Results 41 to 80 of 125
Thread: Eq/deca/var Cycle-just Injected
-
10-06-2005, 03:28 PM #41
FUCK this... and btw FINA shut me down way harder than DECA ever did.... even in lower dosages.. even with test... anyways 500mg Test E a week it is... I'll start tonight...
-
10-06-2005, 03:28 PM #42Originally Posted by 100%NATURAL-theGH
-
10-06-2005, 03:30 PM #43
I'm a swinger.. not into chatting... but if you don't have plans later....
-
10-06-2005, 03:31 PM #44Originally Posted by 100%NATURAL-theGH
-
10-06-2005, 03:32 PM #45
All this gay talk is fu*kin with me-I' gonna have to go look at some straight porn!
-
10-06-2005, 03:35 PM #46
I don't know what to do.. is Test going to hurt my joints? I know it decreases your collagen synthesis so I was leaning away from it... I'm not sure anymore.... so many conflicting ideas! maintenance doses of 250mg maybe? or none.. or 1000mg or... shit...
-
10-06-2005, 03:41 PM #47Originally Posted by 100%NATURAL-theGH
-
10-06-2005, 04:58 PM #48
Very powerful in personal well being. Well said Wolfy.
-
10-06-2005, 05:10 PM #49Originally Posted by wolfyEVH
JohnnyB
-
10-06-2005, 11:14 PM #50Member
- Join Date
- May 2005
- Posts
- 877
I have seen in this post several reasons to use test. While these reasons are all OK the biggest point has been missed. (and yes Deca /Fina is what causes Dick issues)
Listen guys, I am in medical practice and I can confirm physiologically that THE BEST reason (which btw I have NOT seen yet mentioned here) to use test with EVERY cycle is;
Testosterone is 100% absolutely necessary to build muscle. Without it there is no new muscle formation. So, any cycle without test is totally CRIPPLED!!!
Enough said.
-
10-07-2005, 01:41 AM #51
hmm... i have to admit that I agree with everything being said for the most part.. I just want to avoid mood swings.... and I'm sure having low test isn't going to help it... maybe I'll do 500mg/week and leave it there... I only want to do what is best for me! Alright I'll do it.... geez.. all this yelling at me and shit..
-
10-07-2005, 09:36 PM #52Member
- Join Date
- May 2005
- Posts
- 877
Originally Posted by 100%NATURAL-theGH
-
10-07-2005, 09:56 PM #53Senior Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Posts
- 1,717
Originally Posted by dragon69
Next... and I'm not saying names... but I have seen the phrase "shut down" used incorrectly about 5+ times so far... vets and mods included.
"Shut down" is NOT an interchangeable phrase of "low libido."
Running a replacement dose of Test at 100mg - 200mg per week will be amble to keep normal sex function... (or at least should be) and should definitely NOT be the culprit of anger or other mood issues. And, as properly mentioned, Estrogen could be.
Good luck, and thanks for being a guinea pig just to let us know how your plan works.
Regards.
-
10-07-2005, 10:12 PM #54Senior Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Posts
- 1,717
The EQ and Var aren't too suppressive, but including Deca strongly compells me to suggest inclussion of at least a small base of test... but you CAN grow without it. You'll just have limited androgens... and thus your drive to succeed, your ability to push hard, and have a functional sex drive will suffer.
-
10-08-2005, 01:15 AM #55Member
- Join Date
- May 2005
- Posts
- 877
Originally Posted by TrumanHW
Test is need to stimulate the myoblasts into producing muscle tissue, you don't get TRUE growth (not just water retention) without myoblast stimulation.
So you say you CAN grow without test. Well, maybe you might see some on-cycle size increase, but without new fibers laid down (by the myoblasts) it will all be lost post cycle. So Test will help keep gains made and will give a more permanent increase in muscle size/density.
-
10-08-2005, 02:59 AM #56Senior Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Posts
- 1,717
Okay, are you talking about the difference between hyperplasia and hypertrophy?
