Are steroids a long term thing? Thoughts
- 02-20-2013, 05:22 PM
They all gained a modest amout of lean mass. I want to say 8 to 12lbs or so I'll have to find the study.
Point is, it does seem steroids can cause muscle growth on their own. Actually training and eating is what really accelerates those gains.
- 02-20-2013, 05:38 PM
My legs are not up to par with my upper body so I have really been hammering away at them and have seen growth on my whole body since...
Strength training is very important, even to bodybuilders, it gives your muscle that dense hardness to it.
I too was doing too much volume and not enough strength training, the heavy squats and deads have made me much thicker and bigger
- 02-20-2013, 05:55 PM
Did the subjects eat more? I imagine they did. And I also imagine the steroids cause nutrient partitioning. But without GH, the Test is useless for actual dry muscle fiber proliferation gains.
Lean mass also includes water weight, btw.
Steroids cause nutrient partitioning. They also cause hunger increases if the dose is high enough. 600mg of Test is enough to increase hunger significantly. More calories + better nutrient partitioning = more growth, particularly in muscle mass and less fat storage.
Now if the same group of people also ate the same amount as they did with 600mg of test in their system, they'd probably gain the same amount of weight, but this time mostly fat. Which brings me to the point I made earlier, steroids only help you do it in a lean fashion.
You are overlooking the caloric surplus + water weight. You are telling me that because non-trained people took test, that it caused muscular development. But reality is, the subjects most likely ate more & had better nutrient partitioning so that the surplus of food went to good intentions instead of bad intentions (ie. muscle cells got the calories instead of fat cells) which would explain the lean mass gains and the loss of fat simulateously.
GH and IGF causes muscular growth. Last time I checked, there wasn't any other hormone that performed this.
You can grow in muscle mass without Test. You can't grow in muscle mass without GH & IGF. Otherwise, women would be helpless in seeing gains. Their efforts would be futile. But we know that isn't true. It's easy to give all the credit to steroids. Fact is, they don't actually cause muscle growth, they make it easier to do things. Case in point, you go on a mass building routine, you pack on more lbs of weight in the same amount of time with testosterone cycles than you would without. Likewise, you also burn more fat in a caloric deficit with test than without it. Which supports the idea that it only accelerates what your body is already capable of doing. Yet it won't take you past what you could do naturally. And in many cases, trained subjects that cycle test often lose a large portion of weight, indicating that the gains were wet at best and not solid.
The GH, Insulin & IGF-1 bit is where men go from being "jacked" to "freakshow", surpassing anything they could have done with steroids alone.
02-20-2013, 05:58 PM
Too often people point fingers at a successful athlete and say "steroids" when they tend to disregard the hard work and dedication that was put into it. Ex lance Armstrong, any pro bodybuilder
and again, here is another big
Too often lazy people take steroids and make incredible gains even with a lack of dedication and hard work, and when they are accused of steroids they say "hard work" and disregard the drugs
Ex kids I know who used to be small and started taking drugs and blew up. But when I watch them train it's a joke, texting for ten minutes upwards between sets.
My point being, it's a double edged sword.
Should pro athletes use? If it's against the rules, but everyone around them is using, I'd say then they have every right to use, but we should have drug free divisions for those that choose to go that route.
Should average Joe use?
If he's on a large amount of gear at an early age (hgh,t3, insulin), and still can't win a local show, he's on a dead end road that will ultimately end up poorly for him
I do not use myself, nor am I anti gear. I think if it can be used responsibly than you should have the choice to do so, (one last time)
F'ing around with your endocrine system is no joke kids.
02-20-2013, 06:04 PM
test alone will cause one to gain muscle.. raising test to above normal levels increases protein synthesis... What happens when you increase protein synthesis? Bingo, muscle gain.
You will gain much faster with hgh and insulin, i'm not arguing that.
