Blood Work Are 0% Suppression Cycles Possible? Enclomiphene + SARMs vs Steroids (Bloodwork & Results Below)

[FeelFurious]

I've attached bloodwork from several different compounds and combinations I've personally run, in the order I tested them:​

1. Enclomiphene only
2. Ostarine + Enclomiphene
3. Turinabol (Tbol) + Enclomiphene
4. RAD140 + Enclomiphene

I started with Enclomiphene alone to establish a baseline and see how I responded. After that, I moved to Ostarine + Enclomiphene. My bloodwork looked great and showed no meaningful suppression, which gave me confidence to continue experimenting with this approach and eventually try something stronger.

Next, I tried Tbol + Enclomiphene. This was where things changed. LH and FSH didn't completely crash, but the signal clearly weakened. By week 4, my free testosterone had dropped somewhat significantly and very quickly, so I discontinued the cycle immediately.

After seeing the difference between Ostarine and Tbol, I decided to try RAD140 + Enclomiphene. RAD140 noticeably lowered my SHBG, which is a well-known effect. My free testosterone eventually dropped into the high 600s by week 8, which is still very high and well above my natural free testosterone levels. The suppression was nowhere near what I experienced with Tbol.

My personal theory is that Enclomiphene and SARMs create a tug-of-war. The SARM provides suppressive androgen receptor signalling, while Enclomiphene stimulates LH and FSH production. Instead of testosterone continuously falling toward zero, the system seems to stabilise somewhere in the middle. The strength of the androgen receptor signalling likely determines how much suppression occurs.

Tbol appears different because it isn't tissue-selective and can activate androgen receptors involved in the body's negative feedback system much more strongly. That may explain why my testosterone dropped so quickly despite using Enclomiphene.

Subjectively, I've experienced virtually no signs of suppression on SARM + Enclomiphene cycles. At one point I even questioned whether my SARMs were legitimate because I felt so normal compared to Tbol.

The results have been excellent, particularly for strength. My bench press increased from a 95 kg one-rep max before cycling to 130 kg currently. That's a huge increase in strength. Despite that increase, I still look fairly natural. My weight started around 90kg & im now 98kg.

One reason I like SARMs is that they don't seem to give me "fake muscle" (glycogen and water retention). The gains appear much drier, and in my experience I've retained virtually all of my size and strength between cycles. I haven't noticed any meaningful muscle loss or strength loss once coming off.

So far, my experience has been:

• Enclomiphene only: No issues.
• Ostarine + Enclomiphene: No meaningful suppression.
• Tbol + Enclomiphene: Significant drop in free testosterone within 4 weeks.
• RAD140 + Enclomiphene: Some suppression, but far less than Tbol.

My next experiment will be YK11, followed by S23. I'll be getting bloodwork throughout both cycles to see how they compare and whether the same pattern continues.

Curious to hear what others think. Has anyone else run SARMs with Enclomiphene and tracked bloodwork throughout the cycle?

 

[Mobster]

So the answer is no. Your first choice wasn't a cycle. You don't mentioned any doses

 

[FeelFurious]

So the answer is no. Your first choice wasn't a cycle. You don't mentioned any doses

Did you even read? The answer is yes, the bloods prove it....(anecdotally of course) The doses are on the bloodwork screenshot.

 

[Koba]

I've attached bloodwork from several different compounds and combinations I've personally run, in the order I tested them:​

1. Enclomiphene only
2. Ostarine + Enclomiphene
3. Turinabol (Tbol) + Enclomiphene
4. RAD140 + Enclomiphene

I started with Enclomiphene alone to establish a baseline and see how I responded. After that, I moved to Ostarine + Enclomiphene. My bloodwork looked great and showed no meaningful suppression, which gave me confidence to continue experimenting with this approach and eventually try something stronger.

Next, I tried Tbol + Enclomiphene. This was where things changed. LH and FSH didn't completely crash, but the signal clearly weakened. By week 4, my free testosterone had dropped somewhat significantly and very quickly, so I discontinued the cycle immediately.

After seeing the difference between Ostarine and Tbol, I decided to try RAD140 + Enclomiphene. RAD140 noticeably lowered my SHBG, which is a well-known effect. My free testosterone eventually dropped into the high 600s by week 8, which is still very high and well above my natural free testosterone levels. The suppression was nowhere near what I experienced with Tbol.

