Anabolics
Search More Than 6,000,000 Posts
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 72
  1. #1
    TheMindOfRoss is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    448

    The Study Everyone Wanted

    *****TESTOSTERONE Enanthate SUPRESSED T-LEVELS to 3% OF BASELINE!

    Low-dose human chorionic gonadotropin maintains intratesticular

    testosterone in normal men with testosterone-induced gonadotropin suppression.

    Coviello AD, Matsumoto AM, Bremner WJ, Herbst KL, Amory JK, Anawalt BD, Sutton PR, Wright WW, Brown TR, Yan X, Zirkin BR, Jarow JP.

    Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Tarry 15-751, 303 East Chicago Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60611-3008. a-coviello@northwestern.edu.

    In previous studies of testicular biopsy tissue from healthy men, intratesticular testosterone (ITT) has been shown to be much higher than serum testosterone (T), suggesting that high ITT is needed relative to serum T for normal spermatogenesis in men. However, the quantitative relationship between ITT and spermatogenesis is not known. To begin to address this issue experimentally, we determined the dose-response relationship between human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG ) and ITT to ascertain the minimum dose needed to maintain ITT in the normal range. Twenty-nine men with normal reproductive physiology were randomized to receive 200 mg T enanthate weekly in combination with either saline placebo or 125, 250, or 500 IU hCG every other day for 3 wk. ITT was assessed in testicular fluid obtained by percutaneous fine needle aspiration at baseline and at the end of treatment. Baseline serum T (14.1 nmol/liter) was 1.2% of ITT (1174 nmol/liter). LH and FSH were profoundly suppressed to 5% and 3% of baseline, respectively, and ITT was suppressed by 94% (1234 to 72 nmol/liter) in the T enanthate/placebo group. ITT increased linearly with increasing hCG dose (P < 0.001). Posttreatment ITT was 25% less than baseline in the 125 IU hCG group, 7% less than baseline in the 250 IU hCG group, and 26% greater than baseline in the 500 IU hCG group. These results demonstrate that relatively low dose hCG maintains ITT within the normal range in healthy men with gonadotropin suppression. Extensions of this study will allow determination of the ITT concentration threshold required to maintain spermatogenesis in man
    Last edited by TheMindOfRoss; 05-19-2005 at 02:44 AM.

  2. #2
    TheMindOfRoss is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    448

    and there you have it

    There ya go hooker...

  3. #3
    Rickson's Avatar
    Rickson is offline AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    5,165
    I don't remember anyone disagreeing with the fact that taking external test would suppress LH and FSH levels but thanks for the groundbreaking news. I have to admit Ross you try really hard to prove you know what you are talking about and you have given me quite a few good chuckles.

  4. #4
    TheMindOfRoss is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    448
    Quote Originally Posted by Rickson
    I don't remember anyone disagreeing with the fact that taking external test would suppress LH and FSH levels but thanks for the groundbreaking news. I have to admit Ross you try really hard to prove you know what you are talking about and you have given me quite a few good chuckles.
    Hooker, among others, disagreed that the DEGREE of suppression was not much greater with test--thats what ALL THE FUSS WAS ABOUT!

  5. #5
    TheMindOfRoss is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    448

    And...

    and..BEING that it is HARDER to MAINTAIN gains PCT with a heavily supressed ENDOCRINE system--my point remains valid--TESTOSTERONE gains are harder(maybe BIGGER), but harder to MAINTAIN after PCT.

  6. #6
    Rickson's Avatar
    Rickson is offline AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    5,165
    Well right in the study you have posted it shows how the use of just 500 IU of HCG can help bring ITT levels to 125% of baseline which in turn also helps prevent or reverse testicular atrophy which I am sure you already know aids greatly in recovery. Couple this with the use of clomid and nolvadex and recovery is relatively simple on a test base cycle for most people. So basically your argument is taking a fango wango cycle in which it takes three weeks to recover and nets you eight pounds is better than taking a test cycle that nets you 16 pounds and takes 4-6 weeks to recover? I don't understand the logic.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Colorado & California
    Posts
    562
    i love you rickson

  8. #8
    TheMindOfRoss is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    448
    I think in different circumstances--each cycle has its place. We agree.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Colorado & California
    Posts
    562
    I think the circumstance is youre a douchebag with a silly notion

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    Quote Originally Posted by TheMindOfRoss
    Hooker, among others, disagreed that the DEGREE of suppression was not much greater with test--thats what ALL THE FUSS WAS ABOUT!
    No I didn't. And I don't appreciate the strawman fallacy you are trying to set up here. Go find the post where I said "The degree of suppression from testosterone is blah blah blah ...."

