University of Maryland study: Must increase doses to keep growing on 1 long cycle

[BASK8KACE]

Addendum (3/15/2004):
I've seen references to this thread in other threads used as a reason for increasing doses higher and higher during long cycles. It was not the intention of this post to encourage long cycles during which doses are constantly increased.

It is better to switch the compounds during a long cycle OR to use the time on = time off rule, than to increase doses since we KNOW that using higher and higer doses is not the most efficient way to spark more growth. Using too many steroids too quickly can be quietly dangerous. Yes, quietly dangerous--can cause damage slowly, without obvious initial symptoms, for example, to the heart.

Do not fall into the habbit of believing that more is better. You should try to find ways to use as few steroids as possible while optimizing your growth through nutrition, rest, and diet before increasing doses.

Original post follows:

I've been doing a lot of reading on the internet about steroids, outside the normal AS boards. Here's an article that goes against what I've generally found. But, it is supposedly a legit study from the University of Maryland.

Before you go crazy and before any of you decide that you must continuously raise your doses, please SLOW DOWN and really pay attention to what this article implies (between the lines).

Please note the following before reading this article:

1. This article seems to suggest that during ONE long cycle (lasting more than 2 months), it is necessary to raise your doses (perhaps every 2 months) in order to continue to grow, else your body quickly adapts to the dose in an attempt to maintain homeostasis. Again this applies to ONE continuous cycle--with no breaks between.

2. This article DOES NOT imply that on each consecutive cycle one must raise his/her dose. If a person takes time off between cycles, his/her body will regain a balance (homeostasis) at a lower hormone/steroidal level than when on cycle, which will allow it to still grow on similar doses when a new cycle is started.

3. This article does explain why bodybuilders who STAY ON STEROIDS YEAR ROUND WITHOUT TIME OFF must take larger doses--eventually mega doses.

4. This article DOES NOT imply that those who take breaks between cycles (time on = time off) must raise their dose in consecutive cycles.

It truly pains me to post this article, because I know there will be a section of people who will misinterpret this. But, since there has been a lot of discussion about long cycles here, I thought it was important to print this so we can discuss it here.

I really hope you take time to understand the 4 points above before reading this article, else terrible misunderstandings may occur.

The article is posted below in my next post:

[BASK8KACE]

Do Steroids Work?
written by Trent Tschirgi, R. Ph., University of Maryland Office of Substance Abuse Studies.


Do steroids cause muscle and body growth? There is no evidence that ultra-high doses of steroids alone will cause muscle growth through a chemical effect. In many animal species, high doses of anabolic steroids produce no more muscle growth than the normal dose would.(1,2) However, there is evidence that steroids enhance muscle growth if taken along with rigorous physical training and a high protein diet.(3-5) This exercise program must be in place before and during anabolic steroid administration.(4,6)

Anabolic steroids act on the balance between anabolic and catabolic processes within the body. Anabolism is the constructive process by which simple substances are converted to more complex compounds, such as bone and muscle tissue. Catabolism is the corresponding destructive process which breaks down these complex compounds for removal from the body. The normal body will attempt to maintain a balance between these two processes as they carry out tissue renewal and replacement.(7)

The state of anabolism and catabolism may be measured by evaluating the body's nitrogen balance. As Stedman's Medical Dictionary puts it: [Nitrogen balance is] the difference between total nitrogen ingested and the total nitrogen excreted by an organism. In an adult, presumably not growing, this should be zero at a given intake or above.(8) Anabolic steroids reverse the catabolic effect by increasing protein synthesis in skeletal muscle.(4,7) They are believed to diffuse into the cellular cytosol and bind to the androgen receptor. The newly formed receptor-steroid complex migrates to the nucleus, interacts with the DNA and initiates transcription. The production of RNA is then increased, causing an increased rate of protein synthesis. In this way, the use of these agents increases muscle size and strength.(7,9)

In order for the athlete to accumulate extra muscle mass, his or her body must temporarily be in a state of positive nitrogen balance: More nitrogen (as muscle mass) must come into the body than is lost. During strenuous exercise, the release of glucocorticosteroids throws the body into a negative nitrogen balance. After exercise, the body experiences a temporary state of positive nitrogen balance, during which new proteins are added to muscle tissue. Unless there is further exercise, the nitrogen balance returns to zero.

