MENT experience?

[Alzadosghost]

I’m interested in this MENT. I don’t know Jack about it. Does it cause estrogen issues? Are the gains solid?

 

[shefler29]

I'll be running this shortly with Test E at 250mg or 375mg and Trest most likely at 15mg. Can't wait to start it. Just sent an order in.

 

[bigsonbitch]

I'll be running this shortly with Test E at 250mg or 375mg and Trest most likely at 15mg. Can't wait to start it. Just sent an order in.

exactly what I’m doing only I’m only doing 88mg test
You’re gonna love it

 

[Sec-Training]

ment and superdrol then you are good to go

 

[epoxy]

ment and superdrol then you are good to go

I'm considering a LOW dose of Sdrol with trest, like 10mg pre, for strength. Honestly 20mg+ fucks me up. Lethargic as hell. BP through the roof.

 

[RDS]

So this shit aromatises really heavily, yeah? How are you gyno-prone guys managing that?

 

[specter]

So this shit aromatises really heavily, yeah? How are you gyno-prone guys managing that?

Its offcourse dose dependt, but at 25mg ment ed i used 20mg nolva ed and 12,5mg aromasin eod, im very gyno prone.

 

[RDS]

Its offcourse dose dependt, but at 25mg ment ed i used 20mg nolva ed and 12,5mg aromasin eod, im very gyno prone.

Cool, thanks for that. I was thinking of something along those lines.

How much test were you running with it?

 

[Mike Arnold]

That's good info. 25mg ED of trest is probably even a fairly potent mini-blast lol.

I learned a while back that the whole anabolic:androgenic ratios might not be very indicative of how a drug actually works in totality. Androgenic # especially considering it only measured the prostate. I was thinking going from others' anecdotes about trest (mental drive, strength gain etc) that it might be rough on the hairline. So, thank you for sharing that.

Exactly. Androgenic ratings don't mean jack when attempting to determine how strong a steroid it may be in tissues outside of the prostate. The androgenic rrating ONLY measures potency in prostate tissue. For example, take Masterson. It has a low androgenic rating of 40 yet it is brutal on the hairline...much worse than many of the drugs that have a a higher androgenic rating. Same with winstrol. There is ZERO science which tells us how strongly a certain AAS might affect the hairline relative to other AAS. We only obtain this information through anecdotal evidence--years or decades of people actually using AAS and telling about their experiences.

 

[Mike Arnold]

I must be living under a rock.... I don't know anyone who uses MENT.

Is this something commonly used in the pro ranks?

For you guys that are using this for "amazing gains", and claim it's way stronger than everything else... what does that translate to in real life? Are you all 280lb+ monsters by now?

Trestolone is absolutely stronger than evey other non-methylated steroid in existence. This is not simply guesswork, but a fact. In the case of trestolone, both science and real world experience line up.

 

[Mike Arnold]

exactly

To be honest, I do not know anyone from the top rank of bodybuilders who would use ment as a base measure - yes many people have tried but after 1-2 uses they do not return to it anymore.

In fact, when it comes to injections, the means most often used in offseason are - of course, test, EQ, nandrolone, tren

I do know quite a few in the pro ranks who use trest, but yes, it is not yet widely recognized for what it really is. Often, the "PRO" ranks are the LAST to catch on. How many years had to pass by before SD was finally acknwoledged to be the most powerful methylated steroid available? I started saying this back in 2006...and for years I heard people saying I was full of shit...that no one in the pros used it...and some even said it wasnthing more than a weak, piece of OTC crap...and wasn't even a real steroid (of course, none of these people had actually used it). One of the previous moderators (I haven't seen him here for years now) told me this maybe 3-4 years ago...and even tried to have me banned by claiming that I was only saying this because I was selling it (which was completely untrue, as I had never sold SD, or any steroid). I had to go to Big A about it because he was openly trying to rip me to pieces for doing absolutely nothing wrong...insulting my character, etc. It was really bad. Of course, anytime I tried to publicly defend myself he would either delete what I said, close threads, or say he was going to ban me. This all happened over SD...and this was AFTER most people had already accepted SD as #1. I haven't seen him here since then, but in all fairness, he was treating a whole LOT of people like shit for a LONG time. It was no secret. Regardless, the point here is that all those people have since shut their mouth and SD has taken its rightful place in the programs of numerous bodybuilders of all ranks worldwide. It is widely acknowledged, generally speaking, as the single strongest methyl available for muscle and even strength gains.

Now, we are back to people saying the same thing about trestolone (as evidenced in this thread) and like with SD, trestolone will eventually claim its rightful place at the top of the non-methylated mountain. Many already know this, but there is always a segment of "old school" bodybuilders unwilling to ackowldged (or look into) the truth until it slaps them upside the head. Of course, I am not including you in this group, as you are simply questioning things (rather than outright denying the possibility), but have no doubt. Trestolone is absolutely the strongest muscle building non-methyated steroid currently in existence. Mg for mg, nothing can touch it. It utterly blows testosterone and nandrolone out of the water...and drugs like boldenone don't even come close...not even close. Comparing boldenone to trestolone is like comparing masterone to trenbolone in terms of potency. They're not even close.

The primary downside to trestolone is its price. It costs MUCH more to purchase, per mg, than other AAS. This is because the raws cost like 18X-20X as much as testosterone (not kidding). While it doesn't need to be dosed as high as drugs like test or nandrolone, it would still be nice if the price was a little lower. Even if it was like trenbolone...and you could buy 1 gram for $40-$50, that would be fine, but most people are selling 500 mg for that same price. It's comparatively costly stuff. It is BY FAR by my favorite non-methylated AAS for muscle and strength gains (I also feel great on it) and when paired with trenbolone, it is the strongest 2-way, non-methylated combo one can use...and they compliment each other perfectly in so many ways.

 

[luki7788]

I do know quite a few in the pro ranks who use trest, but yes, it is not yet widely recognized for what it really is. Often, the "PRO" ranks are the LAST to catch on. How many years had to pass by before SD was finally acknwoledged to be the most powerful methylated steroid available? I started saying this back in 2006...and for years I heard people saying I was full of shit...that no one in the pros used it...and some even said it wasnthing more than a weak, piece of OTC crap...and wasn't even a real steroid (of course, none of these people had actually used it). One of the previous moderators (I haven't seen him here for years now) told me this maybe 3-4 years ago...and even tried to have me banned by claiming that I was only saying this because I was selling it (which was completely untrue, as I had never sold SD, or any steroid). I had to go to Big A about it because he was openly trying to rip me to pieces for doing absolutely nothing wrong...insulting my character, etc. It was really bad. Of course, anytime I tried to publicly defend myself he would either delete what I said, close threads, or say he was going to ban me. This all happened over SD...and this was AFTER most people had already accepted SD as #1. I haven't seen him here since then, but in all fairness, he was treating a whole LOT of people like shit for a LONG time. It was no secret. Regardless, the point here is that all those people have since shut their mouth and SD has taken its rightful place in the programs of numerous bodybuilders of all ranks worldwide. It is widely acknowledged, generally speaking, as the single strongest methyl available for muscle and even strength gains.

Now, we are back to people saying the same thing about trestolone (as evidenced in this thread) and like with SD, trestolone will eventually claim its rightful place at the top of the non-methylated mountain. Many already know this, but there is always a segment of "old school" bodybuilders unwilling to ackowldged (or look into) the truth until it slaps them upside the head. Of course, I am not including you in this group, as you are simply questioning things (rather than outright denying the possibility), but have no doubt. Trestolone is absolutely the strongest muscle building non-methyated steroid currently in existence. Mg for mg, nothing can touch it. It utterly blows testosterone and nandrolone out of the water...and drugs like boldenone don't even come close...not even close. Comparing boldenone to trestolone is like comparing masterone to trenbolone in terms of potency. They're not even close.

The primary downside to trestolone is its price. It costs MUCH more to purchase, per mg, than other AAS. This is because the raws cost like 18X-20X as much as testosterone (not kidding). While it doesn't need to be dosed as high as drugs like test or nandrolone, it would still be nice if the price was a little lower. Even if it was like trenbolone...and you could buy 1 gram for $40-$50, that would be fine, but most people are selling 500 mg for that same price. It's comparatively costly stuff. It is BY FAR by my favorite non-methylated AAS for muscle and strength gains (I also feel great on it) and when paired with trenbolone, it is the strongest 2-way, non-methylated combo one can use...and they compliment each other perfectly in so many ways.

