How Keepable are the Strength Gains?

Pharma
1

It is a fact that AAS use results in very quick strength gains especially when everything is order.

I am sure there are lots of people who wants to know how much strength they will gain and keep from AAS??

Everyone talks about keeping muscles but it is not the same with keeping strength. Strength gains might occur via lots of different ways.

For example, trenbolone increases neural efficiency and it does this incredibly well. While strength gains from muscular gains sounds like keepable, the arguement becomes stranger at this point. Are neural gains keepable too?? What about the others??

For example, there are lots of people who complains losing great amount of strength after nandrolones.

And of course everybody would like to know other people’s experinces.

So, don’t forget that diet, pct and everything that is needed is assumed to be done correctly.

And strength losses from water loss are’t counted. So it would be much better if people who controlled bloating during the cycle post so we can get good idea about the drugs work.

Please also remember that you might be over your genetic limits and that might be the reason for not keeping strength. Feel free to post any issues that are like this so we can judge better.

thanks

2

I haven’t been reading about steroids for a long time, but I’ve picked up on the subject pretty quickly. Regardless, I’ve never really thought about how much strength I am gonna keep once I am off the gear. I have very simlar lifts to another chap on this site, and he is seeing tremendous strength gains right now. I’ll have to see how he turns out after he gets off.

I agree that this is not a very much talked about subject, at least from what I’ve seen here at T-Nation. Anyone want to chime in? I’m curious as to how I’m gonna turn out (granted everyone is different).

3

thanks

this thread is gonna be useful in lots of ways.

first, there are lots of sportsman who use AAS for strength gains such as powerlifters.

second, strength gains from muscle gains can be kept in good amounts i believe (unless above genetic limit), because your muscle will still stay and it is what builds that strength.

however , there is another side of it. some people trains at very low reps during AAS and gain strength from mostly another machanism. I dont have good idea about the keepability of those mechanisms.

4

good topic.

I have recently come off a short Test cyp cycle. I had my last shot 6 or 7 weeks ago and am on Tamoxifen now. And insulin.

I was upto 40kg DB’s in the Inc DB Bench, for around 4-6 reps a week before my cycle ended.

Yesterday i did 40kgs for 8 on the flat. This is the highest i have done so far (my chest is weak - go fuck yourselves…) and being off cycle - it means all the much more.

DL and Squat have dropped by a good 10kgs… but i am actually happy with that as it still means progress.

I have managed to keep 93.54% of my gains and i attribute that to the retaining of some strength - bigger muscles lift more weight… which as we know is why water gives such an immediate boost…

Question: With Trenboline, with neural efficiency increasing and more muscle fibres working due to more motor units being ‘employed’ - is all this due simply to the aggression it gives, causing the ‘user’ to be able to smash the fuck outta the bar thus recruiting more motor units? Might like to hear Bushy (if you get internet back) and saps on this one.

J

5

thanks

i would definitely wanna know the keepability of motor qualities after AAS use.

also keeping motor qualities might be less-diet dependant because of the way they work.

i belive it has more to do with just aggression. It straightly increases neural effiency (i remember CT saying that in one of roundtables)

6

[quote]dallasused wrote:
thanks

this thread is gonna be useful in lots of ways.

first, there are lots of sportsman who use AAS for strength gains such as powerlifters.

second, strength gains from muscle gains can be kept in good amounts i believe (unless above genetic limit), because your muscle will still stay and it is what builds that strength.

however , there is another side of it. some people trains at very low reps during AAS and gain strength from mostly another machanism. I dont have good idea about the keepability of those mechanisms.[/quote]

The low reps one is neural.

When a very heavy load is lifted, one has to try to lift it as fast as possible. Due to something called the size principle - which dictates which motor units are used and in which order - when max power/speed is used to contract a muscle, the most motor units are employed - and this means the max amount of fibre contracts.
So conversely, if a load is very light, like a cup of tea (i AM a Brit y’know), then the speed is not fast, so as not to use alot of muscle units, which would result in you smashing the cup into your jaw.

The aim of pure strength training is training the body to recruit as many of its muscle units (motor unit + muscle fibre bundle) as possible for a lift. If two guys are physically identical, but one can recruit more muscle units than the other, then that person is simply stronger. Lifting maximal loads trains the body to recruit more motor units to fire. This signal is actually not given from the brain, but the spine.

Thats enough now kids, close your books and go home.

Professor Jeremy JJ. Johnson

7

The only steroid I have used that increased my strength dramatically is anadrol. Whilst “on”, my previous 1RMs became 4-5RMS, it was amazing (I have never tried tren but have heard that it is similar in this respect).

