Results 1 to 40 of 72
Thread: The Study Everyone Wanted
-
05-19-2005, 01:42 AM #1Banned
- 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.
Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Tarry 15-751, 303 East Chicago Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60611-3008. [email protected].
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 manLast edited by TheMindOfRoss; 05-19-2005 at 01:44 AM.
-
05-19-2005, 01:45 AM #2Banned
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- FL
- Posts
- 448
and there you have it
There ya go hooker...
-
05-19-2005, 02:12 AM #3
-
05-19-2005, 02:15 AM #4Banned
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- FL
- Posts
- 448
Originally Posted by Rickson
-
05-19-2005, 02:16 AM #5Banned
- 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.
-
05-19-2005, 02:28 AM #6
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.
-
05-19-2005, 02:40 AM #7
i love you rickson
-
05-19-2005, 02:58 AM #8Banned
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- FL
- Posts
- 448
I think in different circumstances--each cycle has its place. We agree.
-
05-19-2005, 03:23 AM #9
I think the circumstance is youre a douchebag with a silly notion
-
05-19-2005, 03:49 AM #10Writer
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Posts
- 1,733
Originally Posted by TheMindOfRoss
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.
-
05-19-2005, 06:32 AM #11
bump for Hooker
-
05-19-2005, 06:44 AM #12
BUMP
-
05-19-2005, 06:47 AM #13
well said hook
-
05-19-2005, 06:52 AM #14
bump for hooker!
-
05-19-2005, 06:56 AM #15
I hope all the newbs know if you listen to ross you will be shooting pool w/ a rope.
-
05-19-2005, 06:59 AM #16Originally Posted by roidattack
-
05-19-2005, 06:59 AM #17
Could'nt agree more!
-
05-19-2005, 07:19 AM #18Associate Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Location
- SCOTLAND
- Posts
- 189
Agreed.
-
05-19-2005, 07:24 AM #19AR Hall of Fame
- Join Date
- Dec 2002
- Posts
- 25,737
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 07:53 AM.
-
05-19-2005, 07:47 AM #20AR's Salad Tossing Connoisseur
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Posts
- 4,589
good point hooker
-
05-19-2005, 07:47 AM #21Originally Posted by hooker
-
05-19-2005, 08:41 AM #22
wow....nice post hooker. i def learned a couple things today.
-
05-19-2005, 08:47 AM #23Originally Posted by Narkissos
-
05-19-2005, 08:59 AM #24
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
-
05-19-2005, 09:00 AM #25Originally Posted by 511220
-
05-19-2005, 09:04 AM #26Junior Member
- Join Date
- May 2005
- Posts
- 127
Originally Posted by TheMindOfRoss
-
05-19-2005, 09:15 AM #27Junior 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
-
05-19-2005, 11:54 AM #28Banned
- 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!
-
05-19-2005, 11:55 AM #29Banned
- 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.
-
05-19-2005, 11:59 AM #30AR's Salad Tossing Connoisseur
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Posts
- 4,589
I feel sorry for your clients.
-
05-19-2005, 11:59 AM #31Originally Posted by TheMindOfRoss
-
05-19-2005, 12:04 PM #32AR Hall of Fame
- Join Date
- Dec 2002
- Posts
- 25,737
This mis-leading b.s. is about to disappear.
Just an FYI.
~SC~
-
05-19-2005, 12:05 PM #33Banned
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- FL
- Posts
- 448
Originally Posted by bigswiftos
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...
-
05-19-2005, 12:06 PM #34AR Hall of Fame
- Join Date
- Dec 2002
- Posts
- 25,737
Originally Posted by TheMindOfRoss
~SC~
-
05-19-2005, 12:07 PM #35AR's Salad Tossing Connoisseur
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Posts
- 4,589
Originally Posted by TheMindOfRoss
-
05-19-2005, 12:08 PM #36AR's Salad Tossing Connoisseur
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Posts
- 4,589
Originally Posted by SwoleCat
-
05-19-2005, 12:08 PM #37Banned
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- FL
- Posts
- 448
Originally Posted by SwoleCat
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....
-
05-19-2005, 12:09 PM #38Originally Posted by SwoleCat
Bullet is in the chamber!
511220
-
05-19-2005, 12:10 PM #39AR's Salad Tossing Connoisseur
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Posts
- 4,589
Originally Posted by TheMindOfRoss
-
05-19-2005, 12:11 PM #40
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.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
cutting/ fat loss advice needed...
04-16-2024, 01:34 AM in ANABOLIC STEROIDS - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS