Jordan Peters to TRT

[Type-IIx]

I cannot wrap my head around victors growth ideas, NOT saying he is wrong, I’m just saying I’m a stupid simpleton.

Thought experiment!?!!

Genetic lab created twins, both running DC three way split, both eating exact same 600 calorie surplus daily.

Bill…coached by victor black…..300 testprop/400mastprop/50mg var daily…1050mg week

Bob…coached by Luki….500 testprop/500 npp…..1000mg week.

Dexa at ending of 16 weeks. We run full dosages 14 weeks, drop to 150mg Test prop for two weeks…to let intra cellular and extra cellular fluid balance back to normal.

Would the muscle mass accrual be close? Fuck idk.

I believe there will be more actual skeletal muscle tissue growth with Luki's protocol.

 

[Type-IIx]

Victor's protocol would be a prep cycle vs. Luki's protocol being an off-season mass cycle. The fact that the off-season cycle would be used in practice is because of the very fact that it accrues more muscle tissue... Victor's views (if in fact he states that all AAS accrue muscle tissue equally) defy logic and I'm surprised more bodybuilders don't give him shit for it.

 

[LATS]

Hi LATS, you referred to multiple studies but I’m only aware of one in rats. Do you have a link to others?

That notion isn’t backed by my results as well as my gut feeling. I know, worthless to base any conclusion on. I have been hearing and following multiple coaches and trainees who follow this idea (ie all AAS build the same amount of muscle at the same dose). Kuba has stated it in some videos but when I asked some questions on JP’s forum, they both seemed to disagree as well.


View attachment 151255
View attachment 151256

Let me clear up something.. what I'm saying is they all do protein the same.. but its what they do on their separate characteristics that set them apart.. can they contribute to growth equally.. to a extent in regards to protein etc. But they also may have different characteristics individually that can add to growth.. different pathways.. estrogen.. etc..
We have to also base this on their side effects versus benefits..
But again they all have different characteristics after the protein effect that can attribute to one being " superior" to the other.. but they accrete protein equally.. dont mistake water retention etc to tissue gained.. but if the water retention allows you to train harder then it might be " superior" for you in regards to hypertrophy.. again it's what characteristics they bring after the protein that sets them apart..

 

[b-boy]

Let me clear up something.. what I'm saying is they all do protein the same.. but its what they do on their separate characteristics that set them apart.. can they contribute to growth equally.. to a extent in regards to protein etc. But they also may have different characteristics individually that can add to growth.. different pathways.. estrogen.. etc..
We have to also base this on their side effects versus benefits..
But again they all have different characteristics after the protein effect that can attribute to one being " superior" to the other.. but they accrete protein equally.. dont mistake water retention etc to tissue gained.. but if the water retention allows you to train harder then it might be " superior" for you in regards to hypertrophy.. again it's what characteristics they bring after the protein that sets them apart..

STOP with your common sense bullshit...LMAO

 

[specter]

So running 175mg Ment Ace a week vs 175mg Primo a week would give the same ammount of tissue.... doesnt really sound logical...

 

[b-boy]

Let me clear up something.. what I'm saying is they all do protein the same.. but its what they do on their separate characteristics that set them apart.. can they contribute to growth equally.. to a extent in regards to protein etc. But they also may have different characteristics individually that can add to growth.. different pathways.. estrogen.. etc..
We have to also base this on their side effects versus benefits..
But again they all have different characteristics after the protein effect that can attribute to one being " superior" to the other.. but they accrete protein equally.. dont mistake water retention etc to tissue gained.. but if the water retention allows you to train harder then it might be " superior" for you in regards to hypertrophy.. again it's what characteristics they bring after the protein that sets them apart..

Lol your a smart dude that's been around the block and back in this game, THATS WHY YOU UNDERSTAND VICTORS METHOD AND WHAT HE IS ACTUALLY SAYING.

 

[b-boy]

So running 175mg Ment Ace a week vs 175mg Primo a week would give the same ammount of tissue.... doesnt really sound logical...

Read Lats post above and try and understand what is being said!

 

[LATS]

Lol your a smart dude that's been around the block and back in this game, THATS WHY YOU UNDERSTAND VICTORS METHOD AND WHAT HE IS ACTUALLY SAYING.

Thank you.. back at ya. Knowing the secondary characteristics of a compound enhances the knowledge of what compound to use and when. When you understand that they accrete protein at about the same rate then you have to decide what adding a compound does for the cycle and what it attributes. Not just adding compound that is essentially a repetitive exercise of the first compound adding to the wanted sides and not doing diddly for growth... once you know accrete protein the same find out what they contribute after and the sides they bring.. not just throwing grams of eq and deca on top of test .. dont be redundant in a cycle

 

[b-boy]

Thank you.. back at ya. Knowing the secondary characteristics of a compound enhances the knowledge of what compound to use and when. When you understand that they accrete protein at about the same rate then you have to decide what adding a compound does for the cycle and what it attributes. Not just adding compound that is essentially a repetitive exercise of the first compound adding to the wanted sides and not doing diddly for growth... once you know accrete protein the same find out what they contribute after and the sides they bring.. not just throwing grams of eq and deca on top of test .. dont be redundant in a cycle

Excellent post my friend....well said. BRAVO

 

[Type-IIx]

The only minor disagreement I have is that protein accretion is the same between, say, nandrolone versus say Dbol. It's not. That is, despite the lack of a research method being used in humans as precise as in rats to distinguish the effect of androgens on muscle protein synthesis/breakdown (e.g., arteriovenous balance techniques) given the impracticability of this in human research on long time frames, direct measures of MPS (muscle protein synthesis) & MPB (breakdown) are not representative of AAS-induced muscle anabolism to begin with.

This is because AAS/androgens primarily cause muscle protein accretion by modulating glucocorticoids and increasing cellular (mIGF-I) IGF-I activity (this is often mediated by secondary messenger systems like Akt, Notch, etc.), by aromatization (which stimulates GH secretory-burst mass and, thereby, elevates the incremental and absolute height of serum GH concentration causing increased IGF-I levels), and by ligand-dependent and -independent AR action that exerts (only) some action via classical mRNA-mediated translation (protein synthesis) as well as rapid nongenomic action. The differences between AAS in the activity of these mechanisms belies necessary differences in protein deposition between androgens.

The complexity and diversity of AAS action in promoting muscle protein accretion defies Victor's apparent focus on muscle protein synthesis and degradation (protein turnover) with rodent studies.

Besides, the nitrogen excretion/balance studies (e.g., comparing Deca > Primo > Dbol above), more recent research using DXA to measure T-induced hypertrophy, and feed efficiency with tren that we do have ARE representative of improved protein balance, despite Victor's myopically focusing on the relevance of impracticable protein turnover measures, which apply to other anabolic agents like IGF-I and its analogues far more than AAS, given androgens' diversity of action across different pathways for inducing muscle protein accretion.

I tremendously respect you both @LATS and @b-boy - I just take issue with the consequences that might arise (guys believing tren and mast are equipotent in muscle anabolism) as well as the speed at which the view that all AAS accrue muscle tissue equally has promulgated.

 

[maldorf]

Does Victor argue that all AAS are the same mg to mg? So that 100 mg of Trenbolone is the same as 100 mg of Primo?

 

[LATS]

The only minor disagreement I have is that protein accretion is the same between, say, nandrolone versus say Dbol. It's not. That is, despite the lack of a research method being used in humans as precise as in rats to distinguish the effect of androgens on muscle protein synthesis/breakdown (e.g., arteriovenous balance techniques) given the impracticability of this in human research on long time frames, direct measures of MPS (muscle protein synthesis) & MPB (breakdown) are not representative of AAS-induced muscle anabolism to begin with.

This is because AAS/androgens primarily cause muscle protein accretion by modulating glucocorticoids and increasing cellular (mIGF-I) IGF-I activity (this is often mediated by secondary messenger systems like Akt, Notch, etc.), by aromatization (which stimulates GH secretory-burst mass and, thereby, elevates the incremental and absolute height of serum GH concentration causing increased IGF-I levels), and by ligand-dependent and -independent AR action that exerts (only) some action via classical mRNA-mediated translation (protein synthesis) as well as rapid nongenomic action. The differences between AAS in the activity of these mechanisms belies necessary differences in protein deposition between androgens.

The complexity and diversity of AAS action in promoting muscle protein accretion defies Victor's apparent focus on muscle protein synthesis and degradation (protein turnover) with rodent studies.

Besides, the nitrogen excretion/balance studies (e.g., comparing Deca > Primo > Dbol above), more recent research using DXA to measure T-induced hypertrophy, and feed efficiency with tren that we do have ARE representative of improved protein balance, despite Victor's myopically focusing on the relevance of impracticable protein turnover measures, which apply to other anabolic agents like IGF-I and its analogues far more than AAS, given androgens' diversity of action across different pathways for inducing muscle protein accretion.

I tremendously respect you both @LATS and @b-boy - I just take issue with the consequences that might arise (guys believing tren and mast are equipotent in muscle anabolism) as well as the speed at which the view that all AAS accrue muscle tissue equally has promulgated.

But again.. you are essentially saying what I just said.. its the secondary characteristics that defines them.. its what they do besides the protein accrete that sets them apart.. its how you use them in a synergy manner together that should decide what gets used and when.. tren by itself is not a great muscle builder.. in a simple description." Where's the estro "? .. we know estro is needed.. all compounds have positives and negatives in regards to growth .. its what the bring secondary that sets them apart.. sobyes from a protein accrete standpoint they are all decent.. what does it do after that makes one superior to the other and what do we combine it with for results.. AND... is the compound worth it for most in regards to (example) brain health or heart health with its characteristics.. like tren..