Obviously this was mostly temporary and post cycle I retained the kind of strength you might expect from say, test only.

I much prefer the effects of say, test and dbol. I am doubtful that they provide any strength gains directly, but the quicker recovery allows you to reap what you sow at a faster rate than usual.

I have found all of my strength gains from test (albiet less dramatic than drol) are completely retained post-cycle.

8

so test gets your vote then.
thanks for answering

also from this, it looks like with the drugs that gives you slow but steady strength gains, you tend to hold it better.

people record crazy gains on trenbolone but i have never heard a single person who kept almost all that crazy in-cycle strength. maybe except for one.

9

I guess that if you were way below your “limit” then you’d keep more gains from something like anadrol or tren, but like I say that’s just a guess.

10

yes that sounds much logical.

especially it is general idea that people who haven’t reached their genetic max should barely lose strength and muscle mass, if any. of course i exclude water retention as i stated in the first post.

but by simple logic, usually most tren users are knowledgeable so they probably diet and pct in a good way.

but we still do not see crazy lifts even few times tren users.

so there has to be something more that we do dont know

11

My experience has been that even if you do lose some, you still end up stronger than you were when you started. This probably has a lot to do with the fact that most strength barriers are mental as much or more so than physiological.

I remember years ago when I first used Mag10 I hit a PR on bench of 335. Previously I always got stapled with 315, but with that little help to push me over the hump, I consistently pressed 315-325 well after the cycle was over. I think that’s pretty typical.

If you find that you personally lose a lot after a cycle, I’d recommend keeping two PR logs: one for natural and one for ‘supernatural.’ That way you’ve always got something to beat.

12

yes you should definitely end up stronger.

i lost a lot but stupid diet was the reason. Right now i gained most of the muscle back but strength is still far away (training naturally right now)

actually this was one of the main reasons i started this thread.

Almost all muscle mass regained but strength is very far away. It might be either because the body regains muscle easier than strength(which i am not sure) or there is something more with neurological factors.

heck, even an bodybuilder who benches 500*8, squats the same, one arm triceps pushdown the whole rack!!, pull-up with 200 pounds and preacher with 100 pound dumbells
told me that you shouldnt almost lose any strength.
he said that the muscles stay there so should strength.
then that proves my point. if your strength gains are muscular dominant, it should stay easier.

what do you guys think?

thanks

13

100 pounds dumbells lol wow

14

[quote] JJ wrote:
When a very heavy load is lifted, one has to try to lift it as fast as possible. Due to something called the size principle - which dictates which motor units are used and in which order - when max power/speed is used to contract a muscle, the most motor units are employed - and this means the max amount of fibre contracts.
So conversely, if a load is very light, like a cup of tea (i AM a Brit y’know), then the speed is not fast, so as not to use alot of muscle units, which would result in you smashing the cup into your jaw.
[/quote]

I don’t understand this. What does the speed of the lift have to do with using more motor units, as you say, versus just having to lift a heavier weight? Wouldn’t just the sheer weight of something that’s very heavy employ more motor units, just because it’s heavier? Thus the logic of lifting very heavy while ‘on’, not lifting fast.

If I can do 20 pull-ups at a dead hang, slow with proper form, my body is going to benefit multitudes more from that, rather than cranking out 20 pull-ups as fast as I can.

15

zatsiorsky stated in his book that there are 3 ways to achieve maximal motor recruitment

1- lifitng maximal loads 90-100%
2- lifting non-maximal loads as fast as possible 45-65% a.k.a. westside speed method
3- the last few reps of bodybuilding style work. moderate weight but the last few ones since weight and speed of the bar doesnt allow for maximal activation on first reps generally

16

[quote]5.0 wrote:

If I can do 20 pull-ups at a dead hang, slow with proper form, my body is going to benefit multitudes more from that, rather than cranking out 20 pull-ups as fast as I can. [/quote]

But what’s harder, pulling from a deadhang slowly or pulling from a deadhang as fast as you can?

I’d say the latter. Lifting the same weight faster is obviously more taxing, as it requires more power (force/time).

I think the reason “fast” pullups are considered easier is because most people don’t drop to a deadhang in a effort to do them quicker, and they don’t control the eccentric.

17

[quote]Dave_ wrote:
5.0 wrote:

If I can do 20 pull-ups at a dead hang, slow with proper form, my body is going to benefit multitudes more from that, rather than cranking out 20 pull-ups as fast as I can.

But what’s harder, pulling from a deadhang slowly or pulling from a deadhang as fast as you can?

I’d say the latter. Lifting the same weight faster is obviously more taxing, as it requires more power (force/time).

I think the reason “fast” pullups are considered easier is because most people don’t drop to a deadhang in a effort to do them quicker, and they don’t control the eccentric.[/quote]

Dave_, your physique looks awesome! Very impressive.

Brown nosing aside, I would argue that I could do more pull-ups quickly than I could slowly. I can do, let’s say 20 when doing them quickly, and only 15 when doing them slowly. That to me means I am taxing the muscle that much more when performing the exercise slowly.

18

Whether you are squatting 100kg or 200kg or even 300kg you are still trying to get up as quickly as possible. It’s just that the load is heavier and you are pushing against a heavier load that it slows you down.

19

[quote]5.0 wrote:
JJ wrote:
When a very heavy load is lifted, one has to try to lift it as fast as possible. Due to something called the size principle - which dictates which motor units are used and in which order - when max power/speed is used to contract a muscle, the most motor units are employed - and this means the max amount of fibre contracts.
So conversely, if a load is very light, like a cup of tea (i AM a Brit y’know), then the speed is not fast, so as not to use alot of muscle units, which would result in you smashing the cup into your jaw.

I don’t understand this. What does the speed of the lift have to do with using more motor units, as you say, versus just having to lift a heavier weight? Wouldn’t just the sheer weight of something that’s very heavy employ more motor units, just because it’s heavier? Thus the logic of lifting very heavy while ‘on’, not lifting fast.

If I can do 20 pull-ups at a dead hang, slow with proper form, my body is going to benefit multitudes more from that, rather than cranking out 20 pull-ups as fast as I can. [/quote]

OK…

muscle contracts by the spinal cord and brain sending electric messages down pathways to motor units, these are attached to musclefibres which then contract.

There are type I, Type IIa and IIb. This goes the same in a sense for the motor units too.

If you lift a weight slowly, mostly the units that contract the Type I fibres contract… this is one of the reasons that when you lift slowly, you cannot lift heavy.

When you lift fast and explosively, more FAST twich fibres are used (which have the biggest potential for growth due to their size).

If you lift a cup, then maybe 1% of your motor units are ‘firing’.
If you lift a ME weight, then you are using as many of your motor.muscle units as possible… so maybe 80%.

The first fibres to be used in ANY movement ever, are the slow twitch, and as things get heavier and heavier, the fibres used are larger and larger - this is the size principle - that fibres are activated in order of size.

When you lift a ME weight, the actual weight doesnt move fast - cause it is fookin heavy, but you are trying to lift it fast arent you? I know for a fact you aint doing super slow with ME loads!

So while is isnt the speed of which the actual weight moves, it is the speed of which you try to move it that will 1) activate more muscle leading to greater strength and size gains, and 2) activate the last fibres to be used, the highly hypertrophy-able fast twich type IIb fibres.

Also, when we train a-la bodybuilding in the 8-12 rep range (apparently!), we are not using the majority of fast twitch finres UNLESS…

Unless we 1) try to move the weight as fast as possible on the concentric (lower nice and slow)and 2) work to failure.

As a muscle fatigues it uses more and more motor units to complete the reps, and is one of the reasons training to true failure is difficult and very painful! So with a weight that i will fail with on rep 12, by 8 most of the slow twitch are fatigued and more IIa are being used, then by 10, 11 and 12… i am recruiting the largest fibres, IIb to finally exhaust that muscle totally.

I will say that this is the beginnings of more advanced physiology, and while it isnt necessary to know, there are very important points here - my body has changed alot now i understand the ‘size principle’ better…

Last point,

[quote]
If I can do 20 pull-ups at a dead hang, slow with proper form, my body is going to benefit multitudes more from that, rather than cranking out 20 pull-ups as fast as I can. [/quote]
You are confusing fast with sloppy. If you can do 20 full ROM reps from a dead hang… great. But if you did the reps with an explosive concentric, controlled eccentric (as in the first example) and full ROM - you would be able to complete the same 20 reps, but with added resistance! This is due to the fact you are recruiting more muscle fibres on the concentric - which directly provides more strength, AND a better growth response, all things being equal (ROM, rest, tempo)

JJ

20

great explanation JJ

that s what size principle is about.
there is also another arguement a.k.a. Waterbury’s method.
but that might be another topic to argue.

i wonder the exact mechanism of trenbolone to nervous system.

i believe probably all AAS leads better neural response because for example DHT formed from test is also great on neural improvements.
the question stays same. How keepable is that?