My personal theory is that Enclomiphene and SARMs create a tug-of-war. The SARM provides suppressive androgen receptor signalling, while Enclomiphene stimulates LH and FSH production. Instead of testosterone continuously falling toward zero, the system seems to stabilise somewhere in the middle. The strength of the androgen receptor signalling likely determines how much suppression occurs.

Tbol appears different because it isn't tissue-selective and can activate androgen receptors involved in the body's negative feedback system much more strongly. That may explain why my testosterone dropped so quickly despite using Enclomiphene.

Subjectively, I've experienced virtually no signs of suppression on SARM + Enclomiphene cycles. At one point I even questioned whether my SARMs were legitimate because I felt so normal compared to Tbol.

The results have been excellent, particularly for strength. My bench press increased from a 95 kg one-rep max before cycling to 130 kg currently. That's a huge increase in strength. Despite that increase, I still look fairly natural. My weight started around 90kg & im now 98kg.

One reason I like SARMs is that they don't seem to give me "fake muscle" (glycogen and water retention). The gains appear much drier, and in my experience I've retained virtually all of my size and strength between cycles. I haven't noticed any meaningful muscle loss or strength loss once coming off.

So far, my experience has been:

• Enclomiphene only: No issues.
• Ostarine + Enclomiphene: No meaningful suppression.
• Tbol + Enclomiphene: Significant drop in free testosterone within 4 weeks.
• RAD140 + Enclomiphene: Some suppression, but far less than Tbol.

My next experiment will be YK11, followed by S23. I'll be getting bloodwork throughout both cycles to see how they compare and whether the same pattern continues.

Curious to hear what others think. Has anyone else run SARMs with Enclomiphene and tracked bloodwork throughout the cycle?

Zero suppression cycle.
Easy.
NOVORAPID INSULIN PURE ANABOLIC no suppression if taken Pre & or Post workout on workout days only

HCG 250-500i:u 3 × pw FOR ANABOLIC ANDROGENIC STEROID like effects without suppression

HGH or IGF-1 LR3 at pulse like doses 2-3i:u HGH
Morning fasted (fat loss/muscle growth focus) or
Pre workout alongside Insulin & simple carbs for (muscle growth focus)
Before Bed (recovery, muscle growth focus) or

IGF-1 LR3 50mcg post workout on training days 4 weeks on 4 weeks off.

Add CJC-1295 or another secretalogue to encourage the body to keep releasing it's own HGH pulses

Highly Anabolic stack, Almost Zero suppression.

There can be even more to this stack but this is just a basic for the sake of Argument & SARMS are just SUPPRESSIVE WEAK ANABOLIC STEROID CLONES.

 

[Mobster]

Did you even read? The answer is yes, the bloods prove it....(anecdotally of course) The doses are on the bloodwork screenshot.

Yes. Ask me again - I double dare you (is there some irony in the member name?)

Here's the title: Are 0% Suppression Cycles Possible?

Here's your answers (I've dealt with 1)
2. Ostarine + Enclomiphene: No meaningful suppression. Meaning some
3. Tbol + Enclomiphene: Significant drop in free testosterone within 4 weeks. So a LOT
4. RAD140 + Enclomiphene: Some suppression, but far less than Tbol. Even you say some

So... 2, 3 and 4 ALL show suppression. Not ZERO or 0.

You literally answer in the negative then argue with me. Do NOT reply to me questioning my ability to read.

You'd have done a LOT better if you'd have titled it 'minimal suppression'. You did not. You show CLEARLY, some or a little and then seeming get pissed enough to question my eyesight when my reply is no - based on your own clearly presented evidence never mind what I know.

You're not the first and surely not the last to TRY to find the 'secret' to taking some sort of PED and fool nature at the same time. People have used advantages (aka cheated) since EVER and PEDs in a meaningful way since the 1960's. Nature will NOT be fooled.

Koba gave a cool answer. He suggested NON-STEROIDAL (or sarm'oidal) options where use of said drugs does NOT suppress natural production. There ARE still issues with, for example, using far higher than what is naturally produced GH. So there will be, all too often, side effects. But not suppression.

Now, when (if) you reply feel free to talk about why, for you, suppression is an issue.

 

[Mobster]

Zero suppression cycle.
Easy.
NOVORAPID INSULIN PURE ANABOLIC no suppression if taken Pre & or Post workout on workout days only

HCG 250-500i:u 3 × pw FOR ANABOLIC ANDROGENIC STEROID like effects without suppression

HGH or IGF-1 LR3 at pulse like doses 2-3i:u HGH
Morning fasted (fat loss/muscle growth focus) or
Pre workout alongside Insulin & simple carbs for (muscle growth focus)
Before Bed (recovery, muscle growth focus) or

IGF-1 LR3 50mcg post workout on training days 4 weeks on 4 weeks off.

Add CJC-1295 or another secretalogue to encourage the body to keep releasing it's own HGH pulses

Highly Anabolic stack, Almost Zero suppression.

There can be even more to this stack but this is just a basic for the sake of Argument & SARMS are just SUPPRESSIVE WEAK ANABOLIC STEROID CLONES.

Absolutely.

People love to muddy the water with 'less suppression' or 'minimal suppression' vs NO suppression using some sarms. It is ALWAYS SOME (if a little) for ANY that act in an anabolic 'testosterone' like way. It's not pedantry - it's accuracy

 

[sampsacus]

Absolutely.

People love to muddy the water with 'less suppression' or 'minimal suppression' vs NO suppression using some sarms. It is ALWAYS SOME (if a little) for ANY that act in an anabolic 'testosterone' like way. It's not pedantry - it's accuracy

This is a great idea to show blood work on certain compounds so we can all learn from. Be good if there was a database we could look up results so we can go off that rather than to much trail and error. Ive got bloods booked in 2 to 3 weeks and will post results with the compounds im using. Trying to find my perfect trt dose where no ai oral is needed.

 

[Mobster]

This is a great idea to show blood work on certain compounds so we can all learn from. Be good if there was a database we could look up results so we can go off that rather than to much trail and error. Ive got bloods booked in 2 to 3 weeks and will post results with the compounds im using. Trying to find my perfect trt dose where no ai oral is needed.

Have a look at the 'community research' threads which do that. Specifically create one if need be on this topic

That said (and the previous posts are in part evidence to that effect) this topic HAS been done before and the outcome remains the same - some suppression vs none.

 

[sampsacus]

Have a look at the 'community research' threads which do that. Specifically create one if need be on this topic

That said (and the previous posts are in part evidence to that effect) this topic HAS been done before and the outcome remains the same - some suppression vs none.

Ok, thanks for the heads up. Ill check it out if not 1 already ill create 1.

 

[stevesmi]

I've attached bloodwork from several different compounds and combinations I've personally run, in the order I tested them:​

1. Enclomiphene only
2. Ostarine + Enclomiphene
3. Turinabol (Tbol) + Enclomiphene
4. RAD140 + Enclomiphene

I started with Enclomiphene alone to establish a baseline and see how I responded. After that, I moved to Ostarine + Enclomiphene. My bloodwork looked great and showed no meaningful suppression, which gave me confidence to continue experimenting with this approach and eventually try something stronger.

Next, I tried Tbol + Enclomiphene. This was where things changed. LH and FSH didn't completely crash, but the signal clearly weakened. By week 4, my free testosterone had dropped somewhat significantly and very quickly, so I discontinued the cycle immediately.

After seeing the difference between Ostarine and Tbol, I decided to try RAD140 + Enclomiphene. RAD140 noticeably lowered my SHBG, which is a well-known effect. My free testosterone eventually dropped into the high 600s by week 8, which is still very high and well above my natural free testosterone levels. The suppression was nowhere near what I experienced with Tbol.

My personal theory is that Enclomiphene and SARMs create a tug-of-war. The SARM provides suppressive androgen receptor signalling, while Enclomiphene stimulates LH and FSH production. Instead of testosterone continuously falling toward zero, the system seems to stabilise somewhere in the middle. The strength of the androgen receptor signalling likely determines how much suppression occurs.

Tbol appears different because it isn't tissue-selective and can activate androgen receptors involved in the body's negative feedback system much more strongly. That may explain why my testosterone dropped so quickly despite using Enclomiphene.

Subjectively, I've experienced virtually no signs of suppression on SARM + Enclomiphene cycles. At one point I even questioned whether my SARMs were legitimate because I felt so normal compared to Tbol.

The results have been excellent, particularly for strength. My bench press increased from a 95 kg one-rep max before cycling to 130 kg currently. That's a huge increase in strength. Despite that increase, I still look fairly natural. My weight started around 90kg & im now 98kg.

One reason I like SARMs is that they don't seem to give me "fake muscle" (glycogen and water retention). The gains appear much drier, and in my experience I've retained virtually all of my size and strength between cycles. I haven't noticed any meaningful muscle loss or strength loss once coming off.

So far, my experience has been:

• Enclomiphene only: No issues.
• Ostarine + Enclomiphene: No meaningful suppression.
• Tbol + Enclomiphene: Significant drop in free testosterone within 4 weeks.
• RAD140 + Enclomiphene: Some suppression, but far less than Tbol.

My next experiment will be YK11, followed by S23. I'll be getting bloodwork throughout both cycles to see how they compare and whether the same pattern continues.

Curious to hear what others think. Has anyone else run SARMs with Enclomiphene and tracked bloodwork throughout the cycle?

there has been plenty of talk in the past about ostarine being minimally suppressive and okay to use in pct.
this post is really good and shows an example of what it does with suppression, there is def some but it isn't huge

 

[Mobster]

there has been plenty of talk in the past about ostarine being minimally suppressive and okay to use in pct.
this post is really good and shows an example of what it does with suppression, there is def some but it isn't huge

I'd, if not on TRT, avoid if so.

 

[Mobster]

I'll bang the nature drum hard again.

Joe wants to add 20lbs of muscle. He gets a lucky wish granted and BOOM - adds 20lbs. Now we ALL know how wishes stories go. There are ALWAYS consequences. Aching feet, knees etc. A new wardrobe is needed. His neck aches cos he now lies differently in bed etc

Joe, sans wishes, goes down the natural route. Fuck he now only wants 5lbs and a six pack. He MUST eat better and still has to train his ass off. So he gets that pay off vs the instant mistake. But it can be slow = so still consequences. He does use some supps (creatine, t-boosters etc)

Joe finally picks PEDS but worries about ball size, erections, people at work noticing his biceps so thinks 'what can anabolic effect DRUGS use that will have NO NEGATIVE effects'. Like (as 'Joe' said) zero. Nothing Joe. Your DNA and in built 'switches' etc respond in a myriad cascade number of ways still being studied. Evolution, adaption and so have made some of these switches say NO to adding lots of muscle quickly and even 5lb is a lot.

It is, in this context, about MINIMIZING those consequences. But that's all. Own that. Understand it. Learn to apply it. Here it'll be SOME mild issues and a SMALL amount more muscle than naturally. Which is actually fkin awesome over time.

 

[FeelFurious]

Yes. Ask me again - I double dare you (is there some irony in the member name?)

Here's the title: Are 0% Suppression Cycles Possible?

Here's your answers (I've dealt with 1)
2. Ostarine + Enclomiphene: No meaningful suppression. Meaning some
3. Tbol + Enclomiphene: Significant drop in free testosterone within 4 weeks. So a LOT
4. RAD140 + Enclomiphene: Some suppression, but far less than Tbol. Even you say some

So... 2, 3 and 4 ALL show suppression. Not ZERO or 0.

You literally answer in the negative then argue with me. Do NOT reply to me questioning my ability to read.

You'd have done a LOT better if you'd have titled it 'minimal suppression'. You did not. You show CLEARLY, some or a little and then seeming get pissed enough to question my eyesight when my reply is no - based on your own clearly presented evidence never mind what I know.

You're not the first and surely not the last to TRY to find the 'secret' to taking some sort of PED and fool nature at the same time. People have used advantages (aka cheated) since EVER and PEDs in a meaningful way since the 1960's. Nature will NOT be fooled.

Koba gave a cool answer. He suggested NON-STEROIDAL (or sarm'oidal) options where use of said drugs does NOT suppress natural production. There ARE still issues with, for example, using far higher than what is naturally produced GH. So there will be, all too often, side effects. But not suppression.

Now, when (if) you reply feel free to talk about why, for you, suppression is an issue.

Are you sure you read....? your statement was "you didn't give any doses" if you read my bloodwork you would see all the doses there.

I think we're mostly arguing definitions here.

If we're using the strictest possible definition, then yes, you're correct. Any reduction in LH, FSH, testosterone production, or HPTA activity could be called suppression. By that definition, virtually every anabolic compound causes some degree of suppression.

The point I was exploring wasn't whether suppression exists. It was whether suppression could be reduced enough that testosterone remains within a healthy or natural range throughout the cycle.

Looking at my bloodwork, even the Tbol cycle never pushed my testosterone below my natural baseline. Ostarine + Enclo and RAD140 + Enclo certainly didn't. So from a practical standpoint, I remained far from the classic "shutdown" scenario that most people associate with suppression.

Could I have titled it "minimal suppression" instead of "0% suppression"? Probably. That's fair criticism.

But I think most people understood the point of the thread. I wasn't claiming I had discovered a magical anabolic compound that bypasses human physiology. I was testing whether Enclomiphene could offset enough suppression to keep hormonal markers in a normal range while using anabolic compounds. One quick search of this online and you will see people constantly arguing back and forth, one group says "enclo can offset Sarms suppression" another group so "no it cant, just pin test instead". My bloodwork is meant to help settle this argument.

To me, that's the more interesting question.

Whether we call that "minimal suppression," "managed suppression," or "not fully suppressed" doesn't really change the bloodwork itself.

 

[FeelFurious]

there has been plenty of talk in the past about ostarine being minimally suppressive and okay to use in pct.
this post is really good and shows an example of what it does with suppression, there is def some but it isn't huge

Exactly, I wouldn't even call it any suppression at all, as my natural T was 412 and the biggest "suppression" I got was on TBOL which dropped it down to 574. We cant actually talk suppression specifics because even getting bloods done as a natural will have changes from 1 day to the next. But yes for the "suppression" that is there, its very minimal.

 

[FeelFurious]

there has been plenty of talk in the past about ostarine being minimally suppressive and okay to use in pct.
this post is really good and shows an example of what it does with suppression, there is def some but it isn't huge

This is actually what got me interested in the first place, i was curious to know whether ostarine could be used as part of PCT to avoid losing some gains, I think these bloods prove it can.

 

[FeelFurious]

I'll bang the nature drum hard again.

Joe wants to add 20lbs of muscle. He gets a lucky wish granted and BOOM - adds 20lbs. Now we ALL know how wishes stories go. There are ALWAYS consequences. Aching feet, knees etc. A new wardrobe is needed. His neck aches cos he now lies differently in bed etc

Joe, sans wishes, goes down the natural route. Fuck he now only wants 5lbs and a six pack. He MUST eat better and still has to train his ass off. So he gets that pay off vs the instant mistake. But it can be slow = so still consequences. He does use some supps (creatine, t-boosters etc)

Joe finally picks PEDS but worries about ball size, erections, people at work noticing his biceps so thinks 'what can anabolic effect DRUGS use that will have NO NEGATIVE effects'. Like (as 'Joe' said) zero. Nothing Joe. Your DNA and in built 'switches' etc respond in a myriad cascade number of ways still being studied. Evolution, adaption and so have made some of these switches say NO to adding lots of muscle quickly and even 5lb is a lot.

It is, in this context, about MINIMIZING those consequences. But that's all. Own that. Understand it. Learn to apply it. Here it'll be SOME mild issues and a SMALL amount more muscle than naturally. Which is actually fkin awesome over time.

That was almost a TED talk on inevitability.

I’ve willingly sacrificed part of my lifespan reading that, please spare everyone else and keep away from becoming a writer.

 

[bigKO1]

One reason I like SARMs is that they don't seem to give me "fake muscle" (glycogen and water retention).

I know it's not the point of your post but I would say it depends on the Sarm. I tried LGD last year and looking back on the pics it blew me up like a balloon, I didn't even notice at the time but when I look back at the pics I laugh haha. I won't be bothering with Sarms in the future,.

 

[FeelFurious]

I know it's not the point of your post but I would say it depends on the Sarm. I tried LGD last year and looking back on the pics it blew me up like a balloon, I didn't even notice at the time but when I look back at the pics I laugh haha. I won't be bothering with Sarms in the future,.

Yes this is true, thats why I put it in quotation marks. its a big claim which is obviously not true as I've heard many people had the same response as you on LGD. Im curious about YK11 & S23. Ever used them? im slowly working my way towards the strongest SARM and seeing if enclo can counter them as well.

 

[bigKO1]

YK11 & S23. Ever used them?

No I haven't. But will be interested to see how it goes if you do it.

 

[FeelFurious]

No I haven't. But will be interested to see how it goes if you do it.

I will make sure to come back and post my results, will include transformations pics next time as well.

 

[Mobster]

That was almost a TED talk on inevitability.

I’ve willingly sacrificed part of my lifespan reading that, please spare everyone else and keep away from becoming a writer.

Thank you for you sacrifice. Best not to notice I'm on the podcasts too...

 

[Mobster]

Exactly, I wouldn't even call it any suppression at all, as my natural T was 412 and the biggest "suppression" I got was on TBOL which dropped it down to 574. We cant actually talk suppression specifics because even getting bloods done as a natural will have changes from 1 day to the next. But yes for the "suppression" that is there, its very minimal.

Through the day too. Minimum 2 natural peaks (mid morning and mid-afternoon)

 

[Mobster]

Are you sure you read....? your statement was "you didn't give any doses" if you read my bloodwork you would see all the doses there.

I think we're mostly arguing definitions here.

If we're using the strictest possible definition, then yes, you're correct. Any reduction in LH, FSH, testosterone production, or HPTA activity could be called suppression. By that definition, virtually every anabolic compound causes some degree of suppression.

The point I was exploring wasn't whether suppression exists. It was whether suppression could be reduced enough that testosterone remains within a healthy or natural range throughout the cycle.

Looking at my bloodwork, even the Tbol cycle never pushed my testosterone below my natural baseline. Ostarine + Enclo and RAD140 + Enclo certainly didn't. So from a practical standpoint, I remained far from the classic "shutdown" scenario that most people associate with suppression.

Could I have titled it "minimal suppression" instead of "0% suppression"? Probably. That's fair criticism.

But I think most people understood the point of the thread. I wasn't claiming I had discovered a magical anabolic compound that bypasses human physiology. I was testing whether Enclomiphene could offset enough suppression to keep hormonal markers in a normal range while using anabolic compounds. One quick search of this online and you will see people constantly arguing back and forth, one group says "enclo can offset Sarms suppression" another group so "no it cant, just pin test instead". My bloodwork is meant to help settle this argument.

To me, that's the more interesting question.

Whether we call that "minimal suppression," "managed suppression," or "not fully suppressed" doesn't really change the bloodwork itself.

Agreed. You'll see with the back and forth a LOT of what I said was accurate. Esp the longer thinking in regards to 'minimal' suppression vs using PEDs. The accuracy thing IS needed because most doing what they call 'research' want a very simple B&W reply

Problem with blood tests when using some OTHER PEDs is (I'll use Test C as an example) the added T gives a number which is artificially indicating high T levels. It's the OFF cycle numbers. Hence us suggesting pre, intra and post tests.

Question: which product gave you the bench press boost? And what was the levels indicated?

 

[Mobster]

Through the day too. Minimum 2 natural peaks (mid morning and mid-afternoon)

More on this.

We've covered the age issue on shows. Ditto the lower levels now compared to previous generations. Many miss the stress, illnesses and so on having a negative effect. For example a student drinking, staying up late and cramming for his exams will have low test levels. Dads have lower levels than single men and so on. Often as not fixing some issues will help. Ditto T boosting via herbals over minimal suppression etc and 'boosts' via a small amount of mild sarms

 

[sampsacus]

there has been plenty of talk in the past about ostarine being minimally suppressive and okay to use in pct.
this post is really good and shows an example of what it does with suppression, there is def some but it isn't huge

Love your work bro. Well documented and explained. Learning and growing together. Appreciate you sharing. Ill definately do the same with my change in coarse after bloods at the 4/5 week mark.

 

[FeelFurious]

Love your work bro. Well documented and explained. Learning and growing together. Appreciate you sharing. Ill definately do the same with my change in coarse after bloods at the 4/5 week mark.

Cheers brother, appreciate it.

 

[stevesmi]

Love your work bro. Well documented and explained. Learning and growing together. Appreciate you sharing. Ill definately do the same with my change in coarse after bloods at the 4/5 week mark.

Great job Man

 

[stevesmi]

This is actually what got me interested in the first place, i was curious to know whether ostarine could be used as part of PCT to avoid losing some gains, I think these bloods prove it can.

Great job doing this experiment

 

[FeelFurious]

Great job doing this experiment

cheers brother

 

[FeelFurious]

Agreed. You'll see with the back and forth a LOT of what I said was accurate. Esp the longer thinking in regards to 'minimal' suppression vs using PEDs. The accuracy thing IS needed because most doing what they call 'research' want a very simple B&W reply

Problem with blood tests when using some OTHER PEDs is (I'll use Test C as an example) the added T gives a number which is artificially indicating high T levels. It's the OFF cycle numbers. Hence us suggesting pre, intra and post tests.

Question: which product gave you the bench press boost? And what was the levels indicated?

Yeah exactly, that's why I got bloods on litraly everything, natty, enclo only, Ostarine, RAD140, TBOL all of it.

The boost came mostly from the RAD140, however it was incremental over the cycle instead of a massive jump at week 4.