Iron Game
Veteran
Are Orals Necessary?
I know you have regularly warned of the higher health risks of orals … on the liver and cholesterol. These drugs are very popular, and it makes me wonder: Do you think they are worth the greater risks for some people? I guess what I am asking is, can you get the same results without ever using an oral?
You raise a good question. I can’t say I can answer it with certainty, and the answer may ultimately be an individual one. I do have my opinions, however. First, I would remind us that all drugs of this class (anabolic-androgenic steroids; AAS) primarily work through the same mechanism. They activate the cellular androgen receptor, imparting a message to increase protein synthesis. There are some side mechanisms, of course, which are absent or stronger in some steroids versus others. But these are not as critical to the end effect, nor exclusive to orals.
If you eliminated all oral AAS (even injectable versions of oral drugs like stanozolol), you would be left with the following basic steroids: testosterone, nandrolone, methenolone, drostanolone, trenbolone and boldenone. In that collection, there is a mix of steroids with different basic properties … testosterone is highly androgenic and estrogenic, and obviously known as the universal mass builder. Nandrolone and boldenone are less estrogenic; some of your basic “lean mass-building” anabolics. You have methenolone and drostanolone on the dry side (no estrogen) as well, for cutting and hardening. And of course there is trenbolone, quite a potent injectable viewed by many as versatile for mass, strength and hardening.
You can accomplish a lot with only these injectable AAS. Can you get to the same place? I’d think so, but that is really hard to say for sure. For many, orals are a convenient way to ramp-up the potency of a stack without jamming themselves with more (an uncomfortable level) of injections. They allow a level of use that would otherwise be impractical. Perhaps some may also make a case that they just can’t personally achieve the same results as when they incorporate X, Y or Z cycles. That said, I think the opposite holds true for the majority of users. If you made a conscious decision to simply avoid orals, you’d probably never be worse off for it physique-wise, and your health markers would undoubtedly thank you for it.
William Llewellyn
I know you have regularly warned of the higher health risks of orals … on the liver and cholesterol. These drugs are very popular, and it makes me wonder: Do you think they are worth the greater risks for some people? I guess what I am asking is, can you get the same results without ever using an oral?
You raise a good question. I can’t say I can answer it with certainty, and the answer may ultimately be an individual one. I do have my opinions, however. First, I would remind us that all drugs of this class (anabolic-androgenic steroids; AAS) primarily work through the same mechanism. They activate the cellular androgen receptor, imparting a message to increase protein synthesis. There are some side mechanisms, of course, which are absent or stronger in some steroids versus others. But these are not as critical to the end effect, nor exclusive to orals.
If you eliminated all oral AAS (even injectable versions of oral drugs like stanozolol), you would be left with the following basic steroids: testosterone, nandrolone, methenolone, drostanolone, trenbolone and boldenone. In that collection, there is a mix of steroids with different basic properties … testosterone is highly androgenic and estrogenic, and obviously known as the universal mass builder. Nandrolone and boldenone are less estrogenic; some of your basic “lean mass-building” anabolics. You have methenolone and drostanolone on the dry side (no estrogen) as well, for cutting and hardening. And of course there is trenbolone, quite a potent injectable viewed by many as versatile for mass, strength and hardening.
You can accomplish a lot with only these injectable AAS. Can you get to the same place? I’d think so, but that is really hard to say for sure. For many, orals are a convenient way to ramp-up the potency of a stack without jamming themselves with more (an uncomfortable level) of injections. They allow a level of use that would otherwise be impractical. Perhaps some may also make a case that they just can’t personally achieve the same results as when they incorporate X, Y or Z cycles. That said, I think the opposite holds true for the majority of users. If you made a conscious decision to simply avoid orals, you’d probably never be worse off for it physique-wise, and your health markers would undoubtedly thank you for it.
William Llewellyn
