Blitz

I'm going to be trying out S23, thinking of starting in two weeks. First time trying a SARM, I've tried pretty much every oral AAS so I'll be able to compare pretty well. I've heard S23 is one of the strongest and somewhat similar to winstrol. I'll be running it along side Test probably at 400mg and EQ between 6-900mg. If I notice anything good or bad, I'll post up.

Every 10% bf increase they say it covers your penis by 1 inch. Gear if anything would temporarily enlarge due to blood flow, but even that would be negligible - a bit thicker. If your dick is getting smaller it's not gear or estrogen.

Sust was designed for trt but with bad logic. The thought was the short esters like prop and iso would kick in while you are waiting for the longer esters to kick in. That's great for the first two weeks but then the long esters are working and your still spiking your blood with short esters. Sust is great for cycles. Typically the longer the ester the better for trt. Cyp is common but decaonate or undecanoate would be ideal considering your on for life. 200mg of test decanoate ever week in a single shot will lead to perfectly stable levels and no sides. It'll take 3-4 weeks to ramp up but in the grand scheme of things that doesn't matter. If you're really concerned you can blend it in yourself for the first month Week 1 150D, 100E Week 2 200D, 50E Week 3 200D and on

I'm lucky, tren has never caused me issues and I think I've used it in almost every cycle for the last 6 years. I have had thin hair since I was a child and my dad was bald before 30. I seem to be beating the odds, but anadrol got me a bit.

I was having issues with anadrol a couple years ago, stopped the cycle and haven't used drol since. Priorities I guess.

Prolactin issues are super rare, people over use drugs too much using caber, bromo or other ancillaries.

I've never met a serious lifter who ran a cycle and didn't use it consistently after that. Everything is a plateau, juice ruins lifting naturally. If you're a serious lifter and juice, you'll use it pretty much forever whether that is cycling or cruising. Cycling is much better imo. If you're not a serious lifter and then juice, you'll love it and then when you go off you'll hate it and it'll either force you back on or out of the gym. No one does one or two cycles and then goes back to natural lifting consistently.

Overall it's amazing. Every other car feels old once you drive a Tesla, or it drives you. Everything is so intuitive and simple. It's quick, looks great. Any issue I could comment on would be the most minor nitpicking type thing.

I missed both rebates. I was long after the Ontario rebate and too early for the federal rebate.

Yea for sure, I drive 144km round trip to work. Plus driving to the gym, any other stops, weekend driving etc. I was spending over $600 a month on gas in my Camry. Not to mention oil changes on that much driving was every two months, so conservatively $50 a month. My last car was done, over 300k. Assuming the cost of gas would be roughly the same a focus would be around $300 car payment assuming I put some down and got some upgrades. Plus my gas I'm easily at $900 a month, oil changes $950. I was paying $60 a month for a toll pass which is now included for a green car so $1010. I'll leave any other maintenance but that's a pretty good number. My Tesla has a payment of $600 a month, so double. But the average of two months of charging has been $40 a month. So $640 a month to drive. I don't need to buy a toll pass which is bonus, no oil, really no other maintenance ever. My cost of ownership given I had to buy a car and needed something reliable is $3-400 cheaper per month in a Tesla than an entry model car. Obviously if I didn't drive so much, this wouldn't be the case.

Two bottles of test would get you ten weeks.

Gas is around $1.20 in my area. Have seen it as low as 1.10 and as high as 1.30 recently. I drive ~150km a day. I bought a Tesla, cost of ownership is less than a Chevy Cruze or Ford Focus for me.

500mg for ten weeks is a really good first cycle in my opinion.

I never said you don't have a prescription... What are you talking about?

I've done more quad shots than anything. Always aspirate. Quads have lots of space to do shots.

I have no issues at all. I've done 1cc of T400 with no issues. Right now my current cycle is 800mg T400, 200mg Tren E and 200mg of Tren Ace. I am splitting the Tren Ace into 3 shots and 1 of them is subq. No pain at all. Makes more frequent shots easier while on cycle and I imagine makes TRT or cruising more sustainable.

