winstrol en boldenon of alleen winstrol

[axestream]

Jullie zitten beiden op 50mg, is dat niet wat hoog om mee te beginnen als eerste kuurtje?

Klik om te verkleinen...

Nee, 50mg eod voor inject en 50mg ed voor oral ook voor beginners.

 

[Ryu]

@ axe


Hoeveel was je naar beneden gegaan dan ? kwa vet% ? En deed je nog xtra cardio ?

 

[El Comandante]

Goh het wordt steeds hoger hier.

Waren we nog blij met 30mg ed oral voor beginners als max, nu is het 50.
Amerikaanse toestanden zijn ons niet vreemd. Omhóóg zeg ik je met die miligrammen!

 

[KaLe]

Je gaat toch ook geen zetpil slikken omdat je 'em niet in je kont wil prikken??

Klik om te verkleinen...

\

whahaaa

 

[axestream]

@ axe


Hoeveel was je naar beneden gegaan dan ? kwa vet% ? En deed je nog xtra cardio ?

Klik om te verkleinen...

2%, niet echt veel en dat zit in principe nog net in de foutmarge, maar het zag er ook droger en harder uit. Hardheid kon je ook echt voelen. De exacte cijfertjes vind ik niet eens zo belangrijk, het was alleen maar om e.e.a. te bevestigen. Geen cardio.

 

[axestream]

Goh het wordt steeds hoger hier.

Waren we nog blij met 30mg ed oral voor beginners als max, nu is het 50.
Amerikaanse toestanden zijn ons niet vreemd. Omhóóg zeg ik je met die miligrammen!

Klik om te verkleinen...

Ja, maar als je het niet in een stack gebruikt denk ik dat 30mg ed voor orals echt te weinig is. Liever 1 keer 6 weken 50mg ed dan 2 keer 6 weken 25-30mg ed aangezien dat slechter voor je gezondheid is.

 

[vriesema]

Hoi DvO,

Als 50mg elke dag voor een beginner te veel is volgens jou. Hoe zou ik het dan moeten opbouwen en afbouwen volgens jou in een cyclus van 6 weken. Je vertelt ook dat jouw lichaam prima te bereiken is zonder as. Hoe doe je dat dan?

Hoor graag van je (van iedereen trouwen)

Bij voorbaat dank,

Maarten

 

[DvO]

Als je geresearched zou hebben zou je weten dat op en afbouwen niet nodig is met Winstrol

 

[Ryu]

willen mensen hier voor een lichaam als DVO al naar de AS grijpen ?

 

[KaLe]

Hoi DvO,

Als 50mg elke dag voor een beginner te veel is volgens jou. Hoe zou ik het dan moeten opbouwen en afbouwen volgens jou in een cyclus van 6 weken. Je vertelt ook dat jouw lichaam prima te bereiken is zonder as. Hoe doe je dat dan?

Hoor graag van je (van iedereen trouwen)

Bij voorbaat dank,

Maarten

Klik om te verkleinen...

Hoe is je voeding? Hoe is je training?

Aangezien daar waarschijnlijk al geen kont van klopt, zou ik niet eens denken aan AS..

 

[DvO]

willen mensen hier voor een lichaam als DVO al naar de AS grijpen ?

Klik om te verkleinen...

Bedankt he

Ik zei dus ook al dat zoiets PRIMA te bereiken is zonder AS

 

[Elmo]

Eigenlijk zou ik jou huiswerk niet moeten maken Navy want er is genoeg over gediscussieerd en geschreven, ook op dit board. Ik heb er ook talloze malen over gepost, ook op dit board. Maar omdat je nog jong en leergierig bent hier een aantal artikelen om je op weg te helpen.

Klopt je hebt gelijk zat even in de war, Femara is idd een Aromatase remmer. En even over die Clomid en Nolva als opstarter, onderbouw dan zelf ook je antwoord!

greetz

Klik om te verkleinen...

