- Joined
- Jun 5, 2002
- Messages
- 8,709
An example .. the armed services did a study comparing testosterone to nandrolone.. ( forgive me I am going by memory here).. what they found was in the lower doses ( 200 to 300 mgs) they were very comparable in terms of muscle gained.. protein accrete.. now when raising the dosage they found test started to outshine deca a bit.. why ?
Well again we can go to its secondary characteristics. When they raised test they also got a rise in dht and estrogen.. we know the importance of estrogen in muscle growth.. now deca also converts but at roughly 20 percent of testosterone and its dht is not worth mentioning.
So what's the takeaway?
Test is great up to a point then we need A aromatase inhibitor to combat too much estro.. not ideal.. studies show bone lose using aromatase inhibitors that is not related to the loss of estrogen but the elimination of certain minerals.. plus it sometimes can be negative on lipids etc..
Now another study shows that primobolan actually adds a decent amount of tissue in subjects at only 200mgs.. now primo does not convert to estro but its abilities with protein are very good..
So my point is if they do decent at protein accrete.. and we can avoid certain secondary characteristics that might be negative to what we want then why woukdnt we use test ( up to a point where the negatives outweigh the positive) then throw a compound in that can help us add tissue with adding to conversions we don't want.. like primo.. like mast.. again they add tissue with out bloat.. we are getting ample estro from the test..
So once we understand the characteristics of all the compounds it opens up alot more options.. instead of throwing one aromatase nightmare after another..
Well again we can go to its secondary characteristics. When they raised test they also got a rise in dht and estrogen.. we know the importance of estrogen in muscle growth.. now deca also converts but at roughly 20 percent of testosterone and its dht is not worth mentioning.
So what's the takeaway?
Test is great up to a point then we need A aromatase inhibitor to combat too much estro.. not ideal.. studies show bone lose using aromatase inhibitors that is not related to the loss of estrogen but the elimination of certain minerals.. plus it sometimes can be negative on lipids etc..
Now another study shows that primobolan actually adds a decent amount of tissue in subjects at only 200mgs.. now primo does not convert to estro but its abilities with protein are very good..
So my point is if they do decent at protein accrete.. and we can avoid certain secondary characteristics that might be negative to what we want then why woukdnt we use test ( up to a point where the negatives outweigh the positive) then throw a compound in that can help us add tissue with adding to conversions we don't want.. like primo.. like mast.. again they add tissue with out bloat.. we are getting ample estro from the test..
So once we understand the characteristics of all the compounds it opens up alot more options.. instead of throwing one aromatase nightmare after another..