[quote]dt79 wrote:
Hey Walkway, doesn’t upregulation of androgen receptors mean there will be a higher response to the same amount of steroids?[/quote]
it certainly would be nice if things worked that way. if they did, we could just keep growing and growing on 500mg of test/week, with no end in sight. having said that, I think that people increase their doses too quickly before “maximizing out” their current dose. Id imagine that a typical person would be able to continue gaining on 500mg test (constant use) for at least a year if they adapt their training and diet properly in order to keep growing.
think of AR upregulation as a form of multiplication of the amount of AR that your body has. you have to “fill” each AR with aas in order to grow at a certain rate, and as the AR upregulate (multiply), you need more aas to fill more AR to continue growing at that same rate. of course this is a gross oversimplification, but you get the idea.
the body is always trying to maintain homeostasis - it does not want to add weight it deems to be unnecessary.
for steroid users, this means upregulation of AR, increased cortisol, increased myostatin expression, increased metabolism, etc. all of these things happen to keep the body from adding more size.
[quote]SIM37 wrote:
If blasting and cruising do you use HCG the entire time. I’m sure the dosage varies during the blast and cruise but logically I assume you do use HCG the entire time.[/quote]
[quote]Admad wrote:
Nooberific and flipvolar - if you’ve got nothing constructive to add to this forum kindly fuck off. This may seem rude but my time Is far to valuable for it to be wasted with pointless comments like that.
Just because I’ve lost a lot of the gains I made doesn’t mean my level of knowledge about aas is bad. Far from it. I spend months researching any compound before I put anything into my body. Secondly everybody is different, some people will lose gains quicker than other people, unfortunately that’s life. I was trying to get some opinions to see if and where I was going wrong, potentially in my diet or training. [/quote]
You lost all your gains when you stopped your cycle lol.
[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
it certainly would be nice if things worked that way. if they did, we could just keep growing and growing on 500mg of test/week, with no end in sight. having said that, I think that people increase their doses too quickly before “maximizing out” their current dose. Id imagine that a typical person would be able to continue gaining on 500mg test (constant use) for at least a year if they adapt their training and diet properly in order to keep growing.
think of AR upregulation as a form of multiplication of the amount of AR that your body has. you have to “fill” each AR with aas in order to grow at a certain rate, and as the AR upregulate (multiply), you need more aas to fill more AR to continue growing at that same rate. of course this is a gross oversimplification, but you get the idea. [/quote]
Isn’t the need for increased doses of steroids a result of expression of myostatin because of increased bodyweight and the presence of increased levels of androgens, while AR upregulation simply allows more steroids to be bound at the same dose, or sufficient receptors for binding to increasing levels of steroids, until myostatin levels catch up?
Do you have any links regarding your theory that you can post? Would really like to know more on this subject.
From what I understand, homeostasis is simply a state which the body eventually accepts as “normal”(within reasonable limits) after being in that state for sufficient time. It is not a permanent setpoint. If we were to go by past medically held beliefs, losing fat while retaining muscle would still be deemed impossible.
[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
it certainly would be nice if things worked that way. if they did, we could just keep growing and growing on 500mg of test/week, with no end in sight. having said that, I think that people increase their doses too quickly before “maximizing out” their current dose. Id imagine that a typical person would be able to continue gaining on 500mg test (constant use) for at least a year if they adapt their training and diet properly in order to keep growing.
think of AR upregulation as a form of multiplication of the amount of AR that your body has. you have to “fill” each AR with aas in order to grow at a certain rate, and as the AR upregulate (multiply), you need more aas to fill more AR to continue growing at that same rate. of course this is a gross oversimplification, but you get the idea. [/quote]
Isn’t the need for increased doses of steroids a result of expression of myostatin because of increased bodyweight and the presence of increased levels of androgens, while AR upregulation simply allows more steroids to be bound at the same dose, or sufficient receptors for binding to increasing levels of steroids, until myostatin levels catch up?
Do you have any links regarding your theory that you can post? Would really like to know more on this subject.
From what I understand, homeostasis is simply a state which the body eventually accepts as “normal”(within reasonable limits) after being in that state for sufficient time. It is not a permanent setpoint. If we were to go by past medically held beliefs, losing fat while retaining muscle would still be deemed impossible.[/quote]
So, what is the answer? Lose it all in one month? Seems harsh. Gradually lose 95% of gains over say 12 months?
Lose some weight and keep aprox. the same muscle? What about strength?
Just curious.
Isn’t the need for increased doses of steroids a result of expression of myostatin because of increased bodyweight and the presence of increased levels of androgens, while AR upregulation simply allows more steroids to be bound at the same dose, or sufficient receptors for binding to increasing levels of steroids, until myostatin levels catch up?
Do you have any links regarding your theory that you can post? Would really like to know more on this subject. [/quote]
im not sure what you mean by “while AR upregulation simply allows more steroids to be bound at the same dose, or sufficient receptors for binding to increasing levels of steroids, until receptors catch up?”, but it sounds like you generally have the right idea…
essentially, the more aas you use, the larger you get (more food is required as well of course). the larger you get, the greater effort your body puts out to curtail further growth through various mechanisms. there comes a point when 500mg just wont make you add anymore muscle despite how much you increase other variables (food, training, sleep).
as for literature, there is not a whole lot regarding this issue, as im sure can imagine. the few articles I have seen were far beyond my ability to understand, and im sure would require an advanced degree in both organic chemistry and endocrinology to be effectively deciphered.
as such, I am forced to rely on what ive observed. steroid gains do not increase in a linear fashion related to dose. they also do not increase in an exponential fashion related to dose (as the general broscience misunderstanding of upregulation of AR would suggest). they in fact, increase at a decreasing rate… with gains increases all but disappearing once you’ve passed the 5 gram range (seemingly). this is why other things such as GH, insulin, peptides, etc are utilized.
[quote]
From what I understand, homeostasis is simply a state which the body eventually accepts as “normal”(within reasonable limits) after being in that state for sufficient time. It is not a permanent setpoint. If we were to go by past medically held beliefs, losing fat while retaining muscle would still be deemed impossible.[/quote]
I would think that the jury is still out on this subject… the main point that I was trying to drive home is that the body will put out a significant level of effort to avoid adding calorically expensive tissue that it does not perceive to be necessary.
Isn’t the need for increased doses of steroids a result of expression of myostatin because of increased bodyweight and the presence of increased levels of androgens, while AR upregulation simply allows more steroids to be bound at the same dose, or sufficient receptors for binding to increasing levels of steroids, until myostatin levels catch up?
Do you have any links regarding your theory that you can post? Would really like to know more on this subject. [/quote]
im not sure what you mean by “while AR upregulation simply allows more steroids to be bound at the same dose, or sufficient receptors for binding to increasing levels of steroids, until receptors catch up?”, but it sounds like you generally have the right idea…
essentially, the more aas you use, the larger you get (more food is required as well of course). the larger you get, the greater effort your body puts out to curtail further growth through various mechanisms. there comes a point when 500mg just wont make you add anymore muscle despite how much you increase other variables (food, training, sleep).
as for literature, there is not a whole lot regarding this issue, as im sure can imagine. the few articles I have seen were far beyond my ability to understand, and im sure would require an advanced degree in both organic chemistry and endocrinology to be effectively deciphered.
as such, I am forced to rely on what ive observed. steroid gains do not increase in a linear fashion related to dose. they also do not increase in an exponential fashion related to dose (as the general broscience misunderstanding of upregulation of AR would suggest). they in fact, increase at a decreasing rate… with gains increases all but disappearing once you’ve passed the 5 gram range (seemingly). this is why other things such as GH, insulin, peptides, etc are utilized.
