Aas correlation with weight

[ibleedoranbla]

I have a question here. Is there any correlation between weight and aas? What I mean by that is, do heavier, bigger people need a higher dose, particularly orals? For instance, if most people run tbol at 60mg and the average person running this is 185-210#s would someone in the 250-275# range see the same results at this dose or would they require more?

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

 

[wheytech]

Yes, i would say it does. But how much experience you have with the drug and who you (geneticly) are will also have major saying in how much you need. Everyone 's different and react's differently. Some people have greate gains on lesser amonts, other's need more. Like i think it was kevin levrone that said he had off period's and lost quite abit of size, but when he hopped back on gear he blew up! But there is something called to much and limit's one should never exceed.

 

[ibleedoranbla]

Re: RE: Re: Aas correlation with weight

Yes, i would say it does. But how much experience you have with the drug and who you (geneticly) are will also have major saying in how much you need. Everyone 's different and react's differently. Some people have greate gains on lesser amonts, other's need more. Like i think it was kevin levrone that said he had off period's and lost quite abit of size, but when he hopped back on gear he blew up! But there is something called to much and limit's one should never exceed.

I agree, there is a limit for everyone. My thing is, my entire life I have always had an insane tolerance to everything. I'm not sensitive to things at all. In my younger years, when I was into recreational drugs, I could do insane amounts, whereas my fellow party friends would fall off long before me. Even now, I barely ever drink alcohol but if I want to obtain a buzz it takes me 6-8 beers just to feel anything. So, I'm wondering if it's possible for these same types of tolerances to carry over into the aas world.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

 

[JM750]

I can take massive amounts of aas and it dont make a bit of difference i can tell you that. All it does is make me feel like shit. Especially with orals

 

[ibleedoranbla]

Re: RE: Re: Aas correlation with weight

I can take massive amounts of aas and it dont make a bit of difference i can tell you that. All it does is make me feel like shit. Especially with orals

I understand that at higher doses comes more sides but I'm more asking will someone of my size at 260 pounds see the same results as someone at 200 pounds using the same dosages. Or does size have no correlation to dosages?

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

 

[cmb5017]

I dont know any facts on the matter. However I don't believe weight would have any factor in it. If a man never touched steroids and used a 200mg a week dose I think his results would be much the same regardless of weight. I do however feel people can build a tolerance to it like anything else.

 

[wheytech]

It would have correlation on the same dude as one can have more or less muscle mass, more or less fat at the time, but 40mg of dbol for a 70kg guy could yield the " same " gains for a 80kg guy with same dosage. It come's down to how well you react to the drug. This is my experience

 

[wheytech]

I would advice to start within the norm range and tweek the doses as needed

 

[RickRock]

When it comes to bodyweight, I don't think it makes a difference whatsoever. It does however have to do with genetic potential, and where you are in relation to that. Figuring up your fat free mass index (FFMI) will give you a good idea of where you are and a better indication than bodyweight. They say a maximum FFMI of 25 is achievable for naturals, and that is for the genetic gifted. As a reference, my FFMI is 26.4, so I'm actually above my natural genetic limit and have passed it, and I'm only 193 lbs. Those above their genetic limit require more and heavier doses in cycles to continue to progress even farther past that limit. So what I'm saying, is that it's possible that I may require a higher dose than you just because my FFMI is higher, if that makes sense. Just look at someone like Flex Lewis who is a fucking monster and competes in the 212 lb class at the Olympia and wins it every year. His FFMI is in the high 30s I believe on his 5'4" frame. It's not about how much you weigh. You can have a guy that has very little muscle mass and vastly undersized at 450 lbs that would grow insanely on 250mg of test because his FFMI is so low

 

[ibleedoranbla]

Re: RE: Re: Aas correlation with weight

When it comes to bodyweight, I don't think it makes a difference whatsoever. It does however have to do with genetic potential, and where you are in relation to that. Figuring up your fat free mass index (FFMI) will give you a good idea of where you are and a better indication than bodyweight. They say a maximum FFMI of 25 is achievable for naturals, and that is for the genetic gifted. As a reference, my FFMI is 26.4, so I'm actually above my natural genetic limit and have passed it, and I'm only 193 lbs. Those above their genetic limit require more and heavier doses in cycles to continue to progress even farther past that limit. So what I'm saying, is that it's possible that I may require a higher dose than you just because my FFMI is higher, if that makes sense. Just look at someone like Flex Lewis who is a fucking monster and competes in the 212 lb class at the Olympia and wins it every year. His FFMI is in the high 30s I believe on his 5'4" frame. It's not about how much you weigh. You can have a guy that has very little muscle mass and vastly undersized at 450 lbs that would grow insanely on 250mg of test because his FFMI is so low

Yes, that makes perfect sense.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

 

[DylanGemelli]

When it comes to bodyweight, I don't think it makes a difference whatsoever. It does however have to do with genetic potential, and where you are in relation to that. Figuring up your fat free mass index (FFMI) will give you a good idea of where you are and a better indication than bodyweight. They say a maximum FFMI of 25 is achievable for naturals, and that is for the genetic gifted. As a reference, my FFMI is 26.4, so I'm actually above my natural genetic limit and have passed it, and I'm only 193 lbs. Those above their genetic limit require more and heavier doses in cycles to continue to progress even farther past that limit. So what I'm saying, is that it's possible that I may require a higher dose than you just because my FFMI is higher, if that makes sense. Just look at someone like Flex Lewis who is a fucking monster and competes in the 212 lb class at the Olympia and wins it every year. His FFMI is in the high 30s I believe on his 5'4" frame. It's not about how much you weigh. You can have a guy that has very little muscle mass and vastly undersized at 450 lbs that would grow insanely on 250mg of test because his FFMI is so low

Exactly... this is what one should look at as opposed to overall weight... Right on the money Rick!

 

[ibleedoranbla]

Re: RE: Re: Aas correlation with weight

When it comes to bodyweight, I don't think it makes a difference whatsoever. It does however have to do with genetic potential, and where you are in relation to that. Figuring up your fat free mass index (FFMI) will give you a good idea of where you are and a better indication than bodyweight. They say a maximum FFMI of 25 is achievable for naturals, and that is for the genetic gifted. As a reference, my FFMI is 26.4, so I'm actually above my natural genetic limit and have passed it, and I'm only 193 lbs. Those above their genetic limit require more and heavier doses in cycles to continue to progress even farther past that limit. So what I'm saying, is that it's possible that I may require a higher dose than you just because my FFMI is higher, if that makes sense. Just look at someone like Flex Lewis who is a fucking monster and competes in the 212 lb class at the Olympia and wins it every year. His FFMI is in the high 30s I believe on his 5'4" frame. It's not about how much you weigh. You can have a guy that has very little muscle mass and vastly undersized at 450 lbs that would grow insanely on 250mg of test because his FFMI is so low

Exactly... this is what one should look at as opposed to overall weight... Right on the money Rick!

Well, according to the ffmi calculator online when I plug my numbers in out gives me a ffmi of 27.5. So, does this mean that I require a higher dose?

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

 

[RickRock]

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Aas correlation with weight

When it comes to bodyweight, I don't think it makes a difference whatsoever. It does however have to do with genetic potential, and where you are in relation to that. Figuring up your fat free mass index (FFMI) will give you a good idea of where you are and a better indication than bodyweight. They say a maximum FFMI of 25 is achievable for naturals, and that is for the genetic gifted. As a reference, my FFMI is 26.4, so I'm actually above my natural genetic limit and have passed it, and I'm only 193 lbs. Those above their genetic limit require more and heavier doses in cycles to continue to progress even farther past that limit. So what I'm saying, is that it's possible that I may require a higher dose than you just because my FFMI is higher, if that makes sense. Just look at someone like Flex Lewis who is a fucking monster and competes in the 212 lb class at the Olympia and wins it every year. His FFMI is in the high 30s I believe on his 5'4" frame. It's not about how much you weigh. You can have a guy that has very little muscle mass and vastly undersized at 450 lbs that would grow insanely on 250mg of test because his FFMI is so low

Exactly... this is what one should look at as opposed to overall weight... Right on the money Rick!

Well, according to the ffmi calculator online when I plug my numbers in out gives me a ffmi of 27.5. So, does this mean that I require a higher dose?

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

One thing to remember when figuring FFMI is its easy to plug in height and weight, but most people underestimate their bodyfat significantly. If your FFMI is in fact that high I would say yes, but being that you just started your first cycle I highly doubt your FFMI is higher than the most genetically gifted natural bodybuilder of all time which is Steve Reeves.