    What you are doing is attempting to distort my words, present a weak argument in place of the strong one I offered, and then knock down your weak version of my argument.

    You won't find me saying anything about the degree of suppression from test being anything less than total because I never said it. Test will shut you down 100%, and I've said that over and over. But thats not too important, since you will have supraphysiological amounts of it in your body, so the fact that you aren't producing your own is not really too important while you are on a cycle.

    I said that testosterone would shut you down....and that you were comparing orals to injectables, which I said was not comparing apples to apples. Also, I said it takes more testosterone to shut you down then either deca or Tren .

    I never disagreed about the degree of suppression. I said 100mgs/week of test would take 5-6 weeks to shut you down completely, and 250-500mgs would take 2 weeks.

    When I said "shut you down" I think everyone knows I mean "stops your body from producing it's own test"

    Nobody argued that point with you Ross. Your reccomendation of taking Tren instead of test was where I said that tren is more suppressive than test which , I proved pretty easily.

    You need to prove several things to prove your "You don't need test in every cycle" notion, and here they are:

    A. You will make equal gains without test as on one of the cycles you propose
    B. You will not suffer from any sides associated with not having enough test in your body, while on one of the "no-test cycles" you propose
    C. You will recover more quickly from one of the cycles you propose than one with test

    Then you will have to find someone willing to listen to you...because in your 2days on this board, you have alienated yourself from almost every Vet, Supermod, Mod, and Senior member. That isn't because you are stupid or anything...you're probably slightly above average intellegence...but because you haven't defended sufficiently any of your arguments, and you have presented yourself in various annoying ways (ALL CAPS, trying to be smarter than everyone else, etc.)...


    I have no idea why this thread is "The study everyone wanted"...or how this proves that every cycle shouldn't include testosterone. You are fighting some kind of battle to prove something or other...but really, you're both wrong and annoying everyone on this board. If you quit being ...this way...right now, then someone might listen to something you have to say before the year 2006...but at the rate you are going, nobody's going to listen to a thing you have to say, ever. More likely than not, you'll just get yourself suspended for flaming and annoying all of our 37K members.

    You came here with the "I'll go teach people the way it is" or "I'm about to engineer a paradigm shift" type of attitude...

    You failed.

    Miserably.

    And you pissed everyone off. Look at it like this...AR is a big party with a bunch of friends having a conversation...and you barged in to it, in the middle and started screaming "you're all wrong and I'm right." Keeping with this analogy...I'd suggest you sit down, shut up, have a beer, learn, and contribute, and leave the attitude at one of the many boards (according to you) that you are a "well respected vet at"

    OK?

    Because, if this were a party, and the mods are the bouncers, so to speak...well, lets just say you are about to be tossed out. We got 10+ e-mails yesterday complaining about you in the form of reported thread e-mails.

    Chill.

  11. #11
    skyline04's Avatar
    skyline04 is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sparta
    Posts
    157
    bump for Hooker

  12. #12
    RA's Avatar
    RA
    RA is offline Grade A Beef
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Getting madcow treatments
    Posts
    18,715
    BUMP

  13. #13
    smegs's Avatar
    smegs is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    513
    well said hook

  14. #14
    longhorn814's Avatar
    longhorn814 is online now Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    houston, tx
    Posts
    5,334
    bump for hooker!

  15. #15
    RA's Avatar
    RA
    RA is offline Grade A Beef
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Getting madcow treatments
    Posts
    18,715
    I hope all the newbs know if you listen to ross you will be shooting pool w/ a rope.

  16. #16
    jbol's Avatar
    jbol is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    On the End of a Needle
    Posts
    1,814
    Quote Originally Posted by roidattack
    I hope all the newbs know if you listen to ross you will be shooting pool w/ a rope.
    Well said

  17. #17
    Swifto's Avatar
    Swifto is offline Banned- Scammer!
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Anywhere...
    Posts
    15,737
    Could'nt agree more!

  18. #18
    UK CHRIS is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    SCOTLAND
    Posts
    189
    Agreed.

  19. #19
    SwoleCat is offline AR Hall of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    25,778
    Ross,

    If you have an issue in arguing with Hooker, take it to pm's, e-mail, or do whatever you have to do OFF this board.

