Q: “How much mass gains can be expected in a steroid cycle? Obviously later cycles won’t yield as much as the first cycle, but overall how does it work?”
A: In a first cycle, retained muscle gains can be as high as 10 lb for the first two weeks of use, or 20 lb or somewhat better for 8 weeks of use. This is assuming well-constructed cycles and appropriate eating.
In the two-week cycle case, the novice can typically get another 5 lb of retained muscle mass per cycle, up to at least the 25 lb net gain point.
In the eight-week cycle case, a second cycle will often yield only another 5-10 lb of retained muscle mass.
Once retained gains have reached typically 25-30 lb over natural best, then further gains typically will slow greatly. This really isn’t because of the number of cycles done, but because of how far one has gone past one’s natural maximum. These numbers are not hard limits. Some do much better.
At some point, gains may very well slow to for example 3 lb per year. For example, that was Lee Haney’s average between his first and last Mr Olympia.
Where major losses have occurred, regains can be very fast, just as fast as beginner gains or even moreso. Slight losses from one’s peak however are often slow to be regained.
In all cases, by retained muscle gains I mean the difference in bodyweight when “off” where bodyfat is equal, or in LBM when “off” if correction is being made for bodyfat changes.
During the cycle itself, bodyweight can be 8-10 lb or so greater than this, due to increases in water retention in the muscles. This weight is rapidly lost at the end of the cycle, and doesn’t represent actual increase in contractile protein. But it is scale weight that is readily noticed during the cycle, and which enhances muscular appearance.
How Much Mass Gains Can Be Expected in a Steroid Cycle?
Q: “I’d like to do 2-on, 4-off cycles and add serious strength while improving body composition. My goal is to gain 25 lb of muscle and drop 25 lb of fat over the next 6 months or so. I’m new to anabolic steroid use. I have 5 years of strength training gains have been slow lately. I’d like a periodized program. Can you suggest an outline?”
A: Your goal should be obtainable. One suggestion is:
Weeks 1 and 2: No anabolic steroids, no PCT. Training is with relatively high reps, using weights of about 60-70% 1RM, with week 2 using more weight than week 1. Volume is what you’ve found suitable long-term for natural training at this rep range. Calories are at for example 12 cal/day per pound of lean body mass, with protein of about 1 g/day per pound of LBM. However, if you can lose fat at for example 2-3 lb/week with more calories than this, then allow more calories. You can consider having up to two non-consecutive days per week where calories are very low but protein remains close to the above, if needed.
Weeks 3 and 4: Short-acting anabolic steroids are used, with dosages typically at about 150 mg/day total use, except that a trenbolone/Dianabol cycle can use doses as low as 50 mg/day each. An anti-aromatase or a SERM is used to control estrogen, except if in the individual case this is known to be unnecessary. Training uses weights such as about 75-85% 1RM. Week 4 should be heavier than week 3. Volume should be about 30% higher than what you’d find optimal short-term when training naturally. Calories will be about 1000 per day higher than your maintenance, and protein will be about 100 g/day higher than your usual. Aim to gain one to two pounds of fat over these two weeks.
Week 5: PCT begins. Training uses same weights as week 4, but volume should be reduced by about 50% or even more. Many exercises can be just one set. Make the negatives easy. Leave at least one rep in reserve on all sets. You may drop various smaller exercises. If you have specialized techniques such as Westside-style speed work, this is a good week for it. Calories should be your usual maintenance.
Week 6: PCT continues. Training continues to use the same weights as week 4. You can however do maximal reps in your final work set each exercise, and if you like, re-introduce some smaller exercises. For volume, use your optimal long-term natural-training amount for this rep range. Evaluate whether you need to cut during this week or can afford maintenance calories.
For several cycles to come, following cycles typically can increase in weight by 5% or a little more, while maintaining same reps and sets. Later, increases could be as low as 1% per cycle. This may sound low, but the resulting about-8% per year is more than most do, once advanced.
Gain Muscle and Lose Fat with a Two-Week Alternating Steroid Cycle Program
Q: “I’m a 40 year old woman who has always been extremely active, starting with competitive swimming as a child. I always eat according to what comes naturally, never counting calories or depriving myself, eating especially big after training as I then really have a lot of appetite. I’ve never had any problem with bodyfat so long as I trained hard. I’m still training hard, but now have fat trouble. I’ve tried T4 with wrong dosing, just dabbing with my fingertip from bulk powder. I had not known how powerful the material was. It was horrendous on my heartrate but I lost fat (and muscle.) Since then I’ve tried T3 with careful measurement of the dose, at 100 mcg/day. But it didn’t help me lose fat and pounding heart interfered with my training. Some fat loss supplements on the other hand have helped me, so surely thyroid hormone ought to? And what is the difference between T3 and T4?”
A: You’re very fortunate to have been able to remain lean while eating as you liked all this time, relying only on training. This comes with being genetically gifted rather than being the norm.
It’s likely that at age 40, this now will not be entirely the case and to get back to being lean it will be necessary to avoid increases in calories while seeking to lose fat.
Some fat loss supplements are somewhat effective in reducing appetite, as well as raising metabolic rate, or in some cases, even improving metabolic processes. Where caloric intake remains the same, the effect of nutritional supplements on fat loss is usually less than that of properly dosed thyroid hormone. However, where the supplement product has significant appetite suppressant properties, and in the individual case the person actually eats less, this can make a big difference to fat loss.
What likely happened for you with T3 was that food intake went up to match increased rate of calorie burning, so you had no fat loss.
