Just to clarify big dosages still work 😅

[Fleezy]

The thing that can irk me about JP is whatever he's currently doing is "the way." Back then, it was pounding food, insulin and drugs. When he left bodybuilding, all anyone needs is TRT+.

to be fair to @xjpx tho, he's not the only one who is doing this - assuming that he is actually saying this (i haven't seen him say this)

lots of the bigger guys - even on this board, used massive doses and then preach low amounts of gear like we can't read and haven't seen Big A's 'sick of this, here's the truth' thread.

 

[aHarness]

Everyone is allowed to change their minds and, in fact, it should be encouraged as an individual learns and progresses.

The thing that can irk me about JP is whatever he's currently doing is "the way." Back then, it was pounding food, insulin and drugs. When he left bodybuilding, all anyone needs is TRT+. Now that he's pushing again, he admits more drugs means more muscle. And the upper/lower split is far superior to anything else.

His minions claim that moving from push/pull/lower to upper/lower revolutionized their training in months.

I just roll my eyes and know that I'm not his target audience.

His hilariously dogmatic views on training I find even more obnoxious than the drug stuff.

 

[aHarness]

to be fair to @xjpx tho, he's not the only one who is doing this - assuming that he is actually saying this (i haven't seen him say this)

lots of the bigger guys - even on this board, used massive doses and then preach low amounts of gear like we can't read and haven't seen Big A's 'sick of this, here's the truth' thread.

This is true. Something many say after stepping back/retiring that I always find a bit odd is when they say that looking back they don’t think that doing certain things, pushing things like they did etc. was necessary. It’s just funny simply because in reality it’s impossible to say whether it was or not, because fact of the matter is it got them where they were.

 

[Tomgrass]

Of course they needed it. They pushed it cause whatever they were doing before that push was not enough. It is as simple as it gets.

 

[d4ve]

This is true. Something many say after stepping back/retiring that I always find a bit odd is when they say that looking back they don’t think that doing certain things, pushing things like they did etc. was necessary. It’s just funny simply because in reality it’s impossible to say whether it was or not, because fact of the matter is it got them where they were.

Also to be fair, in response to the, "Look at what got them their size in the first place" argument - There are plenty of case studies of bodybuilders who took a more moderate approach and still got absolutely huge. The problem is that they either don't talk about it - which is predictable since those aren't the guys who are talking about drugs in a public forum, anyway - or the internet calls them liars when they do talk about it.

Since we're on this site, anyway, I'll mention the Tuttle AMAs and whatever it's morphed into now with Centopani and a few others chiming in. They've talked about their cycles when they put on most of their size, and it sounds like they were usually in the 1.5 - 2g range with 6-10iu GH...which is a lot of stuff to anyone who's not inundated in the high dose discussions. And then they get called liars.

Maybe this is just my current attitude because I've stepped back from the ledge of thinking I needed even more gear to thinking, "No, 2g and 10iu GH should be absolutely plenty to gain all the size I'll ever need." And also realizing that after a certain point, more food, gear, and training volume won't make protein synthesis happen any faster. But I'm pretty sure this is the case.

 

[M@NU]

today in his "ask me anything.." insta story he posted what this 4ml consisted of
1400mg primo
700mg tren A
400mg Test
400mg NPP
something like this
im not sure if i am the only one, but this doesnt scream "holy shit" or "extreme" to me.. its more on the moderate side of what ive read over years

 

[btails]

today in his "ask me anything.." insta story he posted what this 4ml consisted of
1400mg primo
700mg tren A
400mg Test
400mg NPP
something like this
im not sure if i am the only one, but this doesnt scream "holy shit" or "extreme" to me.. its more on the moderate side of what ive read over years

I thought he used like 6g of combined test and deca at one point?

 

[M@NU]

n

I thought he used like 6g of combined test and deca at one point?

not sure if he holds a bit back with the truths because he fears idiots would copy it and harm themselves

 

[control]

Maybe this is just my current attitude because I've stepped back from the ledge of thinking I needed even more gear to thinking, "No, 2g and 10iu GH should be absolutely plenty to gain all the size I'll ever need." And also realizing that after a certain point, more food, gear, and training volume won't make protein synthesis happen any faster. But I'm pretty sure this is the case.

100% truth, and you're bigger/stronger than most of the guys who are saying "more is better".

