dbol bridge

[Ragin' Cajun]

Ok so i want to do a bridge after my cycle and use dbol. I'll be doin 12.5 mg in am for 4 weeks. when the 4 weeks is up, is that when i start PCT? I'm new to this so if anyone would like to shed some light on bridging I would really appreciate it

 

[steele]

use search function.
this has been debated and discussed ad naseau.

the short answer: you are still "on" if you are using dbol. -STEELE

 

[PsyT]

its going to keep you suppressed...why not just run a great PCT (HCG then clomid) and get back to strong natty test levels quick?

Then run another cycle if you care to after sufficient time off.

JUST MY OPINION.

 

[iprimate]

Ok so i want to do a bridge after my cycle and use dbol. I'll be doin 12.5 mg in am for 4 weeks. when the 4 weeks is up, is that when i start PCT? I'm new to this so if anyone would like to shed some light on bridging I would really appreciate it

What Steele said.

You aren't "bridging" you are just extending your cycle by four weeks. You can't "bridge" using any form of AAS.

What you can try after your cycle is a SARM (S-4, available from Chavo on this forum) together with your PCT. This would be a genuine bridge as it isn't an AAS and will not interfere with your HPTA functioning (crudely put, the restoration of your nuts) and will help preserve your gains.

 

[PsyT]

^ do you got something to back that up. It is an anabolic drug as far as I know!

 

[iprimate]

^ do you got something to back that up. It is an anabolic drug as far as I know!

Well then you don't know much about the topic.

SARMS-4 is anabolic (i.e. it stimulates skeletal muscle hypertrophy) but it is not an AAS, it is a SARM i.e. Selective Androgen Receptor Modulator. SARM are ligands for the AR that are tissue selective, they are mainly if not entirely anabolic.

If you think that SARM = AAS then you have disqualified yourself from having an opinion on the topic.

For your education here is a random selection of full papers on SARM and S-4: [1], [2], [3], [4]

If your understanding of AAS is based on broscience then you will have a hard time grasping the significance and notion of SARM. The "holy grail" of AAS chemistry is the synthesis of a an anabolic compound with no androgenic effects. This has been the quest of chemists and pharamcaologists (that specialise in this area) for decades. The first generation of SARM have accomplished this goal to varying extents. S-4 has some androgenic effects but it is small compared to any AAS. There are SARM with no apparent androgenic effect but these have not reached the same level of clinical validation that S-4 has.

The big deal about SARMs, the reason why GTx has sunk millions into Ostarine to get it to clinical trial, is because Ostarine is an effective SARM i.e. it is anabolic whilst being minimally androgenic and hence very tissue selective and hence not HPTA disruptive. I have linked to reports from the clinical trials in my other posts. That you have unquestioningly placed it into the same category as AAS on the basis of brotelligence means that you are operating from within a flawed and conceptually impoverished broscientific framework and that you don't fully appreciate the limitations of your framework.

Why instead didn't you challenge me with evidence that S-4 is suppresive of HPTA? Wouldn't that have been a more diligent and less presumptuous approach? The search for such evidence would have lead to your self-education on the topic and it would have also ruptured your broscientific framework.

 

[KillerStack]

Well then you don't know much about the topic.

SARMS-4 is anabolic (i.e. it stimulates skeletal muscle hypertrophy) but it is not an AAS, it is a SARM i.e. Selective Androgen Receptor Modulator. SARM are ligands for the AR that are tissue selective, they are mainly if not entirely anabolic.

If you think that SARM = AAS then you have disqualified yourself from having an opinion on the topic.

Patrick Arnold always says SARMs are for all intents and purposes anabolic steroids - anabolic steroids without the stigma attached to the name.

Haven't researched it at all but I think I saw in some thread that guys experienced suppression. I'd be very surprised if these didn't suppress you.

 

[iprimate]

Patrick Arnold always says SARMs are for all intents and purposes anabolic steroids - anabolic steroids without the stigma attached to the name.

Haven't researched it at all but I think I saw in some thread that guys experienced suppression. I'd be very surprised if these didn't suppress you.

I am willing to be corrected but not on the basis of hearsay. Not all SARM are steroidal so I can't see how they can be just like AAS. The only commonality they have with AAS is that they are a ligand for the AR. If SARM are just like AAS then by logical extension SERM are just like estrogen. SERM are just like estrogen in the sense that they are a ligand for the estrogen receptor but it is the selectivity of SERM which gives them their value and the same goes for SARM.

If you are accurately paraphrasing Patrick Arnold then it should be possible to convince Patrick Arnold -- using the same heuristic -- that a table and an elephant are for all practical purposes the same because they both have four legs.

 

[KillerStack]

I am willing to be corrected but not on the basis of hearsay. Not all SARM are steroidal so I can't see how they can be just like AAS. The only commonality they have with AAS is that they are a ligand for the AR. If SARM are just like AAS then by logical extension SERM are just like estrogen. SERM are just like estrogen in the sense that they are a ligand for the estrogen receptor but it is the selectivity of SERM which gives them their value and the same goes for SARM.

If you are accurately paraphrasing Patrick Arnold then it should be possible to convince Patrick Arnold -- using the same heuristic -- that a table and an elephant are for all practical purposes the same because they both have four legs.

I think what he was getting at was that these compounds would, from his point of view, have all the same positive and negative sides as anabolic steroids. The reason they are being developed is the stigma attached to anabolic steroids, preventing their use for a variety of ailments.

SERMs aren't totally specific to one tissue and chances are no SARM will be either. Would be too good to be true.

 

[KillerStack]

PA comments on SARMs

my general point, and the point i constantly try to get people to understand when it comes to SARMS, is that SARMS really do not represent novel breakthrough technology in the pharmacological sense

SARMS are nothing more than modern day anabolic steroids. They may acheive therapeutic differentiation that is as good as or perhaps somewhat better than the mildest steroids of yesteryear (i.e. primo and anavar) but they will never acheive complete abolishment of androgenic effects because that simply is not possible.

The pursuit of SARMS was made possible because of advancements in computerized molecular modeling which enabled scientists to predict androgen receptor/ligand interactions on theoretical non-steroidal molecules - molecules that in the two dimensional representation seem to have no similarities to steroids. this coupled with the remarkable capabilities of modern chemical synthesis methods and in-vitro screening methods enabled scientists to rapidly manufacture these chemicals and assay them out for activity. This smart screening of chemicals is way more efficient and flexible than the old way of altering steroid chemsitry blindly and then assaying them in animals.

my prediction is that when all is said and done bodybuilders will figure out that these sarms are just a way overpriced alternative to anabolic steroids. that is, they will find that they can get exactly the same results (and sides) from stuff like winnie, anavar, and primo at a fraction of the cost

edit: unless they can somehow come up with a SARM that cannot pass the BBB. that would be interesting

if they are agonists at the androgen receptor (which they appear to be) then they should produce negative feedback. As is observed in this study on S-4


Selective androgen receptor modulator treatment improves muscle strength and body composition and prevents bone loss in orchidectomized rats.

Gao W, Reiser PJ, Coss CC, Phelps MA, Kearbey JD, Miller DD, Dalton JT.
Division of Pharmaceutics, College of Pharmacy and Department of Oral Biology, The Ohio State University, 500 West 12th Avenue, L. M. Parks Hall, Room 242, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA.
The partial agonist activity of a selective androgen receptor modulator (SARM) in the prostate was demonstrated in orchidectomized rats. In the current study, we characterized the full agonist activity of S-3-(4-acetylamino-phenoxy)-2-hydroxy-2-methyl-N-(4-nitro-3-trifluoromethyl-phenyl)-propionamide (a structurally related SARM referred to in other publications and hereafter as S-4) in skeletal muscle, bone, and pituitary of castrated male rats. Twelve weeks after castration, animals were treated with S-4 (3 or 10 mg/kg), dihydrotestosterone (DHT) (3 mg/kg), or vehicle for 8 wk. S-4 (3 and 10 mg/kg) restored soleus muscle mass and strength and levator ani muscle mass to that seen in intact animals. Similar changes were also observed in DHT-treated (3 mg/kg) animals. Compared with the anabolic effects observed in muscle, DHT (3 mg/kg) stimulated prostate and seminal vesicle weights more than 2-fold greater than that observed in intact controls, whereas S-4 (3 mg/kg) returned these androgenic organs to only 16 and 17%, respectively, of the control levels. S-4 (3 and 10 mg/kg) and DHT (3 mg/kg) restored castration-induced loss in lean body mass. Furthermore, S-4 treatment caused a significantly larger increase in total body bone mineral density than DHT. S-4 (3 and 10 mg/kg) also demonstrated agonist activity in the pituitary and significantly decreased plasma LH and FSH levels in castrated animals in a dose-dependent manner. In summary, the strong anabolic effects of S-4 in skeletal muscle, bone, and pituitary were achieved with minimal pharmacologic effect in the prostate. The tissue-selective pharmacologic activity of SARMs provides obvious advantages over steroidal androgen therapy and demonstrates the promising therapeutic utility that this new class of drugs may hold.

Like i said, if they can make a SARM that does not cross the blood brain barrier than they can very well acheive anabolic effects with no suppression

However you would probably get no libido lift and none of the other nice psychological effects from androgens either

suppression is a concern for bodybuilders but not really a concern for the pharm companies. their major goal is to make an anabolic with minimal androgenic activity (as measured through prostate effect). Looks like they did a pretty good job with this one with an 80:1 differentiation

But yeah, these can be patented and these can also avoid the stigma of the dreaeded word "steroids", however you and i both know that in the pharmacological sense these are basically the same thing as anabolic steroids

I am not talking about chemical differences. They may look chemically dissimilar to steroids but they bind to the same receptor and activate the same genes, so when it comes down to desired physiological effects they are the same. In other words, they are chemically similar enough so that they "fit" into the same binding domain of the same receptor

They may obtain greater differentiation between anabolic and androgenic effects, but that does not mean they are not building muscle via the same pathways. I agree that SARM research gives us hope for ultra clean "pseudo anabolic steroids" (i kinda prefer that term over SARM)

I am not currently aware of whether creating a SARM that is anabolic and does not suppress endogenous production is a goal of researchers

androgen receptors are the same throughout the body. however there are other factors that modulate the activity of androgen receptors (co-factors and enzymes at the cellular level) and these can differ substantially from tissue to tissue. This allows drug researchers avenues to exploit in the quest for a more selective androgen drug

SARMS do mimic testosterone. Not 100% the same but they are most definitely in the testosterone classification and share all the potential risks and benefits

Finally, androgens themselves cause feedback inhibition of the HPTA. If that weren't true we could all load up on winny and anavar and be huge with bit nuts too

Plus he doesn't sound convinced the ones sold to bodybuilders are the real thing.

maybe your buddy is honest. and maybe he thinks his supplier is honest. and that supplier thinks his supplier is honest. and maybe that guy is the one who is dishonest

come on man. unless your body makes the stuff himself or actually analyzes it chemically to ensure its identity then there is no way you can know its the real shit

 

[PsyT]

Well then you don't know much about the topic.

SARMS-4 is anabolic (i.e. it stimulates skeletal muscle hypertrophy) but it is not an AAS, it is a SARM i.e. Selective Androgen Receptor Modulator. SARM are ligands for the AR that are tissue selective, they are mainly if not entirely anabolic.

If you think that SARM = AAS then you have disqualified yourself from having an opinion on the topic.

For your education here is a random selection of full papers on SARM and S-4: [1], [2], [3], [4]

If your understanding of AAS is based on broscience then you will have a hard time grasping the significance and notion of SARM. The "holy grail" of AAS chemistry is the synthesis of a an anabolic compound with no androgenic effects. This has been the quest of chemists and pharamcaologists (that specialise in this area) for decades. The first generation of SARM have accomplished this goal to varying extents. S-4 has some androgenic effects but it is small compared to any AAS. There are SARM with no apparent androgenic effect but these have not reached the same level of clinical validation that S-4 has.

The big deal about SARMs, the reason why GTx has sunk millions into Ostarine to get it to clinical trial, is because Ostarine is an effective SARM i.e. it is anabolic whilst being minimally androgenic and hence very tissue selective and hence not HPTA disruptive. I have linked to reports from the clinical trials in my other posts. That you have unquestioningly placed it into the same category as AAS on the basis of brotelligence means that you are operating from within a flawed and conceptually impoverished broscientific framework and that you don't fully appreciate the limitations of your framework.

Why instead didn't you challenge me with evidence that S-4 is suppresive of HPTA? Wouldn't that have been a more diligent and less presumptuous approach? The search for such evidence would have lead to your self-education on the topic and it would have also ruptured your broscientific framework.

holy shit you are arrogant! SARM is an anabolic drug! ANABOLIC ANDROGENIC STEROID captures in its extension ANABOLIC DRUG.

Its an issue of functional equivalence, not chemical equivalence that puts them in the same class....you can't activate those receptors and get away with it without inhibition of HPTA

 

[iprimate]

PA comments on SARMs

...
Plus he doesn't sound convinced the ones sold to bodybuilders are the real thing.

You and/or Patrick Arnold are misinterpreting the results from Gao et al (2005) and I think it because you and/or Patrick Arnold have read only the abstract.

Examine this diagramclosely. You bolded this quote from the abstract:

S-4 (3 and 10 mg/kg) also demonstrated agonist activity in the pituitary and significantly decreased plasma LH and FSH levels in castrated animals in a dose-dependent manner.

But look what the body of the paper says:

The agonist activity of S-4 in the pituitary was also characterized by measuring the plasma concentrations of LH and FSH. Plasma LH and FSH concentrations increased dramatically in ORX animals 20 wk after orchidectomy (Fig. 8). At the 3 mg/kg dose, S-4 significantly decreased LH level to 9.4 ng/ml, which was still higher than the control level in intact animals. With the higher dose of 10 mg/kg, S-4 restored LH to intact levels, similar to what was observed in DHT-treated ORX animals.

In addition, DHT (3 mg/kg) fully returned FSH level in ORX animals to the intact control level (Fig. 8B). S-4 significantly decreased FSH level in ORX animals in a dose-dependent manner. However, even at the higher dose (10 mg/ kg), S-4 did not fully return the FSH level to the intact control level.

You can see from figure 8 that in the worst case (S-4 10mg/kg) LH is at the same level as the (intact) controls and FSH is well above the intact controls.

This means that in therapuetic doses S-4 does not suppress endogenous testosterone production. You can see from the 3mg/kg group that both LH and FSH are well above that of the controls.

The rest of the stuff you attribute to Patrick Arnold just isn't worth responding to, it is just empty rhetoric.

 

[iprimate]

holy shit you are arrogant!

Possibly but that is besides the point.

SARM is an anabolic drug! ANABOLIC ANDROGENIC STEROID captures in its extension ANABOLIC DRUG.

Sorry this is brologic. SARMs are anabolic but they are not AAS. AAS are called AAS because there is no such thing as a purely anabolic steroid. SARM are not a subclass of AAS they are a distinct category of drug with entirely unique properties.

Its an issue of functional equivalence, not chemical equivalence that puts them in the same class....you can't activate those receptors and get away with it without inhibition of HPTA

Sorry that is just Patrick Arnold's spiel that you are parroting and with all due respect to PA that is just bullshit. Gao et al (2005) contradicts your assertion that "you can't activate those receptors and get away with it without inhibition of HPTA".

SARM are not functionally equivalent to AAS except in the most trivial and simplistic sense. Yes SARM are anabolic and yes they are a ligand for the AR but -- and its a big but -- they have negligible androgenic effect ,i.e. they are tissue selective. AAS do not have these properties and that is why they are termed Anabolic-Androgenic Steroids. No synthetic derivative of testosterone exists that has only anabolic effects and no androgenic effects.

 

[Newman]

^^^^^^^^

Damn, you beat me 2 it.

Really like reading yer stuff Primate. Having already read Chavo's info I already knew what you've hopefully taught these folks, but the fact that you read (closely) the body of the study for INSIGHT (&relevance) is why I enjoy reading your posts.

Haters can refrain from flaming me 4 ass kissing Primate. I was only pointing out the fact that he understands the science & can discern it from brolore. Don't resent him, learn from him...

 

[SupremeSportsEnhance]

^^^^^^^^

Damn, you beat me 2 it.

Really like reading yer stuff Primate. Having already read Chavo's info I already knew what you've hopefully taught these folks, but the fact that you read (closely) the body of the study for INSIGHT (&relevance) is why I enjoy reading your posts.

Haters can refrain from flaming me 4 ass kissing Primate. I was only pointing out the fact that he understands the science & can discern it from brolore. Don't resent him, learn from him...

Ummm NO..

I'd be willing to bet that iPrimate has an affiliation with SARMs, somehow someway.

 

[PsyT]

well the vision issues are troubling enough that I would steer clear of this research chemical. I would also be leery of anybody pushing the idea that it can be used during or after PCT and not suppress you...this person likely has a vested interest in the drug being pushed for this idea...how COULD they give you reasonable justification to believe this idea...the drug is too new to claim these claims.

Anyways, carry on with your salesmanship. This board sometimes disgusts me to find salesman masquerading themselves...

 

[iprimate]

I have no commercial interest in SARMs nor I am in anyway affiliated with chavo. I am a customer of chavo (I bought S-4 from him) and that is the extent of my connection with chavo.

S-4 is new but it has progressed far down the clinical trial path. You don't have to take my word for it, read the papers I referenced then get back to me with actual evidence that S-4 are suppressive in therapeutic doses.

 

[iprimate]

Ummm NO..

I'd be willing to bet that iPrimate has an affiliation with SARMs, somehow someway.

Well you would lose that bet.