new cycle

Important!! The following is a text only archive!
For full features; Go to new cycle

posted by neva2huge

Hello I want to take a cycle next month. Right now my body fat is @ 11% and im 162pnds. I want to take deca, test, and as d-bol. :banghead: please help me
I also have been working out for about 1 yr now hard. Im not that big of a guy but i work hard. I just need to noe if thats a good cycle and how many mg a week i should take and what kind of cycle i should get i wanna get big not fat. and they lean out in the spring time. i want to start my cycle by nov 1 for 7-8 weeks and then cut down 2 weeks later by taking winstrol.

pLEASE HELP... I NEED HELP PLEASE HELP.

ALSO IM 22 YRS OF AGE

posted by canibalistic_js

Lose more weight before you bulk and thats way too much gear for one cycle, the cycle needs to be 10 weeks minimum. And you have a lot of natural growing before you should start. You need to learn to diet before you bulk/cut.

posted by estray

Agreed. youre too young, dont have enough training, and thats too complex of a first cycle.

posted by neva2huge

THEN WHAT is a proper cycle. I will take winstrol to cut down in the spring and my deiting is getting better everyday. I have lost almost 15pnds i was 178 last jan if im correct. My friend did deca-d-bol and test but i would rather get some help on a cycle from the pros and older kats out here.

thanks
neva 2 huge

posted by jcvaughn26

How tall are you? 162 is skinny unless you are short. No offense. First off give us your diet. Second too much gear for a first cycle. TEST alone is a great cycle. Winny doesn't make you cut, it pulls water out hence the source joints. Cutting is do to your diet not the gear you are on. You need to research alot. you need to know ancillaries, PCT, effects of different gear (the ones you plan on taking mainly).

posted by estray

My advice would be to keep reading and researching. The fact that you think youre gonna take winny only to cut shows you got a long way to go.

posted by Dex

some kid said that he wanted to cut with winny at the gym and i said, hell yea that will work!!!'

haha no i acutally said "no it doesnt" and he was like "really?" and i like "yes, you dumbass" and then he said "oh ok" then i said "diet and cardio....no easy way out" then he asked about clen so i just left.

posted by AKS

your diet should be at its best before you take test.

posted by president_fad

judging by your spelling/grammar i think you need to think long and hard about whether or not you should be putting chemicals into your body.

posted by neva2huge

My height is 5'8 AND 162pnds. My diet right now is very simple and low about 1700-1800cal just because im trying to lose alot of body fat before i cycle on some gear. Then i will bulk up eat alot more.

My work outs are

cardo is only 20mins

Monday: chest abs and 20min cardo
Tuseday: back abs 20mins cardo...3 quick bi works out
wed: shoulders ab cardo
thus Chest abs and cardo
friday cardo and abs
Saturday: full arm day ...cardo and abs
Sunday : legs

I will change this up when i bulk up for sure.

8am: 2egg whites and go lean ceral
10am fuirt and bal bar
12pm lunch : turkey sandwich on wheat bread
3pm protein shake and fuirt
6pm Chicken or fish or steak and salad
9pm protein and a light healthy snack.

*This diet is played 5-6 days a week sometimes i cheat 1 day but i dont cheat crazy.

I want to be at least 180 thats my goals by dec and then start cutting and be looking very fit my april

posted by AKS

You'll never put on weight if you eat like that! two egg whites! that's about 6 grams of protein bro!! When do you REST! And there's no need to do abs every day!
You are NOT ready to do any gear.

posted by president_fad

i figured u would post something like this. 180 lbs is still too small for gear use IMO. You eat like an 11 year old girl. That still too few cals for cutting.

posted by Dex

1700 calories? my girlfriend eats that bro....when shes dieting....you can eat alot more and still lose fat. eat more food and hold off on the cycle. we can give you lots of good advice that will help cuz you're no where near your natural potential

posted by Dex

and he never came back....

posted by estray

Damn, scared another one off. Guess he didnt wanna hear what we were tellin.

posted by dg806

How much do you weigh? There is no way you can be anywhere close to a natural peak, because of lack of training years. Here's a good post by trouble on weight and steriod usage amounts. Read this and try to understand it. If after reading it, you still say age doesn't matter, you're crazy and you are heading for a world of trouble a few years down the road.

An interesting question, one that should have been asked a long time ago.

1. Gear is used at supraphysiological doses.

2. It has a marked dose-dependent effect - on many tissues, not just skeletal muscle. At a "trade-off point", the costs of higher dosing begin to become evident. Worst tradeoffs? Suppression of LH release and supression of endogenous test.

Evidence of increased cancer risk, associated with age, diet, stress, sleep, and liver health, primarily via liver drug metabolism (PXR) receptor and CYP genes responsible for normal function of the cholesterol biosynthesis pathway.

**** with these long enough, at high enough doses, and you're courting real risk of fatal direct and indirectly AAS-promoted adverse effects.

This paper has embedded in its intro sections a nice description of prostate cancer. Excess androgens are directly assoicated with prostate and indirectly with lung cell oncogenesis.

This brings us to the point of body fat. Test also binds to and regulates adipose tissue (central and peripheral).

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/89/2/718 (full paper).

This paper (you should read it), shows clearly the physiological threshold point in dosing (under suppresed natural test...so we go from what is the same as very low test to very high circulating test levels) - in terms of fat mass reduction and lean body mass increases.

A paper the enumerates the benefits of androgen use and the tradeoffs (benfit versus costs at various dosages) for a cohort of normally functioning (eugonadal young men)

http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/co...ll/281/6/E1172 (full paper)

READ THIS PAPER. It verifies exactly what you see in common practice - higher dosing gives you more positive result. However, past the tradeoff point, you also begin to accumulate negative effects.

In another thread on this forum, I posted a series of similar papers that demonstrate this effect in older men as well.

Factors that determine threshold effective dose (threshold cost/benefit tradeoff)

Age is a factor, for many reasons. Years of training, and the natural level of androgen and androgen receptor action in target tissue (muscle)- and most importantly - glucose tolerance (the key driver of androgen receptor response to supraphysiological doses) and nutritional status (gut function) - are the primary factors that dictate the efficacy of any particular dosing scheme.

Therefore, if we were to hold all *controllable* factors are held equal (a vitual impossibility, as genetic variation then becomes a factor), the question is:

Has the threshold effect for positive response been met for both men, (ng/Kg minimal effective dose)?

The answer is probably "yes", at supraphysiological levels. However, that will be distinctly different for each man, on the basis of lean body mass, fat, mass, and genetically determined responsiveness that determines threshold dose required.

What happens as we move beyond the threshold effect, where costs begin to accumulate rapidly?

Now, lets get down to reality. The next question is, at markedly high dosing, past this threshold effect, how much excess is costly (detrimental), in terms of health effects.

That, too, varies due to lifestyle history, genetics and liver function. The longer you use AAS and the older you are, the more likely the negative consequences will snowball (accumulate) and result in significant adverse effect.

So you want just enough, not more. In the larger individual, the more LIKELY THAT a modest dosing scheme will be close to the postive threshold effect (beyond which point, negative effects accumulate as fast or faster than positive effects (net benefit) from supra-threshold dosing.

Does the larger man need a larger dose? Probably, but...if both men are dosed beyond the threshold effect, the additional benefits and their weight against the costs are determined by numerous other factors.

This is the best qualified answer I can give you. I need you those of you who ask this question to review this reality of cost/benefit tradeoffs at significantly higher dosing than physiological threshold effect.

Know this: EITHER longterm intense training (at least 5-7 yrs) under optimal glucose tolerance OR several years use of AAS will promote changes in the polymorphic expression of the androgen receptor (eg, you achieve a near permanent, highly stable, change in natural bodymass maximum over the lesser trained individual, who will revert fairly quickly if training is ceased for several months).

However, if you use AAS before this condition naturally occurs (in your early to mid 20s), you will gain LESS net excess lean body mass (LBM), because you will not have fully maximized your androgen receptor number in muscle tissue. This maximim AR number is a function of the number of years of maximum androgen concentration effect on maturation of muscle quality and fully developed muscle matrix support tissue.

To put this more simply: if you use androgen excess before the entire neruomuscualr system is naturally optimized by careful diet and longterm training, you will limit the extent of the total net benefits gained from AAS use, but you will still incur the total net costs at supraphysiological dosing.

The farther out you are from this magic point of readiness for full benefit of AAS use (the less prepared your body), the more ephemeral (shorter lived) are the suboptimal benefits accured. The net costs continue to be accrued and will exert their due over time in assumed excess risk.

Here is the point not discussed on other forums: the less ready your body for AAS use (the poorer or the shorter the prep, the closer you are to your natural maximum test production levels in your early-to-mid 20s), the more likely that you will also incur HIGHER net costs for AAS use than those who wait.

Why? Because its also highly likely that you will have done some not so prudent actions in your teens (we're being realistic here) - for which you tender liver is paying a price. If you fail to wait long enough to repair that damage, the excess costs exerted at the liver will be proprotionately higher - and worse - in the younger use (early 20s) than in those who prudently wait a few years, keeping to a very clean lifestyle of low rec drug and alcohol use, plus a sensible health diet and good sleep hygiene required for normal liver function.

Caveat emptor

* Add Your Comment - Ask a question *
Share the knowledge!

+
+
+
+
+
+ ...

+
+
------
+
+
+
------
+
+
+
+