Optimal AAS Dosages for maximum anabolic return at minimal doses

[pewex]

I recently came across Dr. Scott Walter Stevenson thanks to a forum post (though I can't recall exactly where). Someone had shared a video of his talk on L-carnitine, and since then, I've been binge watching his content.

One presentation featured his interpretation of the Boris et al. (1970) study, which examined various AAS compounds and their dosages in animals. Dr. Stevenson converted the results into human equivalent dosages for a 100 kg (220 lb) male, providing fascinating insights into their anabolic effects.

One particularly interesting finding: NPP at 43 mg/day was more anabolic than both 214 mg/day and 429 mg/day. The jump in effect from 21 mg to 43 mg/day was significant, but increasing the dose to 86 mg/day only yielded marginal additional anabolic benefit, despite doubling the amount.

Another surprising point: Winstrol at 43 mg/day was nearly 50% more anabolic than Dianabol at the same dose.

Here’s a highlight of the IMO best "bang for buck" dosages based on his analysis (all injectable):

• Anadrol: 9 mg/day or 43 mg/day - The higher dose is nearly 4x the amount but only marginally more anabolic (~28 mg/100g vs. ~42 mg/100g).
  Note: At 43 mg/day, Anadrol is still less anabolic than NPP at just 1/10th the dose!
• Anavar: 43 mg/day
• Dianabol: 43 mg/day
• Winstrol: 43 mg/day
• Primobolan: 86 mg/day
• TNE: 43 mg/day
• NPP: 43 mg/day

If you're interested in optimizing AAS use for maximum anabolic return at minimal doses, Dr. Stevenson's breakdown is definitely worth exploring. Here's the chart he made with the relevant video for those that are interested.

 

[silversurfer1992]

These are all injectable correct? And study was just on rats?

 

[TurboJet]

As an individual that writes technical papers as part of my job.

Best I'm doing is a custom meme.

Video summary with a break down and bolded high points and a screenshot of the messiest bar chart I've seen all week.... SUS....

This you channel or are you affiliated with them?

 

[frenexen]

Oh the 10 day levator ani study again being referenced…ffs

Don’t get caught up in this dumb shit man

 

[glpfun]

 

[TurboJet]

@pewex fixed it for you.

 

[Jaxino]

I recently came across Dr. Scott Walter Stevenson thanks to a forum post (though I can't recall exactly where). Someone had shared a video of his talk on L-carnitine, and since then, I've been binge watching his content.

One presentation featured his interpretation of the Boris et al. (1970) study, which examined various AAS compounds and their dosages in animals. Dr. Stevenson converted the results into human equivalent dosages for a 100 kg (220 lb) male, providing fascinating insights into their anabolic effects.

One particularly interesting finding: NPP at 43 mg/day was more anabolic than both 214 mg/day and 429 mg/day. The jump in effect from 21 mg to 43 mg/day was significant, but increasing the dose to 86 mg/day only yielded marginal additional anabolic benefit, despite doubling the amount.

Another surprising point: Winstrol at 43 mg/day was nearly 50% more anabolic than Dianabol at the same dose.

Here’s a highlight of the IMO best "bang for buck" dosages based on his analysis (all injectable):

• Anadrol: 9 mg/day or 43 mg/day - The higher dose is nearly 4x the amount but only marginally more anabolic (~28 mg/100g vs. ~42 mg/100g).
  Note: At 43 mg/day, Anadrol is still less anabolic than NPP at just 1/10th the dose!
• Anavar: 43 mg/day
• Dianabol: 43 mg/day
• Winstrol: 43 mg/day
• Primobolan: 86 mg/day
• TNE: 43 mg/day
• NPP: 43 mg/day

If you're interested in optimizing AAS use for maximum anabolic return at minimal doses, Dr. Stevenson's breakdown is definitely worth exploring. Here's the chart he made with the relevant video for those that are interested.

View attachment 332489

I don’t mean to sound harsh, but I believe you misinterpreted Stevenson’s message. His intent was to demystify the notion that all anabolic steroids promote muscle growth at the same rate—not to prescribe specific compounds or dosages.

After all, most of the available data is derived from studies conducted on rodents—and, unless I’m mistaken, you are not one.

 

[pewex]

This wasn’t intended to be treated as some new GH15 bible or to make any extreme claims.

Just to clarify, it seems many jumped to criticize without actually reading the OP or watching the video. Some even asked if the study was on animals, when that was clearly stated upfront.

Personally, it gave me some useful insights for my next cycle and reinforced the idea that more isn’t always better, which was the main point of the post.

I don’t mean to sound harsh, but I believe you misinterpreted Stevenson’s message. His intent was to demystify the notion that all anabolic steroids promote muscle growth at the same rate—not to prescribe specific compounds or dosages.

