# First Injectible: Test E 250mg/week with High Bodyfat - Is this retarded?



## barndoor5 (Jun 16, 2013)

Hi Fellas, could really useful some advice on my first injectable cycle.

*Stats:*

Age: 31

Weight: 230lbs

Height: 5" 9

Training focus: powerlifting/strength training. Been in and out of the gym since I was a teenager but dialled in my diet and training over the last 2 years.

*Diet:*

My typical daily intake is:

3,330 calories with the macros breaking down as:


Carbs: 326g

Fats: 78g

Protein: 306g


*My goals are:*


Improved recovery

Diet to a more favourable body fat %

Maintain/increase strength

Maintain/hold on to as much LBM as possible


My main focus is on strength training, being shredded at under 10% bodyfat isn't really what I'm interested in. I've been bulking for around 18 months and currently at 230lbs at 5"9, when i say bulking I just mean eating above maintenance in order to progress my lifts on a daily/weekly progression. As a result my bodyfat % has crept up to a point where I'm not happy with it.

I tried a month at maintenance calories and i stalled out on my lifts and just wasn't recovering properly inbetween lifting days, let alone running at a deficit.

*Cycle:*

Test E 250mg/week for 16-20 weeks with a focus on diet and cardio for steady fatloss. My goals then are to bump the test to 500mg/week and blast and cruise for 12 months.

Would prefer not to be pinning ED or EOD with shorter esters, was thinking Test E E3D?

*Concerns:*

Any advice greatly appreciated here...

Thoughts on sides? Will I have to eat AI's like skittles?


----------



## ableton (May 24, 2013)

barndoor5 said:


> Hi Fellas, could really useful some advice on my first injectable cycle.
> 
> *Stats:*
> 
> ...


what's with the black paint outline?

But in answer to your question. I think you should cut some of that body fat before you think about taking steroids, 250mg is pointless unless you're cruising anyway.

Also i wouldn't recommend blasting and cruising for 12 months if it's your first cycle


----------



## Dark Prowler (Jun 20, 2013)

barndoor5 said:


> First Injectible: Test E 250mg/week with High Bodyfat - Is this retarded?


No, not retarded. Your Test levels will probably be lower than they should at this point in time, due to the body-fat you're carrying -- but without a blood test, it's just speculation -- so, "supplementing" some extra Test should put you in a more optimal position to lose your body-fat, as lower-than-optimal Test levels will make you more susceptible to gaining or maintaining body-fat. Just make sure you're getting enough protein, eating below maintenance, keeping your diet clean, doing plenty of cardio, and taking an AI. The Test will help preserve your muscle whilst in a calorie deficit, and the AI will lower the rate of aromatse, allowing you to concentrate on the matter at hand.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

I'd advise 500mg per week for your first cycle. Studies have shown that you can gain pounds of extra muscle with 600mg vs 300mg, so it's worth going a bit higher. 500mg is generally a good sweet spot between maximum gains and minimal sides.


----------



## gearchange (Mar 19, 2010)

Deadcalm said:


> I'd advise 500mg per week for your first cycle. Studies have shown that you can gain pounds of extra muscle with 600mg vs 300mg, so it's worth going a bit higher. 500mg is generally a good sweet spot between maximum gains and minimal sides.


I have to agree that 500mg is where you need to be if your going ahead,but if you divert from a clean diet in deficit then you're going to blow up like a balloon.


----------



## barndoor5 (Jun 16, 2013)

The goal is to work like **** in the gym, add some cardio and be very strict with diet.

What dose of AI would you recommend if i bump it 500mg a week?

Any benefit to tapering the test from 250 to 500 to gauge sides?


----------



## stevieboy100 (Oct 30, 2012)

not at all retarded 250 a week is great if you run a cut and do cardio

if ugl then i would say 500 or maybe a t400 but if pharm then 250 a week is fine should lean out nice on a cut with that

would say try and get as lean as you can before trying to add mass but all depends on individual


----------



## 1010AD (May 30, 2009)

Deadcalm said:


> I'd advise 500mg per week for your first cycle. Studies have shown that you can gain pounds of extra muscle with 600mg vs 300mg, so it's worth going a bit higher. 500mg is generally a good sweet spot between maximum gains and minimal sides.


----------



## 1010AD (May 30, 2009)

Deadcalm said:


> I'd advise 500mg per week for your first cycle. Studies have shown that you can gain pounds of extra muscle with 600mg vs 300mg, so it's worth going a bit higher. 500mg is generally a good sweet spot between maximum gains and minimal sides.


Would you be able to post a link to this study coz ATM going off people's experience I would have to disagree. I know plenty of people that have run 250-300mg for a first cycle and have gained very well with low sides.

I also know people that have gone up to 500mg for their seconded cycle and have noticed a big change in sides especially acne. A normal young man will produce a total of about 6mg per day. As we get older we produce less so this is why I disagree that you need at lest 500mg over 250mg


----------



## thinkinht (Jan 5, 2014)

1010AD said:


> Would you be able to post a link to this study coz ATM going off people's experience I would have to disagree. I know plenty of people that have run 250-300mg for a first cycle and have gained very well with low sides.
> 
> I also know people that have gone up to 500mg for their seconded cycle and have noticed a big change in sides especially acne. A normal young man will produce a total of about 6mg per day. As we get older we produce less so this is why I disagree that you need at lest 500mg over 250mg


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

I don't see how this is a breakthrough : ceteris paribus the more the better.


