Thesinners 1st Law of Thermodynamics stack

thesinner

thesinner

Recovering AXoholic
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Since so many of you guys are stacking together ridiculously huge amounts and megadosing non-hormonal supplements all together in one cycle, I figured I'd take this time to remind you how we make gains.


We can sum it all up in this incredibly simple equation called the first law of thermodynamics:

[Mass gained] = [Energy Stored] = [Energy Taken In] - [Energy Expended]

Sounds simple enough. Notice anything missing from this equation? SUPPLEMENTS!!!! The amount of weight you gain is limited to the amount of energy (or food) you take in.


So why take anabolic supplements?

Anabolics will create a shift in the body's anabolic metabolism towards muscle growth by means of some mechanism. This means that more calories will be stored as muscle rather than fat.

However, [mass gained] = [energy taken in] - [energy expended] so, we now increase our calories to get more bang for your buck while we are in this anabolic shift. Do these supplements increase appetite? Read the label. Chance are they probably do not. With the stacking of more and more supplements, the anabolic shift will become greater and greater. And the only way to get any worth of this overly high anabolic shift is to eat more that you are going to want (be able to) eat.


For this reason, I highly recommend you split up, and spread out your supplement 'stacks', and enjoy an increased anabolic shift, through different mechanisms, over a longer period of time (instead of all at once). Besides, steady gains are much easier to maintain that rapid ones.
 
Jayhawkk

Jayhawkk

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
^^Great advice with all the mega this and that stacks running lately. More is not always better and in a lot of cases will impede your gains.
 
bpmartyr

bpmartyr

Snuggle Club™ mascot
Awards
1
  • Established
More is ALWAYS better. :D
 
thesinner

thesinner

Recovering AXoholic
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
...but wait, there's more!

Here's my PFAQ (Probably Frequently Asked Questions)

---What is this First Law of Thermodynamics Stack?

Not really a stack. More of an explanation that simultaneously megadosing every non-hormonal anabolic under that sun is not going to make you huge because you are limited by how much you eat.




---What the hell is this "anabolic shift"?
By anabolic shift, I'm refering to Le Chatelier's Principle. (Pronounced La-shat-el-ee-ay). Le Chatelier's Principle states that chemical reaction does not go to 100% completion, but rather to an equilibrium based on the the reaction constant (k) of that certain reaction, where K= (concentration of products)/ (concentration of reactants). Anyhow, it means if you increase the reactants, the products will increase. (FYI Le Chatelier's principle is how negative feedback loops are created).
By taking anabolics, we create an increase in our body's muscle-building "crap" (i.e. hormones, enzymes, etc.) in relation to fat building crap. This means that when we add calories to the equation, there's more muscle-building crap to react with the food, and no increase in fat-building crap.

[muscle-building crap] + [Food Energy] ----> [Muscle]
[Fat-building crap] + [Food Energy] -----> [Fat]

Consequently, more energy is stored as muscle on an anabolic.



---So why can't we stack more and more anabolics, wouldn't this ensure that even more energy is stored as muscle?

To an extent. But let's be smart shoppers about this.

Food= cheap
Anabolics (especially these cycles you guys are doing)= expensive
Making the most from your anabolics= priceless


We'll use hypthetical stoichiometry (balancing chemical equations) to make this easier:
A= Muscle-building crap
F= Food Calories
M= Muscle Mass


Let's say
1 A + 1 F ----> 1 M

Ok, great. Now let's pretend we don't have a pretty 1-1 ratio of A and F to work with. Let's say we have 1A and 3F. How much M will we get?

1 A + 3 F ----> 1 M + 2F

In this case, F is the Excess reactant. This means that M is limited to how much A reacts. Now let's see what happens when we take too many anabolics at once. Let's pretend now we have 3A and 1 F. Can you guess what this will look like?

3 A + 1F ----> 1 M + 2A

In both cases, we've built the same amount of muscle. But the first one was a lot less expensive. More A is nothing without more F.




---Won't these stacks be beneficial for cutting, since it would ensure that more energy taken in is stored as muscle?

Again, this is only to an extent. Since you will be working in a calorie deficit (burning more calories than you take in), you will already be accumulating muscle-building crap, naturally.

Recall the equation from above:

3 A + 1 F ----> 1M + 2A

Excess muscle-building crap accumulates, and your body begins to prepare itself for when you start to take in more calories. If you've ever cut down for a competition, when you come off your hectic competition diet, and eat wtf you want, you'll notice for the next week or so that you'll gain weight, but not get fat. This is due to elevated amounts of muscle-building crap (and water weight, if you dried out).

So while taking an anabolic cutting will increase the chances of the few calories you are taking in do not get stored as fat, don't overdo it.

(Note: The excess muscle-building crap does not accumulate linearly. This means that it will start to level off. So taking a crap load of anabolics will not ensure insane rebound growth from coming off a competition diet.)
 
thesinner

thesinner

Recovering AXoholic
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
---What about the ________ stack?

Let's first look at what a stack is versus what your stack isn't:

A stack is the creation of biochemical synergy (two or more components that produce a greater effect than their individual contribution) via multple supplements. Here's some popular stacks that actually create synergy:

1.)Cissus/powerfull/creatine: In this stack, cissus increases blood flow to the muscle, thus increasing the availability of other chemicals (i.e. food and the other two supplements) to the muscle. Creatine is always useful, not only a performance enhancer, it will upregulate your androgenic receptor proteins, causing your muscles to take in more nutrients. Powerfull creates a unique mind-muscle connection, which leads for enhanced performance, which can ultimately lead to enhanced IGF levels. I only know 4-carbonyl-blah-blah-blah to a certain extent, but there could be more to it (which leads to an enhanced anabolic shift) than just that.


2.) NHA Stack: This stack frees up testoserone via two pathways: aromitization and SHBG binding. If taking just ATD or Danivil solo, you would free up some test, but increase the odds of it being bound to the other pathway. Increased test leads to enhanced performance and significant anabolic shift.


3.) The Asteroid Stack: This stack (powefull, creatine, and caffiene) is a fairly simple one to follow. Enhanced performance from all three via different mechanisms. Enhanced androgenic receptor modulation from the creatine. Caffeine will also counter act the drowsiness caused by powerfull.


4.) The infamous NO + Creatine Stack: Though most see this stack as being the over-hyped "flavor of the week" there is a little synergy involved, though I'm not sure how much contribution there is from the NO. Nitric Oxide can increase blood flow to the muscle as well as (according to some studies) enhance insulin sensitivity. Since creatine in the blood needs 1) flow into the muscle and 2) get into the muscle cell (via insulin action) Nitric oxide will help with both of these standards.



If you're not taking one of these stacks mentioned above for gaining mass, or are unsure if what you are taking would create a synergistic effect; then, there is no advantage to taking them at the same time.
 
mixedup

mixedup

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
More is ALWAYS better. :D

I second that. MORE MORE MORE lol MORE TEST MORE FINA MORE EQ double that DBOL and DECA. But in all reality The sinner is right and it's GOOD info more is not always better there is a point of diminishing returns.
 
CNorris

CNorris

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
The body is not as simple as a 1 + 3 - 1 = 3 equation. I know freakishly skinny bean poles who can eat 6000 calories a day, work out and not gain a pound of muscle or fat. I dont believe their body can possibly extract all the nutrients from the food, and process them without them gaining weight. Someones metabolism just cant be that fast. The body is the most complex thing on this planet. Everyone's body is different. Some can eat 40 grams of protein a day and be strong as hell, while others can eat 400, work out and still be weak. Some peoples bodies must just let nutrients pass through. Other peoples bodies put every single excess calorie to their gut. Its more about genetics than calories in - calories expended. Nutrition and anabolics can shift people away from their natural genetic state of course, but once again you are fighting nature. Its always a tough battle.
 