 

[LATS]

True.. go from 500mgs to 800mgs and you will see size increase.. same with going from 2 grams to 3 grams.. but there does become a diminishing return.. where the increase in size doesn't outpace the sides..
I have told the story before of the 212 pro who does 9 grams pre contest and 7 off season.. he hasn't changed alot in years and still weighs in about the same for the 212 limit.. now granted, if he didn't cut the amount if calories he does to make limit then he might be a bit bigger and in the open... but.. they also said his health is piss poor and his blood is like " syrup".. but trust me, he's not the only one. Many are in that range.. some have the genes to with stand the amounts and still be OK. But most are playing a dangerous game..

 

[kadafi2]

True.. go from 500mgs to 800mgs and you will see size increase.. same with going from 2 grams to 3 grams.. but there does become a diminishing return.. where the increase in size doesn't outpace the sides..
I have told the story before of the 212 pro who does 9 grams pre contest and 7 off season.. he hasn't changed alot in years and still weighs in about the same for the 212 limit.. now granted, if he didn't cut the amount if calories he does to make limit then he might be a bit bigger and in the open... but.. they also said his health is piss poor and his blood is like " syrup".. but trust me, he's not the only one. Many are in that range.. some have the genes to with stand the amounts and still be OK. But most are playing a dangerous game..

At 9 grams, he could count calories from injections lol. I wonder if there are many guys who exceed 10 grams or is it absolute exaggeration?

 

[buck]

Big doses work. Bu i also found that eating more helped me gain weight. Who would have thought it would happen that way!

For me it has always been about what i find optimal for size, strength health etc. If i got huge and died at 40 i wouldn't be able to continue doing what i like to do. Bummer.

 

[traininsane11]

True.. go from 500mgs to 800mgs and you will see size increase.. same with going from 2 grams to 3 grams.. but there does become a diminishing return.. where the increase in size doesn't outpace the sides..
I have told the story before of the 212 pro who does 9 grams pre contest and 7 off season.. he hasn't changed alot in years and still weighs in about the same for the 212 limit.. now granted, if he didn't cut the amount if calories he does to make limit then he might be a bit bigger and in the open... but.. they also said his health is piss poor and his blood is like " syrup".. but trust me, he's not the only one. Many are in that range.. some have the genes to with stand the amounts and still be OK. But most are playing a dangerous game..

Man that’s insane! I wonder if he truly believes he needs that much like surely he must know it’s overkill I realise we are all often stuck in the mindset of more is better but I’d hope a lot of us know when you’re going way overboard

Especially when you have a weight cap assuming you’re near it or cutting to make it then it would surely be obvious it’s not required

 

[Fleezy]

I realise we are all often stuck in the mindset of more is better

More is better, generally speaking

But 7g of gear might only be 3% better than 6g

Whereas 2g might be 30% better than 1g

 

[buck]

More may be better at the moment. But over even a short time span i have o wonder if being less toxic/healthier on a some what lower dose can actually lead to the same or even better gains from a body that can operate more efficiently. .

 

[hawkmoon]

but the era of "massmonsters" is over now aesthetics count - I myself have always been a fan of the biggest freaks but with age and experience I changed my mind because I know that you can be someone like that only for a moment and then you are ruined for the rest of your life and if you don't do it quickly and don't abuse it you can still look great even at 45+ and not finish bodybuilding at the age of 30-35 because you have destroyed your body and health and you have to stop and be an ordinary Joe if you want to live

I was always impressed by mass monsters, but never wanted to be one. I don't disparage anyone who wants to go that route, but as you say there are consequences.

I'm easily 10lb heavier than normal by doubling my usual dose from 600 mg to 1.2g, but will be wrapping this up soon. More works no doubt, but you need to evaluate this objectively.
Are you competitive or just addicted to being huge? What are your reasons for pushing as hard as you are? Are your competitive goals realistic? What price are you willing to pay?

As far as Jordan goes, I recall Luke saying something to the effect that JP wasn't fated to be huge, but he forced his way there.