With T4, the dose was likely so extreme that you had fat loss anyway.
It can’t be stressed enough how potent thyroid hormones are. They absolutely must not be overdosed. Powders should be never be used unless a person has the means to dose extremely small amounts with 100% certainty.
I recommend not exceeding 50 mcg/day with T3, divided preferably into at least 3 doses but certainly at least 2 doses. With T4, I recommend not exceeding 200 mcg/day.
T4 is longer-acting than T3 and therefore is more convenient to use. It requires conversion in the body to T3, which for some individuals can be a limiting factor. For them, T3 can be preferable. It seems that is not an issue for you, so you could use T4.
But next time, keep the dose limited to the above, and make sure not to allow caloric intake to increase along with your increased metabolic rate.
Q: “I’m age 50 and have about 20 years training behind me as well as many anabolic steroid cycles. I took several years off from the gym recently and want to get back to it. I’m down about 35 lb of muscle and up about 25 lb in fat, and I’m down to beginner strength. Question is, would you suggest rebuilding a good base naturally before resuming steroid use, or going straight into some well-considered steroid cycles?”
A: At a younger age, generally comebacks offer beginner-like gains or even faster, so there’s really no point to including anabolic steroids until getting back close to natural peak.
However for the older lifter this often is not so.
Depending on personal preference, I’d consider either of two plans:
The first would be to increase T levels to high normal or even somewhat above, while maintaining LH production. One way to do this would be HCG use (for example 500 IU 3x/week) combined with either a SERM or an anti-aromatase. For example, you might use Clomid 50 mg/day, or letrozole about 0.36 mg/day. Test blood values occasionally. If LH becomes abnormally low, lower the amount of HCG. Another way would be to do the same but to use an injected anabolic steroid instead of HCG, at about 100 mg/week. A personal preference would be Masteron or Primobolan, but testosterone could be used. Again, ongoing LH testing would determine whether you needed to lower the steroid dosage.
I’d evaluate gains in the gym and see whether this was satisfactory or not, or at what point results started becoming unsatisfactory.
The second plan would be to use anabolic steroids according to standard methods. Personally, I would prefer going straight to this, but if you prefer the above plan could be tried first.
Given that you’re comfortable with using anabolic steroids already, there really is no reason to not enjoy some fast gains right from the start in your comeback. It can be frustrating seeing regains be far slower than they would have been back in the day. I would go for it, myself.
Recommendations for an Experienced Trainer Returning to Steroid Use After a Long Break
Q: “Over the years I’ve averaged being ‘on’ as many weeks per year as I am ‘off,” and during steroid cycles have usually used about 1000 mg/week. I’m now approaching 55 and am starting to think that it would be hard on the body to maintain forever the kind of bodyweight I have now, and anyway older guys that are really fit are never really that big. It makes sense to me that the heart probably declines in its ability to support bodyweight. Plus, there could be something to the idea that steroid use is cumulative in adverse side effects. How might I slow down my use with time? I do still have good recovery between cycles.”
A: I’m in somewhat the same situation myself.
As a personal decision, it seemed to me that allowing for example a 1.5 lb drop per year could work out reasonably. For example, if 200 lb lean at 50, then 185 lb lean at 60 would be credible, and 170 at 70. Even possibly 155 at 80, though personally I’m really not thinking that far ahead. In my own case, that actually would still have me heavier at 80 than I was at 18!
(I’d previously considered a smaller drop of 1.0 lb per year, but on further thought, the above is probably more realistic.)
So part of “slowing down” use would be to slowly reset personal goals.
I’d also reduce total grams of steroid use per year to only the amount necessary to meet goals. Right now you’re at about 26 grams per year. Presently, you could likely cut to 15-20 grams per year to meet goals.
Unfortunately I don’t have sufficient case information to say for a fact whether it would be best for health to do this as fewer “on” weeks per year but at the same dosage per week, or the same number of “on” weeks per year but at a lower dosage. I’d make the decision based on lipid profile, blood pressure, hematocrit, and any abnormalities from blood tests at your current dosage. If your values are good presently, then I’d reduce the weeks per year; if values obviously should be improved, I’d reduce the dosage while keeping weeks per year the same.
Further down the road, you might find it most effective to enjoy “supplementation” level dosings such as 100-200 mg/week Masteron, or Masteron with HCG, with only the occasional steroid cycle, and then finally an HRT approach that keeps you at high normal androgen levels.
Best of outcomes!
Safer and More Responsible Steroid Use for Bodybuilders as They Get Older
Q: “I’m a powerlifter planning my first cycle, aiming for both size and strength increases. If doing a cycle of testosterone enanthate at 500 mg/week, a Dianabol kickstart at 25 mg/day for four weeks, HCG at 250 IU 3x/week, and Aromasin as an anti-estrogen what would be the best idea for recovery? I’m thinking of doing 12 weeks. I keep hearing to make testosterone enanthate cycles long as they don’t tend to kick in until week 6 or later. Would I be better off keeping it to 8-10 weeks and increasing the dosage slightly and frontloading? Or should I just do the 12 weeks of my original plan. I wanted to do 3 cycles of 8 weeks a year as per your recommendations but it seems that would not work well with a long ester, is this true?”
A: Testosterone enanthate absolutely can be used effectively in cycle lengths such as 8 weeks. When results are poor before the 6 week point, it’s the result of one or more of these: inadequate dosing, failure to frontload, training problems, and/or nutritional problems.