----------



## 1010AD (May 30, 2009)

thinkinht said:


> http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/281/6/E1172
> 
> I don't see how this is a breakthrough : ceteris paribus the more the better.


Is this the study that Deadcalm mentioned below ?



Deadcalm said:


> I'd advise 500mg per week for your first cycle. Studies have shown that you can gain pounds of extra muscle with 600mg vs 300mg, so it's worth going a bit higher. 500mg is generally a good sweet spot between maximum gains and minimal sides.


----------



## aysandie (Aug 4, 2012)

Why not actually diet down first? I assume you are not 10% bf. I see no point in using steroids to cut to the 10-12% region when an adequate diet could do exactly same thing, you might as well use a cycle where you gain some QUALITY mass (See the caps? Means little fat and lean muscle which is what most people should be doing). If you need gear to cut down, what is to say you are mentally ready to sustain that transformation? YOu probably end up back to the start eventually and going in circles.


----------



## thinkinht (Jan 5, 2014)

1010AD said:


> Is this the study that Deadcalm mentioned below ?


Probably, but even if it isn't it does show the exact same thing he's refering to.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

1010AD said:


> Is this the study that Deadcalm mentioned below ?


Yes it is. The 600mg group gained multiple extra kilos of lean muscle mass.

Will you gain well off 250mg? Sure. But will you gain more muscle at 500mg? Yes. And it isn't a negligible amount either. We're talking multiple extra pounds of pure muscle here.

For that reason, if you're going to shut yourself down with supranatural levels of test, you may as well take a higher and more effective dose and make the most of it.


----------



## 1010AD (May 30, 2009)

@stuey99 interested to know what your views are on this?

Also @Deadcalm with reading the study would you still say for someone first time use to use 500-600mg rather than 250-300mg even though the will get great gains from 300mg?



Deadcalm said:


> Yes it is. The 600mg group gained multiple extra kilos of lean muscle mass.
> 
> Will you gain well off 250mg? Sure. But will you gain more muscle at 500mg? Yes. And it isn't a negligible amount either. We're talking multiple extra pounds of pure muscle here.
> 
> For that reason, if you're going to shut yourself down with supranatural levels of test, you may as well take a higher and more effective dose and make the most of it.


----------



## barndoor5 (Jun 16, 2013)

Thing is im not looking to gain muscle. I'll be in a 500+ calorie deficit.

My main goal here is to maintain or increase strength while cutting and benefit from the improved recovery.

Gaining LBM is not a priority for me.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

1010AD said:


> @stuey99 interested to know what your views are on this?
> 
> Also @Deadcalm with reading the study would you still say for someone first time use to use 500-600mg rather than 250-300mg even though the will get great gains from 300mg?


Yeah that study is all well and good mate, but personally I have seen people struggle with sides doing 500mg a week for their first cycle...and after I've advised them to drop down to 250-300mg for their next cycle they've enjoyed it much more, not needed to mess around with ai doses and made great gains.

Of course someone will argue that they'll make better gains with 500mg and while that may be true, they'll also make better gains with tren and deca, but we don't recommend that for a first cycle do we?

Everyone knows I'm no mr sensible when it comes to doses, but starting low on a first cycle just makes sense. And IMO a study showing 600mg will give better gains doesn't change that...I'm sure I can dig up a study that will show tren will give better gains, but that does not mean it's suitable for a first cycle.

That's my opinion anyway.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

barndoor5 said:


> Thing is im not looking to gain muscle. I'll be in a 500+ calorie deficit.
> 
> My main goal here is to maintain or increase strength while cutting and benefit from the improved recovery.
> 
> Gaining LBM is not a priority for me.


250mg is plenty mate.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

1010AD said:


> @stuey99 interested to know what youviews are on this?
> 
> Also @Deadcalm with reading the study would you still say for someone first time use to use 500-600mg rather than 250-300mg even though the will get great gains from 300mg?


Of course.

Why have great gains when you can have greater gains? Why add 8lbs of lean mass when you could add 11-12lbs?

Any test cycle is going to suppress you the same, so you may as well make the most of it. Obviously you wouldn't go up to huge doses and heavy compounds straight away, but 500mg of test is still a light dose for much more optimal growth without sides being too bad. Some people don't even have any sides at that dose. I didn't.

Avoiding gaining those extra few pounds of muscle just out of caution for sides is a bit daft because if he's gonna do other cycles then he's gonna have to deal with it eventually. It's just delaying the inevitable.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

barndoor5 said:


> Thing is im not looking to gain muscle. I'll be in a 500+ calorie deficit.
> 
> My main goal here is to maintain or increase strength while cutting and benefit from the improved recovery.
> 
> Gaining LBM is not a priority for me.


In that case 250mg is fine. 500mg is better for bulking but 250mg is fine to maintain muscle.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> Of course.
> 
> Why have great gains when you can have greater gains? Why add 8lbs of lean mass when you could add 11-12lbs?
> 
> ...