Without the use of anabolic steroids, muscle mass is built up very slowly after long periods of rigorous training. Anabolic steroids can reverse the short-term catabolic effect, leading to positive nitrogen balance and faster gains in muscle mass. However, maintenance of a positive nitrogen balance is short lived (1 - 2 months) unless the steroid dose is continually increased. Rapid tolerance (tachyphylaxis) to steroids occurs in muscle tissue as the body attempts to maintain homeostasis.(9)

One homeostatic mechanism may be a rise in serum cortisol during steroid treatment. This may counteract the anabolic effect while potentiating the catabolic.(9) The risk of serious side effects is increased as the athlete takes higher and higher doses of anabolics to maintain a positive nitrogen balance.

There is some evidence that anabolic steroids cause the athlete to feel like working out more often and more vigorously.(5) This psychological effect may be more important than any direct chemical effect.(5) Frequent and more vigorous workouts may be a reason for the increased incidence of connective tissue injuries associated with steroid abuse .(10)

REFERENCES:

1. Wilson JD. Androgen abuse by athletes. Endocrine Reviews 1988;9(2):181-99.

2. Strauss RH. Anabolic steroids. In: ed. Drugs and Performance in Sports. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1987:5, 59-67.

3. Wagner JC. Abuse of drugs used to enhance athletic performance. American Journal Of Hospital Pharmacy 1989 Oct;46:2059-67.

4. Kibble MW, Ross MB. Adverse effects of anabolic steroids in athletes. Clinical Pharmacy 1987 Sep;6:686-92.

5. Kleiner SM. Performance-enhancing aids in sport - health consequences and nutritional alternatives. J Amer Coll Nutr 1991 Apr;10(2):163-76.

6. Daigle RD. Anabolic steroids. J Psychoactive Drugs 1990 Jan- Mar;22(1):77-80.

7. Smith DA, Perry PJ. The efficacy of ergogenic agents in athletic competition. part 1: androgenic -anabolic steroids. Annals Pharmacother 1992 Apr;26:520-8.

8. Stedman TL. Stedman's Medical Dictionary. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1976.

9. Windsor R, Dumitru D. Prevalence of anabolic steroid use by male and female adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exercise 1989 Oct;21(5):494-7.

10. Yesalis CE, Wright JE, Bahrke MS. Epidemiological and policy issues in the measurement of the long term health effects of anabolic-androgenic steroids. Sports Medicine 1989 Sep;8(3):129-38.

Return to Nutrition and Weightlifting Page



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Rookiejay]

.......................
.......... During strenuous exercise, the release of glucocorticosteroids throws the body into a negative nitrogen balance. After exercise, the body experiences a temporary state of positive nitrogen balance, during which new proteins are added to muscle tissue. Unless there is further exercise, the nitrogen balance returns to zero...........

I know it's a bit off topic, but....
That means a less strenuous exercise will not throw the body into a negative nitrogen balance.

Does that mean a strenuous exercise will temporaraly reduce muscle tissue?

Does it have to get into negative in order to get in the positive (which adds muscle tissue?

This is pretty interesting.... any thoughts?

[sublang]

Great read Bask8kace. You always come up with good research material.

[the dent depot]

Very good read...thank you!

D

[talon]

I can see how some of this is true, from what Ive studied a pos. nitro balance has to be achieved for anabolism. Steroids do bind to the andro. receptor causing a faster and more powerful translation and transcription process (DNA-tRNA-mRNA-RNA-AA syntesis-protein synthesis). This will cause an influx of amino acids, which yes all fight for certain carriers, but give more to grow on. I think "gear" will also cause a faster more violent synapse, activating actin more aggressively and shifting myosin harder, for a stronger contraction. It also volumizes the intra-muscular cell better, resulting in a better blood flow..aka. "the pump". But, I have one question on this article. It says that even one long cycle of "gear" you have to continually increase your dose to grow. Well, what if you stop after the first cycle, say 10 wk cycle, will your body continue to grow at its regular, "natural" pace? What Im saying is will gear stop you from growing, after your off, at the pace like you were before you were on?

