# 2.4 gram test per week extreme gains or waste?



## sawyer1 (May 16, 2012)

2.4 gram test per week ? Brilliant gains or waste of money? Obvs diet and training will be spot on


----------



## str4nger (Jul 17, 2012)

What's your stats?


----------



## boutye911 (Feb 10, 2013)

whats the highest dose of test you have ran before? And how many cycles?


----------



## don1 (Jul 9, 2009)

sawyer1 said:


> 2.4 gram test per week ? Brilliant gains or waste of money? Obvs diet and training will be spot on


Waste of money unless your Ronnie Coleman !!


----------



## Milky (Nov 30, 2008)

Total waste of money IMO...


----------



## m575 (Apr 4, 2010)

More and more people running silly doses by the day. Bless em.


----------



## ws0158 (Jun 23, 2010)

2.4 gram = brilliant gains

1gram =brilliant gains

waste if you ask me


----------



## m575 (Apr 4, 2010)

Eat more food and train harder = awesome gains


----------



## Dezw (May 13, 2009)

If you are used to higher dosages then I don't see a problem, just have all the usual anti-e, hcg, etc on hand to used as needed.

As long as you are training hard, and increase your food intake with the gear, then go for it and grow.

The side effects can be harshe so be ready.

I'm not saying it's sensible and I personally wouldn't take that much but I know plenty of guys that have ran 2 and 3 times that dosage and made incredible gains and won shows, which they didn't do on lighter doses....you should also consider gh, slin, t3 etc to help you along the way if you really want to go for it.


----------



## cas (Jan 9, 2011)

Won't be a waste imo (I would build up to that dose over a matter of time), I have a fairly good diet and use low dose aas. And I am starting to believe, aas plays a huge role on how big you get!

I mean I'm not a bad size, but I want to be huge and I can't see me getting huge on diet alone...not without gaining large amounts of fat in the process


----------



## cas (Jan 9, 2011)

m575 said:


> Eat more food and train harder = awesome gains


Its not always that simple though is it.....


----------



## m575 (Apr 4, 2010)

cas said:


> Its not always that simple though is it.....


And I suppose 2 and a half grams of test makes everything hunky dory. My bad why didn't I think of that


----------



## fastcar_uk (Jan 30, 2013)

More and more people just seem to think the more gear they take, the bigger they will get, it's like drinking two bottles of vodka to get drunk when in reality one will get you hammered. 1g a week seems a low dose these days.

But it's up to the individual. If you can afford it, go for it! Post the before and after pics though!


----------



## achilles88 (Aug 27, 2010)




----------



## cas (Jan 9, 2011)

m575 said:


> And I suppose 2 and a half grams of test makes everything hunky dory. My bad why didn't I think of that


No, I said its not as simple as eating more and training harder

Show me how far this has gotten you?

You don't need high amounts of gear to gain, granted. But larger amount of aas equals larger gains....there comes a point where you have to weigh up sides, gains and dose.

If you read anything by paul borrison (spelling) then you will understand this


----------



## margouilla (Mar 16, 2013)

trying to balance the the diet by gear ...

not a good idea 750 mg - 1g Of TEST E is a 100 kg (on stzage) competitor dosage.

But he's very serious on diet.

Try 10 g next time

Lol for my first post i tell the truth. But a such idea is completely insane !


----------



## cas (Jan 9, 2011)

fastcar_uk said:


> More and more people just seem to think the more gear they take, the bigger they will get, it's like drinking two bottles of vodka to get drunk when in reality one will get you hammered. 1g a week seems a low dose these days.
> 
> But it's up to the individual. If you can afford it, go for it! Post the before and after pics though!


I don't believe its like that at all, you can't compare alcohol and getting drunk, to hormones and muscle gain

Granted, iirc some people eg weeman (sorry to use you in this fella) took huge amounts of gear and grew, but then switched it up controlling diet more and not having to take as much aas, I believe pscarb has also done this?

But then what if aas was kept the same and diet was changed......?


