T3 or T4

***Narkissos*** · 12-19-2006, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by Anthony Roberts

I suppose it can do either. You can tell them what to do and why they're doing it, or you can just tell them to do it. In one case, it condenses the step, in the other, it negates it. They don't know anything more than they did before hiring the consultant....

Actually, I'll let you in on a secret:

That's the ultimate goal of many consultants and especially prep gurus...

They tell the client what to do without explanation or reasoning. This way, the client never learns anything except for what they need to do at that particular moment, for that particular contest or whatever...and the trainer/consultant never has to fear losing the client (or income) because they've actually never taught them anything...they just told them what to do.

That i realised in forming my own business.

I think it's the bane of the consultancy industry.

Mine doesn't operate on that basis however.

I'm sure my clients here could chime in if they chose...

Everything in my regime(s) is explicitly worded.. and everything explained.

I believe a high success rate leads to greater exposure.. better net turnover.. and higher referrals.

I think the bane of the consultancy industry lies with the perpetuation of the state of ignorance by the consultants.. and the acceptance of this perpetuation by the consultees.

Even as a junior competitor when i had a coach he expected that i supplement whatever he told me with my own research etc.

These are the precepts under which i operate.

But we've digressed.

Back to the justification of ergogenic use

Nark

***Narkissos*** · 12-19-2006, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Anthony Roberts

That's a different context than what we're talking about. That theorem doesn't argue for the intrinsic value of things, it simply places them in a heirarchical order, in an attempt to show which are necessary for others to be possible(in pyramid fashion) Ultimately, all of those things in the Hierarchy contribute to happiness...but none of them have intrinsic value as defined. The theorem isn't arguing that any of those things take the place of happiness, it ultimately gives a rank and order (very subjective) to them based on some kind of logical inference.

Consider Socrates...at the end of his life, he didn't have anything in the "safety" level of the pyramid (he was sentenced to death and ultimately accepted that and killed himself), although he had everything in the levels above it. Thus, by counterexample, you can clearly have things in the upper level of the theory without having things below it. That proves that the lower levels of the pyramid are neither necessary nor sufficient for the upper levels. And in this case, in that format, they aren't necessary nor sufficient for happiness. In other words, the example you're giving, doesn't work in this context.

I think the applicability would differ according to the governing precepts of the school of thought we subscribe to.

Your b.sc./BA study is philosophy...whereas mine is Sociology; Psychology (Triple minor with Management.. The latter being less than applicable here)

I do however concede that 'need' (inline with: "justified risk" of the opening argument), is relative to the individual.

Nark

**JohnboyF** · 12-19-2006, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Narkissos

That i realised in forming my own business.

I think it's the bane of the consultancy industry.

Mine doesn't operate on that basis however.

I'm sure my clients here could chime in if they chose...

Everything in my regime(s) is explicitly worded.. and everything explained.

I believe a high success rate leads to greater exposure.. better net turnover.. and higher referrals.

I think the bane of the consultancy industry lies with the perpetuation of the state of ignorance by the consultants.. and the acceptance of this perpetuation by the consultees.

Even as a junior competitor when i had a coach he expected that i supplement whatever he told me with my own research etc.

These are the precepts under which i operate.

But we've digressed.

Back to the justification of ergogenic use

Nark

Chimes in... actually we had this discussion two days back why ppl use t3/t4/clen pct to suppress the TSH- thyroid stimulating hormone

***Narkissos*** · 12-19-2006, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by FaizakaFez

Chimes in... actually we had this discussion two days back why ppl use t3/t4/clen pct to suppress the TSH- thyroid stimulating hormone

^^ Hey... i want a full frontal pic of your "Get Narked" T-shirt

**mousetraps** · 12-19-2006, 01:30 PM

chief wiggum: if it feels good, i say do it.

**Property of Steroid.com** · 12-19-2006, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by FaizakaFez

Chimes in... actually we had this discussion two days back why ppl use t3/t4/clen pct to suppress the TSH- thyroid stimulating hormone

I almost got my clients shirts that said "Get Robbed"...but then I realized that wouldn't look great...on the other hand, I don't know if anyone wants to be robbed or narked on...

***Narkissos*** · 12-19-2006, 01:32 PM

***Narkissos*** · 12-19-2006, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Anthony Roberts

on the other hand, I don't know if anyone wants to be robbed or narked on...

Narc-ed on.. no

Narked?

Hell yea

Get NARKED hooker!!!!

*fowards hooker's t-shirt to him*

**Property of Steroid.com** · 12-19-2006, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by Narkissos

I think the applicability would differ according to the governing precepts of the school of thought we subscribe to.

Your b.sc./BA study is philosophy...whereas mine is Sociology; Psychology (Triple minor with Management.. The latter being less than applicable here)

I do however concede that 'need' (inline with: "justified risk" of the opening argument), is relative to the individual.

Nark

I think that arguing the justification for an individual to use certain drugs, falls more into the realm of philosophy than it does sociology...I'm arguing a point based on intrinsic happiness (an Aristotelian point of view)....i.e. the justification of the use of drugs is based on happiness, and that which gives the greatest overall happiness (based on Bentham's Utilitarianism).

Ultimately, you have to give a reason for something (an action) to be justified or excused, and I think we both agree that in this case, it's based on happiness as the motivator, although we're clearly favoring our respective disciplines. I think that the person who choses to use (whatever) drugs, if the end result is that they are more happy then when they began, is justified enough in doing what they do, ceteris paribus. No further justification (competition, income, feeding their family) is necessary, to this argument...

But as a point of note:

I don't have an area of study, I have already completed 2 seperate degrees (one BA in English and one BA in Philosophy), with a minor in womens studies (all from Seton Hall University).

***Narkissos*** · 12-19-2006, 01:42 PM

On this note however i've gotta jet.. I had a final exam this moring so i haven't had sleep in a couple days.... Got another in the morning.

So imma go take a nap and get back up to study.

Was a pleasure to debate with you hooker.

Narkissos

**Property of Steroid.com** · 12-19-2006, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by Narkissos

That i realised in forming my own business.

I think it's the bane of the consultancy industry.

Mine doesn't operate on that basis however.

I'm sure my clients here could chime in if they chose...

Everything in my regime(s) is explicitly worded.. and everything explained.

I believe a high success rate leads to greater exposure.. better net turnover.. and higher referrals.

I think the bane of the consultancy industry lies with the perpetuation of the state of ignorance by the consultants.. and the acceptance of this perpetuation by the consultees.

Even as a junior competitor when i had a coach he expected that i supplement whatever he told me with my own research etc.

These are the precepts under which i operate.

But we've digressed.

Back to the justification of ergogenic use

Nark

I suppose my consultation services are based on whatever the client wants. I don't need the money or the clients, but I enjoy doing the work with them, so I do it...so if they want explanations, they get them, and if they just want everything written out for them (so they don't have to think), then that's what I do.

For the money people pay me for an hour of my time (the agency who handles my consultations charges $200/hour), if they don't want to think, I'll do it for them.

***Narkissos*** · 12-19-2006, 01:49 PM

Can't jet without replying firstly.. so here i go.

Forgive me if my coherence has waned:

Originally Posted by Anthony Roberts

I think that arguing the justification for an individual to use certain drugs, falls more into the realm of philosophy than it does sociology...I'm arguing a point based on intrinsic happiness (an Aristotelian point of view)....i.e. the justification of the use of drugs is based on happiness, and that which gives the greatest overall happiness (based on Bentham's Utilitarianism).

What are the parameters that define 'happiness' as presented by your arguement?

If 'happiness' is to be given as the ultimate determinant (re: justifying factor) it must be quantifiable.. but it is not.

As like motivation, happiness is relative to the individual.

Thus this allude back to my preceding point... which states that the allocation of the means of justification is a process relevant and relative to the individual.

Originally Posted by Anthony Roberts

I don't have an area of study, I have already completed 2 seperate degrees (one BA in English and one BA in Philosophy), with a minor in womens studies (all from Seton Hall University).

It isn't interesting you noted these...

You do realise that while you have no 'area of study' the influence of the base foundation on which your thought processes are formed, for this argument we'll allude to phylosophy, will saturate/infiltrate your arguments?

**Property of Steroid.com** · 12-19-2006, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by Narkissos

Can't jet without replying firstly.. so here i go.

Forgive me if my coherence has waned:

What are the parameters that define 'happiness' as presented by your arguement?

If 'happiness' is to be given as the ultimate determinant (re: justifying factor) it must be quantifiable.. but it is not.

As like motivation, happiness is relative to the individual.

Thus this allude back to my preceding point... which states that the allocation of the means of justification is a process relevant and relative to the individual.

It isn't interesting you noted these...

You do realise that while you have no 'area of study' the influence of the base foundation on which your thought processes are formed, for this argument we'll allude to phylosophy, will saturate/infiltrate your arguments?

Sure it is. Here's proof: I'm happier with two beers than I am with one beer. Therefore, since I can use this kind of language to express degrees of something, it can be quantified. It, perhaps, can not be expressed as an integer, but it certainly can be quantified. I can, of course, now express happiness on a "beer" scale. Beer makes me happy, and a case of beers makes me happier than anything. Therefore, if I was half as happy as I've ever been, as a result of being involved with this thread, I can rate this level of happiness as "2 six packs of happiness"...or half a case of beer (12 beers). Thus, on my happiness scale, this thread rates 12 beers. Happiness, is therefore, quantifiable. I believe you're confusing "quantifiable" with "objectively quantifiable"....when you go to a hospital for pain management, they ask you how bad it is from 1-10...this is the same idea...it's a scale of minimal (and this can be pain or happiness) to maximum. Like I said, it's quantifiable, any way you cut it.

The "no area of study" thing wasn't to say that I have never had an area of study, but simply to denote that in my case I've earned degrees. When we talk about someone's area of study (their major, etc...) it's usually assumed that they still study in that area, in pursuit of a degree (in broad terms). I was only noting that I have already earned two degrees and a minor, not that they haven't influenced my thought...quite to the contrary.,

**Property of Steroid.com** · 12-19-2006, 02:44 PM

Check this out:

Originally Posted by Narkissos

Thus this allude back to my preceding point... which states that the allocation of the means of justification is a process relevant and relative to the individual.

Now, read my original post:

In the end, even if you're competing, it's still recreational...and on a relative scale of importance to the individual, no less important than....you know, whatever someone elses goals are.

I said the same thing, in different words, in my original post...

**carter** · 12-19-2006, 03:58 PM

Let me thank Nark and Hooker for their indispensable knowledge and input You've both successfully made my brain REAALY hurt. Despite the deep throbbing, i've decided to not supplement T3 during my PCT for three reasons.

Reason #1:

Nark really brought it home with this one:

Originally Posted by Narkissos

Regardless of the compound chosen from the above... a boatload of research is needed before you undertake supplementation with any.

I see so many on the boards reach for these compounds indiscriminately...

If you're a casual lifter.. as opposed to a competitive athlete, i think you should stay away from them personally.

Nark

I agree that research is the key. This is why i've waited until the ripe old age of 25 before using AAS. I think also that there is quite a bit of grey between a "casual lifter" and a "competitive athlete" and that I am somewhere in the middle. Either way, research and education is the first and most important thing where ever you are on the spectrum. Anyway, the point is, i need to do more research on T3/T4 before i use them.

Reason #2

I've been reading the profile on cytomel . (Thanks, hooker, very well written and straight forward) With what i've been reading up on so far, the hormones seem quite unique, especially T3. Very interesting stuff. But at the same time, i can def see the importance of AAS while running it. Enrgy needs to come from somewhere, and with your body needing to meet the demands that T3 or T4 are putting on it, the energy resource can quickly change from fat to muscle.

Reason #3

My brain still hurts, i can't think of reason #3 right now.. I just got done with finals and the last thing i want is for my brain to hurt. There needs to be a disclaimer on this thread.

***Narkissos*** · 12-19-2006, 05:49 PM

^^

Good stuff bro.

**Jay-Ace** · 12-19-2006, 09:11 PM

Starting to regret baiting this 1!!

**lifterjaydawg** · 12-19-2006, 09:37 PM

Good thread carter, Great information.

**taylor26** · 12-19-2006, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by Jay-Ace

Starting to regret baiting this 1!!

Wow... I'd like to wish you and the girl in your avatar a VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS, if that girl is someone you know, then I'm sure you will.......

but i regress..

My brain hurts too, but i must say i've had great results with T3/clen ... While i wouldn't likely run only T3 during PCT, running it along side clen really works well for me!