deactivates it. Remember that the actual amount of free test which is able to bind to receptors is only a fraction of what you really inject due to SHBG in the blood (which is why there are separate test serum and free test results in blood panels). That means that 250mg may be ineffective for a LOT of people and not worth suppressing their HPTA for when there's no guarantee that they will ever recover.

Of course, I highly doubt you'll see someone like Banzi even considering this, at least without frantically searching on Google first so he tries to look like he knows what he's talking about.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

stuey99 said:


> Yes, but when you say your advice is based on logic, that's only your OPINION isn't it??
> 
> It is my OPINION that it isn't logic.
> 
> ...


Not really. It's just based on logic. I don't have an opinion on it. It's a method of trying and testing to get the balance between muscle gain and side effects.

Try 500mg, and only drop it down if you get sides. That way, the 500mg folk make more gains with no sides, whilst the 250mg folk still make good gains with no sides. EVERYBODY WINS.

Overruling that particular procedure to suggest one or the other when giving advice to multiple newcomers is therefore always going to be inherently less effective, because some people (i.e. people who can do 500mg with no sides) will be advised to take a lower dose and gain less muscle when there is absolutely NO discernible benefit in doing so.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> One such issue with suggesting a "one side fits all" dosage (especially a low one) is that sex hormone-binding globulin levels can vary from person to person.


So his "one size fits all" advice is wrong, but your "one size fits all" advice is right?? Doh!!


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> Not really. It's just based on logic. I don't have an opinion on it. It's a method of trying and testing to get the balance between muscle gain and side effects.
> 
> Try 500mg, and only drop it down if you get sides. That way, the 500mg folk make more gains with no sides, whilst the 250mg folk still make good gains with no sides. EVERYBODY WINS.
> 
> Overruling that particular procedure to suggest one or the other when giving advice to multiple newcomers is therefore always going to be inherently less effective, because some people (i.e. people who can do 500mg with no sides) will be advised to take a lower dose and gain less muscle when there is absolutely NO discernible benefit in doing so.


So your OPINION is that your advice is based on logic is correct, but my OPINION that my advice is based on logic is incorrect?? In other words you're always right and anyone who disagrees is wrong?


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

This isn't quite so much fun now lol, in fact I'm bored.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

stuey99 said:


> So his "one size fits all" advice is wrong, but your "one size fits all" advice is right?? Doh!!


It isn't one size fits all.

Try 500mg, and only drop it down to 250mg if you get sides. It fits all sizes. How can you not understand this?


----------



## Dan TT (May 9, 2012)

stuey99 said:


> Professional googler...lol.


I lol'ed. But true say you could only take a few hours research.


----------



## Dan TT (May 9, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> I'm a geek at heart. Not only do I train and diet and do steroids, but I also educate myself with in-depth knowledge on exactly how nutrition, exercise, steroids and other compounds work. If I'm putting these into my body then I want to know the exact biological processes of everything and the clinical data behind them.
> 
> So it's basically through hundreds of hours of reading articles, books, expert pieces, endocrinology sources and a whole bunch of other things. That way, I can back up anecdotal evidence with real knowledge of what is happening inside our bodies, which I feel much safer doing when I myself take AAS and train.
> 
> ...


Fair point mate. You cannot do anything more than research into what your doing - especially steroids as there is so many different kinds and this one does this, that one does that etc.

Would 250mg of test pw shut you down any more than 500mg pw would?


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> It isn't one size fits all.
> 
> Try 500mg, and only drop it down to 250mg if you get sides. It fits all sizes. How can you not understand this?


You know what mate, I think the fog has finally lifted...you know I think you're right!!

In fact following this logic we should probably advise maybe starting at 750mg...then those who get sides can drop down to 500mg, and those who continue to get sides can drop down to 250mg? Afterall, 750mg will give even better gains, so those who can tolerate the sides at that dose will get even better gains.

This way there'll be even more winners!! What do ya reckon??


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

Dan TT said:


> Fair point mate. You cannot do anything more than research into what your doing - especially steroids as there is so many different kinds and this one does this, that one does that etc.
> 
> Would 250mg of test pw shut you down any more than 500mg pw would?


It's the exact same level of shut-down and the exact same level of suppression. Even a small TRT dose of test (i.e. 125/150mg) would do the same.

That's why, in my view, if you're gonna shut yourself down, you may as well make the most of it.


----------



## Dan TT (May 9, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> It's the exact same level of shut-down and the exact same level of suppression. Even a small TRT dose of test (i.e. 125/150mg) would do the same.
> 
> That's why, in my view, if you're gonna shut yourself down, you may as well make the most of it.


I'm inclined to agree with the 'make the most of it' part. Just makes me think why not pile some more gear into me.....my aim is to get bigger so why waste time on just test? mind **** :thumb:


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

Deadcalm said:


> What's also amusing is that the people dishing out this advice are the people who are on TRT due to abusing steroids


This is quite the most offensive and inaccurate remark I've read in a good long while.

So the reason that people are on trt is that they have abused aas? What about Diabetes, Pituitary Tumours, hormonal disorders, liver disease, kidney disease, hormonal disorders, even obesity? You can get any or all of these illnesses without ever touching a steroid.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

stuey99 said:


> You know what mate, I think the fog has finally lifted...you know I think you're right!!
> 
> In fact following this logic we should probably advise maybe starting at 750mg...then those who get sides can drop down to 500mg, and those who continue to get sides can drop down to 250mg? Afterall, 750mg will give even better gains, so those who can tolerate the sides at that dose will get even better gains.
> 
> This way there'll be even more winners!! What do ya reckon??


People can do that if they wish. It's the same principle. Do 750mg and drop to 500mg or 250mg only if you get sides.

500mg is merely a good balance between max muscle gains for a first cycle and sides. In the study there was a clear and noticeable increase in muscle between the 300mg and 600mg groups in a controlled environment, meaning that it's fairly certain that the higher dose will provide more worthwhile gains.

Would there be even more gains on 750mg for a first cycle? I don't know, so I wouldn't personally advocate that until I've seen controlled data.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

Mingster said:


> This is quite the most offensive and inaccurate remark I've read in a good long while.
> 
> So the reason that people are on trt is that they have abused aas? What about Diabetes, Pituitary Tumours, hormonal disorders, liver disease, kidney disease, hormonal disorders, even obesity? You can get any or all of these illnesses without ever touching a steroid.


I will agree with you and apologise if Stuey and Banzi are both on TRT (or likely to be on TRT for life) due to diabetes, tumours or any of those other reasons and that their path to TRT isn't due to steroids in any shape or form.

However, I'm fairly certain that it's their own steroid use which has sent them down the path of permanent HPTA damage and therefore TRT for life. Aren't you?

I didn't say that everyone on TRT abuses steroids. I said that everyone dishing out this type of advice in this thread is.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> People can do that if they wish. It's the same principle. Do 750mg and drop to 500mg or 250mg only if you get sides.
> 
> 500mg is merely a good balance between max muscle gains for a first cycle and sides. In the study there was a clear and noticeable increase in muscle between the 300mg and 600mg groups in a controlled environment, meaning that it's fairly certain that the higher dose will provide more worthwhile gains.
> 
> Would there be even more gains on 750mg for a first cycle? I don't know, so I wouldn't personally advocate that until I've seen controlled data.


Yes, controlled data is definitely the key here!! All your studies are starting to make sense now...in fact I can actually see a good arguement for using tren on a first cycle, I mean if the sides get too much you could just drop the tren. This is opening my mind to so many new possibilities, thankyou so much!!


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

stuey99 said:


> Yes, controlled data is definitely the key here!! All your studies are starting to make sense now...in fact I can actually see a good arguement for using tren on a first cycle, I mean if the sides get too much you could just drop the tren. This is opening my mind to so many new possibilities, thankyou so much!!


No, because nothing has suggested that a first-cycle of tren will provide more gains than a first cycle of test. The only suggestion made is that the higher dose of test provides more muscle mass than the lower dose which you are advocating, which is backed up by a controlled study with variables removed.

28 other steroid users also seem to agree.


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

Deadcalm said:


> I will agree with you and apologise if Stuey and Banzi are both on TRT (or likely to be on TRT for life) due to diabetes, tumours or any of those other reasons and that their path to TRT isn't due to steroids in any shape or form.
> 
> However, I'm fairly certain that it's their own steroid use which has sent them down the path of permanent HPTA damage and therefore TRT for life. Aren't you?
> 
> I didn't say that everyone on TRT abuses steroids. I said that everyone dishing out this type of advice in this thread is.


Well maybe I'm older and a little less likely to jump to conclusions than yourself. I'm on medically prescribed trt as it happens. Mine is down to the fact that I have a pituitary tumour. This was diagnosed 8 years after I had stopped taking peds of any sort, and I have been assured by a host of medical professionals that my previous use was not a factor in my condition.

Just try to be wary of sweeping generalisations. They can spoil a good debate


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> No, because nothing has suggested that a first-cycle of tren will provide more gains than a first cycle of test. The only suggestion made is that the higher dose of test provides more muscle mass than the lower dose which you are advocating, which is backed up by a controlled study with variables removed.
> 
> 28 other steroid users also seem to agree.


Ah I see!! But hypothetically speaking, if there was a study to suggest that tren would give better gains on a first cycle then we could advise it for a first cycle?

I'm intreagued...do you only run test at 500mg or do you run higher doses and add in other compounds?


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> I've done multiple cycles of steroids, just for the record. The reason I'm not getting into a "my muscles are bigger than your muscles" argument is because personal anecdotal evidence is irrelevant here. I'm trying to give newbies advice which is tailored to everyone's own unique sensitivity to steroids whilst making sure they get maximum gains for their first cycle (i.e. try a higher dose and only drop down if you get sides). Personal experiences don't really come into it when you're trying to give advice to multiple different first-timers, otherwise *I'd be like Banzi telling everyone to try 250mg just because he did it.*


Banzi didnt do it, he did 16mgs of Winstrol tabs.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

stuey99 said:


> Ah I see!! But hypothetically speaking, if there was a study to suggest that tren would give better gains on a first cycle then we could advise it for a first cycle?
> 
> I'm intreagued...do you only run test at 500mg or do you run higher doses and add in other compounds?


No, because tren is more suppressive than test. Whether 250mg or 500mg of test, the suppression is the same. The side effects are also similar and do not correlate to any specific dose (estro issues, acne etc, some get them at 500mg, some don't). By applying common sense (something you don't seem to have) you can see that such a compound screws up the balance between maximum gains and side effects.

That being said, if someone wanted to try tren ace and found that they got absolutely no side effects, then they could run it if they wish. The only issue is the extra suppression.

Considering that tren is more suppressive than any test dose, and that side effects are far more common, you do have to apply some common sense to the data. I'm afraid that reductio ad absurdum never really works (don't worry, I'll give you time to Google that).


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> Banzi didnt do it, he did 16mgs of Winstrol tabs.


Without a test base?

That's not very clever.


----------



## gearchange (Mar 19, 2010)

Here my reasoning, a healthy adult male produces about 50-70 mg of test a week, in 250mg of test e there's about 172mg of test, that's more than 3 times the amount you normally have... (anecdotal evidence proves that you can gain 10-20 lbs at 250 mg for 16wks)

If you start off at 500mg, yes you may make better gains and get far more interesting sides, but where do you go from there for you second and third cycle? It's hard enough stopping youngsters jumping in at stupid levels without people like you pedaling your wares to them..I can understand your scientific studies but I think your lack of knowledge when it comes to first time users is appalling @Deadcalm


----------



## cas (Jan 9, 2011)

My first cycle was 600mg test, I didn't get any sides at all.

People are going to use what that want, so there is no point in arguing is there.....


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

gearchange said:


> Here my reasoning, a healthy adult male produces about 50-70 mg of test a week, in 250mg of test e there's about 172mg of test, that's more than 3 times the amount you normally have... (anecdotal evidence proves that you can gain 10-20 lbs at 250 mg for 16wks)
> 
> If you start off at 500mg, yes you may make better gains and get far more interesting sides, but where do you go from there for you second and third cycle? It's hard enough stopping youngsters jumping in at stupid levels without people like you pedaling your wares to them..I can understand your scientific studies but I think your lack of knowledge when it comes to first time users is appalling @Deadcalm


Your first point is not correct. Many guys are on TRT at 200mg per week and their test levels are only in the upper range of normal for a healthy man. Testosterone from the testicles is far more efficiently processed than test from an UGL oil which is being injected in a muscle. Did you also know that the type of muscle you inject into causes test levels to fluctuate too? Even with the same amount of oil going into your system. For example, glute shots are more efficiently utilised than delt shots.

Are you suggesting that the 28 people who agree with me in this thread's poll are also appalling? Not sure if you've noticed, but far more people agree with me than you.

You can go lots of places with your second and third cycles. It's an absolute myth that you need to go bigger and bigger each time. I'm sure Banzi agrees with that. You could run 500mg per week cycles for years and get pretty darn big. However, for the sake of argument, you could go up to 750mg per week (which I did and gained more than my 500mg cycle, but personal opinions don't count here) or even throw in other compounds.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

cas said:


> My first cycle was 600mg test, I didn't get any sides at all.
> 
> People are going to use what that want, so there is no point in arguing is there.....


So would you have been annoyed if someone suggested 250mg of test for your first cycle and talked you out of gaining kilos of extra muscle mass even though it turns out that you get absolutely no sides at 500mg or 600mg and realised this simply by testing that dose as you did?


----------



## gearchange (Mar 19, 2010)

Deadcalm said:


> Your first point is not correct. Many guys are on TRT at 200mg per week and their test levels are only in the upper range of normal for a healthy man. Testosterone from the testicles is far more efficiently processed than test from an UGL oil which is being injected in a muscle.
> 
> Are you suggesting that the 28 people who agree with me in this thread's poll are also appalling? Not sure if you've noticed, but far more people agree with me than you.
> 
> You can go lots of places with your second and third cycles. It's an absolute myth that you need to go bigger and bigger each time. I'm sure Banzi agrees with that. You could run 500mg per week cycles for years and get pretty darn big. However, for the sake of argument, you could go up to 750mg per week (which I did and gained more than my 500mg cycle, but personal opinions don't count here) or even throw in other compounds.


So first off your saying my scientific study results are incorrect,thats odd I thought they were always gospel,then you say that 28 people agree with you and that makes you right,then you say you do not need to take more to get bigger yet you do that exact same thing.That is your opinion yes.

So why do you say personal opinions don't count..Is this some kind of contradiction are you just a dick head.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

gearchange said:


> So first off your saying my scientific study results are incorrect,thats odd I thought they were always gospel,then you say that 28 people agree with you and that makes you right,then you say you do not need to take more to get bigger yet you do that exact same thing.That is your opinion yes.
> 
> So why do you say personal opinions don't count..Is this some kind of contradiction are you just a dick head.


My clinical study measures REAL RESULTS, i.e. real gains in muscle. Yours measures levels in the oil you inject. As I've just said, many guys are on 200mg TRT doses and their test levels are still only in the upper range of normal, so claiming that a 200mg dose is "3 times" the normal production is wrong, as the amount of test and SHBG people produces varies a lot (hence why the healthy normal range for test is 300 to 1000).

It sort of concerns me when I have to educate 40 and 50 year old blokes who have used AAS for decades. Even over so many years, they still haven't even bothered to really educate themselves on what they're putting in their bodies or how it works.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> No, because tren is more suppressive than test. Whether 250mg or 500mg of test, the suppression is the same. The side effects are also similar and do not correlate to any specific dose (estro issues, acne etc, some get them at 500mg, some don't). By applying common sense (something you don't seem to have) you can see that such a compound screws up the balance between maximum gains and side effects.
> 
> That being said, if someone wanted to try tren ace and found that they got absolutely no side effects, then they could run it if they wish. The only issue is the extra suppression.
> 
> Considering that tren is more suppressive than any test dose, and that side effects are far more common, you do have to apply some common sense to the data. I'm afraid that reductio ad absurdum never really works (don't worry, I'll give you time to Google that).


Can I ask exactly what knowledge you have of me to come to the arrogant conclusion that you're so much fvcking smarter than me that I can't understand what you're saying and would have to google it??

This is a serious question that I expect an answer to you arrogant fvckin pr**k!!


----------



## gearchange (Mar 19, 2010)

stuey99 said:


> Can I ask exactly what knowledge you have of me to come to the arrogant conclusion that you're so much fvcking smarter than me that I can't understand what you're saying and would have to google it??
> 
> This is a serious question that I expect an answer to you arrogant fvckin pr**k!!


I do also have to ask how you can make that claim also..


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

stuey99 said:


> Can I ask exactly what knowledge you have of me to come to the arrogant conclusion that you're so much fvcking smarter than me that I can't understand what you're saying and would have to google it??
> 
> This is a serious question that I expect an answer to you arrogant fvckin pr**k!!


All I have to do is read through this thread to understand exactly how clever you are. After all, you are the guy disagreeing with the idea of people testing doses and adjusting their doses based on side effects, which is the most logical thing to do by a country mile.


----------



## gearchange (Mar 19, 2010)

Deadcalm said:


> My clinical study measures REAL RESULTS, i.e. real gains in muscle. Yours measures levels in the oil you inject. As I've just said, many guys are on 200mg TRT doses and their test levels are still only in the upper range of normal, so claiming that a 200mg dose is "3 times" the normal production is wrong, as the amount of test and SHBG people produces varies a lot (hence why the healthy normal range for test is 300 to 1000).
> 
> It sort of concerns me when I have to educate 40 and 50 year old blokes who have used AAS for decades. Even over so many years, they still haven't even bothered to really educate themselves on what they're putting in their bodies or how it works.


Forget the scientific bit,that was just to real you in..What about the questions I asked you

*you say that 28 people agree with you and that makes you right,then you say you do not need to take more to get bigger yet you do that exact same thing.That is your opinion yes.*

*
*

*
So why do you say personal opinions don't count..Is this some kind of contradiction are you just a dick head.*

*
*


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

Come on guys. Lets keep this a debate. No personal insults please.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> All I have to do is read through this thread to understand exactly how clever you are. After all, you are the guy disagreeing with the idea of people testing doses and adjusting their doses based on side effects, which is the most logical thing to do by a country mile.


So on the basis of this thread you feel you can accurately judge that I am less intelligent than you? And this judgement is based purely on the fact that I disagree with your opinion?

So by that measure you are also able to say that everyone who voted for 250mg in your poll is also less intelligent than you,..is that right?

You must be a fvcking genius to have this level of insight into the minds of people who you don't know lol?


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Mingster said:


> Come on guys. Lets keep this a debate. No personal insults please.


It's difficult not to insult someone with this sickening level of arrogance mate...point taken tho.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> reductio ad absurdum never really works (don't worry, I'll give you time to Google that).


Oh and by the way mate, if you want to judge my intelligence and chuck Latin around to act clever then you might be interested to know that as a result of going to some fairly posh private schools I did Latin AND Greek from the age of 10 till 16 when I did them as 2 of my 12 gcse's, then went on to do 5 A levels and 2 degrees. So you have the opportunity to really show off your intellect now, we could have a proper online conversation in Latin? I'm pretty much fluent...I,m assuming you are too @Deadcalm?

What is it they say about assumptions again???

Lol


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> I will agree with you and apologise if Stuey and Banzi are both on TRT (or likely to be on TRT for life) due to diabetes, tumours or any of those other reasons and that their path to TRT isn't due to steroids in any shape or form.
> 
> *However, I'm fairly certain that it's their own steroid use which has sent them down the path of permanent HPTA damage and therefore TRT for life. Aren't you? *
> 
> I didn't say that everyone on TRT abuses steroids. I said that everyone dishing out this type of advice in this thread is.


Wrong again, I only started steroids in 2011 after taking nothing from 1996.

I have made the decision to stay on as Im a competitor, I take nominal dosages for most of the year, hell my blasts are only 450-550 mgs a week.

Anyone who is interested in competing at a high level should stay on , thats my opinion by the way, its up to people what they do.

You should spend a bit less time reading studies about how other people react to drugs and concentrate on your own development.

Do you or have you considered competing in bodybuilding or powerlifting?


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> Without a test base?
> 
> That's not very clever.


So you claim.

I grew like a baby and kept a lot of the weight I gained.

Haven't got a link to a study paper about it though.

Again you are telling people what the studies say about using orals without a test base.

Have you personally took an oral without a test base or do you just believe what you read on the internet?


----------



## gearchange (Mar 19, 2010)

Mingster said:


> Come on guys. Lets keep this a debate. No personal insults please.


I have run out of patients and all that I have left is insults.I have been on this planet long enough not to put up with this level of condescending arrogance.

I guess I will stop posting now .


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Mingster said:


> Come on guys. Lets keep this a debate. No personal insults please.


Deadcalms just trolling now, he keeps contradicting himself just enough to get a rise out of people, I occasionally troll sites.

Its a very subtle art if you do it right, deadcalm is just a little bit too obvious.


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

banzi said:


> Deadcalms just trolling now, he keeps contradicting himself just enough to get a rise out of people, I occasionally troll sites.
> 
> Its a very subtle art if you do it right, deadcalm is just a little bit too obvious.


If that's the case then a troll starves without response


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

gearchange said:


> I have run out of patients and all that I have left is insults.I have been on this planet long enough not to put up with this level of condescending arrogance.
> 
> I guess I will stop posting now .


Probably a good idea mate lol. He's taken it upon himself to make alot of mindless arrogant conclusions about perople based solely on th fact they don't share the same opinion as him. I have made alot of assumptions about him and his life but I'm not gonna stoop to his level by posting those assumptions on a public forum.

Although I think anyone reading this thread would make the same assumptions anyway based on his seriously unpleasant and arrogant personality.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Mingster said:


> If that's the case then a troll starves without response


Its fun watching him flounder around and allowing him to post shows other people his real agenda.

This thread will stop him fooling anyone else for a while.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Mingster said:


> If that's the case then a troll starves without response


Yeah starving him sounds like an excellent plan mate.

Oh, you didn't mean it literally? Sorry, my mistake lol.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

stuey99 said:


> Yeah starving him sounds like an excellent plan mate.
> 
> Oh, you didn't mean it literally? Sorry, my mistake lol.


I have a feeling he couldn't diet to save his life.


----------



## vetran (Oct 17, 2009)

if you go with the poll then fair enough, if you decide to stick on 250mg then eat loads more grub youle soon catch the fcks up


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

Lots of anger in this thread. Don't fuel the myth of roid rage fellas, come on now.

Unlike you guys protecting your egos, I'm continuing to post just to make sure that newbies are correctly informed. However, we are going around in circles, so I'm simply going to leave this thread with these few facts which sum up my thoughts for anyone interested in this topic.

*So newbies, listen up and judge for yourself:*

1). This study of 61 randomised individuals in a controlled environment with standardised diets shows that the higher dose testosterone group gained multiple extra kilograms of muscle mass.

2). Stuey and a few others on this thread believe that first-time cyclers should start on 250mg test per week (which is, by the way, only slightly higher than a TRT dose for a lot of men) - *12* people agree with them in the poll.

3). I believe that first-time cyclers should TRY 500mg to aim for that extra muscle gain - *29* people agree with me.

4). I advise TRYING 500mg to aim for the extra gains you'll get compared to 250mg. If you don't get any side effects (a lot of people don't), then great, 500mg is the right dose for you and you can continue on without any problems. However, if you try it and DO get side effects, then simply drop down to 250mg/300mg and take it easier on the smaller dose. With this protocol, non-sensitive individuals get a more optimal first-cycle dose, AND sensitive individuals get a more optimal first-cycle dose as well. It tailors the more optimal dose to you so everybody wins.

Let common sense prevail.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> Lots of anger in this thread. Don't fuel the myth of roid rage fellas, come on now.
> 
> Unlike you guys protecting your egos, I'm continuing to post just to make sure that newbies are correctly informed. However, we are going around in circles, so I'm simply going to leave this thread with these few facts which sum up my thoughts for anyone interested in this topic.
> 
> ...


61 people in a poll has nothing to do with you as an individual guys, you may get great gains from 250 mgs you may get next to nothing, fact is if you get nothing from 250mgs, its likely 500 isn't going to do much either.

You can pretty much gauge how you are going to respond to steroids if you take a small dose, taking a large dose is going to work even if you are a poor responder.

Go with deadcalms advice and you will never know if you are a good responder.

Again, its down to the individual, good luck and stay safe.


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

For the sake of accuracy I would like to point out that 250mg of test is 2.5 times the average trt dose and 5 times natty test levels.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Mingster said:


> For the sake of accuracy I would like to point out that 250mg of test is 2.5 times the average trt dose and 5 times natty test levels.


He keeps ignoring that fact even though hes been told repeatedly.


----------



## redpill859 (Mar 11, 2014)

in the real world finances play a factor (at least for me!!). i haven't yet started an injectable cycle but when i do, id like to think that i would start with 250mg.

firstly reduced cost secondly i have no idea how i will respond to the test so why not take the smaller dose? so my gains wont be as good as they would be on 500mg but i can run 500mg in the next cycle if all is good.

like i said I've got to balance finances with gains.


----------



## RugbyLad (Feb 15, 2014)

I voted 500 awhile ago.. but have actually come round to the 250 way of thinking and I've decided my first cycle is going to be 300 a week.


----------



## cas (Jan 9, 2011)

redpill859 said:


> in the real world finances play a factor (at least for me!!). i haven't yet started an injectable cycle but when i do, id like to think that i would start with 250mg.
> 
> firstly reduced cost secondly i have no idea how i will respond to the test so why not take the smaller dose? so my gains wont be as good as they would be on 500mg but i can run 500mg in the next cycle if all is good.
> 
> like i said I've got to balance finances with gains.


You will respond just as you did as a teen....


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

RugbyLad said:


> I voted 500 awhile ago.. but have actually come round to the 250 way of thinking and I've decided my first cycle is going to be 300 a week.


Dont let deadcalm find out, you will ruin his day.


----------



## Theorist (Jun 18, 2013)

250mg is a bit low, personally I don't go that low unless I'm running something else with it fairly high.


----------



## jimmywright (Mar 21, 2014)

deffo 500


----------



## redpill859 (Mar 11, 2014)

sorry. did my maths (takes me a while) figured out that id get 20x500ml from 10ml (yeah i know I'm really **** at maths) so anyway changed my mind and will go for 500ml


----------



## Dark sim (May 18, 2013)

I ran 250mg test prop pw as my first cycle last June, that was with 4k-5k calories. Went from 18 1/2st to 20st in 8 weeks.


----------



## 1010AD (May 30, 2009)

redpill859 said:


> sorry. did my maths (takes me a while) figured out that id get 20x500ml from 10ml (yeah i know I'm really **** at maths) so anyway changed my mind and will go for 500ml


Id read that again if i was you


----------



## 1010AD (May 30, 2009)

redpill859 said:


> sorry. did my maths (takes me a while) figured out that id get 20x500ml from 10ml (yeah i know I'm really **** at maths) so anyway changed my mind and will go for 500ml


If its 250mg/1ml you will get 5 weeks at 500mg per week


----------



## Tekken (Feb 8, 2014)

500mg all day long


----------



## redpill859 (Mar 11, 2014)

1010AD said:


> If its 250mg/1ml you will get 5 weeks at 500mg per week


  see im really **** at maths lol


----------



## 1010AD (May 30, 2009)

redpill859 said:


> see im really **** at maths lol


Arn't we all and I'm not that clever at spelling ether


----------



## redpill859 (Mar 11, 2014)

And given the the now accurate recalculation I'm back to 250ml, talk about brain fart, ****


----------



## Test-e (Mar 26, 2014)

doing 600 at the moment, my second cycle; first test cycle though ran a oral only dbol.


----------



## Taffy70 (May 1, 2012)

1g of test


----------



## Big Man 123 (Aug 1, 2013)

Deadcalm said:


> this is presuming that it's a bulking cycle as most people's first cycles are to add muscle.


Based on that paragraph, the correct answer is 500 mg.

Why would you mess with your hormones, invest money, time, effort, pain, for mediocre gains if you are bulking? It makes no sense.

Unless you are from another planet, people who are bulking will choose to gain 20 pounds instead of 10 or less and that means 500 mg.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Big Man 123 said:


> Based on that paragraph, the correct answer is 500 mg.
> 
> Why would you mess with your hormones, invest money, time, effort, pain, for mediocre gains if you are bulking? It makes no sense.
> 
> Unless you are from another planet, *people who are bulking will choose to gain 20 pounds instead of 10 or less and that means 500 mg.*


yep, 10lbs of water and fat extra.

Bulking is idiotic for anyone, excess calories equals fat not muscle.


----------



## cas (Jan 9, 2011)

banzi said:


> yep, 10lbs of water and fat extra.
> 
> Bulking is idiotic for anyone, excess calories equals fat not muscle.


Listening to you, how do you expect anyone to get big, taking tiny doses and not bulking.....how the hell did you manage to get to the size you did? Are those photos even you?


----------



## varman (Jan 12, 2014)

cas said:


> Listening to you, how do you expect anyone to get big, taking tiny doses and not bulking.....how the hell did you manage to get to the size you did? Are those photos even you?


mate that guy talks so much ****.

ive seen so many of his posts that just parrot crap to make himself sound knowledgable.

i bet its ian mcpoptart lol

banzi- your grasp of nutrition is terrible if you think excess calories are not needed to build muscle(which is what u stated)


----------



## Jas (Sep 23, 2010)

SK50 said:


> 250.
> 
> My first was 500. I spent so much time trying to get my AI dosage right so I didn't look like a beach whale - it was not enjoyable at all.


I too would go with 250. I found issues same as you.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

varman said:


> mate that guy talks so much ****.
> 
> ive seen so many of his posts that just parrot crap to make himself sound knowledgable.
> 
> ...


Forget everything you think you know about gaining muscle by eating excess calories.

Now, what builds muscle?

Answer = Protein/amino acids

Excess calories don't build muscle they build fat deposits.

As long as you take in enough protein and eat enough calories to maintain your weight then you will add muscle.

Eating well in excess of maintenance (bulking) will give you muscle but it's the protein not the calories, all the excess calories will do is make you sluggish and fat.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

cas said:


> Listening to you, how do you expect anyone to get big, taking tiny doses and not bulking.....how the hell did you manage to get to the size you did? Are those photos even you?


I can only tell you what works for me and you can give it a try.

Way too much bull**** is published about eating boatloads of protein and carbs and bulking.

Bulking is pointless, you just end up with the same amount of lean tissue when you diet back down and stress your body in the process.

Why take gear and then get fat and increase the strain on your organs with your blood pressure sky high?

I know my ideas and methods fly in the face of everything you have ben told but it works for me.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Wow, not one response to my two posts above.

For the record, Im not trying to troll , not for a minute.

Shame no one wants to add too or try and rebut my claims.

Its amazing how a mind conditioned to think one way totally blanks anything that challenges that world view.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> Forget everything you think you know about gaining muscle by eating excess calories.
> 
> Now, what builds muscle?
> 
> ...


You have a terrible grasp of nutrition and also the laws of physics it seems.

Protein, carbohydrates and fats are forms of energy.

A gram of fat is 9 calories. A gram of protein is 4 calories. That means (give or take) a pound of fat has almost 4000 calories whilst a pound of muscle has almost 1700 calories.

That energy can't disappear, it's only moved from one place to another. You also can't get energy out of thin air, so it must come from somewhere. That's why, if you want to gain a pound of muscle, you NEED a surplus of 1700 calories spread out over however many days to build it. Maintenance calories means how many calories your body burns in a given day just to move and survive, so if you eat at maintenance, there are no spare calories left to be put towards building muscle. All that protein you're eating is just burnt up within your maintenance caloric requirement. You NEED a caloric surplus so there's spare calories to be used to build muscle, which is an energy-intensive process as that protein being synthesised into muscle contains 4 calories of energy per gram. It's got to come from somewhere.

So yeah, you basically have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Will a caloric surplus which is too big add muscle plus a lot of fat? Sure. However, you do need at least some surplus. It's fundamental stuff.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> You have a terrible grasp of nutrition and also the laws of physics it seems.
> 
> Protein, carbohydrates and fats are forms of energy.
> 
> ...


Thanks for all that

Do you have a study of 61 men you could link to as well.

You still believe you need extra cals over maintenance to build muscle?

Right drop all protein from your diet and I mean all of it and eat as many carbs and fats as you like, then report back in 6 months and tell me how much lean muscle tissue you have gained.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> Thanks for all that
> 
> Do you have a study of 61 men you could link to as well.
> 
> ...


Are you actually stupid? Seriously. Read carefully:

You need protein to build muscle.

Protein contains 4 calories per gram.

If your body's caloric requirement is, say, 2500 calories to survive, and you only eat 2500 calories, where do the surplus calories for the 1700 calories worth of protein in a pound of muscle tissue come from?

2500 cals worth of food minus 2500 caloric requirement = 0 spare calories for muscle tissue synthesising.

Protein, carbs and fats make up your calories, as they contain 4, 4 and 9 calories respectively. 2500 calories might be 200g protein (800 cals), 200g carbs (800 cals) and 100g fats (900 cals). If you only eat your basal caloric requirement (i.e. the minimum your body burns to survive and move around) then all 800 calories worth of that protein is burnt up just to live, so there's no spare protein and thus no spare calories to build muscle tissue.

Use your brain for once and think about it instead of making yourself look like a fool who can't even grasp primary school biology.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> Are you actually stupid? Seriously. Read carefully:
> 
> You need protein to build muscle.
> 
> ...


So you keep saying, and you keep peddling the myth, seriously, have you tried it?

Stop keep telling me what is supposed to happen scientifically and get into the real world and try it.

I eat around maintenance cals for the week overall, some days more some days less but overall maybe slightly higher but it isn't much, I can give you my exact daily diet if you like and you can work out my cals, Im not going to.

I stay in shape and am making improvements each month, granted its not huge but my muscle is growing, and Im 48 years old.

Now you can quote all the "eat big to get big" bull**** all you like, all that does is get you fat.


----------



## varman (Jan 12, 2014)

banzi said:


> So you keep saying, and you keep peddling the myth, seriously, have you tried it?
> 
> Stop keep telling me what is supposed to happen scientifically and get into the real world and try it.
> 
> ...


troll confirmed.

banzi in another thread you admitted occasionally trolling boards.

the reason i didnt respond is whats the point?

your opinion means fuark all. your arguing against scientific fact.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> So you keep saying, and you keep peddling the myth, seriously, have you tried it?
> 
> Stop keep telling me what is supposed to happen scientifically and get into the real world and try it.
> 
> ...


I agree with varman. You're either a troll or just extremely unintelligent.

This is primary school biology. Kids understand this. Ask any credible nutritionist and exercise experts. Your views fly in the face of basic science, the laws of thermodynamics and also virtually the entire fitness and nutrition community.

The reason you've built muscle is because you're eating over maintenance, you just don't realise that you're doing it. Even a small caloric surplus of 100-200 calories per day is enough to build a couple of pounds of muscle per month on steroids. It doesn't take a lot (remember that 1lb of muscle is only around 1700 cals), but it does take a surplus of some kind, even if it's not as much as many would expect.

Unless you've measured your body composition with hydrostatic weighing, then your idea of maintenance calories is almost certainly inaccurate and also fluctuates depending on a huge number of factors.

You will be getting a caloric surplus somewhere to allow some of those excess amino acids which haven't been burnt as fuel to be synthesised as muscle, even if you don't realise you're doing it.


----------



## IGotTekkers (Jun 6, 2012)

Medical studies have shown 600mg to be a far more effective dose than subjects that were administered lower dosages.


----------



## Test-e (Mar 26, 2014)

IGotTekkers said:


> Medical studies have shown 600mg to be a far more effective dose than subjects that were administered lower dosages.


Where did you cite that from?

If 600 is far more effective, then why would 500 be the norm for a first test cycle?


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> I agree with varman. You're either a troll or just extremely unintelligent.
> 
> This is primary school biology. Kids understand this. Ask any credible nutritionist and exercise experts. Your views fly in the face of basic science, the laws of thermodynamics and also virtually the entire fitness and nutrition community.
> 
> ...


Now we are getting somewhere, so you agree with me that bulking isn't necessary to make muscle gains and that 200 cals over maintenance is enough to give you a couple of pounds of muscle a month.(thats a mighty impressive figure by the way)

So, if I bulked and ate 1700 cals over maintenance every day, how much muscle per month do you think I would gain along with the fat?

No science here, just a rough estimation like you did with your 2lb per month guess.


----------



## IGotTekkers (Jun 6, 2012)

Test-e said:


> Where did you cite that from?
> 
> If 600 is far more effective, then why would 500 be the norm for a first test cycle?


Why would people go to war is an even more ludicrous question. People do alot of things that dont make any sense.

Just google testosterone study n you will find it.


----------



## varman (Jan 12, 2014)

banzi said:


> Now we are getting somewhere, so you agree with me that bulking isn't necessary to make muscle gains and that 200 cals over maintenance is enough to give you a couple of pounds of muscle a month.(thats a mighty impressive figure by the way)
> 
> So, if I bulked and ate 1700 cals over maintenance every day, how much muscle per month do you think I would gain along with the fat?
> 
> No science here, just a rough estimation like you did with your 2lb per month guess.


lol banzi u make me laugh.

pls be a troll.

who said bulking had to be on obsene calories?


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

@varman you believe 500mg is best for a first cycle, @banzi you believe 250mg is best. Neither of you is gonna change the other's opinion and there is no priza at the end of this rainbow so why the fvck are you wasting your time bickering??


----------



## varman (Jan 12, 2014)

stuey99 said:


> @varman you believe 500mg is best for a first cycle, @banzi you believe 250mg is best. Neither of you is gonna change the other's opinion and there is no priza at the end of this rainbow so why the fvck are you wasting your time bickering??


lol your right man. im audi.


----------



## Test-e (Mar 26, 2014)

IGotTekkers said:


> Why would people go to war is an even more ludicrous question. People do alot of things that dont make any sense.
> 
> Just google testosterone study n you will find it.


http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101#t=article

I found two articles on Test - e injecting 600mg.

One compared results with that of injecting 300mg; and I'd agree therefore results would be superior with use of a higher dosage of testosterone; and the other was testing 600 with no usage of AAS.

To cite from the above link; The doses of androgenic steroids used in previous studies were low,1-5,11,12 mostly because of concern about potential toxic effects. In contrast, to our knowledge the dose of testosterone enanthate administered in this study (600 mg per week) is the highest administered in any study of athletic performance.

I have not been able to find a study where a dose of 500mg was used - though there are only a very limited amount of studies using test.

Still not sure where you got 600 as the most effective dose from then. :whistling:


----------



## IGotTekkers (Jun 6, 2012)

Test-e said:


> http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101#t=article
> 
> I found two articles on Test - e injecting 600mg.
> 
> ...


There were a number of doses going from i think 300 up to 600mg. The group given 600mg were the ones that gained the most lbm.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

Test-e said:


> http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101#t=article
> 
> I found two articles on Test - e injecting 600mg.
> 
> ...


http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/281/6/E1172.full

It doesn't really make any statements as in "X is the best dose" as there are a few variables, but if someone is debating between a higher or lower dose, then at least it's been clinically proven that a higher dose will add multiple extra pounds of lean mass.

Returns do start to eventually diminish of course, especially for a first cycle, but 500mg is a nice round dose (and 2ml or 2 amps of most oils), and the study can be correlated to show that it's going to provide extra muscle gain compared to smaller doses of say 250 or 300mg.

Whilst doses are higher, there is also the potential of higher side effects, but there's no guarantee. Some suffer none. That's why everyone shouldn't be automatically scared away from doses like that as they may be absolutely fine and allow them to get the most out of their first cycle. That's why I advise going in at that level and only dropping down if sides are bad.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> Now we are getting somewhere, so you agree with me that bulking isn't necessary to make muscle gains and that 200 cals over maintenance is enough to give you a couple of pounds of muscle a month.(thats a mighty impressive figure by the way)
> 
> So, if I bulked and ate 1700 cals over maintenance every day, how much muscle per month do you think I would gain along with the fat?
> 
> No science here, just a rough estimation like you did with your 2lb per month guess.


Who says bulking involves eating an absurd amount of calories? Only YOU have suggested that.

Amongst smart people and respectable bodybuilders, bulking simply means a caloric surplus, even if it's 200 or 300 above maintenance. That's why it's called a BULK. Because you're adding muscle. It doesn't mean that you have to stuff your face so much that you get fat. It's also why cutting doesn't mean that you have to eat 1500 calories under maintenance and starve yourself. 200-300 under maintenance is still a cut.

So 200 cals over maintenance is a clean and sensible bulking regime.

Muscle can only be built as fast as the body allows, and the speed if this is aided with steroids, so that's why you only go into a caloric bulking surplus which gives the body the extra calories it needs to grow and nothing more, which for a lot of guys is a few hundred on top of the maintenance amount. That's why a certain amount of over-maintenance cals will be used for muscle growth and the rest will be stored as fat, and it's why eating a thousand above maintenance every day is usually a stupid idea. If that's what you're arguing about then I agree with you on that point, but you do need a caloric surplus of some description to grow, and that's still considered a bulking diet.


----------



## Test-e (Mar 26, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/281/6/E1172.full
> 
> It doesn't really make any statements as in "X is the best dose" as there are a few variables, but if someone is debating between a higher or lower dose, then at least it's been clinically proven that a higher dose will add multiple extra pounds of lean mass.
> 
> ...


I completely agree with what you've said, which was why I was a bit confused when @IGotTekkers said 600mg was the most effective dose.

Though I concede that, it is likely to be produce more gains than using 300mg of test.

Higher levels of test; higher potential for larger gains - up to a certain point.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> Who says bulking involves eating an absurd amount of calories? Only YOU have suggested that.
> 
> Amongst smart people and respectable bodybuilders, bulking simply means a caloric surplus, even if it's 200 or 300 above maintenance. That's why it's called a BULK. Because you're adding muscle. It doesn't mean that you have to stuff your face so much that you get fat. It's also why cutting doesn't mean that you have to eat 1500 calories under maintenance and starve yourself. 200-300 under maintenance is still a cut.
> 
> ...


Why dont you start a poll about how many people eat only 200 cals above maintenance on a bulk, 200 cals above maintenance is almost maintenance cals depending on you daily expenditure levels never being the same.

I guarantee almost nobody eats 200 cals above when they are bulking, the vast majority of people who bulk just set targets of 4-6,000 cals.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Test-e said:


> I completely agree with what you've said, which was why I was a bit confused when @IGotTekkers said 600mg was the most effective dose.
> 
> Though I concede that, it is likely to be produce more gains than using 300mg of test.
> 
> Higher levels of test; higher potential for larger gains - up to a certain point.


More effective than 250mg...probably. But when I advise 250mg for a first cycle I don't just look at what's gonna build most muscle...if that was the only factor you'd be looking at chucking in extra compounds. My advice is based on designing a cycle that will build muscle, have least sides and be most enjoyable. It all depends what you put most importance on...I've known plenty of lads who've strugglesd with getting their ai dose right with 500mg and had a terrible first cycle and then I've guided them through a lower dose cycle which they've enjoyed and made great gains.

I'm not bothered about being right or wrong here as I don't believe there IS a right or wrong, things are not that black and white. I just believe in easing people into aas use gradually. Cycle 1_nice easy 250mg cycle which is side free. Cycle 2_increase to 500mg and learn about estrogen management. Cycle 3_you can start to mess about with other compounds with a solid base of knowledge you've gained gradually.

Or, you can jump in feet first with a 500-600mg cycle and it can go one of 2 ways...either you'll have a great cycle or estrogen management will fvck it up and it may put you off aas use or knock your confidence so you'll be really nervous going into your second cycle.

Not saying this is right or wrong, it's just my opinion based on what I have seen.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> Why dont you start a poll about how many people eat only 200 cals above maintenance on a bulk, 200 cals above maintenance is almost maintenance cals depending on you daily expenditure levels never being the same.
> 
> I guarantee almost nobody eats 200 cals above when they are bulking, the vast majority of people who bulk just set targets of 4-6,000 cals.


Perhaps you should stop underestimating the intelligence of others when you clearly don't know a great deal yourself.

Not everyone pigs out on thousands of cals and gets fat off a dirty bulk. There are PLENTY of guys with great physiques who understand that you only need 200-400 cals over maintenance to build muscle with little to no body fat gain. Some guys need a fair bit more depending on their metabolism or size, but that's all.

Plenty of people do excessively bulk and gain as much muscle as they do fat, but they accept that and are prepared to get rid of the fat afterwards. That's up to them.

200 cals above maintenance is almost maintenance, but it's still a caloric surplus. Those 200 cals are spare to be used for muscle synthesis. Repeat that same surplus day after day and you will eventually find that it accumulates into pounds worth of muscle.

You can guarantee it all you want, but you're either wrong or you know a lot of stupid people. Some people might need 4,000 to 6,000 but the surplus won't be that high. If someone with a BMR of 2500 eats 6000 calories a day, then they will pretty much gain almost a pound of pure fat per day. You'd sharp notice very quickly that you were just becoming morbidly obese.

The point here is that you do need a caloric surplus to build muscle, but it only needs to be a few hundred above maintenance. Fortunately a lot of people know this (and the majority of the rest would prefer to dirty bulk and deal with the fat loss later, which is again their own choice).


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Or, you can do a @IGotTekkers and just bang in grams of test and tren...but I'm not sure he's normal and us mere mortals should not follow in his footsteps lol.


----------



## gearchange (Mar 19, 2010)

stuey99 said:


> More effective than 250mg...probably. But when I advise 250mg for a first cycle I don't just look at what's gonna build most muscle...if that was the only factor you'd be looking at chucking in extra compounds. My advice is based on designing a cycle that will build muscle, have least sides and be most enjoyable. It all depends what you put most importance on...I've known plenty of lads who've strugglesd with getting their ai dose right with 500mg and had a terrible first cycle and then I've guided them through a lower dose cycle which they've enjoyed and made great gains.
> 
> I'm not bothered about being right or wrong here as I don't believe there IS a right or wrong, things are not that black and white. I just believe in easing people into aas use gradually. Cycle 1_nice easy 250mg cycle which is side free. Cycle 2_increase to 500mg and learn about estrogen management. Cycle 3_you can start to mess about with other compounds with a solid base of knowledge you've gained gradually.
> 
> ...


Wonderfully put Stuey. I am glad you managed to clear the mist and actually give a sensible answer to what is a best "FIRST" cycle dose and not what the best cycle dose should be..I am so glad you agree it is sensible to start low and build up over time as you get more knowledgeable.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> Perhaps you should stop underestimating the intelligence of others when you clearly don't know a great deal yourself.
> 
> Not everyone pigs out on thousands of cals and gets fat off a dirty bulk. There are PLENTY of guys with great physiques who understand that you only need 200-400 cals over maintenance to build muscle with little to no body fat gain. Some guys need a fair bit more depending on their metabolism or size, but that's all.
> 
> ...


Heres another scenario for your science books to counter the previous information you have given.

Take someone eating maintenance calories (3,000 for example) and have them introduce 500mgs of test and NOTHING ELSE CHANGES.

Do they add additional muscle?

Remember you previously said you need 1700 additional calories to produce 1lb of muscle.

Good luck.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> Heres another scenario for your science books to counter the previous information you have given.
> 
> Take someone eating maintenance calories (3,000 for example) and have them introduce 500mgs of test and NOTHING ELSE CHANGES.
> 
> ...


Why are you trying to counter basic biology? You're wrong. Muscle building isn't magic for christ's sake. Just swallow your ego and accept that you're wrong instead of trying to fight against biology, physics and the entire fitness industry.

If you introduce 500mg of testosterone and eat strictly maintenance calories and not a single calorie over exactly what your body needs to survive, then you aren't going to build muscle. You can give yourself 2 grams of test if you want, it doesn't make a shred of difference.

Testosterone might improve muscle fibre recruitment and the CNS firing (common reasons for the rapid strength gains newbies enjoy), and they may even gain some weight due to sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (which is an increase of the fluids surrounding the muscle fibres) but you will not get any actual protein synthesis or muscle fibre synthesis. There's no spare calories or protein for the body to do it because it's all being burned up to meet the body's basic energy requirements.

Use your brain and think about it.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

gearchange said:


> Wonderfully put Stuey. I am glad you managed to clear the mist and actually give a sensible answer to what is a best "FIRST" cycle dose and not what the best cycle dose should be..I am so glad you agree it is sensible to start low and build up over time as you get more knowledgeable.


Cheers buddy. Tbh tho I'm not necessarily saying 250mg is "best", as many people will be fine on 500mg. I just feel that no one knows how they will react (they could be one of the people who get on fine with 500, but then they could be one of those who run into difficulty). On that basis I believe that to err on the side of caution by using 250mg pretty much everyone can guarantee their first cycle will be successful and worry free.

Edit: Like I said, not necessarily the "best", but definitely the most sensible as it covers all bases.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> Why are you trying to counter basic biology? You're wrong. Muscle building isn't magic for christ's sake. Just swallow your ego and accept that you're wrong instead of trying to fight against biology, physics and the entire fitness industry.
> 
> If you introduce 500mg of testosterone and eat strictly maintenance calories and not a single calorie over exactly what your body needs to survive, then you aren't going to build muscle. You can give yourself 2 grams of test if you want, it doesn't make a shred of difference.
> 
> ...


Well, I will just have to take your word for it and ignore the real life's experiences I have had over the years.

I guess we will have to agree to differ.

Anyone is free to try what I have suggested or carry on filling up on needless empty calories and then dieting them all off again.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> Well, I will just have to take your word for it and ignore the real life's experiences I have had over the years.
> 
> I guess we will have to agree to differ.
> 
> Anyone is free to try what I have suggested or carry on filling up on needless empty calories and then dieting them all off again.


Your real life experiences are not accurate though. It is physically impossible to build muscle without a surplus of calories and protein. Where is the muscle supposed to come from? Thin air?

You'll have been eating with a caloric surplus, you just don't realise it. If your idea of maintenance is off (which is usually very difficult to get accurate) then you could have been eating a few hundred caloric surplus for years without realising, hence how you've managed to build the physique you've got. Even a tiny surplus will build large amounts of muscle over 20 years.

Heck, even a 10 calorie surplus per day over 20 years is 73,000 surplus calories. It all mounts up.

And if anyone else is reading this, please don't do what Banzi suggests. You will be completely wasting your time. A caloric surplus of 200-400 calories above maintenance per day will result in great muscle gain with minimal fat gain because all of the caloric surplus is going towards muscle synthesis.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> Your real life experiences are not accurate though. It is physically impossible to build muscle without a surplus of calories and protein. Where is the muscle supposed to come from? Thin air?
> 
> You'll have been eating with a caloric surplus, you just don't realise it. If your idea of maintenance is off (which is usually very difficult to get accurate) then you could have been eating a few hundred caloric surplus for years without realising, hence how you've managed to build the physique you've got. Even a tiny surplus will build large amounts of muscle over 20 years.
> 
> ...


So after the initial bashing of my original post as total rubbish we differ in opinion by 200 calories?


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> So after the initial bashing of my original post as total rubbish we differ in opinion by 200 calories?


Why are you acting like it's not a big deal?

Eat 200 calories above maintenance per day and you'll put muscle on reasonably well. That's a surplus of 1,400 cals a week. People on cycle can even bump that up to 300-500 cals above.

However, eat maintenance calories and you won't put any muscle on at all.

It might not sound like much but they're worlds apart in-terms of results. After your body has burnt what it needs just to survive, there's got to be something left over to be used to build muscle.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> Why are you acting like it's not a big deal?
> 
> Eat 200 calories above maintenance per day and you'll put muscle on reasonably well. That's a surplus of 1,400 cals a week. People on cycle can even bump that up to 300-500 cals above.
> 
> ...


So you keep saying, but as you haven't tried it your comments are simply hearsay.


----------



## varman (Jan 12, 2014)

stuey99 said:


> More effective than 250mg...probably. But when I advise 250mg for a first cycle I don't just look at what's gonna build most muscle...if that was the only factor you'd be looking at chucking in extra compounds. My advice is based on designing a cycle that will build muscle, have least sides and be most enjoyable. It all depends what you put most importance on...I've known plenty of lads who've strugglesd with getting their ai dose right with 500mg and had a terrible first cycle and then I've guided them through a lower dose cycle which they've enjoyed and made great gains.
> 
> I'm not bothered about being right or wrong here as I don't believe there IS a right or wrong, things are not that black and white. I just believe in easing people into aas use gradually. Cycle 1_nice easy 250mg cycle which is side free. Cycle 2_increase to 500mg and learn about estrogen management. Cycle 3_you can start to mess about with other compounds with a solid base of knowledge you've gained gradually.
> 
> ...


strong post.

i agree there is no right or wrong.

i do have to disagree with your logic though, you say the first cycle should be low test and nice and simple (i get that) but then you say they should go up to 500. so estro management will be needed. well if they have to manage estrogen ( which is trial and error for everyone) i dont see the logic in waiting for the second cycle and get less gains on the first. id also say the more gains and or cuts you get off a cycle the more enjoyable it is <~~~ for me anyway lol 

thats not an attack on u. im not here to argue, just my thoughts.


----------



## IGotTekkers (Jun 6, 2012)

Test-e said:


> I completely agree with what you've said, which was why I was a bit confused when @IGotTekkers said 600mg was the most effective dose.
> 
> Though I concede that, it is likely to be produce more gains than using 300mg of test.
> 
> Higher levels of test; higher potential for larger gains - up to a certain point.


And 600mg is under that certain point. 600mg WILL give better results than 500mg, thats a proven fact. However theres nothing wrong at all with 500mg. Most ugl test e is 300mg so its easier to do 600mg most of the time anyway.


----------



## IGotTekkers (Jun 6, 2012)

stuey99 said:


> Or, you can do a @IGotTekkers and just bang in grams of test and tren...but I'm not sure he's normal and us mere mortals should not follow in his footsteps lol.


Im only on 200mg test and 350mg tren lol.


----------



## Growing Lad (Feb 14, 2009)

Deadcalm said:


> Why are you acting like it's not a big deal?
> 
> Eat 200 calories above maintenance per day and you'll put muscle on reasonably well. That's a surplus of 1,400 cals a week. People on cycle can even bump that up to 300-500 cals above.
> 
> ...


Not true at all mate.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

Growing Lad said:


> Not true at all mate.


You won't. You might improve muscle recruitment and gain extra sarcoplasmic fluid but you won't grow muscle. If you do, then you aren't truly at maintenance, even if you think you are.

If your maintenance level is 2800 Cals then your body is burning 2800 Cals just to stay alive, so where are the calories coming from to build muscle? All of the protein calories are being burnt up for energy too, so where are the left over amino acids for muscle synthesis coming from?

I swear some people think human biology and nutrition is some sort of witchcraft where things can be made out of thin air.


----------



## Growing Lad (Feb 14, 2009)

Calories don't build muscle. Your body had a source of stored energy too.....

Give your body the correct stimulus through hard training, ample protein to cover synthesis and a non retarded level of calories. I.e maintenance, with gear you can grow. Bulking is retarded


----------



## SK50 (Apr 7, 2013)

Deadcalm said:


> If your maintenance level is 2800 Cals then your body is burning 2800 Cals just to stay alive, so where are the calories coming from to build muscle?


Body fat is the answer to that question.

Providing dietary protein is high enough to create new muscle and the correct physical and hormonal stimulation is in place, then at maintenance calories new muscle will be built and body fat will be lost as an energy source.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

Growing Lad said:


> Calories don't build muscle. Your body had a source of stored energy too.....
> 
> Give your body the correct stimulus through hard training, ample protein to cover synthesis and a non retarded level of calories. I.e maintenance, with gear you can grow. Bulking is retarded


Calories do build muscle. Protein has 4 calories per gram. You don't have a surplus of calories then you don't have a surplus of protein.

The fact you don't get this suggests that you don't understand the basics of biology in this area whatsoever I'm afraid.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

SK50 said:


> Body fat is the answer to that question.
> 
> Providing dietary protein is high enough to create new muscle and the correct physical and hormonal stimulation is in place, then at maintenance calories new muscle will be built and body fat will be lost as an energy source.


No it won't.

If it did, then how come we can't eat at 1000 Cals under maintenance and lose 2lbs of fat whilst gaining muscle at the same time?

Your body uses food as it's primary and first priority source of energy. It retains body fat as a survival mechanism. It ONLY taps into body fat stores if it can't get all the calories it needs to survive and move around from food. If you eat maintenance calories, they will all be burned as fuel before body fat stores are accessed, which once again leads us to the issue of no surplus calories and therefore no surplus amino acids available for muscle synthesis.

You need a surplus of calories to synthesise muscle. Period. It's basic biology. If you think you're gaining muscle from maintenance, then you aren't actually eating maintenance calories, you're taking in a small surplus.


----------



## Boshlop (Apr 1, 2012)

**** me this is still going on?!

i have to agree though, if you eat maintenance on cycle you wont gain, its aagsint some basics. but at the same time, test does increase the ability to use fuel more eficently and shuttle whats needed to the correct places.

you wont build on exact calories of maintenance. BUT, BUT, when on test if fuel and protein is been used MORE EFFICENTLY, then in theory surely less is needed to repair the body leaving more for growth in the end. meaning that the maintenance protein and general kcals is lower on test than you might think int he first place. if 200g fo protein repairs your body with no growth natty because protein synth wasnt efficent enough to do ti on less, then test suddenly mean protein synth is effective enough to do it with 160g you have a surplus you coudlnt account for. impossible to work out accurate enough in the end for either side to win. its going to go round in circles from experience vs science when both are right...


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

varman said:


> strong post.
> 
> i agree there is no right or wrong.
> 
> ...


So using that same logic, eventually they will probably be using 19nors and heavy doses of orals...so why not jump straight into a test, tren, oxy cycle. If they're gonna have to deal with prolactin sides eventually then may as well get used to it now? To quote you..."I don't see the logic in waiting"


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> You won't. You might improve muscle recruitment and gain extra sarcoplasmic fluid but you won't grow muscle. If you do, then you aren't truly at maintenance, even if you think you are.
> 
> If your maintenance level is 2800 Cals then your body is burning 2800 Cals just to stay alive, so where are the calories coming from to build muscle? All of the protein calories are being burnt up for energy too, so where are the left over amino acids for muscle synthesis coming from?
> 
> *I swear some people think human biology and nutrition is some sort of witchcraft where things can be made out of thin air.*


And I swear you are some geeky science student who has never lifted a weight.

Stop quoting studies and science books.

Not once have I seen you write "in my experience x,y, z"

Have you ever done or tried all these things you keep saying don't work or are impossible?

The human body can do some pretty amazing things that defy science on occasion.

Our ancestors were nomadic hunters who ate maybe once every few days and were lean muscular athletic specimens.

Hang on, dont we have to eat protein before and after training or we wont grow, and dont we have to eat 1700 calories to gain a pound of muscle?


----------



## SK50 (Apr 7, 2013)

Deadcalm said:


> No it won't.
> 
> If it did, then how come we can't eat at 1000 Cals under maintenance and lose 2lbs of fat whilst gaining muscle at the same time?
> 
> ...


Your logic is flawed.

You are looking at a simplified model where calories are considered on a daily basis.

While this is great for trying to understand things from a simplified position, the fact is while eating maintenance calories there will be times of the day where 1) You are in a caloric deficit, and therefore losing body fat, and times where 2) You are in a caloric (and protein) surplus, and therefore gaining muscle.

It's called recomposition - maintenance calories - lose body fat, gain muscle.


----------



## SK50 (Apr 7, 2013)

> *** The 'Losing Fat, Gaining Muscle' Debate ***
> 
> By James Collier BSc Hons SRD - MuscleTalk Contributor
> 
> ...


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

IGotTekkers said:


> And 600mg is under that certain point. 600mg WILL give better results than 500mg, thats a proven fact. However theres nothing wrong at all with 500mg. Most ugl test e is 300mg so its easier to do 600mg most of the time anyway.


Agreed mate...in fact in one of my last posts I actually stated that 500-600g test would give better results lol. It seems you're doing a deadcalm and missing my point. I'm not argueing that 600mg won't give better gains...of course it will. I'm argueng that IMO 250mg is a better all round cycle that will be good for EVERYONE.



IGotTekkers said:


> Im only on 200mg test and 350mg tren lol.


It's a thread on first cycle doses tho mate and I was therefore refering to your first cycle...what doses were you running for your first cycle lol? You seem to be getting defensive bro, I wasn't criticising you I think your first cycle was fvckin awesome (although not entirely sensible haha)


----------



## varman (Jan 12, 2014)

stuey99 said:


> So using that same logic, eventually they will probably be using 19nors and heavy doses of orals...so why not jump straight into a test, tren, oxy cycle. If they're gonna have to deal with prolactin sides eventually then may as well get used to it now? To quote you..."I don't see the logic in
> 
> lol no. managing estro sides from 500 t is alot simpler then adding in the stuff u mentioned.your putting words in my mouth lol.


----------



## cas (Jan 9, 2011)

I wouldn't bother to manage oestrogen sides ( if you get sides)at 500mg, just add some nolva if the nipples get itchy.

Everyone is trying to over complicate things.

There is no point arguing. We are just going around in circles here......


----------



## Growing Lad (Feb 14, 2009)

There was a study done on power athletes trying to lose weight and improve body composition

Whilst keeping strength and LBM or gaining lbm. The conclusion was found that up to 0.7% loss of bodyweight a week was achieved whilst still gaining LBM. 1.4% bw loss a week was achieved whilst maintaining all LBM


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

varman said:


> Not necessarily. I still find it vey difficult to get estrogen and ai dosage right...juggling with adex dosage can be a nightmare for alot of people. Tren is very simple IMO the first time you use it. Bang in the tren, caber twice a week and hope to god you can handle the sides. Either you can or you can't, it's fairly black and white with tren and deca. Although I do see your point.


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

Well since i've been on gear i've not really changed my diet at all and have put on muscle and lost fat.

Now i'm not any kind of expert on nutrition but i'm sure if i stop taking gear i'll lose that muscle, so surely that's more down to the gear than the food?


----------



## IGotTekkers (Jun 6, 2012)

stuey99 said:


> Agreed mate...in fact in one of my last posts I actually stated that 500-600g test would give better results lol. It seems you're doing a deadcalm and missing my point. I'm not argueing that 600mg won't give better gains...of course it will. I'm argueng that IMO 250mg is a better all round cycle that will be good for EVERYONE.
> 
> It's a thread on first cycle doses tho mate and I was therefore refering to your first cycle...what doses were you running for your first cycle lol? You seem to be getting defensive bro, I wasn't criticising you I think your first cycle was fvckin awesome (although not entirely sensible haha)


Im not getting defensive mate, no dramas 

1st cycle was a whole nother story.. i done far too much. 600mg test with 80mg dbol was the sweet spot.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

IGotTekkers said:


> Im not getting defensive mate, no dramas
> 
> 1st cycle was a whole nother story.. i done far too much. 600mg test with 80mg dbol was the sweet spot.


Am I right in thinking there may have been 700mg tren in there at some point as well? Lol. It's a while back now so maybe my memory's a bit hazy?


----------



## IGotTekkers (Jun 6, 2012)

stuey99 said:


> Am I right in thinking there may have been 700mg tren in there at some point as well? Lol. It's a while back now so maybe my memory's a bit hazy?


Iirc it was

1200mg test

600mg deca

600mg tren

80mg dbol

50mg drol

50mg proviron

40mg winny

20mg nolva

i only lasted a few weeks then got very very ill and was bedbound for 5 weeks.


----------



## cas (Jan 9, 2011)

IGotTekkers said:


> Iirc it was
> 
> 1200mg test
> 
> ...


Sorry man, but I have to say the compulsory "and you only look like that"


----------



## IGotTekkers (Jun 6, 2012)

cas said:


> Sorry man, but I have to say the compulsory "and you only look like that"


Haha i didnt gain anything on that dose mate, i was too ill lol.


----------



## cas (Jan 9, 2011)

IGotTekkers said:


> Haha i didnt gain anything on that dose mate, i was too ill lol.


If at first you dont succeed.......try and try again.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

SK50 said:


> Your logic is flawed.
> 
> You are looking at a simplified model where calories are considered on a daily basis.
> 
> ...


But overall, on average, you're going to be in a caloric surplus, even if you swap between caloric deficits and surplus' over the course of the day.

Again, you're missing the point that muscle doesn't come out of thin air. Protein and carbs have 4 calories a gram whilst fats have 9 calories a gram. If your body burns 2800 cals a day just to survive, and you take in 2800 calories of food, then you're burning up all those calories including the protein. There's no amino acids left to build muscle.

If it was true that you could build muscle on maintenance calories, then you should be able to build muscle on a 300, 400, 500 or even 1000 calorie deficit too. Why not? You're still swinging in between catabolic and anabolic states. Your brain isn't watching your calories and suddenly goes "oh I've reached maintenance, time to turn on muscle building". The PI3K-AKT-MTOR pathway is still activated throughout the day regardless of caloric intake. How do you explain that?

You need a caloric surplus. It's as simple as that. People who claim they build muscle at maintenance have a redundant point because no one can be absolutely sure what their maintenance is unless they do hydrostatic weighing and a number of complex clinical tests such as the measurement of their respiratory quotient.

Remember that you don't need much of a surplus to build muscle at the general speed of protein synthesis. A very small surplus of only 100 calories per day is enough to build almost a pound of pure muscle in a few weeks on steroids. People not on steroids need even less. On average, a male not on steroids can only build about a thimble-full of muscle per day naturally.

People also need to stop confusing myofibrillar hypertrophy with sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. You can still increase the size of your muscles by increasing the amount of intracellular fluid which carries glycogen, creatine and other things, even without a caloric surplus.


----------



## Boshlop (Apr 1, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> But overall, on average, you're going to be in a caloric surplus, even if you swap between caloric deficits and surplus' over the course of the day.
> 
> Again, you're missing the point that muscle doesn't come out of thin air. Protein and carbs have 4 calories a gram whilst fats have 9 calories a gram. If your body burns 2800 cals a day just to survive, and you take in 2800 calories of food, then you're burning up all those calories including the protein. There's no amino acids left to build muscle.
> 
> ...


