Why Do You Discourage the Use of Deca Durabolin,oral anabolic steroid,Muscle powder Deca Nandrolone Decanoate

  • Contact Us
  • Address: Rm. 410, Unit 4, No. 2133, YingBin South Road, Zhuhai City, Guangdong Prov.China Zip:519000

    Tel: +86-189 2806 5608

    E-mail: steroidspowder@qq.com

    Fax: +86-756-8673440

    Whatsapp(wechat): 8618928065608

    Skype: jiny1688

Description:

Why Do You Discourage the Use of Deca Durabolin

Deca does nothing anabolically that other anabolic steroids can’t do, and its use is observed to have a strong tendency to be associated with recovery problems. Unfortunately many include it in cycles for no reason other than believing “it’s the thing to do.”

Then on top of that libido or even erection problems aren’t uncommon, and it can cause depression as well.

So the question is why use it, rather than why not.

For some there really is a reason why to use it, but for most users that seems not to be so — it’s just being used because they think including Muscle powder Deca Nandrolone Decanoate is something one is supposed to do to have a good stack, not because they have an actual joint issue that they are hoping Deca may improve or have past experience that Deca does improve it for them.

When it’s a knowledgeable decision that weighs possible joint benefits above the possible and even likely disadvantages, then that is another matter: I have nothing against that. The objection is to where no greater benefit is likely than with another stack, but one or more of the disadvantages are likely to occur.

probably had a very large influence on common perception of Deca.

His book was largely plagiarized from the Underground Steroid Handbook. Dan Duchaine liked Deca in the context of:

1. He was very concerned about his hair

2. There was a tendency in those days to think that effect on skin (acne or oiliness) was probably indicative of a steroid overall being “harsh,” and so a steroid won a lot of points — or “stars” in Bill Phillips’ book — if it had little such effect on the skin at some commonly-used dose

3. 200 mg/week was a very common dosage level at the time and the possible adverse effects mentioned above are much lower risks at this dosage level than at the today-more-common 400 mg/week or higher level, and

4. There wasn’t so much perception in those days with regards to differences in recovery, due to using HCG post-cycle which disguises whether LH function is returning or not.