Article source: MESO-Rx

Q: What dosage of Arimidex or Letrozole should be used for estrogen management on a testosterone cycle? I’m running 700mg of testosterone propionate per week and want to keep my estrogen levels in the low-normal range.
Bill Roberts: For both letrozole and Arimidex, dosing really should be adjusted according to blood tests.

Initial values to try, I figure a base of 0.36 mg/day for letrozole where no testosterone is being taken but there is a need to reduce high or moderately high estradiol OR 0.36 mg for each 200 or 250 mg/week of testosterone that is being taken, but not more than 1.0 mg/day as the initial value and typically not as an adjusted value either.

The numbers don’t need to be that precise. The 0.36 value results simply from 2.5 mg/week being divided into 7 parts.

Dosing also can be every other day instead of daily, provided the total weekly dosage is the same.

With Arimidex I never developed an adjusted-for-testosterone-amount method, but have recommended 0.5 mg every other day and adjusting from there. This also works.

For your proposed cycle, it would be the 1.0 mg letrozole per day figure, as 700 mg/week is about 3 times the 200-250 mg/week figure, and multiplying 0.36 mg by three gets us up to the 1.0 mg/day suggested initial-dose ceiling — but there should be a follow-up test of estradiol levels. Or if not doing that — the test isn’t expensive though and results are back quickly — then at least being ready to reduce if there are symptoms suggesting low estradiol: joint problems, depression, or low libido.

But it is better to get the actual test because the absence of those symptoms doesn’t prove that estradiol hasn’t been driven too low. There could still be a problem.

And likewise, having one or more of those symptoms doesn’t prove estradiol has been driven too low, either. It is only suggestive. But if one finds from experience that changing aromatase inhibitor amount clearly matches up with change in the symptoms, then that is a good basis for adjustment. Still (repeating myself) better to get the test.

Originally published at: How Much Arimidex or Letrozole Is Needed on a Testosterone Cycle?

Article source: MESO-Rx

Q: I was talking with a friend of mine at the gym today who is a very experienced bodybuilder and trainer. He basically informed that the more “juice” you do over time, the more steroids you will require in the future. Do you have to “continually” up the dosage amount to keep or gain more muscle?

A: I don’t myself agree with a principle of needed dose being related to past usage, though things can work out where it can appear that way.

Rather, for any given hormonal status and a given individual, there is only so much that the body can attain with let’s-say near-optimal training and nutrition. Another slightly different way of looking at it is, only so much the body can attain in a given time frame such as say 6 months of further dedicated training.

If where you are now is far from that point, then your gains to to near that point can be fast. The farther away you are, the faster your gains can be, or alternately the less-extreme the hormonal envirornment will need to be for you to still have fast gains.

Another way of putting it: If you’re stagnant at X pounds in lean condition despite great training and nutrition and your use has been say 1 gram per week of steroids and no peptides, then if you want fast further gains you are going to have to step it up. Not really because of past use, but because X pounds is where your body reaches a homeostasis point with that amount of drugs and good training.

But if X pounds is where you would wind up at that usage level, or did wind up in the past but have since backslid, however you are now thirty lb less than that in lean condition, then you could make fast gains even with say 750 mg/week. Regardless that you might have used any higher amount in the past.

Does this have anything to do with your article written in 1998 about androgen receptor upregulation?

Not so much, it’s more a matter of there being no “record,” so to speak, kept in the body of what drugs have been used before and how much, and more importantly that rate of growth does wind up being very much related to how far away one is from what would be the experienced “set-point” for the drugs being used.

By set-point, I mean a muscular size where the body tends to settle into a homeostasis and neither lose muscle nor readily gain more.

When well under that point, gains are fast… when very near it, gains will not be fast or at least not for any extended period of time. (There could be a brief burst.)

For most this is very important when having already made a lot of gains past a very solid naturally-build base — or a huge amount of gains if having gone straight to steroids or nearly so — and having used only modest doses such as say 500 mg/week. In that case, absolutely having reached or nearly reached an apparent limit for that amount of drugs will mean that using more steroids can give very considerably more drugs.

Less so, but still true, at say 750 mg/wee; still less so but still true at say 1000 mg/week. If really having put in the time and quality work and nutrition at 1000 mg/week and having plateau’d, doubling up can make a further difference though not so great a difference.

Where the article is relevant is that it used to be believed in bodybuilding that receptors were damaged or permanently downregulated by high dose use, and that is not the case.

So let’s say a steroid novice goes and does a 2000 mg/week cycle and doesn’t build himself to anything like what he could with time achieve with even 750 mg/week.

Some would be concerned, and the article explains why not, that his 2000 mg/week usage ruined him and now he couldn’t respond to anything less than that. Not so: he can still achieve on say 750 mg/week just as much as he ever could on that dosage.

Ask Bill Roberts about anabolic steroids

Originally published at: Does the Amount of Steroids Required to Maintain Muscle Increase Over Time?

Article source: MESO-Rx

Q: Are SARMs (selective androgen receptor modulators) a good idea to add to your post cycle therapy (PCT)? And if so, why do you not see them being used during PCT by many people? And lastly, does anyone think SARMs are going to eventually replace anabolic steroids? Any info would be greatly appreciated.

A: I don’t think they are good to add to PCT.

I haven’t found any evidence that any SARM gives less suppression for given anabolic effect than is the case for anabolic steroids such as say Primobolan, Masteron, or oxandrolone.

I know I’m beating this point into the ground but it’s something that others just don’t say enough — actually I virtually never, anywhere, see people making this point except where the subject at hand is statistics: The phrases “no significant (x) was found” or even “There was no change in (x)” appearing in scientific papers are basically weasel language. The technical meaning is VERY different than what it could appear to mean.

The meaning is only that, because of random variation and the small number of subjects, no effect COULD have been detected that smaller than some given amount — which sometimes is quite large! — and the study found that they saw no effect of at least that size.

It does not at all mean that a very substantial, important effect may not have occurred!

For whatever reason, many scientists prefer to write in a manner that makes it appear that there most likely was no effect without telling directly how large or small their threshold of detection was. I guess it’s better sounding to omit “But we couldn’t have found any effect smaller than X anyway,” particularly where X is a large amount!

So you can have reports in scientific literature such as anabolic steroids, at the dose studied, providing NO muscle mass gains or performance enhancement.

Correct conclusion, what change there was, they couldn’t detect to statistical significance. Not the the benefit may not be significant, in the sense we may mean the word!

All that was to bring some sense to the fact that a study can, with this way of using words, make it appear that SARMs are non-inhibitory whether or not that is so.

I don’t at all think that that is the case. Taking a SARM during PCT is I think the equivalent of taking a pharmaceutical anabolic steroid during PCT.

In some instances a careful use can make sense, but in general, it sets back recovery.

And even in those instances, I’d just use the anabolic steroid.

(Editor’s note: For more discussion, see “SARMs S4 and PCT?“.

Ask Bill Roberts about anabolic steroids

Originally published at: SARMs for Post Cycle Therapy?

Article source: MESO-Rx

Q: What are the best anabolic steroid for women? Are Anavar and Primobolan the best bets to minimize masculinizing side effects?

A: It may seem surprising but IMO Anadrol (oxymetholone) is a good choice for women who wish to be conservative yet have very effective results.

