Androgen receptor down-regulation and its effects on muscle growth. Short vs Long Cycles.

[Taeian clark]

More experienced, articulate and knowledgeable people like Broderick Chavez have been ripping holes in these types of bogus claims for years.

Broderick likens it to an elevator. There are levels of development that are largely determined by PED dose, training, nutrition, genetics etc. When this level is reached, more drugs, training, food etc are typically required to reach a higher level.

But as Broderick says, it's not because the drugs stopped working...it's because the drugs ARE working. And as we know, this adaptation can take a long time.

There like most buildings, there is a penthouse suite, but many lifters are content to reach a lower level and stay there, while maybe occasionally blasting into the 10+ mg/kg bodyweight.

I also think the suggestions regarding T3 should be viewed very cautiously, given that they could have very negative impacts on the heart...

Also to add. Majority of steroids lower thyroid function which low thyroid values are insanely linked to a plethora of health effects such as strongly to heart disease. So your opinion there is completely wrong and worse for someone's health.

 

[maldorf]

Another thing to consider is the total dose of the entire cycle. Not healthy, but i once experimented two times doing Paul Borresen style cycles. I did basically an 8 week cycle in 4 weeks. Doubled my weekly dose, so took the same amount of steroids in 4 weeks that I'd usually do in 8.

The gains I made were the same, and took 1/2 the time. It worked both times but I stopped doing it because I didnt feel very healthy doing it.

Interesting result. I didnt expect results to be 2x faster.

 

[MethodAir]

Also to add. Majority of steroids lower thyroid function which low thyroid values are insanely linked to a plethora of health effects such as strongly to heart disease. So your opinion there is completely wrong and worse for someone's health.

Exogenous T3 response is highly individual, and should be administered cautiously in a non-cookie cutter manner (preferably by an endocronologist). Your ill-researched, fallacious, knee jerk suggestions and responses are HIGHLY irresponsible.

 

[Taeian clark]

Exogenous T3 response is highly individual, and should be administered cautiously in a non-cookie cutter manner (preferably by an endocronologist). Your ill-researched, fallacious, knee jerk suggestions and responses are HIGHLY irresponsible.

Did I mention spef t3 dose ? Nope. Did I mention replacement doses in a reply and stated how individual it is. Yup . So your point is exactly.?

Also good job at dodging every single reply to your call out which I corrected them all. Literally not a single reply back because you have zero ground.

 

[Taeian clark]

Another thing to consider is the total dose of the entire cycle. Not healthy, but i once experimented two times doing Paul Borresen style cycles. I did basically an 8 week cycle in 4 weeks. Doubled my weekly dose, so took the same amount of steroids in 4 weeks that I'd usually do in 8.

The gains I made were the same, and took 1/2 the time. It worked both times but I stopped doing it because I didnt feel very healthy doing it.

Interesting result. I didnt expect results to be 2x faster.

Studies show more is bettee to a degree of course . Nobody is debating that part. Of course gains stop becoming almost x2 and really level off higher we go. But more is better yes.

 

[luki7788]

I am always surprised by one fact - someone comes and says that what everyone has been doing for years is bad and his way is much better. This is absolutely no attack because the theory is very interesting but show what results you achieved thanks to such a procedure, and you will certainly be more credible and convince more people to your theory

 

[MethodAir]

So again to be clear. You're talking using more equals more effect. Agree never said it didnt. It does.

And none of that takes away from the fact that the magical effects of steroids hugely halt after some time on. As proven by the studies in the op and as referenced by endless pro bodybuilders and alike.

No, more is NOT better for those who want to maintain a level of development at a particular dose/diet/training intensity level, without red-lining to the penthouse suite level (to use Broderick's elevator analogy).

5 mg PED/kg bodyweight could be a sweet spot for many to maintain a high level of performance, without too many adverse health risks.

These long term gains do not typically 'magically' disappear in the manner you and MPMD falsely suggest, and innumerable lifters are proof of this.

