Is it possible to gain muscle on PCT
- 08-19-2005, 08:48 AM
Is it possible to gain muscle on PCT
Say for instance one was to take a 4 week cycle of SD at 10mg/day, this is a mild cycle. So for PCT you were going to go with what some would call overkill, (Ultra Hotter, LX, Activate, Fen, E-Form) knowing you don't need all of this tofrom such a mild cycle, would it be possible to still build muscle by using all of these during PCT?
- 08-19-2005, 02:06 PM
You could build muscle during PCT by eating more and training right.
This ought to shock a lot of you: It's actually possible to gain muscle without androgens. Who knew?!
- 08-19-2005, 02:09 PM
I know I was vague but what I should have said was that "can you get the effect of muscle gains by using these products for PCT"
08-19-2005, 09:44 PM
08-20-2005, 01:43 AM
08-20-2005, 09:51 PM
08-21-2005, 06:14 PM
Extreme massive eating and a good training program, will always result in muscle growth. Pretty much regardless of high or low androgen levels.
If one wanted to have as much LBM as Ronnie Colemen without ever using a steroid, its possible. Expect you'll probably have to become a total tub of lard, in the process.
08-21-2005, 08:27 PM
The first part of you statement in pretty accurate, but suggesting one could have Ronnie Coleman's muscle mass sans steroids/insulin/igf/etc is pretty ridiculous. Human genetics can only take you so far....some might come closer to that size (even with the proverbial "tub of lard" added) but I think most would fall far short. You'll see that once one's muscle mass starts getting pretty significant for their build, adding new muscle becomes more and more difficult period.Originally Posted by TheTom
08-23-2005, 04:04 AM
I said it was possible that a natural weightlifter can have as much LBM as Ronnie Colemen. I didn't say it was possible to "look" like him.
A 350lbs @30% bodyfat weightlifter has 245lbs of lbm and a 270lbs 3% bodyfat ronnie colemen has 261.9lbs of lbm.
They'll look absolutely nothing alike whatsoever, but 350lbs @30% bodyfat is attainable for a natural lifter who has the desire to become a massive fat/muscular dude.
and I don't completely agree with your statements. It does become harder as time goes on to add LBM, but only because it becomes increasingly difficult to get the rediculously high caloric demands the body requires.
and even when the person can meet the caloric demands the body requires to consistently put on a lb of lbm on a monthly basis, the excessive fat gain will most assuredly make the lifter change his goals to cutting.
08-23-2005, 04:18 AM
I'm sure Scottyo knows what you were referring to.
You're just not going to see a natural person develope to the heights of an unnatural person, period, with or without the extra fat. Fat is just fat, dude. Extra, stored kcals. It doesn't do anything special, it just means that you ate more cals than you needed. (well, not getting technical anyway, I know fat has a few critical functions).
getting cals only makes a difference if you can convince your body to help build more muscle mass, which it doesn't want to do without supraphysiological hormone levels.
08-23-2005, 06:38 AM
You don't need supraphysiological amounts of hormones to build very high levels of LBM.
I am going to reword my opinion, so it doesn't seem so vague. Basically, what I should of said was,
any natural weightlifter without a hormone deifiency or overly ectomorphic bodytype, can attain as much LBM as an anabolic using pro in his competition-state (3%-5% bf).
The big difference
The anabolic using pro will have that incredible amount of LBM at a very low bodyfat, whereas the natural will have to look like the marshmellow man, to maintain it.
The one thing I do agree on is that a natural lifter can never obtain as much LBM as a lifter on anabolic aids, if both their goals involve becoming behemoths (meaning the roider doesn't care about bf% either).
A good example would be, seasoned natural powerlifters. There's plenty of natural powerlifters that have been in the iron game for 20+ years, that hover around the 300lbs-375lbs mark.
You might not be able to visibly see their musculature as well as a bodybuilders, but it is there.
08-23-2005, 04:18 PM
no...not for big muscles. For ronnie coleman like levels of mass, you do
I just simply cannot agree. And...not many people will, either. There is too much evidence to the contrary, not to mention the obvious empirical evidence.
08-23-2005, 08:47 PM
I don't know how the hell this thread is turning into a natural versus steroid user argument. Personally, I can't gain **** during pct, and am more concerned with hanging onto the gains that I obtained during the cycle. Training with the same intensity levels on cycle would seem to me to be a surefire way to lose a good portion of those gains. To those who say it's easy to gain muscle with eating and training regardless of hormone levels, I simply ask have you actually cycled and been shut-down before?
This argument is like saying that my 90 year old grandfather can start eating a pile and lifting and gain new muscle, when his testosterone levels are likely those of a pre-pubescent boy.
08-24-2005, 01:34 PM
I gotta agree. I'm in the same boat when it comes to pct. I'm still looking for something that will help with pct. My last SD cycle I lost every lb. pct I put on during cycle. I'll be trying retain.
08-24-2005, 07:09 PM
Well, I don't know my final status regarding my post PCT cycle but I kept and gained more muscle weight during my PCT cycle. I did cut the calories during my PCT because I didn't want to risk becoming fat and I love the beach weather.
I'm taking the following during my PCT, CEE, HMB, BCAA, flax/fish oil and liver tablets. I also increased my protein intake through out the day. Once my PCT is over, I will continue to take the supplements that I mention but I will add ZMA to my rotation.
Originally Posted by wastedwhiteboy2
08-25-2005, 01:42 PM
08-25-2005, 08:40 PM
Right now, I'm stocking up for my Oct cycle (Ergo/Pro). As of now, all I have is RXT. Would throwing in Retain be overkill or would that work well w/ the RXT?Originally Posted by wastedwhiteboy2
08-25-2005, 09:36 PM
I'd say yes, if the PCT is done just right, with ALL the right elements INCLUDING the right training intensity and calorie/protein intake. For that, you must know your body VERY well...
hGH and IGF-1 together with the natty-test boosters / ActivaTe come to mind...
08-25-2005, 11:53 PM
exactly. muscle mass is not just dep. on calorie expenditure. i dont care how much fat you have to add, you will not get 270lbs of lbm on a 6ft frame. there comes a point where one HAS to use androgens to MAINTAIN weight. of course, 95% of the people are nowhere near there.Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
08-26-2005, 01:32 PM
I dont think it would be overkill. as far as I know retain is not an anti estrogen. it works to keep muscle a different way. my next cycle will include rxt on cycle and then pct with retain and a few other supps.Originally Posted by Yjyankee
08-28-2005, 10:22 PM
You guys do realize that once you've reached your "genetic max" of muscle, that the only way to pack on more muscle is to use drugs or to accept fat alongside the muscle, right? That means that Tom is more or less correct, not you guys.
08-29-2005, 06:06 PM
That's why there are natural powerlifters around who are fat, but have more lean mass under that fat than is supposedly "natural." Of course if they try to diet down without drugs, they will lose a lot of it, but do some reading - it is possible to gain more muscle than your supposed genetic max, as long as you accept very significant fat gain alongside it.
08-29-2005, 06:16 PM
But why would you want to let yourself get so fat just so you can put on some muscle, if you cant see the muscle and look fat, whats the point? I agree that if you just let it all go and ate everything and worked hard you could get your LBM past your genetic limit than you could hold at a lower bodyfat percentage, but without the hormones you will not be able to stay as lean and still put on more muscle.
08-29-2005, 06:38 PM
I don't think so. Once you reach you genetic limit; thats it no more muscle gain unless you use something extra. And as for adding more calories, thereby more fat, to go beyond you genetic makeup is wrong. All you going to get is fat.Originally Posted by Behemoth
08-30-2005, 11:57 AM
OTOH, there was never a gene identified as "This says how much muscle you can have". So the genetic idea isn't actually for real. I'm not saying the body doesn't have limitations. It does. But to call them "genetic" is besides the point IMO.
If a person, 200 years ago, were to get say 30% of his dietary intake from Tribulus Terrestris and other hormone-enhancing herbs and eventually gets bigger than what you call "genetic limit", is he "eating properly" or is he "going over his genetic limit"???
Sometimes there are no concepts to properly represent reality.
08-30-2005, 12:08 PM
no, your endocrine system clearly has limits placed upon the amount LBM that can be attained and sustained. it's simply not possible for the majority of the population to gain that much muscle; whether it's covered in adipose tissue or not.Originally Posted by TheTom
08-30-2005, 12:50 PM
If you don't have the T levels to support or gain muscle mass, then it's not gonna happen. You cannot gain muscle during PCT w/ ultra low T levels...the analogy that max gave about his 90 yr. old pappy is a good one..lol. And the same goes for women...why do you think that they cannot gain like us guys? It's because they don't have the T levels to do so...but pump 'em up with juice, and they will have no problem..just take a look at those man-women who compete...simply disgusting, yet they can get pretty damn big.
Now add in the new generation PCT products as well as GH, slin, IGF-1, etc. and then of course those chemicals will help you better. With genetics aside, you just cannot expect to gain muscle when your T levels are low, you have to have T in their or some other ergogenic aids in order to gain...their is just no such animal.
08-30-2005, 10:42 PM
Actually mystatin (sp?) is one gene that prevents a muscle from gaining to much. Thats why people made such a big deal about people like Flex Wheeler who supposedly had a genetic mutation that knocked out this gene.Originally Posted by ss01
09-01-2005, 11:25 AM
Myostatin is not a gene, it is an enzyme. But I agree, if you have the gene that makes myostatin disabled partially or completely, that changes things. Just as if you have a disability of a gene that allows your glands to make GH or Test or heck even insulin, you're in big trouble. But that's more of a genetic disease than a true "genetic limitation" of what one can or cannot sustain as a "natural" muscle mass.
Similar Forum Threads
- By Xpballer in forum AnabolicsReplies: 8Last Post: 01-07-2010, 10:15 PM
- By mrutah in forum AnabolicsReplies: 5Last Post: 11-16-2009, 11:27 AM
- By myroslav in forum Cycle InfoReplies: 5Last Post: 09-23-2009, 05:28 PM
- By djwalto in forum SupplementsReplies: 20Last Post: 05-29-2009, 09:03 PM
- By JohnnieFreeze in forum OTC DrugReplies: 9Last Post: 07-26-2008, 04:10 PM