Hier enkele artikelen Navy:

Clomid, Nolvadex and Testosterone Stimulation
by William Llewellyn

Introduction

I have received a lot of heat lately about my preference for Nolvadex over Clomid, which I hold for all purposes of use (in the bodybuilding world anyway); as an anti-estrogen, an HDL (good) cholesterol-supporting drug, and as a testosterone-stimulating compound. Most people use Nolvadex to combat gynecomastia over Clomid anyway, so that is an easy sell. And for cholesterol, well, most bodybuilders unfortunately pay little attention to this important issue, so by way of disinterest, another easy opinion to discuss. But when it comes to using Nolvadex for increasing endogenous testosterone release, bodybuilders just do not want to hear it. They only seem to want Clomid. I can only guess that this is based on a long rooted misunderstanding of the actions of the two drugs. In this article I would therefore like to discuss the specifics for these two agents, and explain clearly the usefulness of Nolvadex for the specific purpose of increasing testosterone production.

Clomid and Nolvadex

I am not sure how Clomid and Nolvadex became so separated in the minds of bodybuilders. They certainly should not be. Clomid and Nolvadex are both anti-estrogens belonging to the same group of triphenylethylene compounds. They are structurally related and specifically classified as selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) with mixed agonistic and antagonistic properties. This means that in certain tissues they can block the effects of estrogen, by altering the binding capacity of the receptor, while in others they can act as actual estrogens, activating the receptor. In men, both of these drugs act as anti-estrogens in their capacity to oppose the negative feedback of estrogens on the hypothalamus and stimulate the heightened release of GnRH (Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone). LH output by the pituitary will be increased as a result, which in turn can increase the level of testosterone by the testes. Both drugs do this, but for some reason bodybuilders persist in thinking that Clomid is the only drug good at stimulating testosterone. What you will find with a little investigation however is that not only is Nolvadex useful for the same purpose, it should actually be the preferred agent of the two.

Studies conducted in the late 1970's at the University of Ghent in Belgium make clear the advantages of using Nolvadex instead of Clomid for increasing testosterone levels (1). Here, researchers looked the effects of Nolvadex and Clomid on the endocrine profiles of normal men, as well as those suffering from low sperm counts (oligospermia). For our purposes, the results of these drugs on hormonally normal men are obviously the most relevant. What was found, just in the early parts of the study, was quite enlightening. Nolvadex, used for 10 days at a dosage of 20mg daily, increased serum testosterone levels to 142% of baseline, which was on par with the effect of 150mg of Clomid daily for the same duration (the testosterone increase was slightly, but not significantly, better for Clomid). We must remember though that this is the effect of three 50mg tablets of Clomid. With the price of both a 50mg Clomid and 20mg Nolvadex typically very similar, we are already seeing a cost vs. results discrepancy forming that strongly favors the Nolvadex side.

Pituitary Sensitivity to GnRH

But something more interesting is happening. Researchers were also conducting GnRH stimulation tests before and after various points of treatment with Nolvadex and Clomid, and the two drugs had markedly different results. These tests involved infusing patients with 100mcg of GnRH and measuring the output of pituitary LH in response. The focus of this test is to see how sensitive the pituitary is to Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone. The more sensitive the pituitary, the more LH will be released. The tests showed that after ten days of treatment with Nolvadex, pituitary sensitivity to GnRH increased slightly compared to pre-treated values. This is contrast to 10 days of treatment with 150mg Clomid, which was shown to consistently DECREASE pituitary sensitivity to GnRH (more LH was released before treatment). As the study with Nolvadex progresses to 6 weeks, pituitary sensitivity to GnRH was significantly higher than pre-treated or 10-day levels. At this point the same 20mg dosage was also raising testosterone and LH levels to an average of 183% and 172% of base values, respectively, which again is measurably higher than what was noted 10 days into therapy. Within 10 days of treatment Clomid is already exerting an effect that is causing the pituitary to become slightly desensitized to GnRH, while prolonged use of Nolvadex serves only to increase pituitary sensitivity to this hormone. That is not to say Clomid won't increase testosterone if taken for the same 6 week time period. Quite the opposite is true. But we are, however, noticing an advantage in Nolvadex.

