The Big Lie about steroids

I’ve heard countless times how a juicehead proclaimed that it was not his gear growing muscle, rather than just facilitating his own efforts to do so (“it’s just giving me the ability to work out harder, you see”). This is one of the biggest lies surrounding the use of anabolic steroids.

Because they work and do so very, very well. And even though roids most likely do increase the adaptive response to training, they also grow muscle all by themselves. Naturally “roid”-driven hypertrophied muscle that will mostly come off, when you stop pinning, just like real “lifting muscle” will eventually come off when you stop lifting. But this fact, that steroids grow muscle even in the absence of training, is a fact that most juicers have a VERY hard time dealing with.

The purpose of this post is not at all to discredit the results of people on juice, just to discredit their claims of “it” being “all themselves”. The fact is, if they hadn’t juiced they wouldn’t be as big, or as lean, or as strong and as this is part of what they are being judged by, it is not fair to blame all of their muscle mass or strength on their own efforts. Face it, when was the last time you heard “well, it wasn’t ALL me. I did use three cycles of test and tren to get here” when replying to a compliment on their size or strength?


In the 80’es and 90’es, it was actually controversial whether or not anabolic steroids had any performance-enhancing or macroscopically significant anabolic effects. The reason behind this was of course that no-one had done studies with supraphysiological doses of anabolic steroids yet and in the light of this absence, there was actually no real evidence to support the notion that anabolic steroids were the game changers that some people claimed even back then – usually the ones who were in lifting circles and had witnessed it first hand.

“The magic bullet” about steroids aka Bhasin et al, 1996

But lo and behold, in 1996 Shalender Bhasin had a paper published in one of the most prestigious medical journals, the New England Journal of Medicine, describing a study that would forever change the view on anabolic steroids (Bhasin et al, 1996). Essentially the study was a double cross-over study in which 43 young healthy normal weight men, were put on standardized diets and then into one of four intervention groups:

  1. No exercise, placebo
  2. No exercise, 600 mg Testosterone Enanthate weekly
  3. Resistance exercise 3 times/week, placebo
  4. Resistance exercise 3 times/week, 600 mg Testosterone Enanthate weekly

for a period of 10 weeks. For reference, the recommended prescribed dose of testosterone for replacement therapy is 250 mg every 2 to three weeks. So 600 mg/week is preeeeetty supraphysiological, but still well below what is used in lifting circles, even for beginners. Naturally, these guys grew muscle and got leaner, but how much? Bhasin reported that the changes in fat-free mass were as follows, per group:

  1. +0.8 kg
  2. +3.2 kg
  3. +2.0 kg
  4. +6.1 kg

Thereby proving beyond any reasonable doubt that 600 mgs of Testosterone Enanthate per week does indeed cause skeletal muscle hypertrophy and increases in strength (strength data not shown in this blog post).

Data from Bhasin’s landmark study showing robust muscle hypertrophy with testosterone, even in the absence of training.

But besides showing that testosterone actually works, it also shows that testosterone causes skeletal muscle hypertrophy and strength improvements even in the absence of training! 3.2 kgs of muscle in 10 weeks with no exercise… That’s not too shabby if you ask me. Also, no exercise and testosterone actually worked better than the exercise by itself…

But wait, there’s more

Bhasin did another study in which he recruited young men, knocked their endogenous testosterone production down pharmacologically, effectively inducing hypogonadism and randomized them to graded doses of testosterone (25, 50, 125, 300 or 600 mg testosterone enanthate/week) for 20 weeks (Bhasin et al, 2001). Note that in this study, no one did any exercise. Again, consider that the normal dosage used for replacement therapy in hypogonadism is 250 mg of Test E every two to three weeks (more frequently 3 than two), i.e. 80-120 mg/week, indicating that the lowest group is probably somewhat below physiological levels, even with the administered testosterone, which shows from the figure below. The real interesting stuff is that with 600 mg/week the subjects grew 7-9 kgs of muscle (!) and lost 1-2 kgs of fat (check the table below)! That is again, without any exercise!!

tabulated results of changes in muscle mass and fat mass with hydrostatic weighing and DXA

tabulated results of changes in muscle mass and fat mass with hydrostatic weighing and DXA

Now, testosterone grows muscle even in the absence of training, but there are some interesting addendums. First, please note that the graph for changes in muscle mass by no means seems to indicate any degree of saturation. This indicates that much larger doses would be even more effective.