I don’t specialize in cycles for women and don’t choose to involve myself with it — it almost only happens when the wife of someone I’m working with wants to use some anabolic steroids as well — but I haven’t seen 25 mg/day in divided doses go wrong yet.

Medically, you’d be astonished at the doses women and even girls have taken with very low virilization rates. So anyway, contrary to what intuition might suggest, Anadrol is not one of the riskier choices for women.

That aside, 15 mg/day of Anavar (oxandrolone) will be virilizing in quite a few cases. Probably about 5 mg/day of oxandrolone is comparable to 25 mg/day Anadrol (divided doses) for risk.

Primobolan up to 50 mg/week, divided injections, is a common and reasonable choice, but has some risk: not a particularly high rate though.

I first learned of [Anadrol for women] from Dan Duchaine. In the earlier parts of Denise Rutkowski’s career, he had her on 25 mg/day Anadrol. I don’t think I’m disclosing a secret here because he also published this. She obviously did very well with it and at that point she was not virilized at all. So from him mentioning this to me, I looked further into it.

The medical doses are pretty astonishing. The reason that 50 mg is the tablet size is because that’s the standard minimal medical dose, including for women and children! It used to be used extensively for improving red blood cell count.

I’m sure I could find it again, and I’ve posted it before, but there’s at least one paper in the literature reporting doses used for quite a large number of women and reporting low incidence of any side effects. And these doses were often more than 50 mg/day. Sometimes much more.

And further, personally I’ve never seen 25 mg/day go wrong.

I’m not saying it can’t: you see some women developing hoarse voices and facial hair naturally with time, so there must be some women that are right on the edge. But generally speaking, this is a conservative dose, yet quite effective.

The mg amount that women can tolerate of Anadrol is markedly higher than any other anabolic steroid. However, that said, it’s also true that effect per mg is less, but not enough so to make up the safety difference IMO. I would put 25 mg/day Anadrol (in divided doses) up against 50 mg/week Primo any time for effectiveness and it’s at least equally conservative.

Another thing about Anadrol that’s remarkable is that other anabolic steroids are very easily disruptive of the menstrual cycle. Even dosages such as 2.5 mg oxandrolone 2x/day commonly raise issues. Anadrol however medically has shown often only moderate effect on the menstrual cycle at 50 mg/day, and in my too-limited experience with it (as I generally don’t work with women on steroid cycles) 25 mg/day only lightened and shortened the cycles slightly. Remarkably less disruptive.

As a rough rule of thumb: take a dosage that would be quite moderate for a man, nearly the minimum likely to be recommended that could still give reasonable results for a novice, then divide by 10 to have something that’s moderate but effective for a woman.

For each individual steroid, my suggested mild-but-effective dosage range may differ from the above slightly, and of course the above also is only approximate because there will be diffferent opinions as to what would be moderate for a man. But if having nothing else to work with, if you see or are considering a dosage and want to do a quick “reality check,” the above can help. For example, say that someone is proposing EQ at 100 mg/week. Multiply by 10, and our comparison would be to 1000 mg/week of EQ for a man. That’s well above being a mild cycle. So we can see at a glance that this EQ dose is off, without having had to remember specific values for each steroid.

Also in general I’d forget stacking for women.

Returning to the stacks you asked about, and in general to anabolic steroids other than Anadrol for women:

I can’t say that it couldn’t possibly be that some stacking method might give better ratio of muscle gain to side effects, but as to whether we know what that is, that’s another question entirely. The best understood uses are single-drug, and single-drug works fine. Primo or Anadrol are my top two choices for bodybuilding and fitness; oxandrolone is also acceptable but must be lower dosed than those two; for quality of life enhancement, very very low dose testosterone works fine.

Is Anadrol an appropriate steroid for women?

Originally published at: What are the Best Steroids for Women?

Article source: MESO-Rx

Sustanon 250, whether as the trademarked Schering brand or as another product using the same name, is one of the most popular types of anabolic steroids. Unlike most other steroid injectables, Sustanon comprises a mixture of esters. Specifically, each ampule or mL contains testosterone propionate 30 mg, testosterone phenylpropionate 60 mg, testosterone isocaproate 60 mg, and testosterone decanoate 100 mg. This mixture includes short, medium, and long-acting esters.

For a steroid cycle, there are two advantages to combining multiple esters in the same formulation as Sustanon does.

Using multiple esters allows the fairly high total concentration of 250 mg/mL without requiring a large percentage of solubility enhancers in the vehicle. This is because solubilities of different esters of a steroid are nearly independent of each other. So for example if a vehicle (oil plus solubility enhancers) could dissolve 100 mg/mL of either one steroid ester alone or another alone, it could probably dissolve 200 mg/mL total as a combination of both. The greater total concentration adds convenience for the user.

A second effect of the blending is that extended duration of action can be achieved from including a long-acting ester without having the slow onset of action that such esters have when used alone. From the medical standpoint, it’s desirable that a patient experience benefit shortly after treatment. This is also true for steroid cycles. Because Sustanon contains short-acting esters, it can provide quick effect while also providing a fairly long duration of action.

From the bodybuilding perspective, this is helpful where the bodybuilder does not know how to frontload a steroid. But if he does, frontloading a longer acting single ester will accomplish very nearly the same thing. So, a different testosterone ester product such as testosterone enanthate or testosterone cypionate can very readily be used in an anabolic steroid cycle in place of Sustanon.

The multiple esters in Sustanon result in slightly complex pharmacokinetics or change in drug level with time. With a single ester, after so many hours or so many days blood level falls to one-half of what it had been; then by double that time that falls in half again resulting in one-quarter of the previous level; then by triple that time the level falls to one-eighth of what it had been, etc. This time period is called the half-life.

For Sustanon there is no such fixed time period. I estimate that after the last injection levels drop to one-half by the 4 day point; to one-quarter by the 10 day point; to one-eighth by the 16 day point; and to one-sixteenth by the 23 day point. Or if preferring to work with round numbers in terms of percent, as approximate values levels drop to 40% by day 6; to 30% by day 8; to 20% by day 11; and to 10% by day 18.

How then to use this information in a steroid cycle? While there is no exact black-and-white value, a good figure to work with is that when clomiphene or tamoxifen is correctly used, recovery of LH production may begin when levels from injected androgen have fallen to a level commensurate with ongoing 200 mg/week steroid usage. Stronger recovery can occur as levels fall yet further to about half this or less.

So let’s say Sustanon was used at 500 mg/week. In this case the user would need levels to fall by 40% before recovery might plausibly begin. From the above, this would be at approximately 6 days after the last injection.

If we had another athlete who used the rather high dosage of 2000 mg per week, he would need for levels to drop to 10% of what they had been. This would be at about 18 days past the last injection of the steroid cycle.

So much for the matter of the time required between the last injection and the point where recovery could begin. The remaining question regarding Sustanon’s unusual pharmacokinetics is, How to frontload it?

Ordinarily, determining a frontloading value is simple enough, being calculated from the half-life and the dosing schedule. However, Sustanon does not have any one half-life figure, so there is no mathematically perfect answer. However, we can come more than close enough for practical purposes.
The amount used for frontloading — the first day’s injection amount — should be that which will on average be taken in 5 days, plus the usual dosage. This total value may be rounded for convenience as exactness isn’t required.

