You went from 183lbs to your best look at 191lbs that is 8lbs not 22lbs you then claim an additional 20lbs from 191lbs to 211lbs. But if your best look was at 191lbs then you gained 8 quality pounds but you claim to have lost that a month later. Lets see the after pics because it sounds like you gained nothing
My best look was 191, yes.
But I was still pretty lean up to 204-205-206...somewhere in there.
By the time I reached 211, I was physically carrying more body weight, but there was nothing good about that weight.
What would anyone expect doing an oral only cycle?
It's quite customary to gain 20-lb on an oral cycle, and maybe keep about 8-lb. My results were very normal. I don't see why anyone should doubt my claims.
As I said, the only thing that gave me an advantage was having very fresh receptors, plus the increase in calories gave me two variables to help me gain mass [+gear, +calories]. Muscle memory played a role, and I believe age is actually an advantage for gaining size [late thirties range, or in my case, 40].
B. Hank - do you get that not everyone has the same goals as you? I have no reason to believe that being over 210 is healthy. Maybe at 6'1" or taller. But I don't believe for me, being over 185 is "healthy", even if it looks better.
There are other factors too - I don't want to lose my hair, for example. I had some reduction in testicle size which has since reversed.
I didn't run enough gear to have much else in the way of side effects. A little bit of glandular flare up on my nipples, which has since reversed.
One can counter these effects, but that requires running YET MORE drugs:
- Retinoids.
- Letrozole.
- hCG.
While I personally prefer the look of being 205, there is no biological free lunch - there is a health trade-off for that look that I'm not personally willing to make.
I obviously train hard - the results are in my lifts. But I happen to like having a 50 resting heart rate. I'm not willing to compromise that for a look.
Say what you will about Brian Shaw - the man will be dead in 10 years.
I may be a bit too cautious with my health, but that's just the choice I make. My considerations are: health, strength, and aesthetics. I could shift my rep range a little and have a more muscular look while losing some strength, but my goals are different than yours.
Not everyone wants to maximize muscle size. And not everyone wants to run gear very often.
If steroids had zero health cost, I would run them more often.
That said, it's probably not too unhealthy to run test only once a year. Something like that.
I won't be running Anadrol again. If anyone wants to gain mass and doesn't care about health effects, I strongly recommend it. I'd rather run something safer, even if my gains are lower.
Also, I was in a rush last summer. I wanted to enjoy the summer having a look I wasn't able to get that fast naturally. Now I have 6+ months to go before summer, and I can more or less get the same look naturally.
The one thing you can't get naturally is that full/pumped look. No amount of natural training can achieve that look.
I am 191 now...but it's not the same 191 as I was on Anadrol. My muscles just don't have that "look".
I don't believe any of us can achieve that look naturally.