Changes in muscle and fat mass in groups adminstered 25, 50, 125, 300 or 600 mg of Test E/week

Changes in muscle and fat mass in groups administered 25, 50, 125, 300 or 600 mg of Test E/week

Also, note that the amount of muscle grown with the same dosages in 10 weeks was about 3 kgs. Considering that it takes some time for Testosterone Enanthate to increase blood levels of testosterone, it means that testosterone-driven hypertrophy didn’t start until 2, maybe even 3 or 4 weeks into the study. So if we subtract the first 3 weeks from each study and compare 3 kgs in 7 weeks vs. 8 kgs in 17 weeks, it looks like the rate of muscle gain is about the same in both studies, indicating that the muscle mass at the end of the 20 week study had not reached steady state for the given level of testosterone. Thus, if the testosterone therapy had been maintained, the subjects would likely have had even more dramatic results!

In a later study, in which they used the same protocol, they demonstrated essentially the same results, but in a larger cohort (and that conversion to dihydrotestosterone is not neccessary for testosterone to work) (Bhasin et al, 2012).


Anabolic steroids grow muscle all on their own. It is indeed possible to sit on one’s ass, watching Netflix, playing GTA, and masturbating, while getting jacked. To put the numbers into context, a normal adult man of 80 kgs will have about 25-30 kgs of muscle mass and 10-15 kgs of fat mass. Going from 27 kgs of muscle and 12 kgs of fat to 35 kgs of muscle and 10 kgs of fat would be, ahem, a quite visible change. Those are approximately the changes that would be expected with 12 months of really serious resistance training and decent nutrition.

So when gearheads claim that the steroids are just enabling them to work harder, they are if not lying, then just wrong. Naturally, it’s just a case of them trying to reduce cognitive dissonance as they’d like to think that it is their own effort that builds those muscles. Sadly, they are wrong about that. In the lower dose ranges, it may actually have an effect where it reinforces training adaptations, but the hypertrophy seen with higher doses is purely driven by chemistry.

A lot of people have been flaming this post complaining that the subjects were untrained. Well for comparison, the vast majority of natural lifters, even lifelong ones, will never increase their lean body mass by more than 15-20 kgs. This corresponds to an increase in muscle mass of about 50-70%. If you can increase your lean body mass by 7-8 kgs in 20 weeks with 600 mg of Test E per week, with the data indicating no dose or time saturation, then what can be accomplished using 1000 mg/week permanently (and yes, even though retarded, some people are doing this)? I’m guessing that would be enough to make most guys look objectively jacked (+15-20 kgs of LBM) without any exercise. The point I’m trying to make is not that jacked guys are not training, but that a significant part of their jackedness couldn’t and shouldn’t be claimed as results of their own effort in the gym and with the fork. That 120 kg guy hasn’t done more to get big than that 100 kg guy, he just decided to do roids which effectively gave him more for less, with some of the associated risks. Still, people are going to ask the 120 kg guy for advice in the gym, because they perceive him as having put in more effort or having more knowledge than the next guy, a perception that the bigger guys are often prone to reinforce – I mean, everyone wants to think they’ve done things the best way, right? But for all I know, for the big guy, doing roids could have been the easy way out and for some, it certainly has been.

Of course, after a steroid cycle, most of the muscle gained will be lost, but the period of having chemically hypertrophic muscle most likely provides a degree of size consolidation (i.e., muscle memory) that makes it possible to maintain some of it, just like people that have previously had muscle hypertrophy from lifting weights will also have an easier time regaining that muscle mass.