So surely by running test at 500mg you're not getting the "optimum" gains you'd get off tren or deca? May as well get used to those sides straight away, isn't putting off tren and deca just delaying the inevitable?

What would you say to the countless people who've posted threads on UKM about struggling with ai doses on the "classic 500mg test cycle"? I know what I'd say..."If you'd started low on 250mh then you wouldn't have had those problems".

A first cycle is not about optimum gains IMO...as if it was then we'sd be advising people to bang in multiple compounds and 19nors straight away. A first cycle should be about having fun, making some nice gains and having a nice stress free introduction to steroids.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> In that case 250mg is fine. 500mg is better for bulking but 250mg is fine to maintain muscle.


750mg is even better for bulking, 1g test and 500mg tren is better still lol.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> Avoiding gaining those extra few pounds of muscle just out of caution for sides is a bit daft because if he's gonna do other cycles then he's gonna have to deal with it eventually. It's just delaying the inevitable.


Tren it is then?? Lol.


----------



## 1010AD (May 30, 2009)

stuey99 said:


> So surely by running test at 500mg you're not getting the "optimum" gains you'd get off tren or deca? May as well get used to those sides straight away, isn't putting off tren and deca just delaying the inevitable?
> 
> What would you say to the countless people who've posted threads on UKM about struggling with ai doses on the "classic 500mg test cycle"? I know what I'd say..."If you'd started low on 250mh then you wouldn't have had those problems".
> 
> A first cycle is not about optimum gains IMO...as if it was then we'sd be advising people to bang in multiple compounds and 19nors straight away. A first cycle should be about having fun, making some nice gains and having a nice stress free introduction to steroids.


Well said but going off his last post he's just not getting the point.

Ih

Oh well lets hope he doesn't give much advise out for first time users


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

stuey99 said:


> So surely by running test at 500mg you're not getting the "optimum" gains you'd get off tren or deca? May as well get used to those sides straight away, isn't putting off tren and deca just delaying the inevitable?
> 
> What would you say to the countless people who've posted threads on UKM about struggling with ai doses on the "classic 500mg test cycle"? I know what I'd say..."If you'd started low on 250mh then you wouldn't have had those problems".
> 
> A first cycle is not about optimum gains IMO...as if it was then we'sd be advising people to bang in multiple compounds and 19nors straight away. A first cycle should be about having fun, making some nice gains and having a nice stress free introduction to steroids.


We've been through this a thousand times before so I'm not going to keep arguing with you because we just go in circles and you can't seem to ever grasp what I'm trying to get at.

On the grand scale of steroids, from a simple test cycle all the way to grams of deca and tren, 250mg test per week is a very low dose and safe cycle.

However, in the grand scheme of things 500mg is also a low dose and safe cycle. Yeah, you might get a few more sides, but it's still a very manageable and simple cycle. It may give more sides, but those sides are outweighed by the fact that the higher test dose is going to add multiple extra pounds of mass.

We have to use a bit of common sense here, come on. Just because I'm advising 500mg per week it doesn't mean that I'm also advising huge tren cycles. Let's be realistic. Test only is a superb first cycle, and in the dosage stakes, 500mg will add multiple extra pounds of lean mass compared to 250mg and really make the most of the fact that you're completely shutting down your body (the same level of shutdown occurs whether its 250mg or 500mg).

Cycles are about optimum gains *for your first cycle*. For first cycles many people gain 10-12lbs of lean mass off 500mg per week, suggesting it is a sweet spot in between optimum gains with safer sides. If someone blasts tren and deca and whatever else for their first cycle, then they aren't going to gain that much more muscle (if any) compared to the 500mg per week dose, so we completely lose the sweet spot between optimum first-cycle gains and side effects. Get it?

I just do not see the point of talking someone out of a few extra pounds of muscle gain out of a fear of side effects which might not even happen. I had absolutely NO side effects for my first 500mg cycle, and thousands of others haven't. Remember that people are only ever going to post threads when they're in trouble because they need advice. The thousands upon thousands of people who have been absolutely fine with 500mg per week obviously won't post threads because they have no reason to. That's why going off the number of threads people make is a complete fallacy.

I think it's poor advice to automatically suggest that 250mg should be a first-time bulking dose purely out of fear of side effects which might not even happen. Remember that SHBG binds to the majority of test in the system, so actual free anabolic test in the blood is only a fraction of what you inject. 250mg for many people would only put their free test levels in the upper range of *normal*! It's not even a supranatural dose designed to dramatically increase the speed of protein synthesis. In fact, research the internet and you will see that a LOT of people are on a medically prescribed dose of 200mg per week just for TRT.

Here's what better advice would be to avoid talking people out of extra muscle gains for no real reason: Try a 500mg per week dosage cycle, and if the side effects are too much, or the user has a really difficult time controlling oestrogen, *THEN* drop it down to 250mg and continue with that dose instead. Any leftover test and AI meds can be used for future cycles. This means that the many people who are absolutely fine with 500mg can get the most out of their first cycle, whilst any who are very sensitive can drop down. I cannot see how anyone can argue with that approach.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> We've been through this a thousand times before so I'm not going to keep arguing with you because we just go in circles and you can't seem to ever grasp what I'm trying to get at.
> 
> On the grand scale of steroids, from a simple test cycle all the way to grams of deca and tren, 250mg test per week is a very low dose and safe cycle.
> 
> ...


No, trust me mate I do "grasp what you're trying to say"...what you're saying really isn't that complicated lol, I just disagree with you.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

stuey99 said:


> No, trust me mate I do "grasp what you're trying to say"...what you're saying really isn't that complicated lol, I just disagree with you.


So you even disagree with the idea of someone trying a 500mg cycle and then dropping down to 250mg only if they experience bad side effects or AI dosage issues?


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

A first time user will gain almost as much on 250 as they will 500.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> So you even disagree with the idea of someone trying a 500mg cycle and then dropping down to 250mg only if they experience bad side effects or AI dosage issues?


I don't disagree with it, I think it's a perfectly fine way to run a first cycle...I just think it's better to do a simple 250mg run for someone's first time.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> A first time user will gain almost as much on 250 as they will 500.


Wrong wrong wrong wrong. Read the studies. Users on 600mg of testosterone gained multiple extra pounds of lean muscle mass compared to the 300mg group.

250mg of test isn't THAT far off TRT dose for many people, especially when factoring in ester weight and the efficiency of metabolism. Many guys out there are on 200mg for TRT and their test is in the upper range of normal.

Steroid cycles are designed to put hormone levels in the supranatural level where protein synthesis is dramatically sped up. 250mg for many people will basically mean that they're shutting down their HPTA (with no guarantee of recovery) just to run a glorified TRT where their test levels might be slightly above the normal range of a healthy young man. I really don't see the point.

If you're going to shut yourself down with no guarantee of recovery, then make the most out of it and at least try 500mg. It's easily manageable for most people, but if you're one of the unlucky ones who can't get AI dosing right or gets bad sides, then simply drop down to 250mg or 300mg. Easy peasy. With that approach, people are getting the right dose for them and no one is being talked out of gaining a few extra pounds of muscle for no real reason whatsoever.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

stuey99 said:


> I don't disagree with it, I think it's a perfectly fine way to run a first cycle...I just think it's better to do a simple 250mg run for someone's first time.


You're entitled to think that, but I'm always going to advise people to do a 500mg test E cycle for their first one, and I'm going to say the same things and show the same studies, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't keep responding to that as we're just going to go round and round in circles every time.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> Wrong wrong wrong wrong. *Read the studies.* Users on 600mg of testosterone gained multiple extra pounds of lean muscle mass compared to the 300mg group.
> 
> 250mg of test isn't THAT far off TRT dose for many people, especially when factoring in ester weight and the efficiency of metabolism. Many guys out there are on 200mg for TRT and their test is in the upper range of normal.
> 
> ...


I dont take "studies" that seriously, I just gauge it from personal experience.

I tend not to read studies by so called experts, the vast majority have never even used steroids.

All the studies in the world dont matter a jot to an individual, you should try different drugs and dosages and see how you go.

As for 250mgs being TRT so what, 250mgs instead of nothing is a world of difference to me.

Full , hard, vascular bags of energy.

500mgs just bloats me and I look like ****.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> You're entitled to think that, but I'm always going to advise people to do a 500mg test E cycle for their first one, and I'm going to say the same things and show the same studies, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't keep responding to that as we're just going to go round and round in circles every time.


Lol, it's a discussion mate and an interesting one IMO...no need to take it so personally.

Are you actually telling me not to come onto a thread and disagree with your opinions??

Does this apply to everyone...is your opinion final now??

ARE YOU FVCKIN SERIOUS???


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> You're entitled to think that, *but I'm always going to advise people to do a 500mg test E cycle for their first one*, and I'm going to say the same things and show the same studies, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't keep responding to that as we're just going to go round and round in circles every time.


Good for you, and Im going to advise differently.

You could post a picture of yourself to show how far your superior knowledge has taken you.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> I dont take "studies" that seriously, I just gauge it from personal experience.
> 
> I tend not to read studies by so called experts, the vast majority have never even used steroids.
> 
> ...


So you don't take clinical studies seriously, which are carefully controlled and involve multiple participants to get a more even result.

Instead, you go off your own experience and your own body, which may be completely different and make your advice completely inaccurate.

This is half the problem with steroid users.

I agree that you should try different drugs and dosages. All I disagreed with is your blanket statement that you gain as much off 250mg as you do with 500mg. That's been proven to not be the case in a wider audience.

As I said before, people can try a 500mg dose, and if they get bad sides, then drop down to 250mg. That way they aren't missing out on more muscle gains for no reason whatsoever just because they're being concerned about sides which they may not even experience. I'm sure you can agree with that as you advise yourself that people should try dosages and see how they go.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

stuey99 said:


> Lol, it's a discussion mate and an interesting one IMO...no need to take it so personally.
> 
> Are you actually telling me not to come onto a thread and disagree with your opinions??
> 
> ...


It is a discussion but we've had the same one before and we just go around in circles. You can post whatever you like, I'm just asking you to avoid directly responding to my advice because it's clear that you're stuck in your ways and I'm never going to change my mind on my advice because it makes perfect sense and gives someone the best of both worlds (i.e. try 500mg and only drop it IF someone gets bad sides or estro issues).

