As usual I agree with MS. Sup man?
But here are some more specifics.
So here are just a couple number points to get the discussion started:
1. Cardio. I have heard on several board, and internet articles, that doing cardiovascular exercise helps keep the inner chamber of the left ventricle open and wide, and that this process is actually improved by AAS. At the same time if no cardio is done, and the chamber gets thicker, the internal chamber is then smaller, and now the bigger thicker heart has to do more work. So from that what I get is that AAS + cardio = better than average heart, having to do less work, while AAS w/o cardio = worse than average heart. Anyone here know how this works in detail?
Although your logic is sound, the reasoning is flawed. Does that make sense? Let me cite an example: one could logically surmise that since it takes a cake 30 minutes to bake at 350 degrees that, it would only take 15 minutes (half the time) at 700 degrees (twice the temp), the end result of course being a very burned cake…thus exposing the flawed reasoning within the proper logic. Similarly, you first erroneously presume that cardio alone (without stating an amount or frequency mind you) is responsible for sustaining ventricle openness/access, a condition that is characteristic of numerous other variables, such as genetics, excessive fat and/or protein intake, poor general dietary habits, sedentary or inactive lifestyles, etc. etc. This is clearly evidenced by the multitudes of people who don’t workout, yet fail to contract the disease, as well as the inverse which is also true. Secondly, you assert that “AAS + cardio = better than average heart”, but this again is without either quantifiers (how much AAS, how frequently, for what duration), or qualifiers (the types and/or stacks that allegedly promote said benefits) both of which are major variables when discussing such complex physiological processes and anatomical changes within the heart.
2. Oral Steroids in General being far worse for lipid values than injectable varieties. That and also drastically increasing blood pressure. So, for those of us who do not plan to compete, but just cycle, or cruise and blast, perhaps we could limit the use of orals?
Silver is right here, in that you espouse one thing to be far worse than another when in actuality it isn’t. Firstly, although orals do more significantly alter lipids than injectables, we must again quant- and qual- ify this. If you recall Orals 101, those that more qualifably impact lipid panel results are generally offset by shorter cycle durations, e.g. run Var throughout, but Winny for only 6-8wks and Dbol even less at 4 wks; which are also be controlled by quantifiably with lower dosing, e.g. 40-100mgs of Var, but only 10-30mgs (unless you’re experienced) of Dbol. Secondly, bp is generally-speaking only moderately affected and again for only a relatively short period of time. So it’s not a limitation in the usage of orals that is needed, but rather an informed understanding of the types of orals being used, and the rightful administration (dose, frequency, duration) of said orals.
3. The overuse of Aromitase suppressants? From what I understand Estradiol helps keep the HDL cholesterol up, and that may be just more fuel to the argument against the overuse of Estradiol lowering drugs? I see a Urologist regularly, for HRT, and claims that so long as I am not getting intolerable gyno, and that my sex drive is good, that slightly elevated E2 helps prevent plaque from building up in my arteries due to the slightly elevated testosterone and DHT. He also claims that Estradiol primes receptor sites for the testosterone molecule.
Common sense dictates that nothing should be overused. And although not well versed in the rest of your declaration, I’ll defer to the doctor unless a more knowledgeable member chooses to debate his position with some sound research.
4. Limited dose for cruising? Is there a top end that someone on HRT can stay on, without gradually getting cradi*****lly? I have been thinking that 100mg EW for Test is actually more testosterone than most healthy adult men make in a week. Dose varies as far as blood level in most men, but at the same time some averages can be made. From most guys I have talked to, who only are scripted for 100mg EW, their blood levels are always top of the range, just above or bellow, but usually within 10% of the level of an 18 year old. Except in the case of the cruiser this should be even more anabolic, as the level does not go up and down throughout the day, it is always high. So, for those who like to use on the long term, and those over 40 who are on HRT, is there a dose where the bennefits are outwieghed by the risks?
HRT/TRT doses are typically contingent upon the patient’s baseline levels, so “yes” there will be individual variance, however as the goal is raise said levels there is also a standard which it is right around the aforementioned 100mgs EW (give or take). The benefits naturally outweigh the risks (which are virtually nil), hence the efficacy of the therapy. And that goes for both the patients and the cruisers.
Or pehpas a blood level not safe to stay over?
Both therapy and cruising levels have been time-tested and proven safe, so no worries there.
Can the human body accept supra-physiologic levels of chemical messages long term?
The body will accept whatever levels it incurs, because it simply adapts to the increase via the NFL or Negative Feedback Loop (an internal monitoring system that reports to the brain which then adjust accordingly). Too much signals endocrine decrease, and way too much shut down, neither of which is a concern during therapy which is dose-designed to restore functioning in those young enough to benefit, and to indefinitely supplement, complement & support natty output in those too old for restoration but desirous of more youthful levels. So acceptance is not really the question for the bb’er but more so recovery, which is a product of proper cycling protocols. For example, the great Jose Canseco, was recently (well Oct. ’08) featured in an A & E piece - http://www.aetv.com/listings/episode...isodeid=369154 in which he was suffering from excessively low test levels which caused the requisite side effects (for him) impotence, lethargy, violent mood swings, and a general detachment and disassociation from loved ones. His physician appropriately placed him on a transdermal patch, with no results; then increased the dosage and got only minimal results. The doc should have tried HCG at moderate to high levels, which Jose went to Mexico to purchase, and unsuccessfully smuggle back at the end program. The problem with the slugger was that although his steroid usage was wildly successful, transforming him from an average minor leaguer, into THE most popular major leaguer (at one time), wasn’t his use it but his abuse by virtue of ignorance. You see Jose, although he understood dosage and frequency, was unaware of duration. Consequently, he virtually used this stuff for 25yrs without ever EFFECTIVELY cycling off for appropriate periods, the result of which is a severely (very hard to recover from) shut down system. Personally, I doubt it’s permanent, again because the body is extremely adaptive and largely responsive to counterbalances, but he’ll need lots of therapy and knowledgeable support, unlike the doc in the program.
5. RegularBlood letting. Even for the cruising guys, due to the consistent high level of testosterone, it is easily conceivable that overly high RBC is also causing problems, or increases the risks of clotting. I can only imagine that for cyclers going on clomid with an overly high RBC would increase clotting risk, and vision issues. Should we consider donating blood every 60 days while cruising, or just after any cycle, one the “stuff” is cleared?
Just as steroids have differing properties they also have varying side effects. Complicating issues is the individualistic nature of each users’ body. Thus, no one can DEFINITIVELY say that something will cause elevated RBCs within a given person, so rather than just believing this to be the case, tests should be run. Now, if that is the case, then “yes”, donating blood, using leeches, or having an extremely nagging girlfriend will effectively reduce the RBC count.
I am not claiming any of this as gospel truth, any of it could be wrong or right, but if anyone has more info to give on any of those points, or add another please chime in.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by MuscleScience
