Android Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 Wow this thread got interesting overnight.I think once again we strayed from the OP, who was asking what our opinion was.While we all gave opinions it looks like we gave opinions about each others opinion (guilty).IMO we should present our opinion and let the intelligent (assuming) OP make a more informed (hopefully after reading said opinions) decision.The majority of my cycles have been (and currently are) 600-650mg/wk Test-only to build up and stay on 120kg. I could definitely do that with 500mg/wk tbh.I recorded my experience of 1ml CN Test-E 250mg/ml and despite being under-dosed (just my opinion) it was good enough to get me up to and maintaining 115kg from memory.Agree with TWL as well though (up to the point of diminishing returns that even BIGKIWI admits exists), and 500mg/wk will yield better results. I just don't see that as relevant to the OP, here's what I read:A friend of mine is wanting to give gear a go. He is 43 years old and weighs 95kgs. I suspect about 19% body fat. He has trained his whole life and until recently was an active boxer.So nothing about bodybuilding, nothing about bulking up huge, nothing about being stronger, nothing about...well his mate just wants to give it a go.So my BEST advice. If you jump on 500 you'll never know what 250 feels like. If you start on 250 you will, then try 500 half-way through and feel what that's like.I would say your friend will be more knowledgeable after that kind of cycle :pfft: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ape Posted June 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 Hey all. Thanks for the solid discussion on this topic. He is going in for bloods before he starts so we can see what his levels are like first.I'll pass all your info on to my friend and let him make the desision if he should run 250 or 500. If he let me decide, I would suggest 500mg/week. For me personally, I ran a 250mg/week cycle and only yielded 4kgs after PCT. I had expected more. But like you say, everyone responds different.Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musclenz Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 Testosterone-induced muscle hypertrophy is associated with an increase in satellite cell number in healthy, young menIndrani Sinha-Hikim1, Stephen M. Roth2, Martin I. Lee1, and Shalender Bhasin1+ Author Affiliations1Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Molecular Medicine, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science, Los Angeles, California 90059; and 2Department of Human Genetics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvamia 15261 Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: Shalender Bhasin, UCLA School of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Molecular Medicine, Charles R. Drew Univ. of Medicine and Science, 1731 E. 120th St., Los Angeles, CA 90059 (E-mail: sbhasin@ucla.edu). Submitted 22 August 2002. Accepted 26 March 2003. AbstractTestosterone (T) supplementation in men induces muscle fiber hypertrophy. We hypothesized that T-induced increase in muscle fiber size is associated with a dose-dependent increase in satellite cell number(satellite cells are directly related to muscle growth - edit). We quantitated satellite cell and myonuclear number by using direct counting and spatial orientation methods in biopsies of vastus lateralis obtained at baseline and after 20 wk of treatment with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist and a 125-, 300-, or 600-mg weekly dose of T enanthate. T administration was associated with a significant increase in myonuclear number in men receiving 300- and 600-mg doses.(obviously the 125mg group did not change signifigantly -edit) The posttreatment percent satellite cell number, obtained by direct counting, differed significantly among the three groups (ANCOVA P < 0.000001); the mean posttreatment values (5.0 and 15.0%) in men treated with 300- and 600-mg doses were greater than baseline (2.5 and 2.5%, respectively, P < 0.05 vs. baseline). The absolute satellite cell number measured by spatial orientation at 20 wk (1.5 and 4.0/mm) was significantly greater than baseline (0.3 and 0.6/mm) in men receiving the 300- and 600-mg doses (P < 0.05). The change in percent satellite cell number correlated with changes in total (r = 0.548) and free T concentrations (r = 0.468). Satellite cell and mitochondrial areas were significantly higher and the nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio lower after treatment with 300- and 600-mg doses. We conclude that T-induced muscle fiber hypertrophy is associated with an increase in satellite cell number, a proportionate increase in myonuclear number, and changes in satellite cell ultrastructure. (notice the difference measured between satellite cell number between the 300 & 600mg PW dose - certainly just one point of view but interesting none the less given the arguement here about dose dependant growth-edit)(edit - mnz comment) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Android Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 dunno if anyone was doubting that, just didn't see anywhere that he wanted to get big, fast Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryB Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 dunno if anyone was doubting that, just didn't see anywhere that he wanted to get big, fast I just cut and pasted you android, hope you don't mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Android Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 dunno if anyone was doubting that, just didn't see anywhere that he wanted to get big, fast I just cut and pasted you android, hope you don't mind.lazy f*cker :pfft: burn some carbs mate and type it out, you'll thank me on the podium when they present you with that 1st place plastic troph....oh I won't go there! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thatwaslight Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 dunno if anyone was doubting that, just didn't see anywhere that he wanted to get big, fast I just cut and pasted you android, hope you don't mind.were you expecting MNZ to conduct the study himself and post the results as they came to hand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryB Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 dunno if anyone was doubting that, just didn't see anywhere that he wanted to get big, fast I just cut and pasted you android, hope you don't mind.were you expecting MNZ to conduct the study himself and post the results as they came to hand? God that would be heaps more useful. Real world results instead of cutting and pasting studies. Great idea TWL, ask him, he might listen to you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pseudonym Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 I think once again we strayed from the OP, who was asking what our opinion was.While we all gave opinions it looks like we gave opinions about each others opinion (guilty).IMO we should present our opinion and let the intelligent (assuming) OP make a more informed (hopefully after reading said opinions) decision.And that's why you're sitting on all that kudos, Android. :nod:One point I haven't noticed anyone raise is this: If our 43-year-old is currently sitting on 19% body fat, wouldn't it be better to lower that a bit (down to maybe 12% ideally) before looking at steroids?Then, when you do start using AAS, I thought the usual advice is for test only on your first cycle? And yeah, starting conservative and increasing as needed makes sense to me. More economical, if nothing else. :shrug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musclenz Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 I think once again we strayed from the OP, who was asking what our opinion was.While we all gave opinions it looks like we gave opinions about each others opinion (guilty).IMO we should present our opinion and let the intelligent (assuming) OP make a more informed (hopefully after reading said opinions) decision.And that's why you're sitting on all that kudos, Android. :nod:One point I haven't noticed anyone raise is this: If our 43-year-old is currently sitting on 19% body fat, wouldn't it be better to lower that a bit (down to maybe 12% ideally) before looking at steroids?Then, when you do start using AAS, I thought the usual advice is for test only on your first cycle? And yeah, starting conservative and increasing as needed makes sense to me. More economical, if nothing else. :shrug:Age has no real impact on what cycle. What you are suggesting would be perfect 500mg TestE & Dbol 20mg ed for first 4-6 weeks in a 12-16 weeker. His BF is a bit high & it would be better to start leaner & fitter if possible. Then its all about nutrition & hard training. Make sure he has some goals & it is really good to get some base blood tests done for future reference.I did make a comment on my original post to that effect Boss :wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thatwaslight Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 TO THE OP:MuscleNZ would be the most knowledgeable person on this forum when it comes to AAS so you are in good hands! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
genetic freek Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 I think once again we strayed from the OP, who was asking what our opinion was.While we all gave opinions it looks like we gave opinions about each others opinion (guilty).IMO we should present our opinion and let the intelligent (assuming) OP make a more informed (hopefully after reading said opinions) decision.And that's why you're sitting on all that kudos, Android. :nod:One point I haven't noticed anyone raise is this: If our 43-year-old is currently sitting on 19% body fat, wouldn't it be better to lower that a bit (down to maybe 12% ideally) before looking at steroids?Then, when you do start using AAS, I thought the usual advice is for test only on your first cycle? And yeah, starting conservative and increasing as needed makes sense to me. More economical, if nothing else. :shrug:I don't think 19% is that high. If anything the Cycle should cut a bit of fat off him. I wouldn't let that alter a decision on taking gear........................SO..... Can OP whats the verdict, what is the cycle - someones feelings are going to get hurt here so be careful. Lads im here if you need someone to talk to :pfft: :pfft: :pfft: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryB Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 I think once again we strayed from the OP, who was asking what our opinion was.While we all gave opinions it looks like we gave opinions about each others opinion (guilty).IMO we should present our opinion and let the intelligent (assuming) OP make a more informed (hopefully after reading said opinions) decision.And that's why you're sitting on all that kudos, Android. :nod:One point I haven't noticed anyone raise is this: If our 43-year-old is currently sitting on 19% body fat, wouldn't it be better to lower that a bit (down to maybe 12% ideally) before looking at steroids?Then, when you do start using AAS, I thought the usual advice is for test only on your first cycle? And yeah, starting conservative and increasing as needed makes sense to me. More economical, if nothing else. :shrug:I don't think 19% is that high. If anything the Cycle should cut a bit of fat off him. I wouldn't let that alter a decision on taking gear........................SO..... Can OP whats the verdict, what is the cycle - someones feelings are going to get hurt here so be careful. Lads im here if you need someone to talk to :pfft: :pfft: :pfft: Just give me a cuddle anyway, we don't need to talk! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyfacials Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 I don't think 19% is that high. If anything the Cycle should cut a bit of fat off him. I wouldn't let that alter a decision on taking gear.I don't claim to know a fraction on info as much as MNZ/Android/HarryB but I do agree with that, I know of someone who lose nearly 9% bf on a cycle and he started @ 25% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
genetic freek Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 I don't think 19% is that high. If anything the Cycle should cut a bit of fat off him. I wouldn't let that alter a decision on taking gear.I don't claim to know a fraction on info as much as MNZ/Android/HarryB but I do agree with that, I know of someone who lose nearly 9% bf on a cycle and he started @ 25%Inb4 doctors should prescribe gear to obese people :pfft: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.