mega doses counter productive

[Fatpanda]

dr pangloss

i do not have the full paper, was there no conflict between test and deca?

also is the 3.5g saturation point only total test g or could it be 2g test + 1.5g deca for the same saturation?

i noticed on another thread over there you suggest that there is no need for anything over 2g:

throw away the winstrol. It's just not a bulking drug and can actually interfere with binding of other androgens to androgen receptors.

Also, There is really no sense in going higher than 2g ew, as any additional has little to no additional anabolic effect, and may even decrease anabolism if the steroid is toxic.

1.5 g max is a reasonable amount. Again, you can go higher but there are vanishingly small differences in effects.

for bulking drugs like Test, anadrol and tren are best. Equipoise works for some and not for others. Nandrolone may be added as it is also good for strength and in particular it's good for joint pain and healing.

I typically have run Test at 500-900 mg ew and Tren at 200-300 mg ew. Anadrol can be added at 50 mg ed, but again its not really necessary to exceed 1.5 g really, so squeeze them all into that amount.


you should also consider that you could go for years making gains gradually and never have to resort to dosages as high as i've given. 500-600 mg of Test a week with an oral like anadrol or dianabol at 50 mg ed is plenty, imo.

And the less u use ultimately the better.

is this not against your saturation recommendations ? or is the saturation level only slightly lower at 1.5g i.e. around 90 % rather than 100% ( can you explain your reasoning?)



i also read that md thread, you said you would summarise the the non genomic effects too.

can you post these thoughts here?

thank you.

[DIVISION]

next time he shouldn't take things so personal then.


by the way, your emoticons are really crappy here.


lastly, MD has directed their chem e primarily at "feelings" and "experiences" among the drug users.  they don't consider science persuasive over "brologic."  This the brainchild of two of their most brilliant staff, Warrior and marcus300. Since i am a Ph.D. in cell biology with 20years of lab and literature experience, i told them to go fuck themselves.

I no longer post science there.  I no longer post anything there.

When you have a Ph.D. in anything you can pretty much tell ALOT of people to go fuck themselves.   

Respect.

Nothing I can do about the emoticons, they are what they are.   



DIV

[Van_Bilderass]

Nice.  You insult me and then crawl over to MD to ask me questions.  Now that's character.

Wanted to see if you just had a bad day or something when you posted here. You do have a strong ego and that's the first step to becoming a guru. 

I like Patrick, he isn't very arrogant.

lastly, MD has directed their chem e primarily at "feelings" and "experiences" among the drug users.  they don't consider science persuasive over "brologic."  This the brainchild of two of their most brilliant staff, Warrior and marcus300. Since i am a Ph.D. in cell biology with 20years of lab and literature experience, i told them to go fuck themselves.

I no longer post science there.  I no longer post anything there.

You remind me of "Vet" over here. It's a bit silly to expect a bodybuilding forum to only house opinions from scientists. And scientists often have a lot of stupid opinions too. Not saying you do since I haven't read many of your posts but I have seen a lot of professed scientists post on PED topics on bb forums that make me (and I'm no scientist) shake my head. An example is "Gavin Kane". A guy who posts on some forums under the name "maxititer" is another.

[DIVISION]

Wanted to see if you just had a bad day or something when you posted here. You do have a strong ego and that's the first step to becoming a guru. 

I like Patrick, he isn't very arrogant.


You remind me of "Vet" over here. It's a bit silly to expect a bodybuilding forum to only house opinions from scientists. And scientists often have a lot of stupid opinions too. Not saying you do since I haven't read many of your posts but I have seen a lot of professed scientists post on PED topics on bb forums that make me (and I'm no scientist) shake my head. An example is "Gavin Kane".

This Pangloss character is funny.

I hope he sticks around. 


DIV

[Dr Pangloss]

dr pangloss

i do not have the full paper, was there no conflict between test and deca?

also is the 3.5g saturation point only total test g or could it be 2g test + 1.5g deca for the same saturation?

i noticed on another thread over there you suggest that there is no need for anything over 2g:

is this not against your saturation recommendations ? or is the saturation level only slightly lower at 1.5g i.e. around 90 % rather than 100% ( can you explain your reasoning?)



i also read that md thread, you said you would summarise the the non genomic effects too.

can you post these thoughts here?

thank you.

