Steroids Source Talk | Anabolic Steroid Forum - Synthol Injections almost cost this Bodybuilder his Life

Steroids Source Talk | Anabolic Steroid Forum (https://www.hypermuscles.com/)

- IronPharm.To (https://www.hypermuscles.com/f203/)

- - Synthol Injections almost cost this Bodybuilder his Life (https://www.hypermuscles.com/f203/synthol-injections-almost-cost-bodybuilder-his-life-8432/)

100mg dbol day and 1200mg of test that may raise some high BP and affect your liver seriosly. Some are simple super healthy who dont react but most people will...

Quote:

Originally Posted by new-Jedi (Post 41334)

I oviously don't know what each pro is using, but I've read that it can get pretty extreme.

I read this off of T-Nation as an example Pro-cycle, but even if that is inaccurate, I bet it's not too far off.

1-10 Testosterone Enanthate, 1000-1200mg a week.
1-10 EQ, 1000mg a week.
1-10 Tren E, 800mg/week
1-8 D-Bol, 100mg every day
10-16 100mg Testosterone prop EOD
10-16 100mg Trenbolone Acetate EOD
10-16 100mg Masteron propionate EOD
10-16 50mg Winstrol or Anavar ED, maybe both.
8-16 Start T3 at 25mcg ED
12-16 Halotestin, start at 20mg ED and increase by 10mg every week

Pharmaceutical GH 6-12 IU ED for the duration of cycle.

Insulin

To me, that is extreme. And I'm not a fan off the modern look, not compared to Arnold, Reeves, Zane, or I even think Lou Ferrigno looks better than some of these guys. I perer something other than GH gut.

I hear that a lot about these monsters, and I can agree to an extent. But can you get huge, very huge, without ruining the aesthetics?

It wasn't that long ago that these competitors looked great. Not just like freaks. I think there are some even freakier looking monsters out there than these guys.

I just think it's gotten a little too much. If you can't put on size without ruining aesthetics, then what's the point.

If the entire thing was to be judged on size, then wouldnt we have an entirely different set of winners?

I don't think the biggest guy always wins, and using the judging criteria, the entire point seems to be about much more than getting big. Or at least supposed to be, I'm not positive they follow it. Politics plays a role.

Sometimes a 250lbs guy in great condition who looks aesthetic, yet he isn't a threat to win, but the guy who wins Mr Olympia might be 245lbs, decent look, but is way off in some poses. So shouldn't there be hundreds of factors like completeness, muscle shape, muscle control, and detail etc.

Kai Greene's issue is said to be conditioning. He has an awesome back and leg saturation, and his mass routinely sets him above most competitors—and his proportion and symmetry are unbelievable. But he comes in second, because of Phil's size of his arms and back, greater symmetry. I'm not exactly sure really, because I'd argue a few people looked more impressive than Phil last year.

If any of then had 3/4 the size, but walked up looking cut and guts not looking like they do now, I'd vote for them any day.

I guess I just don't think the extra size is as impressive as a great looking physique.