But you cannot sit here and say that test alone will not cause dry muscle gains. Why else have I seen people on this board suggest a test only first cycle
02-20-2013, 06:04 PM
02-20-2013, 06:15 PM
This is intersting. Here's a study where the recipients did not train. Apparently, using testosterone alone can also increase IGF-1 levels.
The following text outlines the benefits and risks of Testosterone administration based on a clinical human trial of 61 healthy men in 2001. The purpose of the trial was to determine the dose dependency of testosterone’s effects on fat-free mass and muscle performance.
In this trial 61 men, 18-35years old were randomized into 5 groups receiving weekly injections of 25, 50, 125, 300, 600 mg of Testosterone enanthate for 20 weeks. They had previous weight-lifting experience and normal T levels. Their nutritional intake was standardized and they did not undertake any strength training during the trial. The only two groups that reported significant muscle building benefits were the 300 and 600 mg groups so any dose lower than 300mg will not be considered in this essay. 12 men participated in the 300 mg group and 13 men in the 600 mg group.
600mg of Testosterone a week for 20 weeks resulted in the following benefits:
Increased fat free mass, muscle strength, muscle power, muscle volume, hemoglobin and igf-1.
The same 600 mg administration resulted in 2 side effects. HDL cholesterol was negatively correlated and 2 men developed acne.
The normal range for total T in men is 241-827 ng/dl according to Labcorp and 260-1000 ng/dl according to Quest Laboratories. The normal range for igf-1 is 81-225 according to Labcorp. Total T and igf-1 levels were taken after 16 weeks and resulted in the following;
300 mg group-1,345 ng/dl a 691 ng increase from baseline
600 mg group-2,370 ng/dl a 1,737 ng increase from baseline
300 mg group-388 ng/dl a 74 ng increase from baseline
600 mg group-304 ng/dl a 77 ng increase from baseline
Body composition was measured after 20 weeks.
Fat Free Mass by underwater weighing
300 mg group-5.2kg (11.4lbs) increase
600 mg group-7.9kg (17.38lbs) increase
Fat Mass by underwater weighing
300 mg group-.5kg (1.1lbs) decrease
600 mg group-1.1kg (2.42lbs) decrease
Thigh Muscle Volume
300 mg group-84 cubic centimeter increase
600 mg group-126 cubic centimeter increase
Quadriceps Muscle Volume
300 mg group-43 cubic centimeter increase
600 mg group-68 cubic centimeter increase
Leg Press Strength
300 mg group-72.2kg (158.8lbs) increase
600 mg group-76.5kg (168.3lbs) increase
300 mg group-38.6 watt increase
600 mg group-48.1 watt increase
300 mg group-6.1 gram per liter increase
600 mg group-14.2 gram per liter increase
Plasma HDL Cholesterol
300 mg group-5.7 mg/dl decrease
600 mg group-8.4 mg/dl decrease
300 mg group-7 of the 12 men developed acne
600 mg group-2 of the 13 men developed acne
There were no significant changes in PSA or liver enzymes at any dose up to 600mg. However, long-term effects of androgen administration on the prostate, cardiovascular risk, and behavior are unknown. The study demonstrated that there is a dose dependant relationship with testosterone administration. In other words the more testosterone administered the greater the muscle building effects and potential for side effects.
02-20-2013, 06:26 PM
02-20-2013, 07:29 PM
02-20-2013, 08:15 PM
I've only done oral. I've done sledge and gained about 8 lbs. I am now doing M-Sten and am about 3 weeks in and have gained about 5 lbs. I have buddies that tell me to do injectables but it's just so expensive! I can buy a stack with a PCT for $150 and that's a 15 week cycle! I haven't done blood work so idk how my liver and all that is but I take milk thistle and other liver protectors daily. I've been happy with orals, might do a injectable cycle here in about 4 months will see.
02-20-2013, 08:52 PM
02-20-2013, 09:09 PM
02-20-2013, 10:24 PM
02-20-2013, 11:25 PM
My point is very simple but it prob will take a lengthy explanation. WHen protein synthesis are increased through the addition of testosterone beyond HRT dosages for a long time as it states in the original point of this thread, it increases the need for food as well. THis food intake puts a strain on the body as it is an artificial way of achieving this protein synthesis which normally is not possible.
Now the issue with glucose. Glucose is glucose regardless where it comes from, muscle cells for example will process it the same way. There is not a different way to process glucose from table sugar any differently than sweet patatoe. Table sugar does have some fructose which the liver has to deal with in a different way and that's where some issues rise but we taking strictly glucose here.
The main point im making is this, glucose itself has the capacity to create problems to insulin receptors found on any cell in the body.
Talking strictly biochemistry, a cell has the ability to use either fatty acids or glucose to make ATP.
So far so good. Fatty acids have no need for an inslulin response. It can be utilized by the cell as a fatty acid. Glucose on the other hand it NEEDS insulin to prop open the cell receptor to receive glucose to make ATP. Regardless if you eat whatever carbs, glucose in the blood will automatically trigger an insulin response. Why this is so important, it's because too much glucose in the blood is toxic to nerves and does a lot of damage. Ask ppl with diabetes.
So when someone says im eating sweet patatoes... it doesnt really matter, what matter is how much glucose is in the blood, how much the body uses for ATP production and how much insulin you need to allow that glucose to enter any cell.
Here is the punch line....many ppl have no idea what takes place at cellular level. They eat X amount of carbs and make X amount of glucose out of it. THe problem occurs when cells receive more glucose than actually is used to make ATP. At that point everything backs up, receptors are less responsive because the cell itself is bombarded with too much glucose which it doesnt need and signals the receptor to take it down a notch. THis is the start of insulin resistance if left unchecked.
So the pancreas secrets more insulin to overcome the problem and things just get worse from there. All this happens without any symptoms!!
So unless you check your blood glucose and also check your insulin production you have no idea what is going on.
Now since many ppl dont eat that much fat and a lot of carbs you can all connect the dots.
THere isnt anyone in here that really pays attention to their blood glucose and how much insulin their body make to burn that glucose unless you are diabetic. So saying that you are fine and dont have insulin resistance is shooting darts in the dark. Just as an FYI...we dont have an unlimited amount of insulin supply. The more we use the less we have later on life. The beta cells in the pancreas if overly solicited for many years will tend to make less insulin as you get older. So although bodybuilding is catchy, ppl being big and what not it does take a toll on ppl's internal organs to get there.
I hope this helps some ppl get a handle on their diet in understanding how glucose is processed at cellular level.
THe link below is of a fellow Dr Doug Mcguff who will explain how cells work in much more detail. There are 2 parts about 20 min total.
02-21-2013, 01:39 AM
Are steroids a long term thing? Thoughts
02-21-2013, 09:27 AM
02-21-2013, 09:56 AM
If so: x amount of glucose ingested from sugar will have a greater probability of bombarding the cell than x amount of glucose ingested from a starch - no? Because x amount of glucose from the sugar is "dumped" onto the cells quickly while the starch spreads the glucose release over time.
I am only talking equal amounts of glucose from both sources.....
02-21-2013, 10:57 AM
I am merely saying that Testoterone indirectly causes muscle growth, not directly.
While on cycle you:
Train harder - Due to hemoglobin increase
Recover faster - Also due to hemoglobin increase
Have better nutrient partitioning
And obviously your body has more IGF-1 as a direct result of taking more Test. Nonetheless, without the food and without the IGF, there is no growth. All I am saying is that Test gets you there faster, but it doesn't take you somewhere that you could not have done naturally. I know.
I've experimented with this stuff and I can tell you it only speeds up or amplifies progress but it doesn't take you beyond what could be accomplished without it, speaking in terms of muscle growth and fat loss.
02-21-2013, 11:10 AM
I at one time was pre-diabetic. Stopped eating candies, debbie cakes and sweet tea and moved toward brown rice, potatoes, fibrous veggies and lean proteins and my problem went away and has been non-existent since. So I know from anecdotal experience what really pans out and what doesn't.
Everything in moderation. But when trying to get big, you'll need lots of all three macros.
You also didn't talk about the dire need of carbs for anaerobic exercise such as weight lifting. ATP is unable to use fatty acids in this case. It cannot be used under these conditions and therefore a surplus of glucose & creatine need to be present for outstanding training sessions.
You also have deliberately ignored the conversation surrounding the fact that the rate of digestion means everything to whether or not a carbohydrate is healthy. Sudden increase in glucose in blood = fat storage & yo-yo blood sugar. Over time, that = Type II diabetes.
Bodybuilder's diets = anti-diabetic. We care about sustained energy and sustained anabolic activity which means we need to avoid sugar spikes which things like table sugar and debbie cakes tend to give us. Lastly, we need lots of micronutrients, which you have also sorely ignored the topic of. Without proper nutritional values in our food, we'll be deficient - especially routine trainer's like myself. It is imperative to have all the micronutrients to have a properly functioning body. Considering all carbs as equal is a very dangerous piece of advice to be giving out. They aren't equal. Sugar is empty calories. Potatoes are not.
02-21-2013, 11:18 AM
If you ingest sugar by itself yes cells would be bombarded with glucose in a short period of time. Now, some starches that have been processed and have little to no fiber like white bread, will act similar to sugar when it comes to glucose.
02-21-2013, 11:21 AM
Re: Are steroids a long term thing? Thoughts
The Effects of Supraphysiologic Doses of Testosterone on Muscle Size and Strength....
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates
02-21-2013, 11:21 AM
The only thing i'm saying is the rate at which you're gaining muscle and losing fat is greatly accelerated above natural capacities.
That is all, sir
02-21-2013, 12:08 PM
Im not proposing ppl eat sugar, it merely has been used as an example in this conv. Once glucose is in the blood the body doesnt know the difference where it come from. The glucose molecules are all the same. You are referring to the breakdown in the gut and how quickly the ingested carbs are turned into glucose. That's another story.
If you want to learn more about that, I suggest you buy a glucose meter and eat different carbs and check your blood sugar. You will be suprised what you will find out.
By reading your post I can see you have a general understanding of glucose but there is more to the story.
BTW, there is little need for carbs for anaerobic exercise. Do you have any proof to subtantiate this claim?
I've trained for months at the time with very low carbs, such an apple a day or something like that in total less than 100g of carbs per day in general. By eating enough fat I could train 5 days a week one hour a day without any problems plus some cardio.
See, when you want to lose body fat most of the calories come from fatty acids not glucose. Triglycerides are broken down into fatty acids from your fat deposits and some other compounds not important in this conv, and many cells use this for fuel and create more ATP than glucose does.
Obviously it is well researched that 1gr of fat had 9 calories, and 1 gr of glucose has 4.
Also to get back to your other comment, the liver stores roughly 75g of glycogen....not sure what your point is with that. In normal conditions the liver rarely gets drained of that glycogen and to replenish it only takes like a small amount of carbs. That glycogen is mainly used to sustain a stable blood glucose not to store large amounts of glycogen for anaerobic activities. If persisitently glycogen is forced into the liver, the liver will either dump it into the blood stream as triglycerides or you end up geting something called a "fatty liver".
I wish you would look deeper into how our bodies work rather be quick in pointing fingers at my statement. There is a lot more than glucose when it comes to body's methabolism.
02-21-2013, 01:20 PM
Cells dont use fatty acids for anaerobic exercise. They use them for aerobic exercise. I dont have to argue with you on that. There are only a few things man understands about the human body - this is one of them. Cells will not utilize fatty acids anaerobically because to metabolize fatty acids, you need oxygen.
Definition of the word anaerobic :
1. (of an organism or tissue) living in the absence of air or free oxygen. 2. pertaining to or caused by the absence of oxygen.
Anerobic activity needs glucose and creatine to sustain itself. You only have a few seconds of anaerobic energy built in the muscle cell, which is why we have created a structure of "sets" and "rest period" for training. During set, you use anaerobic functions like glucose converting to ATP, then creatine phosphate gets consumed to bind with ADP to create more ATP for a few more seconds of energy and then lactic acid comes into play and shuts down energy production. This is when you "fail" at the set. Afterwards, you are in an aerobic state, in which blood and oxygen are carried to the cells to refill the depleted glucose and creatine phosphate. Lactic acid gets converted back into usuable energy via oxidation processes and thus explains the hard breathing that takes place after a few working sets. Your body performs aerobic activity in between sets and anaerobic activity during lifting.
I've put in plenty of man hours to understand human metabolism. In fact, I've read over 600 pages of scientifically referenced material regarding the human metabolism.
And the avergage human body is capable of storing 500-600g of glycogen total, and thats an "average". Big guys, or guys who have been starving themselves in a state of Ketosis can hold even more than average amounts.
The only thing I can say on your previous post that agrees with science is that fatty acids can convert to ATP, just not quick enough for anaerobic or high-intensity exercise. Too much intensity causes anaerobic activity to take over because you are burning energy at an unsustainable rate for fatty acid metabolism. This is common knowledge. The only exception is when the body enters a state of Ketosis. Only then can fatty acids be utilized for anaerobic energy, but this is after a number of weeks before it becomes possible. Even then, it's an irregular metabolic pathway that causes the liver to process fatty acids for immeidate energy.
Look man, I'm not gonna argue with you anymore. This is stupid. We're arguing over proven aspects. I think debates should be left to topics that aren't fully understood. And this is a topic which is fully understood by the scientific community.
02-21-2013, 01:46 PM
02-21-2013, 03:52 PM
And yeah feel free to point out my avi isn't a pic of me either, its all good
02-21-2013, 03:56 PM
02-21-2013, 05:46 PM
02-21-2013, 05:53 PM
Otherwise, you get a recomposition, due to the increased nutrient partitioning effect. But at the end of the day, that hat goes off to GH, which usually does most of its magic during sleep. And quite honestly, most of the guys I know running gear do it to maintain the energy, stamina and recovery ability that they once had in the past. It's a means to get in the gym to keep doin what they have always done. It helps intensity. And coupled with additional hunger and calories, it gives GH the resources to do what it does best - grow muscles. And btw, this whole time you have been defending Testosterone in a very general perspective. I have been arguing against it from a molecular perspective.
02-21-2013, 06:08 PM
02-22-2013, 09:27 AM
And at a later date I have not had any in my system, and ate plenty of food and surpassed my previous strength and mass without them.
That's my point, I guess. Either way, there is clearly some truth to your thoughts and I appreciate it, sir. It gives me hope the a pyramid scheme might be effective for me in cycling in the future...
02-22-2013, 12:23 PM
In a way you are both right. Even if you train and eat perfect if you naturally have low test, you will have issues gaining muscle and keeping off fat. But no one is perfect, life happens and you miss a workout or miss a meal or don't have a choice to eat something you don't want to eat. So in that sense no one knows what their true potential is and for a lot of people anabolics simply help people get great results even though they aren't perfect all the time.
02-23-2013, 04:16 PM
Similar Forum Threads
- By JWest0926 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 7Last Post: 08-24-2009, 06:05 PM
- By JBlaze in forum General ChatReplies: 14Last Post: 07-19-2004, 05:47 AM
- By badbart in forum AnabolicsReplies: 1Last Post: 02-26-2004, 11:14 AM
- By MrBean in forum General ChatReplies: 17Last Post: 12-15-2003, 06:01 PM
- By Dwight Schrute in forum AnabolicsReplies: 5Last Post: 05-12-2003, 07:15 AM