The Estrogen Clomid

The above discrepancies are likely explained by differences in the estrogenic nature of the two compounds. The researchers' clearly support this theory when commenting in their paper, "The difference in response might be attributable to the weak intrinsic estrogenic effect of Clomid, which in this study manifested itself by an increase in transcortin and testosterone/estradiol-binding globulin [SHBG] levels; this increase was not observed after tamoxifen treatment". In reviewing other theories later in the paper, such as interference by increased androgen or estrogen levels, they persist in noting that increases in these hormones were similar with both drug treatments, and state that," …a role of the intrinsic estrogenic activity of Clomid which is practically absent in Tamoxifen seems the most probable explanation".

Although these two are related anti-estrogens, they appear to act very differently at different sites of action. Nolvadex seems to be strongly anti-estrogenic at both the hypothalamus and pituitary, which is in contrast to Clomid, which although a strong anti-estrogen at the hypothalamus, seems to exhibit weak estrogenic activity at the pituitary. To find further support for this we can look at an in-vitro animal study published in the American Journal of Physiology in February 1981 (2). This paper looks at the effects of Clomid and Nolvadex on the GnRH stimulated release of LH from cultured rat pituitary cells. In this paper, it was noted that incubating cells with Clomid had a direct estrogenic effect on cultured pituitary cell sensitivity, exerting a weaker but still significant effect compared to estradiol. Nolvadex on the other hand did not have any significant effect on LH response. Furthermore it mildly blocked the effects of estrogen when both were incubated in the same culture.

Conclusion

To summarize the above research succinctly, Nolvadex is the more purely anti-estrogenic of the two drugs, at least where the HPTA (Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Testicular Axis) is concerned. This fact enables Nolvadex to offer the male bodybuilder certain advantages over Clomid. This is especially true at times when we are looking to restore a balanced HPTA, and would not want to desensitize the pituitary to GnRH. This could perhaps slow recovery to some extent, as the pituitary would require higher amounts of hypothalamic GnRH in the presence of Clomid in order to get the same level of LH stimulation.

Nolvadex also seems preferred from long-term use, for those who find anti-estrogens effective enough at raising testosterone levels to warrant using as anabolics. Here Nolvadex would seem to provide a better and more stable increase in testosterone levels, and likely will offer a similar or greater effect than Clomid for considerably less money. The potential rise in SHBG levels with Clomid, supported by other research (3), is also cause for concern, as this might work to allow for comparably less free active testosterone compared to Nolvadex as well. Ultimately both drugs are effective anti-estrogens for the prevention of gyno and elevation of endogenous testosterone, however the above research provides enough evidence for me to choose Nolvadex every time.

References:

1. Hormonal effects of an antiestrogen, tamoxifen, in normal and oligospermic men. Vermeulen, Comhaire. Fertil and Steril 29 (1978) 320-7

2. Disparate effect of clomiphene and tamoxifen on pituitary gonadotropin release in vitro. Adashi EY, Hsueh AJ, Bambino TH, Yen SS. Am J Physiol 1981 Feb;240(2):E125-30

3. The effect of clomiphene citrate on coïtus hormone binding globulin in normospermic and oligozoospermic men. Adamopoulos, Kapolla et al. Int J Androl 4 (1981) 639-45

Klik om te verkleinen...

Het volgende uit een thread op dit board (weet ff de bron niet):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some info ;

While practically similar compounds in structure, few people ever really consider Clomid and Nolva to be similar. Its not just a common myth in steroid circles, but even in the medical community. This misconception originates from their completely different uses. Nolvadex is most commonly used for the treatment of breast cancer in women, while clomid is generally considered a fertility aid. In bodybuilding circles, from day one, clomid has generally been used as post-cycle therapy and Nolvadex as an anti-estrogen.