Well, there werent any more nuclear androgen receptors with 3.5 than there were with 7, so yes there is some interference.  Any time you get huge doses of many things each individual steroid type is going to be competing with the other types. they did not do the 1.5 plus 2.  all administerations were either 3.5 or 7g or combinations totalling 7g, so 3.5 deca and 3.5 test.

 i can't say exactly what the saturation level is, just that they appear to saturate, as any ligand-receptor interaction would.  A reasonable range for saturaton would be between 2-5 g ew for a 220 lb bodybuilder, but that's just a ballpark number.  One should keep in mind that there are non-transcription related effects as well, but from what i can tell those are saturated as well with these kinds of doses.  Also, this is not comprehensive and of course does not take into account unknown receptors or mechanisms.  I will post the non-genomic effects in time.  it will take some work.

This is important:  what you should keep in mind is that ligand binding and dose-response curves are not linear.  As the dose gets higher, the response or binging approaches a limit, which is the maximum response, or receptor saturation.

it looks like this: 

in other words, well BEFORE saturation you get diminishing returns.  So lets say you decide to add a gram to your 1.5 g ew.  By doing so, you will only get a very small fraction of the response you got from the first 1.5 g.

In other words, it doesnt make much sense to use massive doses, because you're really not getting a much for the additional side effects.

[Dr Pangloss]

This Pangloss character is funny.

I hope he sticks around. 


DIV

thank you.

[Fatpanda]

Well, there werent any more nuclear androgen receptors with 3.5 than there were with 7, so yes there is some interference.  Any time you get huge doses of many things each individual steroid type is going to be competing with the other types. they did not do the 1.5 plus 2.  all administerations were either 3.5 or 7g or combinations totalling 7g, so 3.5 deca and 3.5 test.

 i can't say exactly what the saturation level is, just that they appear to saturate, as any ligand-receptor interaction would.  A reasonable range for saturaton would be between 2-5 g ew for a 220 lb bodybuilder, but that's just a ballpark number.  One should keep in mind that there are non-transcription related effects as well, but from what i can tell those are saturated as well with these kinds of doses.  Also, this is not comprehensive and of course does not take into account unknown receptors or mechanisms.  I will post the non-genomic effects in time.  it will take some work.

This is important:  what you should keep in mind is that ligand binding and dose-response curves are not linear.  As the dose gets higher, the response or binging approaches a limit, which is the maximum response, or receptor saturation.

it looks like this: 

in other words, well BEFORE saturation you get diminishing returns.  So lets say you decide to add a gram to your 1.5 g ew.  By doing so, you will only get a very small fraction of the response you got from the first 1.5 g.

In other words, it doesnt make much sense to use massive doses, because you're really not getting a much for the additional side effects.

that helps clarify things.

i would have liked to have read the full paper - but not enough to pay for it 

when you do get around to typing up your thoughts on non-genomic effects can you post it here, as i do not frequent md much?

i appreciate when someone of your knowledge and bias for scientific facts rather than brologic comes along and shares his findings. 

thanks.

[Dr Pangloss]

Wanted to see if you just had a bad day or something when you posted here. You do have a strong ego and that's the first step to becoming a guru. 

I like Patrick, he isn't very arrogant.


You remind me of "Vet" over here. It's a bit silly to expect a bodybuilding forum to only house opinions from scientists. And scientists often have a lot of stupid opinions too. Not saying you do since I haven't read many of your posts but I have seen a lot of professed scientists post on PED topics on bb forums that make me (and I'm no scientist) shake my head. An example is "Gavin Kane". A guy who posts on some forums under the name "maxititer" is another.

dear van Assbutter:

you say i have a strong ego, but you also say you haven't read many of my posts.  How reliable do you think your assertion is?  I think you're mistaking ego for something else.  Here it is:  I really wouldn't give an ounce of warm piss for most people's opinions on the internet, including yours, but that's not ego.  That's just knowing what opinions are worth.

The good news:  we share a disdain for gurus.  Cheers from the crowd.  Gurus are people that have answers for everything;  The answers are Baseless, or insufficiently supported, or based on "experience" that they actually have the balls to charge money for (but not worth an ounce of warm piss) and try to intimidate anyone who disagrees with them.  They are people out to make a buck on the stupid.  That's not me.  I'm not a trainer, I make no money, have no clients, and am further not interested in the possibility in the slightest.

If you want a good guru.  Here's a referral:  razorripped.  His good buddy marcus300 will also due.  They can tell you, based on experience, all kinds of pharmacological nonesense.

I paraphrase thomas jefferson:  It is better to be ignorant and say you don't know than to promote a falsehood.  Thomas wouldn't be fond of brologic, either.  Personal experience is frought with confounding problems.  For instance, the placebo effect.  Another:  utter lack of rigorous recording of results and the tendency for memories to be wrong.

Finally, if you find sharing experiences to be more important than dealing with the science of steroids or bodybuilding in general, please join md and share your feelings with the group.  However, you will do nothing but boor me to tears with that kind of crap.

As for your opinion of scientists, i will just point out that your logic is flawed.  Just because you've found one or two scientists having fucked up opinions does not mean all do.  I'm surprised i need to tell you this.

[Van_Bilderass]

As for your opinion of scientists, i will just point out that your logic is flawed.  Just because you've found one or two scientists having fucked up opinions does not mean all do.  I'm surprised i need to tell you this.

It's not that I think poorly of scientists. I think there's a lot of gurus on the net who claim to have a degrees and claim to be scientists who I suspect are lying frauds or are just stupid. Like the ones I mentioned. Palumbo claims to have been to med school but he has posted a lot of ridiculous things about drugs.

I think experience and anecdotal data is useful, especially with bodybuilding polypharmacology. There's not a lot of scientific data on many of the things bodybuilders do today, some things just seem to work and some things don't. Take for example insulin. "Vet" over here doesn't think it does anything above and beyond what you would get by just eating the same amount of carbs. All this based on his medical training. But are all the bodybuilders who disagree mistaken? One guy who I think was the best poster of all time on all these steroid forums, Karl Hoffman aka Nandi, who looked at things from the scientific angle, said "I don't know why it works, but it does seem to push you past plateaus". On the other hand someone like Milos Sarcev has a very simplistic understanding of the subject.

Now take this AR saturation subject. There's no doubt there's diminishing returns. But can you say for sure there's no unmapped mechanism through which megadosing might cause further muscle growth? You do acknowledge this in your post though.

Also, this is not comprehensive and of course does not take into account unknown receptors or mechanisms.

Is it not potentially useful or interesting to hear what guys have experienced when megadosing?

[Dr Pangloss]

It's not that I think poorly of scientists. I think there's a lot of gurus on the net who claim to have a degrees and claim to be scientists who I suspect are lying frauds or are just stupid. Like the ones I mentioned. Palumbo claims to have been to med school but he has posted a lot of ridiculous things about drugs.

I think experience and anecdotal data is useful, especially with bodybuilding polypharmacology. There's not a lot of scientific data on many of the things bodybuilders do today, some things just seem to work and some things don't. Take for example insulin. "Vet" over here doesn't think it does anything above and beyond what you would get by just eating the same amount of carbs. All this based on his medical training. But are all the bodybuilders who disagree mistaken? One guy who I think was the best poster of all time on all these steroid forums, Karl Hoffman aka Nandi, who looked at things from the scientific angle, said "I don't know why it works, but it does seem to push you past plateaus". On the other hand someone like Milos Sarcev has a very simplistic understanding of the subject.

Now take this AR saturation subject. There's no doubt there's diminishing returns. But can you say for sure there's no unmapped mechanism through which megadosing might cause further muscle growth? You do acknowledge this in your post though.

Is it not potentially useful or interesting to hear what guys have experienced when megadosing?

