Can you overtraing while on gear?

seriousbsnz

New member
I was wondering because im currently on 50 mg of dbol daily and 750 mg of test e per week and i dont feel like im gettin good results. I was wonderin if i started hitting each muscle group about every other day if it would hinder growth or promotoe since im on quality gear?
 
Yes you can overtrain.

If you're not seeing gains, either your gear is bunk or your diet is no good.
 
You need to eat, about 1000-2000 calories on top of your maintenance!!!

Have a look at your diet.

Yes, you can overtrain on roids especially when your diet is not in swing. You could also have bunk gear, that is another option.

But normally you would grow nicely on dbol and test at said dosages.
 
seriousbsnz said:
I was wondering because im currently on 50 mg of dbol daily and 750 mg of test e per week and i dont feel like im gettin good results. I was wonderin if i started hitting each muscle group about every other day if it would hinder growth or promotoe since im on quality gear?
Click to expand...

how long have you been on your gear? When do you use it? What does your diet look like?
 
wastedwhiteboy2 said:
Keep in mind that the tendons sometimes cant keep up with the increased muscle strength.
Click to expand...

But you can move to something like GVT every 3rd/4th week to give the connective tissue time to recover.

I find that cycling the volume and rep ranges keep me from doing too much joint damage. Then again, I'm usually not pressing over 400 or squating over 500 too often either. Increasing the time under tension by slowing the rep speed down is a great way to keep the intensity cranked while avoiding tendon issues.

Unless you are a powerlifter. Then you just need to man up.
 
TheTransforma said:
You need to eat, about 1000-2000 calories on top of your maintenance!!!

Have a look at your diet.

Yes, you can overtrain on roids especially when your diet is not in swing. You could also have bunk gear, that is another option.

But normally you would grow nicely on dbol and test at said dosages.
Click to expand...

No you don't. Eating more than 500 cals over maintenance on a heavy cycle will result in unnecessary fat gain. It takes about 500 calories to build one pound of muscle.
 
hungryH said:
No you don't. Eating more than 500 cals over maintenance on a heavy cycle will result in unnecessary fat gain. It takes about 500 calories to build one pound of muscle.
Click to expand...


lol yeah! i can gain a pound of muscle a day!
 
hungryH said:
No you don't. Eating more than 500 cals over maintenance on a heavy cycle will result in unnecessary fat gain. It takes about 500 calories to build one pound of muscle.
Click to expand...

If you want to seriously gain and you work out intensely when running a cycle you would want to take benefit of the increased glycogen uptake and protein synthesis. 1000-2000 kcals above maintenance will do just that. And yes you'll gain some fat, but a ****load more muscles than eating just 500 kcals extra. When you eat alot your metabolism will increase accordingly provided your macros are okay.
 
TheTransforma said:
If you want to seriously gain and you work out intensely when running a cycle you would want to take benefit of the increased glycogen uptake and protein synthesis. 1000-2000 kcals above maintenance will do just that. And yes you'll gain some fat, but a ****load more muscles than eating just 500 kcals extra. When you eat alot your metabolism will increase accordingly provided your macros are okay.
Click to expand...

That simply is not true. You may gain 10-15% more muscle, along with 300% more fat by doing that.
 
ZamaMan said:
X3 cause I'm pretty sure that's wrong.
Click to expand...

it sounds pretty accurate to me

1 pound is like 454 grams

muscle is 75% water

454g x .25=113.5g

protein has 4 calories per gram

4kcal x 113.5g= 454kcal/lb muscle

this can vary probably +-30kcal per lb because of hydration and different muscle makeups
 
UGHQTempus said:
Source.
Click to expand...

I don't know where, but it's definately one of lyle mcdonald's articles.
I suggest you read them, they are very very informative


EDIT: Tom venuto also said it was roughly 600 in his book. I'll look for some sources now, I'm sure there are plenty
 
Last edited:
from williams m. nutrition in health and fitness sport:

'"Muscle tissue consists of about 70% water, 22% protein and the remainder is fat, carbohydrate and minerals. Because the vast majority of muscle tissue is water, which has no caloric value, the total caloric value is only about 400-800 calories per pound of muscle. However, extra energy is needed to synthesize the muscle tissue.

It is not known exactly how many calories are necessary to form 1 pound of muscle tissue in human beings, nor it is known in what form these calories have to be consumed. The National research council notes that 5 calories are needed to support the addition of 1 gram of tissue during growth, while Forbes cites a value of 8 cal per gram in adults. Because 1 pound equals 454 grams, a range of 2300-3500 extra calories appears to be a reasonable amount....A study by Robert Bartels and his associates at Ohio State U revealed that an additional 500 calories per day resulted in nearly a 1 pound increase in lean body mass per week during a resistance-training program."
 
havent found anything yet. he merely states in an article that for gaining half a pound per week you are 10-20% above maintenance or 39 kcal/kg (18kcal/lb).
 
A. you cannot measure energy ( kcals) by weight or volume. i.e. 500 grams of peanuts will yield more energy than 500 grams of spaghetti or 500 grams of lettuce and so on so forth.

B. What does it matter even if we supposedly know that 500 calories comprises a pound of muscle? We all know that you don't lose a pound of muscle per day that you are 500 under maintenance. Conversely, You don't gain a pound of muscle by eating 500 over.

C. If this were true, wouldn't you be able to gain 3lbs of muscle per day by eating 1500 cals over? When is there diminishing returns? And why would you assume that all of those 500 cals would go to muscle building instead of energy storage?

D. even Ray Charles can see this is absurd.
 
soontobbeast said:
A. you cannot measure energy ( kcals) by weight or volume. i.e. 500 grams of peanuts will yield more energy than 500 grams of spaghetti or 500 grams of lettuce and so on so forth.

B. What does it matter even if we supposedly know that 500 calories comprises a pound of muscle? We all know that you don't lose a pound of muscle per day that you are 500 under maintenance. Conversely, You don't gain a pound of muscle by eating 500 over.

C. If this were true, wouldn't you be able to gain 3lbs of muscle per day by eating 1500 cals over? When is there diminishing returns? And why would you assume that all of those 500 cals would go to muscle building instead of energy storage?

D. even Ray Charles can see this is absurd.
Click to expand...

A. I don't know what you are talking about. You can roughly measure the calorific value of skeletal muscle, but it varies largely due to varying amounts of gycogen in the cells ect. I believe a fully saturated pound of muscle mass conatins 400-500 calories.

B.Wut. Obviously the amount of calories eaten over maintenance isn't converted directly into skeletal muscle, and calories eaten under maintence won't be taken from muscle.

C.See B.

D. So? Everybody is arguing with everybody in this business about everything
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top