When having a planned usage level of, for example 500 mg/week, if you frontload you’d inject for example 600 mg on the first day. This would bring you promptly the same levels you’ll sustain during the cycle.
Those who from the start only inject 250 mg at a time begin with levels that are no higher than what’s obtained with time with ongoing 200 mg/week usage. It’s no wonder that their results don’t kick in for a long time.
So, frontload.
With testosterone enanthate, on Day 1 take your regular dosage amount plus about 5/7ths, or about 70%, of your weekly dose. The milligram amount does not have to be exact.
I’d suggest increasing the Dianabol duration to 6 weeks, and make it the last 6 weeks of the cycle rather than the first.
I’d consider increasing the testosterone to 750 mg/week during the non-Dianabol weeks.
So under that plan, your first injection would be 250 mg plus about 535 mg, which is close enough to the convenient value of 750 mg. After that, inject 3x/weekly. On starting the Dianabol, you could reduce the testosterone to twice weekly, or could maintain 750 mg/week, according to preference. On the last week, do only the first testosterone injection; the duration of action will carry you through the rest of the week.
I’d discontinue the HCG in the week before last.
I’d prefer for the cycle to be 8 weeks, as recovery will be better.
Aromasin can do a perfectly good job of controlling estrogen in a cycle like this, but I don’t find it possible to predict the needed dose accurately. If you have to use Aromasin, my starting guess would be 25 mg once per 3 days. I’d prefer letrozole at 1 mg/day as it’s more predictable. As to why this is, Aromasin is a suicide inhibitor which destroys the aromatase enzyme and the amount needed for correct amount of destruction is somewhat unpredictable. In contrast, letrozole or anastrozole are competitive inhibitors with effect directly related to blood level. This tends to be more predictable.
It’s possible to do PCT with only an aromatase inhibitor, but I’d prefer instead using Clomid or Nolvadex according to the usual protocols.
Powerlifting – An Eight-Week Steroid Stack of Testosterone Enanthate and Dianabol
Q: “I’ve just read the article on time between cycles. In your analysis, a main goal was recovery of natural testosterone production. But what about guys on TRT who aren’t looking for recovery? Is lipid normalization or RBC count the standard then? Obviously we need some time off but what are the milestones?”
A: For those with good capacity to produce natural testosterone, indeed a driving reason for time off is to help maintain that ability. However, usually the amount of time off is more than that purpose alone requires.
Other reasons for time off include allowing the body more time with healthy blood lipid profile than unhealthy, and to allow the heart more time with normal androgen levels than with highly elevated levels that can promote left ventricular hypertrophy.
Maintaining a healthful (no greater than 53%) hematocrit can also be a reason. Hematocrit is closely related to red blood cell count but is not exactly the same, as it is related to volume rather than number.
It’s really not possible to give absolutely certain, proven answers. There will be guys who have stayed “on” anabolic steroids at for example 500 mg for a decade or more on end and swear that they’re fine. There are also many power athletes who have died young, as well as many who have never used a performance-enhancing drug who have died young.
But my expectation is that the greater the total annual use of anabolic steroids, and/or the more weeks per year that are at greatly supraphysiological levels, the greater the cumulative adverse health effects. I recommend limiting to about 25 g/year total for conservative but still very effective results, 30 g/year for somewhat more aggressive results, or 35 g/year for a still more aggressive approach. In terms of percent of time “off” versus “on,” it would be the same as with those wishing to retain good natural testosterone production. Twice as much time off as on is conservative, allowing only equal time off as on is more aggressive, and twice as much on time as off is very aggressive.
Definitely seek to have healthful blood lipid profile most of the time, as well as normal values in general.
Time Off Between Steroid Cycles for Men on Testosterone Replacement Therapy (TRT)
Q: “I’ve read that testosterone usage impairs tendon growth, Deca Durabolin and Equipoise promote it, and Winstrol makes tendons brittle. I really don’t know what to do as rat studies may not tell the whole stories. I love testosterone and am no fan of Deca or Equipoise, and am pretty fond of Winstrol as well. However, the last thing I need is a tendon tear, particularly as I like mostly on low rep work. What is the actual situation with anabolic steroids and tendon growth and strength or brittleness?”
A: The results of animal studies in this instance are indeed questionable. There’s the obvious reason that results in humans often differ from results in a given animal, but a further reason as well.
Namely, researchers failed to control estrogen level of the subject animals. This, despite it being a known fact that high estrogen impairs tendon growth, and abnormally low estrogen promotes tendon brittleness.
Nearly any bodybuilder could have told the researchers that estrogen levels will increase when testosterone is administered in supraphysiological doses, estrogen levels may remain normal when injecting Deca Durabolin or Equipoise (boldenone undecylenate) at effective doses, and estrogen levels will drop to subnormal when Winstrol alone is used at effective doses.
The studies, therefore, provide no information as to the effect of the androgens themselves. The results could be explained entirely from higher amounts of estrogen suppressing tendon growth, abnormally low amounts promoting brittleness, without their necessarily having been any difference between the androgens themselves in terms of direct effect.
Provided estrogen levels are kept in the normal range, I do not at all believe that tendon problems result from using testosterone. Joint improvements seen with Deca or Equipoise use may not be the result of any greater tendon strength than would be achieved with testosterone use and normal estrogen levels.