Not trying to burst your bubble. Just keeping it real. Steve Reeves was right at 25 and that's the highest ever by a natural

 

[ibleedoranbla]

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Aas correlation with weight

When it comes to bodyweight, I don't think it makes a difference whatsoever. It does however have to do with genetic potential, and where you are in relation to that. Figuring up your fat free mass index (FFMI) will give you a good idea of where you are and a better indication than bodyweight. They say a maximum FFMI of 25 is achievable for naturals, and that is for the genetic gifted. As a reference, my FFMI is 26.4, so I'm actually above my natural genetic limit and have passed it, and I'm only 193 lbs. Those above their genetic limit require more and heavier doses in cycles to continue to progress even farther past that limit. So what I'm saying, is that it's possible that I may require a higher dose than you just because my FFMI is higher, if that makes sense. Just look at someone like Flex Lewis who is a fucking monster and competes in the 212 lb class at the Olympia and wins it every year. His FFMI is in the high 30s I believe on his 5'4" frame. It's not about how much you weigh. You can have a guy that has very little muscle mass and vastly undersized at 450 lbs that would grow insanely on 250mg of test because his FFMI is so low

Exactly... this is what one should look at as opposed to overall weight... Right on the money Rick!

Well, according to the ffmi calculator online when I plug my numbers in out gives me a ffmi of 27.5. So, does this mean that I require a higher dose?

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

One thing to remember when figuring FFMI is its easy to plug in height and weight, but most people underestimate their bodyfat significantly. If your FFMI is in fact that high I would say yes, but being that you just started your first cycle I highly doubt your FFMI is higher than the most genetically gifted natural bodybuilder of all time which is Steve Reeves.

Not trying to burst your bubble. Just keeping it real. Steve Reeves was right at 25 and that's the highest ever by a natural

I used a body fat percentage calculator and measured my waist, hips, wrist, neck, and forearm and it said I was 16% bf. I know those aren't 100% accurate but to be honest I thought I was lower than that but I guess not. I then put my height, weight and 16% bf in a ffmi calculator and it said 27.5 so I'm not sure.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

 

[RickRock]

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Aas correlation with weight

When it comes to bodyweight, I don't think it makes a difference whatsoever. It does however have to do with genetic potential, and where you are in relation to that. Figuring up your fat free mass index (FFMI) will give you a good idea of where you are and a better indication than bodyweight. They say a maximum FFMI of 25 is achievable for naturals, and that is for the genetic gifted. As a reference, my FFMI is 26.4, so I'm actually above my natural genetic limit and have passed it, and I'm only 193 lbs. Those above their genetic limit require more and heavier doses in cycles to continue to progress even farther past that limit. So what I'm saying, is that it's possible that I may require a higher dose than you just because my FFMI is higher, if that makes sense. Just look at someone like Flex Lewis who is a fucking monster and competes in the 212 lb class at the Olympia and wins it every year. His FFMI is in the high 30s I believe on his 5'4" frame. It's not about how much you weigh. You can have a guy that has very little muscle mass and vastly undersized at 450 lbs that would grow insanely on 250mg of test because his FFMI is so low

Exactly... this is what one should look at as opposed to overall weight... Right on the money Rick!

Well, according to the ffmi calculator online when I plug my numbers in out gives me a ffmi of 27.5. So, does this mean that I require a higher dose?

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

One thing to remember when figuring FFMI is its easy to plug in height and weight, but most people underestimate their bodyfat significantly. If your FFMI is in fact that high I would say yes, but being that you just started your first cycle I highly doubt your FFMI is higher than the most genetically gifted natural bodybuilder of all time which is Steve Reeves.

Not trying to burst your bubble. Just keeping it real. Steve Reeves was right at 25 and that's the highest ever by a natural

I used a body fat percentage calculator and measured my waist, hips, wrist, neck, and forearm and it said I was 16% bf. I know those aren't 100% accurate but to be honest I thought I was lower than that but I guess not. I then put my height, weight and 16% bf in a ffmi calculator and it said 27.5 so I'm not sure.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

If you are in fact at 16%, you should have a noticeable six pack with noticeable lines and definition/separation between all muscle groups. Most people that think they are 15-16% are usually well over 20%

 

[ibleedoranbla]

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Aas correlation with weight

When it comes to bodyweight, I don't think it makes a difference whatsoever. It does however have to do with genetic potential, and where you are in relation to that. Figuring up your fat free mass index (FFMI) will give you a good idea of where you are and a better indication than bodyweight. They say a maximum FFMI of 25 is achievable for naturals, and that is for the genetic gifted. As a reference, my FFMI is 26.4, so I'm actually above my natural genetic limit and have passed it, and I'm only 193 lbs. Those above their genetic limit require more and heavier doses in cycles to continue to progress even farther past that limit. So what I'm saying, is that it's possible that I may require a higher dose than you just because my FFMI is higher, if that makes sense. Just look at someone like Flex Lewis who is a fucking monster and competes in the 212 lb class at the Olympia and wins it every year. His FFMI is in the high 30s I believe on his 5'4" frame. It's not about how much you weigh. You can have a guy that has very little muscle mass and vastly undersized at 450 lbs that would grow insanely on 250mg of test because his FFMI is so low

Exactly... this is what one should look at as opposed to overall weight... Right on the money Rick!

Well, according to the ffmi calculator online when I plug my numbers in out gives me a ffmi of 27.5. So, does this mean that I require a higher dose?

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

One thing to remember when figuring FFMI is its easy to plug in height and weight, but most people underestimate their bodyfat significantly. If your FFMI is in fact that high I would say yes, but being that you just started your first cycle I highly doubt your FFMI is higher than the most genetically gifted natural bodybuilder of all time which is Steve Reeves.

Not trying to burst your bubble. Just keeping it real. Steve Reeves was right at 25 and that's the highest ever by a natural

I used a body fat percentage calculator and measured my waist, hips, wrist, neck, and forearm and it said I was 16% bf. I know those aren't 100% accurate but to be honest I thought I was lower than that but I guess not. I then put my height, weight and 16% bf in a ffmi calculator and it said 27.5 so I'm not sure.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

If you are in fact at 16%, you should have a noticeable six pack with noticeable lines and definition/separation between all muscle groups. Most people that think they are 15-16% are usually well over 20%

Well, I definitely do not have a noticeable 6 pack but I do have a noticeable 4 pack but only the top 2 being extremely visable. I really have no clue what my bf% is but I definitely thought that I was lower than what I am. I plugged 22% into the ffmi calculator and it still is giving me 25.5. I can't imagine I'm at 22% but I guess it's possible.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

 

[RickRock]

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Aas correlation with weight

When it comes to bodyweight, I don't think it makes a difference whatsoever. It does however have to do with genetic potential, and where you are in relation to that. Figuring up your fat free mass index (FFMI) will give you a good idea of where you are and a better indication than bodyweight. They say a maximum FFMI of 25 is achievable for naturals, and that is for the genetic gifted. As a reference, my FFMI is 26.4, so I'm actually above my natural genetic limit and have passed it, and I'm only 193 lbs. Those above their genetic limit require more and heavier doses in cycles to continue to progress even farther past that limit. So what I'm saying, is that it's possible that I may require a higher dose than you just because my FFMI is higher, if that makes sense. Just look at someone like Flex Lewis who is a fucking monster and competes in the 212 lb class at the Olympia and wins it every year. His FFMI is in the high 30s I believe on his 5'4" frame. It's not about how much you weigh. You can have a guy that has very little muscle mass and vastly undersized at 450 lbs that would grow insanely on 250mg of test because his FFMI is so low

Exactly... this is what one should look at as opposed to overall weight... Right on the money Rick!

Well, according to the ffmi calculator online when I plug my numbers in out gives me a ffmi of 27.5. So, does this mean that I require a higher dose?

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

One thing to remember when figuring FFMI is its easy to plug in height and weight, but most people underestimate their bodyfat significantly. If your FFMI is in fact that high I would say yes, but being that you just started your first cycle I highly doubt your FFMI is higher than the most genetically gifted natural bodybuilder of all time which is Steve Reeves.

Not trying to burst your bubble. Just keeping it real. Steve Reeves was right at 25 and that's the highest ever by a natural

I used a body fat percentage calculator and measured my waist, hips, wrist, neck, and forearm and it said I was 16% bf. I know those aren't 100% accurate but to be honest I thought I was lower than that but I guess not. I then put my height, weight and 16% bf in a ffmi calculator and it said 27.5 so I'm not sure.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

If you are in fact at 16%, you should have a noticeable six pack with noticeable lines and definition/separation between all muscle groups. Most people that think they are 15-16% are usually well over 20%

Well, I definitely do not have a noticeable 6 pack but I do have a noticeable 4 pack but only the top 2 being extremely visable. I really have no clue what my bf% is but I definitely thought that I was lower than what I am. I plugged 22% into the ffmi calculator and it still is giving me 25.5. I can't imagine I'm at 22% but I guess it's possible.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

It's hard to say man. Honestly. FFMI is a poor tool for people that aren't really lean because there is just too much variation to be accurate because of not being able to get accurate bodyfat %, fluid level fluctuation, etc.

