More than 15 pounds of actual muscle possible in 6 week cycle?

[ejg700]

Lets discuss!

With most of the methylated orals, the recommendation is to cycle no longer than 6 weeks; less for some orals. Everyday, I read about some dude that blew up 20-30 pounds in only six weeks on a superdrol/phera bridge, or something like that-which leads me to wonder, how much of that 20-30 pounds is actually muscle? And is it possible to gain that much pure muscle in only six weeks? I know from my own experience, my cycles used to net me about 20-30 pounds a pop. Tons of dirty eating, 400-600 grams of carbs, a ridiculous amount of fat, and of course, loads of protein. Hey, I was bulking, so it's ok, right? Anyhow, The most weight I've ever gained in six weeks was 31 pounds off of topical test, and phera. Sure it looked nice on the scale, but when I took off my shirt, it was a totally different story. I was 242@ 5'10" but I had a 40 inch waist, uber bloat, and the worst case of gyno ever! It looked like someone was trying to hide Bugles corn snacks under my nips! I ended up having a catastrophic breakdown. I quit the gym cold-turkey, and did no PCT on top of it. I lost 15 pounds in 30 days. I'm pretty sure that it was all muscle, because I lost it despite not starving myself. I was so depressed about my current situation, and the fact that I had lost all that muscle, that I got drunk every night at a neighborhood bar, and ate as much deep fried junk as I could get my hands on. Needless to say, I put on another 12 pounds of lard on an already soft, flabby physique. Once I finally snapped out of my rut, I got back in the gym, and cut down 30 pounds in three months. I figured it was time for another cycle, but this time I was going to try something a little different. I limited my carbs to about 150, with the bulk of them being consumed PWO. I also added Sesamin/ClA to the mix. Along with a little Superdrol, I added 10 pounds of muscle in four weeks. I'm sure it was all muscle, because I even leaned out a tad- so it might have been more. I continued for another 6-weeks on some non methylated compounds, but my gains stopped after the Superdrol. part of the reason why they stopped is another topic My point is, can a person really gain that much lean muscle in only a 6 week cycle? My thinking is 15 pounds of lean tissue might be the limit in only 6 weeks,(12 pounds muscle fiber, and an additional 3 pounds of inter-cellular support, ie. fluid, blood vessels...) Adding Igf-1, and insulin to the mix might change the game a bit, but I'm speaking strictly of roids, and mostly of the "currently legal, methylated crop," hence the 6 week max cycle. What do you guys think?

 

[jbryand101b]

no it is not possibly to put on 15lbs of solid muslce in 6 weeks.

and I dont want to turn into a ranting pissed off person, so i'll keep this short.

I dont think you (the op) should ever use steroids again. methylated, or not.
yes, you are a big ass dude. okay. but from your post, i feel you needto work on diet and training, and combing the two to work effectively towards your goal.

people think steroids are a short cut. and use them as such.
but they arent.
it is people like this that give gym rats that actually put in hours in the gym, and work hard on figuring out the perfect micro/macro nutrient intake for optimal results a bad image.

no funny take the edge off humor for you.
:twak:

 

[ejg700]

no it is not possibly to put on 15lbs of solid muslce in 6 weeks.

and I dont want to turn into a ranting pissed off person, so i'll keep this short.

I dont think you (the op) should ever use steroids again. methylated, or not.
yes, you are a big ass dude. okay. but from your post, i feel you needto work on diet and training, and combing the two to work effectively towards your goal.

people think steroids are a short cut. and use them as such.
but they arent.
it is people like this that give gym rats that actually put in hours in the gym, and work hard on figuring out the perfect micro/macro nutrient intake for optimal results a bad image.

no funny take the edge off humor for you.
:twak:

I think you may have mistaken my quest for a discussion for ignorance-which is definitely not the case. Perhaps I should have been more clear in stating that my post chronicled some of the mistakes that I have made in the past-learning through trial and error over the years. I've been in the iron game for a long time, and I wholeheartedly agree that diet, and training is paramount to success; but that's not the point. I'm just looking to engage in intelligent discourse regarding the title of this thread.

 

[Jasen]

most muscle u can add on a week is 2lbs anything above 2lbs is not muscle so like 15 lbs in 4 weeks half of it is muscle. that another reason why some ppl prefer weaker AAS but for a long time, easier to maintain the gains,.