SCIENCE!

thing is i agree with this fully, its ahrd to argue science but what do you think of this side of it. while what you say is 100% true and if a person was given exact amounts of nutrition to perfection based on body comp. surely the training ad adaption of strength/size/weight (not actaul muscle mass but cellular water/storage), increasing the intensity of a work out from heavier weights and ect mean that with in a week exact nutrition could suddenly be off by quite a bit giving a subtle enough change in requirements to either build muscle or lose fat?

i know this is talking extremes and more my own thoughts but you have to see that no matter how correct you are unless it was calculated every day exactly a person might be not be lying saying the built on maintenance because a few weeks ago they were actually on maintenance.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> But overall, on average, you're going to be in a caloric surplus, even if you swap between caloric deficits and surplus' over the course of the day.
> 
> Again, you're missing the point that muscle doesn't come out of thin air. Protein and carbs have 4 calories a gram whilst fats have 9 calories a gram. If your body burns 2800 cals a day just to survive, and you take in 2800 calories of food, then you're burning up all those calories including the protein. There's no amino acids left to build muscle.
> 
> ...


Can you explain why people die of rabbit starvation based on your calorie deficit/surplus matrix?

No matter how much lean protein you eat, if you only eat lean protein you die, thats regardless of how many calories you take in.

As I have said, the body isnt a scientific thing its full of variables.

If we were all the same then everyone would be cured of cancer or everyone would die from cancer, thats not the case, some people recover, some dont.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

Boshlop said:


> SCIENCE!
> 
> thing is i agree with this fully, its ahrd to argue science but what do you think of this side of it. while what you say is 100% true and if a person was given exact amounts of nutrition to perfection based on body comp. surely the training ad adaption of strength/size/weight (not actaul muscle mass but cellular water/storage), increasing the intensity of a work out from heavier weights and ect mean that with in a week exact nutrition could suddenly be off by quite a bit giving a subtle enough change in requirements to either build muscle or lose fat?
> 
> i know this is talking extremes and more my own thoughts but you have to see that no matter how correct you are unless it was calculated every day exactly a person might be not be lying saying the built on maintenance because a few weeks ago they were actually on maintenance.


It's impossible to argue science because the human body isn't witchcraft. It does what it does for a reason, and there are specific mechanisms right down to the molecular level.

Your body adapts to stimulus, but it's primarily a survival mechanism. It prioritises that above all else and it's the way we've evolved. Natural selection has clearly shown that being very strong hasn't been an essential element of survival for human beings, otherwise humans would have evolved to prioritise muscle growth and would have adapted to burn fat stores for energy whilst prioritising protein for muscle synthesis. However, humans don't do that. In fact, we're pretty crap at muscle building compared to other animals who clearly did need maximum strength for survival. That's why cows can become incredibly muscular just by eating grass. It's also why humans have myostatin to inhibit muscle growth, and why animals can gain freakish amounts of muscle extremely rapidly if myostatin is inhibited.

Why is this the case? Who knows. Humans have clearly evolved as hunter gatherers who hunted for days on end without eating and used tools and intelligence to hunt prey. We never exactly had full on fights with animals where strength would have been the primary factor. This means that, following natural selection, the majority of humans who survived and reproduced weren't necessarily the strongest.

I went off on a bit of a tangent there, but my point is that the body has evolved to prioritise energy survival, so it's never going to tap into fat stores to assist with building muscle. It will adapt to strength stimuli ONLY if it has prioritised feeding the human's basic energy requirements and then has leftover calories and protein to grow. Period.

People may think they're eating maintenance cals, but as only a 50 calorie surplus would give enough of a surplus for a small amount of growth, no one can really claim that they're doing it and hitting maintenance cals right on the money. It would be virtually impossible unless you were in a meticulously controlled environment where even temperature and humidity were perfectly regulated.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> Can you explain why people die of rabbit starvation based on your calorie deficit/surplus matrix?
> 
> No matter how much lean protein you eat, if you only eat lean protein you die, thats regardless of how many calories you take in.
> 
> ...


"the body isn't a scientific thing"

*"the body isn't a scientific thing"*

*"the body isn't a scientific thing"*

Wow.

Lean protein provides enough calories to survive. People only die from "rabbit starvation" because the kidneys and liver can't remove urea and other protein digestion metabolites fast enough in relation to the sheer amount of protein being taken in. It's not actually a form of starvation. It's essentially a form of metabolite poisoning. If you're going to use things in an argument, at least understand what they mean.


----------



## Boshlop (Apr 1, 2012)

banzi said:


> Can you explain why people die of rabbit starvation based on your calorie deficit/surplus matrix?
> 
> No matter how much lean protein you eat, if you only eat lean protein you die, thats regardless of how many calories you take in.
> 
> ...


bit of an extreme example using cancer compared tot he basics of biology and energy usage, i mean cancer is a mutation gone wrong where as eating just lean meat is just plain idiotic?

we know you are both right about what you are arguing but there sint going to be a winner or a loser. just more points making both sides stronger

it would be funny, if you two actually worked together you would probably get a **** tonne of good research done into this topic and find out what personal experiences are right and what ones wrong!


----------



## SK50 (Apr 7, 2013)

Deadcalm said:


> But overall, on average, you're going to be in a caloric surplus, even if you swap between caloric deficits and surplus' over the course of the day.


No you're not. Again, I am talking about maintenance calories.

And yes you can build muscle in a caloric deficit, providing:

1) Part of the day you are in positive nitrogen balance with caloric surplus and enough protein

2) Part of the day you are losing fat, but are in a hormonal and physical state that protects catabolism of muscle

Now, this is most evident in beginners. More advanced trainees will find this more difficult because the more excessive the muscle mass, the greater the catabolism that occurs while in deficit. I have used this example a few times now, but here we go again: I have a guy training with me for the past 21 weeks. He has been eating < 2000kcal per day. He has lost a tonne of fat and gained a lot of muscle - he looks completely different. His bench has gone from 50kg to 105kg in these weeks, and his deadlift from 100kg to 180kg. He has gained muscle through hypertrophy and lost body fat. Yes, at the same time. Yes, in a caloric deficit.

So, I am going to agree with @banzi here and start to question your own real world experience with lifting and building muscle. How advanced exactly are you? This is not a challenge - this is a genuine interest.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> "the body isn't a scientific thing"
> 
> *"the body isn't a scientific thing"*
> 
> ...


So regardless of the amount of calories you take in if the bodies not in a position to utilise them then it doesn't matter.

Which was my point, the body is a complex organism that defies scientific explanation on occasion.

You are using two arguments to defeat each other.

I notice you avoided the cancer cure/ non-cure.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

SK50 said:


> So, I am going to agree with @banzi here and start to question your own real world experience with lifting and building muscle. How advanced exactly are you? This is not a challenge - this is a genuine interest.


He likely looks like this


----------



## SK50 (Apr 7, 2013)

banzi said:


> He likely looks like this
> 
> View attachment 148696


Haha, I was hoping to keep this sensible but had to click like on that.

I am genuinely interested to hear how advanced he is in the game though. His argument seems embarrassingly theoretical - with a bad attitude to boot.


----------



## SK50 (Apr 7, 2013)

PS, I mean no offense with the previous post Deadcalm - I'm not here to make enemies. But when you keep saying **** like "It's basic biology." it is rather patronising and doesn't help your argument one bit.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

SK50 said:


> Haha, I was hoping to keep this sensible but had to click like on that.
> 
> I am genuinely interested to hear how advanced he is in the game though. His argument seems embarrassingly theoretical - with a bad attitude to boot.


If he can post some real life experiences along with his text book quotations I wouldn't mind.

He's all theory and no practice at the moment.

And his attitude is a little shi**y.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

SK50 said:


> No you're not. Again, I am talking about maintenance calories.
> 
> And yes you can build muscle in a caloric deficit, providing:
> 
> ...


Beginners put on size and strength so quickly because of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, improved muscle fibre recruitment and CNS optimisation. It plays a surprisingly massive role in size and strength.

He may have gained some myofibrillar hypertrophy if he's went through periods of a caloric surplus (i.e. a few weeks in a surplus, then a few weeks in a deficit and so on), but other than that, it's not physically possible.

However, do you know what his actual BMR is? Did you know that the BMR of an 'average' male is only 1,600 to 1,900 calories a day for many men with low muscle mass? How do you also know EXACTLY what calories he's eating? Does he measure everything out with scales and do you watch over his every meal to check that he's eating exactly that? One teeny weeny tablespoon of olive oil is over 100 calories. Even if he's adding an extra 20-30 calories per meal due to discrepancies, then that's 100-150 calories a day more than he expected, which is more than enough of a surplus to build muscle mass at a steady rate.

The simple fact is that you don't know for sure. Given the potential BMR and potential inaccuracies with macro-nutrient measurements, he could EASILY be taking in a caloric surplus of 100-300 calories per day.

Combine that average surplus with brief periods of fat metabolism throughout the day and voila, you have the surplus calories to build that muscle tissue along with the fat loss.



SK50 said:


> Haha, I was hoping to keep this sensible but had to click like on that.
> 
> I am genuinely interested to hear how advanced he is in the game though. His argument seems embarrassingly theoretical - with a bad attitude to boot.


I'm not a small person by any stretch of the imagination if that's what you're talking about, although I intentionally avoid getting massive as that's not the physique I want.

I have considerable experience in the practical side of it too, including muscle growth, cutting, steroids and all sorts. More than a decade. However, I've backed that up with a lot of theoretical knowledge. Why? Because human beings aren't magic. There's a specific biological mechanism for everything down to the cellular level.

I've understood the biology and nutrition side of it and also applied it. I don't want to embarrass myself as one of the many beefcakes out there who have built muscle but don't actually understand how they did it or how their own bodies even work. Jabbing yourself full of gear and following basic exercise and nutrition programs to build a big physique can hide over the fact that many people, including Banzi, don't have any idea what they're talking about. The mention of rabbit poisoning was just one of many examples of that.


----------



## SK50 (Apr 7, 2013)

Deadcalm said:


> Beginners put on size and strength so quickly because of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, improved muscle fibre recruitment and CNS optimisation. It plays a surprisingly massive role in size and strength.
> 
> He may have gained some myofibrillar hypertrophy if he's went through periods of a caloric surplus (i.e. a few weeks in a surplus, then a few weeks in a deficit and so on), but other than that, it's not physically possible.
> 
> ...


Your responses are superfluous and dreadfully patronising.

These are the facts:

1) He has clearly gained muscle tissue

2) He has clearly lost body fat

3) He has lost overall bodyweight (about 5lbs)

Again, he has obviously had periods of negative calorie balance, and periods of positive calorie balance. But, his calorie balance has been negative overall - this is evidenced by a reduction in overall bodyweight.

Inject yourself with 2g of trenbolone and tell me you cannot lose fat and gain muscle at the same time with a maintenance calorie level.



> I'm not a small person by any stretch of the imagination if that's what you're talking about, although I intentionally avoid getting massive as that's not the physique I want.
> 
> I have considerable experience in the practical side of it too, including muscle growth, cutting, steroids and all sorts. More than a decade. However, I've backed that up with a lot of theoretical knowledge. Why? Because human beings aren't magic. There's a specific biological mechanism for everything down to the cellular level.
> 
> I've understood the biology and nutrition side of it and also applied it. I don't want to embarrass myself as one of the many beefcakes out there who have built muscle but don't actually understand how they did it or how their own bodies even work. Jabbing yourself full of gear and following basic exercise and nutrition programs to build a big physique can hide over the fact that many people, including Banzi, don't have any idea what they're talking about. The mention of rabbit poisoning was just one of many examples of that.


i.e. you don't even lift?


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

IGotTekkers said:


> Iirc it was
> 
> 1200mg test
> 
> ...


I love it!! Not sensible at all, but very impressive!! Cycles like that are just unnecessary...not calling you for it btw, I ran high dose cycles for years and I'm only just starting to realise that less is definitely more...although a high dose of tren will always sneak into my cycles from now on...I'm definitaly a tren addict lol.


----------



## Boshlop (Apr 1, 2012)

SK50 said:


> PS, I mean no offense with the previous post Deadcalm - I'm not here to make enemies. But when you keep saying **** like "It's basic biology." it is rather patronising and doesn't help your argument one bit.


think were all guilty of that one, when some one new trains and we dont understand why understanding what things work is so hard  "its just basic training!" took so long to remember that not every one knows it


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

SK50 said:


> Your responses are superfluous and dreadfully patronising.
> 
> These are the facts:
> 
> ...


I was actually gonna post this earlier but I'm trying to gradually get myself out of this ridiculous thread lol. I'm eating at least 500cals below maintenance atm on tren...I've lost over an inch off my waste, bf is rapidly decreasing yet weight has stayed the same and strength is gradually increasing as well. I'm afraid there's no study deadcalm can post that can argue with the weight on my bathroom scales, the dumbells I'm lifting, my bf measurements and the tape measure around my waist.

Take note anyone reading this thread...this is what we mean by REAL LIFE RESULTS vs STUDIES FOUND USING GOOGLE!!


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

SK50 said:


> Your responses are superfluous and dreadfully patronising.
> 
> These are the facts:
> 
> ...


Not true. Read what I've just said. You need a caloric surplus to build muscle. You need spare calories and protein.

You don't know his exact BMR and you haven't scrutinised every single meal he's prepared, have you? So how do you REALLY know he's in a negative balance? You don't. Apologies if that's patronising but, well, you don't. As I've just said, untrained guys can have BMRs of 1600-1900 cals quite easily, meaning a 2000 cal diet or near that would be a surplus.

You can stay within a caloric surplus to build muscle and also lose fat with nutrient timing. 23 hours of the day can be spent with an overall caloric surplus, whilst one hour can be spent of fasted cardio, and you're going to lose fat within that one hour whilst retaining or growing muscle during the other 24. Voila, you gain muscle with the surplus and lose fat with periods of caloric deficit or cardio exercise.

If it was that easy then everyone could have a caloric deficit of 1,000 cals and drop 2lbs of fat per week whilst gaining muscle. I'm afraid it isn't that easy. With your theory there isn't one rule for maintenance cals and one rule for a substantial deficit.

Anyway, we're just going around in circles here, you can believe what you like. I'm going to side with basic biology, my own experience, the experience of others and the vast majority of the fitness community. If you can burn fat on a caloric deficit and gain muscle at the same time then that's actually a massive scientific breakthrough. You should write a white paper about it to share with doctors.

Personally, I hope newbies don't waste their time and add a small caloric surplus of 100-300 calories per day for optimum muscle synthesis with minimal or no body fat gain whatsoever. It's not difficult.


----------



## mass3011 (Feb 25, 2014)

My first cycle I'm using 300mg test e with 300mg deca week for so far feeling great


----------



## SK50 (Apr 7, 2013)

Deadcalm said:


> Anyway, we're just going around in circles here


Agreed.

Peace, dude


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> Not true. Read what I've just said. You need a caloric surplus to build muscle. You need spare calories and protein.
> 
> You don't know his exact BMR and you haven't scrutinised every single meal he's prepared, have you? So how do you REALLY know he's in a negative balance? You don't. Apologies if that's patronising but, well, you don't. As I've just said, untrained guys can have BMRs of 1600-1900 cals quite easily, meaning a 2000 cal diet or near that would be a surplus.
> 
> ...


If it were all this scientifically accurate we would have a blueprint to getting huge which would work for everyone.

Why is it that some people gain more than other when they follow the exact same protocols?

By your argument we would all be able to eat 1700 cals over maintenance each week and gain a pound of muscle each week.

Doesn't happen does it?

Why not?


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

> Personally, I hope newbies don't waste their time and add a small caloric surplus of 100-300 calories per day for optimum muscle synthesis with minimal or no body fat gain whatsoever. It's not difficult.


Wow, so now people can gain muscle on 100 cals over maintenance.

Eating maintenance you can be in a muscle gaining state.

You base everything on cals per day, what about cals per hour?

Do you think its possible that after a high protein meal some of the aminos in that meal are used to add additional muscle tissue?

Come on can you be sure about that isnt the case.

3 high protein meals eaten during the day puts you in a calorific surplus for maybe 2 hours after the meal.

You are not always in a calorific deficit every hour of every day.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> I'm not a small person by any stretch of the imagination if that's what you're talking about, although I intentionally avoid getting massive as that's not the physique I want.
> 
> I have considerable experience in the practical side of it too, including muscle growth, cutting, steroids and all sorts. More than a decade. However, I've backed that up with a lot of theoretical knowledge. Why? Because human beings aren't magic. There's a specific biological mechanism for everything down to the cellular level.


Really, thats the post of the thread, Im not massive because I don't want to be, isn't that convenient , but if you did want to be Mr Olympia you would just have to put into practice all your theoretical knowledge and follow the rules and hey presto world beating physique.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> If it were all this scientifically accurate we would have a blueprint to getting huge which would work for everyone.
> 
> Why is it that some people gain more than other when they follow the exact same protocols?
> 
> ...


Because some people have different amounts of fast and slow twitch muscle fibres. We also have different body compositions, different weights, different hormone levels and so on.

However, that doesn't effect the biological process of hypertrophy or how human bodies work. Hypertrophy happens in the exact same manner, as does fat loss.

On a macro level things can change in the human body between people, but on a cellular level they're identical. That's why humans are humans. This is what you don't seem to grasp. Your body is different to mine, but our cells, mechanism of actions and hormones are identical in nature - we just have different amounts of them.

If your cells were different and your body worked in a different way, then you would be a different species. You wouldn't be a human being.

PS: No offence but I'm pretty sure they taught this in schools. It's primary school biology.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> Because some people have different amounts of fast and slow twitch muscle fibres. We also have different body compositions, different weights, different hormone levels and so on.
> 
> However, that doesn't effect the biological process of hypertrophy or how human bodies work. Hypertrophy happens in the exact same manner, as does fat loss.
> 
> ...


So by that very statement we react differently to different stimulus and environments, some people have a better genetic capability to build muscle although you claim its just not possible to do just because they eat 100 calories less than you advise?

Your persistent labouring over this point is exactly what scientists do when they are faced with new theories, "It cant be done" they cry in unison.

You should look pretty impressive with all your knowledge but as we both know you look pretty mediocre, thats why you wont post a picture.

And its the fact you look mediocre that will allow people to cast doubt on all your handwaving and waffling.

Oh ,and cut the insults, its not doing you any favours with the readers.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

http://www.xsportnews.com/armwrestling/interview-alexey-voevoda-about-armwrestling-and-bobsleigh/

Cast your eye over this and let me know what you think.



> Tell us about your diet?
> 
> - Now I've switched to adequate food species, academician Alexander Ugolev described in the book "The Theory and nutrition and trophic ecology" (1991). I herbivorous and carnivorous, and frugivorous. So I do not eat meat, and drink the fruits, vegetables, and fruits. In winter, eat meals on the water. After the transition to a vegetarian diet, I feel better, stressoutoychivost increased, increased speed and strength. The fact that the microflora, which synthesizes hormones, prohormones, gives us all free. You just need to eat the right foods, among which the meat is not included.
> 
> ...


Breakfast - Water

Lunch - Vegetables

Dinner - Vegetables & Fruit

Also claims to fast on Mondays:






Guy is 6'4 and 250lbs



He couldn't possibly be that big and strong on that diet could he?


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> So by that very statement we react differently to different stimulus and environments, some people have a better genetic capability to build muscle although you claim its just not possible to do just because they eat 100 calories less than you advise?
> 
> Your persistent labouring over this point is exactly what scientists do when they are faced with new theories, "It cant be done" they cry in unison.
> 
> ...


People have different genetic abilities, but you can't build muscle out of thin air for the 1000th time. You need calories and protein, but if the body burns all the calories and protein up to feed the body's energy needs (it's main priority), then where do the calories and protein come from to build the muscle?

Genetics play a part but they don't change the fundamental nature of humans at a cellular level. They don't change how human beings have evolved. Nor do they conduct magic.

And they aren't insults. This is indeed primary school biology. You're arguing against stuff 8 year olds are taught in schools. It is literally some of the most basic stuff you can imagine yet it seems to completely blow your mind. In short, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about as per usual.



banzi said:


> http://www.xsportnews.com/armwrestling/interview-alexey-voevoda-about-armwrestling-and-bobsleigh/
> 
> Cast your eye over this and let me know what you think.
> 
> ...


Of course he could. How do you think cows become solid one ton lumps of muscle just by eating grass and grains?

Don't you think vegetarian bodybuilders exist?

Vegetables still have calories and protein. You just need to up the volume of them.

This also sort of further proves my point that you NEED calories to grow muscle, but the amount of protein simply dictates the speed of growth. I honestly believe that a lot of guys could grow muscle off 120-150g of protein per day if the calories are right. This is also backed up by biology. One kilo of solid muscle gain per month (a LOT) is only 33 grams per day, so these guys who are taking in ridiculous amounts like 400-500g per day are wasting most of it.

Plus, it has been clinically proven that the human liver can only safely metabolise around 250-350g of protein per day depending on size. Any more than that causes a build up of toxins, urea and liver enzymes.


----------



## varman (Jan 12, 2014)

banzi said:


> Really, thats the post of the thread, Im not massive because I don't want to be, isn't that convenient , but if you did want to be Mr Olympia you would just have to put into practice all your theoretical knowledge and follow the rules and hey presto world beating physique.


tbf mate not many people want to be huge. i would hate to be 200lb + ( im only 5'6tho)

i honestly dnt know why your r trying to argue against nutrition experts.

there are ppl with advanced phds in this like alan aragon(legend) who produce study after study.

i cringe at some of your posts tbh. the only people who can gain a noticeable/significant amount of muscle without surplus calories (and im not talking about your obsene bulking calories that u seem to think are required) are

1.people using alot of gear

2, untrained people

i dnt wana get into a e argument, its really that simple dude.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

> Of course he could. How do you think cows become solid one ton lumps of muscle just by eating grass and grains?


Because cows are not human beings, they have totally different digestive systems.

Snakes can eat a meal then go around three weeks before eating again, why, because they are snakes not humans.

You have avoided the point about being in a calorific surplus during the day even when on a daily calorific deficit because it challenges your preset view.



> *I honestly believe that a lot of guys could grow muscle off 120-150g of protein per day if the calories are right.* This is also backed up by biology. One kilo of solid muscle gain per month (a LOT) is only 33 grams per day, so these guys who are taking in ridiculous amounts like 400-500g per day are wasting most of it.


On this I agree, Im glad we can find some common ground. 



> You're arguing against stuff 8 year olds are taught in schools.


Nothing wrong with challenging age old theories, if everyone just nodded their head and said "yes , OK sir" we would never discover anything new.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

varman said:


> tbf mate not many people want to be huge. i would hate to be 200lb + ( im only 5'6tho)
> 
> *i honestly dnt know why your r trying to argue against nutrition experts.*
> 
> ...


If they are in shape and look the part then I wont argue with them, if they look like garbage and are fat then I want to know why.

If all they have to say is 100% true then they have no reason not to look good by following the principles.

I know people who do everything by the book and look a mess , and I know people who work out what works for them even though its not conventional thinking and look great.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> Because cows are not human beings, they have totally different digestive systems.
> 
> Snakes can eat a meal then go around three weeks before eating again, why, because they are snakes not humans.


Jesus christ it doesn't matter what digestive system they have. The human body is very effective at extracting virtually all of the nutrients and energy from food. It's not like cows have magic digestive systems which allow them to extract far more protein and energy than humans get from their own food intake. The digestive systems are different to deal with the stresses of digesting certain types of food, but they're equally efficient.

That means that vegetarians can eat very large quantities of vegetables, fruits and other non-meat foods and still get a caloric surplus and a protein surplus. In fact, with fruit, it wouldn't be very difficult at all. Avocados can contain up to 300-400 calories each as they contain a lot of fat. Large bananas, apples and other fruits can contain 100-150 cals per portion. That makes your point completely redundant. An all vegetable and fruit diet does not automatically mean that the guy has built muscle in a caloric deficit at all. As usually, you have no idea what you're talking about.



> Nothing wrong with challenging age old theories, if everyone just nodded their head and said "yes , OK sir" we would never discover anything new.


It isn't a theory. It's absolute basic fact. Proven. It's like arguing that 2 plus 2 isn't 4.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

OK, Give me your thoughts on this

You base your muscle gain on a calorific surplus, I notice you use daily calorific expenditure as your benchmark.

Now, suppose I eat for three days at maintenance , now every 4th day I eat 600 cals over maintenance ,could I gain additional muscle during this excess calorie stage?

If so then why can I not add additional muscle after each meal during the day?

If science says I can gain muscle with only 100 cals a day over maintenance (your estimation) then why cant I gain muscle based on x amount of calories over maintenance on an hourly basis?

Stop handwaving everything away and think for yourself for one minute.

Why can you gain muscle on a DAILY calorific excess but not on an HOURLY calorific excess?

If science says its possible on a daily basis then why isn't it possible on an hourly basis?


----------



## NoGutsNoGloryy (Jan 7, 2013)

500


----------



## varman (Jan 12, 2014)

banzi said:


> OK, Give me your thoughts on this
> 
> You base your muscle gain on a calorific surplus, I notice you use daily calorific expenditure as your benchmark.
> 
> ...


ok this is my last post in this thread bcos it seems u cant get your head round it.

as stated above it is fact - no getting around it, there is no one on this planet who can gain a significant amount of muscle without a calorie surplus unless they take lots of gear or are untrained.

now, u keep asking redundent questions like what if i was 600cals one day blah blah blah. the answer to this is that there is a limit to the number of grams of muscle that can be built per day. (guess wot? unless they take lots of drugs or are untrained.) i cnt remember the exact figure but its tiny.

so why does this mean? if u eat ur surplus all at once u will gain the max amount of muscle and the rest is stored as fat.

i cant beleive im spoon feeding all this **** to you.

you should go do a few yrs of research of actual info not fuarking bro science. no offence but its kinda fuarking annoying now (think i mite be gettin tren rage lol )


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

varman said:


> ok this is my last post in this thread bcos it seems u cant get your head round it.
> 
> as stated above it is fact - no getting around it, *there is no one on this planet who can gain a significant amount of muscle without a calorie surplus unless they take lots of gear or are untrained.*
> 
> ...


No disrespect but that just looks like a road crash, although the bolded section seems to indicate you agree with me.

I will leave it to deadcalm to respond because unlike you he is grammatically correct.


----------



## Kiwi As (Nov 4, 2013)

I'm going with 250mg p/week for 20 weeks. Will def share my findings when the time comes


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

varman said:


> ok this is my last post in this thread bcos it seems u cant get your head round it.
> 
> as stated above it is fact - no getting around it, there is no one on this planet who can gain a significant amount of muscle without a calorie surplus unless they take lots of gear or are untrained.
> 
> ...





banzi said:


> No disrespect but that just looks like a road crash, although the bolded section seems to indicate you agree with me.
> 
> I will leave it to deadcalm to respond because unlike you he is grammatically correct.


The fact of the matter here is you're both right to varying degress, and your opinions actually overlap more than either of you realise. @varman, yes as a rule you need a calorie surplus to make SIGNIFICANT gains, but I've recently been making great gains on 150mg each of test, tren and mast at quite a large deficit AND running T3...and I'm neither untrained or running massive doses of gear.

You're also falling into the trap of looking as ignorant as deadcalm (which I'm sure you're not as you seem like a sound guy to me) by saying things like "It seems you can't get your head round it"...it's not that he can't get his head round it, it's just his opinion is different to yours (just to be clear...opinions and facts are very different things...and the not gaining unless you're on surplus cals ain't a fact because I'm doing it now lol).

@banzi I totally agree with the hourly vs daily surplus thing you mentioned, and also agree with alot of what varman says...I actually feel you're both in agrement over alot of things but you're coming at them from slightly different angles...at the end of the day you've both got so into the habit of disagreeing with each other you're not even noticing that your opinions aren't actually that different lol.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> OK, Give me your thoughts on this
> 
> You base your muscle gain on a calorific surplus, I notice you use daily calorific expenditure as your benchmark.
> 
> ...


Because your body does not digest food on an hourly basis. Digestion is so long that all of the food you eat is very evenly absorbed, which is why eating 3 large meals per day or 10 small meals makes absolutely zero difference.

Did you know that it takes one meal around 4-6 hours to pass through the stomach and small intestine, followed by up to 20-30+ hours through the large intestine? That means that the nutrients you're eating from a meal on Monday are still being absorbed on Tuesday and potentially even Wednesday. They all overlap and even out to a steady stream of nutrients and energy.

That makes it utterly impossible to have tiny anabolic windows, especially when protein synthesis is a fairly drawn out process in itself. It can take hours for certain hormones to signal certain pathways and for a positive nitrogen balance to occur where protein synthesis begins.

I don't mind giving you lessons in basic biology if you want to keep throwing out these little scenarios which don't really prove anything. However, it doesn't really change these fundamental points:

1). No one can say with absolute certainty that they're eating at exactly maintenance level without hydrostatic weighing and RQ measurements in a tightly controlled environment.

2). Muscle doesn't come out of thin air.

3). Your body is a survival mechanism, it ensures that energy needs are met before anything else, so it will meet basic energy demands first and then build muscle with what's left. Nothing left? No muscle.

4). A small caloric surplus of 200-500 calories above maintenance (depending on size) will provide surplus nutrients for growth with little to no fat gain whatsoever. It's still bulking. It's just not stupid bulking.

That ain't gonna change, so if we're just going to keep going around on circles based on that then there's no point really.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> Because your body does not digest food on an hourly basis. Digestion is so long that all of the food you eat is very evenly absorbed, which is why eating 3 large meals per day or 10 small meals makes absolutely zero difference.
> 
> Did you know that it takes one meal around 4-6 hours to pass through the stomach and small intestine, followed by up to 20-30+ hours through the large intestine? That means that the nutrients you're eating from a meal on Monday are still being absorbed on Tuesday and potentially even Wednesday. They all overlap and even out to a steady stream of nutrients and energy.
> 
> ...


You keep believing that whilst me and others in this thread are making it happen for themselves.

Again, shut down your Pc and go to the gym, you may learn something.

Googling answers to questions is not the way to build muscle.



> *No one can say with absolute certainty *


And thats the only bit of your last post that matters.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> You keep believing that whilst me and others in this thread are making it happen for themselves.
> 
> Again, shut down your Pc and go to the gym, you may learn something.
> 
> ...


You can do whatever the hell you like. I just want to make sure that newbies don't take your bad advice and instead eat a diet with a small caloric surplus of a few hundred calories to build muscle at an optimum rate with little or no fat gain.

I couldn't care less what you do. My concern is that others will read what you say and end up completely wasting their time just because they've been hooked into your crackpot theories which go against basic biology and common sense.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> You can do whatever the hell you like. I just want to make sure that newbies don't take your bad advice and instead eat a diet with a small caloric surplus of a few hundred calories to build muscle at an optimum rate with little or no fat gain.
> 
> I couldn't care less what you do. My concern is that others will read what you say and end up completely wasting their time just because they've been hooked into your crackpot theories which go against basic biology and common sense.


You could post a photo of yourself to validate your methods but you wont do that because you are out of shape.

The proof of the pudding isnt looking like a pudding.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> You could post a photo of yourself to validate your methods but you wont do that because you are out of shape.
> 
> The proof of the pudding isnt looking like a pudding.


Are you back to asking for naked photos of me again?

It doesn't matter what I look like (even though I probably look better than you). Your 'advice' is simply very bad, defies logic, defies reasoning and goes against the vast majority of the health and fitness community.

If you want to build muscle without fat gain, eat a caloric surplus of a few hundred calories. It's one of the most basic pieces of knowledge in bodybuilding.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> Are you back to asking for naked photos of me again?
> 
> It doesn't matter what I look like (even though I probably look better than you). Your 'advice' is simply very bad, defies logic, defies reasoning and goes against the vast majority of the health and fitness community.
> 
> *If you want to build muscle without fat gain, eat a caloric surplus of a few hundred calories. It's one of the most basic pieces of knowledge in bodybuilding.*


yet you cant make it work.

post a pic or button it.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> yet you cant make it work.
> 
> post a pic or button it.


No. Your advice is horrendously bad. If you go around telling newbies that they can gain muscle and lose fat at the same time by eating a caloric deficit then you're either a troll, incredibly stubborn or just a moron.

We all know that your pics are fake anyway.


----------



## sneeky_dave (Apr 2, 2013)

PicsOrNoGainzBrah


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> No. Your advice is horrendously bad. If you go around telling newbies that they can gain muscle and lose fat at the same time by eating a caloric deficit then you're either a troll, incredibly stubborn or just a moron.
> 
> *We all know that your pics are fake anyway.*


Thats the biggest compliment you could have given me, thanks very much.


----------



## ZUKOSAURUS (Nov 23, 2014)

Came here to seek advice regarding my first cycle and this question.

Read 22 pages of two people going back and forth.

*Deadcalms argument* - Take the higher dose and if you experience too many sides decrease it. You will know either way which dose you need.

Pro's

- More gains on first cycle

Cons

- A lot more likely to experience sides

- More concern required over AI and PCT

*banzis argument* - Take the lower dose and if you aren't happy with the results and experience no sides increase it. You will know either way which does you need.

Pro's

- Very good gains far beyond naturally possible.

- Very little chance of side effects

- Less worry about AI dosing and PCT

Cons

- Not as good gains as 500mg.

The sensible option is clearly 250mg just from an ubiased perspective. Nobody using logical reasoning could debate that. . Me personally going into my first cycle I still may choose 500mg. It's all about weighing up the risks of possible side effects and if that's worth it to you. Do you want the gains so bad to increase risk even though you're going to gain decent on 250mg? It's still your first cycle and you're unimpressed you can cycle again at 500mg.


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

ZUKOSAURUS said:


> Came here to seek advice regarding my first cycle and this question.
> 
> Read 22 pages of two people going back and forth.
> 
> ...


Lol. I did 375 a week on my first cycle. Gained like mad and recovered fine.

Maybe there's a middle ground


----------



## cas (Jan 9, 2011)

ZUKOSAURUS said:


> Came here to seek advice regarding my first cycle and this question.
> 
> Read 22 pages of two people going back and forth.
> 
> ...


You know the last post on this thread was back in April, right?


----------



## ZUKOSAURUS (Nov 23, 2014)

cas said:


> You know the last post on this thread was back in April, right?


I did notice that after I posted but for some reason on my forum list it was on page 1 with banzis last post showing as if it was today (yesterday). I could tell because I still had the main forum list up in another tab.

Weird. Oh well.


----------



## GermanShark94 (Jan 24, 2015)

If you have legit pharma 250mg if you have ugl then 400-500.


----------



## Digger78 (Nov 30, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> I started with a 'cruise' at 250mg, with 50mg anavar for 45 days - 1,500 calories a day for a prolonged time, gained 10 lbs strength shot up massively and I gained a considerable amount of size. Then I moved to 500mg shortly after with high calories, and just kept growing, t'was beautiful.


What about 250mg and 80mg tbol compared to 500mg of test only ?


----------



## GermanShark94 (Jan 24, 2015)

Well depends on what kind of test you have. If we base it in test e then 250mg and tbol will give you faster gains but 500mg test e will give you more just takes 3-4 weeks to build up in your System.


----------



## Digger78 (Nov 30, 2014)

GermanShark94 said:


> Well depends on what kind of test you have. If we base it in test e then 250mg and tbol will give you faster gains but 500mg test e will give you more just takes 3-4 weeks to build up in your System.


It's aplha Pharma test e. Only doing 10 week cycle.


----------



## GermanShark94 (Jan 24, 2015)

Well i did my first cycle on 250mg. And i gained decent and kept most of it. But i am also young and have alot of time for more cycles. So its up to you. 500 has pretty much the same sides as 250 so its just a preference decision.


----------



## Digger78 (Nov 30, 2014)

But can I still make decent gains on 250 test e and 80mg ed of tbol or var ?

Or is it just a waste of test ?


----------



## GermanShark94 (Jan 24, 2015)

If your diet is on point and you train hard it will be good.

Edit: The point of a first cycle i think is to test out the water. Find out how you react and adjust accordingly. Just kinda getting a little bit of feeling and experience for the future.


----------



## Digger78 (Nov 30, 2014)

GermanShark94 said:


> If your diet is on point and you train hard it will be good.
> 
> Edit: The point of a first cycle i think is to test out the water. Find out how you react and adjust accordingly. Just kinda getting a little bit of feeling and experience for the future.


Eating about 3000cals a day clean. Training 4 times per week but must admit I'm struggling to fit all cardio in due to work and family life. I'm away in April so just want good lean gains.


----------



## GermanShark94 (Jan 24, 2015)

Well figure out what your maintenance is. And then adjust your diet from there. Maybe use IIFYM calculator.


----------



## Digger78 (Nov 30, 2014)

GermanShark94 said:


> Well figure out what your maintenance is. And then adjust your diet from there. Maybe use IIFYM calculator.


I'm eating about 200 cals above


----------



## GermanShark94 (Jan 24, 2015)

Digger78 said:


> I'm eating about 200 cals above


Cals are not as important. More important are the macros that make up you cals


----------



## Pancake' (Aug 30, 2012)

GermanShark94 said:


> If you have legit pharma 250mg if you have ugl then 400-500.


I've got Norma & Cooper Pharma, always just been set on 500? alongside a kickstart, this threads given me some food for thought, running just 1 amp has crossed my mind in past, but everyone's always putting out the 500 so, you pretty much believe that to be the best option. I will still probably opt for 500 this year (First time) I can't say, but I'd imagine, I'd never really want to surpass 500 have to see, how I respond, I guess. Banzi makes good points in this thread.


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

GermanShark94 said:


> Cals are not as important. More important are the macros that make up you cals


Not correct. As said above. Calories> macros> micros


----------



## GermanShark94 (Jan 24, 2015)

AlQaholic said:


> Calories > macros > micros





simonthepieman said:


> Not correct. As said above. Calories> macros> micros


yes, but the makeup of your cals is important. you can eat just carbs and fats and still get your cals right. try it and let me know how it works out.


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

GermanShark94 said:


> yes, but the makeup of your cals is important. you can eat just carbs and fats and still get your cals right. try it and let me know how it works out.


No one said that is wasn't.

Bit of an odd reply.


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

Digger78 said:


> But can I still make decent gains on 250 test e and 80mg ed of tbol or var ?
> 
> Or is it just a waste of test ?


Even if you didn't train you'd see benefit from 250mg of test a week alone.


----------



## JohhnyC (Mar 16, 2015)

i did a first cycle on 500mg but in hindsight, I think 250 or as others suggest 300 - 400 by spacing shots every 5 days etc. You still will see good gains (if diet correct)

Reason is, see how you go, can always do another cycle. BB is a long term thing in my view, not just a mad rush for the summer

Personally I would keep the DBol lower at 40mg. Its all a bit too short term.


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

I'm on 2nd cycle and have gone to 250mg test instead of 375 from my first and I'm very happy with progress


----------



## H_JM_S (Mar 27, 2012)

simonthepieman said:


> I'm on 2nd cycle and have gone to 250mg test instead of 375 from my first and I'm very happy with progress


I've gone from 500mg - 750mg - 250mg and I'm still gaining on 250!


----------



## Mogadishu (Aug 29, 2014)

375mg ew(250e5&) was my first cycle and I loved it, no sides just some bloat and a minefield on my back. Start slowly and increase dosage for every cycle and see how it goes.


----------



## Digger78 (Nov 30, 2014)

I Went wirh 500mg and so glad I didnt do the 250mg I was thinking of.


----------



## MrBigorexia (Jul 15, 2006)

250mg. Plenty enough. It's a fool who rushes this stuff.


----------