I have my own example about not knowing true bodyfat %. Years ago when I was still natty and wanted to get really lean for the first time, I wanted to get to 10%. At the time I was 205 and what I thought to be around 15%. I was leaner than you are now, and I cut and I cut. I keot losing weight and looking better but definitely wasn't 10%. I thought I was going to wither away. I ended up losing 43 lbs to get to where I needed to be to be 10% and I was only 162 then. So in reality I was probably like 25% given the numbers and fat loss I experienced.

 

[Achilles87]

I agree with rr, a lot of people would be really shocked if they knew what their bf % really was. I for one had to learn the hard way when I was young, i was cut as hell nice abs blah blah blah.... I knew I was well under 10% lol nope I was like 10.xx "I can't remember exactly". I see guys say they are 15 and below but their really 20+. I have a pretty good 6 pack and pretty cut but I would be surprised if I was below 15% by much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ibleedoranbla]

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Aas correlation with weight

When it comes to bodyweight, I don't think it makes a difference whatsoever. It does however have to do with genetic potential, and where you are in relation to that. Figuring up your fat free mass index (FFMI) will give you a good idea of where you are and a better indication than bodyweight. They say a maximum FFMI of 25 is achievable for naturals, and that is for the genetic gifted. As a reference, my FFMI is 26.4, so I'm actually above my natural genetic limit and have passed it, and I'm only 193 lbs. Those above their genetic limit require more and heavier doses in cycles to continue to progress even farther past that limit. So what I'm saying, is that it's possible that I may require a higher dose than you just because my FFMI is higher, if that makes sense. Just look at someone like Flex Lewis who is a fucking monster and competes in the 212 lb class at the Olympia and wins it every year. His FFMI is in the high 30s I believe on his 5'4" frame. It's not about how much you weigh. You can have a guy that has very little muscle mass and vastly undersized at 450 lbs that would grow insanely on 250mg of test because his FFMI is so low

Exactly... this is what one should look at as opposed to overall weight... Right on the money Rick!

Well, according to the ffmi calculator online when I plug my numbers in out gives me a ffmi of 27.5. So, does this mean that I require a higher dose?

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

One thing to remember when figuring FFMI is its easy to plug in height and weight, but most people underestimate their bodyfat significantly. If your FFMI is in fact that high I would say yes, but being that you just started your first cycle I highly doubt your FFMI is higher than the most genetically gifted natural bodybuilder of all time which is Steve Reeves.

Not trying to burst your bubble. Just keeping it real. Steve Reeves was right at 25 and that's the highest ever by a natural

I used a body fat percentage calculator and measured my waist, hips, wrist, neck, and forearm and it said I was 16% bf. I know those aren't 100% accurate but to be honest I thought I was lower than that but I guess not. I then put my height, weight and 16% bf in a ffmi calculator and it said 27.5 so I'm not sure.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

If you are in fact at 16%, you should have a noticeable six pack with noticeable lines and definition/separation between all muscle groups. Most people that think they are 15-16% are usually well over 20%

Well, I definitely do not have a noticeable 6 pack but I do have a noticeable 4 pack but only the top 2 being extremely visable. I really have no clue what my bf% is but I definitely thought that I was lower than what I am. I plugged 22% into the ffmi calculator and it still is giving me 25.5. I can't imagine I'm at 22% but I guess it's possible.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

It's hard to say man. Honestly. FFMI is a poor tool for people that aren't really lean because there is just too much variation to be accurate because of not being able to get accurate bodyfat %, fluid level fluctuation, etc.

I have my own example about not knowing true bodyfat %. Years ago when I was still natty and wanted to get really lean for the first time, I wanted to get to 10%. At the time I was 205 and what I thought to be around 15%. I was leaner than you are now, and I cut and I cut. I keot losing weight and looking better but definitely wasn't 10%. I thought I was going to wither away. I ended up losing 43 lbs to get to where I needed to be to be 10% and I was only 162 then. So in reality I was probably like 25% given the numbers and fat loss I experienced.

Yea, believe me, I'm coming to terms with the fact that I'm higher and started higher than I thought. I can tell because after all the weight I've lost and all the bf% I've lost I'm still nowhere near where I want to be or where I thought it'd be at this point, it's pretty discouraging.

This is all gotten off track though because the only reason I was asking this question was because I was reading through a lot of tbol logs last night and peoples dosages were all over the place. Some people were getting results at 50mg a day and others said they got nothing from tbol even at 100mg per day.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

 

[RickRock]

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Aas correlation with weight

When it comes to bodyweight, I don't think it makes a difference whatsoever. It does however have to do with genetic potential, and where you are in relation to that. Figuring up your fat free mass index (FFMI) will give you a good idea of where you are and a better indication than bodyweight. They say a maximum FFMI of 25 is achievable for naturals, and that is for the genetic gifted. As a reference, my FFMI is 26.4, so I'm actually above my natural genetic limit and have passed it, and I'm only 193 lbs. Those above their genetic limit require more and heavier doses in cycles to continue to progress even farther past that limit. So what I'm saying, is that it's possible that I may require a higher dose than you just because my FFMI is higher, if that makes sense. Just look at someone like Flex Lewis who is a fucking monster and competes in the 212 lb class at the Olympia and wins it every year. His FFMI is in the high 30s I believe on his 5'4" frame. It's not about how much you weigh. You can have a guy that has very little muscle mass and vastly undersized at 450 lbs that would grow insanely on 250mg of test because his FFMI is so low

Exactly... this is what one should look at as opposed to overall weight... Right on the money Rick!

Well, according to the ffmi calculator online when I plug my numbers in out gives me a ffmi of 27.5. So, does this mean that I require a higher dose?

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

One thing to remember when figuring FFMI is its easy to plug in height and weight, but most people underestimate their bodyfat significantly. If your FFMI is in fact that high I would say yes, but being that you just started your first cycle I highly doubt your FFMI is higher than the most genetically gifted natural bodybuilder of all time which is Steve Reeves.

Not trying to burst your bubble. Just keeping it real. Steve Reeves was right at 25 and that's the highest ever by a natural

I used a body fat percentage calculator and measured my waist, hips, wrist, neck, and forearm and it said I was 16% bf. I know those aren't 100% accurate but to be honest I thought I was lower than that but I guess not. I then put my height, weight and 16% bf in a ffmi calculator and it said 27.5 so I'm not sure.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

If you are in fact at 16%, you should have a noticeable six pack with noticeable lines and definition/separation between all muscle groups. Most people that think they are 15-16% are usually well over 20%

Well, I definitely do not have a noticeable 6 pack but I do have a noticeable 4 pack but only the top 2 being extremely visable. I really have no clue what my bf% is but I definitely thought that I was lower than what I am. I plugged 22% into the ffmi calculator and it still is giving me 25.5. I can't imagine I'm at 22% but I guess it's possible.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

It's hard to say man. Honestly. FFMI is a poor tool for people that aren't really lean because there is just too much variation to be accurate because of not being able to get accurate bodyfat %, fluid level fluctuation, etc.

I have my own example about not knowing true bodyfat %. Years ago when I was still natty and wanted to get really lean for the first time, I wanted to get to 10%. At the time I was 205 and what I thought to be around 15%. I was leaner than you are now, and I cut and I cut. I keot losing weight and looking better but definitely wasn't 10%. I thought I was going to wither away. I ended up losing 43 lbs to get to where I needed to be to be 10% and I was only 162 then. So in reality I was probably like 25% given the numbers and fat loss I experienced.

Yea, believe me, I'm coming to terms with the fact that I'm higher and started higher than I thought. I can tell because after all the weight I've lost and all the bf% I've lost I'm still nowhere near where I want to be or where I thought it'd be at this point, it's pretty discouraging.

This is all gotten off track though because the only reason I was asking this question was because I was reading through a lot of tbol logs last night and peoples dosages were all over the place. Some people were getting results at 50mg a day and others said they got nothing from tbol even at 100mg per day.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

That may have a lot to do with their source, but even if we're the same source there are other variables like androgen receptor sensitivity, how new the user is to using androgens, myostatin levels, diet, training, etc.

And some people just don't respond to certain compounds. I can tell you from my own experience I get jack shit from Tbol, anavar, superdrol, and Dbol. I will never use any of those ever again. I respond extremely well to DHTs. Even the old PH Epi I blew the fuck up on. I gained 20 solid pounds on it and got strong as fuck, and a lot of people don't get anything from it. I also do very well with Winstrol, and I'll be using Anadrol for the first time this,winter which I'm pretty stoked about since it technically is part of the DHT family.

It's all about experimentation and finding out what works best for you. We are all different.