    I won't sit here and watch you literally copy/paste all this garbage in the steroid forum for no other reason than to talk sh*t and ATTEMPT to look educated.

    It's getting old. Anymore of these over-kill threads will be destroyed.

    ~SC~
    Last edited by SwoleCat; 05-19-2005 at 08:53 AM.

  20. #20
    Dave321 is offline AR's Salad Tossing Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4,693
    good point hooker

  21. #21
    *Narkissos*'s Avatar
    *Narkissos* is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Barbados
    Posts
    16,357
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    I have no idea why this thread is "The study everyone wanted"...or how this proves that every cycle shouldn't include testosterone. You are fighting some kind of battle to prove something or other...but really, you're both wrong and annoying everyone on this board.
    And i believe that is the main point. I sat here...read the study...hoping for some new revelation. None were forthcoming... it was apples and oranges by comparison.

  22. #22
    FrkyBgStok's Avatar
    FrkyBgStok is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    IA
    Posts
    1,399
    wow....nice post hooker. i def learned a couple things today.

  23. #23
    taiboxa's Avatar
    taiboxa is offline "Vanity Redefined" ~VET~
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    lol im not telling :D
    Posts
    29,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Narkissos
    And i believe that is the main point. I sat here...read the study...hoping for some new revelation. None were forthcoming... it was apples and oranges by comparison.
    see... thats where you fckd up... i skippd his post and read Hookers... thus using the cliff notes to find out how retarded his study to title comparison really was.

  24. #24
    511220's Avatar
    511220 is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    298
    Everyone here who has done "PROPER" research b4 going "on" has seen this study or at least the numbers contained herein.

    And second to none, Hooker has brought these findings here with much hard work and dedication.

    511220

  25. #25
    taiboxa's Avatar
    taiboxa is offline "Vanity Redefined" ~VET~
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    lol im not telling :D
    Posts
    29,207
    Quote Originally Posted by 511220
    Everyone here who has done "PROPER" research b4 going "on" has seen this study or at least the numbers contained herein.

    And second to none, Hooker has brought these findings here with much hard work and dedication.

    511220
    Hooker is my Hero

  26. #26
    Mr. Punisher is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by TheMindOfRoss
    I think in different circumstances--each cycle has its place. We agree.
    I agree wiht some of your information! I dont want to be contradicting to myself but yes some cycles wihtout test will be easier to recover! I have a college mate who did tren ,winstrol cycle for 8 weeks! got shut down by the 3rd week and a limp dick for the rest of the cycle! he did PCT and he recover by the end of the second week! and he kept his Pct for 1 more week! what amazed me was that he gained like 18 lbs on that cycle and harldy lost anything after that cycle and has been able to maintain that mass for the past 4 months naturally! no test was used! I did my firts cycle wiht test dbol and tren no limp dick! it took me 4 to 6 week to recover completely and lost like 10 out of the 25 lbs I gained during that cycle! just some expereinces I want to share!

  27. #27
    towtheline is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    frozen wasteland
    Posts
    115

    Interesting read

    I have got some good laughs and also some angry chuckles from these past 2 days of Mr. Ross. I am in the healthcare field, 8 plus years of college. Does this make me an expert as well? I have learned a ton of information and always done my own research to cross reference Hooker and his studies. Hooker is top notch and his info is/has been outstanding. The board members with experience are far more valuble than any text book or random trial done by someone 20 years old. Not flaming Ross, only reiterating the fact that with experience comes knowledge and the ability to get a point across without saying my way or the highway. Great job to Hooker and the rest of the board. This site does kick ass

  28. #28
    TheMindOfRoss is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    448

    No

    I need to prove the following....

    A. You will make equal gains without test as on one of the cycles you propose

    B. You will not suffer from any sides associated with not having enough test in your body, while on one of the "no-test cycles" you propose

    C. You will recover more quickly from one of the cycles you propose than one with test



    As for A.) NO--TEST = bigger gains at the COST of SLOWER recovery and less maintainable gains)possibly MORE SIDES)

    b.) Typical LACK OF TEST sides can be expected WHILE ON cycle...but when you get off--recoevery will be expedient.

    c.) ABSOLUTELY! That is a fact!

  29. #29
    TheMindOfRoss is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    448
    My cycles are for those who want the SAFEST and most effective way to use anabolics, and who currently have little cycling history.

  30. #30
    Dave321 is offline AR's Salad Tossing Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4,693
    I feel sorry for your clients.

  31. #31
    Swifto's Avatar
    Swifto is offline Banned- Scammer!
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Anywhere...
    Posts
    15,737
    Quote Originally Posted by TheMindOfRoss
    I need to prove the following....

    A. You will make equal gains without test as on one of the cycles you propose

    B. You will not suffer from any sides associated with not having enough test in your body, while on one of the "no-test cycles" you propose

    C. You will recover more quickly from one of the cycles you propose than one with test



    As for A.) NO--TEST = bigger gains at the COST of SLOWER recovery and less maintainable gains)possibly MORE SIDES)

    b.) Typical LACK OF TEST sides can be expected WHILE ON cycle...but when you get off--recoevery will be expedient.

    c.) ABSOLUTELY! That is a fact!
    What evidence, if any, do you have to back up that recovery from a non-test cycle is easier for the body to recover from? Also what PCT compounds does it include?

  32. #32
    SwoleCat is offline AR Hall of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    25,778
    This mis-leading b.s. is about to disappear.

    Just an FYI.

    ~SC~

  33. #33
    TheMindOfRoss is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    448
    Quote Originally Posted by bigswiftos
    What evidence, if any, do you have to back up that recovery from a non-test cycle is easier for the body to recover from? Also what PCT compounds does it include?

    First of all--one can DEDUCE that if TEST SHUTS DOWN endogenous test production 100%, while DIANABOL , or primo, or oxandrolone simply REDUCE test levels, OBVIOUSLY recovery whilst using a test cpmpound will be more difficult!

    AND, anecdotal evidence--I have recieved over 100 PMS in SUPPORT of members from A-R. Alot of people are simply AFRAID to voice their personal experienes, as all of the POPULAR people on this board are in violent opposition to all I have to say...

  34. #34
    SwoleCat is offline AR Hall of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    25,778
    Quote Originally Posted by TheMindOfRoss

    I have recieved over 100 PMS in SUPPORT of members of A-R.
    Hmmmm, you realize that this can easily be checked?



    ~SC~

  35. #35
    Dave321 is offline AR's Salad Tossing Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4,693
    Quote Originally Posted by TheMindOfRoss
    First of all--one can DEDUCE that if TEST SHUTS DOWN endogenous test production 100%, while DIANABOL , or primo, or oxandrolone simply REDUCE test levels, OBVIOUSLY recovery whilst using a test cpmpound will be more difficult!

    AND, anecdotal evidence--I have recieved over 100 PMS in SUPPORT of members from A-R. Alot of people are simply AFRAID to voice their personal experienes, as all of the POPULAR people on this board are in violent opposition to all I have to say...
    I think what we are saying is: What text book are you getting this info from? Did you just formulate it yourself, and if you have 100 pm's to support it, post them.... I'm sure we would all like to see this.

  36. #36
    Dave321 is offline AR's Salad Tossing Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4,693
    Quote Originally Posted by SwoleCat
    Hmmmm, you realize that this can easily be checked?



    ~SC~
    This is another approach... and a good one!

  37. #37
    TheMindOfRoss is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    448
    Quote Originally Posted by SwoleCat
    Hmmmm, you realize that this can easily be checked?



    ~SC~

    Swole, help a brother out. Is anything I am saying making sense? I think it is simply my approach, and at this point--my BAD REP....

  38. #38
    511220's Avatar
    511220 is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    298
    Quote Originally Posted by SwoleCat
    Hmmmm, you realize that this can easily be checked?



    ~SC~
    uh oh!

    Bullet is in the chamber!

    511220

  39. #39
    Dave321 is offline AR's Salad Tossing Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4,693
    Quote Originally Posted by TheMindOfRoss
    Swole, help a brother out. Is anything I am saying making sense? I think it is simply my approach, and at this point--my BAD REP....
    soooooooooooo.... you were bullshitting about the PM's???? Just another reason for the contribution to your "bad rep"

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Colorado & California
    Posts
    562
    Ross i think its well established that you're an idiot and nobody likes you. So, why dont you take hookers advice and keep your mouth shut unless you have your facts straight. It amazes me that you keep digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole and im starting to actually suspect you have a psychological disorder, you're acting like a sociopath except nobody wants to hear what you have to say so you're stuck just being a psychopath.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •