Dianabol is not an extremely androgenic steroid, its androgenicity has been structurally reduced, but androgenic side effects are still possible. Such side effects of Dianabol use include acne, accelerated hair loss in those predisposed to male pattern baldness and body hair growth. Most men should not have a problem with such effects, response will be the final dictator, but most will remain clear. Although the odds are in your favor, such effects are brought on by Methandrostenolone being metabolized by the 5-alpha reductase enzyme. This is the same enzyme responsible for the reduction of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone, but the overall conversion here will result in very low amounts of dihydromethandrostenolone. This tells us 5-alpha reductase inhibitors like Finasteride that are often used to combat androgenic side effects will have very little if any affect on Dianabol.
Despite its reduced androgenicity, Dianabol can promote virilization symptoms in women. Such symptoms include body hair growth, a deepening of the vocal chords and clitoral enlargement. It is possible for some women to use this steroid without virilization symptoms with extremely low doses, but the odds are not favorable. Most all women should choose anabolic steroids with less translating androgenic activity to meet their needs.
A naturally occurring plant extract with such potent anabolic muscle building effects it’s commonly referred to as a plant steroid. It increases protein synthesis, nitrogen retention and muscle ATP content, giving you a triple whammy to completely turbo charge your muscle gains. A Russian study found the effects of 20-Hydroxyecdysterone are so powerful that it has as greater anabolic effect on contractile proteins of muscle than Dianabol itself. Contractile proteins are the force generators of muscle contraction, so in other words, 20-Hydroxyecdysterone enables your muscles to work much harder during your workouts.
I agree. Body building has had a steroid problem that they won’t even admit is a problem since the days of Arnold. My advice is to train for practical strength. I think a good initial goal is to be able to lift your body out of any position. For instance, if you had to pull yourself by one arm out of danger could you do it? If you had to restrain someone in your own weight class could you do it? I think a great look is born out of a body that has lots of practical strength. My issue with traditional weights (I’m probably going to anger body building traditionalist but please hear me out) is that they only train you for strength under ideal conditions. Braced joints, on even terrain, lifting very specific amounts of weight all while using economy of structure. What if you are on uneven terrain and need to hold weight in an awkward position that isn’t economical in structure? I think traditional weightlifting techniques definitely have their place but how practically fit are these roided out body builders? I’m betting a seasoned judoka could tie a body builder into knots once he gasses out trying to provide oxygen for those unnatural and inflexible muscles he has. So I think it depends on goals. Do you want to look like a muscle magazine cover model at the expense of endurance, balance and flexibility all while putting your major organs (heart, liver, kidneys etc.) at risk of failure through steroid use? Or would it not be better to develop strength that has practical application? I would stack any military school grad, MMA fighter or boxer or judoka going through a camp, any olympic athlete as more fit than a body builder. I think the term ‘fit’ shouldn’t be applied to body building. With practical strength the good looks will come. Look at Masahiko Kimura in the 50’s. That guy would easily be considered ripped even by today’s standard. So I think pumping iron is basically a waste of time for all but the most vanity obsessed as it offers little practical advantage in physical activity.