[arby]

Very interesting. Anyone have an opinion on this? I know I'm certainly not qualified to evaluate the study.

RB

[Tuggy]

Excellent material, thanks for the post.

[Carlos_E]

Great read. Bump

[talon]

I can see how some of this is true, from what Ive studied a pos. nitro balance has to be achieved for anabolism. Steroids do bind to the andro. receptor causing a faster and more powerful translation and transcription process (DNA-tRNA-mRNA-RNA-AA syntesis-protein synthesis). This will cause an influx of amino acids, which yes all fight for certain carriers, but give more to grow on. I think "gear" will also cause a faster more violent synapse, activating actin more aggressively and shifting myosin harder, for a stronger contraction. It also volumizes the intra-muscular cell better, resulting in a better blood flow..aka. "the pump". But, I have one question on this article. It says that even one long cycle of "gear" you have to continually increase your dose to grow. Well, what if you stop after the first cycle, say 10 wk cycle, will your body continue to grow at its regular, "natural" pace? What Im saying is will gear stop you from growing, after your off, at the pace like you were before you were on?

Did anyone have an answer for those last questions? Thanks.

[RC_0891]

Did anyone have an answer for those last questions? Thanks.

I am also curious bump

[Rookiejay]

Did anyone have an answer for those last questions? Thanks.

I’m just speculating and my answer is no, you will not grow.
Here's why.

Let's assume you train naturally and reach a certain point of max and lets call it point A

You use AS and with extra test in your system you go (artificially) beyond your max. (now you moved from point A to point B)

After the cycle your natural test level and capacity are back to point A, while you are already at point B.

You can maintain to stay at point B, however, moving from point B to point C, while your natural capacity maxed out at point A - seems impossible.


Did I explained it clear enough? Can you see the logic?


Jay

PS I'd still like to hear an opinion on Nitrogen - does it have to go negative first?

[BUYLONGTERM]

BASK8KACE great read bro!!!!!

[Carlos_E]

I’m just speculating and my answer is no, you will not grow.
Here's why.

Let's assume you train naturally and reach a certain point of max and lets call it point A

You use AS and with extra test in your system you go (artificially) beyond your max. (now you moved from point A to point B)

After the cycle your natural test level and capacity are back to point A, while you are already at point B.

You can maintain to stay at point B, however, moving from point B to point C, while your natural capacity maxed out at point A - seems impossible.


Did I explained it clear enough? Can you see the logic?


Jay

PS I'd still like to hear an opinion on Nitrogen - does it have to go negative first?

That wasn't the case for me. After my first cycle I lost 7 pounds then gained 15 naturally. So that means I moved past point B with my natural test levels at point A.

[slobberknocker]

I wonder if it's important to raise doses every 2 months or so, or if all you need is a "change." Something different. Most people, including me, that stay on longterm keep a base of test, and then cycle in other compounds, basically doing a different cycle every 2-3 months. Ex:


1-12...Test...1 gram/wk
1-12...Fina...100 mgs/ed
1-8....Dbol ...50 mgs/ed

Then...

13-24...Test...1 gram/wk
13-24...Eq......800 mgs/wk
13-20...winny..50 mgs/ed

Etc...

[Rookiejay]

That wasn't the case for me. After my first cycle I lost 7 pounds then gained 15 naturally. So that means I moved past point B with my natural test levels at point A.

That's a good point - but that implies your natural capacity is high and you didn't reach your max before you went on your first cycle.

Think about it - if you got better results on your natural 80mg/ week test than artificial AS of 500mg/ week - it only means you didn't utilize your full capacity.

Now, having said that - if, however, the same happens after cycle 2 or 3 - (which implies you reached your max) - then my theory doesn't stand. --- but this would imply that one can grow naturally better than using AS - which I don't think is true.


Any thoughts?

PS Carlos, I've seen your pics -- your natural capacity is WAY WAY WAY above average - I'd sell my sole to get a physique like yours

[Rookiejay]

I wonder if it's important to raise doses every 2 months or so, or if all you need is a "change." Something different. Most people, including me, that stay on longterm keep a base of test, and then cycle in other compounds, basically doing a different cycle every 2-3 months. Ex:


1-12...Test...1 gram/wk
1-12...Fina...100 mgs/ed
1-8....Dbol ...50 mgs/ed

Then...

13-24...Test...1 gram/wk
13-24...Eq......800 mgs/wk
13-20...winny..50 mgs/ed

Etc...

That's a very good question.

So, from this article we know, that if you stay longer - to make it effective you'll have to raise the dosages. However, if you stay long, but use different AS, which affect the reseptors differently - is there a need to increase the dosages?

That's a bump for responses....

[BASK8KACE]

That's a very good question.

So, from this article we know, that if you stay longer - to make it effective you'll have to raise the dosages. However, if you stay long, but use different AS, which affect the reseptors differently - is there a need to increase the dosages?

That's a bump for responses....

I'm guessing that if you change to a different steroid , you don't need higher doses. Remember, the reason for having to raise doses is because the body reaches an equilibrium (homeostasis). If you change AS, you're throwing it off balance again--if the compounds act in a different way. However, I doubt that switching from Cyp to enan will be effective without raising the dose on a continuous cycle.

[BASK8KACE]

PS Carlos, I've seen your pics -- your natural capacity is WAY WAY WAY above average - I'd sell my sole to get a physique like yours

Carlos is in a different class--he's an athlete in a sport (gymastics) which essentially forces you to have an amazing body.

I do not believe there is any other sport like gymnastics that forces every part of your body to grow thick, dense, strong muscle mearly by performing the task.

A guy can play football, soccer or just about any other sport for years without growing if they never go into a gym. You cannot do that with gymnastics.

I bet if Carlos posted pics of himself from several years ago, you'd see that he probably looked just as amazing back then. His body has proably learned to grow and adapt.

He's a great example of what a body can do when put under stress.

[slobberknocker]

I do think that eventually though, you will reach a point where you have to increase the dosages on everything, just from the amount of mass that you will have put on.

[Testify]

Great article Bask8kace - thanks for the info.

Can anyone give me directions to point C?

T

[Rookiejay]

I'm guessing that if you change to a different steroid, you don't need higher doses. Remember, the reason for having to raise doses is because the body reaches an equilibrium (homeostasis). If you change AS, you're throwing it off balance again--if the compounds act in a different way. However, I doubt that switching from Cyp to enan will be effective without raising the dose on a continuous cycle.

Well, we've learned something today:

staying long on same AS without a break - reduces their effect on your system.

I guess, taking a break from them is a good thing.

If you decide to stay on a very long cycle, you'll have to either increase dosages (think of increased chances of SE) or, change AS (but, not different type of the same AS - like, Test E or Test Cyp = affect the receptors the same way, thus, are the same AS)

What else..... Did I miss anything???
oh.....
We've also confirmed that Carlos is the king.......

[talon]

True, true, true....Good explanation Rookie Jay, I can definantly see where you are coming from with you theory. But, according to Univ. study the average male can put on up to 4 pounds of muscle for every 100 lbs of body weight. So, a 200 lb man should be able to put on 8 lbs of muscle mass in a year, naturally. Steriods are said to have a "doubling effect", meaning this same 200lb man with the introduction of steriods in to his body, superficially speaking, should be able to put on 16 lbs of muscle mass in a year. Im still wondering if you did do ONE cycle stopped then resumed naturally for lets say a year if one would continue on that 8lbs, natural road to muscle anabolism.

[slobberknocker]

"Im still wondering if you did do ONE cycle stopped then resumed naturally for lets say a year if one would continue on that 8lbs, natural road to muscle anabolism."


Natural gains will slow and eventually stop as the genetic limit is approached and met. For any further growth, you need anabolics.

[talon]

"Im still wondering if you did do ONE cycle stopped then resumed naturally for lets say a year if one would continue on that 8lbs, natural road to muscle anabolism."