But as I intend to demonstrate this is in essence the same. I believe the myth to have originated because Nolva is clearly a more powerful anti-estrogen, and the people selling clomid needed another angle to sell the stuff, so it was mostly used as a post-cycle aid. But few users really understand how clomid (and also Nolvadex, logically) works to bring back natural testosterone in the body after the conclusion of a cycle of androgenic anabolic steroids. After a cycle is over, the level of androgens in the body drop drastically. The body compensates with an overproduction of estrogen to keep steroid levels up. Estrogen as well inhibits the production of natural testosterone, and in the period between the return of natural testosterone and the end of a cycle, a lot of mass is lost. So its in everybody's best interest to bring back natural test as soon as humanly possible. Clomid and Nolvadex will reduce the post-cycle estrogen, so that a steroid deficiency is constated and the hypothalamus is stimulated to regenerate natural testosterone production in the body. That's basically how the mechanism works, nothing more, nothing less.

Both compounds are structurally alike, classified as triphenylethylenes. Nolvadex is clearly the stronger component of the two as it can achieve better results in decreasing overall estrogen with 20-40 mg a day, than clomid can in doses of 100-150 mg a day. A noteworthy difference. Triphenylethylenes are very mild estrogens that do not exert a lot, if any activity at the estrogen receptor, but are still highly attracted to it. As such they will occupy the receptor and keep it from binding estrogens. This means they do not actively work to reduce estrogen in the body like Proviron, Viratase or arimidex would (by competing for the aromatase enzyme), but that it blocks the receptor so that any estrogen in the body is basically inert, because it has no receptor to bind to. This has advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantage is that when use is discontinued, the estrogen level is still the same and new problems will develop much sooner. The advantage is that it works much faster and has results sooner than with an aromatase blocker like Proviron or arimidex. Therefor, when problems such as gynocomastia occur during a cycle of steroids one will usually start 20 mg/day of Nolva or 100 mg/day of clomid straight away, in conjunction with some Proviron or arimidex. The proviron or arimidex will actively reduce estrogen while the clomid or Nolvadex will solve your ongoing problem straight away. This way, when use is discontinued there is no immediate rebound.

So which one should you use? Well personally, I'd have to say Nolvadex. Both as an on-cycle anti-estrogen and a post-cycle therapy. As an anti-estrogen its simply much stronger, demonstrated by the fact that better results are obtained with 20-40 mg than with 100-150 mg of clomid. For post-cycle, this plays a key role as well. It deactivates rebound estrogen much faster and more effective. But most importantly, Nolvadex has a direct influence on bringing back natural testosterone, where as clomid may actually have a slight negative influence. The reason being that Tamoxifen (as in Nolvadex) seems to increase the responsiveness of LH (luteinizing hormone) to GnRH (gonadtropin releasing hormone), whereas clomid seems to decrease the responsiveness a bit1.

Another noteworthy fact about Nolvadex is that it acts more potently as an estrogen in the liver. As you remember, I mentioned that clomiphene and tamoxifen are basically weak estrogens. Well, tamoxifen is apparently still quite potent in the liver. This offers us the positive benefits of this hormone in the liver, while avoiding its negative effects elsewhere in the body. As such Nolvadex can have a very positive impact on negative cholesterol levels2 in the body, and therefore too should be considered a better choice than clomid. It will not solve the problem of bad cholesterol levels during Steroid use, but will help to contain the problem to a larger degree.

