What is your favorite kickstart oral?

[< <Samson> >]

Oh geez

Too much of any sauce is a waste

At a 180 pounds the only thing I'd run is test and food

Unless you're @ 5%bf


I tried replacing food with sauce - it just doesn't work. Running 2g's of injectables a week will still yield less results than 1g and 99% diet

[MuscleScience]

^^^Exactly. Eat less than your new TDEE and slow down on training and watch what happens. No gear provides permanent results - your habitual commitment to grow and sustain size trough eating and training determines the end result - ALWAYS.

Spot on Diamond and MuscleInk!

[Docd187123]

My point exactly, you only have so many androgen receptors to go around. If you have a compound X that has a stronger binding potential to the AR, another compound (Y) unless it is dosed much much higher than compound X, has a reduced chance to bind successfully. Compound Y may need to be dosed at twice the dosage as compound X. Keep in mind, we are talking about compounds that have similar half-lives simplistically speaking. So running similar ester compounds to each other like test p and NPP would be different than running NPP with Test E. Test E stays active for a much longer time frame than Test-p thus increasing its ability to successfully bind to a meaningful amount of AR to produce a desired effect when competing against another compound. Also Keep in mind they all do compete with each other.

I use SERMs as an example of this effect since it's well studied in the literature A SERM is a selective estrogen receptor mediator. Which means it's a molecule that blocks estrogen at the receptor site, which estrogen is a steroid hormone just the same as testosterone. SARM's do the same thing except block testosterone but I don't use that as an example because they are not nearly as well described in the research as SERMs and I have no formal experience with SARMs.

I think I maybe wasn't explaining my position clearly. I'm not denying that receptor affinity or competition exists, I'm not denying one compound can have a higher binding rate or affinity than another, and I'm not denying that compound x may have reduced chance to bind than compound y bc y has a higher affinity. I agree with these points in theory or in periods of supersaturation.

Where I'm not following you is in this case how that applies to OP and if these issues will result in actual clinical manifestations. Let me try to better explain why I don't think it does.

If this is such an important issue why would you ever stack more than one compound at a time? Tren has a higher binding affinity to the androgen receptor than test. Following your line of thinking, to the extreme, you wouldn't need the test bc the tren will always win out. But we still take test with tren and even sometimes stack more compounds together with increased results in most cases. If as you say all AAS compete with each other, and I agree that they do, than with your train of thought what's the purpose of ever taking more than one AAS? The limiting factor here is diminishing returns not receptor binding affinities.

Another issue is that for this to be an issue here you'd have to assume several things:

1) AAS molecules bind permanently to the receptor but we know that's not the case. Nandrolone takes roughly 4-6hrs for the binding and transcription process and subsequent dissociation. After the hormone molecule leaves the cytosol both hormone and receptor are free to bind again...increasing the chances of the other hormone to eventually bind and activate the receptor. Nandrolone is one of the longest compounds in terms of time for the whole process from start to finish I believe.

2) receptor saturation: if this were the case I'd agree with you that it would be an important consideration regarding receptor affinity but we know again this isn't the case. If it were and all the receptors had bonded to a hormone molecule (here in OP's case of <1g of gear) than 800mg of test would not get you any bigger than 2g of test bc the receptors would have been saturated at much lower levels. 2g would certainly get you bigger or stronger albeit it with diminished returns.

3) there's enough evidence to safely assume that receptor down regulation doesn't happen from supraphysiological doses of AAS and there's enough to assume that in fact up regulation does happen with supraphysiological doses. This means if anything, more gear means more receptor sites in each cell cytosol meaning receptor competition would become less of a problem not more.

4) another possibility is assuming that AAS only works by direct activation of the androgen receptor. Once again we know that AAS can work through pathways outside of receptor activation. For instance the anti-glucocorticoid effects of AAS (anti-catabolism or anti-proteolysis). This indirect muscle building effect is not attributed to activation of the androgen receptor but the displacement of glucocorticoid from the glucocorticoid receptor which would signal the body to release stored protein. Another effect is saturation of skeletal muscle tissue with creatine phosphate. Elevated androgen levels, irrespective of the activation of their receptor, allows more creatine phosphate to be stored in skeletal muscle tissue. While obviously not a direct effect on muscle building, a more efficient anaerobic pathway means more efficient training means more muscle mass in the long run. Finally, AAS can increase IGF-1 levels, not all to the same degree, but again this is independent of activating the receptor.

Considering all the above that he hasn't saturated his androgen receptors, that androgen receptors can actually up regulate, that there are numerous indirect benefits for increased androgen levels (not activation), considering both receptor and hormone are allowed to bind more than once increasing the chance that the compound with weaker affinity will eventually bind to the AR, etc...should we even worry about receptor competition? I propose that we shouldn't for the above reasons.

[Lunk1]

^^^I would have simply said "there are enough to go around" lol.

[Docd187123]

^^^I would have simply said "there are enough to go around" lol.

I normally don't do simple lol. Just as much a curse as it is a blessing

[kelkel]

I normally don't do simple lol. Just as much a curse as it is a blessing

We didn't notice!

Nice diatribe between you and Musclescience.

[ilovejuice]

I was thinking of actually cutting out the NPP and just simply upping the test above 750 a week. And yes I am extremely lean definitely less than %8 body fat. I dont have a gut whatsoever, I know most of my gains is going to rely on my diet. Everyone looks at me strange because of the extent I go to, to gain weight. You can catch me eating a large can of dry tuna, no mayo without a smirk on my face.

[ilovejuice]

Sorry about the double post.. But i know what it all comes down to. Its all about eating that extra meal, whether your hungry or not.

[< <Samson> >]

Lots of test wont do shit either


It's like this:

food+workout+juice = size
time

[Cuz]

Honestly a low dose test cycle helped me more than anything. And I've ran over 2.5 grams a week of aas....I honestly think its all how you eat and train. Gear will just give you a slight edge not much. No substitute for hard work there is just no easy way.

[MuscleScience]

I'm not really referring to saturation per say. What I'm getting at is if you have two compounds competing can the weaker binding compound occupy a meaningful amount of receptors to produce a favorable or noticeable effect that is intended?

If the compound can only occupy the AR in say a 1-3 ratio vs the strong binding compound, is it worth spending the extra money or worth the possible side effects? Can you possibly get the full effect out of that compound? That is my point. Is it worth the risk vs benefit?

I think I maybe wasn't explaining my position clearly. I'm not denying that receptor affinity or competition exists, I'm not denying one compound can have a higher binding rate or affinity than another, and I'm not denying that compound x may have reduced chance to bind than compound y bc y has a higher affinity. I agree with these points in theory or in periods of supersaturation.

Where I'm not following you is in this case how that applies to OP and if these issues will result in actual clinical manifestations. Let me try to better explain why I don't think it does.

If this is such an important issue why would you ever stack more than one compound at a time? Tren has a higher binding affinity to the androgen receptor than test. Following your line of thinking, to the extreme, you wouldn't need the test bc the tren will always win out. But we still take test with tren and even sometimes stack more compounds together with increased results in most cases. If as you say all AAS compete with each other, and I agree that they do, than with your train of thought what's the purpose of ever taking more than one AAS? The limiting factor here is diminishing returns not receptor binding affinities.

Another issue is that for this to be an issue here you'd have to assume several things:

1) AAS molecules bind permanently to the receptor but we know that's not the case. Nandrolone takes roughly 4-6hrs for the binding and transcription process and subsequent dissociation. After the hormone molecule leaves the cytosol both hormone and receptor are free to bind again...increasing the chances of the other hormone to eventually bind and activate the receptor. Nandrolone is one of the longest compounds in terms of time for the whole process from start to finish I believe.

2) receptor saturation: if this were the case I'd agree with you that it would be an important consideration regarding receptor affinity but we know again this isn't the case. If it were and all the receptors had bonded to a hormone molecule (here in OP's case of <1g of gear) than 800mg of test would not get you any bigger than 2g of test bc the receptors would have been saturated at much lower levels. 2g would certainly get you bigger or stronger albeit it with diminished returns.

3) there's enough evidence to safely assume that receptor down regulation doesn't happen from supraphysiological doses of AAS and there's enough to assume that in fact up regulation does happen with supraphysiological doses. This means if anything, more gear means more receptor sites in each cell cytosol meaning receptor competition would become less of a problem not more.

4) another possibility is assuming that AAS only works by direct activation of the androgen receptor. Once again we know that AAS can work through pathways outside of receptor activation. For instance the anti-glucocorticoid effects of AAS (anti-catabolism or anti-proteolysis). This indirect muscle building effect is not attributed to activation of the androgen receptor but the displacement of glucocorticoid from the glucocorticoid receptor which would signal the body to release stored protein. Another effect is saturation of skeletal muscle tissue with creatine phosphate. Elevated androgen levels, irrespective of the activation of their receptor, allows more creatine phosphate to be stored in skeletal muscle tissue. While obviously not a direct effect on muscle building, a more efficient anaerobic pathway means more efficient training means more muscle mass in the long run. Finally, AAS can increase IGF-1 levels, not all to the same degree, but again this is independent of activating the receptor.

Considering all the above that he hasn't saturated his androgen receptors, that androgen receptors can actually up regulate, that there are numerous indirect benefits for increased androgen levels (not activation), considering both receptor and hormone are allowed to bind more than once increasing the chance that the compound with weaker affinity will eventually bind to the AR, etc...should we even worry about receptor competition? I propose that we shouldn't for the above reasons.

[MuscleScience]

We didn't notice!

Nice diatribe between you and Musclescience.

That's why I love this board, you can have respectful and meaningful debates with out the drama or childish name calling. DocD is good! ....lol

[< <Samson> >]

Honestly a low dose test cycle helped me more than anything. And I've ran over 2.5 grams a week of aas....I honestly think its all how you eat and train. Gear will just give you a slight edge not much. No substitute for hard work there is just no easy way.

This is like the best way to say it

No matter the sauce it just depends on you. Diet & routine

I have gained more on just test and a near perfect diet than a bit of tren & eating shit. I lost strength due to sides from using too much. . . I always heard less is more from the vets but called BS. It's true - had to find out for myself. Lol

[ilovejuice]

This is like the best way to say it

No matter the sauce it just depends on you. Diet & routine

I have gained more on just test and a near perfect diet than a bit of tren & eating shit. I lost strength due to sides from using too much. . . I always heard less is more from the vets but called BS. It's true - had to find out for myself. Lol

Is sustanon a better approach?

[ilovejuice]

I was considering running Tren A, but i think its a little to serious than my level

[Cuz]

Is sustanon a better approach?

You need to stop....and research for atleast a few months bro. In the meantime get your dietand training right. From your responses you have given steroids are not right for you at the time. No hate bro. .its just the truth and I know you will get mad but its for your own growth bro.

[mark woods]

six pages in and now your taking about tren ! you really do love juice

[Docd187123]

That's why I love this board, you can have respectful and meaningful debates with out the drama or childish name calling. DocD is good! ....lol

X2 brother. Enjoy talking 'shop' without the need for anyone to resort to childish games.

[ilovejuice]

You need to stop....and research for atleast a few months bro. In the meantime get your dietand training right. From your responses you have given steroids are not right for you at the time. No hate bro. .its just the truth and I know you will get mad but its for your own growth bro.

Im not mad. No worries.

[ilovejuice]

six pages in and now your taking about tren ! you really do love juice

[frighteous]

Honestly a low dose test cycle helped me more than anything. And I've ran over 2.5 grams a week of aas....I honestly think its all how you eat and train. Gear will just give you a slight edge not much. No substitute for hard work there is just no easy way.

If you're going to take any kind of knowledge from this thread, listen to the last line of this post. There is no substitute for hard work. There is no easy way.

You always hear about everyone telling young people not to juice because of various health related issues, but I feel like another very good reason is because they haven't developed an iron lifestyle yet, and without the iron lifestyle, how you can retain any gains? You won't. You will only do well with this thing if you enjoy the hard work and the pain, and look forward to it every day. Don't be one of those guys who walks around with a bodybuilding.com checkoff sheet and a pen. Know what you have to do and work your ass off to where you're soaking wet when it's time to leave. You must willingly enjoy the work involved. You must use this as a stress reliever, not a reason to look good for summer.. That is what I believe.