Had to laugh at some of the stuff posted in here. Gear will give you a direct strength increase! It's not just about "better recovery" & "ability to get through more work".
Had to laugh at some of the stuff posted in here. Gear will give you a direct strength increase! It's not just about "better recovery" & "ability to get through more work".
0ni's natural isn't he? (post cycling anyway..) or is natural a relative term?
0ni's natural isn't he? (post cycling anyway..) or is natural a relative term?
There's nothing natural about 0ni
sorry about that, you won't see this either then.Don't know what you said you're on my ignore list
I'm sure a lot of people will want to cast their doubts on people like Konstantinovs despite him passing every drug test thrown his way but whatever
That was a joke, right?
Oni, those two studies you put in clearly demonstrate that drugs work for strength.
Also, tend to agree with my view that too much has diminished return. Say not that much difference between 300mg and 600mg of test per week in terms of strength and power achieved.
ok, I see what you say about igf 1 and test in 2nd article.
For both the leg press strength, as well as the total leg power, though, a different picture emerges: Contrary to the weight and size gains, the gains in strength and power in the 125mg were not statistically significant (p = 0.42 and p = 0.59). Moreover, the aforementioned effect of "diminishing returns" with doses of testosterone >300mg /week is way more pronounced for leg strength and power than it is for the gains in total muscle mass and leg muscle volume. And as if that was not already confusing enough, in contrast to the +7% increase in the 125mg group, the + 6% increase in leg press power in the "low testosterone" group (50 mg) did reach statistical significance (p = 0.02).
Testosterone, myostatin and IGF-1 - tying the knots together
In order to explain this "strength anomaly", we will have to resort to what we have learned in previous installments of this series about the differential effects of myostatin and IGF-1 on muscle size and composition. Assuming that you have read all the installments of the Intermittent Thoughts, you will be familar with the results from the Quaisar study, I discussed in "What is Hypertrophy". You will also remember that Quaisar et al.'s observations showed quite clearly that the "uncontrolled" muscular hypertrophy in the myostatin negative mice left them with huge, yet dysfunctional muscles. The over-expression of IGF-1 on the other hand, facilitated a profound restructuring process within the skeletal muscle in the course of which the recruitement of satellite cells and the subsequent addition of myonuclei allowed for "healthy" growth that would not burst the maximally allowed myonuclear domain sizes (cf. "Getting Big Means Growing Beyond Temporary Physiological Limits").
Against that background the testosterone to IGF-1 ratios on the right hand side of figure 2 in yesterday's installment of the Intermittent Thoughts (the graph on the right hand side of figure 4 is an identical copy in figure 4) should get a whole new meaning: If IGF-1 is required to keep rapidly growing muscles functional,the reason for the stalled power and reduced strength gains in the 600 mg testosterone enanthate group could well be a relative lack of IGF-1 (>3.5x elevated testosterone / IGF-1 ratio). The superior correlation (R²) between performance measures and IGF-1 values of the study participants (cf. figure 4, left) would does not only support this hypothesis it also underlines the vital importance adequate insulin-like growth factor levels (and its splice variants, which have unfortunately not been measured in this study) may have for "chemical athletes", in particular.
This is interesting. May explain much bigger size of bb in recent decades given GH use, which directly increases IGF-1 levels. But still, many of the great powerlifts done in earlier decades, perhaps before GH days.
Do you have any more similar studies?
Tut tut. Someone's been using ANOVA on non-parametric data and measures of linear correlation on data they assert (not hypothesise) have a dependent -independent (causal) relationship.
I'm not attacking Spartacus or Oni here for quoting such twaddle, but it really isn't necessary to resort to empirical studies to demonstrate that guys with yellow eyeballs and pale coloured stools are stronger.
I can't even be bothered reading the article in full to assess the nature of the sample or the distribution of the data, so I too may be talking shit but I suspect my red pen would be running out of ink if I had the article at hand.
From my observations - aas make people stronger (and sicker) when they use them. If they haven't the training foundation or discipline before they use them, all of the gains are reversed when they stop administering them.
Tut tut. Someone's been using ANOVA on non-parametric data and measures of linear correlation on data they assert (not hypothesise) have a dependent -independent (causal) relationship.
I'm not attacking Spartacus or Oni here for quoting such twaddle, but it really isn't necessary to resort to empirical studies to demonstrate that guys with yellow eyeballs and pale coloured stools are stronger.
I can't even be bothered reading the article in full to assess the nature of the sample or the distribution of the data, so I too may be talking shit but I suspect my red pen would be running out of ink if I had the article at hand.
From my observations - aas make people stronger (and sicker) when they use them. If they haven't the training foundation or discipline before they use them, all of the gains are reversed when they stop administering them.
I've never seen any data to support the hypothesis that steroids will increase workload more than you can get naturally
Huge amounts of anecdotal evidence is on my side as well, Vikings would row across an ocean, rape and pillage entire civilisations then row the fuck back again. Modern rowers can't even row the things, let alone across an ocean and then wiping out whole tribes
who said i was convinced that the article provided by Oni was 100% correct in its assertions. I just said it was interesting.
And there is also nothing wrong with posting studies for others to observe and comment. The article was merely suggesting why it may be that large doses of test are less effective in relation to diminished return due to possibility of poor ratio with IGF-1.
Which is why small doses of Test can be quite effective, especially when stacked with other substances but 0ni agrees with that don't you [MENTION=8399]0ni[/MENTION];
Don't need data. The nasty little white Anapolon and Halotestin pills when taken in large enough dosages cause your liver to cease breaking down cortisol. Stan is pretty good for that too.
What's the big deal with excess cortisol levels?
The receptors that would normally tell the muscles to stop contracting as the body's natural safe guard against injury are prevented from doing so.
The lifter who shakes and rattles - looking as though they are going to fail or die on every rep of a 5RM set. He has a pretty hot liver.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?