 

[d4ve]

A couple of questions that interest me more than just, "Do high doses 'work'," whatever "work" means -

1. Are AAS really making us more responsive to training, such that AAS + proper training has a synergistic effect? Or do we actually have our training stimulus and our gear stimulus, and the two remain separate? Paul Carter and Kurt Havens have been talking about this lately. Tbh I think we all assume(d) the former - that the drugs up-regulate protein synthesis from training...but I wonder if that's not really true. There's the oft-cited study in which men taking 600mg Test and not training gained way more muscle than natties training. It's easy to hand-wave and say that doesn't apply to our population, but to be fair we don't know that it doesn't. We're just unlikely to get a study that tests whether 1.5-2g gear allows already huge bodybuilders to keep gaining muscle when they lay off training.

My hunch is that AAS actually do improve the response to training itself. One data point in favor of that hunch is that when an enhanced bodybuilder improves a weak body part, it's almost always because they changed their training. Then again, even those improvements tend to come far slower than overall, drug-enhanced gains in stage weight. Either way it's an interesting question to consider...and maybe a hard pill to swallow if the truth is otherwise. If we look at how slow gains come to experienced natties, that would mean the drugs are actually accounting for the VAST majority of progress made by experienced enhanced guys.

2. To what degree is AAS dose responsible for body composition? Almost everyone softens up, at least slightly, if they go from blast to cruise / TRT for a couple months. Is that really because the hormones were supporting their combination of muscularity and low body fat on blast, or are people just not accounting for variables (diet, cardio, training intensity) as well as they think they are? The answer might seem obvious if we only look at extremes, e.g. of course you'll be softer eating 5,000 calories on TRT compared to the same intake on 2-3g AAS. But is there really much difference in this regard for a man who drops from 2g to 1g?

You might say dose escalations are necessary to make use of higher food, but anecdotally that hasn't exactly proven true for me...not for AAS, at least. A little bit for GH. But the times I've ramped gear up in hopes of it making me leaner at a given size, it hasn't really panned out that way. And if we consider the numbers at play here, it makes sense that it wouldn't. Justin lays out the math here all the time. If you're loaded to the gills and doing everything perfectly with regards to diet, training, and recovery, you're looking at maybe 20-25g protein synthesis per day. That's less than 100 calories of new protein structures, and the energy required to build them isn't much greater. So if your rate of protein synthesis is already maxed, what is even more gear going to do in terms of using more food to make more muscle? In all likelihood you're just going to gain fat and / or sweat more.

 

[kadafi2]

A couple of questions that interest me more than just, "Do high doses 'work'," whatever "work" means -

1. Are AAS really making us more responsive to training, such that AAS + proper training has a synergistic effect? Or do we actually have our training stimulus and our gear stimulus, and the two remain separate? Paul Carter and Kurt Havens have been talking about this lately. Tbh I think we all assume(d) the former - that the drugs up-regulate protein synthesis from training...but I wonder if that's not really true. There's the oft-cited study in which men taking 600mg Test and not training gained way more muscle than natties training. It's easy to hand-wave and say that doesn't apply to our population, but to be fair we don't know that it doesn't. We're just unlikely to get a study that tests whether 1.5-2g gear allows already huge bodybuilders to keep gaining muscle when they lay off training.

My hunch is that AAS actually do improve the response to training itself. One data point in favor of that hunch is that when an enhanced bodybuilder improves a weak body part, it's almost always because they changed their training. Then again, even those improvements tend to come far slower than overall, drug-enhanced gains in stage weight. Either way it's an interesting question to consider...and maybe a hard pill to swallow if the truth is otherwise. If we look at how slow gains come to experienced natties, that would mean the drugs are actually accounting for the VAST majority of progress made by experienced enhanced guys.

2. To what degree is AAS dose responsible for body composition? Almost everyone softens up, at least slightly, if they go from blast to cruise / TRT for a couple months. Is that really because the hormones were supporting their combination of muscularity and low body fat on blast, or are people just not accounting for variables (diet, cardio, training intensity) as well as they think they are? The answer might seem obvious if we only look at extremes, e.g. of course you'll be softer eating 5,000 calories on TRT compared to the same intake on 2-3g AAS. But is there really much difference in this regard for a man who drops from 2g to 1g?

