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

4 hours ago, brianhale said:

i totally would stop the cycle but I'm just going to super low dose the test and run npp and maybe some tbol.

 

I can't see it making much difference but I will monitor my progress and go straight into pct if it starts getting worse again.

 

I think harsh things to your hairline can be used  but you have to be  quick about it.Hop off after 2 to 3 weeks. 6 on Tren was obviously a bit too long for me. Still want at least 2 weeks on Tren before pct, ideally, but hair is priority so I'll have to keep a close eye on things and only proceed if the conditions are optimal.

 

 

 

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.

1 hour ago, leoj61 said:

I've also been on the fence about finally running a cycle. My plan is to only use gear to break plateaus and hopefully maintain after naturally rather than stay on long-term. Because of this I definitely would lean to the side of lowest effective dose and minimal duration, something like test-e 500/wk frontloaded for 9wks (only would require two vials).

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.

5 hours ago, CapeBretonDadBod said:

How do you like your Tesla?

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.

6 hours ago, NorthernLifters said:

Did you get your tesla in time when governments were offering rebates? 

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

On 6/11/2019 at 10:29 PM, Shelbysdad said:

Wow, mind if I ask how ?

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.

On 6/11/2019 at 9:38 PM, StraightSideways said:

Interesting. 99% of everything I read online says 12 weeks. Why do you feel differently? 

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. 

3 hours ago, Jetpilot said:

I do have a prescription ! I never have problem many know here I am a pilot I travel the world ! 

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

2 hours ago, Frank Castle said:

@Rosconow @Blitz

Do you guys ever do the IM in the thigh, and if so do you aspirate? I've seen/heard the same mixed advice on that aspect as well.

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.

17 hours ago, Sorbate said:

Ok, but what is the threshold of co2 that isn’t good for plants.  

Co2 levels were double during cretaceous period and no one can argue that the vegetation was higher during that period.  You are hiring that proof.  So I guess we could double our co2 levels then? 

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.

On 6/5/2019 at 9:11 AM, Jetpilot said:

that is wrong I am sorry The law in Canada say if you have a prescription you can bring up to 6 months of TRT dosage ( or any other prescription ) with a doctor note! that include HGH!

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.

On 6/5/2019 at 8:24 AM, BobTheOldLifter said:

I assume this doesn't apply if they're prescribed?

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.

2 hours ago, Sorbate said:

Did we stop burning fossil fuels to produce wind mills or solar farms?

And hydro doesn’t effect the eco system?

anyhow I want to argue that the releasing of carbon back into our atmosphere is a good thing.

all the oil, coal, natural gas we burn was from a time where there was mass amounts to of vegetation.  Plants thrived off the warmer temperatures and higher carbon dioxide levels which in turn created higher oxygen levels.  

This allowed plant eating organisms to thrive, and thereby nest eating ones.  Intelligence levels were low because food, water, climate was very conducive to life.  

Not to get off point but what if the majority of the carbon in the air became trapped?  Would not the plant life cease to exist?  Would not the organisms begin to die?  Then the greenhouse gases would reduce and the earth would cool.  Next step is the cooling of our core, then it stops spinning and our atmosphere blows off because we have lost our magnetic field.

Im not speculating about something way out there, this is one of the theories about how Mars died.

Maybe we are extending the lifecycle of the planet be releasing the carbon?

now the chemicals we release, or the garbage we allow to be released into our water system, I’m against that, but I believe we are barking up the wrong tree with climate change, or a carbon tax.

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.

2 hours ago, BobTheOldLifter said:

"You can argue that burning fossil fuels like we are is natural? Please do that."

Humans are a natural part of this world.  Therefore, just like any other animal, there is nothing we can do that is unnatural.

Disagree, then please argue that humans are not natural.

But seriously, it's not that I believe that humans can't do 'unnatural' things.  I don't really believe that argument, but the point stands that 'an imbalance from the natural state' is simply not an acceptable definition of pollution.

"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."

I totally reject this.  We can and do use the best science we have to answer these questions to the best of our ability, but it seems we are very reluctant to say 'we don't know' in the politically charged world of climate science, or is that climate politics.  Doesn't seem like there's a difference and that's a HUUUUGGGE problem.

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.

7 minutes ago, BobTheOldLifter said:

"Anything that causes an imbalance from the natural state is pollution."

What? No way.

An imbalance from the 'natural' state could be beneficial.  You'd have to define it as something like 'causing net harm' or something.

But even if we go with the original definition for a moment, we'd just degenerate into arguing about what's natural.  I could argue that what we're doing now is natural and reducing emissions is unnatural because by that definition it's causing an imbalance from the new status quo. 

My point is that defining pollution like this not conducive to a productive discussion.

"sulfur dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide."

Agreed.  Should be taxed.  Is taxed.

"These are all natural gases but releasing excessive amounts leads to an unnatural imbalance."

No.  They, from what we can tell,  cause net harm, not 'unbalance'.

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.

1 minute ago, BobTheOldLifter said:

I have no prob with a healthy disagreement.  

Basically, I'm on board with most of your argument actually.  Avoiding the 'Tragedy Of The Commons' issue is generally sound economic policy, I'll agree with that. This is basic ECON, but while taxation is a blunt instrument, I'll agree it's a valid tool in this case.

However, first of all CO2 is not pollution.

Secondly, we already have a HUGE carbon tax on gasoline now.  Slapping more tax on gas and calling it a valid 'Carbon Tax' is straight-up deception.

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.