musclebuildingforum.com

Should you use more or less Gear -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The big question I want to get into here is....Should someone that weighs more, use more then someone that is lighter....and what exactly is a safe amount of gear to use? An interesting question, one that should have been asked a long time ago. 1. Gear is used at supraphysiological doses. 2. It has a marked dose-dependent effect - on many tissues, not just skeletal muscle. At a "trade-off point", the costs of higher dosing begin to become evident. Worst tradeoffs? Suppression of LH release and supression of endogenous test. Evidence of increased cancer risk, associated with age, diet, stress, sleep, and liver health, primarily via liver drug metabolism (PXR) receptor and CYP genes responsible for normal function of the cholesterol biosynthesis pathway. **** with these long enough, at high enough doses, and you're courting real risk of fatal direct and indirectly AAS-promoted adverse effects. This paper has embedded in its intro sections a nice description of prostate cancer. Excess androgens are directly assoicated with prostate and indirectly with lung cell oncogenesis. http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.o...t/full/5/2/162 This brings us to the point of body fat. Test also binds to and regulates adipose tissue (central and peripheral). http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/89/2/718 (full paper). This paper (you should read it), shows clearly the physiological threshold point in dosing (under suppresed natural test...so we go from what is the same as very low test to very high circulating test levels) - in terms of fat mass reduction and lean body mass increases. A paper the enumerates the benefits of androgen use and the tradeoffs (benfit versus costs at various dosages) for a cohort of normally functioning (eugonadal young men) http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/co...ll/281/6/E1172 (full paper) READ THIS PAPER. It verifies exactly what you see in common practice - higher dosing gives you more positive result. However, past the tradeoff point, you also begin to accumulate negative effects. In another thread on this forum, I posted a series of similar papers that demonstrate this effect in older men as well. Factors that determine threshold effective dose (threshold cost/benefit tradeoff) Age is a factor, for many reasons. Years of training, and the natural level of androgen and androgen receptor action in target tissue (muscle)- and most importantly - glucose tolerance (the key driver of androgen receptor response to supraphysiological doses) and nutritional status (gut function) - are the primary factors that dictate the efficacy of any particular dosing scheme. Therefore, if we were to hold all *controllable* factors are held equal (a vitual impossibility, as genetic variation then becomes a factor), the question is: Has the threshold effect for positive response been met for both men, (ng/Kg minimal effective dose)? The answer is probably "yes", at supraphysiological levels. However, that will be distinctly different for each man, on the basis of lean body mass, fat, mass, and genetically determined responsiveness that determines threshold dose required. What happens as we move beyond the threshold effect, where costs begin to accumulate rapidly? Now, lets get down to reality. The next question is, at markedly high dosing, past this threshold effect, how much excess is costly (detrimental), in terms of health effects. That, too, varies due to lifestyle history, genetics and liver function. The longer you use AAS and the older you are, the more likely the negative consequences will snowball (accumulate) and result in significant adverse effect. So you want just enough, not more. In the larger individual, the more LIKELY THAT a modest dosing scheme will be close to the postive threshold effect (beyond which point, negative effects accumulate as fast or faster than positive effects (net benefit) from supra-threshold dosing. Does the larger man need a larger dose? Probably, but...if both men are dosed beyond the threshold effect, the additional benefits and their weight against the costs are determined by numerous other factors. This is the best qualified answer I can give you. I need you those of you who ask this question to review this reality of cost/benefit tradeoffs at significantly higher dosing than physiological threshold effect. Know this: EITHER longterm intense training (at least 5-7 yrs) under optimal glucose tolerance OR several years use of AAS will promote changes in the polymorphic expression of the androgen receptor (eg, you achieve a near permanent, highly stable, change in natural bodymass maximum over the lesser trained individual, who will revert fairly quickly if training is ceased for several months). However, if you use AAS before this condition naturally occurs (in your early to mid 20s), you will gain LESS net excess lean body mass (LBM), because you will not have fully maximized your androgen receptor number in muscle tissue. This maximim AR number is a function of the number of years of maximum androgen concentration effect on maturation of muscle quality and fully developed muscle matrix support tissue. To put this more simply: if you use androgen excess before the entire neruomuscualr system is naturally optimized by careful diet and longterm training, you will limit the extent of the total net benefits gained from AAS use, but you will still incur the total net costs at supraphysiological dosing. The farther out you are from this magic point of readiness for full benefit of AAS use (the less prepared your body), the more ephemeral (shorter lived) are the suboptimal benefits accured. The net costs continue to be accrued and will exert their due over time in assumed excess risk. Here is the point not discussed on other forums: the less ready your body for AAS use (the poorer or the shorter the prep, the closer you are to your natural maximum test production levels in your early-to-mid 20s), the more likely that you will also incur HIGHER net costs for AAS use than those who wait. Why? Because its also highly likely that you will have done some not so prudent actions in your teens (we're being realistic here) - for which you tender liver is paying a price. If you fail to wait long enough to repair that damage, the excess costs exerted at the liver will be proprotionately higher - and worse - in the younger use (early 20s) than in those who prudently wait a few years, keeping to a very clean lifestyle of low rec drug and alcohol use, plus a sensible health diet and good sleep hygiene required for normal liver function. __________________