Ok let's switch to burning coal for all our power. Doesn't look like a point to pursue modern technologies if plants are better off with more CO2. Cheers.

I'm not wrong. He didn't say he has a prescription. I said it's against the law to export steroids, which it is.

If you have a prescription you can bring whatever you like out and most countries allow pretty much any prescription in. I don't think there are any that limit testosterone. Prescription amphetamine or cannabis can be a problem in a lot of countries.

It's against the law to export steroids in Canada. You would be breaking the law in Canada, leaving Canada with steroids.

There is more than enough CO2 in the air for plants. They need very little to thrive, more doesn't make them better. Just like more oxygen isn't always good for humans.

I'm not well versed enough to know the impact really any pollution or what I term pollution is having on our world. However, if I could choose whether we put chemicals into the water I would choose not to. If I had a choice whether my car emits chemicals into the air I would choose not to. If I park a typical car in my garage let it run with the door closed I die. I can only imagine, wrongly or not that millions of cars on the road has as impact as well. The first brand new car I bought off a lot was a Tesla so I try to own this view point. Although we still have natural gas power plants in Ontario, a big chunk of the energy that powers my car is from hydro, some from wind and a little from solar. If I had a choice, I would choose geothermal, hydro, solar and wind over the other choices. I don't know if the impacts of fossil fuels are as great as some make it seem, however I learnt to always leave my camp site cleaner than when I arrived. I keep this mind set in the gym, cleaning the weights up on this machines I use whether I touched the plates or not. When I have the choice I choice biodegradable, when thats not an option I choose recyclable. Conservation is a conservative policy, we must preserve what we have for generations to come. I can do my best to help out. When I fly a plane or drive a car that emits toxins I can pay a levy on that. I would rather pay for impact than pay on my income.

How can you know if an imbalance causes harm without using the scientific method? And you can't use the scientific method because you can test such macro changes. You can argue that burning fossil fuels like we are is natural? Please do that. We began burning coal only 3000 years ago, for millions of years this did not happen. And that 3000 years the use of fossil fuels was negligible, we really only began to go nuts in the last 300 years. So your argument is we had trends for hundreds of thousands of years and in the last 300 we drastically changed this trend. It would be unnatural to return to or get as close to the trend of hundreds of thousands of years. Instead it is natural to continue a new drastically different trend we cause in only the last 300 years. I want to make sure I have your logic correct.

You can't say CO2 is not pollution. Anything that causes an imbalance from the natural state is pollution. If you dumped salt into fresh water, that is pollution. Using manure as a natural fertilizer can cause nitrogen run off into the water, killing fish and burning vegetation. Burning gas emits carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. These are all natural gases but releasing excessive amounts leads to an unnatural imbalance. Farmers should be taxed for their use of fertilizer and raising livestock. We would then compensate that when we buy the end product. However, they should not be taxed on their labor to run a farm, only inputs and outputs that cause pollution.

This won't be the popular opinion here but it doesn't matter if you believe in climate change or not. If we believe we need some form of government, we need some form of taxation to fund the government and whatever services it provides. Whether that is just courts, police and military or more, it needs to be funded. I believe in the non aggression principle. It is the ethical stance that aggression is inherently wrong. In this context, aggression is any interference with an individual or their property. It is central to right wing natural rights philosophy. Related to taxation, anything that interferes with my individual rights and freedoms should be taxed. Your income does not interfere with my individuality and thus should not be taxed. However, when you take away from the collective commons it should be. So property taxes are inherently ethical because you owning land limits me from using that land. Taxes on any form of pollution are ethical. If you pollute my water supply or air I either cannot make use of these resources, have to clean the resources or pay to have it cleaned before I make use of it or I have to suffer the health consequences of using contaminated water and air. My right to health was impacted by something someone else did and thus they should pay into the public good. With that in mind, if you buy fossil fuels you will burn them and emit pollutants into the air, you should be taxed on that. The tax should not be transferred to the provinces to do what they wish, it should be used to address the reason for the tax. Income tax, capital gains tax or any other taxes on my labor is unethical. Taxes on property, pollution (carbon), use of the commons that violates the NAP, etc. are ethical.