----------



## fastcar_uk (Jan 30, 2013)

margouilla said:


> trying to balance the the diet by gear ...
> 
> not a good idea 750 mg - 1g Of TEST E is a 100 kg (on stzage) competitor dosage.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sku11fk (Aug 28, 2012)

What cycles have you run before op


----------



## fastcar_uk (Jan 30, 2013)

cas said:


> I don't believe its like that at all, you can't compare alcohol and getting drunk, to hormones and muscle gain
> 
> Granted, iirc some people eg weeman (sorry to use you in this fella) took huge amounts of gear and grew, but then switched it up controlling diet more and not having to take as much aas, I believe pscarb has also done this?
> 
> But then what if aas was kept the same and diet was changed......?


 I was just using the booze as a comparator, I totally know where your coming from , I'm fully aware of some of the mahoosive dosages taken by pros..but if it was just a case of more you take bigger you get everyone would be on 10g a week. I think it's a fine line of getting the optimal amount of gear/slin/gh/peps etc with the optimal amount of food coupled with a good training regime to make the best gains.


----------



## cas (Jan 9, 2011)

Fastcar, I think 1g is a fairly large dose in all fairness fella (sorry skimmed past that bit in your post, been on the red wine lol) I'm only using (a very controversial cycle,I know.) of 300g tren pw and 50 mg of proviron ed. Which is a rather low dose.

So don't think I am one for high aas and crappy diet, I don't want people getting the wrong end of the stick. But I am under the belief that larger dose = greater gains, well its not a belief, the facts are there tbh


----------



## fastcar_uk (Jan 30, 2013)

cas said:


> Fastcar, I think 1g is a fairly large dose in all fairness fella (sorry skimmed past that bit in your post, been on the red wine lol) I'm only using (a very controversial cycle,I know.) of 300g tren pw and 50 mg of proviron ed. Which is a rather low dose.
> 
> So don't think I am one for high aas and crappy diet, I don't want people getting the wrong end of the stick. But I am under the belief that larger dose = greater gains, well its not a belief, the facts are there tbh


I agree with you to a point bud, just think its not as simple as large doses,mind you I could be wrong


----------



## golfgttdi (Oct 6, 2010)

Any studies I've read (mostly ones posted by aus who takes pretty damn high doses) show a very definite dose responsive curve.

The more you take really does relate to the more you gain.

Obviously training and diet has to be there to facilitate the gains,

But if you have a 1000 calorie surplus and 500mg test a week and compare to a 1000calorie surplus and 2g test a week I fail to comprehend anything other than one blowing the other out of the water!

Of course sides will be a lot more prominent but if your contemplating 2.5g test then if hope your automatically preparing for big sides too!


----------



## PHMG (Jun 15, 2010)

for gains then 2.4g test should be the double of your anabolics. so say 600mg eq, 400mg tren ace, 200mg mast.

2.4g test is ideal for sex drive and fullness and overall drive and energy. increase mast dose if starting to retain a lot of water.

note. this should be relevant to your overal development though. doesnt mean a noob should be chucking in 4.8g and not be able to utilise or warrent it.


----------



## oldskoolcool (Oct 4, 2009)

I find i need to cycle test up and down for best results depending on what else i'm running and how i want too look, 2.5g of test on it's own would not look pretty yes big and strong but in a shirt  now 10-15 iu hgh with a bit of tren and mast along side it works well.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

margouilla said:


> trying to balance the the diet by gear ...
> 
> not a good idea 750 mg - 1g Of TEST E is a 100 kg (on stzage) competitor dosage.
> 
> But he's very serious on diet. !


Sh1t guess I have been using to much then.........

I am not a great believer in really high dose courses for guys who are not ready for them and I am afraid those who are ready for that dose don't ask if it is worth it.

If diet, training, rest etc is all good to go then you will grow and grow well on 2.4g of gear a week and that is fact, is it a sensible dose? Now that all depends on the level of the physique of the person using.......in my opinion if you have to tell people you train or you can wear a jumper or two to look big then the dose is to high.....


----------



## supermancss (Dec 2, 2008)

375mg pw is fine with tren e


----------



## Fitness4Life (Mar 15, 2013)

2.4 sounds insane to me... but best of luck


----------



## griffo13 (Dec 7, 2009)

i agree with pscarb,,,, it depends on ur level.... imo if ur running total of 1G in compounds(500mg test/500mg deca) a week.... jumping to 2.4g of test could be overkill to reach new realistic goals.


----------



## delta_prime (Feb 6, 2013)

I'm a noob, so I could be totally wrong, but assuming, you used say 2 grams per week for a cycle lasting 12-16 weeks, then came off, now would your body see that amount of test as a sort of base point, and would you therefore require at least the same dosage or more to continue to grow for your next cycle?, if that was the case, then 2.5 grams, 3 grams etc etc, where does it end, and I don't believe having that amount of test inside you for long periods of time would be beneficial in the long run, in fact it could possibly lead to serious complications in later life.


----------



## lewishart (Mar 13, 2012)

Higher doesn't always mean better... 3g + a terrible diet or 500mg test/week with a spot on perfect diet and training. What comes out on top.

No need for huge OTT doses unless you have been steadily increasing over the years.


----------



## B.I.G (Jun 23, 2011)

Try it and see if you want.. Test E is cheap so try it and get bloods done to make sure you are cool.


----------



## Milky (Nov 30, 2008)

B.I.G said:


> Try it and see if you want.. Test E is cheap so try it and get bloods done to make sure you are cool.


Post some pics pipsqueek before you start offering some advice, we all know your an 8 st pencil neck with no legs :whistling:

:lol:


----------



## IGotTekkers (Jun 6, 2012)

don1 said:


> Waste of money unless your Ronnie Coleman !!


I would imagine RC cruises on double that mate.


----------



## cas (Jan 9, 2011)

Milky said:


> Post some pics pipsqueek before you start offering some advice, we all know your an 8 st pencil neck with no legs :whistling:
> 
> :lol:


Lol


----------



## PHMG (Jun 15, 2010)

lewishart said:


> Higher doesn't always mean better... 3g + a terrible diet or 500mg test/week with a spot on perfect diet and training. What comes out on top.
> 
> No need for huge OTT doses unless you have been steadily increasing over the years.


3g dose comes out on top.

its not the best option no, but lets stop talking crap.


----------



## stuey99 (Nov 30, 2012)

I think the most important question here is "do the benefits of running that much gear warrant the health risks, cost in money and possible sides?" And for me the answer would be no. I am running 1g test a week on current cycle, my highest dose to date and I'm gaining very well. I'm sure that doubling that dose would probably increase my gains but I don't think that extra mass would be worth the downsides of such a large dose of test.


----------



## KRIS_B (Apr 17, 2011)

Complete and utter waste I guarantee a guy with a switched on diet , training regimen with 800mg of test would look just as good if not better more doesn't equal more in my opinion, I believe less is more


----------



## cas (Jan 9, 2011)

KRIS_B said:


> Complete and utter waste I guarantee a guy with a switched on diet , training regimen with 800mg of test would look just as good if not better more doesn't equal more in my opinion, I believe less is more


Yeah because the guy that's on 2.4g gear automatically has a crap diet?

You can believe your opinion if you like


----------



## ducky699 (Jul 23, 2012)

whats the highest previous cycle that you have done?


----------



## KRIS_B (Apr 17, 2011)

cas said:


> Yeah because the guy that's on 2.4g gear automatically has a crap diet?
> 
> You can believe your opinion if you like


Did I even say that???? ... Nope so get off your high horse


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

delta_prime said:


> I'm a noob, so I could be totally wrong, but assuming, you used say 2 grams per week for a cycle lasting 12-16 weeks, then came off, now would your body see that amount of test as a sort of base point, and would you therefore require at least the same dosage or more to continue to grow for your next cycle?, if that was the case, then 2.5 grams, 3 grams etc etc, where does it end, and I don't believe having that amount of test inside you for long periods of time would be beneficial in the long run, in fact it could possibly lead to serious complications in later life.


not really it all depends on what the person does after the cycle that matters, take a few weeks off and yes same or higher dose has to be used take 6 months+ off and you could use less and still grow.



lewishart said:


> Higher doesn't always mean better... 3g + a terrible diet or 500mg test/week with a spot on perfect diet and training. What comes out on top.
> 
> No need for huge OTT doses unless you have been steadily increasing over the years.


you are correct there is no need for huge OTT doses but 3G per week may not be OTT for some, lets be fair here guys there are very few big guys on this forum I mean proper big guys and I will tell you many big guys can take large doses (well what many on here think is large) with no sides at all and that is backed up by medical tests, on the other hand I know guys on 1g and have health issues...

