Whats Clen?

[hooker]

That's the part of the point I was making in my original post.  Clen is NOT anabolic.

Clearly it's anabolic in animal studies. No human studies exist showing this, or really, even examining this. How, in light of the lack of data, can you make this conclusion, in opposition of mountains of animal data showing the opposite? If you're going to say that the animal data is not relevant to humans, then a detailed explanation of why horses, rodents, etc...react differently to clen than humans do is appropriate.

Perhaps a detailed explanation of the beta-2 adrenoreceptor stimulation mechanism of action would now be appropriate (from you) detailing the differences between species? Lets hear it.

[El Diablo Blanco]

Hooker.  You da man.  Some great info there.

[hooker]

Hooker.  You da man.  Some great info there.

Thanks. I wanted to leave this thread alone but I just put a lipper in and drank a few beers and I'm pretty annoyed, to be honest...

[El Diablo Blanco]

Thanks. I wanted to leave this thread alone but I just put a lipper in and drank a few beers and I'm pretty annoyed, to be honest...

I read a bit about benadryl on your site.  Exactly how dows that work while taking clen to extend a cycle?

[Princess L]

since your post shows an almost complete lack of understanding of the beta-2 system, I doubt anything you come up with will be sound
If you've ever researched clen (which you haven't),

First of all, YOU know nothing about me.  I have never claimed to have a thorough understanding of human beta systems.  I’m learning.  I understand it much better than being able to regergetate it.  I’m not here to engage in an internet battle.

Your article was used as a point of reference to someone who basically had never heard of clen.  You must admit, it is not elementary information a novice would be able to discern regardless of the accuracy or applicibility of the information.

The article comes off as factual based on disguised relevant scientific evidence which few, if anyone (novice) is going research.  Much of the article is based on theory, speculation, experimentation and here say.  Not that there’s anything wrong with that.  BUT, call it what it is.

Yes. Really. Beta-2 stimulation is well known to slow gastric emptying, and activation of the sympathetic nervous system decreases hunger. Again, this is so well known and documented that it doesn't merit debate.

 Perhaps in animals, however in the absence of any published human data, I've heard quite the opposite from those who have used clen.

Why is insulin resistance desirable? You've peaked my interest. Insulin resistance is linked with heart problems as well as obesity. Tell me why that's desirable. Diabetics are insulin resistant. Is being diabetic desirable? Elaborate.

Most interestingly, I'd like to learn how insulin resistance is desirable. Cardiovascular problems, increased risk of cancer, diabetes, shorter life spans, and obesity is desirable? That's the first thing I'd like explained, because I think that it's the thing that most accurately displays your total lack of understanding of...anything.

Insulin sensitivity; how well or how poorly a given tissue responds to insulin. High insulin sensitivity means small amount of insulin will produce a large response; insulin resistance indicates that it takes more insulin to cause the same effect.

Since insulin is a storage hormone, it affects [nutrient] storage in places such as the liver,
muscle and fat cells. In a perfect world, it would be nice to have high insulin sensitivity in muscle (push more calories to muscle) and poor insulin sensitivity in fat cells (making it hard to store calories there). This is especially true when you're trying to gain muscle.
When you diet, it's actually better to be insulin resistant.  By limiting the muscle's use of glucose for fuel, insulin resistance not only spares glucose for use by the brain, but also increases the muscles use of fatty acids for fuel.

Insulin sensitivity can be caused by several things. Genetics, diet, activity.  Diets high in carbs (esp. refined carbs), sat fats and low fiber tend to impair insulin sensitivity. Diets with lowered (refined) carbs, mono fats and high fiber intakes tend to improve insulin sensitivity. Activity influences insulin sensitivity too. The first is that muscular contraction itself improves insulin sensitivity, facilitating glucose uptake into the cell. Depletion of glycogen also improves insulin sensitivity (think PWO shake).  The increase in blood fatty acid levels also has the short-term effect of causing insulin resistance.  This is a good thing on a diet since it spares glucose and helps fat oxidation.

