Why super high dosages work

[GearHeaded]

I'm going to keep this one short and sweet.

Often times you may see me recommending only 400mg of gear total per week. other times its 400mg of gear per day. its really context and person dependent.

sometimes starting off a cycle with high dosages is the way to go and really works. rather the the opposite, starting off a cycle with lower dosages and then increasing as the cycle goes on.

so why does starting off a cycle from day one with super high dosages work?

well for one it causes an up-regulation of androgen receptors. most of you guys would probably agree that running moderate dosages over long periods of time ends up causing 'down regulation' and receptors losing their sensitivity.
the gear your taking loses its strength sort of speak..

well when you start your cycle off by blasting say 3 grams of gear per week, your body doesn't respond by down regulating and de-sensitizing. it does the opposite. it sees this massive influx of hormones and it drastically up regulates sensitivity and androgen receptor proliferation (ie, it starts making more androgen receptors to accommodate all the gear your giving it).

so guess what happens to the rest of your cycle when you started off the first few weeks with super high dosages ?
umm, well now you got a shit ton more androgen receptors to make better use of the rest of your cycle.
now the rest of your cycle you can run lower dosages. you used the super high dosages to rapidly build more androgen receptors to make use of for the whole duration of your cycle and every other cycle to come

This makes a lot more sense then doing the opposite where you start off with low dosages and slowly ramp up. as you never get that massive up-regulation effect as you do with the high dosages.


Note: This concept above is for ADVANCED USERS who have run plenty of cycles and need to use different methods to try and grow. all you new users and young guys , you can grow just fine off of low dosages right now

[GearHeaded]

so to clarify.
starting off your cycle from day one with super high dosages is going to cause an emergency 'knee jerk' reaction from the body where its forced to produce a ton more androgen receptors and increase their overall sensitivity to the massive influx of hormones coming in.
All these new receptors can now be utilized for the rest of the cycle as well.

after about 3 weeks of these super high dosages you've accomplished this and can go down to moderate dosages (which will now be utilized far more effectively by the body now having more ARs)

this is a much different strategy then starting with low dosages from day one, and then ramping your dosages up over the duration of your cycle as sensitivity diminishes.

[jackfrost88]

Interesting read. What evidence is there to support this? Not knocking it just genuinely curious if this is a theory (sounds plausible) or if there is some good data to back it up. How do we know the androgen receptors take in higher doses before down regulating over time?

[GearHeaded]

Interesting read. What evidence is there to support this? Not knocking it just genuinely curious if this is a theory (sounds plausible) or if there is some good data to back it up. How do we know the androgen receptors take in higher doses before down regulating over time?

to get to the technical aspects of it all , would need to reference Paul Borrison, who studied hormone binding affinity extensively as a pharmaceutical engineer in Europe (decades ago). His work has carried over to the steroid world and he was an original advocate to running high dosage 'blasts' of gear for shorter durations of time as opposed to long duration cycles .
again this is years ago.

I don't have any direct references on me right now to his writings. I'm just throwing the topic out there for 'bro' discussion

[jackfrost88]

to get to the technical aspects of it all , would need to reference Paul Borrison, who studied hormone binding affinity extensively as a pharmaceutical engineer in Europe (decades ago). His work has carried over to the steroid world and he was an original advocate to running high dosage 'blasts' of gear for shorter durations of time as opposed to long duration cycles .
again this is years ago.

I don't have any direct references on me right now to his writings. I'm just throwing the topic out there for 'bro' discussion

Cool, was interested on this as well. Will look him up thanks

[kelkel]

There's logic there. But wouldn't that upregulation occur at anytime during a cycle if a sudden high dose was implemented?

Do you think it could work in a cyclical fashion? Such as week 1, 6, 12, etc throughout a cycle? Follow me?

[GearHeaded]

There's logic there. But wouldn't that upregulation occur at anytime during a cycle if a sudden high dose was implemented?

the thought was that by starting out from day one with a super high dosage (rather then later on during the cycle) is that you get more 'shock' value out of doing it this way, its way more of a homeostatic disruption that your body 'over reacts' to this way ,, then being already on cycle and then upping the dosage.

heres a crappy and crude example-
take a non drinker and have him drink an entire bottle of whisky in one sitting. theres a bunch of 'shock' factor thats going to happen to this dude all at once. a lot more is going to happen then if you take this same guy and gave him a shot a day for a week, and then 2 shots a day for a few more weeks, and then a 5 shots a day for a month. if he is already used to the whiskey from using it over time and being on it, when he goes to drink that whole bottle in one sitting, he's just taking in more of what he's already used to doing.
where as if he went straight from being sober/non drinker to that whole bottle of whisky, its going to slap him in the face big time.

^ again thats a crappy example and doesn't quite carry over.
but my point is if you went from being off cycle, to suddenly being at mega dosages of gear, thats going to create more 'shock' factor and completely disrupt things to the point where the body has to make dramatic changes.. where as if your already on a cycle and at supraphysioligical levels, and your body has been accustomed to that , then upping the dosages is not going to carry the same dramatic effect as it would from starting out that way.

idk, I'm just sorta thinking out loud here.

