Combine Deca and Var?

[quote]W.H.B. wrote:

This is a ridiculous, poorly researched, and poorly thought out position.[/quote]

Really? Why? Half of the internet gear moguls say to take 1500 IU (such as Big Cat) and the others say take less. Ok, so its possible to desensitize your balls. Is it likely? Why should I believe one person or another? I tend to analyze things a bit more than to say, ‘Oh, he’s level 4, he must not possess even one wrong idea about juicing.’ Please excuse my ridiculous critical thinking capacity.

I know a smaller dose may be better, but I haven’t been convinced of this. Can anyone make a logical argument about why less is better at a higher level than, ‘I heard from a guy who heard from a guy that its technically possible that maybe you might kinda overload your LH receptors?’ If 1500 overloads the receptors why do they make that the minimum clinical dosage?

If anyone has a well researched, well thought out position can you please lay it out for me cause I haven’t found one on this forum. All I see is a bunch of dogmatic repetition.

[quote]sevensixtwo wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
“I want to take steroids but I don’t want to add too much muscle. That would be very unseemly. So I want to just put my toe in the water so far as gains go, while still shutting down my HPTA. How do you like my cycle?”

(Paraphrased.)

Oh, I see. Since when is shutting my HPTA down a terrible big deal and not just a side effect to be remedied with some good PCT?..

I appreciate the input and enjoy the insults. Thanks!
[/quote]

It’s not clear why minimizing positive results while having a higher degree than necessary of an adverse effect is not the best way to go?

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

It’s not clear why minimizing positive results while having a higher degree than necessary of an adverse effect is not the best way to go?
[/quote]

Well if by positive results, you mean gaining 15 pounds in two weeks then you dont understand what mitochondria do or you didnt read my posts. Thanks anyway! Maybe you could offer some advice so I could maximize my definition of positive results and and only incur the necessary degree of adverse side effects. Once again, I am not a body builder and sacrificing as little cardio as possible for big strength gains is my definition of positive results. Have any insight into this precarious balancing act?

You’re right: with a degree in Microbiology and Cell Science I have absolutely no clue what mitochondria do.

Thanks for pointing that out. It completely changes everything: obviously you’re entirely right in every regard.

Good thing you posted.

Haven’t really read the entire thread OP, too much bro knowledge in your posts made my brain leak.

But, for strength, Test/Tren/Anadrol WINS.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
You’re right: with a degree in Microbiology and Cell Science I have absolutely no clue what mitochondria do.

Thanks for pointing that out. It completely changes everything: obviously you’re entirely right in every regard.

Good thing you posted.[/quote]

Well I said you don’t know about mitochondria or you didn’t read my post. Obviously it was the latter if you have those credentials. I see this is a place to get good info about getting bloated muscles. Those aren’t the ‘positive results’ Im looking for. Roids can help well rounded athletes too, and all I wanted was just some info on how to cycle for that goal. Instead I got a bunch of snobby buttheads (except Brook, Ill consider that Deca/Mast cycle you suggested + Var, thanks!)who cant understand anyone wanting to have more well rounded muscular functionality. Have fun walking up three flights of stairs guys!

[quote]sevensixtwo wrote:
W.H.B. wrote:

This is a ridiculous, poorly researched, and poorly thought out position.

Really? Why? Half of the internet gear moguls say to take 1500 IU (such as Big Cat) and the others say take less. [/quote]

And obviously both positions have to be correct and similarly supported by facts which your research has checked. Right?

I have decided you are a troll, and therefore will not respond to you further.

Either that or you are just a total idiot. Which one it is, I don’t know and don’t care. Same decision either way. It is clear that you are beyond help.

[quote]sevensixtwo wrote:
If 1500 overloads the receptors why do they make that the minimum clinical dosage?

[/quote]

What? Look up studies buddy, there are PLENTY that dose 250iu three times a week or 500iu three times a week…

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
sevensixtwo wrote:
W.H.B. wrote:

This is a ridiculous, poorly researched, and poorly thought out position.

Really? Why? Half of the internet gear moguls say to take 1500 IU (such as Big Cat) and the others say take less.

And obviously both positions have to be correct and similarly supported by facts which your research has checked. Right?

If anyone has a well researched, well thought out position can you please lay it out for me cause I haven’t found one on this forum. All I see is a bunch of dogmatic repetition.

I have decided you are a troll, and therefore will not respond to you further.

Either that or you are just a total idiot. Which one it is, I don’t know and don’t care. Same decision either way. It is clear that you are beyond help.

[/quote]

No Bill. Both positions dont have to be correct. The whole point of my post is that one is certainly more appropriate and Im trying to find evidence supporting one or the other. Please read my posts completely before mocking me.

I have decided you are a pompous ass that loves to belittle strangers. Why do you keep turning my posts into false dichotomies? Posting here was part of my research, friend.

Thank you Bill for spending your time making fun of my stupid little brain instead of spending less time making a constructive suggestion or simply stating that you don’t know what is best for someone who doesn’t body build. Or spending even less of your time not replying if you don’t know.

In nearly 20 posts I got ONE or a few replies related to the topic of this thread. So who are the real trolls?

Wait, never mind. Trolls can walk uphill.

[quote]soontobeIFBB wrote:
sevensixtwo wrote:
If 1500 overloads the receptors why do they make that the minimum clinical dosage?

What? Look up studies buddy, there are PLENTY that dose 250iu three times a week or 500iu three times a week… [/quote]

Yes I have seen these studies and I understand that this may be the correct PCT. I have also seen 1500 IU used frequently. What I have not seen is any convincing argument in support of one dose or the other. Neither 250 nor 1500 is going to make your balls fall off so there are advocates of both methods out there.

High dosages may desensitize your LH receptors causing a yo-yo effect, but it will also restart your HTPA quicker thereby minimizing post cycle losses if desensitizing doesn’t occur. Ok that sounds right, doesn’t it? I thought this was a good place to find information. Is it?

PM KSman. He is very sharp on HCG. If you prefer, you can start with a google search (this site’s search sucks) using the words ksman, desensitize, hcg and see what turns up.

If you actually did much research you’d find that there are a vast number of people that had no problems whatsoever getting helpful information from me.

And it is not as if you yourself got nothing. I told you plainly not to use HCG the way you stated. With the slightest bit of effort you could have found where elsewhere, countless times, I have explained why in detail and given evidence. I told you plainly that a basic problem with your planned cycle is that it aims for minimized positive effect yet a higher than necessary degree of undesireable effect, namely suppression.

But did you gain anything? No, this simply inspired you to say something idiotic about mitochondria, of all things. Rather than for example ask something intelligent such as what it was about your cycle that was unnecessarily more suppressive than needed for the results you desire.

Compare the thousands of people who over time have gotten all kinds of what they have considered very useful help from me with your own experience of gaining nothing, and wonder for yourself what it is about you that resulted in the different outcome, of you gaining nothing,

Because it’s the same me in all these cases. The differing factor is you.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
But did you gain anything? No, this simply inspired you to say something idiotic about mitochondria, of all things. Rather than for example ask something intelligent such as what it was about your cycle that was unnecessarily more suppressive than needed for the results you desire.
[/quote]

You’re right, it’s idiotic for me to mention that my goals do not include suddenly decreased mito density. I didn’t ask because I already know Deca is going to totally shut me down.

[quote]Dynamo Hum wrote:
PM KSman. He is very sharp on HCG. If you prefer, you can start with a google search (this site’s search sucks) using the words ksman, desensitize, hcg and see what turns up. [/quote]

K. Thanks.

762,

I’m not certain why you are so intent on digging the hole you’ve dug, deeper. You would be hard pressed to find someone having a blend of scientific knowledge and anecdotal experience as in depth as Bill Roberts, and actually have access to that knowledge FOR FREE! If you had actually done some research, perhaps you would have stumbled upon the countless articles, profiles, and forum post he has written on the subject at hand.

You’re conduct is like that of a child. People aren’t telling you what you want to hear, so you a throwing a temper tantrum. If you weren’t so whinny and combative, maybe we could be of greater assistance. No one is saying you have to agree with what anyone is saying, but you come off as very disrespectful to the members here.

My moderately extensive and ongoing research suggests that doses of 1500 - 5000 IU are an appropriate treatment for restarting the HTPA when it is completely shut down. At the end of a Deca cycle, mine will be completely shut down. What is the difference between my nuts being shriveled from Deca and some teenager’s being shriveled for some other reason?

HCG treats the HTPA symptoms, not their causes. So why dont my tiny balls deserve a full clinical dosage post cycle?

I hold myself to a high standard of evidence and my research is as yet inconclusive. Hence, my post here…

You’re right, I am whinny, but my combativeness is purely responsive. I followed the forum instructions and created a thread about my goal of gaining strength but only modest size. If you don’t want to talk about that, this is not the place for you to post. So yes, I’m somewhat displeased at not getting the free expert advice I wanted.

However, I am most displeased at people not acknowledging the intent of this thread before they post to it. Now maybe someone who may have said something constructive will browse this thread and leave ASAP because it’s all over the place.

The major cause for that is that it is long-standing practice here that when people post cycles that appear quite unresearched and unthought-out, to not go starting from ground zero but simply point out that it is hopelessly wrong and the person needs to start from scratch.

It turns out that in your case you have done some looking around but have managed to come up with some ideas that are quite wrong, and thus your post had the appearance of being in that category but actually it was just severe confusion that was the cause. (Not a mental state of feeling confused, but an outcome that is confused.)

This was compounded by the fact that you clearly didn’t have the attitude of wanting to learn specifics of why you ideas were wrong, but were just out to be combative. Just what the purpose of your post was was not clear, as it certainly didn’t appear to be a case of being willing to learn, if that involved changing anything.

That’s why.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
If you actually did much research you’d find that there are a vast number of people that had no problems whatsoever getting helpful information from me.[/quote]

I don’t have the time to read all your 3000+ posts Bill. But please don’t repeat yourself, I can see you obviously don’t have much free time to spend writing on the internet. I’m done writing here. I guess Ill take the clinical advice over the juicer’s, do my HCG as planned and post back when Im done.

Clearly I nailed it before: you are an idiot.

[quote]sevensixtwo wrote:
and post back when Im done.[/quote]

Why?

Why bother?