 

[jbryand101b]

most muscle u can add on a week is 2lbs anything above 2lbs is not muscle so like 15 lbs in 4 weeks half of it is muscle. that another reason why some ppl prefer weaker AAS but for a long time, easier to maintain the gains,.

okay, my bad on the attack. im just a little pissed. esp after I read review comments on sites like tfsup about products like mdrol/pplex. lol.

the above answer is about as intelligent as your gonna get without getting into data and research studies.

most natural people can achieve about 10lbs of muscle a year with proper diet and training. maybe more if you have it dialed in just right, or are genetically gifted.

 

[Jasen]

^ thank you

 

[T H E O R E M]

most muscle u can add on a week is 2lbs anything above 2lbs is not muscle so like 15 lbs in 4 weeks half of it is muscle. that another reason why some ppl prefer weaker AAS but for a long time, easier to maintain the gains,.

to be even more precise, i believe its been stated by numerous studies... its much closer to (.7 - 1 lb ) per week for natural trainees WITH dialed in diets and training. Although im sure there are very FEW exceptions.

 

[ejg700]

I pretty much came to the same conclusion. The whole reason I wanted to open the floor on this subject is because I've seen both sides of tracks from my own experience, and now feel I've found what is most important to me. I have always found it funny that so many lifters- and not just younger inexperienced ones put so much emphasis on quantity over quality. "how much weight can I gain in x amount of weeks?" "How much can you bench?" "I can squat x amount of weight!" Who cares if you've put on 30 pounds if 16 of it is fat? I don't care that you can bench 435, if you do with with sloppy, injury inviting form. I see a lot of people who think they are bodybuilders, take it from being an art form to a pissing contest. I'd be lying if I said I was never one of those guys. Now that I know better, it saddens me just to see how prevailing that mentality is becoming

 

[luclyluciano]

Been stated many times. 1/2 a pound per week is possible real muscle. Everything else is water and glycogen....therefore only temporary. If you are gaining alot of fat....and you say you want an intlelligent conversation yet you are piling on the junk food and you have been at this game along time....well there is some false information in here somewhere. Who says eating crap is part of having your diet dialed in.....what exactly have you been at for a long time....eating at McDonalds??????????????? Get educated! Bulking is not eating junk food.uttahere:

 

[Gonzogo]

Is the statement "only xlb/week are possible" backuped with references or is this just some kind of experience?

 

[isoc]

No offense meant by this, but too many times bulking is seen as excuse to be lazy in the gym, ie no cardio, use poor form to leverage up heavier weights, and eat junk food, so essentially the person gets fatter, and that is it. After cutting back down there is no noticed increase in size. There should be very little difference in the foods selected between a cutting diet and a bulking diet, just the amounts. Also, form with high reps and low reps should be the same, if anything tightened up even more with the heavier weights and cardio is a must at all times, even bulking you still need some. People, very few of us have the genes and drive and time to even be competitive at a local show, let alone national/pro level. Use your heads and pay attention to your body, if you look in the mirror and you look like a fat guy, not a weightlifter, then that is what you are and that is what you are eating/training like. This leads to the answer to the original question and for most of us it is no, very few people in the world gain muscle that fast, most who put on 15 lbs in 6 weeks, on average will have a higher % of fat, water, glycogen retention, than muscle. If you want to put on 15 good pounds think about 12-15 weeks, even with nicely dosed anabolics. For 6 weeks, think closer to 3-4 true pounds. I have made these same mistakes, I speak from experience, I have had hurt back, hurt shoulders, wasted time, big gut and big ego. Watch the mirror, not the scale, watch the weights lifted increase with proper form and you will be fine.

 

[Jayhawkk]

Steroids are a shortcut... While juicing with no gym time will not get results; lifting on gear will get greater results in a shorter period. It also allows for greater cutting ability without sacrificing muscle loss. Not too sure of your definition of a short cut but it seems to meet the criteria for mine.

 

[isoc]

gear is a shortcut, but not to the extent that most people think, not to 15lbs of quality muscle in 6 weeks, most people mistake fat and water for muscle, sad but true statement. Definitely agree that training on juice makes everything related to training better, but will not completely cover poor training and bad diet, and will only do that temporarily. Expectations are wayyyy to high when people juice, patience is still required "I'm on my second week and I have only gained 4 pounds, what is wrong?"

 

[Jayhawkk]

Gotcha! Following ya now.

 

[UnrealMachine]

I think the arbitrary numbers don't mean much, what matters the most is how far along your training curve you are. Right when you start lifting weights, anything is possible. I had no idea what I was doing but I blew up and got stretch marks all over. Now, naturally, I have to eat tons and pack on fat to gain muscle at an appreciable rate -- i can lean bulk but it's sooo slow and i gain fat anyway.

So if you are 6'1 and 135 pounds and get on a Phera/SD bridge with a 4500 calorie a day diet yeah maybe you'll break the 2lb/week rule. But if you are at the level you should be at for using steroids in the first place, it's never, ever going to happen... 5lbs of actual muscle on a cycle that you KEEP in the long run is a fantastic result.

 

[Jasen]

go to the grocery store/ go to meat section specifically beef. go see how much 5lbs are......... ITS IS ALOT. best results i ever ad was epi/halo - 6lbs lbs in 6 weeks all muscle

 

[Libertarian]

People keep throwing around numbers in this thread.

"most muscle u can add on a week is 2lbs anything above 2lbs is not muscle"

"1/2 a pound per week is possible real muscle. Everything else is water and glycogen....therefore only temporary."


Can any of these claims be substantiated in any way?

I'm going to say no. Why? Well, personally I know some people who have put on well over 2 pounds in one week while using gear, as did I on my last cycle which was a pretty mild "beginner cycle". I'm referring to cycles that resulted in no or reduced bodyfat changes, and the weight was still there weeks or months after PCT.

I think some of you are underestimating what higher dosages of REAL gear can do. I'm talking Testosterone, Trenbolone, EQ, etc. Stacks with injectables, not this solo PH/DS crap most of the people here seem to run.



The truth is, there is no set number of pounds that a person can gain in a week. There are far too many variables to consider such as:

How big is the person? Packing 5 pounds on a 5'2" frame is more significant than a 6'5" frame.

How far along in is the person prior to running the cycle? The closer you get to and/or surpass your genetic potential, the harder it becomes to make gains with or without gear.

What dosages of gear are you running? To a certain point, the more gear you run the more gains you will get in X amount of time (so long as you are willing to deal with the sides).

 

[Jayhawkk]

There are hard numbers based off physiology limits... There are a few around here like Mullet who can go into the educated detail of what and why those numbers exist.

 

[ejg700]

Been stated many times. 1/2 a pound per week is possible real muscle. Everything else is water and glycogen....therefore only temporary. If you are gaining alot of fat....and you say you want an intlelligent conversation yet you are piling on the junk food and you have been at this game along time....well there is some false information in here somewhere. Who says eating crap is part of having your diet dialed in.....what exactly have you been at for a long time....eating at McDonalds??????????????? Get educated! Bulking is not eating junk food.uttahere:

I think you need to read my post again. Everyone had to learn how to do things the right way, and made mistakes on the way. That's what I'm saying in my post. If you say you didn't, then you're a liar. Please, next time you jump in, and want to insult someone, please make sure you're comprehending the context of what you're reading. Also, I'm speaking strictly of gear enhanced gains, hence this thread being in the anabolic discussion forum.

 

[sethroberts]

You have to consider how much protein there is in a pound of muscle. Water and glycogen make up between 20 and 30% of muscle tissue so you will by definition gain water and glycogen during a cycle. So, let's say that 70% is protein. That equates to roughly 300 grams of protein. The recommended intake of protein to maintain lean body mass is .5 to 1 gram per pound of body weight. So if you weigh 200 pounds then you need 100 to 200 grams per day to maintain your mass. So, to gain a pound of lean mass per week you would have to take in an extra 40 grams of protein per day. Sounds pretty easy but you also have to take into account feed efficiency and nitrogen retention. Steroids increase these but only to a point and the more food you consume, the lower the feed efficiency and nitrogen retention.


To sum it up, controlled experiments in human beings with anabolic steroids pretty consistently show a max of 1 pound per week gain in lean mass. I usually allow for a doubling of this since these controlled studies are usually not as optimized as as they could be in terms of protein intake etc. So, 1 to 2 pounds per week is generally the max -- at least on AAS alone.