Why is everyone assuming if someone uses high doses there diet is crap? As I said in my last post the ones where this can be assumed is for the ones that have no real muscle base to warrant the dose. I know guys where I live who use 4-5 x more than I do per week yet in a jacket they don't even look like they train these guys like many are in a rush to be huge and when this is the case higher doses is not the answer......



KRIS_B said:


> Complete and utter waste I guarantee a guy with a switched on diet , training regimen with 800mg of test would look just as good if not better more doesn't equal more in my opinion, I believe less is more


what than a guy who took 3G of test and had a switched on diet, training regime please mate really is that what you think??

Again why is there this assumption every guy using higher than 1g of gear a week has no clue about training and diet?

Guys weekly dose is dependant on the individual as I said earlier the more advanced you are muscle wise maybe the more you can take and handle but why is that a bad thing? My last off season cycle in September 2011 I used 800mg per week for 12 weeks and gained 19lbs could I have used more and gained more....Yes I am sure I could but I did not need to at the time, does that mean I will never use more per week?? No it does not

I will challenge a person on this board to use 500mg per week with a switched on diet and training to gain more.........

Use the dose that your physique warrants to do more than your muscle base warrants is just plain stupid, there is no person on this site that warrants the use of more than 3G per week that is a fact.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

KRIS_B said:


> Did I even say that???? ... Nope so get off your high horse


You did not say it but your post implied this and I have no high horse


----------



## 31205 (Jan 16, 2013)

i was on 500mg omnadren a week.. upped it to 1000mg a week and honestly cant say the difference has been noticable. just wasting money. thats just me though. im not in as good shape as some on here.


----------



## WilsonR6 (Feb 14, 2012)

From what I gather more = better gains

Guaranteed if test were free, 2.4g would be considered a reasonable amount lol

Can see myself on these doses in a few years to be honest


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

sen said:


> i was on 500mg omnadren a week.. upped it to 1000mg a week and honestly cant say the difference has been noticable. just wasting money. thats just me though. im not in as good shape as some on here.


Did you increase your calories for the extra test?



WilsonR6 said:


> From what I gather more = better gains
> 
> Guaranteed if test were free, 2.4g would be considered a reasonable amount lol
> 
> Can see myself on these doses in a few years to be honest


better gains only if the calories are there to be used


----------



## WilsonR6 (Feb 14, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> Did you increase your calories for the extra test?
> 
> better gains only if the calories are there to be used


Of course

But that's like saying a bigger engine is faster provided it has petrol in it lol


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

WilsonR6 said:


> Of course
> 
> But that's like saying a bigger engine is faster provided it has petrol in it lol


Well no, as many will use more gear yet do not eat more calories just like many lose there gains off cycle as they lower the calories because they are off cycle.........

Many think that the gear gives the size not many truly understands that calories do


----------



## RowRow (Nov 17, 2011)

I have gradually increased dosages over 2 years and always grown well, in fact the best cycle I did was 2g test and 1g tren ace during a rebound period and I gained 2 stone.

I decided to try a Shic that put me at about 6g total gear a week and frankly I did not grow any better in fact I grew worse on that than on3g gear. Strength shot up much more ye but size and weigh gains, no.

So now I believe more is better gear wise not only when diet is constant and training is but also only if you have the muscle base to utilise the greater amount of gear.

If Someoen had told me this 2 years ago I wouldn't have believed them but after my trial and error I have found this to be the case and certainly this seems to be the more informed view held by people.

So yes more is better but only if everything else is in place and your muscle base allows it.


----------



## big-lifter (Nov 21, 2011)

WilsonR6 said:


> Of course
> 
> But that's like saying a bigger engine is faster provided it has petrol in it lol


Its more like saying a bigger engine is better provided has enough air flow


----------



## KRIS_B (Apr 17, 2011)

Pscarb said:


> You did not say it but your post implied this and I have no high horse


Your name is PSCARB not CAS so what you on about think those high dosages of gear are making you think your somebody else?! :thumb:


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

my perspective on this is different in that my goal is different to 95% of this forum .

yes more gear = more gains but only with more food good training and good rest .

you cannot raise 1 hormone to mega mg and expect magic however as paul said very few on here would need a large dose to grow and my betting is that sorting gym time out would yield bigger gains for many on here .


----------



## Milky (Nov 30, 2008)

ewen said:


> my perspective on this is different in that my goal is different to 95% of this forum .
> 
> yes more gear = more gains but only with more food good training and good rest .
> 
> you cannot raise 1 hormone to mega mg and expect magic however as paul said very few on here would need a large dose to grow and my betting is that sorting gym time out would yield bigger gains for many on here .


Bang on the money there...


----------



## big vin (Apr 18, 2010)

only one way to find out is to try it


----------



## lewishart (Mar 13, 2012)

I have noticed that running + 1g/ week test has shown to be pretty good for me. I mean I'm running a pretty big cycle at the moment 1.6g test, 1g eq, 800mg tren 800mg mast, 100mg var ed and m tren.

But that being said I don't get sides on gear at all, just great gains, and I've worked my way up from lower doses around 500mg/week, but with time, my diet has got much more spot on as my doses have increased.

Overall with higher doses I would say I have gained better, anabolism was up (obviously lol) but alongside that as I've mentioned, my training, diet, rest have also got better.

Either way running higher doses is not good for lipids, we all know that. But some have to I guess as they don't have a choice as they don't respond much to lower doses anymore


----------



## Barman (Feb 29, 2012)

If you want great gains 1g of test either deca, tren or eq with slin and maybe dbol for the first couple of weeks ud get better results and wouldnt be wasting gear or money


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

KRIS_B said:


> Your name is PSCARB not CAS so what you on about think those high dosages of gear are making you think your somebody else?! :thumb:


So now we have established you can read....so well done on that :thumb:

I think now you need to realise on a forum for debate such as this anyone can answer any post as I did and shame it was a big FAIL on the high dose remark.........just shows that those low doses your doing don't work :thumb:


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

I think too many people get caught up in the gear dosage and neglect the very potent peptide side of things.

Also a few people not understanding that test absorption depends on receptor sites available and that depends on muscle size. Therefore a graduated dose upwards as muscle increases is a natural progression.

But to go from 500mg to 2000mg in one step is not needed.

I know that something has been made about increased androgens up regulating receptors but that's never been proven its just a theory put forward by people who smash high doses with very crap results from what I've seen.

There's a link between test and Gh receptor up regulation. Increasing one of them will increase sensitivity of the other. The same true of insulin receptors. Therefore a moderate test dose combined with Gh and slin or igf will give better results than just steroids on their own.

So 2.4g isn't a silly dose provided you've worked your way up to that over the years and the body can absorb it properly.


----------



## KRIS_B (Apr 17, 2011)

Pscarb said:


> So now we have established you can read....so well done on that :thumb:
> 
> I think now you need to realise on a forum for debate such as this anyone can answer any post as I did and shame it was a big FAIL on the high dose remark.........just shows that those low doses your doing don't work :thumb:


(Yawn)


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

good come back 



KRIS_B said:


> (Yawn)


----------



## KRIS_B (Apr 17, 2011)

Pscarb said:


> good come back


I don't wanna say anything back cause I know that the people who lick your **** will jump in and join the attack against me so can't be ****d with it to be honest!


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

KRIS_B said:


> I don't wanna say anything back cause I know that the people who lick your **** will jump in and join the attack against me so can't be ****d with it to be honest!


i am still wondering why you made the first smart comment to be honest, i just agreed with Cas and you get your knickers in a twist and start being smart??

so do and say what you want to be fair your not adding anything useful to this discussion just trying to be a smart ass


----------



## KRIS_B (Apr 17, 2011)

Pscarb said:


> i am still wondering why you made the first smart comment to be honest, i just agreed with Cas and you get your knickers in a twist and start being smart??
> 
> so do and say what you want to be fair your not adding anything useful to this discussion just trying to be a smart ass


Not at all I said at the end of my sentence to another member "get off your high horse" then you come flying in with the reply "I'm not on my high horse" but I never even said that to you and you put it as if I did? You maybe should of not replied on his behalf for that part of the comment and said your bit but in a different way other than acting as if that part of my sentence was aimed at you so that's what I'm getting at


----------



## Suprakill4 (Jul 11, 2008)

I won't get into the whole more isn't better when gear is concerned but it is for me providing my diet is perfect which since being coached it always is. Upping my doses my gains have been substantially better than when they were lower and the diet was the same (alot of food!!!) and training, rest was all the same.

Appreciate some can gain on lower doses, I simply don't.


----------



## oldskoolcool (Oct 4, 2009)

If you have 15+ IU of hgh per day going in then 2.4g of test should work well with some oxy's.

I sometimes run around 3.5-4g total but not just test on it's own.

Any more than a gram test is a waste and wont do much unless it's matched with hgh then it's the king.


----------



## Suprakill4 (Jul 11, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> Did you increase your calories for the extra test?
> 
> better gains only if the calories are there to be used


This!

My calories were already very high to start with and my macros were 480g protein, 690g carbs, 40g fat - on low dose gains were much less on this food compared to when I upped the dose.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

KRIS_B said:


> Not at all I said at the end of my sentence to another member "get off your high horse" then you come flying in with the reply "I'm not on my high horse" but I never even said that to you and you put it as if I did? You maybe should of not replied on his behalf for that part of the comment and said your bit but in a different way other than acting as if that part of my sentence was aimed at you so that's what I'm getting at


my reply was not "I'm not on my high horse" was it my reply was



> You did not say it but your post implied this and I have no high horse


 i was pointing out that although you did not say it in text it was what your post implied then the horse bit at the end (with the smiley) was a comical ending to what i had said........

so at no point did i think your sentence was aimed at me, i do think your original post was wrong but the post your getting your pants in a twist about i think your making a bit of a mountain out of a mole hill but like i said say what you want buddy i can look after myself i don't need anyone else jumping in on my behalf.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Suprakill4 said:


> This!
> 
> My calories were already very high to start with and my macros were 480g protein, 690g carbs, 40g fat - on low dose gains were much less on this food compared to when I upped the dose.


sorry confused, this was your starting macro's and you did or did not gain well on the 500mg per week on these macro's?? oops sorry just realised my comment that you quoted was not in reply to you....


----------



## zak007 (Nov 12, 2011)

Tinytom said:


> I think too many people get caught up in the gear dosage and neglect the very potent peptide side of things.
> 
> *Also a few people not understanding that test absorption depends on receptor sites available and that depends on muscle size. Therefore a graduated dose upwards as muscle increases is a natural progression. *
> 
> ...


that was just what i was going to ask!

so slowly slowly working your way up course after course you will increase androgen receptors?


----------



## Suprakill4 (Jul 11, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> sorry confused, this was your starting macro's and you did or did not gain well on the 500mg per week on these macro's?? oops sorry just realised my comment that you quoted was not in reply to you....


Sorry I meant that when I was on a lower dose on those macros, the gains were substantially less than when I upped the dose on the same macros. I didn't up the macros with the added gear as felt the totals were high enough anyway.

Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

zak007 said:


> that was just what i was going to ask!
> 
> so slowly slowly working your way up course after course you will increase androgen receptors?


No as you gain more muscle you in turn gain more receptors. Like expanding the bucket.

Adding proviron to a cycle increases free test as well which can stop the need for increasing test.


----------



## KRIS_B (Apr 17, 2011)

Pscarb said:


> my reply was not "I'm not on my high horse" was it my reply was
> 
> i was pointing out that although you did not say it in text it was what your post implied then the horse bit at the end (with the smiley) was a comical ending to what i had said........
> 
> so at no point did i think your sentence was aimed at me, i do think your original post was wrong but the post your getting your pants in a twist about i think your making a bit of a mountain out of a mole hill but like i said say what you want buddy i can look after myself i don't need anyone else jumping in on my behalf.


Ok mate I never took your post as a joke I took it as a sarcastic dig! I get quite defensive in here cause most of the time it's digs that people throw unnecasarily


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

KRIS_B said:


> Ok mate I never took your post as a joke I took it as a sarcastic dig! I get quite defensive in here cause most of the time it's digs that people throw unnecasarily


thats cool so just for the record if i was to make it a dig i won't use a smiley.....


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

I seem to progress nicely on relatively low doses, so I can't see me changing this approach any time soon.


----------



## cas (Jan 9, 2011)

Tinytom said:


> No as you gain more muscle you in turn gain more receptors. Like expanding the bucket.
> 
> Adding proviron to a cycle increases free test as well which can stop the need for increasing test.


Ahh but cell numbers stay the same so surely AR would not increase. As the cells increase in size and not in numbers?

Could be wrong but I'm sure I read something about this a while ago....


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

cas said:


> Ahh but cell numbers stay the same so surely AR would not increase. As the cells increase in size and not in numbers?
> 
> Could be wrong but I'm sure I read something about this a while ago....


As I remember the larger the muscles the quicker it can be used.

If you use GH then this can increase the number of muscle cells. Steroids just expand the existing fibres which is why steroids and Gh is better than just more steroids.


----------



## Suprakill4 (Jul 11, 2008)

cas said:


> Ahh but cell numbers stay the same so surely AR would not increase. As the cells increase in size and not in numbers?
> 
> Could be wrong but I'm sure I read something about this a while ago....


From what I have read before only igf will increase muscle cells and when gear helps them to mature? I may be way off the mark but this is definitely what I have read before.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Suprakill4 said:


> From what I have read before only igf will increase muscle cells and when gear helps them to mature? I may be way off the mark but this is definitely what I have read before.


You are correct but this is natural IGF as synthetic does not increase new muscle fibres, but this is where GH comes in as this will convert to IGF in the body.

IGF increase satellite cells steroids just make muscle fibres larger (mature)


----------



## Suprakill4 (Jul 11, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> You are correct but this is natural IGF as synthetic does not increase new muscle fibres, but this is where GH comes in as this will convert to IGF in the body.
> 
> IGF increase satellite cells steroids just make muscle fibres larger (mature)


Ahhhh wow every day is a school day. I knew about the gh converting to igf but I really though that using synthetic igf would increase the cells.

Are there any peptides that's increase igf production, do ghrp's do this through an increase in gh release? Wish I had as much knowledge on these subjects as you mate. I research non stop but so much conflicting info out there it's a minefield.


----------



## Englishman (Oct 4, 2012)

Suprakill4 said:


> Ahhhh wow every day is a school day. I knew about the gh converting to igf but I really though that using synthetic igf would increase the cells.
> 
> Are there any peptides that's increase igf production, do ghrp's do this through an increase in gh release? Wish I had as much knowledge on these subjects as you mate. I research non stop but so much conflicting info out there it's a minefield.


Great thread, learnt something new again and i don't mean not to go head to head with Pscarb.


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

Pscarb said:


> You are correct but this is natural IGF as synthetic does not increase new muscle fibres, but this is where GH comes in as this will convert to IGF in the body.
> 
> IGF increase satellite cells steroids just make muscle fibres larger (mature)


One reason why I use igf pre WO and Gh and slin post WO.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Suprakill4 said:


> Ahhhh wow every day is a school day. I knew about the gh converting to igf but I really though that using synthetic igf would increase the cells.
> 
> Are there any peptides that's increase igf production, do ghrp's do this through an increase in gh release? Wish I had as much knowledge on these subjects as you mate. I research non stop but so much conflicting info out there it's a minefield.


yes you will get the same from GHRP/GHRH peptides as they release GH and this is converted in part to IGF.....

many believe as i used to do that synthetic IGF did the same thing but it has been found although very good for injury and for muscle creation in children uses a different pathway to what is needed for muscle repair from training...


----------



## Suprakill4 (Jul 11, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> yes you will get the same from GHRP/GHRH peptides as they release GH and this is converted in part to IGF.....
> 
> many believe as i used to do that synthetic IGF did the same thing but it has been found although very good for injury and for muscle creation in children uses a different pathway to what is needed for muscle repair from training...


Thanks for that mate, really glad you cleared that up!


----------