Winstrol may not be harmful to tendon elasticity when estrogen levels remain normal. But nonetheless for caution I would avoid using Winstrol a large number of weeks per year. Just because low estrogen levels could have been the full explanation for the animal results does not mean that Winstrol (stanozolol) may not have contributed brittleness as well. A differing in vitro study shows stanozolol to affect collagen production of skin fibroblasts differently than nandrolone does. That suggests that there could be more to the difference between Winstrol and other androgens than simply different effect on estrogen levels.
A Re-Evaluation of the Effects of Anabolic Steroids on Tendons
Q: “I would like to know the real half lives of the most popular anabolic steroids, T3, clenbuterol, and anti-estrogens. Can you post the half lives, because there are so many different half-lives in the Internet?”
A: It’s common for published values to be different, because pharmacokinetic studies are often performed on only a few subjects at a time, and there can be considerable variability between subjects. Further, there ends up being a confusion between the elimination process and the distribution process, which is variable particularly in the earlier part of the process. For example, reported half-life values for nandrolone decanoate in humans range from 7 to 12 days.
For this reason, it’s best to not take any one report overly literally, but instead to get the best reading of all the data that’s available. Fortunately, for anabolic steroids the half life is very closely related to a predictable property, the partition coefficient (this is generally approximately equal to the ratio between lipid solubility and water solubility.) Where the only difference between two steroid esters is the number of carbons – arrangement being the same or similar! – then each added carbon adds about a day to the half life.
With this information, to make a best estimate for the half life of one steroid, data from similar steroids can be used as well.
For purposes of calculating recovery or for calculating frontloading, these figures have always worked well for anabolic steroid half lives:
Acetate esters: About 1 day
Propionate esters: About 2 days
Phenylpropionate esters: About 3 days
Enanthate esters: About 5 days
Cypionate esters: About 6 days
Decanoate esters: About 10 days
Undecanoate esters: Really not established from practice. From extrapolation, probably about 11 days. Does not appear to be over about 14 days, or much if any less than 11 days. I use 14 days for recovery calculation in the case of Equipoise, though that might be a larger number than necessary.
With regard to the parent steroid, theory would suggest adding a day for 19-nor, subtracting some small amount for 5-alpha reduction, or adding some small amount for having more than one double bond, and some unknown adjustment for drug metabolism differences. But in practice there seems no need for such adjustments. Accounting for the ester alone seems sufficient.
T3’s half life is variable between individuals but roughly speaking is about a day. There would be no use for a numeric value in practice because T3 should not be frontloaded, and calculating what day it has cleared is not important.
Clenbuterol’s half life is about a day and a half.
Clomiphene, tamoxifen, and toremifene all have half lives of about 5 days. The anti-aromases anastrozole and letrozole have half lives of about 2 days.
The Half Lives of the Most Popular Anabolic Steroids and Bodybuilding Drugs
Q: “I’m very interested in trenbolone because of all the positive reports on it, and you obviously are a big booster of tren. But I’ve also seen many accounts of the problems it can cause: relationship problems, aggression problems, anxiety problems, and sleep problems! What are the real problems and what is my likelihood of suffering them? Is there anything I can do if the problems occur.”
A: A key thing to consider with trenbolone is dosage.
Back in 1998 when I wrote the first articles on 2-week cycles for MESO-Rx, the 50 mg/week trenbolone dosage was nearly-unheard-of and was very contrary to the published advice of the time. The books of the era advised using no more than 1 Parabolan ampule per week, as the steroid was so strong: the amount of trenbolone contained in such an ampule is the same as 50 mg of trenbolone acetate. Among the hardcore who would not be limited by the advice of the day, Finaject was sometimes used at 50 mg two or three times a week. Daily use of such an amount of trenbolone was just not an accepted practice at all in the United States.
However, in Europe daily injection of Parabolan was an accepted practice among the serious and experienced, so this was the trenbolone dosage level I wanted to work with. Hence, 50 mg/day trenbolone acetate.
I say all this because 50 mg/day was perceived then as a very high level, and it actually is a pretty high level of drug. I think trenbolone should be thought of as about 3 times more potent (strength per milligram) than most anabolic steroids; on that basis, 50 mg/day is “like” about 150 mg/day of another steroid. It’s not a low dose. No surprise if it has its own significant side effects.
These days, however, largely from 75 mg/mL and 100 mg/mL concentrations being available, doses have popularly risen to 75 or 100 mg/day. I don’t think people always realize how high such doses really are. Let alone 150 mg/day.
It’s not surprising that some experience adverse side effects from such increased doses.
In terms of side effects the great majority do well with 50 mg/day, a few require dosage to be as little as about 30-35 mg/day, and an even smaller number just really don’t do well with trenbolone at all, principally for the reasons you say, and with night sweats as another potential reason.
And then there are those also who can use 75-100 mg/day or more without real problem.
For behavior, there is exercise of the will. For some this is effective; for others, not very effective. It has to be personally evaluated. For sleep problems, if ordinarily needing no sleep-aiding supplement, then for example a well-formulated product can sometimes be enough to make the difference.
Personally I found real benefit with Mod GRF 1-29. It doesn’t promote falling asleep, but does promote deep-cycle sleep once sleep has begun. However, certainly for years I did without Mod GRF as well. It’s not a necessity but can be a help.
What Are the Real Problems Associated with Trenbolone Use?
Q: I am very interested in your 2 on 2/4 off cycles since I hate long PCT and protracted recoveries. The compounds I mostly look at are Anadrol, Dianabol, and Anavar.
In an oral only cycle should I run 50-100mgs Anadrol or 50mgs Dianabol per day along with 50mgs Anavar or would you change something in the dosage plan?
If I am going to do three cycles consisting of 2 weeks on 2 weeks off should I change the compounds every time?
Do you recommend bridging with low dose Anavar and Dianabol while on the pct phase if the cycle was oral only? Assuming liver protection supplements are taken (Liv52DS, TUDCA).
A: Well first, I’d prefer avoiding an oral-only stack, as such a stack has 100% of the total anabolic steroid dosage being liver-toxic.
But that said, if you are going to do it, generally I’d prefer the proposed combination of Dianabol and Anavar (oxandrolone) to an Anadrol/Anavar combination. That latter combination can be very effective, but estrogen levels will drop greatly. Two week cycles allow more latitude for this than do longer cycles, however. So either way can be done, according to your preference. If no anti-aromatase is available, the Anadrol/Anavar combination could be preferred.
The reasons to change compounds are from acquiring new knowledge, answering the needs of different goals, or having differing drug availability. There’s no advantage in changing on account of the same anabolic steroids having been used in the preceding cycle. That’s perfectly okay, provided the effect was as desired on the previous occasion. If effect was not as desired, however, then indeed there could be reason to change.
In most cases I don’t recommend bridging. When it’s performed, I prefer low doses of injectable steroids: doses no greater than half and more typically only about one-quarter to one-third of typical modest-range HRT doses. For example, once natural testosterone production has been restored, 50 mg/week of Masteron can generally be gotten away with, and sometimes 100 mg/week.
This only works when estradiol level is kept low normal.
Two Week Cycles Utilizing Anadrol, Anavar and/or Dianabol
Q: “I ‘m interested in boldenone propionate. What advantages could it give me compared to other short acting esters? I don’t want to use trenbolone acetate again, as at even 50 mg/day I’m really a bastard to my girlfriend, even more so than usual. More importantly, I don’t sleep well. And I’m not a fan of testosterone propionate due to post-injection pain. I’ve never used boldenone at all, so can you tell me about it?”
A: The idea of boldenone propionate is great, as personal opinion. Boldenone has a relatively favorable side effect profile compared to most other anabolic steroids. Conversion to estrogen is low, and if anything the modest amount of conversion can be beneficial if no other aromatizing steroid is being used. Unlike testosterone, it’s not potentiated in the skin or scalp. Boldenone typically has little in the way of adverse effect on mood. The most common problems are increased appetite (in cases where that’s experienced as a problem) and at higher doses, sometimes a feverish feeling. But in general, it’s very well tolerated at modest dosages such as up to 400-500 mg/week and sometimes more.
Problem, however, can result from the long half life of the undecylenate ester form typically used for boldenone, as in the Equipoise product. The half life of up to about 2 weeks results in very slow transition from anabolically-useful high androgen levels to recovery-permitting low androgen levels.
For example, let’s say that 500 mg/week Equipoise is being taken as the injectable part of a steroid stack. That, particularly in combination with an oral, can be very effective.
A week after the last injection, really we would like recovery to be occurring. It won’t be, however. Blood levels of boldenone will be comparable to ongoing use of about 350 mg/week of Equipoise. Such a level on its own might provide a slow degree of anabolic effectiveness relative to a starting natural state, but after the gains of a cycle have already been made, this is far too little for still-further gains. Recovery won’t occur and neither willgains. Time of HPTA suppression, however, will accumulate.
How about 2 weeks after the last injection? Levels are now comparable to ongoing use of about 250 mg/week. Same story.
Typically, in practice with an Equipoise cycle it’s about a month before good recovery can begin (it can be less with lower dosages.)
Boldenone propionate, in contrast, has a half-life of probably only about two days. It would provide a very sharp transition of blood levels. So you would be either making progress anabolically, or be starting your recovery.
The theory offers promise.
In practice, boldenone propionate injections are exceptionally painful. Personally, I find even 25 mg/mL concentration to be unacceptable for use. Others also have had findings of greater pain with this injection than any other.
Hypothetically, either the phenylpropionate or acetate ester of boldenone might well provide the benefit of short half-life and pain-free injection, but so far as I know these are not available.
I would suggest either trying testosterone propionate at only a 50 mg/mL concentration, which can be painless, or testosterone acetate at that same concentration, or no more than 100 mg/mL.
The Benefits of Boldenone Propionate When Compared to Other Short-Acting Steroid Esters
Q: “You’ve previously written that SARMs such as Ostarine are more hype than reality. They imitate the name of SERMs, claiming to be “Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators” to have a name that might go over better with the public than “anabolic steroids” does. Well you didn’t say exactly that but that was what I got out of it. Ostarine does seem to offer nothing over existing anabolic steroids, I see no reason to add it to a cycle. But I’ve just read about RAD-140. This one sounds like the real deal. What say you?”
A: RAD-140 is indeed very interesting.
First, as to terminology. An “agonist” is a molecule which activates a receptor. A full agonist, at high enough concentration in the blood or test medium, can achieve 100% effect from the receptors. A partial agonist, also called a weak agonist, can only ever achieve partial effect from the receptors. In some cases it binds the receptors, but no activity results. In some cases, the presence of a partial agonist can reduce the effect of a full agonist that is also present. For example, in humans estriol, a weak agonist, can reduce the effect of estradiol, a full agonist.
The concept of a modulator, as opposed to being a simple agonist of some type, is that when the molecule binds to a receptor, in some tissues the receptor will act in one way and in other tissues, a different way.
