Muscle Memory

[g40graham]

I was just randomly thinking about the Levrone transformation and I know that if you lose everything that you gain its much easier to get it back than it was to get it in the first place and I got to thinking...does the same apply if gear was used to attain these gains or does that mainly only apply to the gains you got naturally?

 

[maldorf]

I was just randomly thinking about the Levrone transformation and I know that if you lose everything that you gain its much easier to get it back than it was to get it in the first place and I got to thinking...does the same apply if gear was used to attain these gains or does that mainly only apply to the gains you got naturally?

I think you are asking the question if you make gains while on AAS and then get off is it easier to gain them back without being on AAS? I would say the answer to that is no. I found that I could never get to the strength/size that I had while "on" without going back on. No matter how I would train or eat right etc I could never put those gains back on that I lost when I went off.

 

[g40graham]

I think you are asking the question if you make gains while on AAS and then get off is it easier to gain them back without being on AAS? I would say the answer to that is no. I found that I could never get to the strength/size that I had while "on" without going back on. No matter how I would train or eat right etc I could never put those gains back on that I lost when I went off.

Thanks for the reply maldorf, but thats not quite what I was saying. Here I'll give an example:

If you are 225 at 10% and then get up to say 265 at 10% after a couple years and then get off the sauce for a long time and go down to say 205 at 10%. What I'm asking is if you were to get back "on" then would it be a lot easier to get back up to 265 at 10% than the first time you did it?

 

[hawkmoon]

Thanks for the reply maldorf, but thats not quite what I was saying. Here I'll give an example:

If you are 225 at 10% and then get up to say 265 at 10% after a couple years and then get off the sauce for a long time and go down to say 205 at 10%. What I'm asking is if you were to get back "on" then would it be a lot easier to get back up to 265 at 10% than the first time you did it?

I would say no, as each cycle produces diminishing returns. Hence it would not be 'easier'.
I took me twice the dosage I used 15 years ago to get the same results today - though the doses are still very low by today's standards.

Age may play a factor here as well, but as I don't have a younger clone to test on, I have to go by my immediate experiences.

As an aside I was up to a watery 240 when 'on' and got to nearly 230 when off. Very little difference in strength. Largest difference appearance-wise was thickness in the upper chest, traps, and shoulders.

 

[btech]

Largest difference appearance-wise was thickness in the upper chest, traps, and shoulders.

Not to hijack the thread, but I was curious if there is truth to what I have heard, regarding that your traps have more receptors for androgens, and so they blow up real quick compared to other muscle groups when "on"?

 

[hawkmoon]

Not to hijack the thread, but I was curious if there is truth to what I have heard, regarding that your traps have more receptors for androgens, and so they blow up real quick compared to other muscle groups when "on"?

I am only one person, but it is certainly this way for me.

 

[big-travis]

I am only one person, but it is certainly this way for me.

I say yes to this also. I had to quit cold turkey three years ago after running compounds since 1988 due to personal reasons. Then I was at 270 @ around 17%bf. I was doing 350mg/ed test along with 150mg/ed of tren. Well since then I have not even touched a weight. About three months ago I thought I'd try something. I started running 250mg/eod of sust. for four weeks WITHOUT working out just to see what type reaction I had. I was quite amazed at the results and realized it wouldn't take too long if diet and training were in play and in check. Oh. But seeing how I'm a fatass now might make things a lil more difficult. LOL.

 

[Newman]

If you are 225 at 10% and then get up to say 265 at 10% after a couple years and then get off the sauce for a long time and go down to say 205 at 10%. What I'm asking is if you were to get back "on" then would it be a lot easier to get back up to 265 at 10% than the first time you did it?

Hawkmoon makes a good point regarding the issue of diminishing returns, but I don't think that's an absolute factor.

In other words, I think that if you have been off long enough between cycles for all the natural factors in your body (muscle ARs efficiency etc) to be rebuilt back to your normal biological personal baseline, then you should get faster gains the second cycle than you got from the 1st cycle.

IIRC, ARs increase in density with AAS use & excercise, but AAS/AR efficiency decreases from other factors such as myostatin increases etc.

I'm looking into a substance that seems to promise resensitization of ARs. Unfortunately, all the research I've read so far on this substance doesn't mention myostatin at all.

Still though, all myostatin concerns aside, it would be nice to have an effective tool for revitalizing AR efficiency, wouldn't it?