I do not mean to take anything away from people training hard and also taking steroids, but their cognitive dissonance should not get in the way of fact, and the fact is that the majority of gains to be had from anabolic steroids are from the steroids themselves and not an exercise/testosterone interaction.

So when you see that guy preparing for a natural bodybuilding show and the other one preparing for an “unnatural” one, it’s not because the “unnatural” dude is training harder that he’s much bigger. Actually, it’s probably somewhat easier for him, because he doesn’t have to be just as careful about overtraining and losing too much precious muscle with his fat as the “natty”. I do not intend to say that the natural athletes do “more”, but that the “un-nattys” get a lot more with the same level of effort. At least that’s what I’m told by the people I know that have tried preparing for both natural and unnatural bodybuilding or fitness shows ;o).

I don’t give a flying fuck if people juice themselves retarded, but they shouldn’t claim it was “all me” because, well, it wasn’t. But this is all a consequence of the hypocrisy in the bodybuilding community regarding steroids. A hypocrisy that most probably comes all the way from the top. The Weider Brothers wanted freaky bodies to put on the labels of supplements while ignoring or even hiding the fact that these freaky bodies were based on lifestyles that were excessively unhealthy and in many cases caused very premature deaths. Stop the steroid taboo!


Bhasin, S., Storer, T. W., Berman, N., Callegari, C., Clevenger, B., Phillips, J., et al. (1996). The effects of supraphysiologic doses of testosterone on muscle size and strength in normal men. The New England Journal of Medicine, 335(1), 1–7. doi:10.1056/NEJM199607043350101

Bhasin, S., Woodhouse, L., Casaburi, R., Singh, A. B., Bhasin, D., Berman, N., et al. (2001). Testosterone dose-response relationships in healthy young men. American Journal of Physiology Endocrinology and Metabolism, 281(6), E1172–81.

Bhasin, S., Travison, T. G., Storer, T. W., Lakshman, K., Kaushik, M., Mazer, N. A., et al. (2012). Effect of testosterone supplementation with and without a dual 5α-reductase inhibitor on fat-free mass in men with suppressed testosterone production: a randomized controlled trial. Jama, 307(9), 931–939. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.227


  1. admin on 2014-07-17 at 20:15

    it is ofc true that the un-natties get a lot more for their work, but they also take the risks.

    • incognitodk on 2014-07-18 at 12:50

      I certainly agree. The motivation behind the blog post was that so many gear heads claim that they came by their results by themselves, when the truth is that they would be much smaller and weaker with the same effort in eating and training, but without the gear. Just look at how much IFBB pros shrink when they go off gear. I don't give a shit if people use gear or not, but when they do, they should acknowledge how much it actually changes the game. Thank you for your comment.


      • Mark on 2019-01-20 at 12:46

        You will absolutely grow muscoe and get stronger when using aas even without training, However… you will NOT, repeat ABSOLUTELY NOT, look the same as someone who uses them and does train. Which is the objective of bodybuilding. You will also NEVER get to the elite level i bb’ing if you dont have the genetics and dedication needed. These are also FACTS that annoying natties will never accept!

        • Anders Nedergaard on 2019-02-22 at 16:37

          completely agree. I don’t think i ever said otherwise?


          • Sid on 2019-09-04 at 22:38

            I just have to chime in on some points. Sometimes lean mass could be water weight mass which is not lean dense muscle! That’s what I think happened in the study with no exercise. Also I do agree that steroids change the game totally as I’ve experienced these changes personally. I was natural lifter from 18-33 now three years later I’m a much bigger stronger and have more endurance than ever before. But natty or not I’ll say this nutrition is the most important! Yes I’m bigger and stronger now but even now compared to before if my nutrition was off in anyway my training and muscle building was effected negatively. But if I wasn’t training and started using steroids I would think it is mostly just water retention which is measured in lean mass. Training and nutrition are required to build quality mass bottom line.

          • Anders Nedergaard on 2019-12-10 at 14:21

            As of now there is very solid evidence that AAS increases the amount of muscle protein and not just water, even without training, so your assertion is wrong.


        • Bad man on 2019-07-01 at 09:53

          You will and its scientifically proven. On aas building muscle is easy as fu*k you eat mcdonalds and getting ripped

        • Dan on 2019-09-15 at 12:00

          Uhm, no. If you call something a fact you have to back it up with data.
          Dorian Yates was 6 times Mr. Olympia and the training he promoted is actually pretty bad compared to proven strength programs.

          Anecdotally, there are dozens of bodybuilders whose training is garbage, but make up for it by having 10x the testosterone of an average male in their body.

    • John T on 2019-05-10 at 09:24

      Well technically protein builds muscle and we all do that. So it is never really all you!

      • Anders Nedergaard on 2019-05-15 at 16:16

        umm. okay?

      • Don on 2019-11-13 at 15:53

        What I would like to see is a study that tracks a 600 mg use per week for 1 year in the same fashion as the first Bhasin 1996 study, however, I’d like to see participants randomly drawn from a selection size of at least 400 people (100 per group) and with varying health conditions/body types, obviously, not T-prohibitive illnesses, prostate problems, cancer, etc., to include a more “normalized” cross section of society.

        Then see how the results come out. All these studies with so called “normal” weight people are really not particularly revealing because most of society is not “normal” — at least here in America where 50% of the population has chronic metabolic syndrome.

        Hence, the mad rush for people to go to the gym to try to lose weight and gain mass. It would be truly insightful to see the data on the transforms.

        • Anders Nedergaard on 2019-12-10 at 14:16

          agree very much!


  2. Christian Poyo on 2014-11-16 at 12:49

    Your articles are phenomenal, keep’em coming!

    • incognitodk on 2014-11-16 at 15:38

      Thanks a lot.. time is always an issue. I'm working on having some of my danish language post translated to english.

      Will do my best to keep up


    • Santino Cook on 2019-05-13 at 22:36

      The gear is not the big danger,it’s the diuretics ands other crazy stuff people do that causes most of the danger in bodybuilding. Gear should be used to enhance, not “create”. If you don’t have it, gear won’t give it to you- but for sure sports performance technology enables one to go further with each effort- and eben push harder without breaking like a natural athlete would

      • Anders Nedergaard on 2019-05-15 at 16:20

        Hi Santino
        Well, the gear is also dangerous. Your points here are commonly used among juiceheads to legitimize and downgrade the dangers of steroids. I do fully appreciate that steroids are not dangerous per se, but having a lifetime of AAS use is going to shorten one’s life significantly as a purely statistical point (not for everyone, a lot for some people, but some for most people)

  3. Dave on 2014-12-08 at 17:47

    Standard TRT is 100-250mg a week.

    I know because that's what the doctor told me when he put me on 200mg a week.

    • incognitodk on 2014-12-08 at 19:33

      In the Danish clinical recommendations it is 250 mg every 2-3 weeks and i think this goes for most of europe. The recommendations of the Endocrine society is 75–100 mg of testosterone enanthate or cypionate administered im weekly, or 150–200 mg administered every 2 wk,
      according to their web page
      Sooo.. I'm pretty sure that your doctor is talking out of his arse.


      • JD on 2019-03-20 at 20:42

        No it’s not. No doctor is prescribing 250mg 2-3 times per week for a total of 500-750mg per week. That is bodybuilding dosages. 250 total for the week is on the extreme end of TRT. Don’t believe me, look at the very source this article is about.

        “The men received either 600 mg of testosterone enanthate in sesame oil or placebo intramuscularly each week for 10 weeks in the Clinical Research Center. This dose is six times higher than the dose usually given as replacement therapy”

        • Anders Nedergaard on 2019-03-21 at 11:10

          Hi JD. What exactly is it that you’re saying “no” to? I don’t claim that 600 mg/week is a TRT dose.


        • Matt on 2019-05-13 at 21:10

          Bruh he didn’t say 250 2-3 times a week, he said 250 every 2 or 3 weeks!

  4. trenbolone acetate on 2014-12-15 at 10:52

    This is beautiful, thanks for sharing a little bit of your world!

    • incognitodk on 2014-12-15 at 11:18

      hah… love the domain ;o)


  5. dave on 2015-07-11 at 09:26

    Your post makes every steroid user look to be ignorant or uneducated. Which couldn’t be further from the truth. Genetics play a major part in muscle growth which is neglected in this study and all studies. This post and the information is already common knowledge and to be honest pointless.

    • incognitodk on 2015-07-16 at 11:07

      i have experienced quite a lot of lashouts in response to this post. I suspect butthurt may be at play. Actually, I didn't mean to bash steroid users as such, just the ignorant ones. I don't give a flying fuck what people are using or not using and actually think that steroids should be decriminalized. However, just as much as i think the anti-doping authorities are demonizing steroids on a very weak scientific foundation, a lot of users are actively downplaying both the effects (and risks) associated with using them. This polarized debate serves no one and if we are to ever have a meaningful public debate about this both sides have to change their communication about this.


      • ChristopheOF on 2019-09-29 at 11:00

        Ive been using gear for a good 15 years and am also a nurse and a personal trainer. The difference i see is when someone who does not go to the gym and trains will get a small increase in “size” not necessarily muscle density or lean muscle gain also depending on how well they have controlled their estrogen levels and then they will lose most of it when they come off. I like a lot of bodybuilders have built a natural base of about 5-8 years of natural training and wont come off but will go from supra physiological doses to trt dose and will maintain most of the muscle the goal is to maintain that muscle and add to it from on cycle to trt. I agree it will probably shorten most peoples life’s depending on genetic factors, but working as a nurse in long term care and see how most elderly people are at 75-85 years old i thinkmakes me ask the question is that i can easily live healthy my whole life never do steroids or drink or do drugs and as i see where i work will most likely end up with a degenerative disease. Would you want to hold back on taking these drugs with a small chance that you will be 80 with any quality of life or would u take the chance and whatever happens happens. Cause these elderly folks never touched drugs and are pretty bad shape regardless. different perspective for thought 🤷🏼‍♀️

        • Anders Nedergaard on 2019-12-10 at 14:20

          As much as I can appreciate the notion you still have to consider that a significant portion of those using AAS develop some sort of addictive use pattern and THAT is almost always unhealthy. But of course, when considering using everyone envisages themselves as being able to control it ;o)


    • John on 2016-03-19 at 14:21

      Lol,genetics has nothing to do with bodybuilding. If they were genetically gifted, hormonallly blessed muscle monsters they would play a real sport instead of strutting around on a stage in the male equivalent of miss universe. Most bodybuilders are actually the opposite of genetically gifted. From experience I can tell you it's the drugs.

      • Anders Nedergaard on 2016-07-26 at 12:38

        Genetic gifts come in all flavors. The ability to grow big muscles, to respond well and tolerate gear is also a genetic gift of sorts.


      • Baz on 2019-05-14 at 01:13

        This is one of the dumbest and most ignorant comments about the subject I’ve ever read. Do you realize what you just said? It’s exactly the same as saying genetics has nothing to do with a strong man competitor or a 100 meter sprint competitor. Not everyone can reach professional levels of bodybuilding or even become competitive at the amateur level, no matter how much they train or pump themselves full of steroids. They are just not physically suitable, therefore the only conclusion would be their genetics are not suitable.

      • Bob on 2019-09-04 at 22:26

        Oh, genetics have quite a bit to do with it. When I trained naturally, I looked good and was ahead of others in strength. When I was on I reacted very well to it. My point being I had a lot of friends that were behind me naturally and on. A lot of angry buddies that were pissed I responded the way the didn’t. So yes, genetics are a good start.

    • Jefe on 2019-05-07 at 23:06

      Your assertions are total horseshit. Total and complete. I’ve seen guys juice and not without. They get fat.
      Have you ever taken steroids? If so, which ones and what were your results?

      • Anders Nedergaard on 2019-05-09 at 09:01

        Hi Jefe
        obviously your anecdotes are more valid than controlled scientific trials ;o)
        I’m not going to disclose what i have or havne’t used here, sorry.


  6. sean heaney heaney on 2016-09-02 at 05:39

    He is right,i have gained muscle sitting on my arse just using 250 sus per week,but genetics play a huge role in determining who is going to gain the most muscle genetically,i knew a guy that ran enough anabolics to drop a buffalo but he still couldnt develop the physique required to stand on the Olympia stage.Even though he gained a huge amount of muscle he just had this narrow frame that just wouldnt even allow him to place in at a national competition

  7. selena on 2016-10-06 at 12:58

    interesting article I’ve read all .KEEP IT UP

  8. Dave on 2017-08-07 at 17:12

    People get seriously butthurt when I mention these studies; they can’t wrap their head around the FACT that steroids alone without lifting will induce significant muscle growth. It is worth mentioning that in the 1996 study using 4 groups, the lifting + steroids group gained DOUBLE the muscle of the steroids only group. And if you compare the results of the natty lifting group to the steroid lifting group, the steroid lifting group gained 14lbs vs 3.5, FOUR TIMES THAT OF A NATTY!

    Consider this when you hear someone say “it’s all hard work, the steroids have little to no effect.”

    • Anders Nedergaard on 2017-09-13 at 14:08

      exactly ;o)


  9. Madara on 2017-08-30 at 16:12

    Great post! People always play with a genetic card when discussing such matter. Yeah, genetic plays important role in determining how your body looks with or without training, but it wouldn’t give the same effect as when you inject steroids. Drugs will take you to another level, which it boosts up your performance and sculpts every muscles of your body that makes people say wow. People who are very jacked do not only inject one type of steroid, they will put in other drugs to increase vascularity and muscle mass while at the same time maintaining low body fat. Yeah, you can develop decent physique naturally but you wouldn’t achieve the same effect that the steroid users have.

  10. Barry on 2017-09-13 at 03:04

    I used to train very hard, naturally. I didn’t train for bw but for ripped, lean muscle and strength. My life changed abruptly. I couldn’t afford my passed lifestyle nor train due to family emergency.
    After stepping away from training, I studied about AAS and juiced. I gained 50lbs in 8 weeks, the Dr pulled my prescription.
    This was years ago. Recently I decided to cycle. My arms are just shy if 18″, chest shy of 48, thighs 25″, waist 34.5, calves just shy of 17″ and my body weight is above 15 stone.
    I feel that when I can hit the gym, and get serious again, my size will be as it was post cycle at 225lbs 6′ tall.

    I trained natural for a long time, and took the best supplements around the clock. My weight and size is exactly as it was years ago naturally lifting but heavy. 350 bench, 385 squats, 225-275 bent rows. Though I exceeded these lifts I feel the time in life is critical for analysis, at 25yoa my test was at its natural height for lifting.
    I feel that results can be maintained if one surpasses 20-25 weeks of cycling absent a solid exercise routine.
    I achieved a 2 stone gain, first month, with a Winny only cycle, some T-bol.
    After 8weeks I switched to EQ and M1T. I do some flexing for tone, but very little. I weigh about 220lbs clothed and lean. I don’t however look jacked, looking as I did at 185lbs with similar stats in my teen years. I don’t know what my strength is, but it feels like I’d be about where I was then as well. I curled 80lb DB’s at 165lbs jacked as a top fit trainer, did hand clap pull-ups, spider man push-ups etc, my power, balance and strength was superb, with a 28″ waist.
    I guess to say that all that training for perfection, all those years, mostly diet mediated mind you, I now, in later years 47yoa, can rely on my hard training and anabolics to maintain a decent physique. Nothing like it was, but it looks solid and substantial.
    I would like to see what an ol’ fart can do in the gym however.
    Great study post BTW!

    • Anders Nedergaard on 2017-09-13 at 14:11

      hank you for your comment, Barry. Keeping it real!


  11. Barry on 2017-09-13 at 03:10

    Point being after 4 mos of steady cycling and zero, 0 training these are my stats. Nothing but occasional flexing. I began at a sloppy 186lbs 3.5 mos ago.

    • Jd on 2019-04-29 at 20:05

      How many ml is 250 mg?
      A bottle ?

      • Anders Nedergaard on 2019-05-04 at 13:41

        normally 1 ml

  12. Barry on 2017-09-13 at 03:15

    Point being after nearly 4
    mos of steady cycling and zero, 0 training these are my stats. Nothing but occasional flexing. I began at a sloppy 186lbs 3.5 mos ago.

  13. Barry on 2017-09-13 at 03:19

    You are welcome to mod my comments and edit and condense. Studies with training show that gains will diminish absent a vascular/arterial system to supply adequit blood supply to new muscle, post 23+ weeks, results can not be maintained. Per; speed, agility and quickness pub

    • John on 2019-09-30 at 13:47

      I started off using 500mg Test for 10 weeks in college. Now I’m 35 and use 750-1200mg, I never come off, lowest I go is 300mg. I have to say I look fabulous but I know I wouldn’t have these big, full and round muscle bellies and stay so lean if I wasnt taking 25mg Anadrol pre-workout and 3-4 shots of Test per week.

      I’m very mild in use vs what I read others are doing on the forums, my use still scares me to be honest. I’m just addicted to how good I look in the mirror, it’s amazing how good roids make you look.

      I would never workout and diet without them, it’s a game changer.

      • Anders Nedergaard on 2019-12-10 at 14:18

        I hear that a lot. It’s hard coming off. But hopefully you are aware of the possible consequences to your cardiovascular health ;o)


  14. Jon on 2019-06-02 at 01:28

    If you want to see the best proof of this look at a females on juice. Their muscle mass and body changes drastically. I know females on both side of this fence and seeing what it’s done for them makes me want to try it but I already have factor 5 blood disorder that cause clots and I have to take xerelto so I don’t get anymore PEs. What I’ve seen from stacking test and tren ace is unreal.

  15. Dom on 2019-06-15 at 13:57

    Naturligvis hjælper steroider MEGET. Men man kan IKKE blive 120kg Arnold bodybuilder med veins poppin over det hele UDEN, at træne voldsomt og styrketræne MEGET selv på Test, tren osv.

    Men nu har jeg selv forøsøgt med 30 uger på 400mg Test E (+ HCG 2 gange i ugen) uden træning (dog fysisk hårdt arbejde) og nogenlunde kost (low carb). Gik fra 80kg til 72kg over et par måneder og er nu oppe på 77kg med tydlige blodårer, større ryg, større underarm men fx becieps er 1cm mindre pga fedt-tab, det samme gælder brystkassen.
    !!Det skal dog siges, at jeg før har trænet (2-3 år siden) og muskel-hukommelse spiller en rolle!!

    Nu vil jeg PCT og vente 15 uger og derefter genoptage forsøget, men denne gang med træning mindst 3 gange i ugen (ca. 1 time pr sesseion) og se hvad det vil give af udbytte.

    Jeg har en sundhedsfaglig baggrund (Biomedicin), og jeg går til tjek og får tjekket blod osv.
    Leger jeg med ilden? Måske, men umiddelbart er den største bekymring for høj produktion af rødeblodlegmer (kan føre til blodprop). Men 400mg test er ikke voldsomt. Var jeg på Test, Tren, Clen, Dianabol, HGH osv. så var det en helt anden snak.

  16. Jan Jones on 2019-06-26 at 01:51

    Great read, and spot on.
    So what you are stating is that Steroids grow muscle.
    Working out in the gym will add definition and focus to a muscle that is trained, and nutrition will reduce fat levels even further if maintained.
    Bottom line; taking steroids grows more muscle than not taking steroids, which is the whole purpose of taking steroids.

  17. Donnie Owen on 2019-06-30 at 01:55

    So. How’d the placebo no exercise group gain 0.8 kg. of muscle. That’s the best gains.

    • Anders Nedergaard on 2019-12-10 at 14:22

      yup, but that is pretty common in those studies. Prolly nothing.


  18. Kevin on 2019-07-06 at 16:02

    From my experience, AAS will cause someone without training to put on lean muscle tissue. Everything is easy at the beginning, like how a 300 lbs person can drop 50 lbs by giving up soda, it’s not as impressive as say 200 to 150 lbs.

    Once you fill out and get in a decent amount of shape, roids wont do anything for you. I took 500mg/wk and 750mg/week in college bc I believed I would put on size for free and it didnt work. I knew it was real bltest bc I couldn’t stop jacking off and my friends were running it with great results.

    For a skinny twink that doesnt train, sure I could imagine test can give you 10-20 lbs without effort. But i had already been lifting natty for yrs and test didnt make me look any different wo training.

    Just wanted to share my experience

  19. Granite on 2019-08-02 at 18:48

    Wow – someone who actually took the time to research and combine common sense with a very well organized and well communicated article. Bravo. As someone who has experimented and who has done a ton of research in this area (and anything in the biohacking realm period) I agree 100% with this article – and the way it was presented.

    You can always tell by the responses who is ignorant or educated here. It’s a complicated science but it’s fascinating. Thanks for the article!


    • Anders Nedergaard on 2019-12-10 at 14:23

      Thank you, granite ;o)


  20. LV Thompson on 2019-09-08 at 21:50

    I’ve seen lots of guys do cycles of steroids and not work out. Of course they make some gains but more importantly they plateau rather quickly and fail to consistently grow lean muscle mass. If it were true as the article implies there would be no need to put in all those hours at the gym. You simply can’t sit around on your are and develop a world class physique.

    • Anders Nedergaard on 2019-12-10 at 14:24

      no gains are permanent. Even the muscle from training will wear off, if training is taken away. Same thing with roids.


  21. Mike Pulson on 2019-09-12 at 18:28

    Please, be careful while taking all kind of roids

  22. John on 2019-09-30 at 13:52

    PS Genetics do have a huge role. Not everyone looks symetrical when they are jacked up on juice, how good your Pecs and Biceps looks (inserts and muscle bellies shape) when juiced up is genetics, not about which exercises you do.

    Also, some guys have more androgen receptors and blow up much quicker than others. Some have better metabolisms and thyroid function to stay big and lean.

    Genetics dont better in the sense of natty bodybuilding but when your not natural, the way your body metabolizes hormones and how your muscles react is different person to person. That’s why everyone looks different on stage. Theres not secret dose or food, they are all using the same stuff and eating similarly.

    Lastly everyone has a different tolerance. I feel like death on Tren and some orals where some guys run grams. If you can tolerate a gram of Tren, your gonna look amazing. That is genetics.

    • Anders Nedergaard on 2019-12-10 at 14:17

      most certainly yes ;o)


  23. Jan Jones on 2020-05-25 at 11:07

    2 Questions:

    1. Would it be better to take Trenbolone Acetate with Testosterone Enthanate, or can Trenbolone Acetate be as effective if taken alone?
    2. What are your thoughts on Myostatin Inhibition and if someone could create a retrovirus that could negate the natural myostatin inhibition, would this be a more permanent muscle mass solution for bodybuilders that don’t want to lose the muscle they build?

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply