I saw the other thread where this got a touch out if hand. I think it raises some interesting and touchy subjects.

Here's my take on the subject:

I talked to Waterhead about the way he does this a long time ago snd my stance has not changed. He has a fairly unique situation, test converting to estro in a big way. This this works for him. Pretty much exactly what I said at the time if I remember accurately.

Most people use test / deca cycles to build mass. Most people would get significantly more mass out of 750mg of test and 400mg of deca than they would 250mg of test and 400mg of deca. The former is not viable for Waterhead, so he runs the later.

People are different. I can run a bucket load of tren or deca without worrying about caber / prami. Doesn't mean anyone else is the same, nor would I advise anyone else to try. This is where I think you got it a little wrong Waterhead, the op in the other thread is a deca virgin. Let him run it in the way it's been done for years with minimal chance of problems. Further down the line he can experiment, by which time he'll be more in tune and able to feel when things are going off track a little better.

To counter the above, and I believe the point Waterhead is making without being clearly heard is the 2:1 ratio is old school. Older than a lot of you guys. Doesn't mean it's wrong, and it's something I tend to guide people towards first time out. BUT there may be a better way. Do you realise a lot of these cycle set ups are the same things we used to preach 3 or 4 years ago? Don't try anything new, we get no progress. I haven't tried it, I don't know. I know guys that have, mixed results.

Point I'm making is be open to new ideas, but use caution with who those new ideas are suitable for. I run things that you guys would deem "unacceptable" and likely to fail. Guess what, it works for me. I haven't touched an AI in nearly a decade as an example. There was some debate in that other thread that got stupid and rather childish in my opinion. Let's make this one something we can learn from.

Ive ran it 1:1, 1.5:1 never quite 2:1, one cycle I thought i was running 900mgs of test with 500mgs of nandrolone and i pulled bloods and they reflected less that I was less than 500mgs of test, so that time i was most likely running my npp higher then my test, my sex drive was crazy, everything worked fine. I know alot of guys on another forum i lurk on that run trt doses of test with higher doses of nandrolone. The ONLY time i ever had an issue with ed and sex drive problems running test and npp was, well here was the cycle, 800mgs of test, and 450mgs of nandrolone, I never run stuff like dbol so i only use proviron as an ai starting at 25mgs the second week, then 50 the 3rd, then the 4th ill add a low dose of adex. Well this time i used dbol, didnt account for the massive conversion to estrogen ( still following my typical provi protocol) and the estrogen spike caused a spike in my prolactin levels. First time ever i needed to take caber, a few doses of caber and adex and i was good as new within a week.

I think it comes down to estrogen and prolactin control, if you dont control those youre gonna have a problem, ed isses are caused by high levels of prolactin, which is why when youre done having sex you go soft pretty quick, and also estrogen can also cause ed and libidio issues. Could be an individual thing also. I never needed caber on any of those other test deca or test npp cycles, so maybe its is an indvidual thing. Like i said i know alot of people running like 200mgs of test with 500mgs of npp without issue, most of them use caber.

But test buids muscle, thickens the fibers, makes you feel good. Im not sure id intentionally run my test lower, but I have nothing against it if its an experienced user whos ran nandrolone many times and wants to experiment a bit. Maybe at some point id give it a shot, idk though npp doesnt give me sides really, so lowering test wouldnlt be possibily preventing anything for me. idk.

I'll jump in on this one, just to share personal experience, not say one way or the other is correct. One of my early cycles I ran test/ Deca cycle at 500 each. Was planning on a 16 week run, but I cut it short because of my overall feeling. I was new to AAS and didn't have my shit together and it may have been a prolactin issue, but, I felt like shit and after about 10 weeks I called it quits. In a more recent cycle, I paired up NPP and Test Prop both at 400 weekly, and felt great. No sexual dysfunction or any other negative sides. This was a short 10 weeker that showed good gains and minimal sides. So I don't necessarily think that u have to "double" your test to nandrolone dose, I think it is really dependent more on the person and how the individuals body handles the drug. Personally though, I would not run my test lower because low test cycles tend to not be as productive for me unless it's a cutter with say prop and Tren. I'm more a fan of lean mass cycles and I find that higher test with a good diet yields good gains and no excess water/ bloat. Just my 2 cents!

https://www.eroids.com/forum/steroids-qa/steroid-cycles/third-cycle-test....

This is the link to the forum where your integrity was not in question....

Test lower than deca? I haven't run it (deca or npp) but I'm seeing that the consensus is to run deca lower than test to avoid deca dick. I'm curious as to the OP's experience and logic behind what he's espousing if he'd care to clarify.

So, share your cycle experiences. Why do you use AAS? And, why do you prefer dosing "deca" higher than test? What does your next cycle look like? And, how many times did you cycle before starting TRT? Thanks.

I am here.