In fact, you can reply to me if you like and I'll just copy and paste this thread instead of basically repeating the same thing all over again.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> So you don't take clinical studies seriously, which are carefully controlled and involve multiple participants to get a more even result.
> 
> Instead, you go off your own experience and your own body, which may be completely different and make your advice completely inaccurate.
> 
> ...


Or they can start on 250mgs and see what happens, if they gain strength and muscle size then they can either choose to double the dose for slightly better gains if any at all or stay on 250mgs.

By the way, have you posted pics yet, I always find the heaviest users have the shi*tiest physiques.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> Good for you, and Im going to advise differently.
> 
> You could post a picture of yourself to show how far your superior knowledge has taken you.


No, because that's stupid, immature and bears absolutely no relevance whatsoever.

However, I will give you a clinical study with 61 male participants. Try educating yourself a bit:

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



> The following text outlines the benefits and risks of Testosterone administration based on a clinical human trial of 61 healthy men in 2001. The purpose of the trial was to determine the dose dependency of testosterone's effects on fat-free mass and muscle performance. In this trial 61 men, 18-35years old were randomized into 5 groups receiving weekly injections of 25, 50, 125, 300, 600 mg of Testosterone Enanthate for 20 weeks. They had previous weight-lifting experience and normal T levels. Their nutritional intake was standardized and they did not undertake any strength training during the trial. The only two groups that reported significant muscle building benefits were the 300 and 600 mg groups so any dose lower than 300mg will not be considered in this essay. 12 men participated in the 300 mg group and 13 men in the 600 mg group.
> 
> 600mg of Testosterone a week for 20 weeks resulted in the following benefits. Increased fat free mass, muscle strength, muscle power, muscle volume, hemoglobin and IGF-1.
> 
> ...


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

> Their nutritional intake was standardized and they did not undertake any strength training during the trial.


hahahahaha&#8230;&#8230;..a study of non training athletes.

What a doofus.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

banzi said:


> hahahahaha&#8230;&#8230;..a study of non training athletes.
> 
> What a doofus.


Which makes absolutely no difference because the clinical study clearly shows dose-dependant changes in test levels. Read the whole point of the study:



> The purpose of the trial was to determine the dose dependency of testosterone's effects on fat-free mass and muscle performance.


Strength training is far too much of a variable as everyone can train with different intensities and have different muscle fibre type concentrations, so to make the study worthwhile they HAVE to omit training entirely.

In the real world, the training is the same whether on 300mg or 600mg, so the results will correlate in the same manner. It's a measurement of dose dependency only.

It's like talking to a brick wall with meat heads who have done their own cycles, take their own personal experience as absolute gospel and fail to understand even a shred of science behind what they're putting into their bodies.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> It is a discussion but we've had the same one before and we just go around in circles. You can post whatever you like, I'm just asking you to avoid directly responding to my advice because it's clear that you're stuck in your ways and I'm never going to change my mind on my advice because it makes perfect sense and gives someone the best of both worlds (i.e. try 500mg and only drop it IF someone gets bad sides or estro issues).
> 
> In fact, you can reply to me if you like and I'll just copy and paste this thread instead of basically repeating the same thing all over again.


Ok so...I can reply to you?? Cheers for that lol. You're treating this like some personal vendetta mate, you really need to get over yourself!! I don't care about changing your mind, don't you get that?? It's about offering different points of view for the benefit of the thread.

No one was making this poersonal, it was a perfectly respectful, reasoned and adult debate...until you took it upon yourself to start telling me not to disagree with your advice...and then on second thoughts changed your mind and very kindly gave me permission to once again respond to your posts.

I'm not quite sure who you think you are, but if I see you giving advice that I disagree with I will very politely (as always) disagree and explain to the op the reasons. It will then be upto him todecide which advice to follow. This is a public forum mate, you'd better get used to differences in opinion and stop handing out orders.


----------



## cas (Jan 9, 2011)

banzi said:


> Or they can start on 250mgs and see what happens, if they gain strength and muscle size then they can either choose to double the dose for slightly better gains if any at all or stay on 250mgs.
> 
> By the way, have you posted pics yet, I always find the heaviest users have the shi*tiest physiques.


Lol you know that 250mg of pharma test only has something like 180mg of usable test in it, the rest is ester weight.

250mg of test per week is pointless imo


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

cas said:


> Lol you know that 250mg of pharma test only has something like 180mg of usable test in it, the rest is ester weight.
> 
> 250mg of test per week is pointless imo


Thats me on 250mgs of test e, yep pretty pointless


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> Which makes absolutely no difference because the clinical study clearly shows dose-dependant changes in test levels. Read the whole point of the study:
> 
> Strength training is far too much of a variable as everyone can train with different intensities and have different muscle fibre type concentrations, so to make the study worthwhile they HAVE to omit training entirely.
> 
> ...


The point is people here are eating optimally and training hard (or should be) and if the people in that sudy were then the results would be different, how different and how variable we dont know.

Stop posting evidence that isnt relevant, you could on the other hand post a picture of the results you have gained taking 500mgs as opposed to 250mgs.

Still waiting for the picture.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Deadcalm said:


> It's like talking to a brick wall with meat heads who have done their own cycles, take their own personal experience as absolute gospel and fail to understand even a shred of science behind what they're putting into their bodies.


