Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Receptor burnout?

  1. #1

    Receptor burnout?

    So I've been using various things for the last three years. Longest time I ever took off was six months. First thing I ever used was Sustanon.

    I just haven't been getting as dramatic of an effect lately and someone suggested my receptors may be burned out and what I need to do is take 30 days off everything and run a course of arimidex. But then my coach told me there's no way your receptors can be damaged after only three years.

    So...what do you think? How long does it take someone to "clear out" and does it happen faster for females? I guess, having never had any blood work done, I wouldn't know when I was "normal."

  2. #2
    dec11's Avatar
    dec11 is offline 'everything louder than everything else'
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    *no sources i wont reply*
    Posts
    14,140
    receptors wont 'burn out'

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    6,809
    there are many factors that may limit the amounts of gains from each cycle. for a novice, the most common factors must be poor diet and/or poor training. judging by your avatar, i assume you're a professional, which means your most likely limiting factor is that you've already reached your genetic potential. gains will usually be less dramatic with each cycle, and you may even lose those gains when you cycle off.

    as for the receptors and mediators at microscopic levels, although extensively studied, i don't think even scientists can confidently claim they have already discovered and understood every single thing that's happening in our body.

  4. #4
    That pic is 18 months old; I'm a little bigger and more cut up now. Gotta wait for more contest pics because I suck at taking my own.

    Hoping I don't need GH...seems a bit soon. But maybe my days of being able to get big on one vial of test are over now.

    I'm not a professional, just compete at the local level and that's all I want to do. Have no desire to turn pro; just want to look like one. I suppose it would be neat to do one national show someday but I have no intention of making this a career.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    3,024
    I for one like your avatar picture.


    I get blood work done. Knowing whats going on inside your body is way more important then the outside imo.
    Last edited by t-dogg; 09-05-2012 at 09:12 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jorgia
    Posts
    3,353
    Quote Originally Posted by t-dogg View Post
    I for one like your avatar picture.


    I get blood work done. Knowing whats going on inside your body is way more important then the outside imo.
    I second that!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    73
    So you guys dont think receptor burn outs exist? I am pretty sure thats one of the reasons why ppl blast/cruise.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    GTA, Canada
    Posts
    6,121
    Receptor downregulation or 'burn out' is not true what so ever. The exact OPPOSITE happens when you use anabolic steroids. I just posted this in another thread:


    In a few studies I saw, it was noted that the number of androgen receptors actually INCREASED in response to supraphysiological doses of anabolicsteroids being administered to test subjects. So, with that knowledge out there, it is very well possible that this idea of intense training reducing the number of receptors in muscle cells may be negated in the environment of someone taking exogenous AAS at supraphysiological levels.

    Read this:

    Taking issue with the idea of androgen receptor down-regulation.
    By Bryan Haycock MS.

    There is as much misinformation about steroids as there is good information had among bodybuilding enthusiasts. Go to any gym and you will hear some kid spouting off to his buddies about how steroids do this, or how they do that, or whatever. This soon starts somewhat of a pissing contest (excuse the expression) as to who knows more about steroids. It's the same kind of titillating and infectious banter that adolescent boys get into about girls and sex. With steroid banter you hear all the popular terms like Deca , Test, GH, gyno , zits, raisins, "h-u-u-u-ge", roid, freak, monster, roid-rage, "I knew this guy once", etc., etc.. If by some rare chance they are smart and have been reading this or some other high quality bodybuilding site on the net, they may actually get a few details right. More often than not they know just enough to be dangerous. Fortunately steroids haven't proven to be all that dangerous. Not only that, but most of these guys who are infatuated with steroids won't ever use or even see them except in magazines.

    This kind of ego driven gym talk doesn't really bother me until they begin giving advice to other clueless people who actually have access to them. Spewing out steroid lingo gives other less experienced kids the impression that these kids actually know what they are talking about. That's how all of the psuedo-science folklore about steroids perpetuates. This is also why most people who actually use steroids know little about them. This last fact should bother anyone who cares about bodybuilding and/or bodybuilders.

    I started out with this article planning on giving some textbook style explanation as to why using steroids doesn't down regulate androgen receptors (AR). Then after considering some of my critics views that I tend to write articles that hardly anyone can read, I decided to write an easy to read, yet informative explanation about what androgens actually do and how this precludes androgen receptor down regulation. I still have a few references but not so many that it looks like a review paper.

    Androgen receptors down-regulate….Don't they?
    One misunderstood principle of steroid physiology is the concept of androgen receptors (AR), sometimes called "steroid receptors", and the effects of steroid use on their regulation. It is commonly believed that taking androgens for extended periods of time will lead to what is called AR "down regulation". The premise for this argument is; when using steroids during an extended cycle , you eventually stop growing even though the dose has not decreased. This belief has persisted despite the fact that there is no scientific evidence to date that shows that increased levels of androgens down regulates the androgen receptor in muscle tissue.

    The argument for AR down-regulation sounds pretty straightforward on the surface. After all, we know that receptor down-regulation happens with other messenger-mediated systems in the body such as adrenergic receptors. It has been shown that when taking a beta agonist such as Clenbuterol , the number of beta-receptors on target cells begins to decrease. (This is due to a decrease in the half-life of receptor proteins without a decrease in the rate that the cell is making new receptors.) This leads to a decrease in the potency of a given dose. Subsequently, with fewer receptors you get a smaller, or diminished, physiological response. This is a natural way for your body to maintain equilibrium in the face of an unusually high level of beta-agonism.

    In reality this example using Clenbuterol is not an appropriate one. Androgen receptors and adrenergic receptors are quite different. Nevertheless, this is the argument for androgen receptor down-regulation and the reasoning behind it. The differences in the regulation of ARs and adrenergic receptors in part show the error in the view that AR down-regulate when you take steroids . Where adrenergic receptor half-life is decreased in most target cells with increased catecholamines, AR receptors half-live's are actually increased in many tissues in the presence of androgens.1

    Let me present a different argument against AR down-regulation in muscle tissue. I feel that once you consider all of the effects of testosterone on muscle cells you come to realize that when you eventually stop growing (or grow more slowly) it is not because there is a reduction in the number of androgen receptors.

    Testosterone : A multifaceted anabolic
    Consider the question, "How do anabolic steroids produce muscle growth?" If you were to ask the average bodybuilding enthusiast I think you would hear, "steroids increase protein synthesis." This is true, however there is more to it than simple increases in protein synthesis. In fact, the answer to the question of how steroids work must include virtually every mechanism involved in skeletal muscle hypertrophy. These mechanisms include:

    Enhanced protein synthesis

    Enhanced protein synthesis

    Enhanced growth factor activity (e.g. GH, IGF -1, etc.)

    Enhanced activation of myogenic stem cells (i.e. satellite cells)

    Enhanced myonuclear number (to maintain nuclear to cytoplasmic ratio)

    New myofiber formation

    Starting with enhanced growth factor activity, we know that testosterone increases GH and IGF-1 levels. In a study by Fryburg the effects of testosterone and stanozolol were compared for their effects on stimulating GH release.2 Testosterone enanthate (only 3 mg per kg per week) increased GH levels by 22% and IGF-1 levels by 21% whereas oral stanozolol (0.1mg per kg per day) had no effect whatsoever on GH or IGF-1 levels. This study was only 2-3 weeks long, and although stanozolol did not effect GH or IGF-1 levels, it had a similar effect on urinary nitrogen levels.

    What does this difference in the effects of testosterone and stanozolol mean? It means that stanozolol may increase protein synthesis by binding to AR receptors in existing myonuclei, however, because it does not increase growth factor levels it is much less effective at activating satellite cells and therefore may not increase satellite cell activity nor myonuclear number directly when compared to testosterone esters. I will explain the importance of increasing myonuclear number in a moment, first lets look at how increases in GH and IGF-1 subsequent to testosterone use effects satellite cells.

    Don't forget Satellite cells!
    Satellite cells are myogenic stem cells, or pre-muscle cells, that serve to assist regeneration of adult skeletal muscle. Following proliferation (reproduction) and subsequent differentiation (to become a specific type of cell), satellite cells will fuse with one another or with the adjacent damaged muscle fiber, thereby increasing the number of myonuclei for fiber growth and repair. Proliferation of satellite cells is necessary in order to meet the needs of thousands of muscle cells all potentially requiring additional nuclei. Differentiation is necessary in order for the new nucleus to behave as a nucleus of muscle origin. The number of myonuclei directly determines the capacity of a muscle cell to manufacture proteins, including androgen receptors.

    In order to better understand what is physically happening between satellite cells and muscle cells, try to picture 2 oil droplets floating on water. The two droplets represent a muscle cell and a satellite cell. Because the lipid bilayer of cells are hydrophobic just like common oil droplets, when brought into proximity to one another in an aqueous environment, they will come into contact for a moment and then fuse together to form one larger oil droplet. Now whatever was dissolved within one droplet (i.e. nuclei) will then mix with the contents of the other droplet. This is a simplified model of how satellite cells donate nuclei, and thus protein-synthesizing capacity, to existing muscle cells.

    Enhanced activation of satellite cells by testosterone requires IGF-1. Those androgens that aromatize are effective at not only increasing IGF-1 levels but also the sensitivity of satellite cells to growth factors.3 This action has no direct effect on protein synthesis, but it does lead to a greater capacity for protein synthesis by increasing fusion of satellite cells to existing fibers. This increases the number of myonuclei and therefore the capacity of the cell to produce proteins. That is why large bodybuilders will benefit significantly more from high levels of androgens compared to a relatively new user.

    Testosterone would be much less effective if it were not able to increase myonucleation. There is finite limit placed on the cytoplasmic/nuclear ratio, or the size of a muscle cell in relation to the number of nuclei it contains.4 Whenever a muscle grows in response to training there is a coordinated increase in the number of myonuclei and the increase in fiber cross sectional area (CSA). When satellite cells are prohibited from donating viable nuclei, overloaded muscle will not grow.5,6 Clearly, satellite cell activity is a required step, or prerequisite, in compensatory muscle hypertrophy, for without it, a muscle simply cannot significantly increase total protein content or CSA.

    More myonuclei mean more receptors
    So it is not only true that testosterone increases protein synthesis by activating genetic expression, it also increases the capacity of the muscle to grow in the future by leading to the accumulation of myonuclei which are required for protein synthesis. There is good reason to believe that testosterone in high enough doses may even encourage new fiber formation. To quote the authors of a recent study on the effects of steroids on muscle cells:

    "Intake of anabolic steroids and strength-training induce an increase in muscle size by both hypertrophy and the formation of new muscle fibers. We propose that activation of satellite cells is a key process and is enhanced by the steroid use."7

    Simply stated, supraphysiological levels of testosterone give rise to increased numbers of myonuclei and thereby an increase in the number of total androgen receptors per muscle fiber. Keep in mind that I am referring to testosterone and testosterone esters. Not the neutered designer androgens that people take to avoid side effects . This is not an argument to rapidly increase the dosages you use. It takes time for these changes to occur and the benefits of higher testosterone levels will not be immediately realized.

    Maintenance of the kind of muscle mass seen in top-level bodybuilders today requires a given level of androgens in the body. That level will vary from individual to individual depending on their genetics. Nevertheless, if the androgen level drops, or if they were to "cycle off" the absolute level of lean mass will also drop. Likewise, as the level of androgens goes up, so will the level of lean mass that individual will be able to maintain. All of this happens without any evidence of AR down regulation. More accurately it demonstrates a relationship between the amount of androgens in the blood stream and the amount of lean mass that you can maintain. This does not mean that all you need is massive doses to get huge. Recruitment of satellite cells and increased myonucleation requires consistent "effective" training, massive amounts of food, and most importantly, time. Start out with reasonable doses. Then, as you get bigger you can adjust your doses upwards.

    References:

    Kemppainen JA, Lane MV, Sar M, Wilson EM. Androgen receptor phosphorylation, turnover, nuclear transport, and transcriptional activation. Specificity for steroids and antihormones. J Biol Chem 1992 Jan 15;267(2):968-74

    Fryburg DA., Weltman A., Jahn LA., et al: Short-term modulation of the androgen milieu alters pulsatile, but not exercise- or growth hormone releasing hormone -stimulated GH secretion in healthy men: Impact of gonadal steroid and GH secretory changes on metabolic outcomes. J Clin Endocrinol. Metab. 82(11):3710-37-19, 1997

    Thompson SH., Boxhorn LK., Kong W., and Allen RE. Trenbolone alters the responsiveness of skeletal muscle satellite cells to fibroblast growth factor and insulin -like growth factor-I. Endocrinology. 124:2110-2117, 1989

    Rosenblatt JD, Yong D, Parry DJ., Satellite cell activity is required for hypertrophy of overloaded adult rat muscle. Muscle Nerve 17:608-613, 1994

    Rosenblatt JD, Parry DJ., Gamma irradiation prevents compensatory hypertrophy of overloaded extensor digitorum longus muscle. J. Appl. Physiol. 73:2538-2543, 1992

    Phelan JN, Gonyea WJ. Effect of radiation on satellite cell activity and protein expression in overloaded mammalian skeletal muscle. Anat. Rec. 247:179-188, 1997

    Kadi F, Eriksson A, Holmner S, Thornell LE. Effects of anabolic steroids on the muscle cells of strength-trained athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999 Nov;31(11):1528-34

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    3,024
    The only thing negative ive ever heard for receptors is they need "cleaned" so to speak, like when using clen.

    Also energy drinks/powders being used non stop will give less effect on you. Stuff like this you should cycle so your body can be stimulated again by them.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    GTA, Canada
    Posts
    6,121
    Quote Originally Posted by t-dogg View Post
    The only thing negative ive ever heard for receptors is they need "cleaned" so to speak, like when using clen.

    Also energy drinks/powders being used non stop will give less effect on you. Stuff like this you should cycle so your body can be stimulated again by them.
    Read the article posted above. There is no such thing as androgen receptor 'downregulation', 'burnout', or the need to 'clean' receptors. All of those propositions sound absolutely absurd in the face of the evidence brought forth by the medical studies cited above that all display total opposite operation regarding how androgen receptors work.

    Now, some people might be wondering still why the effectiveness of anabolic steroids simply decrease and level out over time as well as over the course of a cycle. Well, the reason why we 'cycle' is of course to avoid any long term damage from using supraphysological amounts of AAS. We all already know this. The idea with cycling is to get on, make your gains, and then get off before the body can, for the lack of a better term, 'catch on' to what is going on. With prolonged use of AAS, not only can you encounter permanent health issues, but the effectiveness of the anabolic steroid decreases over time, but NOT because of receptor 'downregulation' or 'saturation' or 'burn out' or whatever quirky whaky name you want to give it. The reason gains diminish over time is for a couple of primary reasons:

    1. It happens because your body has begun secreting and producing hormones and proteins that are antagonistic to the anabolic steroids you are using (this is what I meant, going back to what I said about your body 'catching on'). Hormones and proteins such as: cortisol, myostatin, SHBG, and various other factors all increase the longer you are on a cycle. The only way to prevent this is either to use ancilliaries that will somewhat combat the rise of these antagonistic devices, OR to simply get off cycle and allow the body to 'normalize' itself.

    2. Lets be realistic here. A 5'10" 170lb. male at 10% bodyfat hopping on a cycle is going to obviously be able to slap on a whole lot more amount of muscle mass than a 5'10" 210 lbs. at 10% bodyfat. The latter subject has far more muscle mass on him, and therefore is closer to his genetic limitations than the former subject. The more cycles you do, the more mass you gain, the closer you reach your limit and therefore the slower the gains will come on every subsequent cycle. If you were to build yourself up to 225 lbs. at 10% bodyfat, and lets say you are very close to your genetic limit... and suddenly a life situation strikes and you lose a lot of muscle, leaving you at lets say 180 lbs., if you were to do a cycle to get yourself back up, the gains would then be dramatic again. Muscle growth never really occurs in a linear consistent fashion. If that were the case, we'd all be champion bodybuilders after a handful of cycles.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    3,024
    Ill read it tonight. Im on my phone.



    So you are saying keto is useless when running clen and such? I will read it later. Laptop so i can sit and actually learn lol.


    I hit 800posts! Yeaaaaa lol
    Last edited by t-dogg; 09-05-2012 at 10:13 AM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    GTA, Canada
    Posts
    6,121
    Quote Originally Posted by t-dogg View Post
    Ill read it tonight. Im on my phone.



    So you are saying keto is useless when running clen and such? I will read it later. Laptop so i can sit and actually learn lol.


    I hit 800posts! Yeaaaaa lol
    No, i'm only discussing androgen receptors. They are very different from beta-adrenergic receptors on fat cells.

    Downregulation of beta receptors is totally a reality, and using bendryl and keto to upregulate them does work. The article and references I posted above discusses the difference between clen and beta receptors, and testosterone and androgen receptors. You are talking about two different worlds here, you can't compare androgen receptors to beta-adrenergic receptors. Apples and oranges, my friend.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    6,809
    Whether someone is natty or juiced, after a certain point, further gains will get slower and slower. Receptor saturation or desensitisation is one theory to explain this slowing down. If some articles claim they have dis-prove this theory, then the slowing down may be by another mechanism. But the fact still remains the same, regardless of which mechanism you believe in, the bigger you are, the slower your gains will be. If not by receptor desensitisation, then by some other way. It doesnt really change the end result.

  14. #14
    jimmyinkedup's Avatar
    jimmyinkedup is offline Disappointment* Known SCAMMER - Do Not Trust *
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Scamming my brothers
    Posts
    11,285
    Quote Originally Posted by Atomini View Post
    No, i'm only discussing androgen receptors. They are very different from beta-adrenergic receptors on fat cells.

    Downregulation of beta receptors is totally a reality, and using bendryl and keto to upregulate them does work. The article and references I posted above discusses the difference between clen and beta receptors, and testosterone and androgen receptors. You are talking about two different worlds here, you can't compare androgen receptors to beta-adrenergic receptors. Apples and oranges, my friend.
    Dont want to sidetrack thread and i agree with most all you posted...till you said benadryl to upregulate b2 receptors. It wont work / doesnt work.
    Ketotifen works. Its was pure speculation by That dipshit A.R. that started that myth that has become accepted as true. So much so that people swear it works...but it doesnt .Ronnie Rowland has a thread here explaining/proving exactly why that is bs. Just a side note.
    Last edited by jimmyinkedup; 09-05-2012 at 10:49 AM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    GTA, Canada
    Posts
    6,121
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmyinkedup View Post
    Dont want to sidetrack thread and i agree with most all you posted...till you said benadryl to upregulate b2 receptors. It wont work / doesnt work.
    Ketotifen works. Its was pure speculation by That dipshit A.R. that started that myth that has become accepted as true. So much so that people swear it works...but it doesnt .Ronnie Rowland has a thread here explaining/proving exactly why that is bs. Just a side note.
    Thanks for that. I was actually always iffy on that point and never truly totally certain. I will have to look into the thread you mentioned by Ronnie on the subject. I remember back when 'the dipshit' made the Benadryl claims, there were no references to studies or anything cited that lead to solid data regarding that.
    Last edited by Atomini; 09-05-2012 at 10:53 AM.

  16. #16
    kelkel's Avatar
    kelkel is offline HRT Specialist ~ AR-Platinum Elite-Hall of Famer ~ No Source Checks
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    East Coast Dungeon
    Posts
    29,916
    Quote Originally Posted by asiandude View Post
    Whether someone is natty or juiced, after a certain point, further gains will get slower and slower. Receptor saturation or desensitisation is one theory to explain this slowing down. If some articles claim they have dis-prove this theory, then the slowing down may be by another mechanism. But the fact still remains the same, regardless of which mechanism you believe in, the bigger you are, the slower your gains will be. If not by receptor desensitisation, then by some other way. It doesnt really change the end result.
    Agree with this. The better, more advanced you become the tougher it is to make gains. I feel you constantly have to self-evaluate your training and diet and make changes to basically force your body to adapt and improve. Not an easy thing to accomplish. And that's a great back shot btw! Keep it up.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    1,157
    I thought l- carnitine was good for receptors . In the way that they can so called " refresh " or prevent them from not binding as good. Of course in large amounts . So injectable L -Carnitine may be best and is used for spot reduction . - burns a lil . But never used it more than a month

  18. #18
    So, if you feel you have slowed down, do you have to go on GH or use higher doses of whatever steroids you were using? And what are "slow" gains anyway? I realize for females there is not a lot of data out there, but if I were to do a 12-week cycle of my old favorites - sustanon, deca and eq - assuming diet and training are on point, is ten pounds realistic? Is five pounds realistic, or is that slow?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    GTA, Canada
    Posts
    6,121
    One cannot give exact numbers. It all depends on the individual and how close they are to their genetic limits. Only YOU know your body best, better than anyone else.

    When I say 'slow' gains, i'm referring to times when you'll do a cycle (for a male, anyways), and you no longer end up with those nice 10-20 lb. gains any longer. After you've reached a certain point, each cycle might bring you 5-10 lbs. of muscle. And eventually you'll struggle to get 5 lbs., and so on and so forth. It's a continuous uphill battle. For a female, I cannot say exactly. You will have to be the judge on that for yourself - you'll see gains diminish and eventually and you will have to adjust accordingly, and go with the flow. Yes, when gains begin to diminish after subsequent cycles of similar dosing schemes, in order to make increasingly greater gains you have to typically increase dose. This is when it becomes dangerous. And its also when you need to ask yourself if the greater risk of higher doses is even worth it anymore.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,357
    Quote Originally Posted by Until_It_Sleeps View Post
    So, if you feel you have slowed down, do you have to go on GH or use higher doses of whatever steroids you were using? And what are "slow" gains anyway? I realize for females there is not a lot of data out there, but if I were to do a 12-week cycle of my old favorites - sustanon, deca and eq - assuming diet and training are on point, is ten pounds realistic? Is five pounds realistic, or is that slow?
    deca is very slow acting and I would run for 16 weeks.
    the gaining 5-15 pounds will be your diet. and I believe you are not gaining as much as you probably want due to your strict diet. you are probably barely upping your calories when on cycle. where as most that bulk eat a TON of food then leave many weeks to cut when its time.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,357
    Quote Originally Posted by Atomini View Post
    One cannot give exact numbers. It all depends on the individual and how close they are to their genetic limits. Only YOU know your body best, better than anyone else.

    When I say 'slow' gains, i'm referring to times when you'll do a cycle (for a male, anyways), and you no longer end up with those nice 10-20 lb. gains any longer. After you've reached a certain point, each cycle might bring you 5-10 lbs. of muscle. And eventually you'll struggle to get 5 lbs., and so on and so forth. It's a continuous uphill battle. For a female, I cannot say exactly. You will have to be the judge on that for yourself - you'll see gains diminish and eventually and you will have to adjust accordingly, and go with the flow. Yes, when gains begin to diminish after subsequent cycles of similar dosing schemes, in order to make increasingly greater gains you have to typically increase dose. This is when it becomes dangerous. And its also when you need to ask yourself if the greater risk of higher doses is even worth it anymore.


    this is coming from someone who drink tren for breakfast...haha jk bro

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    GTA, Canada
    Posts
    6,121
    Quote Originally Posted by gearbox View Post
    [/B]

    this is coming from someone who drink tren for breakfast...haha jk bro
    Yeah, i'm qualified to speak on this end of things lmao.

    This is the one and only time i'll probably ever run this much tren to be honest. But i've known people who have done far more for far longer periods. Makes my current cycle look like small-fry stuff.

  23. #23
    Damn, I'm looking forward to putting together my next cycle!!! I'm so sick of prepping for these shows. I want them over with so I can get back to my real workouts and my real food and see what I can do next!

    This was the first year I used tren, so far I used tren ace (the kind you make yourself) and tren enth. Started at 25mg a week because I was scared of it and now I'm at 200mg a week. No horror stories to report, I'm afraid. But I'm curious to see how it would be in a bulk cycle.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,065
    So Sust, Tren, Deca and EQ...are these the only compounds you've used? have you considered including other compounds into your rotation? I know it's typically viewed as mild but I've seen plenty of girls grow using Primobolan in the off-season...they're so much more sensitive to it then men. If you couple this with some of the other items you're accustomed to it might spur some growth.

    I know this might sound overly simple, but sometimes to spur growth you just have to introduce a slight change. This could mean you need to adjust your off-season diet a little bit, it could mean you need to adjust your training or it could mean you could produce this change just my mixing and matching different hormone combinations.

    Just a few curious questions, why do you like Sustanon so much? Why not a single ester testosterone? Just easier to control things IMO, and even more so if you're a woman. Also, why are you so fearful of HGH? I've found this to be one of the most female friendly things I've ever seen...I'd almost call it invaluable during contest prep. Now off-season use is a different story, you could get carried away and experience strong facial feature changes but this normally takes a good bit of HGH, women typically don't need that much, and it normally takes constant HGH use for a fairly long period of time.

    Like others have said, the receptor burnout deal is just a myth. I suspect the same guys that came up with this piece of broscience are the same ones who said you can't use Deca and EQ at the same time because they'll combat for the same receptors and cancel that one out. I don't know if that myth is still going on, but I always found it to be one of the more ridiculous.

  25. #25
    I have a stupid reason for liking Sustanon so much - same reason I like Pendleton whisky. First thing I ever used. But hey, it worked.

    Things I've used: Sustanon, Winstrol (oral and inject), Dianabol, Test E, Test C, Deca, Clen, T3, Eq, Primo, Tren ace, Tren enth, and just started Masteron and Nolvadex.

    I just came off Primo, used 2 vials over the past few months and not impressed. Also noticed some thinning hair which I hear is a side, though I hear it could be due to anything else I've used.

    I saw some good changes with the test e/test c stack, and with sus + deca. Dianabol was pretty much the worst thing ever; got really sick and had bad chest pains.

    HGH scares me because of the bone/organ growth, and also heart enlargement. I hear that a lot of people who supposedly die "from steroids" were using GH as well. Of course, who knows what else they were using...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •