# Could this be the reason you are not gaining on steroids



## barksie (Nov 23, 2014)

hi

just seen this on another forum, so i have copied and pasted the article , i dont know what people think of this but i have never heard of it before, anyway here is the article, hopefully i've put it in the right section

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bodybuilders have long known that some people grow easily on a moderate dose of anabolic steroids, while others must use much higher amounts only to experience slight changes. Some of the variance may be due to diet, training, and lifestyle. However, there is one mitigating factor that determines a person's size and strength, as well as how they respond to anabolic-androgenic steroids, and that is genetics.

There is a particular genetic trait that affects one component of the androgen response. The trait affects the sensitivity of the androgen receptor, a vital piece in the anabolic pathway. Androgen hormones, such as testosterone and DHT, work by stimulating molecules in muscle cells, which activate specific genes to produce proteins. They also affect the activation rate of enzyme systems involved in protein metabolism, thus enhancing protein synthesis and inhibiting protein degradation.

The effectiveness of anabolic steroids is dependent upon the sensitivity of the androgen receptor sites in muscle and other tissues. Androgen receptor sensitivity is actually variable among men. Some respond easily to testosterone, while others do not respond at all. The genetic trait, called CAG repeat polymorphism (CAG), refers to a glutamine-tag attached to the androgen receptor. CAG refers to the DNA sequence of the gene that produces the androgen receptor. It takes three nucleotides (the building block units of DNA) to code for one amino acid in a protein chain; CAG is the sequence of cytosine-adenine-guanine, which codes for the amino acid glutamine. It has been demonstrated that the length of this glutamine chain can determine how efficient the androgen receptor is at turning on or off the genes that create healthy male characteristics.

When testosterone, or any other steroid for that matter, enters a cell, it binds with an androgen receptor. There are different co-factors in the cells that either enhance or impair the ability of the receptor to connect with and stimulate the cell to respond. These co-factors attach to the testosterone-androgen receptor complex and travel to the nucleus, and bind to the chromosomes at specific androgen response elements. This complex then pairs up with another complex to turn on the testosterone sensitive genes.

Genes are information; they do not function as anything other than data storage. In order for the information they contain to become new cell structures or change function, the information has to re-enter the cell in a form that the machinery of the cell can understand. This is known as transcription. Transcription creates a chemical memo of sorts, or instructions from the head office. It was briefly mentioned that the length of the CAG repeat can affect androgen receptor efficiency. The longer the CAG repeat, the higher degree of separation, and the less likely the proper information is passed along. Because of this, longer CAG repeats decrease the response of the body to the hormone testosterone.

Men with extremely long CAG repeats experience symptoms similar to those shown by men with testosterone deficiency, such as reduced fertility, gynocomastia, lowered bone density, insulin resistance, elevated cholesterol, decreased muscle, depression, as well as neurological problems. On the other hand, men with short CAG repeats develop prostate cancer earlier, have a higher risk of male pattern balding, and lower HDL (good cholesterol).

Genetics are sometimes discussed, but usually in a broad sense, when talking about a person's ability or inability to grow. Sometimes this discussion involves the genetic trait linked with a particular body part or the dominance of one type of muscle fiber, but genetics involving the androgen receptor isn't something that's really thought about. The CAG repeat could in fact have more influence on athletic ability and gaining muscle mass and strength than any other genetic trait.

Men with short GAC repeats respond to naturally produced testosterone much better than men with longer GAC repeats, leading to more muscle mass and strength. For example, two men could both have a normal total testosterone number of 600. One of the men has an extremely short repeat, while the other has extremely long GAC repeat. The man with the short GAC repeat has the probability of having more than average muscle mass and less than average body fat, and depending on diet, lifestyle, and training; he could in fact make the same type of gains that other may make when taking anabolic steroids. The short GAC repeats lead to the androgen receptors being highly sensitive, which leads to them responding to the testosterone more efficiently than normal. On the flip side, the man with the extremely long GAC repeat is almost completely resistant to the testosterone. He will experience higher body fat, lower muscle mass, and other symptoms associated with testosterone deficiency, even though testosterone concentrations are in a normal range. In this case, the androgen receptors do not respond as they should, making circulating testosterone almost worthless. This is the same scenario when anabolic-androgenic steroids are used. Just like testosterone, their effectiveness is dependent, first and foremost, on the sensitivity of the androgen receptor, which is determined by CAG length. Its rare, but CAG length could be long enough to make even high doses of steroids completely ineffective. _*Most people are unaware that some people are non-responders to steroids due to CAG repeats length. They just assume that when someone doesn't grow from a steroid cycle, the steroids were either fake, or the person didn't exert any effort into training and diet. *_

Of course, there are those that are fortunate enough to explode from taking the lowest dose of anything anabolic. These are the super-responders, or the ones with extremely short CAG repeats.

The CAG repeat length is not something that is routinely tested for. Very few labs measure this, and as of today, its not part of a routine physical or evaluation for low testosterone. If there is a history of marginal response to anabolic steroids, it very well could be due to long CAG repeats and low androgen sensitivity. Unfortunately, there is no way to alter or treat this trait, but this could all change in the near future.*

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Tomahawk (Dec 24, 2014)

Interesting. Refreshing to see that "your not eating enough" is not the only possible reason behind lack of gains..


----------



## barksie (Nov 23, 2014)

Tomahawk said:


> Interesting. Refreshing to see that "your not eating enough" is not the only possible reason behind lack of gains..


 yes, i think im one of these long cag repeats, or im not eating enough, or im too old


----------



## Lifesizepenguin (Jul 25, 2016)

barksie said:


> yes, i think im one of these long cag repeats, or im not eating enough, or im too old


 All 3?


----------



## barksie (Nov 23, 2014)

Lifesizepenguin said:


> All 3?


 possibly, i defo know i struggle with eating , im 60 in 4 months so im an old fart , so quite possibly all three , but would i make good progress if it was a age thing?? im 5 feet 5 inch tall , weigh 74 kilo at moment ( on keto diet) and benching for reps 90 kilo , so i dont know, but i think in my case its eating not enough of good things


----------



## Lifesizepenguin (Jul 25, 2016)

barksie said:


> possibly, i defo know i struggle with eating , im 60 in 4 months so im an old fart , so quite possibly all three , but would i make good progress if it was a age thing?? im 5 feet 5 inch tall , weigh 74 kilo at moment ( on keto diet) and benching for reps 90 kilo , so i dont know, but i think in my case its eating not enough of good things


 60 and still at it? Jesus, well done. 74KG at 5"5' sounds not too bad really.

Maybe, the keto diet isnt known for it's muscle building potential.

Are you on TRT, or cruising or blasting or none?


----------



## barksie (Nov 23, 2014)

Lifesizepenguin said:


> 60 and still at it? Jesus, well done. 74KG at 5"5' sounds not too bad really.
> 
> Maybe, the keto diet isnt known for it's muscle building potential.
> 
> Are you on TRT, or cruising or blasting or none?


 im cruising on 100 mg of test enan every 7 days , doubt muscle can be built on keto , i felt like crap on keto , so just finished it and going to try carb cycling


----------



## Lifesizepenguin (Jul 25, 2016)

barksie said:


> im cruising on 100 mg of test enan every 7 days , doubt muscle can be built on keto , i felt like crap on keto , so just finished it and going to try carb cycling


 Im sure muscle CAN be built on keto, just not optimal.

I carb cycle now. its much easier.


----------



## barksie (Nov 23, 2014)

Lifesizepenguin said:


> Im sure muscle CAN be built on keto, just not optimal.
> 
> I carb cycle now. its much easier.


 would think it would be very hard work to build any size on keto, yeah looking into carb cycling


----------



## noel (Dec 30, 2005)

maybe but genuinely yet to come across anyone who - if using genuine gear - cant gain .........unless very simply they are not in a big enough calorie surplus...

many just cant hack the eating required... some gain easier than others but go chat to any high level SHW and they will all bitch about eating...as that's what it takes to add mass....

there may well be some genetic anomalies...but for most its a case of not putting the work required in the eating aspect...


----------



## JohhnyC (Mar 16, 2015)

noel said:


> maybe but genuinely yet to come across anyone who - if using genuine gear - cant gain .........unless very simply they are not in a big enough calorie surplus...
> 
> *many just cant hack the eating required.*.. some gain easier than others but go chat to any high level SHW and they will all bitch about eating...as that's what it takes to add mass....
> 
> there may well be some genetic anomalies...but for most its a case of not putting the work required in the eating aspect...


 Yeah I am one of them. Its also the shopping, preparation, cooking, time etc hence I prefer shakes, you can get 1000 cals in a shake easy and takes bugger all time. 2 of them a day and its a big boost.

Think people need to find their happy medium in terms or BB and lifestyle choice. Dudes like you noel have a massive commitment to undertake but for the average gym rat looking to get in good shape with a good muscle mass its pretty manageable within a normal lifestyle

But in terms of the post, the gear is not the problem as far as I can see, unless its under-dosed of course.

Sad fact of the matter is almost everyone I know doing gear is using it for a short cut. They just want to get strong and don't take a whole lot of pleasure in actually working out in a gym, hence the over emphasis on chest and bi's


----------



## noel (Dec 30, 2005)

well we are all after short cuts mate...f**k if there was one sign me up for it!!!

gear - most laymens assumption is take gear and boom.... but you need to have calories for that to happen.....
I don't knock anyone as we all do it for different reasons..... if you want big biceps to pull the birds then cool, or you want to lift a 1 RM or you want to just fit in, each to their own....as long as you are an adult then good luck

but to get results there has to be some work.... again sweeping generalization - but people see the end result (in any sport to be fair or even business) and assume that's easy... they don't see the eating or hard work that goes in, and many when they realize what it really takes aren't prepared for it ...... again that's fine too....

but no one is a real hard gainer...you just need more calories to get there..... and of course that's where its descision time..... it was far easier for me to maintain my old body....was thai boxing , doing some weights, eating well but never stuffed and - prob for most - had a good physique (I don't mean that arrogantly) but had a fighters body, so hard abs, lean everywhere.... prob far more attractive to ladies too..... but to progress in BB I have to be bigger..... again purely my choice.....

if you do struggle you are spot on couple of shakes is the way forward....easy and actually pretty nice as most of us like a milkshake type thing.... its just I disagreed with the term being used like its a pseudo scientific condition.....unless you have some genuine medical issue its just not enough stuff going in the mouth  .............. saying I don't want to eat more or cant hack it is fine...its not fun by any means ......... and is trying for even the most hardcore of people..... you just have to match your life balance with expectations....


----------