 

[Libertarian]

To sum it up, controlled experiments in human beings with anabolic steroids pretty consistently show a max of 1 pound per week gain in lean mass. I usually allow for a doubling of this since these controlled studies are usually not as optimized as as they could be in terms of protein intake etc. So, 1 to 2 pounds per week is generally the max -- at least on AAS alone.

I don't remember ever reading a peer-reviewed research paper discussing men using anabolic steroids for bodybuilding purposes, especially the way we see many bodybuilders doing today. Therefore, much of the research we have available really doesn't mean much for our purposes. For example, measuring the gains of an AIDS patient taking dianabol isn't going to tell us much about what our results would be. Can you cite any studies where the subjects were taking over a gram a week of Trenbolone and Testosterone and 50mg/day of Dianabol while eating a clean diet that includes 300g+/day of protien, and lifting weights 5 times per week? Probably not. So how can you say how much someone doing that can gain? I know people who have ran similar cycles and gained WELL over your 2 pound per week limit.

You say the studies showed 1 pound/week limit, but since their conditions were not 'optimal', you allow for doubling that limit when translating to the real world, right? How is that estimation not purely arbitrary? "Ah, well, the conditions weren't optimal, so uhhh... Let's double it. Yeah that sounds good...". Not very scientific if you ask me, which, in my opinion, defeats the purpose of recognizing clinical research in the first place.

My first cycle was 500mg/week of Testosterone for 10 weeks. Comparatively, that was only a simple, mild, beginner-level cycle. There are plenty of guys running much heavier, much more 'complicated' stacks. I bloated a lot on cycle, but after it wore off I still had about 17 pounds that I kept with no increase in bodyfat. Months after PCT the gains are still there. Furthermore, I ran Ethanate and didn't really start packing on the weight until about week 5. Then my gains exploded until around the beginning of week 8 and then tapered off. I'd say 85% of my gains were within those 4 weeks. 85% of 17 pounds is about 14.5 pounds. Divide that by 4 weeks and you have an average of about 3.6 pounds per week.

Aside from the variables I mentioned in my previous post, there are other factors that can limit the amount of gains a person can make. I think a better question than "How many pounds per week is possible?", is "How many pounds per x-week CYCLE is possible?". Because, sure, I might have gained over 3 pounds on some of the weeks in that cycle, but it didn't continue indefinitely. Your body has ways of adapting as the cycle goes on and your gains will slow to a crawl because of it. The longer a cycle gets, the less efficient it becomes. I think the best gains to time ratio comes from shorter cycles. For example, short cycles of 6 weeks using moderate-high dosages of short-estered injectables and orals can result in larger gains, week for week, compared to 10-12+ week cycles using long esters. Get in, make gains, and get out before your body can adapt.

 

[sethroberts]

I don't remember ever reading a peer-reviewed research paper discussing men using anabolic steroids for bodybuilding purposes, especially the way we see many bodybuilders doing today. Therefore, much of the research we have available really doesn't mean much for our purposes. For example, measuring the gains of an AIDS patient taking dianabol isn't going to tell us much about what our results would be. Can you cite any studies where the subjects were taking over a gram a week of Trenbolone and Testosterone and 50mg/day of Dianabol while eating a clean diet that includes 300g+/day of protien, and lifting weights 5 times per week? Probably not. So how can you say how much someone doing that can gain? I know people who have ran similar cycles and gained WELL over your 2 pound per week limit.

You say the studies showed 1 pound/week limit, but since their conditions were not 'optimal', you allow for doubling that limit when translating to the real world, right? How is that estimation not purely arbitrary? "Ah, well, the conditions weren't optimal, so uhhh... Let's double it. Yeah that sounds good...". Not very scientific if you ask me, which, in my opinion, defeats the purpose of recognizing clinical research in the first place.

My first cycle was 500mg/week of Testosterone for 10 weeks. Comparatively, that was only a simple, mild, beginner-level cycle. There are plenty of guys running much heavier, much more 'complicated' stacks. I bloated a lot on cycle, but after it wore off I still had about 17 pounds that I kept with no increase in bodyfat. Months after PCT the gains are still there. Furthermore, I ran Ethanate and didn't really start packing on the weight until about week 5. Then my gains exploded until around the beginning of week 8 and then tapered off. I'd say 85% of my gains were within those 4 weeks. 85% of 17 pounds is about 14.5 pounds. Divide that by 4 weeks and you have an average of about 3.6 pounds per week.