Tamoxifen (Nolvadex) or clomiphene (Clomid), for example, cause estrogen receptors in breast tissue to work differently than when estradiol binds the receptors, but in bone tissue causes the receptors to work in the same way as when estradiol binds.
So what would be the significance to androgens? In muscle cells we’d want the molecule to work in the same way that testosterone does. But in tissues that we don’t want androgenic effect, ideally we’d want the molecule to work differently at the androgen receptor than testosterone does.
In terms of the most commonly measured effect – levator ani growth vs prostate growth* – we already had this with the synthetic anabolic steroids. The difference in effect was calculated as the anabolic/androgenic ratio. Values for this ratio reached as high as a reported 20:1 with norbolethone, 16:1 with norethandrolone, and 12:1 for oxandrolone.
Ostarine and some others showed anabolic/androgenic ratios comparable to this, though a little better. Differences were arguably more quantitative than being in kind or class, particularly given that the assay method gives quite variable results from one study to another.
RAD-140, however, has shown an anabolic/androgenic ratio of about 90:1, and actually antagonizes (partially blocks) the effect of testosterone on the prostate. That’s an impressive demonstration.
Now as to whether RAD-140 has less activity in the scalp or, for women, the larynx than synthetic anabolic steroids, that would be a differing question which may have a differing outcome.
It’s a very interesting compound, and could be of value as part of a steroid stack due to its partial testosterone blocking effect in the prostate.
* In the rat, the muscle sometimes called the levator ani acts to elevate the penis. While it responds differently to anabolic steroids than skeletal muscle cells in general do, in the anabolic/androgenic ratio measurements levator ani growth is used as a guess factor for general effect on skeletal muscle growth. Prostate growth provides some useful information on effect on the prostate and is used as a guess factor for effect on other tissues such as the scalp and the larynx, but is of no proven value for estimating effect on those tissues.
Q: “I’ve always been a blood donor. It’s something worth doing for others, but also I understand that men really have very little mechanism for eliminating excess iron from the blood, so it’s probably good for my health as well. I’ve always read that blood shouldn’t be donated while on a cycle. Truth or myth?”
Those who say that blood should not be donated while on an anabolic steroid cycle are undoubtedly trying to act in a responsible manner. No decent person would want to “dope” another person via receiving blood. So the question is, does this actually happen in a way that’s remotely significant?
With regards to possible practical effect on people, the answer is no. While technically of course some molecules of steroid will be transferred to the other person, the amount is at least an order of magnitude less than could have any significance.
To illustrate, let’s say that your testosterone level during the cycle is 10,000 ng/dL. That’s high. And you give 500 mL. That comes to 5 dL, so the total amount of testosterone present is 50,000 ng, which is 50 mcg, which is 0.05 mg.
Even for a woman, a single steroid injection of 0.05 mg is about as close to absolutely nothing as can be.
From the standpoint of your health, it could be of value to donate blood to reduce hematocrit, which can be elevated on a cycle.
However, there’s certainly the moral question of whether the recipient is expecting such a thing, which they aren’t. In the case of synthetic anabolic steroids, there might be more of a moral question here than with testosterone. With testosterone, they will already have far, far, far more in their bodies already than what they’ll receive from the blood, regardless of gender or age.
So it’s a decision for each person to make. Myself, I don’t do it during cycles, but if another person saw a value in doing so and themselves evaluated it as an appropriate decision, as a matter of fact I see absolutely zero possible harm coming to the recipient, within a safety factor of more than 10 times.
Are Recipients Harmed by Blood Donations Made by Anabolic Steroid Users?
Q: “What do you think of AOD 9604? I like the idea of promoting fat loss without the possibility of causing GH belly or nerve pain. Is it legit?”
A: AOD-9604 (HGH residues 177-191 with a tyrosine added to the N-terminus) certainly promotes fat loss in rats and mice. So far as is known, it works in them only by increasing the number and activity of beta-3 receptors.
In these species, beta-3 receptors have very high relevance to overall metabolism. In humans, the relevance is not much.
So the mechanism of action is not very promising, but leaves the possibility of at least some effect.
In human cells in vitro (in cell culture as opposed to in a living person), AOD-9604 promoted lipolysis in obese fat cells but not normal fat cells. This also seems not too promising, at least for the non-obese human user.
The company which developed it, Metabolic Pharmaceuticals, did have a small early study done which showed a small amount of fat loss at 1 mg per day but not really any other dosing. Measured effect was less at higher doses. In total the company did at least six studies. According to the lead researcher of five of the studies, Dr Gary Wittert, results were uniformly negative.
In 2007 the company abandoned development of AOD-9604 as a fat loss drug after having spent $50M on it.
I have no direct personal reports on effect of the compound. There have been a few reports put out on the Internet, but I have no better ability to summarize such findings than anyone else and generally don’t go by that, except of course I do give credence when there’s a clear, large body of results. That’s not the case here, and what there is, is certainly not in the direction of this being the next wonder.
Might the stuff have an effect? Maybe. Sometimes a small effect is hard to measure to statistical significance in a formal study.
Is it worth the cost? Almost certainly not.
Is it likely to make a large difference in your fat loss? The evidence is that it will not.
Q: “What do you think of the Labmax anabolic steroid test kits? Can I really trust the results?”
A: I have not used these test kits myself but from knowledge of analytical chemistry and information that is available about them, I can give you some further information.
These are colorimetric tests, where some rather general chemical reactions occur, such as reactions with conjugated double bonds, which are hardly unique to anabolic steroids let alone to any particular anabolic steroid. As between two or more test vials a number of different combinations of reactions can occur and to differing extents, different patterns of color can be produced.
Such testing is always what’s called presumptive rather than conclusive. It can give a reason to think a given substance may be present, or may not be present. It will never prove the point.
MMC International appears to be the company that actually produces the kit. They appear to be a legitimate supplier of various testing kits to law enforcement in Europe. However, this particular kit very clearly is marketed by them to steroid users not to government. Further the kit is not listed under the National Institute of Justice Standard 0604.01. This is inconsistent with it being used much if at all by law enforcement or Customs in the US. Now in and of itself that would not be a problem, but a person could easily get the idea from the brochure that this kit has government acceptance.
If anyone knows of evidence to the contrary regarding official use, I’d appreciate if they let MESO-Rx know.
Aside from the general fact that tests of this type are only ever presumptive, the color chart gives further reason to be doubtful. For most esterified steroids, they report the results only in oil solution. But for example with testosterone propionate as powder, there’s no color change for either Test A or Test B, but testosterone propionate provided in oil solution is reported to give olive green for A and yellow for B. Why a different result than when supplied as powder?
The steroid is the same. That’s not the reason. Rather, the chemical properties of the particular carrier used must have provided the color change, for example by reaction with double bonds in fatty acids of the oil.
Another example would be the result with testosterone enanthate. There’s no chemical reason why in any colorimetric test testosterone enanthate would react differently than testosterone propionate. But here, they obtained a completely different color result than with the enanthate. This would be from the carrier being different.
Now what if the carrier used in your product was different than in the product they tested? Perhaps your supplier used ethyl oleate while their product happened to use, say, sesame oil. Or your supplier used different amounts of benzyl alcohol or benzyl benzoate than their product used.
The test might well then produce a different color pattern than what their chart says.
Until the company shows the test to be validated regardless of carrier, which I don’t think can happen for a colorimetric test, I would highly question it for UG oil preparations, as they can legitimately use varying carriers. However, a given pharmaceutical brand should perform consistently, though quite possibly differently from their chart.
It may be useful for powders, but they list results from very few powders.
For tablets, I’d be concerned about excipients affecting the outcome.
Labmax Test Kits for the Identification of Anabolic Steroids
Q: “I’m considering using an analytical lab for steroid testing. I see there are various kinds of test like HPLC-UV and GC/MS. Can you tell me about them, and which should I use?”
A: In contrast to colorimetric tests (Labmax), which show some chemical effects when mixtures are applied to them, HPLC-UV and GC/MS attempt to separate mixtures into their individual components and then measure properties of those components. This is a much more reliable from of testing.
In the case of GC/MS, results typically are conclusive. Identifications are positive with essentially no chance of the compound being anything different, except perhaps being another optical isomer (not relevant to anabolic steroids.) What happens in this type of analysis is first the compound comes off the GC column at the correct time, and then secondly a mass spectrum “fingerprint” gives positive ID.
GC/MS is typically not quantitative, or in other words amounts are not measured, so it’s not usually a way to see if a product is correctly dosed.
In the case of HPLC-UV, again if the compound is correct it will come off the column at the expected time, but no fingerprint is taken, only the amount of absorption. So this is a good test for quantitation, but there remains the possibility that the compound could be a different one which happens to come off the column at the same time. In the case of anabolic steroid testing, it’s a low risk that a product might be counterfeit yet come off (elute from) the column at the correct time.
What can be a disadvantage sometimes of both HPLC-UV and GC/MS is that the lab will determine the substance they are testing, as that’s what you’re paying for. (It is not ordinary to provide only the raw data with no interpretation.) They might not be comfortable with an individual sending them controlled substances and then informing the individual that his drugs are good. Or conceivably they might even report the matter.
Analytical Laboratory Testing for the Identification of Anabolic Steroids
Q: “Can I ever tell if anabolic steroid tablets are fake without having to send them off for analysis? Is there a way other than just noticing no results from them?”
A: There actually is a simple way to do this. It will not tell if the correct steroid is present, and in some cases in will indicate that there is a substance present when that substance is not a steroid, but in many cases with fakes it will prove that no significant amount of any steroid is present.
First, crush tablets as thoroughly as reasonably possible. At a bare minimum the number of tablets should provide at least 20 mg of steroid, but 50 or 100 mg is better if you can afford the loss.
Then add to a few ounces of acetone, and stir thoroughly. Cover and allow some time to sit, such as an hour. Repeat. Pour off the acetone through a coffee filter or through a better filtration device, and evaporate the filtered acetone.
If absolutely nothing appears, the tablets definitely contained no steroid. Or if the amount of material recovered is obviously drastically less than what should be the case, then the tablets are at best underdosed.
If wishing to determine dosing, then use enough tablets to allow reasonably accurate weighing, and repeat the procedure to exhaustion. In other words, take the powder from the filter paper and re-extract with acetone, also repeating the crushing procedure. Wash the filter paper also in acetone. After drying, combine anything that is recovered with all product that was previously recovered. Repeat until no significant amount is still being recovered. If properly dosed, the amount recovered should be essentially the same as the label dose times the number of tablets.
Again, the procedure will not tell you whether the material recovered is the correct steroid, or even a steroid at all. But in the few times I’ve purchased fake products, each time absolutely nothing was recovered.
Home Testing Method for the Identification of Fake Anabolic Steroid Tablets
Q: “Is there any way I can have anabolic steroids lab tested without the lab knowing that I’ve sent them anything illegal?”
A: Probably yes.
NMR spectra ordinarily are not interpreted by labs: instead, only the spectrum itself is provided and it’s the customer’s job to interpret the spectrum.
Molecules are of course made up of individual atoms arranged in a particular pattern. The molecule includes electrons distributed about the molecule, with the density (so to speak) of the electron field varying across the molecule in a particular and characteristic way. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectroscopy measures the effect of this electron field on the nuclei of the atoms of the molecule. In this way, a characteristic fingerprint is obtained for the molecule.
An NMR spectrum therefore is pretty much (not quite absolutely, but good enough for our purposes) “proof positive” of chemical identity. Furthermore, ordinarily the lab will not themselves interpret the spectrum, so they will not know that they have a controlled substance. The likelihood of their spotting it can be further reduced by spiking the sample with a second material which will add spurious peaks, which you know to ignore when interpreting the spectrum, but they would not.
So how to do this?
A small amount of sample is sent, typically about 20 mg, but if desired the amount can be more. The sample is preferably pure, but for example if the product is a relatively high concentration oil preparation of an anabolic steroid, the oil solution can be used. It may not work to send a crushed tablet, because the amount of excipient relative to active could be too high, and excipient material may well overwhelm the spectrum.
The order form can request testing in either DMSOd6 or CDCl3. Either will work. Generally, CDCl3 can be a little preferable because spectrum prediction is usually relative to that solvent. The spectrum to be run is 1H (proton), not carbon.
If running what should be pure material, such as powder from a supplier or acetone-removed product from a tablet, the entire spectrum should look close to the predicted spectrum. It will not look the exact same, and some peaks will be at somewhat different positions. This is because prediction software, or at least that which is available for free use on the Internet, isn’t completely accurate.
What should be paid the most attention to are the characteristic peaks, which are those of protons (where the molecular structure shows an H) which are near a double bond. What should receive no attention is the particular shape down low in the spectrum.
NMR prediction software can be found by Google search.
The above is really short I know and doesn’t say enough to fully do the job, but either it will be enough with some individual effort, or an entire book would be needed. The advice may be helpful for some. Due to a fairly high degree of technical difficulty this type of analysis will always be only for some, rather than suitable for all, unfortunately. If developments make it easy for anyone to do without needing a book’s worth of guidance, definitely at that time I’ll write more on how to do that. But presently, this is a way that could enable getting started.
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) Spectroscopy for the Identification of Anabolic Steroids
Q: “I want to make my own steroid preparations but am unclear on the advantages and disadvantages of the various carrier oils, solubilizers, and bacteriostatics.”
A: Let’s first consider which oil to use.
The easiest oil to get and in my opinion one of the best is Wesson soybean oil from the supermarket. This has a very long track record of successful use. It’s preferable to any other supermarket oil due to its extreme clarity, which means that it has very little if any particulate matter in it.
In contrast, other supermarket oils typically have a light haze to them – subtle in many cases, but there nonetheless – as do many natural oils sold by companies specializing in selling to bodybuilders.
That said, any number of successful preparations have been made with corn, cottonseed, peanut, or grape seed oil sold by such suppliers, as well as other types.
In some cases, suppliers sell oils which actually are pharmaceutical grade, sourced from companies such as Croda. Such an oil is an excellent choice.
As more esoteric oils such as flax seed oil, evening primrose oil, etc can be nutritionally desirable for oral intake, some want to use them for injection. I recommend against this, as such products typically are high in particulate matter, and it’s conceivable that even if optically clear, allergic response could occur from injection even if not occurring for the individual from oral intake. Further, the material could be probiotic (provide needed nutrients for bacteria.) Not all such material will necessarily be removed by a submicron filter.
Ethyl oleate can be another good choice. It has the advantages of lower viscosity than the vegetable or seed oils, and greater solubilizing ability. The potential disadvantages come from individual reaction to ethyl oleate in some cases, and poor quality ethyl oleate in others. I would avoid ethyl oleate which is simply some industrial or lab grade, or of unspecified grade. It should be USP, or at the least FCC. In all cases, I’d try a few trial injections of 1 mL before committing a batch of powder to ethyl oleate.
Benzyl benzoate is a useful solubilizer. For example, trenbolone acetate is soluble only at 50 mg/mL in straight Wesson oil, but 100 mg/mL can be obtained with 20% benzyl benzoate and 80% Wesson oil.
Another solubilizer is guaiacol. If following a formula that specifies it, then for having confidence of everything dissolving, the less risky approach is to use guaiacol as specified rather than to omit it. There is no downside to doing so. But other than that, I don’t see a need to do so, and personally never use it.
Benzyl alcohol has bacteriostatic properties: in other words it typically does not kill bacteria, but does prevent their growth. A clean oil solution of a steroid, without particulate matter, completely lacks nutrients needed for bacteria to grow: for example there are no sources of nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus etc which are absolutely required for bacterial growth. However, if for example allowing skin particles or food residue to be introduced into the oil solution, then bacterial growth becomes possible. However, if cleansing the septum and using a fresh needles, that should not happen.
Nonetheless some users may introduce contamination, and for this reason, benzyl alcohol at concentrations no more than 5% can be useful. Many consider it “necessary.” I find that a strong word, as I’ve omitted it for many years due to its irritant properties, and never had the slightest issue. Desirable for a given individual, perhaps, desirable for most perhaps, but necessary when using a suitable oil and proper procedure, no.
A Review of Various Carrier Oils, Solubilizers and Bacteriostatics Used to Make Steroid Homebrew Preparations
