This is an interesting debate, however I don't want to get too far into the weeds if we can't speak on the same terms (physiology vs life-experience) because we won't reach any common ground. You are going to believe what you've seen and you seem very steadfast in your resolve. The only reason that I chimed in was to say (and rightly so) that you can retain gains after coming off of hormones if you create the right environment for it. I'll answer your questions, hopefully this spurs any readers to do their own research and see that it is physically possible (it is).
I think our problem may be semantics. Is it
possible to hold muscle tissue without the use of anabolics? Yes. To what degree and for how long I think is where we may be talking about different ideas.
The majority of my studies, including my thesis, was focused on the physiology of skeletal tissue inclusive of endogenous hormone effects on anabolic and catabolic states. Basically why you grow and lose muscle and how to optimize it for performance. Once you understand the basics you can extrapolate the effects of introducing exogenous hormones and what happens when you take them away. Unfortunately there aren't many studies that I've seen on post steroid wasting but if you understand how the tissue works you can manipulate it. This is as much a fact as understanding the mechanics of combustion that make your car possible.
The car analogy is great, I'm actually a mechanic. So let me pose this to you in that regard. If a engine is like a human being, steroids are like adding a turbocharger. With forced induction you force incredible amounts of air into the combustion chamber that allows you to make greater horsepower. If you take that source of forced induction away, you can still manipulate air/fuel ratios, camshaft lift/duration, ignition timing to increase the horsepower of the engine, but it will never come close to the level it was able to reach with the turbocharger.
Correct! But we are talking about RETENTION and steroids do far less for growth than people think. They are more effective for ensuring proper recovery and mitigating catabolism. This is the piece of the puzzle that you have to work with, and nobody mentioned all things being equal. Your nutrition, stimulus and nutrients MUST change to retain muscle tissue. PCT is what works on your hormonal environment.
This comment was directed at your comment about keeping the tissue in a growth phase. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant. I agree retention is different. It much easier to maintain than it is to push yourself there in the first place. I also understand there was no mention of all else being equal. That was mostly to underscore the importance hormones play in musculature.
This would be your top tier bodybuilding athletes. I'm merely making an educated assumption that if one were not able to retain muscle tissue after reducing hormone levels then reaching the size of a Ronnie Coleman or Jay Cutler would be virtually impossible. I am sure that there is a blast/cruise or at least an on/off use of anabolics there. By your reasoning there would be no possibility of exponential growth, I disagree and understand that there is muscle fiber retention that is not completely driven by hormones.
Again, I think we are running into a semantics misunderstanding. In no way am I suggesting the someone must be on high doses of AAS at all times to maintain muscle. In fact I think that eventually becomes more deleterious than beneficial. But the time off must be kept short enough so the muscle isn't effected and the dose should obviously be adjusted based on individual response and development. I'm sure that even in Ronnie Coleman's prime there were periods of time where he was on 'low' dosages. Now low for him and low for me may not be the same, but aside from that, the point I'm trying to make is that at that level, a low dose is only going to do so much. Eventually one's development reaches a point where manipulation of diet, recovery and nutrition can't compensate for the absence of hormones.
Now for an average gym goer who has maybe 20lbs over his natural limit, a low dose could possibly be run for much longer without much (or any) noticeable loss in size. But I think you'll find as the musculature of someone increases, the length of time they can maintain that physique without hormones proportionately decreases.
This is my point, the most powerful fertilizers contain a mix of nutrients and chemicals that increase nitrogen absorption.
Again, I've enjoyed this discussion.
Fair enough. I was unaware this type of fertilizer existed, but admittedly am not up to speed on all things horticulture
With that thing on turnitin LE could find me with a quick internet search haha! I'm not saying you are at all, but we should all be careful. I may just PM some of my source material used over the years that would be helpful if you'd like.
No worries, I understand the need for caution. Anything you would be willing to share would be fun to browse though and I would certainly appreciate it.
I have also enjoyed this talk, much better than some threads around here
Cheers.
*On another note, I think Remington14 may have gotten more than he bargained for on this thread, haha.
.gif "IP Gear")
