I wonder how true the fascia growth really is. It does make sense but I really think its more of a temporary thing.
I think we would see guys with a lot bigger glutes.
Even IGF-1 seems to be systematic with my experimentation. I pinned just bis and tris and although I did note some great growth, I feel like some of it dropped off when I discontinued use. Perhaps it was just because I lost the all day pump you get from IGF-1.
I've talked to a lot of guys that have pinned for 20 years+ and I havent heard any one of them confirm that they believe in site-specific growth.
I have to say...it does make sense, in theory though
:goodpost:
my glutes grow on-cycle. my girlfriend mentions it and i can see it without any doubt. after the cycle's over, it goes back to the way it was....now, if i did some glute-focused training (i dont - i dont need any more size back there!) while i was cycling, would the stretched fascia permit the muscle to grow more??? IMO, no. it isnt the fascia that prevents growth, it's the milieu of other factors (fiber size, genetics, metabolism/thyroid, anabolism, insulin response, glycogen, protein, water, IGF, MGF ad infinitum) that contribute far more to muscle growth. i have lots of doubt as to the permanence of site growth.
but, alot of guys swear it's true. a super-fast acting steroid like Tsusp or winny would be the best candidate, as it doesnt under esterase to become active...question is, do steroids have actions in muscles prior to entering the bloodstream? i always think of the depot function with oil-based estered injectables, which just sits there and releases the drug into the bloodstream. they call winny injectable "winny depot" which suggests it functions much the same, but i dont know enough about it.
if steroids dont do anything before hitting the bloodstream, then site growth based on steroid-induced muscle hypertrophy is a myth.
comments?