Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

1,4-andro, 4 weeks to kick in? To me, that's a misconception...

I dunno, maybe I'm simplifying it too much, but the problem here lies in the definition of "kicking in" is it "when the substance starts working" or is it "when the substance INDICATES" that it is working. If we can agree on which definition we are trying to use... this will be all over.

ManBeast
 
Chemo said:
I'll let you respond to the post above before I ban you.

Chemo
Click to expand...

What's the reason for banning me? Telling you the "ego regimen diet" issue after you had made several remarks about my "low intelligence" and the like when , in fact, I had never ever offended or insulted you?
 
Hey neurotic, rule #1. Don't criticize the person who pays the bills around here. I don't know what your problem is but you keep harping on facts that we've already been over. You asked if the theory of using 1,4andro for a long peroid of time because it needed to kick in was valid or not. We told you the saem thing Nandi did that it really doesn't matter because the substnace is no different than any other at "kicking in" and that using it for 2 weeks would be fine but 4 weeks would be optimal due to its mild anabilic properties. In other words, using it for 2 weeks is fine but don't expect reuslts like you would for 4 weeks. For some reason you don't get it. Nobody said it wouldn't work for 2 weeks. We just said its better if you did it for 4 and so did Nandi.

"it would likely take weeks for enough contractile tissue to develop to the point it becomes noticable.
 
Bobo said:
We told you the saem thing Nandi did that it really doesn't matter because the substnace is no different than any other at "kicking in" and that using it for 2 weeks would be fine but 4 weeks would be optimal due to its mild anabilic properties. In other words, using it for 2 weeks is fine but don't expect reuslts like you would for 4 weeks. For some reason you don't get it. Nobody said it wouldn't work for 2 weeks. We just said its better if you did it for 4 and so did Nandi.
Click to expand...

Thank you Bobo, now I completely agree with what you have just written. 100%. I decided to begin this thread because in some forums out there I had read several times that it would do NOTHING unless you used it for 4 weeks or more.
Now everything is clear. Thank you.
 
I said all that from the beginning! I don't understand what you didn't get! You drive me nuts sometime neurotic! But if you leanr something and get a clearer understanding of an issue I guess its worth it. SometimesI think you have so many questions floating around in your head that you fail to read the answers we give. Oh well...
 
neurotic, chemo and bobo are just trying to help you understand, not trying to cast you out. Look to them as you would a good high school or college teacher that is actually interested in their work. I'm sure you will appreciatte them and this board more if you keep an open mind. ;)
 
Jergo said:
neurotic, chemo and bobo are just trying to help you understand, not trying to cast you out. Look to them as you would a good high school or college teacher that is actually interested in their work. I'm sure you will appreciatte them and this board more if you keep an open mind. ;)
Click to expand...

Damn. That would make Chemo the college teacher and me the high school teacher. How degrading! Stupid Chemists...... :D
 
Bobo said:
Damn. That would make Chemo the college teacher and me the high school teacher. How degrading! Stupid Chemists...... :D
Click to expand...

And that would make the rest of us remedial students, I suppose. But your right, nothing more degrading then being a high school teacher. ;)

db
 
neurotic said:
bobo,

if ratios and rat assays aren't the only thing to look at and it's better to look at the mechanisms by which something works or something doesn't work. Would you explain the mechanisms by which test works so well and the mechanisms by which 1-test doesn't work so well?
Click to expand...


to compare test to 1-test fairly you have to use comparable delivery systems

oral testosterone is useless (try it). oral 1-test OTOH is actually somewhat effective. this may have something to do with absolute potency and it may also have something to do with bioavailabilty

testosterone cypionate by injection is quite potent. 1-test cypionate by injection may or may not be, i really don't know enough about it. It would be an interesting comparison however

keep and open and objective and scientific mind
 
sifu said:
Test is king, not 1test or methyl-test or M1T. But test is king. Ask any pro or any brother that knows what they are talking about. There is a reason that it is the base for every stack, and if it isn't the base of someones stack, then they are going about it all wrong.
Click to expand...


winstrol, trenbolone, anadrol, these are not kings either

test is king because it is the natural hormone and therefore quite easily tolerated by the body. You can take large amounts for long time and not suffer unduly. It is also very cheap and easily available.

yes it is effective as well, but the aforementioned reasons have more to do with the fact that it is king then the fact that it is stronger than everything else
 
Patrick Arnold said:
test is king because it is the natural hormone and therefore quite easily tolerated by the body. You can take large amounts for long time and not suffer unduly.
Click to expand...

This is the strongest argument for testosterone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top