So for example if taking 750 mg/week as three injections of 250 mg each, the average daily rate is 107 mg/day (750 mg divided by 7 days.) So the five-day amount works to five times this, or 535 mg. Add what will be the usual injection amount which is 250 mg, we have 785 mg. Because this is an inconvenient amount and absolute precision is not required, I’d round this to 750 mg.

After this, subsequent injections for the steroid cycle are all 250 mg.

This procedure will give proper blood levels much more rapidly than is the case when failing to frontload.

As to dosage, there are many ways to look at it, but a fairly simple and useful one is to categorize Sustanon usage at increments of 250 mg/week.

Usage of 250 mg/week usually amounts to nothing other than high-end testosterone replacement therapy. There is no guarantee that this usage will even cause testosterone levels to exceed the normal range. The dosing is high enough to cause the side effect of suppressed LH production, but in most cases is not high enough for any striking anabolic or fat-loss effects. Depending on individual sensitivity, this amount may be high enough to cause the side effects of gynecomastia if an aromatase inhibitor is not used, or may be enough to cause oily skin or acne. In a few instances, anabolic or fat loss benefits may be impressive, as there are individuals who are high responders. But this isn’t the usual outcome for this dosage level.

500 mg/week. In my opinion, this is a reasonable minimum for an actual steroid cycle. I see little point in suppressing the HPTA but probably failing to get much gains out of it, as is the usual outcome for any dosage much less than this. Again, because testosterone aromatizes to estradiol, an aromatase inhibitor may be required to avoid estrogen-related side effects. No one, I think, will fail to see substantially improved gains at this dosage level compared to natural training, but the rate of improvement may be slow. Eight weeks, however, is sufficient even at this amount for a quite significant improvement, unless of course one has trained for enough time at this usage level to have gotten most of what the individual can obtain from it.

750 mg/week. I would rather see this amount used if choosing to do a cycle. If an aromatase inhibitor is used it is unlikely that increased side effects would be a real reason to prefer 500 mg/weeek over this dosage, and results are very substantially superior.

1000 mg/week. I have no problem with this being the dosage for a first steroid cycle but that is in the context of a serious lifter who understands what he is doing. If the steroid use is in fact cycled — that is to say, there are both on and off periods and the on periods are not overly long, and normalization of function is accomplished in the off periods — this is not an overly aggressive dosage by any means. At this dosage, the superiority over natural training is dramatic.

Lastly, there are of course uses such as 2000 mg/week of Sustanon. I don’t see a reason to go to this until one has achieved such a level of development — relative to the individual — that for example 1000 mg/week has done about all that it can do. In that case, if personal goals call for it, a dose such as this can be completely appropriate.

Regardless of dosing level, frequency of injection should be at least twice per week, and more preferably at least 3x/week.

Further information on testosterone, the active anabolic steroid within Sustanon, can be found here.

Originally published at: How to Use Sustanon 250

Article source: MESO-Rx

Question: Bodybuilders talk about taking too high a dosage of anabolic steroids and how there comes a point at which the androgen receptors become ‘overloaded’. For example, if one were to take five different steroid compounds all at high dosages, how much can your body actually use? I understand that everyone would be somewhat different but there must be a point of diminishing returns?

Bill Roberts’ answer: For any drug, the approach to virtually 100% binding is a gradual one as dose increases. No hard line can be drawn where some exact value represents maximal effect.

It might be hoped that an answer could be provided from pharmacological theory but due to poor data, that isn’t the case.

For most drugs there would be dose/response studies that would answer the question. This isn’t the case for testosterone or any anabolic steroid, however, so far as I know.

The closest work seems to be that of Forbes. From his data, it appeared to me that a testosterone ester dosage of approximately 4 grams per week is where I would interpret the effect as being virtually 100%.

But really Forbes’ data was not enough to be conclusive.

From the practical bodybuilding standpoint, my conclusion is that if testosterone alone is used, then from the standpoint of, for example, many NPC bodybuilding competitors, 2 grams/week represents very-near-maximal effect. I’d readily grant it as reasonable that doubling the dose might well eke out a little more effect that is important at a yet-higher level of competition.

Some who have better drug sensitivity may have near-maximal effect on substantially lower doses than this.

Oh, as an addition: the fact that 2 grams/week might be called “very near maximal” effect — with it being arbitrary as to exactly what is considered to be very near — does not mean that for example half that dose gives only half that effect.

Quite the contrary. For someone who is presently quite some ways from the level of development at which he’d achieve homeostasis at 1 gram/week and his training and nutrition protocol, 1 gram/week would give very nearly equal rate of gains.

And so far as what level of development is possible at one dosage vs the other, it is also not the case that the 2 grams/week level would provide twice the improvement over natural vs the 1 gram/week level. The difference might be only a few pounds of muscle mass.

For most, 1 gram/week of total steroid use is a quite solid, yet reasonable dose.

Ask Bill Roberts about anabolic steroids

Originally published at: What is Highest Steroid Dosage the Body Can Actually Use?

Article source: MESO-Rx

Question: I am 18-years old. Can I safely do a cycle of anabolic steroids? Now I know most of you will say ‘you’re too young’ and ‘you should wait until you are over 21.’ I’ve read it all before but at the end of the day it’s my own personal choice. Many top pros started steroids in their teens and have had great success so why can’t I have great success if I start now? Please do not flame me. I am just trying to learn and have not and may not do steroids.

Bill Roberts’ Answer: It is entirely possible for someone who is 18-years old to use anabolic steroids in an intelligent and disciplined manner that I have no reason to think is going to — if done correctly — have any really substantial if any adverse effect. It is well within the realm of reasonable personal risk taking, just as my personal take.

But here are just a few reasons why they probably shouldn’t use steroids:

1) Steroids Won’t Make You a Professional Athlete: For all the young men and their families thinking they have what it takes to be NFL players, MLB players, NBA players, etc, for every one who is actually right, there are at least 1000 who are wrong, and the great majority of them are WAY wrong.

Still, if there’s a real point to the person because they want to be THEIR best, then the fact that the goal was unrealistic doesn’t mean that the pursuit of pushing oneself to one’s best was worthless. But don’t expect steroids to make you a pro.

2) General Lack of Steroid Knowledge: Most commonly the first steroid cycles done by teenagers (or for that matter, those in their twenties) are very badly planned in the first place.

3) Lacking of Training Foundation Leads to Reliance on Steroids: Where someone, of any calendar age, hasn’t built the training base where they KNOW how to train and get good long term results without steroids, then all too frequently the result of early (relative to “training age”) steroid use is that the user becomes dependent on steroids and either winds up on them constantly, or alternates between using steroids and training seriously with not using steroids and having a defeatist attitude during these periods and not only not accomplishing anything, but backsliding seriously.

In contrast when someone has the experience where they really know how to train — not just beginner gains, but really knowing how to train — without steroids, then they handle their off periods just fine and neither find a need for constant use nor suffer severe backslides when not using.

There are some instances where an 18 year old, out of having started training early and being very dedicated and working at learning and having the natural smarts for it, does know how to train naturally for long term results and does have the dedication and mindset to do it and will have no problem cycling off. There are also certainly cases where 30 year olds are NOT in that position.

For more information on whether or not you should use steroids, read Rick Collins’ advice to teenagers.

