Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Bodybuilding Boards => Steroids Info & Hardcore => Topic started by: tbombz on February 14, 2009, 04:15:31 PM
-
Patrick Arnold has to say about dosing for AAS =
AAS would actually have an inverse u shaped curve of dose versus growth. there would be a dose at which anabolism maxes out and then as doses are increased you would eventually reach toxicity levels which would end up being catabolic
two pots by "dr pangloss"...this guy is well educated and does alot of his own research and as far as i can telll is very objective and level headed
the following study is very interesting for many reasons. not the least of which it suggests that an equivalent of 3.5 g a week of Test propionate is saturating androgen receptors.
moreover, if you stack Test prop with winstrol, they competitively displace one another, again suggesting androgen receptor saturation.
Finally, there is no more androgen receptor recruitment at 7 g per week than there is at 3.5.
Another point to be made here is that stanozolol is actually shown to INHIBIT nuclear androgen receptor accumulation produced by Test prop or nandrolone. this can happen because stanazolol can bind androgen receptors but not result in dimerization and nuclear recrutment.
think about it. that says all your doing with really high doses is reducing the effects of your more potent androgens, like testosterone by putting Testosterone in competion with weaker drugs..
1: Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2006 Mar;83(3):410-9. Epub 2006 Apr 17. Links
Stacking anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) during puberty in rats: a neuroendocrine and behavioral assessment.
Wesson DW, McGinnis MY.
The University of Texas at San Antonio, Department of Biology, 6900 North Loop 1604 West, San Antonio, TX 78249, USA.
Anabolic androgenic steroid (AAS) abuse is increasing in teenagers. We examined the effects of stacked AAS in adolescent male rats. Stacking, in which multiple AAS are taken simultaneously, is commonly employed by humans. Beginning at puberty gonadally intact male rats received testosterone, nandrolone, or stanozolol. Additional groups received stacked AAS: testosterone + stanozolol, nandrolone + stanozolol, or nandrolone + testosterone. Injections continued during tests for sexual behavior, vocalizations, scent marking, partner preference, aggression and fertility. Body and reproductive tissue weights were taken. Sexual and aggressive behaviors were increased by testosterone yet inhibited by stanozolol; nandrolone had no effect. Stacking testosterone with stanozolol prevented the inhibitory effects of stanozolol. Body weight was decreased by testosterone and all stacked AAS. Cell nuclear androgen receptor binding in brain was significantly increased in nandrolone males and decreased in stanozolol males; testosterone males were slightly higher than controls. Androgen receptors in stacked groups were intermediate between individual AAS suggesting that stanozolol competed with other AAS for androgen receptors despite its low affinity. The results indicate that stacking AAS influences the effects of individual AAS on behavioral and endocrine measures, and levels of androgen receptor occupation are not directly correlated with AAS effects on behavior.
PMID: 16603236 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Related Articles
Long-term effects of pubertal anabolic-androgenic steroid exposure on reproductive and aggressive behaviors in male rats. [Horm Behav. 2004]
Effects of pubertal anabolic-androgenic steroid (AAS) administration on reproductive and aggressive behaviors in male rats. [Behav Neurosci. 2003]
Physical provocation of pubertal anabolic androgenic steroid exposed male rats elicits aggression towards females. [Horm Behav. 2006]
ReviewAnabolic androgenic steroids and aggression: studies using animal models. [Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2004]
ReviewAdolescents and androgens, receptors and rewards. [Horm Behav. 2008]
» See Reviews... | » See All...
this is a great study. phase III randomized double blind placebo control. It shows anadrol works great for adding mass in hiv patients, but 100 mg is just as good as 150 mg ed. Plus, they do liver panels out to 16 weeks. 150 mg is worse on the liver than 100. About 25-28% of people show 5x normal liver enzyme values at 16 weeks. Liver issues start creeping in at 12 weeks.
Again, this is another clear indication that more is not better.