Do you think it could work in a cyclical fashion? Such as week 1, 6, 12, etc throughout a cycle? Follow me?

I'm not sure the specifics of what your thinking here. but I think I'm following you to a degree. I've got another thread on advanced AAS use and using a 'cynical' fashion of running 6 week blasts, 4 week cruise, then 6 week blast, etc. progressions.
that thread has a bit of my 'cyclical' thinking in it. I'm just not sure my thinking is quite what your thinking here is or not, idk.
can you elaborate a bit

https://forums.steroid.com/anabolic-...protocols.html

[kelkel]

I think your analogy is pretty much on point actually.
I remember the previous thread and yes, that is the same thought process, thanks!

[Couchlockd]

but my point is if you went from being off cycle, to suddenly being at mega dosages of gear, thats going to create more 'shock' factor and completely disrupt things to the point where the body has to make dramatic changes..

Does your body have any negative changes it goes through to deal with the super high doses of hormones?

[Quester]

re there any studies available for this?

[Quester]

In neuroscience and pharmacology, we learned that down-regulation or desensitization is universal, feedback loops and stuff. But, I gotta admit, from a "bro"sience perspective it makes complete sense and it is kinda fun to think that we can trick our body into doing what we want it too.

[mexecutioner]

In neuroscience and pharmacology, we learned that down-regulation or desensitization is universal, feedback loops and stuff. But, I gotta admit, from a "bro"sience perspective it makes complete sense and it is kinda fun to think that we can trick our body into doing what we want it too.

This. Would love to see evidence.

[Quester]

If you're asking for proof of the science, it doesn't exist in studies because it is not studied. Proving the concepts of basic science, like anatomy and physiology, does not enhance anyone's knowledge. It was proven, (circa ~ 1500-1900). If you are truly interested, just pick u a textbook or, you could google "negative feedback loops." As everyday examples that we see, think about, diabetes and drug and alcohol tolerance.

If your interest regards the second sentence, philosophy, check out this book
Fantasyland
The book review:

How did we get here?

In this sweeping, eloquent history of America, Kurt Andersen shows that what’s happening in our country today—this post-factual, "fake news" moment we’re all living through—is not something new, but rather the ultimate expression of our national character. America was founded by wishful dreamers, magical thinkers, and true believers, by hucksters and their suckers. Fantasy is deeply embedded in our DNA.

Over the course of five centuries—from the Salem witch trials to Scientology to the Satanic Panic of the 1980s, from P. T. Barnum to Hollywood and the anything-goes, wild-and-crazy sixties, from conspiracy theories to our fetish for guns and obsession with extraterrestrials—our love of the fantastic has made America exceptional in a way that we've never fully acknowledged.

From the start, our ultra-individualism was attached to epic dreams and epic fantasies — every citizen was free to believe absolutely anything, or to pretend to be absolutely anybody. With the gleeful erudition and tell-it-like-it-is ferocity of a Christopher Hitchens, Andersen explores whether the great American experiment in liberty has gone off the rails.

Basically, it states that, instead of the factual, we have a penchant for dreaming and believing because we wish to defy the odds and better ourselves. The societies we came from did not allow this but America encourages it. Myself for example, if it wasn't true of me, I would have not become a Marine. Another example, people's tendency to believe in conspiracy theories, superstitions and wildly speculative and completely unsupported theories rather than basic, fundamental, everyday science.

[Obs]

re there any studies available for this?

There have been little to no studies on high dosed AAS.
Most studies cap at 500mg of test per week.
Tren was never approved for human use or studied in any form other than tren hex which is fairly exotic and rare.

Tren ace did not exist until someone stole it from finaplix cattle pellets and shot it in their muscle.
Tren enanthate was only used in scientific research (Agri)

Winistrol stanozol was removed from the US market because it failed to prove itself in a timely manner to have any medicinal use.

Literally all steroids have had more study here than in modern medicine. The risks are clear.

Lets say the fda decided lacking of muscle was a disease.
What steroids would they allow?

They wouldnt allow any existing stetoids. They would find ways to discredit them and use a new BLOCKBUSTER slightly modified testosterone etc that bayer or pfizer had just came up with. It would probably be twice as dangerous and half as effective because that is the way the US fda works.

We dont play by the rules.
We all use what is considered superphysiological doses, even from a research standpoint, according to medical professionals (I use that term loosely).

The more studies I read the more holes I see.

Not saying anyone here is right or wrong but my point is; studies are not going to be found on high dosage AAS. They were all villified too much and "medical professionals" were indoctrinated early on that they are poisonous to the body and soul.

[Couchlockd]

There have been little to no studies on high dosed AAS.
Most studies cap at 500mg of test per week.
Tren was never approved for human use or studied in any form other than tren hex which is fairly exotic and rare.

Tren ace did not exist until someone stole it from finaplix cattle pellets and shot it in their muscle.
Tren enanthate was only used in scientific research (Agri)

Winistrol stanozol was removed from the US market because it failed to prove itself in a timely manner to have any medicinal use.

Literally all steroids have had more study here than in modern medicine. The risks are clear.

Lets say the fda decided lacking of muscle was a disease.
What steroids would they allow?

They wouldnt allow any existing stetoids. They would find ways to discredit them and use a new BLOCKBUSTER slightly modified testosterone etc that bayer or pfizer had just came up with. It would probably be twice as dangerous and half as effective because that is the way the US fda works.

We dont play by the rules.
We all use what is considered superphysiological doses, even from a research standpoint, according to medical professionals (I use that term loosely).

The more studies I read the more holes I see.

Not saying anyone here is right or wrong but my point is; studies are not going to be found on high dosage AAS. They were all villified too much and "medical professionals" were indoctrinated early on that they are poisonous to the body and soul.

In this light

Science says it "unethical" to study ped doses of steroids in humans.... But.....

You know what gave us the furthest advancements in modern medicine?

It was the Nazis, and thier unethical human experiments.

But we had no problem using thier findings to Western medicine's advantage.

[Obs]

In this light

Science says it "unethical" to study ped doses of steroids in humans.... But.....

You know what gave us the furthest advancements in modern medicine?

It was the Nazis, and thier unethical human experiments.

But we had no problem using thier findings to Western medicine's advantage.

I think the thing people forget is everything revolves around money. Especially the pharmaceutical and medical world.

The last great cure was polio. Jonas Salk literally snuck behind the pharma and medical community and released his findings to the world. He was later accused of pandering to big pharma for giving away his cure.

It is because jonas knew what would happen if he got it patented. Someone would buy it and charge thousands or else it would disappear.

If there is a heaven that guy is in it.

He turned down millions and saved thousands of lives. Only to be accused of doing the very thing he was making certain didn't happen.

"Can you patent the sun? This cure belongs to the world, not me." - Jonas Salk

Sofosbuvir: cure rate for hep C is 30-95% depending on the type. Cost in egypt for a 12 week run $525.
Cost in the US $80,000

Aas at high doses are dangerous but it works.
Trying to not derail another one of GH's threads. I also agree with the "shock" theory.
This is why I go borderline hypo with insulin. The body has a way of overcompensating.

[GearHeaded]

In neuroscience and pharmacology, we learned that down-regulation or desensitization is universal, feedback loops and stuff. But, I gotta admit, from a "bro"sience perspective it makes complete sense and it is kinda fun to think that we can trick our body into doing what we want it too.

to be honest , I'm a little bit on the fence in regards to the desensitization topic. I need to spend more time researching.

but, from my own anecdotal evidence. I can say that desensitization seems to be an issue. as being on gear for quite awhile and doing long runs at a time the effects are less and the dosages need to go up.
but thats pretty subjective and has lots of individual variance..

on the other hand, think about this for a minute in regards to 'Desensitization'.

- TRT . when you get on TRT and say its 200mg of test per week. well in general that 200mg of test for your TRT is always going to work. you don't all the sudden one day 'desensitize' to your TRT. its not like after 5 years of TRT it stops working and you need to take a break or your dosage needs to go up to 750mg per week.

- Another example. heart medication. we all probably know a guy who was on heart meds 30 years ago, and is still on that same heart med at that same dose today. and it still works. plain and simple.


theres some arguments both ways in regards to the desensitization issue. I'm not on one side or the other.
in my own way of doing things, and practicing phase cycling and compound rotation to avoid desensitization, I'm clearly thinking desensitization is an issue. but there are arguments both ways

[Old Duffer]

True. Just to even the equation and add more confusion ;-) I do know folks who are prescribed meds for depression or anxiety that do 'stop working' and typically then get changed to a different, stronger script, often with harsher sides.

I've heard cialis builds no tolerance there from , but Viagra will lessen effects with regular use.

Desensitization I believe is a thing

[darkcrayz]

True. Just to even the equation and add more confusion ;-) I do know folks who are prescribed meds for depression or anxiety that do 'stop working' and typically then get changed to a different, stronger script, often with harsher sides.

I've heard cialis builds no tolerance there from , but Viagra will lessen effects with regular use.

Desensitization I believe is a thing

i am on antidepressants and mood stabilizers. now that i have been using them for a couple of years, i see my doctor quarterly or as needed. we dont cycle medicines, but depending on what is going on when i see him, we drop certian medications and add others. for short periods of time he will increase a medicine, but when things are in a better place (home/work environment) we will lower doses on medicines or stop. luckily, he is not one to just keep pushing the dose on 1 or 2 medicines like the common method that does relate to having to increase doses over time. this has kept me mostly stable and allows him to tweak/fluctuate doses.

i do wonder/think that the feedback loop is different for the brain than the rest of the body, which is too simplistic of a way to say it, but i cant think of anything more advanced.