Lastly, one should be aware that use of these compound can reduce the gains made on steroids. Nolvadex more so than clomid, simply because it is stronger. Estrogen is responsible for a number of anabolic factors such as increasing growth hormone output, upgrading the androgen receptor and improving glucose utilization. This is why aromatizing steroids like testosterone are still best suited for maximum muscle gain. When reducing the estrogen levels, we therefore reduce the potential gains being made. For this reason one may opt to try clomid during a cycle instead of Nolvadex. Although I would imagine that the problem that needed solved would be of more concern, in which case Nolva remains the weapon of choice. It's a plain fact that there is a high correlation between gains and side-effects. Either you go for maximum gains and tolerate the side-effects, or you reduce the side-effects, and with it the gains. That's life, nothing is free.

Stacking and Use:

If problems of Gynocomastia or other estrogen related symptoms tend to pop up during a cycle the use of 20-30 mg of Nolvadex or 100 mg of Clomid daily should easily contain the problem, and be used until a few days after the problem subsides. For best results and the least amount of problems upon cessation it is best stacked with Proviron (50 mg) or arimidex (0.5 mg) for this duration as well. Its not advised that these products be ran concomitantly with the steroid for the entire duration of the stack, as this will reduce your gains. Instead cease the usage of anti-estrogens once the problem is contained, and should the problem resurface, simply recommence the use of the products in the same manner as described above.

Once a cycle of steroids is concluded one should always initiate a post-cycle therapy to help bring back natural testosterone as soon as possible. This will help you to retain the mass you gained. How this is done depends highly on the type of steroid used. If only orals were used, therapy should start immediately, even the last day of the stack. If short-acting esters or water-based injectables were used, therapy should commence within 4-7 days after last injection, and if long-acting esters were used then it should commence 1.5 to 2 weeks after the last injection was given. The length of the therapy will vary as well, from 3-5 weeks. The longer acting the product was, the longer therapy should be continued to make sure all suppressive factors are cleared before use of Clomid/Nolvadex is discontinued.

For best results, it is best stacked with HCG (Human Chorionic gonadotrophin), which functions as an LH analog and can help bring testicle size back up. HCG use starts the last week of a cycle, and on from there every 5-6 days (usually 1500-3000 IU) and discontinued 1.5 to weeks prior to the cessation of Nolvadex/clomid. The reason being that HCG itself is also suppressive of natural testosterone and should be out of the body before therapy is over, or it will inhibit natural testicle function. But I can not stress enough that HCG possibly plays a more important role in post-cycle therapy than clomid/Nolvadex. For clomid and Nolvadex, Doses are usually tapered down. Its best to start with 40 mg of Nolvadex or 150 mg of Clomid for the first week or the first two weeks, and then finish the program with 20 mg of Nolvadex or 100 mg of Clomid.

Klik om te verkleinen...

En voor de rest zijn er nog andere wetenschappelijke artikelen gepubliceerd.
Dit lijkt me voorlopig ff genoeg.


Peace

 

[axestream]

Het volgende uit een thread op dit board (weet ff de bron niet):

Klik om te verkleinen...

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/catnolv.htm

 

[Black Knight]

Hallo,

Ik neem nu op aanraden ELKE DAG 50mg winstrol gedurende 6 weken.
en gedurende 2 weken een nakuur met nolva 20 mg ELKE DAG.

PS. DVO je ziet er echt goed uit mijn complimenten. Naar zo'n lichaam wil ik ook werken.

Groeten maarten

Klik om te verkleinen...

Beste meneer vriesema, in het volgende draadje http://www.dutchbodybuilding.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30279 geeft u aan 92 kg te wegen en al 10 jaar te trainen.

U zegt naar het lichaam te willen werken van DvO. In http://www.dutchbodybuilding.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27068 kunt u lezen dat DvO er 3 jaar over gedaan heeft zijn fysiek te bereiken.

Met alle respect voor DvO, hij heeft een zeer goed resultaat geboekt voor 3 jaar trainen, maar DvO lijkt mij niet iemand die bijzonder genetische aanleg heeft om in korte tijd veel spiermassa op te bouwen.

Als u nu na 10 jaar trainen, met een leeftijd van 29 jaar (DvO is nog geen 20), nog niet de fysiek bereikt hebt van DvO, waar hij slechts 3 jaar over gedaan heeft, dan zult u met steroiden ECHT NIET VERDER KOMEN.
Niet omdat u de aanleg zou missen, maar omdat ik denk dat uw training/voeding/rust van geen kanten deugt.

Dus is winstrol only een goede kuur? Voor u in elk geval niet. Geen enkele kuur is geschikt voor u, zolang uw training/voeding/rust niet in orde zijn, en zolang u onvoldoende research gedaan hebt.

 

[DvO]

Ik ben in 3 jaar tijd nu 35kg aangekomen.
Kwestie van eten/trainen/rusten al vind je in die 3 dingen een GOEDE balans ga je snel vooruit.
Ja, het snelle houdt een keer op, maar als IK train.. Train ik voor mezelf ik wil resultaten boeken zonder enige hulpmiddelen.
Natuurlijk is AS verleidelijk omdat je er in zo'n korte tijd zoveel baat bij hebt. MAAR zonder de juiste kennis ervan kost het je waarschijnlijk alleen maar meer geld dan dat je er baat bij hebt.
De gewonnen kilo's die je mischien zal winnen, zullen er binnen een snelle tijd weer vanaf zijn als je voeding/training/rust niet goed is.

 

[borninawonder]

Beter nakuren met clomid. en niet met nolvadex. Nolvadex werkt minimaal als opstarter. netzo goed als clomid minimaal wertk als anti-e.

greetz

Klik om te verkleinen...

Nolvadex heeft wel nut want het verhoogt de gevoeligheid van de hypofyse,terwijl clomid die juist verlaagt

 

[vriesema]

Hallo,

Ik wil even reageren op

Als u nu na 10 jaar trainen, met een leeftijd van 29 jaar (DvO is nog geen 20), nog niet de fysiek bereikt hebt van DvO, waar hij slechts 3 jaar over gedaan heeft, dan zult u met steroiden ECHT NIET VERDER KOMEN.

Klik om te verkleinen...

Het is niet dat ik qua massa op dvo wil lijken, maar met mijn 92 kilo zo droog zou willen worden. 5 jaar geleden zag ik er ook zo uit.

Groeten jongens

 

[Marky]

Damn, had zelf net een draad gepost rondom Winny en toen stuite ik op deze thread. Leerzaam! Heb ook plat gelegen van DBC's opmerkingen. Maar wel dè waarheid!

 

[MrJ]

Eigenlijk zou ik jou huiswerk niet moeten maken Navy want er is genoeg over gediscussieerd en geschreven, ook op dit board. Ik heb er ook talloze malen over gepost, ook op dit board. Maar omdat je nog jong en leergierig bent hier een aantal artikelen om je op weg te helpen.





Hier enkele artikelen Navy:





Het volgende uit een thread op dit board (weet ff de bron niet):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




En voor de rest zijn er nog andere wetenschappelijke artikelen gepubliceerd.
Dit lijkt me voorlopig ff genoeg.


Peace

Klik om te verkleinen...

Die 2e is natuurlijk van de Steroid Profiles van BigCat, die ik 2 pagina's eerder al aanhaalde.

 

[Black Knight]

Hallo,

Ik wil even reageren op

Het is niet dat ik qua massa op dvo wil lijken, maar met mijn 92 kilo zo droog zou willen worden. 5 jaar geleden zag ik er ook zo uit.

Groeten jongens

Klik om te verkleinen...

DvO heeft het zonder roids gedaan. Waarom zou jij dan roids nodig hebben?
Winstrol heeft geen nut als je een hoog vetpercentage hebt. Wat heb je aan harde spieren als ze bedekt worden met een laag vet?
Maak nu eerst een goed cuttingsdieet en ga veel cardio doen.
Winstrol is geen toverspul dat in 6 weken de droge spiermassa op de botten stapelt en het vet als was voor de zon laat verdwijnen