Notifications
Clear all

Oral Efficacy, Maintainable Gains, & Specific Adaptation

Page 1 / 2

Ras
 Ras
(@ras)
Active Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 6
Topic starter  

I have long been an advocate of minimalism when it comes to AAS use. This does not stem from any reticence to do damage to my body, or from any fear of repercussions: I have done some monstrous cycles with equally monstrous results and consequent monstrous losses. My advocacy of minimalism is entirely based on the hypothesis that the rigours of adaptation force a dramatic return to homeostasis when setpoint is radically challenged. My question to users and theoreticians alike is whether the long-standing assertion of the inefficacy or minimal efficacy of oral-only cycles is in fact substantiable. I, for example, since becoming a 'zen juicer', use only short esters and non-aromatizing orals, and have consistently maintained 90-95% of cycle gains (which have been significant). I am wondering, especially for novice users, whether our oft-repeated caveat of not doing oral-only cycles is in fact bunk, and whether (I have seen this in my own clients) short cycles of, say,winstrol, at moderate doses, should in fact be considered a little more rationally. I think we dismiss too quickly, and I wonder if this is simple 'reference to authority' laziness. Opinions?


Quote
Par Deus
(@par-deus)
Eminent Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 39
 

Aside from the fact that very few people deliver a decent amount of Testosterone orally, so an oral only cycle generally misses out on the king androgen, the idea that an oral only stack would be ineffective seems silly.

par deus

Juggernaut, bitch!!


ReplyQuote
trouble
(@trouble)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 39
 

Let's try a different tact.

1. Gut absorption of steroids is relatively poor. This fact suggests that once a relatively low threshold for gut absorption is met, any excess in load is a waste of product and has the capacity for induction of a more severe modality of systemic effets.

Feedback inhibition of gene regulation is much less likely, because supra-saturation of transport and binding sites will not occur first and transcriptional downregulation follow.

This also suggests that, byyond direct injection, topical and inhaled steroid delivery vehicles also have certain down sides in their capcity to deliver larger steroid loads locally.

2. Absorption which bypasses the gut, and hence does not undergo first-pass metabolism in the liver, has a greater chance of causing systemic adverse effects. This would be true for inhaled, large repeated local injection, and high dose topical loads- especially twice daily application scenarios.

You want just enough to achieve a site specific local effect, without flooding a plethora of other weaker binding sites, whether receptor or direct binding regulatory protein types - as these will have less specificity than the designated target type receptors. You need mass delivery, and with gut, you're less likely to encounter this effect.

This would also translate to a less harsh impact to immunoregulation system wide - perhaps the most alarming and damaging of the undesired steroid adminsitration systemic effects.

You also would have much less chance of triggering adrenal and thyroid hormone suppression, with the benefit of reduced liver lipid metabolism dysregulation, and most importantly - you reduce the likilihood of adverse effects on liver, brain and adrenal cytochrome P450s.

Lastly, you would have reduced minor side effects on skin and hair (acne, skin thinning and bruising, and alopecia).


ReplyQuote
eclypz
(@eclypz)
Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 10
 

^^so after all is said and done trouble, are you recommending site specific growth?

eclypz signature


ReplyQuote
velikimajmun
(@velikimajmun)
Active Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 12
 

I too am a minimalist when it comes to gear (well more accurately, when it comes to almost everything). Clearly, the oft repeated party line on oral only is mostly bunk. Legal steroids have proven that beyond contention. There is another side to the coin though. I think it is very tempting to use orals far too often when one gets into the habit of it, particularly when one cut their teeth on M1T or superdrol. I see no reason to continually punish one's body beyond what we already do on a cycle. IMO an intelligent user is always attempting to maintain optimal health both on and off cycle. Using burst cycles with decent amounts of time off, I'll concede likely isn't that taxing however how many newbs are willing to stop after 4 weeks when they are making the gains of their life? Also if you are doing 4 and 5 burst cycles a year with orals, the damage has to add up, I realize that you weren't speaking of the health aspect but I don't think it can be separated out.

To sum up my thoughts... sure you can make and keep gains with orals but they can be made and maintained with out orals as well so why use orals?


ReplyQuote
hexadec
(@hexadec)
New Member
Joined: 6 months ago
Posts: 1
 

I've slowly come to the conclusion that orals are borderline unnecessary and that almost anything an oral can do, injectable compounds can do it safer.


ReplyQuote
prolangtum
(@prolangtum)
Active Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 18
 

whle gains and pumps on most strong oral androgens (Dbol, Anadrol, M1T, etc) are very good on cycle....they do seem to be the least "keepable" gains. While I may not be a minimalist in dosing for myself...nothing beats the cost and bang for buck of a gram of test. My last 2-3 most succesful cycles have been test only. I am at the point now where I am past what my body is made to hold, I need to be on cycle to hold above 240. The days of 15 lb gains are over for me.


ReplyQuote
trouble
(@trouble)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 39
 

Maybe, just maybe, the muted delivery of an oral is the answer to avoiding the hard hitting eventual repression of receptor function (inability to keep larger gains might be one aspect, but there are others as well).


ReplyQuote
DrPhil
(@drphil)
New Member
Joined: 4 months ago
Posts: 1
 

I try to avoid orals, and this is partly why:

Contrasting effects of testosterone and stanozolol on serum lipoprotein levels.

Thompson PD, Cullinane EM, Sady SP, Chenevert C, Saritelli AL, Sady MA, Herbert PN.

Department of Medicine, Miriam Hospital, Providence, RI 02906.

Oral anabolic steroids produce striking reductions in serum concentrations of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol. We hypothesized that this effect related to their route of administration and was unrelated to their androgenic potency. We administered oral stanozolol (6 mg/d) or supraphysiological doses of intramuscular Testosterone Enanthate (200 mg/wk) to 11 male weight lifters for six weeks in a crossover design. Stanozolol reduced HDL-cholesterol and the HDL2 subfraction by 33% and 71%, respectively. In contrast, testosterone decreased HDL-cholesterol concentration by only 9% and the decrease was in the HDL3 subfraction. Apolipoprotein A-I level decreased 40% during stanozolol but only 8% during testosterone treatment. The low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration increased 29% with stanozolol and decreased 16% with testosterone treatment. Stanozolol, moreover, increased postheparin hepatic triglyceride lipase activity by 123%, whereas the maximum change during testosterone therapy (+25%) was not significant. Weight gain was similar with both drugs, but testosterone was more effective in suppressing gonadotropic hormones. We conclude that the undesirable lipoprotein effects of 17-alpha-alkylated steroids given orally are different from those of parenteral testosterone and that the latter may be preferable in many clinical situations.

PMID: 2915439 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


ReplyQuote
Ras
 Ras
(@ras)
Active Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 6
Topic starter  
Posted by: @velikimajmun
Also if you are doing 4 and 5 burst cycles a year with orals, the damage has to add up, I realize that you weren't speaking of the health aspect but I don't think it can be separated out.

To sum up my thoughts... sure you can make and keep gains with orals but they can be made and maintained with out orals as well so why use orals?

Both solid points, IMO. While I'm primarily interested in debunking the inefficacy issue, the health issues are inextricable. Like Pro, I tend to be a test user primarily, although I also love EQ,masteron, and Winstrol. Test propionate is my 'desert island steroid'. However, with clients, as I cannot supervise injection protocol, I have seen SUPERB gains on low dose winstrol with transdermal 1-test and 4-AD run in TWO WEEK bursts, all gains maintained. Interestingly, this runs against what I would do myself, but it WORKS. Mind you, at 245, I also have difficulty maintaining heavier weight off-cycle.


ReplyQuote
omnibus
(@omnibus)
Active Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 9
 
Posted by: @velikimajmun
Also if you are doing 4 and 5 burst cycles a year with orals, the damage has to add up, I realize that you weren't speaking of the health aspect but I don't think it can be separated out.

Regarding the new oral toxicity article in M&M, who is M. Fischer on the forums?

Here is a sort of interesting post I read on another forum:
QUOTEI stayed on Anadrol @ 50mg/day, 5 days on 2 days off, for almost 3 years. This was not all I used during that time either of course. This was prescribed, and blood tests were done at regular intervals by the prescribing physician. I was 18-21 @ the time. It was the original Syntex Anadrol. Sometime around the end of that period AAS were federally scheduled under the controlled substances act and scripts were hard to come by for a bit. I can remember only taking breaks from Anadrol 4-6 wks pre-contest, during which I would use Halotestin and Cheque Drops instead. I would break maybe for 4 wks after the show. During that period my liver enzymes were never elevated above high normal, SGPT/SGOT in the low to high 50s. As has happened to many of my fellow competitors, I later developed an addiction to various opiates. It started w/ Nubain as this was very popular in the early 90s. In any event, at one point I was using quite a bit of Lorcet/Lortab (acetaminophen & hydrocodone). These very same values were elevated to the high 300s, low 400s from the acetaminophen. I have been saying for years that the hepataoxicity from 17AA does not even compare to the hepatatoxicity of common everyday substances such as acetaminophen and alcohol. There are probably 100 commonly prescribed meds now that easily eclipse the hepatatoxicity of 17AA. I have known of maybe two or three guys over the years who were hypersensitive to 17AA. This is very rare though, and can be easily found out by a simple blood test. Now at 35 I am somewhat more cautious. I no longer use "rec" drugs of any sort, I don't drink at all, take OTC pain meds, etc. I still use 17AA about 30 weeks out of the year though. From all currently available medical indicators, my liver is "healthy."

http://www.outlawmuscle.com/forum/showthre...ghlight=anadrol

Anyone here know of anyone who developed liver damage from orals? I know maybe a dozen guys who have used extreme dosages of orals over a decade and none of them have any apparent damage yet.
Haven't even seen a case of jaundice. But I agree, why take the risk of damage if you don't have to and can use injectables.


ReplyQuote
velikimajmun
(@velikimajmun)
Active Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 12
 
Posted by: @omnibus
Regarding the new oral toxicity article in M&M, who is M. Fischer on the forums?

Anyone here know of anyone who developed liver damage from orals? I know maybe a dozen guys who have used extreme dosages of orals over a decade and none of them have any apparent damage yet.
Haven't even seen a case of jaundice. But I agree, why take the risk of damage if you don't have to and can use injectables.

One would need an underlying genetic disorder or some serious abuse to develop jaundice or any lasting liver damage. But everyone I know who's had a liver panel at the end of multiple weeks of oral use have elevated liver enzymes in their serum. the leakage of liver enzymes into the blood is in and of it's self likely bad for your overall health. I certainly didn't mean to imply that anyone was going to die or be hospitalized for oral use, I just don't see the point of kicking my liver, when I don't have to.

No Idea who M. Fisher is.


ReplyQuote
Section 8
(@section-8)
Active Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 12
 
Posted by: @velikimajmun
One would need an underlying genetic disorder or some serious abuse to develop jaundice or any lasting liver damage. But everyone I know who's had a liver panel at the end of multiple weeks of oral use have elevated liver enzymes in their serum. the leakage of liver enzymes into the blood is in and of it's self likely bad for your overall health. I certainly didn't mean to imply that anyone was going to die or be hospitalized for oral use, I just don't see the point of kicking my liver, when I don't have to.

I think genetics is probably the strongest determinant at work here. I had blood work done at the end of a two week M1T cycle, running 10mg ED; my liver enzymes were higher than normal, my cholesterol profile a bit worse, but nowhere close to falling outside of the 'normal' category on the panels. The doctor had no idea that I was using anything. At the same time, M1T just destroys some users' profiles. So I think that people are probably better off relying on their blood work to determine the extent to which they are endangering themselves than internet dogma.


ReplyQuote
omnibus
(@omnibus)
Active Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 9
 
Posted by: @velikimajmun
I just don't see the point of kicking my liver, when I don't have to.

I certainly agree with that.


ReplyQuote
velikimajmun
(@velikimajmun)
Active Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 12
 
Posted by: @Section 8
I think genetics is probably the strongest determinant at work here. I had blood work done at the end of a two week M1T cycle, running 10mg ED; my liver enzymes were higher than normal, my cholesterol profile a bit worse, but nowhere close to falling outside of the 'normal' category on the panels. The doctor had no idea that I was using anything. At the same time, M1T just destroys some users' profiles. So I think that people are probably better off relying on their blood work to determine the extent to which they are endangering themselves than internet dogma.

Absolutely agree, of course how does one discover that they have an underlying genetic disorder in the absence of a kickass genetic laboraory in their basement? The hard way I'm afraid.


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 2
Share: