[quote]Viking69 wrote:
Anthony Roberts wrote:
Prisoner#22 wrote:
Wait… did you say “winstrol… and any of the compounds that aromazite”?
Winstrol doesn’t aromatize…
Are you saying it does?
A. Roberts,
Not to change the subject, is that tatto on your back a transformer?
[/quote]
No…it’s the Drama mask signifying “Irony” at the top (I assume thats the part you are talking about).
[quote]Anthony Roberts wrote:
Prisoner#22 wrote:
Now of course my knowledge of winstrol is that there was an assumption that it quite possibly had anti-estrogen properties, but the proof of it was not confirmed and the mechanism of action unknown.
That is why I never even considered using this compound, and for that mater any of the compounds that aromatise, and any of the compounds that don’t support libido on a near equal, footing as testosterone.
Wait… did you say “winstrol… and any of the compounds that aromazite”?
Winstrol doesn’t aromatize…
Are you saying it does?
[/quote]
No, I was refering to not using winstrol, because I hadn’t see any direct info that confirmed it’s antiE actions, and then I moved on to include not considering ‘other compounds’ - winny not included that did aromatise.
Now as for your comments on aromasin, I am not too familiar with that compound and have never used it yet. however thanks for the info, I will incorporate it soon and see how I like it.
As for this entire dialouge I think it all comes down to our disagreement on when the body can begin to recover. You say ALL exogenous AAS has to be removed from the body first, and I say it doesn’t. That is really our only point of disagreement, and it leads you to overlook the entire concept of tapering.
But for argument’s sake, even if your contention was the truth, it would be much easier to recover natural test production from a smaller amount of AAS in the body, then from a large amout of AAS and comming off cold turkey.
When you have been on for 8 months, what is a few more months of tapering going to change things?
Essencially we agree, That recovery then can’t begin untill all other AAS has cleared the body besided the AAS that I believe can be used for a taper.
You believe that during this clearance time HCG should be used.
I believe that during this time hrt test should be used, and then tapered after clearance.
The reason I don’t believe in your method is that hcg will desensitize the leydig receptors - upregulate them, so when natural LH is secreted, it is not enough initially to have the same effect of the more potent hcg.
If this upregulation didn’t occur then your method could be sound, but it does occur.
I have experienced it.
I believe that as hrt testosterone is slowly decreased from week to week, the hpta will kick in, picking up the slack, once test levels are below normal physiological levels.
As hrt test continues to fall in a eugonadic male, natural production will continue to pick up, untill the hrt can be stopped completely, leading to a seamless transistion with no crash.
I know this works, as I have said before, when my testicles became very swolen and sore from weeks 4-6 of the taper, tapering from 75mg/ week and down. I know what’s happening! (not to mention increased ejaculate)
So, you can disagree with me all you like, but the only way you will know for sure, is to try it yourself.
[quote]Prisoner#22 wrote:
You say ALL exogenous AAS has to be removed from the body first, and I say it doesn’t. That is really our only point of disagreement, and it leads you to overlook the entire concept of tapering.
.[/quote]
Yes…tapering as per the Underground Steroid Handbook, Circa 1980-something…has been largely discredited by most current authors in that field.
And…“all” in the context we typically speak. All injectable (suppressive) steroids, is actually what I mean.
[quote]Prisoner#22 wrote:
But for argument’s sake, even if your contention was the truth, it would be much easier to recover natural test production from a smaller amount of AAS in the body, then from a large amout of AAS and comming off cold turkey.
.[/quote]
Remember, we’re talking about faster recovery here. If you taper for 4 weeks, and eventually get to that small amount left in your body (via tapering)- you’re still behind the guy who went cold turkey and has none left in half the time right?
[quote]Prisoner#22 wrote:
When you have been on for 8 months, what is a few more months of tapering going to change things?.[/quote]
If you aren’t gaining, and you aren’t recovering, then youre wasting time. I feel tapering won’t allow you to recover at all, until you’re actually off.
[quote]Prisoner#22 wrote:
Essencially we agree, That recovery then can’t begin untill all other AAS has cleared the body besided the AAS that I believe can be used for a taper.
.[/quote]
No…thats not really what I think…I believe that the suppressive steroids have to be totally gone, more or less…or nearly so.
[quote]Prisoner#22 wrote:
You believe that during this clearance time HCG should be used.
The reason I don’t believe in your method is that hcg will desensitize the leydig receptors - upregulate them, so when natural LH is secreted, it is not enough initially to have the same effect of the more potent hcg.
.[/quote]
This is easily addressed and refuted in my PCT article.
The leydig cell desensitizing nature and suppressive nature of HCG is largely do to 17OHP and other factors addressed and rectified within the confines of my PCT…Nolvadex, here is the answer…quoting from my PCT article:
“But are we still risking some inhibition and possibly delaying our recovery by using HCG? Probably not?you see, some studies in humans have shown that HCG does not actually have a direct effect on inhibiting LH release in men (22)(23), but rather (probably) works to inhibit LH secretion indirectly, simply by stimulating the production of testosterone (thus activating the negative feedback loop). Another factor involved is the induction of testicular aromatase, which raises estrogen levels, again causing inhibition. Unfortunately, yet another process, the downregulation of the Leydig Cell LH receptor itself, seems to also play a role in high dose HCG testicular desensitization. This is also done by HCG actually blocking the conversion of 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone (17 OHP) to testosterone (24). Nolvadex actually stops this blocking-action of HCG from taking place (25). Most likely, because of Nolvadex?s direct antiestrogenic effect and LH-upregulating effect on the Pituitary, suppression of gonadotropins via HCG is (25) almost totally stopped with concurrent administration of Nolvadex”
If this is not the case, then why not? I’ve made a very strong argument for Nolvadex & Aromasin being used with HCG to stop- it’s suppressive nature. Why won’t that work? References? I’ve been good enough to support my argument in my own PCT, fully referenced, above. If you want to refute that case, at least be courteous enough to respond in kind, fully referenced.
[quote]Prisoner#22 wrote:
As hrt test continues to fall in a eugonadic male, natural production will continue to pick up, untill the hrt can be stopped completely, leading to a seamless transistion with no crash.
.[/quote]
Not the same thing. We’re trying to keep gains, not simply restore hormonal function. We want to keep gains fro mthe cycle…cessation of AAS therapy in a healthy male will allow full recovery eventually- and a loss of most gains. Thats not what we’re looking for.
[quote]Prisoner#22 wrote:
So, you can disagree with me all you like, but the only way you will know for sure, is to try it yourself.[/quote]
I used to taper. Why would you think I haven’t tried that?
I used to do clomid therapy too.
I basically did most of the stuff you talk about…remember, the idea of tapering and using some clomid and HCG has been around since the 80’s…I’ve tried it. I feel it to be inferior to my methods, based on observing the results I’ve seen in the people who I put on my version of PCT.
Of course I’ve tried tapering, and the protocol you reccomend…it is Duchaine’s from the USH1 and 2, almost verbatim.
I’ve tried everything he wrote on, just about.
I don’t really go off now, so I can’t try my own PCT method for awhile…but the bodybuilders who have tried it have all had success with it, over anything else they have tried…so have the members of alot of different boards I’ve read…
You know something, I’ve been around these boards since day one. I don’t post much anymore but I still frequent the boards when I have time. I think I speak for a lot of people when I say Anthony you have got to be the most annoying member of these boards that has come around in a hell of a long time.
I dont care if you have a book, if you write for T-Nation, or if you are Jesus H Christ. You might want to consider taking all of your “knowledge” and doing something good with it, besides trying to breakdown every post you see that doesnt recommend what you recommend in your book.
These guys have been here long before you and probably will be here long after you (assuming you dont run them off) Why dont you just try to be a little bit of a “cooler” guy? You’d probably sell a hell of a lot more books that way.
[quote]P-DOG wrote:
You know something, I’ve been around these boards since day one. I don’t post much anymore but I still frequent the boards when I have time. I think I speak for a lot of people when I say Anthony you have got to be the most annoying member of these boards that has come around in a hell of a long time.
I dont care if you have a book, if you write for T-Nation, or if you are Jesus H Christ. You might want to consider taking all of your “knowledge” and doing something good with it, besides trying to breakdown every post you see that doesnt recommend what you recommend in your book.
These guys have been here long before you and probably will be here long after you (assuming you dont run them off) Why dont you just try to be a little bit of a “cooler” guy? You’d probably sell a hell of a lot more books that way. [/quote]
Interestingly, I have noticed that Roughly the same number of people in the steroid forums argue with me as the amount who argue with Dr. Berardi on nutrition, in his threads.
See the analogy here?
In both cases, exactly as many are correct also.
[quote]Anthony Roberts wrote:
"Remember, we’re talking about faster recovery here. If you taper for 4 weeks, and eventually get to that small amount left in your body (via tapering)- you’re still behind the guy who went cold turkey and has none left in half the time right?
[quote]
If you aren’t gaining, and you aren’t recovering, then youre wasting time. I feel tapering won’t allow you to recover at all, until you’re actually off."
Ok here is the catch- it doesn’t matter if you don’t recover- as long as your exogenous levels drop down to physiological levels, your body will return to a normal ‘not on a cycle’ state. Receptors will down-regulate, and you will become resensitized to gear. Many vets don’t bother comming off but actually apply this approach because if allows them to be considered ‘off’ but not risking a crash e.t.c. - So in actual fact they remain ahead of those who actually go off cold turkey. It’s the ol’ “why take 1 step back for 2 steps forward approach”. Unfortunately this is the reality of BB where you have Offseason, then bulking season, then dieting season. There is only one time of the year you can really come off.
Now for these guys who don’t come off, but just hrt it, they don’t crash, they don’t loose a lot of gains, and they then hit their next cycle hard in a few months and new gains are achieved.
This I know from experience of myself and others.
So no, it doesn’t even matter if you taper right off, however it is good to come off for a while, then to continue to be on all the time.
Now as for your protocol, I see the ‘theory’ behind your argument, however I just can’t say that I am confident enough to try your approach, let alone recomend it, untill I see a lot more repetition occur. You yourself haven’t tried it.
Using words such as ‘likely’, ‘probable’, and ‘seems’, doesn’t inspire a whole heck of a lot of confidence for me. There needs to be more study and repetition of results IMO before I would be ready to jump on this bandwagon. And knowing full well the risks involved, a complicated regimine with all those risks doesn’t bode well for a novice cycler.
And of course the whole ‘comming off cold turkey’ approach, I dissagree with as well d/t the withdrawal sideeffects. It is much healthier to slowly taper off.
Like I said, when you have been on for a long time, a few more weeks to months of a taper is going to do more benifits then harm.
As for your request for me to go digging for research, (sigh) It isn’t going to happen. I spend way to much time on here as it is, and proper research takes time! Something I have very little of, and soon I’ll have none.
I prefer to help people out by use of my accumulated knowledge and experience. The benefit of my educational background helps, as does the ability to relay information in an easy-to-understand format. There is no point in citing a whole buch of jiber-jaber when the majority of the ‘lay’ folks around here are going have their eyes dialate into the back of their heads after the first sentence.
I only will encourage people do practice what I have found to be safe, and what I have found to work. That’s the only reason why I push the taper approach, above all other pct protocols.
[quote]Anthony Roberts wrote:
P-DOG wrote:
You know something, I’ve been around these boards since day one. I don’t post much anymore but I still frequent the boards when I have time. I think I speak for a lot of people when I say Anthony you have got to be the most annoying member of these boards that has come around in a hell of a long time.
I dont care if you have a book, if you write for T-Nation, or if you are Jesus H Christ. You might want to consider taking all of your “knowledge” and doing something good with it, besides trying to breakdown every post you see that doesnt recommend what you recommend in your book.
These guys have been here long before you and probably will be here long after you (assuming you dont run them off) Why dont you just try to be a little bit of a “cooler” guy? You’d probably sell a hell of a lot more books that way.
Interestingly, I have noticed that Roughly the same number of people in the steroid forums argue with me as the amount who argue with Dr. Berardi on nutrition, in his threads.
See the analogy here?
In both cases, exactly as many are correct also.
[/quote]
I find this Interesting though, that with your degree in literature, that you routinely commit the aristotle falacy of argument: appealing to a higher authority.
You routinely drop names saying if Lwellyn, and Duchaine agree with me, then therefore I am right. Or… I am just as much a guru as Berardi (even though his educational training is in the field he writes about, and he actually to my knowledge does his own research) and, since X number of people disagree with Berardi is equal to Y number that disagree with me, therefore I am write, like Berardi is, and they are all wrong. - Just perfect logic my friend - You would bring a philosopher to tears!
And then of course sometimes you change it up and instead of dropping Duchaines name to support your case, you rip him apart saying He was all 80’s and his stuff didn’t work.
Or knowing full well that Cy Wilson has written of PCT using a testosteone hrt taper (androgel, or TE) you drop his name as agreeing with you.
You commit these fallacies routinely, so much so that I finally decided to point it out to you, as maybe you didn’t realize it was a falacy of argument, or you just think we are all stupid not to know.
[quote]Prisoner#22 wrote:
I find this Interesting though, that with your degree in literature, that you routinely commit the aristotle falacy of argument: appealing to a higher authority. [/quote]
Well…it serves to show that most experts disagree with you. And this is a quasi-subjective case. Isn’t it odd that all of the published authorities disagree with you?(just about…L.Rea may not, but I’m not certain)
“Argument by Authority” is not really the crux of my case…but I would like to know how so many published writers have come to hold the contrapositive opinion that you hold?
But hey…the internet is great…you can argue with someone on even footing, even though you haven’t really done anything in that field.
Also, my degree in philosophy would be more appropriate to reference here, since you are talking about Aristotelian Logic.
[quote]Prisoner#22 wrote:
You routinely drop names saying if Lwellyn, and Duchaine agree with me, then therefore I am right. Or… I am just as much a guru as Berardi (even though his educational training is in the field he writes about, and he actually to my knowledge does his own research) and, since X number of people disagree with Berardi is equal to Y number that disagree with me, therefore I am write, like Berardi is, and they are all wrong. - Just perfect logic my friend - You would bring a philosopher to tears! .[/quote]
You realize I have a degree in philosophy, right?
the reference to JB was simply to show how many unpublished internet-recreational-gurus are …so often …“correct” …when established professionals aren’t. Odd, right?
[quote]Prisoner#22 wrote:
And then of course sometimes you change it up and instead of dropping Duchaines name to support your case, you rip him apart saying He was all 80’s and his stuff didn’t work…[/quote]
Where did I say that? I said we have better idea now. You rip duchaine, not me.
You rip him, and rip him off too. Nice.
[quote]Prisoner#22 wrote:
Or knowing full well that Cy Wilson has written of PCT using a testosteone hrt taper (androgel, or TE) you drop his name as agreeing with you.
You commit these fallacies routinely, so much so that I finally decided to point it out to you, as maybe you didn’t realize it was a falacy of argument, or you just think we are all stupid not to know.[/quote]
I have a degree in philosophy. I assure you, and anyone reading this, I am not falling subject to any informal fallacies.
Now, how about defending your stance on PCT and HCG in light of the fact that my last reply to you shot to shit your leydig cell argument?
[quote]Prisoner#22 wrote:
Remember, we’re talking about faster recovery here. If you taper for 4 weeks, and eventually get to that small amount left in your body (via tapering)- you’re still behind the guy who went cold turkey and has none left in half the time right?
If you aren’t gaining, and you aren’t recovering, then youre wasting time. I feel tapering won’t allow you to recover at all, until you’re actually off.
Ok here is the catch- it doesn’t matter if you don’t recover- as long as your exogenous levels drop down to physiological levels, your body will return to a normal ‘not on a cycle’ state. Receptors will down-regulate, and you will become resensitized to gear. Many vets don’t bother comming off but actually apply this approach because if allows them to be considered ‘off’ but not risking a crash e.t.c. - So in actual fact they remain ahead of those who actually go off cold turkey. It’s the ol’ “why take 1 step back for 2 steps forward approach”. Unfortunately this is the reality of BB where you have Offseason, then bulking season, then dieting season. There is only one time of the year you can really come off.
Now for these guys who don’t come off, but just hrt it, they don’t crash, they don’t loose a lot of gains, and they then hit their next cycle hard in a few months and new gains are achieved.
This I know from experience of myself and others.
So no, it doesn’t even matter if you taper right off, however it is good to come off for a while, then to continue to be on all the time.
Now as for your protocol, I see the ‘theory’ behind your argument, however I just can’t say that I am confident enough to try your approach, let alone recomend it, untill I see a lot more repetition occur. You yourself haven’t tried it.
Using words such as ‘likely’, ‘probable’, and ‘seems’, doesn’t inspire a whole heck of a lot of confidence for me. There needs to be more study and repetition of results IMO before I would be ready to jump on this bandwagon. And knowing full well the risks involved, a complicated regimine with all those risks doesn’t bode well for a novice cycler.
And of course the whole ‘comming off cold turkey’ approach, I dissagree with as well d/t the withdrawal sideeffects. It is much healthier to slowly taper off.
Like I said, when you have been on for a long time, a few more weeks to months of a taper is going to do more benifits then harm.
As for your request for me to go digging for research, (sigh) It isn’t going to happen. I spend way to much time on here as it is, and proper research takes time! Something I have very little of, and soon I’ll have none.
I prefer to help people out by use of my accumulated knowledge and experience. The benefit of my educational background helps, as does the ability to relay information in an easy-to-understand format. There is no point in citing a whole buch of jiber-jaber when the majority of the ‘lay’ folks around here are going have their eyes dialate into the back of their heads after the first sentence.
I only will encourage people do practice what I have found to be safe, and what I have found to work. That’s the only reason why I push the taper approach, above all other pct protocols.[/quote]
Can you repost this, not all fucked up, so I can reply?
[quote]Anthony Roberts wrote:
I have a degree in philosophy. I assure you, and anyone reading this, I am not falling subject to any informal fallacies.
[/quote]
you see, there you go again, ‘I am an expert therefore I am not wrong’. There’s another fallacy 
[quote]Anthony Roberts wrote:
Where did I say that? I said we have better idea now. You rip duchaine, not me.
[/quote]
"Test tapering has been totally abandoned by Duchaine, Llewellyn, and myself…in short, basically everyeon who has written a book on steroids thinks tapering is horseshit.
Tapering is a horrible idea, for various reasons outlined my my book as well as Llewellyn’s…which are currently the two best selling books on steroids. "
“… But I will note that Duchaine, Llewellyn, etc…have all come to the same conclusion regarding tapering as me.”
“My opinion, if I recall, is shared by Cy, Bill Roberts, William Llewellyn, and several others. It is the contrary of your opinion.”
In fact…nearly every expert on the subject disagrees with you. Every published expert, anyway. "
ACTUALLY AS I STATED BEFORE, CY HAD AN ALTERNATIVE PCT, ONE WHICH I COPIED FOR MY IDEA.
[quote]P-DOG wrote:
You know something, I’ve been around these boards since day one. I don’t post much anymore but I still frequent the boards when I have time. I think I speak for a lot of people when I say Anthony you have got to be the most annoying member of these boards that has come around in a hell of a long time.
I dont care if you have a book, if you write for T-Nation, or if you are Jesus H Christ. You might want to consider taking all of your “knowledge” and doing something good with it, besides trying to breakdown every post you see that doesnt recommend what you recommend in your book.
These guys have been here long before you and probably will be here long after you (assuming you dont run them off) Why dont you just try to be a little bit of a “cooler” guy? You’d probably sell a hell of a lot more books that way. [/quote]
You see the bueaty of this is that every argument sells a book, there is no bad press, etc., etc…
But on the positive side I have enjoyed reading most of these post.
[quote]Prisoner#22 wrote:
ACTUALLY AS I STATED BEFORE, Cy HAD AN ALTERNATIVE PCT, ONE WHICH I COPIED FOR MY IDEA. [/quote]
From what I now understand, he doesn’t hold the same opinion as the one you are espousing any more.
Also…interestingly…if you read his earlier threads and posts on T-Nation, alot of them are him defending himself against various critics.
The same goes for- virtually everyone- who is now recognized as a top professional in the industry.
The people who criticized them? They disappeared into mediocrity for the most part.
[quote]Prisoner#22 wrote:
As for your request for me to go digging for research, (sigh) It isn’t going to happen. I spend way to much time on here as it is, and proper research takes time! Something I have very little of, and soon I’ll have none.
[/quote]
You shouldn’t need to go “digging for resrearch”. It should be research you’ve already done. If you have to go “digging for research” then it means you haven’t done the research yet.
So what you are telling me and everyone is that you haven’t done the research necessary, and yet you are giving advice anyway.
And, also- that you aren’t going to do any research either, of the kind necessary to defend your argument.
I presented you with the journal references and research to defend my argument. Your reply? “I’m not going to defend my argument in like fashion, nor refute yours validly”
My reply? Then nobody should take you seriously until you present the necessary research.
[quote]Anthony Roberts wrote:
Prisoner#22 wrote:
The same goes for- virtually everyone- who is now recognized as a top professional in the industry.
[/quote]
Top professinals in an industry that is illegal and has no controlled standards, except for the standards that the “top professionals” make up as they go. Wow
[quote]Viking69 wrote:
Top professinals in an industry that is illegal and has no controlled standards, except for the standards that the “top professionals” make up as they go. Wow
[/quote]
The industry is writing about performance enhancement. Writing is not illegal. First amendment, etc…
Who gives you the title of “experts” ?
[quote]WideGuy wrote:
Who gives you the title of “experts” ?[/quote]
Ha ha…thats a good question…
I would estimate that I know as much as anybody in the world about practical pharmaceutical performance enhancement, to be totally honest.
But the first person to call me an expert (that I heard) was the host of SuperHumanRadio (Carl Lanore). The host of ESPN’s Baseball radio show (Will Carrol) also said that about me.
(He also wrote a steroid book called “The Juice” about steroids in baseball)
I think maybe other people who are recognized in related fields, or in the field itself ,give you the title?
I have no idea…
Maybe those two are the only two who think I know what I’m talking about - besides my publisher(s)and clients!
I dunno…am I an expert? IYHO?
with all due respect…logical thought must be tempered by an analytical mind when conducting true research.
a philosophy degree is great and all…but without the appropriate scientific background and the ability to apply that through logical thought…it is worthless in this context…except for being able to present well worded arguments.
i’m positive that the book is a great collective of info …rehashed information from other sources that did take a lot of time and effort to compile…that does not make an expert in scientific/quasi medical research…that makes a librarian.
[quote]juice20jd wrote:
i’m positive that the book is a great collective of info …rehashed information from other sources that did take a lot of time and effort to compile…that does not make an expert in scientific/quasi medical research…that makes a librarian.[/quote]
Alot of it is Original stuff. Remember, I had the opportunity to give firsthand experiences on the stuff in the book, and consult with tons of athletes for their take on it.