After all, most of the available data is derived from studies conducted on rodents—and, unless I’m mistaken, you are not one.

I'd like to clarify a few things. At no point did I suggest that Stevenson was prescribing specific dosages. Unfortunately, some of my comments seem to have been misinterpreted, despite my effort to emphasize that his main point was about the differences in anabolic potential between various compounds.

If we agree that not all anabolic steroids promote muscle growth at the same rate, then by definition, they’re not all equally anabolic, correct?

As for the daily dosages I mentioned, I understood them to reflect, in my opinion, which compounds offer the best "bang for the buck" based on the context of his presentation.

As an individual that writes technical papers as part of my job.

Best I'm doing is a custom meme.

Video summary with a break down and bolded high points and a screenshot of the messiest bar chart I've seen all week.... SUS....

This you channel or are you affiliated with them?

his wasn’t meant to be a peer reviewed presentation. It was a quick breakdown likely aimed at the everyday viewer. I’m not sure how your experience writing technical papers is relevant to the content or intent of the presentation being discussed.

If there are specific inaccuracies or misrepresentations from the study you'd like to point out, I’m genuinely open to hearing them. Constructive critique helps everyone learn.

As I mentioned, I only recently came across his work. However, from what I’ve gathered online, not from random forum posts, but from respected voices in the bodybuilding community Dr. Scott is regarded as a knowledgeable coach and author of a well regarded book.

Suggesting that I’m him or somehow affiliated simply because I referenced his work is a little bit far fetched, don't you think?

 

[Nidus]

My own 2 cents to this and the way i do it: I dont do any blasts or low dosing and just stay on the same cruise level all the time (wont call it TRT either here) but a dose that doesnt fuck up my bloods i.e. 250mg Primo works fine for me, at 300mg my lipids go to shit so i run it around 200-250mg max

Use bloods, organ screening and all that to determine a healthy but borderline amount of AAS and just remain proactive and just stay away form hefty stuff like Tren

For me its Test, Primo a little bit of Var every now and then and my bloods continue to improve

 

[Jaxino]

This wasn’t intended to be treated as some new GH15 bible or to make any extreme claims.

Just to clarify, it seems many jumped to criticize without actually reading the OP or watching the video. Some even asked if the study was on animals, when that was clearly stated upfront.

Personally, it gave me some useful insights for my next cycle and reinforced the idea that more isn’t always better, which was the main point of the post.


I'd like to clarify a few things. At no point did I suggest that Stevenson was prescribing specific dosages. Unfortunately, some of my comments seem to have been misinterpreted, despite my effort to emphasize that his main point was about the differences in anabolic potential between various compounds.

If we agree that not all anabolic steroids promote muscle growth at the same rate, then by definition, they’re not all equally anabolic, correct?

As for the daily dosages I mentioned, I understood them to reflect, in my opinion, which compounds offer the best "bang for the buck" based on the context of his presentation.


his wasn’t meant to be a peer reviewed presentation. It was a quick breakdown likely aimed at the everyday viewer. I’m not sure how your experience writing technical papers is relevant to the content or intent of the presentation being discussed.

If there are specific inaccuracies or misrepresentations from the study you'd like to point out, I’m genuinely open to hearing them. Constructive critique helps everyone learn.

As I mentioned, I only recently came across his work. However, from what I’ve gathered online, not from random forum posts, but from respected voices in the bodybuilding community Dr. Scott is regarded as a knowledgeable coach and author of a well regarded book.

Suggesting that I’m him or somehow affiliated simply because I referenced his work is a little bit far fetched, don't you think?

Apologies if I misunderstood your post, my friend.
In any case, you've provided an insightful perspective—quite valuable for evaluating which products to choose, and for what reasons.
I'm genuinely curious to feed that video to an AI and see whether it might be analysed even more thoroughly.

 

[xrayphoton13]

Does anyone ever use winstrol to grow though? I guess if you mix it with anadrol you could since it tends to negate the joint drying effects of winstrol. I hear winstrol is one of the worst for hairloss though

 

[lukiss96]

Does anyone ever use winstrol to grow though? I guess if you mix it with anadrol you could since it tends to negate the joint drying effects of winstrol. I hear winstrol is one of the worst for hairloss though

Idk about gains in mass, but when it comes to strength gains and cosmetic effect injectable stanozolol (stromba) is some crazy shit. I have never been so dry on 1000mg Test while eating not exactly a cutting diet, also strength gains were through the roof. Comparable to tren tbh. All three should be sick combo though. Anyone in the gym would ask wtf are you taking bro, even those competition guys.

 

[AlexDavis43]

Scott Stevenson is kinda sciencey but his rabbit holes are more interesting/nerdy than anything meaningful/actionable