Anabolic Steroids and Teenagers

Originally published at: Can An Eighteen-Year Old Safely Use Anabolic Steroids?

Article source: MESO-Rx

Question: Do anabolic steroids cause kidney damage? A few years ago, the New York Times had a story suggesting that steroids could have been responsible for focal segmental glomerulosclerosis in a few IFBB pro bodybuilders. Bodybuilder Flex Wheeler had a kidney transplant. Bodybuilder Luke Wood died of complications from a kidney transplant. What role, if any, did steroids play?

Bill Roberts’ answer: More than one factor is involved, but for reasons having — in my opinion — to do with the muscle-hating psychology of many individuals, these findings may be considered by them to be a useful weapon against anabolic steroids.

It is actually a reasonable argument that supraphysiological androgen levels may aggravate glomerulosclerosis where it is already developing, or perhaps be “the last straw” if other factors contribute. Or perhaps even with some forms of use being sufficient as a sole factor. There is considerable evidence that testosterone, even at physiological levels, can be an aggravating factor.

However, whether this is due to anything but hypertension, I don’t know.

Certainly hypertension is strongly linked to this disease state, and is prevalent among those with high BMI, whether from extreme muscle mass or from obesity. Androgens also can raise blood pressure, but of course the individual can monitor this and so by no means is this an inevitable side effect.

I have never had anyone I consulted with on steroid use — which is certainly more than a thousand individuals — come back and report to me that they suffered kidney problems from following my advice, whether at the time or years later. It certainly is not an inevitable outcome when reasonable care is taken.

As an example reference on the link between hypertension and glomerulosclerosis, which could well be the best explanation for the reported result or a possibly-necessary factor (first part of the abstract only):

Med Clin North Am. 2009 May;93(3):733-51.
Obesity and hypertension: mechanisms, cardio-renal consequences, and therapeutic approaches.
Reisin E, Jack AV.

The increasing prevalence of obesity in the industrialized world is causing an alarming epidemic. Almost 70% of American adults are overweight or obese. The link between increasing body weight and hypertension is well established. Obesity hypertension through metabolic, endocrinic, and systemic hemodynamic alteration causes structural vascular and cardiac adaptations that trigger concentric, eccentric left ventricular hypertrophy and electrophysiological changes, which may increase the risk for congestive heart failure and sudden cardiac death as a result of arrhythmias. The increased renal blood flow in conjunction with a decreased renal vascular resistance causes renal hyperperfusion and hyperfiltration. Such changes lead to glomerulomegaly, focal segmental glomerulosclerosis, tubulointerstitial inflammation, and fibrosis that characterize the renal damage in obese hypertensive subjects.

Were steroids responsible for Luke Wood’s kidney problems?

Originally published at: Do Anabolic Steroids Cause Kidney Damage?

Article source: MESO-Rx

Q: Is Masteron or Equipoise the better steroid to gain muscle?

A: The answer depends on how it’s being looked at.

Effectiveness milligram per milligram: One way is, having the rest of a stack already, and wanting to add X mg of boldenone, or the same mg of Masteron.

To some extent it would depend on what the rest of the stack was, but in most cases I’d call this a pretty even match.

Cost per milligram: Another would be, having the rest of a stack already, and having $X to spend on either boldenone or Masteron. Usually the answer would be, whichever is cheapest per mg. I think this would usually be the boldenone but not always.

Side effects: Still another would be, having the rest of a stack already, and picking appropriate doses for each drug, considering side effects. Depending on preferences or on the rest of the stack, Masteron would win in many cases; boldenone in some others.

When looking at side effects, it’s always necessary to look at the sum total of the stack. Too often an individual component gets blamed, when the problem is that that the total was simply too much, and omission of another of the compounds would also have avoided the problem.

I don’t think Masteron is the slightest bit worse than anything else when it comes to hair loss or effect on the prostate for any given amount of anabolic effect.

But if you had what was a substantial steroid dosage already and then added another steroid to it, the total could easily be more than personally suitable for you.

However if you used it alone and found it unsuitably harsh for you, that would be a different story. That would be unusual though: I’ve never encountered it.

Single steroid stack: THEN you have the question of using by itself.

If mass is the only consideration and if only one can be picked, boldenone. Not recommended as the way to gain the most mass in either case.

If mass is the only consideration and there’s the option of using both: Using both.

I have used only Masteron and boldenone in a cycle for myself only once: I’ve never had anyone else using it.

It was Masteron propionate 100 mg/day, boldenone propionate 50 mg/day, so just over a gram per week total. Nice. Nothing wrong with it at all, I’d be fine with doing it again.

The enanthates would have been more convenient as it was an 8 week cycle and would be fine, but propionates were what was on hand.

Equipoise (boldenone undecylenate)

Originally published at: Masteron vs Equipoise – Which is Better to Gain Muscle?

Article source: MESO-Rx

Q: I am 42-years old and currently on 100-milligrams of testosterone enanthate per week as part of a testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) prescribed by my doctor. I plan on remaining on TRT indefinitely. But I’d like to have a little boost. I am currently 220-lbs but my goal is to return my physique to where it was a decade ago. I weighed a lean 245-lbs between the ages of 28 and 32 and have done many cycles over the years.

I am considering a cycle of 750-mg testosterone enanthate and 400-mg Masteron enanthate per week for 12 weeks. What do you think of this plan?

A: Since you are on TRT anyway,  the concerns for HPTA suppression most likely don’t apply.

In this case, the cycle length is not so much an issue, but rather total amount of steroids used per year is I think the closest, although imperfect, approximation of overall health impact.

Unless in an extreme rush, you could accomplish your goal with far lower dosage and not that much greater time.

Simply adding the Masteron and leaving testosterone the same would give you rapid progress towards your goal and it would be probably, roughly speaking, 90% achievable in a reasonable time frame. A rather short period at higher dose could then get you fully to your goal. The total amount of drugs used would be less, because of operating at a more efficient part of the dose/response curve .

The kind of dosage you posted is way into the “diminishing returns” area.

For quite a while into it, your results with half your posted dosage level would give nearly the same results per week, because of the above reason and also because you are regaining. So it would be more efficient and would use less drugs per year to use a much lower dose for a somewhat longer time, on the assumption that LH production has been given up on anyway.

In that case I expect you will be very pleased from adding just Masteron while keeping testosterone the same.

I would monitor blood lipids, blood pressure, and red blood cell count to be sure of not overdoing it.

Because of planning on permanent HRT anyway, cycle length isn’t really a concern.

If focusing strongly on health and talking about the long term, I would look at keeping total steroid use down to a probable maximum of something like 20 grams per year, or an average of about 300-400 mg/week.

So, having a period of going above that will mean having periods of being below that, to average things out. The more you go over, the more you will later have to go under.

Adding for example 300-400 mg/week Masteron to your 100 mg/week testosterone will do a lot for you in your situation and I think you’ll be very pleased with it. To say the least you will add some lean mass and largely regain what you have achieved before, with reasonable speed. And you could likely continue with 100 mg/week Masteron indefinitely after your cycle and be well ahead of the game compared to having done a higher dose cycle but then having to use less later to compensate.

Keep in mind, the 20 grams per year value is a really rough number that has to be interpreted as being a ballpark value rather than a sharp cutoff. It is definitely just a general approximation rather than a proven value let alone accurate for every individual.

Then at some point in the future, having regained the greater part of what you had before, then it could be productive to go for a short time at a much higher dose to push to a new level, if desired.

But right now you don’t need that level, because you are regaining, and as HPTA recovery isn’t an issue, there isn’t the factor of packing in the same amount of drug into a shorter time frame (using higher dose per week) to achieve better recovery for given results.

Masteron (drostanolone propionate)

Originally published at: Masteron as an Addition to Testosterone Replacement Therapy (TRT)

Article source: MESO-Rx

Q: “A lot of advice says testosterone must be used every cycle. But definitely some get great results without it. Does it really need to be used for best results? Why isn’t it like with most drugs, for example the NSAIDs, where any of them does the job and combining two does nothing different than taking more of one? Or does the same principle apply and you only need to use enough of any?”

A: It’s possible to have a completely effective cycle with or without testosterone.

While each person may have his own reason for believing that testosterone “must” be used, I think the main reason many believe this is because testosterone provides a complete spectrum of effect while the synthetics generally do not do so when used individually or combined inefficiently.

For example, with only testosterone 500 mg/week might be used for a moderate but reasonably-effective cycle, 750 mg/week for a stronger but still moderate one, or 1000 mg/week for an even stronger but still hardly unreasonable cycle. There’s a substantial step up in performance at each increased level. And ultimately with still larger amounts such as 2 grams per week, performance is reaching near the maximum that can be achieved with anabolic steroids alone at any dose.

With individual synthetics such as say Dianabol, Anadrol, oxandrolone, Primobolan, trenbolone, etc, no matter how much is taken alone, that maximum level of effect won’t be achieved. There’s a substantial increase in performance as dosage is increased, up to particular amounts characteristic of each drug, but nothing really past that. Likely at that point the drugs are working fully in the ways that they work, but used alone, they aren’t covering all the bases.

Inefficient combinations work the same, or nearly so, as the individual usages. For example, about the same maximum is reached using trenbolone alone as using trenbolone plus either Primobolan or oxandrolone; and adding Anadrol to Dianabol gives little if anything beyond what Dianabol alone can do. A poor combination is rather like your example of combining two anti-inflammatories. There’s no point in doing so: there’s no resulting increase in maximal effect compared to simply taking more of one of them.

However, it’s quite different when the synthetics are combined effectively. For example, 100 mg/day trenbolone acetate alone is not too exciting for mass gain, and neither is 100 mg/day Dianabol alone. I would put either choice well below 100 mg/day (700 mg/week) testosterone. Neither trenbolone nor Dianabol alone covers all the bases.

But the same total milligram amount of drug – 100 mg/day – is an entirely different story when it’s provided as a combination of 50 mg/day trenbolone acetate and 50 mg/day Dianabol. Suddenly, you have a stack substantially more effective than 700 mg/week testosterone.

So you don’t need to use testosterone to have a fully effective steroid cycle, but it’s a simple way to be sure of covering the bases. The other ways are to use effective combinations of synthetics, or effective combinations of synthetics together with testosterone.

Should Testosterone Always Be Used as the Base of a Steroid Cycle?

Originally published at: Should Testosterone Always Be Used as the Base of a Steroid Cycle?

Article source: MESO-Rx

Q: “I’m a middle-aged lifter seriously considering starting cycling. With the last 10 years straight being consistent and I think good quality training, and many years before that being off-and-on, more of the same isn’t likely to add much more for me. I’m a lot more interested in what the guys were doing in the 70s and early 80s though. It seems like they were relying largely on synthetics and didn’t use large amounts of testosterone. The back acne, back hair guys at the gym however tell me testosterone is king. But their look isn’t what I’m aiming for. How do I choose steroids like when the physiques were classical?”

A: You’re right of course that back in the day, testosterone tended not to be used in large amounts. A very common testosterone usage then was only 1 mL per week, or only 200 or 250 mg/week.

While their basis for this was not chemical reasoning but observed results, the reasons fundamentally were that an enzyme in the body (aromatase) converts a portion of testosterone into estradiol, which is an estrogen. Abnormally elevated estradiol can cause gynecomastia, acne, and water retention, all of which they wished to avoid.

At doses such as the above, estradiol typically remains in the normal range and only in particularly sensitive individuals is there any noticeable adverse effect.

Without an antiaromatase drug, as testosterone dosage increases beyond that, estradiol levels tend to increase outside the normal range. In terms of being bothered by effects other than sometimes facial or back acne, many have no substantial estrogen problems at doses of even two or three times the above. In terms of measured estradiol levels, however, higher doses do ordinarily cause abnormal elevation.

Since there were no anti-aromatase drugs available back in the day, aromatization was an excellent reason to limit testosterone use.

Today, anti-aromatase drugs such as letrozole are readily available. If using an anti-aromatase, then testosterone dosage doesn’t need to be limited for this reason.

In terms of general physique look, other than effect on estrogen I don’t find there’s any difference between the different anabolic steroids or between different dosage levels. The only questions are anabolic effectiveness, side effects, cost, availability, personal preference, and genetics. Not genetics regarding what anabolic steroids will work for the individual, but genetics for the sort of physique that will result from training, nutrition, and drug use.

And also, to a certain but very limited degree, the milligram amounts needed are genetic.

The relatively low milligram amounts used by many past bodybuilders I believe was due to their genetics. A very small percentage of users does remarkably well on very small doses. Their success with such dosages says nothing about what most need to do. I would not base your dosage on results achieved years ago by the genetic elite. I have only very rarely seen anyone do remarkably well with minimal doses.

As you’re looking for substantial but not necessarily maximum possible results and you sound more health-oriented than extreme-results oriented, there’s no need to get complex. I’d use at this point a minimum of 500 mg/week total and up to 750 mg/week. Not that more than this cannot be used, but it sounds as if you do not need it. This could be with testosterone as the only anabolic steroid, preferably combined with an antiaromatase such as letrozole. Preferably, estradiol level would be measured by blood test after 2 weeks, and the antiaromatase dose adjusted if needed.

Another choice would be to use testosterone at only 200-250 mg/week, and make up the balance with Masteron, Primobolan, or trenbolone.

Still another choice would be use Masteron or Primobolan at 500-700 mg/week, or trenbolone acetate at 50-75 mg/day, and add HCG at 700-1500 IU per week. HCG is another way of providing testosterone, by stimulating your testes to produce it.

Actually there are more possibilities than these, but those would do fine for you.

What Type of Steroid Cycles Did Bodybuilders Use During Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Time?

Originally published at: What Steroid Cycles Did Bodybuilders Use During Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Time?

Article source: MESO-Rx

Q: “Are any of the prohormone products good additions to a steroid cycle?”

A: There’s no real reason to add any of them to a properly designed cycle using the standard pharmaceutical anabolic steroids, by which I mean the compounds developed and brought to market by pharmaceutical companies. None of them have any positive qualities that the pharmaceutical steroids lack, and most of them are worse in side effect profile.

There’s a widespread misconception, not really among experienced steroid users but among those just starting to consider use of performance enhancers, that the prohormone products are safer than “real steroids.”