In the case of clenbuterol, animal data is basically all we have to go on.
If that study or my comments on it are invalid, please give a better reason than "you've got to be kidding me".

Referring to using horse data to recommend full 6-12 weeks on.

No. That's not what is says at all. Your creating a strawman, and an informal fallacy.

These are your words, not mine "This type of dramatic anabolic effect hasn´t been confirmed in human studies, but the anabolic effects of clen in animal (specifically equine and rodent) studies are clearly quite astounding.…” “despite the fact that animals often respond more dramatically to beta-agonist/antagonists, due to receptor properties”  “even though it is known that it´s effects on animals are typically much more dramatic than in humans…”   There’s still no doubt about it, in my mind…Clen will help you lose fat and gain muscle."

Again, animal data is what we have to go on, with regards to references in medical journals. Oh...and the literally hundreds of members of steroid.com who have tried things my way and found it to be optimal and anabolic. And my dosing protocol is based on anecdotal human data and the members I surveyed and polled on steroid.com)...not just animal data. You should at least learn what kind of data I have/had access to before you attempt to dispute my conclusions.

I understand and appreciate that we do not have human data on the subject. My conclusions are based on what you state in the article.  If you have additional evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, then perhaps it should be noted within.   Why cite animal data as a point of reference if you’re going to recommend  a dosing protocol “based on anecdotal human data (the members surveyed and polled on steroid.com”  Ultimately, you’re recommendations are based on speculation and experimentation. I find these statements quite disturbing: “my recommendations are the same for both men and women” and “I wouldn´t work my way up to more than 200mcg/day”

Hence my reccomendations to include benadryl.

In lieu of Ketotifen using a 2 week on 2 week off clen dosing protocol?  So you’re saying that the chronic administration of clen with the inclusion of benadryl will keep your receptors from burning out?  Is this more anecdotal evidence?
 

I use the best data available within the limitations of what the medical field has to offer, combined with extensive polls and surveys on steroid.com, added to literally hundreds of data from athletes I interact with.
 

You’ve already stated it several times and answered your own question; “How, in light of the lack of data, can you make this conclusion” “Keep in mind that animal responses to beta-agonist/antagonists differ a bit from ours”  “despite the fact that animals often respond more dramatically to beta-agonist/antagonists, due to receptor properties”  “its important to remember that animals have more beta-2 receptors and they cause certain event chains that humans´ beta-2 receptors may not.”


Again, I can certainly appreciate the fact that we don’t have applicable human data to substantiate the use of clen (the way the viewers of sites like this use it), however, to suggest users administer theoretical amounts and expect the results of what horses, rats and chickens gained is silly.  It’s been used in the community long enough to know what to expect.  Just be straightforward and honest about it.

[DIVISION]

As many of you know, I'm a woman of few words.  Usually, pretty straight forward and to the point.  Something got into me, I don't know, maybe a bug up my ass, but as I read this article on clenbuterol, I couldn't help but think that it was full of BS.   Since some of you appear to respect the guy, I decided to read closer to see if there was something I was missing.  I always try to read things with a scrutinizing eye and try to use trusted, reliable resources and scientific data.  Just because someone references XYZ study, doesn’t mean anything.  So much data can be skewed depending on the way the study was performed and who is “funding” the study, not to mention, the study could be totally meaningless as you will see.

He says that clen & ephedrine work by suppressing appetite. Really?    Clen does this?  He has a reference though.: "Relationship between food intake and metabolic rate in rats treated with beta-adrenoceptor agonists. From here it just gets worse.

Then he tries to explain the method of action, yet all it says is that clen increases lipolysis. Nowhere  does he mention fat mobilization. Reference 13 is to an interesting article that you can download for yourself entitled "Multiple actions of beta-adrenergic agonists on skeletal muscle and adipose tissue." I read it and it says nothing about humans. It's all about animal data. He says that it's unfortunate that clen decreases insulin sensitivity. Does he even know how clen works and why the insulin resistance is desirable? 

Next he talks about clen as a repartitioning agent. Okay, he says it may increase FFM, but the study that he references is on "chronic administration of therapeutic levels of clenbuterol acts as a repartitioning agent"... "in twenty-three unfit Standardbred mares!" (that’s adult female horses in case you didn’t know  ).

