I'm naturally thin - a hard-gainer. I tend to build strength but not size. My muscles get stronger and harder but not much bigger. My theory was that I have a naturally low testosterone level but a high degree of non-AR-mediated processes - creatine-type processes. I should need gear with lots of AR-mediated benefits (eq, deca, tren) and I should get little to nothing from gear with mostly non-AR-mediated benefits (dbol, ana) if this were true.
I get nothing but more endurance from dbol - no strength nor size gains. I get a whopping dose of every benefit under the sun from deca and eq. Test of course gives me all of the above way better than deca or eq.
I stacked var in with sus/deca and saw my gains literally stop. 2 weeks later i said fuc* the var and stopped it. Almost immediately my gains came back. Was this some freak of me-specific genetic nuance? I'm now starting to think that maybe my natural testosterone levels are not low - maybe even high - and that my hard-gainer strenth-without-size attributes are the result of a low number of androgen receptors in my body.
If this theory is true I would realize maximum gains from taking smaller amounts of gear with strong binding and an effectiveness not less than - gram per gram - testosterone. The gear I take ends up competing for the limited number of receptors and the total effectiveness is reduced anytime I stack-in weaker-than-testosterone gear with strong binding. All theory.
If this is true I would realize more gains from sus alone than with sus/deca stacked. I'd be best served with tren. I'm thinking I might finish my cycle (currently 400mg/wk deca and 250mg/wk sus) with sus alone and see if that boosts me better that the deca/sus combo.
What does everyone think about the notion that gear competes for receptors and that more gear is not always more gains and in some cases could reduce your gains instead.
Reply With Quote