I never said anecdotal evidence was completeley worthless.  Just close to completely worthless.  Only things that produce rubust and profound effects can pretty fairly reliably be determined through anectodal evidence, but if megadoses really worked, you would hear an orchestra of people singing its praises, and you're not.   You would be hearing virtually everyone that has done them providing glowing testimony.   you might have one or two, but i can recite many many reports of people finding that it didn't do that much more.  It is certainly the case with me.

on the other hand, pretty much every bodybuilder that uses insulin says it works.

So there, anecdotal info can be significant if the effect is very profound.  here's another one:  the strength and size gained with anadrol is largely lost upon withdrawal.  That's reported by nearly everyone that uses it, so i consider it fairly reliable.

what i take issue with is people holding onto opinions for which the scientific data clearly indicate otherwise.  This is the case with chem e at md.  experience trumps science, and that's just silly.

[Dr Pangloss]

also, while there may be some unknown receptor or mechanism which may be at work with high doses, it is entirely imprudent to strategize based on the remote possibility that something may exist.  Its simple and proper risk avoiding and reward-maximizing behavior.

[Stavios]

I never said anecdotal evidence was completeley worthless.  Just close to completely worthless.  Only things that produce rubust and profound effects can pretty fairly reliably be determined through anectodal evidence, but if megadoses really worked, you would hear an orchestra of people singing its praises, and you're not.   You would be hearing virtually everyone that has done them providing glowing testimony.   you might have one or two, but i can recite many many reports of people finding that it didn't do that much more.  It is certainly the case with me.

Of course, because bodybuilders are so insecure that they can't accept the fact that they are all drugs.
so that's why we have people like Lee Priest who says he use 1cc of Primo and a little bit of winstrol when in fact he uses much more.

[Arnold jr]

I've yet to comment on this thread...so here goes.

I'm not going to address the main argument that has developed on this thread...I just don't care, lol!

As for the main question at hand, this is all I know to say or rather the simplest way I know to put it.

If I use test at a low dose I make good gains. If I use more test, then I make more gains. Heavier cycles, produce more gains. Is there a cut off point? Maybe, but my own real world experience and of those I know around me, says otherwise.

Is it safe, mega dosing? No, not really. But that's not the point.

Hope this helps.

BTW, I don't care for this thread, lol!

[Dr Pangloss]

Of course, because bodybuilders are so insecure that they can't accept the fact that they are all drugs.
so that's why we have people like Lee Priest who says he use 1cc of Primo and a little bit of winstrol when in fact he uses much more.

I dont believe anything Lee Priest says.

[Dr Pangloss]

I've yet to comment on this thread...so here goes.

I'm not going to address the main argument that has developed on this thread...I just don't care, lol!

As for the main question at hand, this is all I know to say or rather the simplest way I know to put it.

If I use test at a low dose I make good gains. If I use more test, then I make more gains. Heavier cycles, produce more gains. Is there a cut off point? Maybe, but my own real world experience and of those I know around me, says otherwise.

Is it safe, mega dosing? No, not really. But that's not the point.

Hope this helps.

BTW, I don't care for this thread, lol!

since i dont post here much but have posted elsewhere, i dont know if what kind of message you mean to send with the  bolded statement.  To me it could be casual or it could be a threat not to carry on in some direction.  Not sure what you mean, since i have only read a few of your posts in the beginning at md.  Could you clarify either here or by pm?

[Fatpanda]

since i dont post here much but have posted elsewhere, i dont know if what kind of message you mean to send with the  bolded statement.  To me it could be casual or it could be a threat not to carry on in some direction.  Not sure what you mean, since i have only read a few of your posts in the beginning at md.  Could you clarify either here or by pm?

perhaps arnold jnr doesn't believe in science Dr Pangloss.

[Fatpanda]

along the lines of diminishing returns here is notes of a study ( i have been unable to find) but sounds interesting and again shows no dose related response:

Chris Duncombe and colleagues of the Netherlands Austria Thailand (NAT) Research Collaboration, report on their multicentre double-blind trial that looked at the effects of treatment with ND 50mg, ND 100mg and ND 150mg or placebo in 91 subjects over 24 weeks.
The two groups on the higher doses of ND showed a mean increase in LBM compared to placebo. At week 12, those on placebo and those on ND 50mg had lost weight, while the 100mg and 150mg groups of ND showed weight gain of 0.59kg and 0.76kg respectively. QoL was measured using the MOS-SF30 questionnaire and no dose related responses were observed. Dose did not affect CD4 or CD8 cell counts.


2. Duncombe C, Chuenyam T, Geurts P et al. The effects of nandrolone decanoate on weight loss and quality of life in male patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. 7th ICDTHI,14-18 Nov, 2004, Glasgow. Abstract PL7.6.

[Arnold jr]

since i dont post here much but have posted elsewhere, i dont know if what kind of message you mean to send with the  bolded statement.  To me it could be casual or it could be a threat not to carry on in some direction.  Not sure what you mean, since i have only read a few of your posts in the beginning at md.  Could you clarify either here or by pm?

It was for the most part a casual response.

In short my point was that the arguing in this thread seemed a bit pointless, IMO. Further, and I am all for scientific basis being shown when it applies but to neglect real world experience seems a bit ridiculous.

If you end up staying around here awhile, I'm sure you'll find that I don't get my panties in a wad very easily...probably one of the most easy going guy on this board.

[Dr Pangloss]

It was for the most part a casual response.

In short my point was that the arguing in this thread seemed a bit pointless, IMO. Further, and I am all for scientific basis being shown when it applies but to neglect real world experience seems a bit ridiculous.

If you end up staying around here awhile, I'm sure you'll find that I don't get my panties in a wad very easily...probably one of the most easy going guy on this board.

That will be a change of pace, AJ.  I'm used to having folks delete posts and lock threads on people they dont agree with...

 I don't totally discount experience.  I think that's clear from the above.   A scientist may use experiences to generate hypotheses to test, so experiences are useful, they're just very error prone; exept where the effect is very robust and thereby obvious.

van bilderas pointed out a great example though, in insulin as an anabolic.  This came out of bodybuilding exerience pretty much de novo.  Where i do have a problem with experience is when the science is on-point to the question and one decides to discard the science, which is a better quality of information, for experience, which is always of a lesser quality.

[Fatpanda]

Dr Pangloss,

do you have this full study?

Stacking anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) during puberty in rats: a neuroendocrine and behavioral assessment.

any chance you could post it ?

[tbombz]

  I'm used to having folks delete posts and lock threads on people they dont agree with...

that happens alot here too. but the guy who does it seems to like having his lips on your ass so i doubt youll experience it here.

[Dr Pangloss]

Dr Pangloss,

do you have this full study?

Stacking anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) during puberty in rats: a neuroendocrine and behavioral assessment.

any chance you could post it ?

yes i have access to it.  I think it would be worth it to try and post at least one graph from it that measures the nuclear androgen receptor accumulation...

[Fatpanda]

yes i have access to it.  I think it would be worth it to try and post at least one graph from it that measures the nuclear androgen receptor accumulation...

that would be great.

[DIVISION]

I dont believe anything Lee Priest says.

Indeed, young Pangloss.

Personally, I think Lee Priest is complete liar as it pertains to his own usage......similar to most IFBB pros.

He's got great genetics, but no one his height gets that wide and thick without severe anabolic leverage.

It's to his advantage to lie, to sell whatever product he wants rather than tell the exact truth.

His health problems over the years are directly attributed to his drug usage and bulking in the off-season.

Nobody gets that size in the off-season naturally.......


DIV

[Emmortal]

Indeed, young Pangloss.

Personally, I think Lee Priest is complete liar as it pertains to his own usage......similar to most IFBB pros.

He's got great genetics, but no one his height gets that wide and thick without severe anabolic leverage.

It's to his advantage to lie, to sell whatever product he wants rather than tell the exact truth.

His health problems over the years are directly attributed to his drug usage and bulking in the off-season.

Nobody gets that size in the off-season naturally.......


DIV

I don't for one second believe his dosages, but I do believe that he doesn't have to take as much as some other guys.  He is a midget after all.