But in fact all of the products with significant efficacy are 17-alkylated and are liver toxic. While an experienced steroid user will often choose to include an alkylated oral steroid in a cycle, alkylated compounds are essentially never used as 100% of the cycle. Ordinarily the base of the cycle is non-alkylated and is not liver-toxic. Example compounds for the base are testosterone, trenbolone, nandrolone (Deca), methenolone (Primobolan), drostanolone (Masteron), and/or boldenone (Equipoise).

With the prohormone cycles, however, alkylated compounds typically make up the entirety of the compounds used. So this gives a worse balance of anabolic effect to adverse effect on the liver, and this is often seen in blood test results from cycles that are not that impressive for retained gains.

One of the more effective examples of the prohormones would be Superdrol. However, a good stack of pharmaceutical anabolic steroids will outperform it while in contrast Superdrol will put more stress on the liver as measured by liver enzymes, may worsen mood, may promote gyno, and may have worse post-cycle losses.

One of the safer examples would be epistane. Though it also is alkylated, it seems no more liver toxic than for example Dianabol, and the compound has no mood or gyno problems. But it also is not greatly effective. It has no advantage over, say, very low dose Masteron, which would be as or more effective and not liver toxic at all.

Essentially, just as the pharmaceutical anabolic steroids are synthetics compounds, these too are synthetic compounds not existing in nature. But unlike the pharmaceuticals, these are compounds that didn’t “make the cut” but have now found life out of attempts to find exceptions to the law. They are not a more natural, better, or safer alternative.

Are Legal Prohormones Effective Additions to Pharmaceutical Steroid Cycles?

Originally published at: Are Legal Prohormones Effective Additions to Pharmaceutical Steroid Cycles?

Article source: MESO-Rx

Q: “I started reading your articles back in 1998 and had the chance to interact with you some on the forums as well. From each person’s case being different, there was a lot of variety in your recommendations. But anytime anyone asked your favorite for your personal use, I remember always trenbolone and Dianabol. Is that still your personal favorite or are you doing differently now?”

A: If I had an immediate goal of best physique improvement while using what I feel best on, that would still be my choice. Not that other things actually won’t work as well: best effect absolutely can also be achieved in other ways.

While I always kept health in mind and didn’t at any time do ridiculous things, now at 51 my view is a little different than when in my 30s. I expect that, as my natural bodyweight in lean condition without weight training would be only about 147 lb, in my case it could be too much load on the body to try to permanently maintain as much lean weight as I aimed for in the past. I’m thinking of perhaps being a pound lighter per year, so for example as a 70 year old, there would be no need to be more than say 170 lean, or even actually a muscular 160 could be fine then. Also, though at my present weight of 190 I can’t lift as much (obviously) as before, let alone when 225 and not that fat, overall I’m more athletic when lighter. For example, for example now it’s more important to me to be able to paddle out to the break in difficult conditions when surfing than to have the very highest numbers possible for me in lifting.

So I’m keeping it simple and light now, most of the time. My personal favorite now is simply Masteron and HCG. Very “clean,” very nice.

However, when wanting more effect as occasionally I will, it’s necessary to add something to that, typically testosterone or Dianabol.

I do still occasionally include trenbolone also, simply because I like to.

What is Bill Roberts’ Personal Favorite Steroid Cycle?

Originally published at: Bill Roberts’ Personal Favorite Steroid Cycle

Article source: MESO-Rx

Q: “How do I get blood tests? Do people really just ask their doctor? And what tests are usually a good idea to get?”

A: In some cases, yes, people just ask their doctor. And depending on the insurance the person has, this may work fine.

But it’s not necessary to ask one’s personal doctor. There are at least two businesses that provide prescriptions online that can be taken to a local clinics such as LabCorp. One convenient source is LEF.org, but shop around as there’s no reason to choose anything but the lowest price, as other labs that might be used won’t be worse than LabCorp.

While off-cycle, it’s good to have a baseline for free testosterone and estradiol. If free testosterone is poor, LH should be measured as well, to understand whether the problem is low LH or, if LH is good, poor testicular function.

During a cycle using aromatizing steroids, it’s good to measure estradiol so that dosage of anti-aromatase can be adjusted to reach a desired target of about 20-30 pg/mL. Some will have concerns for blood lipid profile and may wish to monitor that.

A CBC will allow seeing if the androgen usage is increasing hematocrit excessively. There probably really is not a sharp line, but 53% is widely considered a maximum acceptable limit. Blood donation can be a solution when close to the limit (to avoid going over) or sometimes when just barely beyond, but more usually reduction in dose is needed in those instances where hematocrit is excessive. AST (a liver enzyme) should also be monitored when using alkylated oral steroids.

I don’t think it’s necessary to do blood work every time, but it is good to have a baseline and to have known what’s happened in the past when doing cycles similarly to what’s currently being done. For example, if knowing before that a given amount of letrozole was what you needed for a given amount of testosterone, that same dose will be close enough for future use as well.

What Laboratory Tests Are Good for Someone Using Steroids?

Originally published at: Laboratory Tests for Steroid Users

Article source: MESO-Rx

Q: “How should HCG be used in post-cycle therapy (PCT)?”

A: Ideally, HCG should not be used at all in PCT. For steroid cycles, HCG really should only be used in PCT if a mistake has been made which needs a correction.

When it’s used in PCT, the purpose is to correct testicular non-responsiveness or atrophy which has developed during a cycle. The longer the cycle, the more likely there will be a problem, and the worse the problem is likely to be.

When non-responsiveness occurs, then even after LH production is recovered the testes still do not produce testosterone in good amounts, and overall recovery is quite delayed. Losses from this steroid side effect can be severe.

A total HCG use of 5000-10,000 IU over a period of about 4-8 weeks can restore responsiveness.

It’s a poor and unnecessary plan to allow the testes to atrophy by starting HCG after the steroid cycle ends. It’s better to avoid atrophy and non-responsiveness from occurring in the first place. Further, HCG use during post-cycle therapy can impair recovery of LH production. So it’s not at all the ideal time to use it.

Instead, HCG should be used in the middle or late part of the cycle, and no later than the last steroid injection of the cycle.

The period of HCG use will typically be about 4 weeks. In an 8-12 week cycle, the 4 weeks (approximately) of use would be immediately prior to the last steroid injection. In a 14 week cycle, the about 4-week period should be in the late-middle part of the cycle. Examples would be using HCG in weeks 6-9, in weeks 9-12, or anywhere in-between.

The dosing is divided into at least 3 times per week. For example, 275 IU 3x/week provides 5000 IU over four weeks. But dosing could be daily, every other day, or 4x/week, as examples. There is little or no practical difference in results among these different schedules. It’s a matter of personal preference.

The total amount taken per week doesn’t need to be any exact figure. For example it also would be fine to take 500 IU three times per week or to take 200 IU daily.

Taking more than 1250 IU per week result in a 5000 IU vial lasting less than four weeks. For example, at 500 IU 3x/week, a vial lasts just over 3 weeks. This is acceptably close to 4 weeks, and ordinarily with this schedule a single vial still suffices. Much higher dosing than this gives no further results per week, and gives less results per vial.

When HCG is used according to this method, the side effects of testicular atrophy and loss of responsiveness are avoided, and recovery is complete as soon as LH production is restored. There’s then no need for PCT use of HCG, and recovery is faster as a result.

It’s worth mentioning also that in some cases, it will be better to use HCG throughout the steroid cycle rather than using it for only a 4 week period. One case is where the cycle uses only non-aromatizable steroids, such as Masteron, Primobolan, trenbolone, Anadrol, or oxandrolone. Estradiol levels drop undesirably low during non-aromatizing cycles, because testosterone levels drop very low and estradiol is produced principally from testosterone. By maintaining normal testosterone levels, HCG used throughout the cycle will also maintain sufficient estradiol levels.

Another case where it can be desirable to use HCG throughout the period of steroid use is where the user is not cycling at all, but using steroids chronically with no break.

Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG) and Post Cycle Therapy (PCT)

Originally published at: Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG) and Post Cycle Therapy (PCT)

Article source: MESO-Rx

Q: “How can I best use HCG between steroid cycles?”

A: My most common recommendation with HCG is to use it only during cycles to avoid testicular atrophy and to maintain testicular responsiveness. When this is done, then as soon as LH production is restored with SERM use or with time, the testes are immediately responsive to produce testosterone.

However, as your question suggests, HCG can also provide benefit between cycles.

I recommend avoiding HCG for at least the first two weeks after the recovery period has started. By the start of the recovery period, I mean the time point where androgen levels from steroids taken during the cycle have fallen sufficiently to allow LH production to begin to resume. HCG use during this early phase can interfere with recovery of LH. I’m not saying it’s impossible to recover LH production while using HCG, but HCG use impairs the process.

HCG use during recovery does make it impossible to determine by “feel” whether recovery of LH is occurring. LH could be near zero while testosterone is normal or high-normal.

Ideally, a blood test for LH is taken at about 2-4 weeks into the recovery to establish for a fact whether LH production has recovered. This is optional: many don’t do it but instead go simply from how they feel and perform, which can be a good basis if HCG was not used during recovery.

When confident for either of these reasons that a good recovery has occurred, then a bridging, or between cycle, use of HCG can begin. I recommend starting with a modest amount, such as about 250-275 IU 3x/week. At this usage level, a 5000 IU vial lasts 6 weeks.

If you already have been using letrozole or another aromatase inhibitor when off-cycle and have found a dosage suitable for you to maintain ideal estradiol levels (low 20′s pg/mL), then at first use the aromatase inhibitor at that same dosage while using HCG. If you don’t already have information on your estradiol levels, then at first don’t add an aromatase inhibitor. Save it for when you have blood test results.

HCG use between cycles is one time that blood work really should be taken more seriously than it commonly is. If wanting to use HCG between cycles, I strongly recommend against guesswork. If it’s gotten wrong, then LH production will be shut down not only during the cycles, but in most of the off weeks as well. For the hypothalamus and pituitary, it can become the equivalent of using steroids almost every week of the year.

In most cases when estradiol is kept at a good level, normal LH production can be maintained while using HCG at about 200-275 IU 3x/week. This can provide substantially higher testosterone levels, typically high-normal, than when HCG is not used. The benefit between cycles can be noticeable, with no adverse side effects at all.

About 2 weeks into HCG use, LH and estradiol should be tested. If estradiol is outside the low 20′s pg/mL range, aromatase use should be adjusted. If estradiol is good but LH is low, HCG use should be decreased, for example to 250 IU twice per week.

Where estradiol and LH levels are good, optionally HCG dosage may be increased. There’s no reason to go past about 1500 IU/week, as further benefit past that level is unlikely. Retesting should be performed after each adjustment of HCG dose.

Using HCG Between Steroid Cycles

Originally published at: The Use of HCG Between Steroid Cycles

Article source: MESO-Rx

Q: “I’m new to anabolic steroid use. For the amount of steroids I have, I need to decide between hitting it hard for a short period of time, or getting many more weeks of use at more modest doses. Which is the better way to go? Will this change as I get more experienced?”

For the new user, the most effect from a given gram amount of steroids appears to be achieved at about the 600-800 mg/week level. In some cases depending on the individual, the lower end might be as low as 500 mg/week.

This isn’t from the perspective of a larger amount somehow being less effective than a smaller amount, but rather, that for example 10 weeks at 800 mg/week will likely give the novice a little better results than would 1000 mg/week for 8 weeks.

So if your situation is that you have a limited amount of anabolic steroids, then the most efficient use is a moderate dose such as 600-800 mg/week for a period preferably not to exceed 12 weeks and even more preferably not to exceed 8 weeks.

If what you have is more than this, then it would be more efficient to plan more cycles rather than to plan longer ones. For example, three 8 week steroid cycles will do more for you than will two 12 week cycles.

The above shouldn’t be taken to mean that even where supply is not so limited, anabolic steroid doses such as 1000 mg/week should be avoided if wanting to be efficient. That’s not the case at all. The above is referring only to when supply is constrained.

The dosage range needed for efficiency will change as you accumulate results. As illustration, upon reaching a muscular size where for example 600 mg/week will leave you at a stasis or near-stasis, it would be more efficient to use a higher dose.

Short Steroid Cycles with High Dosages versus Long Steroid Cycles with Low Dosages

Originally published at: Short Steroid Cycles with High Dosages versus Long Steroid Cycles with Low Dosages

Article source: MESO-Rx

Q: “I want to have really good steroid cycle results over the next year, not like a pro bb’er but still very serious. But I don’t want to spend a penny more than I have to. What is the cheapest way that’s also sensible in terms of adverse side effects?”

I suppose the absolute cheapest way would be testosterone propionate only for eight cycles of 2 weeks on, 4 weeks off, taken as 450 mg on Day 1 and 150 mg/day for days 2-10. (This counts as 14 days “on” because of continued effect of the drug after injection.) For those that are not sensitive to estrogen, testosterone alone can work fine. However, many would have adverse side effects from excess estrogen.

Another similar-cost alternative would be to use 300 mg on Day 1 and 100 mg/day for days 2-10 but also include Dianabol at 50 mg/day throughout; or to use testosterone at the same amounts as above but beef up Days 11-14 with Dianabol. The same estrogen concerns would apply.

The principal reason for adding Dianabol, if doing so, is to get the most out of the last few days of the cycle, as the levels from injected testosterone drop. While it’s not so important to get the last bit possible out of the last few days of a longer cycle, with a 2 week cycle, it’s highly desirable to do so.

Unless already knowing by personal experience that this much aromatizing steroid can be used without problem, I’d really rather an antiaromatase such as letrozole be used. This will add a little cost, but not much. Although dosing will vary according to the individual, an average amount would be 2.5 mg on Day 1, followed by 1 mg/day through Day 10.

If liking 2-week cycles, it’s not absolutely necessary to use a SERM such as Clomid in the first two off weeks, but it’s recommended.

If preferring longer cycles such as 8 weeks, as is more common, the same drug choices are generally the biggest bang for the buck, but I absolutely would not recommend omitting the SERM.

That said, if using powders, all kinds of choices open up at quite reasonable prices, so you may not have to go the absolute cheapest route possible. But if you choose to do so, anabolic steroid choice really can be reduced all the way down to nothing but testosterone with still excellent results.

Generally, however, it’s best to also control estrogen and to have proper PCT, so testosterone as absolutely the only drug of a cycle isn’t preferred.

Cheapest and Safest Method of Cycling Steroids

Originally published at: Cheapest and Safest Method of Cycling Steroids

Article source: MESO-Rx

Q: “How do I prepare my own injectables from steroid powder that I’m confident is good?”

A tremendous amount of money can be saved by preparing one’s own injectables, and the process actually can be quite simple. Potential problems include availability and uncertainty as to the legitimacy of the product. On the other hand, these can be just as much or more of an issue with prepared vials or ampules. I can’t really much address the issue of whether a given powder is good or not.

If it is, then all that needs to be done is to dissolve the powder into a suitable carrier oil and usually a solubility enhancer as well, filter it, and dispense it into a sterile vial. Optionally, a bacteriostatic agent can be included.

So, how to do this?

First, let’s do the calculations needed. You’ll decide on what concentration you want to achieve. I don’t recommend aiming for higher concentrations than used pharmaceutically. So for example, with testosterone enanthate aim for 200 mg/mL, for testosterone cypionate 250 mg/mL, for testosterone propionate 100 mg/mL, for drostanolone propionate (Masteron) 100 mg/mL, for methenolone enanthate (Primobolan) 100 mg/mL, etc.

Other non-pharmaceutical examples would include drostanolone enthanthate at 200 mg/mL, trenbolone acetate at 75 mg/mL, and trenbolone enanthate at 200 mg/mL.

It’s not that higher concentrations cannot be used, but doing so often requires using relatively large amounts of benzyl alcohol, which is irritating to muscle. Higher concentrations also may make the injection more viscous, or may result in a painful injection. The product is in no practical sense more “potent” by making it a concentration such as 300 mg/mL or above.

So let’s say you’ve decided on x mg/mL and you’re going to use y grams of steroid powder. Doing calculations with letters can seem bothersome or a put-off, but doing so lets us work with any case. For example, let’s say you’ve decided on 200 mg/mL and you have 10 grams of powder. The volume in mL of injectable you prepare is then 1000 times y divided by x, which in this case is 1000 times 10 divided by 200, which works out to 50 mL.

This volume will include everything: the powder, the solubility enhancer which typically will be benzyl benzoate, the oil, and optionally the bacteriostatic agent, which would be benzyl alcohol if used.

The amount of volume taken up by the dissolved powder varies, but it’s close enough to assume that it will take up a volume in mL of about 0.9 times y, the gram weight of powder. So in this example, it would take up about 9 mL (0.9 times 10.)

The easiest thing to do regarding the amount of solubility enhancer is to simply make it 20% of the final total volume. As an example, in the above case of 50 mL total volume, we’d use 10 mL of benzyl benzoate as the solubility enhancer. Now in many instances, a solubility enhancer is not necessary. Here, I’m keeping to a simple general formula. Where the steroid can still be fully dissolved without benzyl benzoate, the omission provides a slightly less viscous product. It’s up to you in those cases.

If not using any benzyl alcohol – and I prefer to use none – then after the 19 mL total of powder and solubility enhancer in our example, we have 31 mL left to make up our total volume of 50 mL. This is the oil volume. Ethyl oleate can be an excellent choice, as it provides a thinner (less viscous) solution than other oils and can have a little more solubizing ability as well. However, other vegetable oils such as soybean or sesame oil may be used. If acquiring oil at the supermarket, Wesson soybean oil is a proven choice.

If you prefer using benzyl alcohol to have a bacteriostatic agent, I recommend using it at only 2% of the final total volume, and no more than 5%. In this example, if we used benzyl alcohol, we’d use 1 mL (2% of 50 mL) and we’d then need only 30 mL of carrier oil.

Let’s also have the materials we need. We’ll need a sufficiently large vial or vials to put our product into, we’ll need a large syringe such as 30 mL or 50 mL though if you’re patient smaller syringes can be used, we’ll need a large gauge needle such as 23 gauge, and we’ll need at least one submicron syringe filter to attach to the syringe (0.45 micron or smaller.) We’ll also need another syringe and needle to measure out desired volume of solubility enhancer. Preferably we’d also have an insulin needle with the plunger removed, but if this is not available a larger gauge needle can substitute for it.

Now that we have all this taken care of we can proceed.

In a first case, let’s say you don’t have an accurate balance to weigh the powder, but you ordered a particular amount, for example 10 grams. If necessary, it’s usually not a problem to assume that your bag of powder contains about the amount you ordered, or close enough. Is it actually reasonable to trust that the amount received is indeed about what was ordered? Well, if the supplier can’t be trusted to send the amount you ordered, then should you trust he sent you a correct and pure powder either? In for a penny, in for a pound. If you don’t have good stuff, then the least of your problems would be the exact weight. My biggest concern with skipping the weighing step is that you may miss detecting that you have a dishonest or careless supplier, if that’s the case.

If you have a balance, then it’s desirable to have weighing paper as well. This can easily be obtained online. It’s not actually necessary to use weighing paper – anything can be used that is probably relatively free of bacteria and dust and is easy to pour powder from – but weighing paper is convenient and inexpensive. If you don’t have it, freshly unrolled aluminum foil can be used, weighing the powder onto the side which had been inside the roll. However, aluminum foil can be annoying to pour powder from.

To weigh powder, choose an area where the air is as clear and still as possible. Have ready the large syringe, a thoroughly cleaned implement such as a laboratory spatula or a table knife, and an alcohol wipe available to give it a last moment, final cleaning as well. Slowly dispense the powder onto the weighing paper on the balance, either by carefully pouring or using your implement to make transfers. Usually it’s best to use the implement to add the final amounts. If you overshoot, use the implement to take excess off of the weighing paper. Avoid breathing onto the powder while weighing. You don’t have to make this a speed contest – in fact, avoid rushing – but it’s also better to not draw this out into taking many minutes.

When having the correct amount of powder on the weighing paper, or if assuming your bag already has the correct amount of powder in it, now add it to the large syringe by pouring into the back end. The syringe will already have the syringe filter attached to it and a large gauge needle attached to the syringe filter. That needle will have its original cap in place.

Now, after the addition of powder, fill another syringe with the calculated amount of benzyl benzoate. You may find it easier to pour into the back of the syringe than to draw through the needle, but either method will work. Add the benzyl benzoate into the back of the large syringe, and return the plunger to the back of the large syringe. With motion, mix the powder and benzyl benzoate together until everything is dissolved. This may take several minutes.

Some or all of the needed carrier oil is now added to the back of the syringe, bringing the volume up to a visible mark. For example, if using a 30 mL syringe and making 50 mL of preparation, simply add oil to the 30 mL mark and then put the plunger back in place. Then mix the oil with what’s already in the syringe, and place the needle of the syringe into the receiving vial. Insert the insulin needle or the additional large gauge needle into the receiving vial (this is to allow air to escape.) Slowly push the preparation through the filter. This may take many minutes of work: use substantial but not excessive thumb pressure, to avoid breaking the filter.

After pushing through the entire solution, if less than the full amount of oil has been used, now add the remainder to the back of the syringe, and push it through as well.

Your preparation is complete.

Heat sterilization is not necessary when this procedure has been followed, but if you want to do it for peace of mind anyway, use a bath of hot water no hotter than 70º C (158º F). All that is needed is for the preparation to come close to this temperature, so for example even 10 minutes time is entirely sufficient to kill any bacteria that might have been present, if there were any. Do not bake.

Guide to Making Your Own Injectable Anabolic Steroids

Originally published at: The Guide to Making Your Own Injectable Anabolic Steroids