 

[maldorf]

Studies show more is bettee to a degree of course . Nobody is debating that part. Of course gains stop becoming almost x2 and really level off higher we go. But more is better yes.

Well, I didn't think it was possible to gain that much in 4 weeks. So short cycles, only 4 weeks, can work but I think the dose needs to be higher than a longer cycle. There is a trade off. Which way is more healthy and better long term is a good question.

 

[Taeian clark]

I am always surprised by one fact - someone comes and says that what everyone has been doing for years is bad and his way is much better. This is absolutely no attack because the theory is very interesting but show what results you achieved thanks to such a procedure, and you will certainly be more credible and convince more people to your theory

However luki what I am suggesting isn't a theory or something new. Its actually what most successful bodybuilders have been doing for decades and suggesting for decades that we've wanted to ignore and blame genetics .. and rather follow the smaller guy who hasn't been anywhere near where we want doing a opposite protocol of the successful people and where they are trying to be.

So kinda contradicting and blind sided no. This isnt new. This normal. But the guys not at the top always have a weaker mindset. I can't come off. The pros must be on non stop 20g etc etc..

Do some abuse. Absolutely. Do all.. no. Regardless of my results people who know me know who I've worked with and so on. You can see already some of my testimonials altho I rarely update. I've had top 5 placing ifbb pro reaching out to me. I've worked with 3 elite level best in the world power lifters 1st. A 2nd place. And other elites. My testimonials are there. I've seen what goes on first hand as I've been the one aiding elites.

So to act like this is some new theory is incorrect and you've been told this for years but just ignored.

 

[Taeian clark]

No, more is NOT better for those who want to maintain a level of development at a particular dose/diet/training intensity level, without red-lining at the penthouse suite level (to use Broderick's analogy).

These long term gains do not typically 'magically' disappear in the manner you and MPMD falsely suggest, and innumerable lifters are proof of this.

Wheres your studies to prove gains continue. So far you've given an opinion. I've given studies and real world results of many top pro bodybuilders. Best youv provided is one person's opinion. Great. Dorian yates is wrong. Your correct and science is wrong.

Good job.

Also again with the false incorrect hogwash. More is better and proven by science. To a degree. End of story that's a well proven fact. Nobody is saying use 10000mg. But is 300mg better then 150. Is 600mg better then 300mg yes by almost double to 75 percent. Proven fact.. more is better to a degree as I stated clearly. Your literally rambling non nonsense with zero legs to stand here with zero point.

 

[Taeian clark]

Well, I didn't think it was possible to gain that much in 4 weeks. So short cycles, only 4 weeks, can work but I think the dose needs to be higher than a longer cycle. There is a trade off. Which way is more healthy and better long term is a good question.

I would disagree fully. Staying on 400mg 6 weeks vs 12 isn't going to net you much more benefit. And yes using more is better but using 400 or 800mg gsins still maximize by week 6.

My best cycle was 400mg over 6 weeks and my last cycle.

 

[maldorf]

I would disagree fully. Staying on 400mg 6 weeks vs 12 isn't going to net you much more benefit. And yes using more is better but using 400 or 800mg gsins still maximize by week 6.

My best cycle was 400mg over 6 weeks and my last cycle.

Empirically I can say that with me I usually had to increase dose after about 6 weeks in order to continue fast gains. So I do think there is something there.

I think most guys end up doing that, so they grow well during the whole 10 weeks or so. I never believed in doing cycles longer than 8 to 10 weeks. After that point gains are low despite higher doses. Id try eating more too, thinking that was a cause. Id also train harder and do more volume when gains slowed. Eating more just made me fat, and most of it was more chicken. So it wasn't lack of calories or training that slowed my gains.

I think there is some truth to keeping cycles shorter.

 

[luki7788]

However luki what I am suggesting isn't a theory or something new. Its actually what most successful bodybuilders have been doing for decades and suggesting for decades that we've wanted to ignore and blame genetics .. and rather follow the smaller guy who hasn't been anywhere near where we want doing a opposite protocol of the successful people and where they are trying to be.

So kinda contradicting and blind sided no. This isnt new. This normal. But the guys not at the top always have a weaker mindset. I can't come off. The pros must be on non stop 20g etc etc..

Do some abuse. Absolutely. Do all.. no. Regardless of my results people who know me know who I've worked with and so on. You can see already some of my testimonials altho I rarely update. I've had top 5 placing ifbb pro reaching out to me. I've worked with 3 elite level best in the world power lifters 1st. A 2nd place. And other elites. My testimonials are there. I've seen what goes on first hand as I've been the one aiding elites.

So to act like this is some new theory is incorrect and you've been told this for years but just ignored.

I do not think that it was ignored and certainly not because of me because I consulted with many great bodybuilders and also with pro trainers at the highest level, I really did not see any schedule in which none would last 6 weeks.

 

[Taeian clark]

Empirically I can say that with me I usually had to increase dose after about 6 weeks in order to continue fast gains. So I do think there is something there.

I think most guys end up doing that, so they grow well during the whole 10 weeks or so. I never believed in doing cycles longer than 8 to 10 weeks. After that point gains are low despite higher doses. Id try eating more too, thinking that was a cause. Id also train harder and do more volume when gains slowed. Eating more just made me fat, and most of it was more chicken. So it wasn't lack of calories or training that slowed my gains.

I think there is some truth to keeping cycles shorter.

Absolutely and endless people experiance the same. Have to increase dose. Eat their ass off to barely gain a spec in comparsion.

Hence why I am saying low or high dose. Listen to the pros. Science is there. Cut it off to get the magic gains back quicker.

 

[MethodAir]

Wheres your studies to prove gains continue. So far you've given an opinion. I've given studies and real world results of many top pro bodybuilders. Best youv provided is one person's opinion. Great. Dorian yates is wrong. Your correct and science is wrong.

Good job.

I agree that a goofy deca only cycle probably shouldn't be run for more than a few weeks, for scientific/medical reasons already addressed by at least one highly knowledgeable and experienced urologist you are familiar with.

 

[maldorf]

Absolutely and endless people experiance the same. Have to increase dose. Eat their ass off to barely gain a spec in comparsion.

Hence why I am saying low or high dose. Listen to the pros. Science is there. Cut it off to get the magic gains back quicker.

I found id do well keeping it to no more than 8 weeks.

 

[MethodAir]

Empirically I can say that with me I usually had to increase dose after about 6 weeks in order to continue fast gains. So I do think there is something there.

100%. Like Broderick says, you start at a low floor, and titrate up your dose/training/food intake as you progress higher, until you reach a level you are happy with (and able to maintain without increasing said factors).

If you want to step off, that option is also there.

 

[Stewie]

Suggests liothyronine alongside a Type II NR antagonist to enhance AR density.

Please explain down-regulation of a nuclear receptor in the presence of a ligand.

 

[Taeian clark]

100%. Like Broderick says, you start at a low floor, and titrate up your dose/training/food intake as you progress higher, until you reach a level you are happy with (and able to maintain without increasing said factors).

If you want to step off, that option is also there.

Good for brodeick. My best gains at my heaviest weight after abuse was on only 400mg.

And many pros claim.such experiences as well.

Your giving purely opinions here and nothing to do with science nor even the topic and keep going off topic even. With random claims and making things up nobody said.

Still have provided zero proof as gains or the anabolic effect of steroids come to a halt by said time on. Back up your claim with proof please.

 

[Taeian clark]

Suggests liothyronine alongside a Type II NR antagonist to enhance AR density.

Please explain down-regulation of a nuclear receptor in the presence of a ligand.

So the point here is trying to confuse people with scientific jargon to seem smart i see?

Sure let's talk. Better yet let's do a live and discuss this so it can be real time. Right now even.

Lets discuss how using words like ligands over steroids and nuclear receptor of the ar over just ar is easier to confuse people to sound like you have a clue what your talking about to again confuse people.

Androgen receptor - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Please lets discuss over live since you know so much. I'm free right now.