Well he is advocating 50-100mg/week. At that dose it is not the devil incarnate that it is at 100mg/day. He DOES NOT advocate high dose or even "moderate" dose tren. He is also NOT telling people what he advocates is going to create extreme pro physiques.
The effect of anabolic androgenic steroids on the cardiovascular system is poorly understood. Increased production of free radicals is coupled to the pathophysiology of many alterations within the circulatory system. The only function of the enzyme family NADPH oxidases (NOXs) is the generation...
Background: This study explored the effect of vitamin C (Vit-C) administration on the reproductive function of adult male Wistar rats injected with boldenone undecylenate (BOL). Methods: Rats were randomly assigned into control, vehicle control, Vit-C (120 mg/kg b.wt./day, orally), BOL (received...
www.mdpi.com
We still have that targeted potential (see swissADME previously aforementioned) for angiogenesis to provoke tumorigenesis by thee dreaded farnesylation. Or it may create a robust environment for microvasculation to stabilize hypertrophy.
I agree with you that you cannot duplicate consistency in humans that was discovered in rodents. Discovery in rodents takes experiments in humans to confirm success. I also agree that some discoveries should be considered void that were discovered in rodents. However, I do believe that rodent testing has showed some value in medical history such as humanized monoclonal antibodies.
Research in a chimpanzee is most ideal. However, this is not as "humane" for society and economical for institutions.
I will agree that animal models are a tool and not the definitive end all be all for reference use when carrying over to human use. As has been the case with disease research that which cures/treats effectively, unfortunately, does not replicate results-wise in humans all too often. So knowing that carry over is not guaranteed all we can do is hedge our bets. Personally, if we have animal research showing a side effect it would be safer to assume it will carry over to later find out it does not vs assuming the side effect does not apply to humans only to find out later it absolutely does.
Absent conflicting research in humans it is a "safer use" practice to proceed as if the side effects will not be species-specific.
The new formula is not the same as the original all. It is garbage. They actually banned the original formula many years ago in USA. It did work. It was also available in injection form. I haven't seen it since the 80s (Original formula). It came out of France in a white and blue tube.
Though as far as I know there was never any thyroid hormone in Thiomucase and certainly never any yohimbine. Thiomucase was just a mild local diuretic.
There might have been a Triacana cream also.
Though as far as I know there was never any thyroid hormone in Thiomucase and certainly never any yohimbine. Thiomucase was just a mild local diuretic.
There might have been a Triacana cream also.
That wasn't the point. The point was what Nubret used. He used thiomuctase all over. But Ir eally don't give a shit honestly. That's what I heard from multiple body biulders from the era in various podcasts. True? I don't know. Seems like multiple sources say so. If you want t be festidious about those sources then you will have to have the interest to look and see if you can find them or just call me full of shit. Like I said, I don't really give 2 shits... maybe even not one fuck.
Wtf this has anything to do with the original thread? Besides you guys argue over the stupidest thing.every fucking steroid fucks you up one way or another in the short run or long run. If you all don't know this before you start using then your a fool. I say use what ever makes you happy and look good. Because at one point in life it's going to catch up to you
The new formula is not the same as the original all. It is garbage. They actually banned the original formula many years ago in USA. It did work. It was also available in injection form. I haven't seen it since the 80s (Original formula). It came out of France in a white and blue tube.
I don't know you; I don't have a dog in this fight. But your weak evidence posted does not support this idea that EQ is truly particularly dangerous. I hate EQ, got bad acne and anxiety, and don't recommend it because there's better AAS. But you're not doing a great job when it comes to statistical significance of EQ and this 'kidney fear' (mongering). Look: adding any AAS to another will result in elevated enzymes; all AAS when practiced in polypharmacy and over extended durations will cause organ issues -- EQ is not particularly evil in this regard. It has some bad sides, but it's not some "smoking gun" in the AAS world. 'F' EQ (it is a poorly tolerated drug, but not a 'kidney killer', and so far, 'F' your weak evidence). If you have "forty" research papers supporting your position, why come out of the gate with something so weak? You should do something akin to a research review and impress us: hell, I might be enticed to go beyond your 'paywall' that keeps you from having to deal with criticism of rodent research and small samples.
I don't know you; I don't have a dog in this fight. But your weak evidence posted does not support this idea that EQ is truly particularly dangerous. I hate EQ, got bad acne and anxiety, and don't recommend it because there's better AAS. But you're not doing a great job when it comes to statistical significance of EQ and this 'kidney fear' (mongering). Look: adding any AAS to another will result in elevated enzymes; all AAS when practiced in polypharmacy and over extended durations will cause organ issues -- EQ is not particularly evil in this regard. It has some bad sides, but it's not some "smoking gun" in the AAS world. 'F' EQ (it is a poorly tolerated drug, but not a 'kidney killer', and so far, 'F' your weak evidence). If you have "forty" research papers supporting your position, why come out of the gate with something so weak? You should do something akin to a research review and impress us: hell, I might be enticed to go beyond your 'paywall' that keeps you from having to deal with criticism of rodent research and small samples.
I will agree that animal models are a tool and not the definitive end all be all for reference use when carrying over to human use. As has been the case with disease research that which cures/treats effectively, unfortunately, does not replicate results-wise in humans all too often. So knowing that carry over is not guaranteed all we can do is hedge our bets. Personally, if we have animal research showing a side effect it would be safer to assume it will carry over to later find out it does not vs assuming the side effect does not apply to humans only to find out later it absolutely does.
Absent conflicting research in humans it is a "safer use" practice to proceed as if the side effects will not be species-specific.
If we were all mice, Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, diabetes, and most inherited disorders would be a thing of the past. Unfortunately, we are not mice, and most of these cures fail miserably in humans.
I haven't "researched" what the value of rodent research is, because I'm not a scientist or researcher of any kind. Most of us here aren't. We may comment or even post studies but do we have any business commenting on research really? Lol.
Though I have seen Lyle McDonald say rodent research never carries over to humans. He has said that not once has it ever carried over. Lol is it that bad? Lyle is a complete jackass but no one in our circles has ever said that he's stupid or doesn't know what he's talking about. Never seen it, all they say is that Lyle is a mentally ill meanie. Most recently Lyle had an autistic fit over Dr Mike Israetel on the concept of "failure" in training. But Mike didn't engage much that I could see. Probably because he couldn't?
Victor isn't really a scientist either or is he? Rex says Victor's an engineer and approaches these topics as an engineeer and not as an actual authority. After Rex's post I've looked at a number of these gurus. Unfortunately Rex didn't come back to these threads. I would've liked to see him talk about whether Parenabol really was an approved drug or not. He says it was since it was assigned a trade name. Victor says no. Who was right?
Most recently I've seen a fella named Peter Bond who appears to actually be a scientist and he's having a bit of a back and forth with Victor, all in a respectful manner mind you.
65 likes, 1 comments - peterbond.nl on April 19, 2021: "Recently, Victor Black made a post on Instagram touting that “DHT as shown here is a most capable Anabolic Agent” and purportedly ref..."
www.instagram.com
We have stewie, but lets be real, most of the stuff he posts most of us can't even begin to understand. We would need an intermediary between stewie and us to dumb it all down lol. We can tell he is smart but we can't really judge because we don't have the education. He commented a bit on these threads but even Victor didn't engage him.
I ramble but I'm not very smart. Just some thoughts from an average forum retard for whatever it's worth.
Peter Bond is a very smart guy, and he's pretty easy to talk to as well. IIRC, he's a researcher from the Netherlands, i've been following him loosely for a few years now. If you go to Lyle's forum, he's posted there a lot. Lyle is a dick, but he is usually right 99% of the time, which i think you agree on as well. He's definitely...special, lol. I love the guy though, have followed him since the 90's back on mfw and Meso. Peter is like a less conceited and snobbish-prick version of BigCat/Peter Van Mol. I don't know if he has ever posted on any of the discussion boards? It's been awhile since i've been on his blog page....ugh, been studying for my RDN exam this summer.