[quote]Westclock wrote:
Done properly steroid use is more fun and safer than most other recreational drugs.
[/quote]
Fuck yeah. And who cares if its unhealthy. We all end up in the ground eventually. Might as well be in massive coffin.
More drugs definately equals more muscle. I would really like to know exactly how much gear the pros really use. My suspicion is they all use hoooge amounts, but then again, if there are really some out there that respond to middle to low doses it would be good to know thats a verifiable fact and not chinese whispers over the internet.
I for one can definately tolerate large doses with relatively few sides. A really big thing I’ve noticed is too much estrogen control really hurts the gains. The “wettest” cycles I’ve run, where I’ve literally ballooned up with water retention, have been the best in terms of keepable gains. Although having said that high dose tren comes in either on a par or close second.
@ mad scientist, you don’t have a clue bro…
[quote]SavagedNatiion wrote:
I have to wonder, since we all know that drugs use in the upper tier circuits is massive. Everyone has access to the same PEDs, same regimes, similar diets and training protocols, why do some pro dominate hands down while others struggle to make top 10? Is it safe to assume that everyone has different potential than every other person?[/quote]
the same PED’s sure, but the same quality? Also, GH is incredibly expensive, especially at the doses the top guys run. Most guys… just can’t afford it… the bigger the sponsor a top guy gets, the more HGH and peptides (in addition to AAS/slin… which are relatively cheap) he can afford, and the easier it is for him to climb the ranks or stay at the top.
everyone does have different potential yes… some guys can handle the side effects of 2g of tren a week, others simply cant… and therefore have to forgo the physique-enhancement. etc.
Mad-scientist:
There would be a lot of issues with a drug that sensitizes androgen receptors. The point of the endocrine system is to maintain homeostasis. If greater effects of testosterone are felt by the target cells, feedback mechanisms would likely present an issue in maintaining a lasting effect. You would probably see your endogenous test production plummet to compensate, leaving you at square 1. I am not sure about this, but I would also suspect that [free test] is more limiting for these purposes than receptor affinity or number.
Also, if your theory turned out to be correct, and such a drug was invented, do you really think such a drug would supplant steroids? Have GH, slin, IGF-1, synthol, etc. supplanted steroids? More likely, it would become just another addition to the pharmacopeia of a drug regimen that the pros already use. I don’t think professional bodybuilding is going to become healthier by adding more classes of anabolic drugs to the mix.