AIDS. 2003 Mar 28;17(5):699-710. Links
Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase III trial of oxymetholone for the treatment of HIV wasting.
Hengge UR, Stocks K, Wiehler H, Faulkner S, Esser S, Lorenz C, Jentzen W, Hengge D, Goos M, Dudley RE, Ringham G.
STD-Unit, Department of Dermatology and Venerology, University of Essen, Germany. ulrich.hengge@uni-duesseldorf.de
BACKGROUND: Despite highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), chronic involuntary weight loss still remains a serious problem in the care of HIV patients. Various alterations in energy metabolism and endocrine regulation have been found to cause loss of lean body mass (LBM) and body cell mass (BCM). Previous studies in HIV-positive men undergoing androgen replacement therapy or treatment with recombinant growth hormone (rGH) have shown partial restoration of LBM, but these treatments have largely been ineffective in eugonadal individuals. STUDY DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 89 HIV-positive women and men with wasting assigned to the anabolic steroid oxymetholone [50 mg twice (BID) or three times daily (TID)] or placebo for 16 weeks followed by open-label treatment. STUDY ENDPOINTS: Body weight, bioimpedance measurements, quality of life parameters and appetite. RESULTS: Oxymetholone led to a significant weight gain of 3.0 +/- 0.5 and 3.5 +/- 0.7 kg in the TID and BID groups, respectively (P < 0.05 for each treatment versus placebo), whereas individuals in the placebo group gained an average of 1.0 +/- 0.7 kg. Body cell mass increased in the oxymetholone BID group (3.8 +/- 0.4 kg; P < 0.0001) and in the oxymetholone TID group (2.1 +/- 0.6 kg; P < 0.005), corresponding to 12.4 and 7.4% of baseline BCM, respectively. Significant improvements were noted in appetite and food intake, increased well-being and reduced weakness by self-examination. The most important adverse event was liver-associated toxicity. Overall, 35% of patients in the TID, 27% of patients in the BID oxymetholone group and no patients in the placebo group had a greater than five times baseline increase for alanine aminotransferase during the double-blind phase of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Oxymetholone can be considered an effective anabolic steroid in eugonadal male and female patients with AIDS-associated wasting. The BID (100 mg/day) regimen appeared to be equally effective as the TID (150 mg/day) regimen in terms of weight gain, LBM and BCM and was associated with less, but still significant liver toxicity.
looks that
3.5g is tops
stacking is ineffective and your better off using one steroid (the best one for what your trying to accomplish)
taking more than optimal actually dminishes gains
-
makes a lot of sense.
-
who is dr pangloss and why should we take his advice? How many subjects where included in this study I didn't see a number?
-
i say do your own studies, if using only test works well for you than go for it, deca, winny, whatever. i like stacking, i have done test by itself and i like the way i feel and look with stacking. use your own personal experiences
-
mega doses counter productive
That was news?
That's common sense, bro.
Diminishing returns, yes........but did we need studies to really back this up? ???
DIV
-
That was news?
That's common sense, bro.
Diminishing returns, yes........but did we need studies to really back this up? ???
DIV
Of course... we can't just rely on hearsay and preconceived beliefs.
The more studies the better...
-
Of course... we can't just rely on hearsay and preconceived beliefs.
The more studies the better...
Sure, I believe that.
I just think it's common sense that megadosing leads to diminishing returns.
It doesn't even take someone to mega-dose to understand that.
Take any dose and you'll see that......
DIV
-
Sure, I believe that.
I just think it's common sense that megadosing leads to diminishing returns.
It doesn't even take someone to mega-dose to understand that.
Take any dose and you'll see that......
DIV
this is not saying dimishing returns, its saying that once you reach a certain level of doseage, that more AAS actually starts be "counter productive".
it looks like theres enough androgen receptors in the human body that you can be using 3500mg per week, however the study with anadol seems to indicate 700mg per week would be just as effective as 1050mg a week (with anadrol in those patients at least)
-
That's more or less what Dillet, J. Cutler, Jeramy Freeman, Mike Aswedu and Scott Milne all told me, find one or two products that work best for you (ie. Sustanon and Winstrol) and just do good amounts +/- 2g a week of them.
-
That's more or less what Dillet, J. Cutler, Jeramy Freeman, Mike Aswedu and Scott Milne all told me, find one or two products that work best for you (ie. Sustanon and Winstrol) and just do good amounts +/- 2g a week of them.
I've heard that Mike doesn't do crazy doses of AAS (like you're saying) but I've heard he loves his GH big time. Do you happen to know when he's getting onstage again?
-
That's more or less what Dillet, J. Cutler, Jeramy Freeman, Mike Aswedu and Scott Milne all told me, find one or two products that work best for you (ie. Sustanon and Winstrol) and just do good amounts +/- 2g a week of them.
That makes the most sense to me based on what i've experienced.
I've tried all sorts of combos and when trying to add mass you really can't beat lots of Test + one other strong compound like Tren, Dbol, Adrol, Deca. And, when cuting it's usually moderate Test + Winstol, Halo, Etc. It's a really simple formula ~ no secrets.
The only thing above and beyond that formula for me would be adding GH + Humalog + T3 (I like this whether cutting or growing). The amounts and timing just differ based on the goal.
-
I've heard that Mike doesn't do crazy doses of AAS (like you're saying) but I've heard he loves his GH big time. Do you happen to know when he's getting onstage again?
Last time I saw him was about 2 months ago at a club, no idea when he's competing, it didn't come up in the conversation.. I know he loves and swears by Prop and Winstrol, and of course the growth :)
-
Last time I saw him was about 2 months ago at a club, no idea when he's competing, it didn't come up in the conversation.. I know he loves and swears by Prop and Winstrol, and of course the growth :)
I've only seen him once. He was watching a novice or provincial level show in Manitoba. He was wearing one of those two piece track suits with the zip up top, the ones that kinda make anyone look smaller than they are. No one paid too much attention, just seemed like a big dude. That is until he took the jacket part off and was just wearing a tshirt. People stopped watching the show and were pointing like WTF? Certainly stood out from the rest of the crowd then.
-
That's more or less what Dillet, J. Cutler, Jeramy Freeman, Mike Aswedu and Scott Milne all told me, find one or two products that work best for you (ie. Sustanon and Winstrol) and just do good amounts +/- 2g a week of them.
That's seems to be the conventional wisdom.
Of course, I think 1G ew is still alot for most people.
DIV
-
patrick arnold update
I guess the point i was just making was that effects such as loss of appetite and lethargy that happen with high dose hepatotoxicity will ultimately destroy the anabolic potential of the drug. this would be particularly true of orals of course
On a slightly different topic, I have seen a study that showed rats that were given alot of testosterone and not enough protein (or it could have been calories in general) ended up losing muscle mass while still gaining mass of the sexual organs. It was like the androgen dependent organs were stealing protein from the rest of the body
-
this is not saying dimishing returns, its saying that once you reach a certain level of doseage, that more AAS actually starts be "counter productive".
it looks like theres enough androgen receptors in the human body that you can be using 3500mg per week, however the study with anadol seems to indicate 700mg per week would be just as effective as 1050mg a week (with anadrol in those patients at least)
I wonder how Pangloss calculated the dosage from that rat study and if the calculation is applicable to humans. That study also talks about neural effects and how some steroids canceled the effects of others.
Pangloss also seems to imply testostosterone being most effective of all steroids, and Winstrol for example canceling its protein anabolic effects (I assume). But what about steroids like trenbolone?
There's a ceiling for the positive effects of course and there may be some competition between steroids in a negative fashion but I'm afraid the subject is a bit more complex than it seems from those posts.
-
I wonder how Pangloss calculated the dosage from that rat study and if the calculation is applicable to humans.
Exactly.
That's why I don't really give those studies that much credence.
DIV
-
I wonder how Pangloss calculated the dosage from that rat study and if the calculation is applicable to humans. That study also talks about neural effects and how some steroids canceled the effects of others.
Pangloss also seems to imply testostosterone being most effective of all steroids, and Winstrol for example canceling its protein anabolic effects (I assume). But what about steroids like trenbolone?
There's a ceiling for the positive effects of course and there may be some competition between steroids in a negative fashion but I'm afraid the subject is a bit more complex than it seems from those posts.
hes on MD
do you mind if i transfer you questions over to him? or you can go partake in discussions with him personally.. as i recall you have an account over there as well.
-
hes on MD
do you mind if i transfer you questions over to him? or you can go partake in discussions with him personally.. as i recall you have an account over there as well.
Well, he posted here a few days ago and was an ass who didn't want to discuss anything. :D The type of guy who acts all superior. Patrick is cool though. I'll take a look at the thread over there.
-
Well, he posted here a few days ago and was an ass who didn't want to discuss anything. :D The type of guy who acts all superior. Patrick is cool though. I'll take a look at the thread over there.
Nice. You insult me and then crawl over to MD to ask me questions. Now that's character. ;)
-
Nice. You insult me and then crawl over to MD to ask me questions. Now that's character. ;)
It's a but much to take things personal over the internet.
People often change mood and appearance from forum to forum. ;D
DIV
-
great thread guys !
it's hard to really know if more is better cause most big guys who take a lot of juice say they take 2 sustanons per week + 1 cc of Deca ;D
I have to say my best gains were with 300mg test prop ED, but a lot of water also.
I don't think I could tolerate injecting more than that ;D
what is you guys opinion on dosage while cutting ?
some say you only need 500mg a week cause you are only trying to keep what you have.
but then AD Cherry said he lowered the dose in one of his prep and he looked worst than ever.
Speak on this 8)
-
Speak on this 8)
^That's my trademark, baby Stavios!
;D
DIV
-
It's a but much to take things personal over the internet.
People often change mood and appearance from forum to forum. ;D
DIV
next time he shouldn't take things so personal then. :D
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.
-
Patrick Arnold has to say about dosing for AAS =
two pots by "dr pangloss"...this guy is well educated and does alot of his own research and as far as i can telll is very objective and level headed
looks that
3.5g is tops
stacking is ineffective and your better off using one steroid (the best one for what your trying to accomplish)
taking more than optimal actually dminishes gains
candy i posted that anadrol study here months ago and you claimed bodybuilders were not aids victims, and it proves nothing ::)
perhaps if a changed my name to dr panda you would take me more seriously :-\
-
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.
-
next time he shouldn't take things so personal then. :D
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. ;D
Respect.
Nothing I can do about the emoticons, they are what they are. :-X
DIV
-
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. :D You do have a strong ego and that's the first step to becoming a guru. :D
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.
-
Wanted to see if you just had a bad day or something when you posted here. :D You do have a strong ego and that's the first step to becoming a guru. :D
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. ;D
DIV
-
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: (http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5494/fig3.gif)
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.
-
This Pangloss character is funny.
I hope he sticks around. ;D
DIV
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: (http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5494/fig3.gif)
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 ;D
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.
-
Wanted to see if you just had a bad day or something when you posted here. :D You do have a strong ego and that's the first step to becoming a guru. :D
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: ;D
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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... :D
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.
-
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 ?
-
I'm used to having folks delete posts and lock threads on people they dont agree with... :D
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,
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...
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
It's all relative....
I don't know what other pro's use, but I have a feeling he uses alot.
Back in the old days, Lee Priest was so huge in the off-season that it was ridiculous......not even a bodybuilder persay, but obese looking.
DIV
-
Wanted to see if you just had a bad day or something when you posted here. :D You do have a strong ego and that's the first step to becoming a guru. :D
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.
Hey now. I've been busy with work. I haven't even been around here much the last month......