And its like talking to a brick wall when people have no real world experience and bury their heads in books and studies thinking the answer to their own individual problem lies there.

How long have you been training and using, how many courses have you run and whats your stats, Im dying to know.


----------



## cas (Jan 9, 2011)

banzi said:


> Thats me on 250mgs of test e, yep pretty pointless
> 
> View attachment 147408


Yeah, 250mg there, during that period....but what about the grams you have been smashing for the 10 years previous?

I know nothing about you, and that was a joke.

But I see many big lads say oh, I'm only on 500mg of this or that but fail to mention the amount they took to get to that size initially..

Mate, I think you are failing to understand that most of us have used steroids and know that it takes more than 250mg to get to that size, through experience. So there is no need to lie

How do I know you are lying? Because I have used grams and I am still not your size, despite the 1kg of beef, 400g chicken, eggs, potatoes, pasta rice. And lifting weights till I can't lift my limbs.

Ofcourse the bigger you get natty, the better starting point you have. There have been some huge people on this board that have just started their first dbol cycle and dwarf most members on here, but we are not talking about any of that.

I'm talking about the bollox your spouting, saying that the op will get to your size taking just 250mgs of test!

Lets make a wager, op has to start a journal, taking just 250mg test and lets see just how close he can get to looking like you.....

Turn it in lol


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

cas said:


> Yeah, 250mg there, during that period....but what about the grams you have been smashing for the 10 years previous?
> 
> I know nothing about you, and that was a joke.
> 
> ...


I'll jump in here cas seeing as deadcalm has not banned me from replying to your posts yet lol.

Everyone is argueing about whether 250mg will give gains as good as 500mg, however I don't think this is the most important point here. I have guided people towards 250mg test for a first cycle and seen them make excellent gains...but the real reason I advise 250mg is because I believe it is pretty much guaranteed to be free of negative sides...however I don't believe this can be said about a 500mg cycle.

I agree that gains will most likely be better with 500mg, but I honestly believe that the guarantee of an easy, enjoyable and side effect free cycle outweighs the fact that you will gain afew extra lbs with double the dose.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

cas said:


> Yeah, 250mg there, during that period....but what about the grams you have been smashing for the 10 years previous?
> 
> I know nothing about you, and that was a joke.
> 
> ...


Correct, you do know nothing about me.

I competed back in the late 80s and early 09s I stopped competing in 96 and I had never taken more that 750mgs total , not even pre-contest.

I got back into training about three years ago and have used 250mgs of test a week to 10 days for the last year and add in 200-300mgs tren for 10 week blasts and then of again for 10-12 weeks.

The only time i went over a gram was last year, it did **** all for me, I was dieted down and 5 weeks from a show.

If you have taken grams and you still havent gained as much as me then you should try another sport, bodybuilding isnt for you, if you want to compete that is.

And Im not saying people will get to my size on 250mgs of test Im responding to the comment that 250mgs test wont do anything.


----------



## cas (Jan 9, 2011)

banzi said:


> Correct, you do know nothing about me.
> 
> I competed back in the late 80s and early 09s I stopped competing in 96 and I had never taken more that 750mgs total , not even pre-contest.
> 
> ...


See even with steroids it takes years, which is what you have had. If I had started in my teens ( natty) I would have been pretty big by my mid twenties, so I wouldn't need very high doses at all, which is where you have managed to be successful in reaching your size.

This was me on 1g if I recall correctly










So not near your size, yet I was using like 3 times your dose, hence me calling bullsh1t on your Post

Ps I won't choose another sport, I do it to look good for the wife to be. And mainly because I just love to lift weights and push myself


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

cas said:


> See even with steroids it takes years, which is what you have had. If I had started in my teens ( natty) I would have been pretty big by my mid twenties, so I wouldn't need very high doses at all, which is where you have managed to be successful in reaching your size.
> 
> This was me on 1g if I recall correctly
> 
> ...


I honestly don't think massive doses are the answer mate...I've tried it, believe me. Ran 1500mg test with 1000mg eq a couple years ago, and I've since realised that I can actually gain better on lower doses of multiple compounds.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

...genetics play a massive part as well @cas. You're built like me...god intended us to be skinny and he's a hard man to stand up to lol.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

stuey99 said:


> I honestly don't think massive doses are the answer mate...I've tried it, believe me. Ran 1500mg test with 1000mg eq a couple years ago, and I've since realised that I can actually gain better on lower doses of multiple compounds.


Exactly mate.

Everyone thinks they need huge dosages.

The body works much better on low dosages for long periods of time.

If you are serious about competing or gaining you shouldn't be coming off at all, just go on a very low cruise dosage, whats the point of coming off messing about with pct just to go back on again?

No disrespect cas but I looked like you in that pic when I had been clean for 10 years.

Theres no way you were using good gear and eating and training right and looking like that off a gram a week.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

banzi said:


> Exactly mate.
> 
> Everyone thinks they need huge dosages.
> 
> ...


It's genetics as well tho bro. I'm bigger than cas but by looking at him I can see we've got similar genetics and would both have our work cut out (in a big way) to get to your size. Mega doses are not the answer tho, I've made better gains in the last two years with moderate multi compound doses than I ever did off massive test doses.


----------



## cas (Jan 9, 2011)

banzi said:


> Exactly mate.
> 
> Everyone thinks they need huge dosages.
> 
> ...


Got to make this quick as I am meant to be going to sleep for work.

But I have been doing this for a couple of years, you have been doing this for 30 years ( for as long as I have been alive), even if you trained natty that whole time, you would still look better than me, because 30 years of diet and training beats someone who has been using gear for a short period dont you think?

Keep talking lads, I'm not ignoring you I will post in the morning


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

cas said:


> Got to make this quick as I am meant to be going to sleep for work.
> 
> But I have been doing this for a couple of years, you have been doing this for 30 years ( for as long as I have been alive), even if you trained natty that whole time, you would still look better than me, *because 30 years of diet and training beats someone who has been using gear for a short period dont you think?*
> 
> Keep talking lads, I'm not ignoring you I will post in the morning


Of course it does, my only point in this thread was that a first time user doesnt need anymore than 250mgs to get good results.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

stuey99 said:


> It's genetics as well tho bro. I'm bigger than cas but by looking at him I can see we've got similar genetics *and would both have our work cut out (in a big way) to get to your size. *Mega doses are not the answer tho, I've made better gains in the last two years with moderate multi compound doses than I ever did off massive test doses.


Im 5'10 and just under 200lbs in my Avi, Im normally around 220, not that big at all really.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

banzi said:


> Im 5'10 and just under 200lbs in my Avi, Im normally around 220, not that big at all really.


Yeah but it's easier to "look" big at 5'10 than it is at my height (6'4). Could you imagine how big my arms would have to be to look as big as yours lol??


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

stuey99 said:


> Yeah but it's easier to "look" big at 5'10 than it is at my height (6'4). Could you imagine how big my arms would have to be to look as big as yours lol??


Im glad Im 5'10 lol.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

banzi said:


> Im glad Im 5'10 lol.


At my height and with my genes...back and shoulders blow up massively, but getting big arms and a big chest is a struggle...I wish I was 5'10 lol.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

stuey99 said:


> Ok so...I can reply to you?? Cheers for that lol. You're treating this like some personal vendetta mate, you really need to get over yourself!! I don't care about changing your mind, don't you get that?? It's about offering different points of view for the benefit of the thread.
> 
> No one was making this poersonal, it was a perfectly respectful, reasoned and adult debate...until you took it upon yourself to start telling me not to disagree with your advice...and then on second thoughts changed your mind and very kindly gave me permission to once again respond to your posts.
> 
> I'm not quite sure who you think you are, but if I see you giving advice that I disagree with I will very politely (as always) disagree and explain to the op the reasons. It will then be upto him todecide which advice to follow. This is a public forum mate, you'd better get used to differences in opinion and stop handing out orders.


The reason I'm asking you not to continually reply to my advice is because I'm not going to let you discredit very sound and logical advice (i.e. try 500mg and drop down to 250mg if sides are bad) which forces me to reply and therefore wastes my time when we've had the same debate over and over. It isn't about you, it's about anyone seeking advice making sure that they see both sides of it.

You're more than welcome to give your own advice in the same thread, I'm just asking you not to reply to my specific advice throwing out ridiculous metaphorical points about how just because I'm suggesting 500mg, that also means that the OP should try huge doses of tren and deca, which makes no sense.

To save me wasting my time I think I will just copy and paste this thread if you do as it pretty much puts my point across without repeating the whole thing again.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

stuey99 said:


> I agree that gains will most likely be better with 500mg, but I honestly believe that the guarantee of an easy, enjoyable and side effect free cycle outweighs the fact that you will gain afew extra lbs with double the dose.


Which is why people can TRY 500mg and only drop down to 250mg IF they get side effects.

What you don't seem to realise is that whilst some people do get bad sides off 500mg per week, MANY people don't. I didn't and neither do thousands of others. People with issues only seem artificially high because they're the only ones who post threads asking for help. People with no issues on 500mg per week aren't going to post threads saying "this is great" are they?

What if someone tries a 500mg per week cycle and gets absolutely no side effects or AI dosing issues, would you still suggest that they drop down to 250mg? For what?

You can't pigeon hole everyone and talk everyone out of gaining extra pounds of muscle when many people will have absolutely zero issues on 500mg per week. At least afford people the opportunity to try it, and if they are one of the unlucky ones with problems, simply drop down. Everyone wins with this approach.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> The reason I'm asking you not to continually reply to my advice


Yet you are continuing to reply to my advice and calling it ridiculous?? You really do think you're pretty fvckin special don't you.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

stuey99 said:


> Yet you are continuing to reply to my advice and calling it ridiculous?? You really do think you're pretty fvckin special don't you.


I don't mind in this thread. I just know that there's going to be a bunch of other threads from newbies wanting the same advice so it's inevitable that we're going to offer differing opinions in future and end up recycling the whole debate (which we've already had once before).

This is my advice to newbies from now on: try 500mg per week for optimum first-cycle gains, and if they get bad sides or estro issues, drop it down to 250/300mg instead. You're obviously free to suggest a 250mg cycle straight off the bat, but if you actually DISAGREE with my approach then I'm honestly lost because it gives everyone the best of both worlds.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> Which is why people can TRY 500mg and only drop down to 250mg IF they get side effects.


People can do whatever they want to do mate, none of us need YOU to tell us what we can and can't do!! You offer your advice and I will offer mine, simple as that. And I would appreciate it if in future you would refrain from handing out orders on which posts I can and can't comment on. You've made a great debate on first cycle doses very personal for some reason and I honestly can't understand why???

You really must be a very unpleasant person to know in real life if this is how you react to people not agreeing with your opinion!!


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> I don't mind in this thread..


Well that's very gracious of you, thankyou...if you could only see the way you're making yourself look lol.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

Deadcalm said:


> You're obviously free to suggest a 250mg cycle straight off the bat, but if you actually DISAGREE with my approach then I'm honestly lost because it gives everyone the best of both worlds.


Really?? I'm free to disagree?? Ah, thankyou.


----------



## gearchange (Mar 19, 2010)

I am glad I stayed out of this,would have been world war 3 :tongue: or would it


----------



## gearchange (Mar 19, 2010)

On a side note.My first cycle was 250ml test enanthate ,best cycle I ever done.I guess when your body is "new " to gear it reacts far better.

I think it's a receptor thingy that sucks it all up and stuff,or so I have read somewhere..


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

gearchange said:


> I am glad I stayed out of this,would have been world war 3 :tongue: or would it


Lol, he's gone and started a thread on 250mg vs 500mg to try and prove me wrong now. Personally I don't think there is any right or wrong here...these are opinions not facts.


----------



## gearchange (Mar 19, 2010)

stuey99 said:


> Lol, he's gone and started a thread on 250mg vs 500mg to try and prove me wrong now. Personally I don't think there is any right or wrong here...these are opinions not facts.


I am with you,practical experience does play a big part here and why jump in at 500,you will never know if 250 would have been optimal for you.We all know "or so I thought" that more does not mean better or bigger.I have always started at the beginning my self.I would rather take advice from people who have done it than what someone tells me because they read it in some study.Just my opinion by the way.


----------



## Beans (Sep 1, 2008)

If your using UGL stuff I'd used 500mg minimum.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

gearchange said:


> I am with you,practical experience does play a big part here and why jump in at 500,you will never know if 250 would have been optimal for you.We all know "or so I thought" that more does not mean better or bigger.I have always started at the beginning my self.I would rather take advice from people who have done it than what someone tells me because they read it in some study.Just my opinion by the way.


Tbh mate I'm quite happy to have deadcalm and anyone else disagree with me, this is what opinions are all about lol. Me and my lass are sat here in hysterics that he's actually wasting his time with a poll to prove me wrong when there is no right or wrong.


----------



## Deadcalm (Aug 9, 2013)

gearchange said:


> I am with you,practical experience does play a big part here and why jump in at 500,you will never know if 250 would have been optimal for you.We all know "or so I thought" that more does not mean better or bigger.I have always started at the beginning my self.I would rather take advice from people who have done it than what someone tells me because they read it in some study.Just my opinion by the way.


Bear in mind that this study involves 61 men in randomised groups with standardised diets. It isn't just some theory created in the mind of a scientist. It's a real and highly accurate measurement of exactly what different doses of testosterone do to many different size and strength variables in 61 men:



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


To be honest, anyone who does gear and takes it remotely serious should find this study extremely fascinating as I think it's the only definitive study in the world which has gave us a real and measured insight into exactly what different doses do without hear-say, conjecture or subjective opinions muddying the truth as they so often do.


----------



## gearchange (Mar 19, 2010)

I guess if we all ate the same diet and did the same exercises at the same intensity on the same days for the same length of time this would be very comprehensive,but sadly as you have stated many times we are all different and one may gain well on 500 and one may gain equally as well on 250.

I will be honest with you..I gained 17lbs on 250 test over 12 weeks and kept 9lb of it.That was the biggest gain I have ever made.

This is my opinion on what happened to me,I have read your study and I fully understand what you are saying on paper.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

gearchange said:


> I guess if we all ate the same diet and did the same exercises at the same intensity on the same days for the same length of time this would be very comprehensive,but sadly as you have stated many times we are all different and one may gain well on 500 and one may gain equally as well on 250.
> 
> I will be honest with you..I gained 17lbs on 250 test over 12 weeks and kept 9lb of it.That was the biggest gain I have ever made.
> 
> This is my opinion on what happened to me,I have read your study and I fully understand what you are saying on paper.


Your personal opinions and experiences are not really relevant tho mate...his study says you must be wrong lol!!


----------



## Bear2012 (Jan 19, 2012)

My first ever proper cycle was 250mg the 2nd 500mg and the 3rd was the highest at 750mg all for 12 weeks

I never got any sides on any of the dosages but 250mg I got great gains as did the 500mg for me the 750mg did nothing more then the 500mg and was a waste of time.

If you have never used before I think go in small and build it through the cycle once you are comfortable. You may be very pleased with the gains you get off 250mg and can save using a higher dose for another cycle. More is not always best.

Bottom line to the OP you can read the advice (Some better than others here) but go with what you feel comfortable doing.


----------

