Wtf does "kick in" mean?

**Property of Steroid.com** · 06-21-2007, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Johny-too-small

Geez.

"EOD" would include sunday and then tuesday. Its not like a job where you take the weekends off, lol.

Stop listening to your r-tard friend.

Which I think is funny because people shoot GH on a 5/2 pattern for virtually no reason at all except to take the weekend off because that's how it's arbitrarily done. No studies exist showing that method to be better, it's just "Weekends off" for some reason...

**Alpha_Romeo** · 06-21-2007, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by Johny-too-small

Geez.

"EOD" would include sunday and then tuesday. Its not like a job where you take the weekends off, lol.

Stop listening to your r-tard friend.

No one said I was gonna take his advice, I'm just wondering if that mehod is indeed arbitrary or if I should continue with my plan of EOD?

Aaaaanyways, why do people assume stupidity so much here. There is no such thing as a stupid question, only a stupid answer.

RA · 06-21-2007, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by Anthony Roberts

Here's the contradiction, alright? You guys ready?

If you didn't gain ANYTHING for 3-4 weeks on a cycle, you would piss and moan about thinking the gear was fake as a strippers tits, right? Yet the same guys will say they never feel anything until week 4-6.

You can't have it both ways...and...like I said, a gain is a rep or a pound...if you're putting those on at every workout, then your product has kicked in.

Reread the last sentence in my post. I didnt say you wouldnt gain anything during the first 4 but there is no problem if you dont see significant strength and/or size increases in the first 4-6 weeks.

**Alpha_Romeo** · 06-21-2007, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by roidattack

Reread the last sentence in my post. I didnt say you wouldnt gain anything during the first 4 but there is no problem if you dont see significant strength and/or size increases in the first 4-6 weeks.

Why is that?

The one that really gets me is empirical evidence, (not accusing you of it) but when people can't explain anything and their science is empiricism then I really have a hard time looking at the subject in question with credibility.

RA · 06-21-2007, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Alpha_Romeo

Why is that?

The one that really gets me is empirical evidence, (not accusing you of it) but when people can't explain anything and their science is empiricism then I really have a hard time looking at the subject in question with credibility.

Let me pull out that Harvard study on test in my back pocket

Seriously I say it from personal experience and the experience of thousands of others on this board. Theres been countless threads asking "Im 2 weeks in and dont see much of a change, why???" The answer is simply keep working out hard and eating right and the test will kick in eventually.

You can call it empirical evidence if you want to. Arent most studies like that? You give the test subjects the compound and see how they react?

**Alpha_Romeo** · 06-21-2007, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by roidattack

Let me pull out that Harvard study on test in my back pocket

Seriously I say it from personal experience and the experience of thousands of others on this board. Theres been countless threads asking "Im 2 weeks in and dont see much of a change, why???" The answer is simply keep working out hard and eating right and the test will kick in eventually.

You can call it empirical evidence if you want to. Arent most studies like that? You give the test subjects the compound and see how they react?

Touche! haha, You ahve a good point but empirical evidence is a conclusion derived from the senses, solely. I totally understand what you are saying, and i'm not gettin on your case or questioning that the kick in is not real, hell it's my first cycle. How the **** do I know, I'm simply saying that I would like to know "WHY" it happens. The causation is just as important if not more important than the effect when it comes to dealing with medicine, etc.

**Property of Steroid.com** · 06-21-2007, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by Alpha_Romeo

Why is that?

The one that really gets me is empirical evidence, (not accusing you of it) but when people can't explain anything and their science is empiricism then I really have a hard time looking at the subject in question with credibility.

What do you think of the case I made vs/ the case being made against mine?

**shrpskn** · 06-21-2007, 01:04 PM

I would like to see evidence that blood plasma levels spike and stabilize at the same rate after only one injection of testosterone enanthate as they do after only one injection of testosterone propionate .

This is a good debate and I want evidence to back the above claim as there seems to be alot of "misconception", as Anthony would call it, that a long ester compound will not exert its effects until "4-6 weeks" after initial injection...although I think any claims that it takes 4-6 weeks for the enanthate ester to release the attached testosterone is absurd, I think 2-3 weeks is more realistic. JMO.

Under Anthonys' above explanation, I should be able to administer test E for 4 weeks and get as much from it in them 4 weeks as I would if I only ran test P for them 4 weeks??? I'm sorry, but I would take prop any day for 4 weeks over any long estered test.

**Carlos_E** · 06-21-2007, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Anthony Roberts

Which I think is funny because people shoot GH on a 5/2 pattern for virtually no reason at all except to take the weekend off because that's how it's arbitrarily done. No studies exist showing that method to be better, it's just "Weekends off" for some reason...

It is my understanding that people do it to get the GH to last longer. There has been no evidence that shows better results shooting every day vs 5/2.

**shrpskn** · 06-21-2007, 01:21 PM

^ I was thinking the same thing...growth is so costly I think the 5/2 regimen is more cost effective.

**Property of Steroid.com** · 06-21-2007, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by shrpskn

I would like to see evidence that blood plasma levels spike and stabilize at the same rate after only one injection of testosterone enanthate as they do after only one injection of testosterone propionate .

.

Who said they stabilize at the same rate? I said they reach peak plasma concentrations from a shot at roughly the same time (within a day).

They degrade at different rates. That's wha the ester does...control the rate of decay...it's effects on peak level achievment is negligibe for practical purposes.

I want evidence to back the above claim as there seems to be alot of "misconception", as Anthony would call it, that a long ester compound will not exert its effects until "4-6 weeks"

The burden of proof is to show that a long ester, which spikes in the same time as a short ester (practically), will still not give effects until week 4-6.

Under Anthonys' above explanation, I should be able to administer test E for 4 weeks and get as much from it in them 4 weeks as I would if I only ran test P for them 4 weeks??? I'm sorry, but I would take prop any day for 4 weeks over any long estered test.

Note that my comparison is between 500mgs of Cyp/week and 100mgs of prop eod. That is because although there is only a few more mgs of test in prop as compared to cyp, the initial blood plasma level you get from an equal amount of prop is disproportionately higher than with cyp.

Initially this may seem to explain why prop "works" more quickly than a longer ester (a higher level of androgen, more quickly), but when we have people shooting 500mgs of Test Cyp of their cycle, and not "feeling it" until 4 - 6 weeks in, yet claiming they "feel" Prop immediately, even at a 100mg dose, there's no reason for it. The blood plasma levels of test, for those doses should be ballpark/similar for our purposes.

RA · 06-21-2007, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Anthony Roberts

The burden of proof is to show that a long ester, which spikes in the same time as a short ester (practically), will still not give effects until week 4-6.

Again I have to correct you. I was talking about significant size/strength gains. Im not even certain why your arguing this. Anyone who has done one cycle of cyp knows Im right.

RA · 06-21-2007, 02:24 PM

Unless you frontload

**shrpskn** · 06-21-2007, 03:29 PM

I want studies or scientific evidence to support the theory being debated here...clearly "real time" experience is not up for debate here, so some scientific backing to clarify this would be appreciated....or I call B.S.

**Panzerfaust** · 06-21-2007, 09:27 PM

Admin might as well close this one down..its beyond civil

**kynetguy** · 06-21-2007, 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by Anthony Roberts

Here's the contradiction, alright? You guys ready?

If you didn't gain ANYTHING for 3-4 weeks on a cycle, you would piss and moan about thinking the gear was fake as a strippers tits, right? Yet the same guys will say they never feel anything until week 4-6.

You can't have it both ways...and...like I said, a gain is a rep or a pound...if you're putting those on at every workout, then your product has kicked in.

I don't think its chemically "kicked in" nor will you EVER convince me that plasma levels are peaked in 24 hours. All respect to you, but that is horse poo.

If this was the case and if this was true you, it wouldn't matter is you ran Prop, Cyp or Enan ED or EOD or 1 or 2 times a week. You would get the exact same effects with 700mg of Prop every monday as you do shooting it ED at 100.

I have read tons and tons of data you have collected, ah la your research. You have too many phd and md's cited in your works to actually make ME believe that YOU believe your plasma levels are peaked in 24 hours.

I agree with one thing though. I think you play dumb just to stir the conversation and make it interesting. Because I know you are a smart man. You can't research and write as many articles as you have in your life time and not learn something along the way.

Nice try, but I am not buying your dumb blonde role Mr. Roberts! LOL