 

[specter]

Does Victor argue that all AAS are the same mg to mg? So that 100 mg of Trenbolone is the same as 100 mg of Primo?

Dont say that B-boy will scream at you

 

[Type-IIx]

But again.. you are essentially saying what I just said.. its the secondary characteristics that defines them.. its what they do besides the protein accrete that sets them apart.. its how you use them in a synergy manner together that should decide what gets used and when.. tren by itself is not a great muscle builder.. in a simple description." Where's the estro "? .. we know estro is needed.. all compounds have positives and negatives in regards to growth .. its what the bring secondary that sets them apart.. sobyes from a protein accrete standpoint they are all decent.. what does it do after that makes one superior to the other and what do we combine it with for results.. AND... is the compound worth it for most in regards to (example) brain health or heart health with its characteristics.. like tren..

I do basically agree when stated in this manner! The only minor disagreement, if you even do hold this as a belief - I'm starting to doubt it, in which case we're just going to completely agree - is that I do not believe different AAS accrue protein equally over long time frames and at high dosages in practice.

 

[LATS]

I do basically agree when stated in this manner! The only minor disagreement, if you even do hold this as a belief - I'm starting to doubt it, in which case we're just going to completely agree - is that I do not believe different AAS accrue protein equally over long time frames and at high dosages in practice.

Again.. you don't have to believe it.. people can do what they want. Just make sure what they do is based on fact and not bro science which runs rampant.. if a study comes out which shows other wise I'm more than willing to change my mind.. but I will never change my mind on the fact that it's the secondary characteristics of the compounds that makes one superior or not to others. And people do not spend enough time figuring out what makes one unique compared to the others. They would not be produced otherwise.. so find out what they bring to the table.. run test as a base and add from there compounds by what it brings to the cycle.. dont be redundant in putting compounds together that are essentially interchangeable.. if your gonna do that just up your test etc

 

[emeric delczeg]

Let me clear up something.. what I'm saying is they all do protein the same.. but its what they do on their separate characteristics that set them apart.. can they contribute to growth equally.. to a extent in regards to protein etc. But they also may have different characteristics individually that can add to growth.. different pathways.. estrogen.. etc..
We have to also base this on their side effects versus benefits..
But again they all have different characteristics after the protein effect that can attribute to one being " superior" to the other.. but they accrete protein equally.. dont mistake water retention etc to tissue gained.. but if the water retention allows you to train harder then it might be " superior" for you in regards to hypertrophy.. again it's what characteristics they bring after the protein that sets them apart..

You are correct regarding the type of proteins.

 

[juggy38]

What would be fun to watch would be Peter bond, Broderick Chavez, Victor, and Fouad do a round table.

Peter…”primo is a weak growth promoter due to 3a-reduction in muscle tissue”

Victor….I don’t hold that to be true….(insert research paper)

Chavez….bitch use masteron.

Fouad….but wait we talking about cutting stuff? That doesn’t build muscles…

 

[Type-IIx]

Does Victor argue that all AAS are the same mg to mg? So that 100 mg of Trenbolone is the same as 100 mg of Primo?

Correct me if I am wrong @b-boy - but I believe he does imply this, and then is likely to fall back on his study that failed to show a significant difference in protein accretion (this could likely be a type 2 error! error in detection of significance given statistical limitations) between AAS in rats, and proceeds to pigeonhole the challenger to his argument into accepting that there's no direct measure of protein turnover in humans to sow doubt and therefore argues implicitly that all AAS have equimolar potency in muscle anabolism? Is that fair/accurate? Also, does anyone have the citation for this rat study, I'm tending to make generalizations about it based on inference but I should read it. I would be grateful for the reference.

 

[b-boy]

Lats already explained it fully and in layman's terms for anyone to easily understand, if you can't understand what @LATS Has explained above there is nothing I can do for you. I understand the information and apply it to myself, what anyone else does or believes means fuck all to me.

 

[b-boy]

Again.. you don't have to believe it.. people can do what they want. Just make sure what they do is based on fact and not bro science which runs rampant.. if a study comes out which shows other wise I'm more than willing to change my mind.. but I will never change my mind on the fact that it's the secondary characteristics of the compounds that makes one superior or not to others. And people do not spend enough time figuring out what makes one unique compared to the others. They would not be produced otherwise.. so find out what they bring to the table.. run test as a base and add from there compounds by what it brings to the cycle.. dont be redundant in putting compounds together that are essentially interchangeable.. if your gonna do that just up your test etc

^^^^^^^ this above is written beautifully and is my response to anymore Victor Black questions.