Aside from the variables I mentioned in my previous post, there are other factors that can limit the amount of gains a person can make. I think a better question than "How many pounds per week is possible?", is "How many pounds per x-week CYCLE is possible?". Because, sure, I might have gained over 3 pounds on some of the weeks in that cycle, but it didn't continue indefinitely. Your body has ways of adapting as the cycle goes on and your gains will slow to a crawl because of it. The longer a cycle gets, the less efficient it becomes. I think the best gains to time ratio comes from shorter cycles. For example, short cycles of 6 weeks using moderate-high dosages of short-estered injectables and orals can result in larger gains, week for week, compared to 10-12+ week cycles using long esters. Get in, make gains, and get out before your body can adapt.

You are correct that there are no studies showing the exact usage that you just described. However, there are studies using suprapharmacological doses of steroids in healthy young men that I will post up as soon as I have a chance. Utilizing these studies, I can make those assumptions as an expert in physiology and pharmacology and having done many years of feed efficiency, metabolic rate and net protein balance studies - not to mention 20 years of experiential evidence, that when observed objectively and with an expert eye confirms this "theory".

Your belief that 85% of "gains" occurs in the first four weeks demonstrates that you may not know the difference between lean tissue gains and scale weight gains, nor do you understand the physiology behind it or the dose response relationship. Funny how some people seem to stay on for extended periods of time (years) and continue to make gains.

Finally, if you noticed, I said generally which means that there may be cases where lean tissue gains could exceed 2 pounds per week but they would likely be rare.

 

[isoc]

definitely agreed on the 85% of gains NOT occurring in the first four weeks. You may definitely slow down in actual weight gain after 4 weeks, but if continuing in the cycle gains will solidify. Mr Roberts can give the science behind this, but this is a fact observed in me and many of my friends who used to do juice and run the usual type of cycle, test+oral kickstart (dbol) weeks 1-5 or 6 then weeks 6-12 or so test with finisher like winny inject. Gained most of weight in the oral kickstart, but by end of cycle was stronger and looked much better as the weight was more muscle and less bloat, ie water, fat. Both have their uses, the extra weight at beginning definitely helps strength, motivation, etc. and the added strength leads to great muscular stimulus in the workouts which lead to eventual greater muscle growth all else working as it should. This is why we see most ph cyclers not blowing up the way people who use illegals do, cycles of 4 weeks dont really cause lasting gains for most people. PH cyclers do put on more muscle than complete natties in general, however, they do not put on as much as those who use illegals and a major factor in my opinion is due to cycle length.

 

[luclyluciano]

If juice packed on 15lbs of lbm in 6 weeks we would have a membership of 250-350 lb ripped bodybuilding monsters. Insisting this is how it works shows just how much misinformation there is about steroids.

 

[Libertarian]

If juice packed on 15lbs of lbm in 6 weeks we would have a membership of 250-350 lb ripped bodybuilding monsters. Insisting this is how it works shows just how much misinformation there is about steroids.

No, not exactly. I gained 17 pounds on my first cycle, but if I ran the exact same cycle again I highly doubt I would make that kind of progress. Some guys will gain 3 pounds on the same cycle that another guy gained 15. The closer you get to and then surpass your 'genetic limit', the harder it becomes to make gains. Even with all the AAS and GH you could ever want, the buck has to stop somewhere.

Your belief that 85% of "gains" occurs in the first four weeks demonstrates that you may not know the difference between lean tissue gains and scale weight gains, nor do you understand the physiology behind it or the dose response relationship.

Even if my gains happened evenly, spread out from week 5-10, that's still 17 pounds in 6 weeks which is ~2.8 pounds/week. Furthermore, had I been running a 'heavier' cycle (mutliple compounds and/or higher dosages) it's easy to believe that my gains could have been even larger.

Again, I'm not saying that everyone out there can gain over 2 pounds a week while on cycle. It's much more likely if you aren't already huge and/or running a heavy cycle. The points I want to make, numerous variables considered: 1. Saying there is a set number of pounds that can be gained per week is arbitrary. 2. At times, it is without a doubt possible to gain well over 2 pounds per week.

Look forward to viewing those studies you mentioned and appreciate you posting them.

 

[sethroberts]

No, not exactly. I gained 17 pounds on my first cycle, but if I ran the exact same cycle again I highly doubt I would make that kind of progress. Some guys will gain 3 pounds on the same cycle that another guy gained 15. The closer you get to and then surpass your 'genetic limit', the harder it becomes to make gains. Even with all the AAS and GH you could ever want, the buck has to stop somewhere.


Even if my gains happened evenly, spread out from week 5-10, that's still 17 pounds in 6 weeks which is ~2.8 pounds/week. Furthermore, had I been running a 'heavier' cycle (mutliple compounds and/or higher dosages) it's easy to believe that my gains could have been even larger.

Again, I'm not saying that everyone out there can gain over 2 pounds a week while on cycle. It's much more likely if you aren't already huge and/or running a heavy cycle. The points I want to make, numerous variables considered: 1. Saying there is a set number of pounds that can be gained per week is arbitrary. 2. At times, it is without a doubt possible to gain well over 2 pounds per week.

Look forward to viewing those studies you mentioned and appreciate you posting them.

You are not making a distinction between weight gain and lean mass gains -- do you understand that the two are different? Yes, you can gain 20 pounds in a few weeks using superdrol -- do you believe it to be lean mass? How do you measure body composition on this cycle? DEXA scanning or some other method where you can determine total body water? I doubt it, but then again, you probably have no idea what i am talking about. This study ion healthy young males used up to 600 mg of test enanthat per week for 20 weeks and the highest dose group gained 17.6 lbs of fat free mass which is not the same as lean tissue gains. Bhasin is a recognized expert in the field. If you knew anythign about dose-response relationships you would know tat the are not linear.

Testosterone dose-response relationships in healthy young men.

Bhasin S, Woodhouse L, Casaburi R, Singh AB, Bhasin D, Berman N, Chen X, Yarasheski KE, Magliano L, Dzekov C, Dzekov J, Bross R, Phillips J, Sinha-Hikim I, Shen R, Storer TW.

Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2001 Dec;281(6):E1172-81.

 

[Jayhawkk]

I usually take a lot less time telling someone I believe they're an idiot.

 

[sethroberts]

I usually take a lot less time telling someone I believe they're an idiot.

Good point but I feel this is a very important issue because this belief that steroids pack on unbelievable weight sets unrealistic expectations and pushes people down the road of believing that higher doses or more drugs will give them the results that they want when in reality the results that the want are unachievable in the time frame that they want to achieve them. Compounds like superdrol have ruined people because now they believe that any product that doesn't pack on 20 pounds in a month is worthless.

 

[Jayhawkk]

I'm glad you have more patience that I do at this point. Trying to educate people who are asking questions while sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting is almost maddening...

Was on a board a year or two back following a guy's diet while trying to build a massive squat/dead/bench goal. He was eating nothing but multiple burger joint meals along with snack cakes, liquor and chips... No amont of discussion on what he was doing to his body regardless of his ability to squat high numbers seemed to matter.

 

[neverstop]

these days if i keep 5lbs after a 6-10 week cycle and don't add fat i'm freakin thrilled. I would say for the average medium/advanced bodybuilder its impossible to even put on >1lb of real muscle a week, most weight gain on orals is carbs and water pushed into your muscles. thats what I love about IGF gains, they are small and come slowly but you KEEP them and they are REAL.

 

[neverstop]

Compounds like superdrol have ruined people because now they believe that any product that doesn't pack on 20 pounds in a month is worthless.

this is SOOOOOO true, i see so many times guys on 500mg of test and all pissed off that they ONLY gained 10lbs off their 10 week cycle or something which is a GREAT result.

 

[Libertarian]

You are not making a distinction between weight gain and lean mass gains -- do you understand that the two are different? Yes, you can gain 20 pounds in a few weeks using superdrol -- do you believe it to be lean mass?

From weeks 1-5, I gained maybe 1.5 pounds. This was probably just fat because I drastically increased the amount of calories I was eating. From weeks 5-8 my weight increased by about 25 pounds from day 1 (unfortunately no AI was used). During PCT the bloat went away and two months after PCT concluded I was still up 17 pounds. So when I said from weeks 5-10 I gained 17 pounds, I am referring to the gains that I was able to keep. To measure my bodyfat I just used calipers. It's no Hydrostatic tank or DEXA scan, but in my experience it has at least been consistent. I don't have my notes infront of me, but I actually recall my bodyfat % dropping slightly, which is expected since adding lean mass without adding/losing body fat will result in reduced overall body fat %. Then of course my before and after photos, which post-cycle show much more vascularity and striations and pre-cycle.

But really, my individual case hardly matters as results similar and even better than what I experienced on my cycle are not unusual at all. Not only have I seen it with my own eyes with people whom I know personally, you can read reports online all day.

The study you posted is interesting and I will most likely study it closer when I get a chance. However, I hardly see how it is relevant to our discussion. I just briefly skimmed over the text but these lines alone I think pretty much render the study useless for our purposes:

Nutritional intake. Energy and protein intakes were standardized at 36 kcal · kg-1 · day-1 and 1.2 g · kg-1 · day-1, respectively. The standardized diet was initiated 2 wk before treatment was started; dietary instructions were reinforced every 4 wk. The nutritional intake was verified by analysis of 3-day food records and 24-h food recalls every 4 wk by use of the Minnesota Nutritional Software.

My conversions are probably jacked up (so please correct me if I am wrong), but what is that, only about half a gram of protien per pound of body weight? Calorie intake is also too low for bulking purposes.

Exercise stimulus. The participants were asked not to undertake strength training or moderate-to-heavy endurance exercise during the study. These instructions were reinforced every 4 wk.

Wow. Without lifting weights I'm surprised they gained anything at all. Nearly a pound week for 20 weeks isn't bad for sitting on your ass the whole time and barely eating.

Again, I see no reason that these results could suggest in any way what is possible for someone to gain running heavier, more complicated stacks, eating tons of protien and calories, and at least stepping foot in a weight room.

 

[sethroberts]

From weeks 1-5, I gained maybe 1.5 pounds. This was probably just fat because I drastically increased the amount of calories I was eating. From weeks 5-8 my weight increased by about 25 pounds from day 1 (unfortunately no AI was used). During PCT the bloat went away and two months after PCT concluded I was still up 17 pounds. So when I said from weeks 5-10 I gained 17 pounds, I am referring to the gains that I was able to keep. To measure my bodyfat I just used calipers. It's no Hydrostatic tank or DEXA scan, but in my experience it has at least been consistent. I don't have my notes infront of me, but I actually recall my bodyfat % dropping slightly, which is expected since adding lean mass without adding/losing body fat will result in reduced overall body fat %. Then of course my before and after photos, which post-cycle show much more vascularity and striations and pre-cycle.

But really, my individual case hardly matters as results similar and even better than what I experienced on my cycle are not unusual at all. Not only have I seen it with my own eyes with people whom I know personally, you can read reports online all day.

The study you posted is interesting and I will most likely study it closer when I get a chance. However, I hardly see how it is relevant to our discussion. I just briefly skimmed over the text but these lines alone I think pretty much render the study useless for our purposes:



My conversions are probably jacked up (so please correct me if I am wrong), but what is that, only about half a gram of protien per pound of body weight? Calorie intake is also too low for bulking purposes.



Wow. Without lifting weights I'm surprised they gained anything at all. Nearly a pound week for 20 weeks isn't bad for sitting on your ass the whole time and barely eating.

Calipers will not tell you how much intramusclar water you have gained. Like I said I don't doubt that you gained the weight you said you did only that it was lean mass -- how long you retain it is not necessarily a good measure either because 11-beta hydroxylase inhibition can take some time to fully reverse itself.

As far as this study goes, they were asked not to participate in strength training but that does not mean that they did not. Also, their caloric intake was greater than maintenance levels and their protein intake was about half of what bodybuilders consume (except for those who consume really high amounts) but again, feed efficiency decreases as caroric intake increases. Also, higher doses (and more drugs combined) do not necessarily equate to more growth -- I mentioned before that dose response relationships are not linear. At some point the response is maximal.