|
Defiant Sally posted:Friend of mine recently started ordering bulk powder and making his own sarms/tren/test, 1g of SARM powder costs like $3 or some poo poo. Wild. Yeah, "SARM powder" jfc i know this thread is meant to be dumb but goddamn if you think LGD isn't some poo poo then it's the best placebo I've ever seen. Placebo muscle mass looks just like the real thing, i guess Calvin Johnson Jr. fucked around with this message at 09:39 on Dec 17, 2016 |
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 09:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
Saint Pete posted:185lb Strict Overhead Press, finally not a bitch boi, little bit more to bodyweight Two parts of this sentence contradict, can you guess which?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 09:45
|
|
|
Calvin Johnson Jr. posted:Yeah, "SARM powder" ... yeah, powder... which he mixes. why is that in quotations? Anyways enjoy being totally shut down. If it's super effective its entirely possible you got something spiked with pro hormones or actual oral roids which has been known to happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 09:50
|
|
|
Defiant Sally posted:... yeah, powder... which he mixes. why is that in quotations? Or he's 160lbs and eating properly for the first time ever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
sassassin posted:Or he's 160lbs and eating properly for the first time ever. I'm not referencing myself I'm talking about people I've see take it. Look at the human trials too and the blood work people have done themselves. Whatever, do what ya want or don't want. It's in quotations because all sarms aren't equal. Just compare S-4 and LGD.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
On the whole I think I prefer burrito chat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 10:14
|
|
|
from what i understand sarms are not roids but are like, a hell of a boost over lifting natty but i do not know for sure because this is just what internet words tell me. i mean ya gotta figure if it shuts down ur nuts its doing something good
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 10:28
|
|
|
Calvin Johnson Jr. posted:It's in quotations because all sarms aren't equal. Just compare S-4 and LGD. I think it's far more effective than people are giving it credit for here and in TCC. I do get why they say just cycle test instead. Khorne fucked around with this message at 10:35 on Dec 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 10:33
|
|
|
sarms is new to me can a goon brofessor explain what they are to me
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 10:35
|
|
|
Zzulu posted:sarms is new to me Ostarine and LGD are popular. Ostarine doesn't even shut you down but is nowhere as effective as test. LGD is somewhat similar to a simple, low dose test cycle but with fewer sides. It depends what you want to get out of it. If you want to be a professional bodybuilder, SARMs aren't the direction you should be going in. If you want to compete in a sport, you can get similar mileage out of it and if you aren't subject to random testing (or the testing doesn't include a test for SARMs, which must be specifically tested for and won't show up even in some of the WADA/etc testing done) then they are fairly easy to conceal as well because they don't leave longterm (>1-2 week) markers like lots of the common AAS do. They cost a poo poo ton more than test to buy but not produce, the longterm effects aren't too well known but they have been around for over a decade now and if something like LGD/Ostarine gave you cancer then test probably would too, and they aren't wonder drugs or anything. A bunch of idiots stack them and take really high doses which defeats the entire point of taking them. Normal steroids are cheaper, more effective, and, provided someone does the research, keeps up on blood tests, and isn't an idiot, are relatively safe. That's all the brofessin I know about them. I looked into them kind of extensively before deciding I would just stay natural. I'm perfectly fine peaking wherever I peak, and I am happy with how I look after only six months of working out. So how I'll look a year or two from now is just really drat sweet to me. Also, they are tested for quite commonly now and any random test will pop you if you're on them within a few weeks so I doubt that many professional athletes are on them in most sports with random testing. I know in powerlifting they're mildly popular, especially with the "not elite but competes at a national level" crew. Khorne fucked around with this message at 10:58 on Dec 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 10:37
|
|
|
Khorne posted:Ostarine and LGD are popular. Ostarine doesn't even shut you down but is nowhere as effective as test. LGD is somewhat similar to a simple, low dose test cycle. It depends what you want to get out of it. If you want to be a professional bodybuilder, SARMs aren't the direction you should be going in. If you want to compete in a sport, you can get similar mileage out of it and if you aren't subject to random testing (or the testing doesn't include a test for SARMs, which must be specifically tested for and won't show up even in some of the WADA/etc testing done) then they are fairly easy to conceal as well because they don't leave longterm (>1-2 week) markers like lots of the common AAS do. Ostarine can supress you. Mileage varies. At super low doses it's probably not noticeable but who does a low dose of any of that poo poo anyways. I've seen more than one study but dont have links on hand. Might have seen it on ergo log? Not sure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 10:51
|
|
|
I am 100% serious when I say the 1950s steroids (tren test equipose etc.) are much safer then RESEARCH CHEMICALS (NOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION) because at least you know the long term effects and that they work versus gambling on doing something both less effective and with questionable results so you can get by on a technicality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 10:54
|
|
|
Defiant Sally posted:Ostarine can supress you. Mileage varies. At super low doses it's probably not noticeable but who does a low dose of any of that poo poo anyways. I've seen more than one study but dont have links on hand. Might have seen it on ergo log? Not sure. I mostly talked about low doses because it seems kinda counterproductive to do anything more than that. You're not getting the benefit of minimal sides that way, and that's really the only benefit for most people. I mean honestly, doing any kind of drug probably isn't worthwhile for most people. E_P posted:I am 100% serious when I say the 1950s steroids (tren test equipose etc.) are much safer then RESEARCH CHEMICALS (NOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION) because at least you know the long term effects and that they work versus gambling on doing something both less effective and with questionable results so you can get by on a technicality. Most of the bad stories you see online are people buying prohormones, like superdrol, labeled as SARMs. Which is another reason why doing illegal drugs is a bad idea. Especially SARMs, where the average person can't even test if it's legit. Khorne fucked around with this message at 11:17 on Dec 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 10:55
|
|
|
E_P posted:I am 100% serious when I say the 1950s steroids (tren test equipose etc.) are much safer then RESEARCH CHEMICALS (NOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION) because at least you know the long term effects and that they work versus gambling on doing something both less effective and with questionable results so you can get by on a technicality. this is just me going from an endocrinology class I took once, but I would expect a literal hormone being harsher on the body in terms of messing with a wide variety of things and causing trouble in the Hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis than a drug which might (or might not) specifically target a subset of receptors that hormone would've because their may have been a couple of related drugs on the market with weird sides. i dont actually take sarms or steroids just sayin
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 11:06
|
|
|
Someone send me a box of whatever and I'll test it for you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 11:19
|
|
|
Pesmerga posted:On the whole I think I prefer burrito chat. Same. This thread isn't fun anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
sassassin posted:Someone send me a box of whatever and I'll test it for you. These chemicals aren't gonna research themselves!
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
I would do chemicals but i dont want to go bald I want to keep my extremely metrosexual swedish look and my hair is integral to it!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
being bald is worse than being short and both are worse than being dead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
ZigZag posted:being bald is worse than being short and both are worse than being dead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
Bald only works if you are black or jason statham
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
I'm 27 and my hair is starting to thin a tiny bit, but thats ok because I'm eventually going to be the big shredded mean looking old guy with a big beard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
Mine started at 22, but has slowed in recent years. ... thankfully. I know if I ever even think of doing roids it'll just fall out, so it's creatine and protein for me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
I think everyone went from "Everyone should be taking creatine" to "Nobody take creatine" within a 5 year period where it turned out it will speed up hair loss.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Knight posted:I think everyone went from "Everyone should be taking creatine" to "Nobody take creatine" within a 5 year period where it turned out it will speed up hair loss.  Hadn't heard that. I'll look into it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Cursory search: taking like 28g of creatine a day led to definitive crazy increases in dht, which led to hair loss. Results of lower doses (which I'm taking) are inconclusive or just not looked at. At any rate, no more for me. (I cycled once before a couple years ago, didn't notice any accelerated hair loss, but still. Don't wanna speed this poo poo back up.) Arms today after legs yesterday. Gonna dream of burritos as I lift.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
If creatine causes hair loss on the body that'd be dope
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Maybe focus it on the back? K plz thx, creatine
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Steroids actually specifically cause hair loss on the scalp for people who are prone to it and then increases hairgrowth on the body. Slowly you will turn into a balding apeman
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Tiny Lowtax posted:Same. This thread isn't fun anymore. You are the crankiest poster ever
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
he just needs some steroids
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
I'm only cranky when people take this thread seriously
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
What do I do when I start feeling full and can't eat more
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
FedEx Mercury posted:What do I do when I start feeling full and can't eat more
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
FedEx Mercury posted:What do I do when I start feeling full and can't eat more eating is harder than lifting :/ Tolkien minority fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Dec 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
FedEx Mercury posted:What do I do when I start feeling full and can't eat more Go buy more burritos. The time it takes to buy them should give you enough rest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
you dont have to eat everything in one meal man
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Knight posted:I think everyone went from "Everyone should be taking creatine" to "Nobody take creatine" within a 5 year period where it turned out it will speed up hair loss. this is a real misleading generalisation
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Homestar Runner posted:this is a real misleading generalisation Probably. But don't want to be both bald and jacked until I have to be. Then I'd have to buy a Harley, get lots of tats, and that stuff is expensive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
im 30 and still have my hair eat my shorts, baldies
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 22:54
|
|