Then he goes on to give us the graphs of the horse data. Apparently he hasn’t heard clen doesn't have {significant} anabolic effects in humans.  It’s scary that he is using horse data to recommend full 6-12 weeks on. (because the mares who exercised only gained FFM (a whopping 4.4%) after week 6. You've got to be kidding.   

This is good: "even though it is known that its effects on animals are typically much more dramatic than in humans….There’s still no doubt about it, in my mind…Clen will help you lose fat and gain muscle." In other words, "even though I know it doesn't work like this in humans, I'm sure it works the same."  WTF 

Now the ‘expert’ advice. "if you want the quasi-anabolic effect from the clen, it’ll take more than 2 weeks on (apparently 6 weeks)." Great advice. I'm sure it'll be much more anabolic at week 6 when your receptors are severely down regulated. He goes on, "Keep in mind that animal responses to beta-agonist/antagonists differ a bit from ours…(no f'g $h!t) but I’m sure that you get the idea that 2on/2off is not a great dosing protocol." Why do you even say to keep it in mind when recommending dosages based on a horses response?

He says, "The reasons for the further increase in FFM around week 6 despite no changes in % fat or fat mass is not easily explained." No? Well… let me explain it for you. No change in % fat BECAUSE THE RECEPTORS ARE FRIED!

He says that clen will increase muscle protein synthesis in your body. Oh really? This is based off of the study he references -  "Chronic effects of beta 2-adrenergic agonists on body composition and protein synthesis in the rat."

Next says that "clenbuterol can help blast you past 'sticking points' in your training by circumventing the usual mechanisms by which anabolism is experienced! It is of note that both muscle composition and fiber size has been shown to increase with administration of clen." That study: "The effect of the anabolic agent, clenbuterol, on overloaded rat skeletal muscle."

Finally he says something about humans -  "This type of dramatic anabolic effect hasn’t been confirmed in human studies." DUH! 

You can read the rest if you want.  For me, this confirms what I said earlier.  The article is full of CRAP.  This leads me to another observation (albeit speculative) – this guy probably shouldn’t be trusted since he uses random, inapplicable studies frequently.

OK, I’ll shut up now.

No offense, Princess L, but you criticizing Anthony Robert's work is like Richard Simmons criticizing Ron Coleman's training technique.

Who are you and what gives you the idea that you've got the experience he does in this field of expertise?

It's cool to have an opinion, but when you criticize people who are published in this field you should at least back it up with some knowledge of your own.......otherwise you just look like a fool.

If you'd used clen on severe calorie restricted diet you'd understand that it is indeed anabolic by default simply because it preserves lean mass in an otherwise catabolic environment.

It's anabolic because it spares muscle in catabolic conditions.

If you had experience with the drug in moderate to high doses you'd know this......

Not all of this is conjecture and speculation, Princess L.

Some of us use the drugs and don't rely solely on clinical studies to form our opinions.

hmm?



DIV

[Yorkie T]

No offense, Princess L, but you criticizing Anthony Robert's work is like Richard Simmons criticizing Ron Coleman's training technique.

Who are you and what gives you the idea that you've got the experience he does in this field of expertise?

It's cool to have an opinion, but when you criticize people who are published in this field you should at least back it up with some knowledge of your own.......otherwise you just look like a fool.

If you'd used clen on severe calorie restricted diet you'd understand that it is indeed anabolic by default simply because it preserves lean mass in an otherwise catabolic environment.

It's anabolic because it spares muscle in catabolic conditions.

If you had experience with the drug in moderate to high doses you'd know this......

Not all of this is conjecture and speculation, Princess L.

Some of us use the drugs and don't rely solely on clinical studies to form our opinions.

hmm?



DIV

You're beyond ignorant, SPRINK....or should I say, ZEEK....

AAS increase anabolism, and muscle growth which increases BMR.

That is the extent of AAS's influence on fatloss....

Fatloss has to do with diet and activity level, not AAS.

There is no such thing as a "fatloss" steroid.

T3 and Clen are not anabolics, either, so why are you including them in your argument?

You seem to like to argue for the sake of arguing.


DIV

Lol im so confused now, our guru is giving conflicting advice BOTH in a condescending manner that would suggest both are gospel, so is clen anabolic or not DIV?

[Princess L]

No offense, Princess L,

It sounds like you are trying to

Who are you and what gives you the idea that you've got the experience he does in this field of expertise?

It's cool to have an opinion, but when you criticize people who are published in this field you should at least back it up with some knowledge of your own.......otherwise you just look like a fool.

It appears as though you have not read my follow-up post addressing this.
Hooker states: “animal data is what we have to go on”, but then goes on to say “literally hundreds of members of steroid.com who have tried things my way and found it to be optimal and anabolic. And my dosing protocol is based on anecdotal human data and the members I surveyed and polled on steroid.com”  “You should at least learn what kind of data I have/had access to before you attempt to dispute my conclusions.” 

As I indicated “Much of the article is based on theory, speculation, experimentation and here say.  Not that there’s anything wrong with that.  BUT, call it what it is.”  Why use animal data (whose metabolism is not like ours) to try and support recommendations when ultimately those recommendations come from “anecdotal human data and the members surveyed and polled on steroid.com”?  I acknowledged  this by saying “I understand and appreciate that we do not have human data on the subject. My conclusions are based on what is stated in the article.  If you have additional evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, then perhaps it should be noted within.   Why cite animal data as a point of reference if you’re going to recommend  a dosing protocol “based on anecdotal human data (the members surveyed and polled on steroid.com”  Ultimately, your recommendations are based on speculation and experimentation."  Okay, so*be*it    “Again, I can certainly appreciate the fact that we don’t have applicable human data to substantiate the use of clen (the way the viewers of sites like this use it), however, to suggest users administer theoretical amounts and expect the results of what horses, rats and chickens gained is silly.  It’s been used in the community long enough to know what to expect.  Just be straightforward and honest about it.”  In other words, acknowledge the fact that the information is based on opinion and experience; not science.

If you'd used clen on severe calorie restricted diet you'd understand that it is indeed anabolic by default simply because it preserves lean mass in an otherwise catabolic environment. It's anabolic because it spares muscle in catabolic conditions.

Anabolic by definition leads to increased lean muscle mass.  Clen does not create hypertrophy in humans, however, yes – absolutely “it preserves lean mass in an otherwise catabolic environment” (ie; dieting).  Both of you have stated in the past that clen is not anabolic, so why are we arguing this point?

(http://www.steroidsprofiles.com/article/info/241)

Some of us use the drugs and don't rely solely on clinical studies to form our opinions.
hmm?

Again,  my point.  You guys and your knowledge is respected.  It has been gained from just that – your use and opinions, so claim it.  Why try to further support it with irrelevant [scientific] animal data?

[Rimbaud]

It's my turn to add something or nothing to this thread. I think I'm going to give up Clen for good. It doesn't seem to sit well with me anymore.

[Arnold jr]

It's my turn to add something or nothing to this thread. I think I'm going to give up Clen for good. It doesn't seem to sit well with me anymore.

To jittery and wired?

[Princess L]

I think I'm going to give up Clen for good.

Inquiring minds want to know why

[Rimbaud]

To jittery and wired?

That actually stopped.

[Rimbaud]

Inquiring minds want to know why

As I said in the above post it stopped making me jittery. Which is nice but I've noticed for the past year it's been giving me huge headaches. I already get migraines so headaches from clen was/is the last thing I need. I also noticed two other sides I've never gotten before: A shortness of breath & pains in my kidneys/lower back. I drink plenty of water/fluids daily so I don't understand it (& I also average about 10grams of Taurine daily). Oh well, I guess it's good bye to my old friend clen. Oh yea, I've also tried a couple different brands of tabs & liquids each with the same results. On a positive note it didn't really make my BP go up anymore.

BTW - The real pitty is I've got 500 40mcg tabs sitting around that'll never be used.