You might say dose escalations are necessary to make use of higher food, but anecdotally that hasn't exactly proven true for me...not for AAS, at least. A little bit for GH. But the times I've ramped gear up in hopes of it making me leaner at a given size, it hasn't really panned out that way. And if we consider the numbers at play here, it makes sense that it wouldn't. Justin lays out the math here all the time. If you're loaded to the gills and doing everything perfectly with regards to diet, training, and recovery, you're looking at maybe 20-25g protein synthesis per day. That's less than 100 calories of new protein structures, and the energy required to build them isn't much greater. So if your rate of protein synthesis is already maxed, what is even more gear going to do in terms of using more food to make more muscle? In all likelihood you're just going to gain fat and / or sweat more.

You've raised an interesting topic for discussion, but for me, steroids are VERY important, but what you're talking about - gaining muscle without exercise - can work for people who are far from their natural genetic potential and would easily gain muscle on creatine, eating and training consistently. But the more someone reaches their genetic limit, or exceeds it, the more they have to push everything: food, steroids, training to keep it going. Someone who is already beyond their genetic limit, on 2 grams can at best maintain water in the muscle (optimistically), but there's no way it will grow without training.

And probably the most important thing: we also have to distinguish between growth through glycogen retention and growth through hypertrophy, these are two different types of growth.

If muscles grew without training, there would probably be more muscled people on the streets, but that's not the case.

 

[td]

1. Are AAS really making us more responsive to training, such that AAS + proper training has a synergistic effect? Or do we actually have our training stimulus and our gear stimulus, and the two remain separate? Paul Carter and Kurt Havens have been talking about this lately. Tbh I think we all assume(d) the former - that the drugs up-regulate protein synthesis from training...but I wonder if that's not really true. There's the oft-cited study in which men taking 600mg Test and not training gained way more muscle than natties training. It's easy to hand-wave and say that doesn't apply to our population, but to be fair we don't know that it doesn't. We're just unlikely to get a study that tests whether 1.5-2g gear allows already huge bodybuilders to keep gaining muscle when they lay off training.

My hunch is that AAS actually do improve the response to training itself. One data point in favor of that hunch is that when an enhanced bodybuilder improves a weak body part, it's almost always because they changed their training. Then again, even those improvements tend to come far slower than overall, drug-enhanced gains in stage weight. Either way it's an interesting question to consider...and maybe a hard pill to swallow if the truth is otherwise. If we look at how slow gains come to experienced natties, that would mean the drugs are actually accounting for the VAST majority of progress made by experienced enhanced guys.

Forgive me @d4ve, as this isn't directed at you. It's more in reference to the individuals you mention, who talk just to hear themselves speak. Maybe I misunderstand the inquiry because this does not seem like a complex subject.

Training and anabolic exposure work in a synergistic manner.

Have you ever met anyone who takes steroids but doesn't lift? They don't look like bodybuilders. Hell, look at any enhanced (all) cyclist.

We have simple case studies. Watch the transition of a FTM transgender individual. They develop secondary male characteristics, including increased muscle mass, but again, they don't look like bodybuilders. Now consider the ones who lift like Buck Angel. They gain more muscle.

Natural lifters gain muscle. Add steroids. They gain more muscle.

Even in the referenced study, who gained more muscle than the non-training testosterone group? The trained testosterone group.

Resistance training builds muscle. Anabolics build muscle. Resistance training and anabolics build more muscle.

Yes, it's dose dependent. The relationship just isn't linear.

 

[FuriousAngus]

A couple of questions that interest me more than just, "Do high doses 'work'," whatever "work" means -

1. Are AAS really making us more responsive to training, such that AAS + proper training has a synergistic effect? Or do we actually have our training stimulus and our gear stimulus, and the two remain separate? Paul Carter and Kurt Havens have been talking about this lately. Tbh I think we all assume(d) the former - that the drugs up-regulate protein synthesis from training...but I wonder if that's not really true. There's the oft-cited study in which men taking 600mg Test and not training gained way more muscle than natties training. It's easy to hand-wave and say that doesn't apply to our population, but to be fair we don't know that it doesn't. We're just unlikely to get a study that tests whether 1.5-2g gear allows already huge bodybuilders to keep gaining muscle when they lay off training.

Problem with these studies is they all use "fat free mass", which can be VERY misleading as we all know how much water retention AAS can bring about. I find it very odd that these two individuals would choose to "ignore" this fact because it better fits their narrative, but perhaps it's because it's easier to bring in views that way.

These individuals not lifting didn't gain any muscle; they just got watery.