Mike does not question the strength of trestolone absolutely because I used it even in a dose of 100mg per day and the effects were really great although I gave it up because of the aromatization which I could not stand (because of that many other people give up, and not because it works)

So here is the question for you - how do you think the cycle with trestolone should look like, because if I add a high or even medium test and 75-100mg of trestolone a day, the aromatization is unmanageable, maybe a low test, a non-aromatizing anabolic like primo and trestolon or just a low test and higher doses of tren and trestolone?

 

[Mike Arnold]

Mike does not question the strength of trestolone absolutely because I used it even in a dose of 100mg per day and the effects were really great although I gave it up because of the aromatization which I could not stand (because of that many other people give up, and not because it works)

So here is the question for you - how do you think the cycle with trestolone should look like, because if I add a high or even medium test and 75-100mg of trestolone a day, the aromatization is unmanageable, maybe a low test, a non-aromatizing anabolic like primo and trestolon or just a low test and higher doses of tren and trestolone?

Just use less trestolone and/or lower the test. 50 mg/day of trest is already a lot. In the same way that many would consider 1.5 grams test/week to be a lot...or 700 mg of tren/week to be a lot...50 mg/day of trestolone is also a lot. If estrogen is an issue and gyno is a concern, use ralox as your primary gyno prevention agent...and use just enough of an AI to keep estrogen levels manageable (wherever you feel comfortable). If you do this, you should not have any gyno issues and estrogen levels should remain in an acceptable range.

I am no longer a fan of keeping estrogen levels normal (by "normal" I mean a range that would be considered normal for a non-AAS using man) when using large amounts of androgens in the off-season. The higher the androgen dose rises, the higher the estrogen should go...to a point. Keeping estrogen at 25-35 when blasting large amounts of androgens is not only counterproductive from a gains standpoint, but I belive it is actually harmful to cardiovascular health. I have absolutely no problem with...and even prefer...having an estrogen level of 100-150 when on-cycle with aromatizable drugs. I will use ralox when my estrogen gets to that point, but I do not need an AI at that level. I would ONLY add an AI whe necessary. Of course, when we're talking about fat loss, things change, but when we're talking about off-season growing, low etrogen levels are wholly counterproductive.

When the androgen dose gets high, you need additional estrogen to offset the negative effects of androgens on cardiovascular health (and other things). It's all about balance. The ratio of estrogen to androgens is more important than some arbitrary number. Some of the new research being conducted suggests this very same thing. One VERY respected voice (a doctor) in this industry is even claiming that an estrogen level in the hundreds is fine, and possibly even ideal, when using large doses of androgens...not only for maximizing gains, but for optimizing cardiovascular health. Of course, this does NOT stand true for a normal non-AAS using man. Again, it's all about balance. Some of the real-world research I have seen shows cardiovascular health markers (lipids, etc.) actually improving as estrogen levels rose, with a reading of 200 being more beneficial than a reading of say, 50.

I believe that the overuse of AIs is going to have very real, detrimental effects on cardiovascular health in this generation of bodybuilders...many of whom use AIs in the offseason solely for cosmetic reasons. When it comes to precontest, being as dry as possible is the priority, so you need to do what you need to do, but in the offseason when growth and health should be prioritized, there is absolutely no need to be as dry as possible. Preventing gyno is one thing, but trying to be as dry as possible while growing is another. Don't fall into that trap. Note: The overuse of AIs can also have very real, negative effects on not only sexual function, but mental health as well, with issues such as depression being a distinct possibility. Remember, not all AIs are the same. They each effect estrogen levels in various tissues to different degrees, which is why an AI like aromasin is less likely to impact lipids than, say, letrozole. Or, why a drug like aromasin is more likely to adversely effect mood and sexual function (because it has a more pronounced effect on brain estrogen levels) than, say, anastrozole. The overuse of AIs can lead to a multiplicity of problems, which is just one more reason to keep them in check.

Obviously, each person's situation will be unique to themselves, as many factors need to be considered in the managment of cardiovascular health. For example, if one struggles with maintaining healthy blood pressure and having high estrogen levels exacerbates that problem, then obviously, estrogen needs to be brought down into a range where it is no longer problematic. However, that doesn't necessarily mean this individual needs to have a "low" estrogen level. In other words, if 200 causes BP issues, but 100 doesn't, then just stick with 100. Don't go down to 40 if you are no longer deriving additional benefit.

Regardless, the point is that having low estrogen levels in the face of high androgen levels has a negative effect on both gains rate, as well as certain cardiovascular health markers. In the end, you need to assess ALL factors...and then find the best overall balance for yourself.

 

[warlock]

Just use less trestolone and/or lower the test. 50 mg/day of trest is already a lot. In the same way that many would consider 1.5 grams test/week to be a lot...or 700 mg of tren/week to be a lot...50 mg/day of trestolone is also a lot. If estrogen is an issue and gyno is a concern, use ralox as your primary gyno prevention agent...and use just enough of an AI to keep estrogen levels manageable (wherever you feel comfortable). If you do this, you should not have any gyno issues and estrogen levels should remain in an acceptable range.

I am no longer a fan of keeping estrogen levels normal (by "normal" I mean a range that would be considered normal for a non-AAS using man) when using large amounts of androgens in the off-season. The higher the androgen dose rises, the higher the estrogen should go...to a point. Keeping estrogen at 25-35 when blasting large amounts of androgens is not only counterproductive from a gains standpoint, but I belive it is actually harmful to cardiovascular health. I have absolutely no problem with...and even prefer...having an estrogen level of 100-150 when on-cycle with aromatizable drugs. I will use ralox when my estrogen gets to that point, but I do not need an AI at that level. I would ONLY add an AI whe necessary. Of course, when we're talking about fat loss, things change, but when we're talking about off-season growing, low etrogen levels are wholly counterproductive.

When the androgen dose gets high, you need additional estrogen to offset the negative effects of androgens on cardiovascular health (and other things). It's all about balance. The ratio of estrogen to androgens is more important than some arbitrary number. Some of the new research being conducted suggests this very same thing. One VERY respected voice (a doctor) in this industry is even claiming that an estrogen level in the hundreds is fine, and possibly even ideal, when using large doses of androgens...not only for maximizing gains, but for optimizing cardiovascular health. Of course, this does NOT stand true for a normal non-AAS using man. Again, it's all about balance. Some of the real-world research I have seen shows cardiovascular health markers (lipids, etc.) actually improving as estrogen levels rose, with a reading of 200 being more beneficial than a reading of say, 50.

I believe that the overuse of AIs is going to have very real, detrimental effects on cardiovascular health in this generation of bodybuilders...many of whom use AIs in the offseason solely for cosmetic reasons. When it comes to precontest, being as dry as possible is the priority, so you need to do what you need to do, but in the offseason when growth and health should be prioritized, there is absolutely no need to be as dry as possible. Preventing gyno is one thing, but trying to be as dry as possible while growing is another. Don't fall into that trap. Note: The overuse of AIs can also have very real, negative effects on not only sexual function, but mental health as well, with issues such as depression being a distinct possibility. Remember, not all AIs are the same. They each effect estrogen levels in various tissues to different degrees, which is why an AI like aromasin is less likely to impact lipids than, say, letrozole. Or, why a drug like aromasin is more likely to adversely effect mood and sexual function (because it has a more pronounced effect on brain estrogen levels) than, say, anastrozole. The overuse of AIs can lead to a multiplicity of problems, which is just one more reason to keep them in check.

Obviously, each person's situation will be unique to themselves, as many factors need to be considered in the managment of cardiovascular health. For example, if one struggles with maintaining healthy blood pressure and having high estrogen levels exacerbates that problem, then obviously, estrogen needs to be brought down into a range where it is no longer problematic. However, that doesn't necessarily mean this individual needs to have a "low" estrogen level. In other words, if 200 causes BP issues, but 100 doesn't, then just stick with 100. Don't go down to 40 if you are no longer deriving additional benefit.

Regardless, the point is that having low estrogen levels in the face of high androgen levels has a negative effect on both gains rate, as well as certain cardiovascular health markers. In the end, you need to assess ALL factors...and then find the best overall balance for yourself.

Mike,

This is all very interesting info. You talk about balancing the ratio of estrogen to androgens (higher estrogen levels may be fine, and possibly even ideal, when using large doses of androgens). How about estrogen levels while on TRT? What estrogen range do you think is best for someone on TRT for both health and muscle gains?

 

[luki7788]

Just use less trestolone and/or lower the test. 50 mg/day of trest is already a lot. In the same way that many would consider 1.5 grams test/week to be a lot...or 700 mg of tren/week to be a lot...50 mg/day of trestolone is also a lot. If estrogen is an issue and gyno is a concern, use ralox as your primary gyno prevention agent...and use just enough of an AI to keep estrogen levels manageable (wherever you feel comfortable). If you do this, you should not have any gyno issues and estrogen levels should remain in an acceptable range.

I am no longer a fan of keeping estrogen levels normal (by "normal" I mean a range that would be considered normal for a non-AAS using man) when using large amounts of androgens in the off-season. The higher the androgen dose rises, the higher the estrogen should go...to a point. Keeping estrogen at 25-35 when blasting large amounts of androgens is not only counterproductive from a gains standpoint, but I belive it is actually harmful to cardiovascular health. I have absolutely no problem with...and even prefer...having an estrogen level of 100-150 when on-cycle with aromatizable drugs. I will use ralox when my estrogen gets to that point, but I do not need an AI at that level. I would ONLY add an AI whe necessary. Of course, when we're talking about fat loss, things change, but when we're talking about off-season growing, low etrogen levels are wholly counterproductive.

When the androgen dose gets high, you need additional estrogen to offset the negative effects of androgens on cardiovascular health (and other things). It's all about balance. The ratio of estrogen to androgens is more important than some arbitrary number. Some of the new research being conducted suggests this very same thing. One VERY respected voice (a doctor) in this industry is even claiming that an estrogen level in the hundreds is fine, and possibly even ideal, when using large doses of androgens...not only for maximizing gains, but for optimizing cardiovascular health. Of course, this does NOT stand true for a normal non-AAS using man. Again, it's all about balance. Some of the real-world research I have seen shows cardiovascular health markers (lipids, etc.) actually improving as estrogen levels rose, with a reading of 200 being more beneficial than a reading of say, 50.

I believe that the overuse of AIs is going to have very real, detrimental effects on cardiovascular health in this generation of bodybuilders...many of whom use AIs in the offseason solely for cosmetic reasons. When it comes to precontest, being as dry as possible is the priority, so you need to do what you need to do, but in the offseason when growth and health should be prioritized, there is absolutely no need to be as dry as possible. Preventing gyno is one thing, but trying to be as dry as possible while growing is another. Don't fall into that trap. Note: The overuse of AIs can also have very real, negative effects on not only sexual function, but mental health as well, with issues such as depression being a distinct possibility. Remember, not all AIs are the same. They each effect estrogen levels in various tissues to different degrees, which is why an AI like aromasin is less likely to impact lipids than, say, letrozole. Or, why a drug like aromasin is more likely to adversely effect mood and sexual function (because it has a more pronounced effect on brain estrogen levels) than, say, anastrozole. The overuse of AIs can lead to a multiplicity of problems, which is just one more reason to keep them in check.

Obviously, each person's situation will be unique to themselves, as many factors need to be considered in the managment of cardiovascular health. For example, if one struggles with maintaining healthy blood pressure and having high estrogen levels exacerbates that problem, then obviously, estrogen needs to be brought down into a range where it is no longer problematic. However, that doesn't necessarily mean this individual needs to have a "low" estrogen level. In other words, if 200 causes BP issues, but 100 doesn't, then just stick with 100. Don't go down to 40 if you are no longer deriving additional benefit.

Regardless, the point is that having low estrogen levels in the face of high androgen levels has a negative effect on both gains rate, as well as certain cardiovascular health markers. In the end, you need to assess ALL factors...and then find the best overall balance for yourself.

Thank you Mike for such an accurate answer. My problem when it comes to estrogen is different, I have never had problems with gino, but when my estrogen grows over 50 I start to hold the fluid in my legs, which becomes very uncomfortable - what would you do about it?

 

[epoxy]

I do know quite a few in the pro ranks who use trest, but yes, it is not yet widely recognized for what it really is. Often, the "PRO" ranks are the LAST to catch on. How many years had to pass by before SD was finally acknwoledged to be the most powerful methylated steroid available? I started saying this back in 2006...and for years I heard people saying I was full of shit...that no one in the pros used it...and some even said it wasnthing more than a weak, piece of OTC crap...and wasn't even a real steroid (of course, none of these people had actually used it). One of the previous moderators (I haven't seen him here for years now) told me this maybe 3-4 years ago...and even tried to have me banned by claiming that I was only saying this because I was selling it (which was completely untrue, as I had never sold SD, or any steroid). I had to go to Big A about it because he was openly trying to rip me to pieces for doing absolutely nothing wrong...insulting my character, etc. It was really bad. Of course, anytime I tried to publicly defend myself he would either delete what I said, close threads, or say he was going to ban me. This all happened over SD...and this was AFTER most people had already accepted SD as #1. I haven't seen him here since then, but in all fairness, he was treating a whole LOT of people like shit for a LONG time. It was no secret. Regardless, the point here is that all those people have since shut their mouth and SD has taken its rightful place in the programs of numerous bodybuilders of all ranks worldwide. It is widely acknowledged, generally speaking, as the single strongest methyl available for muscle and even strength gains.

Now, we are back to people saying the same thing about trestolone (as evidenced in this thread) and like with SD, trestolone will eventually claim its rightful place at the top of the non-methylated mountain. Many already know this, but there is always a segment of "old school" bodybuilders unwilling to ackowldged (or look into) the truth until it slaps them upside the head. Of course, I am not including you in this group, as you are simply questioning things (rather than outright denying the possibility), but have no doubt. Trestolone is absolutely the strongest muscle building non-methyated steroid currently in existence. Mg for mg, nothing can touch it. It utterly blows testosterone and nandrolone out of the water...and drugs like boldenone don't even come close...not even close. Comparing boldenone to trestolone is like comparing masterone to trenbolone in terms of potency. They're not even close.

The primary downside to trestolone is its price. It costs MUCH more to purchase, per mg, than other AAS. This is because the raws cost like 18X-20X as much as testosterone (not kidding). While it doesn't need to be dosed as high as drugs like test or nandrolone, it would still be nice if the price was a little lower. Even if it was like trenbolone...and you could buy 1 gram for $40-$50, that would be fine, but most people are selling 500 mg for that same price. It's comparatively costly stuff. It is BY FAR by my favorite non-methylated AAS for muscle and strength gains (I also feel great on it) and when paired with trenbolone, it is the strongest 2-way, non-methylated combo one can use...and they compliment each other perfectly in so many ways.

So Mike, with all this said. Thoughts on Trest+SD? Assuming you can manage all the sides from both.

 

[juggy38]

I think that DHB would be a good combo with trest...not a 19 Nor or aromatizes.

It would be expensive, but looks like fun

 

[Bleed]

Give me a month. Im going to this place.

Edit: im going to this place. Im bringing tren. I read too fast.

I think that DHB would be a good combo with trest...not a 19 Nor or aromatizes.

It would be expensive, but looks like fun

 

[cmryan]

So Mike, with all this said. Thoughts on Trest+SD? Assuming you can manage all the sides from both.

Obviously, not Mike but I'd say you'd put on a serious amount of muscle. Granted, the sides are very different. If you can control the estrogen then trest seems to treat people pretty well. SD would likely have you feeling like garbage after a brief period of time. I'd almost say use lower doses of each if you use both since there is a limit at the speed of which we can gain actual muscle.

 

[tacologic]

May I ask what dosage were you using? - that’s a reason why I keep the dosage between 70-105mg a week. I’m afraid BP can get out of control..even with meds

I was taking 25mg/day.

also, didnt see it mentioned here much, but MENT can definitely make you infertile.. it was originally looked at as a male hormonal contraceptive