How do people get better results on 6 grams of gear than 3.5 grams when receptors are fully saturated?

[yousef12O]

There must be other mechanisms outside of cytosolic and nuclear AR activation and/or activation levels vary with recruitment of ancillary factors etc.

yeah i was reading some stuff mike anrold wrote
"besides, the idea of receptor saturation and the halting of gains is a faulty one anyway. This may seem apply when using a single substance, as the body only seems to be able to benefit by using so much of any one anabolic, but this is not due to receptor saturation alone, but to maxing out (or close to it) that particular drug's mechanisms of muscle growth. Someone may very well saturate their receptors at 3500mg/week (or around there), but that does not mean that a BB'r cannot grow anynmore with additional anabolics, it only means he can't grow anymore through androgen receptor activation. There are other anabolic pathways the body can and does use in order to grow muscle, which is often called non-receptor mediated muscle growth. Not only can the body grow through these other pathways, but the growth can be significant. I am referring only to AAS here...not peptides or other drugs, which have their own mechanisms of msucle growth."
here is the link https://forums.musculardevelopment....103052-the-3000mg-testosterone-week-obsession

 

[yousef12O]

For a friend right?

hahaha no man I just want to know

 

[gradeaphysique]

hahaha no man I just want to know

Alright. So share how increasing your own usage has resulted in more gains or not

 

[yousef12O]

Alright. So share how increasing your own usage has resulted in more gains or not

I don't go near that kind of dosages man

 

[Sixfoottwo]

You need therapy not scientific research if you're taking 3.5g gear let alone 6. I guarantee the guys on here taking that much gear aren't pros, just in a really fucked up place.

Considering the forum you're posting this on this is quite a stupid post. No offense.

 

[alfresco]

In my opinion, nobody knows there true maximum effective dosage (receptor’s ?) because of side effects.

If the side effects could be treated effectly and the patient does not die in the process we might be able to get a handle on the number.

Understanding that the relationship between dosage and growth is not linear, what is stopping everybody form doubling or tripling their dosages?

 

[Type-IIx]

Yea that well known fact, but in terms of "building", "sparing" seems to not be the same thing. Thats may not be proven by science but for many of bodybuilder anegdotal data, higher protein (300g +) seems equale more muscle and i never gonna believe that evarage size bodybuilder could succesfuly (mean optimaly/maximizing resoult) eat 180g or less then 300g protein a day.

Wow, so, you're going to discard basic biology here, to reframe my basic response as some sort of bullshit argument against protein (that I never made)? Troll level logic.

 

[gradeaphysique]

Considering the forum you're posting this on this is quite a stupid post. No offense.

Why because for years this forum was polluted with jiggly puff lookin m'fers who lived on those doses? This is a bodybuilding forum, anybody can compensate for poor lifestyle, time put in, genetics with high doses. That ain't bodybuilding, it's drug addiction. Maybe 1% of this forum have any business touching grams of gear.

 

[gradeaphysique]

I don't go near that kind of dosages man

Dosages are relative, hence the ignorance in the question posed. You wouldn't be worried about this type of stuff if you like most do, just increase dose as needed as you progress. People are right, there is not adequate data to have a concrete answer to this and it doesn't matter. Like training, diet, recovery and in this case drugs, everything in bodybuilding is about progression, granted you are utilizing those variables practically.

 

[BigNJ]

Not to mention other tools top coaches are using on top athletes.

IV amino acids with insulin for example is one of the tools that the average bodybuilder does not do.

I knew a guy who did that with a naturopathic doctor. He would be on the IV 3 times a day especially pre contest.

Pro bodybuilding is drug warfare at this point. You have coaches like for example Cement Factory who seems to really know how things are done at the elite level.

Maybe those athletes sign some sort of contract not to divulge what their coach is using with them. Who knows. Only a pro athlete at the top can tell you what really goes on at that level.

 

[pickapeck]

WEll my calculations above suggested saturation after AAS induced increased AR receptor concentration would be ~300 mg/w of Test C. Things have gone so sideways over the years in BBing. I was a grappler primarily. People in highly athletic sports use low end doses for performance enhancement. Peoplelaugh but my go to cycles were all 300 mg/w or less in those days. I worked out 2x a day most days and worked a labor job. I would go from stringy to full strong and musclar with that little bit. Saturation? I'm guessing it was probably close sicen the research and rough calculations suggest so. After that at higher doses something else is going on such as recruitment of AR ancillary factors, membrane bound AR receptors, up regulation of other growth factors, downregulation of catabolic pathways such as corticosteroid pathways, tickling of the progesterone receptor (which has pro-anabolic activities). There is a lot going on in this grwoth phase. People tend to be myopic and thing very simply that the AR + steroid of choice = growth.

 

[NeveReveN]

Let's say a guy was on a 6g cycle, given that he didn't feel sick and it didn't mess his digestion up, no estrogen or prolactin problems etc... He would see better results than taking 3.5g of gear, how is that possible when we know that androgen receptors are saturated at 3.5 grams, so theoretically anything more would be a waste right?

We don’t KNOW any of this. Even how our muscles contract isn’t a known, it’s a theory called the Sliding Filament Theory. Further, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that AR downregulation occurs in human muscle, or in any tissue, in response to above normal (supraphysiological) levels of AAS. That’s a theory too. And the guys who take 10 grams of test per week, along with 6 other drugs and keep getting bigger and bigger suggest that that theory isn’t correct.

 

[NeveReveN]

Are you serious? You obviously you do gain more muscle eating BARELY enough protein for a bodybuilder (300g protein per day), then like a small bikini girl (180g protein per day). If somone thinks 180g protein for a everage size bodybuilder is sufficient, then he clearly don't know what he's doing...

I’m in my late 50’s now and have been lifting and taking since I was 19. Two things I know from lots and lots of personal experience and the experiences of a lot of other bodybuilders:1. the more steroids you take, the bigger you get. 2. The more food, mainly protein, you eat along with those steroids the even bigger you get. I’ve found no limits beyond my courage to take more and my determination to eat more. I got bigger and stronger on 400 grams of protein a day than I did on 300. And even bigger and even stronger on 500 than on 400. 500mg test a week makes more muscle than 250. 1000 makes more than 500. 2000 makes more than 1000.

From the 1980s through to today, when I saw very big guys break through plateaus, like say a guy who was stuck at 220 for a couple years suddenly break through to 250, or a guy stuck at 250 break through to 290-300, the reason was rarely a change in training. It was almost always, more drugs, more food.

Most can’t be 250-300 but almost every single dedicated lifter can be bigger than they are now by adding more drugs and eating more food. One guy doubles his dose of test and gains 5 more pounds of muscle, another guy gains 20, but they both gain.

So I don’t believe in saturation. I believe in acclimation for drugs and especially protein. Increasing protein consistently, day in and day out, will add muscle to 99.99 percent of everyone, without them even lifting. Lift and they’ll definitely gain muscle. Lift heavy and they’ll gain even more. Take steroids and more yet. More steroids, even more. It’s a very trustworthy formula.

 

[jeroendebleser]

We don’t KNOW any of this. Even how our muscles contract isn’t a known, it’s a theory called the Sliding Filament Theory. Further, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that AR downregulation occurs in human muscle, or in any tissue, in response to above normal (supraphysiological) levels of AAS. That’s a theory too. And the guys who take 10 grams of test per week, along with 6 other drugs and keep getting bigger and bigger suggest that that theory isn’t correct.

Exactly

 

[pickapeck]

We don’t KNOW any of this. Even how our muscles contract isn’t a known, it’s a theory called the Sliding Filament Theory. Further, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that AR downregulation occurs in human muscle, or in any tissue, in response to above normal (supraphysiological) levels of AAS. That’s a theory too. And the guys who take 10 grams of test per week, along with 6 other drugs and keep getting bigger and bigger suggest that that theory isn’t correct.

Watch these muscle cells contract with the addition of ATP.

. With this, knock out experiments, reconstruction in an in vitro system, disease states of muscle that can be recapitulated in animal models etc etc, I'm really not sure what your point is other than to assert that ALL is not known about ALL muscle contraction and therefore it is a theory. Extrapolation by fiat you suggest we know almost nothing about dose response to AAS. Note: I am not argueing against your statements against AR downregulation with AAS use. I must have missed where someone put that forward. I think it's clear that AR increase on long exposure to AAS but that is only part of the story. I doubt they increase 20 fold, which they would have to do if you wanted to assert only full saturation at 6 grams a week. I think this thread is a little absurd. Anyone that doesn't feel like dog shit on 6 grams of gear is an anomaly and is probably pissing most of it out because they have superior processing/excretion metabolism. MAybe we should all elect someone from this thread to try it. We can take photos by the day and watch him swell up, turn green and rage then cramp and passout walking up 3 flights of stairs. Wait a minute, there was this guy Tony Stooge who ran these types of experiments on YouTube. I think he just had a heart attack a couple months ago.

 

[Type-IIx]

This can be estimated fairly easily from published literature. From this paper full saturation in the model system used is ~20 nM. https://www.jbc.org/article/S0021-9258(17)33103-4/pdf. Now estimate the volume of the BBer which is close to their weight in kg. kg is roughly equal to L if we neglect density for convenience. Do the simple math and you have your concentration in moles needed for full saturation. 2 micro mol (2 x 10^-6 mol) of Testosterone is needed to fully saturate a 100 kg BBer if he is similar to the system used in the study. Probably this can be expected to be within a factor of 2 to 4. Testosterone is 288 gram/mol. Doing the math gives 57 mg circulating in the body at any given time. It is well known that mid range normal levels give near full saturation. Mid normal is 6 micromol/L; 6 x 10^6 mol/L x 100 L = 60 x 10 ^3 mol x 288 g/mol = 0.17 grams = 170 mg. Both estimates are within a factor of 3.

So, based on published works and calculated two different ways ~110 mg of circulating testosterone will saturate the androgen receptor in a 100 lb BBer. In most people this will be reached with 100 - 150 mg/w of test cypionate.

Now let's say that while in cycle at 8 weeks the androgen receptors double. That would mean that roughly 300 mg/w would saturate the receptors. Certainly we see more improvement past 300 mg/w so there is more going on than what can be estimated at the AR. BUT!! we are ALL certainly saturated at the AR at 3.5 g/w.

This link is broken - returns a File Not Found error. Could you revise? Also, if you could share the citation. Thanks bro.

 

[Type-IIx]

We don’t KNOW any of this. Even how our muscles contract isn’t a known, it’s a theory called the Sliding Filament Theory. Further, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that AR downregulation occurs in human muscle, or in any tissue, in response to above normal (supraphysiological) levels of AAS. That’s a theory too. And the guys who take 10 grams of test per week, along with 6 other drugs and keep getting bigger and bigger suggest that that theory isn’t correct.

Er, I think you misunderstand the meaning of theory. A theory is a model based on the best evidence that is accumulated by the scientific method, and the Sliding Filament Theory is a very well supported model. You seem to be mischaracterizing theory as a mere hypothesis.

Science, unlike religious and political systems, does not postulate laws or portend absolute truths based on axioms and assumptions alone.

Well-supported theories are the best models we have: can you propose how muscles contract if not in accordance with the Sliding Filament Theory? Propose a superior theory with evidentiary support, and people might care.

You are correct that the evidence does not support AR down-regulation in human skeletal muscle: quite opposite (AR up-regulation by androgens occurs).

 

[ninetynineHGH]

Er, I think you misunderstand the meaning of theory. A theory is a model based on the best evidence that is accumulated by the scientific method, and the Sliding Filament Theory is a very well supported model. You seem to be mischaracterizing theory as a mere hypothesis.

Science, unlike religious and political systems, does not postulate laws or portend absolute truths based on axioms and assumptions alone.

Well-supported theories are the best models we have: can you propose how muscles contract if not in accordance with the Sliding Filament Theory? Propose a superior theory with evidentiary support, and people might care.

You are correct that the evidence does not support AR down-regulation in human skeletal muscle: quite opposite (AR up-regulation by androgens occurs).

I think all he was saying was "it could be wrong"

Well established theories change all the time

 

[Type-IIx]

I think all he was saying was "it could be wrong"

Well established theories change all the time

Please, what "could be wrong?"

Some minor aspects of the theory might be updated or subject to modification, e.g., there could be unelucidated mechanisms underpinning globular head recocking, and even local adaptations modifiable by a training effect that affect its rate, or adaptations in the local response to Ca²⁺ influx.

But whether actin/myosin cross-bridges are pulled into the center of the A-band during contraction to generate force (i.e., the basic process of contraction)? Please.

Please, provide an example of the last time, as you are aware, an established theory regarded as the de facto explanation for phenomena was proven wrong, with an explanation of any particular aspect of the theory that was altered by novel evidence.

 

[ninetynineHGH]

Please, what "could be wrong?"

Some minor aspects of the theory might be updated or subject to modification, e.g., there could be unelucidated mechanisms underpinning globular head recocking, and even local adaptations modifiable by a training effect that affect its rate, or adaptations in the local response to Ca²⁺ influx.

But whether actin/myosin cross-bridges are pulled into the center of the A-band during contraction to generate force (i.e., the basic process of contraction)? Please.

Please, provide an example of the last time, as you are aware, an established theory regarded as the de facto explanation for phenomena was proven wrong, with an explanation of any particular aspect of the theory that was altered by novel evidence.

Why are you trying so hard to prove you are intelligent/educated?