Natural gains will slow and eventually stop as the genetic limit is approached and met. For any further growth, you need anabolics.

But what Im saying is if the genetic limit isnt met, will you continue to go on the same pace, naturally, as you were before the cycle?

[Rookiejay]

[QUOTE=talon]True, true, true....Good explanation Rookie Jay, I can definantly see where you are coming from with you theory. But, according to Univ. study the average male can put on up to 4 pounds of muscle for every 100 lbs of body weight. So, a 200 lb man should be able to put on 8 lbs of muscle mass in a year, naturally. Steriods are said to have a "doubling effect", meaning this same 200lb man with the introduction of steriods in to his body, superficially speaking, should be able to put on 16 lbs of muscle mass in a year. Im still wondering if you did do ONE cycle stopped then resumed naturally for lets say a year if one would continue on that 8lbs, natural road to muscle anabolism.[/QUOTE

The effect is a little bit tricky - otherwise, people would be able to grow forever with no limits -- what's missing is your natural levels used not just to gain mass, but to maintain it.

in your example, a 200 lb man can gain 8 lbs or more a year till he reaches the point where he doesn't have enough natural Test to maintain and replenish the existing tissues - he may be gaining new ones, but losing the existing at the same time ---- that's the point of your natural max. (which is the premise of the theory)

Don't get me wrong - he can still grow, because his maintenance base shifts up (from 200lb to 200+lb) as his body adapts to new weight.


Now, let's assume this 200lb man takes AS - his test level goes from under 100mg/week to 500mg/week - and he grows to 240 lb.

Does that mean if he trains naturally he will gain even more after the cycle --- chances are = NO - cause his natural level is adapted to support only his base of 200lb++ (however, the base does go up)

[slobberknocker]

"But what Im saying is if the genetic limit isnt met, will you continue to go on the same pace, naturally, as you were before the cycle?"


I don't think so, but not because of the steroids . I think gains would be slower simply because you'd have more muscle and you'd be closer to your genetic limit. Gains would still come, but they'd be slower.

BTW, I don't know where they're getting this "8 lbs of muscle per year" story. I'd like to see the studies they did to arrive at that conclusion.

[talon]

Ya I see Grasshopper......

[BASK8KACE]

I've seen references to this thread in other threads used as a reason for increasing doses higher and higher during long cycles. It was not the intention of this post to encourage long cycles during which doses are constantly increased.

It is better to switch the compounds during a long cycle OR to use the time on = time off rule, than to increase doses since we KNOW that using higher and higer doses is not the most efficient way to spark more growth. Using too many steroids too quickly can be quietly dangerous. Yes, quietly dangerous--can cause damage slowly, without obvious initial symptoms, for example, to the heart.

Do not fall into the habbit of believing that more is better. You should try to find ways to use as few steroids as possible while optimizing your growth through nutrition, rest, and diet before increasing doses.

[markas214]

True, true, true....Good explanation Rookie Jay, I can definantly see where you are coming from with you theory. But, according to Univ. study the average male can put on up to 4 pounds of muscle for every 100 lbs of body weight. So, a 200 lb man should be able to put on 8 lbs of muscle mass in a year, naturally. Steriods are said to have a "doubling effect", meaning this same 200lb man with the introduction of steriods in to his body, superficially speaking, should be able to put on 16 lbs of muscle mass in a year. Im still wondering if you did do ONE cycle stopped then resumed naturally for lets say a year if one would continue on that 8lbs, natural road to muscle anabolism.

My anecdotal expeience says yes. I did a little dbol cycle at age 23 and gained 12 lbs. Over the next ten years I continued to improve natually at my previous level. I do believe that if I stayed on my gains over that ten years would have been substantially greater though. That's the thing about bodybuilding, improvements are measured year to year rether than month to month, juiced or clean.

[johnsomebody]

Maybe I'm missing something but this article seems to prove what everyone assumes about a cycle anyway -that you need to quit after 10-12 weeks since you will no longer see much by way of gains if you continue to stay on. You could ratchet up the amount of gear at that point and go weeks longer and make more gains but then you have to deal with a longer recuperation time and the possiblity of a bigger crash when coming off.

[BASK8KACE]

Bump for BGH to find.

[Drummerboy]

great read!!

[Ntpadude]

I am finding the opposite is true. Growing better on a new simple 500 mg wk only cycle now, and this is my 4th cycle and follows after 2 months off following a 31 month long cycle... getting all new gains above and beyond before and doing extremely well. I think its all BS about needing more and more and more doses... all you really need is just to be "on" and make adjustments to diet and workout routine and the growth comes like crazy.

I also adjusted workout routine for fabulous results. Used to workout 15 reps to exhaustion, now I increased weights to find exhaustion at 6 to 8 reps and man this is working for me really GREAT!

[BASK8KACE]

I am finding the opposite is true. Growing better on a new simple 500 mg wk only cycle now, and this is my 4th cycle and follows after 2 months off following a 31 month long cycle... getting all new gains above and beyond before and doing extremely well. I think its all BS about needing more and more and more doses... all you really need is just to be "on" and make adjustments to diet and workout routine and the growth comes like crazy.

I also adjusted workout routine for fabulous results. Used to workout 15 reps to exhaustion, now I increased weights to find exhaustion at 6 to 8 reps and man this is working for me really GREAT!

I'm glad you stated that, Ntpadude.

I was hesitant to post this study for fear people would misinterpret it. Doses can get out of hand depending on how a person approaches cycling.

Long low to moderate dose cycles seem the most reasonable approach. However, lipids and red blood cell count (among other things) need to be closesly monitored if one is staying off AAS only short periods of time between cycles.

[Pork Chop]

The Univeristy of Pork Chop has being preaching this all along.

I did learn some detail about hemetosis(sp) from the thread. Good post.

[BASK8KACE]

I did learn some detail about hemetosis(sp) from the thread. Good post.

Thanks, Pork Chop.

Do you mean homeostasis?

Have you been preaching increasing doses on consecutive cycles or increasing doses during one long cycle? There's a huge difference. The latter is obviously what this article is about.

[Pork Chop]

Thanks, Pork Chop.

Do you mean homeostasis?

Have you been preaching increasing doses on consecutive cycles or increasing doses during one long cycle? There's a huge difference. The latter is obviously what this article is about.

increasing during the one long cycle.
i usually got flamed down with "keeping plasma levels from varying" and it was a bad idea to ramp the dose.

You have to ramp to continue seeing gains, otherwise like the article says, after a few weeks or couple months, your building cycle degenerates into a maintenance cycle.

[DEVLDOG]

there will NEVER be a controled study of a REAL LIFE CYCLE,so we can read all the studies of low doses and "long cycles"(2 months is not a long cycle).but if you ever have the oppertunity to know a Pro or National level BB.then you will know the true story.I have had the good fortune of knowing personally a BB who back in the 90's competed and placed in the top 10 of the Olympia,and i have 2 close friends(one of which was in my wedding)who are National competators.the truth is that while low dose and short cycles will get you some results along with proper training and diet.you will never look like the BB you aspire to be unless you open your mind up to the reality of it.and that is long term and high dose steroid use ...notice i didnt use the word cycle,as that would mean that you discontinue and resume...that dont happen..believe what you want and take from this what you want.but experience is the best teacher.Goodluck to everyone

[clockworks]

there will NEVER be a controled study of a REAL LIFE CYCLE,so we can read all the studies of low doses and "long cycles"(2 months is not a long cycle).but if you ever have the oppertunity to know a Pro or National level BB.then you will know the true story.I have had the good fortune of knowing personally a BB who back in the 90's competed and placed in the top 10 of the Olympia,and i have 2 close friends(one of which was in my wedding)who are National competators.the truth is that while low dose and short cycles will get you some results along with proper training and diet.you will never look like the BB you aspire to be unless you open your mind up to the reality of it.and that is long term and high dose steroid use...notice i didnt use the word cycle,as that would mean that you discontinue and resume...that dont happen..believe what you want and take from this what you want.but experience is the best teacher.Goodluck to everyone

As much as I wished it wasn't true, I have to agree with this post...=/