[quote]
From what I understand, homeostasis is simply a state which the body eventually accepts as “normal”(within reasonable limits) after being in that state for sufficient time. It is not a permanent setpoint. If we were to go by past medically held beliefs, losing fat while retaining muscle would still be deemed impossible.[/quote]
I would think that the jury is still out on this subject… the main point that I was trying to drive home is that the body will put out a significant level of effort to avoid adding calorically expensive tissue that it does not perceive to be necessary. [/quote]
Walkway,
you are seriously screwing up the explanation of up regulation.
Isn’t the need for increased doses of steroids a result of expression of myostatin because of increased bodyweight and the presence of increased levels of androgens, while AR upregulation simply allows more steroids to be bound at the same dose, or sufficient receptors for binding to increasing levels of steroids, until myostatin levels catch up?
Do you have any links regarding your theory that you can post? Would really like to know more on this subject. [/quote]
im not sure what you mean by “while AR upregulation simply allows more steroids to be bound at the same dose, or sufficient receptors for binding to increasing levels of steroids, until receptors catch up?”, but it sounds like you generally have the right idea…
essentially, the more aas you use, the larger you get (more food is required as well of course). the larger you get, the greater effort your body puts out to curtail further growth through various mechanisms. there comes a point when 500mg just wont make you add anymore muscle despite how much you increase other variables (food, training, sleep).
as for literature, there is not a whole lot regarding this issue, as im sure can imagine. the few articles I have seen were far beyond my ability to understand, and im sure would require an advanced degree in both organic chemistry and endocrinology to be effectively deciphered.
as such, I am forced to rely on what ive observed. steroid gains do not increase in a linear fashion related to dose. they also do not increase in an exponential fashion related to dose (as the general broscience misunderstanding of upregulation of AR would suggest). they in fact, increase at a decreasing rate… with gains increases all but disappearing once you’ve passed the 5 gram range (seemingly). this is why other things such as GH, insulin, peptides, etc are utilized. [/quote]
This is my understanding as well.
Sorry I wasn’t more clear, but I was asking about your theory:
and whether you have any links that suggest upregulation of AR ALONE actually leads to requiring more steroids to achieve the same amount of growth, because my current understanding is that the opposite is true, and that it is the other factors already stated that lead to the need for more steroids to maintain the rate of growth.
Also, I was curious as to why you suggest 500mg of test at constant use for a year instead of blasting and cruising when myostatin levels are significantly increased by the 8th-10th week. Wouldn’t it be better to let levels fall to near baseline by cruising and then blasting again?
‘As androgen levels increase from normal to supraphysiological, numbers of ARs in some tissues have been shown to increase. Such an increase is upregulation. The increase may be due primarily or entirely to increase in half-life of the AR resulting from higher androgen level.’
you are seriously screwing up the explanation of up regulation.
for those interested, i suggest Googling Bill Roberts explanation on the topic, which is an article [/quote]
‘As androgen levels increase from normal to supraphysiological, numbers of ARs in some tissues have been shown to increase. Such an increase is upregulation. The increase may be due primarily or entirely to increase in half-life of the AR resulting from higher androgen level.’
[/quote]
yes.
and you’re claiming upregulation limits gains.
conversely, more AR’s allow more opportunities for androgens to cause various growth mechanisms…
conversely, more AR’s allow more androgens to cause various growth mechanisms…
[/quote]
well, im actually meaning to say that upregulation of AR = more AR which must be ‘filled’ by more aas in order to continue growing at the same rate.
say 500mg of test makes you grow at 100% rate. your AR upregulate, then that same 500mg makes you grow at a slower and slower rate. in order to grow at 100% again, you may need to increase dose to 1000mg, then 1500mg, then 2000mg… etc.
of course myostatin, cortisol, estrogen, metabolism, etc. all play roles in limiting growth as well.
Isn’t the need for increased doses of steroids a result of expression of myostatin because of increased bodyweight and the presence of increased levels of androgens, while AR upregulation simply allows more steroids to be bound at the same dose, or sufficient receptors for binding to increasing levels of steroids, until myostatin levels catch up?
Do you have any links regarding your theory that you can post? Would really like to know more on this subject. [/quote]
im not sure what you mean by “while AR upregulation simply allows more steroids to be bound at the same dose, or sufficient receptors for binding to increasing levels of steroids, until receptors catch up?”, but it sounds like you generally have the right idea…
essentially, the more aas you use, the larger you get (more food is required as well of course). the larger you get, the greater effort your body puts out to curtail further growth through various mechanisms. there comes a point when 500mg just wont make you add anymore muscle despite how much you increase other variables (food, training, sleep).
as for literature, there is not a whole lot regarding this issue, as im sure can imagine. the few articles I have seen were far beyond my ability to understand, and im sure would require an advanced degree in both organic chemistry and endocrinology to be effectively deciphered.
as such, I am forced to rely on what ive observed. steroid gains do not increase in a linear fashion related to dose. they also do not increase in an exponential fashion related to dose (as the general broscience misunderstanding of upregulation of AR would suggest). they in fact, increase at a decreasing rate… with gains increases all but disappearing once you’ve passed the 5 gram range (seemingly). this is why other things such as GH, insulin, peptides, etc are utilized. [/quote]
This is my understanding as well.
Sorry I wasn’t more clear, but I was asking about your theory:
and whether you have any links that suggest upregulation of AR ALONE actually leads to requiring more steroids to achieve the same amount of growth, because my current understanding is that the opposite is true, and that it is the other factors already stated that lead to the need for more steroids to maintain the rate of growth.
Also, I was curious as to why you suggest 500mg of test at constant use for a year instead of blasting and cruising when myostatin levels are significantly increased by the 8th-10th week. Wouldn’t it be better to let levels fall to near baseline by cruising and then blasting again?[/quote]
I doubt there is any literature that will say that AR upregulation alone will cause the body to require more steroids to continue growth. then again, that’s not the point I was trying to make. it’s a contributing factor, not the sole cause.
myostatin is still not widely understood. As far as I know, we only really have one study to go one (the 300mg vs 600mg test study).
as for why I would recommend staying on 500mg test for a year… higher doses = more gains. the only reason why bodybuilders lower their dose is for health purposes.
people can get more out of 500mg test than they think. sure, myostatin will attempt to get in the way, but myostatin itself is nothing more than a contributing factor. it will slow growth, not prevent it completely.
overall gains do decrease, but this is due to things like the aforementioned myostatin etc… upregulation of the AR leads to more growth and is counter the general trend of the body wanting to maintain homeostasis by preventing further growth. here’s my understanding…
side note: the AR is an intracellular (inside the cell) receptor. At first this was how steroids were distinguished from peptides like hgh, which bind to extracellular (outside the cell) receptors. later they found out it’s not always so simple. steroids are also nonpolar which is how they can so easily pass through the polar cell membrane to reach the AR, and why you can wear a patch and have them absorb through your skin.
more androgen receptors means more protein synthesis. only a tiny fraction of the test in our bodies is actually bound to the AR at any given time. either test is bound or not, and if it is then the complex processes of transcription and translation of dna and rna result in protein synthesis. other factors contribute to muscle growth of course, but test is either bound or not, and that either results in protein synthesis or not.
that’s why more receptors means more growth, because free test is more likely to come in contact with the AR and start the growth process. the fact that there are more AR doesn’t diminish the amount of growth that each one produces (other adaptations are what slow muscle growth) in fact it means that you can take a larger dose before all of the AR are fully saturated. so for example a newbie might top out (every receptor is always bound) at 3g while a vet could benefit from 5g or more.
so upregulation is a good thing. but the body has other ways to adapt and prevent us from continually getting newb gains every cycle. steroids do increase growth in a dose dependent relationship but like walkway said it’s not linear. there’s diminishing returns as with many things.
this is all a bit of a circle jerk as it’s not practical but interesting discussion for those of us into the theory…
conversely, more AR’s allow more androgens to cause various growth mechanisms…
[/quote]
well, im actually meaning to say that upregulation of AR = more AR which must be ‘filled’ by more aas in order to continue growing at the same rate.
say 500mg of test makes you grow at 100% rate. your AR upregulate, then that same 500mg makes you grow at a slower and slower rate. in order to grow at 100% again, you may need to increase dose to 1000mg, then 1500mg, then 2000mg… etc.
of course myostatin, cortisol, estrogen, metabolism, etc. all play roles in limiting growth as well. [/quote]
i don’t think that the amount of AR’s (with the exception of people with a marked decrease in them) is really a concern for long term growth. as long as you have enough androgens to stimulate growth and the AR for them to bind to, i don’t think either will slow one’s growth.
i think the decrease in long term growth has much more to do with the various body systems (lungs, kidneys, GI tract, etc) and their ability to support what you’re trying to do. i think it can be as simple as to whether one’s frame can accommodate the extra muscle or not…
(i also think the stuff you mentioned-myostatin, etc also play a role.)
Isn’t the need for increased doses of steroids a result of expression of myostatin because of increased bodyweight and the presence of increased levels of androgens, while AR upregulation simply allows more steroids to be bound at the same dose, or sufficient receptors for binding to increasing levels of steroids, until myostatin levels catch up?
Do you have any links regarding your theory that you can post? Would really like to know more on this subject. [/quote]
im not sure what you mean by “while AR upregulation simply allows more steroids to be bound at the same dose, or sufficient receptors for binding to increasing levels of steroids, until receptors catch up?”, but it sounds like you generally have the right idea…
essentially, the more aas you use, the larger you get (more food is required as well of course). the larger you get, the greater effort your body puts out to curtail further growth through various mechanisms. there comes a point when 500mg just wont make you add anymore muscle despite how much you increase other variables (food, training, sleep).
as for literature, there is not a whole lot regarding this issue, as im sure can imagine. the few articles I have seen were far beyond my ability to understand, and im sure would require an advanced degree in both organic chemistry and endocrinology to be effectively deciphered.
as such, I am forced to rely on what ive observed. steroid gains do not increase in a linear fashion related to dose. they also do not increase in an exponential fashion related to dose (as the general broscience misunderstanding of upregulation of AR would suggest). they in fact, increase at a decreasing rate… with gains increases all but disappearing once you’ve passed the 5 gram range (seemingly). this is why other things such as GH, insulin, peptides, etc are utilized. [/quote]
This is my understanding as well.
Sorry I wasn’t more clear, but I was asking about your theory:
and whether you have any links that suggest upregulation of AR ALONE actually leads to requiring more steroids to achieve the same amount of growth, because my current understanding is that the opposite is true, and that it is the other factors already stated that lead to the need for more steroids to maintain the rate of growth.
Also, I was curious as to why you suggest 500mg of test at constant use for a year instead of blasting and cruising when myostatin levels are significantly increased by the 8th-10th week. Wouldn’t it be better to let levels fall to near baseline by cruising and then blasting again?[/quote]
I doubt there is any literature that will say that AR upregulation alone will cause the body to require more steroids to continue growth. then again, that’s not the point I was trying to make. it’s a contributing factor, not the sole cause. [/quote]
Well then, with all due respect, I think you have misinterpreted what really happens when ARs upregulate.
I asked about your theory because you cited this as one of the main reasons why gains made with steroids will be gradually lost upon cessation, which makes no sense from a biological standpoint as long as the gains do not exceed what the body is able to support naturally.
[quote]myostatin is still not widely understood. As far as I know, we only really have one study to go one (the 300mg vs 600mg test study).
as for why I would recommend staying on 500mg test for a year… higher doses = more gains. the only reason why bodybuilders lower their dose is for health purposes.
people can get more out of 500mg test than they think. sure, myostatin will attempt to get in the way, but myostatin itself is nothing more than a contributing factor. it will slow growth, not prevent it completely. [/quote]
Perhaps this would be more individual than a rule set in stone, since people I know IRL have had more success blasting for 10 week cycles than using a constant dose of test with the same amount used in a blast.
Anyway, there are a couple of studies out there regarding myostatin. I can only recall this one at moment.
Sorry Flipcolar I didn’t realise that running 2 aas cycles made you a gear guru. I don’t know why your talking about PR on cycle? Strength isn’t an issue, holding the gains after the cycle is the topic of conversation here, or are you too much of a fuckwit to realise that.
And yes my time is too valuable for it to be wasted replying to pointless comments made by people like yourself who obviously think they are too good to actually offer any real advice (not that I want it from you). Seriously dude quit trying to argue and find another thread to offer some ‘guru’ advice to some novices who think that because you read some bro science your suddenly a wizzkid with chems.
I’ll actually go back and apologise to Mr walkway for coming across as aggressive but I see far to many people on forums asking for advice only to get nonsense comments or feedback about issues (not that yours hasn’t been valuable as has some other people on here).
Going back to your earlier comment about blasting and cruising, surely that sort of approach is still going to produce the same results after you eventually come off entirely? What sort of time frame are you talking about?
I ran Growth through my first test cycle and had some awesome results, and most of which I kept, would running peptides alongside an extended cycle be any more beneficial?
blasting and cruising is for those of us staying on for life. you might stop blasting once you reach a certain age but you’ll keep cruising to the grave. many people who never touch steroids need trt once they get older anyway. if you’re not willing to be on for life, you shouldn’t B&C but i’d argue you shouldn’t cycle either, as you may never recover and have to get on trt anyway.
i don’t agree with the prevailing thought here that you totally revert back once you come off. some people even say you regress since your natural production will be lower. there are studies that show peds permanently change your body and many of these changes are beneficial. this is why people say a failed drug test should lead to a lifetime ban in sports, because they will carry those benefits with them into future competition even if they never touch steroids again. but i’d still say 80%+ of the gains will be lost, it’s just a matter of time (and there’s lots of individual variation here).
i think the most important part of keeping gains is to keep training intensity high. this goes for dieting as well as coming off cycle. by intensity i mean percent of 1rm. reducing calories, hormones and intensity at the same time is the kiss of death to gains. i think it was mentioned here that bonez would cut during his cycles and bulk off cycle for this very reason. some run gh/peptides off cycle to help with this as well.
and it’s generally a bad idea to come on a forum as a new member and shit talk the vets, even if you think they’re dicks or morons or out of line etc. just ignore and focus on contributing value in some way and being positive.
[quote]Admad wrote:
Sorry Flipcolar I didn’t realise that running 2 aas cycles made you a gear guru. I don’t know why your talking about PR on cycle? Strength isn’t an issue, holding the gains after the cycle is the topic of conversation here, or are you too much of a fuckwit to realise that.
And yes my time is too valuable for it to be wasted replying to pointless comments made by people like yourself who obviously think they are too good to actually offer any real advice (not that I want it from you). Seriously dude quit trying to argue and find another thread to offer some ‘guru’ advice to some novices who think that because you read some bro science your suddenly a wizzkid with chems.
I’ll actually go back and apologise to Mr walkway for coming across as aggressive but I see far to many people on forums asking for advice only to get nonsense comments or feedback about issues (not that yours hasn’t been valuable as has some other people on here).
Going back to your earlier comment about blasting and cruising, surely that sort of approach is still going to produce the same results after you eventually come off entirely? What sort of time frame are you talking about?
I ran Growth through my first test cycle and had some awesome results, and most of which I kept, would running peptides alongside an extended cycle be any more beneficial? [/quote]
Flip is one of the more knowledgable members on here and he actually keeps gains unlike your dumbass. So please do us all a favor and fuck off.