rtmilburn
Well-known member
I agree whole heartedly
Test Prop-Masteron Prop-Anavar.... Tren instead?
- Thread starter Wilkd
- Start date
jakz
Well-known member
Good for you man. One of the most important life lessons my father ever taught me is to finish what you start no matter what.
uprightrows
Active member
Thanks man, but it's just a 4.00 so far. I still have 2 more years and my hardest classes to go. Your degrees are very impressive. Applied mathematics sounds interesting, although a little too theoretical for my tastes.
Thanks man, I'm sure you'll crush the last 2 years. Applied math can actually have some practical engineering applications, and lend understanding to the theoretical nuts and bolts underpinnings of a lot of computer science concepts. But it is definitely not for everyone, and it was an expensive interest to say the least. Ironically enough my job didn't really strictly pertain to my major, I ended up working in finance/banking and consulting briefly.
Also some of what rtmilburn is saying is true, university or that style of advanced education is not for everyone and there are reliable employment opportunities outside of a four year degree. Also, in most circumstances a four year degree is extremely expensive, especially at a high tier US university, granted the degree will eventually pay for itself several fold, but it might take some time to get in the black.
mike33511
Well-known member
I'm definitely aware of this! Electrical Engineering problems often require the use of differential equations, Laplace transforms, and line, surface, and volume integrals. And I had to take what was basically a discrete mathematics course for my Computer Engineering degree. This semester, I took a course called Data Structures, where we covered the use of recursion in computer programming and binary trees. This summer, I am taking an Algorithms course which will have me doing mathematical proofs.
I love math, but I like it so much more when I can apply it to a real-world problem, instead of just "solve this triple integral."
brofessorx
Well-known member
C's get degrees. :smoker:
Spurfy
Active member
Tren is a toxic, garbage drug that causes permanent HPG-axis impairment and increases the risk of testiclular cancer.
heckler7
Active member
well if you really believe that you shouldnt be abusing any illegal substances, but with that said, I ****ing love tren, you can literally wake up daily and see a transformation
jakz
Well-known member
See that's the problem. I would LOVE the effects of tren, I've seen my gym partner on it. Incredible. However he can handle the side effects, I want no part of that considering just test already makes me edgy. I also experience awesome effects on Test, last cycle was my lowest dose test yet and made just as much gains as in the first cycle.
Spurfy
Active member
I like Proviron more. Proviron seems to have beneficial effects on the testes and is minimally suppressive. Because mast is a depot, it's much more suppressive, and it hasn't been shown to be beneficial to the testes although it very well could be.
In general, I like DHT-derived compounds.
In general, I like DHT-derived compounds.
Spurfy
Active member
That's great. When you're 40 and have testicular cancer, I'm sure it will have been worth it.
heckler7
Active member
lmao, I'm 46 and my ballz are fine, was pinning gear and partying with hookers in korea before your first cycle of creatine
Spurfy
Active member
I'm super impressed.
heckler7
Active member
is there any study that you can site, all I found is that creatine is linked to testicle cancer
Invalid Link Removed
DUbz86
Well-known member
Nominate this for reply of the year too funny lmao
heckler7
Active member
In an effort to combat broscience and try to base advice on real knowledge I found a little something for you. So consuming meat that has hormones in it could possibly be linked to breast cancer. So my advice would be to keep your boyfriends penis out of your mouth when hes on a tren cycle and you wont get cancer in your gyno. GICH
Hormone Use in Food Animal Production: Assessing Potential Dietary Exposures and Breast Cancer Risk.
Invalid Link Removed
Seven hormone drugs (testosterone propionate, trenbolone acetate, estradiol, zeranol, progesterone, melengestrol acetate, and bovine somatotropin) are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in food animals. There is concern that these drugs or their biologically active metabolites may accumulate in edible tissues, potentially increasing the risk of exposure for consumers. To date, the potential for human exposure to residues of these compounds in animal products, as well as the risks that may result from this exposure, is poorly understood. In this paper, we discuss the existing scientific evidence examining the toxicological significance of exposure to hormones used in food animal production in relation to breast cancer risk. Through a discussion of U.S. federal regulatory programs and the primary literature, we interpret the state of surveillance for residues of hormone drugs in animal products and discuss trends in meat consumption in relation to the potential for hormone exposure. Given the lack of chronic bioassays of oral toxicity of the seven hormone compounds in the public literature and the limitations of existing residue surveillance programs, it is not currently possible to provide a quantitative characterization of risks that result from the use of hormonal drugs in food animal production, complicating our understanding of the role of dietary hormone exposure in the population burden of breast cancer.
Hormone Use in Food Animal Production: Assessing Potential Dietary Exposures and Breast Cancer Risk.
Invalid Link Removed
Seven hormone drugs (testosterone propionate, trenbolone acetate, estradiol, zeranol, progesterone, melengestrol acetate, and bovine somatotropin) are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in food animals. There is concern that these drugs or their biologically active metabolites may accumulate in edible tissues, potentially increasing the risk of exposure for consumers. To date, the potential for human exposure to residues of these compounds in animal products, as well as the risks that may result from this exposure, is poorly understood. In this paper, we discuss the existing scientific evidence examining the toxicological significance of exposure to hormones used in food animal production in relation to breast cancer risk. Through a discussion of U.S. federal regulatory programs and the primary literature, we interpret the state of surveillance for residues of hormone drugs in animal products and discuss trends in meat consumption in relation to the potential for hormone exposure. Given the lack of chronic bioassays of oral toxicity of the seven hormone compounds in the public literature and the limitations of existing residue surveillance programs, it is not currently possible to provide a quantitative characterization of risks that result from the use of hormonal drugs in food animal production, complicating our understanding of the role of dietary hormone exposure in the population burden of breast cancer.