Mulletsoldier

Mulletsoldier

Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Nice post. Few things I agree with, many I don't, but it is good to see that you have taken the time to put this together.
 
Jayhawkk

Jayhawkk

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Great starter guide though for people who are just downing pills
 
thesinner

thesinner

Recovering AXoholic
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
The body is not as simple as a 1 + 3 - 1 = 3 equation. I know freakishly skinny bean poles who can eat 6000 calories a day, work out and not gain a pound of muscle or fat. I dont believe their body can possibly extract all the nutrients from the food, and process them without them gaining weight. Someones metabolism just cant be that fast. The body is the most complex thing on this planet. Everyone's body is different. Some can eat 40 grams of protein a day and be strong as hell, while others can eat 400, work out and still be weak. Some peoples bodies must just let nutrients pass through. Other peoples bodies put every single excess calorie to their gut. Its more about genetics than calories in - calories expended. Nutrition and anabolics can shift people away from their natural genetic state of course, but once again you are fighting nature. Its always a tough battle.

I'm sorry, I guess I wasn't too clear on that. By calories you take in, I am more specifically refering to calories in which you actually absorb (Total calories * an efficiency factor of some sort). You do not gain calories from what you crap out the next morning.

Here's an updated version of the first law, to help clarify.

[Calories you absorb] - [Calories you expend] = [Calories stored]

This is and will always be true because it is the first law of thermodynamics. If you can disprove this law, you should notify the Nobel committee ASAP.
 
thesinner

thesinner

Recovering AXoholic
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Great starter guide though for people who are just downing pills
Seriously, I was starting to get annoyed by all of these ridiculous stacks that list longer than my guide.


MulletSoldier:
What are we in disagreement about? This was really tough to write, and I may have worded things wrong. There were a few things I left out because I couldn't think of how to explain in simple terms.
 
Mulletsoldier

Mulletsoldier

Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Seriously, I was starting to get annoyed by all of these ridiculous stacks that list longer than my guide.


MulletSoldier:
What are we in disagreement about? This was really tough to write, and I may have worded things wrong. There were a few things I left out because I couldn't think of how to explain in simple terms.
No, no. The form it was written in was fine. There are a few things that I personally found are to hard to quanitfy in the manner you did and in turn apply them to a broad spectrum of individuals. I agree that in it's simplest sense, anabolism boils down to intake and expenditures, and I also agree some individuals are doing "kitchen sink" cycles that are completely unneccessary. However, I can't see this forumla of sorts having a broad spectrum of application because every individual's physiology is different. That is why one individual may see phenomenal results off of 250mg Test E EW and another may need (assuming diet/training/rest are in check) 750mg to see the same results. For this to have a broader spectrum of application every individual on this board would have to have the same:

-insulin response
-protein synthesis/glycogen turnover rate
-affinity of SHBG
-quantity of androgen receptors
-BMR
-upregulation of IGF-1 whilst on Anabolics

However, that is unfortunately not the case. If it was, every member of this board would be seeing similar results using the same caloric intake/expenditure to body weight ratio, likewise for the anabolics to body weight ratio. I agree with the intent, and the basic theory, I just don't believe it is quite as simple.
 
Mulletsoldier

Mulletsoldier

Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
I'm sorry, I guess I wasn't too clear on that. By calories you take in, I am more specifically refering to calories in which you actually absorb (Total calories * an efficiency factor of some sort). You do not gain calories from what you crap out the next morning.

Here's an updated version of the first law, to help clarify.

[Calories you absorb] - [Calories you expend] = [Calories stored]

This is and will always be true because it is the first law of thermodynamics. If you can disprove this law, you should notify the Nobel committee ASAP.
That is much more applicable than the first (didn't see that when I wrote my post). Even still these factors would have to be constants, not variables in every individual for your theory to have a broader application.
 
thesinner

thesinner

Recovering AXoholic
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
That is much more applicable than the first (didn't see that when I wrote my post). Even still these factors would have to be constants, not variables in every individual for your theory to have a broader application.

I am a firm believer that the amount of calories you take in cannot and should not be determined by any calculator or equation. There are too many unknown factors involved in determining efficiency of absorbtion.

The first law is merely used as the central argument for my opinion of these "kitchen sink stacks".

The best way for determining caloric intake is counting your calories and stepping on the scale, which still leaves significant room for error.
 
Mulletsoldier

Mulletsoldier

Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
The first law is merely used as the central argument for my opinion of these "kitchen sink stacks".

QUOTE]

Yes, I most definitely agree with that, I was just saying the parts of your theory which, IMO, application was faulty. For example, what if an invidual has half the active androgen receptors of the average male, and has an increased level of SHBG.

Outwardly it would appear he is following this formula:

3A+1F=1M+2A

Yet, given his diminished amount of receptors, or amount of SHBG his formula is actually more akin to this:

3A(.05)+1F=1M+.5A

His lessened amount of AR's leaves him with no choice to outwardly dose more than what is needed. Now, I am not saying this is the majority of individuals, most likely the majority. This is just an example of how not enough variables are considered.
 

Moyer

board observer
Awards
1
  • Established
The whole point is: 3 supps for 4 months > 12 supps for 1 month
 
Mulletsoldier

Mulletsoldier

Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
The whole point is: 3 supps for 4 months > 12 supps for 1 month
No I know, I am not disagreeing with that at all, did not say I was. Just pointing out the lack of a broad application.
 

moflika

New member
Awards
0
Great, I had to read this right before I started my Cissus/Powerfull/Symmetry/Anagen stack :/

O well, it makes sense and it'll save me some money. I've been in Germany for the past year, so the lack of supps. has got me wanting to try all kinds of stuff out.
 
thesinner

thesinner

Recovering AXoholic
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
The first law is merely used as the central argument for my opinion of these "kitchen sink stacks".

QUOTE]

Yes, I most definitely agree with that, I was just saying the parts of your theory which, IMO, application was faulty. For example, what if an invidual has half the active androgen receptors of the average male, and has an increased level of SHBG.

Outwardly it would appear he is following this formula:

3A+1F=1M+2A

Yet, given his diminished amount of receptors, or amount of SHBG his formula is actually more akin to this:

3A(.05)+1F=1M+.5A

His lessened amount of AR's leaves him with no choice to outwardly dose more than what is needed. Now, I am not saying this is the majority of individuals, most likely the majority. This is just an example of how not enough variables are considered.


These are stoichiometrical equations, not arithmatic. The Term A is a very broad term, thus the name, "musclebuilding crap", which is meant to summarize many many chemical reactions. Obviously, if someone has higher levels of SHBG and crappy AR's, they would not have as much A to react with F.

A and F were also kept very broad so that they could have a 1 to 1 molar ratio (which is probably not the case at all).

The two things I wanted the reader to pick up from this section were:

1) More A needs More F to produce M due to limiting reactants

2) Le Chatelier's principal.
 
Mulletsoldier

Mulletsoldier

Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
These are stoichiometrical equations, not arithmatic. The Term A is a very broad term, thus the name, "musclebuilding crap", which is meant to summarize many many chemical reactions. Obviously, if someone has higher levels of SHBG and crappy AR's, they would not have as much A to react with F.

A and F were also kept very broad so that they could have a 1 to 1 molar ratio (which is probably not the case at all).

The two things I wanted the reader to pick up from this section were:

1) More A needs More F to produce M due to limiting reactants

2) Le Chatelier's principal.
Oh I know, no need to be condescending;)
 
thesinner

thesinner

Recovering AXoholic
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
As long as the concepts are clear, that's all I'm going for.

Sorry if I came off snobby, wasn't sure if you had any chemistry background.
 

stxnas

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Bump to an old...Just b/c I liked it!
 
thesinner

thesinner

Recovering AXoholic
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Oh how quickly they forget these concepts.
 

stxnas

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Less is not always more and this thread helps drive that home. It's a good read. Thanks bro.
 

Similar threads


Top