Can you please show me a study on this? I understand that you believe what you're saying, and I don't discredit your belief. I'm simply not willing to replace mine with yours unless there is some supportive information. No dispute, Testosterone clearly works – and I always use it. I just haven't heard anyone stand on the position that no other compound can produce gains unless coupled with Test. For instance, the Germans used OT, often exclusively. Especially for their female svim (sic) team. They were quite emasculated little girls if I recall correctly. So what was that under their skin changing their shape? Are you saying you'll lose that tissue (atrophy I presume you're contending) within a few months or at most a couple of years?
Dragon, before you get offended (which sometimes my cross examinations can be borderline offensive)... I mean no disrespect. I just want you to SUPPORT this statement you're making... in addition to clarifying it.
Kind regards... t
-
10-08-2005, 03:21 AM #57Senior Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Posts
- 1,717
Role of IGF-I and IGF-binding proteins within diaphragm muscle in modulating the effects of nandrolone
In the present study, significant hypertrophy of type IIa and type II x/b (IIx/b > IIa) fibers in the diaphragm was evident in NAN-treated rats. This was associated with increased muscle IGF-I expression in general, whereas immunohistochemical studies tended to localize the enhanced IGF-I expression to those most hypertrophied type II x/b diaphragm fibers. This strongly suggests that the anabolic steroid tended to exert its impact on muscle fiber size, at least in part, due to influences on the IGF system within the muscle. Furthermore, the changes in IGFBP expression highlighted earlier suggest a complex series of changes that result in facilitation of IGF-I actions. This greater IGF-I signaling would thus be expected to contribute to protein anabolism and fiber hypertrophy. It has been proposed that IGF-I may induce muscle fiber hypertrophy through signaling involving the Ca2+-calmodulin-dependent protein phosphatase calcineurin pathways (41). The increased local IGF-I concentration in the muscle may also be accompanied by satellite cell activation to maintain the myonuclear domain size (i.e., volume of myoplasm per myonucleus) of individual muscle fibers. IGF-I has been shown to promote proliferation and differentiation of satellite cells and fusion of new myoblasts to promote hypertrophy (4, 14, 39). The concept is that each myonucleus regulates protein expression within a given myoplasmic volume, so that any increase in muscle fiber size would be required to be supported by new, additional myonuclei, which are provided by muscle stem cells (i.e., satellite cells; see Refs. 4, 39). Furthermore, increased local muscle protein accretion could be augmented by reduced protein degradation mediated by enhanced intramuscular concentrations of IGF-I.
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/co...ull/282/2/E483
That study may not be completely contradictory to what you're saying, but it does reference the affect being caused to some degree by Nandrolone . Thus, you are at least not completely correct in that statement.
Now, if what you're saying is that Testosterone is the MOST affective anabolic compound to activate myoblast mediated affects, well, okay. Prove it. But I really think this is going to the contraversial subject of hypertrophy and hyperplasia. Of course, hyperplasia requires apoptosis to be reversed, whereas hypertrophe simply requires atrophy... and based on what I know ... atrophy would be more susceptible to immediate loss than hyperplasia.
However, it'd still be quite a stretch to say that one compound has an advantage of causing hyperplasia over another.Last edited by Two4the$$; 10-08-2005 at 03:39 AM.
-
10-08-2005, 07:53 AM #58Originally Posted by wolfyEVH
-
10-08-2005, 08:17 AM #59Senior Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Posts
- 1,717
her?
-
10-08-2005, 08:20 AM #60Originally Posted by TrumanHW
test stimulates more igf than other aas
but i dissagre with:
Quote dragon69:
"So Test will help keep gains made and will give a more permanent increase in muscle size/density".
from metenolone or nandrolone muscle last more.
but losses come from hpta axis shut off.
anyway your conjecture is interesting.
-
10-08-2005, 08:37 AM #61Anabolic Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Location
- somewhere
- Posts
- 2,738
Originally Posted by dragon69
-
10-08-2005, 08:37 AM #62Senior Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Posts
- 1,717
My response isn't conjecture ... I'm simply trying to find out what HIS view is by suggesting some angles.
My REAL response is ONLY to say that it appears that nandrolone for one (which is the first AAS I even searched for) disputes his claim that "Testosterone is the only AAS which stimulates myoblasts' effects."
-
10-08-2005, 08:43 AM #63Anabolic Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Location
- somewhere
- Posts
- 2,738
besides isnt nandrlone mg/mg basis stronger than test (in anabolic action)
-
10-08-2005, 08:50 AM #64Senior Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Posts
- 1,717
Anabolic :Androgenic score = 125:37
It is (slightly more anabolic that is)... but remember Hippo, its on the Vida score. Meaning the mouse/rat couldn't move its levitar (sp) muscle. Thus, things like aggression (an androgenic expression) aren't being measured psychologically, only physically by the change in size of the prostate gland. So in males who are affected by having their own hormone suppressed and replaced exclusively by one with a lower androgenic component ... well, they might just lack the drive to "get in shape" or the will to "push the weights" hard.Last edited by Two4the$$; 10-08-2005 at 08:52 AM.
-
10-08-2005, 08:53 AM #65Anabolic Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Location
- somewhere
- Posts
- 2,738
that is true and im an advocate of having test in a cycle BUT my point was to say that dragon was off the mark on that one. no intention to flame but Im sure about that.
-
10-08-2005, 08:56 AM #66Anabolic Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Location
- somewhere
- Posts
- 2,738
he has the whole concept of AAS mixed up IMO and then there was also the mix u with hyperplasia/hypertrophy. besides I for one havent seen any studies that test promotes more hyperplasia than other AAS. Im not saying it isnt so but to say that if test does it and others dont without ay studies to back it up is wrong.
-
10-08-2005, 09:00 AM #67Writer
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Posts
- 1,733
Originally Posted by SwoleCat
In derivation, alterations, ester, and basically every way we examine the structure of anabolic steroids , their structure is nothing alike.
Even their anabolic/androgenic ratio is different.
They are, structurally or otherwise, nothing alike.Last edited by Property of Steroid.com; 10-08-2005 at 09:19 AM.
-
10-08-2005, 09:08 AM #68Originally Posted by TrumanHW
-
10-08-2005, 09:09 AM #69Senior Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Posts
- 1,717
Originally Posted by stupidhippo
I'm always open to hearing about things that promote hyperplasia... to my knowledge, the most likely two substances are HGH and IGF-1, no?
-
10-08-2005, 09:11 AM #70Originally Posted by TrumanHW
that humility !
are absolute facts !.....lol.........
-
10-08-2005, 09:14 AM #71Anabolic Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Location
- somewhere
- Posts
- 2,738
no clue actually.. I am also interested in hearing new stuff. Some people here are really on top of things and do a lot of research. Its always priceless to find this kind of info.
-
10-08-2005, 09:28 AM #72Writer
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Posts
- 1,733
Originally Posted by stupidhippo
In addition, saying they all bind to the androgen receptor is kind of misleading also...we assume they do, in some way, but some bind so poorly that we can't even figure out to what degree they bind...in other words, they exert an anabolic effect, and we assume they bind, but relative to R1881 (used to determine Relative Binding Affinity of various AAS), their binding affinity is too low to even be measured...Anadrol and Orabolin come to mind here...
Endocrinology. 1984 Jun;114(6):2100-6.Related Articles, Links
Relative binding affinity of anabolic-androgenic steroids: comparison of the binding to the androgen receptors in skeletal muscle and in prostate, as well as to sex hormone-binding globulin.
Saartok T, Dahlberg E, Gustafsson JA.
It is unclear whether anabolic steroids act on skeletal muscle via the androgen receptor (AR) in this tissue, or whether there is a separate anabolic receptor. When several anabolic steroids were tested as competitors for the binding of [3H]methyltrienolone (MT; 17 beta-hydroxy-17 alpha-methyl-4,9,11-estratrien-3-one) to the AR in rat and rabbit skeletal muscle and rat prostate, respectively, MT itself was the most efficient competitor. 1 alpha-Methyl-5 alpha-dihydrotestosterone (1 alpha-methyl-DHT; mesterolone) bound most avidly to sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) [relative binding affinity (RBA) about 4 times that of DHT]. Some anabolic-androgenic steroids bound strongly to the AR in skeletal muscle and prostate [ RBAs relative to that of MT: MT greater than 19-nortestosterone ( NorT ; nandrolone ) greater than methenolone (17 beta-hydroxy-1-methyl-5 alpha-androst-1-en-3-one) greater than testosterone (T) greater than 1 alpha-methyl-DHT]. In other cases, AR binding was weak (RBA values less than 0.05): stanozolol (17 alpha-methyl-5 alpha- androstano [3,2-c]pyrazol-17 beta-ol), methanedienone (17 beta-hydroxy-17 alpha-methyl-1,4-androstadien-3-one), and fluoxymesterolone (9 alpha-fluoro-11 beta-hydroxy-17 alpha-methyl-T). Other compounds had RBAs too low to be determined (e.g. oxymetholone (17 beta-hydroxy-2-hydroxymethylene-17 alpha-methyl-5 alpha-androstan-3-one) and ethylestrenol (17 alpha-ethyl-4- estren -17 beta-ol). The competition pattern was similar in muscle and prostate, except for a higher RBA of DHT in the prostate. The low RBA of DHT in muscle was probably due to the previously reported rapid reduction of its 3-keto function to metabolites, which did not bind to the AR [5 alpha-androstane-3 alpha, 17 beta-diol and its 3 beta-isomer (3 alpha- and 3 beta-adiol, respectively)]. Some anabolic-androgenic steroids (only a few synthetic) bound to SHBG (1 alpha-methyl-DHT much greater than DHT greater than T greater than 3 beta-adiol greater than 3 alpha-adiol = 17 alpha-methyl-T greater than methenolone greater than methanedienone greater than stanozolol). The ratio of the RBA in rat muscle to that in the prostate (an estimate of the myotrophic potency of the compounds) was close to unity, varying only between about 0.4 and 1.7 in most cases.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
-
10-08-2005, 09:42 AM #73Anabolic Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Location
- somewhere
- Posts
- 2,738
agreed I was oversimplifying. But thats how they oversimplify it in the sports physiology books I've read and there is some truth to it. I also said that the mechanism on how AAS anabolic efffects are still unknown (yet again u might be better on top of that than I). My point was just to contest what dragon said cause to me it was not logical at all. I lack the knowledge to make more precise estimates anyway..
-
10-08-2005, 09:56 AM #74Writer
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Posts
- 1,733
Originally Posted by wolfyEVH
http://magazine.mindandmuscle.net/ma...=32&pageID=383
Thats an old myth, started by the eggregiously incorrect "Animal Mass" as far as I can ascertain.
-
10-08-2005, 10:49 AM #75Senior Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Posts
- 1,717
Jeff, we're glad you're enjoying the thread... but you'll need to start a NEW thread for your question(s). This is afterall, "100%Natural's" thread. For all practical purposes - what you're doing is called hijacking.
-
10-08-2005, 10:54 AM #76Writer
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Posts
- 1,733
Originally Posted by oswaldosalcedo
-
10-08-2005, 11:06 AM #77Member
- Join Date
- May 2005
- Posts
- 877
test is specific to myoblasts, particularly with hyperplasia
-
10-08-2005, 11:10 AM #78Senior Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Posts
- 1,717
I KNEW that was the angle you were going at...
Can you please give me more information? Perhaps show a study on its comparative affects against other anabolics, like Nandrolone , Trenbolone , OT, Var etc... Are you taking the position that hyperplasia is more resistant to deteriorating?
Thanks
-
10-08-2005, 01:22 PM #79Originally Posted by hooker
wow, i wish to love* her ! forever ....................lol..........
-
10-08-2005, 05:52 PM #80Originally Posted by hooker
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Zebol 50 - deca?
12-10-2024, 07:18 PM in ANABOLIC STEROIDS - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS